Mary Kenny: Lenihan's wellbeing is key to health of nation
Related Articles
Monday January 04 2010
Brian Lenihan is an admirable and diligent statesman and a likeable man from a highly cultivated family (his grandmother won first prize in all Ireland for French studies -- the second prize was awarded to one Samuel Beckett).
Everyone wishes Mr Lenihan well and a return to full health. But there remains, among journalists and in the media, a debate over whether his ill-health should have been revealed by TV3 over the Christmas period -- and in the way that it was done.
"How would you like it," asked an offended colleague from RTE, "if you had an illness, and it was made public before you had time to talk about it fully with your family? And there is an oncologist brought into a TV studio to discuss diagnosis and prognosis? At Christmas?"
I wouldn't like it at all, I said, but in the scale of political significance, I am a person of no importance. Lenihan is a person of very great importance. He is the Finance Minister of the country. After a prime minister, a finance minister is the most important person in any government. The state of his health and wellbeing are crucial.
My RTE friend thought the whole episode quite deplorable and suggested that perhaps I had a misplaced "loyalty" to TV3, because I had very occasionally done some work for them. Not so. And were I on a journalistic ethics committee, I would say that the question of whether Mr Lenihan's illness should have been revealed, in the manner that it was, is a very close call.
But what is obviously in play -- in media ethics -- is the knowledge that we now have of situations where the health of leading politicians was deliberately kept discreet, or what would now be called "covered up". Two famous examples were those of the wartime President Franklin D Roosevelt and President Jack Kennedy in the 1960s. Roosevelt, a polio victim, was unable to stand up without the aid of crutches, and of personal assistants. But there was a "gentlemen's agreement" in the international press that this would never be alluded to, and FDR was always photographed seated -- at Yalta, Churchill and Stalin also remained seated to conform with Roosevelt's disabilities. Had it been widely known that Roosevelt was what people rather unkindly called "a cripple", confidence in American leadership might have been weakened.
By the same token, JFK's illnesses were never mentioned in the public realm. He not only had serious back problems but also suffered from Addison's disease. It would not have matched the president's image of youthful vigour.
A more egregious example -- which modern media commentators now cite with shame -- is that of Winston Churchill, who had a serious stroke in June 1953, when he was the comeback prime minister. There was, in effect, a gag put on the press and barefaced lies were issued by 10 Downing Street, claiming that the prime minister was somewhat fatigued and needed rest.
This is now given as an example of a supine and dishonest attitude by the media of the time: they should have probed more and disclosed the truth. ('The Daily Mirror' had its suspicions, but did little more than hint that it was time for Churchill to retire.)
Lesser lies were told when Prime Minister Anthony Eden took a back seat after the debacle of Suez in 1957. Eden had what amounted to a nervous breakdown after the failure of the Suez demarche, and went off to recuperate in Jamaica, at Ian Fleming's estate, Goldeneye.
Bulletins were issued saying that the prime minister was suffering from the ill-effects of a gall-bladder operation, which was half-true: there had been a botched operation on his gallbladder (when an American surgeon erroneously cut into the bile duct) which had affected his general health. But the principle reason for the Jamaica sojourn was nervous collapse. This did not come out until years later (and Churchill's stroke was not properly disclosed until his physician, Lord Moran, published his 1967 memoir.)
The reason why the health problems of leading politicians were kept discreet, or even secret, is obvious: there is an impact on political confidence, and maybe even on currencies. And there used to be more of a culture of deference towards those in high office.
However, in recent decades the media has taken a more probing attitude to politicians' health. When President Mitterand became ill with prostate cancer, even the French press -- which has a strong tradition of respecting privacy -- reported the story.
When Tony Blair, as prime minister, was found to have an irregular heartbeat, the full diagnostic details were published in the media.
It is known that Gordon Brown has serious eyesight problems. Not only is it known, but he is given no discount for the affliction -- his very poor handwriting is mocked as much as if he had 20/20 vision. And it did not inhibit Jeremy Clarkson from calling Brown "a one-eyed Scottish idiot".
IF TV3 went beyond the boundaries in its disclosure about Lenihan's health -- and at the season of goodwill -- it may be partly because the modern media consciously seeks to avoid the accusation of "collusion" with those in high places, which was once common. It may also be because in the age of the internet and Twitter, it is very difficult to keep any big story under wraps.
It may simply have been that TV3 wanted to be first with news which was bound to break anyway.
But if it is any consolation to Mr Lenihan and his family, it is because of the fact that he is a very important personage, and his health is inextricably linked with the immediate destiny of the nation.
- Mary Kenny
Irish Independent
