Blanket media coverage surrounded Sands’s death

Nearly every media outlet in the world had an opinion on Bobby Sands, the hunger strikes, the situation in the North and the British response. And most media were not on the side of Margaret Thatcher, writes Ryle Dwyer

THE DEATH of Bobby Sands received saturation media coverage in the US, on radio, TV and the front and editorial pages of newspapers across the country. It was reminiscent of the 1969-1972 period; only this time there was more analysis and commentary on the political situation.

The New York Times had been critical of British policy on the North before, but not with the vehemence shown following the death of Sands. “Mrs Thatcher has allowed the initiative to pass to a miniscule army of implacable nationalists,” it complained in an editorial. “By appearing unfeeling and unresponsive she and her Government are providing Bobby Sands with a deathbed gift — the crown of martyrdom.”

Most of the informed comment was supplied by editorial writers and syndicated columnists. Regular columnists who wrote about Irish events were generally critical of both the IRA and the British prime minister. “Mrs Thatcher must be made to yield,” Michael Kilian wrote. “The veto power she gave the Protestants over any change in Northern Ireland’s status must be withdrawn.”

There were 13 US daily newspapers with a circulation of more than 500,000 and 100 others with circulation above 100,000. Most editorialised on the North following Sands’s death. The editorials concentrated on four areas: (i) the deaths were tragic but would not contribute to a solution; (ii) the British government could not grant political status to terrorists; (iii) Thatcher should be criticised for her handling of the affair and her lack of imagination; and (iv) London and Dublin should speed up their talks and the Protestant veto in the North should be removed.

The New York Times and New York Daily News both suggested that Thatcher should take a bold new approach in relation to Ireland. The only New York newspaper that came out strongly in her favour was the Wall Street Journal, which concluded that the initial decision to grant special category status was the real mistake.

The Chicago Tribune, on the other hand, lamented the potential for catastrophe. “Much of the blame for this can be laid on Prime Minister Thatcher and her obdurate refusal to work for reform and change. She has bowed to the wishes of Protestant firebrands like the Rev Ian Paisley so much that she almost seems a bit of a Paisleyite herself.”

The attitude was more balanced elsewhere in the US. “It’s a pity that Bobby Sands died,” the San Francisco Examiner wrote in a typical American approach, “but he was deluded if he confused nobility with violence, and thought that the latter could bring his land to a better day.”

There was also heavy coverage in the Canadian media, where the Montreal Gazette was extremely hostile to the prisoners’ case and to Sands in particular. The Toronto Globe and Mail editorialised in tones of general exasperation at the continuing violence.

IN AUSTRALIA, all of the major newspapers carried editorials on the death of Sands. It is most unusual for the regionally dispersed press to show such a degree of unanimity in selecting an editorial topic.

Many papers strongly opposed the granting of political status. Others skirted the issue. Almost all felt that there was room for flexibility and they were therefore critical of the British record in the North.

“The death of Sands will no doubt tilt the balance of emotional feelings against the Government of Mrs Thatcher, but it should be noted that there was a rational basis to its attitude,” the Adelaide Advertiser remarked. “It is completely unrealistic to identify as common criminals Irish nationalists fighting for what they regard, with some reason, as a just cause.”

The general trust of such editorials was significant because the Australian press had traditionally been very loyal to Britain. This time, however, there was a distinct edge to the criticism of British intransigence.

There was also extensive press coverage in Europe, especially in France and Germany. German editorials were either non-committal or supported the refusal to grant political status. The French press — from the conservative Le Figero and the Catholic La Croix to the independent Le Monde — were very critical of British inflexibility. The influential left-wing weekly Le Nouvel Observateur, which strongly supported President Francois Mitterand carried a long article virtually reproducing the Provo line.

In Italy, despite their ideological differences, the major left- and right-wing dailies adopted a generally uniform approach in which Mrs Thatcher and her government were characterised as “inflexible, unsympathetic and unimaginative”.

Editorial opinion in Britain was unusually uniform across both the political spectrum and within the divide between “quality” and tabloid newspapers. All favoured the British government’s position in refusing political status and rejecting the demands for what amounted to political status.

The hunger strike was seen as a cynical and sinister propaganda device.” Even The Guardian — which had been critical of the British position in relation to the “dirty protest” — changed its attitude before Sands died. When he did die, it described the Government’s policy as “correct”, although it added that Mrs Thatcher’s “posture” had been disdainful and unhelpful to the taoiseach, Charles Haughey.

In the face of the attitude of the British press, it would actually have been more difficult for Thatcher to concede to the hunger strikers.