The latest revelations on senior pay at the IFA has kick-started a necessary organisational response, with motions and resolutions emerging from meetings at all levels.

Yet, anyone wanting to gauge the mood of Irish farmers on the ground throughout the crisis could turn to social media for an instant, unfiltered snapshot.

A bias exists here – not all farmers use social media, and those who do are not necessarily interested in discussing the IFA. Despite this and the variety of opinions expressed online, several clear moments emerged in the conversation.

Calls for transparency

After Carlow IFA chairman Derek Deane went public with his demands to have the pay package of general secretary Pat Smith published, numerous social media posts called for transparency and supported Deane’s calls for disclosure.

But as soon as Smith resigned on Thursday 19 November and details of his remuneration emerged from the IFA executive council the next day, the mood turned to anger and disbelief.

Pat Smith’s name shot up to the top of Twitter trends in Ireland on Friday, and this may have encouraged the widespread coverage we have seen in mainstream media.

Many comments centred on the 20-fold gap between the average farm income and the €535,000 paid to Smith in 2013, and references to the fodder crisis of that year were rife.

A small proportion of social media users defended the general secretary, arguing that he had delivered good results for Irish farmers.

A lot fewer ventured to defend the level of remuneration revealed last week, or to suggest what amount would be appropriate. A handful of posts put acceptable pay levels for the general secretary between €50,000 and €100,000.

A lot more expressed support for the IFA as a grassroots organisation and a sense of betrayal on the part of national leaders.

Many expressed their disappointment that a valuable organisation was being undermined by poor governance at the top.

Anger often turned against the IFA leaders who had authorised such extravagant remuneration packages.

IFA president Eddie Downey announced on Monday that he was “stepping back” from his role, while former chief economist Con Lucey was drafted in to solve remuneration and governance issues, but this does not seem to be enough for our Twitter followers.

In some cases, the online discussion on the latest news from the IFA exposed the ugly side of social media, with posters hiding behind anonymous accounts – or not – to broadcast insulting comments or false information.

IFA environment committee chairman and Irish Farmers Journal online contributor Harold Kingston said he witnessed an unprecedented amount of hostility on Twitter, his social platform of choice. “There was language I couldn’t repeat,” he said – though he noted that private messages were a lot more moderate, and often personally supportive, than public posts. “Some people felt they had to be seen to take on the IFA – next week it could be someone else,” he said.

The Irish Farmers Journal was not exempt from criticism, with some readers questioning our coverage in the light of historical links between the publication and the IFA.

Those readers have every right to ask questions about our proximity with the IFA – after all, some connections still exist, though not at editorial level. As an independent media house owned by the separate Agricultural Trust, however, our response has been to provide the best coverage we could offer, including through social media channels themselves.

Aisling Hussey contributed reporting for this story.

Read more

Full coverage: Turmoil at the IFA