Tensions between Mr Charles Haughey and the nascent television service in Ireland during 1963 over the treatment of ministerial statements are revealed in a series of letters which reflect some of the difficulties of a semi-State broadcasting station in asserting its independence from the government of the day.
Mr Haughey was minister for justice at the time, and the exchanges began with a letter he wrote on July 17th, 1963, to his Cabinet colleague with responsibility for broadcasting, the minister for posts and telegraphs, Mr Michael Hilliard. The file has been released with papers dating from 1971.
"Something has emerged which seems to me to be a matter of principle and to which I should direct your attention," the future Taoiseach wrote.
This had arisen in the course of a discussion with the director-general of what was then called Radio ╔ireann - Irish Television, Mr Kevin McCourt, about the manner in which Mr Haughey's reply to a Dβil question had been reported.
"I argued that in a case where I or my department issue a prepared statement of special importance, the statement or answer should be reported verbatim or not at all. The director-general could not accept this.
"He maintained that Radio ╔ireann must have the right to edit and curtail, having regard to the importance of the matter and the limitations imposed on its treatment by the medium concerned, time available and so on.
"I readily agreed that this should be so in regard to most matters but that where important official statements were made by a minister as such, they should not be subject to editing."
Mr Haughey asked Mr Hilliard whether he believed the issue "should be mentioned to government".
While he did not seek "unnecessarily" to tie the hands of the director-general, he felt that in "the very restricted type of case I have in mind" there should be no editing or condensing as this involved "the risk of misinterpretation".
In the margin of the letter an unknown but presumably civil service hand has written "Section 31 of the Act", a reference to the government's power, in principle, to direct the broadcasting authority to allocate time for ministerial statements.
Mr Haughey's letter was passed to Mr McCourt by the secretary of the department of posts and telegraphs, Mr Leon O'Broin.
Mr McCourt in turn brought it to the notice of the broadcasting authority.
In a subsequent letter to the department dated September 11th, the director-general reported the authority's view that "verbatim quotation in the fashion readily available to newspapers is not feasible on television and radio . . . Lengthy verbatim statements in spoken form would be self-defeating if they failed to hold the attention of a viewing and listening audience."
A civil service briefing note for Mr Hilliard suggested the "sense of news values" of the station's reporting staff would generally ensure that ministerial statements were given fair treatment and due weight, without the need for a government directive.
Mr Hilliard then wrote to Mr Haughey on September 23rd to state that "it would be quite impossible for the authority to preserve a reasonable balance in its reports if it did not have the right to edit and condense statements made by ministers as well as by ordinary deputies and senators".
He pointed out some ministerial statements were "rather long".
In response to concern expressed by Mr Haughey about "the risk of misinterpretation" he passed on a suggestion by Mr McCourt that a summary should accompany any ministerial statement deemed of particular importance.
Mr Haughey's next letter, dated October 19th, was somewhat sharper in tone: "I am afraid we are completely at cross-purposes."
He continued: "I was referring exclusively to a very definite, limited category, namely specially prepared statements of particular importance issued as such by ministers or their departments. I think it is an appalling state of affairs that the director-general is not prepared to give these the recognition to which they are entitled."