A very quick defense of TV3
by John
The general consensus that seems to be emerging on social networking sites is that TV3 acted tastelessly in reporting the illness of the Minister for Finance. Whilst I haven’t seen the report itself, I gather that the news could have been broken in a more sensitive manner. That said, those who are criticising the fact or the timing of the report are wrong. Brian Lenihan, in practice if not in theory, is the second most important member of our Government. He has crafted the plan that the Government believes will rescue the country’s economy. His voice is the one listened to by international markets and domestic investors. He is also – and this is almost equally important – the political lynchpin of the Government. A Government without him will be less stable, and will appear weakened, even if others can continue the economic policies that his department has adopted.
His illness is a serious one, his prospects for recovery at this point at the very least in doubt. For the sake of the country, his illness needs to be public knowledge, and his ability to perform his duties under this kind of emotional duress must be contemplated and understood. In any other job, the Minister would be given time off to deal with his illness. That happens for a reason. While things like this should not be partisan, they are political. They have political implications. And they should be made public quickly, and sensitively. TV3 might well have failed on the latter, but they did their duty on the former.
Comments
I’ve been reading along for a while now. I just wanted to drop you a comment to say keep up the good work.
I would agree with you John but for one point; Brian Lenihan appears to have just been diagnosed and we’re not even sure whether he has been fully diagnosed with histological confirmation and complete staging of his malignancy. Such a diagnosis is a massive blow to any man and to his family and I do think anyone, even the Taoiseach has a right to privacy whilst they grapple with such a diagnosis and decided on the appropriate treatment. To face such diagnosis and dilemmas over the Christmas period with a young family to consider is especially cruel and I think in the weeks following a diagnosis such as this the personal right to privacy and confidentiality outweighs the public’s right to knowledge about their leaders’ health.
[...] John McGuirk got it right when he argued that the news should be reported, given Lenihan’s position. [...]
You’re right about why TV3 should have broken the story. Unfortunately, the questions you raise about why the story should have been broken are precisely the questions TV3 didn’t ask.
Frankly, the most offensive thing about the report is how amateurish it was. They had 48 hours, and still managed to look rushed and unprepared.