Media bias thwarts Northern Ireland peace process
by Paul Donovan
The recent BBC documentary ('Holy Cross', BBC1, 10 November, 2003) chronicling the events at Holy Cross school in Belfast drew mixed reviews. Some of those directly involved claimed it was too close and the wounds had not yet healed. Few though underlined the essential flaw in the programme which, as with so much of the coverage of the events of Northern Ireland by the British media, lacked context.
The story centred around two families on either side of the divide and their experiences. So once again the conflict in Northern Ireland was depicted as being between two squabbling religious groups. The British troops and police were depicted as in some way keeping the peace between the two tribes. Nowhere in the well acted drama was there any context provided, such as the fact that the children had been going to school for years without so much as a hint of trouble. Then following a fall out between Loyalist paramilitaries in the Shankill Road, the losers relocated to the Holy Cross school area and began fermenting sectarian hatred. The victims were small children trying to get to their school, there were no two sides to this argument. It was a simple matter of right and wrong, which needed to be viewed in that context.
The BBC depiction perhaps unsurprisingly fitted into the media model of how to cover Northern Ireland affairs, namely as two feuding relgious tribes with the British forces simply in the middle trying to keep the peace. For the British media this depiction of events in Northern Ireland has held sway for the whole of the conflict.
Under the abiding model, nationalists and republicans are viewed as the problem for demanding their rights in the first place. Under the feuding tribes model the IRA, which came about in many ways to defend the Catholic people, are depicted as the cause of the problem. The model has survived for many years and shows little sign of changing even after six years of the peace process. A recent example of the ingrained nature of this approach came when Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble scuppered the last effort to get the insitutions back up and running under the Good Friday Agreement. The IRA made the major sacrifice offering to decommision arms yet in the media they still got the blame for the collapse of the process. Trimble, the real villain of the peace, got away blameless again.
Over the past 30 years the two tribes approach to the conflict in Northern Ireland has no doubt contributed to a lack of understanding in Britain. Over the past six years since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement this approach has helped those opposed to the peace. How many times do the British media ask the crucial question of those - like Trimble, Paisley and Donaldson - who block the process what next? What is your answer? - back to war, back to the operation of the apartheid style statelet.
Many British media operations will claim they have been neutral in covering the conflict, providing a balanced approach presenting both sides of the story. However, the truth is that the approach is biased to an incredible degree in favour of the British/unionist position. It was noticeable that even with Holy Cross at one time some in the media tried to construct a spurious argument that young girls going to school was in some way a provocative act devised by republicans to provoke unionists - the creation of such a mindset requires some contortion of logic. This approach has contributed to the skewed view that many in Britain hold over.
Proof of the bias of this approach comes with a comparison of how Loyalist violence directed toward Catholics is simply not reported. Two years ago, over a three month period there were 64 pipe and petrol bomb attacks on Catholics. These attacks did not register at all in the British media. The imbibed nature of the propaganda model in London newsrooms was underlined when I was commissioned to write a piece on the subject for the media section of the Independent. I obtained the various comments of newsdesks as to why they did not cover the story. These comments varied from the Daily Telegraph's "there was a lot of coverage of violence on the ground last year" to the Guardian's "need to find a thread and provide a context to these attacks." The editor of the Independent's media section at that time was pleased with the piece and gave me a date for publication. It was only later when it did not appear that I became suspicious. Finally, the media editor admitted it had had to be run past the paper's own Northern Ireland correspondent and he did not agreed with the central argument over the non-reporting of Loyalist violence. Not surprising perhaps given that he had been as guilty as anyone else of failing to report that violence.
Media commentator Roy Greenslade has told of the hierarchy of suffering that the media adopt toward Northern Ireland but there is also a grading of violence. Republican violence is the worst form to be condemned completely and reported out of context at every possible opportunity. Loyalist violence on the other hand is somehow less serious and more legitimate because it is viewed as reactive. There may be more lives lost as a result and it can be widespread but it is never quite the same. Then there is the violence of the British army and Crown forces generally which is for the most part viewed as legitimate and acceptable. This approach to reporting events is unacceptable and skews the overall picture, making the objective observer believe that the cause of the problem is simply the Republicans - if they can be eradicated then the problem will be solved.
This biased way of reporting has done a real disservice to the peace process over the past decade and helped to reinforce those still pledged to a violent solution to the problems of Northern Ireland.
Another example of the bias of the media approach can be seen by comparing the way in which the Bloody Sunday and Hutton inquiries have been covered. With the exception of the Guardian and Independent titles the approach to the Bloody Sunday inquiry has for the most part been to focus on the cost of the inquiry. Simple facts like that most of the expense has been due to the Ministry of Defence and the soldiers employing legal counsels are omitted. There was also the small matter of £15 million cost of transferring the inquiry over from Derry to London because the soldiers feared for their lives in Ireland.
There was though little criticism of the soldiers for their monosyllabic answers to most of the families's legal counsel's questions. The soldiers while admitting shooting down innocent civilians in cold blood were beyond reproach. The bias again became evident recently over the reporting of Martin McGuiness's refusal to name other IRA volunteers operational at the time of Bloody Sunday. Labels like "self confessed IRA commander" abounded in relation to McGuiness and that was just in the liberal press. Never a hint of criticism of the Saville Inquiry for the clear double standard it operated toward McGuiness compared to the soldiers.
By way of contrast the media were all over the inquiry conducted by the former Northern Ireland Lord Chief Justice Brian Hutton. Day by day and at times minute by minute coverage ran across all media outlets. The level of scrutiny could not have been criticised. This is not in any way to decry the coverage of Hutton which examined an important issue - the suspicious death of Dr David Kelly. However, surely the murder of 14 ctizens by British soldiers deserved a greater prominence in the overall media lexicon.
Among the right wing media the sense of disdain for the Bloody Sunday Inquiry seemed to result in a deliberate policy of reporting by omission. There were crucial exchanges and revelations about what happened on Bloody Sunday but they simply were not reported. A parallel here perhaps with the way Loyalist violence is simply not reported.
As the peace process lurches on maybe it is about time that some in the media accepted their failure to report in a truthful and balanced manner. This failure has in a number of instances made murder more acceptable, particularly when committed by Crown forces or Loyalist paramilitaries. Sadly, the same tendency to distort was seen in the Holy Cross drama which also depicted matters in terms of feuding tribes and provocative Catholics. Hopefully one day the truth will come out.
Contact: pauldonovan28@hotmail.com