Madam, - In his column of April 3rd Martin Mansergh attempts to portray Jack Lane and Brendan Clifford of the North Cork Aubane Historical Society as irrational conspiracy theorists. In doing so he refers to an article by Brendan Clifford in the March edition of the Northern Star/Irish Political Review (NS/IPR) in which The Irish Times is described as "the 'Irish' newspaper that is acceptable to Downing Street".
Later in the column, which is headlined "Why I'm not a spy in spite of all you hear", he describes various Government Ministers and others who have suspected him of working for British intelligence. He concludes by lumping all the "conspiracy theorists" together.
In all of this Dr Mansergh is misrepresenting articles and arguments that originated in the NS/IPR and avoiding serious engagement with the underlying ideas.
Firstly, as he states, Brendan Clifford and Jack Lane were the first to draw attention (in the NS/IPR) to the significance of a letter, released into the public domain in 2003, from the British ambassador, Sir Andrew Gilchrist, to the Irish Times majority shareholder, Maj Thomas McDowell, referring to the then Irish Times editor, Douglas Gageby. Maj McDowell had expressed his concern in words to the effect that his editor had "gone native". Dr Mansergh is happy to give The Irish Times a clean bill of health on this matter and conveniently sidesteps commenting on the Irish Times Trust, which was "reformed" before he started writing for the paper.
But is it reasonable that a newspaper as influential as The Irish Times should escape investigation by an independent third party when its owner is shown to give his allegiance to an outside power? Would any other national institution get such gentle treatment?
Secondly, notwithstanding the heat that is generated in arguments about the extent of Elizabeth Bowen's spying activities during the second World War, there is a more important underlying point. Given that she spied for a foreign power against this State, why should she be claimed as an Irish writer? Her novels were a contribution to English literature. That she is still defended by various influential Irish academics, including Dr Mansergh, testifies to a collapse of faith in the national tradition on the part of what might be called the Irish intelligentsia.
Thirdly, Brendan Clifford's article in the NS/IPR referred to by Dr Mansergh is entitled, "The Soul of Fianna Fáil". Its central point is that politics and journalism are severely out of joint in that the majority of opinion-formers in the Irish media are hostile to Fianna Fáil, while Fianna Fáil continues to be the largest party. Brendan Clifford is arguing that, without newspapers that side with the main political parties, Irish democracy is degenerating.
None of these points have received an airing through the media, yet they each need to be debated publicly. Dr Mansergh impugns the people who are grappling with them and otherwise, for the most part, ignores them.
Dr Mansergh has every right to defend his reputation through his column. He also deserves credit for the public service he has given through Fianna Fáil over two decades. Is it too much to ask that he use his column to deal with important and difficult issues of the day that so far he has only skimmed the surface of? - Yours, etc.,
DAVID ALVEY,
Publisher,
Irish Political Review,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.