SU ban Daily Mail from campus shops

blubloblu

Larianne wrote: »

Were you there this evening? You could have given a good reason to vote for the motion to be passed yourself.

I had commitments off-campus and to be honest, thought the ban would be repealed considering it was only supposed to be temporary while they waited for an apology, which was received. If I had any doubts, trust me, I would've been in touch with my rep or someone else, as I was for something else on the agenda.

Larianne

blubloblu wrote: »

I had commitments off-campus and to be honest, thought the ban would be repealed considering it was only supposed to be temporary while they waited for an apology, which was received. If I had any doubts, trust me, I would've been in touch with my rep or someone else, as I was for something else on the agenda.

The motion was for the ban to be lifted. People gave arguments for and against lifting the ban. Majority ruled. The lad who proprosed the ban first time around, accepted the apology of the Daily Mail and proposed the motion for the ban to be lifted.

It was the argument against lifting the ban that obviously swayed the majority of reps.

I'm sure the matter will be brought up again in the future.

Dubs

blubloblu wrote: »

So, an apology was printed on the day the SU banned it. Too bad our representatives don't check these things out.

It is too bad that that happened. I saw it a couple days afterwards and was unhappy that it wasn't brought up at the last coucil when the motion was being voted on. Although, as was said earlier, it's one of the problems with these emergency motions being brought up at the last minute in council

Now, they've voted to keep the ban in place. What justification was given for the continuation?

Technically, they aren't going against anything. The motion voted on previously was 'to immediately susped the sales of the Irish Daily Mail in SU outlets pending receipt of an apology and pending review of any apology at a future council'.

Honestly, I thought that it would be repealed too and am disappointed that it wasn't. But, as Larianne said, the arguments against seemed to win people over in the end. Only by a couple of votes by the looks of things, but it was still a majority. Guess we shouldn't make such assumptions in the future. You can always still bring it up for discussion in future though if you feel so strongly about it.

PurpleFistMixer

What were the arguments against lifting the ban, exactly?

Fo Real

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

What were the arguments against lifting the ban, exactly?

I going to guess that the decision was down to the fact that the majority of the student populace are snobbish self-righteous Guardian readers (or like to be seen reading the Guardian to appear more intellectual). Usual out-of-touch SU bullsh*t. Don't they realise that the Daily Mail sells a staggering 22 times more copies than the Guardian in this country? Daily Mail circulation figures - 51000 vs Guardian circulation figures in Ireland - 2300 I propose a boycott of both SU shops on campus, since they seem so fond of boycotts themselves. Buy your paper or snacks across the street in Spar until the SU over-turn this childish knee-jerk reaction.

Ahoyhoy

Or, you know, go to SU council next time and argue about it. Or talk to your class rep. Or the officers. Or any of the other 30 ways of directly contacting them rather than waiting for them to look over the end of year figures for the shop only to see that they sold twenty five fewer packets of crisps and wonder why.

TrollHammaren

I think my opinion on this has already been pretty well addressed by other people with more enthusiasm for it than me, so I'll keep it brief. Students in Trinity are autonomous beings with the ability to make their own choices. If the SU feels so strongly about the lies that were printed in any of the major newspapers - and I can think of examples of lies and misinformation appearing in most of them - they can discourage students from buying them. Imposing a formal ban on their sale is a political act that goes beyond just choosing not to stock them. I have mixed feelings about the SU, but this move is a particularly stupid one.

Ravelleman

I mean this truthfully. People are taking both this decision and the Students´ Union far too seriously. It´s not a political act - it´s an inconsequential act by what I see as a relatively inconsequential organisation. I doubt it has really bothered anyone except on internet land where everything is so much more outrageous.

devinejay

Late to the debate, but I was at both councils so here's how I saw it.

First the emergency motion was put forward to stop selling the paper until an apology was issued as everyone in the room agreed it was an insensitive oversight on the behave of journalists and editors alike to print information from what was evidently a confirmed but un-reliable external source. 99% of the people in the room were completely unaware of the whole story before the motion came up and it seemed like a reasonable response considering no-one knew that an apology had already been issued. The motion also stated that suspension of sales of the Daily Mail (the word ban was never used) would remain in place pending a review of the apology at the next council

Then at the next council it was brought forward that the SU should re-instate the Daily Mail in the shops. It had been demonstrated that the DM had gone out of their way to apologise to anyone affected by the mistake, and it was said that people would possibly lose their jobs over the whole thing. Costello put forward some completely reasonable arguments about what had happened, how we had reacted, what place had the SU to decide what paper people read. Other people, both for and against the motion, got caught up in emotionally charged statements that had little to do with the reality of the SU deciding what papers should and shouldn't be sold in the shops. In the end the motion was summed up in such an emotional fashion, with little regard for the facts.

The vote was pretty close, but in the end the majority was swayed by sensationalist trollop (how ironic considering that's what they supposedly despise about the DM). Afterwards there were a number of voices regretting not getting up and saying something on the motion because they assumed that everyone would realise that banning the sale of newspapers is obviously not something the SU should be at.

Moral of the story, never assume the masses will not be swayed by emotion, sometimes you really have to spell it out to them. Twice.

Denerick

Ahoyhoy wrote: »

Or, you know, go to SU council next time and argue about it. Or talk to your class rep. Or the officers. Or any of the other 30 ways of directly contacting them rather than waiting for them to look over the end of year figures for the shop only to see that they sold twenty five fewer packets of crisps and wonder why.

This is the way the appartchiks want it. Despite every student knowing the SU is irrelevant and mostly just an ego trip for aspiring politicians, journalists and demagogues, the same people who pretend they are in any way relevant demand that you must participate in this grand charade in order to be free from its tyrannical impositions. It is utterly contemptible, and the attempt to draw us into this poisonous culture is facile and transparant.

Ahoyhoy

Denerick wrote: »

This is the way the appartchiks want it. Despite every student knowing the SU is irrelevant and mostly just an ego trip for aspiring politicians, journalists and demagogues, the same people who pretend they are in any way relevant demand that you must participate in this grand charade in order to be free from its tyrannical impositions. It is utterly contemptible, and the attempt to draw us into this poisonous culture is facile and transparant.

This is what this post makes me think of.