Public opinion is one thing, facts are another

micosoft

From the Times today.

The general level of complete ignorance by a substantial part of our populace and electorate is a significant contributor to the low quality (Joe Duffy style) of political debate in this country. In turn this is arguably one of the reasons we find ourselves in the position we are in.

My own view is that the forth estate have significant blame here - poorly written, excessively dumbed down and factually wrong articles are leading the electorate to think that simplistic solutions will save the day. I appreciate that Newspapers write what sells, but given the serious drop in income (due to the internets) perhaps now is the time to consider a subsidy for the news part of newspapers taken from the broadcast charge? Ringfenced for actual journalism and not style supplements.

I appreciate there are all sorts of issues around this (what constitutes good journalism, the fund being set by politicians) etc but these could be addressed. The core issue is that the papers don't or can't do the necessary job of informing the majority of the electorate who still read a daily paper.

We need to do more at school level as well - civics not religion. But I think the media piece is of most concern.

dharma200

that's rich coming from the Times.

micosoft

dharma200 wrote: »

that's rich coming from the Times.

I suggest that the Irish Times are at the better end of the scale. You may disagree with the opinion pieces but that's the point - the problem with many is they self select information that supports their convictions rather then engage with alternate viewpoints. Opinion pieces should challenge.

The Dagda

micosoft wrote: »

From the Times today.

The general level of complete ignorance by a substantial part of our populace and electorate is a significant contributor to the low quality (Joe Duffy style) of political debate in this country. In turn this is arguably one of the reasons we find ourselves in the position we are in.

My own view is that the forth estate have significant blame here - poorly written, excessively dumbed down and factually wrong articles are leading the electorate to think that simplistic solutions will save the day. I appreciate that Newspapers write what sells, but given the serious drop in income (due to the internets) perhaps now is the time to consider a subsidy for the news part of newspapers taken from the broadcast charge? Ringfenced for actual journalism and not style supplements.

I appreciate there are all sorts of issues around this (what constitutes good journalism, the fund being set by politicians) etc but these could be addressed. The core issue is that the papers don't or can't do the necessary job of informing the majority of the electorate who still read a daily paper.

We need to do more at school level as well - civics not religion. But I think the media piece is of most concern.

You are proposing state sponsored news? How enlightened... :rolleyes:

The arrogance of this post is infuriating, labelling a substantial proportion of the population as ignorant while proposing something ludicrous.

The internet allows more people easier access to information. It's generally a good thing. Yes it results in some extreme views etc but that's to be expected. You can counter that through an improved education system.

One of the reasons people are moving away from "old media" because of the exact thing you are promoting, manipulation.

The main reason for the poor quality of political discourse in this country is down to one thing, the poor quality of our politicians.

A better education system would help that too.

Move with times grandad, see the big picture...

hfallada

I'm not surprised at all. Rte never uses stats in its news reports unlike say the Irish times. Rte might say inflation has increased last month. But yet you read in the times inflation is 0,2% and is basically zero.

The Irish times is without a doubt the best paper in Ireland. It's factual and not homophobic like another best selling broadsheet.

Banjo String

perhaps now is the time to consider a subsidy for the news part of newspapers taken from the broadcast charge?

You don't see any potential problems with that, no?

A newspaper, subsidised by a Govt tax.

Let's call it granma.

micosoft

The Dagda wrote: »

You are proposing state sponsored news? How enlightened... :rolleyes:

We already do for RTE. It's not just "me". Quite a number of people see the threat posed to democracy by not having a strong media with professional journalists but also see the steep decline in their revenue means that the topic has to be addressed. But if the best response you can come up with is rolleyes it says more about you then the topic at hand.

The Dagda wrote: »

The arrogance of this post is infuriating, labelling a substantial proportion of the population as ignorant while proposing something ludicrous.

Care to provide a counterargument to the post with supporting information rather then just attacking the poster?

The Dagda wrote: »

The internet allows more people easier access to information. It's generally a good thing. Yes it results in some extreme views etc but that's to be expected. You can counter that through an improved education system.

In your opinion. There is substantial evidence that the internet promotes polorization of News by letting people self select only the news they like to hear. Furthermore the de-skilling and replacement of the journalistic profession leads to lower standard of quality in what passes for news.

I've already stated that education plays a role in this. That's obvious. I'm addressing the real ongoing issue of the role of news media in a democratic society and how we can sustain some level of quality.

The Dagda wrote: »

One of the reasons people are moving away from "old media" because of the exact thing you are promoting, manipulation.

In your opinion. Is that because you don't agree with old media and prefer only reading free sources that agree with your worldview?

The Dagda wrote: »

The main reason for the poor quality of political discourse in this country is down to one thing, the poor quality of our politicians.

And not the electorate for voting in these politicians? And the lack of knowledge on everyday facts has no impact on those voting decisions? Did you even read my post before writing your "retort"

The Dagda wrote: »

A better education system would help that too.

Move with times grandad, see the big picture...

And with your post I thank you for proving my point.

dlouth15

micosoft wrote: »

From the Times today.

Is there supposed to be a link to an Irish times article here? I'm just getting the "create new thread" page on boards.

Sand

dlouth15 wrote: »

Is there supposed to be a link to an Irish times article here? I'm just getting the "create new thread" page on boards.

A simple mistake, but when you're going to bemoan the ignorance of the wider population you cant afford to make mistakes.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

micosoft wrote: »

We need to do more at school level as well - civics not religion. But I think the media piece is of most concern.

The circle is hard to break, but I'd feel where it needs to start is by encouraging the capacity to think through the education system.

That will be hard, and I think the somewhat hamfisted attempts to promote "Project Maths" gives some evidence of that. The cohort of teachers we have are products of our culture. Hence, they're not necessarily in a position to encourage in other the facility that they lack themselves.

However, if people had a better capacity to engage in critical analysis, they'd seek out the facts. Facts are actually quite readily available. It's just that people don't look for them, and don't add them up.

micosoft

dlouth15 wrote: »

Is there supposed to be a link to an Irish times article here? I'm just getting the "create new thread" page on boards.

Corrected.

Scofflaw

The Dagda wrote:

The main reason for the poor quality of political discourse in this country is down to one thing, the poor quality of our politicians.

Not really - the poor quality of our politicians is the result of the poor quality of political discourse. Discussion of politicians in the media tends to revolve around personality and party rather than policy, which tends to encourage voting on that basis.

Still, it's a little bit chicken and egg.

cordially,
Scofflaw

srsly78

OP this is hardly surprising. It's difficult to debate economics or public finances with people that do not know how many zeroes are in one billion.

Oh, and heaven forbid if you were to insist that knowledge of such basic concepts may be necessary - then you would be an "elitist".

As supporting evidence to my conjecture I would present every single economics / PS / finance thread on boards...

PRAF

Good article. Goes a long way to explaining why the standard of discourse on the likes of the journal.ie is infuriatingly bad

micosoft

srsly78 wrote: »

OP this is hardly surprising. It's difficult to debate economics or public finances with people that do not know how many zeroes are in one billion.

Oh, and heaven forbid if you were to insist that knowledge of such basic concepts may be necessary - then you would be an "elitist".

As supporting evidence to my conjecture I would present every single economics / PS / finance thread on boards...

True - we are in the era of the amateur when those that have the ability to use a search engine now believe they are equal to those qualified to make a call. I think the truism that a little knowledge is dangerous stands as we see people finding outlier evidence and deciding they now know "the truth".

Again though - what I am focused on is The Times (editorial on the article here). The Times contends that the electorate are sometimes wilfully ignorant of the facts e.g. over referenda. However I still think the Media have a significant part to play. Take Science - incredibly badly reporting in ALL Irish Papers. You have Ben Goldacre making an attempt to challenge this in the UK. You have Guardian Data, an attempt to make solid data available in a meaningful way. This is "public service" journalism at it's best, but expensive and unlikely to make a return. The Guardian only works because it is a non-profit trust and the loss making by the Guardian Newspaper is made up with other trust titles such as Autotrader. And yes - some will say that you need to teach people to get involved in informing themselves but the reality is most of the electorate don't really care and get all their information from the paper they read.

The challenge is how to get News Media to invest and spend on expensive well researched journalism vs delivering cheap badly researched tripe. I'm positing that they can't afford to given declining readership and highly competitive market. If we don't intervene in some way the slide will continue and leading to an even more ill informed electorate. Which comes back to my point - should we consider (as other commentators have suggested) look at paying for public interest journalism.

Scofflaw

As far as I'm aware, similar findings have been made almost everywhere. The public are almost invariably under quite bizarre impressions as to where their tax money goes.

I think that's part of the explanation for the otherwise rather surprisingly vociferous advocates of cutting politicians' salaries as a genuine cost-saving measure when it would make virtually no difference - and the same for foreign aid (tiny), EU payments in the UK (tiny), and so on.

It's interesting to wonder why nobody simply takes out a single-page supplement in every daily paper with a great big coloured pie chart showing where your tax money goes. The cost would be non-trivial, but on the other hand hardly unbearable either. I have a feeling it might come to about €20-30k or so, which one might be able to raise through kickstarter...would there be a sufficient number of people who care to drum up that money? €10 a head by 2-3000 people in the country? It should be doable.

Repeat yearly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

micosoft

It's an interesting thought. To be fair some have tried to do this like Eoghan Murphy with his http://www.eoghanmurphy.ie/tax-transparency/ as where your money goes will vary on your income and taxable amount. But this information needs to be on bus shelters - not hidden on TD websites.

I actually think the state agencies should be doing this too.

Revenue should send a infopack twice a year to PAYE workers on where their money went as a "receipt". Nicely done infographics mind, not the awful reports currently issued.

Data.ie like data.gov in the US would provide a fact database on all aspects of governance in Ireland. It would give something useful for our government CIO to do (not heard a thing about him since he was appointed).

The auditor general who have the dullest website I've ever seen should be tasked with it showing value for money where it happens.

Again (and I know I am harping on about it at this point) why can't the papers do this as a matter of course - they have budget supplements which focus almost entirely on how much money will be taken from you or "cuts" but little focus on where the money goes.

Finally - repetition is the key here. It has to come from every agency and channel if you are to overcome received wisdom.

srsly78

Here is tax breakdown site for the UK: http://wheredoesmymoneygo.org/dailybread.html

My UK colleagues were surprised to find out that their nation's total income tax take did not even cover the welfare bill.

Scofflaw

micosoft wrote: »

It's an interesting thought. To be fair some have tried to do this like Eoghan Murphy with his http://www.eoghanmurphy.ie/tax-transparency/ as where your money goes will vary on your income and taxable amount. But this information needs to be on bus shelters - not hidden on TD websites.

I actually think the state agencies should be doing this too.

Revenue should send a infopack twice a year to PAYE workers on where their money went as a "receipt". Nicely done infographics mind, not the awful reports currently issued.

Data.ie like data.gov in the US would provide a fact database on all aspects of governance in Ireland. It would give something useful for our government CIO to do (not heard a thing about him since he was appointed).

The auditor general who have the dullest website I've ever seen should be tasked with it showing value for money where it happens.

Again (and I know I am harping on about it at this point) why can't the papers do this as a matter of course - they have budget supplements which focus almost entirely on how much money will be taken from you or "cuts" but little focus on where the money goes.

Finally - repetition is the key here. It has to come from every agency and channel if you are to overcome received wisdom.

The problem with putting the information online is that people have to go and look at it - the information is already there, after all, but evidently not looked at. That's why I'd favour the newspaper pullout.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Silentcorner

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, similar findings have been made almost everywhere. The public are almost invariably under quite bizarre impressions as to where their tax money goes.

I think that's part of the explanation for the otherwise rather surprisingly vociferous advocates of cutting politicians' salaries as a genuine cost-saving measure when it would make virtually no difference - and the same for foreign aid (tiny), EU payments in the UK (tiny), and so on.

It's interesting to wonder why nobody simply takes out a single-page supplement in every daily paper with a great big coloured pie chart showing where your tax money goes. The cost would be non-trivial, but on the other hand hardly unbearable either. I have a feeling it might come to about €20-30k or so, which one might be able to raise through kickstarter...would there be a sufficient number of people who care to drum up that money? €10 a head by 2-3000 people in the country? It should be doable.

Repeat yearly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I realise you mentioned part of a broader explanation, however for many us the though of rewarding failure in such generous fashion is abhorrent to us. Our political system is producing very wealthy ministers and TDs, at a time when other more talented individuals are being financially decimated because of those politicians actions/decisions.

It is also the attitude "ah sure its only a drop in the ocean" which exists at the top out our system that in my opinion poisons the rest of our system...this attitude also allows the politicians to see fit to abuse the expense system...again, this mentality seeps down through the departments, how could it not.

The savings accrued is not the issue, it is about changing the mentality at the top...something we have still failed to do.

Frankly I think it is astonishing that after all this nation has been through that there still exists that entitlement mentality.

The Irish Times article is drivel, when you consider that most of us are not government insiders and therefore depend on our beloved media to inform us, the sad reality is that even though this is yet another example of poor journalism, the Irish Times still remains the best of a terrible lot, and as for giving these charlatans a cent of taxpayers money...we'd end up with a media pandering to our government (moreso I mean) ala RTE...it would be disastrous.

hognef

Totally agree that the media must take a significant share of the blame for the largely misinformed population. And, while the Irish Times are indeed one of the better sources in this country, the article itself seems to prove that even they themselves don't tend to tell the full story: Where is the accompanying list of data gathered, and indeed the details of how it was gathered?

And where's the full story on the misconceptions on the crime rates and the health service alluded to?

(Disclaimer: I've only read the article online; perhaps the paper version contained more information).

Phoebas

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's interesting to wonder why nobody simply takes out a single-page supplement in every daily paper with a great big coloured pie chart showing where your tax money goes. The cost would be non-trivial, but on the other hand hardly unbearable either. I have a feeling it might come to about €20-30k or so, which one might be able to raise through kickstarter...would there be a sufficient number of people who care to drum up that money? €10 a head by 2-3000 people in the country? It should be doable.

Repeat yearly.

It would probably be a waste of money - people believe what they want to believe. But it would help if the state would publish the estimates and outturns in more accessible formats, so that people who are interested in looking at the numbers could do so more easily.


This website is a very accessible way of looking at where your tax €s are spent.


Edit: Eoghan Murphy (FG TD) has this website that gives some breakdown of the figures - could do with some HTML/CSS lovin' 'though.

Edit Edit: I like this bubble chart of UK expenditure. It wouldn't take too much effort to produce one with Irish figures.

micosoft

Silentcorner wrote: »

The Irish Times article is drivel, when you consider that most of us are not government insiders and therefore depend on our beloved media to inform us, the sad reality is that even though this is yet another example of poor journalism, the Irish Times still remains the best of a terrible lot, and as for giving these charlatans a cent of taxpayers money...we'd end up with a media pandering to our government (moreso I mean) ala RTE...it would be disastrous.

So the first paragraph of your "rant" has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Care to back up the second part though? What exactly is drivel about the article? Is it that the article didn't go "Our political system is producing very wealthy ministers and TDs, at a time when other more talented individuals are being financially decimated because of those politicians actions/decisions, rabble rabble"? Is that your idea of "good" journalism?

I'd have thought it would be more than useful to post the full survey rather then a tiny synopsis. I just don't think that is your problem with it no?

micosoft

hognef wrote: »

Totally agree that the media must take a significant share of the blame for the largely misinformed population. And, while the Irish Times are indeed one of the better sources in this country, the article itself seems to prove that even they themselves don't tend to tell the full story: Where is the accompanying list of data gathered, and indeed the details of how it was gathered?

And where's the full story on the misconceptions on the crime rates and the health service alluded to?

(Disclaimer: I've only read the article online; perhaps the paper version contained more information).

I can't but think that you have no excuse to supply backing data on-line. I accept there are space challenges with print edition but this is an example of poor standards with the IT. Surely they should publish the source data - a trivial task. Better still, deliver something similar to http://www.theguardian.com/data

micosoft

Scofflaw wrote: »

The problem with putting the information online is that people have to go and look at it - the information is already there, after all, but evidently not looked at. That's why I'd favour the newspaper pullout.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree - and I'd go further - Bus Shelters. TV ads during X-Factor on the lines of how to drive from the RSA. Hopefully by osmosis there will be an increase on general knowledge with regard to state expenditure. You could even require employers to insert that months spend on PAYE pay slips!

Phoebas

micosoft wrote: »

I agree - and I'd go further - Bus Shelters. TV ads during X-Factor on the lines of how to drive from the RSA. Hopefully by osmosis there will be an increase on general knowledge with regard to state expenditure. You could even require employers to insert that months spend on PAYE pay slips!

I recall some proposal linked to the LPT that you would get an annual statement showing it broken down by the council services it funded.
I don't know if it ever got adopted.

Silentcorner

micosoft wrote: »

It's an interesting thought. To be fair some have tried to do this like Eoghan Murphy with his http://www.eoghanmurphy.ie/tax-transparency/ as where your money goes will vary on your income and taxable amount. But this information needs to be on bus shelters - not hidden on TD websites.

I actually think the state agencies should be doing this too.

Revenue should send a infopack twice a year to PAYE workers on where their money went as a "receipt". Nicely done infographics mind, not the awful reports currently issued.

Data.ie like data.gov in the US would provide a fact database on all aspects of governance in Ireland. It would give something useful for our government CIO to do (not heard a thing about him since he was appointed).

The auditor general who have the dullest website I've ever seen should be tasked with it showing value for money where it happens.

Again (and I know I am harping on about it at this point) why can't the papers do this as a matter of course - they have budget supplements which focus almost entirely on how much money will be taken from you or "cuts" but little focus on where the money goes.

Finally - repetition is the key here. It has to come from every agency and channel if you are to overcome received wisdom.

I see where you are going with this, let us employ a Regulator for Information who's job it is to provide citizens with accurate government information...brilliant idea!!!

Silentcorner

micosoft wrote: »

So the first paragraph of your "rant" has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Care to back up the second part though? What exactly is drivel about the article? Is it that the article didn't go "Our political system is producing very wealthy ministers and TDs, at a time when other more talented individuals are being financially decimated because of those politicians actions/decisions, rabble rabble"? Is that your idea of "good" journalism?

I'd have thought it would be more than useful to post the full survey rather then a tiny synopsis. I just don't think that is your problem with it no?

The first paragraph of my "rant" was merely pointing out that not all of us believe that politicians pay (which was mentioned in the article as an area of ignorance) should be cut to save money, which in my opinion is what the article and the poster who I responded to had alluded to.

The article is drivel, that is my opinion, the newspaper of record regularly produces drivel just like this, I don't have the time nor the inclination to justify my opinion to you. (hint a previous poster has already alluded to the obvious fault of the article) I simply no longer buy the newspaper (having done so for a long period of time), it seems I am not on my own on that one either going by its tumbling circulation.

Scofflaw

Silentcorner wrote: »

I realise you mentioned part of a broader explanation, however for many us the though of rewarding failure in such generous fashion is abhorrent to us. Our political system is producing very wealthy ministers and TDs, at a time when other more talented individuals are being financially decimated because of those politicians actions/decisions.

It is also the attitude "ah sure its only a drop in the ocean" which exists at the top out our system that in my opinion poisons the rest of our system...this attitude also allows the politicians to see fit to abuse the expense system...again, this mentality seeps down through the departments, how could it not.

The savings accrued is not the issue, it is about changing the mentality at the top...something we have still failed to do.

Frankly I think it is astonishing that after all this nation has been through that there still exists that entitlement mentality.

This is why I was quite explicit in referring to "cutting politicians' salaries as a genuine cost-saving measure". There are other reasons for cutting politicians' salaries (and reasons against as well), but they're irrelevant to that point.

Silentcorner wrote: »

The Irish Times article is drivel, when you consider that most of us are not government insiders and therefore depend on our beloved media to inform us, the sad reality is that even though this is yet another example of poor journalism, the Irish Times still remains the best of a terrible lot, and as for giving these charlatans a cent of taxpayers money...we'd end up with a media pandering to our government (moreso I mean) ala RTE...it would be disastrous.

It's true that simply having journalists paid by the government is not a useful route. Putting journalists in government pay is unlikely to improve the quality of the journalists or the journalism they produce, while having it paid for by the government would at best taint the source.

cordially,
Scofflaw

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Scofflaw wrote: »

<...> the same for foreign aid (tiny)<...>

I agree with the thrust of your point, but I'd just quibble that our contribution to foreign aid was quite substantial. At one point, Ireland was the only country in Europe spending more on foreign aid than on Defence. The reason seemed to be somewhat similar to the way that a considerable portion of the HSE budget goes to so-called "voluntary" bodies. In the foreign aid sector, a little state-funded ecosystem had emerged.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's interesting to wonder why nobody simply takes out a single-page supplement in every daily paper with a great big coloured pie chart showing where your tax money goes.

But, in fairness, I don't thnk the issue is around the information not being stated. At Budget time, there is coverage of that kind of thing. It's just that discussion pushes it to the background, in favour of the "how does this impact on a famiy earning blah" stuff, which is usually presented without much consideration of what any of this means in a broad context.

I'd also suggest that the suggestion of a supplement in the daily papers won't reach the people most in need of the information.

I'd suggest the problem is more fundamental. If people approached discussion of political matters analytically, then they'd find the information. However, I'd don't think people expect that they've anything to gain by doing so. For instance, what possible benefit would pensioners gain from knowing that they account for the largest share of DSP spending?

micosoft

Silentcorner wrote: »

I see where you are going with this, let us employ a Regulator for Information who's job it is to provide citizens with accurate government information...brilliant idea!!!

I really don't see how you could have picked that up from what I actually wrote in my last post - you simply reinforce my impression that you make up your mind first then reply to the post without even a cursory examination. You only see what you want to see.

- Revenue giving a receipt is straightforward.
- Data.gov is in the US, a country with arguably the freest press in the world.
- Making the auditor general make information in a more accessible format is straightforward.

I already alluded in my first post that their are plenty of ways we could do this without some "ministry for information" conspiracy craic.

For example, simply take VAT off Newspapers (9% at the moment). That would be a simple start with no "influence". But far more will have to be done much like we subsidise multiple broadcasters with the broadcast charge.

I've no doubt that there are concerns when you intervene in any market but Governments do it all the time for the greater good. Having a decent quality forth estate is one of those.

micosoft

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I agree with the thrust of your point, but I'd just quibble that our contribution to foreign aid was quite substantial. At one point, Ireland was the only country in Europe spending more on foreign aid than on Defence.

That's a non-sequitur. I really don't understand how you can link foreign aid to defense spending as if there is or should be some correlation? Austria has twice our population but spends less 100% less on it's Navy. Should we shut down our Navy? Or perhaps there are geopolitical reasons why we'd have a different spending structure?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The reason seemed to be somewhat similar to the way that a considerable portion of the HSE budget goes to so-called "voluntary" bodies. In the foreign aid sector, a little state-funded ecosystem had emerged.But, in fairness, I don't thnk the issue is around the information not being stated. At Budget time, there is coverage of that kind of thing. It's just that discussion pushes it to the background, in favour of the "how does this impact on a famiy earning blah" stuff, which is usually presented without much consideration of what any of this means in a broad context.

Hardly unique to Ireland but going off topic. Dozens of examples of other countries that extensively use voluntary bodies for service delivery. Our issue is over accountability of same not the model which works very well when done right.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd also suggest that the suggestion of a supplement in the daily papers won't reach the people most in need of the information.

Figures say otherwise. 4/5 read a newspaper regularly. 1/2 daily. It's one channel - as I mentioned before bus shelters etc. I suspect (but have no evidence) that those that never read a paper are unlikely to vote in the main and not substantially influencing our political system.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd suggest the problem is more fundamental. If people approached discussion of political matters analytically, then they'd find the information. However, I'd don't think people expect that they've anything to gain by doing so. For instance, what possible benefit would pensioners gain from knowing that they account for the largest share of DSP spending?

Possibly an understanding that they may not be ones suffering the most and that giving a host of benefits such as Medical Card, Travel etc to every over 70 might not be the most equitable way of distributing our tax spend. Given the innate power of the grey vote they may wield it more reasonably. I know my elderly parents feel it unfair that that they and their reasonably comfortable friends get so much yet see others struggling. The likes of Age Action have made it out that ALL retirees are poor which is manifestly not the case.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

micosoft wrote: »

<...>I really don't understand how you can link foreign aid to defense spending as if there is or should be some correlation? <..> Or perhaps there are geopolitical reasons why we'd have a different spending structure? <...> Our issue is over accountability of same not the model which works very well when done right.

I think you've explained yourself why someone might link the two spending areas. It could be explained by geopolitcal reasons, if we lived in a political system that made evidence-based decisions about public spending. However, what I'm pointing out is that the foreign aid sector in Ireland was a similar ecosystem to the 'voluntary' sector in healthcare.

Both 'voluntary' sectors involve a lot of people who have volunteered to put themselves in the way of getting reasonable tax-funded salaries, without having to satisfy the Public Appointments Service of their suitablity by competing for an openly-advertised vacancy.

I wouldn't see the need to defend those ecosystems, unless I'd some personal link to them.

micosoft wrote: »

Figures say otherwise. 4/5 read a newspaper regularly. 1/2 daily.

Can I suggest the "1/2 daily" is crucial to this issue, as is the actual papers that people read:

http://nni.ie/jnrs-20122013/

Otherwise, you might not interpret the information on that website correctly. For instance, you might find it hard to reconcile the rhetoric that the NNI use to convince advertisers that it is still worth paying for print space with the concerns you'll have undoubted read about, regarding the continued financial viability of the print medium.

If everyone was an avid reader of hard news stories, we wouldn't find this dreadful ignorance of the composition of public expenditure.

micosoft wrote: »

The likes of Age Action have made it out that ALL retirees are poor which is manifestly not the case.

Indeed, it is manifestly the case. The issue doesn't hinge on evidence - Age Action will go on with their line, regardless of any evidence. If you produced a table breaking down DSP spending by who benefits, they'd just respond by saying pensioners were being scapegoated for the mistakes of others.

And, in our culture, that would probably be enough to get them off the hook.

Silentcorner

micosoft wrote: »

I really don't see how you could have picked that up from what I actually wrote in my last post - you simply reinforce my impression that you make up your mind first then reply to the post without even a cursory examination. You only see what you want to see.

- Revenue giving a receipt is straightforward.
- Data.gov is in the US, a country with arguably the freest press in the world.
- Making the auditor general make information in a more accessible format is straightforward.

I already alluded in my first post that their are plenty of ways we could do this without some "ministry for information" conspiracy craic.

For example, simply take VAT off Newspapers (9% at the moment). That would be a simple start with no "influence". But far more will have to be done much like we subsidise multiple broadcasters with the broadcast charge.

I've no doubt that there are concerns when you intervene in any market but Governments do it all the time for the greater good. Having a decent quality forth estate is one of those.

Fair enough, I guess I picked up on a fraction of your point (where you stated that the state should be participating i providing information to the public) and followed through to the point where we would be appointing a well paid state figure to oversee the process, which lets be honest is what our beloved politicians would do, a lot like our Financial regulator, for obvious reasons I would consider that complete waste of taxpayers time and money.

I completely agree on having a healthy fourth estate, it is my opinion that we have too many newspapers operating in a declining market which is leading to falling standards across all media...some of these outlets will have to close down, the question is which one (TCH would be first to go I'd imagine) however, if we start subsidising these outlets, and some would argue we already have through debt write downs, we may just prolonging the agony for the staff members and standards of journalism that is required.

We can all agree that no internet news provider has the resources to provide us with a healthy fourth state, I truly believe there is a market for a newspaper that does provide that vital service, it doesn't need to be a daily, the price of that paper isn't as important as it may seem.

Just to clarify, being from Limerick I am only too aware of how our media create mispercepions and that article while addressing another issue altogether, was another example of how our press conveniently washes its hands of its responsibility, hence the term drivel.

micosoft

My point is more around the idea we need to intervene in the Newspaper market in some form.

I agree - journalism is becoming more and more about using stereotypes as it does not involve challenging the reader. Limerick becomes a quick shorthand in many peoples minds. So low standards already. Only decent article I read on the issues in certain areas of Limerick suburbs was by Des O'Malley.

The internet is increasingly dangerous by creating narrow results that simply reinforce a persons viewpoint. Personalisation is potentially one of the greatest threat to a well informed electorate that we face (slight hyperbole, but...)

Have a look at a really interesting but short Ted Talk here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

It's frightening how "different" online news looks based on some algorithm.

So I come back to my point. If the broad stable newspaper (or source) which displays a variety of viewpoints - from Vincent Browne to Kevin Myers - is dying, is it not incumbent on us to intervene? Because market forces may lead to computers deciding what news you get to read......

As an aside - I was happy to pay the IT when it was behind a firewall and I would be happy to pay for a decent (i.e. not Murdoch owned) Newspaper with good journalism. At heart I think good journalists should be paid for their content!

Silentcorner

micosoft wrote: »

My point is more around the idea we need to intervene in the Newspaper market in some form.

I agree - journalism is becoming more and more about using stereotypes as it does not involve challenging the reader. Limerick becomes a quick shorthand in many peoples minds. So low standards already. Only decent article I read on the issues in certain areas of Limerick suburbs was by Des O'Malley.

The internet is increasingly dangerous by creating narrow results that simply reinforce a persons viewpoint. Personalisation is potentially one of the greatest threat to a well informed electorate that we face (slight hyperbole, but...)

Have a look at a really interesting but short Ted Talk here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

It's frightening how "different" online news looks based on some algorithm.

So I come back to my point. If the broad stable newspaper (or source) which displays a variety of viewpoints - from Vincent Browne to Kevin Myers - is dying, is it not incumbent on us to intervene? Because market forces may lead to computers deciding what news you get to read......

As an aside - I was happy to pay the IT when it was behind a firewall and I would be happy to pay for a decent (i.e. not Murdoch owned) Newspaper with good journalism. At heart I think good journalists should be paid for their content!

Interesting link, and let us not lose sight of the fact that Google and Facebook are in their infancy, where will they be in 10/20 years time...

In so far as newspapers are concerned, it is my belief that the current model is dead, several hundred people working with secure contracts producing daily newspapers places enormous stress on the financials of the organisation, it also depends on the willingness of the punter to go out and pay for the newspaper, how much money do newspaper titles make on circulation? Their advertising rates are directly correlated with that circulation. So essentially the punter decides on the future of the title, hence the dumbing down of content (see any particular copy of the Indo)

I am not sure as to the long term viability of placing content on a news website (even at a price) the industry has struggled for over ten years to make sense or revenue from this model.

You are absolutely correct, good journalism should be paid for, websites will never yield the revenue required to pay that money.

We know of two certain crucial factors

1 People need good content / healthy fourth state
2 Newspaper advertising is extremely effective, and in demand

The future may look like this

A weekly/bi free weekly edition, published by an advertising sales company, using content from a variety of sources, who instead of being directly employed are paid for content printed, just like contributors, the owners need to have a captive audience, need to maintain a high standard of journalism to maintain their readers interest. Production needs be outsourced also. Distribution through either direct mail, which is not as off the wall as it may seem, companies pay good money to place flyers in your letterbox, if a newspaper was sent directly it could sell enough inserts to cover the charge, possibly.

Or state intervention, possibly awarding a licence to one/two operators on a paid for newspaper model.

One thing for certain is there will be massive change over the coming years, the current lot are too entrenched in the old way to change.

grainnewhale

For starters, this is just a poll and may be representive or not. All journalists have strong opinions, so while presenting the "facts" they can be skewed and manipulated to strengthen your case. My main problem with the Irish times is Fintan the tool. No media should get public funding and that includes RTE.

PRAF

Education, education, education. Mass advertising will help but really we need to educate people about politics, government, society, etc. That way, they,ll be more equipped and motivated to properly engage with these issues

micosoft

grainnewhale wrote: »

For starters, this is just a poll and may be representive or not. All journalists have strong opinions, so while presenting the "facts" they can be skewed and manipulated to strengthen your case. My main problem with the Irish times is Fintan the tool. No media should get public funding and that includes RTE.

No - the problem here is that you don't agree with Fintan O'Toole. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree it is important (and for the record I disagree with most of what Fintan writes) that people read opposing opinions. That's what good journalism is about and why a strong News Media trade is important. This is the fundamental issue I am talking about - we are coming to an era when people like yourself only read commentary that agrees with your worldview and utterly intolerant of opposing views (I'm merely going by your name-calling of Fintan). That is not good for democracy.

micosoft

Silentcorner wrote: »

Interesting link, and let us not lose sight of the fact that Google and Facebook are in their infancy, where will they be in 10/20 years time...

To be fair I think that's what he was looking at - increasing personalisation that Google, Facebook, Yahoo et al are pushing. The future looks very like the US where people can be shocked when presented with information contrary to their world-view. You live in Republican land or Democratic land and complete polarisation occurs between the two. Imagine every (insert opposition party you don't agree with here) post "disappeared" from your Boards.ie - could make for a boring politics forum.

I don't think either of us will solve the newspaper model conundrum - most newspapers lose money. An awful lot of posters think the state should not get involved but have no qualms with the current alternative - tycoons like Jeff Bezos (Washington Post) and Denis O'Brien closer to home who buy for philanthropic/vanity/(insert agenda here) reasons. Now we can go way off topic discussing ownership structure as many smarter minds have been trying and failing to find a model that works.

That said, perhaps I/we are premature....
“Newspapers continue to reign supreme in the delivery of local news. Charlie and I believe that papers delivering comprehensive and reliable information to tightly bound communities and having a sensible Internet strategy will remain viable for a long time.

Berkshire’s cash earnings from its papers will almost certainly trend downward over time. Even a sensible Internet strategy will not be able to prevent modest erosion. At our cost, however, I believe these papers will meet or exceed our economic test for acquisitions. Results to date support that belief.”

- Warren Buffett, 2012 Berkshire Shareholder Letter (May 1, 2013)

He's rarely wrong, especially with industries he understands. More local news supported by syndicated national content.

K-9

micosoft wrote: »

No - the problem here is that you don't agree with Fintan O'Toole. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree it is important (and for the record I disagree with most of what Fintan writes) that people read opposing opinions. That's what good journalism is about and why a strong News Media trade is important. This is the fundamental issue I am talking about - we are coming to an era when people like yourself only read commentary that agrees with your worldview and utterly intolerant of opposing views (I'm merely going by your name-calling of Fintan). That is not good for democracy.

The problem isn't opinion writers like O'Toole or even Myers, it's less resources devoted to fact checking Government and other reports released to the media. They all seem to be taken as fact, in attention grabbing headlines, not something you'll find on a site like Boards. You wont be long finding out how a report or statistic is biased on Boards, even if it's a biased poster quoting a website or paper that concurs with their alternative world view!

I can remember John Hume coming under a sustained attacked in the Sindo over 20 years ago over the Hume/Adam talks. It was a despicably one sided analysis with 4 anti talks pages, big hitting opinion writers and one, at most, pro Hume. They were wrong as history shows, but the Sindo still is the best selling Sunday paper, still has an anti SF/Republican agenda, and still a huge following. It sells.

Opinions are opinions, like arseholes, everybody has one, but it would help if journalists could do basic fact checking on news articles that form the basis for our often lazy generalisations.

Black Swan

Phoebas wrote: »

I like this bubble chart of UK expenditure. It wouldn't take too much effort to produce one with Irish figures.

I love this chart. It exemplifies the problem. It is very complex, as are the issues it illustrates. How can you expect today's voter to understand such complexity, when many have trouble balancing their check books, or understanding the risks involved in personal mortgage debt?

For those that have succeeded in living within their means, and perhaps growing their net worth overtime, understanding a few thousand euros does not conceptually prepare them for understanding the allocation of billions, all within a highly complex national economy and dynamic global marketplace.

Voter apathy is yet another problem. Many of us are so tied-up in our day-to-day problems that we are ill prepared to take on those of the nation. It's just too easy election time to vote for the lad or lass who looks the look, walks the walk, and talks the talk that we find attractive, often for superficial reasons.

Could the voter be better prepared tomorrow than today? I would hope so, but I doubt that simply changing the content of newsprint and other forums of social media will be the silver bullet that overcomes the lack of preparation to intelligibly vote in future elections. It may be part of the solution. Sadly, there's no simple solution to this complex problem. No quick fixes. The whole culture would have to change, perhaps starting with our (re)education, and the education of our children using every medium possible overtime.

micosoft

K-9 wrote: »

The problem isn't opinion writers like O'Toole or even Myers, it's less resources devoted to fact checking Government and other reports released to the media. They all seem to be taken as fact, in attention grabbing headlines, not something you'll find on a site like Boards. You wont be long finding out how a report or statistic is biased on Boards, even if it's a biased poster quoting a website or paper that concurs with their alternative world view!

I can remember John Hume coming under a sustained attacked in the Sindo over 20 years ago over the Hume/Adam talks. It was a despicably one sided analysis with 4 anti talks pages, big hitting opinion writers and one, at most, pro Hume. They were wrong as history shows, but the Sindo still is the best selling Sunday paper, still has an anti SF/Republican agenda, and still a huge following. It sells.

Opinions are opinions, like arseholes, everybody has one, but it would help if journalists could do basic fact checking on news articles that form the basis for our often lazy generalisations.

I agree with your tenet that fact checking is appalling in Irish Newspapers. That the Irish Times provided a synopsis of a survey without presenting the source is shocking. That's why I think The Guardians guardian.com/data site is an exemplar of what papers of record should be doing.

That said - I don't agree with your example - there were no "facts" around the peace process. Many (including myself) were wrong about John Humes momentous and very brave actions in bring SF into a process. But there were no "facts" or guarantees around the process. It was very much about a number of personalities bringing their communities with them which also leads to personality opinion pieces. The only facts were that the IRA were killing and maiming people at that time. Now talking about unbalanced opinion pieces is different and I agree - the Independent was excessively negative though more a function of the background and history of its opinion writers (Conor Cruise O'Brien springs to mind). That said - some of the commentary was justified as the "fleg" protests show - not all of the community were brought forward.

Balanced commentary is essential to providing people with the insight they need to decide what's best for them. As Black Swan pointed out the vast majority of people don't have the time or inclination to fact check or do research - that's the journalists role in our democracy. To distil down the facts to something digestible by the public.

This is from Wiki but it is a useful quote nonetheless:

Lippmann argued that most individuals lacked the capacity, time, and motivation to follow and analyze news of the many complex policy questions that troubled society. Nor did they often directly experience most social problems, or have direct access to expert insights. These limitations were made worse by a news media that tended to over-simplify issues and to reinforce stereotypes, partisan viewpoints, and prejudices. As a consequence, Lippmann believed that the public needed journalists like himself who could serve as expert analysts, guiding “citizens to a deeper understanding of what was really important

Godge

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, similar findings have been made almost everywhere. The public are almost invariably under quite bizarre impressions as to where their tax money goes.

I think that's part of the explanation for the otherwise rather surprisingly vociferous advocates of cutting politicians' salaries as a genuine cost-saving measure when it would make virtually no difference - and the same for foreign aid (tiny), EU payments in the UK (tiny), and so on.

It's interesting to wonder why nobody simply takes out a single-page supplement in every daily paper with a great big coloured pie chart showing where your tax money goes. The cost would be non-trivial, but on the other hand hardly unbearable either. I have a feeling it might come to about €20-30k or so, which one might be able to raise through kickstarter...would there be a sufficient number of people who care to drum up that money? €10 a head by 2-3000 people in the country? It should be doable.

Repeat yearly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Generally I would agree with this, except for the point about Irish aid.

http://www.dci.gov.ie/what-we-do/how-our-aid-works/where-the-money-goes/

"Ireland’s total aid expenditure in 2011 was €657 million"

$657m is non-trivial expenditure.

Remember the probity on medical cards was expected to save €113m initially, since reduced.

The HSE is supposed to save €150m from HRA efficiencies.

The pay saving from HRA is supposed to be €210m.

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2013-07-17a.291


Not saying we should cut the aid budget significantly buy unlike say, politician's salaries or top-up allowances in the health sector, we could actually make real savings from cutting the aid budget.

As an aside, it was quite ironic when at the height of the crisis as the IMF were being brought in, a number of countries receiving aid from Ireland were able to borrow at lower rates from the market.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Godge wrote: »

Generally I would agree with this, except for the point about Irish aid.

http://www.dci.gov.ie/what-we-do/how-our-aid-works/where-the-money-goes/

"Ireland’s total aid expenditure in 2011 was €657 million"

$657m is non-trivial expenditure.<..>

I'd agree, and I'd add that our aid spending used to be nearly a billion. It was (and still is) quite a substantial budget.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-seeking-to-stabilise-overseas-aid-budget-1.1525863

Scofflaw

I knew it to be "about €600m", but I agree it's fair to say that 1.2% of government spending is non-trivial.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

Couldn't it be said voters aren't ill-informed as such, they are simply properly prioritising their research into politics based on the relevance it has to the decisions they have to make? Voters do not directly get a vote in the budget process, and the party whip system ensure they lack even indirect influence as their TD is forced to vote with the party regardless of voter instructions. So why would a voter waste their time learning off the national spending % breakdown when they will almost never have use for it?

micosoft

Sand wrote: »

Couldn't it be said voters aren't ill-informed as such, they are simply properly prioritising their research into politics based on the relevance it has to the decisions they have to make? Voters do not directly get a vote in the budget process, and the party whip system ensure they lack even indirect influence as their TD is forced to vote with the party regardless of voter instructions. So why would a voter waste their time learning off the national spending % breakdown when they will almost never have use for it?

So why bother with anything? You clearly don't believe we live in a democracy with your take on the whip system. To think this man has such incredible power!

Sand

So why bother with anything? You clearly don't believe we live in a democracy with your take on the whip system. To think this man has such incredible power!

I believe we live in a very weak democracy. Though at least broadly liberal one.

That said the point stands - given the system is designed to ensure TDs prioritise allegiance to the party whip over directions from their electorate, why exactly should the voters bother researching budgetary spending stats? When will they ever be asked to make a decision or even influence a decision where its important to know if 27% of social welfare spending goes to pensioners or to the unemployed?

People and voters are clearly prioritising what's more relevant given their lack of influence over national policy: who fixed the potholes in the road, who helps them fill in their forms, who got the spending grant for their local sports club etc. All perfectly rational under the conditions of our political system.

micosoft

They won't ever be asked 27% of social welfare spending goes to pensioners or to the unemployed and I can't think of a single modern democracy that would suggest such a state of affairs. We live in a party based parliamentary democracy where people vote for candidates who represent parties that have clearly defined manifesto's and policies. I suggest the voter informs themselves and vote for candidates who represent the party whose manifesto most meets the voters informed preferences.

It's a totally different topic/discussion but given only 14 out of 166 TD's were voted in as "Whipless" independents it's safe to say most people would disagree with your preferred political system.

Chips Lovell

Nobody is obliging you to vote for someone under a party whip. You can always vote for an Independent.