May Contain Traces Of Nut

As someone who worked in the computer industry around the time of the so-called dotcom boom, I tended to get ideas pitched to me from time to time. Some of them were good, some were more mediocre and some were irredeemably awful. I thought one or two had the potential to change the world, and I took on an idea of my own which I believed was that good. Within a week or two I realised it wasn’t going to work; but that wasn’t due to any flaw in the idea. It’s been done successfully in the years since then although not by me; I still think it could have worked at the time but I wasn’t personally up to the challenge.

In the intervening decade my thinking has been that ideas are commonplace, whereas the ability to turn them into reality is precious. This goes against the popular belief although it is in keeping with Edison’s line about success being 90% perspiration. I know people who are quite creative and like to think their ideas are anything but cheap; and that is fair comment, but I plan to stand by my opinion until they turn their ideas into published novels or thriving businesses.

So if ideas are two a penny, why is a blank sheet of paper, or in my case a New Document, so daunting for me as I try to make myself write something? It’s not as if I’ve measured up to the challenge either. I haven’t written a novel, much less had one published, and I haven’t ever turned a business idea into something that pays the rent. So how did I get to be so negative about other people’s ideas?

When I look at it again, writing chick-lit starts to look like an achievement. And maybe that is a good thing. My disinclination to read it is no reflection on the effort and the art that went into writing it; crafting a plot, painting characters, framing a narrative, measuring prose, knitting dialogue and stitching it into a read that illuminates a few hours of some stranger’s life.

Nice one.

As a Dubliner who works in Mayo I heard this phrase a lot over the past few days. I don’t want to rub salt in an open wound since mine is still hurting too, but some things need to be written which are as relevant to Dublin gaelic football as they are to Mayo. After my team were annihilated by Kerry last week, many commentators said that we gave their star players too much space and time on the ball. That’s certainly true as evidenced by the Gooch Cooper’s goal in the first minute. I had been planning to run a 5k road race that day but it turned out the race clashed with the match. After 15 minutes the match was over and I was wishing I’d entered the race instead. I didn’t even watch the second half.

Plenty of the Mayo people among my friends and colleagues were perplexed by the scale of Dublin’s defeat. Through the whole of the Championship up to that point Kerry had been off form and nobody expected them to be able to withstand the Dublin forwards. In fact the reverse was the case. Kerry showed once again why they have won a string of senior All-Ireland titles in recent years while Dublin have won only one in the past quarter century. In the 31 counties outside Dublin there is a certain resentment of the media coverage the Dublin footballers get and Mayo is far from being an exception. Despite the resentment, it is far from an advantage as in my opinion it builds up expectations to the point where the players are unable to deal with reality checks as provided by Kerry this year, Tyrone last year and Mayo before that. In short they get cocky and it means they are not mentally prepared. Of course managers try to insulate their players from all the hype but in an amateur sport that isn’t always possible. The feeling among supporters and the tone of media commentary can always infect a squad of players who work regular jobs and live normal lives.

Last week it seemed as though Mayo supporters were looking forward to the semi-final against Kerry rather than yesterday’s quarter-final against Meath. I’m sure I wasn’t alone in pointing out that Meath would not be brushed aside lightly but it seemed a mindset had taken hold and perhaps that got to the team as well. Watching the Sunday Game before the match started I noticed Colm O’Rourke was very quiet and allowed the other commentators to focus on Mayo. This was much the same as before Monday’s match when nobody seemed interested in what Kerry might do.

When the ball was thrown in it became clear that Mayo’s tactics were more a dress rehearsal for Kerry than something prepared for the current opposition. Their players contested every ball and denied Meath any kind of space, which is what Dublin should have done against Kerry. As Mayo were 4 points to no score up after 15 minutes it seemed as though the pundits were right and that John O’Mahony was justified in preparing his team in a style of play designed to defeat the next opponents, which seemed to be working just as well against Meath. Then the Royals began to show signs of the character that won them four all-Ireland titles since 1987 but had been less visible for the past few years. They fought back to lead at half-time before Mayo regained their 4 point lead, only to lose it most emphatically over the last quarter of the game. A comment from after the match was "Mayo are the Dubs of the West."

Now it must be said that some of the decision making by match officials was shocking. I’ll need an expert on the rules to clarify in relation to Meath’s first goal - David Bray couldn’t cleanly field a high ball, caught it on the bounce and then hopped it again before scoring - was that a double hop? Then Meath keeper Paddy O’Rourke stepped back over the line while holding the ball, so it was possibly a goal but it was hard to tell for sure even in multiple replays. The umpires didn’t give it as a goal despite protests from Mayo. In the second half a line ball was wrongly given to Meath when it was clearly a Mayo ball, the resulting kick was sent into the area and a Mayo defender conceded a penalty which Ward converted. So three questionable decisions, none of them in any way clear cut but all of them three-pointers going Meath’s way. But it’s easy to blame officials for poor decision making, which is a part of every sport and sometimes those decisions go your way while other times they don’t. A great team rises above that and brings out whatever is needed.

Which brings us to the example in character that we saw later on. There is one county team in Gaelic games which never gives less than 100%, is always motivated and properly psychologically prepared no matter what the occasion be it a league game in the wet of winter or an all-Ireland final in sunny September. That team is the Kilkenny hurlers and frankly I would love to know how Brian Cody keeps those players so consistently physically fit and mentally sharp even with breaks of several weeks between matches. Whatever they are doing is what both Mayo and Dublin need to emulate. Both counties need to stop talking about the break between provincial finals and the all-Ireland quarters, because the break Kilkenny face as Leinster champions is invariably just as long and yet doesn’t phase them. You almost never (at least since the 2004 final) see Kilkenny beaten by a wide margin as Dublin were or by an unfancied team as happened to Mayo.

Now it’s all very well to look at the lessons that need to be learned for the future, but that won’t console anyone whose team are out for another year. To paraphrase what Pat Spillane said before yesterday’s match, there’s a time to stop talking about moral victories and start collecting silverware. That is something both Mayo and Dublin have the talent to do, but it won’t happen until they get to the right place psychologically.

I was reading Terry Prone’s article in the Sunday Times yesterday and I got a little hot under the collar. It started with the tag line:

"Dermot Ahern is right to suggest that a mix of new technologies and bitter individuals are cause for concern"

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to express an opinion and though I detest what you say I will defend to the death your right etc etc.

Now it should be pointed out that Ahern was speaking at the launch of the first annual Report of the Press Council and the Office of the Press Ombudsman, and also that this engagement took place a few days after the furore over paintings of his boss with his shirt off (I’ve written enough about that one already!). His comments about privacy should be viewed in that context (and not in the context of the covert surveillance bill he announced last week). And to be fair to him, he didn’t mention "bitter individuals" in that speech at least, so it is quite possible that Terry Prone is putting someone else’s bile in his mouth.

But I didn’t want to write about the Minister for Justice. Let’s talk about Terry Prone’s article; in it she makes a case for strengthening the laws protecting the right to privacy. I strongly agree with her on this; for example Ahern pointed out in his speech that there is no legal protection in Ireland against a person’s image being used for commercial purposes without their consent. However Prone’s real target quickly becomes apparent when she says that "Internet blogs, noticeboards and chat rooms" are engaged in libel and invasion of privacy which their victims are powerless to prevent. The first part of this claim appears to be a misunderstanding of a truth. A minority of internet users (my emphasis) do use the technologies to pass on rumours or personal details, be they real or false, as anyone knows who has seen John Arne Riise’s payslip or the explicit email attributed to one Clare Swires. However the blogs, noticeboards and chatrooms in themselves do not do all this, it is the individual people who use them. And, under existing laws, individual people can be identified and held to account if they overstep another person’s legal rights.

She draws a contrast between traditional media (the phrase she coins is "legitimate media") and new media ("venting of venomous bilge that constitutes the bulk of what’s euphemistically dubbed “citizen journalism”.) She claims that the traditional press operates to internal controls; anyone who saw the weekend’s news coverage of the late Michael Dwyer’s killing might question exactly how those checks and balances work in practise.

Her next barb is against the members of her own profession who deign to write their own blogs ("promiscuous fascination … the dangers that online content pose to individual journalists and to the profession as a whole … joining the electronic herd").

Not wanting to overdo the negativity, she concentrates on privacy for a few balanced and human paragraphs, touchingly describing a past, and regretted, mistake of her own in publishing a book with a murder victim’s face on the cover and explaining how the victim’s family felt about it. She didn’t name the victim but we may assume it wasn’t Michael Dwyer.

Then it’s back to the main argument for the concluding paragraph, where she calls for legislation enshrining a double standard: "to protect against unsourced, online reputation damage, while not constraining newspapers".

Now I have always admired Terry Prone’s ability to communicate clearly and by reputation she is Ireland’s leading public relations consultant. In this article we can see her gift for words, which she uses to demonise and scapegoat a diverse group of ordinary people for having the cheek to express their own thoughts. And it struck me, somewhat cynically and perhaps unfairly, that someone in her position would have a clear motive for attacking new media users in this way. Because the great strength of new technology is how it allows ordinary people to communicate their thoughts freely and quickly with as many other people as care to read them. And that, to a traditional PR guru, must be deeply threatening.

In the week of the 20th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, it is worth remembering the power of old-style news management. When Liverpool supporters were killed in the Leppings Lane end of Sheffield Wednesday’s ground - which was operating without a valid safety licence - the local powers got their retaliation in first. The police claimed that the supporters had rioted and forced a gate open to gain entry to the ground, then later acknowledged that the gate was opened on direct police orders. Once inside, the supporters should have been directed to side pens but instead were allowed to go straight into the already overcrowded central pen where 96 men, women and children were crushed to death. Only one ambulance was allowed in despite the fact that a further 43 ambulances were on standby outside the ground. But the news went out that the fans themselves had rioted and "basically killed themselves". The Sun newspaper, edited by Kelvin Mckenzie, published scurrilous and unfounded allegations about the survivors under the headline "THE TRUTH", with the subheadings "Some fans picked pockets of victims"; "Some fans urinated on the brave cops"; "Some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life". This led to a city-wide boycott of the newspaper, which is still ongoing. The power of these headlines is such that many people still believe the Sun’s version of events despite them having been disproven at multiple sworn inquiries.

In the modern era, it would be much more difficult to credibly perpetrate a lie of such magnitude; and that is precisely because of new technologies. In fact, just two years after Hillsborough, there was a coup attempt in Moscow during which residents and activists were able to relay their stories to the international media using IRC chatrooms, thus playing a part in the failure of the coup.

The story behind Michael Dwyer’s death is still unclear, but what is already clear is that the story told immediately after his killing is at odds with at least some of the facts. Courageous, professional investigative journalism in conjunction with new technologies are key to establishing the true story and making sure that the real facts are discovered and that, in the end, justice is seen to be done.

While it would not be fair to claim that Twitter or YouTube could have similarly prevented Hillsborough, if these technologies had existed at the time their users could have exposed the lies at the heart of Kelvin McKenzie’s "Truth", crucially before they took root in the public consciousness.

In conclusion, not only are new technologies not a threat to fair, even-handed and truthful reporting, they are additional ways for people to disseminate both facts and opinions, and as such they are a beneficial and healthy development in the world’s democracies.

Sources:

Terry Prone article - Sunday Times

Dermot Ahern speech - Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Article on Surveillance Bill - Irish Times

Article on Michael Dwyer killing - Sunday Tribune

Article on The Sun coverage of Hillsborough - The Guardian (2004)

1991 Soviet coup IRC logs - iBiblio

Irish Times columnist John Waters has written an interesting article about what is now being called the Picturegate scandal. It is especially interesting because Waters, who is normally a fearless opponent of hypocrisy and the abuse of power, has this time chosen to defend the shocking abuse of power on behalf of Taoiseach Brian Cowen and has enlisted some remarkably thin arguments in his favour.

He begins by questioning the artist Conor Casby’s ability. Casby had said that he wanted to let the paintings speak for themselves. Waters questions what exactly they might say - "That the artist has an infantile obsession with toilet humour? That he nurtures some deep animus towards politicians? That he cannot draw? The only amusing thing here is Casby’s deluded belief that he has something to say."

It is a long-standing tactic for opponents of free speech to attack the style and to question the skill used to say those things they don’t want us to hear, particularly in the case of iconoclasts who dare to question matters of religion. For example the charge that The Life Of Brian was not funny, The Last Temptation Of Christ was boring or The Satanic Verses was gratuitously insulting. This misses the point of what freedom of expression is for and why it is important. Free speech is protected in a democratic society because it is necessary to allow criticism of even the most powerful interests and the most entrenched customs, in order that they can evolve to meet the demands of changing times. The principle is very old and its origin is variously claimed for Socrates, the Islamic caliph Omar, Magna Carta in England and the Dutch Catholic theologian Erasmus. It is entrenched in legal documents including Bunreacht na hÉireann, the Constitution of Ireland (although with exceptions which will be discussed here). However I have never come across the argument that free speech should apply only when the joke is funny, the story is entertaining, the analysis is flawless or the painting is a masterpiece. The artistic or logical merit of any work should never be an issue with regard to the author’s right to freely express his or her ideas.

"And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?" - John Milton, Areopagitica (1644)

While the cult of St. Biffo has yet to gain masses of converts outside of Clara, the defence of his dignity has been conducted with all the balance and proportion of a church inquisition. According to the original Sunday Tribune article, when the paintings were first discovered in the National Gallery and the RHA, the Gardaí were called: "Bemused officers told management, however, that it was unlikely the rogue artist had committed any type of criminal offence."

That relaxed approach changed after the above article appeared. The next day the state broadcaster RTÉ ran a television news story about the paintings, but subsequently removed the story from their website, following up with an apology the following evening. It later transpired that the Government press secretary had phoned the director-general of RTÉ, Cathal Goan, to complain, while a Government backbench TD issued a press release calling for Goan’s resignation. Many commentators have pointed out that if a private citizen had a complaint about a news article, they would be directed to use the Broadcasting Complaints Commission instead. Certainly it is highly questionable whether an apology for a non-libellous article would be issued the following day on the main evening news.

While this was going on, the radio station Today FM received a visit from Gardaí who asked for their co-operation in investigating the case. Producer Will Hanifin asked what the charges might be against Casby. He was told they were looking into allegations of incitement to hatred, criminal damage and public indecency.

Let’s look at incitement to hatred first. In the Incitement to Hatred act, 1989, the definition is as follows: "hatred" means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation. To prove the charge, it would be necessary to prove that the pictures of the solitary Brian Cowen would incite hatred against a group of persons, as opposed to just Mr. Cowen (who is unique). That’s assuming they did incite hatred, as opposed to disrespect or laughter.

Now let’s look at public indecency. This is defined in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 as "[to] commit… any act in such a way as to offend modesty or cause scandal or injure the morals of the community". It is a summary offence with a maximum fine of €635 and/or six months’ imprisonment. We definitely have a scandal, but it is about the official reaction to the pictures rather than the pictures themselves. As reards modesty and injuring community morals, if these pictures are considered indecent then there are plenty of other images and texts that could also be sanctioned. Following that to its conclusion, the present recession would be a logical excuse to bring back the censorship of the 1930s as well.

The third charge is of criminal damage and it has to be conceded that someone did hammer a nail into a wall in both of those galleries in order to hang the pictures. Casby is reported as denying involvement in this one but we shall see if charges are brought. The Criminal Damage Act, 1991 specifies a maximum penalty (on indictment) of €12,700 or ten years’ imprisonment. Considering it is legal to build a motorway through the seat of the ancient High Kings at Tara, I’m not sure that he would get ten years hard labour for driving a nail into a wall, no matter how prestigious the building.

The Constitution in its article 40.6.1.i guarantees "The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions." However it then qualifies this right by adding that speech "shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State" , and outlaws "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter". This raises the question of whether two paintings of the Taoiseach with his shirt off would fall foul of one of these exceptions. As regards indecency, the issue stands as to whether a picture of a male with his shirt off is indecent. Given that one national daily newspaper carries photographs of topless women every day I don’t think we can say it is. As regards sedition, this is an offence that remains on the statute books but has not been prosecuted in many years. If it is possibly sedition to hang an unflattering picture of a senior politician, it is definitely sedition to organise a "blue flu" strike. That covers public order and State authority as well; and we have already dealt with morality. The only one left is blasphemy, and unless the cult of St. Biffo wishes to bring charges I think we can forget this too.

John Waters also criticises broadcaster Pat Kenny who said that if he, Kenny, were the subject of the paintings he would buy them to hang on his bathroom wall. "The difference between himself and Brian Cowen, he asserted, was that he, Pat Kenny, has “a sense of humour”. Well, no. One difference is that Brian Cowen is Taoiseach and Pat Kenny is not."

Let’s examine what exactly being Taoiseach has to do with it. Michael Kennedy said that the pictures “represented a gross insult to the position of An Taoiseach, not to mention a personal affront to the dignity of the man himself”. And Today FM presenter Ray D’Arcy said that Hanafin had been told by one of the Gardaí that “the powers that be want action taken”. Labour Party politicians have rightly pointed out that it took the Gardaí six months to begin searching the offices of Anglo Irish Bank where serious wrongdoing was suspected. The clear difference between the Taoiseach and anyone else is that the Taoiseach is the head of government, and those around him can wield enormous power on his behalf. If a private citizen makes a mistake it can seriously affect himself, his family or his work colleagues. If the Taoiseach makes a mistake, by act or omission, it can make life worse for everyone in the country. This is precisely why it is so important that criticism of the Taoiseach is freely allowed, no matter what anyone thinks of the style or content of that criticism.

Waters goes on to assert that "The internet has reduced public debate to the level of a drunken argument, in which no holds are barred, in which deeply unpleasant people get to voice their ignorant opinions in the ugliest terms, in the name of “free speech”." It is not clear if he is blaming the people who express their opinions, or the technology they use to do so. Bloggers and other commentators are denounced, ad hominem, as deeply unpleasant and ignorant. The technology itself is blamed for lowering the tone of public debate, an argument which is reminiscent of the politician Oliver J. Flanagan who claimed on the Late Late Show in the 1960s that "there was no sex in Ireland before television." In fact it was the use of technology such as Twitter by concerned citizens which kept the story alive and focussed attention on the flagrant abuse of Government power; and that is surely a useful contribution to a healthy democracy.

Waters’ final point is that satire is not harmless. He cites the example of British Liberal politician David Steel who blamed the satirical programme Spitting Image for his party’s electoral shortcomings. Most scholars of the subject have instead laid the blame on the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system which gave the SDP-Liberal alliance 3.5% of the seats with 25.4% of the votes. Waters fails to mention that at the same time Spitting Image was equally vitriolic towards Steele’s rivals Margaret Thatcher and Neil Kinnock. He also fails to mention the cutting satirical portrayals of Tony Blair, Bertie Ahern and George W. Bush which did nothing to prevent them staying in office for ten, eleven and eight years respectively. Such portrayals must always be based on characteristics the public already recognise in these politicians, otherwise they just would not work as satire. It cannot be comfortable to see oneself portrayed in a negative way, but that is both the price of high office and the recognition of high status that goes with it.

Sunday Tribune 29/03/09: ‘It took Gardaí six months to go into Anglo Irish’: reaction to cowengate

Irish Times 27/03/09: With public discourse so debased, the joke is on us

Irish Times 26/03/09: Gardai question artist under caution

Irish Times 25/03/09: RTÉ apologises for news item on Cowen nude portraits

Sunday Tribune 22/03/09: Cowen hung out to dry in National Gallery hijack

Honestly, I think it’s funny that the day after I innocently blog about some media being slow to interact with their audience, this whole picturegate thing happens. Let’s face it, it’s not as if I’m blogging every day about current events or anything. Anyway there’s been a bit of a backlash to the way the Government made RTÉ cave in. There are a few people drawing cartoons of their own now, including yours truly who hasn’t drawn a cartoon in anger since getting in a whole lot of trouble for it as a teenager. Here’s mine, like the others it might not be suitable for some workplaces: NSFW.

Now RTÉ have apologised for running that story in the first place. They know who their customer is, and that it is not you and me. We just pay them the amount the Government tells us to, or get thrown in jail.

Allan’s picture [NSFW] is worth several thousand words.

Yesterday I asked how RTÉ and other traditional media outlets would handle the paradigm shift towards more interaction with their audience. Today I got my answer, when they removed one of their own broadcasts from their website. Luckily some enterprising viewer managed to save it for posterity.

Since reality TV star Jade Goody’s announcement that she would be carrying on her fight with cancer in public, there has been a lively debate on the rights and wrongs of her decision. Critics have often ignored the fact that Jade was not the first to make such a choice - she was preceded by journalist John Diamond and singer Warren Zevon, among others. Instead some focussed on the perceived grotesqueness, morbidity or exhibitionism of her last weeks, on her character failings and those of her husband, or on the amount of money she was expected to earn from her death. And of course there have been the inevitable comments about a decline in broadcasting standards.

Certainly her life has not been exemplary and her racist run-in with Shilpa Shetty comes readily to mind. But her choice to conduct her battle with cancer in such a public fashion has ensured a positive public health legacy which is a fine contribution to society and one that her critics should aspire to. The take-up of cervical smear tests among women in their 20s has doubled in some areas of the UK and many lives will be saved as a result.

"Reality" TV has often come in for criticism on the grounds of being shallow and superficial, and those comments can be considered fair in some cases. But reality TV has led the way in terms of audience interaction and it is only recently that many more high-brow programmes have begun to interact with their audiences in the same way. Phone-in shows have been around for a long time, predating reality TV, but many other news and current affairs shows are now taking more of a lead from their viewers and listeners. For example, George Hook is using Twitter to communicate with listeners of his drivetime show on Newstalk FM, The Right Hook, taking topic suggestions and giving a fly-on-the-wall insight into what goes on behind the scenes.

Damien Mulley has written a great article on the use of technology such as Twitter to bring about genuinely two-way communication in the media. He comments that "RTE, TV3 and TodayFM don’t have a choice about it" which is partly true. They can choose to pretend it isn’t happening, or they can join the conversation.

My wife has been making jewellery for a few years and recently we put together a website to show off some of her best pieces. As well as jewellery she is into knitting, embroidery and working with felt and fabrics. There is a static welcome page and then most of the content is on the blog.

Here is the site: http://siobhannevin.com/ and here is the blog: http://siobhannevin.com/blog/