Lenihan cancer story: in defence of journalism
Sun 27 Dec, 2009
The problem with TV3’s coverage was that it held the story out of the news for too long, says JASON WALSH
The ‘shocking’ news that finance minister Brian Lenihan has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer has resulted in a wave of public anger – at journalists.
Broadcaster TV3 invaded Lenihan’s privacy, the story goes, by reporting on December 26 that his pre-Christmas ‘hernia treatment’ either revealed pancreatic cancer or was in fact itself a cover story for cancer treatment.
According to the Sunday Independent, “senior government sources” were “outraged” by the report. (1) The usual internet echo chambers immediately came to life with hollow anger as Disgusted of Dublin 4 logged-on to Twitter in order to engage in the now traditional ‘two minutes hate’. A campaign has been been launched – on Facebook, of course – to have the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland censure the broadcaster. (2)
In typical over the top fashion, the Lenihan report is described in absurd terms: “I like many others as disgusted at the manner in which TV broke news of Brian Lenihan’s illness on St. Stephen’s Day. If you agree that it marked a new low for Irish journalism please contact the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.” (3)
The fact that demands to have the government slap-down a news team are coming at the very same time as everyone and their uncle bemoans the Irish media’s inability to properly investigate and break news appears to have been lost on many. Most interesting, however, is the fact that journalists are busily flagellating themselves over the story – plenty of hardened hacks tweeted their outrage at TV3’s handling of the story. In truth, there is barely a media-related story these days which doesn’t see journalists lining-up to damn their own trade.
For its part TV3 has made a particularly feeble defence of the report: “We held it for two days to enable him to inform his family,” said the station’s director of news, Andrew Hanlon. This poses a more interesting question than it answers: why should TV3 wait so long before reporting? Lenihan could have informed his family in a matter of hours, not days.
There is a right to privacy but it’s not being eroded by the press. In fact, the prime suspects are government and private business, both of which engage in data mining on a tremendous scale. Even with this, Lenihan’s right to privacy is – rightly – vastly reduced in the name of the public interest. Plenty of people have said that Lenihan’s cancer diagnosis is a matter for him and his family. It’s a compelling argument, but a wrongheaded one. True, Lenihan’s illness is primarily a private affair but there is a clear public interest in reporting it: he is a senior minister in the government after all. As finance minister, Lenihan’s decisions have a direct and immediate impact on the public. In addition, the job is more important than the man and, when he took the job Lenihan was well aware that he would lose a lot of privacy.
Revealing that a government minister is being treated for a serious illness is significantly more newsworthy than, for instance, reporting on his or her sexual indiscretions and yet at the first sign of a high profile figure having an affair the press goes into overdrive, pruriently reporting on politically and socially irrelevant ‘bonkfests’, ‘love nests’ and the like. The public has a much clearer interest in a government minister’s health than it does in his or her sex life or, for that matter, the health of a celebrity or other unelected figure.
Some have argued that the problem was not the fact that TV3 reported the story but how it was reported. This argument is difficult to sustain. If anything TV3’s reporting was sloppy and, worse still, mawkish and sentimental in tone – a fact that will prove politically useful to Lenihan if and when he returns to the job.
TV3’s mishandling of the story wasn’t in reporting it, it was in failing to report it for 48 hours and still making a hash of the report when it finally did air it. But none of this alters the fact that the public does have a right to know. A more grown-up society would note Lenihan’s illness, wish him well and move on – the fact that he is ill is lamentable and newsworthy, but it is not earth-shattering. Those who wish to lob rocks in the direction of reporters should take a long, hard look in the mirror before doing so.
(1) Public anger at TV3 intrusion into Lenihan’s serious illness, Sunday Independent, December 27, 2009
(2) See: Lenihan BAI group
(3) Ibid
(4) Op Cit Sunday Independent
COMMENTS
Jason, There are cabinet ministers who are/have been involved in sexual indiscretions or are/have been treated for serious illnesses which affect their ability to govern. These matters have not been reported though widely known. Personally I’ve been privy to all sorts of info this year and would not touch it or write about it.
A minister who is doing his job becomes ill and is very recently diagnosed, an agreement is made/sought for him to have time to cope with news and talk to his family and a news organisation decide to ignore it - the country is effectively closed down for 10 days and there would be no impact on any affairs of state due to xmas break but TV3 go ahead and report on matter complete with a consultant’s prognosis - thats the problem. There was nothing sentimental about the reportage either.
BTW Irish media doesn’t do reporting on love nests and bonkfests… that’s the UK and further afield. Or have I missed something recently?
By Suzy Byrne on 2009 12 27
Jason, is it really up to you to decide the timeframe for anyone to disclose a serious illness to their family? Maybe he should’ve told them within hours, maybe you’d tell your teenagers that you’d been diagnosed with an illness which has a poor prognosis on Christmas day. But ultimately, it was down to the man himself to judge for his family. Not you, not TV3.
By Kit on 2009 12 27
you mean suzy that, politicians, have involved in sexual indiscretions, the basis for reporting on them is usually if there are hypocritical to their public pronouncements? and you’ve kept schtum?
By steve white on 2009 12 27
What an extraordinarily pompous article.
Who are TV3 to dictate the timeframe of a personal tragedy for a man and his family? Have the mainstream media lost all sense of proportion? All sense of human decency?
I say this as an implacable opponent of Fianna Fáil and all it stands for.
Do Irish journalists now truly believe that they are the news?
By Bock on 2009 12 27
Suzy,
You’ve not missed anything recently but the SW and IDS aren’t at all adverse to sex stories, never mind the ‘Celtified’ Brit tabloids.
Kit,
It’s not up to me to dictate anything but it is the responsibility of a reporter to report. If someone has info and decides it’s not worth reporting, that’s up to them but that’s not what happened with TV3. They did consider it worth reporting and held off for 48 hours.
Bock,
“Do Irish journalists now truly believe that they are the news?”
I can’t speak for anyone else but IMO the answer is no. Lenihan is news, however. Frankly I think the story is totally overblown. Note the facts, wish him a recovery, end of story. Beyond that it’s not very interesting. A couple of paragraphs could cover the significance of this story.
Jason.
By Jason Walsh on 2009 12 27
If it’s overblown, why not wait until the man himself is ready to reveal his own illness, having discussed it with his wife and children in their own good time over the holidays?
By Bock on 2009 12 27
Note: Steve, you have either mistyped your e-mail or entered a false address and it’s wreaking havoc in the back-end. The requirement for an e-mail address before posting is to stop spam.
By Jason Walsh on 2009 12 27
If it’s overblown, why not wait until the man himself is ready to reveal his own illness, having discussed it with his wife and children in their own good time over the holidays?
I don’t work for TV3 or have any insight into their decision-making process but something is either news or it isn’t which means you report it or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
My comment about TV3’s holding the story is in relation to its weak defence of its own story. They should have either not reported it or defended it more strongly, saying: “This is news. We report the news. End of story.”
IMO the story is of limited significance. That’s just my opinion. Clearly it has news value - he is the minister for finance and therefore a clear public figure.
By Jason Walsh on 2009 12 27
It’s irrelevant who you work for. Given the context and tone of your article, the question is perfectly legitimate.
By Bock on 2009 12 27
What are you actually asking me? If I would report it? Maybe, maybe not. Would depend on whom I was working for. I think the story has enough of a public interest to be reported but I personally am not mad about it.
All journalists turn down stories for time to time.
I still fail to see the reason for the moralising over this story. Lenihan is a minister and therefore waived his right to privacy. Moreover, the price of good journalism is the freedom of bad journalism to exist.
By Jason Walsh on 2009 12 27
Comment removed by moderator Reason: spam
NOTE: Moderation has now been enabled to due to increasing spam levels.
By Amit Dhawan on 2009 12 27
When are the Government and many other people in Ireland going to get over themselves and realise that, whilst Lenihan’s illness is both serious and no doubt devastating for him and his family, his health is public property - it goes with the territory of being a Cabinet Minister, along with the high pay, the assigned car and driver and the other perks of high office.
As the architect of the government’s current handling of the dire mess he and his pals have got us all into, it is the uptmost importance that we know IMMEDIATELY what he plans to do to ensure his plan for the country, for which we are told there is no Plan B, is carried through whilst he waits (presumably not in out patients at a centre of excellence 75 miles from home)for treatment.
I sympathise with him as a man and with his family but, once a person seeks and gains high office and expects the rest of us to accept whatever he and his cronies decide is best for us - regardless of the pain - then that person’s private life, morals, health et al become our property and our right to know supercedes everything else.
TV3 may have been insensitive in their content and their timing may have been tardy but their attitude of publish and be damned should be applauded - would the public have been so “incensed” if it had been an ordinary weekend.
By PhilB on 2009 12 27
Sorry but it is earth-shattering for the person and family concerned. Bad show TV3.
By breda Kavanagh on 2009 12 27
Jason,, get your head examined as soon as possible. maybe check yourself into St.pats in dundrum.
This information regarding Brian Lenihan should never have been released by nobody except himself atv a time of his choosing,.
By patrick on 2009 12 27
Patrick,
Public figure, public right to know. The only question for journalists’ is one of tone. No wonder ireland’s media is so spinless when people get sanctimoniously wound-up over things like this.
Breda,
don’t be fecetious, you know I meant as news, not as a matter for the family.
By Jason Walsh on 2009 12 27
Phil,
spot on.
By Jason Walsh on 2009 12 27
How was this story obtained from the Mater Private? Was there a breach of patient confidentiality by a staff member or did it come from a relation? If the former is the case, there should be an internal investigation. Dr. John Crown should not have discussed this matter, even in general terms, as it tends to legitimize such disclosures.
By Ardillaun on 2009 12 27
Wasn’t being facetious. Feel very strongly that this was a bad decision. Our right to know could have been satisfied in a more timely manner. Mr Lenihan had the right to decide on the timing of any announcement.
By breda Kavanagh on 2009 12 27
Jason,
You’re right, it’s news. However, the arguments you put forward on here I disagree with or feel are misinformed in several instances.
Firstly, cite an example where the Irish media - or media in Ireland - has written about the sex lives of politicians. I certainly dont remember one, and I’m aware of at least on Gov’t minister in a relationship outside of their continuing marraige. And I’m no big-name media circle hack either, lowest of the low. It’s not impacting their job, they’ve never made a hypocritical statement on the topic, otherwise they are left to do their jobs.
Secondly, the Gov’t told a number journalists - possibly even TV3, though mainly print - about this story and asked them to wait until Lenihan could prepare the situation better both personally and presumably for the change of office expected. Check out The Mail today saying they were aware of the story and held off on request, several other pol corrs were aware also, I’m told. It wasn’t TV3 going investigative on this and digging up something, the info has been circulating for quite a while in media and financial circles and more than likely confirmed to a number of political corrs. You just had to look at the man and his distended stomach and questions start circulating, that was months ago.
Yes, the issue is of national importance but the timing of the release was not due to the essentially “closed” nature of the, well, Western world, at Christmas.
The fact it was known to others, important at a national level but ‘could wait’ a few days - as had been requested by Lenihan’s handlers - indicates TV3 dropped it simply to get the jump on the rest. That’s bollocks, is it not?
I say this as someone who is no fan of Government-media collision and who generally dislikes embargoes. There was more reason to hold-off on reporting it than to report it in the manner, at the time, they did. The cackhanded way in which it was done - when they had 48 hours to get it right! - makes it even worse. A memorial reel for fuck sake.
If it was in the middle of a period of collapsing banks - yes report it ASAP - when the country and the markets are closed and you’re really only doing it to be “the first”, nawp. Hold off, for the good of the economy and respect for the man’s family.
By Mark Coughlan on 2009 12 28
Jason—Apologies. I was away for a while doing other things.
You inquire what exactly I’m asking you and you also speculate that I’m asking you what you would report.
For clarification, what you would report is just as irrelevant as who you work for.
This is about what TV3 reported.
Perhaps a repeat of my original question might be sufficient.
Why not wait until the man himself is ready to reveal his own illness, having discussed it with his wife and children in their own good time over the holidays?
By Bock on 2009 12 28
Write a new comment
