University Record

Since TN seems to get a thread, I thought I only fair to have a record one as well.

At first glance it looks good - lots of college news and an interesting interview with Matt the Jap.

However, only glanced at it so will read it properly tonight.

Stargal

Are there any pdfs of it available? I checked the SU site but it hasn't been updated in so long that it still has Simon down as editor...:-/

wesclark

Claire put in tonnes of effort and it really shows

Andrew 83

Picked one up while I was in Trinity about an hour ago and perused it over lunch.

Haven't read it in detail yet but on first impressions I'm very impressed. Certainly the best issue of the paper in at least 3 years. Good range of articles and interesting topics. Well done everyone involved, eclipses all that's gone before it under the last 3 editors so keep up the good work!

Being slightly picky there were a few little things - I think the design is better than recent years but there's still a lot of room to improve but that's only natural with a first issue, the Berliner format should give them alot more roomt o maneuver on that front too. On the Berliner front I think it works well and I also agree with dropping University from the name but I think it's a bit much outright copying the Guardian's masthead and front page layout. There's also a couple of little things like it'd be good if the inside bar down the left had page numbers on it and also there is a couple of cases where stories stop mid sentence and it doesn't tell you what page it continues on.

All in all though from what I've seen so far good job!

Thirdfox

Got two pictures featured...I'm happy

The Matt the Jap interview is certainly getting people interested in the paper.

xebec

I was impressed too. Good variety of articles, something for everyone. Much better than in previous years. As Andrew mentioned there were some layout and formatting problems but all in all an excellent job.

Nehpets

Read the thing on matt the jap. It's interesting I suppose

xebec

Stargal wrote: »

Are there any pdfs of it available?

Just re-read your post there, think the issue of pdfs of the Record have come up before. it's about time that the SU got that sorted out, I'm sure there are some past/present students who would appreciate being able to see the paper in electronic format.

Moorsy

It is a real improvment! The difference from last year is vast. Lay-out problems can be explained by bad logistics. Basically there was a mix up with the printer, where apparently the wrong measurments were given to Claire Tighe. This situation was only noticed by the printed when they received the paper and found its dimensions to be too large. So if anybody noticed the ends of articles cut off or strange mistakes its probably because many changes had to be made over night!

Fair play to all involved hopefully with a bit more experience the record will ensure that there are two student papers in college.

Thirdfox

Are you involved with the paper too Moorsy?

Stargal

Congrats to all involved, especially Claire, it's one of the strongest editions of the Record I've ever seen. Was particularly impressed by the strength of the news section. It's the first time in a long time the Record has broken or investigated news stories, rather than just regurgitating stuff that everyone already knew about anyway.

Also it was a great idea to move to the Berliner size! The Record has always looked awkward as a straightforward tabloid cos editors were unwilling to use the design style of tabloids and so tried to use broadsheet layout which often looked text-heavy and well, stupid. But the Berliner suits it perfectly.

Moorsy wrote:

Lay-out problems can be explained by bad logistics. Basically there was a mix up with the printer, where apparently the wrong measurments were given to Claire Tighe.

Well yeah, that kinda explains some of the more obvious problems but there were still a lot of bad fonts used and text-heavy pages that could easily have been fixed. But these can be easily fixed and it's good to know that niggling little problems like stories being cut off will be sorted for the next issue. Despite all that it's still one of the best laid-out Records I've ever seen.

shay_562

Surprised by how good this one was. (And mostly just happy that two seperate writers bitched about the cancellation of Veronica Mars) They've dropped the infantile stuff from last year and the number of horrific grammatical/layout mistakes has dropped considerably. It still looks much lower-quality than TN though - why exactly is that? Is it just cheaper paper, or poorer quality printing? And the Matt article...dunno about anyone else, but I'd have liked to hear the other side of it. It's nice that Matt gets to rant about someone in the Arts Block using her "SIPTU powers" to have him banned, but it might make for a more balanced piece if someone had asked her why it happened in the first place.

Stargal

shay_562 wrote: »

And the Matt article...dunno about anyone else, but I'd have liked to hear the other side of it. It's nice that Matt gets to rant about someone in the Arts Block using her "SIPTU powers" to have him banned, but it might make for a more balanced piece if someone had asked her why it happened in the first place.

QFT. Although I did like how he made it sound like SIPTU is some kind of superhero crime-fighting organisation.

shay_562

Stargal wrote:

Although I did like how he made it sound like SIPTU is some kind of superhero crime-fighting organisation.

I had the same thought (I was picturing something with forcefields, nothing too specific), but dismissed it as coming from watching too much Heroes and figured that if I mentioned it people would think I was a looper. Refreshing to know that I'm not the only person whose mind sometimes jumps directly to "superhero crime-fighting organisation".

Degsy

shay_562 wrote: »

Surprised by how good this one was. (And mostly just happy that two seperate writers bitched about the cancellation of Veronica Mars) They've dropped the infantile stuff from last year and the number of horrific grammatical/layout mistakes has dropped considerably. It still looks much lower-quality than TN though - why exactly is that? Is it just cheaper paper, or poorer quality printing? And the Matt article...dunno about anyone else, but I'd have liked to hear the other side of it. It's nice that Matt gets to rant about someone in the Arts Block using her "SIPTU powers" to have him banned, but it might make for a more balanced piece if someone had asked her why it happened in the first place.

Matt the jap has used college publications to further his own ends for some time now.Many of the students in college today do not know him of old nor know the truth behind his numerous crusades against college authorities.The fact is that he was banned from the Arts block for sexual harrasment of female students and theft.He also has asaulted college staff on more than one occasion.According to his "interview",he was excluded from the library because his reader's ticket was out of date.This is completely untrue,he was caught by library authorities tearing pages out of library books and writing on them in biro.He has verbally and physically abused library staff on campus and in public.The man is a lying manipulative menace and by running his "story",the magazine has libeled SIPTU and Mary Leahy and is going to find itself in a world of hot water.

Pet

I'd like to second the not-entirely-full-of-love-for-Matt sentiment. He can be a petty, nasty little man when he wants, and I'd be very skeptical of his image as a poor, downtrodden martyr.

Unshelved

Articles about Matt appear every year in College publications - not surprising really, considering the turnover of students.

Any action that the College has been forced to take against him has been entirely Matt's own fault. Nothing happens in a hurry in Trinity, and his barring from the Library and from the Arts Block happened after years of him continually abusing and harrassing College Staff.

What is surprising though is that the Record allowed his accounts to go unchallenged, and further allowed him to name and insult in print members of College staff who have to deal with him on a daily basis. The editors should be ashamed of themselves.

paperclip

Well, he does have freedom of speech, but I agree that quotes from the College admin involved would have made the article more balanced.

Stargal

shay_562 wrote: »

I had the same thought (I was picturing something with forcefields, nothing too specific), but dismissed it as coming from watching too much Heroes and figured that if I mentioned it people would think I was a looper. Refreshing to know that I'm not the only person whose mind sometimes jumps directly to "superhero crime-fighting organisation".

I hadn't even realised it was such a jump until you put it like that! Completely right. I blame all tv programmes where goodies are noble and baddies are ugly and evil and have super-villainous organisations to back them up.

Yeah the Matt the Jap piece was biased - never a great idea to just let anyone talk on about themselves without any attempt at analysis or suggestions of alternative viewpoints! I'd have to read it again but pretty sure it isn't libelous though.

/goes to hunt for old Media Law notes...

Boston

paperclip wrote: »

Well, he does have freedom of speech, but I agree that quotes from the College admin involved would have made the article more balanced.

Please dear god don't tell me that you're involved in a publication. He has A) No right to freedom of speech under Irish law, and No right to slander someone. The guy is a perverted scum bag (I can say that because theres evidence to back it up) who really should just fuk off and die.

ilovemybrick

Boston wrote: »

A) No right to freedom of speech under Irish law,

i hate when people claim freedom of speech. it does not exist in any constitutional sense in this country.
and though i have no problem with matt myself. ive heard tell of tales that mark him out as far from the friendly little reputation he has cultivated.

Boston

I've never know the little fuker to be friendly.

Thirdfox

ilovemybrick wrote: »

i hate when people claim freedom of speech. it does not exist in any constitutional sense in this country.
and though i have no problem with matt myself. ive heard tell of tales that mark him out as far from the friendly little reputation he has cultivated.

See Article 40.6.1

http://www.johnpghall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/constit.htm#thetext

"The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:-

i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law."

Of course if what he said was false and he libelled someone then there is of course a right to censor him.

But the constitution does most certainly give you a right to free speech (freedom of expression).

Also the European Convention of Human Rights (which the Irish government has signed up to) has similar provisions.

Degsy

Thirdfox wrote: »

See Article 40.6.1

http://www.johnpghall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/constit.htm#thetext

"The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:-

i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law."

Of course if what he said was false and he libelled someone then there is of course a right to censor him.

But the constitution does most certainly give you a right to free speech (freedom of expression).

Also the European Convention of Human Rights (which the Irish government has signed up to) has similar provisions.

He has libelled and slandered a)A named member of college staff and b)SIPTU itself.The paper itself are going to be called to account for this and maybe students will get the message and stop allowing this horrible creature to use college publications to wage personal vendettas.This has happend before with Trinity News,he mentioned several people by name in an insulting context and the paper had to apologise profusely.

Boston

Thirdfox wrote: »

See Article 40.6.1

http://www.johnpghall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/constit.htm#thetext

"The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:-

i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law."

Of course if what he said was false and he libelled someone then there is of course a right to censor him.

But the constitution does most certainly give you a right to free speech (freedom of expression).

Also the European Convention of Human Rights (which the Irish government has signed up to) has similar provisions.

Freedom of expression is distinct from freedom of speech, and comes with several caveats. When people talk about freedom of speech they equate it with the American meaning, our freedom of expression is no where near as far reaching as the American right to free speech. It is utterly disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise. The 'authority of the State' caveat has been user in the past to censor information in relation to the troubles.

xeduCat

You are of course all right :-)

There is an increasing habit both in academia as well as in law-making-world to use speech and expression interchangeably - so there are some places that have strong (i.e. pro-free-whatever) laws that say expression, and lots of Irish people (including judges) who talk about free speech or free press or whatever while happily using the dodgy Irish provisions....

The easier way is just to talk about Irish law (on speech/expression/media etc) vs American law (on speech/expression/media etc), and it's beyond debate that Irish law is much less pro-speech/expression/media etc) This is due to the very limited wording of article 40.6.1 quoted earlier, but also because the constitution protects the right to a good name....and the various cases challenging defamation decisions (they haven't done very well).

So in practice Irish newspapers (not to mention Irish people) will have a much harder time defending themselves in a libel trial, they may still have a philosophical or moral right to free speech/expression but their legal rights are quite curtailed. That said, it's not all one-way traffic, and people who say something that is on the face of it defamatory do have defences, and also, there's the practical issue that a lot of issues are sorted out through shadowboxing, apologies, etc (that's a common College experience).

(Not commenting on this specific case for many reasons, one of which is that justification/truth is a defence to something that seems libellous and without proper knowledge of the facts of the incidents referred to, any conclusion on whether someone mentioned in an article has a case against the newspaper or the person quoted is based on incomplete information. On the other hand I don't believe anything that a certain Japanese gentleman says. That's why I'm destined never to be a judge).

Maybe it might be useful to split the last few posts on Irish free speech out to a separate thing? It would be a shame to colour the discussion of a very good Record with a detailed discussion on libel.

(Though while I may have some attention, a note to anyone writing/recording/etc for College media. Simple rules. a: just because you "quote it" doesn't mean you're safe. b: ask the other side (even if they say no comment that helps). c: choose your enemies carefully (libelling the Premier of China won't get you sued, libelling Monica Leech might hee hee). d: ask your editor if you're worried (they can go to get advice, usually from someone better qualified than me). e: be aware of the law but not intimidated by it - Irish libel law is bad but we still have lots of good investigative journalism so there are ways around it. f: best test - imagine the person being written about is your mother and the journalist was someone else. would you sue? if so, take a deep breath and go ask for advice)

low

jesus christ sometimes i wish xeducat was a woman.

Crash

Yeah, cept I don't like having to fill out forms in triplicate just to get sex

xeduCat

Watch it.

:-P

Boston

xeduCat = bang on the money.

John

Boston wrote: »

xeduCat = bangs for money.

Too true

xebec

Latest issue is out. Haven't read it yet. Some new articles on theRecord.ie but not the whole paper I'm guessing.

shay_562

Nothing that new or groundbreaking in it - the front page story is the same, as far as I can see, to TN's front page story last week. Five things of vague interest:

1) Another Ultimate Frisbee column! Woo! We'll take over college pubs yet!

2) On the note of taking over, the casual admission by Labour Youth that yes, they are in fact trying to take over the SU is a little scary.

3) While I feel kinda bad criticising when I know the photographer in question is a boards.ie regular, I really didn't like the photo they used of Paisley (nearly 1/4 of picture is people's heads, and Tim Smyth is the main focus of the photo, with Paisley shoved off to the left). There's a much better one on the website, and I've seen far superior ones floating around the Hist - I'm shocked that someone thought that was the best one to use.

4) I've heard (albeit from a less-than-fully-reliable source) that the whole GMB story is going to have to be retracted and apologies issued in the next edition. Not sure why, exactly, but that could be a big hit to the Record's credibility if it's true - retracting your page 2 news story is a bit of a climbdown.

5) An awful lot of little mistakes with layout, grammar and such. Shame to see these slipping in so quickly after they were so much reduced last issue.

Thirdfox

Point 3 noted shay

Criticism of my photos is great to hear - the photo in question could have been cropped more to show less heads I guess but that's not my call. Here are the photos I took of the Paisley talk (I have downsized these images for web viewing - the originals can print up to A4 size). Is there any particular one you would have preferred?











If I were to guess why they used the one they did (no. 4 for those who don't know) - it was because of the look/glare(?) of Mr. Paisley as he looked across. Personally I found my eye drawn to the chair but your point is very valid too.

Picture no.2 was firmly tongue in cheek

Hopefully I'll be able to produce pictures more to your liking in the future!

edit: just as a small defence to my choice of cropping - there is a photographic technique called the rule of thirds whereby you compose the image so that the main subject lies not in the centre of the frame but on the imaginary bisection of lines that split the image into 9 squares - normally it is considered "bad" in photography to have the main subject dead centre. But if people prefer centred subjects I'll make sure to do so in the future.

Danger Bob

New Record should be all online soon. It's just a small team so everyone's trying to find time to contribute again after a long weekend.

Just on Shay's points, the front page story re:USI only happened on Saturday so couldn't be the same as TN's front page last week. I'm also pretty sure that USI didn't appear on their front page at all in their last issue.

And the GMB story is not going to be retracted. There's one sentence in the article which is unfair to an individual and really shouldn't have gone in so you'll probably see an apology or something in the next issue. However, the rest of the article is valid and fully substantiated through a number of sources. While it's annoying for everyone involved to have this happen, there's a big difference between retracting a sentence, which doesn't affect the thrust of the article, and retracting an article.

Between slow computers and dodgy printers, a few things went kinda wrong in the closing stages of production but we're learning from all these things and will be hoping to eliminate all layout, grammar and other problems completely before the next one. But in the end, newspapers are seldom perfect so try read the articles and not the errors and you might enjoy it. If not, then let us know why at news@therecord.ie.

shay_562

See, I really liked picture #3, especially since Happy Paisley fit quite well with the tone of the article ("Charismatic Paisley charms the Hist"). #2 could also have been funny, for the sheer tongue-in-cheek factor, as you said. And even the one used would have looked fine to me if the cropping had been different.

Thirdfox wrote:

Hopefully I'll be able to produce pictures more to your liking in the future!

You damn well better! *cocks shotgun*

Danger Bob wrote:

Just on Shay's points, the front page story re:USI only happened on Saturday so couldn't be the same as TN's front page last week. I'm also pretty sure that USI didn't appear on their front page at all in their last issue.

My apologies, I was confusing it with the initial resignation story (the front page story of TN issue #2). The election was new (it just felt old since it had been decided weeks ago who the anointed successor would be).

Danger Bob wrote:

And the GMB story is not going to be retracted. There's one sentence in the article which is unfair to an individual and really shouldn't have gone in so you'll probably see an apology or something in the next issue. However, the rest of the article is valid and fully substantiated through a number of sources. While it's annoying for everyone involved to have this happen, there's a big difference between retracting a sentence, which doesn't affect the thrust of the article, and retracting an article.

I counted at least two factual inaccuracies that would be quite offensive to the people in question - I'm curious to see which one you've picked up on, since to the best of my knowledge both have been compained about by the parties or societies involved. Frankly, I think there's massive questions to be asked about his selection, but I'd rather see that done in a manner that doesn't distort facts or flat-out lie (as the article in question did) in order to take a cheap shot.

Boston

shay_562 wrote: »

You damn well better! *cocks and shotguns*

I saw it, it wasn't that great.

Danger Bob

As far as I can see, there's no lies there and would like it if you could PM me whatever ones you've seen. One representative from a society has made a complaint which has been taken quite seriously and is being dealt with. The other society has chosen to give out about the article, despite the pieces that have caused them offence being completely valid. They haven't at any stage questioned the validity of any of the facts.

Degsy

Danger Bob wrote: »

As far as I can see, there's no lies there and would like it if you could PM me whatever ones you've seen. One representative from a society has made a complaint which has been taken quite seriously and is being dealt with. The other society has chosen to give out about the article, despite the pieces that have caused them offence being completely valid. They haven't at any stage questioned the validity of any of the facts.

Any news on the paper's decision to let Matt the jap libel slander named college staff?

Danger Bob

Degsy wrote:

Any news on the paper's decision to let Matt the jap libel slander named college staff?

Well, have you made an official complaint about it? Or done anything other than give out on a message board?

Degsy

Danger Bob wrote: »

Well, have you made an official complaint about it? Or done anything other than give out on a message board?

Yes.I complained to my SIPTU shop steward as did Mary Leahy and several other SIPTU members.People who allow this sort of rubbish to get printed should be held accountable for thier actions.Dont be surprised if you're forced to issue an apology or lose some of your funding.

Time Magazine

Ah Jaysis, SIPTU?

Go to the Junior Dean or Senior Dean if you want a retraction.

Degsy

Ibid wrote: »

Ah Jaysis, SIPTU?

Go to the Junior Dean or Senior Dean if you want a retraction.

SIPTU was the organisation that was slandered.The Senior Dean was informed as was the Publications Commitee.The "film" made about matt is also being investigated for similar reasons.

Stargal

Degsy wrote: »

SIPTU was the organisation that was slandered.The Senior Dean was informed as was the Publications Commitee.The "film" made about matt is also being investigated for similar reasons.

The Publications Committee? Which oversees TN, Icarus, Miscellany, et al? Surely you mean some other committee - they'd have absolutely nothing to do with the Record.

patzer117

Danger Bob wrote: »

And the GMB story is not going to be retracted. There's one sentence in the article which is unfair to an individual and really shouldn't have gone in so you'll probably see an apology or something in the next issue. However, the rest of the article is valid and fully substantiated through a number of sources. While it's annoying for everyone involved to have this happen, there's a big difference between retracting a sentence, which doesn't affect the thrust of the article, and retracting an article.
.

Hey, I thought the article was entirely fair and justified. No problems with it except for that sentence really.

But why didn't you name the true author of the work? By doing that aren't you admitting there are problems with it? And also, why on earth don't you name these "number of sources". To me it looks kinda pathetic to think that people won't stand up and say what you believe, especially when they are writing for the University Record. If it's all true, then why aren't these people willing to put their names on it? Why wasn't the author? Also, weren't you told beforehand that you shouldn't publish the sentence, and went ahead with it anyway?

That said, fine article, but with the TN and the Record quoting "sources" all the time, it gets a bit annoying...

Patzer

Boston

Danger Bob wrote: »

As far as I can see, there's no lies there and would like it if you could PM me whatever ones you've seen. One representative from a society has made a complaint which has been taken quite seriously and is being dealt with. The other society has chosen to give out about the article, despite the pieces that have caused them offence being completely valid. They haven't at any stage questioned the validity of any of the facts.

What article, about what, what sentence and what society? Why all the cloak and dagger bull****. The information is in the public domain, if you're going to bring it up then cut out this "Hushed tones" business. I'll really sick of this utter mindless craps which sums up the SU and other hack entities. You really are a coward if you're willing to publish something, but then not stand by it.

patzer117: well said.

Crash

where is there anything cowardly at all? all it did was mask which society complained and which didnt. The statement there stands by everything that was published (in supporting this article I have yet to read, but from the statement seems to be fully supportive from the view of the news editor of the record)

Boston, to be honest, all i've seen you do on this board as of late is stir trouble. not happy with it, and consider this a warning.

Boston

çrash_000 wrote: »

where is there anything cowardly at all? all it did was mask which society complained and which didnt. The statement there stands by everything that was published (in supporting this article I have yet to read, but from the statement seems to be fully supportive from the view of the news editor of the record)

Its snipping at someone/some body. Obviously he published a comment naming someone and placing them in a negative light. Yet here "the sentence" is not put forward for an actual discussion. Also he's willing to criticise the society in public but by not naming names he's avoiding having to make any comment he can later be held accountable for. He should either come out with what ever he hinting at or shut up. We all know what he's talking about so why the games? Guy is on an ego trip.

Boston, to be honest, all i've seen you do on this board as of late is stir trouble. not happy with it, and consider this a warning.

Of late you've allowed people you know to attack and harass others on this forum and have barely said a word. You're allowing this guy to come on here and makes comments that basically amount to "I was completely right, they are completely wrong, and I can't tell you why". Oh and also you where proven to be talking out your arse about my course, by me. You want to give me a warning, you pick something and you click that infraction button.

Crash

I'm not gonna entertain any further discussion on this on thread Boston. If you have an issue, take it to feedback, or PM me here. As it stands you're on loose ground.

PHB

Shock shock, Record\TN make a mistake, it's possibly libelous, they claim to have heard it from their 'sources', won't say who they are, and get all uppidity about it. College changes so much from year to year :rolleyes:

I'm really hopeful that at some point somebody just gets pissed off with the slanderous crap they come out with all the time, sues them, and they have to pay out a ****load of money. If that happens, you might actually get some decent student journalism in college rather than a poor attempt at a tabloid.

shay_562

Danger Bob wrote:

As far as I can see, there's no lies there and would like it if you could PM me whatever ones you've seen.

Done and done.

patzer wrote:

Hey, I thought the article was entirely fair and justified. No problems with it except for that sentence really.

While I agree with one of the main thrusts of the article (student money being used to send non-student to Thailand = A Bad Thing) and that questions should be asked about the decision and the process through which it was made, I think the article skewed a lot of things through a somewhat liberal interpretation of facts. I think the point of the article (that CSC should be careful about where its money is going) is undermined by petty sniping later on.