State papers lesson for pundits and politicians
Not only were there natural differences in strategic interests, but the analysis of each side was also coloured by the perception of the other side’s perceived political objectives and possible tactics.
Adding another layer of complexity was the perception by each side of the key players on the other side - sometimes reflecting a lack of respect for the integrity and/or capability of counterparts.
In short, the ingredients that go into most situations where humans interact, but on a somewhat grander scale.
A collated edition of both sets of papers should form part of the curriculum for any school of journalism and should be compulsory reading also for current affairs correspondents and media pundits. This might improve media standards and lead to a more considered discussion of the major domestic and international issues of the day.
We might reduce the often simplistic moral posturing, the demand for a yes/no answer, the insistence on politicians and others speculating on possible outcomes while still involved in delicate and sensitive negotiations.
It would also help if politicians were less willing to submit themselves to the sometimes ridiculous demands of the media for instant analysis and simple answers to complex situations.
A robust ‘get stuffed’ might usefully supplement the more anodyne ‘no comment’. I suspect people would respect them more for it.
Peter Molloy
9 Haddington Park
Glenageary
Co Dublin
