Tom Humphries in Saturday's Times

[ken foree]

It's George Kimball you're thinking of and he is a legend!

would you believe i had "kimball" down before i changed it to kimble! yea i loved his america at large column, some great stuff in that.

[Donal81]

I disagree utterly with the notion that Humphries either (a) caused the Saipan affair or (b) was in some way irresponsible to allow the interview be published. I'm surprised at some of the posters who said this, to be honest.

How was it irresponsible? His obligation is to the reader, not to Mick McCarthy or Roy Keane. Jesus, irresponsible journalism is writing that Liam Lawlor had a hooker in the back of a car before he crashed in Moscow, not carrying out an interview on the record, publishing it more or less verbatim AND showing it to the subject before its publication (which isn't ethically proper).

As we all remember, it was McCarthy's response to Keane's comments in the interview that kicked things off. The general consensus now is that McCarthy should have handled the interview a whole lot better and that Keane should have handled McCarthy's response better, right? I remember reading the article and thinking, "blimey, Keano's gone on a bit of rant here," but I never thought it would cause the reaction it did. The bottom line is that Keane said those things, not Tom Humphreys. He wasn't tricked into saying them - he looked at the interview before it was published and had no problem with it. If Humphries and the Irish Times hadn't published it, the journalist would have, in effect, become a de facto spokesperson for the FAI.

We saw with Michelle Smith how damaging the lack of proper journalism was. There are still legions of people around the country who are convinced she was an innocent woman, victimised by everyone, despite the absolute evidence against her.

If the 1994 article we're talking about is flawed, nail him and the Irish Times on it. Facts should be sacred, after all...

[NeilMcD]

Great post Donal, I could not agree with you any more. It is not the job of the journalist to be supporters of the Irish football team. There job is to report what happens. Keane gave the interview. He was happy with it and It was published. It is between Keane and Mc Carthy what happened. Its easy to blame Humphreys but in my view very very foolish to do so.

[Stuttgart88]

I read Humphrey's book last summer "Lap Top Dancing With Goats" or whatever it was called. Good book I thought. I haven't got it in front of me so am relying on memory but what I recall from the Saipan chapter is that there was a big scramble among journalists to get the Keane interview. Everyone knew his frame of mind was questionable & that his relationship with McCarthy was worse than ever before. The whole Niall Quinn testimonial "no show" episide right through to the row with the goalkeepers had highlighted this. There was definitely one hell of an interview to be had & everyone wanted it.

I think Humphreys must have had an idea just how incendiary Keane's remarks would be. Keane was clearly happy to grind his axe in public. When you say that it wasn't the interview that caused the disaster, it was the respective parties' responses, I just don't see how you can separate the two.

I'm not saying Keane's views on the manager & his team-mates' lack of ambition should have been censored and buried forever, but publication could have waited. In my opinion Humphreys was acting far more in his own interests than in any duty to the reader. I'm pretty sure he was under editorial pressure too though. Every other journalist out there would have loved to have got it & it was a personal triumph for Humphreys. Every one of them wanted to be the guy who got to know what Keane was thinking given his clearly volatile state of mind, and to be the guy who got to print the story.

Can someone remind me: when Keane walked out & was talked back into staying, was this before or after the interview? I'm sure it was before and if so, this clearly added to the size of the "scoop" that the interview repersented, & also to the knowledge that it would have consequences. Of course Humphreys' responsibility is to the reader, but this interview was far more than a "I had a yap with Roy yesterday and this is what he thinks".

Of course, hindsight is a great thing though. From the Irish Times' point of view, who was to say he wouldn't have given a similar interview a few days later to another journalist, ruining the impact of anything they had up their sleeve?

In fairness, it was a good interview, though I'd expect no less from Humphries as he is an intelligent & very good writer. But God, I wish he & his paper never published the interview when they did.

[Donal81]

I read Humphrey's book last summer "Lap Top Dancing With Goats" or whatever it was called. Good book I thought. I haven't got it in front of me so am relying on memory but what I recall from the Saipan chapter is that there was a big scramble among journalists to get the Keane interview. Everyone knew his frame of mind was questionable & that his relationship with McCarthy was worse than ever before. The whole Niall Quinn testimonial "no show" episide right through to the row with the goalkeepers had highlighted this. There was definitely one hell of an interview to be had & everyone wanted it.

I think Humphreys must have had an idea just how incendiary Keane's remarks would be. Keane was clearly happy to grind his axe in public. When you say that it wasn't the interview that caused the disaster, it was the respective parties' responses, I just don't see how you can separate the two.

I'm not saying Keane's views on the manager & his team-mates' lack of ambition should have been censored and buried forever, but publication could have waited. In my opinion Humphreys was acting far more in his own interests than in any duty to the reader. I'm pretty sure he was under editorial pressure too though. Every other journalist out there would have loved to have got it & it was a personal triumph for Humphreys. Every one of them wanted to be the guy who got to know what Keane was thinking given his clearly volatile state of mind, and to be the guy who got to print the story.

Can someone remind me: when Keane walked out & was talked back into staying, was this before or after the interview? I'm sure it was before and if so, this clearly added to the size of the "scoop" that the interview repersented, & also to the knowledge that it would have consequences. Of course Humphreys' responsibility is to the reader, but this interview was far more than a "I had a yap with Roy yesterday and this is what he thinks".

Of course, hindsight is a great thing though. From the Irish Times' point of view, who was to say he wouldn't have given a similar interview a few days later to another journalist, ruining the impact of anything they had up their sleeve?

In fairness, it was a good interview, though I'd expect no less from Humphries as he is an intelligent & very good writer. But God, I wish he & his paper never published the interview when they did.

I'd put it differently. I wish to God that Mick McCarthy and Roy Keane had acted like adults in the months leading up to the World Cup and not fallen out entirely over an article which wasn't earth shattering in its content.

What is driving my argument is that censorship to protect the egos of McCarthy and the Irish players as well as the incompetence of the FAI can never be a good thing. Journalism ethics dictate that you should only pull a story that stands up if it's genuinely in the public interest such as national security. This was a football story, ultimately, and it would not have been in the public interest to pull that interview.

If I remember correctly Stuttgart, Keane had walked out of the Irish camp after a few days of silly ****-ups but was persuaded that night to stay. He had already promised Paul Kimmage and Tom Humphries interviews. The journos woke up that morning to find out the crazy story that had happened under their noses the night before. McCarthy told them in a press conference that it was all over now.

Later that afternoon, Keane did the interviews with Kimmage and Humphries. As far as I remember, McCarthy got the interview off the internet and had it rolled up in that team meeting when it really kicked off.

I appreciate what your saying Stuttgart but I honestly can't put the Saipan thing down to anything except the non-existent relationship between the manager and the captain. The interview was interesting but not inflammatory; I have a feeling that if McCarthy had spilled coffee over Keane, he would have walked over it at that stage.

[Donal81]

And the notion that the interview was akin to something we'd expect from the redtops is just ridiculous (not that you stated that Stuttgart but another poster did).

This is an example of irresponsible journalism, as reported in today's Irish Times:

"The Sun newspaper has apologised to the former captain of the Roscommon GAA football team over an article published in its Irish edition that said he had played pool in a hotel bar naked.

In an apology read out in court yesterday, the newspaper stated Francis Grehan was not naked at a Derry hotel four years ago and acknowledged that its article had caused Mr Grehan and his family distress...

In the High Court yesterday, counsel for the newspaper group Shane Murphy SC, read out an apology to Mr Grehan....

"We now wish to state Francis Grehan, the then captain of the team, was not naked on the night in question and withdraw any such imputation," the newspaper stated. The Sun also acknowledged the distress caused to Mr Grehan and apologised to him and his family...

Mr Grehan, a director of a construction company from Ballyforan, Co Roscommon, had said he had been injured in his professional reputation as well as his reputation as a member of the community and as a county footballer and athlete."

[Donal81]

And the notion that the interview was akin to something we'd expect from the redtops is just ridiculous (not that you stated that Stuttgart but another poster did).

This is an example of irresponsible journalism, as reported in today's Irish Times:

"The Sun newspaper has apologised to the former captain of the Roscommon GAA football team over an article published in its Irish edition that said he had played pool in a hotel bar naked.

In an apology read out in court yesterday, the newspaper stated Francis Grehan was not naked at a Derry hotel four years ago and acknowledged that its article had caused Mr Grehan and his family distress...

In the High Court yesterday, counsel for the newspaper group Shane Murphy SC, read out an apology to Mr Grehan....

"We now wish to state Francis Grehan, the then captain of the team, was not naked on the night in question and withdraw any such imputation," the newspaper stated. The Sun also acknowledged the distress caused to Mr Grehan and apologised to him and his family...

Mr Grehan, a director of a construction company from Ballyforan, Co Roscommon, had said he had been injured in his professional reputation as well as his reputation as a member of the community and as a county footballer and athlete."

[monutdfc]

Journalism ethics dictate that you should only pull a story that stands up if it's genuinely in the public interest such as national security. This was a football story, ultimately, and it would not have been in the public interest to pull that interview.

That's where I would disagree. Humphries knew what the implications of publishing the interview would be. We could argue whether or not it was in the public interest to pull the interview, or at least edit it. (Or whether Keane would have walked anyway, but that is a moot point).
Reporters hold back political stories all the time (silly example, but every journo in Ireland knew of Haughey's affair with Terry Keane). Was scuppering Ireland's World Cup hopes to get the scoop responsible journalism or acting in self-interest? Would holding it back be acting in the public interest?

I don't expect you to agree with me, just putting across a different viewpoint.

[livehead1]

That's where I would disagree. Humphries knew what the implications of publishing the interview would be. We could argue whether or not it was in the public interest to pull the interview, or at least edit it. (Or whether Keane would have walked anyway, but that is a moot point).
Reporters hold back political stories all the time (silly example, but every journo in Ireland knew of Haughey's affair with Terry Keane). Was scuppering Ireland's World Cup hopes to get the scoop responsible journalism or acting in self-interest? Would holding it back be acting in the public interest?

I don't expect you to agree with me, just putting across a different viewpoint.

and a comendable, well balanced opinion i might add. well said.

[klein4]

fair play donal. possibly only bit a sense in whole thread. public interest? people are havin a laugh. the interview is fairly tame looking back. macarthy used it as an excuse to get rid of what he considered to be a negative influence. and keane possibly used the situation to get him out of a place he didnt feel particualrly happy in. and good luck to both of them.

[geysir]

The point of the IT Humphries article is that no matter what soccer fanfare hyped up to the heavens event is happening on the planet, the Championship survives. The Championship survived the mania around our 4 WC/EC finals or any finals . There's a magic there that has even survived the GAA's insular attempts to sabotage itself.
There is a lot of tongue in cheek.
What else, that Soccer bigotry exist as well as Gaa bigots, jibes at the plump FAI officials, shocking
Remembering that night in Belfast, the after effects, the celebrations, who would give a féck what an fai official got up to on the plane ride home. He could have sung the "Sash" stark naked on the wing while departing Belfast for all I would have cared.
It takes a joyless Humphries to remember and repeat some grievance from 13 years ago on one of those historical memorable occasions.

[Donal81]

That's where I would disagree. Humphries knew what the implications of publishing the interview would be. We could argue whether or not it was in the public interest to pull the interview, or at least edit it. (Or whether Keane would have walked anyway, but that is a moot point).
Reporters hold back political stories all the time (silly example, but every journo in Ireland knew of Haughey's affair with Terry Keane). Was scuppering Ireland's World Cup hopes to get the scoop responsible journalism or acting in self-interest? Would holding it back be acting in the public interest?

I don't expect you to agree with me, just putting across a different viewpoint.

I appreciate the other viewpoint and it's a fair one.

But I find it hard to believe that people would consider Roy Keane mouthing about Mick McCarthy to be in the public interest. If two grown-up and wealthy men complaining about how they dislike each other is on a par with people lying on trollies in a hospital car-park, then we're in deep, deep trouble.

Of course reporters hold back stories, I never said they don't. Plenty hold them back to protect sources, others hold them back for libel reasons - such as Terry Keane - and others hold them back because they don't give a monkeys about ethics.

None of this takes away from my original point: it wasn't the interview that caused it but the relationship between Keane and McCarthy, I would have said that's quite obvious.

And here's another point: is this self-interest we're referring to his job? It's his job as a journalist to get the story. What that story is depends on his ethics and his newspaper. He could have gone after Keane's personal life and tried to dig some dirt about the supposed affair Keane was having (which turned out to be rubbish). But he didn't. He gave two full pages of a broadsheet newspaper - Bertie Ahern wouldn't get that - to the situation, asking Keane in a Q & A format about things in Saipan. As followers of the Irish team who give our time and cash to it, we surely have a right to know what's going on over there? If McCarthy and Keane chose to act like children over the whole thing, that's their business, it's hardly Humphries'.

Ultimately, there's a difference between us as supporters and stakeholders having a right to know and the issue being so important as to warrant the interview being pulled.

The Irish Times is hardly the News of the World, is it? Anyone with even a passing interest in journalism knows it's the most ethically proper Irish newspaper out there.

[OwlsFan]

Obviously Humphries had a scoop and he chose to publish it. While I hate him for it, it was his job and he no doubt took great delight in the carnage which resulted in Irish football.

The fault lay in the person giving the interview. If I gave an interview to a national newspaper telling everyone what I thought of my boss and my colleagues and the systems etc at work, having just had a bust up with my boss the day before and for whom I had a personal antipathy, I would expect a massive confrontation and I wouldn't call him childish for sacking me or arguing with me. I couldn't object either if he had the meeting in front of the staff whom I had attacked in the newspaper. For me there will always be only one person to blame for that disaster.

As for Humphries, I really don't see the point of mentioning FAI Officials in their swimwear. I am sure they would be no more unattractive than GAA Officials in similar attire and probably more attractive than the voluminous Humphries. It's just another of his attempts to ridicule and do down soccer as he pumps up the Championship. At least soccer never banned anyone from playing because they played another sport or were part of an organisation.

[geysir]

I don't have an issue with Humphries or Kimmage over their part. They just wrote it all down. Roy okeyd all the content.
What I don't like about guys like this is when the info is not flowing out of the interviewees mouth, the digging, the subtle and unsubtle cajoling, looking for the hurt anger bitter angle as was evident from Humphry's attempts to interview Babb, Morrison, Mc Ateer and the sense of dissappointment/failure when the player keeps their mouth shut.

[ramondo]

Never having heard of this Tom Humphries guy before (being in Australia) I've just read his article with what I hope was an objective and unbiased eye.

Oh, before I go further, he says...

Yep. Once, in the bad old days during the cold war, I had the misfortune to be on the team plane after Ireland's soccer team had qualified for the 1994 World Cup.

This doesn't mean he thinks the incident took place in 1994.

So, I've read it. What's all the fuss about?

He claims FAI officials sang an offensive song about the GAA. In November 1993. Whether they did or not, does anyone really care?

There then follows a discussion on the merits/demerits of Humphries as a journalist/writer.

For what it's worth, I'd like to think I have a keen eye for literary and journalistic masturbation, and this one made me squint. There were a few places there where I thought we we going to lose him in a Con Houlihan-style irellevant ramble, but thankfully he showed some restraint.

That said, I wonder if he's awoken from his uneasy dreams on a few occasions to find himself all hot and sticky.

He's the one in the position to put his point of view across to a lot of people, and that should make you question absolutely everything he says. On the 'up your arse' point, though, I don't think I'd bother.

[gspain]

He does claim it was 1994. About 4 paragraphs from the end.

"There was no need for triumphalism on the plane from Belfast in 1994 and no call for GAA triumphalism now. The World Cup has been good to the GAA. Since 1966, Croke Park has been responding and reacting and adapting to the challenge."

Of course it matters whether it happened or not. It is poor and shoddy journalism.

I don't blame him re Saipan. Journalists will run with any juicy stories they get. Of course I wish he hadn't done it.

[fergalr]

Is it just me of is the whole tone of this article disturbing?

Its all about how world cups might have weaned the impressionable Gael away from "local games". By the time we get to the central section of the article he chooses to use some particularly loaded words:

"In my sleep, I had uneasy dreams. I heard wild talk of interning GAA members, talk stirred up by the sort of paid guttersnipes who deemed the words BogBall and StickBall to be the greatest witticism every uttered outside the confines of a Bernard Manning gig. In my sleep, I became a well-paid informer to these people, but when I awoke I was still poor. No, pure."

I am 100% Irish and my interest in sport is devoted 100% to assocation football. Is there anything wrong with that? I suspect TH believes there is.

.... or maybe I've just had a tough day .....

[republic]

Is it just me of is the whole tone of this article disturbing?


I am 100% Irish and my interest in sport is devoted 100% to assocation football. Is there anything wrong with that? I suspect TH believes there is.

.... or maybe I've just had a tough day .....

Good point FergalR. Humphries, a well known GAAHman, continually attempts to be 'humourous' but this cannot hide his fear of the impact of the beautiful game on his favourite (ahem) sports.

I've no idea whether an anti-GAA chant was started on the plane back from Belfast in 1993 (somehow I suspect, like GSpain that it wasn't). However I was in Vilnius that summer for the Lithuania match and recall a small number of fans chanting "If you hate the GAA clap your hands". This however was not at the stadium but was outside a hotel - or at least something which approximated to a hotel in those days of the post communist Soviet era. I don't know how the FAI could be held responsible for that. Maybe Humphries could enlighten us?

Best of luck to GSpain in his quest. Don't let Humphries away with it!

[WeAreRovers]

"In my sleep, I had uneasy dreams. I heard wild talk of interning GAA members, talk stirred up by the sort of paid guttersnipes who deemed the words BogBall and StickBall to be the greatest witticism every uttered outside the confines of a Bernard Manning gig. In my sleep, I became a well-paid informer to these people, but when I awoke I was still poor. No, pure."

I informed the man who came up with phrases Bogball and Stickfighting (or at the very least was the first to use them in a national newspaper) that Humphries had described him a a "paid guttersnipe." It made his day, to say the least.

Humphries is a cancer on Irish journalism. Anyone who read his cringeworthy OTT paean to hurling in the Observer Sports Magazine will know exactly what I mean.

KOH

[TheJamaicanP.M.]

Humphries is a cancer on Irish journalism.
KOH

Have to agree with you and republic and fergalr. Humphries is nothing short of a thug. I've noticed that his facts are often wrong, particularly when it comes to soccer. He's a crap journalist. In fact, I'd put the pr!ck alongside Hyland of the Herald as the top two gutter sports journalists in the country.