Mr. Harry Browne:

That is a two-part question. Did it reflect the balance of views that were available among the usual voices one would draw upon? The coverage probably did reflect that balance. Did it reflect contrarian views? No, it did not. This goes to the question of how it is that journalists measure what is a valid view to seek out and report. There has been some discussion here about the extent to which the economics profession called it or did not. I know economists who still argue about this quite a lot. I think I said earlier in response to Senator O'Keeffe that there is a duty to go beyond reflecting the views that are extant among the elite voices in society. I grew up in a liberation theology household in the US. My father, who had been a priest in New York, was always quoting the Conference of Latin American Bishops of 1968 which said that the Catholic Church should have a preferential option for the poor. In some respects, journalism should have a preferential option for the poor and in this case, for the marginalised and for the dissent. It should be looking for the voice that is challenging the elite perspectives. It should be seeking not just the educated views of economists, but the direct experience of people. Again, that is a romantic view of what journalism should be that is distinct from the interests of the institutions that largely sustain journalism. It is also one that should at least in part be a guide. In retrospect, it would have meant that Irish newspapers could be holding their heads up a little higher than they are able to do here this afternoon and tomorrow about how well they covered the underlying structural problems in the economy.