Comments on: A Dereliction of Duty? http://dublinopinion.com/2007/10/25/a-dereliction-of-duty/ It's a group blog. What more do you need to know? Mon, 21 May 2012 15:16:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Donagh http://dublinopinion.com/2007/10/25/a-dereliction-of-duty/#comment-41337 Donagh Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:46:16 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2007/10/25/a-dereliction-of-duty/#comment-41337 I agree, the paper has covered these issues, but O'Toole's point about where in the paper these appear has some relevance. Also, they're not a Left wing paper that openly aggitates on issues, although they do 'absorb' certain left field comment to suggest that they are more liberal. Its the dominance of certain commentators that says so much about the paper, and proves the lie about having a left-wing point of view. I mean Stephen Collins for heaven's sake. But the myhome.ie aquisition, the awards, the blocking of data harvesting at the myhome.ie and the prominance of the Property Developers without putting it in the context of the over all economy, as suggest a very close relationship with vested interests and how it impacts on the editorial stance of the paper. I don't imagine printing the Tribunal leak was done to protect vested interests. The motivation was more than likely the somehow it was vaguely in the public interest. But there is also the point that with Bertiegate the media have effectively become the opposition, as the opposition itself has tried to steer clear of it for fear of a backlash. It is also curious considering Kennedy's former involvement with the Progressive Democrats. If ever there was a situation that put the squeeze on the PDs it was Bertiegate, unless somehow - and I don't really believe this, as its just too far fetched - they imagined that it would have been a way to gain leverage as the junior partner when it was perfectly obvious to the ambitious McDowell that no matter how hard he tried to row against the FF consensus he wasn't getting anywhere. I agree, the paper has covered these issues, but O’Toole’s point about where in the paper these appear has some relevance. Also, they’re not a Left wing paper that openly aggitates on issues, although they do ‘absorb’ certain left field comment to suggest that they are more liberal. Its the dominance of certain commentators that says so much about the paper, and proves the lie about having a left-wing point of view. I mean Stephen Collins for heaven’s sake.

But the myhome.ie aquisition, the awards, the blocking of data harvesting at the myhome.ie and the prominance of the Property Developers without putting it in the context of the over all economy, as suggest a very close relationship with vested interests and how it impacts on the editorial stance of the paper.

I don’t imagine printing the Tribunal leak was done to protect vested interests. The motivation was more than likely the somehow it was vaguely in the public interest. But there is also the point that with Bertiegate the media have effectively become the opposition, as the opposition itself has tried to steer clear of it for fear of a backlash. It is also curious considering Kennedy’s former involvement with the Progressive Democrats. If ever there was a situation that put the squeeze on the PDs it was Bertiegate, unless somehow - and I don’t really believe this, as its just too far fetched - they imagined that it would have been a way to gain leverage as the junior partner when it was perfectly obvious to the ambitious McDowell that no matter how hard he tried to row against the FF consensus he wasn’t getting anywhere.

]]> By: Tomaltach http://dublinopinion.com/2007/10/25/a-dereliction-of-duty/#comment-41317 Tomaltach Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:18:06 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2007/10/25/a-dereliction-of-duty/#comment-41317 Very good, probing piece. And I think Dav's link was a good read too. There seems little doubt about the insidious influence that big property has in the media - including, or perhaps especially at the Irish Times. Having said that, I think the Irish Times has critizied the cartel nature of the land ownership around Dublin. The paper also gave good coverage of the back down on the 20% directive relating to affordable homes. But yes, the allegation of undue influence still stands. I agree when you say that the motives for publishing the leak from Mahon were probably not done in the interest of the property developers. While the commercial pressures in relation to advertising are a certainty, I cannot believe that someone with Kennedy's career history is going to engage in deliberately undermining an organ of state in order to protect vested interests. In any case, we already know the general picture of how developers got their way in the county councils and higher. A leak now relating to Bertie is not going to do anyone much good. I am trying to understand Kennedy's thought process in deciding to publish (that she destroyed the docs and will protect her source is another matter). I presume she reasoned that the information relating to Ahern was of high importance to the electorate in an election year. And I presume she assumed that the information would not come out in time for the election - though there was still some way to go to the election at the time she published. Can she have reasonably assumed the information would <i>never</i> come out? I doubt it. Did she assume that the dominant party of their benefactors would prevent the Tribunal exposing this information until after the election? I don't know. Freedom of expression and the need for transparency are prime, but clearly she undermined the Tribunal and for matters which in all likelihood would have come out anyway. She probably made a bad call? (But now she has to protect her source and it will be interesting to see where it goes from here. The Peter Preston story - which Kennedy published this week, is a fascinating insight into protection of sources). Very good, probing piece. And I think Dav’s link was a good read too. There seems little doubt about the insidious influence that big property has in the media - including, or perhaps especially at the Irish Times. Having said that, I think the Irish Times has critizied the cartel nature of the land ownership around Dublin. The paper also gave good coverage of the back down on the 20% directive relating to affordable homes. But yes, the allegation of undue influence still stands.

I agree when you say that the motives for publishing the leak from Mahon were probably not done in the interest of the property developers. While the commercial pressures in relation to advertising are a certainty, I cannot believe that someone with Kennedy’s career history is going to engage in deliberately undermining an organ of state in order to protect vested interests. In any case, we already know the general picture of how developers got their way in the county councils and higher. A leak now relating to Bertie is not going to do anyone much good.

I am trying to understand Kennedy’s thought process in deciding to publish (that she destroyed the docs and will protect her source is another matter). I presume she reasoned that the information relating to Ahern was of high importance to the electorate in an election year. And I presume she assumed that the information would not come out in time for the election - though there was still some way to go to the election at the time she published. Can she have reasonably assumed the information would never come out? I doubt it. Did she assume that the dominant party of their benefactors would prevent the Tribunal exposing this information until after the election? I don’t know. Freedom of expression and the need for transparency are prime, but clearly she undermined the Tribunal and for matters which in all likelihood would have come out anyway. She probably made a bad call? (But now she has to protect her source and it will be interesting to see where it goes from here. The Peter Preston story - which Kennedy published this week, is a fascinating insight into protection of sources).

]]>