400K Unemployed:Media/Twitter obessed with Panti/SSM?

Montjuic · 07-02-2014 12:49pm #1

There are still over 400K people unemployed and many more struggling to survive but yet the media etc are obsessed and dedicating countless and unwarranted attention to the Pant/SSM debate.

I blame Labour and FGs capitulation to them for their social engineering tendencies and stoking up this diversion to cover the governments lack of action on jobs. Hopping on the gay hobby horse makes them look liberal progressive etc but just covers up their inaction.

If I was unemployed I would be fairly unimpressed that politicians are dedicating their time to this so much to most people is a non - issue and obsessing about being hell bent on dismantling marriage. Civil Partnership was more than sufficient. Homophobia is always wrong.

We need to get to get our priorities right. People can't put food on the table and the media/political bubble is obsessed with this?

Crazy stuff!

FTA69 · 07-02-2014 1:13pm

The whole "why are we looking at X when Y is happening..." can be stretched to silly proportions. Why are we even talking about the unemployed in Ireland when workers in Bangladesh are dying? Why are we discussing potholes in the roads when the health system is a disgrace? Why are we discussing Syria when the Central African Republic is worse? Etc etc etc

There are often a multitude of worthy issues out there at any one time, some which will mean more to or effect some people more than others. Personally I think the issue of marriage equality in Ireland for gay people is an issue well worth supporting; it doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on unemployment or other things.

spank_inferno · 07-02-2014 1:50pm

There is plenty of media to go round.

Would the OP prefer rolling 24 hour live-register updates?

nesf · 09-02-2014 8:30am

Apart from the logical fallacy there, um, you're really begging the question: what can Government do exactly about jobs? I mean they talk about job creation sure but beyond expanding the public payroll Governments can't directly create them, they can just try and make conditions more friendly for more hires to be made and this is a slow burning process that rewards over the years not in the short term. There are no quick fix solutions to mass unemployment after a financial meltdown short of starting a war with somebody or some other massive public project.

efb · 09-02-2014 8:39am

Gay weddings would create jobs.... #justsaying

johnnyskeleton · 09-02-2014 11:00am

Montjuic wrote: »

There are still over 400K people unemployed and many more struggling to survive but yet the media etc are obsessed and dedicating countless and unwarranted attention to the Pant/SSM debate.

Ironic that you complain that other people are too focused on pantigate and not on unemployment, and yet your estimate of the number of unemployed people is way off.

Q3/13 has unemployment at 282,900. Your figure of 400k presumably comes from the live register but many of those are part time employed, temporarily out of work, etc.

I blame Labour and FGs capitulation to them for their social engineering tendencies and stoking up this diversion to cover the governments lack of action on jobs. Hopping on the gay hobby horse makes them look liberal progressive etc but just covers up their inaction.

I would say the opposite that it is a story that the authorities were happy to let slide but because of intense Facebook/twitter activity it gained popular media attention and thus forced the government to answer some embarrasing questions.

If I was unemployed I would be fairly unimpressed that politicians are dedicating their time to this so much to most people is a non - issue

So no one is allowed discuss anything of interest to them unless the unemployed are happy? My advice to the unemployed is don't worry about what's in the news too much and focus on getting a job.

and obsessing about being hell bent on dismantling marriage. Civil Partnership was more than sufficient. Homophobia is always wrong.

Now we see your real motivation for this post - it's not that you are indifferent to the gay marriage issue you are against it, and the whole unemployment issue is just an excuse to get it off the air.

We need to get to get our priorities right. People can't put food on the table and the media/political bubble is obsessed with this?

Crazy stuff!

Again, individual responsibility is important. If people can't put food on their table that is first and foremost their own problem to deal with. The national government is already paying out far too much in social welfare (in my view) so if they still can't put food on the table if don't see what the government should do about it. They could contact VDP/capuchin centre etc.

By contrast, whether you agree or disagree with same sex marriage, it is a national issue because the law expressly prevents such marriages from being recognised, so it can only be fixed with the repeal of that law.

MissCharmin · 09-02-2014 11:48pm

Why should civil partnership be enough? Also wouldnt it be a very life if you could only discuss one topic like unemployment. Just to add you can see the power of social media and how it controls our life seeing the rapid spread of Panti's Noble Call!

timetogo · 09-02-2014 11:53pm

Montjuic wrote: »

There are still over 400K people unemployed and many more struggling to survive but yet the media etc are obsessed and dedicating countless and unwarranted attention to the Pant/SSM debate.

I'd hope the media can concentrate on more than one item at a time.

Montjuic wrote: »

Crazy stuff!

Indeed.

jank · 10-02-2014 4:47am

FTA69 wrote: »

The whole "why are we looking at X when Y is happening..." can be stretched to silly proportions. Why are we even talking about the unemployed in Ireland when workers in Bangladesh are dying? Why are we discussing potholes in the roads when the health system is a disgrace? Why are we discussing Syria when the Central African Republic is worse? Etc etc etc

There are often a multitude of worthy issues out there at any one time, some which will mean more to or effect some people more than others. Personally I think the issue of marriage equality in Ireland for gay people is an issue well worth supporting; it doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on unemployment or other things.

I think the issue is over the allotted time given over to such stories rather than covering the story in the first place. Although FTA has a valid point one must also wonder why therefore the Irish media run with some stories and ignore others. Take the latest revelations about the bugging of the Garda Ombudsman.

A story like this (SSM) is self perpetuating, it requires almost zero overhead and can be pushed/flogged to death for weeks earning the said media outlets money by increasing page views, added subscriptions and so on... not to even mention editorial bias/agendas behind many outlets.
Don’t get me wrong, SSM marriage deserves to be covered but if one was to tally up all the hours the Irish media spent talking about this issue or how many bytes were dedicated to it online I would safely say that it would be THE most written about story of this year so far and be pushing it close last year as well. Given the % of people it actually effects? Less than 0.1% of the population actually.... Yet youth unemployment is close to 30%. Both are important issues but is it 30/60/180 times more important. That is the key question...

FTA69 has a valid point, however the OP is entirely correct to question the amount of time some given over to these popular social issues when other social issues affect a much larger proportion of people and with more devastating consequences. Dont underestimate that class distinction here either. Labour or progressive types are much more interested in the SSM issue rather than actually helping some poor working class kids find a future. D4 ivory tours and all that. If you want to find proof, look at Labour's polling... They know they cant to do anything in the economic sphere, so they think that focusing on these other social issues will help shore up support come election time. They will be in for quite a shock if they continue that thinking come the local elections this year and the GE in 2016. Irony is that it will help FF/SF in the long run

Nodin · 10-02-2014 2:02pm

jank wrote: »

.............................

FTA69 has a valid point, however the OP is entirely correct to question the amount of time some given over to these popular social issues when other social issues affect a much larger proportion of people and with more devastating consequences. Dont underestimate that class distinction here either. Labour or progressive types are much more interested in the SSM issue rather than actually helping some poor working class kids find a future. D4 ivory tours and all that. If you want to find proof, look at Labour's polling... They know they cant to do anything in the economic sphere, so they think that focusing on these other social issues will help shore up support come election time. They will be in for quite a shock if they continue that thinking come the local elections this year and the GE in 2016. Irony is that it will help FF/SF in the long run

You missed Adams address to the Ard Fheis, I take it.

jank · 10-02-2014 2:58pm

SF will for now anyway is the real working class party, Labour is the party of the Champagne socialists.

For Reals · 11-02-2014 4:40pm

It's about money. They, (well most) are not trying to bring you news based on merit, rather eye catchers that will sell the most papers/advertising.
Aside from the odd anomaly its seasonal too. Travellers weddings/hotel owners in the spring, water leaks in the summer, homeless in the winter etc.
Also, the news is coloured by the owners and advertisers. A full hero spread on a Horse Jumping Olympian, sure the horse was drugged, but his God father owned the paper.
Same with political allegiances.

eVeNtInE · 13-02-2014 12:17pm

This post has been deleted.

Montjuic · 13-02-2014 12:23pm

eVeNtInE wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is not the focusing on different issues by people & politicians that is the point it is the wholly disproportionate coverage effort and time by said group to a minority issue while the population at large suffer greatly.

If all TDs and media types put such effort or even equal effort into debate on how to resolve the unemployment crisis cuts etc it would make sense.

The amount of time dedicated to it is the point which is tiresome. This ain't Russia.

Corkfeen · 13-02-2014 3:16pm

Montjuic wrote: »

It is not the focusing on different issues by people & politicians that is the point it is the wholly disproportionate coverage effort and time by said group to a minority issue while the population at large suffer greatly.

If all TDs and media types put such effort or even equal effort into debate on how to resolve the unemployment crisis cuts etc it would make sense.

The amount of time dedicated to it is the point which is tiresome. This ain't Russia.

It is going to be particularly big news when an organisation manage to censor and get 85k from the national broadcaster. You get peaks in discussions when events like this occur then it diminishes for a time. However it's always going to be a relatively big discussion point by the media, public and in the Seanad and the Dail in the run up to a referendum. Unlike many referendums,the public have a greater understanding of the topic which you don't get with many other referendums.

You also seem to want to put the same sex marriage issue to the wayside due to a personal issue with the concept rather than being concerned about the amount of debate on employment for example.

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 3:30am

Montjuic wrote: »

It is not the focusing on different issues by people & politicians that is the point it is the wholly disproportionate coverage effort and time by said group to a minority issue while the population at large suffer greatly.

If all TDs and media types put such effort or even equal effort into debate on how to resolve the unemployment crisis cuts etc it would make sense.

The amount of time dedicated to it is the point which is tiresome. This ain't Russia.

Theres money involved. As soon as marriage is destroyed we're done with our duties and obligations of family life, we can focus all of our attention on being consumers.

Bannasidhe · 14-02-2014 3:40am

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Theres money involved. As soon as marriage is destroyed we're done with our duties and obligations of family life, we can focus all of our attention on being consumers.

Indeed.

There is the 85k paid out by RTÉ for a start.

I wasn't aware that the introduction of Same Sex Marriage results in the immediate dissolution of all Opposite Sex Marriages - do divorce lawyers know this? I can't imagine they will be happy to lose such a lucrative source of income.

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 3:49am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed.

There is the 85k paid out by RTÉ for a start.

I wasn't aware that the introduction of Same Sex Marriage results in the immediate dissolution of all Opposite Sex Marriages - do divorce lawyers know this? I can't imagine they will be happy to lose such a lucrative source of income.

85k was for childish name calling. I'll be stumping up for that with my next licence payment

Bannasidhe · 14-02-2014 3:55am

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

85k was for childish name calling. I'll be stumping up for that with my next licence payment

So will I and I think it was fair comment. What's your point? Do you think only heterosexuals have TV licences?

Care to address my second point?

Despite your hyperbole the introduction of Same Sex Marriage will not impact on Opposite Sex Marriage at all. Married Heterosexual people will still be married unless they divorce.

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 4:09am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So will I and I think it was fair comment. What's your point? Do you think only heterosexuals have TV licences?

Care to address my second point?

Despite your hyperbole the introduction of Same Sex Marriage will not impact on Opposite Sex Marriage at all. Married Heterosexual people will still be married unless they divorce.

Says you. Of course it will. It is designed to do so. Married people may still be married until the day they die and on into the afterlife if they so wish. Its not a contract.

None of your statements contradict my original point. This is the direction we are being lead. Your points reinforce the argument. Do you understand that?

jill_valentine · 14-02-2014 4:27am

What an extraordinary and unlikely coincidence that the four people most outraged on behalf of the unemployed in this thread happen to be the four people most vocally outraged by the prospect of marriage equality.

How uncanny it is too that they still have so little sympathy for the several thousand unemployed gay people included in that figure; who have neither work nor the spectrum of legal protections for their families that their brothers and sisters can take for granted.

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 6:10am

jill_valentine wrote: »

What an extraordinary and unlikely coincidence that the four people most outraged on behalf of the unemployed in this thread happen to be the four people most vocally outraged by the prospect of marriage equality.

How uncanny it is too that they still have so little sympathy for the several thousand unemployed gay people included in that figure; who have neither work nor the spectrum of legal protections for their families that their brothers and sisters can take for granted.

What marriage equality? Are you refering to the upcomming referendum on same sex marriage or are you proposing actual marriage equality?

Nodin · 14-02-2014 6:11am

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Theres money involved. As soon as marriage is destroyed we're done with our duties and obligations of family life, we can focus all of our attention on being consumers.

The only people only concerned with money seem to be the anti- brigade. Your statement above rather contradicts your sentiments expressed below

Married people may still be married until the day they die and on into the
afterlife if they so wish. Its not a contract.

Nodin · 14-02-2014 6:12am

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

What marriage equality? Are you refering to the upcomming referendum on same sex marriage or are you proposing actual marriage equality?

Do please explain there Phill. What is "actual marriage equality"?

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 6:19am

Nodin wrote: »

The only people only concerned with money seem to be the anti- brigade.

Ah of course. Thats correct again only because you say so. No proof needed. Nodin says....

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 6:21am

Nodin wrote: »

Do please explain there Phill. What is "actual marriage equality"?

Wasnt that question directed at a different poster? Or do you speak for everyone?

Nodin · 14-02-2014 6:23am

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Ah of course. Thats correct again only because you say so. No proof needed. Nodin says....

I was referring to the €85,000 paid out to the anti-SSM campaigners John Waters and the Iona Institute. If you've evidence this didn't happen, I'd be happy to see it.

What is "actual marriage equality" phill?

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 6:27am

Nodin wrote: »

I was referring to the €85,000 paid out to the anti-SSM campaigners John Waters and the Iona Institute. If you've evidence this didn't happen, I'd be happy to see it.

What is "actual marriage equality" phill?

No. You quoted a different post and responded to a different topic entirely. Do try keep up Nodin. Your early attempt at confusing people isn't working.

Nodin · 14-02-2014 6:30am

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

No. You quoted a different post and responded to a different topic entirely. Do try keep up Nodin. Your early attempt at confusing people isn't working.

You asked the following question

Phil Ewinn wrote:

What marriage equality? Are you refering to the upcomming referendum on same
sex marriage or are you proposing actual marriage equality?

What do you mean by "actual marriage equality"?

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 6:37am

Nodin wrote: »

You asked the following question

What do you mean by "actual marriage equality"?

And again. One more time Nodin. Why did you quote a post of mine that had nothing to do with your comment?

Id like an answer. I take if I don't get one that you would no longer lime to converse.

Nodin · 14-02-2014 6:43am

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

And again. One more time Nodin. Why did you quote a post of mine that had nothing to do with your comment?

Id like an answer. I take if I don't get one that you would no longer lime to converse.

Your first post on this page contradicted the sentiments expressed in post 20. It had everything to do with your comment.

Now - What do you mean by "actual marriage equality"?

400K Unemployed:Media/Twitter obessed with Panti/SSM?

Comments