So there I was, finishing my Christmas dinner, family members of all ages ranged around the table wearing silly hats, when one of my parents piped up. “Oh yes, we meant to ask you: what
did that man say on Liveline about Martin Cullen and Monica Leech? We read the fuss and heard the apologies, but we never heard what he actually said.”
Given that the company at the time was mixed, I had to point out that this was definitely a subject with a PG certificate. And, since neither of them could produce a parent, it would have to wait until another time. What the man said on Liveline about Leech and Cullen was crude and offensive: only a couple of newspapers reprinted it, replete with asterisks and full reports of RTE’s response.
The number of people intrigued by the fallout has far outnumbered the original listenership. The apologies and retractions followed swiftly and were complete and prominent. So, unless it could be argued that RTE was negligent in broadcasting a live phone-in programme in the first place, it is difficult to see how it was at fault.
But retribution, in the form of legal action from both Leech and Cullen, is most likely on the way. Sources suggest the minister believes he was the victim of a great and avoidable wrong, and a spokesman confirmed last week that Cullen’s solicitors had been in touch with RTE. They said he was awaiting a response, and that he would be “pursuing the matter in due course”. It is a case that has struck fear into the station (where I work myself from time to time).
If ever there was a clear-cut case highlighting the need for reform of the libel laws so as to preserve the public’s freedom of speech and the ability of media organisations to provide a forum for that liberty, then this is it. If ever there was a chance for a politician to put the public interest above his own hurt feelings, this is also it.
Cullen is entitled to his good name and reputation, as is Leech. But right-thinking people — the test in matters of libel — tend to be more considered than to allow themselves to be influenced by one blurted obscenity.
The reasons why Cullen awarded a PR contract to Leech are open to question, and are the subject of an investigation. Her firm was awarded a €1,200-a-day contract by Cullen’s department immediately after he was appointed minister for the environment in 2002, an engagement that earned her business about €310,000 of public money. Initially, the contract was not put out to tender and Leech’s firm was the sole applicant. This raises matters of public interest that need to be explained, and put the minister’s judgment in question.
However, underlying the intense media attention to this issue ran a subtext that added a different dimension to the tale. Almost every report carried a fetching picture of Leech in a low-cut scarlet evening dress, and every RTE television news broadcast on the story was accompanied by shots of her, with a very short skirt, bare limbs and black slingbacks, stepping up into a train at a camera angle that would hardly have been used on a sensibly shod male.
All of this amounted to subtle editorialising — have a look at her, viewers and readers, and see if you can figure out why she might have got this sweet deal, was the thinly veiled prompt. Eventually, the news reports began to carry denials from the minister that there was any relationship with Leech beyond a professional friendship.
This slant was unfair and misleading, to the public as well as to the parties involved. Either Leech’s firm deserved the contract on the basis of an objective appraisal of the professional service it could deliver, or it did not. How she dressed, how she looked and how she conducted her private affairs were immaterial. Sly, reductive innuendo should not have been allowed to cloud the relevance, for the future of all public service contracts, of the principal question: why the contract was not initially put out to tender.
But it did, and what the man said on Liveline was nothing much beyond what had been hinted at in the media and, most likely, expressed in even fruitier terms in pubs across the country. By saying it publicly, and in terms that could only have generated a certain amount of sympathy for Cullen and Leech, the caller indirectly did them a favour. The allegations could be openly aired and soundly refuted, apologies issued and the implications laid to rest, as they were.
Indeed, at the time there were suggestions from certain commentators that the Liveline caller’s intervention may even have saved Cullen’s job by engaging the public’s concern for his defencelessness in the face of an uncouth attack. To his credit, he has refrained from any further comment on the matter.
The value that the public places on programmes such as Liveline is evident in the respect with which this resource is treated. There is very little to stop anybody doing what that caller did — talking his way past researchers and then blurting out an obscenity on air. It hardly ever happens, though, with most contributors expressing their unadorned views.
That these opinions are valued is beyond dispute. In the past year alone, the anger of the public expressed through Liveline has reversed a stingy clawback of widows’ benefits, compelled Aer Lingus to continue transporting coffins, and is currently hammering the banks for denying safekeeping facilities to elderly customers.
In the event that the nature of the programme results in a huge payout of public funds in libel compensation, there is a chance that its format will have to be reviewed. If it had to be pre- recorded, then its spontaneity would inevitably go. If a time lapse is introduced, it would give producers so little time to decide on the propriety of a comment that they would err on the side of caution, ensuring that the content was safe but limp. In short, the programme would lose its teeth.
Cullen has a clear choice here. He can proceed with his libel action against RTE, or he can put his faith in the maturity of right-thinking people who can see a vulgar outburst for what it was.
He can take his legal action and point out, reasonably, that nobody’s good name should be put at risk by a broadcasting device. Alternatively, he can turn away from an opportunity to use mighty and outdated libel laws in a way that might damage the public interest.
No amount of money will undo what has been done to Cullen and to Leech, and they must both feel hurt by the incident. But this was a wrong that was unintentional on the part of RTE and unavoidable in the circumstances. It is actionable only, perhaps, because our libel laws have not kept pace with the development of the media and the requirements of free speech.
Any lengthy legal action will only serve to bring the original comment to the attention of that substantial number of people who are still in the dark. But the ability to accept a genuine apology with grace would enhance Cullen’s reputation far more than the heftiest compensation ever could.
