BAI upholds Sean Gallaghers claim that the Frontline Tweet was a fake!

take everything

Wider Road wrote: »

Pat Kenny said that he didn't know for days that the so called Sinn Fein tweet was a fake, that's a lie.

Wider Road wrote: »

Pat Kenny said that he didn't know for days that the so called Sinn Fein tweet was a fake, that's a lie.

Was it proven Kenny's assertion was a lie.
Either way, the timeframe involved was hours (days obviously wouldn't make sense).

Whether the claim by Kenny was genuine ignorance or arse-covering/saving face (after looking foolish), I don't see how a malicious intent can necessarily be inferred from his actions around that time (given that matters at that stage had more importantly moved on to what exactly SG was up to and not about some imminent press conference).

raymon

Wider Road wrote: »

Pat Kenny said that he didn't know for days that the so called Sinn Fein tweet was a fake, that's a lie.

Please provide a reference for this

..

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It's hard to accept that 'our democracy is safe' when the outcome of the presidential election was effectively reversed due to the broadcast of an unverified bogus tweet introduced to the electorate by our state broadcaster.

This is plainly untrue ..... Gallagher lost because he told lies.

Tweets don't have any magical qualities

However I do agree that broadcast of an unverified tweet was wrong

jonniebgood1

raymon wrote: »

Originally Posted by Wider Road
Pat Kenny said that he didn't know for days that the so called Sinn Fein tweet was a fake, that's a lie.

Please provide a reference for this

..

He said this on his radio show last week on Friday morning in his review of the weeks stories from 11.30- 12. You may be able to podcast it if you still don't accept it.

raymon

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

He said this on his radio show last week on Friday morning in his review of the weeks stories from 11.30- 12. You may be able to podcast it if you still don't accept it.

And how is that a lie?

jonniebgood1

raymon wrote: »

And how is that a lie?

I was simply relaying the information to you- not everythings a battle you know!

raymon wrote: »

This is plainly untrue ..... Gallagher lost because he told lies.

Tweets don't have any magical qualities

However I do agree that broadcast of an unverified tweet was wrong

Again you don't seem to be able to seperate the detail of this from the wider picture. Your dislike of Gallagher means that you dont seem to be able to see the danger of ignoring and allowing media influence in democracy. Maybe RTE should pick the next President and save us having to vote...

raymon

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I was simply relaying the information to you- not everythings a battle you know!...

Thanks for the info and sorry for misinterpreting your post.

djpbarry

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Your dislike of Gallagher means that you dont seem to be able to see the danger of ignoring and allowing media influence in democracy.

How do we stop the media influencing democracy?

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Maybe RTE should pick the next President and save us having to vote...

I think the influence of this episode on Gallagher's campaign is being over-stated - the guy is quite obviously a shady character and these revelations were bound to come out sooner or later. I'm not defending RTE's actions by any means, but at the same time, I'm finding it hard to be shocked or appalled at low standards in TV - the standard of current affairs broadcasts in general in the UK and Ireland has deteriorated drastically. Or maybe I'm just becoming old and cynical.

MadsL

the outcome of the presidential election was effectively reversed

Or the polls were wrong.

hallelujajordan

djpbarry wrote: »

How do we stop the media influencing democracy?
I think the influence of this episode on Gallagher's campaign is being over-stated - the guy is quite obviously a shady character and these revelations were bound to come out sooner or later. I'm not defending RTE's actions by any means, but at the same time, I'm finding it hard to be shocked or appalled at low standards in TV - the standard of current affairs broadcasts in general in the UK and Ireland has deteriorated drastically. Or maybe I'm just becoming old and cynical.

What a ridiculous comment . . Gallagher had been in the public eye campaigning for 9 months and was topping the poll . . . then bogus 'revelations' are put to him 3 days before the election by a man who could well be described as much worse than 'a shady character' . . . The bogus revelations are then backed up by a bogus, unsubstantiated tweet, Gallagher was put under the spotlight, foolishly used the word 'envelope' in his response (I personally think this one word did more damage than anything else) and all of a sudden his campaign is in the bin .. And you think the influence of the Frontline episode is overstated ???

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

This is plainly untrue ..... Gallagher lost because he told lies.

Tweets don't have any magical qualities

However I do agree that broadcast of an unverified tweet was wrong

What lies did Gallagher tell. . ? ? ?

djpbarry

hallelujajordan wrote: »

...Gallagher was put under the spotlight, foolishly used the word 'envelope' in his response (I personally think this one word did more damage than anything else) and all of a sudden his campaign is in the bin .. And you think the influence of the Frontline episode is overstated ???

Let me answer that by flipping your question around - you really think that a successful presidential campaign can be undone by the word "envelope"?

If the electorate is really that fickle, then we might as well just draw the name of the next president out of a hat.

Mr.Micro

hallelujajordan wrote: »

What a ridiculous comment . . Gallagher had been in the public eye campaigning for 9 months and was topping the poll . . . then bogus 'revelations' are put to him 3 days before the election by a man who could well be described as much worse than 'a shady character' . . . The bogus revelations are then backed up by a bogus, unsubstantiated tweet, Gallagher was put under the spotlight, foolishly used the word 'envelope' in his response (I personally think this one word did more damage than anything else) and all of a sudden his campaign is in the bin .. And you think the influence of the Frontline episode is overstated ???

I will bet its the words "Fianna Fail" and "collecting money", that done it. He pretended that he was an independent, but in reality FF. People heard from his own mouth, so no bogus revelations at all. Hard cheese, need to get over it, the electorate have had their say and SG lost. Michael D is now President and doing a good job IMO.

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

What lies did Gallagher tell. . ? ? ?

Oh come on ...... it is widely accepted that Gallagher told lies . One example was that he had not been involved with Fianna Fail in years. Another was that he didn't invite people he didnt know to fundraisers. Another lie was that he didn't solicit donations.

I could go on, but I'm sure the back and forth about his lies would bring the thread off topic
Also the lies topic has been beaten to death in other threads

hallelujajordan

djpbarry wrote: »

Let me answer that by flipping your question around - you really think that a successful presidential campaign can be undone by the word "envelope"?
.

Had I not watched it unfold on live TV then I would not believe it but yes, I do believe that Gallagher's campaign was completely undone in the space of about 5 minutes during the Frontline debate

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I will bet its the words "Fianna Fail" and "collecting money", that done it. He pretended that he was an independent, but in reality FF. People heard from his own mouth, so no bogus revelations at all. Hard cheese, need to get over it, the electorate have had their say and SG lost. Michael D is now President and doing a good job IMO.

Unfair .. Gallagher was clear about his Fianna Fail history throughout the campaign. He chose to run as an independent without any support or funding from Fianna Fail as he was perfectly entitled to do but it is disingenuous to suggest that he did anything to hide his FF background.

raymon wrote: »

Oh come on ...... it is widely accepted that Gallagher told lies . One example was that he had not been involved with Fianna Fail in years. Another was that he didn't invite people he didnt know to fundraisers. Another lie was that he didn't solicit donations.

I could go on, but I'm sure the back and forth about his lies would bring the thread off topic
Also the lies topic has been beaten to death in other threads

Really . . 'widely accepted' ?? By who ? Gallagher was very clear about his FF connections throughout his campaign. I don't believe there is any evidence that he lied during his campaign or that he lied during the FL debate as you allege ?

votecounts

the tweet wasn't the only thing that contributed to his downfall, his treatment of the woman who merely asked a question about accounting practices showed that he was a nasty piece of work.

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Unfair .. Gallagher was clear about his Fianna Fail history throughout the campaign. He chose to run as an independent without any support or funding from Fianna Fail as he was perfectly entitled to do but it is disingenuous to suggest that he did anything to hide his FF background.


Really . . 'widely accepted' ?? By who ? Gallagher was very clear about his FF connections throughout his campaign. I don't believe there is any evidence that he lied during his campaign or that he lied during the FL debate as you allege ?

The lies of Gallagher are old news and probably off topic however please read the following

http://www.herald.ie/news/gallagher-rejects-claim-he-was-involved-with-ff-up-to-january-2900375.html

And also watch the Brian Dobson interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOAHJ6y94DY

djpbarry

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Had I not watched it unfold on live TV then I would not believe it but yes, I do believe that Gallagher's campaign was completely undone in the space of about 5 minutes during the Frontline debate

I'm not necessarily agreeing with that, but let's suppose you're correct - as I said above, would that not demonstrate the tremendously fickle nature of the electorate?

Mr.Micro

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Unfair .. Gallagher was clear about his Fianna Fail history throughout the campaign. He chose to run as an independent without any support or funding from Fianna Fail as he was perfectly entitled to do but it is disingenuous to suggest that he did anything to hide his FF background.

Funny then how people decided not to vote for him after the debate, when they realized the true extent of his FF involvement. I did not even know he was so FF, until I heard him utter it on TV.

hallelujajordan

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not necessarily agreeing with that, but let's suppose you're correct - as I said above, would that not demonstrate the tremendously fickle nature of the electorate?

Yes . . and yes, I believe the Irish electorate (who supported (and returned) a Fianna Fail - led government through three successive terms of giveaway budgets and uncontrolled growth and who last year believed that Fine Gael / Labour were truly offering something different) are incredibly fickle.

You only have to look at the characters on parade in DE to understand how fickle the Irish electorate are . .

Shea O'Meara

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Interesting comment and you might be right that it is nothing new . . but is it appropriate from our state broadcaster three days before a presidential election ? ? and is it right that our state broadcaster should get away with this without any censure ?

And I appreciate that you are thankful he didn't get in, but would you be as accepting of this if he had won by similar means or would you be declaring that our democracy was broken ?

My point is that in it being nothing new, it happens all the time. Not a new invention for Gallagher. A point was falsely raised, that mean's nothing to me to be honest. If they broadcast blatant lies about the man and he lost because of it I most certainly would have issue. If I dislike a politician or as in this case a flim-flam man I like it to be on his or her own merits not fiction.
I'm glad he was shown for what he truthfully is, a true Fianna Fail man with all the character that goes with it.

If the state broadcaster broadcast lies, that's an issue. Bitching about how the truth was brought to light is clutching at straws and sore losing.
Producers try to keep shows interesting and ensure topics of interest are covered, the key questions asked. Once we are dealt facts, I'm okay with that. That's the way it works. Were you cribing when Haughey got his own reality show? Not very impartial back then, but tides change, TV station heads have vested interests like any editorial team of any publication dependent on advertising and/or public funds. Again, is it 100% on the up and up?, not in my view, but if we get a result, the truth, I can live with it, it's the way it has always been. The same would/could happen to anyone who is feeding us a line of bull****.

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yes . . and yes, I believe the Irish electorate (who supported (and returned) a Fianna Fail - led government through three successive terms of giveaway budgets and uncontrolled growth and who last year believed that Fine Gael / Labour were truly offering something different) are incredibly fickle.

You only have to look at the characters on parade in DE to understand how fickle the Irish electorate are . .

Are you not describing yourself there.......

Were you not a staunch supporter of FF ,even calling Bertie a great leader, only to turn your back on your party and vote against them in the last election.

You now appear to have flip flopped again ... now dishing out more FF / Sean Gallagher half truths.

Incredibly fickle indeed.

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

Are you not describing yourself there.......

Were you not a staunch supporter of FF ,even calling Bertie a great leader, only to turn your back on your party and vote against them in the last election.

You now appear to have flip flopped again ... now dishing out more FF / Sean Gallagher half truths.

Incredibly fickle indeed.

I was and continue to be a member of Fianna Fail . . ??? In the past I have questioned how the party was managed and run and I certainly felt last year that it was time for Fianna Fail to take a back seat and to focus on rebuilding the party so I'm not sure how you conclude that I have turned my back on anyone ? ?

Also am not sure why you feel the need to personalise every single debate ?

hallelujajordan

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

My point is that in it being nothing new, it happens all the time. Not a new invention for Gallagher. A point was falsely raised, that mean's nothing to me to be honest. If they broadcast blatant lies about the man and he lost because of it I most certainly would have issue. If I dislike a politician or as in this case a flim-flam man I like it to be on his or her own merits not fiction.
I'm glad he was shown for what he truthfully is, a true Fianna Fail man with all the character that goes with it.

If the state broadcaster broadcast lies, that's an issue. Bitching about how the truth was brought to light is clutching at straws and sore losing.
Producers try to keep shows interesting and ensure topics of interest are covered, the key questions asked. Once we are dealt facts, I'm okay with that. That's the way it works. Were you cribing when Haughey got his own reality show? Not very impartial back then, but tides change, TV station heads have vested interests like any editorial team of any publication dependent on advertising and/or public funds. Again, is it 100% on the up and up?, not in my view, but if we get a result, the truth, I can live with it, it's the way it has always been. The same would/could happen to anyone who is feeding us a line of bull****.

I guess this is where we disagree . . I don't think that 3 days ahead of a presidential election our state broadcaster should be pandering to any 'vested interests' . .

I do agree with you that sometimes media outlets need to use alternative mechanisms to get to the truth . . and I also agree that if the truth is surfaced then sometimes the end can justify the means . .I just do not believe that extends to the state broadcaster reading out tweets on live TV that purport to be from one of the primary political parties (and election contenders) without making any attempt to verify the authenticity of such tweets.. I also don't think we got to any level of 'truth' with this fiasco.

I also believe that RTE should have been more cognizant of the timing here . . . they ought to have known that any fresh accusations against any candidate could not be appropriately defended (due to the upcoming moratorium) and they ought to have been more vigilant as a result.

Shea O'Meara

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I guess this is where we disagree . . I don't think that 3 days ahead of a presidential election our state broadcaster should be pandering to any 'vested interests' . .

I do agree with you that sometimes media outlets need to use alternative mechanisms to get to the truth . . and I also agree that if the truth is surfaced then sometimes the end can justify the means . .I just do not believe that extends to the state broadcaster reading out tweets on live TV that purport to be from one of the primary political parties (and election contenders) without making any attempt to verify the authenticity of such tweets.. I also don't think we got to any level of 'truth' with this fiasco.

I also believe that RTE should have been more cognizant of the timing here . . . they ought to have known that any fresh accusations against any candidate could not be appropriately defended (due to the upcoming moratorium) and they ought to have been more vigilant as a result.

Now the timing is the problem? The show was specifically aired in the closing days so people could sit at home and if not already behind any of them, help decide who they may vote for.
These were not fresh accusations. He had avoided answering up until he was put on the spot.
It's tough to defend the undefensable, (although Bertie is a master).

To be clear, a vested interest could be an advertiser. Lets not assume it's automatically some shady cabal. I agree with you, the state broadcaster should be impartial, but we're dealing with nepotistic amateurs, so it's unlikely we'll get high quality journalism 100% of the time, (they've yet to organise the basics of lighting and sound, which is why we get heavy dark shadows on the interviewees and the live music sounds like the band are inside a biscuit tin).

We are at a point now where the guy got caught short so his only defense is not that he's innocent of any under hand dealing but that the medium was false and the timimg too close to the election....

Now that FFail are not currently in power, (they will be back of course) and have little chance to ruin any more lives I can take some amusment from the double standards. FFail logic is like a Monty Python sketch.
I could run off an entirely new thread just listing examples, but off topic.
Let's not forget how loved up RTE and FFail were right up until it fell down around our ears.

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I was and continue to be a member of Fianna Fail . . ??? In the past I have questioned how the party was managed and run and I certainly felt last year that it was time for Fianna Fail to take a back seat and to focus on rebuilding the party so I'm not sure how you conclude that I have turned my back on anyone ? ?

Also am not sure why you feel the need to personalise every single debate ?

I am not personalising anything. You offered the opinion that voters are fickle. I was implying that your opinion was based on your own voting pattern

Yes . . and yes, I believe the Irish electorate (who supported (and returned) a Fianna Fail - led government through three successive terms of giveaway budgets and uncontrolled growth and who last year believed that Fine Gael / Labour were truly offering something different) are incredibly fickle.

It is just that you are in a debate where you brought this subject up and I queried it .

Edit...... In any case probably off topic

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

I am not personalising anything. You offered the opinion that voters are fickle. I was implying that your opinion was based on your own voting pattern


It is just that you are in a debate where you brought this subject up and I queried it .

Edit...... In any case probably off topic

Not unlike most of your personal rants. . This one, like most others was not just off-topic and personal but also inaccurate (as pointed out in my response - but ignored) . .

hallelujajordan

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Now the timing is the problem? The show was specifically aired in the closing days so people could sit at home and if not already behind any of them, help decide who they may vote for.
These were not fresh accusations. He had avoided answering up until he was put on the spot.
It's tough to defend the undefensable, (although Bertie is a master).

To be clear, a vested interest could be an advertiser. Lets not assume it's automatically some shady cabal. I agree with you, the state broadcaster should be impartial, but we're dealing with nepotistic amateurs, so it's unlikely we'll get high quality journalism 100% of the time, (they've yet to organise the basics of lighting and sound, which is why we get heavy dark shadows on the interviewees and the live music sounds like the band are inside a biscuit tin).

We are at a point now where the guy got caught short so his only defense is not that he's innocent of any under hand dealing but that the medium was false and the timimg too close to the election....

Now that FFail are not currently in power, (they will be back of course) and have little chance to ruin any more lives I can take some amusment from the double standards. FFail logic is like a Monty Python sketch.
I could run off an entirely new thread just listing examples, but off topic.
Let's not forget how loved up RTE and FFail were right up until it fell down around our ears.

Come off-it . . . it was a fresh allegation to put to Gallagher during the debate that Sinn Fein were planning to hold a press conference the next day where Hugh Morgan would come forward publicly with the allegations he had made...

Look . . . I get it . . . I understand why anyone who was not a supporter of Gallagher would have been delighted with this turn of events. I understand how you and others would be willing to forgive the manner in which this turnabout occurred but there is a serious issue here. . no-one has yet answered the question I posed about how they would feel about this matter if it were reversed and if Gallagher had won as the result of an un-authenticated tweet . . we should park the party politics for a moment and consider what actually happened here.

RTE is a public broadcaster paid for by our taxes. The chair of the debate in question is paid over half a million in tax payers money . . we have to demand impartiality and it seems that the Frontline presidential debate was anything but. . A show that purports to have 'members of the public' asking questions should be exactly that. . People should not be coached or persuaded to ask specific questions in order to serve some other 'vested interests'. Comments read out during the show should be appropriately authenticated and if that is not possible within the time frame of the show they should not be read out.

I understand that RTE have not always been impartial and that some of their earlier broadcasting may be considered to have been pro-FF but that was equally wrong. . we have to demand better from RTE.

I think another poster pointed out earlier. . if this had happened on the BBC heads would have rolled by the now and the seriousness of the matter would have been understood.

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Come off-it . . . it was a fresh allegation to put to Gallagher during the debate that Sinn Fein were planning to hold a press conference the next day where Hugh Morgan would come forward publicly with the allegations he had made...

Not true , the allegation had been around for many days already according to Gallagher

hallelujajordan wrote: »

People should not be coached or persuaded to ask specific questions in order to serve some other 'vested interests'.

Not true . Nobody was coached.( at least nobody that doesn't have convictions for fraud)

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I understand that RTE have not always been impartial and that some of their earlier broadcasting may be considered to have been pro-FF but that was equally wrong. . we have to demand better from RTE.

True. Broadcasting unverified sources is sloppy, but hardly bias.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I think another poster pointed out earlier. . if this had happened on the BBC heads would have rolled by the now and the seriousness of the matter would have been understood.

Unlikely


What I dont like about your posts is the lack of real facts.

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

Not true , the allegation had been around for many days already according to Gallagher

. . the assertion that Hugh Morgan would hold a press conference on Tuesday to outline how Gallagher had personally collected a cheque from him was only made during the Frontline programme and was (according to himself) only confirmed to Martin McGuinness in a conversation 2 hours before going on air.

raymon wrote:

Not true . Nobody was coached.( at least nobody that doesn't have convictions for fraud)

Several stories have now run in the Sunday Independent around how individuals had submitted questions but were asked (or coached) into asking questions in a different way, and even into asking entirely different questions. I also personally know someone who was on a different episode of the Frontline and who certainly was coached around how they should ask their question. Incidentally, because she did such a good job, she was invited back to a later show to ask a different question (she declined). The methods employed by the Frontline are not in keeping with the principles of the show itself or in keeping with the principles of fair and unbiased reporting.

raymon wrote:

True. Broadcasting unverified sources is sloppy, but hardly bias.

Q. When does sloppiness become bias ?
A. When it turns a significant opinion poll lead into a significant electoral loss . .

It's pretty east to excuse broadcasting unverified sources as sloppiness but if it introduces a bias into the broadcast should it not be treated in the same way as if it were a deliberate introduction of bias ?

Honestly, I don't know whether the bias introduced by RTE was deliberate or just sloppy, but I don't care, the impact is the same and we ought to demand better. .

Interesting that you have responded to the rest of my post but ignored the question that I have asked a couple of times now . .

hallelujajordan wrote:

no-one has yet answered the question I posed about how they would feel about this matter if it were reversed and if Gallagher had won as the result of an un-authenticated tweet . . we should park the party politics for a moment and consider what actually happened here.

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

. . the assertion that Hugh Morgan would hold a press conference on Tuesday to outline how Gallagher had personally collected a cheque from him was only made during the Frontline programme and was (according to himself) only confirmed to Martin McGuinness in a conversation 2 hours before going on air.


Several stories have now run in the Sunday Independent around how individuals had submitted questions but were asked (or coached) into asking questions in a different way, and even into asking entirely different questions. I also personally know someone who was on a different episode of the Frontline and who certainly was coached around how they should ask their question. Incidentally, because she did such a good job, she was invited back to a later show to ask a different question (she declined). The methods employed by the Frontline are not in keeping with the principles of the show itself or in keeping with the principles of fair and unbiased reporting.




Q. When does sloppiness become bias ?
A. When it turns a significant opinion poll lead into a significant electoral loss . .

It's pretty east to excuse broadcasting unverified sources as sloppiness but if it introduces a bias into the broadcast should it not be treated in the same way as if it were a deliberate introduction of bias ?

Honestly, I don't know whether the bias introduced by RTE was deliberate or just sloppy, but I don't care, the impact is the same and we ought to demand better. .

Interesting that you have responded to the rest of my post but ignored the question that I have asked a couple of times now . .

The Sunday Independent is not a credible news source any more.
Headlines like " Rte told me to gun down Gallagher" are clearly without foundation.

As for your question.... how would we feel if Gallagher won because of an unverified tweet , I would be very sad. Not because of a tweet , but because someone lied , exaggerated and embellished their way into winning the election.

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

The Sunday Independent is not a credible news source any more.
Headlines like " Rte told me to gun down Gallagher" are clearly without foundation.

You may not agree with the Sindo's editorial positions but I don't believe that you can dismiss the biggest selling newspaper in the country as "not a credible news source"

I also don't understand how you can claim the story you reference is without foundation when it contains direct testimony from one of the audience members who was present at the FL show in question and the headline of the piece is more or less a direct quote from the audience member ??

raymon wrote:

As for your question.... how would we feel if Gallagher won because of an unverified tweet , I would be very sad. Not because of a tweet , but because someone lied , exaggerated and embellished their way into winning the election.

To be fair, you are not answering the question I asked. I understand that you would have been very sad had Sean Gallagher been elected. My question is how would you have felt about RTE, about the need for stronger censure etc had he won as a direct result of an unverified tweet. . for example, lets assume that Gallagher was in 2nd place coming into the FL debate and Pat Kenny had read out an unverified tweet that turned out to be untrue, that caused some concern over Higgins' character, that came too late in the day for any real defence and that subsequently resulted in Gallagher winning. Would that just be sloppy broadcasting or something more ??

You dismiss the Sindo as 'not credible' because their position is not in line with yours but RTE is just 'sloppy' .. is that because despite their behaviour the position is in line with your own and the election result is in line with your own personal preference ?

Can we park the party politics and debate what is right and wrong ?

take everything

hallelujajordan wrote: »

To be fair, you are not answering the question I asked. I understand that you would have been very sad had Sean Gallagher been elected. My question is how would you have felt about RTE, about the need for stronger censure etc had he won as a direct result of an unverified tweet. . for example, lets assume that Gallagher was in 2nd place coming into the FL debate and Pat Kenny had read out an unverified tweet that turned out to be untrue, that caused some concern over Higgins' character, that came too late in the day for any real defence and that subsequently resulted in Gallagher winning. Would that just be sloppy broadcasting or something more ??

?

Your scenario:
Pat reads out an unverified tweet that mentions a press conference about an issue about Higgins.
Gallagher's tweet scenario referenced an ongoing concern so ideally an equivalent Higgins scenario's tweet should reference an ongoing concern.

Gallagher's tweet scenario involved a response from him that failed to refute the substance of the tweet. So likewise an equivalent Higgins' tweet scenario should involve him not refuting it properly.

Result:
Scenario 1: Ongoing concern+tweet+mealy-mouthed inability to refute= Gallagher losing
scenario 2: Ongoing concern+tweet+mealy-mouthed inability to refute= Higgins losing

In both cases i'd be looking at the "ongoing concern" and "mealy mouthed inability to refute" from the candidate themselves along with the tweet.
I wouldn't have a problem dismissing them as candidates if these two other things were present.
I'd also think RTE were stupid when it came to verifying tweets.

I definitely wouldn't see the tweet as having magical "election-winning" or "election-losing" properties outside this context. "TWEET FOR PRESIDENT 2011!" :pac:

The properties that win or lose the elections would be the "mealy-mouthed response" and the ongoing concern about the candidate prior to the tweet.

The tweet itself (the oh-so-precious and deadly tweet) amounts to a bit of an unfair question (but a question that was very germane to the issue and one of many unfair-ish questions to other candidates during the course of the campaign).
But unfair tweets are not election-losers or election-winners and can actually be destroyed with honesty and clarity.

jonniebgood1

take everything wrote: »

Your scenario:
Pat reads out an unverified tweet that mentions a press conference about an issue about Higgins.
Gallagher's tweet scenario referenced an ongoing concern so ideally an equivalent Higgins scenario's tweet should reference an ongoing concern.

Gallagher's tweet scenario involved a response from him that failed to refute the substance of the tweet. So likewise an equivalent Higgins' tweet scenario should involve him not refuting it properly.

Result:
Scenario 1: Ongoing concern+tweet+mealy-mouthed inability to refute= Gallagher losing
scenario 2: Ongoing concern+tweet+mealy-mouthed inability to refute= Higgins losing

In both cases i'd be looking at the "ongoing concern" and "mealy mouthed inability to refute" from the candidate themselves along with the tweet.
I wouldn't have a problem dismissing them as candidates if these two other things were present.
I'd also think RTE were stupid when it came to verifying tweets.

I definitely wouldn't see the tweet as having magical "election-winning" or "election-losing" properties outside this context. "TWEET FOR PRESIDENT 2011!" :pac:

The properties that win or lose the elections would be the "mealy-mouthed response" and the ongoing concern about the candidate prior to the tweet.

The tweet itself (the oh-so-precious and deadly tweet) amounts to a bit of an unfair question (but a question that was very germane to the issue and one of many unfair-ish questions to other candidates during the course of the campaign).
But unfair tweets are not election-losers or election-winners and can actually be destroyed with honesty and clarity.

You perfectly demonstrate the problem in all this. In this hypothetical situation you are accepting media influence and ignoring the unverified/ unfair questions. This allows the media to determine their favourite and tailor the 'unfairness' of the questions to suit their prefered candidate. If a question is made to suit the candidate it makes them appear better in the eyes of the electorate. Did you ever hear the expression 'mud sticks'?

take everything

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You perfectly demonstrate the problem in all this. In this hypothetical situation you are accepting media influence and ignoring the unverified/ unfair questions. This allows the media to determine their favourite and tailor the 'unfairness' of the questions to suit their prefered candidate. If a question is made to suit the candidate it makes them appear better in the eyes of the electorate. Did you ever hear the expression 'mud sticks'?

No, i'm acknowledging what RTE did as problematic.
Media influence happens all the time.
Unfair questions happen all the time.
What happened to Gallagher wasn't anything especially unusual.

The tweet is being isolated and trumped up beyond all reason as an "election-winning or losing" entity.
And the context (the ongoing mystery about Gallagher's FF connections and his failure to set the record straight) is minimised and forgotten.

jonniebgood1

take everything wrote: »

No, i'm acknowledging what RTE did as problematic.
Media influence happens all the time.
Unfair questions happen all the time.
What happened to Gallagher wasn't anything especially unusual.

If that is the case then you should be able to give examples of similarily prominent attacks on other candidates by the media. I don't think any of similar prominence exist but you are free to suggest them.

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You may not agree with the Sindo's editorial positions but I don't believe that you can dismiss the biggest selling newspaper in the country as "not a credible news source"

I also don't understand how you can claim the story you reference is without foundation when it contains direct testimony from one of the audience members who was present at the FL show in question and the headline of the piece is more or less a direct quote from the audience member ??



To be fair, you are not answering the question I asked. I understand that you would have been very sad had Sean Gallagher been elected. My question is how would you have felt about RTE, about the need for stronger censure etc had he won as a direct result of an unverified tweet. . for example, lets assume that Gallagher was in 2nd place coming into the FL debate and Pat Kenny had read out an unverified tweet that turned out to be untrue, that caused some concern over Higgins' character, that came too late in the day for any real defence and that subsequently resulted in Gallagher winning. Would that just be sloppy broadcasting or something more ??

You dismiss the Sindo as 'not credible' because their position is not in line with yours but RTE is just 'sloppy' .. is that because despite their behaviour the position is in line with your own and the election result is in line with your own personal preference ?

Can we park the party politics and debate what is right and wrong ?

I don't see where this thread is going .. everyone agrees that broadcasting the tweet was wrong.

Bad Rte shame on them.

In dispute is the importance of this tweet.

I for one don't think it magically and mysteriously lost him the election.

Off topic ..... Rte is very balanced these days and rightly so. They are after all the state broadcaster.
Again off topic Sunday independent is a biased FF newsletter.

take everything

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If that is the case then you should be able to give examples of similarily prominent attacks on other candidates by the media. I don't think any of similar prominence exist but you are free to suggest them.

Presidential election:
Independent: attacks on McGuinness
Herald: Disability benefit accusations against Norris
RTE (Miriam O' Callaghan): focus on McGuinness
Stupid stuff about Michael D Higgins 6 mths in FF as a student in the 60's
Generally unfair treatment of Gay Mitchell (personality etc).

Generally:
RTE: The laughably soft interviews with Bertie
RTE: MO'C Soft-ish interview with Cowen
RTE: Not an attack but Noel Whelan as a supposedly neutral analyst

These vary in fairness.
In all these cases you look at any problematic treatment in the context of how germane and justified the questioning is and how well the candidate sets the record straight.

jonniebgood1

take everything wrote: »

Presidential election:
Independent: attacks on McGuinness
Herald: Disability benefit accusations against Norris
RTE (Miriam O' Callaghan): focus on McGuinness
Stupid stuff about Michael D Higgins 6 mths in FF as a student in the 60's
Generally unfair treatment of Gay Mitchell (personality etc).

Generally:
RTE: The laughably soft interviews with Bertie
RTE: MO'C Soft-ish interview with Cowen
RTE: Not an attack but Noel Whelan as a supposedly neutral analyst

These vary in fairness.
In all these cases you look at any problematic treatment in the context of how germane and justified the questioning is and how well the candidate sets the record straight.

Sorry but these are clearly not on a level playing field- Tell me which of these was also subject to broadcasting commission comment.

take everything

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Sorry but these are clearly not on a level playing field- Tell me which of these was also subject to broadcasting commission comment.

Shouldn't any seriousness be inferred from the result of an inquiry and not necessarily whether an inquiry was held.

An inquiry was held because Gallagher pushed for one, not necessarily because of any inherent seriousness.

In that respect, it's disingenuous to reflexively say Gallagher's gripe was more serious than the others. What happened to Norris and McGuinness IMO was arguably equally/more objectionable.

What did the BAI find anyway- that it was a bit unfair and an apology was issued for the fcuk up.

You could go on and on about the relative seriousness of these media influences (eg Eoghan Harris on the LLS allowed to spin for FF before the 2007 election arguably putting FF back into power etc etc- maybe that was an RTE conspiracy).

Again the tweet played a small part in the course of the election (for which RTE duly apologised).
Gallagher's response to the tweet played a big part in the course of the election (which he has completely minimised and taken no responsibility for).

Also, incidentally, why isn't Gallagher going after Morgan.

jonniebgood1

take everything wrote: »

Shouldn't any seriousness be inferred from the result of an inquiry and not necessarily whether an inquiry was held.

An inquiry was held because Gallagher pushed for one, not necessarily because of any inherent seriousness.

In that respect, it's disingenuous to reflexively say Gallagher's gripe was more serious than the others. What happened to Norris and McGuinness IMO was arguably equally/more objectionable.

What did the BAI find anyway- that it was a bit unfair and an apology was issued for the fcuk up.

You could go on and on about the relative seriousness of these media influences (eg Eoghan Harris on the LLS allowed to spin for FF before the 2007 election arguably putting FF back into power etc etc- maybe that was an RTE conspiracy).

Again the tweet played a small part in the course of the election (for which RTE duly apologised).
Gallagher's response to the tweet played a big part in the course of the election (which he has completely minimised and taken no responsibility for).

Also, incidentally, why isn't Gallagher going after Morgan.

I think the dislike for the individual (Gallagher) is influencing your opinion. If for example Higgins had been subjected to a lie and caught off guard, bumbled a reply and saw his vote drop as a result giving the election to Gallagher the issue at hand here would be the same. However, this would then be a different 'story' though as people like Higgins.

take everything

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think the dislike for the individual (Gallagher) is influencing your opinion. If for example Higgins had been subjected to a lie and caught off guard, bumbled a reply and saw his vote drop as a result giving the election to Gallagher the issue at hand here would be the same. However, this would then be a different 'story' though as people like Higgins.

Nonsense.
If this happened to Higgins, i would know it was Higgins' inability to put the record straight and not the tweet that was his downfall.

jonniebgood1

take everything wrote: »

Nonsense.
If this happened to Higgins, i would know it was Higgins' inability to put the record straight and not the tweet that was his downfall.

Not nonsense at all. How many times did you mention individuala in post 241? I am debating the issue, not the individuals.

take everything

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Not nonsense at all. How many times did you mention individuala in post 241? I am debating the issue, not the individuals.

They were only mentioned to illustrate to you that media influence is not specifically an issue for Gallagher. I don't care about them.
So, again:
If this happened to X, i'd know it was X's inability to put the record straight and not the tweet that was X's downfall.