Blurred Keys

The Irish Times reports: “The Supreme Court has upheld an appeal by Irish Times editor Geraldine Kennedy and public affairs correspondent Colm Keena against a court order requiring them to answer questions from the Mahon tribunal about the source of an article about former taoiseach Bertie Ahern”.

Justice Nial Fennelly pointed to the High Court giving great weight to the journalists actions of destroying documents leading to an “erroneous approach”. RTE is reports that Justice Fennelly said it was ‘very difficult to discern any sufficiently clear benefit to the Tribunal from any answers to the questions they wish to pose’

The new judgement is seen as giving greater legal protection to journalist’s right to protect their sources.

Just with reports of music, film, and game piracy “costing” businesses in ‘lost’ revenue and the State in tax ‘lost’ taxes, one cannot lose something you never had. Claims from the Irish Tobacco Manufactures Advisory Committee of ‘loses’ as reported by the Irish Independent and the Irish Examiner recently are likely to be on the high side.

With lower music sales being blamed on piracy, reports from the OECD and others have said a more significant impact is likely to be consumers not having money to spend on growing types of media. Other reports outline how people downloading large amounts of music illegally are often the best consumers of the music and buy large amounts of music, gig tickets, and merchandise.

But the piracy line by these industries is still been reported as fact or claims without any mention of independent reports from groups such as the OECD which take a different line.

In the same vain, cigarette smokers who buy illegally imported cigarettes most likely could not afforded the same amount of cigarettes at the very high legal cigarette prices in Ireland. And it’s more complex than the cigarette industry claim, or what at least what is the result or their claims to newspapers.

There’s a lot to consider. Cost-benefit analysis for strict, strict control by the State would show a drop off of any possible benefit at some point –- it becomes more costly to control illegal imports than any possible tax take would generate. Even levered against health spend benefit, the benefit drops off. So, very strict controls would not be worth the cost. Control measures at ports can also damage other business by slowing down goods movements.

Furthermore, somebody is getting their figures messed up, the Irish Independent reported last month that:

“The manufacturers said last night the figures showed the geographic spread of the market for the smuggled cigarettes, which were estimated by the authorities to cost the Exchequer €500m every year in lost revenue”

But just at the start of the year the same reporter in the same newspaper said the following:

“In 2007, the Irish Government lost some €352m in taxes because of smuggling”

So, the most recent report claims that the cost to the Exchequer is “€500m every year”, but the same paper about five months before reported the Exchequer only lost “some €352m” in 2007? It get worse, the earlier reports says:

“CIGARETTE smuggling is predicted to cost the country more than €500m in lost revenue within a year”

So, what was first reported to maybe happen within a year, the second report tells the reader this is happening “every year.” Amazing stuff. Something which is predicted to happen “within a year” is then apparently happening “every year”. But the Indo’s Sunday paper, the Sunday Independent, said only in April:

“Cost to State of EUR2-per-pack price rise could have been as much as EUR500m in lost revenue”

So, get this. What is reported as something which only “could have” happened just back in April is already happening “every year.” Fault can often be found with this type of reportage based on reports and figures –- which rarely have an explained source or author — released by groups for one or another industry or cause. And often the PR people behind the apparent facts and figures are good enough at their jobs that blunders won’t be as obvious in reports just month apart, or figures will look realistic. However, in this case, the Examiner said on Saturday that:

“The illegal trade is reaching epidemic proportions and one estimate, for the losses to the exchequer per year by the end of 2010 of excise duties and VAT, has been put at 750 million”

Even if larger demand for illegal supply in a recession is taken into account, this is quite a jump from the claim of “€500m every year” printed in the Irish Independent last month – and even the €500m figure is in doubt given the record of reporting on the issue.

The official announcement of the merger of Dublin morning freesheets Herald AM and Metro lacks any detail, as Markham Nolan writes here.

Back in March, The Irish Times business section had already reported it would be called Metro Herald, the deal would be subject to approval by the Competition Authority, and that Associated Newspapers, The Irish Times and Independent News and Media would own a third of the new paper. Nolan also gave his view on the merger back in March.

Of course, the business heads of each company are quoted to give a glowing review of the move. But the only new fact seems to be that the 145,000 copies of both freesheets combined distributed currently, will drop to “70,000 plus” copies of the new Metro Herald.

Gav Reilly ponders about the last edition of Question and Answers which excluded the central part of the show. The element which made Q&A what it was — the audience interaction.

That interaction lead to what will likely stand as one of the most powerful contributions in the programme’s history. Even those of us who felt sick after reading coverage of the Ryan Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, Michael O’Brien’s now famous appearance gave viewers a greater understanding of the pain and anger felt by victims of abuse and the way the Government was handling the issue.

Wouldn’t it have been great be able to open the floor some questions out of the Taoiseach,  who was the final guest? Ok, so, Brian Cowen would have been unlikely to appear if he knew uncomfortable questions could come from the floor. But that should not be the concern of a current affairs programme.

Unfortunately,  John Bowman not only wants focus on more on history, he started to do so heavy with the last show. And that would be ok, if he was not so uncritical in his methods. Soft questions — like how the Taoiseach comes across on TV — were the order of the day and too much rhetoric from Cowen left unchallenged. What was the point of the interview?

In a question on standing by former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds, Cowen answered:

“I see my job as being part of a collective authority which is cabinet and one supports the leader of the cabinet at all times. Without that you don’t get decision making…”

Isn’t this the type of unquestioning support of authority at all times the kind of environment that allowed abuse of children who were in the care of the State? Isn’t it the kind of environment the leaves too much room for bad decisions to be made on so many different levels? Has it not led to unaccountably?

Maybe it’s unfair to criticise Bowman when it seems to be standard in the media not to hold Government to account? Maybe Bowman is focused on some other part of the bigger picture I don’t see?

As Gav Reilly says:

The premise of the show was about getting public figures into a room and essentially holding them accountable. It will forever be a shame that the final guest, the most powerful the show could ever get hold of, was allowed to break that mould.

And to paraphrase Jeremy Paxman: When one is in a position to interview those in power the person should ask questions that people would expect to be asked, and continue until the question is actually answered. The amount of unquestioned rhetoric in the Cowen interview makes it fail this requirement. To be fair, Paxman also says one often gets it wrong.

All in the realm of new media: Adrian Weckler talks to Michael Foley, a senior journalism lecturer in DIT, snobbery against online journalism. Weckler also asks: How much is too much for journalists to blog and tweet? Meanwhile, Adam Maguire deals with his own experience of publishing a link to an unedited interview after an article of his.

In The Irish Times today, Peter Murtagh writes (’Journalists are supposed to be against abuses‘) about Monica Leech being awarded €1.87 million in her libel case against the Evening Herald / Independent News & Media.

He says journalists should not be standing “shoulder to shoulder” with those who abuse power — in this case the Herald.

The argument on the other side is the large sum awarded will deter serious journalism. But is it not the Herald which is at fault here rather than the jury? Beside money, what else does Independent News and Media understand? What else would make them think twice?

An invaluable defamation defence for Irish discussion forums could be seen in the outcome of a case at the Dublin High Court, Mulvaney v Betfair. In that case, Betfair successfully claimed defence under an EU directive which protects hosting companies from defamation once they remove the content after they have been contacted and warned about it. Before now the people who run sites were seen in law as publishers.

TJ McIntyre, lecturer at the University College Dublin School of Law,  has more, where he warns:

“Consequently, although this decision will give some comfort to Irish chatroom operators, it shouldn’t be given too much weight and is unlikely to be the last word on the scope of the hosting defence in Ireland. We may have to wait for a more fully reasoned judgment (or guidance from the ECJ) before we can definitively say what rules apply to Irish sites which host user generated content”.

Note: Although the case uses the term ‘chatroom’ it was about a discussion forum, many people would see the two as different things.

A case of questioning some facts while accepting other facts without question?… A letter The Irish Times today responds to an article by the same paper’s Peter Murtagh (’Scrutinising claims of a ‘vicious’ attack on Shell protester‘, May 18, 2009):

A chara, – Like Peter Murtagh (Opinion, May 18th), I will reserve judgment on what happened to Willie Corduff at Glengad, Co Mayo, in the wee hours of April 23rd, until I see medical reports or other evidence of his injuries.

But I will also reserve judgment as to who it was used a digger to tear down Shell’s fence the previous evening, until I see evidence to identify them.

Mr Murtagh insinuates that this was the work of a group of Shell to Sea protesters: “. . . Protesters disagree and a group broke into the fenced-off area on April 22nd, commandeered digging machinery and smashed the fence.”

All the reports I have read indicate that the people who tore the fence down wore masks, and somehow managed to escape without being arrested, despite the large numbers of private security contractors and gardaí stationed in the area. I have seen no explanation as to how they started the digger, nor any evidence that it was hot-wired.

It may be bizarre to speculate that a group of masked Shell sympathisers might have taken a digger to tear the fence down, but no more bizarre than the findings of the Morris tribunal that members of the Garda Síochána in Donegal planted a hoax bomb at the MMDS antenna in Ardara so as to arrest local protesters under the Offences Against the State Act.

As the seanfhocal says: “Ní mar a shíltear a bhítear.” It is fair enough for Mr Murtagh to ask for evidence of what happened to Willie Corduff, but he must not then join the charge to transmute some other unproven allegation into bald fact. – Is mise,

COILÍN ÓhAISEADHA,

Metropolitan Apartments,

Bóthar Inse Chór,Cill Mhaighneann,

Baile Átha Cliath 8.

There still remains questions over the source of the part of the story which Murtagh apparently presents as unquestioned facts. As pointed out in the Phoenix recently:

…shortly before 9am on April 23, listeners to RTE Morning Ireland were told that the Gardaí had sealed off an area at Glengad as a “crime scene”. But this was not because of what allegedly happened to Corduff, which was barely mentioned, but because of an alleged “incursion” and “intimidation” of Shell security staff and “damage” to equipment by “armed”and “masked” men who acted with “military precision”. This was later updated to “paramilitary precision” by the zealous Mayo Gardaí.

But as locals have pointed out — even if the media has not — the Gardaí have declined to say if they were present. This is because any such admission would beg the question: why did they not arrest any of the paramilitary perpetrators? And if they were not present, how do they possess such precise details of the assault?

UPDATE #2 (17/05/2009): Reports in Sunday newspapers today suggest IN&M have managed to secure a standstill pact with bondholders, the company is due to announce this in the morning.

(Via Greenslade) The print edition of the Telegraph reported today that “City traders are betting heavily that Independent News & Media (INM) will be forced into administration as early as Monday as 11th-hour talks between shareholders and bondholders collapsed.”

Meanwhile, also in a print article this morning, The Irish Times reports the Independent group is “on the cusp of a ’standstill’ pact with its bondholders, which would give the company breathing space until late June to reorganise its debt,” however these “efforts are ongoing to convince the remaining holders to approve the standstill deal.”

UPDATE #1: The Daily Telegraph article (’Traders bet on Independent owner to fail as bond looms’ City, page 35) reports “The bondholders are refusing to accept the offer” and quotes one bondholder as saying: “This is the equivalent of 15p when we are owed 100p. The situation has gone on for long enough. The shareholders need to inject more cash and equities and get on with the asset sales over the next year or so.” The Telegraph says INM declined to comment.

A free local newspaper, the Mayo Echo, has stopped publishing, blaming a “blacklisting” by Mayo County Council, a competitor’s “campaign to close us down” and the economy.

Talking to Blurred Keys this week, editor of the Mayo Echo, Tony Geraghty, said: “Firstly the biggest employer and advertiser in Mayo, Mayo County Council, has blacklisted our publication for a number of years now, and that has effectively denied us much needed advertising revenue.”

In breaking the stories such as the Competition Authority investigation of the waste sector privatisation in Mayo – which led to national coverage – the newspaper made few friends at Mayo County Council. In not getting council advertising, Geraghty said the council is giving other newspapers a “commercial advantage” and uses “taxpayers’ money to discourage negative press coverage.”

On competitor and the general drop in advertising, he said: “Secondly, a number of our competitors have drastically reduced their advertising rates, and thirdly the general economy has taken a severe dip in recent months, tightening up the advertising spend. As we are an independent publication, we are unable to sustain significant losses, and unfortunately were forced to take the decision to cease publication”.

In an editorial published in the last edition of the newspaper (Wednesday April 15 2009), Geraghty focused on one competitor, he said:

“…in the last number of months the Western People, owned by the Cork-based Thomas Crosbie Media conglomerate, has launched a significant campaign to close us down. It has contacted many of our advertisers calling into question our distribution figures, and has repeatedly called into question our integrity. It has effectively bullied us out of the market using tactics that can only be described as sharp practice. Given that we are a small, independently owned publication, it is almost impossible for us to withstand such an onslaught, and therefore it is with the greatest of regret that we have been forced to take the decision to cease publication.”

According to the Mayo Echo, it started out in printing 6,000 copies in 2004, growing to a total distribution of 24,100. Mayoecho.com says this was a combination of 12,200 door-to-door deliveries split between the towns of Ballina, Castlebar, Westport, and Claremorris, and a further 11,900 through shops and businesses in Mayo. The total unaudited figure is nearly 6,000 copies more than the last audited circulation for the Western People, which gave the Western a total average circulation of 18,242 (Audit Bureau of Circulations, Island of Ireland Report December 2008).

In the editorial, Geraghty also said his paper had taken the view from early on the paper would not cover “petty court cases.” Instead the Mayo Echo, the editorial said: “…took a good look at the larger institutions around us. We attempted to expose our greedy politicians, our wasteful and corrupt county council, our incredibly incompetent health service, the many tax-payer-funded local quango’s that have sprung up in recent years, and other suspicious or dangerous activity being carried out by big businesses or other local agencies.”

In doing so, the newspaper courted controversy on a number of occasions. Last year, it attracted national and local criticism for a cover story that likened homosexuals to perverts and linked gay cruising to paedophilia (‘Castlebar Lake Attracts Hundreds of Perverts’). When criticism of the article appeared on community site Castlebar.ie, Geraghty attracted further attention after he threaten the website with legal action.

In the last edition, Geraghty hinted at a possible return in “another format,” saying: “No doubt there will be many who celebrate our closure, and many who exhale a sigh of relief. I am encouraged though to hope that there will be just as many who will miss our weekly edition. You may, in the distant future, see us return in another format, but for now at least, I wish you a fond farewell.”

At the time of publication, the last edition of the Echo was still available on Mayoecho.com in PDF format. Archive issues are not online.

The Mayo newspaper landscape now includes three paid titles, the Western People, The Connaught Telegraph, and the Mayo News, and one freesheet in the Mayo Advertiser.

« Older Entries