University Observer....More Like SU Ass Licker

tintinr35

I know I don’t have to read it...but there is the odd good article that is not riddled with union pandering, its really pissing me off the way the articles are written in such a way as the union can do no wrong.
I was reading the arts and culture supplement of it there today and I almost vomited at the amount of ass kissing they were doing in relation to the Ents officer Anthony Kelly. The whole "Anto Kelly, Belfield’s private Adonis" section was particularly vomit inducing.
I realise that if you are looking for hard hitting news you are not really going to be running to get a copy of the observer but there could be a seriously less amount of tripe in it and more actual news!

panda100

tintinr35 wrote:

pandering!

Thats my name!!with an -ing at the end-coooool!

passive

Actually it's your name with the a100 removed. Then the -ing was installed.
But you were nearly right...

singingstranger

tintinr35 wrote:

The whole "Anto Kelly, Belfield’s private Adonis" section was particularly vomit inducing.

Ten points to anyone who can figure out why I can only respond to this with an .

tintinr35

oh god........you are the vomit inducer

singingstranger

tintinr35 wrote:

oh god........you are the vomit inducer

10 points to you, good sirrah.

In fairness, the idea of the article was only a bit of harmless fun. Anto's cosmetic merit (or otherwise, indeed) is always something that will only take about thirty seconds of someone's time, and it WAS only in o2, and it WAS only the UCD Ball special. It's not as if we devoted a half-page of the Observer proper to it.

tintinr35

its not the first time ive seen that type of shít in the paper about union officers before tho

singingstranger

tintinr35 wrote:

its not the first time ive seen that type of shít in the paper about union officers before tho

I can't remember anything like it before, but that's just me... care to point to an example?

tintinr35

well i dont archive copies of the observer but i do def remember it happening several times before thats why today's issue pissed me off so much!

pretty*monster

I agree, they kiss Anto's ass, but I've never noticed any bias with other officers... can someone point me to it

*edited to say* the Tribune's better anyway. What they lack in production values they make up for with heart!

tintinr35

and the fact that the tribune is not a union mouthpiece

singingstranger

I'm so, so, so tempted to put the words 'Tribune' and 'mouthpiece' into another sentence but I'm not one to get in rows...

pretty*monster

I wouldn't consider them to be a mouth peice, they've certainly been critical of some stuff...

singingstranger

pretty*monster wrote:

I wouldn't consider them to be a mouth peice, they've certainly been critical of some stuff...

Which do you mean? The ghost of Boards is screwing this convo up...

pretty*monster

singingstranger wrote:

Which do you mean? The ghost of Boards is screwing this convo up...

Well, I was replying to tintinr35 but I know exactly what you were getting at and I'd disagree with you aswell (though I see where you're coming from... ).

singingstranger

pretty*monster wrote:

I'd disagree with you aswell (though I see where you're coming from... ).

Isn't it nice when you can just identify that it comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion after just 15 posts?

pretty*monster

Actually, now that I think of it... the two papers both have different slants, which is entirely appropriate (why else would we want two). I'm cynical, neutral reporting is impossible.

But from what I've seen both papers are run with professionalism and it isn't a case of them being mouth pieces for anyone, I think it's just an unavoidable slant caused by their writer's politics. And the facts are usually straight.

pretty*monster

singingstranger wrote:

Isn't it nice when you can just identify that it comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion after just 15 posts?

It isn't as fun though is it, no one needed popcorn for this thread.

singingstranger

There you go! I don't think the Observer is a pro-Union mouthpiece, you don't think the Trib is a pro-left mouthpiece.

I suppose the question is whether writers of the other opinion ever consider running for editorial positions of the respective papers...

pretty*monster wrote:

I think it's just an unavoidable slant caused by their writer's politics. And the facts are usually straight.

And that, ladies and gents, is why Gav Reilly only does features and u****ortant O2 stuff.

tintinr35

singingstranger wrote:

There you go! I don't think the Observer is a pro-Union mouthpiece, you don't think the Trib is a pro-left mouthpiece.

I suppose the question is whether writers of the other opinion ever consider running for editorial positions of the respective papers...

you are biased though as i believe u revealed that u report for the observer!

singingstranger

tintinr35 wrote:

you are biased though as i believe u revealed that u report for the observer!

...in the same way that a large chunk of the Trib's editorial staff and writers are of the same political persuasion as pretty*monster is. I'd probably still have the same bias even if I didn't write for the Observer - it's not as if you choose a paper and then magically fall into its ethos.

Anyway, again, I only write the occasional feature and u****ortant stuff like album reviews in O2. It's not like I'm personally journalistically vocal in support or otherwise of the Union.*

And 'revealed'? Dude, I'm quite open about my name here!...

* = I've just realised the irony of this comment given the raft of pro-Anto stuff... most of which, I should add, was suggested/delegated by my editors.

tintinr35

i didnt mean the whole revelaed thing in the cloak and dagger way it sounded

besty

Some of the material in the lastest issue was fairly cringe though, especially in relation to Anto Kelly.

Blush_01

N*I*M*P* strikes again!

FionnMatthew

Singing Stranger wrote:

There you go! I don't think the Observer is a pro-Union mouthpiece, you don't think the Trib is a pro-left mouthpiece.

Singing Stranger wrote:

..in the same way that a large chunk of the Trib's editorial staff and writers are of the same political persuasion as pretty*monster is.

I write for the Tribune. My political persuasion is pro-thought. If the union screened out people who needed such arbitrary distinctions as "left" and "right" so as to politically orient themselves without any reflection, we would be well on the way to a union that communicates with itself properly.

Hence, pro-left is a simplistic label to apply to a paper that has no affiliation with a political body. As an "editorially-independent" publication funded by the Union, the Observer is affiliated with the Union in a way that the Tribune is not. If the union executive council largely orients themselves as pro-right, the Tribune is the only publication out of the two not officially connected to said council, and therefore, could be expected to be less inclined towards one bias or the other.

I don't think an editorial agenda in support of the left is actively pursued in the tribune. There might be an inclination (which is nothing to do with me), but filling space is far more of a priority. And, as far as I'm concerned, space filling (for this, read "writing articles") is done far more intelligently and readably in the Tribune, with a far higher standard of professionalism (with the unavoidable exceptions) than in the Observer, which is why I chose to write for it.

Singing Stranger wrote:

I suppose the question is whether writers of the other opinion ever consider running for editorial positions of the respective papers...

An anti-union editorial applicant to the Observer? Unlikely to be appointed.

A pro-union editorial applicant to the Tribune? Why not? The literacy of a future editor is far more of a concern than his politics.

Spectator#1

FionnMatthew wrote:

The literacy of a future editor is far more of a concern than his politics.

or her

Spectator#1

pretty*monster wrote:

the Tribune's better anyway. What they lack in production values they make up for with heart!

I don't understand this at all, the Tribune's 'production values' (if I'm taking you up correctly being design and print quality) have been head and shoulders above the Observer this year even if we completely disregard the quality of journalism.

singingstranger

FionnMatthew wrote:

An anti-union editorial applicant to the Observer? Unlikely to be appointed.

A pro-union editorial applicant to the Tribune? Why not? The literacy of a future editor is far more of a concern than his politics.

Perhaps it's naiveity on my part but I really don't think an anti-Union applicant would be slated immediately - I would think that, just as the Trib, an editor would be interviewed on their capability of running a newspaper/office properly and not their political inclinations.

I accept that the interview panel is made up of some Sabbatical Officers but this is a constitutional requirement that most, I would believe, would rather not have there.

Seraphina

passive wrote:

Actually it's your name with the a100 removed. Then the -ing was installed.
But you were nearly right...

look whos talking, you both forgot about the er....

pretty*monster

Spectator#1 wrote:

I don't understand this at all, the Tribune's 'production values' (if I'm taking you up correctly being design and print quality) have been head and shoulders above the Observer this year even if we completely disregard the quality of journalism.

Do you think so? Personally in terms of print quality I'd consider the Observer to be better. But as I said that's hardly what's impostant and it probably isn't worth an argumnet.
Agree to disagree?

Dr. Octagon

I'll be neutral here and say that they are both rags. The tribune has a sort of tabloid style shock factor going on that completely sickens me and the observer is far too proper and caught up in it's own little whirlwind to constitute real objective news. The news content of both (using the term news very loosely) is for the large part irrelevant and boring. The entertainment sections are acceptable and usually worth a glance for cinema reviews and that sort of thing.

The only memorable article I have read in a college paper in my 3 years in UCD was an excellent argument against creationism. Both papers should bury their petty differences and focus on producing something of decent and readable quality.

gliondar

well said......

The_Minister

The Observer is a small number of the same columnists over and over again. After the failed boycott of the Hilpers (it was pretty full), the union page in the Observer said that the tills had been quiet during the boycott.....which is utter rubbish.
That said the Tribune is a tabloidy lefty biased piece of trash which still reeks of Vincent Brown.
In summation, they both suck, with the Observers attempts at dignity putting it over the Tribune.

Blush_01

Nothing's perfect, it's the media. Be a sceptic and don't trust it like the rest of the world. Honestly, whiskey makes it better. MMhm.

Blowfish

Blush_01 wrote:

Nothing's perfect, it's the media. Be a sceptic and don't trust it like the rest of the world. Honestly, whiskey makes it better. MMhm.

Is that what you are on now?

Spectator#1

Firespinner wrote:

The Observer is a small number of the same columnists over and over again. After the failed boycott of the Hilpers (it was pretty full), the union page in the Observer said that the tills had been quiet during the boycott.....which is utter rubbish.
That said the Tribune is a tabloidy lefty biased piece of trash which still reeks of Vincent Brown.
In summation, they both suck, with the Observers attempts at dignity putting it over the Tribune.

You should start your own paper, I bet it would be brilliant. You could just give your opinion for thirty pages.
Did you mean it 'reeks of Vincent Brown' or 'it reeks of Vincent's Brown'? If the latter, who is Vincent? You should report that to the Tribune, I'm sure they'd have a word with him about it. Furthermore, how do you know what Vincent's Brown smells like?


I bet you're really interesting.

scop

Spectator#1 wrote:

You should start your own paper, I bet it would be brilliant. You could just give your opinion for thirty pages.
Did you mean it 'reeks of Vincent Brown' or 'it reeks of Vincent's Brown'? If the latter, who is Vincent? You should report that to the Tribune, I'm sure they'd have a word with him about it. Furthermore, how do you know what Vincent's Brown smells like?


I bet you're really interesting.

Great post. Firespinner is one of those political heads whose sole aim is to show how boring consistent and unalterable cynicism can be.

humbert

some raw nerves me thinks:rolleyes:

The_Minister

Vincent Brown is a columist for the Irish Times. You may remember that he recently set up a new paper to massage his ego. He also set up the Tribune. I guessed this even before I ever found this out.

Yes, I am a cynic, but I like to think an open-minded one.