Have editors really needed to worry so much about being sued by paramilitaries?
OVER THE past three decades I was constantly struck by the extraordinary courage that so many journalists, Irish, British and foreign, showed in covering paramilitary activities in Northern Ireland. Yet this courage does not seem to me to have been always matched at editorial level.
Of course, in dealing with politics and politicians the media have often been hog-tied by our libel laws - which, hopefully, will soon be modernised by the Oireachtas.
But have editors really needed to worry quite as much about being sued for libel by paramilitaries as they have understandably felt it necessary to be in relation to constitutional politicians - some of whom have shown themselves to be very litigious!
Let me give an example of what I mean.
When at an early stage in the peace process the ban on interviewing Sinn Féin spokesmen on radio or television was lifted, my friend Brian Farrell's first question to Gerry Adams was whether he was a member of the IRA? To that Adams promptly replied that he was not.
It seemed to me then that, in accordance with the standard convention in interviews with constitutional politicians, (who have to be, and in fact almost always are, very careful to avoid a direct lie), Farrell felt he could not challenge that response.
And thereafter the rest of the media all seemed to feel it necessary to accept Adams's denial - thus giving Sinn Féin an inappropriate and lasting PR advantage.
(In my view that could all have been avoided if Farrell had simply said to Adams that he was not going to ask him that question, because if he were an IRA member he could not have admitted to this without making himself liable to prosecution for a criminal offence).
In my view, the media never faced up to the damage that can be done to the public interest by treating representatives of paramilitary interests as if they were constitutional politicians.
A quite separate, but also relevant, issue is what seems to me to be a curious lack of interaction between the print and electronic media when investigative stories break in one or other of these two types of media outlet.
As someone who from an early age has followed news stories closely, I have frequently been struck by the way in which the electronic media often seem reluctant to publicise stories that break in the print media - and equally by what seems in many cases to be a corresponding unwillingness on the part of the print media to follow up major stories that break on radio or, more commonly, on TV.
I don't think I am imagining that this kind of stand-off sometimes arises between the two arms of our media, and an example of this seems to me to have arisen a week ago.
Two weeks ago TV3 concluded its excellent series of programmes on the work of the Criminal Assets Bureau (Cab) with a powerful documentary on the hundreds of millions of pounds or euro raised by three decades of IRA criminal activities.
Much of that huge amount of illegal money was used to finance the IRA's extensive murder campaign of violence, but Cab clearly believes that a significant proportion, skilfully laundered, was held back to be invested in property and other business activities to the benefit of Sinn Féin.
As a result, that party now seems to have a major financial advantage vis-a-vis the constitutional parties in both parts of the island - although it is only in Northern Ireland that it has been able to translate this advantage into a significant share of the popular vote.
This TV series had the kind of assistance from Cab and from former police leaders both here and in the North that enabled its authors to produce an authoritative account of what has been a huge criminal conspiracy.
I was glad to note that there were clear indications in this programme that Cab is confident that years of painstaking investigations on its part are likely to enable it to mount a successful prosecution against those who currently control the assets into which the profits of decades of IRA criminal activity have been converted.
Some observers had come to believe that, either because of inadequate evidence or because of political pressure not to rock the boat of the Northern Ireland settlement, this IRA funds scandal had been or was being allowed to become a dead issue - a belief that I had not shared.
I was particularly struck by several features of this particular programme.
One was the extent of the interaction between the IRA and non-political criminal gangs in our State.
It is clear that many proceeds of non-political crime were laundered at a foreign exchange bureau that was operated at the Border on behalf of the IRA. These gangs and non-political Border smugglers had been required to pay a share of their loot to the IRA.
Although word of a police raid on that bureau seems to have leaked, enabling its organisers to remove relevant documentation, these records were happily found in a nearby car, and have since revealed that this tiny office had been handling something like £100 million a year.
However, because Cab feared that the manager of this bureau would be murdered by the IRA if he disclosed information on those who had used him to launder money, they did not press him on this issue - and he settled for a four-year sentence for his financial activities.
What I find surprising, then, is that the issues raised by this remarkable programme do not seem to have evoked reactions from our print media.
Is this perhaps a reflection of some kind of jealousy between the two arms of the media?
Whether or not that is the explanation, such a stand-off does not serve the public interest.