THERE IS, I believe, a degree of misunderstanding about both the intention and effect of the Irish Independent's pre election "Payback" editorial. I believe it bad an impact on the election, though not of the banal kind posited in the past fortnight.
In truth, the editorial was probably counter productive in terms of its perceived objective of installing a new government. Many long standing Independent readers, I believe, reacted against being told what to think and bow to vote, and went against the instruction.
Many of the more "traditional" Independent readers were also Fine Gael supporters, some of whom have recently flirted with Labour and the PDs. In this election they reverted to type. This back to blueshirts (BTB) syndrome may provide some of the explanation for the PDs' failure and Fine Gael's rejuvenation.
I suspect these voters misunderstood the editorial's intention. Whatever else we may think of Dr Tony O'Reilly, we cannot accuse him of being crude. Not for the first time, we have been waylaid by the bluster of the Labour Party, which would have us believe the editorial was the direct cause of its downfall.
By concentrating on the putative effects of the editorial on the fortunes of the outgoing Government, we have been missing the point. Firstly, it was published when it was already clear that the next government would be a Fianna Fail/PD Coalition. If anything, it ran a risk of this being upset by the operation of a BTB backlash.
Ironically, indeed, the Independent may have delivered itself into the hands of its adversaries - the BTB factor handing an inordinate degree of power to the anti MMDS candidate, Thomas Gildea.
But such risks were calculated and the editorial was not so much a shot in the air as a discreet pat to the holster, the real intention of which was to concentrate the mind of the incoming government.
Consider the terminology of that now infamous meeting between Independent executives and Rainbow representatives reported by Geraldine Kennedy in this newspaper on June 14th. Government representatives were told that, unless they gave the Independent what it wanted, they would lose the group "as friends".
This implies that such friendship already existed, which is hardly in doubt. Two years ago, presented with the responsibility of removing the Independent from its predatory embrace of the Irish Press, the Rainbow Government sat on its hands.
As a result, the Independent remained attached to the Irish Press for long enough to fend off all other potential investors. All of the Independent titles gained considerably from this act of passive friendship.
With the honourable exception of Mr Proinsias De Rossa, nobody in the outgoing government displayed the slightest inclination to risk losing the friendship of Independent House. For much of the Rainbow's period in office, a high degree of chumminess could be observed between it and the Independent group. Only when the imperative of maintaining this friendship clashed with the opposing interest of retaining seats in constituencies affected by the MMDS issue did the Government feel moved to take a stand.
IT IS still a little ludicrous to suggest that Tony O'Reilly has the power to decide the configuration of governments. The power of the Independent group does not lie in influencing elections; it resides in the creation of reality. Newspapers do not wield power and influence by telling their readers what to do or think; they wield it by creating the conditions in which readers make up their own minds.
They do not wield power by single grand gestures, but by a host of apparently petty inclusions and omissions. They do not put people into power; they merely suggest to them how best they should behave when they get there.
Dr O'Reilly does not pull the strings of power in this State by the strength of one editorial; he does it by the cumulative effect of the millions of words Independent Newspapers pumps into the cultural environment in any given week.
When you lose the friendship of the Independent group, a number of symptoms manifest them selves with speed. As though by some miraculous process, several journalists working for Independent Newspapers suddenly and simultaneously become fascinated by your every move and utterance.
A single edition of one of the group's newspapers will contain several articles dealing with aspects of your life and opinions, all either violently hostile, mocking or dismissive. To the degree that your professional life depends on the oxygen of good publicity in Independent controlled newspapers, you are doomed to suffocate. Politicians, knowing the worth of every potential vote, are most vulnerable to this.
Dr O'Reilly does not need to keep in constant contact with his newspapers to have them print what pleases him and omit things which might spoil his breakfast.
It is enough to cultivate key journalists with a view to ensuring that the flagship columns are in keeping with both the overall design and the essential facade of independence. In most cases, these journalists are highly paid but on short term contracts, an arrangement which ensures maximum loyalty.
It is remarkable how often journalists who work for the Independent group feel it necessary to assure all and sundry that they have never been told what to write. I don't doubt it. They already know what they are expected to write.
To confine our scrutiny of Independent Newspapers to a single editorial is silly. I suspect Dr O'Reilly does not care who runs the State so long as it is done in a friendly fashion.
As we have seen, he gets his way most of the time, and remains the second most powerful force in Irish society. More powerful, for the moment, is the electorate. Dr O'Reilly may seek to give our leaders their orders but we voters still control their employment prospects. {CORRECTION} 97062300095