Ward / Nally case - media reporting discussion *only*

whiskeyman

Right, first off, I don't care if you think he should have been acquitted etc..
This thread is just to discuss how different media outlets reported the story only, and if you've noticed any bias being taken by various sections etc.

One point I've noticed over the weekend is the use of the nickname 'Frog' in reporting John Wards name. In the Irish Times Saturday edition, he was constantly referred to as 'Mr John Ward / Mr Ward' with no mention of 'Frog'.
Both the editorial and another section seriously questioned the jury's result.
I can remember RTE 6-One news using the 'Frog' name throughout their nightly coverage the day of the acquittal.
I think the use of the name just highlights Mr Wards traveller identity, which, exemplifies the bias against him to the viewers / readers.
Was the name 'Frog' ever used the court proceedings itself, and were certain sections of the media right to use it?

Just one point to ponder...

walshb

I wouldn't be too sure that using this monicker is in any way derogatory or anti traveller because I have heard loads of media reports relating to criminals who use their full name and also their nickname or mob name so to speak.
I remember the case against the Limerick criminal Stanners I think it was where they used his nickname 'FROG', which was given due to his bulging eyes.

Ward was known by this name, so there is no reason for the media not to use it, is there?

rediguana

It's true that 'Mr. John Ward' doesn't sound as sinister as 'John Frog Ward'.

walshb

Oh and I do not think he should have walked, had to say that, sorry

rediguana

walshb wrote:

Oh and I do not think he should have walked, had to say that, sorry

Yes, he should have!!!

Just joking. I don't care.

blue4ever

In Limerick there are 6,000 travellers sharing five (in the main) family names. For years they have distinguished themselves by adding ‘nicknames’.

What struck me was that the media did not give him the moniker of Frog – he did. The media have given people nicknames ie ‘the general’, the viper. The tosser etc – but that’s because they can’t name them at the time.

It was bizarre that some of the media did not call him ‘Frog’ – like it was in some way derogatory in politically incorrect. He was known a ‘John Frog Ward’
It would have to be pointed out that the courts did not refer to him as ‘frog’

DMC

Indeed. iirc, after the original trial when the media interviewed travellers, it was them and his family that mostly called him Frog Ward.

flogen

Walshb, Rediguana, if you can't follow the simple instruction of leaving the rights/wrongs of the verdict to one side and discussing the media coverage, don't bother posting here at all.
Any further discussion of the result will result in a 1 week ban; there are plenty of other forums to talk about the result if that's what you're looking for.

The nickname is an interesting one; in the Irish media (IMO), nicknames generally do come with a negative weight to them (as they're usually used for gangsters). Of course, this name wasn't the invention of the media, nor is it a weapon to slight the traveller community but it may lead to a slight bias in the minds of some people (who assume he's in the wrong - as in what happened to him was justified - just because he has a nickname) even though that may not have been the intention of the media.
Frankly, however, I don't think there was any reason to use the nickname in the media, other than to add colour to the story. I know the 'frog' moniker came about to distinguish this particular John Ward from others within his community, but that isn't going to be a problem when dealing with such a unique case (it's not like there are two John Wards connected to two high-profile cases running at the same time, where there needs to be an overt attempt to differentiate the two to avoid confusion.)

I am slightly worried by the use of the traveller issue in the media debate though; the race issue is being used to suggest that ethnicity was an issue when there's nothing to suggest that it was.

I appreciate if some people (columnists) think there has been an injustice, but would that not be against a human, rather than a traveller? Vincent Browne in today's SBP drags Ward's ethnicity into the mix and suggests that people can now do what they like to travellers. I think he's making the wrong point; if he has issue with the jury's decision, should he not be questioning their general morality rather than assuming they hate travellers? I'm of the honest opinion that the outcome would have been the exact same had Ward been a "settled" person with the same bleak criminal record. Irish people (and we're not alone in this) have trouble feeling sympathy for people we deem to be "scumbags" if something bad happens to them; we figure they deserved it even when they've been wronged. Take the gangland shootings for example; do you think the same uproar would be going on at the moment had two innocents not been so tragically caught up in the whole thing? I don't think so; we seem OK to let things carry on in the background as long as they're just killing each other and not getting law-abiding citizens involved.

blue4ever

flogen wrote:

Frankly, however, I don't think there was any reason to use the nickname in the media, other than to add colour to the story. I know the 'frog' moniker came about to distinguish this particular John Ward from others within his community, but that isn't going to be a problem when dealing with such a unique case (it's not like there are two John Wards connected to two high-profile cases running at the same time, where there needs to be an overt attempt to differentiate the two to avoid confusion.)

Well then – what’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander –or Frog in this case.

It what he was called, plane and simple and you seem to be saying that as he is a traveller, we have to extra careful.

Colm Cooper, if I said that – how many people on the periphery of GAA support would know who he is – however “The Gooch Cooper” – far more people would recognise him.

And lets say that somebody of his standing committed a crime (and they haven’t I hasten to add), would we have to drop the ‘nickname’ be cause he was in court?

We could never refer to somebody as ‘the bomber’ or ‘the gooch’, which is how they are recognised if they were in the dock?

DMC

The media calling people by their nicknames is not limited to crime, so that argument isn't completely water-tight.
As described by blue4ever, Pat "The Cope" Gallagher is another prime example.

J.S. Pill

An other aspect that deserves some consideration is the media's representation of public opinion on the case. There's a very strong undercurrent in the tabloids that all ordinary decent folk are in complete agreement with the verdict and that any dissenters are elitist liberals who lack the faculty of 'common sense'.

I was reading the Daily mail on saturday and they stated quite forcefully that there was little doubt that the whole of Nally's village was in agreement with the verdict. Making generalised statements about the sentiments of the nation is a pretty common in op /ed pieces; saying a town or village is in mouring after say a road a death is quite acceptable but how on earth do they figure that everyone in that village agrees with the verdict? Did they take a representative sample and perform statistical analysis on the data? (oh and this wasn't an op ed piece though I suppose that hardly matters for the daily mail)

Also, in the first paragraph they described the victim as John 'Frog' ward, career criminal, father of 11 and traveller (thats pretty much exactly what they said, I don't have a link to the article though, irish daily mail doesn't seem to be online). I think the use (or not) of 'frog' pales into insignificance with that little summary.

I wouldn't expect anything less from the daily mail, its just sad to think that this sort of bile influences the opinions of 55,000 people daily.

blue4ever

Look, lets drop the ‘frog’ debate – it’s a general understanding that this was how he was known and a lot of people, travelers included, are known by AKS’s. So John ‘Frog’ Ward is John Ward, late of Galway City. To his peers – the ‘frog’ is not a derogatory statement.

Whilst I have little opinion of the IDM and it does sell a few papers in the morning – it’s opening statement was not embellished, fictional or untrue. He was ‘Frog Ward’, we was a father of 11 and he did have 88 previous court appearances and 34 convictions – which would suggest that he had a little ‘previous’ – AKA Career Criminal

The IDM’s opening statement wasn’t bile. Newstalk and RTE interviewed the locals on the verdict and to a band playing they all though it was correct and sympathized with the widow. I think all three media called it as it was. This is not anti Pavee sentiment; it’s a reporting of the facts – John ‘Frog’ Ward.

flogen

blue4ever wrote:

Well then – what’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander –or Frog in this case.

It what he was called, plane and simple and you seem to be saying that as he is a traveller, we have to extra careful.

No, I'm not.
I'm saying that there's no need for the nickname to report the case to the public; it doesn't matter how he's best known amongst his peers (irregardless of the community he came from).

For example, a friend of mine is best known by his family and friends as Anto; but should, for whatever reason, his name appear in a newspaper I'd expect them to refer to him as Antony (as that's his full, legal name and not the one that people tacked onto him).

Colm Cooper, if I said that – how many people on the periphery of GAA support would know who he is – however “The Gooch Cooper” – far more people would recognise him.

That's irrelevant; it's not a matter of how the person is best known but instead reporting the facts.
A nickname can be a negative (a gangsters nickname) or positive (a friendly social nickname) thing, either way it's putting a context onto a story that strays outside the facts of the case. I don't think it's the job of the media to add colour to a courtcase and to me that's what a nickname does.

And lets say that somebody of his standing committed a crime (and they haven’t I hasten to add), would we have to drop the ‘nickname’ be cause he was in court?

Yes, because the court wouldn't refer to him by his nickname so why should the reporter? Is it to make it easier for the public to digest? To make it more entertaining? To make it less of a challenge to comprehend? What reason is there for using the nickname?

We could never refer to somebody as ‘the bomber’ or ‘the gooch’, which is how they are recognised if they were in the dock?

What dock? Do they make the oath under their legal name or the name applied to them by their social circle? The judge didn't refer to John Ward as 'Frog'; in fact, as mentioned, the name only became known to the media after the initial Nally conviction.

blue4ever wrote:

Look, lets drop the ‘frog’ debate – it’s a general understanding that this was how he was known and a lot of people, travelers included, are known by AKS’s. So John ‘Frog’ Ward is John Ward, late of Galway City. To his peers – the ‘frog’ is not a derogatory statement.

Why should we drop the debate, because you're tired of it?
No one suggested it was a derogatory statement, it's just being suggested that the media had no reason to use it.
We know how he was known amongst his community, but while my friends may have a nickname for me, that isn't what appears on my official documentation and it isn't how I'd be referred to in legal terms.

Whilst I have little opinion of the IDM and it does sell a few papers in the morning – it’s opening statement was not embellished, fictional or untrue. He was ‘Frog Ward’, we was a father of 11 and he did have 88 previous court appearances and 34 convictions – which would suggest that he had a little ‘previous’ – AKA Career Criminal

An article does not have to contain lies to be bias, in fact the most dangerous ones are those that tell the truth, but in a way that talks up one side over the other.
I'm not familiar with the article in question so I can't comment on it directly, but speaking generally an article can be constructed to get any viewpoint across if written with enough art.
Opening the article with that information simply lays the ground-work to say that Ward got what he deserved.

The IDM’s opening statement wasn’t bile. Newstalk and RTE interviewed the locals on the verdict and to a band playing they all though it was correct and sympathized with the widow. I think all three media called it as it was. This is not anti Pavee sentiment; it’s a reporting of the facts – John ‘Frog’ Ward.

I agree that it's not an anti-Pavee verdict or sentiment, at least for the most part, I do think that IDM's opening statement was loaded to lead the reader into accepting one fact from the outset, however, that Ward deserved what he got.

blue4ever

flogen wrote:

That's irrelevant; it's not a matter of how the person is best known but instead reporting the facts.

But this is why this is tedious and a little chicken and egg.

Fact – he was known as John ‘Frog’ Ward.

That’s well established at this point.

You are sating that because it wasn’t his name by deed poll, or that he wasn’t sworn in court under his ‘known name’ that the media shouldn’t call him that as it may ‘besmirch’ his image! (personally the 34 previous and trespassing do that for him).

So – this has to be applied across the board. Your assertion is that there should be more Gooch Cooper, Bomber Liston, Pat the Cope Gallagher or any such thing – because you don’t like it, it not ‘the facts’, it adds “colour to a courtcase”.

The media had every right to use it as they have with other ‘known names’. Frog ward used this name to distinguish him from other John Wards.

blue4ever

flogen wrote:

That's irrelevant; it's not a matter of how the person is best known but instead reporting the facts.

But this is why this is tedious and a little chicken and egg.

Fact – he was known as John ‘Frog’ Ward.

That’s well established at this point.

You are sating that because it wasn’t his name by deed poll, or that he wasn’t sworn in court under his ‘known name’ that the media shouldn’t call him that as it may ‘besmirch’ his image! (personally the 34 previous and trespassing do that for him).

So – this has to be applied across the board. Your assertion is that there should be more Gooch Cooper, Bomber Liston, Pat the Cope Gallagher or any such thing – because you don’t like it, it not ‘the facts’, it adds “colour to a courtcase”.

The media had every right to use it as they have with other ‘known names’. Frog ward used this name to distinguish him from other John Wards.

flogen

blue4ever wrote:

But this is why this is tedious and a little chicken and egg.

Fact – he was known as John ‘Frog’ Ward.

That’s well established at this point.

You are sating that because it wasn’t his name by deed poll, or that he wasn’t sworn in court under his ‘known name’ that the media shouldn’t call him that as it may ‘besmirch’ his image! (personally the 34 previous and trespassing do that for him).

A nickname can be a positive or negative thing depending on how it's used (an example of positive is Pat 'The Cope' Gallagher, who uses it to highlight his work in local co-ops. an example of negative is PJ 'Psycho' Judge - although I'm sure some would argue that it was a positive thing for Judge as it gave him a dangerous reputation).
I don't see any reason why a nickname should be used in a news story, be it the invention of the media or of the person in question. It does nothing but add colour where the facts are all that are required.
What difference does it make to me that John Ward was known by others as 'Frog'? Does it help me understand the case in question, does it help me know either person any better? Does it help me achieve complete knowledge on what has happened? I don't see how; it's just something used to add colour to the article, make it more entertaining or easily digestible and, in some cases, lean the reader to one side of the fence over another.

So – this has to be applied across the board. Your assertion is that there should be more Gooch Cooper, Bomber Liston, Pat the Cope Gallagher or any such thing – because you don’t like it, it not ‘the facts’, it adds “colour to a courtcase”.

I'd love to see it applied across the board. I don't like when people refer to Pat 'The Cope' Gallagher as if 'The Cope' is part of his first name. It irks me when he's referred to as above in the media and in political circles.
His friends are welcome to call him what they like, but it's not his name and I don't see any reason why it needs to be used to refer to him; if they need to differenciate him from other Pat Gallaghers, why not say Pat Gallagher TD?

The media had every right to use it as they have with other ‘known names’.

The media have every right to do a lot of things but that doesn't mean they should; I'm not saying it's illegal, I'm saying it's going against what a news story should be.

Frog ward used this name to distinguish him from other John Wards.

What other John Wards? The other ones involved in high profile cases in the courts at this moment in time, or the ones scattered across the island or planet? I have two relatives who go by the name of John Ward, but I certainly didn't get confused whenever I read articles about the Nally/Ward case that didn't use the 'frog' nickname.
Generally, people are distinguished by their details (age, location, occupation), not by the nickname people give them. If someone by the name of Damien O'Reilly is in court, should he be referred to in subsequent articles as 'Damo' because there's another Damien O'Reilly living in Cork and 'Damo' is what his mates call him anyway?