Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Declan Ganley - Prime Time special

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #35
    Jack Sheehan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,559 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #38
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #39
    wjc
    Registered Users Posts: 46 ✭wjc


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


  • Options
    #40
    SalthillGuy
    Registered Users Posts: 329 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,559 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #44
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,559 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • Options
    #47
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,559 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Jack Sheehan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭Jack Sheehan


    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. If that's true, he should be jailed for life.

    Hang on there, we cant go making those kind of claims without something to back them up.


  • Options
    #53
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Jack Sheehan wrote: »
    Hang on there, we cant go making those kind of claims without something to back them up.

    I've already asked him/her for a source. If they don't come back with one within a day, I'll delete the post and all references to it. If after that they come back with a source then I'll undelete them.


  • Options
    #54
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭WooPeeA


    nesf wrote: »
    Source, please.
    EU Parliament website:
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/008-37657-266-09-39-901-20080919IPR37656-22-09-2008-2008-false/default_en.htm

    Few articles from Irish Times:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0923/1222105125507.html

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0919/1221773888299.html


    An article from "The Economist"
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2008/09/us_military_ties_to_the_lisbon.cfm


    Times Online:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4837672.ece



    Keep your eyes open for more.


  • Options
    #55
    Eurosceptic2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 81 ✭✭Eurosceptic2008


    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. I was watching this case very carefully.. If that's true, he should be jailed for life.

    There has been zero evidence to back up those CIA etc. claims. They are lies and you should be aware of our libel laws. The real traitors are those who want to hand over the governance of Ireland to Brussels without a mandate to do so from the people.


  • Options
    #56
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭WooPeeA


    Jack Sheehan wrote: »
    Hang on there, we cant go making those kind of claims without something to back them up.
    I said "he was suspected of..", not "he was guilty of". Big difference.


  • Options
    #57
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    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.

    Have you not read any of the previous posts?

    - only focusing on negative details
    - trying very hard to dig up dirt
    - ominous music throughout the show
    - silent end credits

    I'm finding it hard to think of any positive things they said about the man.

    You'd have to be blind and deaf to not see the entire show was aimed at creating a negative impression of the man. Luckily most of the Irish public are smart enough to see through this sort of nonsense.


  • Options
    #58
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    WooPeeA wrote: »
    I said "he was suspected of..", not "he was guilty of". Big difference.

    Yes, the difference is innocent and guilty.

    Someone could say AARRRGH was suspected of x, y and z. That rubbish means nothing without proof or evidence.

    Until I see hard evidence that the man is corrupt or working for the CIA or whatever, he is innocent in my eyes. I hope all the people saying terrible things about him never get accused of something they didn't do. It's not nice.


  • Options
    #59
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,559 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


    AARRRGH wrote: »
    Have you not read any of the previous posts?

    - only focusing on negative details
    - trying very hard to dig up dirt
    - ominous music throughout the show
    - silent end credits

    I'm finding it hard to think of any positive things they said about the man.

    You'd have to be blind and deaf to not see the entire show was aimed at creating a negative impression of the man. Luckily most of the Irish public are smart enough to see through this sort of nonsense.


    so let me get this straight. The did a story on potentially worrying issues, but in doing so they should have focused on the positive details, tried less hard to do their jobs, played cheerful music throughout show and during the credits?

    You do know they were not making an ad for him?


  • Options
    #60
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    copacetic wrote: »
    so let me get this straight. The did a story on potentially worrying issues, but in doing so they should have focused on the positive details, tried less hard to do their jobs, played cheerful music throughout show and during the credits?

    You do know they were not making an ad for him?

    As the state broadcaster who has an obligation to be impartial, they should have told a balanced story.

    I would have no problem with the show if it was by TV3 or whatever (they can do what they like) but RTE, as a Government owned organisation, need to be honest and fair.

    Are they going to have a second show where they travel around the world trying to find people who say nice things about him, and looking for the good deeds he has done? Of course not.

    It was a show of nonsense half-allegations with scary music in the background. It was pathetic.

    What is even more retarded is they managed to dig up NO proveable dirt on the man, even though they were clearly trying as hard as they can.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭WooPeeA


    AARRRGH wrote: »
    Yes, the difference is innocent and guilty.

    Someone could say AARRRGH was suspected of x, y and z. That rubbish means nothing without proof or evidence.
    Of course it's nothing more but just a suspicious.. Very serious one.

    I wonder why Libertas still haven't revealed second part of founding sources.. it takes so long.. :cool:

    ---

    Have you heard? Now they applied to EU for extra funds for their new political campaign! What a impudence..
    Double agents of what?
    :cool:


Advertisement