Controlling the media

Kevster

I hate to bring this up but I feel that it's important: Should the media be more strictly regulated? I mean, previous editors of British tabloids have admitted to fabricating stories in their newspapers. Doesn't that warrant a banning of the newspaper? Also, privacy laws [I'm sure] are being repeatedly broken by journalists/photographers who then submit their 'pics' to magazines and such.

partholon

i wouldnt be in favour of banning a newspaper but i do think and increased ability of the public to sue the papers would be welcome. a press version of PIAB.

end of the day the loss of money will hurt them more. particularly if its followed with a published apology given the same prominance as the original article.

jdivision

You do realise that an awful lot of those photos you talk of are set up by the "celebrities" who take a percentage on the sale price?
There shouldn't be censorship of the media, every industry has its bad side but the best way to show your opinion of the practice you outlined is not to buy a newspaper that made stuff up.

Kevster

I never buy them but they are invariably left lying around the place where I can have a quick glance through them. I wasn't really referring to celebrities either - I was referring to people like the British royal family. This is going to side-track the thread a bit but I am so certain in my head that the paparazzi had a huge part to play in the death of Diana.

Handsome Bob

Tabloids can be very irresponsible and at times and use serious issues for their own personal gain. Take the Sun's 'Campaign against violent Ireland' for instance. This campaign will do nothing for the fight against violence. It is simply created to sell their newspapers.

Also, media coverage interferes with our legal system and at times, wrongly bury people's names.

santosubito

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Also, media coverage interferes with our legal system and at times, wrongly bury people's names.

Really? When?

orestes

Kevster wrote: »

I hate to bring this up but I feel that it's important: Should the media be more strictly regulated? I mean, previous editors of British tabloids have admitted to fabricating stories in their newspapers. Doesn't that warrant a banning of the newspaper? Also, privacy laws [I'm sure] are being repeatedly broken by journalists/photographers who then submit their 'pics' to magazines and such.

But then we wouldn't have the Weekly World News anymore! I love that paper!

Handsome Bob

santosubito wrote: »

Really? When?

Ever see when inaccurate information is printed and then when they are brought to book they issue an insignificant little apology in the middle pages?

The media interfered in the Padraig Nally case and made it about travellers, inciting hatred between two groups. What culture someone is from should never be an issue in a murder case. Equality is meant to be promoted and not highlighting irrelevant issues. Need I go on?

santosubito

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Ever see when inaccurate information is printed and then when they are brought to book they issue an insignificant little apology in the middle pages?

The media interfered in the Padraig Nally case and made it about travellers, inciting hatred between two groups. What culture someone is from should never be an issue in a murder case. Equality is meant to be promoted and not highlighting irrelevant issues. Need I go on?

Yes you do, actually. You said the media interefered with the legal system. In what way did the media interfere with the Padraig Nally case? Was the case thrown out because of media coverage for example? If it wasn't, how can you say the media interefered in that case?

Any real examples of the media interfering in the legal system, then?

santosubito

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Ever see when inaccurate information is printed and then when they are brought to book they issue an insignificant little apology in the middle pages?

What's that got to do with the legal system? You said it yourself: They print inaccurate information and are then brought to book. That's usually a very expensive book, like the Sunday World being ordered to pay a criminal €900,000.

Handsome Bob

santosubito wrote: »

Yes you do, actually. You said the media interefered with the legal system. In what way did the media interfere with the Padraig Nally case? Was the case thrown out because of media coverage for example? If it wasn't, how can you say the media interefered in that case?

Any real examples of the media interfering in the legal system, then?

They interfere in our legal system when they try to mislead the public to what a case is actually about. What, do you not think the jury wouldn't read newspapers? If they believed the media coverage on that case then the issue of what culture the murdered guy was from was an important issue in the case it wasn't.

The media also focused on how Nally was protecting his property and totally ignored the fact that he shot Ward once, then as Ward was trying to escape he reloaded and murdered the guy in cold blood. THAT was the issue and media decided they did not want to focus on that.

Tabloids thrive on sensationalism and they ignore they fact they are jeopardising a case just to sell their stories.

santosubito

LZ5by5 wrote: »

They interfere in our legal system when they try to mislead the public to what a case is actually about. What, do you not think the jury wouldn't read newspapers? If they believed the media coverage on that case then the issue of what culture the murdered guy was from was an important issue in the case it wasn't.

The media also focused on how Nally was protecting his property and totally ignored the fact that he shot Ward once, then as Ward was trying to escape he reloaded and murdered the guy in cold blood. THAT was the issue and media decided they did not want to focus on that.

Tabloids thrive on sensationalism and they ignore they fact they are jeopardising a case just to sell their stories.

Two things: unless you were on the jury, you don't know what influenced them. Secondly, I'm going to do a bit of research and I'll prove you're talking nonsense. I'll post up some articles that show the media wrote extensively about the two shots angle.

Handsome Bob

santosubito wrote: »

Two things: unless you were on the jury, you don't know what influenced them. Secondly, I'm going to do a bit of research and I'll prove you're talking nonsense. I'll post up some articles that show the media wrote extensively about the two shots angle.

I'm sure you'll find many TABLOID articles. You're really that worked up about the opinion of one person that you must do research to make your point?:rolleyes: Oh and I noticed you're a Reporter so I ain't surprised one bit at your stance. I hope you take ethics that you were taught in college into account when reporting, unlike many tabloid reporters.

santosubito

Here's one:

Daily Mail (London)

December 7, 2006 Thursday

He won't come out alive What witness says Padraig Nally told him seconds before traveller 'Frog' Ward was shot dead at his remote farm

BYLINE: ELEANOR BURNHILL

SECTION: ED IRE; Pg. 29

LENGTH: 744 words


THE son of a traveller shot dead in Mayo claimed farmer Padrig Nally told him his father 'won't be coming out alive' just before he heard a gun going off.

Tom Ward was giving evidence on day two of the trial of Mr Nally, 62, who has pleaded not guilty to the manslaughter of John 'Frog' Ward, 42.

He told the Central Criminal Court that he and his father stopped at the Nally farm to ask about an old car they had seen there.

Mr Ward went to knock at the door and Mr Nally walked up to the witness and asked: 'Who's gone in there?' When he replied that his father was looking for the owner of the car, he claimed Mr Nally said: 'He won't be coming out alive.' But he later admitted to Brendan Grehan, SC, defending, that there had been a misunderstanding and the accused had not used the word 'alive'.

The witness said he heard a gunshot after Mr Nally walked into his shed, which was in the direction his father had gone.

'I seen him coming round with the gun. I heard the shot.' Then he panicked and drove out to the road but when he turned around and went back down, he was unable to see his father. 'I got a bad feeling. I knew there was something wrong.' He shouted 'Daddy, daddy' and got back in the car.

The witness also remembered looking out the back window of his car where he saw Mr Nally in another car, reversing out to the road before driving away.

Tom Ward said he drove in the direction of Headford, where he told the gardaI he thought his father had been shot.

He added that his father's death had 'f****d up his whole family' and that the accused had been allowed to walk around 'Scotch free'.

Mr Ward was shot twice and beaten with a stick after entering Mr Nally's farm in Cross, Co.

Mayo, on October 14, 2004.

Yesterday, Tom, who is the late Mr Ward's fourth of 11 children, denied under cross-examination that he had gone to the farm to commit burglary.

On the day of the killing, his father had been in hospital in Galway and was on medication.

They decided to 'take a spin' and were just driving around when they saw the old car by Mr Nally's house.

They stopped to buy cigarettes and a bottle of Smirnoff Ice before going to the Nally farm.

Mr Grehan asked the witness if he was able to look after himself-I'm trying to anyway.' He added that he suffered from memory loss after his father was shot, and that 'a lot of things' had happened to his family.

He had slit his wrists, taken overdoses and tried to drive a car into a river.

Asked if a lot of people had been injured in this incident he said: 'I think one person was injured. I think I hit another car, I'm not sure.' His father had been treated in a psychiatric unit in Galway and had mentioned hearing voices a few times. But he was never told these voices were telling him to kill his mother and the witness (himself).

Admitting his father had a drinking problem he said: 'He wasn't that bad, angry at us or anything like that.' He also denied his father was a bareknuckle fighter.

He told the court he had never been to the Nally farm before, but asked if his father had, he replied: 'That's something I don't know.' He added: 'I never thought it would end up with my father getting murdered and the person who done it walking free. It f****d up all our lives.' In later evidence he said he knew his father had been in prison but he said he did not know what for.

Asked if he knew 'Frog' Ward had 80 previous convictions and more than 38 different court appearances, he said: 'No, I didn't know that.' Mr Grehan allowed that some of the offences occurred before the witness was born, but asked him about offences after 1997, including burglary, handling stolen goods, assault, and larceny.

The witness was not sure about an incident in 1999 in which his father had threatened a barman with a Stanley knife but said he did remember 'bits' of an incident in which his father had attacked a car with a slash hook, breaking the rear and side windows as a woman and children sat inside.

The witness also admitted he had been in prison, serving an 11-month sentence, and had convictions under the theft and fraud act, and for the possession of an offensive weapon a knife.

He denied he and his father had said they were going to the Nally farm to buy a car as a 'cover story'.

'I wasn't there to do anything wrong in this place. I wasn't there before in my life. It's the first time in my life I had been there.' The trial continues today before Mr Justice Kevin O'Higgins and a jury of eight men and four women.


Here's another:

The Mirror (London, England)

July 14, 2005

I picked up the gun & went to get three cartridges.. I ran after himbecause I wanted to finish him, to KILL him; FARMER'S FURY IN STATEMENT TO GARDAI;
News

SECTION: Pg. 14

LENGTH: 449 words


Byline: By MICHAEL DOYLE

FARMER Padraig Nally told gardai he shot John Ward dead because hewas fed up being raided by Travellers, a court heard yesterday.

The 61-year-old was arrested after Ward was gunned down outside Nally's Co Mayo farm last October.

Yesterday prosecuting counsel Paul O'Higgins SC read to the Central Criminal Court, sitting in Castlebar, Co Mayo, the statement the accused made while in custody at the town's Garda station.

Nally told officers he was afraid of living alone and often spent hours sitting beside a shotgun in his shed.

He had been panicking for about six months before the shooting, since a chainsaw was stolen from him the previous February, and couldn't sleep at night.

Mr Justice Paul Carney was told that according to Nally's statement he didn't intend to kill 43-year-old Ward at first but he got enraged when he saw him pushing in his back door.

He told gardai: "I went to my shed to get my shotgun so I would meet the man on his way out. I was enraged when I saw him going into myhouse. I shot him in the hand when he came out and we then had a scuffle and he tried to kick me.

"I must have hit him about 10 times and he then fell into a bunch of nettles.

"I picked up the gun and went to get three cartridges from the shed.

"When I came out the man walked out the gate and turned right.

"He didn't look back but I ran after him because I wanted to finish him, to kill him.

"I knew him because he was at my house three weeks before asking about fishing. I'd been raided before and I said it wasn't going to happen again. I couldn't take it any more.

"I shot him in the back. I think it was the middle of the back. Hefell and I knew he was dead because he wasn't breathing."

Nally, from Funshinaugh, Cross, Co Mayo denies murdering father-of-11 Ward, from Carrowbrown, Co Galway, on October 14 last year.

Earlier Nally's neighbour, Michael Varley in cross-examination told the court he had known the accused all his life and he had never been in any trouble.

He said: "Padraig Nally is a very kind, honest man. He's as straight as it gets. He was never involved in anything and I never heard his name mentioned in anything.

"He was very nervous though and was afraid of living alone.

"He was afraid of leaving his premises in case he'd get robbed andtook down the registration number of every car who called to his house."

State pathologist Marie Cassidy also gave evidence yesterday and concluded that Ward died of a shotgun injury to the trunk and a contributing factor was severe injuries to the head.

The trial continues.


Two tabloids, by the way. Contemporaneous court reporting, I'd say.

santosubito

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm sure you'll find many TABLOID articles. You're really that worked up about the opinion of one person that you must do research to make your point?:rolleyes: Oh and I noticed you're a Reporter so I ain't surprised one bit at your stance. I hope you take ethics that you were taught in college into account when reporting, unlike many tabloid reporters.

The very thought of doing a little bit of research before making a point - is that a strange concept for you?

Handsome Bob

:rolleyes: All they are are direct quotes from the trial. In this day and age, Tabloids are VERY opinionated. What was the newspaper's opinion on these two pieces of cross-examination? Can you dig you the editor's opinion page for those articles?:rolleyes: By the way, Daily Mail, hardly a gutter newspaper such as The Sun now or the self-righteous Star newspaper.

Handsome Bob

santosubito wrote: »

The very thought of doing a little bit of research before making a point - is that a strange concept for you?

You're getting worked up because of one opinion. Don't worry about me, I do plenty of research on things that actually matter to me. Oh and I am not the one who brought this to a petty, personal level. I never insulted you before you insulted me so do your research on that.:)

santosubito

LZ5by5 wrote: »

:rolleyes: All they are are direct quotes from the trial. In this day and age, Tabloids are VERY opinionated. What was the newspaper's opinion on these two pieces of cross-examination? Can you dig you the editor's opinion page for those articles?:rolleyes: By the way, Daily Mail, hardly a gutter newspaper such as The Sun now or the self-righteous Star newspaper.

The Mail is a complete rag. Worse than the Sun, Star and Mirror put together.
On your other point, I can't. I simply can't because these articles were written during one of his trials. There were no opinion pieces on the trial - all you can do is a contempraneous report during a trial. There were loads of opinion pieces on the case - after the verdict. You can't really interefere in a case after it has been settled now, can you?

santosubito

LZ5by5 wrote: »

You're getting worked up because of one opinion. Don't worry about me, I do plenty of research on things that actually matter to me. Oh and I am not the one who brought this to a petty, personal level. I never insulted you before you insulted me so do your research on that.:)

I didn't insult you at all. But why don't you do some research on the prevalence of people putting silly smileys on their posts?;):rolleyes::o:p:D:):mad::cool::pac:

Handsome Bob

santosubito wrote: »

The Mail is a complete rag. Worse than the Sun, Star and Mirror put together.
On your other point, I can't. I simply can't because these articles were written during one of his trials. There were no opinion pieces on the trial - all you can do is a contempraneous report during a trial. There were loads of opinion pieces on the case - after the verdict. You can't really interefere in a case after it has been settled now, can you?

No but you can make life hell for the relatives and friends of the convicted. I see opinion every day during trials in tabloids.

Oooooh, you insulted my use of smilies! Wicked burn! I'm so crushed:p

santosubito

LZ5by5 wrote: »

No but you can make life hell for the relatives and friends of the convicted. I see opinion every day during trials in tabloids.

Oooooh, you insulted my use of smilies! Wicked burn! I'm so crushed:p

Again, I didn't insult you. Would you like me to insult you?

Now, let's see: what opinion did you see from the tabloids during recent trials?
If you did, how come the eminent senior counsels for the defence either failed to spot what you spotted or decided not to raise it with the triual judge?

Handsome Bob

santosubito wrote: »

Again, I didn't insult you. Would you like me to insult you?

Now, let's see: what opinion did you see from the tabloids during recent trials?
If you did, how come the eminent senior counsels for the defence either failed to spot what you spotted or decided not to raise it with the triual judge?

Please insult me, I could use a laugh.

I get the Star and the Irish Times every day. I haven't got time on my hands to do research but trust me, the Star has never lost an opportunity to give there two cents, just like Mr. Pointy Terry McGeehan.

santosubito

That's fine. Totally wrong, but fine. McGeehan doesn't write comment on [edit: live]court cases.

Why do you read tabloids?

Handsome Bob

santosubito wrote: »

That's fine. Totally wrong, but fine. McGeehan doesn't write comment on court cases.

Why do you read tabloids?

Mahon Tribunal. That's like a court case, isn't it?

I read tabloids, mostly the Star, to give me a few laughs. You know off the likes Terry 'the ranter' McGeehan. and Eamonn Dunphy. Basically I get it for sport and ignore the front pages except for McGeehan.

santosubito

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Mahon Tribunal. That's like a court case, isn't it?

I read tabloids, mostly the Star, to give me a few laughs. You know off the likes Terry 'the ranter' McGeehan. and Eamonn Dunphy. Basically I get it for sport and ignore the front pages except for McGeehan.

Your argument is getting weaker by the post. Firstly you say they interfere with cases, then you change tack by saying they make people's lives hell. Then you mention court cases and the only example you can come up with is a tribunal. Every newspaper opines about the tribunals. None of them carry opinions about live court cases. Trust me...
I buy the Irish Times and The Star every day too. McGeehan had a fantastic rant last week about O Searcaigh.

flogen

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Mahon Tribunal. That's like a court case, isn't it?

I read tabloids, mostly the Star, to give me a few laughs. You know off the likes Terry 'the ranter' McGeehan. and Eamonn Dunphy. Basically I get it for sport and ignore the front pages except for McGeehan.

The Mahon Tribunal is a... err... tribunal, not a court case.

And I had to laugh when you tried to belittle someone for actually researching their argument.

I've not seen anyone throw insults in this thread so far, by the way, and I hope it stays that way.

Handsome Bob

santosubito wrote: »

Your argument is getting weaker by the post. Firstly you say they interfere with cases, then you change tack by saying they make people's lives hell. Then you mention court cases and the only example you can come up with is a tribunal. Every newspaper opines about the tribunals. None of them carry opinions about live court cases. Trust me...
I buy the Irish Times and The Star every day too. McGeehan had a fantastic rant last week about O Searcaigh.

Interfere in cases in the sense that they manipulate what the actual issue is for their own interest. I am not interested in arguing with you. I have an opinion and nothing you can say can change that. I do not like as a whole how the tabloid media cover trials for various reasons, the ones I have already mentioned. And then there is how they cover celebrity such as Heath Ledgersdeath which was absolutely disgusting.

I never said McGeehan doesn't do his job well, just that he is very excitable. I also saw his O Searcaigh piece and the one on IanPaisley last week and they were very good.

Handsome Bob

flogen wrote: »

The Mahon Tribunal is a... err... tribunal, not a court case.

And I had to laugh when you tried to belittle someone for actually researching their argument.

I've not seen anyone throw insults in this thread so far, by the way, and I hope it stays that way.

Belittle? Never. He got worked up about what I was saying and I simply pointed out he shouldn't care about an opinion. So get your facts straight friend.

santosubito

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Belittle? Never. He got worked up about what I was saying and I simply pointed out he shouldn't care about an opinion. So get your facts straight friend.

I did not get worked up about anything. Having a discussion with you whiles away a few hours while I'm working.
Your opinion sucks, by the way. It's made of sand. There is no substance to it. You are incoherent.

Handsome Bob

santosubito wrote: »

I did not get worked up about anything. Having a discussion with you whiles away a few hours while I'm working.
Your opinion sucks, by the way. It's made of sand. There is no substance to it. You are incoherent.

Flogen, I just got insulted. What are you going to do about it? If you decide not to warn him just because you don't agree with my opinion then you are not a very good mod.

Grow up Santos. I am entitled to my opinion that the tabloid media are generally irresponsible. Deal with it.

flogen

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Belittle? Never. He got worked up about what I was saying and I simply pointed out he shouldn't care about an opinion. So get your facts straight friend.

The reason for your comments on his research does not change what those comments constitute.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Flogen, I just got insulted. What are you going to do about it? If you decide not to warn him just because you don't agree with my opinion then you are not a very good mod.

Grow up Santos. I am entitled to my opinion that the tabloid media are generally irresponsible. Deal with it.

I'm not going to warn him because the rule is to play the ball and not the man. I believe in what he said he has followed this rule. If you disagree and think that makes me a bad moderator I recommend you start a thread about it in feedback.

Handsome Bob

flogen wrote: »

The reason for your comments on his research does not change what those comments constitute.



I'm not going to warn him because the rule is to play the ball and not the man. I believe in what he said he has followed this rule. If you disagree and think that makes me a bad moderator I recommend you start a thread about it in feedback.

Joke. What he said is flaming. Flaming constitutes a warning. It's simple.

flogen

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Joke. What he said is flaming. Flaming constitutes a warning. It's simple.

He gave his opinion of your opinion - that doesn't constitute flaming. If you've a problem with my decision I've told you where you can take it.

Now, back on topic or I will have to hand out warnings.

Kevster

LZ5by5 wrote:

I am entitled to my opinion that the tabloid media are generally irresponsible.

It's not opinion in my mind: It's pure fact that they are irresponsible. They do not report the news in an honest, impartial way. Yes, I did say 'honest' there. A previous editor of the News of the World once admitted that the newspaper fabricates some of their stories.

... ..oh, by the way (and this is something you won't be seeing on the front page of any tabloid (because they're all under the same company anyway)) the News of the World recently lost another court case for claiming an actress was pregnant when she wasn't.

That's at least three legal cases that newspaper has lost in the past year or so. Why are they still allowed to publish?

Overdraft

This thread is kind of adding to my hunch that maybe it's time to nuke the internet and for us all to go back to playing Snap with granny in front of the fireplace. It was, I think, a healthier pursuit.

The funny thing is I largely agree with santosubito in his argument with LZ5by5, although his apparent notion that the media is beyond reproach for its reporting on court cases is rib-tickling, to say the least. As he is so fond of research I suggest he do a little on the issue of contempt of court.

If that doesn’t satisfy his needs then perhaps he could reflect on the coverage of the Joe O'Reilly and/or Wayne O'Donoghue and/or Brian Kearney cases. Everything okay there? I, personally, don't think so, but we'll agree to differ.

I suspect the verdicts in all three cases were correct – just my humble opinion – but the performance of elements of the media during these trials, notably the publishing of ‘evidence’ deemed inadmissible in court, risked mistrials in each circumstance or, at the very least, risked giving grounds for appeal to each of the convicted men. Note: I said risked, whether it happens or not is another matter. But it was risked.

I actually blame the legal system for this more than I do the media, which, by its nature, will push the boundaries as far as they can go. Whatever happened that quaint old ‘sub judice’ tradition?

I think it is extraordinary that more juries aren't sequestered during trials, eg during the Kearney case. As the judge sends them home for the weekend he tells them not to look at the newspapers - what do we all do when we hear the cry 'DON'T LOOK!'? We look.

I would love to believe that 12 good men/women and true would heed a judge’s warning not to read the press while they are on duty, but I find it hard to believe that at least two or three of them wouldn’t share my inquisitive and disobedient nature.

Is it the media’s fault if it influences a jury that disobeys a judge’s instructions? No, but call me old-fashioned – wouldn’t it be nice if the media showed more responsibility and waited until a trial was over before it revealed all?

Any way, that’s by the by. My real issue with this thread is the truly obnoxious behaviour of santosubito and flogen. That mere sentence may well lead to – good Lord! – a ban, but in time I will come to terms with my punishment. I may even repent one day.

santosubito wrote: »

Your opinion sucks, by the way. It's made of sand. There is no substance to it. You are incoherent.

Is that the best you can do? Mock someone who you deem to be your intellectual inferior? Honestly, it took me back to the days when I witnessed bullying in the schoolyard! You are someone so in awe of your own articulacy, as you regard it, you choose to spew smart ar$ed bile all over anyone you stumble upon when you’re in the mood. May I humbly suggest that you grow up?

flogen wrote: »

I had to laugh when you tried to belittle someone for actually researching their argument….. He gave his opinion of your opinion - that doesn't constitute flaming. If you've a problem with my decision I've told you where you can take it. Now, back on topic or I will have to hand out warnings.

Wow - is that the role of Mods on Boards.ie, to join in with the smart-ar$es and ridicule people simply because they don't agree with their arguments or believe them to be factually weak? Or, perhaps, they are so weak themselves they prefer to side with the forum’s bullies?

I double-checked the definition of moderate: “control, check, temper, restrain, subdue; repress, tame, lessen, decrease, lower, reduce, diminish, alleviate, allay, appease, assuage, ease, soothe, calm, tone down”.

Flogen/Mr Maguire? Get over yourself. Being a Mod on an internet forum really doesn't make you special - it just means you have a lot of time on your hands. Do your moderating job and quit sneering at those who are rounded upon by the smart ar$es, simply because you think it makes you look smart. It doesn’t. It is pathetic. If you believe someone to be wrong on Boards.ie at least have the good grace to argue it out with them, leave the schoolyard bullying to santosubito.

santosubito

This thread is kind of adding to my hunch that maybe it's time to nuke the internet and for us all to go back to playing Snap with granny in front of the fireplace. It was, I think, a healthier pursuit.

The funny thing is I largely agree with santosubito in his argument with LZ5by5, although his apparent notion that the media is beyond reproach for its reporting on court cases is rib-tickling, to say the least. As he is so fond of research I suggest he do a little on the issue of contempt of court.

I never wrote that the media were above reproach on anything. As a court reporter, I'm happy to admit that plenty of court reporting is terrible. However, very few of the pieces were deemed in contempt of court. I can think of fewer than a dozen reports in the last five years. The Sun was hit with a €100,000 fine a fwew years ago and The Star, Sunday World and a couple of others got smaller fines. But they were isolated incidents and, in the case of the Sun, it was a British sub editor who stupidly tried to sex up the copy. But it cost them and I doubt they'll do it again.* Mistakes, sometimes of the horrendous sort, happen. But the poster spoke about the media interfering in the legal system. He failed, abysmally in my view, to substantiate that view. I think I'm allowed to challenge him on his nonsense.

If that doesn’t satisfy his needs then perhaps he could reflect on the coverage of the Joe O'Reilly and/or Wayne O'Donoghue and/or Brian Kearney cases. Everything okay there? I, personally, don't think so, but we'll agree to differ.

Well, in those three cases you mention, what was the contempt of court? Having covered two of them myself, I don't recall any applications by the defence for the case to be thrown out because of prejudicial reporting. Nor do I recall anyone being held in contempt. Also, in the case of O'Reilly, his appeal against conviction has around 13 different strands: not one of them is about media coverage of the trial.

I suspect the verdicts in all three cases were correct – just my humble opinion – but the performance of elements of the media during these trials, notably the publishing of ‘evidence’ deemed inadmissible in court, risked mistrials in each circumstance or, at the very least, risked giving grounds for appeal to each of the convicted men. Note: I said risked, whether it happens or not is another matter. But it was risked.
Well, again, perhaps you could actually write what `evidence' deemed inadmissable in the case was written in the media? You simply can't because there is none. Perhaps you are referring to the semen evidence in the O'Donoghue trial. That was not written about until after the sentencing. Therefore it could not possibly have been in contempt. If you didn't agree with the media covering that aspect after the case was completed, that's fine. But it did not affect the case in the slightest. Personally, I thought the Prime Time report on it, for example, of a few months ago was excellent. But that's my opinion, feel free to disagree.

I actually blame the legal system for this more than I do the media, which, by its nature, will push the boundaries as far as they can go. Whatever happened that quaint old ‘sub judice’ tradition?

The sub judice tradition is alive and well. Go on, prove me wrong.

I think it is extraordinary that more juries aren't sequestered during trials, eg during the Kearney case. As the judge sends them home for the weekend he tells them not to look at the newspapers - what do we all do when we hear the cry 'DON'T LOOK!'? We look.

That's the judges' fault, not that of the media. FYI, juries are sequestered once they start deliberating. It happened in O'Reilly and Kearney.

I would love to believe that 12 good men/women and true would heed a judge’s warning not to read the press while they are on duty, but I find it hard to believe that at least two or three of them wouldn’t share my inquisitive and disobedient nature.
But nobody knows, except the people on the jury. We're both just guessing here.

Is it the media’s fault if it influences a jury that disobeys a judge’s instructions? No, but call me old-fashioned – wouldn’t it be nice if the media showed more responsibility and waited until a trial was over before it revealed all?
But that's what they do! They don't - they can't - write about something that is not said before a jury. If they do, they are in trouble.

Any way, that’s by the by. My real issue with this thread is the truly obnoxious behaviour of santosubito and flogen. That mere sentence may well lead to – good Lord! – a ban, but in time I will come to terms with my punishment. I may even repent one day.



Is that the best you can do? Mock someone who you deem to be your intellectual inferior? Honestly, it took me back to the days when I witnessed bullying in the schoolyard! You are someone so in awe of your own articulacy, as you regard it, you choose to spew smart ar$ed bile all over anyone you stumble upon when you’re in the mood. May I humbly suggest that you grow up?

Suggest away. I disagreed with what he had to write and I told him. I don't think I was mocking anyone. If you read his posts, I think you'll agree that they were structureless, lacking in any clear ideas and, in my humble opinion, incoherent. He simply couldn't back them up. Like you, I resorted to the dictionary. The definition of incoherent is: without logical or meaningful connection; disjointed; rambling: an incoherent sentence.


Wow - is that the role of Mods on Boards.ie, to join in with the smart-ar$es and ridicule people simply because they don't agree with their arguments or believe them to be factually weak? Or, perhaps, they are so weak themselves they prefer to side with the forum’s bullies?

I double-checked the definition of moderate: “control, check, temper, restrain, subdue; repress, tame, lessen, decrease, lower, reduce, diminish, alleviate, allay, appease, assuage, ease, soothe, calm, tone down”.

Flogen/Mr Maguire? Get over yourself. Being a Mod on an internet forum really doesn't make you special - it just means you have a lot of time on your hands. Do your moderating job and quit sneering at those who are rounded upon by the smart ar$es, simply because you think it makes you look smart. It doesn’t. It is pathetic. If you believe someone to be wrong on Boards.ie at least have the good grace to argue it out with them, leave the schoolyard bullying to santosubito.


I think you're overreacting a tad. It's a discussion board, surely we're supposed to discuss things and challenge people's views? I disagreed with what the poster wrote and I challenged him on it. It's not as if I personally abused him - I attacked his wrong (in my humble opinion) views.


*The Irish Times

February 10, 2005

Newspapers and agency found not in contempt

BYLINE: Conor Lally

SECTION: Ireland; In The Courts; Pg. 4

LENGTH: 459 words

Two national newspapers and one of the State's best known news agencies escaped sanction at the Central Criminal Court yesterday following the publication of inaccurate media reports which led to a murder trial jury being discharged on Tuesday.
Mr Justice White discharged the jury in the trial of three men accused of murder in Drogheda two years ago after a report supplied by the Ireland International news agency appeared in the Star and the Irish Examiner.

The report incorrectly stated that the court had been told in evidence that the three murder accused had assaulted the victim. But in the case of one, Mr Robert Heaney (20), Hand Street, Drogheda, no evidence had been presented that he had assaulted the victim and the DPP had no intention of ever making such a case. He was facing the murder charge because the DPP believed he was part of a common enterprise.
When the report appeared in the newspapers it was accompanied by a photograph of Mr Heaney and his co-accused; Mr Mark Johnson (22), Church View Upper, Mell, Drogheda, and Mr Christopher Wood (26), Castle Grove, Julianstown, Co Meath.
They denied the murder of Russell Deane (28), Elmwood Drive, Drogheda, on February 1st, 2003 at his home.
On Monday Mr Justice White fined the Sun EUR 100,000 after he found it in contempt of court arising from its coverage of the trial. He ruled that the paper had made a deliberate and conscious effort to prejudice the trial's outcome when it referred to the accused as "brutes".
Yesterday the managing director of Ireland International, Mr Diarmaid MacDermott, told the court his agency had not informed the Star or the Irish Examiner of the earlier difficulties experienced by the Sun in its reportage of the trial.
In future he would keep newspapers to which he supplied copy informed of developments which took place in the absence of the jury so they would be fully informed. Mr MacDermott said his agency had worked at the courts for more than 20 years and problems had never arisen with its reports. He said the Star and the Examiner accepted and printed in good faith the copy supplied to them by his agency.
The mistake resulted from "human error" at his company and he apologised. The author of the inaccurate report, Ms Siobhan Gaffney, said she was aware of the gravity of the situation she had caused. She had checked the offending report "20 times" before sending it to the newspapers but did not see her mistake. She apologised to the court and all involved in the case.
Star editor Mr Ger Colleran, and Examiner editor Mr Tim Vaughan, also apologised to court and all involved in the case for reproducing the inaccurate report.
Mr Justice White imposed no sanction and made no ruling on costs.

flogen

Overdraft wrote: »

Wow - is that the role of Mods on Boards.ie, to join in with the smart-ar$es and ridicule people simply because they don't agree with their arguments or believe them to be factually weak? Or, perhaps, they are so weak themselves they prefer to side with the forum’s bullies?

I double-checked the definition of moderate: “control, check, temper, restrain, subdue; repress, tame, lessen, decrease, lower, reduce, diminish, alleviate, allay, appease, assuage, ease, soothe, calm, tone down”.

Flogen/Mr Maguire? Get over yourself. Being a Mod on an internet forum really doesn't make you special - it just means you have a lot of time on your hands. Do your moderating job and quit sneering at those who are rounded upon by the smart ar$es, simply because you think it makes you look smart. It doesn’t. It is pathetic. If you believe someone to be wrong on Boards.ie at least have the good grace to argue it out with them, leave the schoolyard bullying to santosubito.

Me being moderator doesn't prohibit me from giving an opinion. I don't expect that opinion to be given any more or less attention just because I'm a moderator.

I'm not going to turn this thread into a discussion about my moderating so if you think my opinion has hindered my ability to moderate then you can bring it up on Feedback. Otherwise back on topic here.

Handsome Bob

Kevster wrote: »

It's not opinion in my mind: It's pure fact that they are irresponsible. They do not report the news in an honest, impartial way. Yes, I did say 'honest' there. A previous editor of the News of the World once admitted that the newspaper fabricates some of their stories.

... ..oh, by the way (and this is something you won't be seeing on the front page of any tabloid (because they're all under the same company anyway)) the News of the World recently lost another court case for claiming an actress was pregnant when she wasn't.

That's at least three legal cases that newspaper has lost in the past year or so. Why are they still allowed to publish?

Thank You Kev. Overdraft, regardless of you not agreeing with me, what you had to say was much appreciated.

Santos, I'd be happy to debate you on the 'Irresponsibility of the Media' as a whole and 'controlling the media'. From coverage on current affairs to coverage on the celeb culture, just name your day. I came into an informal forum yesterday and I admit you caught me off guard with your doggedness on this subject, a subject I feel strongly about but wasn't properly prepared to argue with you. But if you want to debate on the issue of controlling the media, name the time and place and I will try my best to present you with a 'coherent' argument.

santosubito

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Thank You Kev. Overdraft, regardless of you not agreeing with me, what you had to say was much appreciated.

Santos, I'd be happy to debate you on the 'Irresponsibility of the Media' as a whole and 'controlling the media'. From coverage on current affairs to coverage on the celeb culture, just name your day. I came into an informal forum yesterday and I admit you caught me off guard with your doggedness on this subject, a subject I feel strongly about but wasn't properly prepared to argue with you. But if you want to debate on the issue of controlling the media, name the time and place and I will try my best to present you with a 'coherent' argument.

Well, what about here and now, seeing as the thread is titled controlling the media? I think you'll find I feel strongly about this as well, as it is my career. The web is inhabited by people who have opinions abouty the media, but nothing to back them up. I welcome many, informed, debate. Fire away. Just don't get annoyed - and go off on a tangent about being patronised, or whatever - if you lose.

Handsome Bob

I am currently doing assignments in Uni so I cannot have this debate right now. How about Thursday, I will be free all day. Just to reiterate, this will be a broad debate on the media, covering alot more than what we spoke of yesterday.

Handsome Bob

Any volunteers to preside and judge this debate?

santosubito

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I am currently doing assignments in Uni so I cannot have this debate right now. How about Thursday, I will be free all day. Just to reiterate, this will be a broad debate on the media, covering alot more than what we spoke of yesterday.

Oh great, a debate on meeja.
Can we extend it to people writing nonsense on the internet, so? By that I don't necessarily mean just you - the news and media section of this board is populated by a lot of people who spout generalities about reporters and the business without actually having a clue.

Thursday isn't good for me. I work.

Handsome Bob

santosubito wrote: »

Oh great, a debate on meeja.
Can we extend it to people writing nonsense on the internet, so? By that I don't necessarily mean just you - the news and media section of this board is populated by a lot of people who spout generalities about reporters and the business without actually having a clue.

Thursday isn't good for me. I work.

You don't want it to be between me and you? Why is that, are you assuming that I on my own is not enough of a challenge for you?

You can pick a day after Thursday.

santosubito

LZ5by5 wrote: »

You don't want it to be between me and you? Why is that, are you assuming that I on my own is not enough of a challenge for you?

You can pick a day after Thursday.

What? What?
I don't care with whom I have the debate. But read my post again. I didn't write that I didn't want to debate with you alone. I wrote that I want to include as a subject people writing crap on this site. This is a medium, is it not? People here should be accountable for what they write. But, to be fair and no harm to you, you don't offer much of a debate, do you? I envisage you'll come off with a few generalisations and have nothing to back them up.

Handsome Bob

santosubito wrote: »

What? What?
I don't care with whom I have the debate. But read my post again. I didn't write that I didn't want to debate with you alone. I wrote that I want to include as a subject people writing crap on this site. This is a medium, is it not? People here should be accountable for what they write. But, to be fair and no harm to you, you don't offer much of a debate, do you? I envisage you'll come off with a few generalisations and have nothing to back them up.

Your arrogance is over-whelming. This debate is a fresh start between me and you so you don't even know what angle i'll come at you from.

If we are going to this, we should do it right.

• There must a fixed deadline for the period of debating. For example if we do it on Friday debating time is between 13:00 and 17:00. It is over after that
• If we don't have a judge, then there is no point in doing this. I would prefer more than one judge aswell.

You can use whatever you want, quote whoever the **** you want.

santosubito

You're becoming a little bit self important here.
Why do you need judges, or should that be a jury?
Just write what you want.
Then I'll set you straight.

Handsome Bob

santosubito wrote: »

You're becoming a little bit self important here.
Why do you need judges, or should that be a jury?
Just write what you want.
Then I'll set you straight.

Because I have done this before. **** debates are usually ones with no structure and just go on and on and on and descend into farce.

Good debates consist of two arguments being made, then dissection of each one's argument under a strict deadline. Deadlines keep the debate on focus. And what will happen without someone to judge the debate? You saying that you are right and dismissing my argument as incoherent?

santosubito

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Because I have done this before. **** debates are usually ones with no structure and just go on and on and on and descend into farce.

Good debates consist of two arguments being made, then dissection of each one's argument under a strict deadline. Deadlines keep the debate on focus. And what will happen without someone to judge the debate? You saying that you are right and dismissing my argument as incoherent?

But that's the beauty of this board: people can see for themselves that you were talking nonsense because it is there in black and white, for everyone to see. Forever.
You really think I'm going to sit down and have a internet debate with you on any given day? I'm a reporter, for God's sake. Just say something happens in real life?

Handsome Bob

santosubito wrote: »

But that's the beauty of this board: people can see for themselves that you were talking nonsense because it is there in black and white, for everyone to see. Forever.
You really think I'm going to sit down and have a internet debate with you on any given day? I'm a reporter, for God's sake. Just say something happens in real life?

A fine one I am sure too. I am not going to waste my time on a debate where you will let your EGO decide you are the winner, regardless of what points I make.

flogen

Lads, seriously - either have the discussion or don't.

By all means you should set the boundaries of the discussion you want to have but the fact that you can't agree on that critical detail suggests this is a lost cause anyway.

If neither side believes that the other is honest enough to hold their hands up if they're proven wrong, then I'd say just don't bother having the debate at all. Having all the hullaballo of a rigid debate (which in my opinion is impractical in a casual discussion-based forum) won't change anything.

If this back-and-forth sniping continues then it'll be clear to me that a civil discussion isn't possible and the thread will be locked.

Handsome Bob

flogen wrote: »

If this back-and-forth sniping continues then it'll be clear to me that a civil discussion isn't possible and the thread will be locked.

By all means, close this thread. I am not having a bottomless discussion on this subject because they go nowhere.