SPOTLIGHT SHOULD BE ON OMAGH
Spotlight should be on Omagh
In the aftermath of the Omagh case collapse, many column inches and much television coverage has been devoted to a spat between a PSNI press officer and members of the media gathered outside the courtroom on the day to await the verdict.
The press officer in question - Ken Devlin - was filmed informing the media that the policeman in charge of the case would be making a statement but would not be answering questions.
When members of the media (quite legitimately and justifiably) attempted to ask the cop questions, Mr Devlin snapped: "That wasn't the deal."
His angry comment has since led to much analysis and criticism along the lines of: "How dare he say such a thing? There never was a deal in the first place."
In fairness to Ken Devlin (even if it isn't fashionable to be fair to PSNI press officers) isn't there a possibility that actually he wasn't suggesting there was a signed and sealed deal as such?
But rather that in the heat of the moment he was using a slang term in common usage to signal that when he'd said the cop would not be answering questions, what he meant was that the cop would not be answering questions?
I should point out here that I know Ken Devlin, I've worked with him, I like him and I respect him. He is a highly competent journalist and an honourable man.
But even if I had neither time nor respect for him, I think I'd still be feeling he's been unfairly singled out.
Tiffs between press officers and the media are not uncommon, particularly when journalists blatantly (but as I say, legitimately, justifiably and commendably) ignore guidelines imposed upon them. This is entirely healthy.
Press officers on one side and journalists on the other both know what the score is. None of us is actually so naive or so sensitive that we're traumatised by the odd off-the-cuff sharp retort.
What is unusual is to see footage or read reports about these spats.
What is surprising is that analysis of one such spat should come to dominate coverage of a court case which, let us not forget, arose from an atrocity that claimed the lives of 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins.
Ken Devlin is not the villain here.
And, believe me, when people discuss the outcome of this case at street level it is not the set-to between the press and a press officer (however good television that made) that they're talking about.
The questions ordinary punters would like to see asked are questions of our political leaders. Justifiably or not, many people believe that the search for answers over Omagh was regarded as too politically sensitive by both the British and Irish governments, who did not wish to bring pressure upon the leadership of so-called mainstream republicanism.
The feeling is such political pressure was not envisaged as being part of the Agreement.
There are questions which could and should be asked of both governments about the extent of the efforts they made to try to secure justice. What of all that special legislation introduced in the aftermath of Omagh? What difference did that make?
And then there's Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams. What could they have done to help? What could they still do? Will the media continue to pursue these men with these questions? Will they demand of Ian Paisley whether he will be asking his fellow Chuckle Martin to do what he can to help?
And if not, why not?
The media focus on a press officer trying to do his job has taken the spotlight somewhat off the big picture.
And the big picture is who planted that bomb, who shielded those people, who could have helped bring the guilty to justice - and who didn't?
There are many major political questions which really should be asked.
Which really should be part of the deal.
In the aftermath of the Omagh case collapse, many column inches and much television coverage has been devoted to a spat between a PSNI press officer and members of the media gathered outside the courtroom on the day to await the verdict.
The press officer in question - Ken Devlin - was filmed informing the media that the policeman in charge of the case would be making a statement but would not be answering questions.
When members of the media (quite legitimately and justifiably) attempted to ask the cop questions, Mr Devlin snapped: "That wasn't the deal."
His angry comment has since led to much analysis and criticism along the lines of: "How dare he say such a thing? There never was a deal in the first place."
In fairness to Ken Devlin (even if it isn't fashionable to be fair to PSNI press officers) isn't there a possibility that actually he wasn't suggesting there was a signed and sealed deal as such?
But rather that in the heat of the moment he was using a slang term in common usage to signal that when he'd said the cop would not be answering questions, what he meant was that the cop would not be answering questions?
I should point out here that I know Ken Devlin, I've worked with him, I like him and I respect him. He is a highly competent journalist and an honourable man.
But even if I had neither time nor respect for him, I think I'd still be feeling he's been unfairly singled out.
Tiffs between press officers and the media are not uncommon, particularly when journalists blatantly (but as I say, legitimately, justifiably and commendably) ignore guidelines imposed upon them. This is entirely healthy.
Press officers on one side and journalists on the other both know what the score is. None of us is actually so naive or so sensitive that we're traumatised by the odd off-the-cuff sharp retort.
What is unusual is to see footage or read reports about these spats.
What is surprising is that analysis of one such spat should come to dominate coverage of a court case which, let us not forget, arose from an atrocity that claimed the lives of 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins.
Ken Devlin is not the villain here.
And, believe me, when people discuss the outcome of this case at street level it is not the set-to between the press and a press officer (however good television that made) that they're talking about.
The questions ordinary punters would like to see asked are questions of our political leaders. Justifiably or not, many people believe that the search for answers over Omagh was regarded as too politically sensitive by both the British and Irish governments, who did not wish to bring pressure upon the leadership of so-called mainstream republicanism.
The feeling is such political pressure was not envisaged as being part of the Agreement.
There are questions which could and should be asked of both governments about the extent of the efforts they made to try to secure justice. What of all that special legislation introduced in the aftermath of Omagh? What difference did that make?
And then there's Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams. What could they have done to help? What could they still do? Will the media continue to pursue these men with these questions? Will they demand of Ian Paisley whether he will be asking his fellow Chuckle Martin to do what he can to help?
And if not, why not?
The media focus on a press officer trying to do his job has taken the spotlight somewhat off the big picture.
And the big picture is who planted that bomb, who shielded those people, who could have helped bring the guilty to justice - and who didn't?
There are many major political questions which really should be asked.
Which really should be part of the deal.
Further Information
Publisher: BELFAST TELEGRAPH
Ref: BT/1051
Published Date: 29-Dec-07
Related Images
There have been no images archived for this article.