I’ve just been listening to the B(ritish)BC’s Talkback, where three journalists were discussing with the presenter a. hugely intriguing matter, in the light of the Donaldson story: what were journalists allowed to write or say about Donaldson’s drinking habits back in the day, his sexual partners and loads more? The conclusion was that they could say just about anything now, since Jeffrey has no character left to be maligned, but back then it was different.
I find these ethical and legal matters absorbing, but always end up just a little frustrated. For example, have you heard any discussion on air about the selection of what is news? Obviously not everything that happens can be reported, so how do they choose what’s selected and not selected?
Which takes us to the famous balance. Was balance observed throughout the reporting of the Troubles, or was reporting based on a range of Establishment givens? Were certain expressions like ‘the province’ (geographically inaccurate) frequently employed, whereas any B(ritish)BC journalist who used on air the term ‘the six counties’ (geographically accurate) would have had to have his/her mouth washed out with detergent?
Or what about if a politician addresses someone using code? Like, say, allowing one guest in a discussion to call another ‘a rebel’, which most people would recognise as code for ‘an IRA volunteer’? Are guests protected from that, or is it just allowed to slide?
And finally there’s the uncomfortable truth and what to do with it. Supposing someone writes an account of an incident, all of it factually correct, but containing an uncomfortable truth. What happens then? Would it be conceivable that the B(ritish)BC management would meet with those who didn’t like the unpopular truth/fact and succumb to their pressure never to allow the writer of such inconvenient facts back on air again?
These are purely hypothetical situations, of course, so maybe that’s why the B(ritish)BC doesn’t discuss such matters.
Ah yes, in Northern Ireland language is everything. But the way the word “volunteer” is used in Northern Ireland is totally repugnant. Using the word “volunteer” makes it sound like those young men were giving up their free time in the evenings, out of the goodness of their hearts, to go out and commit a few murders on behalf of the community.
People who work for the Red Cross and St John’s Ambulance are volunteers. But the so called “volunteers” in Northern Ireland were criminals and murders, who were so cowardly that they hid their faces behind masks. Utterly repugnant and abhorrent.
Let us reserve the word “volunteer” for those truly deserving of that word.
Volunteers can also show great courage, taking on a more powerful yet morally inferior foe. Some terrorists can be lauded as great generals, handed various honours, state pensions, given seats in the House of Lords. That does not confer legitimacy on them. It is all political. Every party involved in the conflict supported political violence of one kind of another. There were not many pacifists here.