RTÉ whistleblower makes explosive 'insider' claims about election coverage

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.

marieholmfan

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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.

It comes down to the balance of risk and probability.

Sleeper12

marieholmfan wrote: »

It comes down to the balance of risk and probability.

yes 75 percent likely that they had more to hide

marieholmfan

Sleeper12 wrote: »

yes 75 percent likely that they had more to hide

That isn't how numbers work. Russian education system must be on the slide.

marieholmfan

flatty wrote: »

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.

The Irish people begged Miggledy to stay on. He really had no choice.

flatty

marieholmfan wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

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.

The Irish people begged Miggledy to stay on. He really had no choice.

Ah right. :-)

blanch152

marieholmfan wrote: »

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.

That is a big stretch. Normally big companies settle when their advisers tell them they have no case or to avoid embarrassment.

Edgware

Higgins is being painted as the "establishment choice who reneged on his one term promise"
Hopefully he will gives us a "Ray Patterson for Trash Commissioner" moment similar to Brian Lenihans performance.
The last thing we need is having Howlin and Burton getting any boost from a Higgins campaign

BarryD2

Edgware wrote: »

Higgins is being painted as the "establishment choice who reneged on his one term promise"
Hopefully he will gives us a "Ray Patterson for Trash Commissioner" moment similar to Brian Lenihans performance.
The last thing we need is having Howlin and Burton getting any boost from a Higgins campaign

You can't beat the Left for spite and cannibalising other left votes!

Not sure if I'd vote for the incumbent based on his one term promise, but if he turns out to be the best at end of the day, he'll get my No1.

jmcc

BarryD2 wrote: »

You can't beat the Left for spite and cannibalising other left votes!

Higgins is also facing an SF candidate. SF has done a good job in obliterating Labour and may consolidate the Left vote.

Regards...jmcc

Sleeper12

jmcc wrote:

Higgins is also facing an SF candidate. SF has done a good job in obliterating Labour and may consolidate the Left vote.

I'm sorry but I'm not good with names. If SF put forward the lady who didn't get her daughters vaccinated I don't think they have a hope in hell outside of the regular SF voters. Someone who believes a Facebook group over science will be torn apart by the media imo