November/December 2020 53
MEDIA
‘E
PA DIRECTOR general, Laura
Burke, recently confirmed that
Irish farming’s ‘green’
reputation is simply not supported by
evidence -trends in water quality,
emissions and biodiversity are all going
in the wrong direction”.
‘This year, Countrywide won a prize
from the International Federation of
Agricultural Journalists for a segment ti
-
tled: ‘Climate change and Irish farming’
‘It is characteristic of O’Reilly that he
makes concessions but not when he is
attacking what he denes as extreme
environmentalists, campaigners or jour
-
nalists. He almost never actually names
them so it is not unfair to infer he is en
-
gaging in ‘straw man’ criticisms’
O’Reilly says ‘Peel away the outer lay
-
er and you will nd that some of those
By John Gibbons
Damien O’Reilly pushes an agenda against “some” unspecified
“thug” environmentalists, in the Farmers Journal
Overall, Ireland’s agricultural sector accounts
for around 34% of national emissions, a share
wholly disproportionate either to the size or
economic value of the industry. The problem
overwhelmingly relates to methane emissions
from ruminant agriculture, principally dairy and
beef cattle.
pointing the nger at farming for climate de-
struction just hate farmers and would other-
wise be campaigning on some extreme animal
welfare platform’.
In recent years, the agri-industrial sector’s
expansionary plans have been challenged by
a loose but determined coalition of environ
-
mental NGOs*, activists and scientists. This
in turn has led to tensions and accusations on
both sides of bad faith as well as some name-
calling.
The announcement in October that RTÉ’s ra
-
dio programme ‘Countrywide’ had entered into
a 12-month sponsorship deal with the Irish
Farmers Journal (IFJ) represents an unusual,
arguably unprecedented departure.
The IFJ is bound at the hip with Ireland’s
most powerful agricultural lobbying group, the
Irish Farmers Association (IFA). The two organ
-
isations share the same premises in Bluebell,
Dublin; and are historically intertwined.
The IFJ pays the IFA annual fees running into
tens of thousands of euros for what it says is
access to the Association’s resources. That’s
how close the relationship is. Essentially,
therefore, RTÉ has entered a sponsorship
deal for its flagship agricultural current aairs
programme with the publishing wing of agri-
industry lobbyists.
The fact that both the IFA and IFJ have active
-
ly promoted climate denial and, more recently,
used almost identical selective information to
play down the role of methane as a powerful
greenhouse gas underlines their unity of pur
-
pose.
Compromising
RTÉ’s
‘Countrywide’
54 November/December 2020
Given that emissions-reduction is the num-
ber one challenge facing the agricultural sec-
tor, it no surprise this is also a major source
of conflict.
In recent years, the expansionary ambitions
of the dairy sector in particular have drawn it
into ever greater conflict with environmental
and ecological limits, from emissions to air-
and water- pollution.
For instance, since 2015, overall agricultural
emissions have risen by around 8%, at a time
when they were legally mandated to fall. In the
same period, marked decreases in air and wa
-
ter quality have been largely attributed to ag-
gressive dairy-sector expansion and dramatic
increases in the tonnage of nitrogen being
spread on Irish grasslands.
Overall, Ireland’s agricultural sector ac
-
counts for around 34% of national emissions,
a share wholly disproportionate either to the
size or economic value of the industry. The
problem overwhelmingly relates to methane
emissions from ruminant agriculture, princi
-
pally dairy and beef cattle.
The relative contribution of Ireland’s till
-
age and horticulture sectors to pollution is,
in contrast, negligible. Pollution therefore is
tied closely to the type of agriculture a coun
-
try chooses to concentrate on, and Ireland has
gone squarely for the most emissions-inten
-
sive form of agriculture (intensive dairying) at
the worst possible time from the point of view
of our national eorts to cut emissions.
Tens of millions of taxpayers’ money have
been spent on PR strategies such as Bord Bia’s
‘Origin Green’ programme portraying Ireland
as a producer of clean, ecologically low-impact
food. However, the spin has been at variance
with the facts.
EPA director general, Laura Burke, recently
conrmed that Irish farming’s ‘green’ reputa
-
tion is simply not supported by evidence. “Tak-
ing the (agri) sector as a whole, the economic
growth in recent years is happening at the ex
-
pense of the environment, as witnessed by the
trends in water quality, emissions and biodi
-
versity all going in the wrong direction”.
Burke wrote this in the EPA submission to a
new agri-food strategy that is being driven by a
31-person committee made up almost entirely
of industry players and agri-food lobbyists,
with one solitary seat at the table for the entire
environmental sector.
In recent years, the agri-industrial sector’s
expansionary plans have been challenged by
a loose but determined coalition of environ
-
mental NGOs*, activists and scientists. This
in turn has led to tensions and accusations on
both sides of bad faith as well as some name-
calling.
Conflict of this kind, given the diametrically
diering perspectives of the two sides, is inevi
-
table. I also believe that it’s a sign of a healthy
democracy that powerful commercial interests
can be called to account for their actions and
inactions by concerned citizens, journalists
and activists.
It’s worth considering the astonishingly
asymmetrical nature of the conflict. On the one
side are ranged multinational PLCs, billionaire
meat barons and powerful, politically connect
-
ed lobbyists.
These groups hold deep sway over a host of
state and semi-state bodies, from Teagasc to
Bord Bia, the Department of Agriculture and
the National Dairy Council as well as university
agriculture faculties. They also enjoy almost
revolving-door media access to promote their
messaging.
On the other side is a handful of mostly vol
-
unteers, sparsely funded and largely reliant on
people donating their time in the public inter
-
est.
RTÉ Radio’s flagship agri show, Countrywide
airs every Saturday morning, and enjoys a
solid audience of predominantly rural and ag
-
ricultural listeners. Its magazine format gives it
appeal to a wider audience.
The formula works. This year, Countrywide
won a prize from the International Federation
of Agricultural Journalists for a segment titled:
‘Climate change and Irish farming’. As the RTÉ
report on the event stated, the judges noted
the challenge of bridging the topic of climate
change for an audience of both farmers and
non-farmers, with one judge adding: “I al
-
ways appreciate Damien O’Reilly’s knowl-
edge and willingness to ask dicult ques-
tions”.
Climate change is the political hot potato
for the entire agricultural sector, and Coun
-
trywide makes some useful contributions to-
wards bridging the divide. The show’s host,
Damien O’Reilly is also a long-standing col
-
umnist with the IFJ, the new sponsors of his
show.
O’Reilly’s column, titled ‘Backchat’ is os
-
tensibly a light round-up of his weekly mus-
ings. However, he does appear to have a
particular agenda in mind, as I discovered
on examining the IFJ archives.
For instance, in the September 29 edition
of the IFJ he wrote: “As we grapple to tackle
climate chaos, the incessant attacks on
farmers border on the absurd. In the same
way alcohol contributes to alcoholism, food
production contributes to greenhouse gas
Countrywide won a prize from the International
Federation of Agricultural Journalists for a segment
titled: ‘Climate change and Irish farming’.
Letting loose
November/December 2020 55
emissions, yes. But we don’t say ban alcohol
to stop alcoholism, but we do say ban beef and
dairy to stop climate change”.
He doesn’t identify the exact source of these
incessant attacks, other than to pin them on
“some environmentalists” who he believes are
keen on “sullying ordinary farmers with sweep
-
ing broadsides against what they do under the
guise of being caring for the environment”.
Quite how O’Reilly is able to mind-read the
precise singular intent of these nameless en
-
vironmentalists is unclear, but he continues:
“Like getting in a sly kick in a stampede, the
mask oen slips and they can’t hide their con
-
tempt, using climate change as a handy vehi-
cle on which to push their real agenda which is
to rid the planet of animal farming altogether”.
He concludes the column by explaining that
those who “peddle the wale that veganism is
the solution to climate destruction antagonise
farmers, and understandably so”.
The wale that globally a major shi away
from meat-based diets is essential is also be
-
ing peddled by almost every major scientic
institution globally, as well as the Intergovern
-
mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Last year an IPCC special report on climate
change and land described plant-based diets
as a “major opportunity for mitigating and
adapting to climate change” and the report
included a policy recommendation to reduce
meat consumption.
And also last year, the influential EAT-Lancet
Commission urged a dramatic reduction in the
consumption of meat and dairy and a sharp
increase in plant-based foods, including the
virtual elimination of red meat, both for health
and planetary resource reasons.
Two months earlier, in late July, O’Reilly
was once again facing down what he calls the
“pointed anti-farming sentiment online, which
does constructive environmentalists a com
-
plete disservice”. As he makes it clear here
and elsewhere, what O’Reilly is defending is
not agriculture per se, but livestock and dairy
farming.
What he identies as the “core ideology”
of the “ercest critics of livestock farming”
is, he argues, clearly irrational. “Place all
the complexities involved in the global food
chain on a spreadsheet and draw Venn dia
-
grams and you’ll discover that replacing an-
imal production with grain and vegetables
to meet a growing global demand for food
from a dwindling arable land area is full
of contradictions if protecting biodiversity
is the goal”. This view is, to say the least,
highly debatable.
A month earlier, in late June, O’Reilly ar
-
gued that “farming is to Ireland what car
manufacturing is to Germany”, adding that
we need to “pull up our socks in terms of
transport, industry and yes, farming”. So
far, so reasonable. From here, he digresses
into “anecdotes” of children apparently
being ashamed to admit they come from
farms, adding darkly about “easily impres
-
sionable young people… being fed anti-
farming propaganda”.
O’Reilly acknowledges that it is possible
to have genuine concerns about agri inten
-
sication and its impacts on biodiversity,
air, soil and water quality. Rather than leave
it there, he immediately qualies it by add
-
ing: “But it moves to a more sinister level
when it’s used as a cover for hidden agendas
or campaigns about animal welfare or big
agribusiness. On some of these proles, peel
away a layer and you’ll nd profound hatred
for everything conventional livestock stands
for. It’s dangerous, unsubstantiated and an
anathema to what genuine environmentalists
and scientists stand for”.
It is characteristic of O’Reilly that he makes
concessions but not when he is attacking what
he denes as extreme environmentalists, cam
-
paigners or journalists. He almost never actu-
ally names them so it is not unfair to infer he is
engaging in ‘straw man’ criticisms.
O’Reilly then calls on environmental stake
-
holders to “shoo away the urban dog whistlers
with their self serving anti-ruminant bile”. It
might, at this point, be worth reminding read
-
ers that these are the considered opinions of
RTÉ’s main agricultural presenter. In a column
in May 2020, he observed, apparently without
irony: “It’s no time for nger pointing”.
Last March, he noted: “There is a dangerous
communication vacuum between agriculture
and society which is being lled with misinfor
-
mation and anti-farming sentiment that does
nothing for the viability of food production
or the environment”. Filling this vacuum with
anti-environmental sentiment is probably not
helping either.
These outbursts occur again and again in
O’Reilly’s column. Going further back, to Feb
-
ruary 18, he acknowledges that more eorts
are needed by farmers on emissions cuts, add
-
ing that “any contribution which careless farm-
ing makes which negatively impacts on water
quality, wildlife and biodiversity can no longer
be tolerated”. These are all reasonable points.
From here, it again degenerates quickly.
Apparently the message of how hard farm
-
ers are working to improve environmental
performance is not getting through and as a
result, “farmer bashing by trolls and extrem
-
ists is rampant. The bashing is not so much to
criticise farmers regarding climate change but
rather to get the hell o the land altogether”.
He pauses briefly to acknowledge the exis
-
tence of “logical and sensible” environmental
campaigners and scientists, before returning
Seems like a problem
O’Reilly doesn’t identify the exact source of these
incessant attacks, other than to pin them on “some
environmentalists” who he believes are keen on “sullying
ordinary farmers with sweeping broadsides against
what they do under the guise of being caring for
the environment”.
56 November/December 2020
with gusto to his theme: “anti-farming extrem-
ists are conveniently using the climate emer-
gency to push through their own real agenda
which is to rid the world of livestock farming.
Peel away the outer layer and you will nd that
some of those pointing the nger at farming
for climate destruction just hate farmers and
would otherwise be campaigning on some ex
-
treme animal welfare platform”.
Once again, O’Reilly displays an uncanny
ability to gaze into the very souls of those
with whom he disagrees, to reveal the red-
hot core of their irrational, burning hatred for
farmers. As an environmentalist and frequent
outspoken critic of the negative environmental
impacts of the rush to expand the dairy sec
-
tor in particular, it’s hard not to feel personally
aronted by O’Reilly’s rhetoric.
Unlike O’Reilly, I actually grew up on a farm.
My late father was a prominent NFA/IFA activ
-
ist back in the 1960s, at a time when such ac-
tivism carried real risks: the government was
openly threatening to criminalise NFA mem
-
bers by declaring it a proscribed organisation.
Probably my earliest childhood memory was
the trauma of our family home being raided at
dawn by the Special Branch in April 1967.
Just as farmers were marginalised, demon
-
ised and pilloried back in the 1960s, in certain
quarters some environmentalists are appar
-
ently now fair game.
It is hard to imagine that O’Reilly would ever
consider making statements like these on his
RTÉ radio programme, yet, in the connes of
the Farmers Journal he feels able to ventilate
at length his apparent loathing for certain en
-
vironmentalists, vegans, animal rights activ-
ists etc.
As previously reported by Village, the IFJ has
degraded its hard-won reputation by promot
-
ing climate denial in recent years, giving edito-
rial oxygen to crackpot theories and platform-
ing the lunatic fringe of science denial.
In a column last January musing on the role
of agricultural journalism, O’Reilly noted: “The
discussion about the role of agriculture in
global warming is quite adversarial. It is divi
-
sive and bitter and on more than one occasion
in recent times, I’ve found that the messenger
is being shot”.
It does not seem to have occurred to O’Reilly
that his constant use of incendiary language
and inflammatory allegations may perhaps be
in some way contributing to this divisiveness
and bitterness.
What people who O’Reilly disagree with, he
suggests, “really need is a crash course in di
-
plomacy. I know from whenever we discuss the
issue on radio that there is an unseemly and
unlikeable underbelly of anger and aggression
among a minority who literally – let’s call a
spade a spade – detest livestock farming and
detest farmers with withering diatribes”.
Diplomacy does indeed seem to be a com
-
modity in preciously short supply here. Re-
turning to his agri-journalism observations,
O’Reilly talks about people like himself at the
“coalface of agri journalism (having) an impor
-
tant challenge to do our best to present the
facts and dispel with the myths and spin as
best we can. But it is worrying when campaign
-
ers ignore the balance in favour of the narra-
tive which best suits their agenda”.
In the almost two years of O’Reilly columns I
read in preparing this article, there was scant
evidence of him balancing his concerns about
the obvious irrationality, agendas, etc. of en
-
vironmental activists with any similar concern
about spin and nonsense from the agri-indus
-
trial sector in playing down year aer year of
egregious failure on emissions and pollution.
This pattern of demonising one side contin
-
ues right back into 2019. Three days aer the
massive children’s climate strikes on March 15
of that year, O’Reilly announced to his readers
that: “there’s a new stick in town and it has cli
-
mate change written down the side”.
Spiralling methane emissions from Ireland’s
rapidly expanding dairy herd, it turns out, is
merely “conveniently providing campaign
-
ers and movements who profoundly dislike
the way of Irish farming with amble (sic) op
-
portunity to deride them”. Aer all, “It plays
beautifully into the barrow of key ideological
and political influencers who’ve long held anti-
farming agendas”.
And in January last, he railed against the
“aggressive thugs and anti-farmer zealots
shouting down the rest of us with their conr
-
mation bias and oensive language”. Thugs
– seriously? Do exchanges between the sides
on Twitter sometimes get heated? Yes, aer all,
there is a lot at stake. But, contrary to O’Reilly’s
analysis, I have found there are as many trolls,
bully boys and zealots on either side of the ar
-
gument.
The recent online demonisation of respected
agri-journalist, Ella McSweeney for having the
temerity to run a carefully researched and bal
-
anced article in the Guardian pointing to deep
problems in Irish agriculture is a case in point.
On Twitter, Matt O’Keee, a farmer and edi
-
tor of Irish Farmers Monthly, called her article
an “ill-considered diatribe”, adding that it
“must bring into question her objectivity or
lack of it” on RTÉ’s ‘Ear To The Ground’. These
are serious, potentially career-ending, allega
-
tions.
This attack was supported on Twitter by for
-
mer IFA president, Joe Healy among others, as
well as the (anonymous) ‘The Dealer’ column
in the IFJ, whose headline screeched: ‘Ella’s
inside job deeply damaging’.
Again back in January, O’Reilly was decrying
the decline in standards: “They (activists) can
just spew it all out unltered on Twitter. It may
have always been thus but the undermining of
traditional journalism – by influential politi
-
cians and campaigners in the climate debate
in particular is leaving ordinary citizens…quite
confused”.
Having witnessed plenty of spats on Twit
-
ter, few of the online exchanges I’ve seen can
match the level of name-calling and vitriol of
any of half a dozen or more recent Damien
O’Reilly columns in the Irish Farmers Journal.
Ahead of publication of this article I sent
O’Reilly a detailed letter setting out 10 ques
-
tions arising from both the IFJ sponsorship
deal and O’Reilly’s own columns in the Journal.
Among other things, I asked if, as presenter of
Countrywide, he had “any concerns about hav
-
ing a publication so closely aligned to a major
agriculture lobbying organisation sponsoring
Countrywide”.
I also pointed out that his weekly IFJ column
put him in the “unusual situation of working
for and being paid by the company sponsoring
Countrywide, the show you present”.
While we are not in any way suggesting that
O’Reilly is involved in promoting the IFJ on
Countrywide itself, Section 5.2 of the 2020 RTÉ
Guidelines for Journalists states: “Our audi
-
ences should not be able to tell from our out-
put the private, personal views of our journal-
ists or news and current aairs presenters on
matters of public policy, political or industrial
controversy, or on ‘controversial subjects’ in
any other area”.
I asked O’Reilly whether he had any concerns
about so publicly airing his “private, personal
views” in an area directly relating to his on-air
work in RTÉ, via his IFJ column. My nal ques
-
tion was: “how do you feel as an RTÉ presenter
about stirring up animosity between farmers
and environmentalists by repeatedly demonis
-
ing the latter and claiming to understand their
deepest motives and intentions, which are, in
your view, apparently invariably malign?”.
At the time of going to press, O’Reilly had
not responded.
O’Reilly: The book

Loading

© 2015 Village Magazine

Back to Top