Even in a time of austerity, the Government needs to be careful what it cuts, writes Paul Allen.
Government departments have spent nearly €400,000 on public relations in the last couple of years, according to figures released this week. But the fact of the matter is they should be spending more.
Saying such a thing in the current climate of swingeing cutbacks is tantamount to treason. Years of austerity have frayed tempers, and the recent debacle over household and water charges have pushed many people beyond breaking point.
Regardless of the arguments for and against such measures, the government has ultimately struggled to clearly communicate its policy. Mixed and unclear messages have constantly been leaking from the coalition government sparking panic, fear and dismay throughout the country.
This resulted in only 920,000 out of 1.6m homeowners actually registering and paying the household charge.
Even after the frantic communications chaos that led up to the March 31 deadline, the government then messed up the communication of the water charge. Was it is to be paid in a lump sum? Was it to be spread over a number of years? Would there be any charge at all? The answer was yes, no or maybe depending on who you were listening to.
The business of government is never easy. Ministers receive constant briefs and daily updates from civil servants and then have to communicate that information to the public. But just like lawyers love to speak legalise, civil servants and government officials speak in what is often an impenetrable language for the uninitiated. It is little wonder politicians frequently get caught out making blunders.
Love or loath advisors the media has branded spin doctors, the fact is that clear communications between any government and its people is a critical necessity in a democracy.
While often derided for employing dark arts, there is nothing sinister in having public relations professionals helping government ministers communicate in a clear, concise and consistent way — the opposite of what it has been happening in many instances recently.
In a time of austerity any such suggestion is met with contempt from the media and the public at large. However, the question must be asked — what type of relationship do we want with those in power?
There is a danger in Ireland that the cold eye of the accountant is valued above all else, meaning we often end up knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.
We throw our arms up when we get misinformation or mixed messages from those in power, but will be filled with rage if we hear of ‘special advisors’ being hired to help.
While all government spending needs to be justified and accounted for, there is also a cost associated with good governance. However, some people seem blind to this equation.
Some would argue that the cost of flying the Taoiseach to a crunch meeting with EU heads of state in a private jet should be done away with and replaced with Ryanair. This is even though the time for planning, briefing and preparation afforded by taking a private jet can have a huge impact with regards to performance on the European stage.
The same is true with many areas of governmental spending. Strict accounting and transparency is a must, but there are some areas that when trimmed back too far will ultimately impact on the Government’s ability to govern.
So, when it comes to running Ireland, always taking the Ryanair option may provide an immediate saving, but could have far more costly implications on our future.
How The Good Became The Bad And The Ugly
As Michael D Higgins prepares for his inauguration, Paul Allen, battled hardened after his role in Senator David Norris’s Presidential campaign, reveals how the Presidential election saw the nature of media in Ireland fundamentally change.
We may no longer be saints, but Ireland is still a land of scholars. We remain one of the most literate societies in the world, with more than 2.9 million people (almost 82pc) of the adult population regularly reading a newspaper.
Indeed, despite the rapid growth of alternative media channels, newspapers, television and radio still represent the ‘tried and trusted’ source of information for the vast majority of people.
But September 28, 2011 was a landmark day for media in Ireland. This was the day the final nominations for the Presidential Election were received and the race for Áras an Uachtaráin officially got underway. It was also the day Irish media, pressurised on several fronts, embraced its inner heart of darkness.
Irish Presidential elections have always been robust affairs and not for the faint of heart. However, while Michael D Higgins prepares to officially take his seat on November 11, the other candidates are still shell-shocked at the viciousness of the media onslaught.
Senator David Norris has had a colourful career and while he expected his past deeds to be trawled through and scrutinised, he didn’t expect the twisting of the truth to such an extent that outright lies were making front page headlines.
The Sun accused him of using his position in the Senate to attempt to secure
a passport for a former lover. This was completely untrue. Worst still, the Senator’s private income protection scheme, which was activated by Trinity College when it ended his 30-year professional career, was suddenly being described as welfare fraud.
It appears an increasing number of publications have embraced a ‘publish today and apologise tomorrow if needs be’ state of mind.
The problem is that the onslaught of downright lies can quickly result in death by a thousand cuts, regardless of apologies published in the press after the fact. Continually throw mud and you can be sure enough will stick.
Another interesting factor was the uber aggressive nature of broadcast interviews. The purpose of these seem not to illicit information from the interviewee but to harangue and harass them to such an extent that they were pressurised, caught off guard and made look foolish.
So what has happened to our balanced broadcasters and principled press?
Firstly, the rapid rise and 24/7 consumption of media thanks to the increase in print, broadcast and online channels, has placed severe pressure on traditional titles to remain relevant. Secondly, the arrival of the British tabloid culture into Ireland means that even titles such as The Irish Times are facing pressure to sensationalise stories.
Indeed, during the election the media in general seemed to have little interest in the issues facing the next President or their agenda, but were solely intent on dragging skeletons out of closets, regardless of the truth behind the so-called scandal.
With the aggressive questioning and no interest in giving time to candidates to explain in detail their position on issues, my advice to anyone facing such an onslaught would have been to maintain media silence. However, this is impossible in a presidential election and the media took full advantage.
Sadly, it was not the six candidates that failed to become the ninth president of Ireland that were the real losers in this media fest, but all of those who cherish an open, honest and robust media that has at its heart the interests of the people.
So, congratulations to Michael D Higgins. But for those thinking of running for President of Ireland in seven years time remember fools will always rush in where angels fear to tread.
T
his week the noted media watcher, Roy Greenslade of the Guardian discovered that The Irish Mirror hacked into Bertie Ahern’s phone. This is a topic that I have been banging on about for a considerable amount of time now. We blogged about this particular story in early July – so enjoy Roy’s observations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/aug/15/phone-hacking-daily-mirror?CMP=twt_fd
http://www.prireland.com/blog/media/the-irish-mirror-%E2%80%94-gotcha
The Daily Mirror’s Irish edition published a story detailing exactly how to hack mobile phones as early as 1998.
The paper did so very openly by admitting that it had eavesdropped the voicemail messages of Ireland’s then prime minister, Bertie Ahern.
In an article headlined, “Mirror taps Bertie’s mobile: we listen to his message in cabinet phone scandal”, the reporter explained the necessary hacking technique in great detail.
The full story, billed as an exclusive, is archived here. It told how, aside from Ahern’s phone, reporters were also able to access messages on the phones of the ministers of justice and defence.
At the time, members of the Irish government used Eircell mobile phones. They changed their codes and tightened security immediately after the Mirror’s article appeared.
The Mirror was then edited by Piers Morgan, but the Irish edition was published separately in Dublin. Its editor in 1998 was Craig MacKenzie, but he believes he was located in Belfast at the time and cannot recall the story.
One person on the Dublin staff who does remember it said it was “wholly legitimate and in the public interest” to publish it.
Copies of the Irish edition are sent as a matter of routine to the paper’s London headquarters. But that does not mean that they reach the attention of the London-based editor.
It is thought highly unlikely that Morgan would have seen the story. A member of the London office staff during that period said: “I would say Piers was hardly aware of the Irish edition.”
This was confirmed by the Dublin staffer who said: “Piers had nothing to do with us.”
All forms of phone hacking have been illegal in Ireland since 1983 under the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act.
And Irish people have had a constitutional right to privacy since 1974.
So the Irish Mirror’s hacking activities were in breach of the law. But Irish legal experts believe the paper was not prosecuted because its revelation was clearly designed to protect the prime minister’s privacy rights and to bolster security.
Though there was no public interest defence in law, the paper would have been able to advance a good argument that it had acted for the wider public benefit.
The same point was made in a statement from a Trinity Mirror spokesman. He said the article “highlighted the potential threat to security posed by intercepting phone messages and is therefore significantly different from an article which simply used information gained from intercepting phone messages… our story was not only in the public interest but led to changes that were also in the public interest.”