Tony O'Reilly & Independent Newspapers: should we now question his dominance?

Dionysus

So finally it seems that Murdoch is having his day over in Britain.

Here in Afterhours it's clear that there's an intense dislike of Independent Newspapers - most especially of the Sunday Independent. I share that dislike/contempt. Given that the latter in particular has styled itself on the lowest standard imaginable (i.e. in Murdoch's British newspapers) it is odd that nobody is calling for an investigation into it.

I have never bought any newspaper owned, or even partly owned, by Tony O'Reilly. They are all - and upon reflection I do mean all - low-brow cultureless superficial vacuous dross. Just think of the supreme arseholes who write for the rag.... Anyway! :mad:

The stories about this O'Reilly guy - or "Sir Anthony" as he infamously demanded an RTÉ journalist refer to him as in a press conference years ago - and how employees of Independent Newspapers almost genuflect on his arrival into the office are stomach-turning. The "social" articles about how great he is, the "business" articles about how successful his investments are, and that organised Independent Newspapers campaign to discredit Eircom years ago - Eircom's share price went super low and guess who swooped in to buy it? Yes, yours truly Tony O'Reilly. What a coincidence! (if your parents' lost money on their Eircom shares and they still buy an Independent paper they need their heads examined)

O'Reilly has been a "kingmaker" in this society for far too long now - remember how before the 2007 election Ahern and Cowen went to meet him to ask for his newspapers' blessing in that election?

All Irish national newspapers except for The Irish Times and the Sunday Business Post have O'Reilly as a major if not the dominant shareholder. By any standards this is not good for democracy in Ireland. How often have you read an Irish journalist condemning O'Reilly's dominance of the Irish print media? It just doesn't happen for all the obvious reasons. Despite his enormous power - indeed because of it - he remains free from criticism by all "opinion formers" in Irish society. All of them.

So, my question: do you think it's time the Irish state began an investigation into O'Reilly's dominance of the Irish media? (yes, Irish politicians are highly unlikely to want to upset him or the mercenaries who write for his papers by such an investigation but that's another matter)

/rant over.

kfallon

No - we should question when his Mrs is gonna have her next winner on a racecourse so we can all lump on, that'll do for me!

mikemac

No

Dionysus wrote: »

So, my question: do you think it's time the Irish state began an investigation into O'Reilly's dominance of the Irish media?

Yes to an investigation

No to some new quango stuffed with retired connected people which costs millions to run and then produce a report in three years with no new information

Craebear

No, sure he's a grand fella so I'm told.

marcsignal

No

I'd be happy enough with introducing regulations which prevents any one individuals control of our media.

sparkthatbled

No

Yes to investigation, but he never should have been allowed into the position he's in already. I said it for years and was ignored by everyone except my fellow lefties and The Slate who ripped into him once, very satisfying piece to read too, so it was.

Ah, The Slate, how i miss it...

Benny_Cake

Agree 100% with what you're saying,but I think that proper laws which restrict media ownership to an appropriate level would be better than an investigation.Unfortunately newspapers are a declining medium and you are likely to find it difficult to attract new players to the market.Given Independent's position in a market which is shedding jobs it's hard to find journalists that will question O'Reilly's dominance as well.

orourkeda

Why investigate for no obvious reason?

Dionysus

No

sparkthatbled wrote: »

Yes to investigation, but he never should have been allowed into the position he's in already. I said it for years and was ignored by everyone except my fellow lefties and The Slate who ripped into him once, very satisfying piece to read too, so it was.

Ah, The Slate, how i miss it...

And the person who wrote that Slate article, did he/she get a job in the Irish print media? (I doubt it!) Damien Kiberd (Declan's brother), the now millionaire founder of The Sunday Business Post, and John Waters are the only two people whom I've ever seen publicly question O'Reilly's dominance.


Is The Slate the one that had the "Blacks in the Jacks" thing years ago for which the editor had to resign?

Dionysus

No

orourkeda wrote: »

Why investigate for no obvious reason?

His dominance in the print media in this democracy is reason enough. The lack of questioning in public of this dominance of one man indicates a very unhealthy relationship between public figures in this democracy and the media interests of Tony O'Reilly.

It is crazy that a man so powerful, with interests in such a key area of Irish life as newspapers, escapes criticism and questioning. Really crazy. It's bad for us all that such dominance continues.

latenia

I'd be more worried about Denis O'Brien tbh.

Spread

No

orourkeda wrote: »

Why investigate for no obvious reason?

Any newspaper/media baron should be investigated. Once a guy starts buying up papers etc he should be investigated as press/editorial freedom gets compromised. After all, why buy if you can't influence?

The Fourth Estate has far too much power in this age of knowledge spin.:eek:

Badgermonkey

Dionysus wrote: »

So finally it seems that Murdoch is having his day over in Britain.

Here in Afterhours it's clear that there's an intense dislike of Independent Newspapers - most especially of the Sunday Independent. I share that dislike/contempt. Given that the latter in particular has styled itself on the lowest standard imaginable (i.e. in Murdoch's British newspapers) it is odd that nobody is calling for an investigation into it.

I have never bought any newspaper owned, or even partly owned, by Tony O'Reilly. They are all - and upon reflection I do mean all - low-brow cultureless superficial vacuous dross. Just think of the supreme arseholes who write for the rag.... Anyway! :mad:

The stories about this O'Reilly guy - or "Sir Anthony" as he infamously demanded an RTÉ journalist refer to him as in a press conference years ago - and how employees of Independent Newspapers almost genuflect on his arrival into the office are stomach-turning. The "social" articles about how great he is, the "business" articles about how successful his investments are, and that organised Independent Newspapers campaign to discredit Eircom years ago - Eircom's share price went super low and guess who swooped in to buy it? Yes, yours truly Tony O'Reilly. What a coincidence! (if your parents' lost money on their Eircom shares and they still buy an Independent paper they need their heads examined)

O'Reilly has been a "kingmaker" in this society for far too long now - remember how before the 2007 election Ahern and Cowen went to meet him to ask for his newspapers' blessing in that election?

All Irish national newspapers except for The Irish Times and the Sunday Business Post have O'Reilly as a major if not the dominant shareholder. By any standards this is not good for democracy in Ireland. How often have you read an Irish journalist condemning O'Reilly's dominance of the Irish print media? It just doesn't happen for all the obvious reasons. Despite his enormous power - indeed because of it - he remains free from criticism by all "opinion formers" in Irish society. All of them.

So, my question: do you think it's time the Irish state began an investigation into O'Reilly's dominance of the Irish media? (yes, Irish politicians are highly unlikely to want to upset him or the mercenaries who write for his papers by such an investigation but that's another matter)

/rant over.

Given the fair dose of hearsay, unsubstantiated allegations and petty gripes evident in the above, it's a little rich to be taking the moral high ground no?

epgc3fyqirnbsx

No

He likes to be referred to as Sir Anthony O'Reilly now

Matt Cooper has a book, Who Really Runs Ireland, and there are a couple of good chapters at the beginning mentioning O'Reillys relationship with one Ahern. This Ahern never got bad press and the Sunday Independent got all the govt exclusives

marcsignal

No

Spread wrote: »

The Fourth Estate has far too much power in this age of knowledge spin.:eek:

excellent point, but sadly readers today seem to be more concerned with what jordan is wearing at the beach, than world/national issues which affect, or may affect us in the future

Eric Cartman

Hes done nothing wrong that anyone has found out about so far so no.

Your all complaining about his large share holding in the indo group , and saying nobody should be allowed that control, realistically , without newspapers and other media grouping together like news international or the indo group you wouldnt have the variety of news and television services you do. Newspapers and television stations cant afford to start up off the ground anymore or run independantly , groups like these secure cheaper deals on paper, print runs, distribution and associated costs like picture licencing, wire feeds and other resources needed by companies specialising in the delivery of news and entertainment. You may not like the tone of certain teleivison channels or newspapers, but others do and those businesses should have the freedom to run even if its not your cup of tea, everyone knows fox news is a bunch of religiously aligned lies , but its not like fox is the only tv station, but without grouping or colaboration between media companies, it might be. Could you imagine if RTE's catholic ethos and 'not biased until the topics the catholic church doesnt like come up' method of news delivery was the only way you could get your news on television , that would be far worse. Its not like tony calls up the editors of the indo , star etc... every day and says 'here lads dont run that story, and say that lads a saint and didnt touch those kids'

Innocent until proven guilty , until then, his media dabblings might not be your thing, but just leave the man alone

Dionysus

No

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Given the fair dose of hearsay, unsubstantiated allegations and petty gripes evident in the above, it's a little rich to be taking the moral high ground no?

What's your evidence that O'Reilly is not 'a major if not the dominant shareholder' in all Irish national newspapers other than The Irish Times and the Sunday Business Post?

Dionysus

No

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Hes done nothing wrong that anyone has found out about so far so no....Innocent until proven guilty , until then, his media dabblings might not be your thing, but just leave the man alone

Given that all journalists, politicians, PR representatives, lobby groups and indeed everybody else engaged in Irish political life has far, far, far more to lose - would you like the vast majority of Ireland's print media to have you as a target? - than gain by proposing such an investigation into O'Reilly his "innocence" reflects the power he has in the media rather than an actual innocence. It is naive in the extreme to think somebody like him, who has controlled the mass of the Irish media for so long, is as "innocent" as Mrs Mulligan and her cat down the road. The guy is in it to exercise a disproportionate amount of influence on Irish political life and benefit his other financial interests (of which there are many). He is not dominating the print media in Ireland out of some selfless desire to enhance democracy in Ireland.

Einhard

Dionysus wrote: »

So, my question: do you think it's time the Irish state began an investigation into O'Reilly's dominance of the Irish media? (yes, Irish politicians are highly unlikely to want to upset him or the mercenaries who write for his papers by such an investigation but that's another matter)

/rant over.

Investigate him for what? Are you of the opinion that investigations should be opened where there is no evidence, or even allegation of wrongdoing? Perhaps we should investigate you too, to make sure you're not up to anything?

I've no problem with investigating the media ownership laws in this country, and amending them to prevent concentration of media power in the hands of a few powerful interests. That this needs to be done was highlighted particularly in the wake of the Moriarty Tribunal, and the fact that Denis O'Brien had a hand in so many media outlets that were reporting on the findings.

However, your suggestion seems more like petty persecution, fed by your dislike of O'Reilly and his outlets. You want an investigation of a man, when there are no allegations of impropriety, and that's entirely wrong. I get that people can't stand him and his papers, but when that dislike becomes so irrational that it becomes the only basis on which other reasonable people demand investigations of others, then it goes too far.

orourkeda wrote: »

Why investigate for no obvious reason?

Because the OP doesn't like Independent Newspapers. At least, that's the only impression one gets from his post.

Dionysus wrote: »

His dominance in the print media in this democracy is reason enough. The lack of questioning in public of this dominance of one man indicates a very unhealthy relationship between public figures in this democracy and the media interests of Tony O'Reilly.

So you want an investigation of a man for actions he has taken which, as far as we know, are entirely consistent with the laws of the land? Seriously?? I don't like the type of media dominance that he, and O'Brien, have built up, but the solution is to investigate and perhaps amend the relevent legislation, rather than launch investigations into legal activity. Which is exactly what you're suggesting.

It is crazy that a man so powerful, with interests in such a key area of Irish life as newspapers, escapes criticism and questioning. Really crazy. It's bad for us all that such dominance continues.

I agree with this, and that's why the legislation needs to be examined, and changed if necessary. However, O'Reilly is not the only powerful media figure in this country, and is not the one who has been castigated by a tribunal of inquiry for corrupt activity. I find it strange, and unsettling too, that you would demand a witch hunt against him, and not against O'Brien, who was the subject of Moriarty's criticisms, and has seriously damaged the state through his corrupt actions. I can't possibly agree with your stance, because it seems more about settling an irrational hatred of O'Reilly, than about rectifying the media situation in this country. If the latter were your concern, you'd have suggested a more broad investigation.

Einhard

Dionysus wrote: »

than gain by proposing such an investigation into O'Reilly his "innocence" reflects the power he has in the media rather than an actual innocence.

Well this is disturbing. O'Reilly's innocence, like mine and yours, reflects the fact that he has not been convicted of any crime, here or elsewhere, and to suggest that he is somehow guilty of unspecified crimes, is unsettling. Your hatred of O'Reilly is truly descending into irrational myopia. You should re-read what you have posted- demanding an investigation against a man for his legal activities, and then denying him the basic right of the presumption of innocence. Were someone to demand this against anyone else, they'd rightly be castigated for their flagrant disregard for the notions of due process and legal rights. The fact that almost 70% of posters agree with you, ironically reflects the fact that, for all the disdain for the tabloid media here, the unthinking, un-nuanced, herd mentality so essential to the medium, is well and truly alive in this forum.

Spread

No

I think it's naive in the extreme to believe that altruism is the main tenet of entrepreneurship.

laughter189

If it is an another investigation at taxpayers expense , I am totally against it

Dionysus

No

Einhard wrote: »

You want an investigation of a man, when there are no allegations of impropriety, and that's entirely wrong.

It is, by any standards, improper that a single person can have such dominance over the vast majority of national print media in this state. That's entirely wrong.

Einhard wrote: »

I get that people can't stand him and his papers, but when that dislike becomes so irrational that it becomes the only basis on which other reasonable people demand investigations of others, then it goes too far.

On the other hand, making excuses for the dominance of a single person in the Irish media could be construed as the "irrational" position.

Einhard wrote: »

Because the OP doesn't like Independent Newspapers. At least, that's the only impression one gets from his post.

'One' being you, or are you speaking on behalf of others?

Einhard wrote: »

However, O'Reilly is not the only powerful media figure in this country, and is not the one who has been castigated by a tribunal of inquiry for corrupt activity. I find it strange, and unsettling too, that you would demand a witch hunt against him, and not against O'Brien, who was the subject of Moriarty's criticisms, and has seriously damaged the state through his corrupt actions.

O'Brien is not yet in the position of dominance that O'Reilly is in. When that happens, then you'll have a point. In the meantime, it would be peculiar to ignore O'Reilly's unparralled dominance in Irish media and focus on somebody with less power within it. For the record, I neither like nor respect O'Brien. I have more respect for tax-paying Michael O'Leary than either of them. Like O'Reilly, O'Brien's a tax exile with little loyalty to this society. They are peas in a pod, but at the moment O'Reilly remains by far more dominant than O'Brien is and is therefore a quite legitimate target of free expression in this democracy where out of self-interest the vast majority of public figures or journalists would never question his power. Given this context, why an anonymous poster on a message board feels the need to defend such a person is most odd.

Sonnenblumen

Dionysus wrote: »

So finally it seems that Murdoch is having his day over in Britain.

Here in Afterhours it's clear that there's an intense dislike of Independent Newspapers - most especially of the Sunday Independent. I share that dislike/contempt. Given that the latter in particular has styled itself on the lowest standard imaginable (i.e. in Murdoch's British newspapers) it is odd that nobody is calling for an investigation into it.

I have never bought any newspaper owned, or even partly owned, by Tony O'Reilly. They are all - and upon reflection I do mean all - low-brow cultureless superficial vacuous dross. Just think of the supreme arseholes who write for the rag.... Anyway! :mad:

The stories about this O'Reilly guy - or "Sir Anthony" as he infamously demanded an RTÉ journalist refer to him as in a press conference years ago - and how employees of Independent Newspapers almost genuflect on his arrival into the office are stomach-turning. The "social" articles about how great he is, the "business" articles about how successful his investments are, and that organised Independent Newspapers campaign to discredit Eircom years ago - Eircom's share price went super low and guess who swooped in to buy it? Yes, yours truly Tony O'Reilly. What a coincidence! (if your parents' lost money on their Eircom shares and they still buy an Independent paper they need their heads examined)

O'Reilly has been a "kingmaker" in this society for far too long now - remember how before the 2007 election Ahern and Cowen went to meet him to ask for his newspapers' blessing in that election?

All Irish national newspapers except for The Irish Times and the Sunday Business Post have O'Reilly as a major if not the dominant shareholder. By any standards this is not good for democracy in Ireland. How often have you read an Irish journalist condemning O'Reilly's dominance of the Irish print media? It just doesn't happen for all the obvious reasons. Despite his enormous power - indeed because of it - he remains free from criticism by all "opinion formers" in Irish society. All of them.

So, my question: do you think it's time the Irish state began an investigation into O'Reilly's dominance of the Irish media? (yes, Irish politicians are highly unlikely to want to upset him or the mercenaries who write for his papers by such an investigation but that's another matter)

/rant over.

Plenty of arseholes don't read enough.

coolbeans

No

We should ALWAYS question dominance!!! I really cannot countenance how anyone would hold someone beyond reproach when he clearly has the potential to influence the opinions of so many. I'm not saying he does or has done anything wrong but all a responsible and active citizen needs to do is remain sceptical as a balance against such power and influence. Sadly, this duty of care is lacking amongst many on here.

Einhard

Dionysus wrote: »

It is, by any standards, improper that a single person can have such dominance over the vast majority of national print media in this state. That's entirely wrong.

That may be so, but he has done nothing illegal and therefore there should be no such investigation. Certainly, there should be an investigation into whether such media dominance is desirable, and whether legislation should be amended to limit such ownership, but that is not the same thing as calling for an investigation of O'Reilly, which seems motivated by personal hatred and vindictiveness.

On the other hand, making excuses for the dominance of a single person in the Irish media could be construed as the "irrational" position.

I've repeatedly stated that such media hegemony is not ideal, and should be challenged. For example:

I've no problem with investigating the media ownership laws in this country, and amending them to prevent concentration of media power in the hands of a few powerful interests. That this needs to be done was highlighted particularly in the wake of the Moriarty Tribunal, and the fact that Denis O'Brien had a hand in so many media outlets that were reporting on the findings.

I don't like the type of media dominance that he, and O'Brien, have built up, but the solution is to investigate and perhaps amend the relevent legislation, rather than launch investigations into legal activity.

I agree with this, and that's why the legislation needs to be examined, and changed if necessary.

These simple statements aren't hidden in the boards archives, but expressed in this very thread, so i find it quite strange that you failed to notice them.

'One' being you, or are you speaking on behalf of others?

I can only speak on behalf of myself. Although the fact that 30% of posters are against your proposition suggests that I'm not alone in viewing your agenda as driven by nothing more than personal dislike.

O'Brien is not yet in the position of dominance that O'Reilly is in. When that happens, then you'll have a point. In the meantime, it would be peculiar to ignore O'Reilly's unparralled dominance in Irish media and focus on somebody with less power within it.

This is absolute tosh. If anything, O'Brien is even more dominant in the Irish media than O'Reilly. He is the largest single shareholder in Indepedent News & Media, holding 22% as opposed to the 28% of the entire O'Reilly family. On top of that, he owns two national stations in Today FM and NewsTalk, and also Dublin's 98fm, Spin 1038 and Spin South West. The man is in a position to shape and withhold news and information to the Irish public across a range of media, a position exacerbated by the fact that some of his employees on the radio, also ply their trade in the print media. Thus, Matt Cooper, writes a column for The Sunday Times, whilst also working for O'Brien on Today FM.

It's pretty clear therefore that, the power wielded by the man in the Irish media is approximate to, if not surpassing, that of O'Reilly. The idea that he is somehow a small fry in comparison to O'Reilly is ridiculous.

On top of that, of course, there is the fact that O'Brien was found to have engaged in astonishing acts of corruption, which could yet cost the state billions. O'Brien went to great lengths, both before and after the tribunal's findings, to denigrate the presiding judge, and impugn the the standing of the body. All this whilst he held significant interests in IM&M, and controlling stakes in two national stations, and several large regional ones. And you think O'Reilly is the one who should be investigated? On the basis of nothing more than your quite irrational hatred of the man? Jesus, it's scary to see otherwise reasonable people become so delusional in pursuit of a partisan agenda. Who said the demise of religion would free us from such irrational behaviour??

For the record, I neither like nor respect O'Brien. I have more respect for tax-paying Michael O'Leary than either of them. Like O'Reilly, O'Brien's a tax exile with little loyalty to this society.

I don't care who you like or respect. I respect the law. I respect the concept of the presumption of innocence. You don't. And that tells me all I need to know.

They are peas in a pod, but at the moment O'Reilly remains by far more dominant than O'Brien is

As I've demonstrated, this simply isn't true. You may wish it to be, because it supports your call for a witch hunt, but that doesn't make it so.

is and is therefore a quite legitimate target of free expression in this democracy where out of self-interest the vast majority of public figures or journalists would never question his power.

Who's denying you free expression?? I find it ironic that you wax lyrical about "this democracy", and yet demand an investigation of a man against whom you have made no substantive allegations of illegal activity.

Given this context, why an anonymous poster on a message board feels the need to defend such a person is most odd.

Ah now, you see if I were a more paranoid person, I might take that as an insinuation that I'm somehow a stooge of O'Reilly's, busy beavering away on his behalf. But as I'm not that paranoid, and you're not so delusional as to make such an outlandish insinuation, I'll take it as merely an odd choice of words.

Incidentally, I presume I'm responding to Dionysus, dictator of Syracuse here, or his namesake from Halicarnassus, because otherwise, you'd be just as anonymous as me!

Rocket_Man

O' Reilly's dominance of the Irish print media is a major issue that demands closer scrutiny.

Let me give two examples:

1 Former minister Ray Burke received a donation of 30 000 from fitzwilton plc, a subsidiary of O Reilly's empire.This donation gets very little press coverage from a media dominated by O'Reilly's titles.

2 During the 1997 general election the Independent ran the infamous headline 'payback time'. This was a comment on the outgoing rainbow coalition. The same coalition which had awarded the second mobile phone license to O'Reilly's competitors, a consortium led by Denis O'Brien. Could this decision have influenced the papers stance on the election? A stance that doubtlessly played a role in the final result which was extremely tight.

When did After Hours become the crybox of the artsy fartsies who care about newspaper editors?

I'm seeing a lot of unnecessary multi-syllable words...

dominance

unsubstantiated

improper

countenance
To be honest, I couldn't give a fiddlers, and neither do most After Hours folk.

But what's inforgivable? The complete lack of humour, apart from the OP having a personal rant against a newspaper guy just because Elliot Carver escaped the stealth ship drill and is nowsat in front of a bunch of parliment folk explaining himself.

And got a pie in the face for it.

I'm willing to place bets the OP will one day put a pie in this O'reilly fellah's face. Who's with me?

orourkeda

Dionysus wrote: »

His dominance in the print media in this democracy is reason enough. The lack of questioning in public of this dominance of one man indicates a very unhealthy relationship between public figures in this democracy and the media interests of Tony O'Reilly.

It is crazy that a man so powerful, with interests in such a key area of Irish life as newspapers, escapes criticism and questioning. Really crazy. It's bad for us all that such dominance continues.

There are dozens of powerful people that have strong political connections in Ireland alone. It goes with the territory. To investigate for no obvious reason is foolish. Why choose Tony O'Reilly specifically and what exactly are you hoping to find? Short of turning into a communist state we can do nothing to stop a person or group dominating certain spheres of public interest. Business is business and its unreasonable equal shares of the market and similar sales for the participants in the media among others

orourkeda

Rocket_Man wrote: »

O' Reilly's dominance of the Irish print media is a major issue that demands closer scrutiny.

Let me give two examples:

1 Former minister Ray Burke received a donation of 30 000 from fitzwilton plc, a subsidiary of O Reilly's empire.This donation gets very little press coverage from a media dominated by O'Reilly's titles.

2 During the 1997 general election the Independent ran the infamous headline 'payback time'. This was a comment on the outgoing rainbow coalition. The same coalition which had awarded the second mobile phone license to O'Reilly's competitors, a consortium led by Denis O'Brien. Could this decision have influenced the papers stance on the election? A stance that doubtlessly played a role in the final result which was extremely tight.

Why focus on Tony O'Reilly specifically? What would happen if every political donation in his country was investigated? Would you make that suggestion if FF had lost that election.

Rocket_Man

orourkeda wrote: »

Why focus on Tony O'Reilly specifically? What would happen if every political donation in his country was investigated? Would you make that suggestion if FF had lost that election.

I focus on O'Reilly because, with the exception of Denis O'Brien, no other significant figure in Irish public life has so much influence in media circles.

In my view anyone with this power should come under much greater scrutiny than an ordinary person.

In relation to the suggestion that I would have a different opinion if FF lost the election, perhaps you are right. I might not have taken such an interest but it would not make the situation any less serious.

Dionysus

No

Einhard wrote: »

That may be so, but he has done nothing illegal and therefore there should be no such investigation. Certainly, there should be an investigation into whether such media dominance is desirable, and whether legislation should be amended to limit such ownership, but that is not the same thing as calling for an investigation of O'Reilly, which seems motivated by personal hatred and vindictiveness.

In fairness, it's pretty hard to "investigate whether such media dominance is desirable" in Ireland without fulfilling the question in the OP: "Should we now question his [O'Reilly's] dominance?" So, you're agreeing in effect with an investigation into whether his dominance is desirable?

I'm always suspicious about the true disposition and happiness of people who roll the word 'hatred' off their tongue with such ease.

Einhard wrote: »

I can only speak on behalf of myself. Although the fact that 30% of posters are against your proposition suggests that I'm not alone in viewing your agenda as driven by nothing more than personal dislike.

Given that I don't know the man and have never had any dealings with him or his rags, this is quite a paranoid strange thing to conclude. But hey, why engage in ad rem debate when you can get a good old ad hominem in.

Einhard wrote: »

This is absolute tosh.

Not for the first time you're wrong. Both O'Brien and O'Reilly control more of the company than you claim. Crucially O'Reilly and his close allies have the controlling interest in the most dominant newspaper company in Ireland. O'Brien doesn't. As such, you probably need to revisit the meaning of the words 'absolute tosh'.

Einhard wrote: »

It's pretty clear therefore that, the power wielded by the man in the Irish media is approximate to, if not surpassing, that of O'Reilly. The idea that he is somehow a small fry in comparison to O'Reilly is ridiculous.

Or rather: your idea that he is small fry? Once again, as you seem to be chasing your tail here: it is O'Reilly and his allies and not O'Brien and his allies who have the controlling interest in the largest and most dominant private media company in Ireland. Keeping your head in the sand and going on about O'Brien does not detract from this. You could set up a new thread to exorcise what seems to be an obsession with O'Brien, you know.

Einhard wrote: »

On top of that, of course, there is the fact that O'Brien was found to have engaged in astonishing acts of corruption, which could yet cost the state billions. O'Brien went to great lengths, both before and after the tribunal's findings, to denigrate the presiding judge, and impugn the the standing of the body. All this whilst he held significant interests in IM&M, and controlling stakes in two national stations, and several large regional ones.And you think O'Reilly is the one who should be investigated?

You're changing the discussion and going off on a rant again. O'Reilly and his allies still have the controlling interest in the most dominant private media company in Ireland. Now, there you are back on track again.

Should you want to go on a rant against O'Brien - and clearly you do - set up a thread and I'll go over and join you.

Einhard wrote: »

On the basis of nothing more than your quite irrational hatred of the man?

oh, and there's that word 'hatred' coming from you again, Einhard.

Einhard wrote: »

Jesus, it's scary to see otherwise reasonable people become so delusional in pursuit of a partisan agenda. Who said the demise of religion would free us from such irrational behaviour??

Indeed it is, as you've finely demonstrated here. Putting multiple question marks after something doesn't sound like the mind of a calm and rational person either.

Einhard wrote: »

I don't care who you like or respect. I respect the law. I respect the concept of the presumption of innocence. You don't. And that tells me all I need to know.

:rolleyes:

Einhard wrote: »

As I've demonstrated, this simply isn't true.

You haven't demonstrated anything except that you're quite irrational, emotionally volatile, have a touch (at least) of OCD, are sanctimonious, are quick to misjudge motivations and engage in ad hominem debate, have a strong affinity with the verb 'hate' and are intent upon spending an inordinate amount of time on a message board writing self-satisfying pseudo-intellectual rubbish while (hilariously) writing posts (indeed starting an entire thread) about how intelligent you are (or at least like to think you are). Amen.

Dionysus

No

Deleted User wrote: »

When did After Hours become the crybox of the artsy fartsies who care about newspaper editors?

I'm seeing a lot of unnecessary multi-syllable words...

dominance

unsubstantiated

improper

countenance

...

Ah the bould Seaslacker - when you're not ranting against people who criticise the Civil Defence (and God knows what else), it seems you're ranting against people ranting. Well done.
I apologise for not using monosyllable words. I will endeavour try to do so in future just so you can understand.

To be honest, I couldn't give a fiddlers, and neither do most After Hours folk...

And you know this how, precisely, oh omniscient one?

And got a pie in the face for it.

I'm willing to place bets the OP will one day put a pie in this O'reilly fellah's face. Who's with me?

Would it really be too much to expect that you not project your own evident dysfunctional motivations upon other posters? Thanks.

But what's inforgivable? The complete lack of humour, apart from the OP having a personal rant against a newspaper guy just because Elliot Carver escaped the stealth ship drill and is nowsat in front of a bunch of parliment folk explaining himself.

Yes, please do tell: what is "inforgivable"?

Dionysus

No

orourkeda wrote: »

There are dozens of powerful people that have strong political connections in Ireland alone. It goes with the territory. To investigate for no obvious reason is foolish. Why choose Tony O'Reilly specifically and what exactly are you hoping to find? Short of turning into a communist state we can do nothing to stop a person or group dominating certain spheres of public interest. Business is business and its unreasonable equal shares of the market and similar sales for the participants in the media among others

1) Really, why do you think? Could it perchance be because he controls the vast majority of the print media and as such has an unparalleled influence on political life in this republic? Can you name any other unelected figure who wields that much influence in the Irish print media?

2) "communist state"- just where do you get this "reds under the bed" scaremongering from? The 1950s?

3) "Business is business" is a fine soundbite - albeit utterly irrelevant to this discussion when it is the dominance of his businesses in political life that is the problem. It's not as if he has a chain of highly successful electrical shops engaged in mere business.

I expected better from you, orourkeda.

thebigbiffo

Dionysus wrote: »

All Irish national newspapers except for The Irish Times and the Sunday Business Post have O'Reilly as a major if not the dominant shareholders

completely false.

Maybe it's been pointed out already. Associated Newspapers Ireland (The Irish Mail on Sunday and the Irish Daily Mail) and Murdochs own papers are IRISH national newspapers with fully IRISH content.

Dionysus

No

thebigbiffo wrote: »

completely false.

Maybe it's been pointed out already. Associated Newspapers Ireland (The Irish Mail on Sunday and the Irish Daily Mail) and Murdochs own papers are IRISH national newspapers with fully IRISH content.

Be serious.

thebigbiffo

Dionysus wrote: »

Be serious.

i'm very serious. would you like to expand on what it is you mean?