NY Times skips Ireland during Queen's visit

Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 at 01:44 PM

Larger Text

E-mail

6 Comments

RSS

Archives

The Queen has now left Ireland. There's no denying that this was a big moment in British-Irish relations, which have been less than ideal for a long time.

It's a big news story, possibly the biggest coming out of Europe these past few days. Britain's Queen in Ireland where she has never been despite the short distance between Britain and Ireland. History said 'No' to such a visit until now.

It wasn't just the Queen who was here either. Prime Minister David Cameron was here for a while and his Foreign Minister William Hague was here for the duration of the Queen's visit. This was a big occasion in the history of both countries.

I would imagine there is no bigger story as far as an American audience is concerned, which explains why I'm so surprised that the New York Times covered the story from London. {I'm willing to concede that the Dominique Strauss-Kahn story is more salacious, but I think less important than the Queen's visit.}

Every story on the Queen's visit to Ireland was filed by Alan Cowell with a dateline London. It seems that neither Cowell nor any other Times reporter actually came to Ireland at any stage to actually report on the events here. I truly find that surprising for America's 'paper of record.'

I know that Cowell can watch events on television and do his reporting from a London office, but that's not really reporting. I mean, that's not really much different than blogging.

It really seems like the Times missed a news story, only passing on the bare bones of what happened this week. No interviews with people involved in the planning or execution of the trip, no quotes from people who could put the trip in a political or historical context, no 'on-the-street' views from people for and against this visit. Nothing, just a summation of what was on television.

I'm not blaming Alan Cowell, for all I know the Times is short-handed in London. I know I didn't see the by-line of regular London correspondent Sarah Lyall.

Still, I can't believe the Times couldn't find someone to report for the paper here in Ireland. The Boston Globe managed it. The Times owns the Globe, but the Globe's correspondent's 'on-the-ground' stories didn't make it into the Times. The Times, the paper of record, apparently just couldn't be bothered.

E-mail

6 comments

Page 1 of 1 pages

kinvara7 | May 22, 2011, 12:14 PM EDT

Some people make the mistake of associating a countries importance / relevance etc. with its physical size, and ignore matters like thousands of years of history; culture; sport; music; artistic and scientific achievement. Ireland is a small country but it relit the flame of learning in Europe during the Dark Ages (think of St Columbanus and St Fergal and the 150 monasteries founded by Irishmen right across the continent; the universities of their day). Ireland has produced men like Joyce and Yeats; John Barry, the father of the US navy; Ernest Walton, nobel for physics; Boyle, father of chemistry and John Holland inventor of the modern submarine. Not to mention hurling, the worlds oldest and best field sport. Our contribution to music and dance is amazing and persists: U2, Enya and Riverdance etc. The country is awash with ancient sites like Newgrange - the oldest roofed structure in the world; the Book of Kells -a treasure of human achievement. Not to mention foreign policy achievements (Ireland proposed and pushed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) which are at odds with the small size and population of the country. Ireland's commitment to foreign aid is amazing. To take one example: The people of Ireland have donated 100 million euros to help those affected by the Chernobyl disaster; that despite a size of only 4 million people. Whatever perception the Irish have of themselves has been well earned. The Irish Diaspora have contributed to their respective countries in too many ways to mention here; particularly in America and that makes the NYT's failure to cover the story unusual. Perhaps they are too busy preparing thoughtful and well researched articles on America's massive national debt and what America needs to do to arrest its slide towards default. Or perhaps they are looking at Canada, the country with the highest immigration rate in the world (not Ireland) thanks in part to how well its economy is doing...are you listening George?

Report abuse

Ajreaper | May 22, 2011, 10:21 AM EDT

George how ironic you'd comment on what you percieves as others inflated sense of importance. Given the history of Ireland and England over the centuries and the Troubles in Northern Ireland the queen making a visit to the Republic of Ireland is news regardless of the size of the country, their economic situation or the number of immigrants living within the country. Given the number of Irish who reside in and around NYC makes it all the more surprising the NYT chose not to directly cover the story.

Report abuse

MalcomAC | May 21, 2011, 05:20 PM EDT

I, too, am STUNNED at how little press this visit got in the NYT and the North American press, in general. Every time someone burps in the Mid-East it's page A1, why not this? This visit was a BIG DEAL!!!! Turning history on its ear is a big deal.

Report abuse

GeorgeDillon | May 21, 2011, 07:12 AM EDT

The Irish--and apparently the "Gone Native" Yank--have a vey inflated notion of their importance to the world. The fact is that it is a small country, and broke. I's only current claim to fame is that it has the highest rate of Immigration in the world, with perhaps 20/25% of its population being foreigners who have settled in the past decade or so. You get a vivid view of what this kind of Mass Immigration produces if you take a stroll down Dublin's O'Connell Street. As many as 80% of the crowds milling around you are not Irish.

Report abuse

Gearoid4 | May 20, 2011, 07:19 PM EDT

A common mistake that commentators seem to make for whatever reason is that the recent trip of the British monarch to Ireland was her first. She has visited the northern part of the Country still under British rule on a number of occasions. It all depends on what one means by 'Ireland'. There is a misconception that it refers solely to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland whereas any reliable atlas would demonstrate that it includes the whole of the Island of Ireland. The country was rent asunder by a British parliamentary act in 1921 which partitioned the country into two states i.e 'Northern' Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. In fact the most Irish part of Ireland was always considered to be the northern province of Ulster which was the last bastion of Gaelic culture. This province resisted Tudor English incursions so valiantly under the inspiring leadership of the Great O'Neill and Hugh O'Donnell in the 16th C.

Report abuse

Towngate | May 20, 2011, 03:28 PM EDT

Hi Yank! Never mind. It doesn't really matter at all.I am more worried that you will never get a job there after this Post! Slainte!

Report abuse

Page 1 of 1 pages