How come Dáil, Celtic Media and the NUJ weren’t aware of ‘what everyone knew’?
THE Government’s defence of Denis Naughten was seriously undermined yesterday by mounting evidence which contradicts their key claim about the INM takeover controversy.
The key plank of the FG spin operation was the claim that the information Mr Naughten gave to an INM lobbyist – that the takeover of Celtic Media Group would be referred to the broadcasting watchdog – was already well-known to everyone in politics and the industry.
A string of ministers and TDs lined up yesterday to allege everyone knew the INM takeover plan would be referred to the regulator.
On this basis, they claim, Mr Naughten did not reveal anything confidential during his secret conversation with the lobbyist.
The claim was made by the Tánaiste Simon Coveney and Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy, as well as backbench TD Peter Burke.
However their claim is contradicted by a growing body of evidence which suggests that nobody
Journalists feared losing their jobs
other than Mr Naughten was sure of what would happen regarding the deal at the time that the secret phone call took place.
Yesterday, one well-placed source within Celtic Media Group, which was to be purchased by INM, was adamant that he and other senior staff did not know that the proposed sale would be referred to the Broadcast Authority of Ireland.
The source said journalists within Celtic Media (who were very concerned they would lose their jobs in the deal) had sought assurances from management about what was happening. The source said employees knew nothing about the possibility or likelihood of a BAI referral – which was good news for them – until it was announced officially end of January 2017. INM lobbyist Eoghan Ó Neachtain knew about it on November 11, 2016 – nearly three months before the employees were told that the BAI was examining the case. That three-month gap appeared to give INM a major advantage in the deal.
According to the source, employees heard about the referral at the end of January when the National Union of Journalists wrote to Hildegarde Naughton, the chairwoman of the joint committee on communications, noting that the deal had been sent to the BAI.
Journalists in CMG had strongly opposed the acquisition, and through the NUJ, had previously brought their complaints to the competition authority.
They were especially adamant the deal shouldn’t go through because of a series of layoffs within INM. Employees were afraid that a similar cull could come at Celtic if INM took over, the source added.
Apart from evidence from Celtic, and from the NUJ, there is other evidence the intervention of the BAI was not ‘common knowledge’ as Minister Naughten claims.
On the same day that he told the INM lobbyist that the BAI was now involved, the influential advertising website, Adworld, published an article in which it said that INM’s acquisition of Celtic had been approved by the competition commission. It said the deal just needed to be approved by Mr Naughten and that he was expected to greenlight the takeover ‘by Christmas’.
For months, Celtic journalists, and the advertising world, assumed the deal was going ahead.
Fianna Fáil deputy leader Dara Calleary suggested to the Dáil yesterday parts of the affair ‘smack of old-style politics and cronyism, the type of politics Fine Gael has always tried to state it is above’.
He explained: ‘The reality is that the PR lobbyist was after one thing and one thing only – a heads-up as to what would happen with the merger application involving INM and Celtic Media.
‘It is not as simple as a phone call between two mates. It is not as insignificant as the Minister and Taoiseach are trying to portray.’
He addressed Simon Coveney, standing in for the Taoiseach: ‘I am sure the Tánaiste will agree it was highly irregular that a lobbyist had this information and I cannot understand why it did not set off alarm bells with the Minister.
‘[He] did not record the call and did not speak to officials about it. He did not inform the Dáil and the public about it. In fact, three weeks after it, he withheld his intentions and personal views from the Dáil during parliamentary questions.
‘He said on the day, “I have not made my views known and I am not going to.” That is a direct quote from his contribution. This stinks.’
The Tánaiste said: ‘I have listened to the Minister’s explanation. It is comprehensive. It would have been better if the conversation had not taken place.’
Minister Naughten defended his own communications when in the Seanad yesterday. ‘I did not have any information as Minister when I spoke with Mr Ó Neachtain in early November and the view I gave was as a result of reading media reports, like any other Member of this House or Dáil Éireann.’
‘Old-style politics and cronyism’