How To Lose Friends And Alienate People

Newspaper men never want to make the headlines themselves; just ask the boys and gals over at News International in Wapping.

President Higgins visits the
Olympic Stadium on recent state visit

The Irish Post however, for the second time in six months, found itself last week at the front and centre of a furore all of its own making.

Back in Autumn 2011, the paper was in the news because it was going to the wall, having signally failed to respond to its changing demographic or the new media business model.

On this occasion (having in the interim found a white knight in the form of Loot owner Elgin Loane), the ‘Post made the headlines with its coverage of a Presidential visit.  The first State visit on the part of the recently elected Irish President, Michael D Higgins should have been a straight forward assignment, lots of photo-ops with an imminently, quotably, loquacious President.

The Irish media’s coverage of the first state visit of the country’s ninth president was competent and uncontroversial, if perhaps a little perfunctory. President Higgins’ visit barely made the London news but then, there’s probably not a week that goes by in this country without an official visit from some third-world country or other’s head of state (which is probably an accurate reflection of the esteem in which the British media holds its closest neighbour).

Enter the Irish Post with an extraordinary attack on Michael D. With what I can only speculate the staff at the ‘Post imagined was a Zola-esque ‘J’accuse’, we were told that "President Higgins fails to answer key questions on pledges he made to the Irish people in Britain." Strong stuff indeed.

Personally and parenthetically speaking, the only attacks I would have made in prose even vaguely connected with the Higgins visit would probably have been on the National Theatre and then only for the price of tickets for Juno and Paycock -- attended by President Higgins during his trip to London -- daylight robbery; they should be wearing ski-masks in that box office.

Returning to our ever so Gaelically idiosyncratic Uachtarán na hÉireann and his whaling by the Irish Post: on first glance, it’s not easy to see any rational motivation for such a bizarre attack.  

"It's difficult,” we are told by the Irish Post, “to have respect, let alone reverence, for a President who blatantly snubs 100,000 (Irish) people living in Britain... by dodging or refusing to answer questions about how he intends to... support them, as he promised during the election campaign."

Given that Michael D Higgins was only inaugurated on 11 November 2011, it’s rather difficult to imagine how, a couple of months into a seven-year term, he is expected to have a fully formulated programme to deliver to the Irish in Britain. Did the Irish Post perhaps expect a PowerPoint presentation on 'Project Plastic Paddy'?

Irish community activists in Britain wasted no time in condemning the ill-judged coverage which even included a cartoon of Mr Higgins with his mouth zipped shut. Sally Mulready, a tireless advocate for the disadvantaged of the Irish community in London, was appointed to the Council of State in January. She was in no mood for pulling punches: "I want an apology from the Irish Post to both the President and to the Irish community in Britain itself,” said Ms Mulready. “This coverage was a disgrace and insulting," she told reporters.

Ms Mulready, who heads up the Irish Elderly Advice Network, was joined in her opposition by the London Irish Centre, the Irish Chaplaincy in Britain and the Irish Council for Prisoners Overseas, all based in North London's Camden Square. In a sharply critical letter, they said they had been “shocked and saddened” by the coverage.  “Your attack has caused great offence to us and to the Irish people we help and support on a daily basis,” they added.

And just to ram the point home: “Your article was utterly misplaced, unrepresentative and potentially damaging to reputations of the entire community here . . . We do not want to be associated with the tone or content of the article and hope you will issue an apology for the unwarranted hostility towards a very good friend of the Irish abroad.”

But if alienating hardworking community activists wasn’t enough, the ‘Post has also evoked the ire of the Irish Embassy in London, as well as the British Labour Party Irish Society. The Irish Ambassador in London, Bobby McDonagh said the Irish Post’s coverage was “misleading and disrespectful” while the Labour Party’s Irish reps decided that it was “in the best interests of the Irish Post to rectify this misrepresentation of the President of Ireland with both speed and humility.” 

The Federation of Irish Societies (FIS),  also weighed in with chief executive Ms Jennie McShannon describing the tone of the editorial as "petulant, its approach tacky, and its style reflecting the worst of the tabloid media". Furthermore according to MsMcShannon; “the questions to which he apparently said ‘nothing’ were inappropriate and demonstrated only a shameful lack of understanding of the constitutional role of Head of State. When we cannot get through to the Department of Health, we do not expect the Queen to intervene on our behalf."

So far, we’ve not seen any kind of ‘Mea culpa’, although we have noticed that coverage on the Irish Post website makes  no   mention of President Higgins’ alleged shortcomings or ‘silence’.

But was this fair comment or a particularly public case of foot in mouth disease? Looking a little closer at this affair, one can discern other issues at play. Certainly the Irish media, both in Ireland and the US viewed the 'Post’s gaffe with a mixture of bafflement and barely concealed disdain.

An 'informed source' reportedly told the Sunday Independent that the Irish Post's coverage was "unprecedented and difficult to comprehend". That's putting it mildly...

According to the Irish Independent, “the coverage suggests that Mr Higgins gave less time to the local Irish publications than he did to national titles”. Was it just chippiness on the part of the Irish Post? The Irish Times also opined that “the newspaper [The Irish Post] was deeply unhappy about the length of time it was offered to interview Mr Higgins.”

The US-based news aggregator Irish Central noted the Irish Post “had to share a 12-minute question and answer session with the rival and much smaller Irish World newspaper”. The difficulty with this is that there were numerous occasions throughout the  visit when Irish Post reporters could have put any questions they liked to the President.

Having worked for both papers in the past, I am all too well aware of the deep-seated rivalry between the two publications as they vie for a shrinking readership. I am also conversant with the snobbery of staff at the ‘Post in relation to what they perceive as their downmarket competitors at the ‘World.

Aside from its inflated perception of itself as the Voice of the Irish in Britain, there may yet be other factors at play than vanity and wounded pride. On 23 February, the Press Gazette announced that former Daily Sport editor Murray Morse had been appointed as the new editor of the Irish Post.  

Morse may have seriously misjudged his readership or he may have wanted to whip up some controversy in the hope of selling more of tomorrow’s fish and chip wrapping, it’s hard to say which. Perhaps if a woman had been elected, we might have been treated to some Presidential up-skirt photos, so beloved of Mr Morse’s erstwhile employers at the Sport. 

The Presidential visit was the first big story covered under the new editor and maybe he wanted to make a splash. If so; mission accomplished. The Irish Post’s attack on President Higgins has, if nothing else, generated some heat and light around a visit that hadn’t really attracted much media interest. If this visit is remembered, it will be for Morse's apparent failure to read the Irish code... 

For the record, I did offer the Irish Post an opportunity to comment on this story. I addressed the following question to management and to the news editor:  “Was the decision of your recently appointed editor to attack the recently elected president a cyncial tabloid ploy to raise circulation through controversy or did he really misjudge the mood of his readership this badly?”  I received no reply to my enquiry at the time of writing.  

While I am a great believer in iconoclasm, this whole affair just feels like a lazy cheap shot and the Irish community in Britain really does deserve better from its papers. If the Irish Post wants to generate headlines, I suggest it does it the old-fashioned way;  by sending reporters out to find the stories that people in power don’t want published. Cheap shots are no substitute for due diligence and serious journalism. 

POSTSCRIPT
It would appear that sustained pressure on the part of Irish Community leaders in Britain has forced to the Irish Post to rethink its position. 

It was reported by the Irish Times on 06 March that 'Post publisher Elgin Loane told the Dublin paper  he "had concerns" about the coverage while editor Morse said: "It certainly wasn’t the intention of the paper, or me to offend the president, or to do anything that would undermine his position. If that is indeed what has happened, and it appears to be the case, then I am sorry for that.” 

Forced to eat crow, he continued; “I will issue a full apology (in Wednesday’s edition, 07 March) and write a letter of apology to that effect.”