Does McGuinness have any chance given the Indo's campaign against him?

Liam Byrne

The Minstrel wrote: »

I started a thread (which was locked) about comments made by leading BBC journalist Jeremy Paxman relating to McGuinness.

Let Paxman vote for him then! Oh, hang on - it has nothing to do with Paxman who we vote for!

Now I know what people mean when they ever-so-consistently* say that they don't want the Brits making decisions for us or interfering in the running of our country

* sarcasm : as always the only time stuff is brought up is when it suits a particular agenda

Liam Byrne

Ladjacket wrote: »

Me again! Apologies if my posts have meant that this has gone off topic slightly. My intention was not to cause some controversy, but merely to illustrate how some people 'south of the border' tend to view Ulster in its entirety as a 9 county United Kingdom colony almost.

That is the most galling part.

Then you should understand why we object to McGuinness implying that we're part of the North too.

I would suggest that we all get back on topic here - Martin McGuinness has been shamefully treated in this election campaign in MY view - and the attitude that I pick up on is that he would be best suited to suck it up and accept it because he used to be a murderer - which in, again, MY view, is wrong.

Well if he didn't want to be viewed as such maybe he shouldn't have joined a murdering organisation.

The cap fits, and if poor aul' Martin doesn't like it he should be grateful that the only thing he has to "suck up" is a questioning, unlike those that his gang took a dislike to.

cardwizzard

Ladjacket wrote: »

I would suggest that we all get back on topic here - Martin McGuinness has been shamefully treated in this election campaign in MY view - and the attitude that I pick up on is that he would be best suited to suck it up and accept it because he used to be a murderer - which in, again, MY view, is wrong.

I agree certain papers and our national broadcaster have acted in a shameful manner. IMO he hasn't gotten a fair crack of the whip.

On the other hand Micheal D hasn't being touched. Part of the old school cartel of politicians in our country. He has 'paid his dues' type of attitude seems to be circling around, and now it his time.

That being said he is an intelligent man who clearly knows the Constitution. Seems like the retirement home in the park might be reopened.

CDfm

The Minstrel wrote: »

I started a thread (which was locked) about comments made by leading BBC journalist Jeremy Paxman relating to McGuinness.


(Paxman )I don’t find it surprising that someone who once fought physically against an imperial power is now a politician.
“I find it to be a very strange position of having to defend Martin McGuinness. He can defend himself, but his whole life’s campaign has been to establish, or re-establish, as he would see it, a political integrity which ignores the Border.”

But does Paxman realise thar he also fought or directed a campaign against the south.

Liam Byrne

cardwizzard wrote: »

I agree certain papers and our national broadcaster have acted in a shameful manner. IMO he hasn't gotten a fair crack of the whip.

On the other hand Micheal D hasn't being touched.

What murders and violence do you reckon Michael D should be asked about ?

All the candidates have been quizzed on their past, their opinions and their associations.

If McGun's are more objectionable than others, then he has only himself to blame; it's hardly the media's fault.

lugha

The Minstrel wrote: »

As the paper of record, the Irish Times tends to present a generally balanced view on things. The Independent, on the other hand, tends not to.

Can McGuinness (or, indeed, any candidate) stand a chance in an election if the most widely circulated newspaper (the Irish Independent) is campaigning against him? For example, today, the website of the Independent ran some lead articles in opposition to MMcG while the Times didn't feature him in their headlines.

2 of the Indo articles were written by Belfast Telegraph columnists - the Independent and Belfast Telegraph are owned by the same group, and, hence, often use the same journalists. Do boardsies think this is why their coverage is so one-sided?

I have always thought is somewhat odd that any news media should have an editorial policy on anything, or be left leaning or right leaning or any other way leaning. To me it amounts to a declaration that they are biased, and as that cannot IMO be squared with what you think is a necessary requirement to be a news journalist,which is to borrow a phrase, fair and balanced. Perhaps there is a case for opinion pieces/polemics/editorials to be issued in separate publications to actual news reporting?

However, things are the way the are and policies/leanings/agendas most media do be having. Surely no one would argue that An Phoblacht probably leans as heavily in their direction as they Sunday Independent leans in the opposite?

So once you accept that, then it is hardly surprising that MMG gets such bad press. Operating a private army is likely to be contrary to the editorial policy of pretty much any mainstream media. And I don’t think that there is a concerted effort to bully him; individual media are simply holding true to their own editorial stance. If a xenophobic BNP type party kicked off in Ireland I think they would also find that the media would in the main be agin them and for the same reasons. I.e. they would likely hold positions that would be contrary to the editorial positions of almost all media.

The real surprise for many of us is that the position of the media is not better reflected with a lower popularity standing for MMG with the general public, but I guess that is for one of the other threads! :pac:

cardwizzard

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What murders and violence do you reckon Michael D should be asked about ?

All the candidates have been quizzed on their past, their opinions and their associations.

If McGun's are more objectionable than others, then he has only himself to blame; it's hardly the media's fault.

Who said he should be asked about murders or violence?Only you.

My point is that he has gotten off scot free in this election compared to all other candidates. Everybody else has being scrutinized and their past gone over with a fine tooth comb. I believe this is orchestrated in part by sections of the media, who would like to keep MMG from winning.

Happyman42

The Minstrel wrote: »

I started a thread (which was locked) about comments made by leading BBC journalist Jeremy Paxman relating to McGuinness. I think it's important to include the piece here. It helps give context to the nature of the anti-mcguinness campaign being waged by the Indo. Interesting interview with Paxman which touches on the McGuinness candidacy (highlighted in bold). Paxman is surprised at the furore over McGuinness.

I urge you to read the whole lot, but I'll just paste the bits that refer to Martin McGuinness. Here's the link

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...305625510.html

Like other British figures, Paxman is surprised to hear that Martin McGuinness’s presidential campaign is attracting such vehement opposition in some quarters in the Republic: “It is clearly better that people are not killing each other.” But is it not more significant than that? “Well, every event in history is to some degree sui generis, isn’t it? I don’t find it surprising that someone who once fought physically against an imperial power is now a politician.
“It has happened all over the place, so I don’t find it that astonishing, but it is interesting . . . As I say, it is better that people are not being killed. Given the history of Ireland and the history of Irish politics I think I can understand where [McGuinness’s opponents] are coming from.
“I find it to be a very strange position of having to defend Martin McGuinness. He can defend himself, but his whole life’s campaign has been to establish, or re-establish, as he would see it, a political integrity which ignores the Border.”

Very interesting when placed alongside the Guardian article.

Martin McGuinness was one of the bogeymen, one of the so-called men of violence. There was a time when there could be no talks with the men of violence. They were killers addicted to killing. Without their guns they were nothing and they knew it, for Sinn Féin was, as the former Conservative secretary of state Patrick Mayhew once taunted them, "a mere 10% party". It would be an affront to democracy itself were they to be invited to the political table. In the pre-ceasefire mental arrangement, McGuinness had a special standing: he was raptor-in-chief in an organisation of blooded hawks. Even if Gerry Adams might like to talk, McGuinness would not.
In times of war it's understandable, though rarely useful, to attribute to your enemy all the qualities of the beast. But we have come a long way since then. The IRA campaign is over. Sinn Féin is firmly established in Northern Ireland as the second largest party, behind Peter Robinson's DUP. In the Irish Republic, the latest Irish Times-Ipsos MRBI poll now also puts Sinn Féin second. McGuinness has been elected three times to Westminster and five times as an assembly member. In 2007 he was nominated deputy first minister in the Northern Ireland assembly. He is now running for president of Ireland.
McGuinness's candidacy is proving popular, especially among Ireland's poor, and has his rivals' supporters reaching for apocalyptic rhetoric. The Fine Gael environment minister, Phil Hogan, said recently that putting McGuinness in charge of the state "would leave us looking like a banana republic". Ireland, he continued ominously, would be "denuded of serious levels of corporate investment within 24 months". His panicky warning coincided with the return of McGuinness and Robinson from the US with further promises of investment for the North. Far from having investors running for cover, McGuinness is well regarded in New York and Washington.
What galls McGuinness's detractors is that Sinn Féin has been so staggeringly successful. Forty years ago it barely existed in anything other than name. Thirty years ago, it was confined to republican heartlands in Belfast and Derry. Twenty years ago its leaders were still subject to censorship in Ireland and Britain, and its members and elected councillors were ostracised and – with suspected state collusion – on occasion assassinated. Now its candidate for president has a real chance of winning.
As president, McGuinness knows he would be the representative of all the republic's interests, even those to which he may be adverse. But he long ago absorbed the need for political inclusiveness. Even at the height of the Troubles he said he would talk to anyone at any time without preconditions in order to find a way to bring the conflict to a close. When negotiators eventually agreed to meet, they found him affable, straight-talking and easy to get along with. They were impressed. Against all expectation, they even liked him.
With arch republican foe Ian Paisley, McGuinness formed a close and apparently warm working relationship. When Paisley was forced out, many believed that his successor, Robinson, would prefer to sink the whole power-sharing arrangement rather than continue with a man he had so often denounced. It did not turn out that way, and while there are fewer signs of mutual personal regard in the present partnership, it is at least working effectively.
Principled and effective, McGuinness's popularity with his supporters comes from a mix of integrity, straight dealing, and a refusal to be compromised by the trappings of success. Born into a large, poor Derry family, he has avoided airs and graces. Nor does he share the Cherie Blair fear of descending again into poverty that she has tried to use as a licence for her and her husband to milk it while they can. Like all Sinn Féin's elected representatives, McGuinness gives his public salary to the party and takes an average wage in return. His nose remains firmly out of the trough. His appeal is to those who never experienced the economic benefits of the Celtic Tiger but who are now paying for its collapse: the people, as he puts it, who were not invited to the party. Traditionally ignored by the main parties, they now look to one of their own.
Unable to score points against his record in office or to find evidence of personal lapses, his opponents have fallen back on his membership of the IRA. Before the Saville inquiry into the Bloody Sunday killings, McGuinness admitted that he was the Provisional IRA's second-in-command in Derry on that fateful day, and said he left the IRA in 1974. No one believes he left in 1974. Indeed, his stature as an IRA leader was crucial in selling the peace deal to the organisation. His supporters treat his denials philosophically and even some of his critics understand the legal need to finesse the dates of his IRA membership, which is still a prosecutable offence. Does this mean he should not be president?
The violence in Ireland was appalling. McGuinness has already said that much of it was unjustifiable. But it was not the work of killers addicted to killing. What happened in McGuinness's home town of Derry in the summer of 1969 was an Irish spring, a spontaneous rebellion against a regime that discriminated and excluded from power a majority of its own citizens. Many reached for the gun in those strange, paranoid, idealistic and angry days. Martin McGuinness was one of them. But he put the gun down and he persuaded the British government to address the issues that sparked the conflict. The North is a better place because of him. The republic can be too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/09/all-ireland-could-use-martin-mcguinness

Maybe some of our own journalists and boards.ie posters, need to get out more?

CDfm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Very interesting when placed alongside the Guardian article.




McGuinness has already said that much of it was unjustifiable. But it was not the work of killers addicted to killing. What happened in McGuinness's home town of Derry in the summer of 1969 was an Irish spring, a spontaneous rebellion against a regime that discriminated and excluded from power a majority of its own citizens. Many reached for the gun in those strange, paranoid, idealistic and angry days. Martin McGuinness was one of them. But he put the gun down and he persuaded the British government to address the issues that sparked the conflict. The North is a better place because of him. The republic can be too.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/09/all-ireland-could-use-martin-mcguinness

Maybe some of our own journalists and boards.ie posters, need to get out more?

Again this ignores the south and especially the questions asked by Private Patrick Kelly's son David.

He was in the Irish Army and killed in the South.

gandalf

Happyman42 wrote: »

Very interesting when placed alongside the Guardian article.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/09/all-ireland-could-use-martin-mcguinness

Maybe some of our own journalists and boards.ie posters, need to get out more?

Maybe you should be more transparent. The article is a opinion piece written by a chap called Ronan Bennett who seems to be far from an unbiased contributor to the discussion.

Happyman42

CDfm wrote: »

Again this ignores the south and especially the questions asked by Private Patrick Kelly's son David.

He was in the Irish Army and killed in the South.

He is just one of 3500 killed. Everybody lost something in this, North, South, Britain etc.
What is interesting in the articles is that from outside they can see what our own media can't see or more likely, won't write. That a freedom-fighter turned democratic politician is nothing unusual.

cardwizzard

CDfm wrote: »

Again this ignores the south and especially the questions asked by Private Patrick Kelly's son David.

He was in the Irish Army and killed in the South.

I agree it doesn't answer Davids questions. There is alot of questions to be answered on all sides of dreadful actions that happened. A tell all inquiry from all sides, Truth and Reconciliation Forum needs to be set up, so all families can have their say and vent their anger.

However the GFA draws a line in the sand, for want of better words. Of course there is still a lot of rawness and all victims should never be forgotten. For the most part there has being peace and progress, and the future is ahead.

Happyman42

gandalf wrote: »

Maybe you should be more transparent. The article is a opinion piece written by a chap called Ronan Bennett who seems to be far from an unbiased contributor to the discussion.

And the opinion pieces in Irish newspapers ain't?????

gandalf

Happyman42 wrote: »

He is just one of 3500 killed. Everybody lost something in this, North, South, Britain etc.
What is interesting in the articles is that from outside they can see what our own media can't see or more likely, won't write. That a freedom-fighter turned democratic politician is nothing unusual.

Yes it is interesting because they won't have to live with a convicted criminal who has blood on his hands as our head of state.

Also interesting that the last article you quoted is from someone who has sympathies on the Republican side of the fence. Hardly an objective opinion at all.

Happyman42

gandalf wrote: »

Yes it is interesting because they won't have to live with a convicted criminal who has blood on his hands as our head of state.

Deal with my post please not your own agenda. Again; it's interesting that the media outside the country are saying that our haste to consign McG to the bold corner is baffling given what has happened many times around the world. It's interesting too given previous commentary from British media.
Nice to see that the politics of condemnation is not always applied in assessing careers.

gandalf wrote: »

Also interesting that the last article you quoted is from someone who has sympathies on the Republican side of the fence. Hardly an objective opinion at all.

Who did Jeremy murder before he changed his views? Can those with a republican philosophy not be objective...is that what you are trying to say?

gandalf

I did deal with it. I said they can say this crap because they do not have to live with a convicted criminal with blood on his hands as our head of state if that man gets elected.

Also I was referring to the Ronan Bennett article the last one you quoted. He certainly has DNA from the republican side of the fence. Again hardly a unbiased opinion.

Happyman42

gandalf wrote: »

I did deal with it. I said they can say this crap because they do not have to living with a convicted criminal with blood on his hands as our head of state if that man gets elected.

So you wish to proscribe opinion now, because you don't agree with it? Is that not getting a wee bit blueshirty?
Maybe that's why Bennett's article is in the Guardian..he couldn't get it published by our biased media?

gandalf wrote: »

Also I was referring to the Ronan Bennett article the last one you quoted. He certainly has DNA from the republican side of the fence. Again hardly a unbiased opinion.

I know you were.
How are you getting on finding an objection to Jeremy having a say?

Attack the articles not the journalist might be a good policy....no?

Liam Byrne

cardwizzard wrote: »

Who said he should be asked about murders or violence?Only you.

My point is that he has gotten off scot free in this election compared to all other candidates. Everybody else has being scrutinized and their past gone over with a fine tooth comb. I believe this is orchestrated in part by sections of the media, who would like to keep MMG from winning.

If there is any scandal we want to hear about it; but there doesn't seem to be, and your bias toward McG is showing clearly.

If McG didn't want to be asked about murders then maybe he shouldn't have been involved in them.

gandalf

Happyman42 wrote: »

So you wish to proscribe opinion now, because you don't agree with it? Is that not getting a wee bit blueshirty?
Maybe that's why Bennett's article is in the Guardian..he couldn't get it published by our biased media?

Blueshirty, hmmm now who is attacking the man. For the record I am a former member of the Labour party so I am more of a pinko.

As for Mr Bennett his partner is Georgina Henry, editor of guardian.co.uk, not that I am suggesting that's why he gets published in the Guardian and not in the press over here

I know you were.
How are you getting on finding an objection to Jeremy having a say?

Attack the articles not the journalist might be a good policy....no?

I like Mr Paxman, I especially love his interviewing style with politicians. It is something that is totally lacking from this side of the pond. If Martin had a problem with Miriam then I can just imagine what would happen if we had Jeremy in full attack mode laying into him. Poor wee Martin would probably have a "bog side breakdown".

Jeremy Paxman is an excellent interviewer but he is also human and on this occasion he is wrong. Martin McGuinness is totally unsuited to be our President.

cardwizzard

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If there is any scandal we want to hear about it; but there doesn't seem to be, and your bias toward McG is showing clearly.

If McG didn't want to be asked about murders then maybe he shouldn't have been involved in them.

I have always stated that I am pro MMG. Never tried to hide that in anyway. Biased I probably am.

However we arent talking about him here. I was wondering why Micheal D has sailed through this process with out as much as a feather hitting him. I also have no doubts that some newspapers and RTE have being totally biased on there treatment of certain individuals. Miriam being my number 1 example. Hardly an appropiate way for are unbiased state broadcaster to act, or is it?

Liam Byrne

cardwizzard wrote: »

However we arent talking about him here. I was wondering why Micheal D has sailed through this process with out as much as a feather hitting him. I also have no doubts that some newspapers and RTE have being totally biased on there treatment of certain individuals. Miriam being my number 1 example. Hardly an appropiate way for are unbiased state broadcaster to act, or is it?

That "biased" broadcaster has quizzed each candidate on the most objectionable points - from Norris through Gallagher & McG - without exception.

If there is nothing objectionable about Higgins, what do you suggest they do - make stuff up ?

gandalf

cardwizzard wrote: »

I have always stated that I am pro MMG. Never tried to hide that in anyway. Biased I probably am.

However we arent talking about him here. I was wondering why Micheal D has sailed through this process with out as much as a feather hitting him. I also have no doubts that some newspapers and RTE have being totally biased on there treatment of certain individuals. Miriam being my number 1 example. Hardly an appropiate way for are unbiased state broadcaster to act, or is it?

Maybe the situation is that Martin has far more dodgy material in his past than any of the other candidates.

I mean look at the media circus over David Norris and those letters. At least 10 days of front page coverage over around 9 letters that weren't disclosed properly. Now look at Martin McGuinness's past and the ambiguity and inconsistent answers from the man himself. Of course the media is going to concentrate on his past, it is "low hanging fruit". The man is utterly tainted by it. If anything I believe the media has not dug into his past in as aggressive a fashion as I would have liked. I am sure there are many out there who share my thoughts.

The Waltzing Consumer

cardwizzard wrote: »

I have always stated that I am pro MMG. Never tried to hide that in anyway. Biased I probably am.

However we arent talking about him here. I was wondering why Micheal D has sailed through this process with out as much as a feather hitting him. I also have no doubts that some newspapers and RTE have being totally biased on there treatment of certain individuals. Miriam being my number 1 example. Hardly an appropiate way for are unbiased state broadcaster to act, or is it?

How may times are we going to regurgitate the same nonsense? People all over this thread have pointed out the very obvious Norris= letters, Dana = cuckoo, Mitchell = crap + death penalty letter, davis = quango queen, Higgins = old.

Seriously, get over it.

cardwizzard

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That "biased" broadcaster has quizzed each candidate on the most objectionable points - from Norris through Gallagher & McG - without exception.

If there is nothing objectionable about Higgins, what do you suggest they do - make stuff up ?

Something along the lines of 120k a year pension BEFORE he collects his Presidential pension. Not bad for a socialist.

jimmycrackcorm

gandalf wrote: »

Yes it is interesting because they won't have to live with a convicted criminal who has blood on his hands as our head of state.

Well they do have Tony Blair and the whole Iraq WMD excuse. So I guess they are comfortable with leaders who have a responsiblity for civilian deaths.

I hardly think the Indo or the media in general have a campaign against McGuinness - all they have done is point out obvious questions whereas SF would conveniently like to forget the awkward stuff.

Martin would like only have us elect him because of his role in the peace process - why isn't he asking us to vote from him for his role in the other important bit preceding that?

Happyman42

gandalf wrote: »

Blueshirty, hmmm now who is attacking the man.

Not attacking just asking, if you have fascist tendencies don't be ashamed of them.

gandalf wrote: »

For the record I am a former member of the Labour party so I am more of a pinko.

you wouldn't be the first labour party member to be confused about the philosophy!

gandalf wrote: »

As for Mr Bennett his partner is Georgina Henry, editor of guardian.co.uk, not that I am suggesting that's why he gets published in the Guardian and not in the press over here

Is that a side swipe at favourtism in the Guardian or a critique of the article?:rolleyes:

gandalf wrote: »

I like Mr Paxman, I especially love his interviewing style with politicians. It is something that is totally lacking from this side of the pond. If Martin had a problem with Miriam then I can just imagine what would happen if we had Jeremy in full attack mode laying into him. Poor wee Martin would probably have a "bog side breakdown".

Seen him interview McG before....nothing special. I did see him being put in his box by the late lamented John Kelly on the subject of NI though.
Classic telly.

gandalf wrote: »

Jeremy Paxman is an excellent interviewer but he is also human and on this occasion he is wrong. Martin McGuinness is totally unsuited to be our President.

You'll have to agree to differ with him then and allow the rest of us to read it, if you have nothing more to say than; 'he is wrong'.

gandalf

Are you calling me a fascist Happyman42?

Happyman42

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That "biased" broadcaster has quizzed each candidate on the most objectionable points - from Norris through Gallagher & McG - without exception.

If there is nothing objectionable about Higgins, what do you suggest they do - make stuff up ?

On it's first show to comment on McG entering the race(The Front Line) that 'unbiased' broadcaster dragged Michael McDowell out of his ungraceful slumbers to tell lies about McG.....remember? :rolleyes: He hasn't been seen since as he caused a surge in McG poll returns

Happyman42

gandalf wrote: »

Are you calling me a fascist Happyman42?

Nope, I was asking though. You haven't answered.

Liam Byrne

cardwizzard wrote: »

Something along the lines of 120k a year pension BEFORE he collects his Presidential pension. Not bad for a socialist.

Did you even check what he aims to do re the pensions before having a pot-shot ?

BTW, I'd sooner pay a decent man 120K than pay an objectionable a cent.