Noel Davern and Noel O'Flynn may be looking forward to some mischief-making with Ciarán Cuffe and RTÉ respectively, via the Oireachtas committees they chair. There may be some fun to be had, but some of it at least may be unfair, writes Vincent Browne.
Central to the Cuffe issue is whether he made any attempt to conceal from the Standards in Public Office Commission or from the Green Party the nature of his shareholdings. It is apparent he was forthcoming with the commission and that a recent declaration he made that included shares not previously disclosed arose from recent transactions.
I asked him whether he had disclosed his shareholdings to colleagues in the Green Party and the following was his response: "Yes, prior to the election last year - I believe it was to the co-ordinator of the Green Party in April 2002."
Two days ago I asked another question: "What is the name of the co-ordinator of the Green Party to whom you made this disclosure?" The reply: "The form was sent in to the Green office on Fownes Street. This morning I received an account of the vetting procedures for the 2002 general election from the party's general secretary Stiofán Nutty, and I enclose a copy of this."
The attachment stated each candidate was required to give a pledge and to make a declaration of interest on a prescribed form, to be returned to the party office by April 19th. The returned documents were to be scrutinised by two nominated party volunteers.
Uniquely, it seems, Cuffe's declaration came in two parts. The top sheet was the standard declaration form. A second sheet attached to the top sheet contained in detail his investment portfolio. That second sheet was dated April 29th - 10 days after the deadline.
Further, according to the general secretary's statement: "There is no record of when the office received Ciarán's declaration ... Both party voluntary scrutinisers have said they did not see this declaration." However, a declaration of interests has been on file in the party offices, dated April 29th, 2002.
He has also made the point that he had raised the issue of ethical concerns with his new brokers in April last year. I inquired if there was any written authentication of this. He had e-mailed his new brokers, Richard Elliot, on April 9th, part of which read (he sent me a copy): "Can I put in the proviso that I don't wish to invest in the defence sector or nuclear power. This is a personal ethical issue. This was my previous position with Allfirst (his previous brokers), but some companies that I may be unaware of may have slipped in with the distribution from my mother's will. Perhaps you would advise." Noel Davern's committee may inquire into this further. Unless it comes up with some substantive new evidence, Cuffe would appear to be in the clear. He was right to resign from the environment portfolio. Realistically, should more be demanded of him? He is perhaps the most impressive of the new entrants to the Dáil and it would be unfair if his career were blighted by opportunist slandering.
It would also be unfair if the career of Brian Dobson were tainted by what he has acknowledged was a once-off error of judgment. He has been one of RTÉ's most accomplished broadcasters and his ready acceptance that he should not have coached health executives in interview techniques should lay to rest that issue as far as he is concerned.
But for RTÉ it is a different matter. It had stoutly defended what Dobson acknowledges was a mistake. An RTÉ spokesperson said there was no problem with contract presenters coaching potential interviewees, including politicians. Neither, apparently, does RTÉ see any problem with presenters and interviewers earning significant fees from corporate gigs or ownership of media consultancy firms.
How can we, journalists, fulminate against politicians' engagement in conflicts of interests when, apparently, it is okay for journalists to be similarly compromised and enjoy the support of the "public service broadcaster" in the process?
But journalists are compromised by more than money. There are the compromises of corporate ownership and corporate vested interests. RTÉ is not immune to this, as evidenced by the campaigning for a higher licence fee. RTÉ is again ethically challenged by permitting advertisers to "sponsor" programmes, including ones that verge into the current affairs arena, such as The Late Late Show and, most problematically, the sponsorship of Crimeline by an insurance company. And there is the compromise of sources, which is a problem for all journalists.
The Barr tribunal will examine the station's conduct during the Abbeylara "siege". However, we can say at this stage that RTÉ's news coverage of that affair, aside from what happened on Five-Seven Live, conveyed a false sense of crisis and may have contributed to the distressing outcome. RTÉ, the public service broadcaster, buys into the consensus agenda as much as the commercial media, hyping middle-class obsessions with crime and taxes - the residential property tax was defeated in the main by RTÉ presenters, and did anyone raise a cheep? But that is unlikely to concern Mr Davern and his colleagues.