Monthly Archives: February 2014

#GSOC: “Paul Reynolds, thank you for that”

“Paul Reynolds, thank you for that”

This is a transcript of the report by RTE crime correspondent Paul Reynolds on News at One, 13th February 2014. You can hear the report here. Previously: #GSOC: Who are the subversives?


Presenter: Well, the controversy over alleged bugging of the Garda Ombudsman Commission offices is continuing, today there have been calls for an independent inquiry. Former Garda Ombudsman Conor Brady has said that an independent body should deal with concerns over the potential bugging of the office. Let’s speak now to our crime correspondent Paul Reynolds. Paul, we know now (that) what led to the GSOC public interest investigation was information emerging from the office and not a routine investigation or a routine audit as Minister Shatter had said earlier this week. This really is a complicated and messy chain of events, is it not?

Paul Reynolds: Yeah, I mean, it all started towards the end of last year, towards the end of GSOC’s biggest public interest inquiry, the Kieran Boylan case. He’s a convicted drug dealer, there was an allegation he was colluding with the Gardaí, GSOC spent four years investigating that, they sent a file to the DPP, the DPP decided that no prosecution within four months, there was not enough evidence, but at the, after that, at the end of that investigation there was controversy between the Gardaí and GSOC. GSOC noticed that information was leaking from its offices. They began an investigation. Now, they began a security sweep. This is where the minister and the chairman differ because the Minister said the sweep was routine, but the chairman Simon O’Brien said it was initiated because information from GSOC was appearing in the public domain. The information, which included the UK, the investigation which included the UK security company found three anomalies, so they suspected they were under electronic surveillance. Therefore they launched a public interest inquiry, under the Garda Siochána act. Now that’s very serious, because every time they have launched one of these investigations, they always informed the Minister and the public, they issued a press release. They didn’t do it in this case, and that’s the first time ever.

Now this was -this inquiry was launched under Section 1024 of the Garda Act, which means that they’re investigating the Gardai, they have one suspect and one suspect only. So the investigation was focused externally. It doesn’t appear to have considered that the information leaking from GSOC, that GSOC was concerned about, could have come from inside GSOC. That there could have been what Simon O’Brien described yesterday as an internal mole. The investigation started in October, it discovered no evidence of Garda involvement, GSOC suspects it could have been electronically surveilled but it has no conclusive evidence, it may have been the victim of this surveillance, it still doesn’t know, so it shut down the investigation.

Presenter: And Paul, as you say there, the Chairman has indicated an internal issue himself, there is now a likelihood that somebody within that organisation is leaking information, and isn’t there only one way which people will find out whether that is the case, and these calls for an independent inquiry are beginning to gather momentum and are increasing pressure for that, are they?

Paul Reynolds: Yeah, I mean, in fairness to the journalist John Mooney, he broke this story, he got a scoop, he did his job, and he published it in the public interest. But it has caused a major problem for the Ombudsman. Because Simon O’Brien knows that he has a major security problem in GSOC, he has at least one mole and possibly more than one mole leaking secret information and details, possibly documents, in an organisation that holds highly secret and confidential information, and it’s been going on for almost a year. And GSOC still doesn’t know if it was under electronic surveillance. And if it was, by whom? And it doesn’t know if it’s got just one security problem in the sense of internal mole or moles, which is responsible for also the electronic anomalies, or two security problems, one internal and one external, involving external, external surveillance.

So, they are now conducting an internal inquiry and Simon O’Brien says there’s only seven people, including himself, who had access to that top secret report. The situation is, however, that GSOC is investigating GSOC, and the pressure today is coming on, after the Garda Associations representing twelve and a half thousand Gardai, sergeants and inspectors, eh, Sinn Féin, Mary Lou McDonald again today in the Dáil, Fianna Fáil its leader Micheál Martin again today on Sean O’Rourke’s programme, and this morning, a former Ombudsman Commissioner, Conor Brady, all calling for an independent inquiry, and Conor Brady suggesting that it should be a senior counsel under the Commission of Investigations Act. Now we have a statement from the Minister in the last few minutes, saying that he will await the outcome of GSOC’s internal investigation to establish the facts about a possible unauthorised disclosure of information, and he expects to be informed of the result, before he decides what to do.

Presenter: Paul Reynolds, thank you for that.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

#GSOC: Who are the subversives?



I couldn’t help but notice the emphasis given in last night’s Prime Time, as well as in other snippets of coverage of the GSOC bugging story I caught yesterday, to the contracting of a British firm to do the security sweep. It was as though the act of contracting a British firm were suggestive of some kind of treasonous disloyalty to An Garda Siochána and all those other impeccable institutions of Saorstát Éireann, I mean, Ireland.

Contrast this to when the Department of Social Protection spends €140,989 on an internal management report from the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion. No-one cares about the fact that this entity is based in Britain, and it is hard to see why they should, given the fact that so many of the firms contracted to provide services to state bodies are not Irish firms. But part of chasing the Ombudsman –which is scarcely independent of An Garda Siochána by any reasonable measure- through “the woods” (which is where RTÉ described it last night) means characterising it as some sort of foreign body.

The other night on RTÉ news Taoiseach Enda Kenny led the charge against the Ombudsman for its failure to report the security breach to the Minister for Justice. In doing so he told a barefaced lie about the legal requirements on the Ombudsman to report such breaches.

The Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan and the AGSI General Secretary John Redmond followed the Taoiseach’s lead in singling out the Ombudsman as the source of the problem. The dominant frame established for the reporting of the story was that of a beleaguered Ombudsman incapable of doing its duty. Writing in the Irish Times yesterday, political correspondent Stephen Collins said that the episode ‘appeared to have damaged the reputation’ of the commission, as if writing such a thing had no bearing on creating the appearance of a damaged reputation.

Such a mobilisation allows us to speculate about the workings of the collective unconscious of the Irish establishment: complaints from the public about State abuses carried out against members of the public are the work of seditious foreigners. Or, in simpler terms, the public is the enemy of the State.

The fact that there have been attempts to bug Garda Ombudsman ought to be the primary matter of concern for the public. The Ombudsman is supposed to operate, after all, on behalf of the public, to ensure that An Garda Síochána does not abuse its powers. Therefore any attempt to interfere or frustrate its operations is nothing more than an attack on democracy. The fact that the Taoiseach, the Garda Commissioner and the AGSI General Secretary all mobilised, with the aid of Ireland’s public broadcaster and other media outlets, to turn this into a problem with the Ombudsman, and not with the attack on democracy, is, simply and unambiguously, a subversion of democratic rule.

Who, then, are the subversives that need to be pursued?

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

To be many and suffer little

This is a translation of an article by sociologist and essayist César Rendueles, which was published on the Podemos site.


To be many and suffer little (or, confessions of an abstentionist who has supported the Podemos candidacy)

I recall a conference by Agustín García Calvo in the Madrid Atheneum. During the time for questions a man criticised the obscurity of his argument. “I didn’t understand a thing..” he began to say. García Calvo didn’t let him go on. “You understood me perfectly!”, he shouted. I liked that a lot because I think people on the left must say something like that. But not to others but to ourselves: they understand us perfectly!

The left has become a political tradition for moral and intellectual heroes. We think that what people who get excited about the Sunday match or a David Bisbal concert need is a good slap and an intensive schooling in Toni Negri. We have to break with this poisoned legacy. Because it is precisely the opposite. Rosa Díez said that millions of Spanish people support UPyD [a right-wing populist party with a marked anti-political slant – R] but don’t know it. She is right. But there are also millions who are anticapitalists and do not yet know it. In fact, they are the same people. We are living at a strange moment in which one can be on the verge of becoming anti-capitalist or UPyD. The direction the balance gets tipped depends on us. Because today the aspirations of most people are deeply subversive. Setting up a home, looking after our family and our friends, acquiring a trade, being respected by our peers, learning and growing as free citizens…all of this means transforming the world we know from top to bottom. Mere common sense means we have to confront the suited maniacs who from the parliaments and boards of directors are attempting to destroy our lives.

A few days ago, my dentist explained to me that he was going to give me a kind of filling that is no longer used much but which she considered preferable in my case. She told me that pharmaceutical firms constantly bring out new products whose efficacy is arguable. The majority offer aesthetic improvements, though they tend to be worse from a medical point of view. Industry takes advantage of our need to appear immune to the passage of time, our rejection of our own fragility, she said in a reflective tone. We are laying hens, she concluded, the only thing that matters is that we keep on producing for one more day, as if nothing were happening. Lying there, dazed by the sound of the drill and by the anaesthetic, I thought that if the left is unable to convince someone like my dentist that our political project is also theirs, then we do not deserve the opportunity to change things.

Rafael Barrett, an anarchist writer at the turn of the 20th century, recalled thus the monarch who reigned whilst the French Revolution was underway: “Louis XVI from adolescence on had the habit of writing down daily events in a little notebook. There could be nothing more suggestive of the mental emptiness of this wretch, who never learned of what was happening in his country. The King’s favourite occupation was hunting. According to the statistics that he himself collected, Louis XVI over 13 years killed 189,251 specimens and felled 1,274 deer; on the 28th of June 1784 he killed 200 swallows. He writes in his diary of the 43 baths that were prescribed for him in 26 years, two bouts of indigestion, various colds and attacks of haemmoroids. When there is neither hunting nor audiences nor illness, he was happy enough to write: Nothing. The convulsions in France did not reach him. On every famous date from 1789 and 1791 one reads in the notebook the everlasting word: Nothing”.

For three decades we have been letting politicians, businessmen and mass media outlets write “nothing” in our diaries. In every debate, in every editorial, in every TV news bulletin it’s the same thing: “nothing”. We have ended up believing it ourselves and we say it to ourselves: nothing, nothing, nothing…but, what if it had already happened? What if the Bastille had already been taken and we simply needed to believe it? We nearly always forget how things were scarcely four years ago. We now speak and think in a different way. My baker knows what an escrache is, my retired neighbours hate bankers, in the children’s playground there is talk of strikes…

We need this energy to flood the institutions. It is true, we could hardly find ourselves in a worse situation for it. The poet Antonio Gamoneda spoke to me once, in a very ironic tone, about his participation in an anti-Francoist groupuscle in 1950s León. “There were few of us, but we did a lot of suffering”, he said laughing. It is an excellent summary of the recent history of the left.

It says a lot about the state of our democracy that our best option should be the candidacy of the debate panellist with the pony tail. I don’t need anyone to remind me of this. I am an abstentionist, I have never voted except against the European Constitution. So I have a whole load of cynical arguments against Podemos. In reality, I have only one motive to be in favour, though it is an incredibly powerful one: it is working.

Yes, it’s working. In a way that is disordered, abrupt, contradictory, ugly, like every important political process. It is enough for me. It is not just fear, but enthusiasm, that needs to switch sides. We need to be many and suffer little.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Fast food, fast arguments

I left this response, pace Karl Marx, to William Reville’s article on fast food in today’s Irish Times, which is titled ‘The truth about fast food and getting fat’

junk‘Every day there is more garbage in the food and more food in the garbage’

It is preposterous that an eminent scientist should draw such ludicrous conclusions about the exercise of choice and self-control. As he himself notes in his article, the environment in which fast food is consumed is designed precisely so that you cannot exercise choice and self-control, and so that your capacity to evaluate information is impaired, in order that you spend as much as possible on the items that prove most profitable to the vendor.

It is one thing to wander in off the street alone, with time on your hands to squint at the range of relatively healthy menu items that are obscured from view, and to pause calmly whilst the worker behind the counter looks on expectantly. It is quite another to coolly weigh up the menu when you have two or three anxious children in tow who have their own ideas about what they want, and a queue of impatient customers shuffling behind.

But it goes beyond the restaurant: he takes no account of the particular manipulations used by fast food companies that are deliberately designed to erode the possibility of choice and self-control. Consider the ‘Happy Meal’, a product that combines fast food with a toy. The whole point of food advertising and marketing is to stimulate consumer appetites in a particular way. In the case of the ‘Happy Meal’, it is the consumer appetites of children, who are not possessed with the critical capacity that Reville expects of his ideal adult. A child who encounters the ‘Happy Meal’, with its smile on the packaging, will conclude that getting the product makes you happy. She will also conclude, not unreasonably, that if you do not get the product, you will be unhappy. Therefore the product is designed to create unhappiness, and the eating of the product is designed to be associated with happiness.

His claim that it all boils down to “choice and self-control” also takes no account of the addictive qualities of fast food. A study published in Nature Neuroscience in 2010 –on the face of it, a good deal more rigorous than what either Morgan Spurlock or John Cisna got up to- showed that ‘overconsumption of palatable food triggers addiction-like neuroadaptive responses in brain reward circuits and drives the development of compulsive eating’, and suggested that ‘common hedonic mechanisms may therefore underlie obesity and drug addiction’.

Men and women and children may choose to eat fast food, but they do not make these choices as they please, and they do not do so under self-selected circumstances. An evaluation that is unable to take these circumstances into account is not worth tuppence, I’m afraid. Except perhaps to fast food companies and finger-wagging moralists.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

‘Not Engaging In Censorship’

El-Roto-censura-The important thing is not what happens, but who defines the events

The Managing Director of RTÉ TV claims, in light of its payout to Iona plus John Waters, that the broadcaster has ‘not engaged in censorship‘ in the course of recent events. These events included the removal of the footage of Rory O’Neill referring to Iona plus Waters as homophobes, and the payout itself. But if you remove footage of someone making  a reasoned statement based on facts, that is censorship.

If you make a substantial payout in recognition that it was wrong of you to broadcast reasoned statements based on facts, as RTÉ have done in this case, that is also engaging in censorship. You are demonstrating to the public that there are certain things that you might think but you cannot say them and you deserve to be rightly punished for this.

The Managing Director of RTÉ TV claims that RTÉ had, instead, fallen foul of Ireland’s defamation laws. This is no doubt true. But if the law tells you to drop your trousers, and you drop your trousers, you may have fallen foul of the law, but you are still dropping your trousers. It is exactly the same thing with censorship.

The legal position, according to the Managing Director’s letter, was “far from clear”. How do you see things clearly? Certain things can weigh on your mind and prevent you from seeing clearly.

Let’s speculate. What if RTÉ chiefs wanted to avoid any kind of public confrontation that would have garnered negative publicity. Such publicity might come from the stables of the Beast at INM and Newstalk, or it might come through pressure from the blueish part of Ireland’s political establishment. I can think of one major figure with links to Fine Gael and the Vatican who has previously called for RTÉ’s full privatisation. The same person, incidentally, has given his name to a School of Law at one of Ireland’s universities. I doubt there was any explicit pressure or intervention from these quarters. There does not need to be.

Such powerful presences are real. That is not to say they were  the decisive factor. I have no way of knowing, really, and I’m discounting, for the sake of argument, the possibility that RTÉ bosses were inclined to accept the charge of defamation as justified because in fact they sympathised with the Iona Institute.

On the subject of Panti’s remarkable, historic speech, it was remarked to me that it the same people, who talk so reasonably on the airwaves about treating LGBT people as less, who are the ones that talk about women in the same terms when it comes to abortion rights.

However, this needs qualification. People such as the Iona Institute are in far wider company on the latter point, both in terms of explicit support for draconian anti-abortion legislation, and implicit support for the idea that the State can exercise such power over women’s bodies as a matter of right.

So whilst the focus is on a small group of right wing commentator-cranks, perhaps we should be thinking about the wider function they perform: as a kind of media bridgehead for a wider constituency of anti-LGBT, anti-woman, anti-democratic opinion that sets the terms of public debate and keeps the legal order and the interests it serves nicely nailed down, so that people can be put in their place as the need arises.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Reasons of Sensitivity

How many times have you turned on RTÉ and heard a news report where a murder victim is described as “known to Gardaí”?

In its initial attempts to explain why it had withdrawn the video of Rory O’Neill referring to members of the Iona Institute and John Waters as homophobes, RTÉ cited ‘reasons of sensitivity‘ following the death of a man who worked at the Iona Institute.

We all know what “known to Gardai” really means. It doesn’t mean that the victim used to apply to the local sergeant for a licence to hold a raffle. It means -as per information supplied to the RTÉ correspondent by Gardaí- that the victim was involved in criminal behaviour.

So, if someone you loved was murdered – your son, your brother, your father, your partner- you might get upset, whilst reeling from the shock and plumbing the depths of despair, to hear the national broadcaster say, in effect: he deserved it. One less scumbag to worry about.

I wonder if there are people murdered in Ireland and, even though the victim is “known to Gardai”, RTÉ declines to supply this information, for reasons of sensitivity.

I wonder: is ‘your son was a scumbag and the nation needs to know that he deserved to die’ worse than being called a homophobe?

I wonder if RTÉ withdraws videos and reports from its website regularly, after families of murder victims object to being goaded and abused in their grief.

Doubt it, somehow. What are these people going to do: contact a lawyer?

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Flogging A Dead Horse

There was an opinion piece in Saturday’s Irish Times by regular columnist Noel Whelan about the forthcoming European parliamentary elections, weighing up the candidates for the Dublin constituency. It was as boring as fuck, and to be honest I feel a bit embarrassed admitting that I read it, and that I’m going to be writing about it here. But it is the matter of its boringness that I want to address, so bear with me.

Thank God for Europe!” That’s what one Irish Times letter writer had to say in light of the news that Louise O’Keeffe’s courage and tenacity had led to a resounding victory over the Irish State at the European Court of Human Rights. If I’m reading it right, the letter writer’s exclamation is a prime example of a political perspective, a liberal political perspective, that sees Europe as something that exists outside Ireland, not within it, and treats the institutions of the European Union as the eternal representative of the European continent and its peoples.

‘Europe’ is the civilising force for the backward Irish mob. This Europe -the Europe of the Lisbon Treaty- even offers, as writer Colm Tóibín puts it, protection from a despised political establishment.

And yet, Tóibín’s despised political establishment is deeply committed to ‘Europe’. “We took one for the team” is how Michael Noonan described the Irish government’s acquiescence in shouldering Ireland’s public with massive private banking debts. Or to put it another way, Irish pensioners lay terrified on hospital trolleys so Europe’s top bankers could lie out in the sun on private beaches. They had, after all, been living beyond their means.

Ireland’s political establishment manages to combine an enthusiasm, on the one hand, for being “good Europeans” (i.e. obedient poodles), for “punching above our weight” (i.e. getting pats on the head), for “pooling sovereignty” (i.e. getting shot of popular sovereignty for good), with, on the other, a pull-on-the-green-jersey nationalist rhetoric – no mean feat. They’re able to do this in part because the institutional design of the European Union allows them to do so, leaving matters of monetary and, increasingly, fiscal policy beyond the reach of everyday political discussion, and beyond the reach of popular contestation. And also because the trade union movement will hold rallies mocking Germans because of the bank debt when the Bundesbank president thinks bondholders ought to get stuffed whereas Jack O’Connor doesn’t.

Supporting whatever is going on in Europe is fine, but there’s no need to take an active interest. Good pupils don’t challenge their tutors. As you might expect from a stance that upholds the interests of big business against the needs of the population, the political establishment enjoys the support of Ireland’s mass media outlets in this regard, which are all right-wing. For all the denunciations that come from on high whenever there’s a referendum on about how ignorant large swathes of the Irish population are about the workings of the European Union, the EU is not intended to be a matter of political concern for the ordinary citizen.

Which brings me, rather circuitously, to the matter of Noel Whelan’s piece. He is concerned with predicting the winner in the Dublin constituency. He weighs up the candidates as if they were little more than horses in a race. Or contenders for a boxing championship. In fact, Whelan concludes his analysis thus: ‘with some big names now in the ring, Dublin is certainly the headline bout on the card for the European elections in May’. What? Is the name ‘Emer Costello’ is on the lips of every ‘politico’ from Stockholm to Thessaloniki?

Probably not. What this shows is the way that whatever European political scene there is gets subsumed in the national contest between competing political parties. And all politics amounts to, from this perspective, is a spectator sport, where the amateurs watch the professionals in action. Ideological differences are largely a distraction from the central question of which big beast will emerge triumphant. There is no cause for emotional involvement or civil passion or deliberation. Decisions taken at a European level are of no concern to voters. To compound things, in the Irish political backwater, European and local elections are held on the same day. Sure it’s only voting, and sure you might as well kill two birds with one stone.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Workers vs. Machines: Can’t We All Just Get Along?


I left this comment on Joe Humphrys’s article in today’s Irish Times, which is titled ‘Workers are losing the war against machines’.

While I agree with many things here, the premise that “workers are losing the war against machines” is highly misleading. It is akin to saying “the Indians are losing the war against the Indian Removal Act”, or “the Jews are losing the war against cattle trucks”. Hidden from consideration in the sentence are the people who exercise control over the machines in question and hence stand to benefit from greater automation of work processes.

So the full truth contained this statement can be revealed by turning the worker into the object: the people who own machines are waging -and winning- the war against workers. Or, if you like (I’m afraid it’s in terms that might put lots of Irish Times readers off their breakfast) the bourgeoisie is winning the war against the proletariat. Well, there’s quite a simple solution to this: the proletariat should seize the means of production. That might be difficult to achieve in practice, but hey, there is no alternative.

It’s tempting to single out the ideological abstractions of ‘technology’ or ‘innovation’ or ‘history’ or ‘the market’ as the root cause of this phenomenon. However, all such explanations obscure the fact that we are speaking of a particular set of social relations that can be changed through human agency and political means, and hence are by no means inevitable. Workers would be foolish indeed to become enthralled by the vast workings of the machine when the focus should be on the man behind the curtain.

In political terms this means refusing to take at face value the statement in the article that the increasing automation of work processes poses ‘a huge policy challenge for Ireland’. Which ‘Ireland’ is the author talking about? We know that there is vast corporate influence exercised -by the American Chamber of Commerce and IBEC, for example- over State policy. For them, the nature of the challenge is wholly different -if not diametrically opposed- to that of workers forced to confront immiseration. If ‘Ireland’ only ever means ‘big business and political elites’, then the future is bleak indeed. A decent future for the majority depends on being able to formulate the problem to be solved on their own terms, and not what is being presented as a given.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Saturday Night Show: Ireland’s TV Gulag


The Saturday Night Show. With Brendan O’Connor. It is bad enough that you pay for a TV licence on pain of being sent to prison in order that you and fellow members of the public be subjected to a news and current affairs machinery that calls for your expropriation and enslavement and glorifies the rule of money. It’s bad enough that you pay for a broadcaster whose chairman was a press secretary to the then Catholic Primate of All Ireland, a broadcaster that sounds bells of devotion to the Virgin Mary twice daily and that habitually presents a bunch of intellectually devious right wing fanatics as the representative voice of Irish Catholics, and that automatically pays out tens of thousands of euro when said fanatics take umbrage at being subjected to truthful and accurate description.

What might push you over the brink, though, is Brendan O’Connor and the Saturday Night Show’s treatment of Pussy Riot last night. It is difficult to convey just how dreadful, how idiotic, and how teeth grindingly embarrassing this broadcast was. Pussy Riot are heroes. They are a source of admiration for millions of people. They were imprisoned and subjected to brutal conditions for acting in accordance with their radical feminist political convictions.

In Ireland, they were given second billing to an ageing never-was of a DJ and daytime TV presenter who has had a hair weave that cost many thousands of euro and appeared on the show with the doctor from the private facility that performed the treatment, seemingly as though the publicity was part of the payment for the hair weave.

Pussy Riot were preceded on set by right wing economist Constantin Gurdgiev, who -as the only famous Russian in Ireland- was supposed to have appeared on set translating for the two women, presumably in some crackpot attempt on the part of the producers to provide ‘balance’, that is, to prevent anything too controversial from being said. It says a lot about Irish society that economists are household name celebrities. Once upon a time in Ireland bishops and archbishops were also household name celebrities. Both groups can be reliably called upon to speak on behalf of women.

God knows what the hell went on beforehand but what is clear is that Pussy Riot objected to Gurdgiev presence on set with them, and we had the bizarre scenario of Gurdgiev making an oblique and indirect reference to the imprisonment of Margaretta D’Arcy, which seemed to have arisen in the pre-show discussions.

The reasonable thing for RTÉ to do would have been to hire a professional interpreter of Russian. Instead, we had O’Connor declaring that Gurdgiev was contacted because he was the only Russian they knew. This -obviously the truth- was supposed to be a joke.

O’Connor referred persistently to the “girls” for the duration of the interview and repeatedly addressed the interpreter instead of the women themselves. He was visibly uninterested in either the inane questions he was posing or the answers he was getting. Rarely if ever have I seen a more jaw-dropping example of a provincial Paddy routine; at ease when sucking up to superficial Americans or Australians (though he is awful at even that), but utterly at a loss when presented with interview subjects of complexity and seriousness from unfamiliar places.

But let’s not heap all the blame on O’Connor: that he is where he is reflects RTE’s inbred provincialism (where it sees only sophisticated urbanity), the incestuous mediocrity of D4-centred media circles, and its contempt for the public at large.

And that’s without even mentioning the homophobia ‘debate’.


Filed under Uncategorized