Guardian Column On Mairia Cahill Flawed By Lack Of Disclosure


The sun rises each morning and sets each evening and with the same certainty whenever Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams is in trouble Guardian columnist Roy Greenslade can be relied upon to come riding to the rescue.

Roy Greenslade

Roy Greenslade

So has it been in the wake of the Mairia Cahill scandal. Today, Guardian readers, or at least those of them able to navigate that paper’s new impenetrable website, woke up to see another Greenslade apologia for Sinn Fein featured in the paper’s Comment section entitled ‘BBC programme on IRA rape allegations flawed by lack of political balance’.

The thrust of his complaint was that because the BBC Spotlight programme on the Mairia Cahill affair had failed to mention that she had briefly been a member of the republican dissident group RNU (membership fifteen plus the chairman’s dog) all her allegations re her rape, the cover-up and her interaction with Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Translated this means the following: only people who are signed up supporters of the peace process and Sinn Fein’s role in it are entitled to criticise/scrutinise either Gerry Adams or Sinn Fein and/or to allege that their rape a) happened, b) was covered up by SF and the IRA and c) the leader of that party insinuated that the victim enjoyed the experience.

And since supporters of Sinn Fein and the peace process are unlikely to think, never mind utter such unkind thoughts everyone should keep their mouths shut. Therefore by definition anyone who does speak out must be an enemy of peace and the process which brought it about, i.e. Sinn Fein’s part in it and should be ignored.

The resulting silence in the media, the absence of any probe into Sinn Fein and the IRA’s more seedy secrets, especially in the past, is exactly what the Provos and people like Roy Greenslade want. The cudgel”enemy of the peace process” has been used in an effort to silence journalism about a party and political leadership that is in government in one part of Ireland and may soon be in the other part.

A political party with a controversial past, that has allegations against it that might make Richard Nixon blush, that is on the cusp of real power in the South (as opposed to the Lilliputian state North of the Border) is exactly the sort of party that should be scrutinised by the media.

Ask an awkward question of Sinn Fein or the IRA, highlight an unfortunate fact or unearth an embarrassing secret from the past and the reporter who does that immediately gets accused of being “an enemy of peace” and the effect at the least is to intimidate others into silence. That is what Roy Greenslade is doing in his column today.

Doubtless when or if Gerry Adams becomes Tanaiste in Dublin the same weapon will be used to gag anyone in the media brave or foolish enough to question the new coalition government’s policies, especially the U-turns it will doubtless perform.

But coming back to Roy Greenslade. He complains about the lack of political balance in the BBC’s reportage of Mairia Cahill. What about his lack of political disclosure? What about the Guardians failure to acknowledge that when their columnist writes eloquent defences of Sinn Fein and its leader he is not exactly neutral, that he has, in fact, a record of association with that organisation every bit as damning as Mairia Cahill’s with RNU.

Back at the time of the Gibraltar shootings in 1988, Greenslade was a regular contributor to the Provo paper An Phoblacht-Republican News. How do we know that? Well his now Guardian colleague Nick Davies disclosed this nugget in a book called Flat Earth News. According to Davies, Greenslade was managing editor (news) at the Sunday Times at the time but in his spare time and unknown to his editor at the Times, contributed to AP-RN under the pseudonym George King.

Nowadays Greenslade is a professor of journalism at the City University of London. I wonder if any of his lectures cover the subject of the ethical conflict caused when a journalist misleads his employer and his regular readers by penning articles in a political journal under a false by-line?

The links don’t end there. In March 2012, the Independent‘s Stephen Glover put Greenslade’s Provo associations under a microscope and came up with this:

The connections endure. Last June (2011), Mr Greenslade spoke at a Sinn Fein conference in London on the 30th anniversary of the hunger strikes, and he wrote an article on the same subject for An Phoblacht . He has had a house in County Donegal for many years. One friend is Pat Doherty, from 1988 until 2009 vice president of Sinn Fein, who has been named as a former member of the IRA Army Council.

In fact Pat Doherty was for many years the IRA’s Director of Intelligence  and Brendan Hughes, who spoke about this for his Boston College interviews was his deputy.

And there was more to come. When convicted IRA member John Downey walked free from a court in London earlier this year after charges of carrying out the Hyde Park bombing had been dropped because of promises made under the ‘On The Run’ scheme, it was revealed that Greenslade had put up surety for Downey’s bail.

In explanation he told the Irish Post in Britain:

“I do not believe in neutrality,” the professor said. “All of my lectures stress that claims towards neutrality and impartiality and objectivity are bogus.”

And while he now tells his students about his republican views, he admitted that “for a long period, during the war, I was not transparent”.

And this is the guy who dares criticise the BBC for lack of balance!?

It is about time that the Guardian faced up to its Roy Greenslade problem and brought transparency to his columns. The fact is that when it comes to Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams or anything to do with the Troubles or peace in Northern Ireland this guy has a dog in the fight which he never tells his readers about.

Isn’t it about time that Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger moved to protect his readers’ interests and insisted that a health warning accompany Greenslade’s articles on Ireland. Something like: This writer is not neutral about Sinn Fein or Gerry Adams, in fact he supports them.

That would do nicely.

17 responses to “Guardian Column On Mairia Cahill Flawed By Lack Of Disclosure

  1. ”The thrust of his complaint was that because the BBC Spotlight programme on the Mairia Cahill affair had failed to mention that she had briefly been a member of the republican dissident group RNU (membership
    fifteen plus the chairman’s dog) all her allegations re her rape, the cover-up and her interaction with Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams should be taken with a pinch of salt.”

    ,” pinch of salt” description really takes the piss on your behalf.

  2. The charge against the BBC is valid irrespective of whether the boy Roy has not disclosed his own links with SF. I’m not sure Ms Cahill’s links with any organisation are significant in any case – but it is poor editorial judgement by the BBC not to include her associations to prevent the like of Roy deflecting from the main point ie a girl was sexually abused and the Republican movement dealt badly with it.

  3. I don’t read the Guardian and generally don’t pay much attention to British journalists on the subject of Norn iron – not for any ‘racist’ reasons but because I don’t think they ‘understand’ what is going on and they are speaking to an audience (British) which certainly doesn’t understand what is going on.

    The boy Roy is presumably not much different – irrespective of whether he cosies up to Republicans. I suspect Roy has a history on the British left which probably entails a flirtation with the boy Marx and (I’m speculating wildly here) is trying to work out his (National) guilt complex by spending some ideological time in Connolly House.

    If he has been ‘dishonest’ with his readers – then in so far as I can get excited about British journos ( or journos on general) – I say ‘down with that sort of thing’.

  4. @sammymcnally I’ve just shared this post as have great respect for Ed, but actually can’t say fairer than your comments. A credit to below the line.

  5. I notice you didn’t address the ethics of his comments, but chose instead to discredit him. And your agenda is…? This must surely expose you as a hypocrite…?

  6. John,

    Are your comments addressed to me?

    • evidently not….he’s not programmed to attack the likes of you…..

    • No, not unless you authored that hypocritical article. The author is obviously so proud of that piece of hypocrisy, that he put his real name to it…..? Not so much a keyboard warrior, as a keyboard cricket…! He should look up the word integrity, in a good dictionary. That way he’ll know what was left out, when he was cast. All he seems to do, is just nasty and nasty comments. He may have some value as a troll, but not as a human being. I have no more time to waste on him/her/it, whatever….

  7. Was Mr Greenslade once a student Trot? His approach to Maria Cahill is almost a caricature of some of the more bizarre attempts at character assasination occasionally used in sectarian groupuscles.

    ‘Comrades, please be aware that the member who has made the allegations against Comrade ‘X’ split from CPSG to join the CPGD following our central committees revised position on state capitalism in the Soviet Union and the conjuctural crisis within the Labour party. Her undialectial approach in these crucial matters means her allegations can have no substance whatever, despite the facts. I hope we can now put this matter to rest. Thank you.’

    • actually lauren he has a very interesting back story as a smear artist. when he worked for robert maxwell’s daily mirror he spearheaded a smear campaign against NUM leader arthur scargill alleging, inter alia, an inappropriate relationship with libyan dictator muammar gaddafi who, ironically, was shipping boatloads of money and weapons to the provos at the same time. bringing down scargill was, of course, important to the british right (and the labour party?). he eventually apologised and admitted it was all false but many years later and too late to repair the damage. you can read some of it here:

  8. re. “he’s not programmed to attack the likes of you…..”

    And what type is that pray tell?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.