Tag Archives: Denis O’Brien

In the course of the conversation [with then INM chairman James Osborne], he informed me that in April of this year Denis O’Brien, the major shareholder in INM, had called him up to get him to “pull” an article in this newspaper.
The article related to Denis O’Brien’s borrowings from Anglo Irish Bank. A spokesman for Denis O’Brien yesterday denied that this took place.
Osborne says he talked him down, telling him he was behaving like a “spoiled teenager”. To Osborne’s eternal credit, this was the first I knew of the alleged editorial interference.
The article was published under the heading ‘Anglo Irish’s Top 13 Buccaneer Borrowers’. It was fair to Denis O’Brien, making clear that he was one of those paying the bank back. O’Brien knew of it because we had contacted his spokesperson for a comment.

What matters, if Osborne is correct, is O’Brien’s response. Censorship was his instinctive response to something that he perceived would be critical and touching on his financial interests.

 

O’Brien – The Real Issue Is Press Freedom (Anne Harris, Sunday Independent)

Previously: Denis O’Brien’s Editorial Interference: The Smoking Gun? 

 

What Enda said in March:

“I had no idea of who was going to be there. I pressed the bell. Obviously Mr O’Brien was on that platform, I am not in a position as Taoiseach to vet the lists of attendees of any particular function that I intend.

RTÉ News has learned that Denis O’Brien has acquired a further 5% of the shares in newspaper group Independent News and Media.

The company’s share price rose by almost 15% [yesterday] afternoon in Dublin following a transaction in which 32.7 million shares in the company changed hands at 34.5 cent per share.

This represents a 24% premium to the 27.8 cent the shares were trading for at that time.

Market sources have confirmed Mr O’Brien bought the shares.

A spokesman for Mr O’Brien declined to comment when asked whether the businessman was the investor behind the transaction.

Denis O’Brien buys another 5% stake in Independent News & Media (RTE News)

Leslie Buckley (right) was appointed as Denis O’Brien’s representative to the board of Independent News and Media (INM) in 2009.

The following correspondence took place during the final stages of the Moriarty Tribunal. Journalist Sam Smyth was covering proceedings for The Irish Independent. Gavin O’Reilly (left) was CEO of INM at the time.




From: Gavin O’Reilly
Sent: 08 November 2010 17:43
To: ‘Leslie Buckley’
Subject: PRIVATE
Importance: High
Dear Leslie,
I got your last text message sent on Sunday morning at 8am.
Frankly, I am somewhat bemused by the plethora of calls and texts; I am not sure what is so incredibly urgent that it has required the host of phone calls and texts in the past week or so.
You called me last Friday week (29/10/10 – when I was in Delhi) – and said that you and Denis felt that Sam Smyth should not continue his Moriarity coverage, as you believed that he had a vendetta and that his coverage was not balanced. However, in no discussion (then or since), have you specifically indicated where Sam’s coverage is either deficient or incorrect, except to say that the Tribunal was winding down and that other coverage was more positive. Instead, you referenced Sam’s participation on RTE’s Primetime with Sarah Carey. In fact, you’ll recall that you actually said that Sam’s article in the Indo that day (Friday, October 29th) was “very good”!!
I said to you that I couldn’t see any basis on which the Editor or Sam himself would agree to any change – and furthermore, I counselled that it’d be a page 1 story in The Irish Times. I also reminded you that Sam’s involvement with this story goes all the way back to the start, Lowry/ Dunne etc… You seemed to accept this pretty self-evident logic, and so I naturally thought the issue was dead.
We then spoke again on Tuesday (after the Board meeting), when you asked me to call you. You said that you and Denis accepted that Sam couldn’t be stood down, but that you’d both like to see another person covering the Tribunal (in addition to Sam). I responded by text saying that there were a number of reporters that cover Tribunals, and that the decision of which writer and which copy was used was the preserve of the Editor and News Editor.
You then left me another voice message on last Thursday evening, saying that there had been positive events at the Tribunal and that Sam’s coverage was pretty negative. I responded by text on Friday evening saying – not only were the Tribunal’s public hearings ending – but that I had reviewed the coverage (which seemed to me to be exactly the same as the other papers) and I couldn’t see any lack of balance that you suggested.
Leslie, I have listened to, and considered very carefully, your various messages again and again and looked again at all the coverage, and frankly, I can’t agree that there is anything wrong, inconsistent or unbalanced with Sam’s coverage. I know that there are obviously personal issues between Denis and Sam (threatened legal actions etc…), but I’d suggest that any objective review of the Indo’s Tribunal coverage – which is, in effect, just plain ole Court coverage – confirms that Sam has played a very straight bat with the facts (all of which are in the public domain). I advised you last week that the issue that you are raising goes to the very heart of INM’s policy of editorial independence. In addition, you must surely agree (privately) that Tribunal coverage cannot be adjudicated or influenced by people that are a party to the Tribunal.
And all that said, this entire debate seems entirely redundant at this stage anyhow, for the specific reasons set out above (not least, the Tribunal having ended). Therefore, I can see no sensible basis for raising this matter with the Editor, as to do so would be viewed (in public, at the very minimum) as direct interference on editorial matters — which not only would represent a major deviation from the past (and the Board’s policy) — but I’d strongly suggest, would be a hugely retrograde step for this Company and our brand.
If you feel we need to discuss this further, it would probably be better if we met in person (rather than short phone calls/ texts/ voice mails) on your return from China and when I am back from Australia/ NZ (which is w/c 22nd November.)
Hope your trip to China proves fruitful.
Regards,
Gavin

[Click to enlarge text boxes]

Original post: Denis O’Brien And Editorial Interference: The Smoking Gun?

Previously: Denis O’Brien Versus INM: Round 2

Denis O’Brien: Cynical Media Are Depicting Me As A Pariah

A Boy Named Sue

 

This bodes well.

[INM] Chairman James Osbourne asked him to resign at a board meeting today. This comes after Mr [Paul] Connolly [who represents Denis O’Brien’s interests on the board] yesterday began a legal action against the company over a €1.9m compensation package paid to outgoing chief executive Gavin O’Reilly.

RTE has learned that directors agreed at a heated board meeting to recommend that shareholders oust Mr Connolly from the board at its AGM in June.

INM director, Paul Connolly, Refuses To Stand Down (RTE)

Bruce Arnold.

Columnist with the Irish Independent (under new management).

“The tribunal findings make defence of the past impossible. The attempted rubbishing of the Mahon Tribunal by former Fianna Fail ministers is embarrassing.”

Bruce Arnold, (Irish independent, March 26)

“As Mr [Denis] O’Brien has said, not only is the Moriarty Tribunal not a judicial tribunal, it forms no part of the administration of justice and is not part of any legal process. It is a political apology for the law’s inadequacies in wrestling with supposed malfeasances.”

Bruce Arnold (Irish Independent, April 23)

“One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I’d like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.”

Kent Brockman, The Simpsons

Thanks Mr Worf

The terms of the restructuring combined with the trading position in effect give the banks the power to prevent Mr O’Brien increasing his stake to the level – 50 per cent plus – required for board control.At present the banks appear to favour the status quo which sees the O’Reilly camp in the ascendent and Gavin O’Reilly the chief executive. As long as that remains the case there seems little more that Mr O’Brien can do other than continue to snipe from the sidelines.

Banks Hold Whip Hand In Saga Over INM Ownership (John McManus, Irish Times)

(Laura Hutton/Photocall Ireland)