|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland |
What Prime Time didn't want you to hear national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Wednesday January 15, 2003 00:48 by Aidan - IMC
 Tuesday the 14th of January's Prime Time left Tim Hourigan out of the loop. Here's the inside story of some of the behind the scenes wrangling behind this extraordinary story. Yesterday it was reported that Tim Hourigan, the dogged peace activist who has done so much reporting on the comings and goings of US military aircraft at shannon; would debate the issue with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, on Prime Time RTEs political affair program. Anyone who watched tonight’s program would be surprised to see that instead of a live debate Tim's part was pre recorded, at RTE's limerick studio. This is, in part, the story of why this happened, but it leaves us with more questions then answers. In the early afternoon Tim was contacted by Prime Time staff, and informed that due to potential “technical difficulties" the live feed would have to be cancelled. Contacting a source at the Limerick RTE studio, I learnt that this was utterly untrue. The technician was frankly insulted, that this was used as an excuse. Tim meanwhile had arranged his own transportation to the studio in Dublin. Now Prime Time told Tim that he could not participate in the debate because he was not a "politician". This change in tactic was countered by Green Party chairman and spokesperson on foreign affairs; John Gormley. The TD offered to let Tim replace him, acting as the Green Party spokesperson on Shannon. Prime Time instead decided to decline to have John Gormley on the program, and the person now debating the minister would be Gay Mitchell; the Fine Gael foreign affairs spokesperson. Fine Gael is a party who have murmured quiet words on the governments stance on Shannon; and have agreed in general with Fianna Fail's policy towards the US and Iraq. When questioned about Prime Times decision; whether it was a technical problem, or whether it was because Tim was not a "politician"; The producer Noel Curran, respond "both". Confronted with the fact that sources in the Limerick studio denied any technical fault, Noel ignored the question. I then moved onto the definition of "politician". Tim had stood as a Green Party candidate during the last election and received over four thousand votes. Noel scoffed that didn't qualify as a "politician", but refused to give his definition of the job. On several occasions Prime Time has used authorities in fields to speak on subjects. Few people outside of air traffic control in shannon, and the government have Tim's knowledge of the comings and goings in shannon, and the constitutional rights of foreign military aircraft using an Irish air field. Noel then became belligerent and aggressive. He said that Tim's qualifications were this journalists opinion, and whats more he (Prime Time) wanted a political debate. He then went on shouting that HE was the producer of his program and didn't HE have the right to decide who HE let on his program. This was repeated over and over again. Rational argument was ignored; and it became clear that only a “professional” politician was only qualified to speak on this matter, at least according to Prime Time. Unsurprisingly the debate was at best toothless. What was disgusting was the pre recorded section with Tim. Tim wanted to state that although use of troops through shannon was important, he wanted to discuss the transport of munitions unreported and without escort. Tim section was cut off quickly when he tried to raise this point. The argument between Brian Cowen and Gay Mitchell was incredibly poor. A half hearted attempt to discuss US troops and their side arms was raised. Cowen having already played his "get out of jail" card yesterday by announcing some troops "may" be carrying personal weapons on "certain" flights, meant he could deflect the half hearted questions from Gay Mitchell. The debate descended into half hearted mumbling about UN resolutions over Iraq. The serious issue of US leased cargo planes carrying munitions through shannon was deftly ignored. Prime Time has a well won reputation for serious unflinching journalism. The questions now keep coming, why did Prime Time flinch from this debate? Tim's profile and recognition has never been higher. His knowledge of the comings and goings in shannon, and the constitutional breaches they represent is without par. There were no technical problems, and furthermore he easily could have made it to the Dublin or Cork studio in plenty of time. Gay Mitchell’s opposition could be best described as limp wristed, and honestly be described as pathetic. Fine Gael’s opposition to US foreign policy and troops in shannon is another in the parties desperate scrambling to find public support where ever it can . And the essential point of the situation at Shannon was ignored. This could not be by accident. Tim and others have provided plenty of information (including legal details of the leasing agreement between Strategic Air Command and the Cargo carriers). Why exactly did Prime Time flinch from a real debate? To learn more about Tim’s work in Shannon read his latest dramatic report at; Or click here |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (25 of 25)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25dont suppose you have a recording of the phone conversation between you and this prime time guy?
and this is just a thought, but perhaps prime time (ie Noel Curran) didnt want Tim on cos Cowen wouldnt have come on if Tim was on (fear of real debate), and PT (NC) wanted Cowen on cos he was more high profile?
the arguments about Tim not being a 'poltician' are as limp wristed as mitchells 'debate'.
any way you look at this, its a mockery of free speech, so called public service broadcasting and our limited demockerycy.
Considering RTE's track record with regards the issue, Tim and all involved in the movement should be delighted he got on air. Unfortunately persons who are democratically elected politicians are more likely to get to air.
But it was surprising that two clearly conservative politicians were on the panel, both who are in favour of the war. Mitchell and Cowen! The likes of J. Higgins, J. Gormley or Michael D. would have made the debate more interesting and they would have grilled Biffo.
TO be fair to Mark Little he was a lot better to Pot Kenny. Cowen didn't come across well, one can clearly see he's hiding something, Plus the fact that the people don't believe a word Fianna Fail says anymore, lies, contempt, deceit.
Hope the issue stays on top of the agenda (front page of IT today, anybody have e-mail address for software companies involved, not to mention HP in Galway!)
TV is toxic to make.
TV is toxic to watch.
TV is toxic to dump.
TV is toxic to participate with.
TV production is a major cause of sweat shop labour abuses. Mostly teenage girls risk life long skin and lung problems from working in slave conditions to assemble toxic chemical coated parts.
TV watching after four minutes effecs the endochronoligical system prompting false responses, this is why children suffer panic attacks and concentration span difficulty.
TV waching also is psychological dangerous.(Propaganda the medium is to intense for the mind).
TV is toxic and can not be dumped normally teh chemicals are within are poisonous to the environment.
TV is the the most frequently used tool of the western oligarchies for sidelining debate and discreding campaigners by distortion of their ideas or agenda.
TV IS TOXIC. Kill your TV.
Then go kill someone elses TV.
.the wireless now is a different matter.
At the Galway Alliance Against War meeting on Monday night Michael D. stated that in the week prior to the Late Late Show on Shannon, he was approached by RTE researchers to engage in a debate with Brian Cowen, to which he agreed. He was later informed that not only had Cowen declined the invitation but that the government would not field ANY spokesperson to engage in a live debate. When I heard Cowan was going up against Tim I was pretty surprised……………not any more.
This is an excellent story about what happens behind the scenes of what is perhaps the greatest power in the country - the mainstream media.
When was the last time that you saw the Irish mainstream media examine itself critically? When was Pot Kenny ever grilled publicly about his prejudices, biases and his use of his power, for example?
Unexamined, unaccountable power is a bad thing - and that includes media power.
Well done, Aidan!
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
so they refused Tim and Michael D. a debate with Coward Cowen but Mitchell was ok. Really says a lot about modern 'democracies' and what opposition is really about. Token opposition.
Capitalism: bigger cage, longer lease
I would like to ask a few simple questions which hopefully I will get an honest answer to:
How many jobs in the mid west and Ireland depend on American investment.?
How many jobs in Shannon Airport are created and secured by US Aircraft.?
Shannon catering, Tedcastle fuel, Aer Lingus Aer Rianta all are benifiting from this business.
There is no war at the moment not that i know of so what is the problem. These troops have been going through Shannon for the past thirty years before Mr Hourigan was born so what is the problem.
I dont have a problem the majority of people in Shannon and the midwest dont have a problem so what is the problem
thank you
see yee Saturday !!!!!! i will be there to watch not to take part best of luck because yee will need it!
Your post was informative Aidan, but not in the least surprising. The establishment media in this country serves the interests of the ruling elite. What happened to Tim Hourigan was just another example of censorship, not exactly the first time our “public service” broadcaster has behaved in such a manner. I personally was of the opinion that Tim should have refused to participate on the programme after the prime time producer would not allow him to go “live” but of course I can understand why Tim did so.
In reply to the individual who describes him/herself as “local”, there are actually people in our country who have a passing acquaintance with some degree of humanity, and actually have principles. Our only goal or motivation is not MONEY. If you would like to earn some extra cash, perhaps you could apply for a night job in catering in order to ensure that the yanks are well fed before going on to “Liberate” Iraqi oil. Alternatively, you could dress up as a leprechaun and entertain the yank tourists, I am sure they would appreciate a little local colour.
BTW, how did you work out that the majority of people in Shannon/Mid-West do not have a problem with the deaths of HALF A MILLION IRAQI CHILDREN losing their lives because of sanctions, are you a mind reader? The people who will be protesting at Shannon on Saturday want to prevent further loss of life in an obscene war for cheap oil, they are honourable, principled people who unlike yourself, have my respect and support.
Second, contact the Ombudsman
http://ombudsman.gov.ie/complain.htm
I'm surprised anybody thought it would be different. While folk here may be eager to hear Tim's views and concerns on whats happening at shannon, the programme had a short time slot to provide a synopsis of the debate, give Tim his say (truncated as it was), and throw the main protagonist (Cowan) in with someone interested in scoring points against him (that's what they like on telly).
anyone who watched the piece now knows:
1. the law of the land in relation to declaration of weapons on various types of flight.
2. that Cowan wasn't being honest with us when he said they weren't carrying weapons
or
3. that he was intentionally being deceived by the US military.
in either case it's clear to viewers that the probability is that there are weapons on the cargo planes and no-one is too fussed about finding out for sure.
Cowan didn't come out of the thing too well. He looks like a dupe or a liar. The 'in any case we have a duty to apply pressure on the iraqi regime' argument struck me as particularly feeble; the last gasp of a man exposed.
So, I'd not worry too much that your good pal Tim didn't get more airtime. The case for greater due dilligence was made.
Did you even read Aidan's piece? I know you are out of touch and all but the fact of the matter is that Tim Hourigan was willing, ready and able to be on Primetime as the "opponent" of Cowen. He was explicitly denied this through the pretext of a "technical" difficulty with the satellite link.
Tim is an able and experienced spokesperson and his confrontation of Cowen with some facts would have made for gripping T.V.
RTE looks like they're guilty of serious malfeasance here. If RTE don't sort this out then they've just received a heavy blow to their public image. I expect to see PEN and the NUJ up in arms about this.
I did read the piece, and am in no way 'out of touch', but thanks for your blinkered condescension.
Primetime are under no obligation to produce programmes the way YOU might want. They have independent editorial control, and exercise it every night they're on. Just because they structured the programme they way they did doesn't mean there is any conspiracy to support the status quo, or a failure of nerve. Like I say - the important thing is that the slot did illuminate the weaknesses in Cowans/the governments position. Any impartial viewer would have seen this clearly.
I wonder do you have a .rte address?
You're right Prime Time have the right to excerise editorial control of the program and I can't tell them what to have on the show.
But they are broadcast on a public service broadcaster aren't they? And therefore they have a duty to inform and educate the Irish population. The debate and the entire program was much poorer than it should have been and there is no explaination being given.
Lets look at your points.
" in either case it's clear to viewers that the probability is that there are weapons on the cargo planes and no-one is too fussed about finding out for sure."
When were cargo planes mentioned? I've watched and re watched the program and neither Cowen or Mitchell make mention of cargo, the discussion is limited to troop transports. Because of Cowens statement the previous day, he was covered on that point.
Tim was the only person who tried to raise the issue of cargo planes, a seperate constitunal issue, and his sentence was cut off mid interview, so it was never raised.
Why was Mitchell selected to debate Cowen. Essentially Finna Fail and Fine Gael have the exact same policy re Shannon/US/Iraqi, why was Mitchell seen as a suitable person to debate Cowen? Why not Higgins or Gormely? You mention conspiracy. I never did, I see it as more likely that Cowen was unwilling debate anyone with teeth on the subject, and Prime Time caved.
You say Cowen came off looking bad. Because he was facing Mitchell and not someone versed in the subject, Cowen was able to avoid the more important issues, and US Miltary Cargo aircraft was completely ignored.
Cowen got off lightly, and Prime Time was complicite in helping this happen.
I'm nothing to do with rte. I don't even have a beard or anorak.
Cargo planes were mentioned in the preamble to the talking heads, and by Tim. Light arms on leased passenger planes was concentrated on (I'd imagine) because they could demonstrate that the law was being abused in that area (unlike the cargo issue).
Personally I thought they dwelled too long on reaffirming that the soldiers travelled with their guns. The difficulty for them was that they knew they had Cowan on this issue and wanted to eek everything they could out of it. The cargo issue on the other hand is all about speculation (probable or not), and the journo's route into tackling that issue is to establish just cause for concern in a related area (light arms on passenger flights).
Like others have suggested, I'd imagine that Primetime had Cowan with a middle of the road 'opponent' or no Cowan at all. Primetime have a responsibility to the public, but I don't see that they abused that responsibility by not pitting Tim v Cowan. They have to make editorial compromises all the time. It's just this time you're a bit closer to it.
If you read Tims report posted on the site
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=23883
on Monday you can see he confirmed the ID of two planes leased to stragetic air command, spotted at Shannon.
Seeing as Cowen had been lying for months saying that there was no way the troops were carrying weapons and had the day before hand finally admitted that they were, there was little point in hounding Cowen on this point.
However he is still denying that munitions are coming through on cargo flights and there is a strong body of evidence to confront him on this, combined with his previous lying means that Prime Time could have confronted the Minister with strong questions.
Secondly you've not offered any explaination for the presence of Gay Mitchell on the program. What was the point of having your opposition come from a party who agrees with you? I'm the one who stated that it was possible Cowen demanded Mitchell, or someone of his ilk. Prime Time could have made a story about Cowens unwillines to particapte in a debate. They pandered to him and he got the debate he wanted. Prime Time diluted their story to suit the minister and I am worried that one of the few current affairs programs available in this country has shown so little spine.
On the light arms issue: He had made a vague statement about 'some' side arms, and no munitions. It's clear now that they do indeed carry weapons and ammunition - that's some progress and was obviously uncomfortable for Cowen.
On Gay Mitchell. I can only think he was brought on to scare children or prove man's free will from god. I'm stumped really. I guess he was there to represent a full on support for open participation in the war effort, and less in the way of hypocritical 'ignorance is bliss' strategy employed by the Gov.
I'd imagine they get the same unwillingness to participate in head to head debate from ministers all the time. Nothing newsworthy in that situation. You might call it pandering to the minister, but it might just be an accurate reflection of the realities of current affairs programming.
In the end of the day I think the programme weakend Cowens credibility and articulated the case about the illegality of goings on in shannon. Everything wasn't said, but it never is in a 20 minute slot.
which is what the debate is being steered towards. Probably everyone here is in favour of editorial control.
The issue is that lies were used to prevent Tim Hourigan from being allowed on the show.
An underlying issue is that RTE is in a special position as a State broadcaster: it has a special duty to the taxpayer to produced balanced coverage. "Confronting" Cowen/FF with Mitchell/FG is hardly a debate. Neither FF/FG represent anything besides entrenched pro-Capitalist pro-war interests.
This tragic farce of political "debate" shows that RTE is partial, biased and misleading.
G.O'Driscoll's suggested course of action above is the best:
1. Write to RTE to complain and demand an explanation (save copies of correspondence)
2. If satisfaction is not obtained by Step1 then contact the Ombudsman
At the very least the editor that told the lies about technical difficulties should be removed from his onerous and overly-demanding duties.
RTE's responsibility to the tax paying public is not to ensure everyone's argument or stance gets equal coverage. It's not even that during an election campaign. To believe that a single current affairs programme has an obligation to cover all aspects of a debate is rather naive. You may not like what they've done, but they didn't break any covenant with you.
As for the lying about techie problems; sure they bullshitted any old excuse to avoid having to argue the rights and wrongs of their decision. What a shock! - they operate like any other business. Tell me you haven't told the odd porky pie to get yourself out of a bind. I wouldn't be so sanctimonious.
I won't be writing/emailing RTE about their actions. I'd liked to have seen more of Tim, but all in all the programme was useful in informing people about government deceit in relation to shannon.
It seems to have prompted a spate of pro war rhetoric from the cabinet though. There must be something in the water. 'No such thing as military neutrality?" It'll be conscription next lads.
The issue is not light arms, any eejit with an ounce of sense would have told you that marines were carrying weapons with them. It didn't take a genius to work that out.
What Cowen got away with, thanks to RTEs lack of spine, was the fact that much more serious things were going on in shannon. Look at Tims plane spotter guide
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=6032
or
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=2934
To see the scale of the problem. Cowen safely coralled the debate to ensure that the public saw the problem as merely a few troop carriers passed through shannon, and sure of course the lads had their guns with them, and sure wheres the harm? Of course they keep their guns with them, sure what kind of army wouldn't?
RTE are aware of Tims work, it's freely available on this site, a site which Prime Time are aware of they contacted us to use some footage as part of their piece, and furthermore Tim gave several documents to RTE in the run up to the piece.
I just can't understand how or why RTE were statisfied to keep the piece on Cowens terms debating the part of the story that Cowen wanted to talk about, and not the part that wasn't being discussed.
Re reading your piece you seem as puzzled as I am. You can't think of reason why Mitchell was on, neither can I. Why was the debate between two pro war parties? The anti war side wasn't put forward at all. Essentially your point is...RTE are weak and unwilling to sink there teeth into a real argument, "hey whatcha going to do, people are lazy and crap". Thats not good enough for me, this is an important story, peoples are dying and many more will die when this war happens. RTE could and should have used this to opportunty to draw in how our governments policy is making Ireland directly involved in this. They failed, they are in remiss.
Fuck it. I had a conversation with the head of the news dept recently, and he raised the point about public accountability. He said "RTE is a public service broadcast we have a duty to provide a quality service to the people of Ireland". It's an attitude that appears to be suffering a drought in RTE.
So you won't be writing a letter. Well, in that case there's no point in anyone else doing it either! After all, you're happy with the non-debate and the suppression of information so why should you? As regards RTE, they get my license fee, they are in a monopoly position and this behaviour just isn't good enough. I'm going to go off and research whatever statutory duties RTE has and then I'll report back to the site for the edification of all those that want to do something about it. As it is I've discovered that RTE's Advisory Board contains none other than the firebrand labour leader Des Geraghty http://www.rte.ie/about/geraghtyd.html
Well "Devil's avocado" here's the skinny on what RTE should be doing and why their treatment of Tim Hourigan and the anti-war movement was wrong. The "Guidelines for Programmers" is an official RTE policy document that states in the Introduction (pg.4)
"RTE is the national public service broadcaster of Ireland. What does this mean? It means that RTE exists to serve all the public. RTE is "owned" by the public in the sense that its only purpose is to make and broadcast programmes which satisfy the audience.[...] RTE's programme makers have a special responsibility to reflect in a fair and generous manner the interests and values of all the people in Ireland."
More importantly Mr.Devils avocado is the fact that Section of 18 of the 1950 Broadcasting Act (and Section 3 of the 1976 Broadcasting Authority Amendment Act) state in no uncertain terms that RTE is supposed to be fair in its broadcasting policies. This coupled with the Broadcasting Act (2001), which emphasises freedom from political influence, leads us to believe that the Primetime episode in question did not fulfill the high standards that RTE so rightly expects from its broadcasters.
The best way to redress this is to let RTE know about this appalling act of bad faith on the part of the "Primetime" producers. Details on how to do this follow below:
To make a complaint email [email protected]:
If members of the public are of the opinion that a programme or a segment of a programme has breached the Guidelines they are entitled to complain either in writing or by e-mail. Initially the complaint should be addressed directly to the programme or the relevant department if known (e.g. News, Current Affairs, etc.).
RTÉ is committed to replying to all serious complaints within four weeks.
If the person making the complaint is not satisfied with RTÉ's response s/he may seek a review of the original complaint and the response. The review will always be carried out by someone more senior than the person issuing the original reply. The request should be made in writing to:
Complaints Review
c/o the Freedom of Information Office
RTÉ
Donnybrook
Dublin 4
or by e-mail to [email protected]
I don't see that anything on that primetime ran counter to their mandate. They will never be in a position to highlight all aspects and views on any debate, and consequently they have a practical need to editorialise. If you were to start shooting off letters about everything you DIDN'T see/hear about on RTE you'd be rather busy.
You are perfectly welcome to complain about that programme. Fair play to you. I just don't think you have any case. RTE were (more or less) the only mainstream media to carry the bizarre 'no such thing as military neutrality' baldonnel story this week. It's swings and roundabouts as usual.
As I said, I would have liked a differently structured programme. I just don't see anything so awful in the comprimises they made.
1. Tim Hourigan was _lied_ to about the "technical difficulties" in getting him on the show.
2. The main objection about transport through Shannon of unknown, possibly dangerous, un-inspected cargoes was never put to the Minister.
3. A deliberate attempt was made to avoid having Tim Hourigan on the show even when other "opposition" figures offered to give up their slots to him.