On a chilly day in Leinster House, there is much focus on what broadcaster Ivan Yates might tell TDs and Senators about the crossover between his media consultancy work and his political punditry.
This stems from revelations that Mr Yates had secretly advised Fianna Fáil's presidential candidate Jim Gavin on debate preparations for the election.
The hearings of the Oireachtas Arts, Media, Communications, Culture and Sport committee are dedicated to the topic of media transparency.
However, they were prompted by the furore over the thorny issues thrown up around the transparency of a prominent commentator.
So what happened?
One week after the Presidential Election, the Irish Independent revealed that Mr Yates had advised Mr Gavin on debate preparation.
This had not been disclosed publicly and the reaction was swift.
Within hours, Mr Yates was dropped from the Path to Power podcast by his co-host Matt Cooper and NK Productions.
In a joint statement, the pair said they were not aware of their colleague's work on the Fianna Fáil campaign.
They said: "This information should have been shared with the audience of the podcast when the Presidential Election was being discussed."
And therein lies the rub.
Mr Cooper has since said he would have been satisfied for his co-host to continue once the audience was fully aware of his activities.
Attention swiftly turned to the former Wexford TD’s other media work during the period.
RTÉ confirmed that the pundit had not been on air during the election period as defined by Coimisúin na Meán.
But commercial station Newstalk had used him as a stand-in presenter at least twice during this period and he had also co-hosted the Calling It podcast with Seán Defoe.
That podcast was the origin of Mr Yates’ infamous "smear the bejaysus" comments during the Presidential Election.
Mr Yates suggested that if he was advising Fine Gael on its ailing campaign, he would advise the party to "smear the bejaysus" out of Catherine Connolly.
These comments certainly landed politically.
The upshot is that they provided now President Connolly with an easy out for tough questions and allowed her to be depicted as the sympathetic victim of a putative smear campaign.
And Fine Gael felt that the statement hurt its candidate Heather Humphreys - something stated very clearly after the contest by Tánaiste Simon Harris.
For its part, Fianna Fáil downplayed the significance of its use of an on-air commentator as a behind-the-scenes media trainer.
The party insisted that Mr Yates was only used briefly for interview and debate training for Mr Gavin in two specific sessions and he had no input into policy.
But it later emerged that Mr Yates had also coached senior Fianna Fáil ministers and even Taoiseach Micheál Martin during elections last year.
Nothing to see here, declared the Taoiseach, saying it was not accurate to conflate remarks Mr Yates made on broadcasts with his work for Fianna Fáil.
Mr Martin said that all political parties use media training and consultants from time to time and Fianna Fáil was no different.
But he broadened out the conversation by saying other people should reflect on potential conflicts of interest.
"The intersection between politics, media, polling companies, pundits and commentators is a very fluid and interesting one, and it’s not just about one individual," Mr Martin said.
That nexus of related interests is what has led to the focus on Mr Yates today and the added questions for the regulator, Coimisiún na Meán.
At issue is the level of transparency that should be relayed to audiences and the question of who should declare the interest - the broadcaster or the pundit.
Expect Mr Yates to be in combative form given his recent bullish defence of his actions.
