Poor media coverage of presidential election

T runner

Is anybody else dispondent about the coverage of this election in the media?

The media has been concentrating solely on digging up dirt on candidates. While it is necessary to examine a candidates past to examine his/her suitability it should also be necessary to discover what each candidates expect to bring to the office. This is in oredr to help teh public make a balanced decision on who they feel is best for the job. ie the coverage should be balanced. Are the media letting us down by ensuring that the candidate with the least dirt that sticks is the one elected? Should the public expect more than this form of negative tabloid coverage?

raymon

T runner wrote: »

Is anybody else dispondent about the coverage of this election in the media?

The media has been concentrating solely on digging up dirt on candidates. While it is necessary to examine a candidates past to examine his/her suitability it should also be necessary to discover what each candidates expect to bring to the office. This is in oredr to help teh public make a balanced decision on who they feel is best for the job. ie the coverage should be balanced. Are the media letting us down by ensuring that the candidate with the least dirt that sticks is the one elected? Should the public expect more than this form of negative tabloid coverage?

Our president should be someone of integrity.

I support the media in exposing dishonesty and lies .( example Sean Gallagher )

A good background check is appropriate for the position.

It should filter out people like Gallagher

pubview

T runner wrote: »

Are the media letting us down by ensuring that the candidate with the least dirt that sticks is the one elected?

No. If they managed to do that, it would be an excellent public service.

28064212

It's because of the nature of the post.

Example: Ask Higgins what his position on financial regulation is. He'll probably say he's for a strong government and a large amount of regulation.

So what does that mean if he's elected? Eh... absolutely nothing. The presidency is not a place for policy. It is almost totally irrelevant what their stances are, at best they could delay a bill for 60 days, and make themselves immensely unpopular by doing so.

So what's left if policy is irrelevant? How can you criticise a politician if you can't point out that their policies are bad? Answer: Mud-slinging

GSF

you can get all the bland PR sunshine & lollipop stuff on the candidates in their [paid for] junk mailouts or on their websites, so why attack the press for reporting on legitimate aspects of the candidates characters that they are trying to hide?

T runner

raymon wrote: »

Our president should be someone of integrity.

I support the media in exposing dishonesty and lies .( example Sean Gallagher )

A good background check is appropriate for the position.

It should filter out people like Gallagher

I support a good background check also. My point is that they are doing this exclusivley and thus making the coverage unbalanced.

GSF wrote: »

you can get all the bland PR sunshine & lollipop stuff on the candidates in their [paid for] junk mailouts or on their websites, so why attack the press for reporting on legitimate aspects of the candidates characters that they are trying to hide?

But their policies dont get interrogated or questioned then. We need to see that they have integrity but also to examine what they propose to bring.

28064212 wrote: »

It's because of the nature of the post.

Example: Ask Higgins what his position on financial regulation is. He'll probably say he's for a strong government and a large amount of regulation.

So what does that mean if he's elected? Eh... absolutely nothing. The presidency is not a place for policy. It is almost totally irrelevant what their stances are, at best they could delay a bill for 60 days, and make themselves immensely unpopular by doing so.

So what's left if policy is irrelevant? How can you criticise a politician if you can't point out that their policies are bad? Answer: Mud-slinging

I would have said that Mary Robinsion brought a lot to the post. Brian Lenihan was rightly exposed but people caught onto what Robinsion said: her vision fro the job..and she delivered.

Victor

T runner wrote: »

it should also be necessary to discover what each candidates expect to bring to the office.

That is the job of the candidates and their respective campaigns.

LordSutch

The President should be someone of integrity .

I support the media in exposing dishonesty and lies. Example; Martin McGuinness.

A thorough background check is a prerequisite for the position.

Media coverage has a duty to filter out people like McGuinness for example . . .

raymon

LordSutch wrote: »

The President should be someone of integrity .

I support the media in exposing dishonesty and lies. Example; Martin McGuinness.

A thorough background check is a prerequisite for the position.

Media coverage has a duty to filter out people like McGuinness for example . . .

Absolutely , filter out liars

T runner

Victor wrote: »

That is the job of the candidates and their respective campaigns.

And it is only possible if the media give them air time. Again nothing wrong with exploring skeletons in closets. Doing it at the expense of everything else is wrong.

Liam Byrne

T runner wrote: »

And it is only possible if the media give them air time. Again nothing wrong with exploring skeletons in closets. Doing it at the expense of everything else is wrong.

What policies or opinions do you reckon would supercede a skeleton that implies that someone is a murderer or a liar ?

If someone is exposed like Gallagher as a liar, why would you believe anything they say during said air-time ?

bensam

evening echo had 2 page spread remembering tom barry
on monday night,but can anybody explain to me
what is the difference between tom barry and those who
took up arms to defend the people of the north,
the ira 1919--1921 shot more informers and spies than the provisional ira did,
1969--1994.

petronius

The Media (Print, TV and Radio) has been pathetic regarding the election.
While initially fawning on their media darling Norris, then stabbing him in the back, they seem to have gone after Davis for her boards and links, Gallagher for his FF past, Dana ridiculed then sleaze dug up, McGuinness attacked over his IRA past again and again as if people didnt know it, (and for fine gael leaders sitting with a Collins photo behind them its hypocritical!)
Mitchel pretty much dismissed by being a non-entity.
And Higgins, well he is let swan along without a blemish... no mention of previous policies, his party about to implement cuts and break election promises...

steelcityblues

petronius wrote: »

The Media (Print, TV and Radio) has been pathetic regarding the election.
While initially fawning on their media darling Norris, then stabbing him in the back, they seem to have gone after Davis for her boards and links, Gallagher for his FF past, Dana ridiculed then sleaze dug up, McGuinness attacked over his IRA past again and again as if people didnt know it, (and for fine gael leaders sitting with a Collins photo behind them its hypocritical!)
Mitchel pretty much dismissed by being a non-entity.
And Higgins, well he is let swan along without a blemish... no mention of previous policies, his party about to implement cuts and break election promises...

Labour are a party filled with old, and predictable gravy train merchants - who would not know a honesty day's work, if it him from them behind. In other words - they don't scare the elite, one bit.

That's why the coverage towards Higgins has been so deferential.

jank

LordSutch wrote: »

Media coverage has a duty to filter out people like McGuinness for example . . .

Ah so you dont believe in a fair and balanced approach when it comes to elections from the Media?

Agree with the OP, the media has been a disgrace during this election. The revisionism and bias towards some candidates is sickning.

Tomk1

Thanks for posting this topic, as I was just about to.

I do not want to see yet another interrogation ''debate'' I'm tired of the negative coverage and nit picking of our future President of Ireland. I would like to see one interview where these people are treated in a civil and respected manner. One of them will be our President.

I would like to know their back story, who they are, about their family, what interests do they have, do they play music, even what's their favourite music.

I would like to know why they think they deserve to become the representative of the State.

We have heard so-called faults, I like to know the non-faults.

All we have got so far is ''The Sun'' like coverage, and even this Topic ''which is about the media coverage'' is being sidelined for pot-shots. There are dozens of threads for that all ready.

I am not going to discuss any single candidate, or attempt to use this topic to sway someone's opinion of a candidate.

I only want to discuss the media's treatment of the future President.
Can anyone answer; has any TV presenter treated all-candidates in an appropriate manner?

GSF

If the candidates were honest about their pasts, it wouldnt be necessary to drag disclosures out of them kicking and screaming.

But instead they have chosen to concel important parts of their history from the public so they deserve everything thrown at them.

M cebee

ya

how would we have known gallagher was really fianna fail

if the media hadn't done their job

they've exposed him,martin mcguinness and norris as unsuitable


i don't want to go back 50yrs when the bishops and priests ran the show

look what they were up to

Victor

Tomk1 wrote: »

I would like to know their back story, who they are, about their family, what interests do they have, do they play music, even what's their favourite music.

Perhaps none of this has anything to do with the job?