01.26.07

The broadsheets and Fine Gael

Posted in Domestic/Relationships at 9:02 pm by Sarah

Ok, here’s an example of what I was talking about a few days ago regarding the broadsheets and their refusal to give credit where it is due, and happily this refers to Fergus O’Dowd who only those few days ago I said was not getting sufficient recognition for his work on nursing homes.

The Indo front page headline reads”Harney faces fresh scandal on elderly care”. The problems at the St. Albert’s nursing home are listed. NOWHERE on the front page does it mention how this scandal was exposed.  Inside the paper (Page 8 or something) Nicola Anderson does reported on Fergus O’Dowd’s speech in the Dail and also gives details about the trouble he had simply trying to access the report, despite the efforts of unnamed bureaucrats to prevent him seeing it.  HOWEVER the much larger headline on the same page read “Strict new rules for nursing homes to protect residents” and goes on to list all Mary Harney’s new plans.

Why wasn’t Fergus O’Dowd, who was solely responsible for uncovering the scandal mentioned on the front page? Why was the report about his speech much smaller than the headline and article announcing Harney’s plans for nursing homes – so conveniently announced on the same day as her department’s scandalous behaviour with regard to St. Albert’s is exposed? And those rules are not rules. They are draft rules – which is quite different than a rule. A draft rule says that knowing O’Dowd finally had the file, the political advisors to Harney fished out some otherwise ignored memo from 6 months ago, dusted it down and said “here, announce this..that’ll take the shine of O’Dowd’s discovery – which it did of course).

On the same day, over at the IT, the front page headline reads “Harney may appoint hundreds of consultants”. St. Mary against the consultants? She’ll never do it and even if she tried the consultants wouldn’t take the contracts because the existing guys would warn them off. (I don’t approve, I am just saying why give her credit for something she says she MIGHT do that we know she never WILL do). At least the Indo put the story – if not all of it – on the front page.

Inside the paper we read that ” New Draft Standards for nursing homes unveiled” (so they are only draft – woulnd’t have known that from the Indo) and meanwhile on the St. Albert’s story, what’s their headline? None other than “HSE acted “immediately” on nursing home complaint” – which is simply a lie. At least they felt obliged to put immediately in inverted commas. What did happen of course was that in 2004, a HSE inspector said that no more sick or old people should be put into St. Albert’s and not only was that recommedation ignored, but the state was PAYING for the patients there. Nothing changed until there was new owner in 2006. But the defence gets the headline – not the allegation. I mean, this is bigger than Leas Cross. AFAIK in Leas Cross the Department didn’t know, but should have. In this case, they did know, but did nothing. Only when we finally reach the Dail report page do we see, in fairness, a photo of Fergus and full report on this speech. It is given more space than the Indo..but I had to go a long way into the paper to see it.

And they wonder what spin doctors are for?

Permalink