McWilliams and the Lenihan outrage

keanos_boot

Can anyone see the difference between the Irish Times publishing an apparently private letter from Peter McLoone and McWilliams publishing his account of his meeting with Lenihan?

For me no difference apart from the outrage and self righteous indignation from the chattering classes and politicians. Both were done to encourage sales.

For my mind, the McWilliams revelation has caused my opinion of Lenihan to rise. There is a man facing unprecedented times and what does he do - rather than assume he knows everything/can do it all himself, he goes out and talks to others to get their opinion. Good on you sir - that's how you get out of a crisis - by harnessing the experience/intelligence of those around you, adding your own and making a decision.

Anyone agree/disagree? Surely this is the first glimmer of hope in a while?

kmick

Who cares about all that whats he going to do about the public service monster.

mike65

I think the fuss and bother is trumped up alright.

jdivision

Yes there is a difference. Lenihan met McWilliams privately, he was naive not to say details were not for publication but the thing is that McWilliams only published the details in order to promote himself as this guru, even though he's not and Lenihan had similiar meetings with a number of economists. In fact, he was being given advice by one of his initial critics whose name I can't mention here. He's also canvassed journalists opinions but they wouldn't publish that. But McWilliams made it all about him, this man who saved Ireland in his own head, and who's been wrong more often than he's been right. a bit of digging about who really came up with the term celtic tiger would be a start - most people credit it to somebody else, McWilliams credits it to himself.
As for McLoone, that letter is news, valid news and anybody who got hold of it would publish it.