By Anthony Sheridan In an article supportive of RTE and Ryan Tubridy, an extremely naïve Fintan O?Toole tells us that the broadcaster can be trusted and suggests that when RTE repairs the damage, Tubridy can return to his job. O’Toole tells us: [RTE] makes mistakes and misjudgements ? but they are failures of performance, not … Continue reading "Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy"

By Anthony Sheridan

In an article supportive of RTE and Ryan Tubridy, an extremely naïve Fintan O?Toole tells us that the broadcaster can be trusted and suggests that when RTE repairs the damage, Tubridy can return to his job.

O’Toole tells us:

[RTE] makes mistakes and misjudgements ? but they are failures of performance, not of intent.

Liveline presenter Joe Duffy gives the lie to that naïve statement.  On yesterday?s show [June 26] the following question regarding his contract was put to him by a caller.

You have the same agent [as Tubridy], your signature goes on it, your agents signature goes on it, who signs off on it for RTE?

Duffy waffled and waffled, continuously cutting in on the caller?s attempts to get an answer.  In the end Duffy succeeded in his dishonesty, the question was not answered.

This was not, as O?Toole tells us, a failure of performance rather than intent.  Duffy deliberately barracked and interrupted the caller until he successfully avoided answering the question.

Like Tubridy, Duffy is not a broadcaster that can be trusted.  He dissembled when asked to tell the truth, he insulted the intelligence of the caller and listeners. He is, in a word, a typically dishonest RTE presenter, the station is full of them.

Tubridy?s response to the scandal was naïve to the point of idiocy.  He blamed RTE, complained that he had been taken off air for a week and looked forward to resuming his job very soon.  This is the mindset of a man living in a bubble of delusion. 

Joe Duffy lives in the same bubble of delusion and dishonesty and Fintan O?Toole thinks that, in time, all will be well in the cesspit of lies, arrogance and dishonesty, that is RTE.

This idiocy, delusion and dishonesty paints an accurate picture of the state of Ireland?s establishment media.

Copy to:

Fintan O’Toole

Joe Duffy

Ryan Tubridy

By Anthony Sheridan I have submitted the following complaint to RTE regarding the broadcaster?s failure to abide by its editorial principles. To Whom It May Concern: Please find complaint submitted for breach of Section 3, RTEs Editorial Principles ? Trust, Accuracy and Impartiality.  This complaint consists of two parts: Part one: The Taoiseach Michael Martin, Tanaiste … Continue reading "RTE in breach of its own editorial principles"

By Anthony Sheridan

I have submitted the following complaint to RTE regarding the broadcaster?s failure to abide by its editorial principles.

To Whom It May Concern:

Please find complaint submitted for breach of Section 3, RTEs Editorial Principles ? Trust, Accuracy and Impartiality. 

This complaint consists of two parts:

Part one:

The Taoiseach Michael Martin, Tanaiste Leo Varadkar, Minister for Justice Helen McEntee and other Fianna Fail and Fine Gael politicians have accused Sinn Fein of operating a strategy of exploiting the legal system by taking or threatening to take defamation actions in order to hamper investigative journalism and stifle political debate.

For example:

Taoiseach Michael Martin:  Sinn Féin was placing restraints on freedom of speech because people feel that they could be sued or threatened by legal threats.

Justice Minister Helen McEntee and Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe:  Sinn Féin?s use of the courts is having a chilling effect on democracy and the free media.

Tanaiste Leo Varadkar: The strategic use of legal action to try and stifle debate is worrying.

No evidence has been provided by these politicians to verify their claims that Sinn Fein is engaged in a strategy of using the courts to undermine democracy and free speech. 

In other words, all the accusations against Sinn Fein are hearsay, that is, information received from other people which cannot or has not been substantiated.

Professional journalists and media outlets, particularly national broadcasters, usually dismiss such unverified claims until such time as at least one reliable source is identified and quoted.

RTE has been reporting the claims without the usual caution to the public that there is no evidence to back up the charges.

By reporting the story without a source or verifiable evidence RTE is in breach of its own editorial principles of trust, accuracy and impartiality [Section 3, RTEs Editorial Principles ? Trust, Accuracy and Impartiality]. 

This is particularly relevant to Section 3 [3.4] on the matter of sources which states:

3.4 Sources of Information We normally identify sources of information and significant contributors, and provide their credentials, so that our audiences can judge their status. ? We normally require two sources before we broadcast something as a fact. ? We must be very confident that the information is accurate and the source is reliable if we have to rely on a single source. ? We should acknowledge when we have been unable to verify material sufficiently and attribute the information.

This complaint is specifically centred on a question put to Sinn Fein TD Eoin O?Broin by Sarah McInerney on Drivetime on Monday 17 October last.

Sarah McInerney: I want to ask you about comments by Leo Varadkar today saying that he?s aware of at least three Fine Gael politicians who have received legal letters from Sinn Fein and he questioned if Sinn Fein was underwriting the financial cost of those legal actions saying if they were it was a strategy to stifle public debate.

I just wanted to ask you ? does SF underwrite the financial cost of legal actions that their members take against other people or other organisations?

The following issues of trust, accuracy and impartiality arise from this question:

One:  RTE/McInerney failed to state if they had asked Mr. Varadkar for the names of the Fine Gael TDs to confirm the source.

Two:  RTE/McInerney failed to state if they had verified the claim that Sinn Fein may be underwriting the financial cost of claims taken by party members.

Three:  RTE/McInerney failed to state if they had verified the accusation that Sinn Fein was engaged in a strategy aimed at undermining investigative journalism and public debate.

Four:  RTE/McInerney did not, at any point while putting the question, utter a caution to listeners in respect to the accusations such as ?alleged? or ? claims were made without evidence?. 

This failure by RTE/McInerney to abide by the most fundamental professional standards of broadcasting is a clear breach of RTEs Editorial Principles of Trust, Accuracy and Impartiality

Part two:

The leader of Sinn Fein, Mary Lou McDonald, is currently suing RTE for defamation.  That action forms an element of the unverified, unsourced accusations made by the above named Fine Gael and Fianna Fail politicians against Sinn Fein.

For RTE/McInerney to engage in questioning a Sinn Fein member on the basis of the unverified, unsourced accusation that Sinn Fein is underwriting the financial cost of legal actions by its members while the leader of Sinn Fein is currently engaged in a legal action against RTE is reckless and unprofessional. 

Such interference by RTE/McInerney in a live legal case involving RTE could reasonably be seen as an attempt to influence the case in favour of RTE.

Such interference is a clear breach of RTEs own editorial principles of trust, accuracy and impartiality [Section 3, RTEs Editorial Principles ? Trust, Accuracy and Impartiality]. 

Yours sincerely

Anthony Sheridan

7 November 2022

By Anthony Sheridan Department of Health secretary general Robert Watt recently committed several millions of taxpayer’s money to fund the secondment of Dr. Tony Holohan to Trinity College Dublin. Mr. Watt had no authority to commit such public funds without the knowledge and permission of the Minister of Health. I have submitted the following formal … Continue reading "Formal complaint against Robert Watt"

By Anthony Sheridan

Department of Health secretary general Robert Watt recently committed several millions of taxpayer’s money to fund the secondment of Dr. Tony Holohan to Trinity College Dublin.

Mr. Watt had no authority to commit such public funds without the knowledge and permission of the Minister of Health.

I have submitted the following formal complaint to the Standards in Office Commission [SIPO] in response to Mr. Watt’s actions.

To Whom It May Concern:

Please find a formal complaint against the Secretary General of the Department of Health, Robert Watt, submitted under the Civil Service Code [The Code] of Standards and Behaviour.

I believe Mr. Watt is in breach of  several sections of the above standards and requirements as set out in the Code.

This complaint is based on evidence taken from Mr. Watt?s Briefing Note and his letter of intent to Professor Linda Doyle of Trinity College Dublin. 

This complaint is divided into two parts.

Complaint – Part One

The drafting and sending of the letter of intent by Mr. Watt to Professor Linda Doyle of TCD.  Mr. Watt was in breach of his duties and responsibilities on two counts regarding this letter.

One:  He did not possess the authority to write such a letter without the knowledge and permission of the minister.

Two: He did not possess the authority to offer a contract to TCD that involved a potential cost to the state of several millions. In his briefing note Mr. Watt defends his actions by claiming that the final details regarding Mr. Holohan?s secondment were not finalised. 

This defence does not stand up.  Whether or not the final details were agreed is irrelevant.  

It is the act itself of drawing up the letter and sending it to Professor Doyle for signature that constitutes Mr. Watts breach of the code under section 11. Regard for state resources [11.1] [11.2]

11.1 Civil servants should endeavour to ensure the proper, effective, and efficient use of public money.

11.2 Civil servants are required to: ? take proper and reasonable care of public funds and departmental property and not to use them, or permit their use, for unauthorised purposes; ? incur no liability on the part of their employer without proper authorisation and ? ensure that expenses, such as travel and subsistence payments, are not unnecessarily incurred either by themselves or by staff reporting to them.

Complaint – Part Two

In his Briefing Note Mr. Watt, in an obvious attempt to spread responsibility for his own decisions and actions, dishonestly implicates other agencies and individuals in those decisions.

Two examples:

[1] He promised an allocation of ?2 million for the duration of Mr. Holohan?s secondment to be administered through the Health Research Board [HRB].  The HRB have made it absolutely clear that they were neither informed nor consulted in regard to this decision.  Whether or not the HRB would have administered Dr. Holohan?s salary is irrelevant in the context of this complaint. 

What is relevant is that Mr. Watt failed in his responsibility to inform or consult with the HRB on a decision that would have had a serious impact on the obligations and resources of that organisation. 

Furthermore, Mr. Watt’s failure to inform or consult with the management of the HRB regarding his decision demonstrates a serious lack of respect and consideration for his civil service colleagues.

[2] Mr. Watt strongly suggests that the Secretary to the Government, Martin Fraser, the Taoiseach and other members of the Government were aware of the proposed secondment.

Mr. Watt writes:

The Secretary to the Government was aware of the proposed secondment move (but not of course the precise details) and I understood that the fact of discussions regarding the CMO?s future plans were known in the Department of An Taoiseach. I assumed that key decision-makers were aware of the proposal but of course not the precise details. [Source: Robert Watt?s Briefing Note: Other Matters [5].

The facts are:  The Taoiseach has made it crystal clear that he had ?no hand, act or part? in the plans surrounding Dr. Holohan?s secondment. 

Similarly, no other government minister had any knowledge whatsoever of the details as drawn up by Mr. Watt and Dr. Holohan and agreed to by the provost of TCD, Linda Doyle. Mr. Fraser and Mr. Watt?s boss, the Minister for Health, were given only the vaguest details of what was planned. 

Mr. Watt’s use of terms such as ?I understood that? and ?I assumed that?, in mitigation of his actions are not credible coming from a public official of his rank, power and responsibilities.

I believe that Mr. Watts’ decisions and actions in respect of the above are in breach of Part 2 [4] [Impartiality] [paragraphs [a] [b] and [c] of the Code.

Civil servants in the performance of their official duties: 

(a) must conscientiously serve the duly elected Government of the day, the other institutions of State and the public; 

(b) must advise and implement policy impartially and, in particular, be conscious of the need to maintain the independence necessary to give any future Minister or Government confidence in their integrity and 

(c) should not display partiality whether as a result of personal or family ties or otherwise.

Yours etc.,

Anthony Sheridan

Junk journalism attack on Sinn Fein spreads to Europe By Anthony Sheridan On Monday 25 April last, Sinn Fein president Mary Lou McDonald, filed a writ against RTE in response to comments made by an RTE presenter on Morning Ireland. This is a newsworthy story because it involves the leader of the Opposition and the … Continue reading ""

Junk journalism attack on Sinn Fein spreads to Europe

By Anthony Sheridan

On Monday 25 April last, Sinn Fein president Mary Lou McDonald, filed a writ against RTE in response to comments made by an RTE presenter on Morning Ireland.

This is a newsworthy story because it involves the leader of the Opposition and the national broadcaster but it is a single issue story ? prominent politician sues national broadcaster. 

But Irish Times political editor Pat Leahy did not report it as such.  Instead, he effectively created a fake news story around the core facts.

Without evidence he strongly suggested that Sinn Fein was operating a policy of encouraging its members to pursue media outlets in the courts.  The trend is unmistakable, he writes.

Later, in a disgraceful example of junk journalism, he went on to suggest, again without evidence, why Sinn Fein was operating such a policy. 

Sinn Féin?s political opponents ? and many people in the media ? see all this as part of a strategy to muzzle criticism of the party by trying to generate a ?chilling effect? to dissuade opponents and the media from robust criticism and investigation of the party, its members and its controversial history.

If so, it is a tactic often used by powerful people and institutions to discourage scrutiny.

The next day, this junk journalism was parroted in an Irish Examiner editorial. [owned by the Irish Times].  The anonymous author patronisingly suggested that perhaps it would be best if the electorate were informed of this ?belligerency? by Sinn Fein.

This kind of low grade journalism is now common throughout the establishment media particularly when it comes to Sinn Fein.  But what?s really disturbing in this instance is the response of the National Union of Journalists [NUJ], a response curiously appearing in the same edition of the Irish Times as Leahy’s hostile article.

The secretary of the NUJ, Seamus Dooley, took the same line as the Irish Times

?Defamation proceedings can have a chilling impact on press freedom. It?s important that media organisations are not inhibited by libel threats, from whatever source and that editors and journalists continue to ask awkward questions.?

Here?s a few awkward question for Mr. Dooley:  Why is the NUJ questioning the right of any citizen to take legal action for alleged defamation?  Why does the NUJ think it appropriate to lecture any citizen on how they should proceed when the believe they have been defamed and, most worryingly, why is the NUJ supporting junk journalism that appears intent on damaging the reputation of a legitimate political party?

But the story becomes even more bizarre.

The Index of Censorship, a media freedom NGO based in London, filed a media freedom alert known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation [SLAPP] with the Council of Europe’s Safety of Journalists Platform, in response to Ms. McDonald?s legal action.

A SLAPP is, according to the Index of Censorship:

A strategy used by powerful actors in an attempt to stop individuals or organisations from expressing views on issues of public interest. Although they are disguised as ordinary civil claims, such as defamation or privacy, they are not intended to succeed in court.  Instead, their goal is to saddle critics with prohibitively expensive, time-consuming, and nerve- wracking  legal processes.  SLAPPS threaten not only freedom of expression and media freedom, but access to information, rule of law and our very democracy.

This is a very strong and, in my opinion, dangerous generalisation.  It suggests that those with power and wealth, who feel they have been defamed, should be treated differently under law, that they should not enjoy the universally accepted principle of ?innocent until proven guilty?.

And that, in effect, is what the Safety of Journalists Platform has done in response to Ms. McDonald?s action.

They have issued a formal alert notice with the heading:

Ireland

Sinn Fein Leader Files SLAPP against RTE ? No. 175.2022

Created 25 May 2022

Harassment and intimidation of journalists

Source of threat: Non-State

Level 2

This is untrue, McDonald did not file a SLAPP against RTE.  She has filed a writ against the broadcaster for alleged defamation – nothing else.

The alert, among other things, claims that McDonald?s legal action against RTE is a disguised strategy to attack the broadcaster and therefore poses a serious threat to media freedom, offline or online.

[See end of article for details of a Level 2 charge]

Here’s Jessica Ní Mhainín, policy and campaigns manager with Index on Censorship.

?We are alarmed at the legal action that has been filed against RTÉ by the Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald as we believe the action is characteristic of a strategic lawsuit against public participation…

…fundamentally they [SLAPPS] involve powerful people making legal threats or taking legal actions against public watchdogs ? such as media outlets ? in response to public interest speech that may be inconvenient to them or their interests.?

To my knowledge no evidence has been provided by The Index of Censorship, The Safety of Journalists Platform or the Council of Europe to back up the SLAPP charge.  

I?m no legal expert but I wouldn?t be surprised to learn that the Sinn Fein president is considering her options in response to this arrogant, self-righteous and, potentially, false charge.

[Personal note: While writing and researching this article I couldn’t help noting the apparent interweaving between The Irish Times [and other Irish media], the NUJ, Index of Censorship and the Council of Europe.

Could it be, I wondered, that all this feverish activity was somehow connected to the democratic challenge posed by Sinn Fein to the power of the ruling regime in Ireland?]

Copy to:

Sinn Fein

NUJ

Council of Europe

Safety of Journalists Platform

Index on Censorship

Irish Times

Irish Examiner

Level 2

Covers all other serious threats to media freedom, including but not limited to physical assaults causing actual bodily harm, acts of intimidation and harassment; use by public figures of threatening or severely abusive language towards media members; unwarranted seizure or damage to property or equipment; laws and regulations that unduly restrict media freedom or access to information; actions that jeopardise the confidentiality of sources or the independence of the public sector broadcasters; abusive or disproportionate use of legislation; misuse of governmental or other powers to direct media content or to penalise media or journalists; interference with media freedom through ownership, control and regulation; and other acts posing a serious threat to media freedom, offline or online.

By Anthony Sheridan Hardly a week passes without a sermon from one mainstream media source or another reminding people of the vital role the sector plays in presenting news and current affairs with honesty and integrity.    The Irish Examiner is particularly strident in warning of the dangers posed by non-mainstream news sources. This example … Continue reading "Irish Examiner and fake news"

By Anthony Sheridan

Hardly a week passes without a sermon from one mainstream media source or another reminding people of the vital role the sector plays in presenting news and current affairs with honesty and integrity.   

The Irish Examiner is particularly strident in warning of the dangers posed by non-mainstream news sources. This example from an editorial marking the first anniversary of Marian Finucane?s death.

The importance of those attributes and the need for good journalism have never been more important at a time when fake news and groundless clickbait continue to flood our social media channels.

In the year ahead, accurate news from trusted sources will continue to play a vital role in dispelling the corrosive force of misinformation.

Unfortunately, for those who place their trust in the Irish Examiner, the ?corrosive force of misinformation? is often employed by the paper, particularly against those who pose a threat to the power of the ruling political establishment.

Just last week [20 April] the paper published what was, in effect,  a fake news story, strongly suggesting that Sinn Fein was responsible for a violent parade by the dissident republican group Saoradh. 

Despite the fact that Sinn Fein had nothing whatsoever to do with the parade, the Irish Examiner had no scruples about making a damaging link between the party and the organisers of the parade.

If Ms McDonald is serious about having companions on historic travels then Sinn Féin will have to address the law and order contradictions which allow extreme republicans to prematurely present an event which ended with petrol bombs and arrests as a ?dignified parade? allied to a tone-deaf refusal to listen to a reasonable request from a family not to march on the anniversary of the murder of a young woman. A murder for which there has still to be a criminal conviction.

This cheap and obvious attempt to blame Sinn Fein for the parade and subsequent violence was all the more reprehensible for falsely linking the party with the murder of journalist Lyra McKee in 2019.

In a crude attempt to pretend the article was balanced, and not an attack on Sinn Fein, the anonymous author added:

Events such as masked parades incrementally take the shine off their [Sinn Fein?s] standing even where they are not seen to be the organisers.

This manipulation of news stories by the Irish Examiner is not new.   An even more odious example occurred just before the 2020 election.  Context is vital in understanding this disgraceful example of so-called professional journalism.

Seven days before the election on 8 February an Irish/Times MRBI poll reflected a dramatic rise in support for Sinn Fein over Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. 

The development sent shock waves through the establishment media.  Here, for example, is how the political editor of the Irish Examiner, Daniel McConnell, began an article in response to the poll.

So, just what in the hell is going on?

Three days before the election, on Wednesday 5 Feb, there was an attack on the Glasnevin cemetery memorial wall. The monument commemorates those who died between the Easter Rising in 1916 and the end of the Civil War in 1923,  including British soldiers killed in the conflict. 

The vandals have never been identified but that did not stop the Irish Examiner from, effectively, blaming Sinn Fein for the attack.

It would be utterly wrong to link Sinn Féin to Wednesday night?s attack on Glasnevin cemetery?s memorial wall?

…However, it would be wrong too to pretend that strands of this election campaign, especially Sinn Féin?s online echo chambers, have not created an atmosphere if not encouraging such criminality then making it seem ordinary, almost praiseworthy.

This is sewer journalism at its worst and most dangerous. 

In the lead up to this warping of a news story, the anonymous author wrote of:

the anger, poison and basic dishonesty associated with Sinn Fein supporters on social media. 

Reading this journalistic garbage I can see only one difference between the standards practiced at the  Irish Examiner and the anonymous trolls on social media –  The trolls don?t preach and pretend they operate from the high moral ground.

Copy to:

Irish Examiner editor