Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
4 8 Nov/Dec 2016
MEDIA
P
ERHAPS the strangest event on the Irish media
landscape last month was prompted by Sinn
Féin MEP Lynn Boylan’s publication of a report
into media ownership in Ireland, commis-
sioned by the European United Left/Nordic
Green Left (GUE/NGL) grouping in the European
Parliament.
The report itself – by Belfast solicitors Gavin Booth
and Darragh Mackin of KRW Law, and barristers Caoilf-
hionn Gallagher and Jonathan Price of London’s Doughty
Street Chambers - contained little that was new, casti-
gating once again the dominant position held by RTÉ and
by “individual businessman Denis O’Brien, through his
ownership of Communicorp and significant shareholding
in Independent News & Media”.
Released on 24 October, the report had little impact
at first. In his Irish Times column, Fintan O’Toole noted
the coverage. Some of this was extensive – the Sunday
Business Post carried both a news
report by business editor Tom Lyons
and an opinion column by Boylan;
the Sunday Times carried the story
on the front page; Pat Leahy had a
report with quotes from Boylan in
the Irish Times. Some was minimal
– the Sunday Independent carried
only a comment from Liam Collins,
not about the report directly, but
about Guardian media writer Roy
Greenslade’s “tiresome blog”. In fabled Sindo style three
of the five paragraphs Collins devoted to the story were
salvos at Sinn Féin.
There were some other straight news reports, from
thejournal.ie and the Examiner. But apart from commu-
nications minister Denis Naughten being forced to admit
he hadn’t read the report hours after he had dismissed
its findings, effectively killing it as a news story, the
report seemed destined to decline into obscurity, gath-
ering dust and never to be mentioned again outside of
an occasional retrospective the next time someone
looked at the Irish media scene.
And then, for some reason, Denis O’Brien decided to
breathe life into the story, issuing an oddly rambling and
misspelled statement: a series of barely connected para-
graphs, jumping randomly from topic to topic.
Aficionados will recognise the work of his earthly repre-
sentative, James Morrissey.
O’Brien’s piece is familiar to copy-editors and sub-edi-
tors as the “celebrity column”, a series of disjointed
observations and wisecracks hacked into a workable
column by a cynical and overworked staff writer, and
headed with the name of an often minor sporting or
entertainment ‘name’.
The statement, written in the first person, and there
-
fore presumably the work in the first instance by O’Brien,
gets off to a predictable enough start, challenging the
independence of the report, and indeed the very notion
that anything commissioned by a Sinn Féin representa
-
tive could ever be independent. (“Hardly”).
It does land one pertinent early blow, pointing out that
while the report identified RTÉ as also holding a domi-
nant media position in Ireland, it devotes “no focus” to
In which Denis
gets himself sued
Our hero attacks evil in the world but gets little
thanks, except in the organs he part-owns
(but doesn’t necessarily control)
The report contained
little that was new,
castigating once again
the dominant position
held by RTÉ and by
Denis O’Brien
by Gerard
Cunningham
Nov/Dec 2016 4 9
the broadcaster. This might give the impression
that the entire report is devoted to O’Brien. This
is not the case. For example the authors devote
twelve pages to a general consideration of the
importance of media plurality (and how plurality
differs from economic competition). In addition,
the authors highlight not only O’Brien’s owner
-
ship of media outlets, but his propensity to go to
law to protect his reputation, and its chilling
effect. The Report notes that since 2010, he has
gone to court 21 times, 12 times against media
outlets, once against a PR firm, twice against the
Moriarty tribunal, once against Dáil Éireann, and
once against an individual TD, Colm Keaveney.
In addition, there were threats of legal action
which were not followed up, such as that
reported against satirical website Waterford
Whispers, which removed the offending piece.
However, O’Brien soon tires of the RTÉ whata
-
boutery, and returns to getting it off his chest
about Sinn Féin “pushing its agendas, overtly
and covertly”. To this end, he embarks on a diva-
gating walk, stopping first to point out that An
Phoblacht has criticised RTÉ, and then to defend
Apple’s tax accounting practices, calling Sinn
Féin’s criticism of their tax practices “anti-enter-
prise and anti-Irish”.
O’Brien then regains his focus once more,
fact-checking, again, that he is not the chairper-
son of Communicorp, he just owns the company.
But then his concentration seems to wander
again, and he inadvertently makes the authors’
point for them. “Is the media objective when it
is talking and writing about itself?”, asks Denis
(or perhaps his human avatar).
Pausing to note, controversially - perhaps pro-
vokingly, that INM was “days from forced
closure” in 2011,O’Brien then complains that RTÉ
never contacted him for comment when Boylan’s
report was published. Kevin Bakhurst, RTÉ’s
Deputy Director-General and Managing Director
of News and Current Affairs, was prompted in
response to post on Twitter that the broadcaster
“did ask for a response on the report and Denis
O'Brien's advisers chose not to give one yester
-
day”, going so far as to post a screenshot of
email correspondence. But we live in post-truth
times and no correction ensued.
O’Brien then continues with his reflections on
the parlous state of Irish media finances, noting
“a very challenging environment” and – enig-
matically - that the Irish Times is “considering
various funding options”, before predicting that
“some media companies will not survive this
decade without radical restructuring”.
He closes on a return to the theme of “Sinn
Féin/IRA” funding, offering the hope that per-
haps the political party will at some point get
into the business of becoming a “fully-fledged
broadcaster and publisher and create some jobs
for a change”. Sunday Times writer Mark Tighe
was the first to point out that the Irish Independ-
ent report on the statement amended this to
simply “Sinn Féin”.
On the Sunday following O’Brien’s midweek
broadside, Sunday Independent writers did not
mention the affair, except for Shane Coleman,
who wrote an unlikely column pooh-poohing the
idea that Denis O’Brien has an overweening
influence, because everybody is reading blogs
and watching Youtube as part of their varied
media diet.
Meanwhile, the Sunday Business Post
reported that KRW Law “reject completely the
suggestion that the authors were paid by the IRA
and the allegation that we were anything less
than independent”. The report, the law firm said,
was paid for by the European Parliament via the
GUE/NGL group, and they would be “issuing
formal letters”.
In a bizarre twist, the result of O’Brien’s
response to the Boylan-sponsored report may
see the billionaire, so long the plaintiff, on the
other side in a defamation hearing.
O’Brien’s piece is familiar
to copy-editors and sub-
editors as the “celebrity
column”, a series of
disjointed observations
5 0 Nov/Dec 2016
CULTURE
W
E HAVE not always been boors. In
1815 the Dublin Society, which
was to become the Royal Dublin
Society (RDS) within a decade,
had purchased Leinster House
and attendant grounds from the Third Duke
of Leinster. Its vision was to create what we
would now call a cultural campus at the heart of
Dublin City.
By the beginning of the twentieth century the
site embraced The National Library, The National
Museum, The Natural History Museum, The
National Art Gallery, The National Art College,
and The Royal College of Science (containing the
Fossil Hall). Leinster House itself had been con-
verted into meeting rooms, galleries, a library,
and a Theatre for Public lectures.
Leinster House Lawn was used for The Great
Exhibition of 1853 and as the early venue for the
Dublin Horse Show (from 1868).
Imagine if this cultural campus still existed:
with footpaths and landscaping and Leinster
House Lawn serving as a public park. Visitors
from at home and abroad could easily spend a
day wandering from one cultural centre to
another, stopping off at cafés, restaurants and
gift shops. Something intervened.
In short the slugs arrived in the lettuce patch.
In 1922 the new State took ‘temporary’ posses
-
sion of part of Leinster House (It had plans for a
new Parliament Building at Kilmainham or in the
Phoenix Park). By 1924 it had taken possession
of the entire building. The Public Lecture Theatre
became the Dáil chamber that we know.
Next to go were the wings of the Royal College
of Science. The Fossil Hall – containing what
Senator Dr Trevor West once described as “one
of the finest natural geological collections any
-
where in the world”, was closed in the 1960s and
turned into ministerial offices. The vast collec-
tion of fossils was packed in crates and has not
been seen since.
Next to go was The National College of Art, and
by 1990 the Royal College of Science was com-
pletely in Government hands (now occupied by
the Taoiseach’s offices).
And now in 2016 sights are trained on part of
The National Museum of Ireland. Another ‘tem-
porary’ acquisition, this time for the Senate.
What does this entail?
•
The occupation of at least one sizeable gallery
– ‘The Ceramics Room’.
•
The breaching of the external wall of the
Museum, a Protected Structure, in two or three
places to facilitate entrance/exit for Senators
and visitors.
•
The attachment of a lift to the façade of the
Protected Structure.
•
The loss of a Public Amenity. The ‘Ceramics
Room’ is the only appropriate venue in the
Museum for all public lectures, seminars,
workshops, and educational programmes and
workshops, etc.
All of the above is intended to be done with
no planning permission because the relevant
authorities are seeking exemptions. However,
‘Exempted Development’ exceptions only per
-
tains if “the works would not affect the
character of the structure”. Clearly the works
envisaged will alter the character of the
protected structure - and permission for the
works should not be given.
Dr Patrick Wallace, the long serving recently-
retired Director of The National Museum, has
accused Heather Humphreys, the Minister of
Arts and Heritage of making a “grab” at the
Museum. A spokesperson for Humphreys’
Department responded that additional funding
was to be made available to provide alternative
accommodation within the Museum for the dis
-
placed facilities. This statement noted that the
Chair of the Board of the National Museum had
been in close consultation with the Department
in making alternative arrangements.
Members of the Board of The National
Museum, all approved by the Minister are, under
their own Code of Conduct, “dedicated to ensur-
ing that service to the public is to the highest
standard” and that they will “behave as a
respectful employer”. When you have the former
Director bitterly complaining, without doubt on
behalf of the current professional staff of the
Museum, about the impact on the resources,
space, working conditions and morale of the
Institution? Let us be clear: there is no spare
space in the Museum. The Museum has been
under-staffed, under-resourced, and ignored by
politicians for decades.
Let’s take the lift. Millions of ancient objects
are stored in the basement of the building. For
years and years the staff have been pleading for
a lift to convey exhibits to and from different
floors but the kitty was empty; now with a few
vagrant Senators at the door, better install a lift!
Figures of €1,500,000 - €1,700,000 have been
mentioned in official dispatches but nobody
seems to know for sure the cost in this frugal
economy. Amazing expenditure for a ‘temporary’
facility. The National Museum’s annual grant-in-
aid was cut from €19m in 2008 to €11.3m in 2015
as staff numbers declined by 27 per cent from
200 to 145. Increases since have been modest
and “one-off”.
Not since the notorious Oireachtas surface
car-park was installed and left on Leinster Lawn
for a decade has the predatory disdain of the
elected political classes for our heritage been
writ so large. It is ugly to behold.
Dr Mark Clinton is chair of An Taisce’s
Monuments and Antiquities Committee
Sean
Hands off the
National Museum
by Mark Clinton
By 1900 the site embraced
The National Library,
National Museum, Natural
History Museum, National
Art Gallery, National Art
College, and College of
Science and the lawn.
Imagine if it still existed!
adrift
The Oireachtas found Paradise and actually put up a parking lot before trying to devastate the
National Museum
Nov/Dec 2016 5 1
Irelnd’s Feminis Film Fesivl is running for he
hird ime his Auumnin Dublin.
Fri h | S h |Sun h November
WHY A FEMINIST FILM FESTIVAL?
Of he op , bigges grossing
films over he ps yers…
• Women ccouned for only % of
he ediors, % of he wriers nd
jus % of he direcors
• More hn hree-qurers of he
crew hve been men, while only
% were women
• Visual effecs, usully he lrges
deprmen for big feure films,
hd n verge of only .% of
women, while music hd jus %,
nd cmer nd elecricls were,
on verge, % mle
In he op grossing films of
women ccouned for…
• 15% of ll prognoniss
• 29% of mjor chrcers
• 30% of ll speking prs
• The mjoriy of femle chrcers
were in heir s (%) nd s
(%). The mjoriy of mle chrc-
ers were in heir s (%) nd s
(%)
• A higher proporion of mle hn
femle chrcers hd n idenifi-
ble occupionl sus. % of
mle chrcers bu only % of
femle chrcers hd n idenifi-
ble job/occupion
• Female chrcers were more likely
hn mle chrcers o hve n
idenifible mril sus. % of
femle chrcers bu % of mle
chrcers hd n unknown mril
sus.
You migh skwhy we need o promoe nd celebre women in film
(gre filmmkers s well s gre femle chrcers). Well, here’s some
food for hough…
VILLAGE
reders nd
subscribers
cn clim
o our opening feures
- Two mzing
documenries
Mother Ireland nd
The Sea Between Usby
wo femle Irish
filmmkers.
Fridy h November pm
Conc: mrkeing@
feminisfilmfesivldublin.com;
nd hed your emil "Villge
Offer".
FREE
TICKETS
