Hunky Dory Hysteria

I was going to start this entry by saying "I don't believe I'm seeing this.." - but sadly, I do.

Todays issue of the Irish Times carries the story that:

"A controversial advertising campaign for Hunky Dorys crisps has been withdrawn after attracting over 300 complaints and a threat of legal action.
The campaign by Largo Foods featured women in revealing tops playing rugby under straplines such as “Are you staring at my crisps?”and “Tackle these”.
The Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland (ASAI) said yesterday the company had accepted its request to pull the campaign because of the widespread criticism."

Christ Almighty.

The lunatics have finally been give the keys and the green light to take over the asylum. The PC Brigade have completely lost the run of themselves this time.

Before I go any further, I have nothing, repeat, nothing but the highest regard and respect for groups like the Rape Crisis Network Ireland. However, on this occasion, they are surely guilty of a massive overreaction to a bit of harmless fun. They claim, and I'm quoting here, that:

"the posters were sending out messages that may condone or have the effect of encouraging unsafe actions. They add to attitudes and behaviours that make Ireland a place where the casual and everyday sexual assault of women is permitted and unchallenged.”

Ah, lads. Isn't that going just a tad over the top?

They are posters advertising crisps, and using some mildly amusing cliches to do it.

No more, no less.

Are the RCNI seriously trying to argue that a poster, like the one above, is encouraging attacks on, or violence against women? Are they trying to tell us that an ad for Crisps has the potential to cause women to be endangered or intimidated?

Give me a break, will ya!

It's harmless fun. In fact the greatest danger of the posters, as I see it, is that a poor old gobshite like me might crash his little motorin' car, as a result of being distracted by the sight of 'yer wan' in her little t-shirt that's too small for my daughter!

OK, time for another quote.. The National Women’s Council described the ads as..

"depressing because of the fact that the company would get masses of publicity from the controversy they created."

And who, my dear NWC, are giving them that publicity? You are.

Now, I know there were complaints, but bear with me here..

The Advertising Standards people have told us that they got 'over 300' complaints against the posters.

Hello?

There are four million people in Ireland. 300 complaints represents, (are you ready for this?).. point zero zero seven per cent of the population!

Oh yeah, that's RAKES of complaints. NOT!

Doesn't it start to look as if there's been just a tiny little storm in a tiny little teacup here?

Shouldn't we have more to bother us, when our arses are to the wall and we are trying to drag our great little Country back from the edge of the cliff and get people working and smiling and going about their business with confidence once more?

According to the Irish Times,

" Largo Foods could not be reached for comment last night, but previously chief executive Raymond Coyle rejected the allegations of sexism and claimed the company just wanted to inject a little bit of fun into things."

Well said, Sir.

Mind you, there's no such thing as bad publicity. The campaign, apparently, cost Largo around €500,000 to put together. That's a lot of crisps. However, the amount of 'free' advertising the company has won on radio (Today FM, Newstalk, 96FM, RTE, etc.. etc.. - they've ALL devoted rakes of time to it in the past week), would have cost a hell of a lost more, if they had to pay for the airtime!

Largo might be taking down their posters, but, make no mistake about it, they're laughing their little heads off as they do.

So am I.

It never ceases to amuse me how the PC Police can get their knickers in a knot over nothing.

..(sits back and waits for reaction to the mention of knickers !!!)

Is it just Me..

Let me open by stating clearly that I hold no political or personal 'grá' for Gordon Brown. I'm not even following the British election campaign with any particular interest. I'll follow the count and the results next week, because I'm an 'election count junkie', but other than that, I'm not reaching for the remote control all that often to update myself on the campaign. However, like the World and his Mother, I've been very taken up by the "bigoted woman" story, that broke on Sky News yesterday, and seems to have become the 'story of the campaign'.

It's a great story, an editors dream - but I'm very uneasy about it.

Gordon Brown appears to have been caught completely unawares by a news microphone that was not switched off. He had effectively finished his formal event, and was in his car, with his personal advisors, having a private meeting. His lapel mic was still on - he didn't know that - and he spoke candidly to his team. Outside, a technician noticed that his conversation could be heard, and left the 'record' function running. Brown utters the now immortal words .. "a bigoted woman".. and because this was captured on tape .. hey presto ! A big story! A major gaffe by the Prime Minister. A gaffe that could finish Labours already slim hopes of retaining power.

So why am I uneasy?

I'm uneasy, because as a reporter, I place great value and currency in the principle that certain matters are 'Off The Record'. I've always told people .. "unless I am holding a pen and noting down what you say, or pointing a microphone at you, then we are off the record.." It's a principle thats stood to me well over the years, and enabled me to get many an inside track 'off the record', that gave me a great story when we eventually went 'on the record'. Besides that, however, I don't believe that just because I'm a journalist, people should be afraid that I'm always on the lookout for a 'line' or an 'angle'. I know some reporters who work like that, and I don't like it.

And that's my problem with the Gordon Brown story..

I think that the Prime Ministers privacy has been unfairly invaded. He passed a remark (albeit a tasteless one) in a private meeting with his advisors. It was accidentally recorded. That accidental recording was taken and turned into a major news story. Was it a great scoop, or an unfair act of opportunism?

Am I the only one, who is asking myself this today???

If You Can't Beat 'em - do you Tweet 'em???

I'm indulging in a little theory here. I may be totally wrong - but indulge, I must. With all the political shenanigans of the past few days, culminating in the resignation of Willie O'Dea, one more bit of speculation won't hurt anyone !!. I believe, folks, that Dan Boyle knew exactly what he was doing, the other night, when he 'Tweeted' the following..

"As regards to Minister O'Dea I don't have confidence in him. His situation is compromised. Probably be a few chapters in this story yet.." 1830 - Wed 17 Feb

However, that's not my theory, as such. I have known Dan Boyle for a long time - ever since he was a bass player in a long lost Cork band, called 'Blueprint'. Handy enough, he was, too as a bass player - but that's for another day. One thing Dan Boyle is not, is stupid. He is a very regular and careful user of both Twitter and Facebook - and he knows their value as a way to quickly get something "out there". Dan knew exactly what the implications would be, when he went for his Twitter screen. He knew that as Chairman of the Party, he would be delivering a hammer-blow to Willie O'Dea's political nether regions - and that once he hit the 'enter' key, he was starting a process that could only lead to a couple of outcomes - but was most likely to lead to Willie O'Dea being forced to resign. That 'tweet' hit the screen at 6.30pm on Wednesday, and Willie was a goner at 8.30pm on Thursday - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to link the two - especially when re was that explosive interview tape on Thursday afternoon to throw into the mix.

But again - that's not the nub of my theory.

It's this..

I don't for one minute believe that Dan Boyle acted solely off his own bat on Wednesday.

As a Senator, he obviously had no input in the Dail vote of confidence in Willie O'Dea. He must have been clenching his buttocks with embarassment watching Eamonn Ryan's decidedly half hearted speech. You could see that Eamonn, who is an extremely likeable and decent guy, would have preferred to barbeque his own wedding tackle than make that speech. As part of a Coalition, the Greens had two choices - back the motion, or walk - and they have no desire to walk. They know they are dead in the water if there's an election, and they want to stay there for as long as they can! This, however, was seriously embarrassing.

So, here's what I think happened..

Dan Boyle sees his colleagues after the Dail vote. They discuss the corner that they have been backed into, and the humiliating way in which they have been forced to back a Minister when they clearly didn't want to. Dan then turns to his colleagues and says .. " OK lads - there's more than one way to skin a cat - I have an idea .. "

The rest, as they say, is history.

Am I mad ?? Or is this scenario feasible ?? You better believe it is !!

Do we REALLY have a "Right" to see her face??

Like the World and it's brother, I'm following the Eamonn Lillis case. As I write, the court is hearing closing speeches on behalf first, of the Prosecution, and then, of the Defence. The verdict when it comes, and whatever it is, will be front page news, and lead item on Radio and TV. That's only to be expected. It's a high profile case, attracting lots of interest.

However, the controversy that erupted over Jean Treacy - the young woman with whom Eamonn Lillis had an affair, is an unexpected spin-off from the case .. and a very unpleasant one at that. To me, it poses a question - not about whether or not she was assisted by the Gardai in avoiding the cameras in the Courts complex - but about why on Earth the papers were so hell-bent on getting her photograph in the first place!

Ger Colleran, the editor of "The Star" .. a guy, incidentally, for whom I usually have tremendous respect, was highly indignant about the shielding of Miss Treacy from his photographers lens - and has been very vocal about "the publics right to know"..

Their right to know WHAT, Ger.. ??

Neither Ger, nor any other editor has been able to explain to me, why it's so necessary to plaster Miss Treacys face across the papers or the TV screen. She is, of course, a witness in a very high profile case.. but that's ALL she is. She is accused of NOTHING , faces NO charges, and merely gave evidence because the Prosecution wanted to hear about her affair with the accused - an affair to which they both freely admit - and which is not against any law that I know of..

There is NO automatic public entitlement to see her face, as far as I can see.

If she's OK with being photographed, then that's her call. If not - same thing - her call. Not Ger Collerans call - not the call of any editor to make, regardless of how many papers it will sell the next morning - which, let's face it, folks, is the agenda here, at the end of the day.

Over the weekend, her picture was eventually obtained and published, in most of the papers,yet nobody has yet been able to explain the necessity for doing so.

Again, I stress, this young woman has done nothing wrong - yet her picture is presented across the papers, as if it adds something to the facts of the case - which, of course, a blind man could see that it does not.

We who work in the media really need to examine our consciences on this one.

Was it ABSOLUTELY necessary?? Did it make a DIFFERENCE to the story?? .. REALLY??

If it did - well I must be missing it ....

A wildcat Strike - or a bad call by IAA ??

First, let's get one thing clear - I do not think that Air Traffic Controllers at Cork, Dublin and Shannon Airports need, or deserve a 6% pay rise. They are already extremely well paid, with a lot of time off and a 34 hour working week. Asking for, and expecting more at a time like this, is crackers.

However, that having been said, I can see why the controllers walked out today. I think that under the circumstances, I would have, too.

Let's look behind the arguments, and see what's actually happened here.

There are a number of issues, including, but not exclusively pay related issues, current being disputed between the ATC staff and their employers, the Irish Aviation Authority.

These issues are scheduled to go before the Labour Court as early, I believe, as next week.

The Labour Court is the accepted forum, is it not, for these matters to be thrashed out?

Why therefore, did the IAA start suspending people, with just days to go to that hearing ???

What was the point of antagonising, or worse still, risking that you inflame an already delicate situation, when the issue is scheduled for a discussion at the proper forum?

Certainly, the decision by the controllers to take such a damaging and sudden strike action, has to be questioned - it had all the hallmarks, as they say, of wildcat militancy - but is it not a fair argument, that maybe, just maybe, the employers brought it on themselves?

As I write, two more workers have been suspended, and there may be another strike in the next few days. It will cause more chaos, and discommode thousands more passengers.

As with todays action, I won't agree with it - but I can see the reasons for it.

Wildcat Strike or a Bad Call by an employer ??

A bit of both, methinks..

(..pic thanks to Irish Times)

Sunday World , had you nothing better to do ??

I remember the case of Wayne O'Donoghue only too well. Not only did I report on the search for Robert Holohan, but his body was found on my 40th Birthday. In fact, just as I was on the phone to a friend, planning to meet for a drink to mark the day, the other line buzzed, and, well, you know the rest.

I covered Wayne O'Donoghues trial from start to finish at the Central Criminal Court, which sat in Cork for the case, and at which he was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. I was in Ennis for his sentence hearing, and heard Majella Holohans controversial, impassioned Victim Impact Statement.

When Wayne O'Donghue was released from the Midlands Prison early one bitterly cold January morning in 2008, I was there - part of the expected and inevitable media scrum. As he was driven away, the questions on so many minds were "Where is he going..? What will he do..?.."

I said it then, and I've said it many times since - I don't care. It's none of my business. It's not a story any more. He did the crime, and did his time. He's free to go wherever he wants to go. If some scurvy little pup from the red-tops wants to chase him down and get a picture of him buying the paper or walking the dog, that's up to them, but it's not for me.

What he did was wrong. He made it worse by his awful behaviour in the days that followed. He did a terrible wrong to the Holohan family. He was given a remarkably short sentence - albeit one that stood up under the scrutiny of an appeals process - and while he was able to walk free that morning two years ago, the Holohan family are left forever without their beautiful little boy. I have a son. I could not even comprehend losing him. I cannot imagine how much it's got to hurt.

Yet, under the law, Wayne O'Donoghue is entitled to live out the rest of his life. He's a free man whether anyone likes it or not. If I'm giving an honest opinion, he got off very, very lightly indeed. That, however, is how the cookie crumbles .. it is what it is, as they say.

Move on.

Next story, please.

On Sunday, I picked up my "Sunday World", and there it was.

"Wayne's Girl.. Child Killer O'Donoghue finds love with sexy British student.."

I'm appalled.

I'm a journalist, yet I'm disgusted to see this article.

Wayne O'Donoghue is now studying for a degree at an English University. He calls himself "Paddy" ... his middle name. He has met and is now living with a gorgeous girl, who the paper tells us "is devoted to him despite knowing about his conviction.. "..etc etc..

Both his picture, and hers, are plastered across the paper for effect.

Why is it necessary to do this? Why?

Yes, he did something truly awful.

Yes, there are questions still unanswered about what happened at that awful time in 2005, and about many other aspects of the death of Robert Holohan.

Yes, he deprived a family of their son, and outraged a Nation by cynically pretending to look for him - even appearing on the RTE News as a member of a search party.

But - answer me this?

Will the Sunday World article of January 17th, 2010 bring back Robert Holohan?

Will it answer even ONE of the outstanding questions?

Will it acheive anything other than to possibly sell a few more copies of a paper that already sells by the truckload?

Is it fair to a young woman who, like many more like her, has committed no crime, but formed a relationship with a man who has a bad past?

Was there any need, or public interest served, by this article?

The answer to all those questions, as far as I'm concerned anyway, is an emphatic NO.

It was, as far as I'm concerned, nothing less than a disgrace.