Looking at a BBC television programme some time ago, I heard Mr. Robert Menzies, former Prime Minister of Australia, talking about how television affects politicians and how politicians are affected by television. Since so much of this debate has been taken up with this matter, it strikes me that his remarks may have some relevance because Mr. Menzies was a man with a lifetime of parliamentary experience behind him, all of which has not been conducted at the debating society level as has been the lot of so many of the more fortunate Members of this House. In the course of what he had to say, Mr. Menzies remarked that for politicians, television had very grave dangers and, of course, that it had some possible advantages also but he felt that the dangers of the television camera by far outweighed the advantages.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 42—Posts and Telegraphs (Resumed).
The Deputy is frightening us.
This man made an interesting comment on the part that television plays in the life of politicians the world over—this new thing, television, which has changed the whole face of parliamentary discussion and which has brought the politician right in to sit down beside one at the fireside, as it were, whereas formerly he was a distant figure lecturing from a height whose words of wisdom were to be read in the newsprints suitably corrected grammatically, of course, by the better educated whose job it was to go over the notes they had taken down.
Now the politician has become a feature of the television screen in this country, as in every other country and quite rightly so because it enables people to establish what this word— perhaps it could be referred to as a cliché—“communication” means. Mr. Menzies agreed that there are politicians who are excellent men—I should say that in this country, too, there are some excellent men in every Party—but when these men appear on television, the impression which has very often been created is that they are stupid men. This may spring from the unsuitability of the men to the medium whereas in fact some of them might be highly intelligent. Therefore, as far as impressions are given on television, luck plays a great part.
There is, of course, the ever present temptation for the Establishment to make the maximum use of television to foster support for itself. I use the word "establishment" as it was one used by the Minister who I suppose meant that the Government is the main factor in the Establishment. When an authority is set up by a Government, it is only natural that that authority will consist of people who are Government supporters and that their thoughts and ideas will certainly not run counter to Government policy. Therefore, the temptation to use the TV medium for propaganda purposes for the Government is very strong.
I am satisfied that there are, independent of the Government, over-anxious individuals in positions of authority who operate, and who are prepared to operate, as apostles of the Government without any suggestion whatever from overhead and who see it as their duty to push the Government line and to suppress so far as they can opposition to the Government. I think this happened so far as the referendum was concerned. There was documentary proof which I adduced here in the House of an attempt to stifle discussion prior to the referendum. The fact that there was proof had the opposite effect to that wished for by the promoters of the document. They had, willy-nilly, to permit a discussion of the referendum to take place and that discussion had to be of the freest possible character.
Our television station has been operating for several years. I would think that for its size, the size of the country, and the amount of money available to run it, it must surely compare favourably with any similar institution in the world. We have been extremely lucky that we have been able to obtain in our own population people of such varied talents and abilities as we have seen staffing Telefís Éireann. We have been extremely lucky.
The odd thing that strikes me is that the first word of criticism of Telefís Éireann which has come from the Government has come at a time when the Government representatives in the persons of the Taoiseach and the Ministers have not emerged from interviews too creditably, speaking politically. It is very odd that this comment should be made in these circumstances. The Minister takes up the position that the television interviewers, particularly on current affairs, should take the utmost care to be impartial and not to take sides. I believe that they do that so far as is humanly possible. Certainly they compare well with the BBC interviewers because I have seen the tactics being operated by people like Robin Day on the BBC who would ask what you had for your breakfast and things even more disconcerting and irrelevant. We have not any great room for complaint in this regard.
We are politicians in this House. I do not go along with the somewhat crudely expressed sentiments of Deputy O. J. Flanagan who says a politician must have a thick skin. I do not think any human being should be required to have a thick skin about anything. We are all the same as the people outside and it is because we are the same as the people outside that we are in here. With all our faults we represent the Irish nation. We are the people elected by them and it is a great honour to be chosen but we are just the same as the people outside. If we are tickled do we not laugh? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you hurt us do we not cry? There is no method that has come under my observation of developing a rhinoceroslike exterior which makes one impervious to insult. I, certainly, after a fairly long period of time in politics, feel an insult as keenly today as when I was 18 years of age. Most people will have the same reaction.
Courtesy is something which is demanded and which one has the right to expect towards all citizens in all situations and circumstances because we are said to be living in a more or less civilised condition of society. One should at all times think of the feelings of other people. We all slip up on these matters, particularly in this House. How many Members of this House have said things in the heat of discussion which they would very gladly have withdrawn had they the opportunity to take back the spoken word? This happens to people in outside employment as well.
One must agree that the first requirement is courtesy, but there are people who regard any kind of contradiction as an insult. There are people who think what they say is the revealed truth. If someone takes a different view —and this is one of the things which I often think is a feature of membership of the Fianna Fáil and Government Party—it is taken as a personal insult to the member of the Fianna Fáil Party. It is this kind of thing which, to my mind, has resulted in the Minister's completely irrelevant references to the television interviewers in Telefís Éireann.
God knows, I have felt at times that certain programmes on Telefís Éireann would make one sick to the heart but I have adopted the simple remedy of turning the knob and changing to another station and reducing the blood pressure and forgetting all about it. Take, for instance, the national song contest. If that does not appal the minds of the average citizen of this country then we have a long, long way to go. There are other things as well, without going into too much detail. Efforts are made sometimes on entertainment programmes to present politicians as kind of "song-and-dance" men or to make "song-and-dance" men out of them. It was suggested recently that not alone should politicians go on the Late, Late Show but that their wives should go on too. For what? A duet? I suppose it was that or some such performance. Did you ever hear the like of it? When politicians do not accept suggestions they are accused of being afraid of appearing on the medium. Our trouble is in the reverse. We have too many people anxious to go on. Everybody in Ireland wants to be on television. Nearly everybody in Ireland has been on television in some shape or form. Even if you do not get on one way you will get on in another way. There are various lines of approach, as we all know.
We can fall into the grievous national error of taking ourselves too seriously. We begin to believe our own publicity, particularly our tourist publicity. This is fatal. It is the first sign of decadence in a country. It is a sure sign of defeat in an election. Of necessity, the picture is overpainted with perfection.
Reference was made to the programmes on Gerry Fitt. It is not because he is a friend of mine that I would rush to commend Telefís Éireann for their production in regard to him. I think he is a northern phenomenon. The programme showed his family background, the kind of work he does in Belfast, the political circumstances in which he has to operate. To my mind, it was an excellent job. It showed us here in the South the facts as they had to be faced by a young working-class man who had a distinct ambition to be in politics. He was quite frank and open about it. He wanted to be a politician. He wanted to serve the people. We were informed of the difficulties he had to contend with. We were able to compare his kind of activities with the activities in which we engage here as politicians.
I am sure the people here were interested to see our fellow-country-men in Belfast and to note that 99 per cent of the ground they have to cover there is the very same as we have to cover here. Very largely, they had the same social problems and have to find similar answers to similar questions which are posed daily, hourly and nightly for an active politician in this country. That kind of programme was beneficial. That it happened at election time—well, at what other time would it happen? It was at a time when interest in the North was most active.
Then we had that other compulsive personality, Mr. Paisley. It was most interesting to watch him, to observe his techniques of mob oratory and to know how successful they were. It enabled us, I think, to look over the wall, which is the Border, and to see the kind of grotesque thing which still remains there and which is typified by Mr. Paisley, pictured in its most extreme form. This, in itself, too, was a job well done by Telefís Éireann. I would particularly say that the young man with a southern accent who stood under Mr. Paisley's elbow and put a microphone up to him and asked him questions should be decorated for courage because if ever there was a threatening situation it was obvious that this reverend gentleman was creating one for anybody from south of the Border.
The comments, therefore, that have been made here by Deputy Norton, in his maiden Fianna Fáil speech, regarding the coverage of Gerry Fitt and the others in the recent election in the North are, I think, very inappropriate. I think Telefís Éireann did a good job there.
At column 1884 of the Official Report of 27th February, 1969, the Minister, in the course of his introductory remarks, is reported as saying, in relation to television generally:
There are countries where there is among young people a pervasive unrest whose principal cause is the absence of any philosophy to replace religious doctrine. Having regard to the majority view in this country on such matters, I will not have RTE used to create a murky, cynical atmosphere in regard to what, ultimately, are problems due to inadequacies in character in people as a whole.
It is very hard to know what the Minister meant by that. One could take half a dozen meanings out of it. Did he mean that we are a nation inadequate in character and that, if we have social problems, these are attributable to our weaknesses? Did he mean that there is a disappearance of religious influence from this country? If so, it has not been apparent to me. He suggests that Radio Telefís Éireann is being used to create a murky, cynical atmosphere. Here again, I would suggest that his view is based upon the Fianna Fáil attitude which develops following the initial injections that citizens get when they join that Party, and which are increased as they go along, that anything that is said which is in contradiction of the Party line is insulting, traitorous, treacherous and, as my learned and distinguished colleague from County Dublin would say, not in the national interest.
There has been developing in the country, for quite a while, a false concept of the politician. I think it is far deeper—perhaps I am not entirely in order in referring to it here—it goes far beyond the images projected by Telefís Éireann. There is a concept of the politician as a corrupt person which has been fostered not by Telefís Éireann but by people who seem to delight in decrying our institutions, for one reason or another. There are, furthermore, Hollywood concepts, and others, which are totally and utterly fallacious. One could have a lot to say in that regard. I fear I would stray outside the Rules of Order and I have no wish to do that.
As one who has had the privilege of appearing on television—sometimes emerging feeling disgusted with one-self—I am always conscious of the extreme good manners of those whom I meet on television: I never meet with anything else. I cannot hear what Deputy Fitzpatrick of Dublin South-Central is saying. It is something about Ballyfermot and Ballyfermot is very close to my heart. I am glad he mentioned it.
There is another heart specialist out there too—a doctor.
All are welcome because it is a very big place—and we shall see what we shall see. I must say, however, that I have often felt that the people who have to run the discussions, who have to chair a discussion, Dr. Thornley or anybody who has the job of "keeping the ring," as it were, between politicians in the studio, have a most unenviable task because we have amongst us what would appear to be gentlemen who are camera-hoppers, who will talk forever once they are let out: like runaway horses, they cannot be stopped; whose sole idea would be to consume the maximum amount of the 15 minutes, half-hour or three-quarters of an hour, if that were possible, to the exclusion of the other two unfortunates who may be also present.
I had an experience of that kind and it was most difficult to draw the attention of the viewing public to the fact that there were more than two people present in the studio, that there was a third Party represented. On one occasion very recently a Minister, a leading member of the Fine Gael Party and myself, were invited to discuss the Labour Party proposals to reform procedures of Parliament. We spent the first 15 minutes in a discussion with the Minister, who is a lawyer, and the Fine Gael Deputy, who is also a lawyer, to the utter exclusion of all other subjects, a long discussion on two pieces of legislation which had nothing at all to do with the subject we were called upon to discuss. It was only by the expertise of the chairman and perhaps a little activity of my own that eventually I was enabled to be permitted to intervene at all and bring the attention of the learned gentlemen to the matters on hand which were of far more interest than the highly technical things they were talking about, but which were no doubt vitally compelling to themselves but for the public generally had little or no interest.
On the matter of good manners and courtesy I have never seen it absent in Telefís Éireann I must say. All of us are capable of discourtesy on the spur of the moment. The thing which is distasteful is calculated discourtesy, the planned insult, the well thought out phrase which is designed to hurt and there has never been, to my knowledge, any evidence of this.
It must be said also in regard to the interviewers on Telefís Éireann that they themselves came in for some pretty scurrilous attacks at the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis. These attacks were shown in full on the screen and the attackers were shown in action— pretty scurrilous efforts. Things were said at the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis concerning some of the current affairs interviewers with which I am certain many members of the Fianna Fáil Party could not find themselves in agreement. Nonetheless, they went on. Unlike us, these public servants, for that ultimately is what they are, have not the freedom to reply that we have here in the Dáil, protected as we are by privilege. Regardless of what is said about us we can reply in kind if we are so minded. At any rate we can make a reply. We are protected by the law but these people are not and if they are slandered as I believe they were slandered on that occasion, by ignorant talking about things they know nothing about they have no recourse except to the courts and who is going to take things to the courts? What sensible man would willingly become a prey to the legal apparatus if he could possibly avoid it?
I listened to Mr. Grimond of the Liberal Party in England last Saturday night giving a very civilised view on this whole question. He was asked on the Late Late Show by Mr. Byrne what his views were in regard to the probing or abrasive interview and he has had his share of this kind of thing and much more assiduous than anything we have seen here. He said something which was very true. He said he would be inclined to welcome that kind of onslaught by an interviewer because, contrary to what is thought, the public are sympathetic to the man whom they feel is being badgered or being taken advantage of. If there is a politician being put in a spot and being snapped and snarled at and made to appear a fool the public, rather than go along with the point of view that the interviewer is trying to put over, will sympathise with the victim. That is very true.
Nothing shows as clearly on television as the brusque question too rapidly asked, the lack of time given for a proper reply. These things show up and they do not do the person who uses that kind of approach any good at all. For the moment the politician may feel that he has been badly used but in the heel of the hunt the good sense of the people triumphs and regardless of how cynical people may become concerning the manner in which people form their opinions or conclusions there is present among ordinary people—and I speak now of ordinary working people—deep in their minds, a common denominator which determines that they take a commonsense view and a generous view of life and all the problems of life. They see things, particularly those of them who have had experience of the struggle for existence, for what they really are and not for what they are painted to be. You do get the fringes of course now and again, fringes of hysterical thought. These diminish and vanish and commonsense remains and in the long run wins out.
I believe that not alone in so far as politicians are concerned but in so far as any current affairs programme is concerned we should aim for the maximum exposure and maximum discussion, free discussion consonant with the bounds of good taste on all these matters because any other policy must necessarily mean censorship and repression. It is contrary to our whole idea of freedom and democracy that we should lend our thought for a moment to the imposition of restraints of that kind particularly on free discussion in a nation which is famous for its ability to deploy words, deservedly or undeservedly is a matter of opinion. It would be a sorry day for us if we, even by the implications of a speech made by the Minister responsible in this House, were to suggest limitations on the methods of presentation. Time, experience and the people will weed out the undesirables. This is true of television. It is true of every activity in life.