Do we have a healthy free press?

banaman

I've often heard it said that one of the true signs of a healthy democracy is a free and robust press.
It is also said that this press are the "guardians of freedom" in a democracy.
So how "free" is our press, and how healthy is our democracy?
And what do we do about it, if anything?;)

Zombrex

banaman wrote:

I've often heard it said that one of the true signs of a healthy democracy is a free and robust press.
It is also said that this press are the "guardians of freedom" in a democracy.
So how "free" is our press, and how healthy is our democracy?
And what do we do about it, if anything?;)

The state has very little control over the news media, and we have a particularly (in my opinion) balanced and fair democracy.

So, our press is very free and our democracy is very healthy

Capt'n Midnight

Until a few years ago the Irish Times wasn't owned by someone with an agenda. I'm not sure how independent they are now. All the other national and UK papers here are owned by people with strong agendas.

Remember the press was founded with the money Dev raised in the US and forget to give to the cause..

lostexpectation

no most of press is owned by one company so no.

Carry

There is no such thing as a "free press", democracy or not. In a healthy democracy (and what exactly is that?) there might not be any intervention by the state in form of censorship, but every "free" press is dependent on sales and advertisments, that is money. And money is a far more powerful censor than any government.

Would a paper dare to print a highly critical article on, say, a powerful American investor, when this investor threatens not to advertise anymore or worse to invest elsewhere where nobody critisizes them? I don't think so.

But sure enough the press in Ireland and in the Western world in general is as free as it gets considering that no criticizing journalist has been hanged recently ...

lostexpectation

Carry wrote:

There is no such thing as a "free press", democracy or not. In a healthy democracy (and what exactly is that?) there might not be any intervention by the state in form of censorship, but every "free" press is dependent on sales and advertisments, that is money. And money is a far more powerful censor than any government.

Would a paper dare to print a highly critical article on, say, a powerful American investor, when this investor threatens not to advertise anymore or worse to invest elsewhere where nobody critisizes them? I don't think so.

But sure enough the press in Ireland and in the Western world in general is as free as it gets considering that no criticizing journalist has been hanged recently ...

well ones been shot...

and I wouldn't describe as 'as free as it gets' what you have described in your first two paragraphs.

constitutionus

no we dont have a healty free press. most papers are owned by vested interests who'll ensure no negative press will be given to their endevors (irish indo and the irish ferries anyone?) and we have a pathetic level of investigative journalism in this country, in fact i'd go so far to say its practically non existant. theres only one or two in the country and the state has shown no problem in targeting them when it suits em (stand up frank connoly, weather you like him or not we wouldnt have had the tribunals that shamed haughey if it wasnt for him, not to mention the goings on in donegal)

when the **** storm that was the gardai corruption came to light in donegal ALL the mainstream papers of "quality" suddenly couldnt find their security correspondants cause they all went to ground. knowing full well if they covered this they'd never get a story again cause they RELY on a cosy relationship with the gardai. hell one paper had to use its religious correspondant to cover the story.

the big problem is the media has gone from what its meant to be, a forum in which people can be told the truth of a matter. to an agendist driven body which thinks it can actually force policy on an issue. the result? they now cant interview anyone cause the interviewee is now considering the reporters agenda when replying. look at the citizenship referendum. it passed with an 80% majority, that four out of every five people who voted. yet NO ONE in the media, be it print radio or television, seen this comming. all the way up they said it was a two horse race that was too close to call. now when you cant even find out what four out of five people think and its your job to gauge public opinion there's something wrong.

factor in they rely on adds to pay their wages and you got another problem. you think the times and the indo are gonna tell you the property markets gonna crash with their property sections?

as to what we can do about this? simple what your doing now. the internet has become the best place to gauge what real opinion is. o k its not perfect but if you had've read the posts on this site before the haughey funeral you'd have known the turn out was gonna be low, the media didnt. if you'd read some of the invective that preceeded the love ulster march you'd have known there was the potential for something nasty, plus the best footage was online, the media didnt know or broadcast half of it . basically man just expose your self to as much info as you can, including the mainstream media. you'll very easially be able to sort out for yourself whats going on and i reckon you'll do ok. after all everyone that posts here isnt PAID to do it so you may get a different view

Zombrex

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Until a few years ago the Irish Times wasn't owned by someone with an agenda. I'm not sure how independent they are now.

They are still owned by the Irish Times Trust afaik

constitutionus

Wicknight wrote:

They are still owned by the Irish Times Trust afaik

yeah, but where where they when haughey was up to his tricks? wasnt the times that blew his cover, it was phoenix magazine. so much for the paper of record:rolleyes:

bk

According to Reports without Borders World press freedom index, Ireland comes joint first with 6 other mostly Northern European countries:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15333

BTW the UK comes 24th and the US 44th, so we are doing pretty well.

Of course that isn't to say that we need to remain vigilant in ensuring press freedom.

Zombrex

constitutionus wrote:

yeah, but where where they when haughey was up to his tricks? wasnt the times that blew his cover, it was phoenix magazine. so much for the paper of record:rolleyes:

Firstly the Phoneix magazine is a shiny example of good investigative journalism in Ireland. It always amuses me when people claim we have poor news media in Ireland and then proceed to back that up by listing good Irish news sources saying the rest should be like them. Just stop reading the rest.

Secondly you have highlighted a major problem with modern audiences of news media, in that we(they) want everything handed to them in nice easy to understand bit size chunks preferable from one news source.

It is strange to compare the IT with the Phoenix. The Irish Times is a daily news paper, which means it is main purpose is to report on the events that happened yesterday. That doesn't mean they don't do editorials or investigation, but to complain they didn't do this particular one is a bit strange.

The Phoenix on the other hand is a news magazine, like Private Eye, which main purpose is articles and investigation (which they are very good at). As such they have a lot more resources put into long running assignments, where as the Irish Times pours its resources into quick coverage of fast moving events.

The simple fact is Haughey's "tricks" weren't making news until they were, at which point everyone started reporting on it.

Instead of complaining the Irish Times isn't like the Phoenix or vice versa why don't you read both. I'm sure a lot of Irish Times journalists do

constitutionus

so the leader of the country being a kept man isnt news? pure waffle mate. phoenix doesnt hold itself up as the paper of record like the irish times does. fact is its an establishment rag, if they cant report on the activities of the government over a five year period they're not doing their job. haugheys trick were well known, the man ran journalists out of the country that dared to investigate em. the truth is , they're cowards and they kept nice and schtumm till he fell from grace. something they had no part in till they knew the lawyers wouldnt come knocking. when phoenix put themselves in the firing line of a law suit thats when the irish times got involved. not before

Sleepy

The press are free, but there's an awful lot of them are gutless.

Capt'n Midnight

Wicknight wrote:

They are still owned by the Irish Times Trust afaik

I've heard they aren't as impartial as they used to be.

still the indo family are more or less tabloid in bias and accuracy

sleepy wrote:

he press are free, but there's an awful lot of them are gutless.

not to mention our liable laws which don't help

lostexpectation

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

I've heard they aren't as impartial as they used to be.

wel they have been part of a trust but they are still part of the establishment.

RSF seem to only determine the amount of freedom the press have from the government, not any other influence, not something to be sniffed at but if it merely swaps one overwhelming influence for another its not that great and that is so in Ireland where most levels of press/media are owned by a handful of companies.

Thenever ending misuse of the word free

Carry

I have the impression you're getting lost into a discussion like "who owns the IT and who reported first about - whatever".

The media in Ireland is one of my pets. I'm not sure if pet hate or just pet. But certainly I have problems to take the Irish media seriously. Apart from Phoenix, but even they are quite unprofessional, at least they are straight forward.

Now I'm putting myself into everyones prejudice about Germans. Believe me, I don't care in this case.
Before I moved to Ireland I used to work for the only leftist and independent newspaper in Germany and I know about the economic pressures to keep going on. And the commitment to investigation and a truth which was not recognized by the establishment and the economy.

When I came to Ireland I thought the Irish broadsheets are pretty quaint (never mind the tabloids, they are internationally rubbish). They, the boradsheets, especially the IT, have religious correspondents! Journalists who actually write about opinions of men who don't have a clue about the real world!
There were articles about every fart any local politician was graceful enough to let see the sunshine. And then there was the rest of the world, like: "Golf war! Will the Irish motorists pay more for petrol?" Or: "Massacres in Uganda. Irish nun was hurt."
How analytic or broadminded is that?

There was no whatsoever analysis. Not even about internal affairs. I've got the impression that there was a tribal agreement to be silent about things which might shake up the blossoming economy or the social peace.

In recent years I've seen a change. At least there are journalists and editors who print stuff which look a bit beyond the potatoe boat. But all the reporting, all the freedom of expressing your or any opinion is still very contained, methinks.

I still think there is no such thing as a free press.
I've got the job recently to write a book on Ireland (for the German speaking market). I did it because I need the money. But I've got so much restrictions and eventually grief from my publisher that I eventually complied - to paint Ireland as green as any European tourist and the Irish tourist Board wants it to see. It hurts, but there is a mortgage to pay ...
Get my drift?
Economic pressure is a devil for freedom ...

democrates

I gave up buying newspapers, now tv but mostly the net are where I get my news.

Irish papers failed to represent my interests when I was an employee for two decades. Most of the readers are employees yet their interests are covered far less than employers.

The endless focus on panto politics stands in apalling contrast to the scant coverage of the rights and wrongs of the issues at hand (excepting foreign countries sins). Worthless celebrity gossip. And I'm not a sports fanatic. Why would I buy a paper now? What decision in my life might it alter?

Zombrex

constitutionus wrote:

so the leader of the country being a kept man isnt news?

No its not "news".

Haught was a "kept man" on Monday, he was still a "kept man" on Friday. Do you expect the Irish Times, a daily news paper, to just keep running the same head line over and over, "As per usual we are still reporting today that Charlie Haught is a corrupt bastard"

God, where the hell did people get the idea that the press is supposed to run the country. The press reports what is happening, the PEOPLE act on that. Everyone knew Haught was corrupt. EVERYONE. The reason nothing happened is because no one gave a sh1t.

Your beef shouldn't be with the news papers of Ireland. The Irish Times is a fine news paper. Your beef should be with the indifference idiocy of the Irish people to corruption in government. If you believe the reason Charlie and the boys got away with it for so long was because no one knew it was happening you are sorely mistaken.

Zombrex

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

I've heard they aren't as impartial as they used to be.

Suppose it depends on who you listen to. Biasism in news these days normally means "they don't agree with my outlook" Lots of people think the Indo is very "unbaised", while believing the IT is full of liberal lefy communists.

If everyone thinks the IT is being unfair then they are probably doing something right.

bonkey

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

I've heard they aren't as impartial as they used to be.

I've heard that Elvis and Hitler are both still alive, that the earth is flat, that the earth is hollow....

What are you trying to say?
That you believe they aren't as impartial?
That some other people claim it is so but you don't know whether its true or not?
That some people claim it is so and you do believe them?

Can you give any examples (not of current lack of bias, but rather of a cmioparatice change in amount), or is the "I've heard" basically an admission that you've no evidence to back this up?

constitutionus

Wicknight wrote:

No its not "news".

say's everything here :rolleyes:

wicknight wrote:

Haught was a "kept man" on Monday, he was still a "kept man" on Friday. Do you expect the Irish Times, a daily news paper, to just keep running the same head line over and over, "As per usual we are still reporting today that Charlie Haught is a corrupt bastard"

and if they reported it on "monday" id agree with you, but they didnt, they never reported it, the didnt break the story and as such didnt lead to the situation where we could find out the man not only got 1million off ben dunne but also got 7 million off of other "donators". covering that story on "monday" wouldve got us the ansbacher accounts on "tuesday", the private illeagal bank run by guiness and mahon by "wednesday" and the non resident off shore accounts by tangent by friday. but the times didnt do it. the same way now they still wont cover storys about oh say CRH cause everytime you mention em the lawyers start ringing. your arguement is utterly defenceless

wicknight wrote:

God, where the hell did people get the idea that the press is supposed to run the country. The press reports what is happening, the PEOPLE act on that. Everyone knew Haught was corrupt. EVERYONE. The reason nothing happened is because no one gave a sh1t.

no everyone was scared. its not the papers job to run the country your just being ridiculous here. but it is their job to report whats going on and in this country they cant. not fully and not impartially. cause if they do preasure will come down form on high, be it political or economic. and thats what this thread is all about. do we have a healthy and free press. the answer is no

democrates

The dilution of the FOI act by this government was retrogade, a stifling of transparency, a cover-up. But say this is repealed, the press does its job and reports all the news, investigates and exposes, and even does periodic long term assessments of issues and the powerful. We have great transparency and know exactly what is going on. Then what. We wait until the next election to elect another group who we hope will be better.

Fine, the press are slacking off compared to what they could achieve and key government operations are conducted behind closed doors, but even if the press can use their freedom to the max the government can bluff, blather, and bluster through the opposition storm and nothing changes, the incompetant gobsheens remain in their posts and the policies remain off track. We are incapacitated by the inadequacies of representative democracy. Transparency and accountability go hand in hand, we need the power of direct democracy to make accountability more effective, as well as legislation and a press that delivers transparency.

Wouldn't it be useful if anyone could start a petition, and if enough signatures are achieved trigger a referendum so the people get to decide what will happen. Be it the attempted privatisation of our baths at Dun Laoghaire, the welching on 0.7%GDP aid, foreign military flights at Shannon, take your pick, we could sort any problem if enough people are interested, even sack ministers with a vote of no confidence or trigger a general election.

But wait, most people think the electorate are too stupid to have such a say. Given the choice between wise and foolish the great unwashed will usually vote for the foolish option. Staggering to see people argue that they themselves and a few other elite citizens are the only ones who could vote intelligently, and so conclude that we must place extraordinary power in the hands of a few for years on end. Anyone with that view of their fellow citizens who prefer reliance on a political elite have no right to bitch and moan when the political elite serve the business elite first, it's profoundly niaive to discount human nature and the tendency of the rich to corrupt those with power to influence wealth distribution.

lostexpectation

Wicknight wrote:

No its not "news".

Haught was a "kept man" on Monday, he was still a "kept man" on Friday. Do you expect the Irish Times, a daily news paper, to just keep running the same head line over and over, "As per usual we are still reporting today that Charlie Haught is a corrupt bastard"

God, where the hell did people get the idea that the press is supposed to run the country. The press reports what is happening, the PEOPLE act on that. Everyone knew Haught was corrupt. EVERYONE. The reason nothing happened is because no one gave a sh1t.

Your beef shouldn't be with the news papers of Ireland. The Irish Times is a fine news paper. Your beef should be with the indifference idiocy of the Irish people to corruption in government. If you believe the reason Charlie and the boys got away with it for so long was because no one knew it was happening you are sorely mistaken.

I really don't think that is true to the extent you suggest, papers get a bee in their bonnet and can destroy politicians if they want to or not report things if it suits them, plus the reporters of the time keep saying sure we knew this and we knew that or everyone in the circles knew certain things for years but couldn't report it, well they could paint us a picture.

And read finfacts guys article on the culture of secrecy within Irish Journalism...

Does everyone know Bertie is corrupt?

What I think woud be good in relation to FOI is if whatever info is requested by one individual is then publish for all.

I guess with free press RSF mean free from government influence so if you report the governement line or the status quo then you're ok.

transylman

Most definitely not.

First off you have Tony O' Reillys papers (Sindo, Sunday World, Indo). Apart from being a bunch of rags they share a very similiar right-wing view on a lot of issues. Also I seem to recall some controversy about the Indo running a front page story that basically amounted to don't vote for Fine Gael back in 1998. Tony seems to have adopted the rupert murdoch approach of using his papers to influence opinion when it suits him.

Irish Times is pretty neutral. Can't recall any truly groundbreaking stories though, just seems to report the events.

I think the main problem is that because it is a small pretty isolated country any reporter that challenges the status quo is quickly isolated and becomes damaged goods.

The best journalism in the past few years has come from outside the country. eg bbc documentary on priest abuse and subsequent cover up

lostexpectation

transylman wrote:

Most definitely not.

First off you have Tony O' Reillys papers (Sindo, Sunday World, Indo). Apart from being a bunch of rags they share a very similiar right-wing view on a lot of issues. Also I seem to recall some controversy about the Indo running a front page story that basically amounted to don't vote for Fine Gael back in 1998. Tony seems to have adopted the rupert murdoch approach of using his papers to influence opinion when it suits him.

Irish Times is pretty neutral. Can't recall any truly groundbreaking stories though, just seems to report the events.

I think the main problem is that because it is a small pretty isolated country any reporter that challenges the status quo is quickly isolated and becomes damaged goods.

The best journalism in the past few years has come from outside the country. eg bbc documentary on priest abuse and subsequent cover up

whats neutral again?

one thing we have to look forward too, is the media mogul turned politician, we havn't got any of them yet? sharesholders? senators maybe?