Media fails to cover itself in glory

THERE can be only one reason why Terry Prone wrote a piece explaining what the media did during the presidential election, and that is she knows that the ‘fourth estate’ did not cover itself in glory.

It was far from neutral, and in the case of one paper that holds a significant chunk of overall circulation, it was downright biased, not in its effort to get across the reasons why a particular candidate should be favoured, but by focusing on thwarting one candidate, accusing him of every evil under the sun.

That paper, and its ownership, was aghast at the notion that a member of Sinn Féin would have the audacity to go before the people in a democratic process and seek high office, and was mortified at the prospect that the Irish people might elect such a candidate.

The paper slipped into the nadir region occupied by one of its contributors, who has become visibly more bitter. The ranting against RTÉ and selected others has become silly and ought to be a source of embarrassment to the editor.

And yes, there were losers. One section of the community was blamed for every atrocity.

The British government and Unionists were portrayed as innocent bystanders on the receiving end of a hissy fit from undeserving lessers.

The other big loser was the media itself. While not all threw away balance and objectivity, most were stampeded into joining the frenzy and not one, that I am aware of, made any attempt to balance out the negatives of McGuinness’s past with the positives.

McGuinness’s part in the peace process has saved countless lives, but not a word of that. His courage cannot be overstated and he will remain a target for the rest of his life from dissidents and others. Terry tries to airbrush out the failures of the media with the excuse “because what you are now is the sum total of what you’ve done or failed to do in the past.”

Have another look at the copies of the press and point out where the “sum total” of McGuinness’s past is shown. And consider the near monopoly position of the one paper in which the worst examples of bias and prejudice can be found.

I suggest that the media is in need of a much more objective and detailed analysis of the part it played in a campaign that was at times reduced to farce, as one so-called professional after another tripped over themselves to land a ‘killer’ blow on McGuinness. It was unedifying and left this observer, for one, feeling decidedly uneasy.

Jim O’Sullivan

Rathedmond

Sligo