A good book that, in time, will be perceived as a great book

A revealing insight into the workings of Ireland's most influential newspaper

In this masterful insight into the workings of Ireland's most influential newspaper, there is a telling story about the reporting by The Irish Times of the Bishop Casey "scandal" – if that story can now deserve the characterisation "scandal" after all we have come to appreciate as scandalous about the Catholic Church since then.

When, a few weeks ago, I first read this chapter of Conor Brady's account of his years as editor of The Irish Times (1986-2002), I thought this story about the Bishop Casey "scandal" reflected poorly on him. Given what has intervened in the few weeks since I first read this, I am no longer quite so sure.

In January 1992 a journalist in The Irish Times took a phone call from a man calling himself Arthur Pennell, saying he was the then partner of a Annie Murphy, who, he said, had had an affair with Bishop Casey many years previously and had given birth to the bishop's child. He said Annie Murphy wanted to tell her story. Conor Brady passed the information on to the then North America correspondent, Conor O'Clery, who visited Annie Murphy.

Conor O'Clery was impressed with her story, as was the news editor, John Armstrong, and as was Conor Brady. But, for them, that was not sufficient to "run" with the story. Subsequently, however, The Irish Times got corroborative evidence from a friend of Annie Murphy in Galway and, crucially, they got documentary evidence of payments (£70,000) being made to Annie Murphy by Bishop Casey, via a priest in New York. They sought to put the information they received to Bishop Casey. He failed to turn up for an interview, fled the country and the Vatican announced his resignation as Bishop of Galway. The following day The Irish Times, which knew the full story, published only that the Bishop had taken monies from a diocesan fund and had it sent to a woman in America.

There was a good reason not to run with the whole story, but it was a reason which The Irish Times subsequently discarded: that it involved an impermissible intrusion into the private life of Bishop Casey.

Arguments based on the hypocrisy premise were/are suspicious (preaching one standard and living by another), for what relevance has the personal conduct of a Bishop (or anyone else) got to do with the validity or otherwise of a moral code he/she advocates? But that was not why The Irish Times did not run with the story. It did not do so because of what I initially thought was undue timidity – Conor Brady believed that if The Irish Times got it wrong, the Catholic Church would destroy the newspaper.

When one contrasts that reserve with the recklessness and cynicism of the recent reportage of the death of Liam Lawlor in Moscow, the reliance of pure speculation from an unidentified Russian police officer, the headline in the Sunday Independent, "Lawlor killed in red-light district with teenage girl" and the prominent reference to the woman in the car as "likely to be a prostitute", then one can only admire the caution of Conor Brady. The Irish Times had a story that could have sold them a quarter of a million copies on the morning after Bishop Casey fled the country. They sacrificed commercial gain for editorial integrity, exactly the reverse of what other newspapers did here on 23 October last. This is a very good book and as years go by will be seen as a great book. An insight into the internal workings of the most influential newspaper on the island during the 16 years Conor Brady was editor and a revealing insight into the Ireland of those years. It is well-written, at times funny, at times unwittingly revealing and at no time self-important, which is quite an achievement for an editor.

It reveals Conor Brady as more substantial than some of us who knew him appreciated. It shows that the damaging portrayal of his editorship at the time of his departure, focusing on the generous pension arrangements and "non-compete" agreement, was an unfair evaluation of his contribution to that newspaper, to journalism and to the country.

He was perceived as a conservative establishment figure at the time of his appointment and the book does little to dispel that impression. What it does dispel is the view that a conservative establishment figure cannot be an editor of integrity, innovation and courage.

He changed The Irish Times fundamentally. It became a more comprehensive newspaper under his editorship, with far better foreign coverage, better sports and business, better news, better lay-out and much better commercial package. He drove the circulation upwards from a base of 87,353 in 1987 to a peak of 120,397 in 2001, an increase of 38 per cent. Unsurprisingly, the Northern politician for whom he had most regard was John Hume. Surprisingly, the two southern politicians for whom he had the most regard were Charles Haughey and Dick Spring, both outside his social and political circles. Surprising also is his concession that his newspaper's support for the health cuts in the 1987-'92 period was a mistake (or rather his failure to oppose these cuts). He takes justifiable pride in his opposition (under the promptings of the late Christina Murphy) to the cuts in education at that time. Also surprising is the revelation of hostility between The Irish Times and Mary Robinson both during her Presidency and during her tenure as UN Commissioner for Human Rights.

Throughout the book there are mentions of lunches and dinners with "movers and shakers" and/or "the great and the good". No mention anywhere of trips to Traveller encampments, to impoverished inner-city communities, to ramshackle schools, to others living on the margins. Perhaps an unwitting insight into the mind-set of editors. They (we?) see the world from the perspective of affluence and, however mediated that perspective may be by compassion and normal decency, they (we?) failed to comprehend the scale of the unfairness and deprivation that marked Irish society during the years of his editorship and still do. More importantly, they (we?) failed to perceive the harsh and sometimes brutal consequences of "common-sense" policies we support "in the national interest".

I suspect Conor would agree with this reservation. I should declare an interest. Although I hardly knew Conor Brady on a personal level, he was a support to me in difficult times. He also engaged me as a columnist for The Irish Times (incidentally, the worst paid columnist on the newspaper) and he has been hugely supportive of Village.

I was nervous of what might emerge as his editorial memoirs. I feared it would be defensive, self-serving and, yes, self important. I feared needlessly. Buy it. And then read it.