RTE bias

SabAlliance

Honestly, I don't know how I am going to vote this time around. I'll admit I went with NO last time purely based on the fact that the government were trying to change something without giving any explanation or even reading the treaty themselves. Plus they were doing a very very bad job in every governmental sector.

This time around, I see some benefits for ratifying the treaty. Mostly fear of the unknown and fear of being left out of future European benefits.

What I HAVE to say though is that RTE are almost on the verge of making me vote NO. They are incredibly bias. Right now, I'm listening to a debate with Pat Kenny and Kenny is literally debating Declan Ganley on the issue. No independant mediator. Kenny is making no inroads in disecting the YES side, just continuely bringing the NO side up on irrelevant issues. It's insanity.

We're losing our democracy before we've even voted. What the hell.

PopeBuckfastXVI

SabAlliance wrote: »

Honestly, I don't know how I am going to vote this time around. I'll admit I went with NO last time purely based on the fact that the government were trying to change something without giving any explanation or even reading the treaty themselves. Plus they were doing a very very bad job in every governmental sector.

This time around, I see some benefits for ratifying the treaty. Mostly fear of the unknown and fear of being left out of future European benefits.

What I HAVE to say though is that RTE are almost on the verge of making me vote NO. They are incredibly bias. Right now, I'm listening to a debate with Pat Kenny and Kenny is literally debating Declan Ganley on the issue. No independant mediator. Kenny is making no inroads in disecting the YES side, just continuely bringing the NO side up on irrelevant issues. It's insanity.

We're losing our democracy before we've even voted. What the hell.

Out of curiosity, is it just Ganley and Kenny, or is there someone from the 'yes' side on too, that's supposed to be debating with Ganley.

If it's just Ganley and Kenny I can see the merit in Kenny playing 'devils advocate'.

Matt Cooper does this a lot, even if he has two people on from either side, he lays into them with opposite arguments, just to get them to justify their positions.

Also, do you think that Kenny has made any false points, which would point to bias towards the 'yes' side, rather than bias towards the truth?

I've personally got no problem with any amount of bias towards the truth.

OldJay

SabAlliance wrote: »

We're losing our democracy before we've even voted. What the hell.

It isn't an advertising platform. Its an interview.
Expect challenging questions when the alleged truth being uttered is in doubt.:rolleyes:

Euro_Kraut

SabAlliance wrote: »

What I HAVE to say though is that RTE are almost on the verge of making me vote NO. They are incredibly bias. Right now, I'm listening to a debate with Pat Kenny and Kenny is literally debating Declan Ganley on the issue. No independant mediator. Kenny is making no inroads in disecting the YES side, just continuely bringing the NO side up on irrelevant issues. It's insanity.

You are right. Kenny should not challenge him. Ganley should be allowed to speak uninterrupted for 20 mins.

SabAlliance

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Out of curiosity, is it just Ganley and Kenny, or is there someone from the 'yes' side on too, that's supposed to be debating with Ganley.

If it's just Ganley and Kenny I can see the merit in Kenny playing 'devils advocate'.

Matt Cooper does this a lot, even if he has two people on from either side, he lays into them with opposite arguments, just to get them to justify their positions.

Also, do you think that Kenny has made any false points, which would point to bias towards the 'yes' side, rather than bias towards the truth?

I've personally got no problem with any amount of bias towards the truth.

It's a group debate. Kenny shoots down the NO side after a couple of words but is allowing governmental ministers to waffle on for minutes. It's scary.

PopeBuckfastXVI

SabAlliance wrote: »

It's a group debate. Kenny shoots down the NO side after a couple of words but is allowing governmental ministers to waffle on for minutes. It's scary.

Imagine there was no-one else there, is he correct to shoot down what is being said? Is he shooting it down because it comes from the 'no' side, or because it's not the truth and deserves to be shot down?

Again, I'm not listening, and am trying to determine if the bias is towards the 'yes' side, or the truth.

ei.sdraob

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

You are right. Kenny should not challenge him. Ganley should be allowed to speak uninterrupted for 20 mins.

All hail Ganley

OldJay

SabAlliance wrote: »

It's a group debate. Kenny shoots down the NO side after a couple of words but is allowing governmental ministers to waffle on for minutes. It's scary.

No he isn't.
He's playing both sides off each other . . . fairly equally.
Expect the shooting down in flames of a lie to take slightly longer than it takes to utter a lie anyway. Ganley is being shown up for the simple reason that what he is claiming is bunkum diversion. Not because of RTE.

Euro_Kraut

SabAlliance wrote: »

It's a group debate. Kenny shoots down the NO side after a couple of words but is allowing governmental ministers to waffle on for minutes. It's scary.

Scary?? Come off it. You really are one most blanant shrills that have came on here recently.

If Ganley is spouting nonsense that Kenny as broadcaster has to challenge him. If some communist was in the debate I would expect the same thing.

When a campaign is losing, as the NO side are, is common to attack the media. The reality is that they are very few good reasons to vote NO. Ganley is a shady character and should not be given free reign on air.

SabAlliance

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Imagine there was no-one else there, is he correct to shoot down what is being said? Is he shooting it down because it comes from the 'no' side, or because it's not the truth and deserves to be shot down?

Again, I'm not listening, and am trying to determine if the bias is towards the 'yes' side, or the truth.

There are 'untruths' coming from every angle. It's a political debate! Kenny is stopping the NO siders before they finish their points so it's hard to know sometimes what they even going to say.

What's scary is that our media are being paid by our government. How can anybody oppose them?

I'm switching channels.

Cannibal Ox

There's a bunch of other people there, Joe Higgins, Mary Lou, Martin, and a few others. There's plenty from the yes side to shoot down Ganley, Kenny shouldn't be doing it. He did it to Mary Lou too. But than that's Kenny, I don't really expect him to be an independant adjudicator.

Euro_Kraut wrote:

If Ganley is spouting nonsense that Kenny as broadcaster has to challenge him. If some communist was in the debate I would expect the same thing.

Higgins is there, and Martin shot him down. It's not what Kenny should be doing, he's supposed to be neutrally hosting a debate, not shooting down either side.

Euro_Kraut

ei.sdraob wrote: »

All hail Ganley

When the Chairman speaks we all listen! He holds our people dear in his heart.

Praise for Declan!

PopeBuckfastXVI

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

There's a bunch of other people there, Joe Higgins, Mary Lou, Martin, and a few others. There's plenty from the yes side to shoot down Ganley, Kenny shouldn't be doing it. He did it to Mary Lou too. But than that's Kenny, I don't really expect him to be an independant adjudicator.

But can you confirm that he's unfairly and falsely shooting down ML or Ganley because they are on the 'No' side, or shooting down their statements as false?

If it's the former, there's a problem, if it's the latter, it's a pretty good justification of the license fee.

Cannibal Ox

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote:

But can you confirm that he's unfairly and falsely shooting down ML or Ganley because they are on the 'No' side, or shooting down their statements as false?

I would say he's interfering in the debate unfairly. He made a point against Mary Lou about Sinn Fein's past history with EU treaties. A fair point, but one he shouldn't be making. He was debating with Ganley for points that any of the yes side could have shot down.

I think there was enough yes siders there to do it, and Kenny, if he's supposed to be a neutral host, should be allowing them to do it, rather than doing it himself.

Edit: Again though, it's Pat Kenny, I expect him to get involved in a debate because that's who he is. He (thinks he?) is well informed on debates, and is primarily an interviewer, so I'm not surprised he's trying to get his word in on the debate. I didn't tune in to it expecting him not to get involved.

Kev_ps3

Not one bit surprising. We all know what RTE are at this stage..

turgon

Your going to vote no to the Treaty of Lisbon because a particular talk-show host of the state broadcaster may be biased. Read that sentence. Does that seem the right thing for you to do?

SabAlliance

turgon wrote: »

Your going to vote no to the Treaty of Lisbon because a particular talk-show host of the state broadcaster may be biased. Read that sentence. Does that seem the right thing for you to do?

I never said I was going to vote no. I said RTE (not one talk show host in particular) were on the VERGE of making me vote no. I turned the radio show off because the Kenny's bias was making me angry. Nothing to do with Ganley or the others on the show.

ei.sdraob

SabAlliance wrote: »

I never said I was going to vote no. I said RTE (not one talk show host in particular) were on the VERGE of making me vote no. I turned the radio show off because the Kenny's bias was making me angry. Nothing to do with Ganley or the others on the show.

to accuse someone of bias

means you already made your decision on the subject

see?

turgon

SabAlliance wrote: »

I never said I was going to vote no. I said RTE (not one talk show host in particular) were on the VERGE of making me vote no. I turned the radio show off because the Kenny's bias was making me angry. Nothing to do with Ganley or the others on the show.

Ok sorry, but is partly remains true. You are considering voting No to the Treaty of Lisbon because a particular talk-show host of the state broadcaster may be biased.

dresden8

Bryan Dobson was fairly hacking into Ganley the other evening.

Maybe if Ganley had said it was all for his children, with an onion induced tear in his eye, Dobbo would have gone easier on him.

Or maybe he's not in the right party.

SabAlliance

ei.sdraob wrote: »

to accuse someone of bias

means you already made your decision on the subject

see?

No. I listened to YES side, agreed to some point and disagreed with others. Then I tried to listen to the NO side and didn't get a chance because they were interrupted on almost every issue.

Your point is idiotic. Your point means that bias doesn't exist, and even if it does, we can't talk about it anyway because then we are bias. Stupid.

turgon wrote: »

Ok sorry, but is partly remains true. You are considering voting No to the Treaty of Lisbon because a particular talk-show host of the state broadcaster may be biased.

Not one host of the state broadcaster. Kenny is just another example. Morning Ireland is the same. So yes they are influencing my opinion on whether or not Lisbon is negative. It's the undertones to why RTE are bias or would NEED to be bias that I don't like.



If the group of monkeys in charge of this government get any kind of ego or praise for getting a treaty through that should have gone through without issue the first time around then I'm leaving this place. Modern Ireland is built on lies, corruption and greed. I'm sick of it.

Winters

Dont misinterpurt bias with "shoddy interviewer"

Irrespective of who he gives more voice to, he will appear bias to one side or the other as each side thinks they will not have got enough.

However I would support him, or any other presenter, cutting across someone, from either side, if what they are saying are blatent lies that need to be corrected and clarified (such as the minimum wage etc.).

SabAlliance

Winters wrote: »

However I would support him, or any other presenter, cutting across someone, from either side, if what they are saying are blatent lies that need to be corrected and clarified (such as the minimum wage etc.).

I agree with this completely. But on this occasion (and quite a few others) it didn't matter what Ganley was going to say because he never got to finish a point.

PopeBuckfastXVI

SabAlliance wrote: »

Not one host of the state broadcaster. Kenny is just another example. Morning Ireland is the same. So yes they are influencing my opinion on whether or not Lisbon is negative. It's the undertones to why RTE are bias or would NEED to be bias that I don't like.

I'll ask again, are they just calling people up on falsehoods or lies, and if so, is that not the right thing to do? I don't care who refutes a lie, and I don't care where it comes from.

prinz

dresden8 wrote: »

Bryan Dobson was fairly hacking into Ganley the other evening.

Dobson is there to present the news, i.e. facts. If someone wants to come on and selectively quote then Dobson has every right to call him on it. You may have noticed how Ganley was unable to respond to Dobson's request of what is actually in the article he was "quoting". Seems to me Ganley assumed he'd have it easy and wasn't expecting Dobson to actually know what he was talking about. IMO it was the first time I have seen Ganley put under some real pressure to admit the truth rather than people just trying to rebutt his nonsense and lies. If you watch the interview again you will see Dobson is reading from the Treaty itself..... Ganley wasn't.

If you call that "hacking" I fear for this country's future, where we accept lies as truth. It's amazing the people willing to accept any barefaced lie from a failed politician yet automatically assume that everybody else is trying to pull the world's biggest con trick.

SabAlliance

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'll ask again, are they just calling people up on falsehoods or lies, and if so, is that not the right thing to do? I don't care who refutes a lie, and I don't care where it comes from.

I'll answer AGAIN. They are interupting people long before they get a chance to make a point. Therefore, I do not know what Ganley etc. were going to say. Maybe they were going to tell me the tooth fairy was real, but at least allow him to tell me that before interupting him.

I agree completely that a broadcaster should only allow the truth to be debated, but Kenny was not only interupting but also pretty much voicing his own opinion on the issue, allbeit without actually confirming he will vote yes.

For the uninformed, and for those who take Kenny seriously (i.e. lots of listeners around the country) it isn't fair to invite the NO side to a debate whereby the debate will be one sided. If you weren't sure what way you were going to vote, and found out there was a debate on Kenny's show, then you expect some impartial views.

Scofflaw

SabAlliance wrote:

If the group of monkeys in charge of this government get any kind of ego or praise for getting a treaty through that should have gone through without issue the first time around then I'm leaving this place. Modern Ireland is built on lies, corruption and greed. I'm sick of it.

I'm afraid that if you have a good rootle around in the foundations, you'll find that it's not just modern Ireland that's built on lies, corruption and greed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

SabAlliance wrote: »

I agree with this completely. But on this occasion (and quite a few others) it didn't matter what Ganley was going to say because he never got to finish a point.

I heard the programme rather than listened to it. Yes, Pat Kenny challenged Ganley a few times -- when Ganley said things that were not firmly rooted in truth.

The idea that Ganley "never got to finish a point" is delicious. This man used to be a consummate heckler, talking down his opponents and using a well-rehearsed derisive laugh as skilfully as Vincent Browne uses his deep sigh. Last time around, Ganley had it easy. He was new, and relatively unknown. He played fast and loose with the truth, and was not effectively challenged by anybody -- he got away with it. Now he and his supporters are reduced to complaining that he isn't getting a free run. I am convinced that if he was more truthful and less inclined to interrupt others he would get an easier hearing.

P. Breathnach

SabAlliance wrote: »

... Kenny was not only interupting but also pretty much voicing his own opinion on the issue ...

That was not my perception. He was confronting questionable claims, the sort of claims that some might see as lies.

meglome

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I would say he's interfering in the debate unfairly. He made a point against Mary Lou about Sinn Fein's past history with EU treaties. A fair point, but one he shouldn't be making. He was debating with Ganley for points that any of the yes side could have shot down.

I think there was enough yes siders there to do it, and Kenny, if he's supposed to be a neutral host, should be allowing them to do it, rather than doing it himself.

Edit: Again though, it's Pat Kenny, I expect him to get involved in a debate because that's who he is. He (thinks he?) is well informed on debates, and is primarily an interviewer, so I'm not surprised he's trying to get his word in on the debate. I didn't tune in to it expecting him not to get involved.

I saw Bryan Dobson giving Ganley a bit of a hard time. I can either assume RTE is biased or that perhaps since Ganley is playing loose with the truth he needs to be challenged and RTE are doing their jobs properly by doing the challenging.

Euro_Kraut

dresden8 wrote: »

Maybe if Ganley had said it was all for his children, with an onion induced tear in his eye, Dobbo would have gone easier on him.

Like the little girl in the new Libertas poster?

dresden8

prinz wrote: »

Dobson is there to present the news, i.e. facts. If someone wants to come on and selectively quote then Dobson has every right to call him on it. You may have noticed how Ganley was unable to respond to Dobson's request of what is actually in the article he was "quoting". Seems to me Ganley assumed he'd have it easy and wasn't expecting Dobson to actually know what he was talking about. IMO it was the first time I have seen Ganley put under some real pressure to admit the truth rather than people just trying to rebutt his nonsense and lies. If you watch the interview again you will see Dobson is reading from the Treaty itself..... Ganley wasn't.

If you call that "hacking" I fear for this country's future, where we accept lies as truth. It's amazing the people willing to accept any barefaced lie from a failed politician yet automatically assume that everybody else is trying to pull the world's biggest con trick.

I was making the point that when he had a barefaced liar in front of him he accepted everything that was said, purely because he's from FF. Total and absolute bias in RTE.

I really object to paying the licence fee for this crap.

PopeBuckfastXVI

dresden8 wrote: »

I was making the point that when he had a barefaced liar in front of him he accepted everything that was said, purely because he's from FF. Total and absolute bias in RTE.

I really object to paying the licence fee for this crap.

Was the barefaced liar in question telling lies at the time?

dresden8

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Was the barefaced liar in question telling lies at the time?

Very much so.

dresden8

And don't forget, come Friday when this is all over we'll still be left with a compromised national broadcaster.

Just hope you're not on the other side of the arguement next time. It will really freak your t1ts out.

PopeBuckfastXVI

dresden8 wrote: »

Very much so.

Care to name and shame, and tell us what they said?

dresden8

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Care to name and shame, and tell us what they said?

You know as well as I do that's a banning offence. I ain't falling into that trap.

But you're being disingenuous in pretending not to know and pretending not to know about the lies, and the spectacularly soft interview the person involved received.

PopeBuckfastXVI

dresden8 wrote: »

You know as well as I do that's a banning offence. I ain't falling into that trap.

But you're being disingenuous in pretending not to know and pretending not to know about the lies, and the spectacularly soft interview the person involved received.

Jesus! I wasn't trying to trap you. I didn't see any reports with Dobson, or hear any interviews with Kenny.

I don't know who was interviewed or what lies they told. I want you to tell me because you know, and you are talking about them and I'd like to know what you are talking about. Otherwise what's the point in bringing it up.

If they were said in a public interview, and they are untrue, what's the problem with merely quoting what was said here?

Mods can you rule please?

prinz

dresden8 wrote: »

I was making the point that when he had a barefaced liar in front of him he accepted everything that was said, purely because he's from FF. Total and absolute bias in RTE.

I really object to paying the licence fee for this crap.

Sorry, Bryan Dobson accepted what barefaced lie? My post was relating to the Ganley interview on 6.01 news.

dresden8

I'll give you a 2 clues.

There were fears of anorexia and the person involved was very lucky in gambling.

Is this a politics website?

nesf

dresden8 wrote: »

You know as well as I do that's a banning offence. I ain't falling into that trap.

But you're being disingenuous in pretending not to know and pretending not to know about the lies, and the spectacularly soft interview the person involved received.

If you can show how it was public knowledge that X was untrue when Y said it, you can give examples. If it's the case that X was untrue but this was only public knowledge after Y said it then you can still give the example but it doesn't show Brian Dobson not challenging on lies that were not known to be lies at the time of the interview.

In general, if you can back up your statements with independent information/fact (i.e. not your opinion) then you can say them.

PopeBuckfastXVI

dresden8 wrote: »

I'll give you a 2 clues.

There were fears of anorexia and the person involved was very lucky in gambling.

Is this a politics website?

??

dresden8

We're not allowed say anything until the results of the Mahon Tribunal.

dresden8

Originally Posted by dresden8
I'll give you a 2 clues.

There were fears of anorexia and the person involved was very lucky in gambling.

Had a habit of skipping meals and winning on the gee gees.

nesf

dresden8 wrote: »

We're not allowed say anything until the results of the Mahon Tribunal.

Bah, yeah sorry. Forgot that was still in force.

prinz

dresden8 wrote: »

We're not allowed say anything until the results of the Mahon Tribunal.

dresden8 wrote: »

Had a habit of skipping meals and winning on the gee gees.

Sorry, but what does this have to do with bias in the Bryan Dobson and the Declan Ganley interview?

dresden8

prinz wrote: »

Sorry, but what does this have to do with bias in the Bryan Dobson and the Declan Ganley interview?

It's to do with bias overall within RTE.

Hard on one, a walk in the park for the right people.

PopeBuckfastXVI

dresden8 wrote: »

It's to do with bias overall within RTE.

Hard on one, a walk in the park for the right people.

Oh sorry, this wasn't an interview and lies about Lisbon? Well if you can't say what it's about, then fair enough.

My understanding from your posts was that you were claiming RTE were biased in their handling of the Lisbon referendum.

prinz

dresden8 wrote: »

It's to do with bias overall within RTE.
Hard on one, a walk in the park for the right people.

So you are admitting that there was actually no bias in the Ganley interview? Dobson was "hard" on Ganley because he knew full well the exact Article that Ganley was quoting selectively from, and merely asked Mr Ganley to accept that he was omitting critical information for a fair and balanced portrayal of piece of the Treaty he was 'quoting'.

dresden8

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Oh sorry, this wasn't an interview and lies about Lisbon? Well if you can't say what it's about, then fair enough.

My understanding from your posts was that you were claiming RTE were biased in their handling of the Lisbon referendum.

Only on the basis that they went for the outsider whilst being easy on an insider.

thetruthknower

SabAlliance wrote: »

Honestly, I don't know how I am going to vote this time around. I'll admit I went with NO last time purely based on the fact that the government were trying to change something without giving any explanation or even reading the treaty themselves. Plus they were doing a very very bad job in every governmental sector.

This time around, I see some benefits for ratifying the treaty. Mostly fear of the unknown and fear of being left out of future European benefits.

What I HAVE to say though is that RTE are almost on the verge of making me vote NO. They are incredibly bias. Right now, I'm listening to a debate with Pat Kenny and Kenny is literally debating Declan Ganley on the issue. No independant mediator. Kenny is making no inroads in disecting the YES side, just continuely bringing the NO side up on irrelevant issues. It's insanity.

We're losing our democracy before we've even voted. What the hell.

Unfortunately thats true however i would go even further and say that democracy always leads to oligarchy and thats where we are heading. Thats the whole goal of lisbon. Total power over the people by the few. The people at the top are really not interested in your say or your vote. They never have been. You are just an obstacle in their way to achieving this. They view you as say you would view a mouse you have in a small maze. At feeding time just need to close off certain sections and it will go the way you want to the cheese.

If you doubt this then ask yourself why we are even having this second vote. The answer is simple. Because they don't care about your vote. They only care about what they want to achieve. I know thats hard for some people to swallow who have been brainwashed into thinking that we live in a republic and we the people hold the power but thats really not the case. Anyone on the inside knows this.

You are just a moden day serf with no say and you are to do as you are told. All moden day laws are set up to prevent you from having any say in anything of any importance or ever getting into this circle. Ever wonder why these people are so arrogant on t.v.? Its because they are aware of the truth of what is really going on and comfortable with their assertions of who really holds the power.

The reason brian cowen and the government are so in favor of lisbon is that it gives them the opportunity as promised by their masters in brussels of becoming as close to infaliable dictators as one can become. No longer under the scrutiny of public law or the rigours of justice as a true republic is. And thats what lisbon is designed to do. Create a powerful unelected council that is awnserable to noone on anything and makes the rules for everyone on every issue that affects your life. With the power to determine habeas corpus, inheritence and property law(which they consider theirs) and military adventures(which you will be expected to sacrifice your life for not them).

Brian cowen and co care no more for a republic or the rule of law/equal rights for all then you care for paying your taxes. They are in it for what 'they' will recieve from getting a yes vote. And that directive is passed directly from their handlers in brussels.

People seem to think the want for control over people died with hitler and stalin. It never died it just took another form. Those espousing a yes vote always have a selfish interest for voting yes i.e the government has given them something or promised them something in return. That includes so called public broadcasters. Money talks.

On the rte issue, given the fact that rte is a state run organisation whose board is appointed by the government why would one expect it to be anything other then bias? They are there to fullfill a simple role. They do this by using fear tactics which are known to work on the general population (because see once you don't fear anything you become a danger to them) and bigging up empty promises which aren't worth even acknowledging.