RTÉ whistleblower makes explosive 'insider' claims about election coverage

Seth Brundle

Not sure what the purpose of coming clean now is but this could get interesting...

A whistleblower claiming to be a senior and long-serving RTE employee has contacted 11 members of the Oireachtas with explosive new claims about the broadcaster’s coverage of the 2011 Presidential election.
...
The whistleblower claimed to have had a major role in the election coverage and maintained that Sean Gallagher, David Norris and Martin McGuinness did not get fair coverage during the campaign in comparison to the ultimate winner, Michael D Higgins.

The whistleblower said issues around election coverage extended beyond the controversy surrounding the final RTE Frontline televised debate hosted by Pat Kenny.

(I wonder if it's the same whistleblower as before)

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/rt-whistleblower-makes-explosive-insider-claims-about-election-coverage-37297374.html

Hurrache

It's not very explosive is it?

Rhineshark

Why now in the next election though? The timing just smacks a bit of convenience, unless s/he was always going to wait out the term.

I dunno, after two years I'm seeing Tories in the hedgerows. (Tory-like critters that is, not actual Tories). If RTE were up to shenanigans, it does need to be dealt with, - but it should have been dealt with five years ago.

Benefits: Gallagher maybe
Definitely works against: Higgins, RTE.

realdanbreen

Rhineshark wrote: »

Why now in the next election though? The timing just smacks a bit of convenience, unless s/he was always going to wait out the term.

I dunno, after two years I'm seeing Tories in the hedgerows. (Tory-like critters that is, not actual Tories). If RTE were up to shenanigans, it does need to be dealt with, - but it should have been dealt with five years ago.

Benefits: Gallagher maybe
Definitely works against: Higgins, RTE.

What's a 'tory like critter' ?

Dick Pickle

Hurrache wrote: »

It's not very explosive is it?

Not very tbh

lawred2

How do they measure fair coverage?

jmcc

lawred2 wrote: »

How do they measure fair coverage?

RTE? One candidate getting loads of questions from a rigged audience and RTE's own candidate getting none? The whistleblower has given TDs RTE e-mails, reports and notes and minutes of meetings. One of the TDs is supposed to be bringing this to the attention of the Minister for Communications. If any of this gets out and specifically details a pro-Higgins operation from RTE, then things could go very badly for Higgins and RTE. Not sure whether Gallagher would benefit directly. Worst case, such a release may cause a lot of problems for Higgins by tainting his election in 2011. Hasn't made the news on the RTE website yet for some reason.

Regards...jmcc

lawred2

jmcc wrote: »

RTE? One candidate getting loads of questions from a rigged audience and RTE's own candidate getting none?

Regards...jmcc

so more a case of unfair treatment then

fair coverage sounds like length of time given to answer questions or something

jmcc

lawred2 wrote: »

so more a case of unfair treatment then

fair coverage sounds like length of time given to answer questions or something

Higgins was hobbling around after injuring his knee during the 2011 election. He also had a serious tremour in one of his hands. RTE concentrated on static shots and studio shots. Higgins, if you look at coverage from the election, started to appear with his hands folded when being interviewed. The RTE interviewers never posed any hard questions to Higgins but the other candidates did get hard questions and repeatedly so. The health issue would have been brought up immediately if RTE's coverage had been balanced. The "one term only" thing did seem to be a rather cynical move by the Higgins campaign to defuse some of this kind of questioning.

It will certainly be interesting to see if any of the material given to TDs will be put in the public domain. What happens next could have a major impact on the campaign. If the Minister for Communications decides that an investigation is necessary, then that could put the race wide open. If there's an attempt to kick this to touch for the duration of the election and the material starts getting leaked/published and is adverse to RTE, then it would be far worse.

Regards...jmcc

lawred2

jmcc wrote: »

Higgins was hobbling around after injuring his knee during the 2011 election. He also had a serious tremour in one of his hands. RTE concentrated on static shots and studio shots. Higgins, if you look at coverage from the election, started to appear with his hands folded when being interviewed. The RTE interviewers never posed any hard questions to Higgins but the other candidates did get hard questions and repeatedly so. The health issue would have been brought up immediately if RTE's coverage had been balanced. The "one term only" thing did seem to be a rather cynical move by the Higgins campaign to defuse some of this kind of questioning.

It will certainly be interesting to see if any of the material given to TDs will be put in the public domain. What happens next could have a major impact on the campaign. If the Minister for Communications decides that an investigation is necessary, then that could put the race wide open. If there's an attempt to kick this to touch for the duration of the election and the material starts getting leaked/published and is adverse to RTE, then it would be far worse.

Regards...jmcc

well here we are almost seven years later and the President seems to be in good health..

He seems to have weathered the term in office quite well and I can't remember off the top of my head him failing to perform official duties for health issues at any stage...

so maybe not the worst thing in the world that an elderly man wasn't asked to explain why he was so old..

seamus

I'd reserve judgement on this alleged whistleblower tbh.

Nothing in any reports so far provides any real credibility for it, except the alleged existence of internal documents.

jmcc above, presumably does not work for RTE, but is able to put together a small catalogue of alleged biases that RTE showed towards Higgins. So in the same manner, anyone with a bit of an axe to grind or on the payroll of one of the dirtier candidates could easily put together a "portfolio" of allegations against RTE, based 100% on public knowledge and rumour, and zero "insider" information.

Nothing in what's so far reported indicates anything "new", merely a re-statement of the BAI's findings against RTE.

Convenient timing. RTE has always been beset by political interference, I wonder has someone been asking this whistleblower to sit on his hands until an "appropriate" moment?

blanch152

seamus wrote: »

I'd reserve judgement on this alleged whistleblower tbh.

Nothing in any reports so far provides any real credibility for it, except the alleged existence of internal documents.

jmcc above, presumably does not work for RTE, but is able to put together a small catalogue of alleged biases that RTE showed towards Higgins. So in the same manner, anyone with a bit of an axe to grind or on the payroll of one of the dirtier candidates could easily put together a "portfolio" of allegations against RTE, based 100% on public knowledge and rumour, and zero "insider" information.

Nothing in what's so far reported indicates anything "new", merely a re-statement of the BAI's findings against RTE.

Convenient timing. RTE has always been beset by political interference, I wonder has someone been asking this whistleblower to sit on his hands until an "appropriate" moment?

Without the internal documents, it could read like sour grapes.

However, if there are internal documents that show editorial decisions, such as no questions about health, or static photographs etc., then the accusations of bias may well have foundation.

It is not surprising that something like this has come out. Too many people in the past have focussed on media ownership such as Denis O'Brien's while ignoring the real editorial power that producers, directors and presenters have in places like RTE and Newstalk which gives them much more ability to deliver a biased perspective.

jmcc

seamus wrote: »

Convenient timing. RTE has always been beset by political interference, I wonder has someone been asking this whistleblower to sit on his hands until an "appropriate" moment?

It may have escaped your notice but there is a presidential election in progress.

Regards...jmcc

seamus

jmcc wrote: »

It may have escaped your notice but there is a presidential election in progress.

Regards...jmcc

Maybe my sarcasm isn't obvious enough.

This whistleblower has been hmming and hawing over this since 2011, and coincidentally has decided that now is the time to clear his conscience, because...oh look, it's made the national headlines!

It stink to high heavens of dirty tricks tactics rather than a genuine "concerned 3rd party".

jmcc

seamus wrote: »

Maybe my sarcasm isn't obvious enough.

This is Boards.ie. It can be hard to tell.

This whistleblower has been hmming and hawing over this since 2011, and coincidentally has decided that now is the time to clear his conscience, because...oh look, it's made the national headlines!

Contacted TDs and the Indo. There were apparently two whistleblowers.

It stink to high heavens of dirty tricks tactics rather than a genuine "concerned 3rd party".

That's your opinion and one without seeing any of the evidence.

Regards...jmcc

blanch152

seamus wrote: »

Maybe my sarcasm isn't obvious enough.

This whistleblower has been hmming and hawing over this since 2011, and coincidentally has decided that now is the time to clear his conscience, because...oh look, it's made the national headlines!

It stink to high heavens of dirty tricks tactics rather than a genuine "concerned 3rd party".

There is an element of dirty tricks tactics or personal interest to every whistleblower - there is usually someone they want to get back at - and there is an element of genuine concern about every whistleblower as well.

No whistleblower is 100% motivated by either personal interest or genuine concern, there is a mix of both. Figuring out that balance within each whistleblowing occurence is a difficult task.

Rhineshark

realdanbreen wrote: »

What's a 'tory like critter' ?

Akin to a Tory, which right at the moment means "probably up to something". So what I'm saying there is that I find the timing a little suspicious and am wondering if it's connected to two candidates from that election running again, but after two years of watching the Tories up to shenanigans I may be being paranoid.

ArmaniJeanss

jmcc wrote: »

The RTE interviewers never posed any hard questions to Higgins but the other candidates did get hard questions and repeatedly so. The health issue would have been brought up immediately if RTE's coverage had been balanced.

Is candidate health ever actually brought up as an issue?
In elections here (EU and GE) we've had TV debates with blind candidates, paraplegic candidates, candidates with extreme stutters, major facial birthmarks/burns, being treated for cancer etc, and I don't recall RTE ever raising it as something which could affect the candidates ability to do the job if elected, or as something which needed to be explained/defended by them.

So it doesn't seem 'unbalanced' that MDH was also not asked these questions.

jmcc

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Is candidate health ever actually brought up as an issue?

If a candidate is old and appears to have health issues, then these would be fair questions. The presidency is a seven year job.

I don't recall RTE ever raising it as something which could affect the candidates ability to do the job if elected, or as something which needed to be explained/defended by them.

TV3 did highlight Brian Lenihan's terminal illness.

So it doesn't seem 'unbalanced' that MDH was also not asked these questions.

There's much more to the balanced coverage problem.

Regards...jmcc

Sleeper12

I said it on another thread yesterday, Gallagher was robbed. I don't know if he would be a good or bad president but robbed all the same

Sleeper12

Hurrache wrote:

It's not very explosive is it?

It is in that if its true they could be influencing general elections & referendums. It could be a huge story in the long run

marieholmfan

jmcc wrote: »

If a candidate is old and appears to have health issues, then these would be fair questions. The presidency is a seven year job.

Give other examples of RTE highlighting health issues.

Sleeper12

marieholmfan wrote:

Give other examples of RTE highlighting health issues.

Can you give another example of elder candidate with visibility signs of ill health?

marieholmfan

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Can you give another example of elder candidate with visibility signs of ill health?

Are you Russian? You can't speak English that's why I am asking.
David Norris wasn't asked a load of questions about his health was he?

Sleeper12

marieholmfan wrote:

Are you Russian? You can't speak English that's why I am asking. David Norris wasn't asked a load of questions about his health was he?

He wasn't visibly ill. If he was would they have hid it in the same way?

Not Russian but according to ancestry DNA I'm 7 percent Viking

Sleeper12

marieholmfan wrote:

Are you Russian? You can't speak English that's why I am asking. David Norris wasn't asked a load of questions about his health was he?

Oh I'm dyslexic and autistic. If my spelling is wrong it ain't my fault.

jmcc

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Can you give another example of elder candidate with visibility signs of ill health?

Higgins was the oldest candidate in 2011. However Erskine Childers died in office of a heart attack. (That was pre-Social Media and with only one TV channel and one radio channel in the country.) If RTE had shown Higgins hobbling around with an injured leg, it would have affected his vote because people would subconsciously compare him to more healthy candidates. That moment of uncertainty is enough to change the outcome of an election. This is why candidates always try to be seen as healthy and active.

Regards...jmcc

Hurrache

You keep bringing up the health issue across different threads. I doubt having a hobbily leg would have made a difference to how most people voted.

jmcc

Hurrache wrote: »

You keep bringing up the health issue across different threads. I doubt having a hobbily leg would have made a difference to how most people voted.

And you are wrong. Most people will never physically meet the candidate for which they vote. This means that they rely upon media coverage. An aged candidate with visible health issues going for seven year job such as the presidency will immediately raise concerns over whether they can or cannot do the job and see out the seven years.

Regards...jmcc

Timberrrrrrrr

jmcc wrote: »

And you are wrong. Most people will never physically meet the candidate for which they vote. This means that they rely upon media coverage. An aged candidate with visible health issues going for seven year job such as the presidency will immediately raise concerns over whether they can or cannot do the job and see out the seven years.

Regards...jmcc

Maybe for you, it wouldnt even enter my mind if i saw someone limping or looking a bit pale.

Seth Brundle

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I said it on another thread yesterday, Gallagher was robbed. I don't know if he would be a good or bad president but robbed all the same

No he wasn't.
He was asked a question based on a tweet. he could have said that it absolutely was not true. However, he fumbled his way through a response and for many, people, knowing his FF links and that he had asked other people for donations, this was completely plausible.

At that point in 2011 FF were quite toxic. Their links to corrupt antics had sickened most people. For Seanie to be linked to this was damaging. Then to comment how he "had no recollection" of the donation.
Martin McGuinness also had credible info on Seanie's links to FF which Seanie tried to deny but couldn't.
The donation of 5k was poorly disputed by Seanie. McGuinness sternly stood up to Sean to the point that Seanie admitted taking the donation.
Seanie lost the debate and the election completely through his own fault. The tweet was unfortunate but was just the tipping point.

seamus

jmcc wrote: »

That's your opinion and one without seeing any of the evidence.

Well of course, I think that goes without saying.

One thing we tend to do in Ireland though is dredge up the past. And do it in a way that it seems like it's brand new information, just at a time that might be politically damaging - to see if it'll have a better effect the second time around.

There doesn't appear to be any new information in this case, there's a call for "another investigation"; the calling card of, "Hey Ireland, remember this thing! It's time to get outraged again!"

So, one must examine potential motives here. Who could stand to gain by reminding the electorate about that debate involving Sean Gallagher and the fact that RTE had to pay compensation to Sean Gallagher after what they did cost Sean Gallagher the election?

And why so much anonymity? Instead of being all smoke-and-daggers about these 11 Oireachtas members who've received information, perhaps we should look at what party they are a member of, First & Foremost?

Then it might become clear whether there's merit to this whistleblower or whether he's just stirring up sediment.

jmcc

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Maybe for you, it wouldnt even enter my mind if i saw someone limping or looking a bit pale.

And for a job that involved a lot of travel, walking around and meeting and greeting people?

Regards...jmcc

dulpit

I'm not sure how you can call the above video Sean Gallagher being robbed. He shot himself in the foot, plain and simple.

jmcc

seamus wrote: »

There doesn't appear to be any new information in this case,

Apart from the RTE e-mails, the minutes of meetings, notes and internal RTE reports? This is the important information that is not in the public domain. Until it is, the story is going to keep cropping up.

Regards...jmcc

Timberrrrrrrr

jmcc wrote: »

And for a job that involved a lot of travel, walking around and meeting and greeting people?

Regards...jmcc

Well its not like he has to walk to cork or Belfast or anywhere else now is it?

Hurrache

jmcc wrote: »

If RTE had shown Higgins hobbling around with an injured leg, it would have affected his vote

jmcc wrote: »

And for a job that involved a lot of travel, walking around and meeting and greeting people?

And yet he somehow managed to struggle through 7 years of it without issue.

AndrewJRenko

Sleeper12 wrote: »

marieholmfan wrote:

David Norris wasn't asked a load of questions about his health was he?

He wasn't visibly ill. If he was would they have hid it in the same way

Norris was ill enough to have been getting paid by Trinity's disability insurance scheme for years, while continuing to work actively as a Senator for the same period.

BarryD2

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I said it on another thread yesterday, Gallagher was robbed. I don't know if he would be a good or bad president but robbed all the same

I can't say that I lost any sleep over his loss and I doubt many others did either. Still know little or nothing about him other than he's supposedly a great businessman. But what sort of productive business, I couldn't tell you. Someone mentioned property interests somewhere which if it's just churning property is nothing more than leeching. Why he has re-entered the race for the park is also a mystery - the only way is down for Mr.Gallagher. Maybe he's still obsessed by the last campaign and wants to rehash it all in the the media again?

Seth Brundle

BarryD2 wrote: »

Still know little or nothing about him other than he's supposedly a great businessman. .

There doesn't appear to be any evidence to suggest that he was a good, never mind great, businessman!

Sleeper12

Seth Brundle wrote:

No he wasn't. He was asked a question based on a tweet. he could have said that it absolutely was not true. However, he fumbled his way through a response and for many, people, knowing his FF links and that he had asked other people for donations, this was completely plausible.

Well he was if the whistle blower is telling the truth.

RTE let a fictional tweet through without verifying the bona-fide of the tweet or account.

The big question now is was this deliberate? Did they shield Higgins from awkward questions that might have damaged him?

It's not how he answered the question. It's that Higgins was shielded from questions that could have been as damaging to him.

marieholmfan

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Well he was if the whistle blower is telling the truth.

RTE let a fictional tweet through without verifying the bona-fide of the tweet or account.

The big question now is was this deliberate? Did they shield Higgins from awkward questions that might have damaged him?

It's not how he answered the question. It's that Higgins was shielded from questions that could have been as damaging to him.

No it isn't. For neuroptypical people he gave a number of cues that indicated uncertainty and these made him appear evasive.

blanch152

seamus wrote: »

Well of course, I think that goes without saying.

One thing we tend to do in Ireland though is dredge up the past. And do it in a way that it seems like it's brand new information, just at a time that might be politically damaging - to see if it'll have a better effect the second time around.

There doesn't appear to be any new information in this case, there's a call for "another investigation"; the calling card of, "Hey Ireland, remember this thing! It's time to get outraged again!"

So, one must examine potential motives here. Who could stand to gain by reminding the electorate about that debate involving Sean Gallagher and the fact that RTE had to pay compensation to Sean Gallagher after what they did cost Sean Gallagher the election?

And why so much anonymity? Instead of being all smoke-and-daggers about these 11 Oireachtas members who've received information, perhaps we should look at what party they are a member of, First & Foremost?

Then it might become clear whether there's merit to this whistleblower or whether he's just stirring up sediment.

You could well be right that there is nothing new to this. However, we do know in this case (unlike some others) that there is some merit to what the whistleblower is saying because RTE settled a case with Gallagher. Does anyone remember whether that case got to court or not?

The questions I would have is did RTE settle to avoid having the damaging information about editorial bias revealed in the public domain? Did they reveal the full extent of what happened in the Court?

More importantly, did they provide full information to the SIPO investigation?

If RTE provided all information to the SIPO investigation, there is nothing new, and the whistleblower is probably acting with political motivation. RTE can clear this up with a very simple statement.

Finally will there be a Prime Time investigation?

Turning to the issue of motive, it is always something that interests us as bystanders and commentators and has relevance to us from a contextual point of view. However, the investigators, be that SIPO or the Tribunals or the TDs contacted have to disregard motives, as most Protected Disclosure policies make clear.

RTE's own protected disclosure policy is not available on their website.

https://static.rasset.ie/documents/about/code-of-conduct-staff.pdf

Page 9 of this document summarises it but says it is on the intranet within RTE. Most public sector bodies have theirs freely available.

marieholmfan

blanch152 wrote: »

we do know in this case (unlike some others) that there is some merit to what the whistleblower is saying because RTE settled a case with Gallagher.

All this tells us is that there was a risk of having to pay more than €130,000 in court.

RTE may not have wanted to take the risk of getting an FF jury full of traitors who would put party over country.

flatty

seamus wrote: »

jmcc wrote: »

It may have escaped your notice but there is a presidential election in progress.

Regards...jmcc

Maybe my sarcasm isn't obvious enough.

This whistleblower has been hmming and hawing over this since 2011, and coincidentally has decided that now is the time to clear his conscience, because...oh look, it's made the national headlines!

It stink to high heavens of dirty tricks tactics rather than a genuine "concerned 3rd party".

It is equally plausible that the " insider" just decided to let it lie until insult was added to injury when Higgins went back on his word not to seek another term.

marieholmfan

flatty wrote: »

It is equally plausible that the " insider" just decided to let it lie until insult was added to injury when Higgins went back on his word not to seek another term.

Insider could be a Fianna Fail placeman happy to put party over country.

Sleeper12

marieholmfan wrote:

RTE may not have wanted to take the risk of getting an FF jury full of traitors who would put party over country.

That is a silly comment. FF supporters wouldn't have been more than 25 percent of a jury & probably less than that. Remember that at least 75 percent of said jury would be anti FF.

flatty

marieholmfan wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

It is equally plausible that the " insider" just decided to let it lie until insult was added to injury when Higgins went back on his word not to seek another term.

Insider could be a Fianna Fail placeman happy to put party over country.

Could be any number of reasons, but if he or she is/was a normal fair minded person, they may have felt initially that it was done, and no point raking it, but really felt it unfair when Higgins decided to completely go back on a promise made with forethought and cold strategy which he at the time thought would benefit him in the election, and may have done so. To gain one term in a slightly dubious manner may have been just about palatable, it may well be that his about face was enough to make a fair minded person voice concerns.

Hurrache

Or such a whistle blower may not even exist, just someone up to mischief.

Riskymove

Seth Brundle wrote: »

No he wasn't.
He was asked a question based on a tweet. he could have said that it absolutely was not true. However, he fumbled his way through a response

in fairness he did deny it when it was first raised

then the tweet came and it was put to him that there was going to be a press conference the next day where someone would give the details

I actually don't think it would that incredible that put on the spot on live TV while trying to rack your brain about what this might be all about would lead you to "stutter over a reply"

marieholmfan

Riskymove wrote: »

in fairness he did deny it when it was first raised

He also said that he wasn't in Fianna Fail; and he did pick up the money from Hugh Morgan and drop the photograph of Morgan with Brian Cowen into Morgan Fuels.