Declan Ganley - Prime Time special

SalthillGuy

Firstly, I voted yes, but I watched this with interest last night to see if this was an attempt to discredit him.
In my opinion it came across that way.
Maybe it is the way the media work.
IMO, he had a point of view, expessed it and the country agreed with him.
Simple as that.....

sfakiaman

SalthillGuy wrote: »

Firstly, I voted yes, but I watched this with interest last night to see if this was an attempt to discredit him.
In my opinion it came across that way.
Maybe it is the way the media work.
IMO, he had a point of view, expessed it and the country agreed with him.
Simple as that.....

Of course it was an attempt to discredit him! The media get to be a free media most of the time by towing the Govt line when they are told.

However, I think they credit Libertas with having too much influence on the referendum. I voted against, partly because we were told only a fool would read the whole treaty. If you went to the bank and they said just sign here don't bother reading it, you would walk out.

My opinion is that the Govt are trying to scapegoat Ganley for their failure to ram the views of the "Ruling Elite" down our throats.

Nodin

Indeed, I voted against Lisbon, but it was despite Ganley, not because of him.

djpbarry

SalthillGuy wrote: »

IMO, he had a point of view, expessed it and the country agreed with him.

Methinks you're giving Deco a little too much credit. I would rephrase you're statement as:

"he had a point of view, but he kept that to himself and set out to deliberately deceive and mislead the public. It worked."

sfakiaman wrote: »

However, I think they credit Libertas with having too much influence on the referendum.

Really? You only have to look around this forum to see the influence that Libertas have had - snippets from their website are frequently used.

nhughes100

I never seen the state broadcaster use such blatent propaganda. The character assasination of the no to Lisbon campaign is well underway.

Trying to Implicate Ganley with a murder of an Albanian, robbing old people's savings, being investigated by the FBI(who never found any evidence worth persuing) How much of the taxpayers money was spent sending that Evening Herald hack to Latvia, Albania, the USA, Cyprus for fancy backdrops to accompany the x-files soundtrack they had, the absolute lowest ebb for Prime Time I've ever seen.

fathersymes

I have no doubt Mr. Ganley will be seeking legal advice following this poorly attempted character assassination.

Their 'expert witness' being a disgruntled Albanian pensioner and the 'thought provoking' silence as the credits rolled. It was effectively a Yes Vote political broadcast.

RTE's declaration of being impartial is interesting!

RTÉ is a Public Service Broadcaster, a non-profit making organisation owned by the Irish people. RTÉ is Ireland's cross-media leader, providing comprehensive and cost-effective free-to-air television, radio and online services, which are of the highest quality and are impartial, in accordance with RTÉ's statutory obligations.

Jack Sheehan

Everyone is calling it a character assasination, but it wasnt. They merely stated that he was involved in what look like some dodgy dealings. Probably nothing major but the fact remains. The main question was where does Lbertas' funding come from, as yet unanswered by Ganley, because of 'Brussels Fanatics' or some such nonsense.

Vegeta

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

They merely stated that he was involved in what look like some dodgy dealings.

While playing dodgey EVIL spy music in the background. Letting the credits roll with no music.

If they were just trying to show his questionable dealings they would have left out all the theatrics, they wouldn't have had any of that sensationalist sh1te.

I cringe when I watch how unprofessional a lot (but not all) Irish produced television is

Ziggurat

sfakiaman wrote: »

Of course it was an attempt to discredit him! The media get to be a free media most of the time by towing the Govt line when they are told.

Maybe it's because I just dno't digest Irish media any more but I've never noticed this.

However, I think they credit Libertas with having too much influence on the referendum. I voted against, partly because we were told only a fool would read the whole treaty. If you went to the bank and they said just sign here don't bother reading it, you would walk out.

Do you read every EULA that comes with every piece of software?

My opinion is that the Govt are trying to scapegoat Ganley for their failure to ram the views of the "Ruling Elite" down our throats.

Am I the only one sick of seeing the term "elite" being bandied about so much. As I've said in my post in AH, it conjures up images of hacks like Rush Limbaugh going on about the "liberal elite" et al.
Not to mention it smacks of paranoia.

Zulu

sfakiaman wrote: »

I voted against, partly because we were told only a fool would read the whole treaty. If you went to the bank and they said just sign here don't bother reading it, you would walk out.

So you read the treaty then?

djpbarry wrote: »

Methinks you're giving Deco a little too much credit. I would rephrase you're statement as:

"he had a point of view, but he kept that to himself and set out to deliberately deceive and mislead the public. It worked."

+1

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

Everyone is calling it a character assasination, but it wasnt. They merely stated that he was involved in what look like some dodgy dealings. Probably nothing major but the fact remains. The main question was where does Lbertas' funding come from, as yet unanswered by Ganley, because of 'Brussels Fanatics' or some such nonsense.

+1
It amazes me how blind some people are!

Firetrap

I don't know if it was a character assassination (I watched it with an open mind) but it did ask questions about him that he didn't answer very well. He didn't come across well in some of the interviews segments.

sfakiaman

Quinine wrote: »

Am I the only one sick of seeing the term "elite" being bandied about so much. As I've said in my post in AH, it conjures up images of hacks like Rush Limbaugh going on about the "liberal elite" et al.
Not to mention it smacks of paranoia.

"Ruling Elite" was Charlie McCreevies description of (use own choice of words here). Besides being paranoid doesn't mean they are not all out to get you

djpbarry

fathersymes wrote: »

RTÉ is a Public Service Broadcaster, a non-profit making organisation owned by the Irish people.

Non-profit? Since when?

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

They merely stated that he was involved in what look like some dodgy dealings.

I didn't see the programme myself, but I find it rather amusing that people are only now questioning Ganley's background.

Quinine wrote: »

Am I the only one sick of seeing the term "elite" being bandied about so much.

Indeed. Surely if such an "elite" exists, Ganley is part of it. This is a man who reportedly donated £30,000 to the (right honourable :rolleyes:) Liam Lawlor.

kaiser sauze

It was a low point in the Prime Time series.

What I can't understand is how he was continually quizzed about his private affairs. He has every right to not speak about how much money he made, or lost, on these private companies.

It is not wrong to refuse to answer questions that you have no obligation to answer.

That being said, he must start being straight with SPO as he is obliged to do.

Eurosceptic2008

Ganley is now saying (according to someone on politics.ie referencing Newstalk Lunchtime today) that the SIPO 'notice' letter doesn't exist. Clearly FF are behind this.

kaiser sauze

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Ganley is now saying (according to someone on politics.ie referencing Newstalk Lunchtime today) that the SIPO 'notice' letter doesn't exist. Clearly FF are behind this.

What about the copies of the letters that Prime Time showed?

I'm pretty sure it was mentioned at an Oireachtas Committee recently, also.

Nodin

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Ganley is now saying (according to someone on politics.ie referencing Newstalk Lunchtime today) that the SIPO 'notice' letter doesn't exist.

I'm sure he is, but his denial is hardly the final word of an objective third party.

Eurosceptic2008

Nodin wrote: »

I'm sure he is, but his denial is hardly the final word of an objective third party.

Oh come off it. If SIPO can't confirm it exists then clearly this was a stitch-up. We expect a lot more of it between now and Lisbon II and the real damage it will cause is likely to be to the yes side because we don't dig this type of politics in this country as Bertiegate showed in 2007.

kaiser sauze wrote:

What about the copies of the letters that Prime Time showed?

I'm pretty sure it was mentioned at an Oireachtas Committee recently, also.

That is impossible since Prime Time claimed the letter was a 7 day final-demand letter. There was no such mention of this on an Oireachtas Committee. You are confusing this with Ganley being called before the Oireachtas Committee on Ireland's Future in Europe to put forward the Libertas argument on the Treaty and what should happen now. I wonder was it a copy or a concoction?

djpbarry

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

We expect a lot more of it between now and Lisbon II and the real damage it will cause is likely to be to the yes side because we don't dig this type of politics in this country as Bertiegate showed in 2007.

Rest assured, Ganley has been "diggin'" this "type of politics" for quite some time now.

AARRRGH

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

Everyone is calling it a character assasination, but it wasnt. They merely stated that he was involved in what look like some dodgy dealings. Probably nothing major but the fact remains. The main question was where does Lbertas' funding come from, as yet unanswered by Ganley, because of 'Brussels Fanatics' or some such nonsense.

It was clearly a character assasination job. If it wasn't they would have told us some nice things about him instead of trying to dig up dirt, any sort of pathetic irrelevant dirt.

The entire show, with it's creepy music and constant irrelevant/pointless allegations was a stitch up.

djpbarry

AARRRGH wrote: »

It was clearly a character assasination job.

Quite a few times somebody has said that now and yet, I do not believe anyone has attempted to counter any points raised in the programme.

Vegeta

djpbarry wrote: »

Quite a few times somebody has said that now and yet, I do not believe anyone has attempted to counter any points raised in the programme.

Why would one need to counter the points? I'm sure some of them may even be true

Doesn't mean it wasn't a character assassination though.

xxmammamxx

i thought this was the most one sided pathetic piece of progaganda i have ever seen on tv. i am disgusted that rte and our so called govt - that they would lower themselves to back biting just because lisbon didn't get voted in. shame on them. it was the dirtiest politics i have ever seen. they certainly lost my vote.

Hitman Actual

About time, I say. It's just playing the game at Ganley's level. I mean, his tactics on Lisbon were based purely on lies and half-truths, so he should be prepared for a dirty fight-back. It's just a pity there wasn't a proper response to his lies back in May and June.

"It's all in the game, yo", "Play in the dirt and get dirty", etc, etc (You just have to love The Wire for those quotes).

RedPlanet

It's no big deal if you think Ganley is a scumbag.
The real issue is, don't you think it's unethical of the national broadcaster to air blatant character assassination programmes for political points?

xxmammamxx

so by reading your thread you come across a person that was fully involved in writing the treaty and know of every truth and lie that was told by both sides of the vote. i would be delighted to pick your brain on the issue. if not, please note that some of us made up our own minds on how we voted, but that still defeats the fact that it was such a one-sided show and hopefully libertas will be able to repond without as much editing on a less biased channel.

Vegeta

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's no big deal if you think Ganley is a scumbag.
The real issue is, don't you think it's unethical of the national broadcaster to air blatant character assassination programmes for political points?

This is exactly my issue

He's more thank likely as crooked as a 9 pound note and as dodgy a character as you'll ever meet, who has no effect on how I would vote, but Prime Time did itself no favours last night.

I thought it was simply terrible. I was laughing it was so bad.

Slow Motion

djpbarry wrote: »

Quite a few times somebody has said that now and yet, I do not believe anyone has attempted to counter any points raised in the programme.

Hattchet Job! Ganly on newstalk today said that he would be happy to come on to the live segment of Prime Time to answer any of the points raised and they turned him down! I have been a huge fan of Prime Time and had a great deal of respect for it's reporters, I will have serious questions about it's integrity and credibility in the future, I thought I was watching FOX after a while!

Hitman Actual

Fair enough lads, perhaps Prime Time has let itself down badly on this, but then shouldn't this thread be over in the Television forum?

RedPlanet

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Fair enough lads, perhaps Prime Time has let itself down badly on this, but then shouldn't this thread be over in the Television forum?

Not really, because this programme should be viewed in the larger context of Libertas and the Lisbon referenda.

djpbarry

xxmammamxx wrote: »

they certainly lost my vote.

Who? RTE?

djpbarry

RedPlanet wrote: »

The real issue is, don't you think it's unethical of the national broadcaster to air blatant character assassination programmes for political points?

Well, as I said earlier, I didn’t see the programme in question. Hence my curiosity as to the content.

In fairness to RTE, they gave Ganley more than his fair share of air-time in the run-up to the referendum. Too much air-time in my opinion.

djpbarry

Vegeta wrote: »

He's more thank likely as crooked as a 9 pound note and as dodgy a character as you'll ever meet, who has no effect on how I would vote...

Amazing how many people come out with statements along these lines. I find it very hard to believe that Libertas had such little influence on the outcome of the referendum, especially given the number of posters who frequently cut & paste from the Libertas website when debating the treaty.

djpbarry

Slow Motion wrote: »

Ganly on newstalk today said that he would be happy to come on to the live segment of Prime Time to answer any of the points raised and they turned him down!

According to Ganley?

Jack Sheehan

Ok, while I admit that the theatrics were unnecessary on the programme, the idea that they would say 'nice things' about him is ridiculous. Personally, if someone buys medicine for sick puppies in their spare time, good for them but I dont care. On the other hand, investigating an organisation calling itself a 'think tank', with no clear source to the enormous amounts of funding it clearly posseses, and which had a profound effect on a recent referendum is something I DO care about.

copacetic

Vegeta wrote: »

Why would one need to counter the points? I'm sure some of them may even be true

Doesn't mean it wasn't a character assassination though.

How is telling the truth about someone an attack on their character?

oscarBravo

I just watched it. Certainly more questions than answers.

I'm not sure what people found so objectionable about it. Do they feel that questions shouldn't be asked about the motivations of someone who has thrust himself so prominently into the political process?

Scofflaw

I'm asking largely out of idle curiosity, and with little expectation of a proper answer, but has anyone bothered to establish that this is propaganda, and government/yes-side propaganda at that?

If RTE did a hatchet-job on, say, a footballer, or the legal profession, is that also propaganda? If so, whose propaganda is it?

What does the term "propaganda" mean here? Is there an assumption that everyone who supported/supports a Yes to Lisbon sits down and coordinates their actions? I think that's about the last conclusion that one could possibly draw from the campaigns, which were hopelessly disorganised.

I don't doubt the programme was sensationalist, but it evidently created the thing that the media really care about - controversy, ratings, publicity. Given the general state of journalism in this country, shallow controversialism is hardly evidence of anything.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wjc

Watched it with an open mind. Came across as a bit of a bull**** character.

SalthillGuy

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's no big deal if you think Ganley is a scumbag.
The real issue is, don't you think it's unethical of the national broadcaster to air blatant character assassination programmes for political points?

IMO Declan Ganley will out smart any of our politicans, even the biffo. He has done well in business. The local politican did not rate him, but he has shown them and now has their attention.
Our way of handling him now is to discredit him and what he is about.

nesf

copacetic wrote: »

How is telling the truth about someone an attack on their character?

If you creatively decide which truths to say and which not to say it can very much be an attack on someone's character. For examples look at advertising during American elections. Sometimes the stuff is technically true but only in a limited way but presented out of context.

For instance, there was an Obama ad saying that John McCain wanted to give tax breaks to companies who shipped jobs overseas (or something like that). Now technically this is true, since John McCain wanted to give tax breaks to companies in general so it is true that he wanted to give tax breaks to any sub group of the group of all companies, it's just taking it horribly out of context and twists the meaning and motive horribly.



Regarding Ganley, there have been questions surrounding him ever since he thrust himself into the public spotlight and like it or not, if you put yourself forward into the political circus you essentially give up any claim to privacy and the media get to declare open season on you.

oscarBravo

nesf wrote: »

If you creatively decide which truths to say and which not to say it can very much be an attack on someone's character.

Fair enough. Now all the people claiming this was a character assassination have to demonstrate is that there was a conscious decision to selectively present facts in a way that deliberately created a negative impression.

copacetic

nesf wrote: »

If you creatively decide which truths to say and which not to say it can very much be an attack on someone's character..

I wouldn't see that as an attack on someones character. It is an illustration of their character, not an attack. Are you saying if Primetime are investigating, say, Berties finances then that is a character attack?

i.e unless a documentary team report equal parts nice things about their subject it isn't valid?

nesf

copacetic wrote: »

I wouldn't see that as an attack on someones character. It is an illustration of their character, not an attack. Are you saying if Primetime are investigating, say, Berties finances then that is a character attack?

i.e unless a documentary team report equal parts nice things about their subject it isn't valid?

You misinterpreted what I said. I said a creative collection of partial truths can be made into an attack on a person's character not that any partial telling of a story is an attack on a person's character or anything silly like that.

i.e. it is possible to attack someone's character using true statements by phrasing them correctly and arranging them in a particular way to create associations in the viewer's mind. See above with the Obama/McCain example.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now all the people claiming this was a character assassination have to demonstrate is that there was a conscious decision to selectively present facts in a way that deliberately created a negative impression.

That is the real question here and I've seen no one put forward any evidence that this is the case.

copacetic

nesf wrote: »

You misinterpreted what I said. I said a creative collection of partial truths can be made into an attack on a person's character not that any partial telling of a story is an attack on a person's character or anything silly like that.

i.e. it is possible to attack someone's character using true statements by phrasing them correctly and arranging them in a particular way to create associations in the viewer's mind. See above with the Obama/McCain example.




That is the real question here and I've seen no one put forward any evidence that this is the case.

meh, you are backtracking now, this is the first mention of 'partial truths', you said truths.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's no big deal if you think Ganley is a scumbag.
The real issue is, don't you think it's unethical of the national broadcaster to air blatant character assassination programmes for political points?

well said. This is our tv license hard at work. Ganley isnt in power - they should work in the public interest and investigate Mary Harney or Fas or something that is costing us money

btw I think Ganley is dodgy but the bunch in power are dodgy and dangerous as they hold power

nesf

copacetic wrote: »

meh, you are backtracking now, this is the first mention of 'partial truths', you said truths.

Unintentional, I meant in the sense of telling only part of the story rather than partially true, poor wording on my part.

copacetic

nesf wrote: »

Unintentional, I meant in the sense of telling only part of the story rather than partially true, poor wording on my part.

well I see what you are saying, but some of the other posters seem to believe that because they are Ganley supporters then nothing bad about him should be reported even if it is true.

Every report on a TV channel has a editorial position, it's not a story if a reporter hmms and haws and never actually takes a position based on the facts. From what I saw at the very least Ganley has a lot of shady dealings going on and when given the chance to respond had very little to counteract any of the reports.

Primetime generally lead with these stories, I'm sure the print media will be following up on it also. Except possibly the Murdoch controlled ones.

nesf

copacetic wrote: »

well I see what you are saying, but some of the other posters seem to believe that because they are Ganley supporters then nothing bad about him should be reported even if it is true.

Sure, but that's got nothing to do with what I'm saying and I hope I don't come across as supporting something as plainly inane and idiotic as that.


To make things clear: Personally I'm highly sceptical about the man and his motives but I've no facts to back that up. I don't care enough about the issue enough to do much research into it.

WooPeeA

Declan Ganley is traitor of Ireland and Europe. There have been allegations that he accepted money from dirty hands of foreign secret services not that long ago. I was watching this case very carefully.. If that's true, he should be jailed for life.

nesf

WooPeeA wrote: »

Declan Ganley is traitor of Ireland and Europe. There have been allegations that he accepted money from dirty hands of foreign secret services not that long ago.

Source, please.