As we’ve argued here before, the property market in Ireland has been pumped up and that there has been certain vested interests involved in this, including Government. We’ve also argued that this is definitely not the right thing for the Irish economy in the long term. The ARW post highlighted the same issue. Its a concern that the same points haven’t been made by our national newspapers, but because they are so tied into the economic benefits of property speculation they prefer not to.

The piece was dodgy because it’s tone suggested that McDonald was shifty and a hypocrite. It was written in a way that could, considering Irish defamation laws, been seen as libelous. Not because what was said was inaccurate but because it suggested underhandedness - talking up the housing market while at the same time having personal experience of a downturn.

Clearly Richard was his own worst enemy but still it is really the case that these ‘anomalies’ between what is being said and what is happening can only be pointed out an semi-anonymous blogs, which are too small for the big wigs to notice, and which if they do are easy to dismiss?

Also, because pesky blogs have no resources to fight heavy hitters like McDonald Richard shouldn’t have brought ARW walk so close to the firing line.

I’m not condoning the actions of the Tribune and certainly I feel that he should have been able to point these things out without getting fired - if its supposed to be a paper that follows proper journalistic standards. I just think that Richard was a little unwise and should have been aware of the fallout for him - he knows the score about newspapers(especially IN&M ones) work in Ireland. I do feel sorry for him, in a way, although I’ve always seriously disliked his politics.

I’d advise you to give up smoking the mulley-weed. If Richard was fired for this, then it was for the offence of having embaressed a major advertiser, not for anything to do with blogs per se.

My animosity towards the Indo-group execs aside, I’m sorry to see this happen to him. Even the sight of a Waghorne endoresement doesn’t change my sense that he’s calmed down a bit in recent years, and gotten more sense.

So the tone was that of someone who enjoyed the relative anonymity of a blog taking a crack at a well known figure who Richard should have known could come a knocking at his office door. In fact, the ARW post quoted a piece from the Irish Independent which mentioned that McDonald took exception to a previous piece in the paper.

Perhaps the thing that gave him the confidence to write it in that way was that the original ARW post which linked together information that was already available, along side statements from McDonald talking up the market. Again, I can’t imagine Richard considered McDonald as the enemy, so he wasn’t out to get Auctioneers in general. Rather it was to highlight what he saw as hypocrisy. There is also the unacknowledged fact in blogs, such as ARW, that Ireland’s economic dependence on an over-inflated property market looks like becoming a serious problem, especially in the light of the collapse of similarly hyper-inflated housing markets in the US and elsewhere. This fact, widely discussed elsewhere, hardly figures in newspapers at all, for the good reason that with newspapers reliance on property advertising that it is not in its interest to do so. Again, Richard seemed to forget this fact. What can be said on blogs can’t be said in newspapers and there is a very specific reason for that.

Hugh, you’re exactly right about the other suggested reasons. They shouldn’t factor in this at all. The argument that this was a ‘good excuse’ doesn’t really work either, especially as it could backfire for the Trib. I think its a disciplining measure, but if the reasons are as we imagine, it’s a completely naked one and I’m surprised that the Trib would be willing to reveal how beholden it is to its advertisers without even trying to pretend that it stands by the integrity of its journalists.

Regarding the allegations that he was a bit difficult to work with/for that are floating about, I have no idea if these are true, but even if they were, it is very difficult to get rid of someone based on that alone. Workplaces are full of such people.

The most likely scenario is a phone call, the content of which contained the words ‘either he goes..’

I was quite surprised at the tone and content of the piece myself. It is rare for a newspaper to so blatantly bite the hand that feeds it.

Whatever the motivation behind it, the effect of Delevan’s sacking will be to discipline journalists even further, making sure they continue to report on the issues as their real paymasters require.

Not that many of them actually need it.

Certainly it could be that Richard ‘had it coming’, but even so, looking at A Random Walk’s post now (thanks David, if it’s up on politics.ie it’s already widely available) its entirely based on stuff that is already out there, so it shouldn’t have been a problem. But it’s a PR disaster for The Sunday Tribune. This shouldn’t have been a sackable offence. It just looks like McDonald, who has put pressure on newspapers for saying things he didn’t like before, wanted action and the Trib obliged. If the Irish Times can stand by their man for a very suspect opinion piece why should the Trib give in to a big wig in the property market. At the moment it doesn’t look good, but of course, reality might be different.