Business voice almost never heard

Irish business leaders have no opinions. That is one conclusion you could reach on the dearth of business voices in the debate on the airwaves.

There are other possible explanations. For example, Irish businessmen and women are shut out from the public discourse by an unsympathetic political stance among programme-makers. Or they are too shy to take part. Or they have nothing to say about society in general, preferring to stick to how they plan to make profits in their own companies. Or they think it doesn't matter whether they contribute to policy debates, when they can wield influence through their representative organisations. Or they are cannily conscious of not offending any actual or potential customers by offering views about contentious issues. Or they know that policy debate on TV is dominated by entertainment value.

Whatever the reason, the fact is that the voices of individuals who have a profit-generating function is almost never heard in the main outlets for policy debate on TV and radio. This means mainly on RTE, and long may it continue to provide outlets for policy debate. As an example, the composition of the panellists on Questions and Answers so far this year provides overwhelming evidence of the silence of the business lambs.

Courtesy of the RTE website, the guest list on most Questions and Answers shows this year is available. Some 72 panellist slots have been recorded - 35 were filled by politicians, 21 by journalists, seven by academics, four by writers, three by social workers and two by lawyers. The only people who could be described as having profit-generating responsibilities were the editors of Magill and Ireland on Sunday, respectively. It is a fair assumption that they were invited in their journalistic capacities, rather than their business roles. Here is our State's prime outlet for reflective debate on current issues on TV without one voice from the private, wealth-creating sector. An academic, Ivana Bacik, featured twice since February, an honour shared only by Liz O'Donnell, Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs.

One could reasonably divide the State into wealth generators, public service providers, policy-makers and commentators. The first two groups are virtually absent from policy debate - apart from when they are making news themselves - even though they wield considerable influence.

There are many people who generate profits for their own companies, or are responsible to shareholders for generating profits, and who have useful perspectives on broader issues than their own enterprises. But it is not just for that reason they should be heard, and should make themselves heard. There is also the value itself of reflecting the experience of profit-generation and of being responsive to shareholders, two fundamental functions in our modern society. The perspective of a business leader on education is at least as important as those of a journalist or a writer. Chris Horn, chief executive of Iona Technologies, has had many interesting things to say about the value of a liberal arts education. This was reported in print, but may as well have happened on Pluto's moon as far as flagship radio and television was concerned. He has also chaired a committee on skills shortages in the software sector. But could he say something useful and insightful about Northern Ireland? I don't know, but does each of the academics, social workers and journalists always pass this test?

Or take Howard Kilroy, governor of Bank of Ireland. Last February, he made a call for tolerance of refugees in terms as strong as many a TV panellist, saying "it is doubly ironic that we should treat the trickle of refugees which has arrived here with such suspicion". Maybe Howard Kilroy wouldn't like to mix it with politicians and journalists. But is he really happier that his remarks got one-off print coverage, with no impact whatsover on the wider TV audience?

Conspiracy theorists will see conspiracies in all this. It is certainly a pattern of behaviour on many people's part, including business people themselves. It is probably true in many cases, as alleged, that they do not want to mix it in a charged debate. If they have a problem with the type of debate, the best way to change it is to take part themselves.

Programme-makers could well apply themselves to cracking this nut, if they want to pull the rug from under the conspiracy theorists.

Oliver O'Connor is managing editor, Fintel Publications