J'accuse - Jack Lane slams Irish Times

by OUP Millar Sat Apr 24, 2004 08:41

Except it is the owner of the Daily Express they are referring to.
"Owner of 'Daily Express' accused of racism
Frank Millar in London Irish Times April 24 2004
BRITAIN: The owner of the Daily Express newspaper, Mr Richard Desmond, was accused of a "grotesque outburst of slander and racism" yesterday after goose-stepping around a boardroom and branding all Germans "Nazis"."

Note:
It is a good job he does not own the Irish Times, otherwise we would have to wait over three years for the story – or even 33 years!

by confused Sat Apr 24, 2004 15:17

Well done to the brave patriots of the Aubane Historical Society, whose collection of front groups out numbers the SWPs. Now can anyone tell me why this group which for 20 years argued that the Protstants of NI were a seperate nation and Irish nationalism a southern Catholic reactionary conspiracy (see the 2 Irish nations, British and Irish Communist Organisation) now think that saving the Angelus on RTE at 6 o'clock is a key struggle? From mad Loyalists to mad nationalists...probably right about the Times though!

by Donal Foley Tue Apr 27, 2004 17:13

Reveals what did Geraldine Know and when did she know it
Material sent to Editor of Irish times January10th 2003.

Editor claimed (April 23 2003) letters page:
"The contents of the letter in question were published in The Irish Times on January 27th, 2003, as soon as its existence was drawn to my attention. - Ed., IT."

Is this statement misleading....... or worse
10th. January 2003.

Ms. Geraldine Kennedy
Editor
The Irish Times
Dublin

Dear Ms. Kennedy,

WHO DIRECTS YOUR PAPER?

I enclose a copy of a publication (Irish Political Review, January 2003) that contains an extraordinary document concerning the running of your paper, The Irish Times.

As you can see, it is a copy of a report by the British Ambassador in Dublin in which he outlines the arrangements made with the owner of your paper, Major McDowell, to have the paper’s content directed from No. 10 Downing St.

Do you accept this is a genuine document?

If you do, can you say if these arrangements are still in place and, if not, when were they rescinded?

I am sure you will understand that readers of your newspaper, as of any newspaper, are entitled to know by whom, and in whose interest, the newspaper is run.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Jack Lane
Aubane Historical Society
[email protected]

She replied as follows:
15th January 2003

Dear Mr. Lane,

I can assure you that no such arrangement is in place for the running of The Irish Times. The ownership of the newspaper is vested in The Irish Times Trust since 1974.

I am unable to confirm the veracity of the letter to which you refer. We published a story that Major McDowell was prepared to act as “a link” to encourage North/South contacts on the release of the British Cabinet papers in January 2000.

Yours sincerely,

Geraldine Kennedy
Editor.

I replied as follows:

31st. January 2003

Dear Ms. Kennedy,

Thank you for your letter dated 15th January 2003. You are not able to tell me when the arrangements made by Major McDowell with No. 10 Downing St. were rescinded so I can hardly accept your assurance that they are no longer in place. Moreover, your reference to the Irish Times Trust being in charge of the paper would confirm that the arrangements remained in place. It is well known that the Irish Times Trust was a unique institution of its kind in that it was designed and set up to ensure that the Trust, and therefore its paper, was under the control of a single individual, Major McDowell. I understand that he remains President for life of the Trust. The Trust ensures that his writ runs and as he originated the arrangements with Downing St. it is just not credible that he used his own Trust to undo his own efforts. Au contraire, I would say.

Also, I find it amazing that you cannot confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the document concerned, or even give an opinion on it, although you and your paper were aware of it for over 3 years. You have not taken the trouble to clarify the matter in all that time! This shows an incredible lack of curiosity on your part about the running of your own paper. Your paper gave a misleading account of the relationship between Major McDowell and Downing St. in January 1971 in only reporting a reference to him as simply wishing to be a ‘link’ between the two governments. You were given an opportunity to rectify this deceit and instead you now repeat it and obviously condone it.

Your paper investigates and reports extensively on a host of issues, many of which are of considerably less significance than what is contained in the Ambassador's letter (the publications of this tiny local history group, for example). You are now shown to be very selective indeed in your investigations, reports and in the issues that seize you.

Your predecessor, Mr Gageby, the object of Major McDowell’s barrack-room abuse in the document, was clearly kept in ignorance of the paper’s direction arranged by its owner but you are clearly determined to be wilfully ignorant of the facts of the matter and their consequences. You are in denial. This must be a unique attitude for the editor of a paper that claims to be national, investigative and a journal of record. You and your paper are no longer credible in respect of any of those attributes.

This is all the more disappointing as it was generally assumed that your appointment as editor was made on the basis of your reputation for good news reporting and it was expected that you would take The Irish Times in that direction. This incident shows that you have not done so and the deceit and evasions you have practiced about it makes the high moral tone you adopt editorially on other issues appear very hypocritical indeed as your reporting clearly stops short where your own vested interests are concerned.

Yours etc.,

Jack Lane
[email protected]
Aubane Historical Society

The letter that Geraldine Kennedy claims she saw in late Jan 2003

by Donal Foley Tue Apr 27, 2004 17:31

The Irish Times sat on the story until the Sunday Independent published on January 26th 2003 - and then only published a negative reactive piece by "Irish Times Reporter" a day later.

No investigation into how the letter was missed by reporters in 1999-2000, into who withheld it from publication. No trying to find the censor. None of the normal things expected of journalists or of Ireland's newspaper of record.

That just about sums up the Irish Times attitude to this episode so far – do nothing, say nothing. When are they going to start behaving like journalists?

Is this matter closed down again on the letters page, after just two letters that they had to publish (April 23)?