MEETING OF MINDS?

The suggestion of a meeting is often met with much eye-rolling.

It is usually someone else’s agenda and not your own. You’re too busy but then again you have to be there… just in case.

And of course there is the performance aspect. Some colleagues will take the floor to parade their brilliance, others will “keep the head down” and congratulate themselves for having escaped from the blame games that are often played out.

But meetings have a point and a purpose and if only 20 seconds of vital information is elicited from a two-hour bore-fest, then the meeting should have been worth the effort.

Meetings can have many purposes – to plan, to review, to inform are just a few – but they should share the same goal – a positive outcome.

And that’s why – contrary to what it says – the Department of Environment should be concerned that there were no minutes for 13 out of the 23 high level meetings that Irish Water or rather its previous incarnation, Bord Gáis, held in 2012.

The department’s reason for its lack of concern over the details revealed in RTÉ’s This Week programme was that it was not involved in the meetings itself, although of course the department’s then minister, Phil Hogan, was in attendance for at least some of them.

But whether the department is right or wrong to be blasé about the meetings it was not directly involved in, it should have been in the interests of the participants themselves to have some meaningful records.

To use a broadcasting rule of thumb, most of us speak at a rate of three words per second. It doesn’t take a very long meeting to rack up a huge volume of words and how many people would be capable of emerging from a lengthy session with an exact record of all that was discussed in their head?

Effective meetings need minutes, whether the purpose is planning or imparting information. If a record of what has been discussed or agreed is there for all parties to see, then everyone can literally be on the same page. It’s also the only way to outfox the crafty operators that hear what they only want to hear and insist that matters were agreed to their satisfaction when everyone else’s recollection is somewhat different.

It’s hard to believe then that the meetings held by Bord Gáis that were undocumented were of such elementary content that minutes –or even follow-up e-mails – were not required so that all participants would be clear on the way forward

One excuse could have been that there wasn’t time for such care and attention but that’s hardly going to stand up in the wake of the debacle that’s ensued.

Another could be that the content of the meeting was commercially sensitive but that doesn’t work either because RTÉ’s Freedom of Information requests were refused on the basis of no minutes being kept rather than the sensitivity of their content.

That leaves us with on final excuse. That no-one wanted those discussions to find their way into the public domain. Surely not!

Bob Hughes is a journalist, writer and media consultant.

He was formerly Deputy Director of News at TV3 and a producer at Channel 4 News, Sky and Reuters.

Twitter: @bobhughesnews

GASPING FOR AIRTIME

Every broadcaster listening to Terence Flanagan’s catastrophic interview with Mary Wilson on RTE’s Drivetime would have been thinking two things – firstly, “It could have been me” and secondly, “I hope I don’t get one of those interviews.”

Yes, live radio can be daunting but there are plenty of things that can be done to stave off disaster.

In fairness to Mary Wilson, she decided not to fillet the poor unfortunate Terence when others may have easily done so. Nevertheless, it was shocking that a TD of nearly eight years’ experience should have been so ill-prepared.

In many ways, the decision by Wilson not to go for the jugular – he is after all a leading light in a shiny new party – made it even more embarrassing. Pity is often more powerful than opprobrium.

Flanagan himself should have realised that he would be in trouble. Either he was so distracted by something of such greater import that he couldn’t think or he really was totally unprepared.

There certainly seems to be little evidence of prep work. All the key questions likely to be posed should have been anticipated and rehearsed. Clever broadcasters are always trying to wrong-foot politicians with that “killer question”.

The good ones often succeed but there are plenty of ways for an interviewee to buy him or herself brain time with waffle and obfuscation. It might make for a dull interview if it’s allowed to go on but at least it’s a get-out-of-jail card. God knows we see enough evidence of it on almost daily basis.

That Renua should have failed to put its leading lights through their paces before “going live” on launch day is hard to believe because it was as big a fail moment for the party as it was for Terence Flanagan.

The excruciating three minutes and twenty two seconds did a lot to damage the slickness of the Lucinda launch. The smart professional with bright new ideas standing alongside her economics guru had been neatly packaged by policy director Ross McCarthy and marketing expert Noel Toolan.

It made for a strong image. Unfortunately the Flanagan interview exposed the shallowness of Renua’s political communications’ well.

In many respects, Flanagan started off in true spin doctor style. Instead of answering the first question about how Renua differed from Fine Gael, he started to talk about the day being a historic one and then went into the usual blather about a fresh start with open government and keeping promises.

Ironically he more or less answered the question because the blather was the same pitch given by Fine Gael before – and shortly after – the last election.

All the questions that followed could have been anticipated by any experienced political journalist-turned-handler, yet there were no answers forthcoming and Wilson had to resort to prompting her guest in a bid to stem the awkward silences.

The interviewed faltered and faltered until it eventually ran out of steam and Wilson – out of kindness or resignation – gave up.

Some will feel sorry that Terence Flanagan was placed in such a highly vulnerable position. Others will feel that as a seasoned politician pitching for Government he should have been much more able to articulate his vision.

But maybe the blame for the travesty should be reserved for those that allowed him to be exposed in that way without the proper support. After all, isn’t support what parties are all about?

Bob Hughes is a journalist, writer and media consultant.

He was formerly Deputy Director of News at TV3 and a producer at Channel 4 News, Sky and Reuters.

Twitter: @bobhughesnews

NOT JUST ONE OF THE LADS

The Jeremy Clarkson “fracas”- as he terms it himself - has ignited a debate over what it means to be “one of the lads”.

Laddishness, it would now seem, means entitlement, arrogance and an acceptance of casual racism and sexism. Ageism may also be included as a form of agreed self-deprecation for the older “lads”, who style themselves as grumpy old men.

It may also mean the ability to throw a punch, something yet to be determined in the exchanges between Clarkson and producer, Oisin Tymon, but evidently factually accurate in the presenter’s historical fisticuffs with the equally boorish Piers Morgan.

Clarkson’s entertainment factor relies on his blunt and often witty putdowns of both people and machines, remarks delivered with the laconic air of the seasoned cynic who can only escape the drab normality of life by taking charge of large engines and driving at speed.

Some may see this as the ultimate form of thrill-seeking, others may view it as a type of penile dementia.

Most of the time it seems like harmless fun but there’s an insidious undercurrent to the Clarkson persona that permits others to behave in the same way.

It’s the same kind of peer pressure that anticipates all male gatherings will be beer-swilling exhibitions of vulgarity with nights-out ending in drunken sexual escapades or fights in the street. It’s life for the Inbetweeners that never grew up.

Of course this is a grotesque characterisation of the traditional male night out but how many men find themselves listening uncomfortably to the kind of “banter” that would not be acceptable in any other context.

The common get-out clause is that it’s just male bravado and that it is not meant to be serious.  Celebrities like Clarkson are offered other exemptions.

One of the most odious aspects of the current argument over the presenter’s future is the idea that his “value” to the BBC should excuse or override the kind of behaviour that might lead lesser mortals to instant dismissal.

Another is that the BBC has failed to develop the correct strategic policies in managing “talent”. Again, this view sets the “talent” apart from the also-rans and suggests that those who enjoy the privileges of fame and fortune are somehow allowed to break those petty little rules that the rest of us must adhere to.

Clarkson is lucky to have survived his past brushes with controversy, including his inappropriate use of an offensive nursery rhyme and his provocative behaviour in Argentina. Nevertheless he is entitled to due process.

The BBC disciplinary panel that will be chaired by the Head of BBC Scotland, Ken McQuarrie is now under way but there is currently no deadline for its conclusion. Hopefully the facts will be established and any consequent actions will be taken on the basis of the evidence alone.

Clarkson has opted for gallows humour, comparing himself to a dinosaur that has had its day. This apparently fatalistic approach may be the words of someone who thinks he is either too valuable to lose or too enticing a prospect for other broadcasters looking for a new cash cow.

Whatever the outcome of the BBC inquiry, it’s unlikely that we’ll have seen the last of Jeremy Clarkson.

Bob Hughes is a journalist and media consultant.

He was formerly Deputy Director of News at TV3 and a producer at Channel 4 News, Sky and Reuters.

Twitter: @bobhughesnews