Interview with Fintan O' Toole, Part 1

by Miriam Cotton Tue May 29, 2007 15:11

Part 2 to follow within a few days.

by UB40 Tue May 29, 2007 18:46

Does this mean Fintan O'Toole has been or is shortly to be sacked by the Irish Times? It seems that a change of employment always coincides with an interview about "the corporate media". In fact, you already have interviews with such individuals on MediaBite, and all power to your pen (keyboard, mouse) in giving voice to dissent amongst their ranks.

by David Manning - MediaBite Tue May 29, 2007 22:13 editors at mediabite dot org

I think dissent would be a strong word to describe Mr. O'Toole's position. He appears to have considerable faith in the mainstream dominant media - it's democratic functions etc - and I have no doubt that his career in that medium will continue to grow. I think the difference in our (MediaBite) position and his will become much more apparent in Part 2 of the interview.

by UB40 Tue May 29, 2007 23:30

Yes, dissent is too strong. But (considering that this is the Deputy Editor referring to his own employer, the Irish Times) I really, really like the question you put:

MB - We noticed something similar in one of the first pieces we did as MediaBite, looking at advertising we noted the National Newspapers of Ireland statement that it provides advertisers with "the opportunity to carefully and strategically place their message in the editorial environment that will deliver the best results."

FT - Well it's important not to be crude about this, because it's clearly not the case that everyone that has any money to spend in Ireland is completely right wing and completely uninterested in social justice, there are flexibilities and lacunae in this general structure. But this structure exists and it undoubtedly has a very powerful set of consequences. .... There is a kind of a symbiotic relationship here, whereby the politicians don't raise it as an issue, the media then don't put it up as an issue to be addressed, and it forms a closed circle. The politicians say no one is talking about this, so it's not important, the media don't mention it because it is not on the political agenda and so on. So you get a very closed world, it's not a conspiracy; it's the way this kind of discourse works. The issues that are of primary importance to the kinds of people that are crucial to the advertisers are the issues that are going to work their way to the top of the political agenda.

by UB40 Wed May 30, 2007 10:39

When Fintan O'Toole says "it's clearly not the case that everyone that has any money to spend in Ireland is completely right wing and completely uninterested in social justice" he appears to be saying that the editorial content of the Irish Times (and mainstream media) is up for sale, but this is okay because some of those buying media space are not evil. His return on the question is expressive.

Last week Fintan O'Toole reported that "A letter from a senior academic, who cannot be named, reveals the extent to which our third-level institutions have ceased to be centres of free inquiry" and he concluded that "our institutions of learning are narrow and fearful". The "managerialist" culture which is running riot in our university system (according to his correspondent) is destroying the fabric of higher education and victimising those who express concern, including those with concerns about the Iraq war and political corruption. The Irish Times of course has previously been instrumental in giving a platform to the OECD Report on Higher Education, Dr John Hegarty, (ex-)President Wrixon, Professor Emeritus Ed Walsh and others fighting highly personalised "managerialist" restructuring battles. One might assume that the absence of counter-voices in their pages until now has not been for a lack of submissions, but for the Irish Times' editorial allegiance.

Universities too have been bought, sanitised, commoditised and rented out to the highest bidder - but those buyers too are presumably not "completely right wing and completely uninterested in social justice".

by Miriam Cotton Wed May 30, 2007 14:42

"...he appears to be saying that the editorial content of the Irish Times (and mainstream media) is up for sale, but this is okay because some of those buying media space are not evil. His return on the question is expressive"

That's what I saw in that response too. Even though Fintan sees the exploitative nature of the advertising influence on editorial considerations he still reads in at least some worth or value to it. Whether he thinks this small, almost incidental 'positive' actually justifies the situation is unclear. I don't think he goes that far. But the underlying assumption is that there is no credible alternative - something which we respond to directly in our conclusion - will publish tomorrow.

by Miriam Cotton & David Manning - MediaBite Thu May 31, 2007 10:58 editors at mediabite dot org

Link to second half of our discussion with Fintan O' Toole in which he expands on his view of the mainstream media. Some very interesting observations from FOT. (Part 1 at same link):

http://www.mediabite.org/

by Miriam Cotton Sat Jun 02, 2007 13:17 mcotton at mediabite dot org

In part 1 of the interview, we put this question to FO'T:

MB - In terms of narrowing, when we spoke to Eddie Holt, he commented that he had seen a noticeable shift to the right, specifically in the Irish Times, would that be something you would agree with?

FT - I've heard this said a couple of times and it slightly puzzles me. Because it suggests that the Irish Times was a left wing newspaper and has moved to the right. When was it a left wing newspaper? It seems to me there are a couple of things here, some of them true and some of them perception. One of the things that is true is that the Irish Times was more a campaigning newspaper to a degree in the seventies, when it was more marginal, the legacy of being the protestant newspaper. Which ironically gave it an edge, having been the old conservative establishment newspaper, it was marginalized in the new state, and therefore became a magnet for all sorts of dissidents. It was the one place in a very confined Irish political discourse, where some degree of radicalism or some degree of dissent could be expressed.

[rest of answer in link to part 1 in text above]

EH has pointed out that he never thought the Irish Times was a left wing paper either - only that it has moved further to the right. Link to our interview with him:

http://www.mediabite.org/article_The-Media--Inside-Out_....html

by UB40 Sat Jun 02, 2007 14:19

I don't think anyone could have misinterpreted Eddie Holt's suggestion of "a noticeable shift to the right" as implying a previous leftwing bias - and obviously Fintan O'Toole is mischievous to blame Eddie Holt when he himself said it is a common enough perception, "I've heard this said a couple of times". (Note: who sacked Eddie Holt?)

I think Eddie Holt's final Irish Times column was especially good*, in which it is clear that traditional left and right distinctions are no longer relevant in a society motivated only by profit and corporate growth. There are no parties, just brands, logos and customer relationships. The last election had no left-right element whatsoever, just pure sales. Even Sinn Fein threw out all its economic commitments to join in the consumerist marketeering. Today's Irish Times contains a promotional item for Dr John Hegarty's rebranded control-freakery at Trinity College Dublin, in a timely example of the paper's responsiveness to clients - ironic really that it was Fintan O'Toole who upset them.

* http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/newsfeatures/2007/0113....html - "Mediated is the message. Connect: This is my final column for The Irish Times . I've been axed. Still, I've written for this paper for more than 12 years and perhaps that's long enough. Anyway, as it's my last contribution of more than 500, I'll be self-indulgent and make it a valedictory piece."

by eeekkkk Sat Jun 02, 2007 20:14

excellent interview. well done mediabite

by The Pragmatist Mon Dec 08, 2008 16:13

Fintan O'Toole is always waffling about something apparently left wing.

In reality he is a middle class left wing liberal labour party supporter; not that there is anything wrong with that, that is his view and good for him.

However, the key point here, is the fact that the Irish Times follows his exact viewset.
He was recently made deputy editor of this paper, effectively meaning we agree with what you think, broadcast that to the nation.
In reality, he will not read and 'edit' things he will ensure they are within his tolerance level.

So what, so would any of us in his position, what's your point?

My point is that what appears in the irish times, even in opinion sections, is regarded as the sacrosanct "truth".
There is no such thing as truth (except ion terms of small statments or in physics or maths etc.).
Thus we have inumerable news stories on rte which is also staffed by labour party members,
(Charlie Bird, Mark Little and George Lee were all members of the party before) to the effect of
"oh, look at all the poor people in this time of abundant wealth" diatribe.

This PC i feel sorry for "poor" people nonsense has gained truth status in the media and is what contributed to massive social welfare payements during the tiger to those who refused to work.

Let us be clear here. Socialism and left wing thought in general is about full employment.
The boom and bust cycles of capitalism will end and we will have stability.
One of the early admittances of socialism was that not everyone is willing to work.
The combattance of this was summed up in the phrase
"if a man does not work neither shall he eat".

During the Tiger there were 100,000 irish people who could read, write, walk and talk and had full use of their faculties.
They refused to work. Their place in low paid jobs were taken by Polish people among other nationalities.
This was good, foreigners came here and worked.
There were 4 jobs for every irish person sitting on the dole in the tiger.
That is a fact, 400,000 foreigners had work in this country during the tiger.
100,000 irish people (largely from "working class" areas {although that term is almost oxy-moronic at this point}) sat on their rear ends and refused to work.

When was the last time you saw an irish employee in a spar or a centra or mcdonalds or burger king?

Again and again FOT and George Lee said how poor all the poor people were (everyone is poor when you are paid €150k a year Fintan)
when they were VOLUNTARILY poor.

The negative effects of this culture generated by FOT himself were threefold:
1. Irish teenagers and students did not work in spars and mcdonalds as they had done before.
They relied on their parens for hand outs. Had they worked in spars etc. as they should have they would have had more cash and
this would have offset the recession slightly, but nonetheless signifcantly.

2. Money was sent home by these migrant workers instead of being spent here.

3. Job snobbiness became excused further.

Unemployed persons often make the excuse they will work when the right job comes along.
So as soon as someone make them CEO of Coca Cola they will get up at 7am is it?
This is nonsense.

Anyone who calls himself a socialist should not argue for a right not to work.
Sure if you are over 65 or under 15, dont work, otherwise, if you are able bodied you work, end of story.

The benefits of this system are threefold again:
1. unemployment benefit, the dole, can be saved and invested over the time it is not needed, i.e that means
that this state would have 3 billion euro now (300 million over ten years from 1997 to 2007) which it could use to cut taxes on business, VAT and lower paid workers so they do not lose their jobs.

2. Competition. like it or not capitalism exists and compeition does actually work at lowering prices and giving value for money.

3. Ireland gets and international reputation as a centre of hard work and attracts investment.

Other benefits also apply such as tax cuts, more roads are built, more businesses start up, etc.

Fintan O'Toole, by being an extremely powerful man which he is, has made it acceptable for people to sit on their rear end during the tiger. He even objected when Mary Harney said in 1997 that unemployed people should have to accept a job they are offered. Pronsias De Rossa (then minister for social welfare {and a former IRA operative}) said they shouldnt have to accept it.

It is all very well for FT to talk about the media being corporatised, but the thing about corporations is the people who are in the corporations have a job, just like the rest of us.

Now the tiger is over, many workers are now unemployed and they do NOT want to be. they receive the dole just like the people who refused to work during the boom. the original dole was intended as a safety net for when capitalism screwed up, not a permanent income source for the voluntarily unemployed.

By feeling sorry for those who refuse to work, FOT harms the left as through his influence he makes it acceptable for people not to work, even when they are able and jobs are available.

This goes against core socialist principles of a fair wage for a fair days work.
We cannot criticise cpaitalists for living off the work of others when the voluntarily uneomployed do the same without providing any services whatsoever to others.

During this recession FOT will not be made redundant, because the middle class need to be entertained by labour youth policy statements. However I remember a man in Cambodia who believed a hard days work in the fields was just what the spectacled middle class needed. Under his rule, which was brutal, there was full employment. Despite the atrocities carried out by his regime, and others like it, one cannot fault his employment policy as anything but fair.