Ryan Tubridy’s evidence to the Oireachtas Committees displays his personal values that have also characterised his broadcasting career – sadly they, and RTÉ’s, are shallow and materialistic.
By J Vivian Cooke
Ryan Tubridy volunteered to give an exhausting full day of evidence to two Oireachtas committees – (Public Accounts and the Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sports and Media committees) – in order to rescue both his career and his reputation. He can be satisfied that his performance last week left him in a better position than he was in at the start of the day and that he has improved his prospects of returning to the airwaves.
Tubridy’s contributions were clear and polished but also focused and consistent in its messaging; for all his polite and respectful congeniality there was plenty of steely resolution on display. There was also an obduracy in how he continued to characterise the payments at the heart of the controversy.
Ryan Tubridy’s income paid by RTÉ was not reduced.
Although he is correct in saying that the money that RTÉ paid him directly for his broadcasting work was reduced. But this pay cut was made up by a separate contract between Renault and Tubridy for €75,000 per annum for personal appearances. Tubridy’s position is that the calculation of his salary from RTÉ should not include the €75k p/a payments as they were not for his broadcasting work.
He maintains this position even after the revelation that the amount Renault paid to him was offset by a reduction of the same amount in how much RTÉ charged Renault for advertising.
Moreover, Tubridy’s contract stipulated that RTÉ indemnify him for any failure by Renault to make the contracted payments. When Renault withdrew from this direct contract with Tubridy, this guarantee was called on and RTÉ ended up paying Tubridy €150,000 (2 payments of €75,000) directly – not mediated through the series of transfers of earlier payments.
As it transpired, RTÉ funded Tubridy’s payments either indirectly through their credits to Renault or directly once the guarantee was invoked. The fact that Tubridy, or Kelly for that matter, was not aware of how these payments were structured does not validate their factually incorrect assertions. Yet they refuse to correct their position in the face of the established facts.
Still, the evidence in the public domain clears Tubridy of any culpability in and any knowledge of dodgy accounting practices. While Tubridy has acknowledged that he has made some mistakes over the years in not questioning or challenging erroneous RTÉ statements, he feels, with good reason, that RTÉ used his celebrity as a diversion from its own delinquencies.
In response, Tubridy and his agent attempt to apportion all of the blame for the scandal at RTÉ’s doorstep. However much this is true for the presenter, many committee members repeatedly quizzed Kelly about his participation in the deceptions and questioned the credibility of his evidence.
Kelly is Tubridy’s agent in both the show-business sense and in the sense that he is authorised by Tubridy to represent him and to act on his behalf. As such, Kelly’s actions reflect on Tubridy’s character – particularly given Tubridy’s repeated declarations of faith and trust in his agent even in light of the revelations put to him.
Both Kelly and Tubridy displayed complete indifference to ensuring the facts of the payments were accurately stated. Kelly provided the invoices that facilitated RTÉ’s accounting deceptions when requested. Their stated objections to the recording of his end-of-contract payment that he forewent were faint and not pursued.
The fact that Tubridy, or Kelly for that matter, were not aware of how these payments were structured does not validate their factually incorrect assertions. Yet they refuse to correct their position in the face of the established facts.
Like the presenter’s own shows, and, sadly, too much of RTÉ’s output, their behaviour at the time was complacent when confronted with commercial impropriety; was to avoid forcefully challenging or questioning those in power; and above all, not to be disruptive nor create problems.
Kelly’s actions reflect an ethos that he shares with Tubridy – a corporate sensibility that is concerned with financial profit while being spiritually bankrupt. While Tubridy has not disputed that, in his own words, his salary was “eye-watering” he makes no apologies for seeking to extract the maximum remuneration from RTÉ or other companies.
Tubridy repeatedly stated that he employs Kelly to maximise his income without any consideration of the appropriateness of the quantum of those payments in the context of the company or society that ultimately pays his fees. Tubridy’s commercial personal ethics translates to promoting crass consumerism that sacrifices environmental survival or social equity for the sake of material acquisition.
It is a value system that is selfish and narcissistic in its utter unconcern for anyone or anything else. The problem with Tubridy in this instance and throughout his career is not what he has done but what he fails to do.
