Think about the following. It’s from Noel Whelan’s piece in the Irish Times of Saturday, May 12th. He’s referring to the BAI report re Primetime Investigates but the added emphasis is mine.
“Among the report’s most important revelations is that, contrary to some media reports, the key decision to proceed with the broadcast was not made on the hoof. A formal, although undocumented, meeting took place the previous Friday, including the producer and reporter of the programme, the executive producer of Prime Time Investigates, the editor of RTÉ current affairs and the director of RTÉ news, together with legal department representatives.
There was unanimous agreement to proceed among production and editorial staff despite awareness of Fr. Reynolds’s willingness to take a paternity test. They were convinced their story was accurate, and made a series of ‘highly subjective assumptions, which served to reinforce their certainty’”. (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0512/1224315982387.html )
I’ve already written (https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/the-prime-time-scandal-needs-plain-talk-and-a-realisation-that-management-practices-and-systems-are-seldom-unique/) about Irish journalism’s failure to call a spade a spade in commenting on this mess. There’s only so much refuge to be found in “groupthink”, “hubris” and ineffective management. Publishing an allegation of paternity about a man offering to take a paternity test was (Say the word!) stupid. My piece also raises the question of utterly basic management and it is to this that I want to return.
Look again at the half dozen or so words to which I added emphasis: “A formal, although undocumented, meeting took place” . The words sit there attracting not even their author’s comment, their significance lost. Those present at that meeting have many fine qualities, are high achievers and are people of ability but that they sat through a formal meeting without seeing the need to have a record of what transpired is alarming. Now, a meeting might have been called at which it was made clear that it was “unofficial”, that it was “just a chat among colleagues” and which didn’t seriously address the issue. This would attract a range of other criticism but it wouldn’t be quite so (Here comes the word again!) stupid or signal a complete absence of routine management.
The innocence of those present is as telling as the lack of subsequent comment. It suggests that slipshod practice is commonplace. Now that’s a depressing thought with implications beyond restoring trust in journalism.