Leinster House is not a monastic settlement, and yes, we have been following the "Sweetie" saga. And yes, people have had a lot to say about it in here, though little enough which adds to the sum total of human knowledge on the subject.

For most people it was a story we could have done without. "Unseemly" was how one sniffy colleague put it to Drapier, though Drapier himself would have gone for something stronger and less savoury.

From a politician's perspective it was the week of media frenzy, where the media themselves were a large part of the story, and as a result we were treated, by sections of the media at any rate, to an orgy of hypocrisy, special pleading, specious arguing and even to doses of old-fashioned nastiness.

The wringing of hands and bleatings about "the ultimate betrayal" and the "crossing of the Rubicon" coming from journalists who have printed far nastier in their time was stomach-churning and an insult to ordinary decent intelligence.

But Drapier's prize for the ultimate in absurdity has to go to that woman journalist from the midlands who nearly jumped out of her nether garments on Pat Kenny's radio show shrieking about the "utter unacceptability" of journalists having the temerity to write nasty stories about other journalists. Oh dear.

So it's all right for journalists to write nasty stories about bishops, politicians, judges, publicans, footballers, but not about other journalists? It would be funny if there was not a serious point behind it, one asked by a number of Drapier's colleagues this week.

The point is a simple one. Why is it that the media report, analyse and comment on every aspect of public life except one, the media themselves? This was a week calling out for informed, sober reporting on, and analysis of, the part played by the media in this whole story, the issues, the motivations, the agendas, the personalities.

Yet Drapier saw nowhere, including in this august newspaper, any attempt to treat this story and the media's own role in it in the same way as a controversy surrounding the judiciary, a row in a political party or the behaviour of a bishop.

The point is a serious one and not part of any media-bashing agenda. We have learned a great deal in recent years about the wielding of power in our community, including the church, politics and industry. Much of what we have learned has been the result of good investigative journalism, and there is a great deal more still to be known.

But the irony is that we know less than nothing about how certain areas of the media operate, about who calls the shots and why, about the relationship between commercial and editorial agendas, about political agendas if they exist, private agendas and much more. THE simple fact is that the media have far more influence than any politician or group of politicians. The public have, at the very least, every right to expect them to be subject to the same rules of disclosure, the same levels of scrutiny as the media demand of politicians, of business, banks or bishops.

What Drapier finds extraordinary is how tetchy, indeed dismissive if not hostile, some sections of the media become when their own operational practices, editorial judgment or commercial links are questioned. In its own way this past week was somewhat of a classic in this regard.

Drapier says this in the context of a renewed campaign by sections of the media to have the libel and defamation laws relaxed. Many of us have been lobbied on this again in recent weeks.

Drapier does not doubt that there is a case to be made, but does any sane person think in the current climate that such a case has either public or political support? Drapier certainly does not. On the substantive issue of the week much has been said of the position of Mrs Maureen Haughey, and Drapier detected in here, as outside, genuine anger that such a decent and loyal person should have been subjected to such gratuitous hurt at this very difficult stage in her life.

But there is another victim of this collateral damage and that is Sean Haughey.

Drapier wants to say a few words about Sean. When he first ran there was talk of nepotism and "the boss's son" and the like. Much the same as when any member of a political family seeks to continue that family's tradition in politics. In any event Sean Haughey persevered, winning and losing, making it to the Seanad and then back to the Dail, earning his spurs in that tough bear-garden of politics, Fianna Fail north of the Liffey.

In his time in here Sean has won the quiet respect of members on all sides. Drapier has never heard a bad word against him. He gets on with his job, does his constituency work conscientiously and fulfils his parliamentary obligations. His contributions are never showy or spectacular but are always solid and based on great common sense.

He is one of the decent people, of whom there are many in here, who just get on with the job, and if his name was not Haughey he might well have been in line for a junior ministry when Bertie Ahern formed this Government. He would have been entitled to expect such and in Drapier's view would have made a good job of it.

The last few years have been hell for Sean Haughey as he saw his father's reputation crumble, when he learned things which must have shocked him, yet family loyalty forced him to remain silent. It is easy to sneer at him, and some of the media do, but not those who know him, and certainly not any in here.

No more than Maureen Haughey, he did not deserve the hurt of all of this, and all Drapier can say is that he is not alone in admiring his stoic behaviour in the face of an extraordinarily difficult and hurtful situation.

Meanwhile the situation in the North continues to deteriorate. Drapier was not surprised David Trimble rejected the last package put to him. It was reject it or lose his party, but sadly we now find ourselves bogged down, with an unreal deadline and no immediate hope of progress. It's as grim as it has been, with the Garvaghy Road just the first of the many flashpoints ahead.

Yet Drapier is not totally pessimistic. In the context of the past 30 years the achievements of the past two have been extraordinary. We've gone too far to turn back, and Drapier believes that "parking" the process until after the elections need not necessarily be the worst option. In a way, everyone needs a break, and maybe the inevitable nastiness of the summer will spur people into a new resolve come the autumn.

There is nothing for it but to remain optimistic, and meanwhile the South can continue its obsession with "Sweetie". That's priorities for you, as Albert might say.