Should we be concerned?

IRE60

Below is a great article - again from the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/may/29/irelands-media-silenced-over-mps-speech-about-denis-obrien

I did catch TV3 last night as Ger Colleran read out the statement from TV3's management - the contemptible tone was fantastic!

But at this point - should we be concerned at, what I see anyway, as intrusion in the democratic process of free speech?

super_furry

At least they're acknowledging it and RTE Radio just had Billy Kelleher on talking about it and how the Dail should be recalled. Newstalk meanwhile haven't made a single mention of it, editorially independent my arse.

IRE60

James Morrissey, D O'B's spin doctor, is now on RTE defending this! He is the ex founder and long serving editor of the S.P.B. - now defending injunctions on the media!

Oh here we go - "DOB employs over 10,000 people in this country"

manageit

Sums up the problem with this country. A small elite control it. Well done to Catherine Murphy she has battled to bring out the truth that they want to hide. Catherine watch your back.

qweerty

IRE60 wrote: »

Below is a great article - again from the Guardian.

Again from Greenslade...

There are, ofc, questions to be asked about media plurality in Ireland, but not in this situation. If there is any blame here, it lies with Ireland's laws.

I preface this by saying that I have long been hostile to DOB: because of his dealings with regard to Digiphone and because of his propensity to sue media outlets and journalists. I don't know the rationale behind DOB's seeking an injunction, but I don't think it's necessarily controversial for him to want to keep the details of a performing loan private.

For all that I admire Catherine Murphy's crusading nature in an enragingly staid Dail, I cannot help but question her intellect. I don't trust that her analysis of DOB's affairs is free of bias.

Elmo

IRE60 wrote: »

I did catch TV3 last night as Ger Colleran read out the statement from TV3's management - the contemptible tone was fantastic!

TV3's management IRBC contemptible? More likely to have had a great relationship with IRBC.

qweerty wrote: »

For all that I admire Catherine Murphy's crusading nature in an enragingly staid Dail, I cannot help but question her intellect. I don't trust that her analysis of DOB's affairs is free of bias.

No political criticism of anyone is devoid of bias, I don't see a problem with her intellect, its unlikely that any politicans has a full grasp of banking, economics etc. If there is one politician that should be reelected it's Catherine Murphy. I am sure she takes advice from others in the technical group that are more au fait on business, but even their advice would come with political baggage. Shane Ross comes from Fine Geal as She Comes from Labour (... well The Worker's Party not sure if she joined DL or LP).

qweerty

Elmo wrote: »

No political criticism of anyone is devoid of bias.

Indeed not. In the same way that no judge is free of bias. But we generally trust that they make unbiased decisions. I think it's obvious that I meant in this situation that I did not trust that Murphy had strived to be unbiased.

I don't think it would be right to comment further in this forum.

Elmo

qweerty wrote: »

Indeed not. In the same way that no judge is free of bias. But we generally trust that they make unbiased decisions. I think it's obvious that I meant in this situation that I did not trust that Murphy had strived to be unbiased.

I don't think it would be right to comment further in this forum.

But she's not a judge she's a politician and she will like all politicans use her position to promote her political ideals, many of which many of us (in general) may not agree with. The problem with scrutinizing her position (on this issue) is DoB's interest rate and loans and all of the other baggage he has, and the muzzle he and his lawyers have put on the Irish Media.

In away all she is asking for is an investigation that would avoid political bias.

IRE60

Umm, what's this:
"I don't think it would be right to comment further in this forum"
Why not? There is no gobbing off here - the links to all the State sites, with the actual information are here, within this site- and all over the net.

qweerty

IRE60 wrote: »

Umm, what's this:
"I don't think it would be right to comment further in this forum"
Why not? There is no gobbing off here - the links to all the State sites, with the actual information are here, within this site- and all over the net.

Because this is the media forum, not politics.

IRE60

qweerty wrote: »

Because this is the media forum, not politics.

This story is primarily about media and a media owner.

But in this case its impossible to detach media and politics - the genesis of the story was that DOB was mentioned, in privilege, in the Dail and he injunctive most of the media reporting in what was said, about him, in the Dail!

So, the argument for taking your ball and going home because the story has shifted to politics in a media forum - nada - doesn't hold water.

Elmo

Alan Dukes seems to be on the same page. Though not that a former leader of FG would be in anyway Bias try to protect his own good name.

qweerty

IRE60 wrote: »

This story is primarily about media and a media owner.

But in this case its impossible to detach media and politics - the genesis of the story was that DOB was mentioned, in privilege, in the Dail and he injunctive most of the media reporting in what was said, about him, in the Dail!

So, the argument for taking your ball and going home because the story has shifted to politics in a media forum - nada - doesn't hold water.

A discussion, as my interchange with Elmo was becoming, the intellectual credibility of a TD patently doesn't belong in this forum.

I have left my ball, in the shape of my arguments. You can continue to play!

Elmo

qweerty wrote: »

A discussion, as my interchange with Elmo was becoming, the intellectual credibility of a TD patently doesn't belong in this forum.

I have left my ball, in the shape of my arguments. You can continue to play!

The intellect question of any TD was left behind in follow up posts about bias (by both myself and yourself), when the discussion became about bias/opinions. And the use of privilege to promote such political bias.

qweerty

Elmo wrote: »

The intellect question of any TD was left behind in follow up posts about bias (by both myself and yourself), when the discussion became about bias/opinions. And the use of privilege to promote such political bias.

Elmo, your intellect is now in question if that is your reading of the discussion - that Murphy's intellect became irrelevant.

Elmo

qweerty wrote: »

Elmo, your intellect is now in question if that is your reading of the discussion - that Murphy's intellect became irrelevant.

I don't think it's appropriate to talk about someone's intellect in any forum.

My reading is you said something about intellect, I responded by saying I don't see a problem with her intellect saying that she possible gets some support from others with knowledge of banking etc. And I moved on to bias. You discussed bias only in your following post about Judges.

To which I respond by saying politicians aren't judges and will use what they say to support their political agenda. Which has nothing to do with intellect.

Should we be concerned when a politician puts information into the public domain?

Anyway don't worry a judge will make a decision on Catherine Murphy's intellect on Tuesday. Though I am guessing Dublin accents don't deserve intellect.

Back on so called topic: -

Why would anyone steal and forge documents? Surely you'd just forge them.

qweerty

Elmo wrote: »

I don't think it's appropriate to talk about someone's intellect in any forum.

My reading is you said something about intellect, I responded by saying I don't see a problem with her intellect saying that she possible gets some support from others with knowledge of banking etc. And I moved on to bias. You discussed bias only in your following post about Judges.

To which I respond by saying politicians aren't judges and will use what they say to support their political agenda. Which has nothing to do with intellect.

Should we be concerned when a politician puts information into the public domain?

Anyway don't worry a judge will make a decision on Catherine Murphy's intellect on Tuesday. Though I am guessing Dublin accents don't deserve intellect.

Back on so called topic: -

Why would anyone steal and forge documents? Surely you'd just forge them.

But any time someone's capacity to do an intellectual task is questioned, so to, implicitly, is their intellect. Ofc it can be appropriate.

I used the judiciary as an exemplar of where personal bias is overcome or mitigated. I did not equate a politician with a judge.

The High Court will not be doing as you say. It will be clarifying a conflict between court decision and constitution created (not necessarily unjustifiably) by Catherine Murphy.

Elmo

qweerty wrote: »

But any time someone's capacity to do an intellectual task is questioned, so to, implicitly, is their intellect. Ofc it can be appropriate.

I used the judiciary as an exemplar of where personal bias is overcome or mitigated. I did not equate a politician with a judge.

The High Court will not be doing as you say. It will be clarifying a conflict between court decision and constitution created (not necessarily unjustifiably) by Catherine Murphy.

You asked if Catherine Murphy had tried be unbiased, as this is what you would expect. I was just pointing out that no politician strives to be unbiased.

I think it's obvious that I meant in this situation that I did not trust that Murphy had strived to be unbiased.

If you had been given information as Catherine Murphy had been given and you believed it to be correct would you have made the statement. Here she is as the Whip of the TG, do you believe that she did not discuss her statement with the TG?

Do you beleive that Alan Duke's has provided enough evidence to say that she was given incorrect information and that she acted in the heat of the moment and that he has nothing to protect?

Do you honestly think that someone would go about stealing something and then forging something? And if so what would their motive be?

Should we be concerned when what is said in the Dail weather factually correct or incorrect should not be allowed in the Press.

Is there anything wrong with saying: In the Dail today Catherine Murphy alleged that

[redacted]

gave

[redacted]

and

[redacted]

rate of interest, however

[redacted]

has denied this.

qweerty

Elmo wrote: »

You asked if Catherine Murphy had tried be unbiased, as this is what you would expect. I was just pointing out that no politician strives to be unbiased.

If you had been given information as Catherine Murphy had been given and you believed it to be correct would you have made the statement. Here she is as the Whip of the TG, do you believe that she did not discuss her statement with the TG?

Do you beleive that Alan Duke's has provided enough evidence to say that she was given incorrect information and that she acted in the heat of the moment and that he has nothing to protect?

Do you honestly think that someone would go about stealing something and then forging something? And if so what would their motive be?

Should we be concerned when what is said in the Dail weather factually correct or incorrect should not be allowed in the Press.

Is there anything wrong with saying: In the Dail today Catherine Murphy alleged that

[redacted]

gave

[redacted]

and

[redacted]

rate of interest, however

[redacted]

has denied this.

That is a discussion that I contend does not belong on this forum. Therefore, I don't wish to be involved in it.

As for the question about whether we should be concerned, it is my belief that we absolutely should be. But, for all his contemptible faults, I believe the press and the laws created by the legislature, not DOB, are too blame.

Elmo

qweerty wrote: »

That is a discussion that I contend does not belong on this forum. Therefore, I don't wish to be involved in it.

As for the question about whether we should be concerned, it is my belief that we absolutely should be. But, for all his contemptible faults, I believe the press and the laws created by the legislature, not DOB, are too blame.

The thread questions should we be concerned?

You're now placing the blame on politicians and the political establishment and legislators (surely even in the Media thread this is up for discussion).

Can we not be unbiased in our view of politicians in the media forum without it becoming politicized?

Do you believe that the member's of the Dail should not have this privileged? Should we remove it from the constitution? or do you think it is wrong of the press not to publish the allegations as outlined by a TD, because of a court ruling?

I don't see why RTÉ and The Irish Times cannot publish what was said in the Dail.

DoB's legal team should then argue that they should not publish the comments made in the Dail due to the previous injunction.

It should be up to the judge to decided and not DoB's Legal Team's reading of the injunction. And until the judge can hear DoB's Legal Team the press is within their constitutional right to report on Dail proceedings.

Elmo

Elmo wrote: »

I don't see why RTÉ and The Irish Times cannot publish what was said in the Dail.

DoB's legal team should then argue that they should not publish the comments made in the Dail due to the previous injunction.

It should be up to the judge to decided and not DoB's Legal Team's reading of the injunction. And until the judge can hear DoB's Legal Team the press is within their constitutional right to report on Dail proceedings.

Interesting to read that Micheal McDowell former AG & MoJ agrees with me on this. And I wouldn't have been a PD voter.

expectationlost

coincidentally the media merger guideline to be brought to cabinet wednesday http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/media-mergers-guidelines-will-not-be-retrospective-1.2233834 people calling them too late and vague

IRE60

We will know at 11:00 - or thereafter - if William Fry were indeed correct contacting to the various media, or indeed the various media taking their own stance/view on the injunction. Courts services have said that the matter could be dealt with this morning.

SpaceTime

It's a very worrying precedent that's potentially being set here by this.

We will fully deserve to be knocked down all the indices ranking press freedom and democracy for this.

Our freedom of speech laws are completely circumscribed by some of the world's most draconian libel laws.

The irony is that by taking the injunction [redacted] turned it into a major, highly visible, international story bring reported heavily in the British and other media because it's about press freedom and democracy now as well as whatever it is that we're not allowed to see, but that we've all seen anyway...

This stuff is worthy of a comical authoritarian state!
Court orders preventing publication of things that we already know and trying to silence politicians who dare to challenge the establishment.

My confidence in this country's future just took a major blow because of this.

IRE60

I've somewhat changed my tack on this - after some reading over the weekend. The injunction was granted on May 21st against RTE. On May 28th Murphy made her statement in the Dail - it was then, supposedly, that the legal team, working on behalf of of DOB, contacted "some" media organisations to inform them that publication 'breaches the terms of the high court injunction".

At this point it's unclear how many media were contacted. But it also strikes me that some media outlets took their own decision, not prompted by an exchange for DOB's people, not to publish.

If that's that case then the suppression of free speech is a self imposed one.

They should use the morning to mop up the sh1t running down the side of their legs and perhaps look for an other industry to occupy.

SpaceTime

It's only self imposed because they've a serious fear of being sued.

RTÉ is hardly short of legal advisors yet they're clearly terrified of the costs involved should they lose a case.

That's very definitely chilling freedom of the media to report.

They were very quick to cave in on the PantiGate issues too though. I'm seeing a bit of a pattern developing.

I thought they are usually pretty substantially insured against successful liable claims anyway?!

IRE60

I agree. And it would seem that the fear factor extends across the sea. The Guardian have released the statement online and taken the view 'look what we can publish and you cant' - coz we are not bound by the supposed injunction. However

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/may/29/irelands-media-silenced-over-mps-speech-about-denis-obrien#comments

you will note that 22 comments were posted - yet none available! and no comment facility on the other DOB stories!

Gloomtastic!

expectationlost wrote: »

coincidentally the media merger guideline to be brought to cabinet wednesday http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/media-mergers-guidelines-will-not-be-retrospective-1.2233834 people calling them too late and vague

Surely if this whole farce has taught us anything it's that this bill SHOULD be retrospective.

"This was an issue that was raised when the draft guidelines came out. They are not going to be retrospective is the short answer. It’s unrealistic to unpick what already exists,” a Government source said.

There would be no shortage of buyers, why is it unrealistic?

qweerty

IRE60 wrote: »

I've somewhat changed my tack on this - after some reading over the weekend. The injunction was granted on May 21st against RTE. On May 28th Murphy made her statement in the Dail - it was then, supposedly, that the legal team, working on behalf of of DOB, contacted "some" media organisations to inform them that publication 'breaches the terms of the high court injunction".

At this point it's unclear how many media were contacted. But it also strikes me that some media outlets took their own decision, not prompted by an exchange for DOB's people, not to publish.

If that's that case then the suppression of free speech is a self imposed one.

They should use the morning to mop up the sh1t running down the side of their legs and perhaps look for an other industry to occupy.

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's only self imposed because they've a serious fear of being sued.

RTÉ is hardly short of legal advisors yet they're clearly terrified of the costs involved should they lose a case.

That's very definitely chilling freedom of the media to report.

They were very quick to cave in on the PantiGate issues too though. I'm seeing a bit of a pattern developing.

I thought they are usually pretty substantially insured against successful liable claims anyway?!

I'm not saying I told you so, but the above was my position earlier in the thread: that it seems quite likely that various media outlets are being conservative and that, because media outlets shouldn't have to risk significant financial damage when they publish an article in good faith, the various laws are also at fault.

My doubts about Catherine Murphy were separate to the seriousness of the constitutional crisis.

IRE60

This is becoming farcical

From Irish Times up now:

In court, Michael Cush SC for Mr O’Brien said the media outlets should be allowed to report the comments and he asked the court to vary order to reflect that.

But then - what's this then

http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-01-at-11.06.32.png

expectationlost

do you reckon the Sunday Times published it because it had a few days to consider their position or because it is a UK based publication? Their reporter Mark Tighe was in court when the judge told not to publish what RTE was going to publish. ( and he said they didn't publish what RTE were told not to publish)

IRE60

Before we open a particular door:

The Sunday Times is compiled/published/printed and distributed in the Republic and therefore is subject to the same rigors that the rest of the media here were. They are not "UK based" they are based in Kevin Street (and I think via a RoI registered company).

So, the distinguishing feature between the ST and they rest of the Irish Media - bar RTE which was in a bit of a pickle on the injunction - was a set of balls and a strength of conviction that justice would prevail.

They reported in the Dail comments and not the RTE documentary information read out in court and redacted the following court session.

qweerty

IRE60 wrote: »

Before we open a particular door:

The Sunday Times is compiled/published/printed and distributed in the Republic and therefore is subject to the same rigors that the rest of the media here were. They are not "UK based" they are based in Kevin Street (and I think via a RoI registered company).

So, the distinguishing feature between the ST and they rest of the Irish Media - bar RTE which was in a bit of a pickle on the injunction - was a set of balls and a strength of conviction that justice would prevail.

They reported in the Dail comments and not the RTE documentary information read out in court and redacted the following court session.

And even if it weren't Ireland-based, it need only be published here to be subject to Irish law.

I would guess there are three factors at play: 1) they had more time to consider and all commentary over weekend was indicating that the courts Would clarify favourably, 2) ST is backed up by News International finance, and 3) British media outlets have an ethos of vigorously asserting their freedom to publish. If the situation had arisen in the UK, one can imagine all the media outlets having agreed amongst themselves to publish and be damned. While the ST Ireland has an Irish editor and staff, I would guess that some of that ethos motivated the decision to publish.

Seems to have gone unnoticed that Village magazine published the details online last week. Theirs was the most courageous, IMO. Broadsheet.ie had little to lose.

expectationlost

qweerty wrote: »

And even if it weren't Ireland-based, it need only be published here to be subject to Irish law.

Seems to have gone unnoticed that Village magazine published the details online last week. Theirs was the most courageous, IMO. Broadsheet.ie had little to lose.

the village never got contacted about it though, I don't know how many more cases the village could lose

expectationlost

IRE60 wrote: »

Before we open a particular door:

The Sunday Times is compiled/published/printed and distributed in the Republic and therefore is subject to the same rigors that the rest of the media here were. They are not "UK based" they are based in Kevin Street (and I think via a RoI registered company).

So, the distinguishing feature between the ST and they rest of the Irish Media - bar RTE which was in a bit of a pickle on the injunction - was a set of balls and a strength of conviction that justice would prevail.

They reported in the Dail comments and not the RTE documentary information read out in court and redacted the following court session.

if the Sunday Times were't UK based I'd be able to read the Irish Sunday Times online on its own website but I can't.

IRE60

expectationlost wrote: »

if the Sunday Times were't UK based I'd be able to read the Irish Sunday Times online on its own website but I can't.

The ST is not based in the UK and the reason you cannot see their on-line offering is because they are behind a paywall and you don't subscribe

expectationlost

IRE60 wrote: »

The ST is not based in the UK and the reason you cannot see their on-line offering is because they are behind a paywall and you don't subscribe

I do subscribe, and I did subscribe and their Irish articles were haphazardly published on st.co.uk.

IRE60

Apols - I understand now - I though that the remake of the "Irish Tablet" version was meant to ensure that Irish content was visible.

expectationlost

IRE60 wrote: »

Apols - I understand now - I though that the remake of the "Irish Tablet" version was meant to ensure that Irish content was visible.

If they weren't UK based they would offer their own paper own their own website but they don't, the Irish version is available (in unsearchable pdf format) and now I have my brother tablets in the house I can finally get the full paper, I was actually subscribed twice for a while because I wanted to read whatever articles they did haphazardly put up on the web.

IRE60

BTW - whats the subscription price - tablet?