Rusbridger’s role on commission is now a headache for the Taoiseach
THE Taoiseach must have felt that, of all the State committees he has overseen, the commission into the future of Ireland’s media was the one least likely to cause him headaches.
But that is exactly what is happening as storm clouds gather over the commission and specifically one of its members, Alan Rusbridger.
Rusbridger, the leftleaning former editor of the Guardian, is more used to setting the news agenda than being in the headlines himself.
Now, however, he is very much in the news, having been the editor who stood by Roy Greenslade – the veteran columnist who last weekend outed himself as a covert and active supporter of the Provisional IRA for decades.
The problem for Rusbridger is that Greenslade was a prolific writer on Irish affairs. Moreover, the writer never once thought to mention the gaping conflict of interest of being an undercover cheerleader and fanboy of the Provisional IRA and its leadership coterie and pontificating on Irish politics.
In other words, Greenslade was not telling the truth to his readers.
There is probably no greater charge to lay against a professional journalist than that they are in the pocket of a particular interest group.
Greenslade was the Guardian’s media editor and even lectured journalism students. In his editor role he was infamously waspish and sniffy about other journalists and media competitors.
Little wonder then that his former colleagues in the Sun were scathing this week: “So, a man who pontificates on the principles of journalists sacrificed his own principles in order to earn money. What a revolting beast.”
Even in the champion of Britain’s left wing, the New Statesman magazine, there was incredulity at the extent of Greenslade’s deceit.
Columnist Peter Wilby described how useful Greenslade could have been to the Provisional IRA at a time it was carrying out bomb attacks in Britain.
“He could, if he so wished, have suppressed or rewritten stories that embarrassed the IRA; passed on information about security operations that selected newspapers are sometimes given in confidence; leaked details of the movements of Northern Ireland reporters seen as hostile by the IRA.”
Wilby writes: “There is no evidence whatever that he did any of those things. Greenslade could separate his personal opinions from his work, as many journalists do.”
However, in a scathing conclusion, Wilby notes: “But Andrew Neil, his editor at the Sunday Times, and the late Chris Ryder, the paper’s Belfast correspondent until 1988, were both IRA targets.
He was at risk of letting information slip unwittingly on social occasions. He was also vulnerable to blackmail. He fails to address these issues, despite holding, from 2003, a university professorship that involved lectures on journalistic ethics.”
Rusbridger was a fierce defender of his columnist. Crucially in this whole sorry affair, he even allowed Greenslade to launch a scandalous and withering attack on rape victim Máiría Cahill.
It was an extraordinary article lacking human compassion and any attempt at objectivity or balance. What a reprehensible act to put pen to paper to vilify a young woman – and not even have the decency to declare your conflict of interest.
Rusbridger has now apologised to Ms Cahill, saying Greenslade’s “belated mea culpa was that he kept his sympathy for the Provisional IRA secret from his colleagues and editors”. He added that the article would not have been allowed run if he had known.
If Rusbridger can’t be trusted to show good judgment on an article maligning a rape victim, how can he possibly have the judgment to decide the future of Ireland’s media?
The Taoiseach must be scratching his head about all of this.
As a politician from the Rebel County he will only be too well aware of the sorry history of UK-based tabloid coverage of Ireland.
Mr Martin now needs to show good judgment – and decide what type of leaders he wants formulating a plan for the survival of media in Ireland.