‘Putting manners’ on whom precisely?
Gesture politics has a way coming back and biting you,particularly if gesture is all it turns out to be. Martin McGuinness has taken exception to Tom Kelly’s piece in the Irish News the other day. In today’s version of the paper he fights back, mostly at the expense of Kelly’s acceptance of the OBE.
Tom Kelly is a political opponent of Sinn Fein.His column (February 5) is one long, ill-thought-out and incoherent attack on the Sinn Fein leadership and on me in particular.
This is not surprising given that Tom is a long-standing supporter of the SDLP and that party is currently embroiled in problems of their own making. These problems result from an equally ill-conceived advert in The Irish News printed in the name of the party leader.
I reject entirely the misrepresentation of my position contained in Tom Kelly’s article. Of course the vast majority of public service workers are hard working and conscientious.
I am in contact with these workers every day, many of them are my constituents and some are members of my immediate family. I salute their dedication and commitment. But of course Tom knows full well that I was not referring to ordinary health, education or other public service workers.
He knows that I was referring to the small usually faceless elite which has been responsible since the creation of this state for the nightmare that brought the nationalist community to the point of open rebellion in 1969.
Since then this permanent government of unionists and securocrats in the Northern Ireland Office and London have been responsible for institutional sectarianism, religious discrimination, internment, Bloody Sunday, torture, collusion, state executions, wholesale imprisonment of young nationalists, persecution of the Irish language, the demonisation of whole nationalist communities, censorship of Sinn Fein… I could go on and on and on.
Many of those responsible for this litany of oppression were honoured by the English queen for their service and loyalty. Tom might want to explain to us his rationale – Irish nationalist, democratic or socialist – for his grateful acceptance of a similar ‘honour’ (the Order of the British Empire, OBE) from the English queen.
Whatever Tom Kelly thinks about Sinn Fein, he cannot question the commitment or motivation of our political representatives and activists. We have lost friends and family members to the death squads. We have been interned, imprisoned and censored.
Our interface with the English queen has been very different to Tom’s. Irish republicans played an historic role in demolishing the British empire of which Tom is now an honoured ‘officer’. We will continue to challenge inequality and privilege wherever it occurs.
By going back to the negotiating table again and again we have achieved equality, human rights and accountability mechanisms which will help us to ensure that the abuses of the past are never repeated. Sinn Fein will use these mechanisms on behalf of all our people.
Tom might have a problem with our approach but the letters after our names derive from the people who vote for us – not from the English queen. I commend him to put his opinions before the electorate as I do. That’s democracy.
Martin McGuinness, MP
And yet, what McGuinness’s colleague John O’Dowd said: “It is Sinn Féin’s intention to put manners on the entire civil service, to anyone who is there working for the community and the people… they need to be ensuring they understand one thing, they are there working for the people.”
Given the kind of drift we have seen under direct rule it is possible to understand the kind of battles O’Dowd may have had in mind. But his terms of reference directly contradict those of McGuinness’s apologia.
Martin Mc Guinness has one hard neck.
How can Martin Mc Guinness complain about somebody
accepting an OBE when he has no problem accepting a regular pay cheque from the same British establishment?
I think I read somewhere that Martin’s paycheck goes to SF, not to himself.
“Journalism, in a free society at least, should seek to hold politicians accountable for the way in which they wield that power and patronage.”
Except that we don’t have a truly free press and it’s really governments (and press barons et al) rather than politicians who wield this power and patronage. Whatever happened to investigative journalism – and accountability in parliament?
“The story is what should be judged, not the perceived or real bias of the writer.”
Is this where context comes in? I’d prefer to make my mind up after reading a range of stories on a particular theme as well as bearing in mind the background of the authors – and the publishers.
“Journalism, in a free society at least, should seek to hold politicians accountable for the way in which they wield that power and patronage.â€
This takes a very high-minded view of journalists. In our free society the lines are very blurred. Politicians become journalists (Portillo) or are journalists (Boris Johnson). We can enjoy or loathe reading Tom Kelly’s and Brian Feeney’s articles and learn from them – but always take what they say in the knowledge that they too have political agenda.
The problem is also that some journalists (unelected) and press barons (self-appointed and unelected) wield their own power and patronage in such a way that their bias can undemocratically topple governments or prevent people from being elected in the first place.
Who can hold journalists and press barons accountable? There is the MacDowell way: attack a journalist who revealed more than McD wanted about the patronage for his PD party. The revenge, the revenge. This won’t work in most instances. And in this case I felt what MacDowell did was wrong.
I don’t think journalists were ever non-partisan. I remember reading about “that devil Wilkes” who was nevertheless honoured – there is a statue of him just off Fleet Street in London.
Journalistic power is being diluted by the Internet (blogs like this one) and cameras on mobile phones, but the information we get is unlikely to be more honourable, non-partisan, etc.
So if an SDLP man writes an article in a nationalist newspaper slagging off a politician, that politician has a right of reply. This is a free society.
“I must say I have to marvel at the time some people can put into arguing on Slugger… but there is an important issue at stake here…”
I blame IT systems taking an age to restart.
“The story is what should be judged, not the perceived or real bias of the writer.”
This is fine as far as real journalism goes. And I would not include tracking and publishing stories in itself as opposition. Once you stray into the realm of the op-ed and commentary though, bias certainly does matter.
“Some distance between the two is always desireable. It is their job, and whether they do with prejudice or bias, or ‘impartially’ or not we as ordinary citizens depend on them continuing to do it.”
Precisely. The argument here has been that separation has broken down in this instance.
“Nevertheless, once (as a politician at least) you widen the term enemy to include players in the media, you are creating a dangerous elision between those inside the political game and those ‘outside’.”
Modern politics is total spectrum. You only have to look at America, where Republicans have successfully mastered pushing their message through not only their politicians, but favourable media outlets. It’s not just they are pushing the message, they are very often pushing the same words. If you spend all your time focused on destroying one party, or favouring another, then whether or not you are directly competing for votes you are a political opponent. Journalists can stay away from the fray and offer criticism – but only if they maintain some kind of independence.
This story came straight from SF – they started it and expanded on it. Not once but three times. It is legitimate to write about it. My view own point is irrelevant – funny Martin did not take pen to hand -when I agreed with his recent analysis of the DUP position and his/SF short term held view of participation in the ‘Hain’ Assembly or of his work in Sri Lanka – SF dont like criticism but like the IRA – I won’t go away just yet. SF recognise all parts of NI – its position within the UK- its regional parliament at Stormont- its courts and its police. They are on a level playing field and everyone has a right to get their elbows up – even non combatants!
Rory on Feb 08, 2007 @ 11:17 AM wrote …“…you seem to have deduced, for reasons that I cannot fathom.
In any case, thanks. Kelly says in a nutshell that he was entitled to do as he pleased and he seems to consider that the personal benefits of accepting the award outweigh the resulting contempt of his fellow countrymen. That’s his choice and he must live with it. “
I tried to humourously point out that I’d spend (waste) time and energy searching for the relevant thread. A little joke at my own expense… don’t think of it any more.
Ken,
It seems we may be talking about two different things. You are talking about the line between news and comment. I’m speaking of the baseline between politics and journalism.
At times it can be a nice distinction – as when a politician writes a column (such Gerry Adams in The Village). Or when the journalist writes for a party organ. And I’m aware this argument can be vulnerable to merrie’s ‘too highminded’ argument in the shove and push of big media.
It also has to be said that some journos behave as though the popularity of their sales outweigh’s a politician’s mandate. Clearly it doesn’t. But then that is another example of this same elision.
All I am arguing is that a fundamental distinction should both be made and maintained. Journos/columnist have some power to shape public opinion. But they do not, and should not, shape and execute public policy. Each to their own.
Put bluntly: the day any of us need a mandate to express a critical opinion of some political interest or another, we will all be the poorer for it.
Mick
You will excuse some of us that feel we are no poorer if we do not see certain criticisms, certain basic lack of civility in attitude; if we do not see the urging of violent political solutions, if we do not see black people labelled “coons” and believe we must somehow accept these as, apparently, the price for general freedom of expression.
“All I am arguing is that a fundamental distinction should both be made and maintained. Journos/columnist have some power to shape public opinion. But they do not, and should not, shape and execute public policy. Each to their own.”
See others above. They are certainly capable of shaping policy, if not executing it, and those at the top of media organisations weld undue power and patronage. There used to be laws to restrict that, but with those gone, the lines blur.
“Put bluntly: the day any of us need a mandate to express a critical opinion of some political interest or another, we will all be the poorer for it.”
Fair enough. The point MMG was making I think was that the electorate was endorsing his party’s opinion rather than Tom Kelly’s right to express it.
And none of that stops Tom Kelly being a “political opponent” of SF.
“rather than Tom Kelly’s right to express it.”
should be “rather than attacking Tom Kelly’s right to express it.”
Kensei-
“Journalists can stay away from the fray and offer criticism – but only if they maintain some kind of independence.”
Do you include AP/RN in that?
“Do you include AP/RN in that?”
Of course. I wouldn’t argue for a second it’s in any way independent.
It’s not that people don’t have the right to do it, or that it can’t produce interesting results. But that wasn’t the question.
Ken,
“…those at the top of media organisations wield undue power and patronage. There used to be laws to restrict that, but with those gone, the lines blur.”
I’d be interested in some detail on this power and the formerly binding laws? Without examples it is difficult to see what you’re driving at…
“The point MMG was making I think was that the electorate was endorsing his party’s opinion rather than Tom Kelly’s right to express it.”
I can absolutely see that’s what he may have intended. But one does not equate to the other.
Martin’s mandate allows him (or it will when the DUP agree) to take on certain powers and responsibilities. But it cannot (of itself) trump a case put by columnist in a newspaper.
That just requires logical refutation.
IW,
“…some of us that feel we are no poorer if we do not see certain criticisms”
For the most exposure to criticism is a matter of personal choice, surely?
“I’d be interested in some detail on this power and the formerly binding laws? Without examples it is difficult to see what you’re driving at…”
The Communications Act 2003 removed several barriers to cross media ownership, continuing a trend that had been going for a while.
Having consolidation of major media outlets means that an owner can influence the agenda, direction and stories of their organizations. Effectively running a giant advertising campaign, they have power to effect public opinion, and the get policy changes they desire. Patronage? How many people have cozied up to Murdock? Why bother getting elected when you can get representatives to give you what you want?
Even individuals within those organisations can weld a great deal of power.
It is somewhat offset by the growth in the internet and alternative outlets like this site. But let’s not kid ourselves that the MM doesn’t still weld considerable influence.
“I can absolutely see that’s what he may have intended. But one does not equate to the other.
Martin’s mandate allows him (or it will when the DUP agree) to take on certain powers and responsibilities. But it cannot (of itself) trump a case put by columnist in a newspaper.”
In a sense, it’s an appeal to popularity – which is a fallacy unless the person is speaking on what people want.
Who actually owns the Irish News ?