complaint regarding misleading coverage of the ipsc campaign
DESCRIPTION
Official complaint to Press Ombudsman regTRANSCRIPT
Complaint Regarding Misleading Coverage of IPSC Campaign
Submitted by Martin O'Quigley Chairman of Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign on behalf of the National Committee
17th July 2012
1. Executive summary
We, the Ireland‐Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC), are submitting an official complaint regarding the Irish Times’ coverage of our campaign during the period from 4th May 2012 to 4th June 2012. In our complaint we trace the trajectory of this coverage, which began with an inaccurate and misleading front page story and continued for a month, with the IPSC only accorded an official ‘right of reply’ a full 27 days into the debate.
As we show in detail below, during this period, the Irish Times ‐ through reportage and op‐ed/analysis pieces: consistently mischaracterized the IPSC’s campaign in support of the Palestinian call for a cultural boycott of Israel, despite being presented with information to the contrary; allowed defamatory material to be published in its pages; deliberately ignored the Palestinian voices which had called for the boycott and Palestinians living in Ireland who support both BDS and the IPSC (a framing which by presenting the call to boycott as ‘an Irish thing’, both denied Palestinians agency in their own liberation struggle, and allowed ongoing attacks on Irish supporters of cultural boycott); sat on letters correcting the inaccuracies and criticizing the coverage, either not publishing them at all, or publishing them once the criticism had become invalidated by subsequent coverage.
The Irish Times therefore acted in clear violation not only of its own avowed principles, but of the Code of Practice laid down by the Press Council of Ireland: namely principles 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 relating to truth and accuracy and the responsibility to correct errors; principle 2.2, relating to the reporting of conjecture as though it were fact; principle 3.1, striving for fairness and accuracy; and principle 4, respect for the rights and good name of individuals against unfounded accusations. Based on previous cases in which it has been established that the council will vindicate these principles as they relate to organisations as well as individuals, the IPSC will forward this complaint to the Press Ombudsman if it does not receive satisfaction from the Irish Times. Individuals defamed by the coverage retain their legal rights, but it is our hope to resolve this matter without recourse to the courts.
We believe that the errors and inaccuracies of this series of articles should be addressed in its totality rather than on an article‐by‐article basis, though we have below presented complaints against each of them individually. We insist that, at minimum, a retraction of the initial article and the errors arising from it should appear on the front page of the Irish Times, afforded due prominence equal to that of the original offending article, the wording to be agreed between the Irish Times and the IPSC; and furthermore we insist that, online, the text of the same retraction should be added to all of the articles mentioned in this complaint, at the top of the web page. When appropriate, specific additions to that wording should also appear. A full list of the relevant articles with web links is attached as an appendix to this complaint.
2. The Complaint – Part One: The original article
2.1 May 4th: ‘Dervish pull out of Israel tour after social media ‘venom’’
The foundation of the complaint is that the original article of Friday 4th May 2012 by Ronan McGreevy and Paddy Clancy headlined ‘Dervish pull out of Israel tour after social media ‘venom’’1, which appeared on the front page, was inaccurate and misleading (in violation of principles 1.1, 2.2, 3 and 4), was never corrected (in violation of principle 1.2, 2.2 and 2.3), and framed the entirety of the reporting afterwards.
1. The headline is misleading. The only ‘venom’ directed at Dervish came from supporters of Israel after Dervish cancelled their tour of Israel. Therefore the chronology is inaccurate. The authors, having looked at the Dervish Facebook page should have been able to ascertain this simple fact.
1 Dervish pull out of Israel tour after social media ‘venom’, 2nd May, Ronan McGreevy & Paddy Clancy ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0504/1224315593067.html
There is copious evidence to support our view of this matter, that the decision by Dervish to withdraw from an Israeli tour preceded the ‘venom’ rather than coming ‘after’ it; furthermore the word ‘after’ commonly denotes causation, especially in journalistic prose. The Irish Times simply had no objective evidence, in the sequence of communications, nor even any unambiguous evidence, in Dervish’s statements, of either the causation or the order‐of‐events clearly alleged by this headline and this story: that activists’ ‘venom’ preceded any decision by Dervish and caused Dervish to cancel its visit to Israel. If no other errors had been made in this coverage, this in itself would still merit a page‐1 correction/retraction.
2. The first sentence is misleading, as it repeats the same false chronology as above. It falsely equates Dervish pulling out with an “avalanche of negativity” and “venom directed towards them on social media sites”.
3. It ignores the original statement of the band (issued Monday April 30th at 11.25am2) which stated
that at “the time we agreed to these performances we were unaware there was a cultural boycott in place. We now feel that we do not wish to break this boycott.” Instead, it attributes Cathy Jordan’s personal statement (issued on May 1st – one day after the official band statement) to the entire band. The band statement is alluded to later on in the 4th paragraph, but in such a way that it appears to be part of a single statement which included Ms. Jordan’s personal remarks.
4. The information regarding the chronology of events, specifically the appearance of abusive comments directed at the band, was on – and remains on – the band’s Facebook page for anyone to see. Instead of conducting thorough research to assess the accuracy of the claims made against the IPSC, the reporters chose to ignore the evidence and instead publish false and misleading information.
5. The article then states (Par 4) that “in fact there is no official boycott of Israel and artists are free to play in the country if they wish”. This statement is confused and makes a misleading qualitative assumption regarding the legitimacy of the call for a cultural boycott of Israel. The statement does not explain what it means by an “official boycott”. By using this terminology, the writers suggest that any boycott that is not “official” is therefore not to be respected. The fact that the call for a cultural boycott of Israel comes from a broad collective of Palestinian civil society groups (over 200 such groups) is completely ignored, thus marginalizing the actual Palestinian voices that issued the call. This exclusion of Palestinian voices recurs in Par 6, when the writers assert that the cultural boycott was “called for by some”, and in Par 12 the article falsely asserts that Dr. Raymond Deane was “the founder of the boycott campaign”, which is an untruth. This is a recurring theme in the coverage (see Section 4.1).
6. Paragraph 6 quotes the Israeli embassy as describing the cultural boycott campaign as “cultural terror” and “a particular shame as culture is supposed to unite people”. This statement is not
2 Dervish statement, https://www.facebook.com/dervishofsligo/posts/10150865226896341?comment_id=236467385&offset=0&total_comments=53
balanced by any kind of statement from the Palestinian Embassy; again ignoring any kind of Palestinian voice.
7. Paragraph 10 makes the claim that “members of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign claimed
they were responsible for forcing the band to call off the tour”. The word “forcing” is attributed to IPSC members, not quoted. This attribution is inaccurate and misleading, no member of the IPSC having ever said that Dervish were “forced” to do anything. In fact, the aim of the IPSC with regard to the cultural boycott of Israel is moral suasion (based on highlighting Israeli injustices against the Palestinian people, Israeli breaches of international law, and the de facto cultural boycott of Palestinians imposed by Israel), not coercion.
8. The attribution of the word can only be seen as malicious and forming part of a larger rhetorical strategy involving the use of words such as “venom”, “negativity”, “cultural terror”, “force”, “targeting” and “warn[ing]”. Indeed, the next sentence states that the IPSC “had directed its supporters to target [Dervish’s] website”, words again attributed, but not quoted, to the IPSC. In fact, as the IPSC website states, the organisation asked supporters to “consider leaving a message for Dervish on their official Facebook page”, a quote that, had it been used, would have conveyed something rather different from “target [Dervish’s] website”. The following paragraph then states that a message left by Mr. Raymond Deane constituted a “warning”, but selectively quoted from the message. The article quotes only the phrase “lost all credibility”. Mr Deane’s comment in full reads: “If Dervish goes ahead with this, in violation of the cultural boycott of the Israeli state called by Palestinian civil society, then the band will have lost all credibility. Please note the large number of Irish musicians who have signed this pledge – http://pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1333”.
9. Finally, the article refers in a confused manner to the wider campaign for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, and makes the inaccurate claim that this campaign was “started in August 2010”. This statement is factually incorrect. The BDS campaign was officially launched by the Palestinian Boycott National Committee (BNC) in July 2005. Furthermore, the call for a cultural boycott of Israel preceded the BNC call by a year, having being issued by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) in July 2004.
The IPSC accepts that it was not unreasonable for confusion to arise because of the sequence of events: a Dervish statement on April 30th; the social‐media reaction, including pro‐Israeli venom; an emotive statement from Cathy Jordan on May 1st; and then silence from Ms Jordan and other members of Dervish. What we cannot accept is that it was impossible for the Irish Times to accurately report this sequence to its readers by May 4th , nor in any of the of the subsequent coverage over the following month.
The IPSC has constantly emphasised the correct sequence of events in all its subsequent dealings with the Irish Times, without avail. We did so in part because we understood that, taken alone, Cathy Jordan’s statement of May 1st was capable of being interpreted in the manner chosen by the Irish Times’ reporters. Given the correct chronology, and given an examination of the Dervish Facebook page ‐ the only site of activism by the IPSC on this matter and the ‘scene of the crime’ alleged by the Irish Times ‐ it becomes abundantly clear that Ms Jordan simply cannot have been referring to “venom” about her band’s proposed
visit to Israel prior to the cancellation announcement on April 30th, because no such venom exists. Whereas, since there is considerable pro‐Israeli venom after that announcement ‐ and indeed some strong language in pro‐Palestinian comments directed against that venom ‐ it is logical that Ms Jordan’s statement should be viewed largely as a reaction to the storm created by Dervish’s cancellation, not to the relatively small level of Facebook activity previously generated by the proposed tour. Over the course of May, Irish Times journalists resorted, in print and online, to ‘close reading’ of the Jordan statement to support their interpretation, without ever facing up to the simple contextual facts that rendered this repeated interpretation partial and misleading.
In the May 4th story, the Irish Times reporters did more than put their own deeply questionable interpretation on the statement. In their evident zeal to ‘make the case’ against the IPSC, they not only employed the biased language cited above, but they also deliberately: (1) ignored the actually existing “venom” on the Facebook page; (2) failed to distinguish between the April 30th Dervish statement cancelling the tour and the May 1st statement by Jordan, though they must obviously have been aware of the distinction full well themselves; and even (3) joined together, without ellipsis, two sentences taken from widely separated sections of the Jordan statement (paragraphs 7 and 8 of the story), giving the false impression that they followed on from and related to one another. We contend that these deliberate choices came at the expense of truth, fairness and honesty.
3. The Complaint – Part Two: Subsequent coverage
3.1 IPSC attempts to correct Irish Times errors
Mr. Raymond Deane sent a letter on May 4th (see Appendix 2.1) with corrections to this inaccurate and misleading report by Messrs Clancy and McGreevy. In his letter, Mr. Deane challenged the misleading claim made in the article that there is “no official boycott of Israel” (see Section 2.1, point 5) and sought to make readers aware that the call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions comes from Palestinians and dates back to 2005, and not August 2010 as the article incorrectly claimed (see Section 2.1, point 9). Furthermore, Mr Deane drew attention to the fact that “venom” came “primarily from unconditional supporters of Israel's occupation” in spite of the false chronology presented in the article (see Section 2.1, points 1‐4).
Mr. Deane’s letter was not published, yet on Tuesday May 8th a letter sent by Mr. Ciaran O Raghallaigh that repeated the inaccurate allegations from the May 4th article was published3. Mr. Deane then resubmitted the letter on May 8th (see Appendix 2.2), with slight modifications; it was not published. Mr. Deane then resubmitted his letter on 10th May (see Appendix 2.3). Despite three submissions, containing important factual corrections, Mr. Deane’s letter was never published.
3.2 May 8th: ‘Artists urged not to boycott Israel’
Simultaneously, on May 8th another report by Ronan McGreevy entitled ‘Artists urged not to boycott Israel’4 was published which quoted extensively the Minister for Justice and Defence Alan Shatter TD, who repeated the same false allegations against the IPSC. Given that some of the language used is identical to that in the original report, it is reasonable to assume that the Minister based his statement on the Irish
3 Letters, May 4th – Ciaran O Ragahallaigh ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0508/1224315743142.html
4 ‘Artists urged not to boycott Israel’, 8th May, Ronan McGreevy ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0508/breaking51.html
Times from several days earlier. Mr. Shatter also called the campaign “cultural fascism” and accused the IPSC of an “utter lack of respect for the constitutional rights of Irish citizens”. This same article made an unsubstantiated report of someone the Minister says he “recognised from various anti‐Israel protests” calling the Minister a “Zionist pig”. This accusation was then framed in a manner that suggested such language was directed at Dervish on their Facebook page – a complete falsification. The article then restated the inaccurate claim about IPSC members directing an “avalanche of negativity” and “venom” on “social media sites”. During a phone conversation with the journalist in advance of this article, Mr. Deane pointed out that private approaches had also been made to the band Dervish from Irish musicians – the identities of whom Mr. Deane was not at liberty to divulge – but this fact was omitted from this article and all subsequent coverage of the issue in the newspaper.
While it is not within the ambit of the Irish Times or the Press Ombudsman to ‘correct’ unpublished dealings between journalists and the subjects of their stories, it is worth noting evidence, based on contemperaneous notes of phone conversations, of unreasonable prejudice on the part of one reporter involved. In phone correspondence with Mr. McGreevy, Mr. Deane repeatedly asked the journalist to provide evidence of any threats and/or abuse from members of the IPSC directed against Dervish. Mr. McGreevy was unable to provide any such evidence. The basis of his argument was the statement by Mr. Deane that Dervish would have “lost all credibility” if they toured Israel. This cannot be construed as a threat without serious logical gymnastics. Mr. Deane also repeatedly urged the journalist to quote from a further comment Mr. Deane had posted on Dervish’s Facebook page on April 30th congratulating them for their “courageous and morally correct decision”, and pointing out that that they would become “subject to massive defamation” from supporters of Israel5 – which turned out to be an accurate prediction, as a perusal of the band’s Facebook site shows. Mr. McGreevy refused to quote this comment, and insisted that the comment regarding losing credibility constituted a “threat”. This shows that the journalist was intent on framing the story in a particular manner, painting the IPSC in a negative and threatening light and choosing to ignore any evidence to the contrary.
The IPSC was again refused the opportunity to respond to these allegations and allusions. Although the article in question was based on a press release by, and subsequent interview with, the Minister, a further press release – an Open Letter responding to the Minister by the IPSC on May 11th, entitled ‘IPSC: Justice Minister abuses position in attacking human rights campaigners’6 – was entirely ignored.
5 Mr. Deane’s comment read: “Dervish ‐ I salute you for this courageous and morally correct decision. You will now be subject to massive defamation from Zionists and their fellow‐travellers ‐ you should see this as proof that you have made the correct decision, because it will reveal to you the viciousness and mendacity of Israel's apologists.” Posted, 11.42am, April 30th ‐ https://www.facebook.com/dervishofsligo/posts/10150865226896341?comment_id=236467385&offset=360&total_comments=413
6 ‘IPSC: Justice Minister abuses position in attacking human rights campaigners’, IPSC Press Release May 8th 2012. Open letter here: http://www.ipsc.ie/press‐releases/minister‐abuses‐position‐in‐attacking‐human‐rights‐campaigners
3.3 May 12th: ‘Do cultural boycotts achieve anything?’
A third article on the subject appeared on Saturday May 12th, penned by Mary Fitzgerald and entitled ‘Do cultural boycotts achieve anything?’7 Again, this article contained a series of erroneous assertions and a number of seriously problematic elements.
Paragraph 3 makes the assertion that while Dervish said they “were unaware there was a cultural boycott in place”, “[i]n fact, there is no official boycott equivalent to the UN‐supported one imposed on apartheid‐era South Africa”. Fact‐checking would have revealed that the United Nations did not endorse a cultural boycott of South Africa until 19808, almost 20 years after the first calls for a cultural boycott of the apartheid state were issued.
Dervish’s singer Cathy Jordan is quoted as saying that she “wasn’t quite prepared for the extent of the venom directed against us”. Mary Fitzgerald then claims that this was “presumably a reference to the torrent of messages left on Dervish’s Facebook page and other websites calling for the band to pull out”. Rather than check the Facebook page and other relevant websites to determine the source of said “venom”, she takes refuge in the word “presumably” and implicates pro‐Palestinian activists. This sentence on its own, and in context, constitutes a violation of principles 1.1 and the 2.2 of the Press Council Code of Conduct. It is worth noting here that at no point in a full month of coverage did the Irish Times state, simply, that Ms Jordan and Dervish had been unavailable for comment since the April 30th and May 1st statements, thus forcing journalists to speculate, in the guise of fact, as to what they “presumably” meant.
Paragraph 5 then uses loaded language (the verb to “force”) to describe the campaign requesting that Dervish cancel their concerts in Israel.
This paragraph also makes reference to the boycott pledge organised by the IPSC, without clarifying that the pledge asks artists not to accept invitations to perform in Israel, the object of which is to forestall the need for campaigns requesting artists to cancel such performances in the future.
Paragraph 6 makes a confusing and decontextualised reference to a statement from the Israeli embassy in Dublin which refers to boycott supporters as “Israeli self‐haters and anti‐Semites”. This crucially leaves out what the term “Israeli self‐haters” is actually referring to, i.e., Israelis who support a cultural boycott of Israel (such as Boycott From Within, unmentioned by the author). She also states that the cancellation caused “barely a ripple” in Israel, despite the fact that many Israelis – including the Israeli Embassy in Ireland itself – were active in a campaign of attacking Dervish for canceling the gig on the band’s Facebook page. Indeed, it was on Dervish’s Facebook page that the Israeli Embassy made the above statement, a screenshot of which was supplied via email to Irish Times journalist Ronan McGreevy by IPSC National Coordinator Kevin Squires on Thursday 3rd May.
Paragraphs 10 and 11 present a false image of the writer Howard Jacobson. Paragraph 10 frames his quote in terms of him being someone “sympathetic to the Palestinians’ plight”, whom the boycott makes “conflicted or uneasy”. In fact, Mr. Jacobson is a well‐known apologist for Israeli violations of international law, who has frequently used public fora – including a column in the British Independent – to attack
7 ‘Do cultural boycotts achieve anything’, Mary Fitzgerald, May 12th 2012 ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0512/1224315955295.html
8 UN General Assembly Resolution 36/205 (C.6.A.), ‘Comprehensive Sanctions Against South Africa’ ‐ http://daccess‐dds‐ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/392/25/IMG/NR039225.pdf?OpenElement
Palestinian rights campaigner and the BDS movement. In one article he even called Palestinian rights activists “anti‐Semites”9.
British playwright Howard Brenton is then quoted in Paragraph 12, regarding the Israeli government‐funded national theatre group Habima’s appearance at the Globe Theatre in London, but is not balanced with the voice of an artist who supported the Habima boycott call, such as one of the 37 signatories to a letter published in The Guardian calling on the Globe Theatre to “withdraw [Habima’s] invitation so that the festival is not complicit with human rights violations and the illegal colonisation of occupied land”10. Indeed, it is nowhere mentioned that Habima is in receipt of Israeli state funds, nor that it has toured in illegal Israeli settlements.
In the following paragraph, novelist Tracy Chevalier , who “requested meetings with activists in the West Bank town of Ramallah when she attends the Jerusalem‐based International Writers Festival next week “, is posited by Ms. Fitzgerald as an alternative to a cultural boycott, saying some artists “prefer to highlight the Palestinian issue while participating in events in Israel”. Of course, had Ms. Fitzgerald researched the PACBI guidelines, or contacted PACBI about the proposal, she would have been made aware that such attempts at normalisation have always been refused by Palestinian cultural figures and activists; and although the journalist could not have known it at the time, Ms. Chevalier’s requests to meet with Palestinian activists were denied.
The weighting in this piece is also heavily skewed in favour of those who are opposed to the tactic of a cultural boycott. Leaving aside Dervish altogether, there are 8 paragraphs that can be described as “anti‐Boycott”, populated with plentiful quotations, as against 3 paragraphs with pro‐Boycott arguments, with only one quotation. This latter quotation, by singer Elvis Costello, is then – incredibly – ‘balanced’ in the very next sentence by a previous quotation of his from when he had not yet decided to observe the boycott.
Similarly, a quotation is attributed to the Israeli Embassy, while there is no equivalent quotation from the Palestinian Mission to Ireland.
It is also noteworthy that although this is an article about the Palestinian call for a cultural boycott of Israel, and inspired by coverage of the IPSC’s work on that campaign, nowhere are Palestinian voices or members of the IPSC quoted (nor were any of the latter sought out for such a quotation).
Finally, it should be pointed out that although the headline implies that this is an investigation and/or analysis into cultural boycotts, it is patently not a serious analysis of cultural boycotts as a tool in attaining social justice, be it for the Palestinians or anyone else, but a series of viewpoints collected into an article. The IPSC understands that ‘imbalance’ is not in itself grounds for complaint under the Press Council Code of Conduct. However, in addition to the matters cited above, there are grounds for concern that this story was largely an opinion piece disguised as a news report (thus violating Principle 2.2) and that it was unfair to people whom it explicitly and implicitly criticised (Principle 3.1). In addition, like the rest of the coverage, it can be viewed as being in stark contrast to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Irish Times Trust, which in addition to the above principles give special consideration to promoting social justice and “the reasonable representation of minority interests and divergent views”.
9 ‘Let’s see the 'criticism' of Israel for what it really is’, Howard Jacbonson, The Independent, 18th February 2009 ‐ http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard‐jacobson/howard‐jacobson‐letrsquos‐see‐the‐criticism‐of‐israel‐for‐what‐it‐really‐is‐1624827.html
10 ‘Dismay at Globe invitation to Israeli theatre’, Letters, The Guardian, 29th March 2012 ‐ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/29/dismay‐globe‐invitation‐israeli‐theatre
3.4 May 14th: ‘Pro‐Palestinian group targets Irish writer’
On Monday May 14th – 10 days after Mr. Deane wrote his original letter providing rectification of the many inaccuracies in the original article of May 4th, which still had not been published in the Letters Page – another article appeared concerning the IPSC’s issuance of an Open Letter to Irish writer Gerard Donovan asking him not to attend the International Writers’ Festival in Jerusalem. Entitled ’Pro‐Palestinian group targets Irish writer’, it was again written by Ronan McGreevy11.
The repeated use of the verb “target”, in both the headline and opening paragraph continues the newspaper’s framing of the cultural boycott campaign, and the IPSC, as being wholly aggressive in nature. This was followed by more such framing in the final two paragraphs.
In Paragraph 7 we see repeated, uncritically, the Irish Times’ interpretation of Cathy Jordan’s statement, placing a cause and effect relationship between “venom”/”avalanche of negativity” and the cancellation. In fact, Dervish’s original statement of Monday April 30th makes clear that the reason for cancellation was that at “the time [Dervish] agreed to these performances we were unaware there was a cultural boycott in place. We now feel that we do not wish to break this boycott.”
Paragraph 8 then quotes a statement by Senator Paschal Mooney who claimed that the cancellation was a “result of intimidation and bullying” by “the campaign”. This is another unsubstantiated accusation flying in the face of the facts, yet it was deemed fit to publish.
This piece contains no ‘balance’ or counter‐claim whatsoever by the IPSC, but it is worth pointing out that in Paragraph 3 the writer uses the verb to “urge”, which of course carries none of the negative implications of the verb to “target”.
In light of later pieces published by the Irish Times, it is important that this article also proves that its journalists had indeed read the Open Letter issued by the IPSC to Mr. Donovan12.
3.5 May 15th: ‘Novelist condemns “intimidation” by group promoting boycott of Israel’
A follow‐up piece by Ronan McGreevy appeared in the next day’s paper. Entitled ‘Novelist condemns ‘intimidation’ by group promoting boycott of Israel’13, this article continues in the same vein of framing the debate in terms of ‘targeting’ and ‘intimidation’. The opening paragraph again uses the verb to “target” and summarises the rest of the piece by quoting writer Gerard Donovan saying that he was the subject of “outright intimidation”, and would not be “bullied or cajoled” by the IPSC.
The negative framing is then contradicted by the use of the words “urging” and “requesting” – neither of which fit the “bullying” narrative, yet this is not commented upon. It is known that the article author Ronan McGreevy had read the IPSC’s open letter, as he highlighted the letter in his article of May 14th. We must ask why, when he was aware that no right‐thinking person could construe the contents of said letter as
11 ’Pro‐Palestinian group targets Irish writer’, Ronan McGreevy, May 14th, 2012 ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0514/1224316064391.html
12 ‘Open Letter to Irish writer Gerard Donovan asking him not to break the cultural boycott of Israel’, IPSC, May 7th 2012 ‐ http://www.ipsc.ie/press‐releases/open‐letter‐to‐irish‐writer‐gerard‐donovan‐asking‐him‐not‐to‐break‐the‐cultural‐boycott‐of‐israel
13 Novelist condemns ‘intimidation’ by group promoting boycott of Israel’, Tuesday 15 May 2012, Ronan McGreevy ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0515/1224316130335.html
being of a bullying of intimidatory nature, he allowed the story to be framed in a manner that suggested the exact opposite.
It is worth noting that in Paragraph 11 the language used in relation to the Dervish cancellation changes slightly, referring to “pressure” instead of other more negative terms that had been applied in previous articles. The IPSC, as noted below (see Section 3.6), is prepared to accept ‘pressure’ as an accurate if somewhat loaded term for its campaign but notes that it represents a toning‐down by the Irish Times, without any acknowledgment that its earlier and more inflammatory language was inaccurate.
Paragraph 12, includes yet another late and therefore subordinate appearance for reaction from the IPSC, and can only be characterised as being incoherent. Furthermore, Mr Deane maintains that it is an inaccurate reflection of the comments he made to the journalist. The summary of Mr Deane’s comments is written in a manner that actually makes no sense to the reader. The use of the “venom” and “avalanche of negativity” quotations again frames the debate in a negative manner, and the article follows the now familiar pattern of being weighted against the IPSC and the cultural boycott of Israel campaign, while allowing the organisation a token response to spurious charges (charges which are given credence by the space the newspaper devotes to them) at the end.
On 16th May a letter appeared from Dr. Laurence Davis14 in which he criticized the Minister for Justice and Defence Alan Shatter’s comments directed at the IPSC while raising the issue of the mass Palestinian hunger strike of over 1,500 prisoners. This letter was initially sent on Friday May 11th, but publication was delayed until the hunger strike was over. Incidentally, the Irish Times reported the end of the hunger strike15, without having covered it previously in any manner – and, despite receiving numerous press releases from the IPSC on the issue16, has since refused to report on the prisoners who have remained on, or re‐started hunger strikes.
Furthermore, while the publication on May 16th of three letters in support of the campaign was a welcome move, the letter written by Raymond Deane in response to this (first submitted on May 12th) was edited in a manner that removed a specific criticism of Mary Fitzgerald’s article of May 12th. In the original letter, Mr Deane stated: “Thus we read that ‘Cathy Jordan... added that she ‘wasn’t quite prepared for the extent of the venom directed at us’, presumably a reference to the torrent of messages left on Dervish’s Facebook page and other websites calling for the band to pull out’. The ‘presumably’ here is a cop‐out – a little basic research would have shown that NO VENOM was directed at Dervish prior to the cancellation of their tour, least of all from Palestinian rights activists, and the venom came EXCLUSIVELY from Israel’s supporters.” In the version published on May 16, Mr Deane’s criticism that the “‘presumably’ here is a cop‐out – a little
14 ‘Dervish and the boycott of Israel’, Letters Page, Wednesday May 16, Dr. Laurence Davis ‐http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0516/1224316194435.html
15 ‘Deal ends hunger strike by Palestinian inmates’, Tuesday May 15th, Mark Weiss ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0515/1224316129692.html
16 For exmaple, ‘Irish Government and footballing organisations must intervene in case of Palestinian hunger strikers nearing death’, IPSC Press Release, Tuesday 5th June 2012 ‐ http://www.ipsc.ie/press‐releases/irish‐government‐and‐footballing‐organisations‐must‐intervene‐in‐case‐of‐palestinian‐hunger‐strikers‐nearing‐death and ‘Hunger Strike: FIFA, FIFPro, Eric Cantona express grave concern over condition of Palestinian footballer’, IPSC Press Release, Wednesday June 13th 2012 ‐ http://www.ipsc.ie/press‐releases/hunger‐strike‐fifa‐fifpro‐eric‐cantona‐express‐grave‐concern‐over‐condition‐of‐palestinian‐footballer
basic research would have shown that” was removed from the letter, thus shielding the newspaper from a valid and very important criticism17.
This letter was the first time the IPSC was given anything even approaching an “official” response (as opposed to tacked‐on token quotations in various articles), despite having submitted two previous letters on the issue (one of them re‐submitted), correcting many of the errors and distortions in the coverage. A further letter, submitted on May 14th in response to an article which appeared that day, also went unpublished. It is worth noting that this letter contained the information that “Dervish cancelled once they were made aware [of the cultural boycott of Israel] by certain of their musical colleagues as well as, politely, by ourselves”. This information about private approaches by other artists went entirely unmentioned by the Irish Times in all of its coverage of the issue.
It is incredible that the Irish Times waited a full twelve days before publishing a single official response from the IPSC, who were the victims of an unprecedented media campaign of distortion and lies. That the letter was then edited to remove a specific criticism of one journalist’s reporting is also very disturbing.
3.6 May 19th: ‘Pressure for arts boycott of Israel condemned’
On May 19th an article by Mary Fitzgerald appeared entitled ‘Pressure for arts boycott of Israel condemned’18. The headline – ‘Pressure for arts boycott of Israel condemned’ – is both skewed and factually incorrect. Paragraphs 7 and 8, the actual substance of the article, explain that the Irish government – in the person of An Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr. Eamon Gilmore TD – “is firmly opposed to campaigns which seek to impose a cultural boycott on Israel” but that “it is the right of others to take a contrary view”. In no sense can this be viewed as a “condem[nation]” as the headline suggests. In fact, what the Minister does condemn, in Paragraph 8, are purely hypothetical “unacceptable efforts to harass artists with a view to intimidating them from exercising their freedom of choice in relation to engagement with Israel”. As the IPSC had repeatedly explained to the Irish Times that there was in fact no such campaign of harassment and/or intimidation – and offered evidence to prove this. Thus the Minister was condemning something – a campaign of harassment ‐ which had never taken place, but was misreported in a manner which suggested that there was indeed such a campaign. Indeed, as with the Minister for Justice and Defence (see Section 3.2) it is reasonable to assume that both the Dail questioner (Joanna Tuffy TD) and An Tánaiste based their assumptions about the campaign on the Irish Times’ inaccurate coverage of the issue over the previous two weeks. This article thus again violates principles 1.1 and 2.2 of the Press Council Code of Conduct.
In quoting Mr. Deane’s denial of any “venom” or “avalanche of negativity” being directed toward Dervish, in Paragraph 4 (an unusually early appearance in this sequence of stories for the inevitable IPSC “denial” quotation, though it is in this case re‐using an old denial), the author omits Mr. Deane’s further comment that abuse had been thrown at the band by supporters of Israel – a fact easily verifiable by looking at the Dervish Facebook page. It is worth pointing out that even though this was the sixth article of its kind, framed in such a way as to attack the cultural boycott of Israel campaign and the IPSC, neither Mr. Deane nor any other representative of the IPSC was contacted for fresh comment by the journalist.
The article also uses the word “pressure” – which in this case is counter‐posed to verbs like “target” and “force”. It cannot be both “pressure” and “intimidation”. As explained above, the IPSC seeks to use moral
17 ‘Dervish and the boycott of Israel’, Letters Page, Wednesday May 16, Raymond Deane ‐http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0516/1224316194435.html
18 ‘Pressure for arts boycott of Israel condemned’, May 19th 2012, Mary Fitzgerald ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0519/1224316359130.html
suasion to persuade artists to refuse to play in Israel. While ‘pressure’ is an accurate description of that tactic, loaded words such as “force” are not.
Simultaneously on May 19th, an op‐ed by Fintan O’Toole was published with the headline ‘Why the cultural boycott of Israel is a blunt and backward instrument’19, which attacked the cultural boycott campaign. It is of course Mr. O’Toole’s right to pen such a piece giving his opinion (though the IPSC would obviously argue against his views) – but it is worth noting that this was the seventh piece (6 articles, 1 op‐ed) criticising the cultural boycott campaign and/or the IPSC to have appeared in the Irish Times in 15 days. It was at this point (21st May) that the IPSC, in the person of Raymond Deane, approached the Opinion Editor Chris Dooley and submitted a piece as a right of reply. This approach was met with agreement in principle; however, Mr Deane was told that owing to the coverage of the Fiscal Treaty Referendum there would be no space for the piece in the course of the following week – although the Irish Times did agree to publish an op‐ed from him.
Subsequently, on May 23rd, another op‐ed written by Sami Hermez of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) was submitted to Mr. Deane, who in turn sent it to Chris Dooley stating that he would be happy to have this piece published instead of his own op‐ed, as it would give the Palestinians who issued the call for a cultural boycott a voice for the first time in a three‐week long debate. This idea was rejected by Mr. Dooley, who said that “since much of the commentary in recent days has been about the approach taken by the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign and not just the merits of the boycott itself it might be better to have a piece from yourself.” It is worth noting that this once again denied Palestinians agency and a voice in their own campaign.
Then on Friday 25th May at 8.54pm, Mr. Deane received an email from Mr. Dooley, informing him that a (presumably) unsolicited op‐ed piece from the writer Gerard Donovan had come in and that they were going to print it the following day, Saturday 26th May. Thus despite having told Mr. Deane previously that there would be no room for an op‐ed on the subject until the Fiscal Treaty Referendum was over, the Irish Times decided to publish an unsolicited 1,200+ word op‐ed, once again attacking the IPSC, and Mr. Deane personally, on the day of highest readership figures for the paper.
Mr Deane was then told that his op‐ed could be printed on either Tuesday 29th or Thursday 31st May. Because a higher word‐count was available on the Thursday, Mr. Deane accepted that date under protest, saying that it was unfair that they had two consecutive high‐circulation Saturday op‐eds attacking the cultural boycott campaign (Fintan O’Toole’s and Gerard Donovan’s), while the IPSC’s response would be consigned to the midweek paper with lower circulation figures. Mr. Dooley’s justification was that it would give Mr. Deane a chance to respond to both of the anti‐boycott op‐eds and the general coverage in the paper – although in Mr. Deane’s view this was merely allowing further criticism and biased reporting to pile up before the IPSC ever got a chance to respond in a fitting manner. Three weeks and many, many prejudicial articles after the Irish Times had begun pursuing this ‘story’, the paper was clearly in volation of its obligations under Principle 1.3 to publish a response “promptly”.
3.7 May 26th: ‘So much for Irish artists sharing ideas without interference’
On Saturday May 26th, Gerard Donovan’s op‐ed appeared, entitled ‘So much for Irish artists sharing ideas without interference’20. The piece uses words that conjure up imagery of thuggish behaviour by Mr. Deane
19 ‘Why the cultural boycott of Israel is a blunt and backward instrument’, 19th May 2012, Fintan O’Toole ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0519/1224316323924.html
20 ‘So much for Irish artists sharing ideas without interference’, May 26th 2012, Gerard Donovan ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0526/1224316730779.html
and the IPSC. Some examples are as follows: “at the hands of Raymond Deane”; “mistrust of organised mobs”; “our family used to get bullets in envelopes ... [my father got] himself beaten up ... those mobs have in time changed to keyboard warriors ... threats are still threats”; “terminated my brother’s polite and thoughtful points”; “actively intimidates an Irish writer from pursuing his art”; “[Mr Deane] creates trouble for other artists”; “intimidation”.
It is frankly astounding that the Irish Times would deem it fit to print such outrageous and defamatory attacks on Mr. Deane, and by extension the IPSC, attacks which include a demand that the state stop funding Raymond Deane's cultural work in part because he spends ‘so much of his time and energies on political activism’. This demand would not be out of place in 1950s McCarthyite America, and it is shocking to see this threatening demand endorsed by its prominent position in the Irish Times. It must be remembered that the Irish Times was already aware of the content of the IPSC’s Open Letter to Mr. Dononvan – which incidentally, was not quoted at all in Mr. Donovan’s piece ‐ and therefore knew that it could in no way be construed as being of a threatening or intimidatory nature, let alone allow a connection with “bullets in envelopes” and being “beaten up”.
Mr Donovan also shows dubious ethics in selectively quoting, in the public sphere, out of context, private emails between Mr. Deane and Richard Donovan, the writer’s brother.
It is also worth noting that in this piece, the author frames his and his brother’s actions in terms of “reaching out” and “building bridges”, while the actions of the IPSC are presented as being an “organised mob” making “threats”. This is ironic given that all the IPSC ever did was to write to Mr. Donovan asking him not to ignore the Palestinian call for a boycott of Israel, while from the outset Mr. Donovan has used his platform to verbally abuse and defame Mr. Deane and the IPSC.
While Mr Donovan’s article is clearly presented as Comment, it makes a number of allegations about Mr Deane’s actions that are presented not merely as opinion but as statements of fact. It is therefore in violation of principles 2.2 and 3.1 of the Press Council Code of Practice.
The piece is followed by an allegedly explanatory note called ‘BOYCOTTING ISRAEL THE BACKGROUND’ which makes two factual errors in the opening sentence. That sentence states that “THE IRELAND‐Palestine Solidarity Campaign began a ‘cultural boycott’ of Israel in August 2010”. Firstly, the IPSC did not “[begin] a cultural boycott” ‐ the IPSC acts in support of the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, of which the cultural boycott is one facet. By failing to let its readers know this simple fact, the Irish Times once again actively denied Palestinians a voice. Secondly, the IPSC’s activities in support of the cultural boycott did not begin in August 2010; the IPSC merely established the ‘Irish Artists’ Pledge To Boycott Israel’ at that time. This panel therefore violated Principle 1.1 of the Press Council Code of Practice.
It is also interesting that the second paragraph of the explanatory note refers to the IPSC having “urged” Dervish not to tour Israel, while the caption to the accompanying photo of an IPSC march in 2007 uses the phrase “efforts to deter artists from visiting Israel”. Again, both these statements are at odds with the language used in the original report suggesting the IPSC had engaged in a campaign of “venom” and “warning[s]”.
3.8 May 30th: ‘Palestinian envoy opposes pressure over boycott’
On Wednesday 30th May a further article appeared penned by Mary Fitzgerald, concerning comments by the Palestinian envoy to Ireland 21. The piece opened with a completely misleading headline, ie, “Palestinian envoy opposes pressure over boycott”. The content of the article could easily have supported
21 ‘Palestinian envoy opposes pressure over boycott’, May 30th 2012, Mary Fitzgerald ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0530/1224316913103.html
the headline “Palestinian envoy supports cultural boycott”. Indeed, the very fact that an official Palestinian representative is endorsing, albeit in a personal capacity, the cultural boycott is surely extremely newsworthy. However, the author follows Mr. Ajurri’s welcome of the cultural boycott by quoting Minister Gilmore’s criticism of “unacceptable efforts to harass artists with a view to intimidating them from exercising their freedom of choice in relation to engagement with Israel”. The implication is that the IPSC’s campaign of moral suasion seeking to persuade artists to abide by the Palestinian call for a cultural boycott is tanatamount to “unacceptable efforts to harass artists with a view to intimidating” them. As pointed out above, the Minister’s statement in this regard is referring to a hypothetical scenario which never took place. The author then elicits from Mr. Ajurri a similar broad condemnation of such actions, implying without basis that he thereby accepts the suggestion that Dervish and Gerard Donovan were subjected to such actions.
In fact, the IPSC contacted Mr. Ajurri about the article, and while he stated that he was happy to be quoted in the Irish Times, due to the paper’s lack of coverage of Palestinian voices, he also asserted repeatedly that the reporter had sought to elicit a condemnation of the the cultural boycott campaign the IPSC has been involved in, and when he refused to condemn the campaign, selectively quoted him so that it appeared that he was doing so. According to Mr. Ajurri, when asked about the ‘campaign of ‘harassment’ by the journalist, he stated that he felt ‘this is rubbish. I don’t think there is anything of the sort’, before adding that of course, he condemns any harassment. Only the second part of the statement was printed. We see no reason to doubt Mr. Ajurri’s statement – apart from anything else; it would be quite astonishing and absolutely unprecedented for him to issue a condemnation of the cultural boycott campaign.
Finally, once again, Ms. Fitzgerald failed to contact Mr. Deane for comment on the issue. Indeed this is the third article Ms. Fitzgerald wrote on the subject, in none of which was Mr. Deane contacted for comment. It is also hard to escape the conclusion that the publication of this piece, coming the day before Mr. Deane’s op‐ed was due to be published, formed part of an attempt to undermine Mr. Deane’s piece in advance, especially when viewed in conjunction with the subsequent negative framing of Mr Deane’s piece, as discussed below.
This article, in which a prominent Palestinian official expressed support for the boycott but the story was presented as being about his opposing some non‐existent “harassment”, was a clear case of the Irish Times trying to defend its previous coverage, even to the point of violating principles 1.1 and 2.2 of the Press Council Code of Practice.
3.9 May 31st: ‘Defence of artistic freedom ignores Palestinian plight’
Eventually, on Thursday 31st May, Mr. Deane’s op‐ed was published under an Irish Times‐penned headline, ‘Defence of artistic freedom ignores Palestinian plight’22. This publication came a full 27 days after the original inaccurate and misleading piece about Dervish first appeared in the paper.
However, while this extremely belated opportunity to set the record straight was welcomed by the IPSC, there was a serious problem with the framing of the piece. Indeed, this framing appeared precisely calculated to undermine the content.
The headline, “Defence of artistic freedom ignores Palestinian plight”, which was chosen by an Irish Times editor and not Mr. Deane himself, bears no relation to the content of the piece, and implies that Mr. Deane seeks to attack artistic freedom, which is simply not the case. Nowhere in his piece does Mr. Deane even mention “artistic freedom”, let alone seek to suggest it is subordinate to some other value, as suggested by the erroneous headline.
22 ‘Defence of artistic freedom ignores Palestinian plight’, 31st May 2012, Raymond Deane ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0531/1224316987916.html
Secondly, the piece was accompanied by an image of human rights demonstrators in France, rather than Ireland. This seemingly bizarre choice of image only makes sense when read in conjunction with its caption: “A woman calling for a boycott of Israel at a demonstration last November in France in support of 12 pro‐Palestinian activists charged with inciting discrimination, hate or violence following their participation in actions promoting the boycott of Israeli products”. It seems the choice of image is aimed at undermining Mr. Deane’s entire piece, by suggesting that Palestinian rights activists incite “discrimination, hate or violence”. The use of a picture from 7 months earlier, in France, with such a caption can only be viewed in such a light. It is worth noting that all 12 French human rights activists were acquitted of the charges, contrary to the implication of the caption and unmentioned by the Irish Times23.
On the established, albeit anecdotal, principle that for every one person who reads such a piece, another dozen or more just read the headline and look at the photo, there is clear evidence that the paper undermined the important principle of right to reply by misrepresenting Mr Deane's article, suggesting that he opposes “artistic freedom”and associating BDS with “incitement to discrimination, hate or violence”.
Therefore the IPSC must take the unusual step of complaining about an article written by one of its own National Committee members, on the grounds that its presentation violated Press Council Principle 3.1, on fairness and honesty. In this context, it should be noted that in the days leading up to the publication of Mr Deane’s article, Opinion Editor Chris Dooley had written a number of extraordinarily vituperative attacks on people who commented online about Gerard Donovan’s piece, exclusively directing his ire against pro‐Palestinian commenters. Whether these comments were appropriate for a representative of the Irish Times is a matter for that organisation. Their content and tone, including the questioning of the professional qualifications of a journalism lecturer who joined the discussion (see Appendix 4.2), must raise questions for any objective observer about whether Mr Dooley was in a position to present Mr Deane’s article fairly and honestly.
Finally, the piece was also framed by two letters published on the facing page attacking the cultural boycott call24, one of which went so far as to compare Mr Deane to a Mafia Don making an “offer that one euphemistically cannot refuse”.
On June 4th, two further letters appeared. It is noteworthy that one of the letters contained a large number of signatures from former anti‐Apartheid activists, Israeli, Jewish and artists’ groups fully in support of the IPSC and the cultural boycott campaign. However, equally noteworthy is that the paper refused to publish a letter signed by 59 Palestinians resident in Ireland, and another letter from the Palestinian Boycott National Committee (BNC) and PACBI – the originators of the cultural boycott call – thus, yet again, actively suppressing Palestinian voices and agency in their own liberation struggle.
One of those who submitted the former letter was informed by the Irish Times, via phone, that the debate surrounding the Palestinian call for a cultural boycott of Israel, and efforts by human rights activists to promote that call in Ireland, had now been closed.
23 ‘In blow to Israel, French BDS activists acquitted of crime in calling for boycott’, Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada, Sunday 18th December 2011 ‐ http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali‐abunimah/blow‐israel‐french‐bds‐activists‐acquitted‐crime‐calling‐boycott
24 ‘Boycott of Israel’, Letters, May 31st, Michael Carragher / Joseph McMinn, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0531/1224316987817.html
4. Other issues and questions about the Irish Times’ reportage
4.1 Why did the cultural boycott become “an issue” for the Irish Times?
The question must be asked as to why the Irish Times suddenly decided to take up this issue of the cultural boycott of Israel, and frame it in such a negative manner?
Previously the Irish Times had largely ignored the cultural boycott campaign; the IPSC had issued open letters to artists such as singers Ana Moura25 and John Lydon26, and the film director John McDonagh (who cancelled his appearance at the Haifa Film Festival after being asked to by the IPSC27) – yet these generated no coverage. In fact, before the Dervish episode, only twice did the Irish Times report on the campaign – but such negative framing was nowhere to be found in this coverage, which included sending an Open Letter to the stage show Riverdance in 201128 and staging a protest and leafleting fans outside a Leonard Cohen concert in the 02 Arena in 200929. On the whole, the Irish Times seemed to be uninterested in the cultural boycott until the Dervish campaign – which was carried out with much less gusto than previous such campaigns.
It is most curious that this became an issue only when it appeared that it could be used as a stick to beat Palestinian human rights campaigners with, and was subsequently used in exactly this manner.
4.2 Backtracking on claims about ‘forcing’ One notable feature of the articles when read as a whole is the gradual change in the language used; moving from near certainty regarding actions of the IPSC and the intentions of Dervish and Ms Jordan to vaguer or less vilifying choices of words, perhaps indicating uncertainty about the paper’s chosen narrative of events.
The initial article “Dervish pull out of Israel tour after social media ‘venom” by Messrs McGreevy and Clancy (4th May) opens with the statement that Dervish had “pulled out of a concert tour of Israel citing an ‘avalanche of negativity’ and ‘venom’ directed towards them on social media sites’. The same article also states that ‘members of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign claimed they were responsible for forcing the band to call off the tour”, misrepresenting the views and tactics of the IPSC, which does not ‘force’ artists to take part in the BDS campaign.
25 ‘Open Letter to Ana Moura: Don’t perform in Apartheid Israel’, IPSC, Friday 30th December 2011 ‐ http://www.ipsc.ie/press‐releases/open‐letter‐to‐ana‐moura‐dont‐perform‐in‐apartheid‐israel
26 ‘Open Letter to John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten): Don’t Play Along With Apartheid Israel’, IPSC, Tuesday 17th August 2010 ‐ http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/ipsc/displayRelease.php?releaseID=391
27 ‘BDS victory as ‘The Guard’ director declines to participate in the Haifa Film Festival in Israel’, IPSC, Friday 7th October 2011 ‐ http://www.ipsc.ie/press‐releases/ipsc‐calls‐on‐the‐guard‐director‐not‐to‐participate‐in‐the‐haifa‐film‐festival‐in‐israel
28 ‘Ballagh in protest over show going to Israel’, Jamie Smyth, Friday April 4th 2011 ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0429/1224295673663.html
29 ‘Singer urged to 'rethink' Tel Aviv concert plan’, Monday 7th July 2009 ‐ www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0720/1224250946453.html
In Ms Fitzgerald’s May 12 article ‘Do cultural boycotts achieve anything?’ the language is less certain than it had been up to this point. ‘Cathy Jordan added that she “wasn’t quite prepared for the extent of the venom directed at us”, presumably a reference to the torrent of messages left on Dervish’s Facebook page and other websites calling for the band to pull out’. While the same accusation is directed at the IPSC, Ms Fitzgerald has conceded that this is a presumption, not confirmed fact. It should be noted that this article maintains the claim that the IPSC ‘orchestrated efforts to force Dervish to cancel their performance’.
Mr McGreevy’s May 14 article ‘Pro Palestinian group targets Irish writer’ lets Donovan himself make the bulk of the case against the IPSC. However Mr McGreevy’s own language has become less certain. He makes use of the verbs ‘urge’ and ‘pressure’ rather than ‘force’ when describing the boycott campaign. Mr Deane’s paraphrased defence of the IPSC in paragraph 12 is written in such a convoluted way as to render it incomprehensible.
Mary Fitzgerald’s May 15 article ‘Pressure for arts boycott of Israel condemned’ also refers to ‘pressure’ rather than ‘force’. The third paragraph makes use of Ms Jordan’s statement, without the implication that it is representative of Dervish as a whole. However, Dervish’s April 30 statement is ignored.
The explanatory note attached to Mr Donovan’s May 26 opinion piece claims that the IPSC had ‘urged Dervish to cancel their proposed tour’. The caption accompanying the picture of a 2007 IPSC organised event mentions ‘efforts to deter artists from visiting Israel’. Finally, the May 30 article ‘Palestinian envoy opposes pressure over boycott’, now tell us that the IPSC had ‘lobbied’ Dervish and Mr Donovan to boycott Israel. This change in the use of language indicates that the Irish Times is indeed aware that the language used in the initial reports were damaging and misleading. However, it has yet to publicly acknowledge this fact.
4.3 Marginalising Palestinian voices and agency
With only two references to the fact that the call for a cultural boycott of Israel came from Palestinian civil society ‐ as part of a wider campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel ‐ in the whole reportage of the debate (that is, two references in 10 articles and op‐eds) the conclusion that the Irish Times is not interested in giving Palestinians a voice in their own struggle is hard to escape. This is compounded by the paper’s refusal to print either the Op‐Ed submitted by Sami Hermez of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) (see Section 3.6), or the two letters from Palestinians living in Ireland and the Palestinian Boycott National Committee (BNC) and PACBI (see Section 3.9), and the lack of quotations from Palestinian civil society representatives in any of the coverage. Indeed, with the exception of the Palestinian Envoy to Ireland, Mr. Hikmat Ajjuri who was interviewed once ‐ but with his words falsely framed so that he actually appeared to be opposed to the IPSC’s actions (see Section 3.8), no Palestinian voice was present in the coverage at all. This is simply incredible.
While we note with some sadness that the Press Council Code of Practice may have nothing to say about such an extraordinary omission, we return again to the the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Irish Times Trust, which as noted above (see Section 3.3) call for the promotion of social justice, the discouragement of discrimination and “the reasonable representation of minority interests and divergent views”.
5. Rectification and satisfaction
5.1 Demands of the Ireland‐Palestinian Solidarity Campaign
It is for the Irish Times to determine why such a serious error, a profoundly misleading and damaging report of a series of events and their meaning, was made in a page‐1 story on May 4th; and why when errors were drawn to their attention, the Irish Times continued with its narrative on this story ‐ assisted by statements from Government ministers ‐ rather than correcting the misapprehensions fostered by the initial coverage. They may also seek to determine why ‐ until Mr Raymond Deane’s May 31st article – they refused to give the IPSC any more than a cursory reply to the accusations made. Whatever the reason, the Ireland‐Palestine Solidarity Campaign must insist on redress.
While the Irish Times subtly toned down the language of its accusations (see Section 4.2) against the IPSC over the course of the month ‐ and by late May in online discussions its journalists insisted that the paper was only reporting what Ms Jordan and others said, not alleging that those statements were true (see Appendix 4.1) ‐ it never did what the most basic ethics and sense of responsibility require: correct its mistakes and set the the record straight.
As outlined in the Executive Summary above, the Irish Times therefore acted in clear violation not only of its own avowed principles, but of the Code of the Practice laid down by the Press Council of Ireland: namely principles 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 relating to truth and accuracy and the responsibility to correct errors; principle 2.2, relating to the reporting of conjecture as though it were fact; principle 3.1, striving for fairness and accuracy; and principle 4, respect for the rights and good name of individuals against unfounded accusations.
We insist that, at minimum, a retraction of the initial article and the errors arising from it should appear on the front page of the Irish Times, afforded due prominence equal to that of the original offending article, the wording to be agreed between the Irish Times and the IPSC; furthermore we insist that, online, the text of the same retraction should be added to all of the articles mentioned in this complaint, at the top of the web page. When appropriate, specific additions to that wording should also appear on specific articles, again to be agreed between the Irish Times and the IPSC.
The retraction would need to detail that the Irish Times reporting was misleading and gave rise to false conclusions on a number of points. It must acknowledge that there is no evidence of any “venom” directed against Dervish by pro‐Palestinian activists; that Dervish withdrew from a planned trip to Israel because it became aware of an internationally supported call for a cultural boycott of Israel, a call originating in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and supported by thousands of artists worldwide; that Dervish was subjected to angry abuse from pro‐Israeli commenters after announcing that cancellation, the only “venom” against them visible in the online record; that neither Mr Raymond Deane nor any other member of the IPSC issued any threats or intimidation against Dervish, Mr Gerard Donovan or any other artist in relation to the boycott call; that Mr Deane does not oppose artistic freedom and nor does he incite hatred or violence; and that viewed as a whole the Irish Times coverage of this matter between May 4th and May 31st 2012 was in violation of the above‐enumerated principles set down by the Press Council of Ireland, and not worthy of the trust placed by its readers in the Irish Times.
This is a large demand. It is, however, no larger than the damage done to the reputation and good name of the IPSC by this extraordinarily biased coverage, and no larger than the disservice done to the truth by the Irish Times’ many false and misleading assertions, allusions and implications.
Appendix 1: Chronological record of articles, features, op‐eds and letters 1. Dervish pull out of Israel tour after social media ‘venom’, 4th May, Ronan McGreevy & Paddy Clancy ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0504/1224315593067.html 2. Letters, May 8th – Ciaran O Ragahallaigh ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0508/1224315743142.html 3. ‘Artists urged not to boycott Israel’, 8th May, Ronan McGreevy ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0508/breaking51.html
4. Letters, May 11th – Paul Kelly ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0511/1224315906701.html
5. Do cultural boycotts achieve anything?, 12th May, Mary Fitzgerald ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0512/1224315955295.html
6. Letters, May 12th – Ivor Shorts ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0512/1224315982020.html
7. Pro‐Palestinian group targets Irish writer, 14th May, Ronan McGreevy ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0514/1224316064391.html
8. Novelist condemns 'intimidation' by group promoting boycott of Israel, 15th May, Ronan McGreevy ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0515/1224316130335.html
9. Letters, May 16th – Laurence Davis, David Fine, Raymond Deane, Conor McCarthy ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0516/1224316194435.html
10. Why the cultural boycott of Israel is a blunt and backward instrument, 19th May, Fintan O’Toole ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0519/1224316323924.html
11. Pressure for arts boycott of Israel condemned, 19th May, Mary Fitzgerald ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0519/1224316359130.html
12. Letters, May 22nd – Daniel Finn, Nurit Modai, Samuel Walsh ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0522/1224316502961.html
13. So much for Irish artists sharing ideas without interference . . ., 26th May, Gerard O’Donovan ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0526/1224316730779.html
14. Letters, May 29th – Lorraine Courtney, Margaretta D’arcy, Harry Browne, Martin O’Quigley and Fred Johnston ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0529/1224316867047.html
15. Palestinian envoy opposes pressure over boycott, 30th May, Mary Fitzgerald ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0530/1224316913103.html
16. Defence of artistic freedom ignores Palestinian plight, 31st May, Raymond Deane http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0531/1224316987916.html
17. Letters, May 31st – Michael Carragher & Joseph McMinn http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0531/1224316987817.html
18. Letters, June 4th – IAAM & Louis Lentin ‐ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0604/1224317205334.html
Appendix 2: Letters (unpublished) submitted by Raymond Deane 2.1 – Friday, 4th May – Raymond Deane to Letters Editor From: culturalliaison at ipsc.ie Date: 4 May 2012 10:12 Subject: Dervish cancels tour of Israel To: lettersed at irishtimes.com Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign [64] Dame Street Dublin 2 [01‐6770253 / 086‐8124085] Sir,
Your report on Dervish's cancellation of its tour of Israel state that "there is no official boycott of Israel and artists are free to play in the country if they wish." (4th May)
There was "no official boycott" (whatever that might mean) of Apartheid South Africa either, yet the boycott of that state by artists was one of the factors that contributed to its increasing isolation and ultimately to the fall of the Apartheid regime.
There is, however, an appeal from Palestinian civil society for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), including a cultural boycott, against Israel until it complies with international law. This was first articulated by over 170 Palestinian civil society organisations in 2005, and has grown in strength ever since. Artists are free to disregard this appeal just as all citizens are free to ignore the plight of the dispossessed and oppressed Palestinians, as do the governments of the USA and EU.
As for the "venom" on social media websites, this emanates primarily from unconditional supporters of Israel's occupation.
Sincerely ‐ Raymond Deane Cultural Liaison Officer Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign
2.2 – Tuesday, 8th May – Raymond Deane to Letters Editor From: culturalliaison at ipsc.ie Date: 8 May 2012 10:01AM Subject: Dervish cancels tour of Israel To: lettersed at irishtimes.com
Dear Editor ‐
I submitted a version of this letter on 4th May, correcting that day's inaccurate report by two Irish Times reporters. You chose not to publish it. Nonetheless, today you have published a letter based on that same inaccurate report. I am now resubmitting my letter, modified to take account of this letter.
**************************** Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign [64] Dame Street Dublin 2 [01‐6770253 / 086‐8124085] Sir,
Your report on Dervish's cancellation of its tour of Israel state that "there is no official boycott of Israel and artists are free to play in the country if they wish." (4th May)
There was at first no “official” boycott of Apartheid South Africa either, yet the boycott of that state by civil society, including artists, was one of the factors that contributed to its increasing isolation and ultimately to the fall of the Apartheid regime.
Since 2005 there has been an appeal from Palestinian civil society for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), including a cultural boycott, against Israel until it complies with international law. Artists are free to disregard this appeal just as all citizens are free to ignore the plight of the dispossessed and oppressed Palestinians.
Ciarán Ó Raghallaigh (Letters, 8th May) repeats your report’s false claim that Dervish cancelled because of “a campaign of venom by activists”. The band’s statement explained that it cancelled because “we were unaware there was a cultural boycott in place”, adding that “[w]e now feel that we do not wish to break this boycott.” The subsequent outbreak of venom emanated exclusively from Israel’s supporters.
Sincerely ‐ Raymond Deane Cultural Liaison Officer Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign
2.2 – Thursday, 10th May – Raymond Deane to Letters Editor From: culturalliaison at ipsc.ie Date: 10 May 2012 8:24AM Subject: Dervish cancels tour of Israel To: lettersed at irishtimes.com
Dear Editor ‐
It beggars belief that you have as yet failed to publish my letter rectifying an incorrect Irish Times report published on 4th May. Nonetheless on Monday you published a letter, based on that inaccurate report, accusing Palestinian rights activists of "monopolising" the discourse on Israel/Palestine. That you would publish such an unfounded allegation while simultaneously suppressing my letter is extraordinary, and suggests a very definite agenda. I am hereby resubmitting my letter. Meanwhile, an approach to the media ombudsman is being seriously considered by the IPSC, given the patent imbalance of Irish Times coverage of the Palestine issue.
**************************** Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign [64] Dame Street Dublin 2 [01‐6770253 / 086‐8124085] Sir,
Your report on Dervish's cancellation of its tour of Israel stated that "there is no official boycott of Israel and artists are free to play in the country if they wish." (4th May)
There was at first no “official” boycott of Apartheid South Africa either, yet the boycott of that state by civil society, including artists, was one of the factors that contributed to its increasing isolation and ultimately to the fall of the Apartheid regime.
Since 2005 there has been an appeal from Palestinian civil society for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), including a cultural boycott, against Israel until it complies with international law. Artists are free to disregard this appeal just as all citizens are free to ignore the plight of the dispossessed and oppressed Palestinians.
Ciarán Ó Raghallaigh (Letters, 8th May) repeats your report’s false claim that Dervish cancelled because of “a campaign of venom by activists”. The band’s statement explained that it cancelled because “we were unaware there was a cultural boycott in place”, adding that “[w]e now feel that we do not wish to break this boycott.” The subsequent outbreak of venom emanated exclusively from Israel’s supporters.
Sincerely ‐ Raymond Deane Cultural Liaison Officer
Appendix 3: Correspondence between Raymond Deane and Chris Dooley, Irish Times Opinion Editor
3.1 – Monday, 21st May – Raymond Deane to Paddy Smyth From: culturalliaison at ipsc.ie Date: 21 May 2012 11:07 AM Subject: Proposed Op Ed on the issue of Cultural Boycott To: opinion at irishtimes.comopinion at i rishtimes.iexxxx at iris htimes. com Dear Paddy Smyth ‐ I am hereby submitting the attached article on the question of the cultural boycott of Israel. Since the publication by your paper of a report by Ronan McGreevy and Paddy Clancy on 4th May, in which it was alleged that the band Dervish had cancelled their Israeli tour because of a campaign of intimidation by the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC), the issue of cultural boycott has suddenly become a hot potato, despite having been comprehensively ignored by the media in general over the years since the Palestinians called for BDS. The 4th May report became the basis for a slanderous press release from Minister Shatter ‐ widely covered by the media, whereas the IPSC press release rebutting it was ignored ‐ and a misleading intervention in the Seanad by Senator Paschal Mooney. Attempts by myself on behalf of the IPSC to rectify the elements of misinformation contained in the 4th May report and subsequent letters and articles in the Irish Times were also ignored, although finally one single letter (out of five) was published ‐ more than two weeks after the outbreak of the "controversy". Fintan O'Toole's article on Saturday last convinced me that it was necessary for the readers of your paper to have a clear statement of what the cultural boycott (and BDS in general) is about. The piece that I have submitted, therefore, isn't intended merely as a "rebuttal" of Fintan's article, but as a more general statement of what the campaign is about, incorporating a few corrections (as I see it) of misconceptions contained in said article. I hope that you will consent to publishing this piece in its entirety as an Op Ed. Best wishes ‐ Raymond Deane
**************************** Op Ed attached to the email
In mid‐May the Ireland‐Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) presented a tour of Ireland featuring, among others, the Palestinian‐Canadian performance poet Rafeef Ziadah and the Palestinian‐Israeli singer Terez Sliman. These artists are also articulate advocates of the Palestinian cause and of the cultural boycott of
Israel. They were made available for interview to the media, including the Irish Times – but there were no takers.
This becomes less surprising when one reflects that Irish media outlets scarcely mentioned the recent hunger‐strike by up to 2000 Palestinian political prisoners, described by Jewish Voice for Peace as “a new chapter in the history of nonviolent resistance”.
Had they been interviewed, these Palestinian artists would surely have repeated their comparison of the boycott to a picket line which conscientious people would not normally cross because they respect the wishes of those who are fighting exploitation.
They would have mentioned the 2004 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice that Israel’s construction of a wall on Palestinian territory was “contrary to international law” and that governments were “under an obligation not to… render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction.”
They would have clarified that in 2005 the failure of governments to act on this obligation, and the continuation of “aid and assistance” in the shape of trading privileges offered Israel by the EU, led over 170 Palestinian civil society organisations to call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against the Israeli state until “it complies with international law and universal principles of human rights”.
This call was followed by the foundation of the Palestinian Campaign for the Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel (PACBI), which has laid down rigorous conditions for the implementation of the cultural aspect of BDS. Citing Mandela’s dictum that “boycott is not a principle but a tactic depending on circumstances”, PACBI emphasises that the target of this non‐violent tactic is not culture per se, but its manipulation by the Israeli state. Visiting Israeli artists are to be welcomed unless their trip is supported by the Israeli state and/or they have performed in the illegal West Bank settlements.
In an Op Ed (19th May) Fintan O’Toole, without once mentioning the Palestinian origin of the BDS call, criticised the cultural boycott as “a blunt and backward instrument”. But surely it is not as blunt as F‐16s, Hellfire missiles, white phosphorus, and the other “instruments” used by the Israeli state to terrorise, maim and murder Palestinian civilians? Or as backward as the wall, four times as long as the Berlin Wall, being constructed within the occupied West Bank in violation of international law, with cement provided by Irish multinational CRH?
These excesses occur on a daily basis. Meticulously documented by Israeli human rights groups like B’tselem and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), they are practically ignored by our media and fail to trigger sanctions by EU governments that are mandated by the human rights clause (Article 3) of the Euro‐Mediterranean Association Agreement that grants Israel significant trading privileges.
Mr O’Toole’s critique of the IPSC pledge "not to avail of any invitation to perform or exhibit in Israel" because it “makes no distinction between government‐sponsored events and, for example, the courageous Israeli theatre companies that present critical work” neglected to quote the Israeli foreign ministry’s assertion in 2005 that “[w]e see culture as a propaganda tool of the first rank, and do not differentiate between propaganda and culture.” Mr O’Toole’s injunction to artists not to “let yourself be used for propaganda purposes” underestimates the degree to which a state like Israel, which has a ministry devoted entirely to propaganda, can exploit the mere presence of foreign artists as a tool for the whitewashing and normalisation of its suppression of Palestinian rights.
Mr O’Toole chose not to mention prominent Israeli dissidents who support BDS, including the cultural boycott, such as the historian Ilan Pappe or Jeff Halper, co‐founder of ICAHD. In raising the history of anti‐Semitic boycotts as an impediment to BDS, Mr O’Toole equates the Jewish people with the state of Israel – an equation common to anti‐Semites and Zionists alike – while cutting the ground from under Israeli and other Jewish opponents of that state’s violations of Palestinian rights.
Finally, Mr O’Toole’s criteria for a “code of conduct for artists and performers in relation to regimes that egregiously abuse human rights” included well‐meaning advice to artists not to “perform to audiences forcibly segregated on lines of race, gender or ethnicity”. This overlooks the fact that Israeli audiences will inevitably lack those forcibly excluded from attendance by the Separation Wall or the siege of Gaza. His criteria are supposed to “save [artists] from being pressured”, but why should artists, unlike other citizens, be absolved from reflecting on the possible consequences of their actions?
A similarly narrow view of artistic responsibility is found in novelist Gerard Donovan’s rambling and vindictive Op Ed (26th May), in which the Palestinians merit not a mention. According to Mr Donovan, even to request artists not to cross the Palestinian picket line constitutes “a threat”, “interference”, and “intimidation”, meriting invocation of Article 40 of the Irish Constitution protecting the Irish citizen “from unjust attack”.
The polite and formal letter from myself that prompted this article, appealing to him in three impersonal sentences not to break the boycott by attending the International Writers’ Festival in Jerusalem, was withdrawn from circulation when I learned that, because of illness, Mr Donovan had in fact not gone to Israel. It is now once again in the public domain (Letters 29th May) so that readers can assess for themselves the falsehood of Mr Donovan’s claims.In this respect his diatribe is akin to the baseless campaign of vilification of the IPSC because of its fictitious “intimidation” of the band Dervish. Consultation of Dervish’s Facebook page by some intrepid investigative journalist would have revealed that the only intimidation came from supporters of Israel.
Equally problematic is the editorial postscript supposedly providing “background” to the article. Here it is implied that the IPSC invented the cultural boycott whereas, like comparable campaigns throughout the world, it merely implements the call from Palestinian civil society. Mention of this fact, however, would have entailed mentioning the Palestinians.
Seemingly for the Irish media the Palestine issue is summed up by the imaginary “intimidation” of Irish artists, who are apparently exempt from appeals to their consciences, rather than the violent dispossession of the Palestinians and the belligerent occupation of their lands by the rogue Israeli state.
In October 2010 Archbishop Tutu, revered veteran of the South African anti‐Apartheid campaign, appealed to Cape Town Opera to call off a tour of Israel "until both Israeli and Palestinian opera lovers of the region have equal opportunity and unfettered access to attend performances". Shortly before his death, Kader Asmal, founder of the Irish Anti‐Apartheid Movement, expressed his support for “calls around the world to disrupt normal relations with Israel, by boycotting cultural and academic activities, by disrupting trade relations, …and by pressurising governments to impose economic sanctions.”
The momentum of the peaceful tactic of BDS, including the cultural boycott of Israel, is global and unstoppable.
Raymond Deane is a composer, and Cultural Liaison Officer of the IPSC
3.2 – Monday, 21st May – Raymond Deane to Chris Dooley From: culturalliaison at ipsc.ie Sent: 21 May 2012 15:29 To: xxxx at irishtimes.com Subject: Fwd: Proposed Op Ed on the issue of Cultural Boycott
Dear Chris Dooley – I've just now learned that you, and not Paddy Smyth, are the Opinion Editor of the Irish Times ‐ although the IT switchboard doesn't seem to have caught up! I hope that this doesn't constitute some terrible breach of protocol... Anyway, here is the proposed Op Ed I submitted this morning ‐ the covering note to Paddy retains its validity. My contact details: 01‐6766577 086‐8124085 Best wishes ‐ Raymond Deane
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: <culturalliaison at ipsc.ie > Date: Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:07 AM Subject: Proposed Op Ed on the issue of Cultural Boycott To: opinion at irishtimes.com , opinion at i rishtimes.ie , xxxx at iris htimes. com Dear Paddy Smyth ‐ I am hereby submitting the attached article on the question of the cultural boycott of Israel. Since the publication by your paper of a report by Ronan McGreevy and Paddy Clancy on 4th May, in which it was alleged that the band Dervish had cancelled their Israeli tour because of a campaign of intimidation by the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC), the issue of cultural boycott has suddenly become a hot potato, despite having been comprehensively ignored by the media in general over the years since the Palestinians called for BDS. The 4th May report became the basis for a slanderous press release from Minister Shatter ‐ widely covered by the media, whereas the IPSC press release rebutting it was ignored ‐ and a misleading intervention in the Seanad by Senator Paschal Mooney. Attempts by myself on behalf of the IPSC to rectify the elements of misinformation contained in the 4th May report and subsequent letters and articles in the Irish Times were
also ignored, although finally one single letter (out of five) was published ‐ more than two weeks after the outbreak of the "controversy". Fintan O'Toole's article on Saturday last convinced me that it was necessary for the readers of your paper to have a clear statement of what the cultural boycott (and BDS in general) is about. The piece that I have submitted, therefore, isn't intended merely as a "rebuttal" of Fintan's article, but as a more general statement of what the campaign is about, incorporating a few corrections (as I see it) of misconceptions contained in said article. I hope that you will consent to publishing this piece in its entirety as an Op Ed. Best wishes ‐ Raymond Deane
3.3 – Monday, 21st May – Chris Dooley to Raymond Deane From: xxxx at irishtimes.com Date: 21 May 2012 5:42 PM Subject: RE: Proposed Op Ed on the issue of Cultural Boycott To: cul turallia ison at ipsc.ie Hi Raymond, Thanks a lot for the article. I would like to run a pie ce from you, bu t I am inu ndated this week, partly but not wholly because of the fiscal treaty referendum. This has really restricted my options. I’ll be back to you in the next couple of days when I have a better idea about when I might be able to publish something. Regards Chris
3.4 – Wednesday, 23rd May – Raymond Deane to Chris Dooley From: culturalliaison at ipsc.ie Sent: 23 May 2012 3:09PM To: Chris Dooley; opinion Subject: Another option re Op Ed
Hi Chris ‐
I've just been sent a draft of an article by Sami Hermez of PACBI, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, who wanted to know if I felt he should submit it as an Op Ed to the Irish Times.
My initial feeling, you may guess, was to thank him and say "leave that to me" ‐ but then I read the article.
I feel it's exemplary in a lot of ways, and also comes straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak ‐ so if he does submit it (and I told him to fire ahead) I would have no objection at all to your considering it in place of my own. The international perspective, I think, lifts it above the specifics of this recent affray.
Best ‐ Raymond
3.5 – Wednesday, 23rd May – Sami Hermez to Chris Dooley From: Sami Hermez <xxxx at alumni.duke.edu > To: opinion, xxxx at irishtimes.com
Dear Editor, I wish to submit an opinion piece to your newspaper in regards to the ongoing debate on the cultural boycott of Israel. My position will hopefully provide your readership with direct access to the opinions of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural boycott of Israel (PACBI). Please find the Op‐ed attached in MS Word format. I look forward to hear from you. All the best, Sami
****************************
Cultural Boycott of Israel: A Moral Duty Dr. Sami Hermez*
On 30 April 2012, the Irish music group Dervish cancelled a scheduled performance in Israel, leading to a public debate in Ireland on the cultural boycott of Israel. Some have bizarrely claimed that there is no cultural boycott, implying that the call by the overwhelming majority of Palestinian civil society for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, including in the cultural domain, is insignificant and dismissing an Israel boycott pledge by over 200 Irish artists and cultural workers, not to mention similar pledges by South African and Canadian artists
Some anti‐BDS arguments are premised on equating the oppressor and oppressed in ways that would not be acceptable in reference to other struggles in the world, such as the anti‐apartheid struggle in South Africa, or to Ireland’s own history of resisting colonialism.
At the outset, it should be made clear that the Palestinian BDS movement is a peaceful form of resistance based on principles of freedom, justice, equality and anti‐racism. It recognizes that effective and sustainable pressure on Israel to respect Palestinian rights under international law can only come through a movement that is ethically consistent and principled. The BDS movement has consistently condemned threats to violence. Therefore, it is absurd when critics try to frame the movement’s appeals to artists as
“cultural fascism.” Such accusations are consistent with Israeli attempts to bully international artists who support Palestinian rights and to delegitimize Palestinian resistance
In a recent article, Fintan O’Toole (Irish Times, May 19, 2012) weighed in to critique the Palestinian‐led BDS movement. O’Toole claims that the South African anti‐apartheid boycott was ineffective and blunt once it was taken up by the United Nations and lost its selectivity in targets. He proceeds to argue that the Palestinian BDS movement, modeled after its South African predecessor, is equally futile because it is not selective. This assertion flies in the face of the historic record, as narrated by leaders of the anti‐apartheid movement.
The international boycott of apartheid South Africa is largely credited to be one of four pillars of the struggle that ended apartheid, as confirmed by, among others, Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, who should know. Tutu, in particular, has stood firmly in support of BDS, including cultural boycott of Israel. When Cape Town Opera crossed the Palestinian boycott picket line, Tutu said: “Just as we said during apartheid that it was inappropriate for international artists to perform in South Africa in a society founded on discriminatory laws and racial exclusivity, so it would be wrong for Cape Town Opera to perform in Israel.”
On the issue of selectiveness, the Palestinian BDS movement does indeed adopt a gradual and selective approach. A quick look at the guidelines of the movement or the literature explaining normalization and the role of internationals can adequately explain this. Unlike the South African boycott, the Palestinian led BDS movement does not target individuals, neither in the cultural nor academic sphere, but specifically institutions complicit in Israel’s occupation, colonialism and apartheid. This complicity is determined by the movement’s guidelines and in coordination with the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI).
Irish artists and cultural workers who have signed the boycott pledge are also accused of practicing collective punishment. Yet, it is their right, not to mention their ethical duty, to refuse to visit a country committing egregious human rights violations. To call this basic right to freedom of expression a form of collective punishment seems to be a disingenuous abuse of the term, and aims to deflect human rights reports that have consistently established Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinian people under its occupation.
An exceptionally intimidating, and cynical, tactic used to suppress debate on the boycott of Israel is to evoke the memory of Jewish boycotts in history. However, to use this as a premise to discredit a nonviolent resistance movement that resolutely rejects anti‐Semitism and all forms of discrimination is baseless, even libelous. Anti‐Semitic boycotts of the past cannot be used as the bogey to prevent boycotts against Israel due to its violations of international law. To do so would be to conflate Zionism with Judaism, and to equate Israel, as the Jewish state, with all Jewish people, as if the Jewish community has no diversity of identities or positions; these are deeply troubling and anti‐Semitic worldviews in their own right. By the same token, boycotting a Muslim state based on its bleak human rights record would ludicrously be regarded as Islamophobic!
But why target Israel and ignore other violators of human rights, Israel’s apologists often ask. Those who raise this standard talking point are hard pressed to explain why boycotting South Africa during apartheid was not similarly conditioned upon simultaneously boycotting all other offenders. Europe and the US are the ones who are singling out Israel, lavishing billions on it despite its crimes against the Palestinians.
Moreover, the Israeli government openly uses visits by cultural workers for its hasbara (or propaganda) purposes, more than any other similarly oppressive regime, and it tries to show the country as a liberal bastion of cultural activity, thereby whitewashing its violations of international law and human rights – this is all part of a well‐oiled government sponsored program to rebrand Israel.
Finally, missing in this debate is a consideration of Israel’s 64‐year‐old denial of the Palestinian right to self determination, freedom, justice and equality and its suppression of the Palestinians’ right to normal cultural relations with the world. To consider this, we must end Israeli exceptionalism, in much the same way as the international community ended its preferential treatment of apartheid South Africa. BDS is not only an ethically consistent and principled way to do so; it is a moral duty.
* A steering committee member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI).
3.6 – Friday, 25th May – Chris Dooley to Raymond Deane From: opin i on at irishtime s.com Sent: 25 May 2012 8:54 PM: To: culturalliaison at ipsc.ie Subject: Another option re Op Ed Hi Raymond, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Thanks for sending on the piece by Sami Hermez, which I read. It reads very well and would make for a good opinion piece, though my initial thought was that, since much of the commentary in recent days has been about the approach taken by the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and not just the merits of the boycott itself, it might be better to have a piece from yourself.
As it happens, the picture has changed a bit anyway in that since we were last in touch I have received an article from Gerard Donovan, outlining his perspective on the matter. My view of it is that it doesn’t make sense to have a piece from you or Sami Hermez, to be followed by one from him, which in turn might lead to a requirement for a response from your side.
So I am going to run Gerard Donovan’s article in tomorrow’s paper, and I will of course be happy to provide you with a right of reply next week.
Best regards Chris
3.7 – May 25th – Raymond Deane to Chris Dooley From: culturalliaison at ipsc.ieSent: 25 May 2012 9:12PM To: opinion at irishtimes.com Subject: Another option re Op Ed
Hi Chris ‐
I must admit I'm deeply shocked by this, for all kinds of reasons including priority ‐ my and Sami's pieces were both ultimately provoked by an article by Fintan O'Toole, regarded by many as the most clear‐headed commentator in the Irish Times, that contained many misapprehensions and omissions. It now appears that this is to go by default.
You write that "much of the commentary in recent days has been about the approach taken by the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign", but that approach is based on the general principles of BDS and cultural boycott enunciated by PACBI (and never once referred to or, apparently, even consulted by anybody who has written on this subject in your paper). In other words, the question of "the merits of the boycott itself" is not separable from the IPSC's approach. Reducing the issue once again to a kind of clash of individuals and local organisations trivialises it, and once again leaves the Palestinian perspective out of account (I am assuming that this will be the case with whatever Donovan writes). Sincerely ‐ Raymond 3.8 – Saturday, 26th May – Raymond Deane to Chris Dooley From: culturalliaison at ipsc.ie Sent: 26 May 2012 12:57 AM To: opinion at irishtimes.com Subject: Another option re Op Ed Having seen Donovan's article, I can only say that I believe it is a despicable, potentially libellous rant ‐ and that publishing it truly constitutes a lapse of journalistic standards.
It is significant that he does not quote one sentence from the entirely formal and impersonal letter that I sent him originally, in which there is not a single "threat" or any trace of "intimidation". He also lies about his brother's mails to me, which were truculent and consistently beside the point ‐ this is why I terminated our correspondence. Furthermore, he claims that I accused him of conducting a campaign of defamation against activists ‐ whereas I expressed my regret that he had lent himself to exploitation by your paper for ITS campaign.
Your purpose in publishing this bile is clearly to deflect the discussion from the issue of Palestine (which, once again, he fails to mention) and its non‐coverage by the Irish media into an unseemly personal tussle. This would be degrading both to me and to the Palestinian cause. At this point, it's clear that the Irish Times is beyond degradation, and has descended to the level of Independent Newspapers.
Raymond Deane
3.9 – Saturday, 26th May –Chris Dooley to Raymond Deane From: opinio n at irishtimes .com Sent: 26 May 2012 7:39 PM To: culturalliaison at ipsc.ie Subject: Another option re Op Ed Dear Raymond,
Thanks for your comments. I’m not clear from reading them whether or not you wish to avail of an opportunity to reply to Gerard Donovan’s article, and the other criticisms of the cultural boycott and the manner of its implementation.
As previously stated, I’m happy to provide such opportunity. I don’t have space for a piece on Monday, but I could take an article from you in Tuesday’s paper, or in Thursday’s paper if that suits better. If it’s for Tuesday, I could take a piece of 1,000 words; on Thursdays, there is space to go up to 1,200 words – the approximate length of Gerard Donovan’s article.
If you decide to write an article for Tuesday, I would need to know tomorrow (Sunday). I have already commissioned an article for that day, and I would need to give the writer some notice that their piece is to postponed.
I don’t have access to this email address over the entire weekend, so if you wish to write an article for Tuesday please email me at xxxx [at]irishtimes.com
Best regards
Chris Dooley
3.9.1 – Monday, 28th May –Raymond Deane to Chris Dooley From: cultura lliaison at ipsc.ie Sent: 28 May 2012 3.47 PM To: opinion at irishtimes.com Subject: Proposed Op Ed on the Cultural Boycott
Hi Chris ‐
Here it is, neither narcissistic nor self‐serving. I hope it's published intact.
Thanks ‐
Raymond
In mid‐May the Ireland‐Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) presented a tour of Ireland featuring, among others, the Palestinian‐Canadian performance poet Rafeef Ziadah and the Palestinian‐Israeli singer Terez
Sliman. These artists are also articulate advocates of the Palestinian cause and of the cultural boycott of Israel. They were made available for interview to the media, including the Irish Times – but there were no takers.
This becomes less surprising when one reflects that Irish media outlets scarcely mentioned the recent hunger‐strike by up to 2000 Palestinian political prisoners, described by Jewish Voice for Peace as “a new chapter in the history of nonviolent resistance”.
Had they been interviewed, these Palestinian artists would surely have repeated their comparison of the boycott to a picket line which conscientious people would not normally cross because they respect the wishes of those who are fighting exploitation.
They would have mentioned the 2004 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice that Israel’s construction of a wall on Palestinian territory was “contrary to international law” and that governments were “under an obligation not to… render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction.”
They would have clarified that in 2005 the failure of governments to act on this obligation, and the continuation of “aid and assistance” in the shape of trading privileges offered Israel by the EU, led over 170 Palestinian civil society organisations to call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against the Israeli state until “it complies with international law and universal principles of human rights”.
This call was followed by the foundation of the Palestinian Campaign for the Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel (PACBI), which has laid down rigorous conditions for the implementation of the cultural aspect of BDS. Citing Mandela’s dictum that “boycott is not a principle but a tactic depending on circumstances”, PACBI emphasises that the target of this non‐violent tactic is not culture per se, but its manipulation by the Israeli state. Visiting Israeli artists are to be welcomed unless their trip is supported by the Israeli state and/or they have performed in the illegal West Bank settlements.
In an Op Ed (19th May) Fintan O’Toole, without once mentioning the Palestinian origin of the BDS call, criticised the cultural boycott as “a blunt and backward instrument”. But surely it is not as blunt as F‐16s, Hellfire missiles, white phosphorus, and the other “instruments” used by the Israeli state to terrorise, maim and murder Palestinian civilians? Or as backward as the wall, four times as long as the Berlin Wall, being constructed within the occupied West Bank in violation of international law, with cement provided by Irish multinational CRH?
These excesses occur on a daily basis. Meticulously documented by Israeli human rights groups like B’tselem and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), they are practically ignored by our media and fail to trigger sanctions by EU governments that are mandated by the human rights clause (Article 3) of the Euro‐Mediterranean Association Agreement that grants Israel significant trading privileges.
Mr O’Toole’s critique of the IPSC pledge "not to avail of any invitation to perform or exhibit in Israel" because it “makes no distinction between government‐sponsored events and, for example, the courageous Israeli theatre companies that present critical work” neglected to quote the Israeli foreign ministry’s assertion in 2005 that “[w]e see culture as a propaganda tool of the first rank, and do not differentiate between propaganda and culture.” Mr O’Toole’s injunction to artists not to “let yourself be used for propaganda purposes” underestimates the degree to which a state like Israel, which has a ministry devoted entirely to propaganda, can exploit the mere presence of foreign artists as a tool for the whitewashing and normalisation of its suppression of Palestinian rights.
Mr O’Toole chose not to mention prominent Israeli dissidents who support BDS, including the cultural boycott, such as the historian Ilan Pappe or Jeff Halper, co‐founder of ICAHD. In raising the history of anti‐Semitic boycotts as an impediment to BDS, Mr O’Toole equates the Jewish people with the state of Israel –
an equation common to anti‐Semites and Zionists alike – while cutting the ground from under Israeli and other Jewish opponents of that state’s violations of Palestinian rights.
Finally, Mr O’Toole’s criteria for a “code of conduct for artists and performers in relation to regimes that egregiously abuse human rights” included well‐meaning advice to artists not to “perform to audiences forcibly segregated on lines of race, gender or ethnicity”. This overlooks the fact that Israeli audiences will inevitably lack those forcibly excluded from attendance by the Separation Wall or the siege of Gaza. His criteria are supposed to “save [artists] from being pressured”, but why should artists, unlike other citizens, be absolved from reflecting on the possible consequences of their actions?
A similarly narrow view of artistic responsibility is found in novelist Gerard Donovan’s rambling and vindictive Op Ed (26th May), in which the Palestinians merit not a mention. According to Mr Donovan, even to request artists not to cross the Palestinian picket line constitutes “a threat”, “interference”, and “intimidation”, meriting invocation of Article 40 of the Irish Constitution protecting the Irish citizen “from unjust attack”.
The polite and formal letter from myself that prompted this article, appealing to him in three impersonal sentences not to break the boycott by attending the International Writers’ Festival in Jerusalem, was withdrawn from circulation when I learned that, because of illness, Mr Donovan had in fact not gone to Israel. It is now once again in the public domain (see the IPSC and PACBI websites) so that readers can assess for themselves the falsehood of Mr Donovan’s claims.
In this respect his diatribe is akin to the baseless campaign of vilification of the IPSC because of its fictitious “intimidation” of the band Dervish. Consultation of Dervish’s Facebook page by some intrepid investigative journalist would have revealed these facts .
Equally problematic is the editorial postscript supposedly providing “background” to the article. Here it is implied that the IPSC invented the cultural boycott whereas, like comparable campaigns throughout the world, it merely implements the call from Palestinian civil society. Mention of this fact, however, would have entailed mentioning the Palestinians.
Seemingly for the Irish media the Palestine issue can be reduced to a petty squabble between Irish artists rather than the violent dispossession of the Palestinians and the belligerent occupation of their lands by the rogue Israeli state. Meanwhile, 229 conscientious Irish creative and performing artists have so far signed the IPSC “pledge to boycott Israel”.
In October 2010 Archbishop Tutu, revered veteran of the South African anti‐Apartheid campaign, appealed to Cape Town Opera to call off a tour of Israel "until both Israeli and Palestinian opera lovers of the region have equal opportunity and unfettered access to attend performances". Shortly before his death, Kader Asmal, founder of the Irish Anti‐Apartheid Movement, expressed his support for “calls around the world to disrupt normal relations with Israel, by boycotting cultural and academic activities, by disrupting trade relations, …and by pressurising governments to impose economic sanctions.”
The momentum of the peaceful tactic of BDS, including the cultural boycott of Israel, is global and unstoppable.
Raymond Deane is a composer, and Cultural Liaison Officer of the IPSC
Appendix 4: Comment thread on Gerard Donovan Op‐Ed30
4.1 Chris Dooley’s response to David Landy and Dermot Browne
ADMINISTRATOR MODERATOR
Hi Dermot... and David again.
Oh dear. Where to begin?
Dermot, I would be very grateful if you could point out one incorrect report on this in The Irish Times, unless you are of the view ‐ and I am beginning to get the impression that for many people this is the case ‐ that Cathy Jordan and Gerard Donovan have no right to speak, and that quoting them somehow constitutes "incorrect reporting".
To recap, and address the many incorrect assertions made by David in his latest post here. The Irish Times never alleged there was a "campaign of intimidation" by anybody. Rather, it accurately reported the statement made by Cathy Jordan of Dervish. If you doubt that, read her statement again.
For example, she said: "...although I was aware of the concerns with our proposed visit to Israel, I wasn't quite prepared for the extent of the venom directed at us". No honest reading of that statement could result in the interpretation that the "venon", arising from a "proposed trip to Israel", was directed towards the group after the trip was cancelled.
Similarly, following a lengthy explanation in her statement of the band's motives for going to Israel in the first place, Jordan concludes: "It was far from our intention to stir up all this anger and hatred, when the opposite was what was intended." From the context it is quite clear that she is saying it was the proposal to go to Israel, and not the cancellation of the trip, that stirred up "all this anger and hatred". I am making no allegation against anybody here, I'm just defending accurate reporting.
David, you make the demonstrably false claim that in our news stories on this issue a line such as "the IPSC dismissed the allegations" was "tacked on as a means of displaying balance". You really have no problem throwing mud at conscientious and diligent reporters, do you?
Here's what we carried from the IPSC in our initial story on the issue, reporting Dervish's decision to withdraw from Israeli tour, on May 4th.
"Members of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign claimed they were responsible for forcing the band to call off the tour.
"National co‐ordinator Kevin Squires said the organisation had made the band aware of the cultural boycott and had directed its supporters to target its website, although he denied there was any 'venom' directed towards it."
In the story quoting Alan Shatter, on May 9th, we included the following:
"IPSC founder Dr Raymond Deane denied there was intimidation of the band. He said Mr Shatter's views were the 'type of psychological projection you always get from Israel's supporters. Intimidation and bulying is about the only tactics they have because they don't have truth or justice on their side. They like to pretend they are the victims when they are the victimisers."
In our story of May 14th, quoting Gerard Donovan, we included the following:
30 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0526/1224316730779.html
"Dr Deane denied that comments on the band's website about them being subjected to a campaign of 'venom' and an 'avalanche of negativity' was directed at his organisation.
"Instead, he said, the comments were really directed at supporters of Israel who had targeted the band after they pulled out of the tour.
"Dr Deane apologised to the author last night for 'any distress this misunderstanding may have caused him' and had been unaware the writer was not going to the festival. He said it was 'regrettable' that four emails he had sent to the University of Plymouth, where Mr Donovan was a writer in residence, did not reach him.
"However, Dr Deane maintained that going to Israel was not an apolitical act as the person would be 'exploited by the regime there'."
Also David, you said yesterday a "right of reply" to Fintan O'Toole's article was refused. You were wrong. I explained that such a reply was never sought, much less refused. Yet you're back now with an equally misinformed accusation: it was "effectively refused... since in its place, the IT decided to print the above diatribe". Wrong again. Gerard Donovan's article was not published in place of anything else, it was published on its own merits.
On that note, can I just make the point that Gerard Donovan is a writer of some repute, and deservedly so because the quality of his work is there for all to see. He has a perspective in this matter, and I think he is entitled to his view and to have it aired. If the apology to Donovan for the distress caused to him by the IPSC was sincere, is he not entitled to articulate that distress? Of equal interest and value is Raymond Deane's perspective, and he has chosen to let his article run in Thursday's paper, rather than today's which was also available to him, because I can offer him more space on Thursday.
The decision to run Gerard Donovan's article before Raymond Deane's was taken on editorial grounds. To repeat what I said yesterday, it made sense to do it that way so that Dr Deane could respond, if he wished to, to the totality of the criticisms made.
And finally, for the conspiracy theorists, there has been no external influence of any kind at play here. I truly hope Fred Johnston was joking when he said (below) that "one can only speculate as to how much Israeli influence has featured in this".
Fred, the only correspondence or contact of any kind that I have ever received from any Israeli agency, at least that I can recall, was about two years ago, after I had written a piece from Syria about the Israelis' destruction of the town of Quneitra, in the Golan Heights. I received an email from the Israeli embassy on that occasion. It wasn't complimentary, and I haven't heard from them since.
It's quite sad that I should feel the need to point this out, but there seems to be more than a little paranoia around some of the responses to Gerard Donovan's article.
4.2 Chris Dooley’s response to Harry Browne
ADMINISTRATOR MODERATOR
Harry, it's been a long day, and I don't have time to time to give a point‐for‐point rebuttal of your post here. But lest silence on my part be mistaken for acquiescence, can I just say, with the greatest of respect, that you talk a fair amount of nonsense.
For example, you say this: "As Chris well knows, in journalism ethics and in media law, a newspaper is responsible for what anyone says in its pages, and we constantly refrain from quoting people, no matter
how passionate and honest we believe their subjective beliefs to be, because we can’t show them to be true."
Are you serious? You cannot quote someone, no matter how credible an individual they are, unless you can independently verify that what they say is true? How on earth would we have covered, for example, the opposing claims made by the two sides in the fiscal treaty? When we quote Bashar al‐Assad as saying the Syrian government has not been responsible for any mass murders of its civilians, does that mean we are saying it is true? Harry, we quote people every day in the newspaper, giving their opinion, telling their story, recalling an event and, yes, even outlining a subjective experience, and we do not make ourselves judge and jury on whether what they have to say is "true". Rather, we let the reader decide.
You, bizarrely, complain about the use of the word "warned" in the following sentence: “Among those who wrote on the band’s website was Dr Raymond Deane, the founder of the boycott campaign, who warned the band that it would have ‘lost all credibility’ if it had played in Israel.” Well that sure looks like a warning to me.
Do you teach journalism students, Harry? Anyway, feel free to come back and lecture me about journalism and ethics and media law, but please don't take any lack of reply on my part as a signal that I am conceding to your magisterial points. I came on here initially to defend my colleagues in the newsroom who, in spite of Raymond's dig at one of our finest reporters in Mary Fitzgerald, go about their work scrupulously and conscientiously and do not pursue any "line". When people are minded to see conspiracies and agendas where they don't exist, however, it is very hard to convince them otherwise, so I think I'll leave my contribution at that.