Poor Journalism in today's Independent

easydog

I have no allegiance to any political party I just know bad journalism when I see it. I certainly came across bad journalism while reading today's Irish Independent.

Some guy, who must be on work experience as I've never heard of him wrote a piece about the late Charlie Haughey.

He starts of by saying that Charlie Haughey's demise has provided a decade's worth of insults from journalists who hadn't the balls to insult him when he was in power.

He then says: "And you know what? I don't care"

Then what does he go on to say.............."He was a cheap and grubby little shystey"..............."a greasy little gombeen man"

Looks like this guy hadn’t the balls to insult Haughey while he was alive.

Very poor journalism

flogen

Can you link the article?

easydog

flogen wrote:

Can you link the article?

I don't think it's in electronic form yet. I read it in the actualy paper.

It might be in unison.

I checked the journalists name, it's Ian O'Doherty.

flogen

Ian O'Doherty is one of their longer running columnists, although he usually does the I-Spy section only; seems to be branching into current affairs now too...

Was the paper from yesterday (tuesday 27th)? It should be online, unless it's the Kevin Myers article which they dont put on the website

santosubito

Haughey: why we really didn't give a damn

(Ian O'Doherty)

Monday, June 26.


That's it. Enough. Desist. Stop.

In the last week or 10 days or so, this country has been convulsed by the kind of divisive rancour not seen since Saipan.

Charlie Haughey's demise, which had finally answered the prayers of so many of his political opponents and provided a decade's worth of insults from journalists who hadn't the balls to insult him when he was in power, has come and gone.

And you know what? I don't care.

And neither does anyone else I know.



For all the furious recriminations and strident denunciations competing with the fatuous and obviously stupid attempts to defend the man, what has become increasingly obvious - and has been for the last decade, if some journalists of a certain age had bothered to investigate - is that Haughey is seen by pretty much everyone under the age of 40 as exactly what he was.

He was a cheap and grubby little shyster who was allowed to get away with everything simply because of the weakness of the Irish people.

This is a country which has always had an absurd respect for supposedly 'strong men' in political life and indeed we have flirted dangerously with the idea of dictatorship in the past. And you just know that Haughey, greasy little gombeen man that he was, would comfortably have allowed himself to be appointed as Il Presidente for life.

But when you look at the defiantly deluded figure of someone like Padraig Flynn, still proclaiming his Fuhrer's innocence to the very end, what is your gut instinct?

If it is one of sympathy for Flynn and his criminal delusions, then you are over 50 and have always assumed that the people in power were the people who knew best.

If you think Haughey was a product of his time who should be judged by the standards of the day, then the chances are you're in your 40s, probably felt obliged to hate him when you were younger but, well, you're kinda comfortable now and let's all let by-gones be bygones, eh?

And, while his supporters, deluded as they are, and his detractors, myriad as they are, might recognise both the above points of view, neither side seems to realise the real truth - we don't care.

Haughey has been accused of causing the almost crushing apathy felt by most young people when it comes to Irish politics, but even that is giving the man too much credit.

Most of us are apathetic about Irish party politics not because of Haughey but because so many of the politicians we see are, simply put, idiots.

In a perverse way, blaming the paltry and intellectually redundant politicians we see today on the actions and personality of Charles J. Haughey gives him even more credit than he is due.

In fact, if ever there was a worthy testimonial to his memory it came on the day of his funeral.

The television was on in the office where I work, carrying the incoherent blatherings of chancers like Brendan Kennelly until someone looked up at the screen in horror: "****e, the match is about to start," they said. And with that, Haughey, and his sulphurous legacy, was turned over, and the World Cup was switched on instead.

And that's the sign of a healthy society. Y'know, maybe we are growing up a little bit, after all

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=45&si=1641057&issue_id=14259

santosubito

O'Doherty is a polemicist, I wouldn't really classify him as a journalist.

How big of him to criticise journalists for not investigating Haughey - he couldn't investigate his way out of a paper bag:)

Genghis

I wouldn't care for Ian O'Doherty (he'd be better suited to the Herald, imho), but to be fair to him it is an opinion piece as opposed to any journalistic report or investigation.

The biggest criticism I would make is that he starts the article by calling for a stop to discussion re: Haughey. Ironically, I don't think I had seen anything about Haughey in over a week - so old Ian O'Doherty could be the only one carrying on.

giftgrub

from what i've read O'Doherty likes to think of himself as an Irish Bill O'Reilly, right wing etc, althought i doubt his convictions are as strong as he makes out.

I read the piece, total B****cks.

flogen

Yeah, I'm confused by that piece; O'Doherty seems to condemn the dragging up of Haughey in newspapers as a roundabout way of doing it himself.
If you cut the first few lines and start with "he was a cheap and grubby..." you basically get an opinion piece slagging Haughey, just like the ones he condemns.

easydog

In my opinion it's cowardly journalism. O'Doherty woudln't say "he was a cheap and grubby..." while Haughey was alive in the fear of being sued. Rather he's waits until the man is dead. What a coward.

BarneyMagee

The most hypocritical thing I find is that his I Spy columns and Today FM contributions are about a world gone mad with political correctness and with the rise of the D List celebrity.

Yet every day his column is about nothing except celebrities. The odd time he'll have a go at Muslims and Palestine but for the most part he goes on about Big Brother or Jane Goody. Today it's Abi Titmuss (with a photo too).

If he hates them so much why does he keep writing about them. Half the reason people like Jordan, Paris Hilton and Chantelle are so famous is because we are constantly bombarded with every detail of their lives and here he is adding fuel to the fire.