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.