Media hounding of candidates in presidential campaign must stop

WHEN I sat down to write this column, it was intended to be about Mary Davis — and most of it will be.

As I thought about it, though, I realised that there was a lot I wanted to say about the presidential election process we are going through, and especially about the role being played — with gusto, it seems — by some of the media. Mary has, so far, been a principal victim of the way that role is being played, although not the only one.

At the start of the presidential election process, there was a lot of sneering in the coverage. Back then, the sneering was about the office itself, how meaningless it was and how little influence the holder could exert. I predicted then that that sort of sneering would disappear once the race got under way, and indeed it has. But it has been replaced by a level of sneering at some of the candidates – especially the independent candidates — that I find deeply disturbing. And I suspect I’m not the only one.

If any of you need reminding, I’m a Labour man. In fact, I’m the guy that Michael D beat to get the Labour nomination (there were two of us up against him, one from each gender, and he beat us both). And (if I could rob a phrase from his own slogan) he is doing his party proud ever since. His campaign has been effective, his media appearances balanced and serious, the welcome he is getting all over the country warm and genuine. He looks every inch a winner. I’ll be voting for him and proud to do it.

But one of the things Michael D has advocated all his working life is fairness. And I’m sure he wouldn’t object to me pointing out that there is a fundamental unfairness in the way several of the candidates are being treated in this campaign.

Sure, there are serious public interest questions to be answered in the past lives, behaviour and utterances of some of them. But it’s beginning to be clear that if some of the media can’t find a skeleton in the cupboard of a candidate, they’re going to take whatever they do find there and use it as an opportunity to pour shame and derision on them anyway.

Take this stuff about nationality and Dana, for instance. Thousands of Irish people have taken out American citizenship for the sake of a career, an education, or their children’s future. Most Irish families, I suspect , are connected to North American citizens because of emigration — there are several in mine. In the process of becoming a US citizen, they take an oath that (according to the Immigration Department’s website anyway) was drafted in 1929. Although this antiquated oath talks about renouncing your former allegiance, there is nothing in the process itself that obliges you to do so.

Becoming a US citizen doesn’t mean you love your country of origin less, or want to serve it less. And it’s abundantly clear (although I disagree with a lot of her muddle-headed views) that Dana loves Ireland. And there is no evidence that she ever lied about her US citizenship either. It’s a complete non-story, and it never warranted the page one lead that one of our national newspapers gave it.

And another national newspaper (is the Sunday Times a national newspaper?) led yesterday with the claim that Mary Davis might have cast a vote in favour of Denis O’Brien in the context of a discussion about media ownership. The newspaper didn’t know how she voted — but “might have” was enough to make it the lead story.

What sort of agenda is being pursued here? What are we being told to believe about Mary Davis? The other day on the radio I heard Philip Boucher-Hayes (a decent guy and normally a tough but fair professional) interviewing her about her time on the board of a building society as if he was confronting some fugitive from justice that he had tracked down to her hideaway. What are your banking qualifications? How many days a week did you devote to your duties on this board? Are you prepared to take personal responsibility for all these unfortunate people who were given 100% mortgages?

She was reported after the interview as being close to tears — I know I would have been.

The entire thing is utterly unfair. Anyone who knows anything about boards — whether they be of businesses or voluntary organisations — knows you need a good mix of people and interests if they’re to be effective.

Company law requires certain things of board members, but the most important thing it requires is that they be honest and independent. On that basis alone, Mary Davis was eminently qualified for the boards she sat on.

Let me declare a couple of interests – I’ve known Mary and her husband Julian for a long time now, and there are very few people in the world, if any, I regard more highly.

I’ve known Denis O’Brien for a long time too, and have had reason to be grateful to him for acts of decency and generosity to causes I support, from intellectual disability to prisoners of conscience to vulnerable and sick children.

That has never stopped me from writing honestly and critically about O’Brien when it was necessary, and I’d be critical of Mary Davis too if I thought it was warranted.

It’s not. I’ve served on several voluntary committees with Mary Davis, and I was her chair for four years when she was chief executive of Special Olympics.

An organisation like Special Olympics might seem like a single issue to some people. But running it is exactly the same as running a substantial enterprise. A sizeable budget requires to be raised and accounted for, a brand needs to be built and protected, substantial teams of employees need to be managed and led.

IN my entire professional life, as a manager myself and often as a volunteer in other organisations, I’ve seldom met anyone as talented as Mary — a born manager and a natural leader. But neither have I ever met anyone more scrupulous, honest and diligent. I’ve served on boards with her when she went away to quietly organise the grant that would keep the organisation alive, or where she solved problems that the rest of us agonised over. And I have never been in a situation with her where you had a moment’s doubt about her integrity.

So the portrait I see painted in the media is one I simply don’t recognise. I had hoped to be Mary’s opponent in this election, but that was not to be. If it had panned out that way, I would hope we would still have ended the campaign as friends, because you can’t know Mary Davis without respecting her.

This media hounding happened in the last presidential election too. And it really makes me wonder if the media needs to stop and ask itself a few questions.

Of course there’s a public interest to be pursued, but there comes a point where public interest stops and something almost vindictive and wrong takes over.

Our democratic process deserves better.