From top left to right: Whistleblower Chay Bowes, Michael Smith, editor, Village magazine and John Tye, Founder & Chief Disclosure Officer of Whistleblower Aid at the Web Summit in Lisbon, Portugal in November; Anthony Sheridan
Please note, although this controversy occurred over a month ago and was the subject of an excellent article by Vanessa Foran, I believe the hostile reaction by mainstream media to anti-corruption campaigning deserves as much coverage as possible.’
On November 6, Irish Examiner journalist Michael Clifford wrote an article that can only be described as gutter journalism at its very worst.
The target of Clifford’s attack was entrepreneur and anti-corruption campaigner Paddy Cosgrave.
Cosgrave is co-founder of the hugely successful Web Summit and used that platform at this year’s event to highlight very serious allegations of corruption against then Taoiseach Leo Varadkar.
The allegations, published by Village magazine, claims that Varadkar illegally leaked a confidential document related to negotiations for a new General Practitioner contract. The allegations are so serious that Varadkar is now the subject of a criminal investigation.
Cosgrave brilliantly used the event, attended by 43,000 people from 128 countries, to expose to the world the rot that lies at the heart of Ireland’s governance.
After projecting a giant image of the Village Magazine cover that described Mr. Varadkar as a ‘law breaker’, Cosgrave invited the whistleblower, Chay Bowes and the editor of the magazine, Michael Smith, onto the stage.
Clifford focused his attack on Cosgrave and whistleblower Bowes. He openly questioned Bowes integrity by comparing his courage to the guest of honour at the event, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.
‘To present the whole farrago as an introduction to Ms Haugen, a genuine, courageous whistleblower, was arguably insulting to her.’
Clearly, Clifford does not believe that Bowes is a genuine whistleblower despite the fact that his revelations triggered a criminal investigation into the then prime minister of our country.
The journalist then attacked Cosgrave by inaccurately claiming he linked the notorious activities of Weinstein and Epstein with Varadkar’s alleged crime.
Clifford wrote:
‘To leave open the possibility to an uninformed audience that whatever he did could be bracketed in notoriety with the activities of Weinstein and Epstein is contemptible.’
Clifford then, hypocritically, did exactly what he had just [falsely] condemned Cosgrave of doing. He linked the notorious journalist, Gemma O’Doherty with Cosgrave’s actions.
‘Once upon a time, Gemma O’Doherty held a similar role in the public square before she took a sharp turn to the right. There is no reason in the world to believe that Paddy would follow her but you have to wonder what exactly he will do next.’
So why the hypocrisy, why would Clifford insult and condemn one whistleblower and his supporter and praise another?
The answer, I believe, depends on who the whistleblower is and who they are exposing.
Ms. Haugen is an American citizen, she’s an outsider. Her whistleblowing poses no threat to those who rule the roost in Irish politics.
But, in the eyes of an establishment journalist like Clifford, Cosgrave’s relentless and effective anti-corruption campaigning is a direct threat to the power of the ruling political class that he and his newspaper so strongly support.
And Clifford himself, helpfully, provides the evidence for the truth of this claim.
In defence of Varadkar he writes:
‘He [Varadkar] was stupid rather than corrupt and he may have broken the law but there was no personal gain in it for him.’
If it was just a case of stupidity on Varadkar’s part then surely we can expect the Gardai to drop their criminal investigation now that this journalist has delivered his judgement on the case?
It also appears that Clifford does not believe that political corruption is a crime. How else can we reconcile his view that ‘Varadkar may have broken the law but he’s not corrupt’?
Even more bizarre, particularly for a journalist, is Clifford’s suggestion that there should be no accountability if there was no personal gain in the crime.
But Clifford doesn’t operate alone in the establishment media bubble. Political editor of the Examiner, Daniel McConnell expressed similar views in defence of that other stalwart of the political establishment, Simon Coveney, during the Zappone cronyism scandal.
‘Coveney is not a crooked politician,’ McConnell told the nation adding –
‘The true scandal here has been Coveney and Fine Gael’s utter failure to kill this off long before now.’
Here we have a journalist, the political editor of one of the most influential newspapers in the country suggesting that the ‘killing off’ of a serious scandal involving cronyism and possible law breaking should take precedence over political accountability.
I wrote before about the disturbing malaise that’s eating away at standards in Irish journalism. Clifford’s intemperate and biased rant is a particularly nasty example of that malaise.
Anthony Sheridan is a freelance journalist and blogs at Public Enquiry.
Previously: Vanessa Foran: A Reckoning At The Summit
Pic: Web Summit
Didn’t Paddy have his hand out looking for serial corporate welfare from the Irish state?
He’s hardly a knight in shining armour, sorry Anthony.
@Bignot – doesn’t necessarily negate his comments regarding Clifford
How does that negate the larger point? Almost every business is being supported by the state now.
Well some might say, he turned on the people who spurned his advances, when they didn’t do what he wanted. I personally think he’s a psychopath, and I wouldn’t take much mind of him. He’s a dose.
is it something irish or paddy to want like and luv whistleblowers,they always the weirdo who got messed around at work/the spurned bit on the side,,they dont arrive on the wings of victory.
great piece Anthony.
Paddy may be a bit of a loon, but it doesn’t change the fact that Leo broke the law and is currently under criminal investigation and the mainstream media seems happy to brush it off as a minor error that shouldn’t be discussed.
Yes that’s a fair point Gavin, though I would caution the allegations against Varadkar remain unproven at the moment
I don’t have any time for Paddy Cosgrave, However, the Village article was extremely important. Varadkar has serious questions to answer. As for Mick Clifford, nobody takes him seriously as a journalist, so attacking him is somewhat akin to shooting fish in a barrel.
For some reason Mr Sheridan finds it necessary to repeatedly attack work that I do. He distorts what I have written, purposely takes passages out of context and attempts to portray me as some kind of lackey for the establishment. This goes all the way back to a piece five or six years ago where he ludicriously portrayed me as a defender of Pat Hickey, the former Olympics official. I understand that something ails Mr Sheridan in this respect. I may have done something to him in a previous life. Or he may have some personal attitudes to me fashioned from something that might be better examined by somebody else. What I don’t understand is why Broadsheet keeps publishing his little grudges. Unless I’ve done something to annoy Broadsheet too. Keep it real there lads, and a Happy Christmas to all, especially Mr Sheridan for whom hopefully the season of goodwill might damp down his anger, temporarily at least.
Well done
At the end of the day you’re a well respected full time journalist.
Whereas Anthony is a hit with at least 3 people on here and one of them is his own mother.
Keep it real yourself Mick, and start holding the likes of Varadkar to account instead of lame excusing. Or is the income from the state advertisements too difficult to resist for your employer?
Fair play Michael, but why don’t you use BS as a platform for establishing your bona fides, or at the very least, counter Anthony’s opinions as expressed in this column?
There’s no point in throwing toys out of the pram when there’s no one to hear your cries.
Maybe you both have more common ground than you realise.
This.
‘I may have done something to him in a previous life. Or he may have some personal attitudes to me fashioned from something that might be better examined by somebody else. What I don’t understand is why Broadsheet keeps publishing his little grudges. Unless I’ve done something to annoy Broadsheet too. Keep it real there lads, and a Happy Christmas to all, especially Mr Sheridan for whom hopefully the season of goodwill might damp down his anger, temporarily at least.‘
Are you attempting to deplatform Anthony with your not so sly dig at the ‘sheet?
This type absolute completely irrelevant garbage is why I don’t read your nonsense,it’s just rubbish Mick,be better.
-passive aggressive much.
Hi Mick
Can I just say, fair play for tagging in and commenting below the line on a column where you are a principal mention, and not in a good way either.
That’s easy for me to say as I always stood by on my own columns and carry on here, but it’s not the norm with other contributors, writers and whatever you’re having yourself.
Most Broadsheet columnists don’t, and those that do tend to get all defensive, snippy, or all lovie with the posts they only want to hear from.
And then there’s the hard men taking their issues to Twitter. Or the crybabies that do what makes them feel all better again by going behind the scenes.
So in fairness, you’re a pretty big gun to have gone and made the effort.
Also, but mainly this, thanks for that follow up and clarification on that Garda phone call thing, you might have noticed it found a use for itself. (Pity that’s as far as its most likely to go now, unless the liquidator finds something that needs additional assistance & intervention… You never know
Anyway, Mick. Have a good one.
BTW the only reason I’m nice to ya is ’cause you’re in D’ Cork ‘Xaminer. Roots like.
xV
Was he even at it-I heard he was not even there ?
But somehow he gauged the audience reaction…..magic init.
aaaaaaand…. no response
Bitter as ever.
So now Paddy’s a saint…..
….his problem is that he does not know the words to a early 90’s small time,not very good song by a band favored by an aging out touch oul lad,who desperately wants appear relevant,by sprinkling a column about a tech conf he did not attend,with cliches and childlike lyrics from an obscure forgotten song.
Talking Head indeed.
If only he knew that song from ‘92.
Anthony you should win a pulitzer for writing this tearjerking puffery about millionaire Glenstal old boy Cosgrave’s success and as an anti corruption campaigner without mentioning his workplace bullying, promotion of Farage and Le Pen, tax avoidance and other serious allegations. No doubt you are a massive fan of his judging by your Twitter account. Whatever you say about Mick he has actually exposed corruption through his journalism, whereas this is a blog. I’d say I’m, surprised Broadsheet is publishing another rando blog but after the published Vanessa the Village Magazine vendors equally puerile blog praising someone who she has a financial relationship with I’m not suprised.
If you want to do some journalism possibly ask Bowes why after “21 years of being an uneasy outsider” he decided to work with millionaire Cosgrave and coincidentally help him settle some of his old scores.
I would also love you to ask the Village why they redacted Bowes part of the text conversation about setting up Direct Provision centres.