Kevin Myers admits he was wrong - shock, horror!(well on one article)

gurramok

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1019/smithwick.html

A leading newspaper columnist has acknowledged that a column of his, which led to questions in the Dáil and to an internal garda investigation, did not tell the truth in a fair and impartial manner.

So he lied, surprise surprise.

Asked by Mr O'Callaghan if his column told the truth "in a fair and impartial manner" with witness replied "no, I don't believe it did."

Without turning this into a debate on the inquiry itself, the fact that Myers admits he was wrong is groundbreaking!!

Should all newspapers drop him as a result of this revelation? Sindo, you listening?

Kevin Duffy

I didn't need him to admit he was wrong on this for me to know he writes horsehít about almost everything.

For Forks Sake

gurramok wrote: »

Should all newspapers drop him as a result of this revelation? Sindo, you listening?

He doesn't write for the Sindo. There's more than enough sh1te in there as it is.

AnamGlas

A journalist talking shíte? :eek:

My name is URL

gurramok wrote: »

Should all newspapers drop him as a result of this revelation?

No way.. the fact that they employ him serves as the best indicator that the publication should be avoided.

Micklaus

He'll probably backtrack in a couple of weeks and say he was actually telling the truth.

Nodin

Micklaus wrote: »

He'll probably backtrack in a couple of weeks and say he was actually telling the truth.

Exactly, it was the Truth that was wrong, not the Colonel.

OutlawPete

gurramok wrote: »

So he lied, surprise surprise. <snip>

Eh, no he didn't ..

What he did was concede that his COLUMN did not tell the truth "in a fair and impartial manner" and accepted that he was 'wrong' to make an "assertion" he undoubtedly did when writing said article. An assertion he now fully acknowledges was an incorrect one to make.

If he made an assertion in the complete knowledge that it was a wholly incorrect one to make; well then he would be guilty of "lying" ..

.. but I see no evidence of that whatsoever.

orourkeda

Isnt it best to ignore the work of a journalist whom you dislike

gurramok

OutlawPete wrote: »

Eh, no he didn't ..

What he did was concede that his COLUMN did not tell the truth "in a fair and impartial manner" and accepted that he was 'wrong' to make an "assertion" he undoubtedly did when writing said article. An assertion he now fully acknowledges was an incorrect one to make.

If he made an assertion in the complete knowledge that it was a wholly incorrect one to make; well then he would be guilty of "lying" ..

.. but I see no evidence of that whatsoever.

He made an assertion based on another's word, thats lying in my book.

CatFromHue

He admitted he was wrong before.

He wrote a strong anti Leinster rugby column one week. Then he actually went to a game and wrote another column saying it was actually all good fun. I think a Leinster fan invited him to the game so I'm not sure if this was bribery!

bayern282

A stopped clock is right twice a day, think this applies to Mr Myers scattergun range of opinions and subject matters.

He's sometimes pretty funny but most of his columns are barely decipherable old toss.

discus

Myers is genuinely one of the best and last journalists in the country. Ignore him at your peril, because he's writing what a lot of us are afraid to say.

Morlar

discus wrote: »

Myers is genuinely one of the best and last journalists in the country. Ignore him at your peril, because he's writing what a lot of us are afraid to say.

I believe that can be the case, he often writes articles which I think are necessary. This wasn't one of them, and his virulent anti-republicanism was completely out of control imo.

Kevin Myers questioned at Smithwick Tribunal

Updated: 21:05, Wednesday, 19 October 2011

A newspaper columnist has acknowledged in the Smithwick Tribunal that a column of his did not tell the truth in a fair and impartial manner.


A leading newspaper columnist has acknowledged that a column of his, which led to questions in the Dáil and to an internal garda investigation, did not tell the truth in a fair and impartial manner.

Kevin Myers also told the Smithwick Tribunal that he believes there were at least two gardaí who were IRA moles within Dundalk Garda Station and that there may have been an IRA cell operating there.

The Tribunal is investigating claims that a mole inside the station passed information to the IRA which led to the death of RUC Chief Supt Harry Breen and Supt Bob Buchanan in a 1989 ambush.

The tribunal is looking at three former gardaí in particular - retired Det Sgt Owen Corrigan, retired Sgt Leo Colton and former Sgt Finbarr Hickey.

All three deny the allegation that they colluded in the men's deaths.

Mr Myers wrote a column in The Irish Times in March 2000 which stated that a garda based in Dundalk was actively working for the IRA and he had passed information which lead to several deaths, including those of the two senior RUC officers.

Mr Myers told the Tribunal today that the book 'Bandit Country' by Toby Harnden had been a source for his column and he then contacted a former garda and a former IRA member to discuss the matter.

As a result he wrote the column as part of the Irishman's Diary series.

Mr Myers earlier told the Tribunal that his garda source identified former Garda Sergeant Leo Colton as the mole while the former IRA member only referred to the mole as 'C'.

The witness said he took it at the time this was the same person and wrote the article on that basis.

However, he later learned that 'C' actually referred to retired Det. Sgt. Owen Corrigan.

The witness also accepted that his column was wrong when it said the garda mole was responsible for the IRA murder of Tom Oliver since both had left the force at the time of his killing.

As a result of his work on the column, Mr Myers said he believed there were two IRA moles in Dundalk passing information.

Under cross examination by Jim O'Callaghan, senior counsel for Owen Corrigan, Mr Myers said he did not have evidence there was a mole or moles but that was what he had been told.

He said he absolutely believed there was collusion by gardaí in Dundalk but that does not mean it was Mr. Corrigan, he told Mr O'Callaghan.

The witness said he wrote a column which was based on his opinion and assertions made by him.

It was on a "different factual plain" to an news article or an editorial in a newspaper.

Mr Myers also said that with the benefit of hindsight, he would have changed the contents of the column.

Asked by Mr O'Callaghan if his column told the truth "in a fair and impartial manner" with witness replied "no, I don't believe it did."

Mr Myers is to be recalled at a later stage to be cross examined by the legal teams.

Senior garda believed former sergeant over passports

Earlier a senior garda told the Tribunal that he believed a former sergeant when he said he was asked to sign passport forms by a colleague.

A number of the passports ended up in the hands of active IRA members.

Detective Inspector Gerard McGrath is the fifth senior officer to give such evidence to the tribunal.

Today's witness was one of a number of gardaí who interviewed then Sgt Finbarr Hickey and retired Sgt Leo Colton back in 1998 after they were arrested when the forged passports came to light.

During questioning at the time Mr Hickey maintained he signed the forms without knowing the people involved because he was asked to by Mr Colton who would arrive into Carrickmacross Garda Station with the forms already filled in. Mr Colton denied the claims.

Today, Mr McGrath told the tribunal that he believed Mr Hickey was telling the truth about the matter.

Mr Hickey later pleaded guilty and received a prison sentence for his involvement in the passport forgery.

He told gardaí he would not give evidence against Mr Colton if Mr Colton was to stand trial.

Keywords:
smithwick tribunal

expectationlost

the problem is newspaper don't think columnist need to factchecked, it ridiculous, newspapers should be for news, and have standards get rid of all week columnists and if they have a story they can pitch it each week.

padd b1975

orourkeda wrote: »

Isnt it best to ignore the work of a journalist whom you dislike

Jaysus horse! How many times have you posted in the Liveline thread?

--Kaiser--

Kevin Myers is great (except when he goes on about evolution)
If people didn't get so worked up about his articles, I doubt he would be so popular. But there you are. People reading his articles just so they can get annoyed

foxyboxer

I enjoy reading his articles.
It makes me feel smart.

stovelid

Don't really mind him. He's a superb writer. I also like the fact he's a prominent Irish journalist that put the boot into the Provos all the time, and did so from a position of actually knowing what he was talking about (having spent years covering the troubles in NI and knowing many of the people in Loyalism and Republicanism) unlike many others.

That said, as a pinko/liberal type, I don't hold with an awful lot of what he says but I actually find him more interesting to read than somebody like Vincent Browne or Fintan O'Toole even though therir views are far more congruent with mine which proves that his liberal-baiting will always have a home somewhere.

expectationlost

stovelid wrote: »

Don't really mind him. He's a superb writer. I also like the fact he's a prominent Irish journalist that put the boot into the Provos all the time, and did so from a position of actually knowing what he was talking about unlike many others.

uh you read the article

stovelid

expectationlost wrote: »

uh you read the article

Yup.

Still not convinced it invalidates everything he's written about the North, some of which has been pretty fair minded about both sides on the conflict.

Fishooks12

expectationlost wrote: »

the problem is newspaper don't think columnist need to factchecked, it ridiculous, newspapers should be for news, and have standards get rid of all week columnists and if they have a story they can pitch it each week.

You don't know much about the news biz do you? Opinion pieces is what gets most people talking about newspapers and they'd be very dull without them

Fishooks12

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Kevin Myers is great (except when he goes on about evolution)
If people didn't get so worked up about his articles, I doubt he would be so popular. But there you are. People reading his articles just so they can get annoyed

Exactly, opinion pieces by their very nature are always going to come under scrutiny

I like Myers, he made a mistake but he's still a brilliant writer

Seachmall

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Kevin Myers is great (except when he goes on about evolution)

Just Googled "Kevin Myers Evolution" (as I had no idea who he was or what he had to say about evolution) and came across this article.

Holy shit the guy is a fucking moron.

Fishooks12

Seachmall wrote: »

Just Googled "Kevin Myers Evolution" (as I had no idea who he was or what he had to say about evolution) and came across this article.

Holy shit the guy is a fucking moron.

I think you're missing the point of the article, or taking it too literally

Regardless of what you think of his opinion, Myers is not a moron, I often disagree with his opinion but I'd rate him as one of the top writers in Ireland, fantastic style.

--Kaiser--

Seachmall wrote: »

Just Googled "Kevin Myers Evolution" (as I had no idea who he was or what he had to say about evolution) and came across this article.

Holy shit the guy is a fucking moron.

Simplistic view of evolution, definitely.
He has somewhat retracted this recently, he said he was talking to Richard Dawkins who answered most of his questions about the subject

Morlar

stovelid wrote: »

....from a position of actually knowing what he was talking about (having spent years covering the troubles in NI and knowing many of the people in Loyalism and Republicanism) unlike many others.

What happened here is that he read a book and essentially spoke to 'a guy down the pub' (ok, over the phone).

Then he wrote an article which was full of his usual 'Reds under the bed' style anti-republican nonsense.

Yes he worked in Northern Ireland for a time but I think you are overstating his integrity and impartiality when it comes to the subject of Irish republicanism. He is a rabid, foaming at the mouth, anti-republican, always has been and always will be. This article where he goes all 'reds under the bed' is a good example. This goes for all republicans whether contemporary or those of the 1916 era.

On some other subjects he can offer an interesting insight, he is not afraid to speak his mind and the viewpoint he expresses finds no other outlet in Irish media.

Unlike his anti-republicanism, where, even just on just his own paper alone we also have the likes of Eoghan Harris and RDE banging the same drum.

4leto

I think he is great, he says it the way he sees it, which is sometimes wrong and I disagree with it. But in general he goes against the consensus which is good for Irish journalism, as we need someone in the media who has the courage to do that. Also I enjoy his historic references.

So if he writes his usual good and controversial stuff that goes against the grind he will get stuff wrong. Its risky but good for the Irish media in general. So keep it up Kevin Myers.

Wertz

So he got the wrong garda... but the mole or moles were still in the station.
The body of the article was accurate...some of his facts were inaccurate. Printing an allegation of the garda mole's name was a poor move, but such as is the nature of covert operations and investigations, actually finding out something as "FACT" is something even state legislators have it hard to accomplish...hence the tribunal itself.

Oh and Myer's is far from a moron... I find myself agreeing with a lot of what he has to say even if I don't like him. If nothing else he's a decent journalist. AH seems to have a hard on for finding fault with him because of some of his stances on immigration and other such divisionary topics.

Seachmall

Fishooks12 wrote: »

I think you're missing the point of the article, or taking it too literally

I get the general point of the article and agree with it to some extent but comments like the following are idiotic and moronic

Saying that such immensely complex, artfully constructed creations were the result of accidents is like putting 140 pounds of mince into a huge mixer, churning them around for a million years and expecting Einstein to result. You wouldn't even get Wayne Rooney's mickey.

Anyone who, when discussing evolution, chooses the word "accident" over "systematic and logical development" and then goes on to give such a ridiculously inaccurate example of what evolution is should not be discussing evolution at all.

Regardless of what you think of his opinion, Myers is not a moron, I often disagree with his opinion but I'd rate him as one of the top writers in Ireland, fantastic style.

I haven't read much of his writings so I can't really comment on how good he is but on the topic of evolution he clearly should not be writing, or at least sticking to a broader point without demonstrating his misunderstanding of it.

My comments on him being a moron were solely in reference to that article, and not necessarily a comment on him in general. Jumped the gun a bit I guess.

@Kaiser,
I guess that's good news.

mikemac

He writes what a lot of people think but don't always talk about.
Gets people talking and maybe you'll disagree strongly with him but he will get a debate going.

Few enough other journalists do this, all soft, safe, boring, bland opinions
If the goal of an opinion piece is get noticed and get people involved then Myers the master of it

It's not surprising at all a lot of boards can't stand him.

dr.bollocko

I don't agree with everything he says but then that's why he's such a divisive figure. He holds strong opinions but his style of writing is excellent.
However I got distracted by a link in the sidebar
"Sean Gallagher's secret past revealed - he was an aerobics instructor"
Feels like I'm wearing nothing at all. Stupid sexy Gallager.

discus

stovelid wrote: »

Don't really mind him. He's a superb writer. I also like the fact he's a prominent Irish journalist that put the boot into the Provos all the time, and did so from a position of actually knowing what he was talking about (having spent years covering the troubles in NI and knowing many of the people in Loyalism and Republicanism) unlike many others.

That said, as a pinko/liberal type, I don't hold with an awful lot of what he says but I actually find him more interesting to read than somebody like Vincent Browne or Fintan O'Toole even though therir views are far more congruent with mine which proves that his liberal-baiting will always have a home somewhere.

Absolutely Stovelid. He was actually a go between between various loyalist and nationalist paramiltary groups. There's a good story out there about one such meeting of two guys from opposite sides, in a hotel bar. Both of them got totally wasted, eventually falling asleep on each other... two guys who would have killed the other if they had have walked into each other on the street!

stovelid

The problem here is that many of the people on thread that are (rightly in this instance in fairness) criticizing his sloppiness in regard to that column are republicans using it to discredit anything he has ever said about the North rather than any concern for journalistic integrity. As if being anti-Republican/IRA is a form of unspeakable heresy rather than his democratic opinion.

Ironically the same people that will soon try and elect somebody to one of the highest political offices in the land who has no doubt willfully misled the media and various investigations and tribunals for well over quarter of a century.

Morlar

stovelid wrote: »

The problem here is that many of the people on thread that are (rightly in this instance in fairness) criticizing his sloppiness in regard to that column are republicans using it to discredit anything he has ever said about the North rather than any concern for journalistic integrity. As if being anti-Republican/IRA is a form of unspeakable heresy rather than his democratic opinion.

Ironically the same people that will soon try and elect somebody to one of the highest political offices in the land who has no doubt willfully misled the media and various investigations and tribunals for well over quarter of a century.

Wow that is some twist.

Meyers writes a clearly incorrect anti-republican article (one of a great many anti-republican articles he has written about ALL republicans of the 1916 era to today) and you turn it into that bias on his part into an anti-mcguinness jibe ?? ?

Neato.

stovelid

Morlar wrote: »

Wow that is some twist.

Meyers writes a clearly incorrect anti-republican article (one of a great many anti-republican articles he has written about ALL republicans of the 1916 era to today) and you turn it into that bias on his part into an anti-mcguinness jibe ?? ?

Neato.

He deserves to be criticized for sloppy research in a column, even if a column is an opinion piece, not a scientific article.

I still concur with his general views on the IRA and SF: my dislike of them (and much of his criticism that I have read down the years) is based on readily quantifiable events on public record unless you are saying he also invented the IRA participation in the Troubles on his lunch break to piss off Republicans?

Turn the tables for a minute: imagine a pro-Republican columnist was forced to recant a sloppily researched column about Bloody Sunday. Would you then discount and disagree with everything they have ever said about British Army atrocities in the North?

Or indeed if Myers had been caught sloppily researching a column on Loyalism (which he has excoriated regularly down the years), you would still say that his views and opinions on Loyalism were compromised?

I do readily concur with criticism of Myers (I find some of his article abhorrent), especially in this case but he has provided decent commentary on the North down the years - in columns and books - and not all of it has critical of republicans.

Nodin

stovelid wrote: »

The problem here is that many of the people on thread that are (rightly in this instance in fairness) criticizing his sloppiness in regard to that column are republicans using it to discredit anything he has ever said about the North rather than any concern for journalistic integrity.................

No, if we wanted to do that we'd dig up the article where he accussed one of Adams bodyguards of being involved in a double murder that was actually carried out by loyalists.

Personally my problem with Myers isn't primarily his mindless contrary attitude, his hypocritical attitude to violence, pro-imperialism or borderline (if not outright) racism, it's his fast and loose attitude towards the facts.