"Gilmore points to Taoisigh over downturn"

Sully

Does nobody proof read the articles on RTE's website? Iv never been a huge fan of their website for news, or their website in general but I had a bit of a laugh at a title for one of their news articles;

Gilmore points to Taoisigh over downturn
Labour leader Eamon Gilmore has said Taoiseach Brian Cowen and his predecessor must take responsibility for the economic downturn.

He was speaking on the first day of a special party meeting ahead of the Dáil term.

Labour TDs and Senators are gathering in Clonmel, Co Tipperary to discuss the party's priorities in the political term ahead.
Advertisement

The party leader is due to set out his proposals for economic recovery at the meeting.

Speaking earlier on the News At One, Mr Gilmore claimed that in particular Minister Brian Lenihan appeared to be out of his depth in the Department of Finance.

Mr Gilmore said the decision to move the Budget to October seemed to have been made for appearances only.

Source: http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0910/labour.html

Silly mistake to make in the title of the post. Unless I am missing something?

brianthebard

Taoisigh is the plural of Taoiseach isn't it?

Sully

brianthebard wrote: »

Taoisigh is the plural of Taoiseach isn't it?

No idea. I took it as a spelling mistake, but no matter how useless the website is I had my doubts such a mistake would be left up for so long. But.. maybe it is plural?

EDIT: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080709235546AAimlQo

Didn't do Irish, so that's why I missed it!

flogen

Sully wrote: »

No idea. I took it as a spelling mistake, but no matter how useless the website is I had my doubts such a mistake would be left up for so long. But.. maybe it is plural?

EDIT: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080709235546AAimlQo

Didn't do Irish, so that's why I missed it!

Aye, Taoisigh is plural of Taoiseach.

On the same topic, this headline got my attention today... just seems a bit odd for a news outlet to refer to black people as 'blacks'.

brianthebard

Sully wrote: »

No idea. I took it as a spelling mistake, but no matter how useless the website is I had my doubts such a mistake would be left up for so long. But.. maybe it is plural?

EDIT: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080709235546AAimlQo

Didn't do Irish, so that's why I missed it!

I found this dictionary last week, and its very useful, if you were ever wondering about something similar again.

flogen wrote: »

Aye, Taoisigh is plural of Taoiseach.

On the same topic, this headline got my attention today... just seems a bit odd for a news outlet to refer to black people as 'blacks'.

Well as you know yourself, headlines have to be as brief as possible, so to include all the people being discriminated against they used blacks, rather than "Latin Americans, Africans, Australians, North Americans, etc. face job discrimination" or at least that's what I thought.

flogen

brianthebard wrote: »

Well as you know yourself, headlines have to be as brief as possible, so to include all the people being discriminated against they used blacks, rather than "Latin Americans, Africans, Australians, North Americans, etc. face job discrimination" or at least that's what I thought.

Of course and I know why they focus on black people in the headline as the study seems to find that they are the most discriminated against.

My problem isn't the decision to focus on one minority over another but the use of the word 'blacks' as opposed to something like 'black people'.

In an online context headline size isn't quite as critical as it is in print and you could still fit a better term into a headline with just as few words; for example:

Study finds job discrimination against minorities
or
Black job-seekers discriminated against: Study

I'd imagine a subby would be able to come up with some far better ones than that.

brianthebard

I see what you are getting at, fair point.

Stargal

flogen wrote: »

On the same topic, this headline got my attention today... just seems a bit odd for a news outlet to refer to black people as 'blacks'.

I noticed this earlier today and actually did a double-take. It stood out a mile for being so awkward and well,wrong.

'Blacks' shouldn't be used as a noun to describe a group of people when it actually means 'black job-seekers'. It sounds almost colonial to use it the way RTÉ did.

Isn't it about time that we started a sticky dedicated to the routine crapness and unprofessionalism foisted upon us by the RTÉ news page?

flogen wrote: »

In an online context headline size isn't quite as critical as it is in print and you could still fit a better term into a headline with just as few words; for example:
Study finds job discrimination against minorities
or
Black job-seekers discriminated against: Study

Exactly.

bill_lehane

Hi there

I logged on to boards.ie looking for something interesting about my field of work, and lo and behold find a string of comments about my work! Pretty weird I can tell you.

1. It's extraordinary how little known the word 'taoisigh' is. Although it doesn't come in to play too often, it was spot on in this case.

2. A couple of my colleagues also had reservations about the discrimination study headline, but it stayed in and I don't think it's wrong. I would encourage anyone who thinks it is too strong language to actually read what the study turned up with. More so than any ethnic minority, black people get a raw deal in this country and nobody's talking about it.

All comments welcome

Regards

Bill Lehane
http://onesillybilly.blogspot.com

brianthebard

Yes it was established that black people were being discriminated against, people here thought your use of the terms "blacks" was a poor choice of words, which you haven't addressed above?

bill_lehane

Hi there

Well if you follow the link to the actual study, you'll find the ESRI analysis is based on Census data, and it was the CSO that, controversially admittedly, decided on the 'Black' appelation in the first place. So the people concerned would have ticked a box calling themselves 'Black' on the Census. Moreover I don't see any other term that fits in this context.

Regards

Bill Lehane
http://onesillybilly.blogspot.com

flogen

bill_lehane wrote: »

Hi there

Well if you follow the link to the actual study, you'll find the ESRI analysis is based on Census data, and it was the CSO that, controversially admittedly, decided on the 'Black' appelation in the first place. So the people concerned would have ticked a box calling themselves 'Black' on the Census. Moreover I don't see any other term that fits in this context.

Regards

Bill Lehane
http://onesillybilly.blogspot.com

That's fair enough but it misses the point again.

It's not that you shouldn't refer to black people as black people (I think the whole 'African-American' thing is a bit stupid as it's not always accurate), but the problem is describing the minority as "blacks" as opposed to "black people".

The best way I can describe it is as seeming a little bit dismissive.

Stargal

bill_lehane wrote: »

A couple of my colleagues also had reservations about the discrimination study headline, but it stayed in and I don't think it's wrong. I would encourage anyone who thinks it is too strong language to actually read what the study turned up with. More so than any ethnic minority, black people get a raw deal in this country and nobody's talking about it.

All comments welcome

Regards

Bill Lehane

I think it's great that you responded to this thread. It's a v interesting topic.

Flogen has put it better than I could have; the issue isn't about whether 'blacks' is too strong a word, as you seem to suggest; it's whether or not it's a derogatory way to refer to people.

As a comparison, the Guardian style guide suggests that it should never be used:

The words black and Asian should not be used as nouns, but adjectives: black people rather than "blacks", an Asian woman rather than "an Asian", etc

The study itself was both fascinating and depressing. That's not the point. The use of the word was wrong. It's one thing for people to tick a box saying Black, as in the Census. It's another to define them solely by that in a news report.

mike65

Blacks is a bit like Whites - you wouldn't use it.

Mike.

Radio Mad.

mike65 wrote: »

Blacks is a bit like Whites - you wouldn't use it.

Mike.

Does that mean the use of 'Greens' is wrong as well

bill_lehane

Hi there

Thanks for all your comments, which I will take fully into consideration in future.

Broadly speaking I don't think the book is written yet on Ireland's new population and its consequent implications for language sensitivity.

Neither can we just copy the Guardian, which is operating in a country of multiple generations of immigration.

For example, the Guardian also rules out the phrase 'ethnic minorities', presumably because of the many British-born Black, Asian etc people.

Of course there are 'hyphenated Irish', to borrow a terrible phrase, as well, but most of this country's immigration has happened during Mary McAleese's time in Áras an Uachtaráin!

Regards

Bill.

P.S. As a pointer to the broad church the site reaches, the only comment received on the particular story was a woman who said, after her grammar was cleared up: 'just to add to your report, it's not because they're black it's because they're lazy.'

flogen

bill_lehane wrote: »

Hi there

Thanks for all your comments, which I will take fully into consideration in future.

Broadly speaking I don't think the book is written yet on Ireland's new population and its consequent implications for language sensitivity.

Neither can we just copy the Guardian, which is operating in a country of multiple generations of immigration.

For example, the Guardian also rules out the phrase 'ethnic minorities', presumably because of the many British-born Black, Asian etc people.

Of course there are 'hyphenated Irish', to borrow a terrible phrase, as well, but most of this country's immigration has happened during Mary McAleese's time in Áras an Uachtaráin!

Regards

Bill.

P.S. As a pointer to the broad church the site reaches, the only comment received on the particular story was a woman who said, after her grammar was cleared up: 'just to add to your report, it's not because they're black it's because they're lazy.'

All fair points and as you know yourself there's no right way to do these things, just a few wrong ways (which is a separate debate in itself).

Regardless a tip of the cap must be offered to you for coming on and discussing the article, whatever conclusion the discussion reaches; assuming there is one. To me the most kudos-worthy part of this is not that you came here and contributed, however, it's that you did so without any kind of over-bearing ego or siege mentality.

If all journalists and news organisations were as willing to calmly talk through their output the trade as a whole would be far better for it in my opinion - sadly time constraints, ingrained notions and a general apathy mean that many won't ever do so.