I am biased where Bertie Ahern is concerned. I am too conscious of the enormous debt of gratitude owed to him by the people of Northern Ireland to be anything else. So I won't bother feigning neutrality in respect of his appearances before the Mahon tribunal.
That is not to say if evidence of wrongdoing were to emerge that I would try to make light of it: I certainly would not. But it would need to be clear, unequivocal evidence, and to date there has been precious little sign of anything approaching that.
As far as I am concerned, Bertie Ahern is entirely innocent of any offence until something is produced that proves otherwise. But then, regardless of who is appearing before a public tribunal or a court of law, are we not all supposed to adopt just such a non-neutral stance?
In a society supposedly wedded to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", should not a distinct bias in favour of someone's innocence be the starting point for us all? Of course it should, but it has been apparent for some time that many in the media are determined to deny Ahern this basic right.
They have, in fact, turned the concept of presumption of innocence completely on its head and are behaving as though it has been proven beyond doubt that he is guilty of financial impropriety when that is simply not the case. Bertie Ahern has not been shown to be guilty of anything. Others are acting as if the old Scottish verdict of "not proven" had been returned, with their coverage all but openly declaring: "he's as guilty as sin, but there just isn't enough evidence to nail him."
To put it at its mildest, much of the commentary and reporting on Ahern's appearances at the Mahon tribunal is far removed from fair and responsible journalism. Barely-veiled declarations that he is guilty of some unspecified financial irregularities compete with a constant diet of no-smoke-without-fire insinuation and sneering incredulity at his testimony.
It is no secret that sections of the media have always despised Ahern, with his mangled syntax and "common man" persona. Perhaps they think it is all part of an act. Or, driven by intellectual snobbery, they feel that he has risen too far above his station. Either way, they want to see him brought down to where they think he belongs.
Others tossed a metaphorical coin to choose sides at the outset of this probing and it came down guilty side up, so they will stick to that position come hell or high water. It matters more to them that they are thought to have been correct in their judgment than whether Bertie is actually guilty of anything. They would much rather that he falls, irrespective of guilt or innocence, than be seen to have called it wrong.
There is another lot who are so intoxicated with the idea of having the power to bring down senior politicians that they will grab at any excuse to exercise it - and politicians do not come more senior than a sitting taoiseach.
No doubt influenced by his party's history in these matters, there are those who believe that, by definition, a Fianna Fáil taoiseach must be involved in some kind of financial skulduggery, and on that spurious basis they have determined that Ahern must be tumbled.
All of those things and combinations of them - and even simple party allegiance and political opportunism - are what is driving this media campaign.
Individual journalists are as entitled as anyone else to think and believe what they like, but where a combination of legality, reputation and personal affairs are concerned, prejudice should be set aside in favour of bare reportage.
Doubtless, there are those in the media who would argue that the Mahon tribunal is a committee of inquiry, not a criminal court, so the usual restrictions on reporting and commentary do not apply. Of course, they are right: the tribunal is not a criminal court.
Where the treatment of Ahern is concerned, it is much worse than that. If his finances and private life had been the subject of criminal proceedings, he would at least have been afforded protection from the current onslaught of media speculation and accusation.
As it is, in terms of how Ahern's part in it is being reported, the Mahon tribunal has come to resemble a cross between a Stalinist show trial and what is euphemistically known as a "daytime chat show".
On the one hand, there is a sustained attempt to destroy a man's reputation and career by the reporting of unsubstantiated allegations (and even extrapolations from them) as fact.
On the other hand, and running in tandem, details of his private life, including his marital separation and the financial arrangements of himself, his wife and his ex-partner, are being held up to ridicule as if for public titillation.
That it is a duly-elected head of government who is being so publicly humiliated in this way only adds to the Soviet-style flavour of it all. Ahern's treatment by sections of the media is indefensible.