Obnoxious baggage and cheap calumny

Sir — Your Letter from the Editor last Sunday stated “Liam Collins takes us back to a time when editor Aengus Fanning was driven by a desire to have his newspaper talked about and read”. Taken at face value, the sentence states the obvious — what editor does not want to have his newspaper read and discussed? But the sentence in your letter comes with context and some obnoxious baggage relating to Aengus Fanning’s coverage of Hume-Adams in 1993-94.

Over the course of almost 1,000 words you cite anonymous critics calling Aengus Fanning’s scrutiny of the talks “poisonous, persistent and vicious”. The persistent slant of your long letter forces readers to reach only one conclusion: that Aengus Fanning’s sceptical view of the Hume-Adams talks was not born of any principle but was driven by the desire “to have his paper talked about and read”.

This amounts to a cheap calumny of a man who cannot defend himself. Aengus Fanning is dead and, as you well know, you cannot libel the dead. Fair play calls for historical context.

Aengus Fanning’s editorship paralleled the Hume-Adams engagement. Having been a reporter in Belfast in the early days of the Troubles, he was alert to the dangers of engaging with the IRA while they continued killing people — which they did right through the Hume-Adams talks and even beyond the Good Friday Agreement.

Aengus Fanning was loathe to accept Gerry Adams’ credentials solely on the word of John

Hume. And with good reason. As Eilis O’Hanlon pointed out in last Sunday’s paper, the HumeAdams document was never made public and the long-term agenda of Gerry Adams and the IRA remains opaque to this day. But already the damage done is crippling Irish democracy.

As the Sunday Independent critics of Hume-Adams correctly surmised, the sanitising of

Sinn Féin wiped out the middle ground of Northern Ireland moderate nationalism — the SDLP (Colum Eastwood’s feisty revival has much to do) — and has distorted the moral compass of the Republic as seen in the results of the general election.

Finally, as a former editor of the Sunday Independent, I have to address the central fallacy in your letter — that the HumeAdams debate sold newspapers. That is highly unlikely. The chemistry of Aengus Fanning’s carefully calculated mix of contributors was what sold the paper. And the intensity of the HumeAdams scrutiny was to balance the lack of critical scrutiny in other media outlets.

Contrary to the impression given by your section on John Hume, Aengus Fanning was a man of principle, chief of which was that diversity of opinion is a cornerstone of democracy and, by the by, a healthy newspaper. Of course he made mistakes but he never deployed unctuous disapproval as a means of addressing life’s moral conundrums. He confronted them.

I am certain it was not your intention, after a few short months, to attempt to sabotage the work and reputation of an editor of almost 30 years. He left a glorious paper to me, you and others to edit. Cherish it.

Anne Harris

Monkstown, Co Dublin

Editor Alan English responds

— I cannot agree with the assertion that readers were “forced” to reach any such conclusion about Aengus Fanning’s sceptical view of the Hume-Adams talks. There was no such inference in the simple statement that he wanted his paper to be talked about and read — a point made in much more detail by Liam Collins in the same edition.

Neither was there any attempt on my part to “sabotage” Aengus’s work and reputation. In my first ‘letter’ to readers, on April 5, I made a point of acknowledging the giant contribution he made over 28 years as editor of this newspaper. My criticism last week was on the basis of him refusing Mark Durkan the right of reply to what was being written about John Hume. I stand over that — and the entirety of last week’s seven-page section on Hume. It included different viewpoints on the man and his legacy, as well as contrasting views on the Sunday Independent’s coverage in 1993-94.

Regarding the “central fallacy” in my letter, there was no suggestion on my part that the debate sold newspapers. In fact, the Liam Collins piece stated clearly that the coverage actually cost the Sunday Independent

sales — this according to Aengus Fanning himself.

Myths around the ‘talks’ dismantled

Sir — In the wake of John Hume’s death I am grateful to Eilis O’Hanlon for her timely dismantling of the myths surrounding the Hume-Adams talks, that led to the usurpation of moderate nationalism by Sinn Féin here in the North, and the regrettable legitimising of that party that now threatens the political status quo south of the

Border — and all for the so-called ‘prize’ of an end to the deranged sectarian slaughter that ravaged and traumatised our society for over a quarter of a century.

Her forensic analysis lays bare the naivety and abject folly of people such as the grieving woman attending the funeral of a loved one murdered by loyalist gunmen in the Greysteel Massacre, who urged Hume to press on with his mission to bring the Provos’ unjustified, unspeakably evil ‘campaign’ to an end — no matter the often vicious attacks on his personal integrity by the likes of O’Hanlon and her ilk.

If only this journalist had been on hand then to explain to the poor, ‘misguided’, bereaved lady the full ‘context’ of her situation, perhaps Mr Hume’s endeavours could have been derailed, and doubtless things would have turned out better for us all. They say hindsight is 20/20. John Hume was a hero. Patrick McGuinness Belfast 15

Sir — Eilis O’Hanlon ended her interesting opinion piece with this paragraph: “This is how you control the narrative. You insist there is only one way of seeing the past and present, and denounce those who don’t go along with it as heretics.”

Ms O’Hanlon could have been writing of the aftermath of the 1922-23 Civil War. The ongoing difficulties some people have with Sinn Féin are based on the historical acts of Sinn Féin since 1923. Some of us witnessed the game-playing by members of the Fianna Fáil party, solely to get republican votes. Wittingly or unwittingly, they created the impression they supported the violence in Northern Ireland.

There needs to be a Truth and Reconciliation Commission covering the entire island of Ireland, otherwise the historical narrative could well, yet again, become one-eyed, as it did post1927 in the 26 counties.

Declan Foley

Berwick, Australia

Hope for future in reliving the past

Sir — By achieving peace, John Hume saved lives that would otherwise be lost.

The shameful articles written by some columnists in this paper week after week gave comfort to one side and encouraged them not to bother to seek peace. We are extremely grateful that the current editorial department last week had the guts to let us relive these Sunday articles, and give hope for our future and the journalism profession.

Peter Kennedy

Sutton, Co Dublin

Good coverage but no Hume apology

Sir — I commend the coverage given to John Hume — from the difficult editor’s letter to all the other excellent articles. An apology would have been the icing on the cake. Pity.

Brian McDevitt,

Glenties, Co Donegal

Ingratitude shown is a national shame

Sir — The key point has been missed: John Hume was a statesman, but not a politician. Nowhere in modern times has “man’s ingratitude” been so clearly demonstrated as in the North in the past 20 years.

His SDLP party has been wiped out and power given to those who caused 30-odd years of pain. My fellow islanders, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Cal Hyland

Co Cork