I was house painting outdoors last week with my trusty paint-spattered radio by my side. Apart from the paint fumes I was exposed to dangerously high levels of current affairs commentary.
I listened to so many useless hours of commentary on the Larry Murphy case. His crimes must be among the worst ever to come before the Irish courts, and it's worrying that there are no public signs of remorse or repentance, but the media harassment of him and (especially) his innocent family left a sour taste. The case got far too much prominence on the news and current affairs programmes and I believe the media were largely responsible for the dangerous hysteria that was whipped up.
It really galled me to hear members of the tabloid community on the radio defending their lurid headlines and intrusive campaigning. One paper even had what amounted to ''wanted'' posters on poles around West Wicklow. And they had the cheek to take the high moral ground on this, as if this crass commercialism was a public service. If they want to occupy high moral ground let them clean up their ''news'' papers, and drop the constant prurience and titillation. Then their claim to care about defenceless women might have some credibility.
One exchange was particularly telling. On Newstalk's Breakfast Show last Thursday presenter Claire Byrne bluntly stuck it to Ger Colleran, editor of The Star - what if someone murdered Murphy if that paper revealed his address? Colleran took an overdose of umbrage and acted if she had asked him if he approved of murder!
Legal situation
The most reasonable contributions were made by legal people and spokespersons from groups like the Penal Reform Trust, who explained the legal situation, and raised many valid questions about sentencing policy. Murphy was caught, tried, jailed and has served his sentence. Now as a free man, he has rights like the rest of us, despite our revulsion. But it's fair to ask questions - was his sentence too short? Should he have been given remission? Where was the incentive to undergo treatment in prison? Is the post-release monitoring sufficient?
While the Murphy story dominated, the Church was in hot water again over the non-acceptance of the resignations offered by two auxiliary bishops. Quite honestly I'm sick of writing about such events. They follow a depressingly familiar pattern - Church makes PR gaffe, media gets onto it like vultures, prominent abuse survivors and certain unsympathetic journalists line up to thrash Church for said gaffe and more, sympathetic journalists and commentators try to find some sort of understanding and perspective. It's like a dance, retire and advance. If it all wasn't so sad and serious.
Sorry, there was something new. One woman's call for a Mass boycott was given loads of publicity in the media. And sorry again, I just don't get it. As a Catholic, you insult the Mass to make a point? Giving this as an example of media bias, Senator Rónán Mullen suggested last Sunday morning (RTÉ Radio 1, Marian Finucane Show with Charlie Bird subbing) that you couldn't buy publicity like this. And where, he asked, was coverage of the huge numbers of young people gathering to celebrate their Catholic faith last weekend in Clonmacnois? Where indeed.
Mullen seems to have recovered from the injustice and indignity of last week when he was unfairly lumped in with Senators whose expenses were under question, ironically because he drew attention to the expense claim culture. Certainly he played a blinder last Sunday morning.
Speculation
Similarly teacher and columnist Breda O'Brien was in top form last Sunday on the This Week programme, in debate with journalist Mary Raftery, still on the business of those resignations. She was right to point out that much of what was being said was just speculation, and seemed to yearn for better communication from Church authorities. She didn't see anything in the Murphy report that would justify the resignations of bishops Field and Walsh, unless all bishops should go on the grounds of collective responsibility.
Worst contribution to the debate had to be presenter Karen Coleman's ill-informed observation on Newstalk's Wide Angle last Sunday morning. In conversation with Fr Michael Collins about his new book on Pope Benedict, she asked him about the resignations and referred to those bishops being ''condemned'' by the Murphy Report. Collins gently reminded her that they were just ''mentioned'' in the report. She needed to be challenged more on other issues, but Fr Collins did get across how pro-active Benedict has been since around 1998 in tackling the clerical child abusers. Unlike the Mass boycott, that's a story that has struggled to gain traction in the media. I wonder why.
boregan@hotmail.com
