Andrew Hanlon under pressure

Sponge Bob

The TV3 director of news , Andrew Hanlon , who claimed he 'sat on' the Lenihan story for two days before allowing it to break yesterday is apparently under extreme pressure to resign. The announcement may come as early as the lunchtime news.

A boycott of all TV3 programmes by all politicians is seemingly being organised until he walks. At least one sizeable advertiser has rung the MD , McRedmond , and pulled their advertising with immediate effect.

If he has not gone by this time tomorrow the likelihood is that a Board meeting will convene to fire him.

AlekSmart

A really bad editorial call by Mr Hanlon for quite a few reasons,not least of which was the Christmas period.
One would have to wonder if the RTE Guide-TV3 listings row played a part in his decision?

I personally would not have any great regard for Mr Lenihans politics or his Ministership thus far but I believe his illness is purely personal and absolutely a private family matter.

If,as has been speculated in other fora,there was a media agreement to "sit-on" the story then it is to Mr Hanlons great personal discredit that he chose to break that.

It is not a matter which NEEDS to be used as "News" per se,but it should have been left to Mr Lenihan and his family to make whatever announcement THEY felt appropriate rather than have Mr Hanlon`s figure lurking around threateningly in the shadows.

One thing is certain and that is the damage Mr Hanlon has inflicted on TV3 will become more obvious as their Advertising roll begins to wind down in the short term.

Sad little indicator of just how desperation can cloud judgement.

MiniD

Andrew Hanlon says...

"TV3 has handled the matter with sensitivity and compassion. We had the story on Christmas Eve and we decided to hold it for two days to enable him to inform members of his family.

I'd love to know why Andrew Hanlon thinks two days is enough time to inform family you have cancer before a television channel breaks it on their news.

In my opinion, I believe TV3 heard about this on Christmas Eve, but were winding down their news bulletins. TV3 don't run news on Christmas Day, so it made sense for them to hold it until Stephen's Day. That way they could have their consultant oncologist ready to speak and prepare their awful obituary style report.

It's terrible journalism at any time of the year, but so much more painful at Christmas.

As someone who has lost family to cancer, I can say that no amount of time prepares you to inform family members. I can only imagine how upset the Leinhan family is feeling right now.

Shame on TV3.

brianthebard

I don't agree with this sort of tabloid journalism, but I would also wonder how long this would have been hidden from the public if someone did not break the news first. Also I found it quite funny and hypocritical of RTE to have a reporter (dunno what his name was) come on and criticise TV3, then attempt to give more information than them in an effort to scoop TV3.

AlekSmart

"TV3 has handled the matter with sensitivity and compassion. We had the story on Christmas Eve and we decided to hold it for two days to enable him to inform members of his family.

It would appear that Mr Hanlon`s understanding of the terms Sensitivity and Compassion is at odds with most other persons.

I have the greatest problem with his assertion that his company "Had the Story" but witheld it to "allow" Mr Lenihan to inform family.

Since when has Mr Hanlon been appointed to this exalted and highly responsible position,whereby he dictates to ANY seriously ill person the terms on which they can live their lives.

This entire sordid little issue says far far more about what Mr Hanlons line of business has done to him than anything it could ever say in relation to Brian Lenihan as a politician or private individual.

At the very least TV3 should be making a VERY large donation to the Irish Cancer Society by way of apology to EVERY person in this country who has had to listen to a doctor deliver such a diagnosis as Brian Lenihan may have recieved.

It is highly unlikely that Andrew Hanlon will understand why people are so angry about his abuse of position,but TV3 itself might just understand the loss of revenue and reputation that his actions will result in.

olazabal

Mr Hanlon should walk, but should be joined on the plank by the sensationalist Ursula Halligan. An embarassment to journalism.

Firetrap

This'll be a nine day wonder. If it wasn't TV3 who broke the news, some other news outlet would have done it. Maybe not RTÉ because they're dependent on the licence fee but I can't see how a newspaper would have passed up on the opportunity to splatter the story all over their front pages if they'd had the chance. If Andrew Hanlon survives this, nobody will remember it in a few days time. Another news story will have taken its place.

Hootanany

Well if he resigns i hope all the corrupt Politicians will take heed and do the honourable thing themselves and i am genuinely sorry for someone that has Cancer

sceptre

Moved from Politics - it's more pertinent to News & Media.

serfboard

Firetrap wrote: »

If it wasn't TV3 who broke the news, some other news outlet would have done it. Maybe not RTÉ because they're dependent on the licence fee but I can't see how a newspaper would have passed up on the opportunity to splatter the story all over their front pages if they'd had the chance.

Harry McGee was on RTE Drivetime the other day and said that the Irish Times did have the story, but had taken an editorial decision not to print it until Brian Lenihan made a statement himself.

Shame on Andrew Hanlon for deciding he had the right to inform the Irish public about the sad news of Brian Lenihan's illness. To get that kind of news at any time of the year - never mind a few days before Christmas is such a terrible shock - and obviously one that Andrew Hanlon has no expererience of . If he did he would have had compassion and understanding and let Brian Lenihan and his family decide when was right to inform the public. 2 days is nothing in terms of trying to get your head around such devastating news - or to inform your children and relatives - 2 days!!! Andrew Hanlon hasn't a clue and obviously lives in his own little bubble of self importance.

Ursula Halligan should have known better too and should have refused point blank to broadcast such an item - on moral grounds alone! She is a woman who (I don't know) probably has children and a husband herself - or at least a family of siblings and relatives - and should have had more awareness and sensitivity.

I am delighted to hear that advertisements are being pulled. I think Andrew Hanlon should resign as he has caused embarassment to team of TV3 co-workers. I love Mark Cagney and Alan and Sinead in the morning and can only assume Mark Cagney would be appalled by this breach of privacy into family affairs as he has known sad times himself .

We as the public DO NOT have a right to know everything about people's private lives - no matter what the media think.
Whether or not you agree with Brian Lenihan's politics - and I have never been a fan until lately when I think he has been showing much more grit and determination - his private life and health affairs should remain private until he informed his family and friends and decided to make the news public.

I lost a child to cancer and know what the devastation is like when you get such news from a doctor about malignant tumours. It knocks you for 6 and the shock is unimaginable.

Andrew Hanlon has never had to deal with something like this in his personal life and if he did how would he like to have it broadcast to the entire nation on Stephens Day??

Shame on him - pull the sponsership and advertising and make him resign - and Ursula Halligan should make a public apology.

Until this happens (not that it matters to the self important tv3) i am boycotting all TV3 - its back to RTE BBC UTV and SKY !!

bdunne

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The TV3 director of news , Andrew Hanlon , who claimed he 'sat on' the Lenihan story for two days before allowing it to break yesterday is apparently under extreme pressure to resign. The announcement may come as early as the lunchtime news.

A boycott of all TV3 programmes by all politicians is seemingly being organised until he walks. At least one sizeable advertiser has rung the MD , McRedmond , and pulled their advertising with immediate effect.

If he has not gone by this time tomorrow the likelihood is that a Board meeting will convene to fire him.

If this is true, then it will be a sad day for journalism and freedom of the press in Ireland if Hanlon is forced to walk for breaking a story that was in the public interest. There's no point in getting queasy and sentimental about it, the fact remains that the second-most powerful politician in Ireland is seriously ill at a time of financial crisis. The public deserved to know the facts and, furthermore, the press should not be held to ransom by advertisers. Rant over.

santosubito

bdunne wrote: »

If this is true, then it will be a sad day for journalism and freedom of the press in Ireland if Hanlon is forced to walk for breaking a story that was in the public interest. There's no point in getting queasy and sentimental about it, the fact remains that the second-most powerful politician in Ireland is seriously ill at a time of financial crisis. The public deserved to know the facts and, furthermore, the press should not be held to ransom by advertisers. Rant over.

I concur.

And the most depressing aspect of this story was that some newspapers seem to have decided to keep a lid on this story. Another classic example of the elites in this society sticking together.

GSF

Considering that FF were always keen to start smear rumours about rivals during elections, this "politicians private lives must be sacred" stuff is pure FF hypocrisy.

copacetic

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1230/1224261408308.html

Lenihan broadcast could lead to privacy law rethink
MICHAEL FOLEY ANALYSIS:

TV3 had no more than a rumour about Brian Lenihan’s health, and no attributable source

THE DECISION of TV3 to run a story concerning the health of Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan on St Stephen’s Day was based on rumour, with only one justification – to be first, and so gain a profile for the station.

A rumour concerning Mr Lenihan’s health was circulating around Leinster House from last Tuesday or Wednesday. The Department of Finance press office confirmed nothing; journalists were told a statement would be issued after Christmas, and so the political correspondents took their breaks.

The next they heard was an unusual e-mail from TV3 advising them to watch TV3 news for a story of “national importance”. That story was, of course, the now infamous one concerning Brian Lenihan.

Obviously, TV3 has claimed the story was in the public interest. It has further claimed it was handled with sensitivity, by giving the Minister 48 hours to tell his family. The question of public interest is an important one, because that is what is called upon any time a question mark hovers over a story. The public interest can be difficult to define. The Press Council of Ireland, which, of course, regulates the print media, defines it thus: “The public interest is invoked in relation to a matter capable of affecting the people at large so that they may legitimately be interested in receiving and the press legitimately interested in providing information about it.” This is as good a definition as any, and it means the story has to have impact and that the people need to know it. It differs from what the public want to know, or public curiosity.

Is the health of a senior Minister in the public interest? In many cases it is, for instance, when it affects how he or she does their job. So back to TV3. Did the news item tell us Lenihan would be unable to do his job? It did not, because it did not confirm his illness, or how ill he is; further tests are to take place, it said. It did imply he was very seriously ill, and this was invoked to give it a public interest veneer.

The interview with the oncologist Prof John Crown was used for this purpose. If he is not seriously ill, or his illness will have little or no impact on him doing his job, there is no public interest defence.

And what was the source of the story? Well, TV3 simply “learned” of it, according to news anchor Colette Fitzpatrick as she introduced the item, while political editor Ursula Halligan “understood” Mr Lenihan had a serious illness. She said the extent of his condition would not be known until he had undergone further tests. Her only quoted source was a Department of Finance statement saying the Minister was “well” and enjoying Christmas with his family, and he would not be speaking to the media until the new year.

At time of broadcast TV3 had no more than a rumour, and no attributable source. Whatever happens in the new year will not change that. TV3’s justification, according to a newspaper report of a comment by TV3 head of news Andrew Hanlon, was that the story was of major public interest “primarily because of the fact that he is so widely perceived as being the one man who can get us out of our current economic woes”, a strange justification indeed, and as for the timing, well, again according to Hanlon, as quoted in a newspaper report: “At the end of the day, the story was around, and it was only a matter of time before it would come out.”

That is the nub of the issue. Competition is pushing journalism to publish rumour, and to stretch what is meant by the public interest to breaking point. Will news executives allow journalists the professional autonomy to make judgments in future, or will they be told to print or broadcast rumours and other dodgy stories by executives with one eye scanning audience figures? Will journalists be allowed the time to ensure accuracy if a story demands another source, or will they be forced to put a story out there before a rival does so?

Journalists must remember they have the power to draw the line and understand that while they have the freedom to publish or broadcast – and that must be defended – they might also have a responsibility, at times, not to. At the same time, journalism must not return to more deferential times either.

Journalism is a tricky profession, with few rules. There are guidelines, from the National Union of Journalists, the Press Council and the new Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, but that is all they are, guidelines, offering a possible path through what can seem an ethical and moral maze. Each case is specific, which again makes it difficult to write rules. The code of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, of course relevant to TV3, states: “Factual programming shall not contain material that could reasonably be expected to cause undue distress or offence unless it is editorially justified and in the public interest.” TV3 would presumably argue that a 48-hour period to allow the family to be informed was ensuring the station did not cause undue distress, and that the public interest was served because of who Lenihan is.

Unlike journalists, politicians like rules, and the Minister for Justice has already warned he will revisit his privacy proposals if the media does not behave. The insensitive invasion of a popular politician’s privacy might be just the example he needs.

Michael Foley is head of journalism at DIT. He has published widely on media ethics

Trouser_Press

santosubito wrote: »

I concur.

And the most depressing aspect of this story was that some newspapers seem to have decided to keep a lid on this story. Another classic example of the elites in this society sticking together.

Utter bull. If they were sitting on a corruption/abuse of power story then, yes, I'd understand your Wolfie Smith impression, but they weren't. TV3 giving a man two days to tell his extended family and friends he has pancreatic cancer, before they broke the story, doesn't make them Ireland's Woodward and Bernstein, it makes them contemptible scumbags.

The issue here, after all, isn't the breaking of the story, rather the timing of its breaking.

As for TV3's use of John Crown (oh yes, we all needed an oncologist to juicily inform us just how serious pancreatic cancer is)....vile. He and TV3 are beautifully matched.

Nozebleed

olazabal wrote: »

Mr Hanlon should walk, but should be joined on the plank by the sensationalist Ursula Halligan. An embarassment to journalism.

Id be more concerned with Mr.Lenihan not being fit enough to do his job..

Trouser_Press

Nozebleed wrote: »

Id be more concerned with Mr.Lenihan not being fit enough to do his job..

Sweet. Rest easy, perhaps the only bordering-on-the-semi-human member of the Government is probably not now fit to do his job, pancreatic cancer being a bit of a hindrance. But dude, you keep on typing, there just ain't enough keyboard warriors out there.

Nozebleed

Trouser_Press wrote: »

Sweet. Rest easy, perhaps the only bordering-on-the-semi-human member of the Government is probably not now fit to do his job, pancreatic cancer being a bit of a hindrance. But dude, you keep on typing, there just ain't enough keyboard warriors out there.

thanks for the kind words trouser press....i have a question..If mr. lenihan wanted to inform all members of family & close friends of his illness before announcing it to the public..why did he take the decision to inform someone in the media before telling his own family? and how is it the media's fault that he told them before his own family?

smiley33

I am not a supporter of FF - Brain Lenihan is a human being with a wife and children and extended family. How dare they force his hand on disclosing his illness . My uncle died this year after a very short time( less than a month ) with this illness & it broke his heart to tell his nearest & dearest his prognosis . TV 3 is no longer being watched in this house , I can't stand Mark Cagney he is a cocky git as is that Brian Cantwell , so in fact they have done me a favour coz this is enough for me never to switch it on again . I am so angry at them - Yes it would have been public knowledge eventually , granted , as it does affect the running of the Dept of Finance , But not over Christmas . Shame on TV3.

- Who said he broke the news to the media ?

Nozebleed

smiley33 wrote: »

I am not a supporter of FF - Brain Lenihan is a human being with a wife and children and extended family. How dare they force his hand on disclosing his illness . My uncle died this year after a very short time( less than a month ) with this illness & it broke his heart to tell his nearest & dearest his prognosis . TV 3 is no longer being watched in this house , I can't stand Mark Cagney he is a cocky git as is that Brian Cantwell , so in fact they have done me a favour coz this is enough for me never to switch it on again . I am so angry at them - Yes it would have been public knowledge eventually , granted , as it does affect the running of the Dept of Finance , But not over Christmas . Shame on TV3.

- Who said he broke the news to the media ?

Honestly...Im sure Mr.Lenihan has known he was ill for a considerable length of time...he hardly went for the one test and was diagnosed the week before christmas....a diagnosis such as pancreatic cancer would take months. and he hardly kept it secret from his family...im sure they all knew well in advance of TV3 of rightly informing the public..

smiley33

I am not interested in an argument . I believe TV3 are assholes . My Uncle felt ill on a particular date and exactly 1 month later he was DEAD - so no it doesn't take months for diagnosis.

Meeja Ireland

bdunne wrote: »

If this is true, then it will be a sad day for journalism and freedom of the press in Ireland if Hanlon is forced to walk for breaking a story that was in the public interest. There's no point in getting queasy and sentimental about it, the fact remains that the second-most powerful politician in Ireland is seriously ill at a time of financial crisis. The public deserved to know the facts and, furthermore, the press should not be held to ransom by advertisers. Rant over.

I agree with the tenor of your thinking, but I think you're wrong in this instance. To quote the Irish Times: "journalists were told a statement would be issued after Christmas."

How was the public interest served in getting the story out a week earlier than that?

It is not as if (a) Brian Lenihan is now too ill to make unclouded decisions, or (b) any political decisions are being made between Christmas Day and the beginning of the new year.

TV3 wanted the scoop. That's all.

Meeja Ireland

Nozebleed wrote: »

and how is it the media's fault that he told them before his own family?

Where do you get this from? I haven't seen it suggested by anybody that BL broke the news himself. It seems extraordinarily unlikely, given the political reaction to TV3's prebituary.

lostexpectation

so are the gov still boycotting newstalk, are they going to boycott, tv3 news too?

kraggy

Nozebleed wrote: »

thanks for the kind words trouser press....i have a question..If mr. lenihan wanted to inform all members of family & close friends of his illness before announcing it to the public..why did he take the decision to inform someone in the media before telling his own family? and how is it the media's fault that he told them before his own family?

Nozebleed wrote: »

Honestly...Im sure Mr.Lenihan has known he was ill for a considerable length of time...he hardly went for the one test and was diagnosed the week before christmas....a diagnosis such as pancreatic cancer would take months. and he hardly kept it secret from his family...im sure they all knew well in advance of TV3 of rightly informing the public..

You're talking through your arse.

He didn't tell them. The info became known in political circles but because it was Christmas all media outlets decided to not divulge it until Brian Lenihan had a chance to tell his family and so that they could enjoy their Christmas in peace.

But TV3 couldn't help themselves and actually held Lenihan to ransom telling him that he had 2 days to get things sorted. How dare they.

They are vile, digusting, incompetent bastards.

bluefinger

Can't stand ff or their ilk. However, TV3 is a bottom feeder -end of. The Irish equivalent to sky one. This guys unethical journalism is just a microcosm of the channels ratings at all cost policy.

jdivision

Meeja Ireland wrote: »

TV3 wanted the scoop. That's all.

There's nothing wrong with that. All journalists want a scoop. Michael Foley is being incredibly naive. There's an agreed wording on these things.
Normally I would agree with the majority of posters and say it was an unwarranted intrusion. For example I previously had a story about the break up of a politician's relationship but the editor wouldn't run it. I didn't agree with the decision but understood it. However, in light of our financial circumstances this is a significant story and TV3 were right to run it imo.
If and when Lenihan steps down in January the country's facing a crisis as no politician stands out as being up to it. Martin or D Ahern the only FFers of any consequence and I wouldn't be too hot on either of them.

kraggy

jdivision wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with that. All journalists want a scoop. Michael Foley is being incredibly naive. There's an agreed wording on these things.
Normally I would agree with the majority of posters and say it was an unwarranted intrusion. For example I previously had a story about the break up of a politician's relationship but the editor wouldn't run it. I didn't agree with the decision but understood it. However, in light of our financial circumstances this is a significant story and TV3 were right to run it imo.
If and when Lenihan steps down in January the country's facing a crisis as no politician stands out as being up to it. Martin or D Ahern the only FFers of any consequence and I wouldn't be too hot on either of them.

Crisis, yes.
We had the right to know, yes.
We had the right to find out about it at Christmas while he and his family deserved a quiet one, no.

There was no need for us to find out absolutely immediately. It could have waited another few days. Even a couple of weeks.

Disgusting behaviour by TV3.

W.B. Yeats

Gutter journalism by TV3
This was not a story that needed to be told at this particular time especially as it was unsubstantiated.
It would have been perfectly reasonable to hold the story and run it only when Brian Lenihan made a public announcement.

kpbdublin

I am not sure of the ins and outs of how this was reported and the dealings between TV3 journlists and Mr Lenihan's family.
However I believe that the media have an absolute duty to report the serious illness of the country's second most senior politician. This matter would have been reported by responsible media in any other democracy.
There is so much at stake in this story - the financial future of the country - that the public has a right to know of the illness.
So long as the information was gained through legitimate means I do not believe the issue of privacy arises.
A politician sacrifices a measure of privacy from the moment he or she enters office. This does not give reporters licence to intrude in every way they see fit.
However when the information has a bearing on the future of the country, the facts are a matter of public interest.
It is up to Mr Lenihan's press advisers to make the information available to the public in a manner that is as sensitive as possible to the minister and his family.
I cannot judge TV3's behaviour in this matter. However any media agency that failed to report such a serious issue for the country could be accused of negligence.

kraggy

kpbdublin wrote: »

I am not sure of the ins and outs of how this was reported and the dealings between TV3 journlists and Mr Lenihan's family.
However I believe that the media have an absolute duty to report the serious illness of the country's second most senior politician. This matter would have been reported by responsible media in any other democracy.
There is so much at stake in this story - the financial future of the country - that the public has a right to know of the illness.
So long as the information was gained through legitimate means I do not believe the issue of privacy arises.
A politician sacrifices a measure of privacy from the moment he or she enters office. This does not give reporters licence to intrude in every way they see fit.
However when the information has a bearing on the future of the country, the facts are a matter of public interest.
It is up to Mr Lenihan's press advisers to make the information available to the public in a manner that is as sensitive as possible to the minister and his family.
I cannot judge TV3's behaviour in this matter. However any media agency that failed to report such a serious issue for the country could be accused of negligence.

So just because someone is in public office they deserve no common decency whatsoever?

Why do people find it so hard to understand that, yes we have a right to know. But did we HAVE to find out on St Stephen's Day? No.

What difference would it have made if we were told the day after, or today even? None!

jdivision

W.B. Yeats wrote: »

it was unsubstantiated.
.

Again Foley's being naive, nobody would run a story like that unless they were sure. And I know who probably confirmed it. Words like understood and believed aren't used randomly, presumably a discussion took place with lenihan's people about how they should be phrased. I've a lot of respect for Lenihan and the way he's stood up to be counted on his own - whether or not you agree with him is something else but he's the first to show any balls - and feel immense sympathy for him but it is hugely significant and TV3 obviously felt they had to run it.

And just as an aside afaik Harry Browne hasn't been in IT newsroom for six years - think he left in 2003 - and therefore I wonder how he had any insight into whether they had story or not. Not doubting him as all journos gossip with one another, just a curious thingto come out with.

kraggy, TV3 were afraid of being scooped so they ran it. As was suggested elsewhere the sundays would have run it I think. I think Tribune and Sindo both had it as they had most coverage. S Times was just the lead. SBP have early deadlines so it wouldn't have been out yet and they wouldn't risk running it just in case.

Meeja Ireland

jdivision wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with that.

No, there is nothing wrong with wanting a scoop. Nobody is suggesting that there is.

What TV3 did to beat the opposition here was cruel and wrong. As Kraggy points out, this was never a question of suppressing news the public urgently needed to know. It was about delaying it for a couple of days - a couple of days which would have no impact whatever on the political set-up or outlook of the country.

We have to separate the morality of TV3's actions from whether or not their motives were understandable. I think you're blurring the line.

kpbdublin

It is possible that TV3 should have held back for another day. However it is excessive to suggest that Ursula Halligan's report amounted to gutter journalism.
To demonise Mr Hanlon is to a certain extent to shoot the messenger.
It is a grave situation for Mr Lenihan and the country, and a legitimate matter for public discourse.

lostexpectation

Meeja Ireland wrote: »

No, there is nothing wrong with wanting a scoop. Nobody is suggesting that there is.

What TV3 did to beat the opposition here was cruel and wrong. As Kraggy points out, this was never a question of suppressing news the public urgently needed to know. It was about delaying it for a couple of days - a couple of days which would have no impact whatever on the political set-up or outlook of the country.

We have to separate the morality of TV3's actions from whether or not their motives were understandable. I think you're blurring the line.

what publishing it the day before the markets open, the morning of, would be sensible, they published a couple of days before the market opened , then was time for a some response, and some calming of the situation

iamskippy

The media publish fires, killings and car accidents at Christmas with no thought of the feeling of the victims families. Why is a politician different?

W.B. Yeats

lostexpectation wrote: »

what publishing it the day before the markets open, the morning of, would be sensible, they published a couple of days before the market opened , then was time for a some response, and some calming of the situation

The opening of the market on Dec 28th didn't matter a damn, volumes traded would have been miniscule- put it like this were we looking to raise a few billion on the 28th? Besides the markets aren't the only reason to do something. Anglo et al did plenty to keep the markets on side over the years and see where that got us.

TV3 wanted a scoop and anyone who thinks they were reporting in the National interest is naive. They didn't care about Lenihan, his health or his family, they wanted to run the story.
I'd be interested in getting their viewing stats for the 26th to compare to a normal day's news. I'd be very surprised if their scoop landed them any extra viewers. In fact I'd say it will damage their news viewing in the longterm

Meeja Ireland

kpbdublin wrote: »

To demonise Mr Hanlon is to a certain extent to shoot the messenger.

Why is it wrong to hold him accountable? Wasn't it his decision?

Meeja Ireland

iamskippy wrote: »

The media publish fires, killings and car accidents at Christmas with no thought of the feeling of the victims families. Why is a politician different?

It's not the fact that it's a politician that makes this different. It's the fact that they rushed a man into revealing a serious illness, with no reason other than the desire to be first with the news.

To explore your analogy further, news outlets generally don't name an accident or murder victim until his or her family has been informed. Do you think that's a bad policy?

jmcc

serfboard wrote: »

Harry McGee was on RTE Drivetime the other day and said that the Irish Times did have the story, but had taken an editorial decision not to print it until Brian Lenihan made a statement himself.

Yesterday's news - tomorrow, or when we are allowed to run it? They'd wait for the press release? I thought that was PRAVDA/RTE's position.

TV3 got the story and ran with it. They, regardless of the morality of the decision, beat the other news organisations to publication. Naturally the other news orgs are upset and there is a whingefest going on now about it. The losers are running anything they can get from spinners and whingers that will take away from the fact that they did not run the story first.

The rather harsh reality of the situation is that Brian Lenihan is the Minister for Finance and thus this is a story of a national importance quiet beyond the personal tragedy and that for his family. As the country is in the middle of an economic crisis (something that may not be obvious to some), the Lenihan story becomes more important because it centres on the singlemost important politician in Ireland at the moment. The question of whether Brian Lenihan is well enough to do his job is a major one for the future of Ireland and the public had a right to know. TV3 was right to run the story.

Regards...jmcc

lostexpectation

W.B. Yeats wrote: »

The opening of the market on Dec 28th didn't matter a damn, volumes traded would have been miniscule- put it like this were we looking to raise a few billion on the 28th? Besides the markets aren't the only reason to do something. Anglo et al did plenty to keep the markets on side over the years and see where that got us.

it turned out not to have a lot of impact, but it mattered,

"This is an extremely unfortunate situation where a personal situation is also of significance to the markets. I'd be concerned if Mr Lenihan were unable to continue in office," said Sebastian Orsi, an analyst with Merrion Capital.

ill take his word for it



http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lenihan-illness-investors-markets-hold-firm-1992449.html

i wonder if other newspaper got economic advise on it

W.B. Yeats

lostexpectation wrote: »

it turned out not to have a lot of impact, but it mattered, ill take his word for it



http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lenihan-illness-investors-markets-hold-firm-1992449.html

i wonder if other newspaper got economic advise on it

Really, you'll take the word of an analyst (not a senior member of a stockbroking firm)
That was also reported on Wednesday Dec 30th no doubt as a response to a journalist's question. I didn't say that reporting Lenihan's illness was something of no importance to the markets rather I questioned the timing. Market activity is very limited in the week between Christmas and New Year so it wasn't essential for them to find out about Brian Lenihan's illness via TV3 on Stephen's Day.
Besides without detracting from his good work I think we are overestimating Brian Lenihans importance to our economic future, the markets won't be making bond rating decisions based solely on who our Finance minister is

TV3 did this soley to break the story first, end of

lostexpectation

W.B. Yeats wrote: »

Really, you'll take the word of an analyst (not a senior member of a stockbroking firm)
That was also reported on Wednesday Dec 30th no doubt as a response to a journalist's question. I didn't say that reporting Lenihan's illness was something of no importance to the markets rather I questioned the timing. Market activity is very limited in the week between Christmas and New Year so it wasn't essential for them to find out about Brian Lenihan's illness via TV3 on Stephen's Day.
Besides without detracting from his good work I think we are overestimating Brian Lenihans importance to our economic future, the markets won't be making bond rating decisions based solely on who our Finance minister is

TV3 did this soley to break the story first, end of

the markets opened on 28th. again i'll take his word for it over yours unless your trying to tell me you a senior member of a stockbroking firm?

kraggy

iamskippy wrote: »

The media publish fires, killings and car accidents at Christmas with no thought of the feeling of the victims families. Why is a politician different?

Only after all relatives have been informed. And they don't hold families to ransom and rush them into getting things organised thereby ruining their Christmas.

If you can't see what's wrong with this then you're blind.

Even the way Ursula Halligan behaved in the report from outside government buildings was disgusting. She kept tripping over her words and referred to Brian Lenihan in the past tense, she was so excited with having a scoop.

Sick.

Imagine having been one of Brian Lenihan's children watching that. It's enough of a shock to be told by a parent that they have cancer, believe me, without having some useless, sick news reporter referring to your father as if he were gone already.

And on St. Stephen's Day. Lovely.

Meeja Ireland

kraggy wrote: »

Even the way Ursula Halligan behaved in the report from outside government buildings was disgusting.

She certainly comes out of it very badly. I thought at one point she was visibly embarrassed. The desk anchor asks her "Is it too early to talk about the politicial consequences of this?", and I honestly thought I saw a moment of self-disgust as Halligan said yes, yes it really was.

The report is worth a look on Youtube for anyone who hasn't seen it.

copacetic

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/the-story-behind-brian-lenihan-tv3-and-me-1996983.html

The story behind Brian Lenihan, TV3 and me

The real scandal last week was that most patients get no treatment for an often fatal illness, writes John Crown Sunday January 03 2010

I wish to clarify the circumstances of my interview regarding pancreatic carcinoma, an interview which TV3 News broadcast after they had made the announcement that Finance Minister Brian Lenihan had been diagnosed with this condition.

In the first instance let me offer my best wishes to Mr Lenihan for a successful outcome to his treatment. If, as has been reported, he is being treated in the Mater Private Hospital for pancreatic cancer, then he will have access to the expertise of first-class, internationally reputed oncologists, nurses and surgeons.

TV3 contacted me on December 26 to tell me that they were going to report that a politician had been diagnosed with cancer and asked if I would be free to comment. I told them that I would not comment on the illness of any individual, but might consider doing an information piece about the type of cancer in question. The disclosure that a well-known figure has been diagnosed with cancer can increase public awareness, encourage people to avoid risk factors specific to the disease, and highlight the need for greater investment in research and in treatment.

TV3 then called me back and told me that Mr Lenihan had pancreatic cancer. I expressed my sadness that a young man with a young family had received this news, particularly at Christmas time. I told TV3 that I would consider doing a piece on pancreatic cancer without commenting on the minister's case.

I asked whether TV3 had sought the approval of the minister to broadcast the story. I was informed that they been in touch with his advisors before the holidays, and had, following consultation with these advisors, voluntarily agreed to delay their report until December 26. The TV3 staff told me that these advisors had acknowledged this, and would, moreover, be supplying a formal statement to TV3 for broadcast.

I would not have agreed to participate without the assurance that the minister had been informed.

I also stated that I would not allow myself to be interviewed at Government Buildings, but rather insisted that the crew come to the hospital.

While raising awareness of pancreas cancer, an important health issue in Ireland, could only be a good thing, I was also aware that the audience would likely include many pancreatic cancer patients and their families, including Mr Lenihan and his family.

For this reason, and unlike some newspapers which published explicit statistics, I spoke in generalities, describing patients having disease which could either be "cured" or "controlled". I never mentioned the words "prognosis" or "outlook". I stressed the need to give up smoking, the single most important avoidable risk factor.

Anyone who has the privilege of looking after cancer patients, and who has to break bad news to them, will feel for Mr Lenihan and his family.

Every year 400 Irish people hear the same news that he is reported to have received. Unfortunately, the great majority of Irish pancreatic cancer public patients appear to receive no treatment whatsoever for their condition. None. This was the real pancreas cancer scandal in Ireland last week.

The same scandal occurs every week of every year here. Health Minister Mary Harney's plan to centralise all pancreatic cancer surgery into one centre has already lost us the services of several highly qualified pancreatic cancer surgeons. It is hard to see it improving cure rates. Centralisations without resourcing are just cutbacks by another name.

In this regard, please note that during the time that one hospital was the sole centre for radiotherapy treatment for most of the country, it could not meet international guidelines for the timely institution of cancer treatments due to under-resourcing.

For an Irish public patient who does not have access to the Mater Private or any other private hospital, the waiting list for assessment of a problem which may be non-serious, or which may be cancer, is unconscionably long. A public patient with pancreas cancer who developed abdominal complaints and who tried to access the diagnostic services now would not have received the details of their diagnosis for some time.

Indeed, when one considers the wait to see a public consultant, followed by the second wait for admission and testing, then it is actually much more likely that the news would be delivered some months later. There is reason for this disparity in access between public and private services. It is not accidental, but results from the very deliberately crafted health policies of this government.

The reported anger of government press spokesmen at my interview must be seen not only in the light of these facts, but also in the context of the systematic government disinformation campaign on the issue of cancer and other health services in this country.

These include the extraordinary attempt to justify the denial of cervical cancer vaccination to our young women by alleging that it was too dangerous, the attempts to mislead the public about cancer service deficiencies, multiple episodes of whistleblower intimidation, and the attempts to prevent informed debate about cancer policy. It is entirely appropriate that cancer specialists involve themselves in increasing public awareness concerning pancreatic and other cancers. They should also highlight deficiencies in our cancer services.

If, as has been reported, Mr Lenihan has pancreatic cancer, I wish him well.

Professor John Crown is a consultant oncologist

Sunday Independent

W.B. Yeats

lostexpectation wrote: »

the markets opened on 28th. again i'll take his word for it over yours unless your trying to tell me you a senior member of a stockbroking firm?

Good man
Glad to see you taking the word of stockbrokers

lostexpectation

W.B. Yeats wrote: »

Good man
Glad to see you taking the word of stockbrokers

when it comes to whether it it has markets significance, who else is there to beleive? If they say it does it does.

lostexpectation

kraggy wrote: »

Only after all relatives have been informed. And they don't hold families to ransom and rush them into getting things organised thereby ruining their Christmas.

If you can't see what's wrong with this then you're blind.

Even the way Ursula Halligan behaved in the report from outside government buildings was disgusting. She kept tripping over her words and referred to Brian Lenihan in the past tense, she was so excited with having a scoop.

Sick.

Imagine having been one of Brian Lenihan's children watching that. It's enough of a shock to be told by a parent that they have cancer, believe me, without having some useless, sick news reporter referring to your father as if he were gone already.

And on St. Stephen's Day. Lovely.

imagine what? they were told by then, Q for reporters they usually wait a few days and if they can't reach anyone they they would report the name wouldn't they?

anyway it wasn't tv3 who put the time constraint on the the issue it was political position.

kraggy

lostexpectation wrote: »

imagine what? they were told by then, Q for reporters they usually wait a few days and if they can't reach anyone they they would report the name wouldn't they?

anyway it wasn't tv3 who put the time constraint on the the issue it was political position.

Imagine hearing your father being referred to in the past tense.

And "political position" is a nice way of describing TV3 telling Brian Lenihan's people that they were going to run it at Christmas and his people saying "will ye not leave it til the New Year?" and TV3 saying "we'll leave til Stephen's Day, no later".

Scum. Like I said, it was the first juicy scoop that they've probably had ever, and they were like the alcoholic husband who recently won a few quid on a bet and got amateurishly excited with the surprise they had in their hand.

Can't believe people are sticking up for them. Some people must be blind.