Are the papers a threat to society

Joey the lips

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-drennan/john-drennan-adams-facing-battle-for-last-seat-2548151.html


Anyone that following the independent and the Herald the last week of the lead up to the election would have been justified in thinking there was an orcastrated campagn against Sinn Fein. Every day there was pages about them. I wondered if it done more good then harm at the time as although negative publicity its was publicity none the less

But what got me most was the above headline. Is this a sign of poor investigative journalism?

Or simply a papers attempts to disrupt the course of politics?

Either way there is one thing that can be learned from it. The papers got it so so wrong. Instead of a wipe out Adams was indeed a pole topper.

Now as a republician i would be labeled a cynic for saying the papers orcastrated a campagn against adams and sinn fein

However as a cynic i would be correct to think it.

Now that Fianna fail and indeed the greens have been wiped out Fine Gael can do no wrong. So going forward what is politically left for the papers to report on....?

More poor investigative journalism perhaps?


Give me the sun anyday.... at least that has pictures.

sollar

I've found that some of the foreign papers were able to give a better perspective on what has been happening here than some of our own papers.

Quite often some of our irish papers were focusing on a narrow interest such as hounding a particular politician or some other silly target.

Isn't our best selling broadsheet paper owned by a high profile tax avoider. How were they going to highlight the problem of government being in bed with big business over the last 15 to 20 years.

Nodin

Joey the lips wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-drennan/john-drennan-adams-facing-battle-for-last-seat-2548151.html


Anyone that following the independent and the Herald the last week of the lead up to the election would have been justified in thinking there was an orcastrated campagn against Sinn Fein. Every day there was pages about them. I wondered if it done more good then harm at the time as although negative publicity its was publicity none the less

But what got me most was the above headline. Is this a sign of poor investigative journalism?

Or simply a papers attempts to disrupt the course of politics?

.

The latter. "sources" is a notorious a method for editoralising. If Adams was behind, and they'd genuine reason to believe he was behind, why didn't they commission a poll and clatter him with the truth?

Shea O'Meara

Most newspapers are bias one way or the other, either politically or towards advertisment/whom ever holds the purse strings.
This has always been the way.
One can only read a couple and find the facts somewhere in the middle.

Denerick

Sigh. Anti FF partisans were and are convinced that RTE has/had a FF bias. (Presumably now FG/LAB are in power FF partisans will be convinced RTE has a FF/FG bias) Sinn Féiners see enemies around every corner (Perhaps to be expected since most of them are admirers of quasi fascist and quaint 19th century based ultra nationalist militarism) and hence everyone has a bias against them.

No, papers are not a threat to society. They are the oxygen through which civic society and democracy can breathe.

Frankly, were SF to ever become an overall majority in this state, in their present political form, I can envisage widespread censorship and repression and a mildly authoritarian regime. Marxist parties are all the same when it comes down to it, they literally have no respect for liberty or dignity. The title of this thread says it all... 'A danger to society'. The subtext being that in order to 'cleanse society' we must first 'eliminate those voices that dissent against us' and 'for the common good, create a new socialist order were all will be equal and none will be free'.

Rhetorical splurge is deliberate.

Laminations

Denerick wrote: »

The title of this thread says it all... 'A danger to society'. The subtext being that in order to 'cleanse society' we must first 'eliminate those voices that dissent against us' and 'for the common good, create a new socialist order were all will be equal and none will be free'.

WTF?

The OP is not advocating the elimination of dissenting voices in the media, they are highlighting the possible censorship of dissenting voices by the media, and the use of the media to shape opinion in line with an agenda.

Is mainstream general circulation media available to all to circulate their opinions?
No. Papers are expensive businesses. Owners and editors can have agendas.

Can the media be used as a form social control, to shape opinion and courage favour in some direction?
Yes. This is the aim of propaganda.

Is the media in Ireland propagandist in nature?
This is the debatable part. I personally think that generally it is not.

But the OP has a point, poor gutter journalism is a danger to society and shouldn't be acceptable.. We need and deserve higher standards in our print and broadcast media. I doubt you'd be so quick to proclaim the media as the oxygen of civic society if every editor was a leftist sinn feiner. If media standards are not enforced then all the papers do is provide a podium for a particular agenda rather than serve their function of informing the public in an unbiased way

Dannyboy83

All of the leaders were attacked and praised in all manner of ways throughout the election.

Gerry Adams doesn't deserve special treatment.

Joey the lips

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

All of the leaders were attacked and praised in all manner of ways throughout the election.

Gerry Adams doesn't deserve special treatment.

I never said Gerry adams does deserve special treatment and this is not particurlary focused on Sinn Fein but more the make up of the reporting.

Anyone who read the Herald that week would have been of the opinion that Gerry Adams would be wiped out in louth. Where do they get this information from and how was it so wrong???

Anyone who read about Fine Gael would that week or finna fail would have identified they had struggles to overcome but they were based on polls.

None of that reporting was clearly researched or focused that attacked Gerry Adams.

I can agree to some point that the papers might be worried about Sinn Fein policies but I wonder is it because of the constant attacks they have carried out against them or is it an attack on the papers way of life itself.

We are always sold reporting as being unbiased. We clearly know that this is not the case. However to continue a week long soldid attack against one canidate and get it so wrong is clearly the sign of desperate reporting.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because Drennan wrote a piece saying that Adams would struggle, yet in his suppliment on the election the previous week, stated Adams would top the poll. It was clearly an attempt to derail the Adams campaign. Also, the entire McConville family 'campaign' against him was entirely contrived by the Indo and Sindo.

The Indo have a long history of polemicising and trying to influence the election. The ILLEGAL front page editorial in 1997 calling for a FF vote is a prime example?

A threat to society is probably a bit harsh, but its fundamentally anti-democratic the manner in how some of the Irish media 'target'' political figures and go out to influence the electorate. Forming a campaign to go after an election candidate is far beyond investigtave journalism.

I'm sure you have read your Chomsky etc.

OhNoYouDidn't

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

All of the leaders were attacked and praised in all manner of ways throughout the election.

Gerry Adams doesn't deserve special treatment.

He did in this case.

I am no Shinner, or Adams fan, but the Indo went full steam ahead to try and stop him being elected. They consistantly tried to make the news on it.

meditraitor

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Because Drennan wrote a piece saying that Adams would struggle, yet in his suppliment on the election the previous week, stated Adams would top the poll. It was clearly an attempt to derail the Adams campaign. Also, the entire McConville family 'campaign' against him was entirely contrived by the Indo and Sindo.

The Indo have a long history of polemicising and trying to influence the election. The ILLEGAL front page editorial in 1997 calling for a FF vote is a prime example?

A threat to society is probably a bit harsh, but its fundamentally anti-democratic the manner in how some of the Irish media 'target'' political figures and go out to influence the electorate. Forming a campaign to go after an election candidate is far beyond investigtave journalism.

I'm sure you have read your Chomsky etc.

There was nothing anti democratic about the anti sf/labour/left onslaught in both the media or boards as it based on the a majority of opinions (citizens)leaning towards FG.
If the majority of opinions leaned towards SF I am positive the media and boards would have been a SF love in and we would have FG supporters and canvasers on here complaining about bias or seamingly undemocratic behaviour.

OhNoYouDidn't

meditraitor wrote: »

There was nothing anti democratic about the anti sf/labour/left onslaught in both the media or boards as it based on the a majority of opinions (citizens)leaning towards FG.
If the majority of opinions leaned towards SF I am positive the media and boards would have been a SF love in and we would have FG supporters and canvasers on here complaining about bias or seamingly undemocratic behaviour.

The very fact that you think that an 'onslaught' against certain political figures based on a media stables interpretation of the opinion polls is acceptible is entirely the point that is being made.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

EarlERizer

Did anyone on here really cast their vote based on what they read in the press? and if so do you reckon thats why FG romped it?

meditraitor

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The very fact that you think that an 'onslaught' against certain political figures based on a media stables interpretation of the opinion polls is acceptible is entirely the point that is being made.

Thats life, break it down to a micro level in human interaction and its an everyday thing. Everyone has an agenda. But being obviuosly bias for or against someone is not anti democratic. Democracy

Democracy is a form of political organization in which all people, through consensus (consensus democracy), direct referendum (direct democracy), or elected representatives (representative democracy) exercise equal control over the matters which affect their interests

The fact that the OP is highlighting the obvious biases of the indo journalist is democracy but the bias itself is not anti democratic. Bias by it very nature is either inherent or manipulatative in function so it really is just human nature.

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But we aren't talking about a paper rooting for one party over another or criticism of what a political figure did or didn't do. Thats not a problem and wasn't what the OP reffered to.

The Indo organised a group of malcontents to protest about Adams and then reported it as a grassroots movement. There was a level of panic and hysteria over the past week when it became clear 45% of the electorate would vote for left leaning candidates. So they tried to do something about it ON THE GROUND. Thats a different kettle of fish.

They made the news and thats dodgy territory.

OhNoYouDidn't

meditraitor wrote: »

Thats life, break it down to a micro level in human interaction and its an everyday thing. Everyone has an agenda. But being obviuosly bias for or against someone is not anti democratic. Democracy



The fact that the OP is highlighting the obvious biases of the indo journalist is democracy but the bias itself is not anti democratic. Bias by it very nature is either inherent or manipulatative in function so it really is just human nature.

But its what you do with that agenda that is the issue being debated. We agree that certain papers have political bias. Thats not the problem. The question is how far should they go to push that bias.

Are front page editorials on election day a function of a free press?

Is bussing people in to Dundalk to protest against a politician who topped the poll what we expect from the national media?

There has to be a line somewhere. I happen to think the Indo crossed it. Now I happen to think that the Irish media cross that line routinely, and not just on political matters.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aDeener

Joey the lips wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-drennan/john-drennan-adams-facing-battle-for-last-seat-2548151.html


Anyone that following the independent and the Herald the last week of the lead up to the election would have been justified in thinking there was an orcastrated campagn against Sinn Fein. Every day there was pages about them. I wondered if it done more good then harm at the time as although negative publicity its was publicity none the less

But what got me most was the above headline. Is this a sign of poor investigative journalism?

Or simply a papers attempts to disrupt the course of politics?

Either way there is one thing that can be learned from it. The papers got it so so wrong. Instead of a wipe out Adams was indeed a pole topper.

Now as a republician i would be labeled a cynic for saying the papers orcastrated a campagn against adams and sinn fein

However as a cynic i would be correct to think it.

Now that Fianna fail and indeed the greens have been wiped out Fine Gael can do no wrong. So going forward what is politically left for the papers to report on....?

More poor investigative journalism perhaps?


Give me the sun anyday.... at least that has pictures.

don't worry they will go after fine gael too!

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The article above isn't particularily critical. It is, however, clearly dishonest in representing the facts on the ground in Louth.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We aren't talking about the ULA.

We are talking about the Indo, in this case, deliberatly misrepresenting what was happening in Louth and actively organising against Gerry Adams and SF on the ground.

This has nothing to do with him being 'sacrosanct' or whatever words you want to put in peoples mouths.

imitation

The indo is actually an awful rag, I used to read it a lot before but I can't decided if its gotten worse or because I didn't read the opinion columns before. Theres numerous examples of why, my personal Pets hates being one clueless columnist who writes "recession" guff like how she sneaked in a small bottle of vodka into a nightclub and then proceeded to buy cokes and add her own vodka (like soft drinks are all that cheap and somebody actually hard up just drinks at home or not at all).

There was also an article about an 18 year old who wrote some stupid statements about the girl killed in Mauritius on her facebook, because she did some photos for a local paper they decided it was reason enough to initiate a witch hunt against her.

Like anything the press has to be kept balanced in some fashion, they shouldn't be censored, but likewise they shouldn't be detrimental to society for the sake of selling a few papers.

There is always going to be a political bias in the papers, as they are written by people and owned by people, its unavoidable, the important thing is that the public understand this. I know when I was younger I hated the tabloid because they pass judgement, when really its the readers decision. The reality is that broadsheets do it too, just more subtly (or not in the indos case.)

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Now why was it dishonest?

I think in general we have a very poor media who are out of control, specifically the tabloids. Its nigh on impossible for anyone to defend themselves against on occasion naked lies written in the media. It seems to me perfectly logical that they would try and influence an election, such is their power and arrogance.

I agree that 'threat to society' is a phrase that is too strong, but they certainly do not contribute to Irish civil life.

When was the last genuinely big story broken by an Irish paper?

Joey the lips

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Its not a tedious sinn fein thread. I explained that. Your not following.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Because Drennan wrote a piece saying that Adams would struggle, yet in his suppliment on the election the previous week, stated Adams would top the poll. It was clearly an attempt to derail the Adams campaign. Also, the entire McConville family 'campaign' against him was entirely contrived by the Indo and Sindo.

The Indo have a long history of polemicising and trying to influence the election. The ILLEGAL front page editorial in 1997 calling for a FF vote is a prime example?

A threat to society is probably a bit harsh, but its fundamentally anti-democratic the manner in how some of the Irish media 'target'' political figures and go out to influence the electorate. Forming a campaign to go after an election candidate is far beyond investigtave journalism.

I'm sure you have read your Chomsky etc.

This clearly explains my point. It can be anything. I would have said it about Labour Fine Gael and Fiann Fail but the fact of the matter is the papers dont do this when it comes to them.

Even though Enda Kenny flopping out would make sensational headline.

Why dont they do it?

Becuase it would be seen as tabloid journalism... Thats why.

So there in is my point. What is ment to be a broadsheet. A decent newspaper can only show itself as being a prostitute and a whore with some other agenda.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Your ability to nitpick on a pedantic point and then go off on that tangent is as impressive as it is infuriating.

Have you anything to say on the topic in hand?

steelcityblues

Unfortunately for Drennan, it will be impossible to take him seriously on any level after that prediction.

marienbad

We need a more agressive press, not less. And if they get it wrong from time to time -so what, that is the inevitable price of press freedom. Gerry Adams is a big boy now.

Wildlife Actor

The problem with commercial newspapers is that the majority of readers either do not appreciate or cannot work out the source of the newspaper's agendas. Take the Indo Election 2007 story: Indo starts anti FF, then there's a meeting in TO'R's townhouse, then the Indo goes pro FF all the way, the FF win, then Harris gets senate seat. Now there was more than Harris' senate seat at play (the senate seat was most likely the decoy to detract speculation from the real deal). We may never know the real deal.

Move forward to 2010 and the Indo cheers FG all the way hoping for an overall majority. Clearly the indo's changed. Did it happen in 2009 when TO'R couldn't get FF to bail out Waterford Crystal? Was it something else? We may never know.

Free speech is sacrosanct. Agenda-driven newspapers cheapen free speech, especially when the agenda is hidden. But free speech should not suffer for that. Better to encourage bravery in blowing the whistle on behind the scenes deals and agendas. Boards.ie is the place for it. While everyone has an agenda (well, except me!), there are plenty people to pick up untruths, filtering, wordplay - all the things Chomsky warns us about (Manufacturing Consent) - and there is at least a reasonable chance that something approaching the truth will emerge to those who read with an open mind. Newspapers are nice to read but they're slowly destroying themselves due top commercial pressure and - judging by present standards - should be helped to perish.

Rant over for now.

marienbad

Love nor Money wrote: »

The problem with commercial newspapers is that the majority of readers either do not appreciate or cannot work out the source of the newspaper's agendas. Take the Indo Election 2007 story: Indo starts anti FF, then there's a meeting in TO'R's townhouse, then the Indo goes pro FF all the way, the FF win, then Harris gets senate seat. Now there was more than Harris' senate seat at play (the senate seat was most likely the decoy to detract speculation from the real deal). We may never know the real deal.

Move forward to 2010 and the Indo cheers FG all the way hoping for an overall majority. Clearly the indo's changed. Did it happen in 2009 when TO'R couldn't get FF to bail out Waterford Crystal? Was it something else? We may never know.

Free speech is sacrosanct. Agenda-driven newspapers cheapen free speech, especially when the agenda is hidden. But free speech should not suffer for that. Better to encourage bravery in blowing the whistle on behind the scenes deals and agendas. Boards.ie is the place for it. While everyone has an agenda (well, except me!), there are plenty people to pick up untruths, filtering, wordplay - all the things Chomsky warns us about (Manufacturing Consent) - and there is at least a reasonable chance that something approaching the truth will emerge to those who read with an open mind. Newspapers are nice to read but they're slowly destroying themselves due top commercial pressure and - judging by present standards - should be helped to perish.

Rant over for now.

Are you serious ? ''judging by present standards-should be helped to perish'' . take away a free and agressive press and you eliminate one of the pillars of democracy.

Reform the libel laws etc and let the attack dogs really loose I say. That is one of the reasons FF were able to get away with as much as they did.

Read a lot of papers and you will get all the balance you need, it is foolish to believe just one.

Denerick

marienbad wrote: »

Read a lot of papers and you will get all the balance you need, it is foolish to believe just one.

I think this is the key point.

I don't get all this hogwash about bias anyway. Bias exists no matter the format, papers and individuals just look silly trying to deny it. It comforts me that when I read the Guardian or London Independent (Two of my favourite papers) that they are unabashedly liberal/lefty orientated. It comforts me that the Economist is an essentially free market liberal organ. Why all the angst? I don't read the tabloids or the gutter press so I'm not affected by their nonsense.

Papers are determined by their readers. The reason why stories about Katie Price sell so well because a lot of idiots fill their vacuous minds with utter rot - part of a general diminishment of collective intellect over the past half century.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is the nub of the argument, accurately and succinctly summed up. Gone unrecognised with no thanks.
Bias in reporting is something we have to live with and learn to see through, legitimate criticism can be targeted as a smear campaign, but this is an instance of unfounded dishonest reporting. It appears to have just been made up, I don't care that it was about SF, I just don't think we should be accepting of such low standards of journalism.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree but you either recognised the point and chose to ignore it and talk about bias or you failed to recognise the point for the misleading thread title. Which is ironic that an unfounded thread title can throw you off the actual content, which is the acceptability of unfounded stories in the media...

Wildlife Actor

marienbad wrote: »

Are you serious ? ''judging by present standards-should be helped to perish'' . take away a free and agressive press and you eliminate one of the pillars of democracy.

Reform the libel laws etc and let the attack dogs really loose I say. That is one of the reasons FF were able to get away with as much as they did.

Read a lot of papers and you will get all the balance you need, it is foolish to believe just one.

No, I didn't say "take away a free and aggressive press". The way in which the newspaper industry works means that national newspapers are the furthest thing from a free or aggressive press. Newspapers toe the line because they need advertsising revenue and access to government. Blogs and forums are free of those constraints.

Libel laws are not preventing the important information getting out. That's a deflection, and the latest libel legislation cures much of the genuine issues. But newspapers will harp on about libel because it costs them: it's an economic agenda. A combination of deliberate suppression and plain laziness is the main cause of information being unreported.

Commentary and opinion presented as such is fine, but as Laminations and Nodin explained, misrepresenting facts is the problem. Journalists and their editors are free to filter out inconvenient facts and the newspaper format means that there isn't someone right there to point out the misrepresentation or filtering that hads happened. Newspapers package stories nicely without an opposing view, and reading a series of newspapers will not give you the facts. Sure, the squabble about this and that, but there agendas are not always different.

My point - and to get back to what I did and didn't say - is that newspapers are not reliable as sources of information. The future for those who want honest comment is in an open marketplace of opinions and facts, such as internet blogs and forums. It's not the perfect solution (there are expenses in investigative journalism and bloggers who don't make money from their posts and blogs will not be able to travel, say, to Libya to see what's happening). But the idea that journalists are bastions of free speech exposing truth and making honest comment is fantasy, unfortunately.

marienbad

Love nor Money wrote: »

No, I didn't say "take away a free and aggressive press". The way in which the newspaper industry works means that national newspapers are the furthest thing from a free or aggressive press. Newspapers toe the line because they need advertsising revenue and access to government. Blogs and forums are free of those constraints.

Libel laws are not preventing the important information getting out. That's a deflection, and the latest libel legislation cures much of the genuine issues. But newspapers will harp on about libel because it costs them: it's an economic agenda. A combination of deliberate suppression and plain laziness is the main cause of information being unreported.

Commentary and opinion presented as such is fine, but as Laminations and Nodin explained, misrepresenting facts is the problem. Journalists and their editors are free to filter out inconvenient facts and the newspaper format means that there isn't someone right there to point out the misrepresentation or filtering that hads happened. Newspapers package stories nicely without an opposing view, and reading a series of newspapers will not give you the facts. Sure, the squabble about this and that, but there agendas are not always different.

My point - and to get back to what I did and didn't say - is that newspapers are not reliable as sources of information. The future for those who want honest comment is in an open marketplace of opinions and facts, such as internet blogs and forums. It's not the perfect solution (there are expenses in investigative journalism and bloggers who don't make money from their posts and blogs will not be able to travel, say, to Libya to see what's happening). But the idea that journalists are bastions of free speech exposing truth and making honest comment is fantasy, unfortunately.

Everyone has an agenda, papers/tv/blogs, it is a multiplicityof sources that will give you perspective. And there can be no denying that we had the most restrictive press laws an any western democracy in the last 20 years, some of the stuff that was common knowledge in press circles from Haughey onwards could not be published here as the actions of De Rossa,Reynolds and a host of others has shown. Those laws were used to effectively gag the press and were a huge contributory factor as to why we are where we are today. Where else would you have the likes of Beverly Cooper-Flynn having the brazenness to try to ''vindicate'' her good name. That is the climate we as a society tolerated.

Of course newspapers are businesses, so what. If they don't respect their audience they wont last very long.

As for blogs , internets forums, I am afraid not so, not yet anyway. The fact of the matter is that ,notwithstanding a few brilliant examples 99% of all major stories are still broken by the traditional media. Wikileaks is a primes example- they have the information -but even they were only able to release that infor in partnership with Der Spiegel/The Guardian/NY Times as they simply do not have the resourses to fact check etc.

As long as the privacy of private citizens is respected everybody else, particulary the political classes are fair game.

ei.sdraob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Socialists of the extreme kind have a tendency to suppress free media and create own controlled propaganda puppets.
What we need is the media to start asking more questions and for silly libel and blasphemy laws to be done away with as well as freedom of information act reformed in order to allow more journalists to poke around.
Lack of transparency and secrecy leads to corruption, if only the media did its job (where allowed to) Ireland would be a different place now


aside: from what I remember the OP was all praises before for certain Chavez and his countries tightly controlled media...

karma_

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Socialists of the extreme kind have a tendency to suppress free media and create own controlled propaganda puppets.
What we need is the media to start asking more questions and for silly libel and blasphemy laws to be done away with as well as freedom of information act reformed in order to allow more journalists to poke around.
Lack of transparency and secrecy leads to corruption, if only the media did its job (where allowed to) Ireland would be a different place now


aside: from what I remember the OP was all praises before for certain Chavez and his countries tightly controlled media...

When all else fails, ignore the facts and blame the socialists.

Laminations

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Socialists of the extreme kind have a tendency to suppress free media and create own controlled propaganda puppets.
What we need is the media to start asking more questions and for silly libel and blasphemy laws to be done away with as well as freedom of information act reformed in order to allow more journalists to poke around.
Lack of transparency and secrecy leads to corruption, if only the media did its job (where allowed to) Ireland would be a different place now


aside: from what I remember the OP was all praises before for certain Chavez and his countries tightly controlled media...

ei are you on drugs? what does any of that have to do with an unfounded story by John Drennan? Apart from the bit about doing away with libel laws....which makes me ask agian, are you on drugs? legitimate criticism is fine, good investigative journalism is fine, making up stories (whether to suit an agenda or not) is not fine.

But hey you reached your quota for buzzwords with socialists, puppets and Chavez

ei.sdraob

karma_ wrote: »

When all else fails, ignore the facts and blame the socialists.

I am trying to get a job in a paper :P

Laminations wrote: »

But hey you reached your quota for buzzwords with socialists, puppets and Chavez

Its all there on record, the OP did participate in past threads on Chavez and did praise himself...

Laminations wrote: »

what does any of that have to do with an unfounded story by John Drennan? Apart from the bit about doing away with libel laws....which makes me ask agian, are you on drugs? legitimate criticism is fine, good investigative journalism is fine, making up stories (whether to suit an agenda or not) is not fine.

This is the same newspaper which gives collumn space to the likes of Kevin Myers and Allison O'Riordan, what makes this article "a threat to society"?

Laminations wrote: »

ei are you on drugs?

I wish

OhNoYouDidn't

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Socialists of the extreme kind have a tendency to suppress free media and create own controlled propaganda puppets.
What we need is the media to start asking more questions and for silly libel and blasphemy laws to be done away with as well as freedom of information act reformed in order to allow more journalists to poke around.
Lack of transparency and secrecy leads to corruption, if only the media did its job (where allowed to) Ireland would be a different place now


aside: from what I remember the OP was all praises before for certain Chavez and his countries tightly controlled media...

Is John Drennan a socialist? Did socialists introduce Ireland's libel and blasphemy laws?

If not, what has that rant got to do with anything?

ei.sdraob

Laminations wrote: »

But the OP has a point, poor gutter journalism is a danger to society and shouldn't be acceptable.. We need and deserve higher standards in our print and broadcast media. I doubt you'd be so quick to proclaim the media as the oxygen of civic society if every editor was a leftist sinn feiner. If media standards are not enforced then all the papers do is provide a podium for a particular agenda rather than serve their function of informing the public in an unbiased way

If you dont like what they write about then dont read it or buy it, they are a business vote with your wallet
Like I said the independent is famous for bad writers and have writers who troll for a living,
move on,
instead of trying to figure out way of silencing opinions you might not agree with it.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Is John Drennan a socialist? Did socialists introduce Ireland's libel and blasphemy laws?

If not, what has that rant got to do with anything?

The OP started a topic "Are the papers a threat to society"
the same OP supports SF and has sang praises for Chavez (who controls media in his socialist paradise)

He reads one article that he is not happy with and the papers become a "threat to society" out of a sudden :rolleyes:
maybe he should read the Socialist worker or something, You dont often see me defending the independent which is a rag most of the time, but to read one article and arrive at "the papers a threat to society" is "being on drugs"

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Because Drennan wrote a piece saying that Adams would struggle, yet in his suppliment on the election the previous week, stated Adams would top the poll. It was clearly an attempt to derail the Adams campaign. Also, the entire McConville family 'campaign' against him was entirely contrived by the Indo and Sindo.

The Indo have a long history of polemicising and trying to influence the election. The ILLEGAL front page editorial in 1997 calling for a FF vote is a prime example?
A threat to society is probably a bit harsh, but its fundamentally anti-democratic the manner in how some of the Irish media 'target'' political figures and go out to influence the electorate. Forming a campaign to go after an election candidate is far beyond investigtave journalism.

I'm sure you have read your Chomsky etc.

1. What was illegal about the newspaper publishing the "Payback" headline ? Ill suggest you consider the discourse of Barrington J in Murphy v IRTC when responding.
2.What Court/Tribunal determined it to be illegal ?
3.What law determines and regulates the print media to the extent that tacit or overt partisanship is illegal ?

Joey the lips

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Socialists of the extreme kind have a tendency to suppress free media and create own controlled propaganda puppets.
What we need is the media to start asking more questions and for silly libel and blasphemy laws to be done away with as well as freedom of information act reformed in order to allow more journalists to poke around.
Lack of transparency and secrecy leads to corruption, if only the media did its job (where allowed to) Ireland would be a different place now


aside: from what I remember the OP was all praises before for certain Chavez and his countries tightly controlled media...

Its a shame your short term memory is not as good as your long term. I specifically said this is not the issue of an adams attack but the fact the papers got it so so wrong.

As for chavez is this a campagn of say it enough and it will stick... Simular to the articles themselves.

Please read my posts again.

Laminations

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If you dont like what they write about then dont read it or buy it, they are a business vote with your wallet
Like I said the independent is famous for bad writers and have writers who troll for a living,
move on,
instead of trying to figure out way of silencing opinions you might not agree with it.

People are entitled to opinions but the opinions should be based to some small extent on fact or at the very least portrayed as baseless opinion and not as 'reporting'. I'm not, and I don't think anyone else is, suggesting that opinions should be censored, I'm saying there should be journalistic standards when it comes to reporting - and in fact there are, so I suppose I'd like to see them enforced.

I'm aware that in bizarro libertarian land that we can all vote with our wallet:
a paper spouts lies, well just educate yourself and vote with your wallet
a company uses false advertising, just vote with your wallet
a company abuses its staff, just vote with your wallet

I don't mind second guessing the angle some stories are trying to use, I don't mind second guessing agendas, I don't even mind smear campaigns, but I do not agree with 'made up stories' as newspaper print, not even when it is passed off as opinion. I wouldn't get away with it here, so I expect print media to have better standards

ei.sdraob

Laminations wrote: »

People are entitled to opinions but the opinions should be based to some small extent on fact or at the very least portrayed as baseless opinion and not as 'reporting'. I'm not, and I don't think anyone else is, suggesting that opinions should be censored, I'm saying there should be journalistic standards when it comes to reporting - and in fact there are, so I suppose I'd like to see them enforced.

I'm aware that in bizarro libertarian land that we can all vote with our wallet:
a paper spouts lies, well just educate yourself and vote with your wallet
a company uses false advertising, just vote with your wallet
a company abuses its staff, just vote with your wallet

I don't mind second guessing the angle some stories are trying to use, I don't mind second guessing agendas, I don't even mind smear campaigns, but I do not agree with 'made up stories' as newspaper print, not even when it is passed off as opinion. I wouldn't get away with it here, so I expect print media to have better standards

Here you go

Ireland has a free press. This means, the Government does not censor or control the articles or stories the press choose to print. However, there are professional standards and behaviors that the print media must comply with. These professional standards and behaviors are set out in a Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals and enforced by the Office of the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council of Ireland.

Look I already said the Independent is not worth the paper its written off, but just because it might be a "rag" doesnt make it a "threat to society" the OP is seriously jumping the gun here.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

and all that

Joey the lips wrote: »

Its a shame your short term memory is not as good as your long term. I specifically said this is not the issue of an adams attack but the fact the papers got it so so wrong.

As for chavez is this a campagn of say it enough and it will stick... Simular to the articles themselves.

Please read my posts again.

This not the first time you made rumblings, if the media here and abroad doesnt fit you left oriented world view you come up with posts full of words such as
"propaganda" and "papers a threat to society".

We already have a country where the media are severely restricted (as the owner of this site likes to point out over and over) we don't need more nonsense.

Joey the lips

ei.sdraob wrote: »

This not the first time you made rumblings, if the media here and abroad doesnt fit you left oriented world view you come up with posts full of words such as
"propaganda" and "papers a threat to society".

We already have a country where the media are severely restricted (as the owner of this site likes to point out over and over) we don't need more nonsense.

I have no problem with unbiased media..... However clearly that week it was very biased. Like wise today it gave very poor coverage to the events in the dept of finance.

Media here is very very unbalanced and i will always rumble when it comes to it.

You still have not read my post and are simply skirting.

You dont work for the indo by any chance do you>

Denerick

Joey the lips wrote: »

I have no problem with unbiased media..... However clearly that week it was very biased. Like wise today it gave very poor coverage to the events in the dept of finance.

Media here is very very unbalanced and i will always rumble when it comes to it.

You still have not read my post and are simply skirting.

You dont work for the indo by any chance do you>

Do you support Venezualan style censorship of media outlets that do not favour your worldview?

Just asking, since I still find the title of this thread to be quite disturbing.

Joey the lips

Denerick wrote: »

Do you support Venezualan style censorship of media outlets that do not favour your worldview?

Just asking, since I still find the title of this thread to be quite disturbing.

Interesting. Do you care. Its this island i am looking at for the moment.

Between you and el this counts for a serious derailment but I made my point..

Perhaps you would like my views on why the yen is undervalued and how its contributing to chinas dominance in the world or why the indiginous pigmy tribes of south america should be given more rights when it comes to local media outlets.

Its aside the point.

My clear point here is "The broadsheets" who claim to be so representative of irish society got it so wrong... Not that day but that week. It was a clear campagn which failed and tbh i think from reading other comments here they contributed to there own failure.

Yesterday there was a full page spread given to the failure of the govt and the failure of it to listen to the civial service. It missed the oppertunity to quote bertie on his parting words that he just failed to build the bertie bowl.

Here is a man who brought the economy to its knees, knowingly and his lasting legacy wish was to completly screw us and build the bertie bowl.

How come the indo misses this.....? The dogs on the street dont! Even the star wont!



Give me the irish examiner any day.

Soldie

Joey the lips wrote: »

My clear point here is "The broadsheets" who claim to be so representative of irish society got it so wrong... Not that day but that week. It was a clear campagn which failed and tbh i think from reading other comments here they contributed to there own failure.

Where is this claim made? As far as I'm aware no such claim is made, and broadsheets (together with other media outlets) report on things in a selective and biased manner all the time. See this story, for instance, which was published by Fox News, which is widely considered to be a mouthpiece for the neoconservative moment.

Fox News wrote:

A source tells Fox News that the shooter yelled "Allah Akbar" when opening fire on the U.S. military personnel. He then dropped his gun at the scene, ran into the terminal and was subdued.

Your faux outrage seems to stem from the fact that you believe that broadsheets are something that they're not.

Denerick

Joey the lips wrote: »

Interesting. Do you care. Its this island i am looking at for the moment.

Between you and el this counts for a serious derailment but I made my point..

Perhaps you would like my views on why the yen is undervalued and how its contributing to chinas dominance in the world or why the indiginous pigmy tribes of south america should be given more rights when it comes to local media outlets.

Its aside the point.

My clear point here is "The broadsheets" who claim to be so representative of irish society got it so wrong... Not that day but that week. It was a clear campagn which failed and tbh i think from reading other comments here they contributed to there own failure.

Yesterday there was a full page spread given to the failure of the govt and the failure of it to listen to the civial service. It missed the oppertunity to quote bertie on his parting words that he just failed to build the bertie bowl.

Here is a man who brought the economy to its knees, knowingly and his lasting legacy wish was to completly screw us and build the bertie bowl.

How come the indo misses this.....? The dogs on the street dont! Even the star wont!



Give me the irish examiner any day.

I notice you didn't answer the question.