There's a quaint tradition in the White House every Christmas. The president plucks one lucky turkey from the doomed millions and saves him from certain death and the festive plate, writes Miriam Lord.
And so to the Monica Leech libel trial.
Journalists don't like covering libel trials. There's a surprise, sez you. But it's true.
Over the years, they have come to view these box-office court occasions with the pessimistic eye of your average Yuletide Yankee turkey: there's always a glimmer of hope, but it's probably best to fear the worst.
Of course, this is an irrational worry, fuelled by loyalty and collegiate bias. The law takes its course. A jury of good men and women will deliberate long and hard and come to a fair decision.
But just as the aforementioned fowl feels doomed because it knows everyone loves a turkey, the workaday hacks in the press pen have developed a similarly bleak outlook. In their case, it's based, fairly or unfairly, on a resigned acceptance that everybody hates the media.
Yesterday, when the jury retired to consider its verdict in the Leech v Irish Independenttrial, the media contingent mulled over the evidence and closing speeches.
A caller to RTÉ's Livelineprogramme made a disgracefully lewd remark about PR consultant Monica Leech. The station cut him off mid-speech, swiftly issued apologies and followed up with a press statement apologising for the offence caused to listeners.
The next day, the Irish Independentcarried a news story about it, repeating the vulgar jibe that led to the apologies and the press statement regretting the incident.
Monica Leech said that the newspaper was titillating its readership, shredding her reputation and telling readers she had an adulterous relationship with Minister Martin Cullen and had performed a sexual act with him for a well-paid contract.
"I will suggest to you that the damages you must award will be very large indeed," said her counsel Paul Gardiner to the jury.
"This is a straightforward news piece that has been totally blown out of proportion," said Eoin McCullough, for Independent Newspapers.
During her evidence, Ms Leech said neither RTÉ nor the Irish Independenthad said the remark made by the rogue caller was untrue. The RTÉ apologies, covered in full in the Irish Independentstory, were insulting and insufficient.
The trial was not about the Livelineaffair; the PR consultant sued RTÉ and her action was settled in May with an award of €250,000 and her costs.
But at least what was said on the radio show had vanished into the ether, she contended.
"Her reputation was damaged by the Joe Duffy show, it was destroyed by the Independent," said Mr Gardiner. At least five times, he repeated the offensive phrase. "It is grotesque," he said.
Mr McCullough had a phrase of his own which he repeated: "calm and dispassionate". The plaintiff's legal team was making "naked appeals" to the jury's emotions. "They are asking you to be inflamed by the repetition of the word "sucking his cock" - that's why he said it 20 times," said the lawyer, speaking calmly and dispassionately.
"Put yourself in the position of the ordinary, fair-minded person," he asked the jury. Did the newspaper story mean that Ms Leech was having an affair with Minister Cullen?
"Mrs Leech's view of what it means is neither here nor there," he added. "The tenor of this article is to throw cold water on this suggestion," he argued.
Judge Peter Charleton told the jury to ask themselves, not what was intended by the story, but what it meant. "What would ordinary people make of it in its entirety?" He told them that they were not dealing with RTÉ or Joe Duffy. This was about what appeared in the newspaper after a call made by "the nutcase fellow who rang up".
In the absence of the jury, counsel for Ms Leech said that there was nothing to say the individual was a "nutcase" and this might take from the case's serious nature. The jury was recalled, and the individual was downgraded to a "malevolent" individual.
In regard to awarding damages, should they get to that point, Judge Charleton advised the jury to approach the matter sensibly. The jury retired. The journalists, in full turkey mode, evaluated the evidence, reached the opinion that the Independent story did not say Ms Leech was having an affair with the Minister or performed sexual acts.
But then the mantra came into play. "Everybody hates the media." A sweep was started on the size of the damages.
The jury was back in an hour. Did the article mean the plaintiff had an affair? No. Did it mean an intimate sexual took place for the sake of a well-paid contract? No.
Ms Leech showed no reaction. She left immediately.
It was the defendants who looked most surprised. The media has a very bad track record in libel trials. It took a while for it to sink in. There remained this strange feeling among the reporters of what it must be like to be that turkey reprieved at Christmas.