Category: Media coverage

The most deadly animal of all: The raging elephant of corruption

Two recent events serve to demonstrate just how far this country is away from facing reality.

Labour Senator Denis Landy publicly announced that someone had attempted to bribe him within the confines of our parliament.

The media response to this sensational event was moderate at best. There was no state response whatsoever.

A mother and child were attacked by a Tapir in Dublin zoo.

The media response was wall to wall and even now, days after the event, it is still being reported.

Take RTE for example: The incident was reported and analysed at length on Morning Ireland, Today with Myles Dungan, News at One, Liveline and Drivetime.

It made headline news for several days in all the newspapers and some even felt the need to make editorial comment.

On Liveline we heard Joe Duffy asking a caller such penetrating questions as:

Would a sheep make such an attack?

Oh yes, replied the caller, but sheep are weak so wouldn’t do as much damage.

Another caller went into forensic detail about how she was savagely attacked by a cat fourteen weeks ago.

Was it painful, asked Joe?

I never felt pain like it said the savaged woman.

Describe the cat, prompted Joe.

After a detailed description of the deadly cat the woman pleaded with the nation to be on the lookout for the monster.

She finished by warning the nation of just how deadly cats can be.

Cats are more dangerous than dogs because they constantly clean themselves. It’s the salvia, you know, all the germs are collected in the salvia and if they bite you, well, you’re doomed.

Notwithstanding the horror and pain suffered by the victims in Dublin zoo, this event is a non-story. The mother tapir, like all mothers, acted to defend her offspring – end of story.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party, elected to power principally to deal with the rampant political and financial corruption that effectively destroyed the lives of a majority of Irish citizens, announced that the bribery allegations made by Senator Landy had nothing to do with them. It was a private matter for the Senator and they were going to do nothing.

As a country we have not moved ahead by one inch in tackling the disease of political/financial corruption since the days when the criminal politician Haughey made such activity an integral part of our national heritage.

Instead, we grasp at any excuse, no matter how ridiculous, to avoid talking about the most deadly animal of all – the raging elephant of corruption that’s dancing all over our lives.

RTE rejects complaint made under new broadcasting code

RTE have made a decision regarding my complaint against Liveline submitted under the recently enacted Code of Fairness, Objectivity & Impartiality in News & Current Affairs.

While the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) is responsible for enforcing the code all complaints must first be submitted to the broadcaster involved.

RTE have rejected my complaint principally on the grounds that Liveline is not a news broadcast (See below).

I do not accept RTEs conclusion. I believe Liveline is a news and current affairs programme and is therefore subject to the new code.

I spoke with an official from the BAI and she agreed that Liveline is a news and current affairs programme.

I will now submit my complaint to the BAI.

The following is the full RTE decision.

Dear Mr Sheridan,

Thank you for your mail. I wish to acknowledge your complaint of 29 July in respect of Liveline of 18 July last.

As Liveline is not a news broadcast, Section 21 of the BAI Code of Fairness, Objectivity & Impartiality in News & Current Affairs does not apply to the programme.

Section 22 of the Code states that:

It is an important part of the role of a presenter of a current affairs programme to ensure that the audience has access to a wide variety of views on the subject of the programme or item; to facilitate the expression of contributors‘ opinions – sometimes by forceful questioning; and to reflect the views of those who cannot, or choose not to, participate in content.

This being so, a presenter and/or a reporter on a current affairs programme shall not express his or her own views on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate such that a partisan position is advocated.

The BAI Guidance Notes for the Code) state in relation to Section 22 that:

It is acknowledged that some current affairs output can be synonymous with personalities, where the manner in which the presenter presents or interviews contributors can be keenly anticipated by audiences. Often the nature and style of the presenter is a key factor in what engages audiences and draws them into consideration and debate on matters of public controversy and current public debate.

The audience will also often trust that the presenters’ approach may be instrumental in getting to the heart of the issues at hand.

These factors contribute to some of the key reasons why news and current affairs coverage is trusted to such an extent by Irish audiences.

However, with this level of trust comes a significant level of responsibility on the part of the broadcaster and in the case of these particular rules, the presenter. The Code seeks to prevent a partisan position being advocated by the presenter and to guard against a presenter using his/her programme to pursue an agenda, via comments, choice of guest etc., such that a biased view on an issue is articulated.

When Liveline invites listeners to express their opinions on topics of the day, to encourage participation and discussion the presenter of Liveline certainly gives voice to thought-provoking views from time to time; these are not, however, presented as his personal opinions but as a professional technique required by the format.

In doing so, the presenter is acting in keeping with Section 22 of the Code in ensuring that the audience has access to a wide variety of views on the topic.

He or she is also working a format where, as recognised by the BAI in its Guidance Notes to the Code, the nature and style of the presenter is a key factor in engaging audiences and is also instrumental in getting to the heart of the issues at hand. On this occasion, in the interests of such full debate, the presenter put alternative views to those expressed by the caller.

It is particularly vital in the context of this format that Section 22 of the Code does not simply prohibit the expression of the presenter’s own views but prohibits expression “such that a partisan position is advocated.”

This is in order, as stated in the Guidelines, “to guard against a presenter using his/her programme to pursue an agenda, via comments, choice of guest, etc, such that a biased view on an issue is articulated.”

No such biased or partisan view was expressed by the presenter on this occasion: his responses to the caller were entirely in reaction to that caller’s statements, in the interests of debate, and gave no evidence of any agenda being pursued.

I hope that you will agree that this section of the BAI Code has not been breached in the exchange you quote in your complaint.

However, if members of the public who complain are not satisfied with the response they have received there is a review process available to them within RTÉ. The request for an internal review should be sent to:

David McKenna
Head of Broadcast Compliance
RTÉ
Donnybrook
Dublin 4

Thank you again for your mail. RTÉ takes very seriously its obligations under this and other BAI Codes and welcomes the opportunity to review our output in this respect.
Yours sincerely,

Siobhán Hough
Series Producer
Liveline

Michael McDowell: The greatest party leader the world has ever known – Lol

Letter in today’s Irish Examiner

Can’t see why Finlay is still lauding McDowell

Columnist Fergus Finlay, without the slightest hint that his tongue was anywhere near his cheek, has announced to the world that former Progressive Democrats Party leader Michael McDowell was perhaps the greatest party leader the world has ever known (Irish Examiner Opinion, Jul 23).

The following is a brief outline of some of the ‘great’ man’s activities: He claimed ‘soft’ judges were partly to blame for his failure to stop gangland killings. One legal professional described McDowell’s statements as bordering on the impeachable

He insinuated that most asylum seekers were not entitled to stay in Ireland and regretted his inability to deport them forthwith because of due process;

He fully supported Bertie Ahern during his ‘money troubles’ and blindly followed the Fianna Fáil leader as the country headed towards financial ruin;

He effectively led the Progressive Democrats into oblivion and, after losing his seat in the 2007 election, fled the world of politics in panic without consulting his party colleagues.

Let’s be kind and assume Mr Finlay’s bizarre assessment of Mr McDowell was brought on by spending too much time out in the midday sun during the recent bout of good weather.

Anthony Sheridan
Cobh
Co Cork

First complaint in response to draconian broadcasting legislation

On 1 July last legislation came into effect that bans broadcasters from expressing a personal opinion on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate.

I have submitted my first complaint as a result of this draconian legislation.

As it is almost impossible to conduct a public discussion on matters that are of public controversy without expressing a personal opinion it is likely that there will be many, many more such complaints.

29 July 2013

To Whom It May Concern:

I wish to lodge a formal complaint against Liveline presenter Damien O’Reilly for a breach of sections 21 and 22 of the Code of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs, which came into effect on 1 July 2013 under Section 42 of the Broadcasting Act 2009.

On 18 July last, while speaking with a caller on such matters as austerity, the IMF bailout and bankers, Mr. O’Reilly expressed a personal opinion contrary to sections 21 and 22 of the Code.

The relevant section of the discussion is as follows:

Caller: We’re in a bailout programme because we were conned by the banks, Allied Irish Bank, Anglo Irish Bank.

Mr. O’Reilly: We know that and hopefully there will be an inquiry.

Caller: Well there won’t be an inquiry because these people are sitting on their big fat pensions.

Mr. O’Reilly: Your anger is palpable and is reflected all over the country and understandable but you can’t turn back the clock, you can’t keep saying the banks, the banks, the banks, that’s done and dusted.

Caller: But it’s not done and dusted, that’s the problem, you people in RTE want to tell it’s done and dusted, it’s not done and dusted.

Mr. O’Reilly: Listen to me Sean, Sean listen to me. There will be court cases but we’re not going to get the money back ok so it doesn’t matter if we have court cases tomorrow.

Caller: We need some of these criminals prosecuted…

Mr. O’Reilly: Yes, well that is the main point and I’m glad you… What we need in this country is indeed some justice to make people feel better.
It might not butter the bread to feed the children for breakfast but at least, as you say, it might make people feel a little less angry.

Clearly Mr. O’Reilly is expressing a strong personal opinion on a matter that is publicly controversial and of current public debate and is therefore in breach of the code.

Yours Sincerely

Anthony Sheridan

Sections 21 and 22 of the Code of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs.

21. A news presenter and/or a reporter in a news programme may not express his or her own view on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate.

22. It is an important part of the role of a presenter of a current affairs programme to ensure that the audience has access to a wide variety of views on the subject of the programme or item; to facilitate the expression of contributors‘ opinions – sometimes by forceful questioning; and to reflect the views of those who cannot, or choose not to, participate in content.

This being so, a presenter and/or a reporter on a current affairs programme shall not express his or her own views on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate such that a partisan position is advocated.

Michael Clifford: The immoral electorate is to blame

As sure as night follows day, when scandal and corruption raise their ugly heads there will always be a journalist ready and willing to write a ‘We’re all to blame’ article.

Irish Examiner columnist Michael Clifford, writing about the Anglo tapes, is the journalist in this case.

According to Clifford a lack of public morality caused by the vacuum created after the ‘moral guidance’ of the Catholic Church disappeared is principally responsible for the corruption within Anglo Irish Bank.

Public morality didn’t, and still doesn’t, appear to have much purchase in this State.

With little pressure to observe proper standards coming from the electorate, how can we expect that public morality is going to be observed in institutions such as banks?

So there you have it folks; the blame does not lie with the corrupt politicians, nor with the corrupt bankers, nor with the corrupt regulators but the immoral (and presumably corrupt) electorate.

Helen McEntee and hypocritical political guff

Helen McEntee, daughter of recently deceased Shane McEntee, was asked about online social media abuse during her election campaign (Marian Finucane Show, Saturday).

I don’t agree with anonymous abuse but it happens. It’s all part and parcel of putting yourself out there in the public eye. It’s just a matter of dealing with it.

A sensible and realistic attitude to media coverage unlike the many other politicians who were quick to exploit the death of Ms. McEntee’s father as an excuse to further restrict media freedom.

Ms. McEntee also effectively confirmed that all the hypocritical guff about online social media abuse being a factor in her father’s suicide was just that, hypocritical guff.

Was online abuse a huge pressure on your dad?

No, I don’t think so. My dad wasn’t very much into Facebook and twitter. He didn’t have a huge online presence. I don’t think he would have seen anything that would have been put up.

Senator Jimmy Harte, Minister Pat Rabbitte and others take note

What's annoying Hogan?

I see yet another Government minister has threatened the media because of perceived negative coverage.

Environment Minister Phil Hogan has threatened to ‘put manners’ on the media for publishing pictures of himself and his now former press secretary in Doha on Budget day.

I admit I’m at a loss here. What was the problem with the photograph, why is his press secretary now his former press secretary, why is Hogan so annoyed and why is the journalist Daniel Mc Connell expressing regret for what happened to the Minister’s press secretary?

Anyone?

O'Brien's victory likely to result in a media cowering before the shadows

I’m truly astonished that a jury found an article in the Irish Daily Mail had defamed Denis O’Brien.

In what appears to be a contradictory decision the jury accepted that the article was based on the honest opinion of the writer but that it was not an opinion based on fact and was not in the public interest.

Not in the public interest – Feck.

O’Brien is a man who had very serious adverse findings made against him in the Moriarty Tribunal report, findings that could potentially cost Irish taxpayers several millions in compensation. It was in connection to this tribunal report that the article was written.

In response to the jury’s decision O’Brien said that while freedom of expression was part of our democracy everybody had a right to his or her good name.

So what are we to make of the comments by O’Brien after the Moriarty Tribunal report was published?

There’s a ring of steel around Moriarty because they knew, the judiciary knew, that he was never up to the job, he’s a Circuit Court judge.

You’ve got to separate the wider judiciary from Justice Moriarty. I believe I was stitched by Justice Moriarty but I’m not in any way critical of the wider judicial community.

Look, do you know a lot about the legal profession, the judiciary and the Law Society. There’s a code amongst them all that they don’t take each other on, they don’t criticise each other.

Are these comments based on fact?

Judge Moriarty was never up for the job? This is O’Brien’s opinion of which, I’m sure, Justice Moriarty would not agree.

I was stitched by Justice Moriarty. Is this fact or just O’Brien’s opinion? Would a jury conclude that it was just opinion or defamatory?

Here’s how legal expert Professor Gerry Whyte of Trinity Law School responded to O’Brien’s criticisms:

If criticism of the judiciary went so far as to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice then we’re talking about an offence called scandalising the court.

This case has potentially serious consequences for press freedom.

Every editor, every journalist will be looking over their shoulders to check for the shadows of very powerful individuals before they express an opinion.

It is very likely that many will decide to cower before the shadows.

The ignorance of corruption that makes us a banana republic

Since the early 1980s I have been writing, some would say ranting, about corruption in Ireland.

One of the things that has always struck me is just how deeply ingrained the corrupt system of government is within our culture.

There was a depressing example of this ignorance of corruption on Today with Pat Kenny last Friday (1st Feb.).

Roisin Shortall, one of the very, very few politicians who holds, understands and has the integrity and courage to stand by democratic standards, bravely fought against a disturbing ignorance displayed by journalist Tom McGurk and former Fine Gael Justice Minister Nora Owen.

The issue under discussion was the parish-pump politics of James Reilly and Brendan Howlin regarding the upgrading of hospitals in their constituencies.

It is clearly evident that McGurk and Owen see nothing wrong with TDs and ministers abusing their power by taking resources from more needy projects in order to bestow favours on their constituents (my emphasis).

Nora Owen: It does look as if both of these hospitals needed work.

Pat Kenny: But Nora, as a former Cabinet minister, let’s be honest, isn’t if expected of you that you deliver for your constituents?

Owen: Yes.

Kenny: Is that right, moral and ethical or is it simply politics?

Owen: Look it, from time immemorial I was victim of it when I was a backbencher. (The culture of politicians competing with each other to claim favours for constituents).

The difficulty that people have now is that there was a commitment by this government that politics wouldn’t be the same as usual.

Shortall: Do you not think that the public has moved beyond politicians in this regard? The whole thing of pork barrel politics has done so much damage to this country.

Owen: These hospitals needed work.

Shortall: Other hospitals need work as well. What this is about is the basis on which decisions are taken in relation to how money is spent in health.

So do you do it by having a prioritisation system where you identify the areas that are most in need or do you engage in parish-pump politics?

Tom McGurk: Why else would we vote for you unless you got our local hospital sorted, that’s what you’re there for, you’ve got nothing else to offer really.

Shortall: Is that what your want Cabinet ministers to do?

McGurk: Yes, it is.

Kenny: Here we have the naked voter, Tom McGurk, saying why would I vote for you unless you can help me.

McGurk: Yes, that’s what you’re there for.

Shortall: Ok, so what happens to some very disadvantaged constituencies where there are huge problems and never had a Cabinet minister?

McGurk: Historically, culturally, traditionally Irish politics has been about patronage.

Shortall: Hasn’t that got us into an awful lot of difficulties?

McGurk: It’s also been very successful.

Shortall: Wouldn’t it be much better if we used the evidence that’s there, where there’s the greatest health need, do it in that transparent way, isn’t that what the public wants us to do?

John Mooney: I think the electorate is having a slightly allergic reaction to this type of activity by FG because it’s reminiscent of FF.

Shortall: Same old, same old.

Owen: The primary care centres that Roisin had sadly to resign over is slightly different from this, these hospitals were in the capital programme list.

What has come out through a freedom of information request is that James Reilly wrote a letter saying he’d like the two hospitals to be moved along the line and then Brendan Howlin’s department approved the €12 million.

The reverse of what Roisin is saying is that once there’s a minister in a constituency that those constituents are going to suffer because no government would be able to make a decision on that.

Shortall: What I’m saying is you do it in an objective and transparent way.

Owen: Yes, but it looks as if this was done in an objective way.

Shortall: when you look at the situation in relation to these two hospitals the agency that’s responsible for deciding on investment in health facilities didn’t know anything about this.

Owen: That’s not true, I checked that out and they did know about it.

Shortall: Well the minutes of the HSE board meeting…interrupted.

Shortall: In other countries they have what they call a resource allocation model that’s agreed, open, objective and transparent.

Owen: Clearly these hospitals got onto that model in 2010.

Shortall: Nora, we don’t have that capital model as you well know.

What determines spending across all government departments is whether there’s a minister there or not. And that means that areas that have far greater need lose out.