Bold statement: a public apology is issued, but the real conversation starts once the dust settles. Social Democrats TD Gary Gannon has issued an “unreserved” apology for a social media post that wrongly tied former justice minister Alan Shatter to Jeffrey Epstein. And this is where the matter gets interesting…
This afternoon, Mr. Gannon released a statement saying he and the Social Democrats “unreservedly apologise to Mr Alan Shatter for all damage and hurt caused” by the January 31 post. He explained that the post included an image claiming to be a document from the Epstein files, which suggested that a meeting occurred between Mr. Shatter and Epstein. He described that depiction as mistaken and untrue.
Gannon clarified that the image originated from an online travel diary record associated with former US attorney general Eric Holder. He noted that the meeting referenced in that image was an official government engagement in Dublin between then-minister Shatter and Attorney General Holder on September 21, 2011, and it has no connection whatsoever to Mr Epstein.
The statement continued: Shatter did not meet, nor arrange to meet, Epstein, and had no relationship or contact with him. Gannon also acknowledged that even after deleting the post, a screenshot continued to circulate on social media, leading to Shatter being wrongly targeted, vilified, and subjected to antisemitic abuse.
In a subsequent post on X, Shatter welcomed the resolution arrived at through Gannon’s and the Social Democrats’ statement: “I am glad this matter is resolved by the issuing of this statement by Gary Gannon TD & the Social Democrats.”
When asked about damages later in the evening—specifically how much was paid and whether it was Gannon or the party footing the bill—a party spokesperson declined to expand beyond the issued statement.
Thought-provoking takeaway: this incident underscores how quickly misinformation can spread online, and how carefully public figures must verify imagery before sharing. It also raises questions about accountability and responsibility for posts that harm reputations. Do you think the apology fully addresses the harm done, or should there be more steps to prevent similar mix-ups in the future? Share your views in the comments.
