Category: Uncategorised

RTE in breach of its own editorial principles

By Anthony Sheridan

I have submitted the following complaint to RTE regarding the broadcaster’s failure to abide by its editorial principles.

To Whom It May Concern:

Please find complaint submitted for breach of Section 3, RTEs Editorial Principles – Trust, Accuracy and Impartiality. 

This complaint consists of two parts:

Part one:

The Taoiseach Michael Martin, Tanaiste Leo Varadkar, Minister for Justice Helen McEntee and other Fianna Fail and Fine Gael politicians have accused Sinn Fein of operating a strategy of exploiting the legal system by taking or threatening to take defamation actions in order to hamper investigative journalism and stifle political debate.

For example:

Taoiseach Michael Martin:  Sinn Féin was placing restraints on freedom of speech because people feel that they could be sued or threatened by legal threats.

Justice Minister Helen McEntee and Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe:  Sinn Féin’s use of the courts is having a chilling effect on democracy and the free media.

Tanaiste Leo Varadkar: The strategic use of legal action to try and stifle debate is worrying.

No evidence has been provided by these politicians to verify their claims that Sinn Fein is engaged in a strategy of using the courts to undermine democracy and free speech. 

In other words, all the accusations against Sinn Fein are hearsay, that is, information received from other people which cannot or has not been substantiated.

Professional journalists and media outlets, particularly national broadcasters, usually dismiss such unverified claims until such time as at least one reliable source is identified and quoted.

RTE has been reporting the claims without the usual caution to the public that there is no evidence to back up the charges.

By reporting the story without a source or verifiable evidence RTE is in breach of its own editorial principles of trust, accuracy and impartiality [Section 3, RTEs Editorial Principles – Trust, Accuracy and Impartiality]. 

This is particularly relevant to Section 3 [3.4] on the matter of sources which states:

3.4 Sources of Information We normally identify sources of information and significant contributors, and provide their credentials, so that our audiences can judge their status. • We normally require two sources before we broadcast something as a fact. • We must be very confident that the information is accurate and the source is reliable if we have to rely on a single source. • We should acknowledge when we have been unable to verify material sufficiently and attribute the information.

This complaint is specifically centred on a question put to Sinn Fein TD Eoin O’Broin by Sarah McInerney on Drivetime on Monday 17 October last.

Sarah McInerney: I want to ask you about comments by Leo Varadkar today saying that he’s aware of at least three Fine Gael politicians who have received legal letters from Sinn Fein and he questioned if Sinn Fein was underwriting the financial cost of those legal actions saying if they were it was a strategy to stifle public debate.

I just wanted to ask you – does SF underwrite the financial cost of legal actions that their members take against other people or other organisations?

The following issues of trust, accuracy and impartiality arise from this question:

One:  RTE/McInerney failed to state if they had asked Mr. Varadkar for the names of the Fine Gael TDs to confirm the source.

Two:  RTE/McInerney failed to state if they had verified the claim that Sinn Fein may be underwriting the financial cost of claims taken by party members.

Three:  RTE/McInerney failed to state if they had verified the accusation that Sinn Fein was engaged in a strategy aimed at undermining investigative journalism and public debate.

Four:  RTE/McInerney did not, at any point while putting the question, utter a caution to listeners in respect to the accusations such as ‘alleged’ or ‘ claims were made without evidence’. 

This failure by RTE/McInerney to abide by the most fundamental professional standards of broadcasting is a clear breach of RTEs Editorial Principles of Trust, Accuracy and Impartiality

Part two:

The leader of Sinn Fein, Mary Lou McDonald, is currently suing RTE for defamation.  That action forms an element of the unverified, unsourced accusations made by the above named Fine Gael and Fianna Fail politicians against Sinn Fein.

For RTE/McInerney to engage in questioning a Sinn Fein member on the basis of the unverified, unsourced accusation that Sinn Fein is underwriting the financial cost of legal actions by its members while the leader of Sinn Fein is currently engaged in a legal action against RTE is reckless and unprofessional. 

Such interference by RTE/McInerney in a live legal case involving RTE could reasonably be seen as an attempt to influence the case in favour of RTE.

Such interference is a clear breach of RTEs own editorial principles of trust, accuracy and impartiality [Section 3, RTEs Editorial Principles – Trust, Accuracy and Impartiality]. 

Yours sincerely

Anthony Sheridan

7 November 2022

Formal complaint against Robert Watt

By Anthony Sheridan

Department of Health secretary general Robert Watt recently committed several millions of taxpayer’s money to fund the secondment of Dr. Tony Holohan to Trinity College Dublin.

Mr. Watt had no authority to commit such public funds without the knowledge and permission of the Minister of Health.

I have submitted the following formal complaint to the Standards in Office Commission [SIPO] in response to Mr. Watt’s actions.

To Whom It May Concern:

Please find a formal complaint against the Secretary General of the Department of Health, Robert Watt, submitted under the Civil Service Code [The Code] of Standards and Behaviour.

I believe Mr. Watt is in breach of  several sections of the above standards and requirements as set out in the Code.

This complaint is based on evidence taken from Mr. Watt’s Briefing Note and his letter of intent to Professor Linda Doyle of Trinity College Dublin. 

This complaint is divided into two parts.

Complaint – Part One

The drafting and sending of the letter of intent by Mr. Watt to Professor Linda Doyle of TCD.  Mr. Watt was in breach of his duties and responsibilities on two counts regarding this letter.

One:  He did not possess the authority to write such a letter without the knowledge and permission of the minister.

Two: He did not possess the authority to offer a contract to TCD that involved a potential cost to the state of several millions. In his briefing note Mr. Watt defends his actions by claiming that the final details regarding Mr. Holohan’s secondment were not finalised. 

This defence does not stand up.  Whether or not the final details were agreed is irrelevant.  

It is the act itself of drawing up the letter and sending it to Professor Doyle for signature that constitutes Mr. Watts breach of the code under section 11. Regard for state resources [11.1] [11.2]

11.1 Civil servants should endeavour to ensure the proper, effective, and efficient use of public money.

11.2 Civil servants are required to: • take proper and reasonable care of public funds and departmental property and not to use them, or permit their use, for unauthorised purposes; • incur no liability on the part of their employer without proper authorisation and • ensure that expenses, such as travel and subsistence payments, are not unnecessarily incurred either by themselves or by staff reporting to them.

Complaint – Part Two

In his Briefing Note Mr. Watt, in an obvious attempt to spread responsibility for his own decisions and actions, dishonestly implicates other agencies and individuals in those decisions.

Two examples:

[1] He promised an allocation of €2 million for the duration of Mr. Holohan’s secondment to be administered through the Health Research Board [HRB].  The HRB have made it absolutely clear that they were neither informed nor consulted in regard to this decision.  Whether or not the HRB would have administered Dr. Holohan’s salary is irrelevant in the context of this complaint. 

What is relevant is that Mr. Watt failed in his responsibility to inform or consult with the HRB on a decision that would have had a serious impact on the obligations and resources of that organisation. 

Furthermore, Mr. Watt’s failure to inform or consult with the management of the HRB regarding his decision demonstrates a serious lack of respect and consideration for his civil service colleagues.

[2] Mr. Watt strongly suggests that the Secretary to the Government, Martin Fraser, the Taoiseach and other members of the Government were aware of the proposed secondment.

Mr. Watt writes:

The Secretary to the Government was aware of the proposed secondment move (but not of course the precise details) and I understood that the fact of discussions regarding the CMO’s future plans were known in the Department of An Taoiseach. I assumed that key decision-makers were aware of the proposal but of course not the precise details. [Source: Robert Watt’s Briefing Note: Other Matters [5].

The facts are:  The Taoiseach has made it crystal clear that he had ‘no hand, act or part’ in the plans surrounding Dr. Holohan’s secondment. 

Similarly, no other government minister had any knowledge whatsoever of the details as drawn up by Mr. Watt and Dr. Holohan and agreed to by the provost of TCD, Linda Doyle. Mr. Fraser and Mr. Watt’s boss, the Minister for Health, were given only the vaguest details of what was planned. 

Mr. Watt’s use of terms such as ’I understood that’ and ‘I assumed that’, in mitigation of his actions are not credible coming from a public official of his rank, power and responsibilities.

I believe that Mr. Watts’ decisions and actions in respect of the above are in breach of Part 2 [4] [Impartiality] [paragraphs [a] [b] and [c] of the Code.

Civil servants in the performance of their official duties: 

(a) must conscientiously serve the duly elected Government of the day, the other institutions of State and the public; 

(b) must advise and implement policy impartially and, in particular, be conscious of the need to maintain the independence necessary to give any future Minister or Government confidence in their integrity and 

(c) should not display partiality whether as a result of personal or family ties or otherwise.

Yours etc.,

Anthony Sheridan

Labour Party: The unvarnished truth

Prior to 2016 election
After the 2016 election

By Anthony Sheridan

Writing in the Irish Times recently about the continuing decline of the Labour Party, historian Diarmaid Ferriter asks:

Is there really much difference between the Labour Party and the Social Democrats and would it not make sense for them to coalesce?

The same question has been asked many times by journalists and politicians since the people effectively rejected the party in the 2016 election.  The question is always advanced as a possible strategy for rescuing Labour from extinction.

That mainstream journalists and politicians would scramble around looking for strategies to save the party is not surprising but it is disappointing to witness a prominent historian engaging in the same hopeless delusion when he really should know the answer.

So, for Mr. Ferriter’s benefit and other’s hoping that, by some miracle, the Labour Party can be saved – here’s the unvarnished truth.

The Labour Party is heading for extinction because it is, first and foremost, a loyal member of the ruling political class.  A large and increasing number of voters have come to realise that the party does not represent their interests and vote accordingly.  Election results do not lie, the brutal political reality is out there for everybody to see. 

Also, in recent years, particularly since the economic catastrophe of 2008, more and more voters have come to realise that the political establishment itself is rotten to the core.

The people have delivered the same message in every recent election – a demand for radical political change.  Labour, instead of answering that call, has doggedly remained loyal to the corrupt political regime that the electorate is rejecting in their droves.

And this is where the difference between the Labour Party and the Social Democrats crystalises, this is what Mr. Ferriter should know. 

The Social Democrats are anti-establishment, they were created as a direct result of political corruption within the establishment.  The party’s raison d’être is to rid the state of the disease of political corruption that has infected the body politic for decades.

If the Social Democrats was to merge with Labour they would almost certainly suffer the same fate as the Progressive Democrats.  They too came into existence in protest against political corruption, principally under the corrupt politician Haughey.  But over the years and particularly under the leadership of Mary Harney, the party returned to its rotten Fianna Fail roots.  That betrayal of hope and trust signed the party’s death warrant. 

In the run-up to the 1992 election Labour Party leader, Dick Spring convinced many, including myself, that the party was determined to represent the people rather than powerful interests. 

I was particularly impressed when Spring, most unusually, revealed the truth about a fellow ruling elite party when he accurately described Haughey and Fianna Fail’s influence on politics as ‘a cancer in the body politic’.

Shortly afterwards, Spring cravingly led Labour into coalition with the ‘cancerous’ Fianna Fail exposing the naked truth that his true loyalties lay with the power and privileges of the ruling political class and not with the people.

Mr. Ferriter, in common with all mainstream commentators is unaware of or refuses to acknowledge the truth behind the rapidly changing political landscape.  Instead of facing reality, he clutches at straws of hope for the doomed party.

Perhaps, he suggests, Labour may regain momentum if Sinn Fein suffers as a consequence of making hard decisions in government. 

That a negative performance by one party might help save Labour is as ridiculous as the idea that a positive performance of another [Social Democrats] might do the same.

The choice facing Labour is simple – remain loyal to the current dying political regime or respond to the demands of the people for radical political change by becoming a genuinely radical left wing party.

No prizes for guessing which road Ivana Bacik will take.

Michael Clifford: low standards in journalism

By Anthony Sheridan

‘Please note, although this controversy occurred over a month ago and was the subject of an excellent article by Vanessa Foran, I believe the hostile reaction by mainstream media to Paddy Cosgrave’s anti-corruption campaigning deserves as much coverage as possible.’

On November 6 last, Irish Examiner journalist Michael Clifford wrote an article that can only be described as gutter journalism at its very worst.

The target of Clifford’s attack was entrepreneur and anti-corruption campaigner Paddy Cosgrave. 

Cosgrave is co-founder of the hugely successful Web Summit and used that platform at this year’s event to highlight very serious allegations of corruption against then Taoiseach Leo Varadkar. 

The allegations, published by Village Magazine, claims that Varadkar illegally leaked a confidential document related to negotiations for a new General Practitioner contract.  The allegations are so serious that Varadkar is now the subject of a criminal investigation.

Cosgrave brilliantly used the event, attended by 43,000 people from 128 countries, to expose to the world the rot that lies at the heart of Ireland’s governance. 

After projecting a giant image of the Village Magazine cover that described Mr. Varadkar as a ‘law breaker’, Cosgrave invited the whistleblower, Chay Bowes and the editor of the magazine, Michael Smith, onto the stage. 

Clifford focused his attack on Cosgrave and whistleblower Bowes.  He openly questioned Bowes integrity by comparing his courage to the guest of honour at the event, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.

To present the whole farrago as an introduction to Ms Haugen, a genuine, courageous whistleblower, was arguably insulting to her.

Clearly, Clifford does not believe that Bowes is a genuine whistleblower despite the fact that his revelations triggered a criminal investigation into the then prime minister of our country.  

The journalist then attacked Cosgrave by inaccurately claiming he linked the notorious activities of Weinstein and Epstein with Varadkar’s alleged crime.

Clifford wrote:

To leave open the possibility to an uninformed audience that whatever he did could be bracketed in notoriety with the activities of Weinstein and Epstein is contemptible.

Clifford then, hypocritically,  did exactly what he had just [falsely] condemned Cosgrave of doing.  He linked the notorious journalist, Gemma O’Doherty with Cosgrave’s actions.

Once upon a time, Gemma O’Doherty held a similar role in the public square before she took a sharp turn to the right. There is no reason in the world to believe that Paddy would follow her but you have to wonder what exactly he will do next.

So why the hypocrisy, why would Clifford insult and condemn one whistleblower and his supporter and praise another?

The answer, I believe, depends on who the whistleblower is and who they are exposing. 

Ms. Haugen is an American citizen, she’s an outsider.  Her whistleblowing poses no threat to those who rule the roost in Irish politics. 

But, in the eyes of an establishment journalist like Clifford, Cosgrave’s relentless and effective anti-corruption campaigning is a direct threat to the power of the ruling political class that he and his newspaper so strongly support.

And Clifford himself, helpfully, provides the evidence for the truth of this claim.

In defence of Varadkar he writes:

He [Varadkar] was stupid rather than corrupt and he may have broken the law but there was no personal gain in it for him. 

If it was just a case of stupidity on Varadkar’s part then surely we can expect the Gardai to drop their criminal investigation now that this journalist has delivered his judgement on the case? 

It also appears that Clifford does not believe that political corruption is a crime.  How else can we reconcile his view that ‘Varadkar may have broken the law but he’s not corrupt’? 

Even more bizarre, particularly for a journalist, is Clifford’s suggestion that there should be no accountability if there was no personal gain in the crime.

But Clifford doesn’t operate alone in the establishment media bubble. His boss, political editor of the Examiner, Daniel McConnell expressed similar views in defence of that other stalwart of the political establishment, Simon Coveney, during the Zappone cronyism scandal.

Coveney is not a crooked politician, McConnell told the nation adding –

The true scandal here has been Coveney and Fine Gael’s utter failure to kill this off long before now. 

Here we have a journalist, the political editor of one of the most influential newspapers in the country suggesting that the ‘killing off’ of a serious scandal involving cronyism and possible law breaking should take precedence over political accountability.

I wrote before about the disturbing malaise that’s eating away at standards in Irish journalism.  Clifford’s intemperate and biased rant is a particularly nasty example of that malaise.

Copy to:

Michael Clifford

Paddy Cosgrave

Chay Bowes

Michael Smith

Daniel McConnell

The poor standard of Irish political journalism

By Anthony Sheridan

The standard of political analysis within Irish journalism is disturbingly poor.  There is one simple but very troubling reason for this. 

Most journalists are loyal members of the establishment and as a consequence refuse to even acknowledge never mind actually write about the dark, underlying reality that lies at the heart of Irish politics. 

The dark reality is that the three centrist parties, Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and Labour, are not separate political parties struggling to attain power in order to implement policies for the greater good of Ireland and its people.   

The dark reality is that these three parties constitute a corrupt political class that, for the most part, works to enrich itself and those who support its agendas. 

The economic catastrophe and consequent extreme austerity inflicted on the people of Ireland by this ruling political class since 2008 has resulted in very serious damage to its credibility and as a consequence to its power. 

Labour has been virtually wiped out by an angry electorate while Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have been so damaged they have been forced into a coalition of desperation where they are engaged in a life or death struggle for political dominance.

The establishment media plays a major role in propping up the power of this corrupt political class.  Journalists do this by simply ignoring political corruption altogether or by retreating into a parallel reality.

A recent article by Irish Times journalist Pat Leahy provides us with a good example of how establishment journalists ‘analyse’ politics from within this parallel reality.    

In the article Leahy is making the point that the Left in Irish politics is not serious about achieving its political goals.  They prefer talking to doing, he says.  He goes on:

If power is impossible without compromise and personal sacrifice, they prefer the empty dance of politics without the prospect of power.

This, of course, is a ridiculous conclusion.  But such silly opinions are not unusual among journalists like Leahy because, while they can see the rot in the political system, they are not, for whatever reason, prepared to expose it. 

Clearly, Leahy doesn’t realise that the three centrist parties are a political class masquerading as separate entities.  We witness his ignorance by his use of the term  ‘go figure’  when describing how Fianna Fail and Fine Gael can operate on any point of the political spectrum without apparent scruple.

Political parties of integrity and principle do not do this.  They avoid associating with parties of opposite ideologies altogether or lay down very strict conditions for any coalition deal. 

A single ruling political class, particularly one infected with the disease of corruption, has no scruples about moving to any position on the politcal spectrum if it suits its purpose.  That’s why, for example, the Labour Party had no difficulties in collaborating with Fine Gael’s extreme right-wing austerity policies. 

Leahy further demonstrates his ignorance of the political landscape by asking the following question:

What, exactly, is the difference between the Labour Party and the Social Democrats apart from the fact that they cannot get along together at a personal level?

The answer, of course, is that the Labour Party is a loyal member of the corrupt ruling class.  The party sold out on its socialist principles and political integrity in 1992 when Dick Spring went into coalition with the criminal politician Haughey shortly after [accurately] describing Haughey and Fianna Fail as ‘a cancer on the body politic’.

The Social Democrats, on the other hand, represent the complete opposite of what Labour has become.  The Social Democrats came into existence as a direct result of exposing corruption within the ruling class. 

The party’s leadership know very well that they would be signing their political death warrant if they were to associate themselves with any of the parties that constitute the corrupt political class.

It is incredible and deeply disturbing that a journalist such as Leahy, who is considered an expert on political analysis, is not aware of this obvious political reality.

But, as I said at the beginning – the standard of political analysis within Irish journalism is very poor.

Copy to:

Pat Leahy

Brendan Howlin: A political leprechaun

 

 
the-problem-with-political-jokes-tinyBy Anthony Sheridan

Former Labour Party leader and current EU Special Envoy for the Peace Process in Columbia Eamon Gilmore said the shock defeat of a referendum to endorse the peace deal between FARC rebels and the Columbian government must be respected.

The current leader of the Labour Party Brendan Howlin has arrogantly told the British people they must hold a second referendum because their decision to leave the EU is not in line with interests of the Irish ruling elite.

He said many British people were unaware of the hurt the decision to leave the EU had caused in Ireland.

The British people cannot yet understand the consequences of what they have done.

When it does become clear, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that the British people be asked to confirm their decision. That based on that agreement, the people should once more have their say, in a further referendum.

A second referendum campaign, he said, would not see the level of distortion that he said characterised the first.

In a nutshell this arrogant twat is saying:

Because, in his opinion, the British people didn’t know what they were doing, because the referendum campaign was distorted and because the result doesn’t suit the Irish ruling class they should vote again and hopefully get it right the second time around.

This is the long-standing anti-democratic attitude of all Irish gombeen politicians that Irish citizens have been subjected to for decades.

In their arrogant stupidity Irish politicians like Gilmore and Howlin are all for the democratic process on the strict condition that it doesn’t interfere with their own interests.

So the Columbian result is fine, very democratic and must be respected because the result does not impinge on the interests of the Irish political class.

But the British result is deemed to be undemocratic, the British people are deemed to be ignorant. They were misled, they must vote again – until they get it right.

This is the same pygmy political attitude Howlin adopted in the leadership contest for his own party. He didn’t want to risk a humiliating third rejection by his beloved party so he insisted that the democratic system be replaced with a dictatorial coronation.

I never cease to be amazed by the level of tolerance displayed by the British people when gombeen Irish politicians like Howlin and Kenny go over to berate and insult their democratic system.

I can only guess that those attending the British Labour Party conference where Howlin spoke assumed he was a performing Irish leprechaun hired to provide some light entertainment.

Copy to:

Gilmore

Howlin

Irish Labour Party

British Labour Party

SINDO to defeat the great evil one

Fantasy_The_struggle_of_good_and_evil_041391_

By Anthony Sheridan

A great fear stalks the land. An evil force, greater than any witnessed since the creation of the Cosmos, has invaded the green isle of Ireland.

The evil? – Sinn Fein.

The fear? – That the evil one will supplant the white knights of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour who have, since 1922, ruled our great nation with wisdom, courage and honesty.

The evil one is on the point of victory, only one force stands heroically in its path, only one force with the courage, patriotism and strength to save the people from their own foolishness for even contemplating voting for the dark one.

That force? THE SUNDAY INDEPENDENT (Triumphant fanfare).

Tomorrow is the day of judgement when the SINDO engages in its final battle with the evil one before polling day.

Tomorrow is the day of justice when the SINDO, after many years of battle, delivers justice by slaying the evil dragon on behalf of a great but ungrateful people.

Every article, every sentence, every full stop will be recruited to do battle…including:

The horoscope:

A dark force will destroy you unless you vote as we advise.

The weather:

Dark clouds are approaching from the Left. Get out your umbrella’s and wellies on to save yourselves.

Sports:

It’s a game of two halves – good and evil. Cheer for the white knights, boo the evil one.

The personals:

Wanted: Unthinking/gullible voters to continue supporting the corrupt political system that has impoverished the people and enriched the powerful.

Battle-of-good-vs-evil-landing

Will ‘Independent’ Newspapers explode in indignation today?

7037498-colors-explosion

By Anthony Sheridan

Between 18 Dec last and 8 Jan this year ‘Independent’ Newspapers published at least 48 articles attacking Sinn Fein in response to the trial and conviction of republican Thomas ‘Slab’ Murphy on tax evasion charges.

That’s 9/11, major tsunami, end of the world event reaction – to a tax evasion charge.

Murphy is being sentenced today – in the middle of a general election.

So the question is – will the ‘journalists’ at ‘Independent’ Newspapers manage to remain calm or will they and the entire propaganda office erupt in a cosmic explosion of indignation and outrage at what they see as the most evil, most catastrophic event in human history?

Fingal County Council: Ignoring the law-breaking of the political class?

accountability

In my previous article regarding the illegal erection of posters by Fine Gael candidate Stephanie Regan I said:

Sad to say but politicians are justified in their contempt for the law because not one of my complaints has ever resulted in action being taken against a member of the political class.

And so it is in this case. Once again a so-called state law enforcement agency has turned a blind eye to law breaking by a member of the political class.

Before publishing the disgraceful decision by Fingal County Council I want to outline the stark facts of this case.

The case was published on a national online newspaper complete with photographs of the illegal posters. To my knowledge the law-breaker, Stephanie Regan did not dispute any of the facts in the report.

She openly admitted that she was the person who erected the illegal posters.

She openly admitted that she knew her actions were against the law.

So, after investigating the matter, here’s the conclusion of Fingal County Council.

Dear Sir,

I refer to your email dated 24th January 2016 in relation to the above matter.

This matter was investigated at the time and the Litter Warden found no evidence of the alleged breach.

Under these circumstance the matter is deemed closed.

Regards

The person/s who made this decision is a public/civil servant. When they began their career they promised to serve the public, to serve the people of Ireland. In return the people of Ireland pay their salaries and will pay their pensions and other benefits into their old age.

The people of Ireland have to trust that the public/civil servants will faithfully act in the best interests of the people, the country and the local community.

In this case, as in so many others, that trust has been betrayed with the subsequent damage to public trust in politicians and public/civil servants.

Copy to:
Fingal County Council
Stephanie Regan