Declan Ganley - Prime Time special

nesf

WooPeeA wrote: »

I said "he was suspected of..", not "he was guilty of". Big difference.

I've changed the wording of your posts and quotes of it. The change was "he was suspected of" to "There have been allegations that he". It's clearer and less likely to offend without changing the meaning or general thrust of your post. You need, in cases like this, to accurately state what the case is. "Suspected of" means nothing and everything and could be anything as serious as an ongoing criminal investigation to as inane as some guy in the pub thinks it.

I hope you don't mind but I think it's a fair change and is neutral enough in wording that people on both sides of this can't have much issue with it. In future if you're going to make a claim like that reference it in the original post please.

oscarBravo

AARRRGH wrote: »

- only focusing on negative details

Untrue.

- trying very hard to dig up dirt

What? They set out to find out what they could about his background. As they found contradictions between his accounts and those of others, they investigated further. Why is this a problem?

- ominous music throughout the show

"Ominous"? I honestly can't even remember what the background music sounded like.

- silent end credits

Now you're really reaching.

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

There were several people interviewed who said lots of positive things about him. Were you watching the same show I was?

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.

Ah, yet another unelected spokesman for "most of the Irish public."

copacetic

AARRRGH wrote: »

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.

didn't they have him on and give him plenty of time to make his case? This was the most damning thing in fact, hearing him trying to obscure the questions raised.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that TV3 can do what they like, or that there is some kind of 50% rule in news reporting. I presume you are getting mixed up with election coverage.

All any news organisation has to do is be correct and offer the right to reply and give your side of the story. You appear to believe that they have to say one good thing about you for every bad thing? That's ludicrous.

AARRRGH

I think the some of the "yes" vote people are living in denial about this programme. If it was about another topic/someone else, you'd be able to see how one sided and negative the show was. I guess politics hazes things somewhat.

I'm neither a "yes" freak nor a "no" freak. If anything I think Libertas are a bit of a joke. I'm just some randomer who saw prime time by accident.

copacetic

AARRRGH wrote: »

I think the some of the "yes" vote people are living in denial about this programme. If it was about another topic/someone else, you'd be able to see how one sided and negative the show was. I guess politics hazes things somewhat.

I'm neither a "yes" freak nor a "no" freak. If anything I think Libertas are a bit of a joke. I'm just some randomer who saw prime time by accident.

I'm not a 'yes' side person myself. In general I'd avoid the politics forum to keep away from the 'freaks' you describe. However I'd most certainly be anti Ganley, the same way I'd be 'anti' being on the same side as all the far right British MEPs who celebrated our no vote.

studiorat

I'm enjoying the sight of people gripping at straws when they are talking about the ominous music the grainy images etc in the prime time show. There doesn't seem to be much argument over the facts presented though. The Negative far outweighs the positive, that's not RTE's fault that's just the facts.

It is interesting to see his supporters though, defending his lies about his participation as an adviser to the Lithuanian government, as bumping up his CV.

Read his speeches, he sounds like a county councillor from Killinaskully.
The media in Ireland seem to regard success in business as some some sort of benchmark of intelligence, experience tells me this is more often then not untrue. The conspiracy theories give too much credence to how smart he actually is imo.

He's a man cub, telecomms business man who believes he can buy public opinion to further his own business interests. His mandate is a badly thought out half baked notion of some sort of federal European super-state with an elected president and an onus to spread this particular brand of freedom and democracy throughout the world. Ye-haw!!

If it was 50 years ago the man would be a christian missionary Africa trying to convert black babies to the Catholic Church. And we wouldn't need to be looking at his ridiculous delusional piety and self importance on the idiot box.

AARRRGH

studiorat wrote: »

There doesn't seem to be much argument over the facts presented though. The Negative far outweighs the positive, that's not RTE's fault that's just the facts.

What facts? All I saw were empty accusations!

studiorat wrote: »

It is interesting to see his supporters though, defending his lies about his participation as an adviser to the Lithuanian government, as bumping up his CV.

Yes, it seems he exaggerated a job he used to do. I ask you this: who hasn't done that? Is your CV 100% truthful? Have you exaggerated anything? Of course you have. But does that make you dodgy? Of course it doesn't.

studiorat wrote: »

The media in Ireland seem to regard success in business as some some sort of benchmark of intelligence, experience tells me this is more often then not untrue. The conspiracy theories give too much credence to how smart he actually is imo.

No, business success generally means competence. Most people could not do what he's done. There is no doubt he is a very motivated, competent, hard working person. I do happen to think he is smart.

studiorat wrote: »

He's a man cub, telecomms business man who believes he can buy public opinion to further his own business interests.

EVERY politician or political body exists to pursue their own interests. Seriously, your weak cheap shots could be fired at anyone.

studiorat wrote: »

If it was 50 years ago the man would be a christian missionary Africa trying to convert black babies to the Catholic Church. And we wouldn't need to be looking at his ridiculous delusional piety and self importance on the idiot box.

Yawn.

This is pathetic.

Just be fair on the man. I think Libertas are a bit of a joke but I am yet to see any facts which prove the man is dodgy or guilty. So far I only have ridiculous, empty allegations and scary music.

I repeat: I am defending him because I think people are being unfair and dishonest about him. I couldn't give a fiddle about Libertas.

studiorat

AARRRGH wrote: »

What facts? All I saw were empty accusations!

How long was the program?
How were the accusations empty? Are you saying he wasn't involved in these schemes. He didn't have Liam Lawlor working for him? He wasn't working with shaw?

Apart from the music was there anything in the show that you thought was in error?

RTE I'm afraid have to make programs for the general public, to go into real detail in any of his business affairs would make the program too long and too complicated for general TV audiences. At the end of the day iit still has to keep you watching the bits between the adverts.

AARRRGH wrote: »

Yes, it seems he exaggerated a job he used to do. I ask you this: who hasn't done that? Is your CV 100% truthful? Have you exaggerated anything? Of course you have. But does that make you dodgy? Of course it doesn't.

Actually at this stage I don't really need to. And yes my CV is 100% fact and truthful it has to be backed up in word and deed you see. But then again I don't have my own political lobby group running from my company offices so I guess I might not need to pad it out like he does.

AARRRGH wrote: »

No, business success generally means competence. Most people could not do what he's done. There is no doubt he is a very motivated, competent, hard working person. I do happen to think he is smart.

George Bush is motivated, hard working etc. Don't forget he's had a few dogs in there too.



[/QUOTE]
EVERY politician or political body exists to pursue their own interests. Seriously, your weak cheap shots could be fired at anyone.[/QUOTE]

Firstly he's not a politician it's a privately owned and run political action group run from his company offices. Ganley's business dealings and the example of the people he has shat on have done nothing but prove that he is purely working for his own personal interests.

The difference is politicians and political bodies own interests usually have the voters in mind. Ganleys interests are business interests for him and his cronies, anti-abortion activists and all the rest of the far right religious crowd.

AARRRGH wrote: »

I repeat: I am defending him because I think people are being unfair and dishonest about him. I couldn't give a fiddle about Libertas.

Where exactly do you think people are being infair and dishonest about him? What topics exactly?

If there was and dishonesty in the show don't you think there'd be lawsuits flying around at this stage?
You are wasting your time so. Really, there's a lot more to him than what they could fit into prime-time let alone his business partners.

Dave!

I haven't seen it, but Ganley was on the radio yesterday and said that his (young) nephew was watching the show and apparantly asked why are they playing monster music?

Sounds rather disgusting to be honest. It's disturbing that the state broadcaster might engage in this kind of thing.

Reminds me of John McCain's "Who is Barrack Obama?" crap...

J.S. Pill

oscarBravo wrote: »

Untrue. What? They set out to find out what they could about his background....yet another unelected spokesman for "most of the Irish public."

oscarBravo, with respect, I think we all are aware of your pro Lisbon leanings at this stage but I don't see how you can maintain such a strong and uncompromising defence of this programme. Can you honestly tell me that sinister music, camera zooms on Ganley and the silent credits did not have then intention of amplifying the sinsiter portrait they were constructing? And then there was the very underhanded guilt by association ploy towards the end of the program (the homophobes and climate change deniers). We can all reserve judgement on the substantive issues raised for the moment but can you at least consider this as a thrashy peice of journalism if nothing else?

J.S. Pill

studiorat wrote: »

I'm enjoying the sight of people gripping at straws when they are talking about the ominous music the grainy images etc in the prime time show. There doesn't seem to be much argument over the facts presented though..

I'm reserving judgement on the substantive issues raised (or at least the ones I consider to be at all relevant) but I don't think its fair to say that we're clutching at straws. Again, this is very much relevant the issue of RTE launching a politically motivated character assination. I don't think you can dismiss this as a triviality.

nesf

J.S. Pill wrote: »

Can you honestly tell me that sinister music, camera zooms on Ganley and the silent credits did not have then intention of amplifying the sinsiter portrait they were constructing?

Prime Time is always doing this crap though to make it more sensationalistic and "exciting" or something*. It could be as much just the style of the show rather than anything more calculated and sinister than that. Ganley's background makes him an easy target for this kind of thing. It might be more motivated by ratings and an easy target than anything political.


*It's one of the reasons I dislike the show actually. I prefer my television more sober.

AARRRGH

studiorat wrote: »

How long was the program?
How were the accusations empty? Are you saying he wasn't involved in these schemes. He didn't have Liam Lawlor working for him? He wasn't working with shaw?

FFS, this is so ridiculous at this stage.

The accusations were empty because there is no evidence to prove he has done anything wrong. Surely you can understand that.

Your Liam Lawlor point is ridiculous. Yes, everything Liam Lawlor did in his whole life must be evil. Everyone who worked with him is evil. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

studiorat wrote: »

Apart from the music was there anything in the show that you thought was in error?

*Sigh*

How about constant empty allegations?

Did you see the show?

Have you read any of the posts in this forum?

studiorat wrote: »

Firstly he's not a politician it's a privately owned and run political action group run from his company offices. Ganley's business dealings and the example of the people he has shat on have done nothing but prove that he is purely working for his own personal interests.

The difference is politicians and political bodies own interests usually have the voters in mind. Ganleys interests are business interests for him and his cronies, anti-abortion activists and all the rest of the far right religious crowd.

I never said he was a politician!

Every politician and political organisation is motivated by its own interests! Seriously, you know nothing about politics if you think otherwise.

studiorat wrote: »

If there was and dishonesty in the show don't you think there'd be lawsuits flying around at this stage?

...

There is a difference between saying someone did something and saying someone might have done something.

Really, I'm wasting my time talking to you. You don't understand or are blind to the basics.

J.S. Pill

nesf wrote: »

Prime Time is always doing this crap though to make it more sensationalistic and "exciting" or something*.

I'm not going to disagree with that...

nesf wrote: »

It could be as much just the style of the show rather than anything more calculated and sinister than that. Ganley's background makes him an easy target for this kind of thing. It might be more motivated by ratings and an easy target than anything political.

Point taken but given the timing of the programme and enormous sensitivity of the issues at hand i think it is hard to argue that it was anything other than calculated. I'm probably going out on a bit of a limb here but I see this evolving into something very very similar to John McCain's 'Who is Barack Obama' strategy. There was some instances of this kind of tactic in the run-up to the first referendum but this could be the start of an escalation.

nesf

J.S. Pill wrote: »

Point taken but given the timing of the programme and enormous sensitivity of the issues at hand i think it is hard to argue that it was anything other than calculated. I'm probably going out on a bit of a limb here but I see this evolving into something very very similar to John McCain's 'Who is Barack Obama' strategy. There was some instances of this kind of tactic in the run-up to the first referendum but this could be the start of an escalation.

I think the timing is relatively neutral. We're at least 9 months away from a referendum, if I wanted to do damage to him I'd save this show for a month or less before a new referendum to create sufficient doubt to undermine him and not give him the time to present his case without turning it into a referendum on him personally. As is, there's loads of time for him to combat this and prove any false allegations to be wrong or show that some things were taken out of context before any vote happens. At worst he can step out of the picture and allow different spokespeople to lead the next No campaign.

The man thrust himself into the public arena, there were always going to be serious questions asked about his background given where he made his money. He might be completely innocent of any wrongdoing but the region he made his money in was a very unstable one and had a lot of really bad things going on in it at the time. This is the kind of thing that will attract shows like Prime Time into looking at his record more closely.

studiorat

AARRRGH wrote: »

Really, I'm wasting my time talking to you. You don't understand or are blind to the basics.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much, typical reply of a the catholic right wingers...

I understand a hell of a lot more than you think you do.

The Raven.

The power of music should not be underestimated. It undoubtedly affects the perception of listeners both consciously and subliminally. The background music of the Prime Time special on Declan Ganley was blatantly chosen to present a contrived, unfavourable image. It was more like music from a horror film about a serial killer. The sinister atmosphere was set right from the start. The silence at the end was another favourite anxiety tactic of such film makers. For anyone who hasn’t watched the show or is in any doubt, listen to the clip:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1127/primetime_av.html?2455577,null,230

I’m still not sure what to make of Ganley, but I won’t be swayed by this type of propaganda. I would have liked to hear more from him about his finances etc. However, I think if I were in his shoes in this instance, I would be extremely cautious about revealing anything of that nature in such an obvious set-up.

axer

Prime time gave a mysterious feel to the show i.e. "who is this guy?"

They make out that he took pensioner's savings and disappeared with the cash but the only evidence they provide is some random old dude.

Overall the show tries to raise suspicion of this guy and try to leave you with the idea that you cannot trust him. It was a very biased show imo and I it seems to me the timing is to try and slowly blacken him before the next referendum so that the government can hammer it home just before said referendum. RTE could not air something like that just before the referendum or it would be too obvious.

Scofflaw

J.S. Pill wrote: »

I'm not going to disagree with that...

Point taken but given the timing of the programme and enormous sensitivity of the issues at hand i think it is hard to argue that it was anything other than calculated. I'm probably going out on a bit of a limb here but I see this evolving into something very very similar to John McCain's 'Who is Barack Obama' strategy. There was some instances of this kind of tactic in the run-up to the first referendum but this could be the start of an escalation.

I don't know whether that's the case. The point about the timing makes sense on the face of it, but Ganley is only of interest - and hence can be counted on to produce ratings - in the context of the timing. There would be no point in running such a show if there was no current interest in the EU, Lisbon, and Libertas, because it wouldn't attract an audience. And, yes, a bit of mystery and a hint of "something of the night" about him is a far better crowd-puller, as well as being more fun to make, than anything either objective or in-depth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Raven.

I think it is disgraceful the way Prime Time dragged up the death in suspicious circumstances of Albanian lawyer and businessman, Kosta Trebicka, described in media reports as ‘a former director of the fund’. They have clearly stated that there has never been a suggestion that his death was in any way associated with Anglo Adriatic, yet they showed a tragic picture of his dead body on the roadside, and even pestered his grieving widow for information. Prime Time has really sunk so low this time.

studiorat

Trebecka was involved with AEY, who sold millions worth of sub standard re-packaged arms from China through Albania for use in Afganistan. If it wasn't a shooting accident it more than likely had something to do with this.

He was also part of Anglo-Adriatic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3Tur7Hlw7k

SalthillGuy

The programme was made for TV.
Showing him as an ordinary guy who make a few bob and has an opinion would not make for interesting TV.

The Raven.

studiorat wrote: »

Trebecka was involved with AEY, who sold millions worth of sub standard re-packaged arms from China through Albania for use in Afganistan. If it wasn't a shooting accident it more than likely had something to do with this.

He was also part of Anglo-Adriatic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3Tur7Hlw7k

Thanks, Studiorat. I had seen that video, but it is a bit unclear and I wondered if indeed it actually was Trebrika talking as it didn’t show him in the clip. Here is a Reuters version of events, which gives a clearer overall picture.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSLC14849820080912

The insidious inclusion of the mysterious death of Kosta Trebicka was cunningly designed to undermine the character of Declan Ganley, who obviously had nothing to do with it. The only connection appears to be that Trebricka had been a former director of Anglo Adriatic. Ganley denies any involvement with him. It will be interesting to see if any action is taken on the matter in relation to the ‘slur’ that has emanated from the affair.

AARRRGH

studiorat wrote: »

Methinks the lady doth protest too much, typical reply of a the catholic right wingers...

I understand a hell of a lot more than you think you do.

My problem with your posts is you're letting your dislike of Libertas/Ganley grossly distort your view on things. You can't see this, which makes talking to you very difficult.

I find it funny how you brought up "typical reply of a the catholic right winger" considering your views are completely dogmatic.

He might be dodgy (I suspect he probably is) but your views on the man are way too harsh considering the lack of evidence.

J.S. Pill

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't know whether that's the case. The point about the timing makes sense on the face of it, but Ganley is only of interest - and hence can be counted on to produce ratings - in the context of the timing. There would be no point in running such a show if there was no current interest in the EU, Lisbon, and Libertas, because it wouldn't attract an audience.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You've got a point there. I suppose if that programme was run at any time at all between now and the second vote someone or other could label the timing as suspect. One could argue either way over whether more damage could have been inflicted by running it at this early stage or closer to the final stretch. It would seem to make more sense to run it closer to the final stretch if maximum damage was the main goal but I think the funding issue reaching a critical juncture provided a good timely setting and running it too close to the end may have backfired by making the yes side look a bit desperate.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And, yes, a bit of mystery and a hint of "something of the night" about him is a far better crowd-puller, as well as being more fun to make, than anything either objective or in-depth.

Here's where I disagree. While ratings is always going to be a factor I think RTE was very much doing it's paymaster's bidding (and I don't mean those of us who bothered to pay our licence!)

Vegeta

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.

If you are implying me here, I voted yes to lisbon, and am in no way a Ganley/Libertas supporter. I just thought that Prime Time was pathetic in its approach.

Instead of letting the interviews and reporting do the talking they added theatrics to the show which is BS in my opinion as it makes the show seem as if they have a position/agenda. Our flag ship media show should not have an agenda/position imho

The Corinthian

SalthillGuy wrote: »

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.

His business history has been mixed, in reality. He's won a few and he's lost a few, the only difference is that he has played with larger stakes than most. This is not a negative thing, he's a competent businessman and it's just his style - however, neither does it mean that he should be painted as a guru.

As for 'out smarting' anyone, possibly, but your claim sounds more like hero worship than a dispassionate assessment.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Ganley is not in power, but he was instrumental to the defeat of the Lisbon referendum, and that very much makes him a public figure. Additionally, even if he were not, that should not make him immune from public scrutiny; unless you believe that no one should ever ask questions about the O'Leary's or Smurfits of Ireland. I'm sure Larry Goodman would support such a view.

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

I agree that they too should be held to the same level of public scrutiny - that Haughey wasn't for many years was a disgrace IMHO. But you have to admit, the guy is an investigative reporters dream.

TBH, while his business past has some relevance as to his moral character and whether people should accept him at face value, I do think it fairly irrelevant. What is relevant, and which the programme touched on, but not in any detail, is the question of Libertas funding - which remains unanswered.

djpbarry

J.S. Pill wrote: »

While ratings is always going to be a factor I think RTE was very much doing it's paymaster's bidding (and I don't mean those of us who bothered to pay our licence!)

Advertisers?

jtsuited

he is by no means an ordinary guy who made a few bob.

we have still yet to see where he got his money from. when looking at ganley's career the words 'liar', 'swindler' and 'dodgy arms dealer' come to mind very quickly.

The Corinthian

jtsuited wrote: »

we have still yet to see where he got his money from. when looking at ganley's career the words 'liar', 'swindler' and 'dodgy arms dealer' come to mind very quickly.

The Prime Time programme did imply that he's a commercial opportunist of flexible ethics, but at no point has anyone come even close to suggesting he has been an arms dealer, dodgy or otherwise.

As irrational as some of the hero worship here is, making unfounded and fantastic allegations is equally so. Focus on the facts please.