RTÉ, the Irish state broadcasting
company, arranged a series of public debates between the six candidates for the
Presidency including Michal D Higgins the present holder of the office.
It was not the happiest
of arrangements.
Debates on RTÉ are
carefully arranged. They bring into a
small studio space four or five
participants and a chairperson. They may allow one hour for discussion, but this includes adverts, introduction and conclusion lasting some eight to ten minutes altogether. So each speaker has at most a few minutes of
speaking time. In the case of the presidential debates more time was given and
a larger space but time was also allowed for interventions from an
audience. This meant six highly vocal
candidates struggling for space to speak.
The format is confrontational,
so the speakers, most of whom are very articulate and anxious to talk, often interrupt each other, speak
over each other, sometimes reducing the discussion to chaos.
Seasoned discussers
have some interesting techniques. For instance, they can disrupt an opponent not
necessarily by talking over a whole sentence but by interrupting just the most
important word in a sentence : one of the panel says, " I believe
government priority must be....... (interruption
of one or more voices )..... and this should become government
policy....". Unfortunately the loss
of one word has made it impossible for listener or viewer to know what
the priority is. That is an economical as well as a frequent kind of interruption !
Then there may be two
or three - or even four - suddenly talking together, blocking out what everyone
is saying. When the descent into chaos begins the listener or viewer - who in theory is the most important
person involved in the broadcast - seems to have been forgotten. A studio discussion
becomes even more chaotic when the chairperson joins in, as often happens.
This RTÉ format for discussion then is not the
happiest arrangement in any case but particularly when selecting a possible future President. A President is
meant to be a national and international
symbol of a country at ease with itself,
quietly persuasive, thoughtful , courteous even when saying things not every fellow-citizen agrees with.
Presidency is a delicate job and that
format of RTÉ discussion programmes cannot reflect this.
Our neighbours "across
the water" make quite a good job of presenting their head of state, their monarch, as a permanent symbol
of unity and national self-confidence;
in face of so much past and
present disunity, public fear and doubt
in Britain this is a notable success,
but it cannot be successful forever. It has
been achieved at the price of having their presidency, the monarchy, confined to a single family and this helps
to reassure British people they
are united even when they are not. Irish
people must have a different solution.
Most of the public discourse in either regime is confrontational. Our courts are confrontational, one side
ranged against another, our sports are confrontational, our radio and
television interviews are confrontational. That need not always be the case, it
is what we have chosen, or has been thrust
upon us as a modern way of doing things. RTÉ has the choice: it can adopt this confrontational approach, confronting and questioning
everything that interviewed persons say, or it can courteously draw out people's ideas without taking one side or another. The confrontational approach is often used -
not only in RTÉ - and is open to abuse,
with different treatment for those
thought politically, religiously or otherwise desirable and those thought not
to be. A presenter or interviewer may be allowed to make the choice, or the
radio and television news departments. A
member of staff put it honestly : " It is our job to confront the people
we interview". Actually it isn't. The job may instead be to get the interviewed person to tell the viewer/listener what he or she is
thinking or doing, not to argue about it.
RTÉ used that confrontational model in its
discussions between presidential
candidates. The candidates had little possibility of avoiding confrontation with
each other whether they liked it or not. So the image of a future President
confidently and courteously acting for all the people, whatever their views,
soon disappeared. So a future President is made to appear, and may continue
for years to appear, not as a symbol of a nation at peace with itself but as a
symbol of people arguing with each other
at every level, and about every issue, even when their Constitution suggests that Presidency should represent a truce among us all.
That is a pity. Our image of a nation at peace with itself needs all the courtesies it can muster and is very precious.
So, will people see the Irish President during the next seven years
as the person who at the debates was rude to So-and-So, interrupted So-and-So,
rudely brushed aside a sad attempt by one candidate to be nice to another, as
the person who in discussion not only insisted on being the only reasonable choice
but slightingly dismissed five out of six citizens who offered their services as President? Or as a symbol of national unity in his or
her courteous recognition that all people, citizens or not, have a Constitutional
right to be treated with equal courtesy?
RTÉ presidential discussions have not been helpful.
Perhaps there is
another way. The writers of the Irish Constitution must have seen the Presidency
as a national family affair in which we rejoice in each others'
excellence and say so at home and abroad. We don't appoint judges by arranging such
public in-fighting among candidates, or chiefs of police, or members of Aosdána
, whatever quiet manoeuvring may take place in appointing any of them. The Presidency can be a powerful symbol of our respect for national excellence
and international differences.
So is the present way
of presenting candidates for Presidency -
and talking about them - the right
way? Perhaps , next time round, RTÉ
could leave out the confrontational
models and just present to listeners and viewers those willing to be President one by one and talk to them about what particular excellence they are able and willing to foster - not only to create but to foster - among their
Irish fellow citizens.
Less exciting as a
broadcast perhaps.
But probably more
worthy of both Constitution and people.
No comments:
Post a Comment