Sir, – The news that Meta, owner of Facebook, Instagram and Threads, is ditching fact-checking is of course another assault on the information space and a stark reminder of the dangers of allowing mass communication tools to remain in the hands of a select few billionaires (“Meta to end third-party fact-checking programme: ‘It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression’”, Business, January 7th). This decision will undoubtedly worsen the already dire state of misinformation and disinformation that plagues our digital lives, but it should also force us to confront a deeper issue: the inherently selective and often ideological nature of fact-checking itself, particularly as practiced by mainstream media.
Fact-checking has long been paraded as the holy grail of objectivity and truth, but the process is riddled with biases. What gets fact-checked? Who deploys fact-checking and decides what warrants scrutiny? Whose narratives are prioritised over others, and to whose benefit?
Mainstream fact-checking is selective, strategic and often steeped in ideology, however veiled. It’s deployed when convenient, on topics that suit institutional interests, and against individuals or groups who challenge dominant narratives.
How can we, collectively, reclaim control of the flow of information and build systems that serve people rather than profit? These are not abstract questions. They are urgent and immediate.
The fact-checking debate is a distraction from the larger conversation about power, control and accountability in the media landscape. We cannot simply mourn the loss of flawed mechanisms or scramble to preserve them as they are. Instead, we must interrogate the structures that govern our information spaces and demand systems rooted in transparency and public interest.
The truth is that no billionaire-run platform, no media conglomerate, no gatekeeping institution will ever truly prioritise the public good. – Yours, etc,
GLENN FITZPATRICK,
Drimnagh,
Dublin 12.
Sir, – Mark Zuckerberg’s recent announcement on changes to Meta has rightly caused concern. The fallout has focused on how they may lead to an increase in the spread of hate speech and disinformation on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads.
But Mr Zuckerberg also announced that he is going to work to “push back” on European regulation. This likely includes the EU’s Digital Services Act, which provides transparency on how platforms operate and counters illegal content (Meta is under investigation under the Act over whether minors are adequately protected on its platforms).
Mr Zuckerberg now joins Elon Musk in involving himself with European politics. And this is the crux of the issue: in Europe, we are over-reliant on American social media platforms that are subject to the whims of American tech billionaires and the winds of American politics.
Social media users of Europe, unite!
We have nothing to lose but unwanted political interference, disinformation masked as free speech, and the continued monetisation of our personal data. – Yours, etc,
SAUL KENNY,
Brussels,
Belgium.
Filling Seanad vacancies
Sir, – Contrary to your explainer on the ongoing Seanad general election (“Q&A: How the Seanad election works, who’s running and what are the key races”, Politics, January 7th), the current electorate for the 27th Seanad only includes 50 out of a theoretical 60 outgoing senators.
Proving the political parties’ misuse and abuse of the Seanad as a staging post for their Dáil candidates, eight members of the 26th Seanad were deemed to have resigned their seats at the end of November 2024 when they became TDs.
Similarly, upon taking up her seat in the European Parliament in mid-July 2024, Lynn Boylan vacated her seat in the Seanad.
Most concerning of all is vacancy left by David Norris from January 2024. The legality of this particular vacancy continuing for as long as it has, and the resultant ability of the 26th Seanad to pass legislation from perhaps August 2024 onward, is now merely an academic question, yet it shines a light on the deeply troubling ability of the Seanad to determine whether it will even permit a new member to be elected when a vacancy arises.
With just 1,165 individuals choosing 43 out of 60 members of the 27th Seanad, the system is less than democratic. However, what is surprising is how some parties have seemingly given up some of their strength in this election.
Sinn Féin’s decision to effectively block the return of its only incumbent senator, Paul Gavan, and the party’s decision to not nominate or support the nomination of any candidate in the planned March 2024 byelection to fill a Seanad vacancy left by the resignation of a Sinn Féin senator, would make one question how serious that party is about representation in the Seanad.
Similarly, the decision by the Social Democrats, Labour and Sinn Féin to effectively hand an additional Seanad seat to the Green Party in March last year, thereby depleting their own voting strength in this Seanad election, leaves a large question mark over whether those parties truly want to have as many senators as possible in the Upper House of the Oireachtas. – Yours, etc,
TOMÁS HENEGHAN,
East Wall,
Dublin 3.
The National Women’s Council
Sir, – For the fifth consecutive year, Orla O’Connor of the National Women’s Council (NWC) has been afforded a column on your pages on January 6th to use the Christian feast of the Epiphany, known in Ireland as Nollaig na mBan, as a platform to rehash and promote her organisation’s left-wing political agenda (Opinion & Analysis, January 6th). What other unelected and completely unrepresentative body would be granted such a column, as of right, on the same day each year? Last year, Ms O’Connor devoted her annual column to calling for “Yes Yes” votes in the disastrous referendums last March, which were rejected overwhelmingly by women and by the electorate as a whole. Conspicuously, this year she makes no mention of her organisation’s role key role in that fiasco. – Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Dublin 3.
Key role of school leadership
Sir, – Your education editor Carl O’Brien adeptly identifies some of the challenges facing the next Minister for Education, in the year ahead (”Our predictions on what’s next for education in 2025″, Education, January 7th). Fair play to him for firmly recognising the crucial point that principals’ workloads have been growing exponentially and that they are in urgent need of significant additional support.
Three key areas can be identified.
First, support for principals can be best mediated by enhancing capacity at deputy principal level. The allocation of additional deputy principal capacity across the complete range of post primary schools should be provided for as a matter of priority and nowhere more urgently than in schools with only a partially approved deputy principal post.
Second, in line with the call from the Joint Managerial Body, there should be an independent review of the principal’s workload and responsibilities, their wellbeing and psychological health, professional preparation and development, support structures, step-down and exit-routes, with a view to making recommendations for the remediation of an emerging principal recruitment and retention crisis.
Third, in light of the increasing onerous workload relating to the board of management, the secretary to the board of management allowance should be restored for all principals.
We should of course also see a restoration of posts of responsibility allocations to pre-financial crash levels, wherein approximately 50 per cent of the teacher workforce were assistant principals.
School leadership is a critical part of the investment formula for our schools yet has been neglected for many years. The education system relies heavily on school leaders to lead and implement change and mandated reform, at both school and system levels. Strong, supported and empowered leaders are essential to transforming educational outcomes.
The supportive measures outlined above would be an easy win for the next minister for education, at a modest cost. – Yours, etc,
JOHN McHUGH,
Principal,
Ardscoil Rís,
Dublin 9.
Musk and hate speech legislation
Sir, – Further to “Trump’s alt right edgelords will inevitably come for Ireland. We can’t take the bait” (Liz Carolan, Opinion & Analysis, January 7th), there is little support in northern European for the incoming US administration and consequently the criticism of the hate speech Bill here by Elon Musk and others may not harm the legislation’s standing locally.
However, much as a broken clock is right twice a day, it is likely that the unpalatable critics of this legislation are right given the difficulty in defining its terms, enforcing such a law and in reconciling it with freedom of expression. It is probably true that, requiring new targets, these individuals “will inevitably come for Ireland”. We might be wise not to give them such powerful ammunition as resurrecting this unworkable piece of legislation. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Kinsale,
Co Cork.
Changes to the asylum system
Sir, – Keire Murphy is correct to point out that other European countries have introduced regularisation schemes for undocumented migrants (Letters, January 8th).
However, these schemes have differed widely in their scope and rationale. The Italian scheme in 2020 was in direct response to the pandemic and was specifically aimed at people who were employed in the agricultural and domestic-care sectors.
In the next three years, for purely socio-economic reasons, the Spanish government hopes to regularise the status of close to one million people and, in particular, those who are in possession of a current and valid employment contract. The scheme is also aimed at workers who have demonstrated previous efforts to regularise their position or whose residence permits have lapsed.
Perhaps the main difference in relation to the regularisation scheme in Ireland, that evolved from the Expert Advisory Group’s Report, is what was termed in 2022 as the “International Protection Strand for long-term undocumented migrants”. Under this strand, asylum seekers in the system for at least two years could apply, under a fast-track process, for immigration status and access to the labour market, in order to “begin a path to Irish citizenship”. – Yours, etc,
MARTIN McDONALD,
Terenure,
Dublin 12.
‘Monstrous’ flat scheme rejected
Sir, – Further to “Permission refused for ‘monstrous’ 881-apartment scheme in Dundrum” (News, January 7th), if Dundrum, with its eight bus routes, Luas line, motorway, cycle lanes, nearby parks and extensive shopping and leisure facilities, is not an acceptable location for high-density housing in the middle of a housing crisis, where is? – Yours, etc,
RÓNAN PALLISER,
Stepaside,
Dublin 18.
Sinéad de Valera and the Treaty
Sir, – The suggestion quoted in Brian Maye’s article (An Irishman’s Diary, January 7th) that my grandmother, Sinéad de Valera, had been “pro-Treaty” is untrue. She used to recall that the first time she learned of the terms of the Treaty was when she read them in a newspaper. She stopped in dismay when she came to the Oath of Allegiance, which shocked her. She could not understand how Michael Collins could have agreed to this but nevertheless she retained her warm regards for him, as did my father, Vivion. Despite their differences on the Treaty, my grandfather also spoke well of Michael Collins. – Yours, etc,
ÉAMON de VALERA,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Penalising single people
Sir, – Further to recent correspondence (Letters, January 8th), it is also worth noting the findings of a recent report published on the minimum essential standard of living.
This report examined the adequacy of social welfare benefits against minimum essential standard of living for a range of household type.
In the case of single adults of working age the core personal payment of €232 per week is estimated to meet only 83 per cent of their minimum essential standard of living needs if in rent supplement accommodation, and if availing of a Housing Assistance Payment would only meet 73 per cent of their minimum essential standard of living costs.
Single-adult headed households dependent on social welfare have the highest “at risk of poverty”, deprivation and consistent poverty rates. The report notes that a couple-headed household costs approximately one and an half times that of a one-adult headed household as they share costs in energy, household services and goods. International research also found that the costs faced by one- or two-adult households are very similar.
It is indeed time to examine the variety of family types in Ireland and their social construction in terms of social welfare, taxation and inheritance. – Yours, etc,
EVELYN MAHON,
Fellow Emerita,
School of Social Work and Social Policy,
Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2.