War of the Words
Tomorrow marks the 20th anniversary of the introduction of the so-called 'Broadcasting Ban'. It began as a new counter-terrorism strategy aimed at silencing the apologists for terror and denying them the oxygen of publicity. That, at least, is how the prime minister of the day, Margaret Thatcher, and her home secretary, Douglas Hurd, defended their decision, on 19 October 1988, to introduce some of the most stringent controls imposed on the broadcast media since World War Two.
The broadcasting ban, or 'Restrictions' as they were officially known, extended to 11 republican and loyalist organisations believed to support terrorism, but many believed that Sinn Féin and the IRA were the main targets. At best, it could be said that it was half-hearted censorship. Newspapers would be permitted to carry statements from those organisations, and television news programmes would be permitted to show images of spokesmen at press conferences, but their voices would have to be removed.
With 20 years' worth of hindsight, Douglas Hurd now says he accepts that the ban soon became enormously counter-productive.
Not least because broadcasters quickly found a way to subvert the terms of the new law by having actors re-voice the words spoken by Sinn Féin spokesmen. When a similar ban had been introduced by the Republic of Ireland in 1971, the Irish government saw to it that their prohibition could not be circumvented by this kind of dubbing.
Unaccountably, when the British government introduced its restrictions, in the wake of a major atrocity, it left a legislative back door open which journalists soon used as a route to get their story out.
Satirists lampooned the ban, free speech campaigners across the world questioned the Thatcher government's commitment to democratic values, and even the reputation of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, as a politically independent broadcaster, suffered.
Despite the legislations' loopholes and the reaction against it, Danny Morrison, Sinn Féin's former director of publicity, maintains that the ban, which remained in place for six years, seriously frustrated Sinn Féin's media strategy at the time and ultimately harmed the party electorally.
In the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio Ulster programme The War Of The Words, brilliantly produced (as always) by my colleague Owen McFadden, I talk to some of the key players in this curious episode in history of the Troubles about how the ban came about and what effect it had on the emerging political peace process.
Did it eventually become a bargaining chip in the negotiations leading to the IRA ceasefire of 199? And given the role of the media in the so-called 'war on terror', could such a ban should be re-introduced today?
The programme was broadcast this morning, but you can listen again here.
Comment number 1.
At 19th Oct 2008, poshALPHALIGHT wrote:THE "WAR ON WORDS" IS BETTER KNOWN TODAY AS ARMAGEDDON - WHERE TRUTH BATTLES THE LIE LYING WITHIN MANKIND.
THE MARGARET THATCHER CABINET ATTEMPTED TO MUZZLE TRUTH AT THE COST OF GLOBAL FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, NOT REALIZING IN THEIR OWN DARK DECEIT THAT SOONER OR LATER, AT SOME TIME OR ANOTHER, TRUTH WILL RISE TO THE SURFACE AGAIN!
THE WORLD IS OUTRAGED THAT SUCH MOB ELECTED BEINGS CAN BULLY ENTIRE COUNTRIES INTO SUBMISSION WHILE SNUFFLING AND GRUNTING AT THE PUBLIC TROUGHS THEMSELVES.
FOR THE PEOPLE!
GIVE THE PEOPLE VOICE!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 19th Oct 2008, John Wright wrote:The ban was, of course, a horrible infringement on free media and a horrendous idea. But Gerry Adams was the real benefactor, as the broadcasting ban ensured nobody had to actually hear his awful voice. When the ban was lifted, I remember thinking, 'Hell, no wonder they banned his voice, it's dreadful.' It may have helped him stay in office.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 20th Oct 2008, smasher-lagru wrote:It made sense to ban illegal organisations, but was nonsense to ban a legal political party.
My favourite memory of it was a day when we had the actor speaking for Gerry and then there was some sort of interview with the Workers Party leader Seamus Lynch, only Seamus had laryngitis, so he had a guy sitting beside him for the interview. Seamus would whisper something and the guy would say, "Mr Lynch feels blah, de, blah" - it was hiliarious (but I guess you had to be there).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 20th Oct 2008, andrewmuirbangor wrote:Listened to the documentary on Saturday morning and found it really interesting whilst Northern Ireland continues to debate the right to freedom of speech with recent incidents concerning freedom of politicians to voice extreme opinions.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 21st Oct 2008, Peter wrote:The ban was, of course, a horrible infringement on free media and a horrendous idea.
but was nonsense to ban a legal political party.
But when is free speach ever completely free ??? Would it be morrally right to allow a party with the views of say the German Nazi party to broadcast their views on the airwaves ??? In effect that is what those who say the ban was wrong are actually advocating.
Don't forget that at the time Sinn Fein supported a campaign of civil disorder, street violence, and murder. I agreed with the ban at the time and still think it was the right thing to do. It was the ´óÏó´«Ã½ (and the direct rule ministers) that made a mockery of the legislation by allowing the interviews to be broadcast but with actor's voices dubbing those of the politicians.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 21st Oct 2008, Bernards_Insight wrote:"Would it be morrally right to allow a party with the views of say the German Nazi party to broadcast their views on the airwaves"
Yes.
Where do you draw the line? You may think Sinn Fein supported murder....many people think the current UK government supports murder in Iraq and Afghanistan. They should be given the exposure to explain why they think otherwise.
I'm not trying to get drawn into a debate about murder, or even morality... just that, like all questions of free speech, incitement etc, it all depends who makes the decision doesn't it?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 22nd Oct 2008, smasher-lagru wrote:If a political party is so awful that it can't be allowed to speak then it should be illegal.
The actors thing came out of an issue on historic speeches and films and was then used by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and UTV to circumvent the legislation.
It's the same sort of legislation used in Russia and Turkey - hardly bastions of human rights and the rule of law.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)