primetime last night (sunday 30/03)

arayess

MODS - I want this to be a general discussion on Garda/RTE behaviour and not on a particular case.

Last night there was a decent prime-time piece on the investigation into the recently concluded murder case (you know the one we aren't allowed discuss ).


My issue is not with that particular case - so please don't ruin it by discussing that guy or his escapades.

However it was fairly in-depth and featured a lot amount of access to the Gardai. With interviews ,evidence, comment and drives in garda jeeps.
This takes some time to put together and clearly was made before last Fridays verdict.

My question is this , in general : should garda (or any agents of the state) be doing these shows in advance of the verdict (any verdict) .

Should they not be impartial and only comment after the trial?

Or was it Ok as it wasn't broadcast till after the trial?

Personally I think these pieces should made in advance of the trial and the Gardai and RTE dropped the ball. I can't put my finger on it but I feel some sort of civil liberties are being impinged here.

What say you?

SEPT 23 1989

I have never seen any other case that had access like that

stmol32

Programs that are about the Garda investigation can be made ahead of time because regardless of the verdict the investigation is already done.

The verdict will not change the course the investigation took, it is just the conclusion.
Obviously you shouldn't broadcast programmes like these before the verdict but making them ahead of time seems harmless to me.

Montroseee

There was always quite a high chance of a not guilty verdict, which may have influenced certain things.

Ash.J.Williams

stmol32 wrote: »

Programs that are about the Garda investigation can be made ahead of time because regardless of the verdict the investigation is already done.

The verdict will not change the course the investigation took, it is just the conclusion.
Obviously you shouldn't broadcast programmes like these before the verdict but making them ahead of time seems harmless to me.

It's also the state broadcaster, i doubt you can trust a commercial station with all that data, before the verdict.

murpho999

stmol32 wrote: »

Programs that are about the Garda investigation can be made ahead of time because regardless of the verdict the investigation is already done.

The verdict will not change the course the investigation took, it is just the conclusion.
Obviously you shouldn't broadcast programmes like these before the verdict but making them ahead of time seems harmless to me.

Don't agree as evidence could that will be presented in court could be leaked before a trial.

For example a cameraman could tell a friend what he has learnt and it snowballs from there and the case becomes prejudiced.

buck65

I feel sorry for the victims families in succh cases, having their lives taken apart in detail in front of the cameras/print media is a disgrace.

Imagine being a parent listening to all that and knowing the world knows about the private life of your child in such detail.

Should have been in camera.

tayto lover

RTE has far too much access to Garda investigations.
Far too cozy with the senior Garda in my opinion.

Boom_Bap

MOD - I've deleted a few posts.

Stop talking about the court case or the reason why boards wont allow talk about the case.

Anyone talking about the case from this point on is getting carded.

Red Alert

I'm very concerned about RTE having any sort of "advance" access to the criminal justice system. It's not long since they broadcast untrue allegations as fact about a man (who I'm not naming because saying his name in my opinion tarnishes his reputation all over again), attempted to broadcast a thin and non-meaningful apology and then tried their best not to sack the journalists involved. What is even more sickening is that these same journalists have been employed by other media organisations cheerleading their cause.

Lord Trollington

I'd like to know why the case cannot be discussed on here despite the fact that there was wall to wall coverage in all papers both tabloids and broadsheets over the weekend and also a Prime Time show last night.

Not to mention a book about the case going to be released onto book shelves by Niamh O'Connor soon about the entire case.

He's been convicted and is awaiting sentencing.

edit - only seeing mod post now

mynamejeff

arayess wrote: »

MODS - I want this to be a general discussion on Garda/RTE behaviour and not on a particular case.

Last night there was a decent prime-time piece on the investigation into the recently concluded murder case (you know the one we aren't allowed discuss ).


My issue is not with that particular case - so please don't ruin it by discussing that guy or his escapades.

However it was fairly in-depth and featured a lot amount of access to the Gardai. With interviews ,evidence, comment and drives in garda jeeps.
This takes some time to put together and clearly was made before last Fridays verdict.

My question is this , in general : should garda (or any agents of the state) be doing these shows in advance of the verdict (any verdict) .

Should they not be impartial and only comment after the trial?

Or was it Ok as it wasn't broadcast till after the trial?

Personally I think these pieces should made in advance of the trial and the Gardai and RTE dropped the ball. I can't put my finger on it but I feel some sort of civil liberties are being impinged here.

What say you?

Your sort of all over the place there ?
how could the programs be made before the trial ? no garda or solicitor should speak on the reocrd to a reporter about a case still before the case. a garda can and would be sacked and possibly jailed for it , solicitor too.
the idea idea of making programs about murders and criminals is fairly lowbrow anyway tbh . why should one murdering scumbag get more attention than another based on what some money hungry journo writes?

you dont even seem to know what your offended about here.

one recent case seems to have resulted in the gardai talking to media more than usual , might be a new idea in order to cut down on the misunderstanding of the general public about the justice system. might be a good thing might be a bad thing.
so far it seems to have created mostly positive PR for the poo poo

Turtwig

Call me cynical but I suspect a major reason the Gardai took in part in such a documentary is because of how ****ty press coverage in general of them has been of late. With the whistleblowers scandals, ombudsman bugging, Ian Bailey trial, they're in need of some positive PR. Hugely publicised criminal case nicely fits that bill.

Yeah, I know, it's cynical. Hopefully, I'm way off the mark.

Dravokivich

I was quite unhappy with how that show was presented overall.

<snip>Did you not see the warning not a few posts back that said this:

Anyone talking about the case from this point on is getting carded.

</snip>

Is this really what prime time has been brought down to?

Such things on CI aren't done like that at all. Whoever produced it was way out of their depth.

mynamejeff

Turtwig wrote: »

Call me cynical but I suspect a major reason the Gardai took in part in such a documentary is because of how ****ty press coverage in general of them has been of late. With the whistleblowers scandals, ombudsman bugging, Ian Bailey trial, they're in need of some positive PR. Hugely publicised criminal case nicely fits that bill.

Yeah, I know, it's cynical. Hopefully, I'm way off the mark.

here here i agree 100%

arayess

mynamejeff wrote: »

[/B]


Your sort of all over the place there ?
how could the programs be made before the trial ? no garda or solicitor should speak on the reocrd to a reporter about a case still before the case. a garda can and would be sacked and possibly jailed for it , solicitor too.
the idea idea of making programs about murders and criminals is fairly lowbrow anyway tbh . why should one murdering scumbag get more attention than another based on what some money hungry journo writes?

you dont even seem to know what your offended about here.

one recent case seems to have resulted in the gardai talking to media more than usual , might be a new idea in order to cut down on the misunderstanding of the general public about the justice system. might be a good thing might be a bad thing.
so far it seems to have created mostly positive PR for the poo poo

I don't get you .
this particular subject matter had a verdict on friday - RTE aired the program last night. It was not made in 1 and half days including interviews etc.. that madness to think it was.

I do know what i'm offended by - I'm offended by what i perceive of somebody not getting a fair trial and the possibility of an appeal based on gardai and other agents of the state making opinions known to the media prior to the conclusion of a case.

By all means make the program - it was a good program too - AFTER the event not before or during which was clearly the case with prime time.

Hope that clears that for you.

MrWalsh

mynamejeff wrote: »

[/B]
so far it seems to have created mostly positive PR for the poo poo

^^ Can you speak english please?

What in the name of blazes is "the poo poo"?

mynamejeff

Bear in mind i didnt watch the program but was there reaction and stuff like that ?
seems like that couldn't be done till after a jury came back .

O dont think its unreasonable to put together a show between friday afternoon and sunday night , the quality from rte isnt exactly tippy top after all

mynamejeff

MrWalsh wrote: »

^^ Can you speak english please?

What in the name of blazes is "the poo poo"?

your obviously not familiar with gangsta rap my cultured friend :rolleyes:

MrWalsh

mynamejeff wrote: »

your obviously not familiar with gangsta rap my cultured friend :rolleyes:

Im not. I thought it was some kind of childrens talk (i dont have kids either).

Im still none the wiser.

PandaPoo

mynamejeff wrote: »

your obviously not familiar with gangsta rap my cultured friend :rolleyes:

Neither are you, do you mean popo?

Canis Lupus

mynamejeff wrote: »

your obviously not familiar with gangsta rap my cultured friend :rolleyes:

Are they gangstas with posh English accents?

Neyite

Turtwig wrote: »

Call me cynical but I suspect a major reason the Gardai took in part in such a documentary is because of how ****ty press coverage in general of them has been of late. With the whistleblowers scandals, ombudsman bugging, Ian Bailey trial, they're in need of some positive PR. Hugely publicised criminal case nicely fits that bill.

Yeah, I know, it's cynical. Hopefully, I'm way off the mark.

That was my view too. A bit of good PR for them to divert attention away from the stuff they'd rather the media don't focus on.

Menas

Neyite wrote: »

That was my view too. A bit of good PR for them to divert attention away from the stuff they'd rather the media don't focus on.

I dont think it was designed to divert attention, more to balance the wheel a little.

Just my opinion, but the good work that many Gardai do does get lost in all the bad press etc.

So it is nice to see that there are many of them still doing a great job. And that is what this case has shown, that some individual Gardai, the the serious crimes dept in one particular station, have really done a great job.

wendell borton

I thought it was a decent summary of the evidence without any sensationalism, tv3 also had a similar show Saturday night.
It was all on the public record before screening nothing underhand about it.

The work of the uniformed garda that went investigating it in his spare time was impressive, without it there would have been no case.

arayess

wendell borton wrote: »

I thought it was a decent summary of the evidence without any sensationalism, tv3 also had a similar show Saturday night.
It was all on the public record before screening nothing underhand about it.

The work of the uniformed garda that went investigating it in his spare time was impressive, without it there would have been no case.

ok but all from a point where the man was guilty and definitely filmed before the verdict.
Does nobody see an issue with this?

Wacker The Attacker

I hate to appear paranoid here but is this an attempt to negate the negativity of the Ian Bailey case.

seamus

The media would have been well in possession of a lot of the facts of this case well in advance of the trial and during the trial. So the vast bulk of this (i.e. anything that's not an interview) could have been shot over the last 6 weeks. Even plenty of the interview pieces would in isolation be fine, as so much of story was already in public before the trial.

They could easily then have finished the rest of the interviews (the ones with senior Gardai) in the last week or so, while the jury was deliberating but after evidence was finished. At that stage there is no risk of any leaks. If you watch it again, you'll see just how much of the material didn't need to wait for the trial to finish. Even listening to the narration, it sounds like some of it was recorded early and then people's names were dubbed in later on.

You write a couple of rough drafts of it, which attempt to cover whatever verdict is reached, and record any narration which doesn't change between the two versions. Once the verdict comes out, you begin working on the final cut of your material and record your missing narration. If the verdict had been not guilty, last night's documentary would have been basically the same except with some different questions.

It was quite clear from the amount of material dropped by the media on Friday evening and Saturday morning that they've had this stored up for weeks in anticipation of whatever verdict.

ok but all from a point where the man was guilty and definitely filmed before the verdict.
Does nobody see an issue with this?

You'd be amazed the difference a good editor can make to the tone/implication of any piece of film if they have 48 hours to edit it. Even some of the stuff people put online where they recut notoriously happy movies to have a dark undercurrent (or vice-versa).

Dyr

Turtwig wrote: »

Call me cynical but I suspect a major reason the Gardai took in part in such a documentary is because of how ****ty press coverage in general of them has been of late. With the whistleblowers scandals, ombudsman bugging, Ian Bailey trial, they're in need of some positive PR. Hugely publicised criminal case nicely fits that bill.

Yeah, I know, it's cynical. Hopefully, I'm way off the mark.

Why do you think they were holding press conferences patting themselves on the back as soon as the jury sent yer man down?

Little bit of good PR in a sea of ****e

mzungu

Turtwig wrote: »

Call me cynical but I suspect a major reason the Gardai took in part in such a documentary is because of how ****ty press coverage in general of them has been of late. With the whistleblowers scandals, ombudsman bugging, Ian Bailey trial, they're in need of some positive PR. Hugely publicised criminal case nicely fits that bill.

Yeah, I know, it's cynical. Hopefully, I'm way off the mark.

A wee bit cynical, but understandable in light of the ongoing cases you mentioned. I must say though, the Gardai and investgation teams do deserve the praise in this instance, a mammoth effort by all accounts.