ANALYSIS:AFTER A year of torment for those centrally involved, the dust is finally starting to settle on the controversy surrounding the Prime Time Investigates programme which libelled Fr Kevin Reynolds.
Of the five journalists involved in the decision to screen the Mission to Prey programme, two have resigned, one has retired and two have been assigned to other duties.
The central lesson of this saga is a reminder to journalists to check and support their facts and to avoid approaching subjects with preconceived notions. However, it has also become apparent, particularly since the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland published its report last week, that the process used to investigate the programme was extremely problematic.
This is the first time the relatively recent 2009 Broadcasting Act was used to carry out such an investigation, so all involved can be excused for feeling their way slowly.
Yet the process got off to a dubious start when Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte requested the authority to set up an inquiry under section 53 of the Act. In fact, the Minister has no role in the setting up of such inquiries: this is the preserve of a regulator, which is supposed to act independently.
The investigation took far longer than expected, or was warranted, with RTÉ and the regulator privately blaming each other for the delays that arose. There were also issues with the terms of reference, which limited the investigation to the period up to the time of broadcast and therefore excluded potentially relevant material from after this point.
The authority dealt with RTÉ as a corporate entity, leaving its journalists unclear as to their input. Meanwhile, Fr Reynolds, the person wronged in the broadcast, was left outside the process.
The investigating officer, Anna Carragher, interviewed four of the journalists involved, but not the fifth, Mark Lappin. Lappin, who has moved to London, did provide written answers to a number of questions.
Those close to the process express puzzlement at the form and length of the interviews, which in Aoife Kavanagh’s case lasted just 25 minutes.
It is curious that no attempt was made to interview RTÉ’s legal team, particularly in light of crucial differences between it and the station’s journalists over what happened on the day of broadcast: May 23rd, 2011. On that morning, Fr Reynolds’ solicitors sent Kavanagh an email in which the priest offered to make himself available for a paternity test. She told Brian Páircéir about the email in the afternoon and hard copies were distributed among her journalistic colleagues.
Some of the journalists told Carragher the letter was forwarded to the legal team, while others weren’t sure. The legal team maintained it was unaware of it.
Kavanagh and Páircéir allege that Carragher’s final report contains factual inaccuracies – though not on key issues – as well as assertions they never got the opportunity to respond to in interview.
There has been little public sympathy for the journalists involved. However, this should not blind people to the fact that the process used to investigate them was badly flawed and sets a dangerous precedent for further inquiries. The Minister would be well advised to have another look at the legislation.
