Editorial: Keep The Bridge open

A friend said to me recently that certain things shouldn't be allowed publication in The Bridge. I had no problem with that opinion being expressed, but did have serious concerns with the idea itself.

Maybe it's my thirty years as a professional journalist in newspapers, magazines and broadcasting; and more latterly in the so-called 'new media' of the Internet. I have a knee-jerk reaction to any form of denial of free speech, or limiting of expressions of opinion.

And, of course, I have a special interest in The Bridge, because for five years before 'going pro', the outlet for my practice of the craft of reportage and writing was that unique community publication. It can truly be said that if The Bridge hadn't existed, I'd probably not have eventually moved into a career which has given me -- and still does -- enormous satisfaction and tremendous variety of experience.

In those early 'Bridge' days, I guess I was just as opinionated as any of the many contributors of that time and through its history since. Opinions which no doubt did occasionally offend others. And I do recall various other surges of temper in its pages from many sources during the thirty-six years for which it has been churned out, month after month, in a tremendous voluntary effort.

Many times in those three and a half decades, opinions expressed by contributors raised hackles and got heated responses. On other occasions the magazine merely recorded and reflected differences already abroad in the community. And then there were periods when issue after issue coasted along on a gentle sea of indifference.

Thing was, The Bridge was always there, to become a repository for history and memory, often from far back centuries, and to record the current state of the town and even sometimes look to its future.

It was always accessible too, something which has been at the heart of its longevity. Whether a contributor simply wrote a letter to the editor, or provided a report from a small event, or launched a regular column, it was there for them to so do. And whatever was reported, proposed, or argued, all was also available for the wider public to read, consider, and maybe comment on.

Something in The Bridge would always be a conversational launching point for Kilcullenites, whether over the family dinner or down in the pub for a Saturday night pint.

By and large, The Bridge has also been pretty flexible editorially. Although with different and generally nominal editors over the decades, no particular editorial policy was ever laid down, especially in terms of what should or should not be allowed into print. In fact, from a professional eye's viewpoint, there were occasions when contributions probably strayed into the kind of territory where our learned friends make considerable sums for themselves and allegedly defamed clients. Fortunately we still have a community where some sensible latitude is allowed. Maybe, though, The Bridge shouldn't count on that ethos continuing ...

But back to the 'it shouldn't be allowed' idea.

There have, across the world and its history, been many examples of the importance given to allowing free speech. The Greeks, and the Romans later, provided fora where anyone could have their say on matters of which they felt strongly. It is arguable that when their leaders began to stifle such opinions, they started their civilisations' declines.

Many centuries later the United States Constitution enshrined freedom of expression in the rules by which that country was founded. And there is still, in many American states, the monthly Town Meeting where local people can, and do, have their say on how they should be governed locally.

Closer to home, although in legal terms Britain has some of the more Draconian defamation laws in the world, institutions like Speakers Corner at Hyde Park gave unfettered platforms to opinion which has included some very anti-British sentiments as well as the occasional loopy.

OK, times they are a-changing, and many of these freedoms in the 'free' world are being circumscribed in the worrisome catch-all of 'national security'. Others are being obscured in a fog of news management and PR. And then there are the PC lobbies busily trying to emasculate language by excising any words or expressions that might give offence, whether in jest or truth.

All that is for longer essays by more learned people than me. But here's a thought about squashing 'non-acceptable' notions out of our local organ of expression; it shoves them underground, and away from retort.

For The Bridge, I firmly believe that it is better if all are allowed to make their points in whatever words they want, within the statutory limits of defamation and incitement to hatred. That way, they can be answered, refuted if necessary, and the merits of either side of an argument be out in the open and available to examination.

Where there could be editorial interdiction is in the presentation. Some contributions to recent debates could have been trimmed substantially without dimming the argument of the writer; indeed, judicious editing could actually have made points more telling.

In a completely voluntary publication like The Bridge, there just isn't the time to do that kind of editing. It really should be done by the contributors themselves. So, a word of advice from somebody who has been self-editing for three decades and more: write, then rewrite, and rewrite, and rewrite again.

It's like distilling poteen; the more times it goes around, the better the final product.

If a policy of refusing articles is ever part of The Bridge, it would be better that it be for overly verbose writing than for what the contributor is saying.

Besides, there's an adage which goes, roughly, 'if the tongue offends, cut it out'.

But then the person so treated will never be able to say 'sorry'.

Brian Byrne.