Libertas get lesson in "democracy" as RTE TV cleared of bias in damning Ganley Primetime special

After months of complaints about being asked uncomfortable questions about his past an Irish statutory body had stated clearly that “In entering such a political arena, Mr Ganley could expect his business past and political aspirations to be held up to scrutiny. It is common practice in democratic societies to scrutinise and question political people in such a manner.” "The funding of Libertas has been, and continues to be, widely debated and discussed in political, media and public forums, the BCC said."
The report by the THE BROADCASTING Complaints Commission also vindicated RTE stating: “Mr Ganley represented himself on the programme and was afforded ample opportunity to refute allegations and to express opinion. The commission was of the opinion that the subject matter was treated fairly and was fair to all interests concerned. There was no evidence of editorial bias in this broadcast.”
Declan Ganley threatened to sue RTE over it's Primetime Special which examined his interests in Russia, Albania, Latvia, Bulgaria, South America and the USA.
See the show here
The commission's report also stated that such interrogation of Declan Ganely's past was to be expected: “Mr Ganley has become a part of the Irish and European political scene and therefore, he can expect his past to be scrutinised and questions to be asked about his support, both financial and personal,”
Ganley also alleged that the Irish Times and it's reporter Colm Keena had "a known left-wing bias, as increasingly does RTÉ"
On the same day as he tries to silence another magazine Ganley is being clearly told by a statutory body that he can expect to be investigated. RTE said "“This was a careful piece of investigative journalism carried out in the public interest.”

Read report to compliant one

Complaint made by: Mr. Donie Murphy Ref. No. 457/08

Station:	Programme:	Date:
RTÉ One	Prime Time	27 November 2008

Complaint Summary:

Mr. Murphy’s complaint is submitted under Section 24(2)(a)(fairness, objectivity & impartiality in current affairs). The complainant states that the journalist covering the story went to the Eastern Bloc Countries in order to collect information on how Declan Ganley made his money. She failed to get hard facts about underhand deals and then claimed to have spoken to the widow of a man who it was alleged was involved in unfair deals. The reporter said the widow refused to speak for the TV crew and refused to speak on tape. She got no interview. The reporter then stated that off camera the widow confirmed that her husband knew Declan Ganley – this was reported without any form of proof. Mr. Murphy states this segment should have been deleted. The reporter went on to make wild unproven allegations about Declan Ganley involving deals in Russia, other Eastern Bloc Countries and America.

Station’s Response:

RTÉ states the Prime Time programme broadcast a report on Declan Ganley, the founder of the Libertas organisation that played a prominent part in the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty referendum on 12 June 2008. RTÉ completely rejects Mr. Murphy’s allegations. Objectivity in news and current affairs is the essence of public service broadcasting. RTÉ believes the report on Mr. Ganley was objective, impartial and fair and that RTÉ had no political motivation whatsoever in broadcasting this report.

RTÉ emphatically rejects the claim that the programme set out to discredit Mr. Ganley. This was a careful piece of investigative journalism carried out in the public interest. Throughout the report, Mr. Ganley was given ample opportunity to respond to any issues raised by contributors that he felt were inaccurate or misleading. Mr. Ganley’s right-of-reply was fully adhered to and he was given sufficient time to present his side. In addition, many of his family and associates participated in the report and expressed their support for Mr. Ganley.

A year ago virtually no one in Ireland had heard of Declan Ganley. He was a wealthy businessman with no significant public profile. Within a year, he founded and led an organisation that contributed significantly to the defeat of a referendum which had the backing of almost all the major political parties, the employers’ organisations, most of the trade unions and most of the major print media. He has now begun the process of establishing the organisation he founded as a political party and has indicated that he is considering running candidates in several European countries in the June 2009 European Parliamentary Elections. In these circumstances, the Prime Time programme decided to produce a report which would profile Mr. Ganley. This profile would tell the story of Mr. Ganley’s upbringing as well as his business career and political activities. RTÉ believes this profile was in the public interest. RTÉ’s only motivation in making the programme was to inform viewers of the background to an emerging political figure.

Mr. Murphy makes an issue about the reporter informing viewers about what she had been told off camera by a person who was not prepared to be interviewed on camera. Such reporting is not unusual in current affairs and cannot be equated with not having any proof as Mr. Murphy alleges.

Decision of Commission:

The Commission has considered the broadcast, the submissions made by the complainant and the broadcaster. The complaint concerns an investigative report on Declan Ganley. The complainant raises issues about a specific segment of the programme. In assessing the complaint, the Commission had to consider the entire broadcast. The Commission noted the introduction to the broadcast by the presenter:

‘….we’ve got a special programme on one of the most intriguing figures to emerge in Irish public life in a really long time. Well, if this is a man who loves to take on the establishment, last summer he successfully led the charge against the Lisbon Treaty making plenty of enemies along the way in Brussels and Leinster House. And just today it emerged he’s making final preparations to form his own pan-European political party, standing guard, he says, against Lisbon II. And all the while in the background the questions continue to be asked; just who is he?; how did he make his money?; does his incredible life story actually stack up?; and what does he really want? Well tonight Prime Time’s Katy Hannon goes behind the questions to examine the facts and she takes a close-up look at the enigma that is Declan Ganley’.

The subsequent report opened with details of Mr. Ganley’s upbringing which included contributions from his parents, his brother and a Vice-Principal from his school. Mr. Ganley also contributed, talking about his return to live in Ireland at the age of thirteen: ‘As a child it was interesting coming back because sometimes you were seen as an outsider and yet in here [his heart], the love of my country and of my Irishness, it’s the essence of what I am. It’s very, very important to me’. Further details of his teenage and young years were given by his parents. This included references to his interest at a young age in business and finance and then, to the first few jobs of his career. The subsequent programme looked at his business dealings in various parts of the world including Eastern Europe, America and Central America. The last section of the programme looked at his political involvement in Ireland in the context of the Lisbon Treaty and his political aspirations.

The viewer was informed from the start of the programme of the context of the investigative nature of the programme on Mr. Ganley. The Commission would acknowledge that the majority of viewers would have been aware of the context given the events of the past year in the political arena in Ireland. Mr. Ganley has risen to the fore-front of Irish politics. The funding of Libertas has been, and continues to be, widely debated and discussed in political, media and public forums. In entering such a political arena, Mr. Ganley could expect his business past and political aspirations to be held up to scrutiny. It is common practice in democratic societies to scrutinise and question political people in such a manner. This edition of Prime Time Investigates set out to examine in a serious manner the background of a public political figure. This was a legitimate editorial decision which the broadcaster was entitled to make independently. What the Commission must assess is the treatment of the subject matter; was it fair and also, was the broadcast fair to all interests concerned.

The Commission noted that the programme-makers offered Mr. Ganley a fair right-of-reply. When investigating particular business dealings, the programme-makers afforded Mr. Ganley the opportunity to put forward his side. He was given ample opportunity to refute allegations and to inform the viewer of his opinions on the issues at hand. Further, the Commission noted that the report was interspersed with contributions which were supportive of Mr. Ganley. This included reference to his risk taking; ‘this is a man who is no stranger to risk and if you go for riskier ventures…..it’s likely that you’ll have failures as well as success in your wake’. The closing section of the programme typified the format; Mr. Ganley was afforded a fair opportunity to respond to allegations and also, to express his own opinions and the viewers also heard positive contributions from his associates. This closing section included the following:

Libertas associate: ‘I think he genuinely feels he has a role to play in the history of Europe.’

Mr. Ganley: ‘There are easier options, you know you want to go out and do good things. There are plenty of noble and worthy good things that you can do and jut have nice profiles done in the newspapers and on RTÉ and everything else. And then there’s the really hard stuff and it involves all sorts of risk and it’s going to get your character assassinated and everything else. But I think it’s worth it.’

The complainant takes particular issue with the source of the allegations by the programme-makers in relation to business dealings in Eastern Europe. The veracity of the sources of information and the selection of contributors to a programme are the independent editorial responsibility of the broadcaster. That a woman declined to participate on-camera in the programme could not determine whether she was an unreliable source of information. An individual is entitled to decide how to contribute; the programme-makers must assess the veracity of the source. The Commission noted that Mr. Ganley was afforded the opportunity to respond to the issues raised. In this context, the Commission found that the complainant’s submission that this section of the programme should not have been included in the broadcast was without foundation.

On viewing this broadcast, the Commission was of the opinion that Mr. Ganley was afforded ample opportunity to answer questions that were of public interest. He has entered the political arena and as such, can expect detailed investigation of his business and political activities. He was interviewed at length and further, his family and business associate’s contributions gave the viewer a sense of the personal man and a context for his political aspirations. The complaint took issue with the reportage concerning Eastern Europe. The Commission found that the treatment of the subject matter was consistent throughout the broadcast; if the programme-makers were questioning an issue, Mr. Ganley was afforded the opportunity to respond. For example:

Investigative reporter: ‘Why have you never revealed how much you made out of your aluminium and timber businesses?’

Mr. Ganley: ‘Because, it’s nobody’s business except my own. Those are private businesses and those things are things that one keeps private…..’

Mr. Ganley has become a part of the Irish and European political scene and therefore, he can expect his past to be scrutinised and questions to be asked about his support, both financial and personal. Mr. Ganley represented himself on the programme and was afforded ample opportunity to refute allegations and to express opinion. The Commission was of the opinion that the subject matter was treated fairly and was fair to all interests concerned. The complaint was rejected with regard to Section 24(2)(a) fairness, objectivity and impartiality.

Re Complaint 2

Complaint made by: Mr. Rory Fitzgerald Ref. No. 437/08

Station:	Programme:	Date:
RTÉ One	Prime Time	27 November 2008

Complaint Summary:

Mr. Fitzgerald’s complaint is submitted under Section 24(2)(a) fairness, objectivity & impartiality in current affairs. The complainant wishes to complain about the lack of objectivity shown in the Prime Times Special on Declan Ganley. Mr. Fitzgerald has no association with Mr. Ganley, Libertas or any campaign against Lisbon, but is merely a private citizen increasingly concerned about RTÉ’s obvious political motivations.

By wrongly associating a senior figure in the “No” campaign with murder, nefarious dealings and US neoconservatives, RTÉ is demonstrating an editorial motivation to make it politically possible for the Government to call a second referendum and to “shame” Irish citizens in to voting ‘Yes’ on this second occasion. The sub-text of RTÉ’s continuous attempts to discredit Mr. Ganley is part of a clear political motivation that betrays serious lack of objectivity and impartiality on its part.

Further, it is notable that the only representative of the print media interviewed was the business editor of the Irish Times. The Irish Times has a very clear pro-Lisbon agenda. The paper has a known left wing bias, as increasingly does RTÉ. It is this clear bias in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, a second referendum and in favour of left wing politics generally, about which Mr. Fitzgerald complains.

Station’s Response:

RTÉ states the Prime Time programme broadcast a report on Declan Ganley, the founder of the Libertas organisation that played a prominent part in the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty referendum on 12 June. RTÉ completely rejects Mr. Fitzgerald’s allegations. Objectivity in news and current affairs is the essence of public service broadcasting. RTÉ believes the report on Mr. Ganley was objective, impartial and fair and that RTÉ had no political motivation whatsoever in broadcasting this report.

Motivation in Making the Report

A year ago, virtually no one in Ireland had heard of Declan Ganley. He was a wealthy businessman, with no significant public profile. Within a year, he founded and led an organisation that contributed significantly to the defeat of a referendum which had the backing of almost all the major political parties, the employers’ organisations, most of the trade unions and most of the major print media. He has now begun the process of establishing the organisation he founded as a political party and has indicated that he is considering running candidates in several European countries in the June 2009 European Parliamentary Elections. In these circumstances, the Prime Time programme decided to produce a report which would profile Mr. Ganley. RTÉ believes this profile was in the public interest. RTÉ’s only motivation in making the programme was to inform viewers of the background to an emerging political figure.

The Production of the Report

Producer Frank Shouldice and reporter Katie Hannon were assigned to the report. They approached Mr. Ganley’s spokesman and explained what they were doing. They requested that Mr. Ganley would agree to an interview which would be edited into the report. They also indicated that family members, business associates and political supporters would be included in the report. Mr. Ganley had given many media interviews in recent months so his CV was freely available. One area of considerable interest was and remains Mr Ganley’s activities in the former Soviet bloc. His wealth appears to be based on his business activities in Eastern Europe during the 1990’s.

Albania

In his complaint Mr Fitzgerald raises the issue of the programme’s attempt to associate Mr Ganley with an Albanian murder. It is RTÉ’s firm view that it was appropriate to raise the issue of Mr. Ganley’s relationship with Mr. Kosta Trebicka as Mr. Trebicka had worked with Mr. Ganley’s Anglo-Adriatic Investment fund in Albania.

Source of Political Funding of Libertas

Mr. Fitzgerald alleges that the report insinuated that Mr. Ganley was somehow in the pay of shadowy figures in the US military and/or “neo-cons”. This claim is simply without foundation.

The Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) has been making inquiries about the funding of the Libertas campaign in the first half of 2008. The Commission appears to be unconvinced that Libertas has adequately explained its sources of funding. The report was right to raise the issue of possible neo-con influence in Libertas. Three relevant associates of Mr Ganley were included in the report denying any neo-con association with Libertas. How this equates with Mr. Fitzgerald’s claim of bias is difficult to understand.

Range of Interviewees

Mr. Fitzgerald claims that the only representative of the print media interviewed was the business editor of the Irish Times. Mr. Fitzgerald alleges that the Irish Times has a leftwing bias and is in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish Times can defend itself, however RTÉ doubts that there is evidence to sustain the claim that the Irish Times has a leftwing bias. It is also worth noting that support for the Lisbon Treaty came from both the left and right wings of political life.

Mr. Fitzgerald is wrong in his claim that there was only one representative of the print media interviewed. In addition to Colm Keena of the Irish Times, there were interviews with journalist and author T. Christian Miller, who covered the Iraq war for the Los Angeles Times (and wrote the book ‘Blood Money’), Habjon Hasani, an investigative journalist based in Tirana, who writes for a number of Balkan publications including ‘Albania’ newspaper and MAPO magazine and Tom McEnaney, who is a former Business Editor of the Irish Independent.

It is RTÉ’s view that there was a range of journalists interviewed for the report and that each one had an area of particular interest or expertise that made their contribution to the report relevant and legitimate.

RTÉ emphatically rejects Mr. Fitzgerald’s unfounded allegation of political motivation in the making of this report. This was a careful piece of investigative journalism carried out in the public interest. Throughout the report, Mr. Ganley was given ample opportunity to respond to any issues raised by contributors that he felt were inaccurate or misleading. Mr. Ganley’s right-of-reply was fully adhered to and he was given sufficient time to present his side. In addition, many of his family and associates participated in the report and expressed their support for Mr. Ganley.

Decision of Commission:

The Commission has considered the broadcast, the submissions made by the complainant and the broadcaster. The complaint concerns an investigative report on Declan Ganley. In assessing a complaint, the Commission can only consider the broadcast content. Therefore, the issues raised by the complainant about the print media and his views in general about left wing bias could not form part of the Commission’s assessment. The Commission has to confine its assessment to the material in the broadcast and in this context, the complainant’s assertion that there was an editorial bias evident in the content.

The Commission noted the introduction to the broadcast by the presenter:

‘….we’ve got a special programme on one of the most intriguing figures to emerge in Irish public life in a really long time. Well, if this is a man who loves to take on the establishment, last summer he successfully led the charge against the Lisbon Treaty making plenty of enemies along the way in Brussels and Leinster House. And just today it emerged he’s making final preparations to form his own pan-European political party, standing guard, he says, against Lisbon II. And all the while in the background the questions continue to be asked; just who is he?; how did he make his money?; does his incredible life story actually stack up?; and what does he really want? Well tonight Prime Time’s Katy Hannon goes behind the questions to examine the facts and she takes a close-up look at the enigma that is Declan Ganley’.

The subsequent report opened with details of Mr. Ganley’s upbringing which included contributions from his parents, his brother and a Vice-Principal from his school. Mr. Ganley also contributed, talking about his return to live in Ireland at the age of thirteen: ‘As a child it was interesting coming back because sometimes you were seen as an outsider and yet in here [his heart], the love of my country and of my Irishness, it’s the essence of what I am. It’s very, very important to me’. Further details of his teenage and young years were given by his parents. This included references to his interest at a young age in business and finance and then, to the first few jobs of his career. The subsequent programme looked at his business dealings in various parts of the world including Eastern Europe, America and Central America. The last section of the programme looked at his political involvement in Ireland in the context of the Lisbon Treaty and his political aspirations.

The viewer was informed from the start of the programme of the context of the investigative nature of the programme on Mr. Ganley. The Commission would acknowledge that the majority of viewers would have been aware of the context given the events of the past year in the political arena in Ireland. Mr. Ganley has risen to the fore-front of Irish politics. The funding of Libertas has been, and continues to be, widely debated and discussed in political, media and public forums. In entering such a political arena, Mr. Ganley could expect his business past and political aspirations to be held up to scrutiny. It is common practice in democratic societies to scrutinise and question political people in such a manner. This edition of Prime Time Investigates set out to examine in a serious manner the background of a public political figure. This was a legitimate editorial decision which the broadcaster was entitled to make independently. What the Commission must assess is the treatment of the subject matter - was it fair and also, was the broadcast fair to all interests concerned.

The Commission noted that the programme-makers offered Mr. Ganley a fair right-of-reply. When investigating particular business dealings, the programme-makers afforded Mr. Ganley the opportunity to put forward his side. He was given ample opportunity to refute allegations and to inform the viewer of his opinions on the issues at hand. Further, the Commission noted that the report was interspersed with contributions which were supportive of Mr. Ganley. This included reference to his risk taking; ‘this is a man who is no stranger to risk and if you go for riskier ventures…..it’s likely that you’ll have failures as well as success in your wake’. The closing section of the programme typified the format; Mr. Ganley was afforded a fair opportunity to respond to allegations and also, to express his own opinions and the viewers also heard positive contributions from his associates. This closing section included the following:

Libertas associate: ‘I think he genuinely feels he has a role to play in the history of Europe.’

Mr. Ganley: ‘There are easier options, you know you want to go out and do good things. There are plenty of noble and worthy good things that you can do and just have nice profiles done in the newspapers and on RTÉ and everything else. And then there’s the really hard stuff and it involves all sorts of risk and it’s going to get your character assassinated and everything else. But I think it’s worth it.’

The complainant submits that there was a particular sub-text to the broadcast; ‘RTÉ’s continuous attempts to discredit Mr. Ganley…’ On viewing this broadcast, the Commission was of the opinion that Mr. Ganley was afforded ample opportunity to answer questions that were of public interest. He has entered the political arena and as such, can expect detailed investigation of his business and political activities. He was interviewed at length and further, his family and business associate’s contributions gave the viewer a sense of the personal man and a context for his political aspirations. The complainant took issue with the report concerning Eastern Europe. The Commission found that the treatment of the subject matter was consistent throughout the broadcast; if the programme-makers were questioning an issue, Mr. Ganley was afforded the opportunity to respond. For example:

Investigative reporter: ‘Why have you never revealed how much you made out of your aluminium and timber businesses?’

Mr. Ganley: ‘Because, it’s nobody’s business except my own. Those are private businesses and those things are things that one keeps private…..’

Mr. Ganley has become a part of the Irish and European political scene and therefore, he can expect his past to be scrutinised and questions to be asked about his support, both financial and personal. Mr. Ganley represented himself on the programme and was afforded ample opportunity to refute allegations and to express opinion. The Commission was of the opinion that the subject matter was treated fairly and was fair to all interests concerned. There was no evidence of editorial bias in this broadcast. The complaint was rejected with regard to Section 24(2)(a) fairness, objectivity and impartiality.

Broadcasting watchdog clears RTÉ Ganley profile

MARY MINIHAN

THE BROADCASTING Complaints Commission (BCC) has rejected complaints about an RTÉ Prime Time programme on Libertas founder Declan Ganley.

The BCC said it found no evidence of editorial bias in the profile of Mr Ganley broadcast on November 27th of last year and presented by reporter Katie Hannon. The complaints, which related to standards of fairness, objectivity and impartiality, did not come from Mr Ganley or Libertas.

“Mr Ganley has become a part of the Irish and European political scene and therefore, he can expect his past to be scrutinised and questions to be asked about his support, both financial and personal,” the BCC said.

“Mr Ganley represented himself on the programme and was afforded ample opportunity to refute allegations and to express opinion. The commission was of the opinion that the subject matter was treated fairly and was fair to all interests concerned. There was no evidence of editorial bias in this broadcast.”

A spokesman for Libertas said the organisation had no comment to make on the issue yesterday.

The BCC said the programme-makers offered Mr Ganley a fair right of reply and ample opportunity to answer questions that were of public interest.

The funding of Libertas has been, and continues to be, widely debated and discussed in political, media and public forums, the BCC said.

“In entering such a political arena, Mr Ganley could expect his business past and political aspirations to be held up to scrutiny. It is common practice in democratic societies to scrutinise and question political people in such a manner.”

In the BCC’s summary of one of the complaints, the complainant described himself as having no association with Mr Ganley, Libertas or any campaign against Lisbon, “but is merely a private citizen increasingly concerned about RTÉ’s obvious political motivations”.

The complainant argued that RTÉ was attempting to discredit Mr Ganley, as “part of a clear political motivation that betrays serious lack of objectivity and impartiality on its part”.

The complainant referred to the fact that The Irish Times’ public affairs correspondent, Colm Keena, contributed to the programme. “The Irish Times has a very clear pro-Lisbon agenda. The paper has a known left-wing bias, as increasingly does RTÉ.”

In its response, RTÉ said: “The Irish Times can defend itself. However, RTÉ doubts that there is evidence to sustain the claim that The Irish Times has a left-wing bias.”

Rejecting the allegations in this complaint, RTÉ said objectivity in news and current affairs was the essence of public service broadcasting. “RTÉ believes the report on Mr Ganley was objective, impartial and fair and that RTÉ had no political motivation whatsoever in broadcasting this report.”

The second complaint, from a different complainant, alleged the programme contained “wild, unproven allegations” and “failed to get hard facts” about Mr Ganley. RTÉ responded: “This was a careful piece of investigative journalism carried out in the public interest.”