A worrying pattern

Nodin

Vincent Browne, the celebrated journalist and broadcaster, has been
threatened with legal proceedings against him personally by billionaire
businessman Denis O'Brien.

Mr O'Brien is believed to have written to the journalist on foot of an
article that Mr Browne wrote for the Irish Times about the businessman and the Moriarty tribunal.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/denis-obrien-makes-personal-libel-threat-to-vincent-browne-3190018.html

By itself insignificant, this is part of an established pattern with Mr O'Brien. He also targeted Sam Smyth with a similar threat.

Apart from the threats (which are numerous and disturbingly regular) he has brought to court 20 organisations and individuals since 2003.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/nov/07/denis-o-brien-press-freedom

Given this behaviour, the well publicised events at INM and the Moriarty tribunal, is this really a suitable person to be a media owner in the state? And will his close ties with FG prevent a media ownership law that will divest him of at least some of his holdings?

KyussBishop

Wonder what it is he is labeling as libel? Here are a few VB articles from this year:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0725/1224320762450.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0418/1224314874703.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0411/1224314605792.html

Not sure what exact part is problematic though.

Certainly a worrying precedent, but at least it's very public and thus costly for O'Brien; hopefully it brings a lot of additional attention to the issues VB raised.

OT: Did the phone hacking investigations ever spread out here into Ireland as well? Was rampant in the UK, so would be surprising if there was nothing going on here too.

woodoo

He is a bit of a bully O'Brien. He seems to like to throw his weight around.

I would like to see Vincent publish the letter.

Dr Galen

Can we just make sure that anything that gets posted in threads like this stays on the right side of the legal line please?

Don't forget, that posting in a forum like this is not like having a chat down the pub/coffee shop/watercooler. When you post here, it gets published, is a matter of record and you "own" those comments. We can't allow either the site or you as a poster to be open to any sort of legal proceeedings.

Cheers

DrG

woodoo

I understand dr galen. He is too powerful though. And after the findings of the tribunal i don't think he should be in a position to own so much media in Ireland.

He seems to think he can threaten people with ruin if they delve into his past and he doesn't like what is said about it.

Still i don't think Vincent is a man to roll over to easily, well at least i hope not.

Nodin

KyussBishop wrote: »

..........

Certainly a worrying precedent, but at least it's very public and thus costly for O'Brien; hopefully it brings a lot of additional attention to the issues VB raised.

.......

If you mean costly in terms of cash, he can afford it. If you mean costly in terms of public opinion....given the way he attacked a sitting Judge (and was allowed air time to do so) following Moriarty, do you honestly think its going to either bother or impede him?

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

If you mean costly in terms of cash, he can afford it. If you mean costly in terms of public opinion....given the way he attacked a sitting Judge (and was allowed air time to do so) following Moriarty, do you honestly think its going to either bother or impede him?

It's his hard-earned money,and if Mr O Brien's affection for the Legal Fraternity is so deeply felt then let him embark on a single handed crusade to enrich some more already wealthy Legal eagles.

To the "Ordinary" man on the street,it's really nothing more than portly,over-influential self-confident lads out to make an impression in their lifetime ?

All a bit sad really,given the state of the country right now ?

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's his hard-earned money,and if Mr O Brien's affection for the Legal Fraternity is so deeply felt then let him embark on a single handed crusade to enrich some more already wealthy Legal eagles.

To the "Ordinary" man on the street,it's really nothing more than portly,over-influential self-confident lads out to make an impression in their lifetime ?

All a bit sad really,given the state of the country right now ?

And if this "crusade" means that matters similar to that raised in the Tribunal are never mentioned or alluded to by journalists, and that the fitness of this person as a media owner and person of influence are never mentioned for fear of litigation, sure what does it matter.

poeticseraphim

Nodin wrote: »

And if this "crusade" means that matters similar to that raised in the Tribunal are never mentioned or alluded to by journalists, and that the fitness of this person as a media owner and person of influence are never mentioned for fear of litigation, sure what does it matter.

I am surprised that people think this has not been the situation in Ireland for the past twenty years. Journalists fear losing access to politicians and being frozen out or their jobs. The state TV station fears losing funding or favour and people fear our defamation laws being abused with people who have the money to at least not care whether they risk losing and taking on your legal costs.

It is enough to destroy your career in journalism and other potenital areas in writing (trust me i know and work in this area) .

You are given strict guidelines on tone and content regarding certain people and given free rein on others. And everything gets heaavily edited and sometimes even given the ok by the person in question.

All sitting govts are given a gentle ride....

The BBC usually appears more leftist or conservative depending on the sitting govt ...and commercial stations support the mogul who owns them and their ideology.


IT IS CITIZEN KANE WORLD:-)

1 ..2 ...3 ..ALL TOGETHER NOW ..THERE IS MAN ..THERE IS A MAN..THERE IS A MAN..AND HIS NAME IS MR...SSHHH (FOR FEAR OR LITIGATION).

:-) ;-) :-)

KyussBishop

Nodin wrote: »

If you mean costly in terms of cash, he can afford it. If you mean costly in terms of public opinion....given the way he attacked a sitting Judge (and was allowed air time to do so) following Moriarty, do you honestly think its going to either bother or impede him?

I suppose not, though I still think it publicly underscores the issues VB wrote about rather well; what is the state of libel laws here in Ireland, out of interest? (I don't know much about that or the state of media organizations here)

It seems unusual that VB can be targeted personally, rather than the publisher being targeted, as typically the publishers are the ones to provide defense for such cases.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I am surprised that people think this has not been the situation in Ireland for the past twenty years. Journalists fear losing access to politicians and being frozen out or their jobs. The state TV station fears losing funding or favour and people fear our defamation laws being abused with people who have the money to at least not care whether they risk losing and taking on your legal costs.

It is enough to destroy your career in journalism and other potenital areas in writing (trust me i know and work in this area) .

You are given strict guidelines on tone and content regarding certain people and given free rein on others. And everything gets heaavily edited and sometimes even given the ok by the person in question.

That's not journalism though, that's being a subservient lapdog; journalists are supposed to adversarially investigate officials/businesspeople and scrutinize them, not desperately suck up to politicians/influential-people, for fear of losing 'access' or funding.

Personally, I would like to see all of those access-based 'journalists' out of a job, and money instead put into real investigative journalism and critical analysis from people who have balls enough to take personal risks (preferably with media organizations willing to back them legally).

Nodin

KyussBishop wrote: »

I suppose not, though I still think it publicly underscores the issues VB wrote about rather well; what is the state of libel laws here in Ireland, out of interest? (I don't know much about that or the state of media organizations here)

It seems unusual that VB can be targeted personally, rather than the publisher being targeted, as typically the publishers are the ones to provide defense for such cases.

It would not be an area that I'm an expert on obviously, however from what I can gather they are far more restrictive than would be the case in the UK.

As regards the situation with targeting the individual as oppossed to the publication, this would appear to be a "legitamate" tactic which has the (purely coincidental I'm sure) side effect of being extremely intimidating to those lacking access to multi-millionaire scale funds.

KyussBishop

Nodin wrote: »

It would not be an area that I'm an expert on obviously, however from what I can gather they are far more restrictive than would be the case in the UK.

As regards the situation with targeting the individual as oppossed to the publication, this would appear to be a "legitamate" tactic which has the (purely coincidental I'm sure) side effect of being extremely intimidating to those lacking access to multi-millionaire scale funds.

Indeed, seems totally backwards to me, though I'm not sure how it works for journalistic outlets in other countries (whether people can be sued individually, or if it's restricted to the publisher).

Wonder if the Irish Times would back VB on this.

ArmaniJeanss

Nodin wrote: »

And if this "crusade" means that matters similar to that raised in the Tribunal are never mentioned or alluded to by journalists, and that the fitness of this person as a media owner and person of influence are never mentioned for fear of litigation, sure what does it matter.

The key word is 'similar'.
You can safely refer to events/findings which were covered under the Tribunal.
So "as Moriarty found, Mr ABC did XYZ" is perfectly fine and you are untouchable here.
But if you want to go into 'similar' allegations (i.e. completely different allegations) then you'd better have some proof.

FreudianSlippers

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's his hard-earned money,and if Mr O Brien's affection for the Legal Fraternity is so deeply felt then let him embark on a single handed crusade to enrich some more already wealthy Legal eagles.

To the "Ordinary" man on the street,it's really nothing more than portly,over-influential self-confident lads out to make an impression in their lifetime ?

All a bit sad really,given the state of the country right now ?

Nonsense. I'm not sure what angle you are trying to play here, but O'Brien is not bringing legal proceedings to "enrich some more already wealthy Legal eagles" - it doesn't even make sense why he would want to waste his money! He clearly feels he has been defamed and is very sensitive about it. IMHO he is an absolute idiot and needs to chill out; frivolous actions against anyone that utters his name in a negative manner will get him nowhere (think of a boy who cried wolf scenario).

I'm just not sure what bone you have to pick with the legal profession, but it is clearly something of which you have little actual knowledge.

AlekSmart

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Nonsense. I'm not sure what angle you are trying to play here, but O'Brien is not bringing legal proceedings to "enrich some more already wealthy Legal eagles" - it doesn't even make sense why he would want to waste his money! He clearly feels he has been defamed and is very sensitive about it. IMHO he is an absolute idiot and needs to chill out; frivolous actions against anyone that utters his name in a negative manner will get him nowhere (think of a boy who cried wolf scenario).

I'm just not sure what bone you have to pick with the legal profession, but it is clearly something of which you have little actual knowledge.

A tad spritely ?

My point is that Dinny O Brien will almost certainly instruct the very best of the lagal fraternity to bring his case forward.

I'm suggesting that legal expertise at this level will not come cheaply,and if Mr O Brien feels that funding,what most of the great unwashed would view as frivolous actions is the way to go,then let him at it.

I'm assuming that,prior to embarking on this crusade,Denis has factored in the possibility of Losing the case :eek: ?

If he has'nt then he really should...?

And just to make it absolutely crystal,I have NO bone whatever to pick with the Legal Profession,and equally little knowledge of it (TG)

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

A tad spritely ?

My point is that Dinny O Brien will almost certainly instruct the very best of the lagal fraternity to bring his case forward.

I'm suggesting that legal expertise at this level will not come cheaply,and if Mr O Brien feels that funding,what most of the great unwashed would view as frivolous actions is the way to go,then let him at it.

How do threats of legal action against valid comments on past matters or political corruption constitute "frivolous actions"?

AlekSmart wrote: »

And just to make it absolutely crystal,I have NO bone whatever to pick with the Legal Profession,and equally little knowledge of it

Legal advice, letters and various steps before a court case is even brought cost money. Mr O'Brien has a great deal of it. He certainly has a great deal more of it than the average journalist or even publication. That would be knowledge sufficient to inform one of the significance of this pattern of behaviour.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

How do threats of legal action against valid comments on past matters or political corruption constitute "frivolous actions"?


Legal advice, letters and various steps before a court case is even brought cost money. Mr O'Brien has a great deal of it. He certainly has a great deal more of it than the average journalist or even publication. That would be knowledge sufficient to inform one of the significance of this pattern of behaviour.

I would have thought that if the comments were valid and sustainable then Denis O'B's threats are largely frivolous ?

If however the comments are held to be the opposite then his actions will be vindicated ?

Is this all about Denis O Brien's Wealth or his Integrity ?

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

I would have thought that if the comments were valid and sustainable then Denis O'B's threats are largely frivolous ?

If however the comments are held to be the opposite then his actions will be vindicated ?

Is this all about Denis O Brien's Wealth or his Integrity ?

I'm beginning to think that you're being purposefully obtuse. If criticism of Mr O'Brien automatically incurs a large amount of legal expense, its perfectly logical to assume that those on the receiving end of his attentions will be intimidated and those who might be should they write likewise put off.

Dirk Gently

Vinb published the letters this afternoon

http://politico.ie/irish-politics/8688-correspondence-between-denis-obrien-and-vincent-browne.html

Good loser

Dirk Gently wrote: »

Vinb published the letters this afternoon

http://politico.ie/irish-politics/8688-correspondence-between-denis-obrien-and-vincent-browne.html

Very interesting. For once I'd back Vinny.

Nodin

Mr Browne isn't backing away, it seems. From yesterdays times -

"Why I think O'Brien is not a fit person to control INM"
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0815/1224322198397.html

The article refers to memos and other information indicating O'Brien's attempt to interfere with and direct INM editorial policy. I'll just put up this section, but recommend reading the full article.

On October 29th, 2010, Leslie Buckley contacted Gavin O’Reilly following a conversation Leslie Buckley had had with Denis O’Brien who, according to Leslie Buckley, was “very upset with [journalist] Sam Smyth”.
Denis O’Brien alleged Sam Smyth was conducting “almost a vendetta” against him. He wanted to know whether Sam Smyth could be taken off the story of the Moriarty tribunal and moved on to something else. Leslie Buckley said Sam Smyth’s piece in that morning’s Irish Independent was okay but his performance on the previous Tuesday night’s Prime Time programme was “aggressive” and “hostile”.

At the time, Denis O’Brien was threatening to sue Sam Smyth personally for remarks made on another television programme. Leslie Buckley said Sam Smyth had done his job (on the tribunal) and should now be moved on to another story.
On November 5th, 2010, Gavin O’Reilly had a transcript done of a phone message left by Leslie Buckley: “Hi Gavin, Leslie here. Got your text message. Really what we are talking about is there somebody who can be down there , I know there are other reporters, really kind of writing pretty positive situations. There was one good story last week carried – I can’t remember who, but by and large, it’s generally negative stuff. Someone with our friend down there I think really trying to ensure that a good balanced story comes out. That would be much appreciated. Give me a bell as I’d like to try to resolve this.”

How does such conduct measure up to what Denis O’Brien says is the proper role of the owner/controller of a media enterprise to act “at an appropriate distance from editorial matters” and “the responsibility that rests with media owners not to interfere with editorial content”?
And how plausible is it that the removal of Sam Smyth from a Sunday morning radio programme on Today FM, which Denis O’Brien controls, and his ostracisation now within the Irish Independent to which he is contracted (not one article by him has been published for some months), isn’t part of the same campaign which Denis O’Brien and Leslie Buckley, conducted against Sam Smyth in 2010?

Good loser

Leslie's the enforcer. See the Esat/Iarnrod Dail enquiry.