Is it fair to have comments blocked on online newspapers?

William F

For the past few years I have been commenting on online newspaper articles and discussion forums.

In recent times the following online newspapers have blocked or deleted my comments;

The Irish Times
The Irish Independent
The Belfast Telegraph
And new to the list; the Journal.ie.

I think it's fair enough that they are privately owned but is it really fair that someone like Denis O Brien can control over 30 % of Ireland's media and influence what we should think and do?

It's as though freedom of speech no longer matters in this country.

How would journalists like it if we stopped them on the street and silenced what they had to say? Is freedom of speech becoming restricted to those who own newspapers?

I think this country is going down a dangerous path. Freedom of speech being gradually eroded, protests no longer a loud. When will it stop?

hatrickpatrick

It's not just Ireland. The internet in general, and more slowly wider society, is under attack from a subset of self-styled "liberals" (who are anything but liberal) who have decided that one's right never to have one's feelings hurt or jimmies rustled is vastly more important than one's right to freedom of expression.

A particularly poisonous aspect of their crusade is to label anyone who defends the freedom to make bigoted speech as themselves being a bigot. So for instance, you can't condemn the censorship of racist memes without obviously yourself being a racist. The idea that you simply believe in the right of others to air opinions you don't like is never considered. As a result, many people are afraid to publicly oppose this creeping censorship.

househero

William F wrote: »

For the past few years I have been commenting on online newspaper articles and discussion forums.

In recent times the following online newspapers have blocked or deleted my comments;

The Irish Times
The Irish Independent
The Belfast Telegraph
And new to the list; the Journal.ie.

I think it's fair enough that they are privately owned but is it really fair that someone like Denis O Brien can control over 30 % of Ireland's media and influence what we should think and do?

It's as though freedom of speech no longer matters in this country.

How would journalists like it if we stopped them on the street and silenced what they had to say? Is freedom of speech becoming restricted to those who own newspapers?

I think this country is going down a dangerous path. Freedom of speech being gradually eroded, protests no longer a loud. When will it stop?

Boards.ie also blocks peoples opinions and bins threads they don't like.

Lovely Bloke

If the law in Ireland was clearer on "you post it you own it" rather than the publishing body being responsible for your content then it may bet a bit more lax.

At the moment, the editor can control what goes on the letters pages.

Nobody apart from you can control what you publish on the internet - so if you post something libellous, or inciting to hatred, or just plain old racism, sexism or any-ism then until the moderators/editors see it it's published, and probably cached by Google.

The internet is still young, and people in general are still hiding behind anonymous screen names, they think this protects them and they post things online that they'd never dream of saying out loud, or that no editor would ever print in their paper. Further to this, the courts hold the publisher responsible, or it's not entirely clear that they won't.

Some of the comments that appear under articles on The Journal, The Guardian, The Irish Times, New Scientist, Anglers Weekly or whatever online publication are outrageous really, and I think it's a legitimate editorial decision to either close the comments section, never open it, or remove comments that may not meet the desired tone of the publication in order to maintain a reputation.

C14N

It's completely fair really. They're the ones who are hosting your comments, they're the ones who can decide whether they stay up or down. If you dislike it, you have all the legal rights to create your own website to post them on. At the the very least, you can choose not to use a website that you think is biased against your opinions. Nobody else is obligated to give you a platform.

hatrickpatrick

C14N wrote: »

It's completely fair really. They're the ones who are hosting your comments, they're the ones who can decide whether they stay up or down. If you dislike it, you have all the legal rights to create your own website to post them on. At the the very least, you can choose not to use a website that you think is biased against your opinions. Nobody else is obligated to give you a platform.

I disagree to an extent. It has to be accepted that as of right now, certain websites on the global internet and certain media organizations in individual nations have a quasi monopoly on the dominant discourse, and to allow that to go unchallenged is pretty dangerous. For instance, if a site like Facebook adopted a policy saying "no travellers can post here", sure they could set up their own tiny site, but only they would use it, so they have in effect been segregated from the general population's mode of communication.

It's certainly a complex area, but personally now that private companies effectively control the "town square" in internet terms, I'd argue that certain free speech provisions should be legally impossible to tamper with. But that's just me.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I disagree to an extent. It has to be accepted that as of right now, certain websites on the global internet and certain media organizations in individual nations have a quasi monopoly on the dominant discourse, and to allow that to go unchallenged is pretty dangerous. For instance, if a site like Facebook adopted a policy saying "no travellers can post here", sure they could set up their own tiny site, but only they would use it, so they have in effect been segregated from the general population's mode of communication.

...and if boards.ie prevented travellers from posting, I'd agree wholeheartedly. But boards.ie acts to prevent itself from getting sued, and that's what has some people up in arms.

If someone wants to get a website sued, they're more than welcome to set one up for the purpose.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and if boards.ie prevented travellers from posting, I'd agree wholeheartedly. But boards.ie acts to prevent itself from getting sued, and that's what has some people up in arms.

If someone wants to get a website sued, they're more than welcome to set one up for the purpose.

I wasn't specifically talking about Boards, I was talking about how the "it's a private company so they can do what they like" argument is flawed when it comes to the internet. Certain companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc command such a gigantic and dominant influence over public discourse that in my view they should be prevented from imposing restrictions on free speech.

With regard to Boards getting sued, all of that would go away if a law was clarified making individual posters, rather than platforms, liable for libel. But it'll never happen because too many vested interests like being able to shut people up by threatening injunctions against dominant websites. Remember MCD?

Iwasfrozen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I wasn't specifically talking about Boards, I was talking about how the "it's a private company so they can do what they like" argument is flawed when it comes to the internet. Certain companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc command such a gigantic and dominant influence over public discourse that in my view they should be prevented from imposing restrictions on free speech.

With regard to Boards getting sued, all of that would go away if a law was clarified making individual posters, rather than platforms, liable for libel. But it'll never happen because too many vested interests like being able to shut people up by threatening injunctions against dominant websites. Remember MCD?

As long as you have anonymity on the internet you can't hold users responsible for libel.

hatrickpatrick

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As long as you have anonymity on the internet you can't hold users responsible for libel.

Sure, but again that doesn't mean platform providers should be liable. That creates a dangerous chilling effect.
When MCD accused Boards of libel because some posters criticised Oxegen's security arrangements, Boards was forced to ban all discussion of any MCD hosted event. This equated to the largest online forum for Irish people having to prohibit people from discussing many of the biggest entertainment events for a period of several years.

That is insanely dangerous to society.

Iwasfrozen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sure, but again that doesn't mean platform providers should be liable. That creates a dangerous chilling effect.
When MCD accused Boards of libel because some posters criticised Oxegen's security arrangements, Boards was forced to ban all discussion of any MCD hosted event. This equated to the largest online forum for Irish people having to prohibit people from discussing many of the biggest entertainment events for a period of several years.

That is insanely dangerous to society.

I disagree, media providers must be responsible for the content posted on their page otherwise no one is responsible and I can spread malicious rumours about anyone, damaging their reputation and causing them stress without fear of retribution.

Eric Cartman

Id agree with libellous comments, I think everyone would. Information about a person that is not a proven fact can always be a legally dangerous issue.


however there is massive suppression of certain opinions and viewpoints pointlessly on a lot of websites. Thejournal.ie is a good example of this , try comment anything a bit right wing 4-5 times and you'll find your comments disappearing , but thats because of the comment sphere there. Similar enough, a lot of stories about travellers have comments turned off as the staff are very much aware of how negative all of them will be.

We use censorship on news sites in the comment sections to pretend we're all accepting , tolerant people and that every things above board and nobody has anything bad to say about anyone. In reality we all have our prejudices and some views that aren't considered acceptable in the 'PC' hyper offended sphere. Those opinions must be kept for talking with friends or down the pub though, as the world just isn't ready for free speech.

syklops

The best argument against comments on news websites are most of the comments on them. independent.ie seems to attract them the most. Kanye west does something news worthy but the comments section is bile and hatred at the government, individual politicians, Irish Water, and various other topics that people love to whine about. And those are the ones that don't get deleted.

hatrickpatrick

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I disagree, media providers must be responsible for the content posted on their page otherwise no one is responsible and I can spread malicious rumours about anyone, damaging their reputation and causing them stress without fear of retribution.

Neither situation is ideal, but I'd argue that the above is the lesser of two evils if the alternative is easy censorship of large platform providers by threatening legal action.

Iwasfrozen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Neither situation is ideal, but I'd argue that the above is the lesser of two evils if the alternative is easy censorship of large platform providers by threatening legal action.

The two ideas don't have to clash, a person is free to say anything they want, provided they can prove it. If they can't back it up with solid evidence in a court of law then it is libellous.

hatrickpatrick

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The two ideas don't have to clash, a person is free to say anything they want, provided they can prove it. If they can't back it up with solid evidence in a court of law then it is libellous.

I agree but the point I'm making is that holding content providers responsible for their users' actions creates a chilling environment where content providers are so terrified of getting sued that they will shut down any debate which has the potential to become controversial as a pre-emptive measure. Boards is a prime example of that.

Iwasfrozen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree but the point I'm making is that holding content providers responsible for their users' actions creates a chilling environment where content providers are so terrified of getting sued that they will shut down any debate which has the potential to become controversial as a pre-emptive measure. Boards is a prime example of that.

That's more an issue for individual companies than legislative.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sure, but again that doesn't mean platform providers should be liable. That creates a dangerous chilling effect.
When MCD accused Boards of libel because some posters criticised Oxegen's security arrangements, Boards was forced to ban all discussion of any MCD hosted event. This equated to the largest online forum for Irish people having to prohibit people from discussing many of the biggest entertainment events for a period of several years.

That is insanely dangerous to society.

I'm not sure Boards was forced to do anything. I believe they chose to.

Tea drinker

We are as a society far better at covering things up than revealing them.
Namawinelake had to stop commenting or face legal action, one of the few online commentators who was speaking the truth about Irelands crash.
He was all over the siteserv thing in 2012, and now look? This kind of censorship is always protecting the few, it really doesn't do any good for society as a whole. Sooner or later people get called on online BS if that is what they are talking. Is the independent going to quote me tomorrow if I post up that Elvis was seen in the central bank in a Nazi uniform right before the crash?

There's a different expectation on fora than print media and legally owning your posts is only going to serve the inner circle.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not sure Boards was forced to do anything. I believe they chose to.

Well they were forced to take organised action, and decremented service for their users was the result.

ancapailldorcha

Tea drinker wrote: »

Well they were forced to take organised action, and decremented service for their users was the result.

Source for this?

Hotblack Desiato

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As long as you have anonymity on the internet you can't hold users responsible for libel.

There is no anonymity on the internet. Around the world there is a good number of people who went to great lengths to try to conceal their identity and who are in prison right now.

syklops wrote: »

The best argument against comments on news websites are most of the comments on them. independent.ie seems to attract them the most. Kanye west does something news worthy but the comments section is bile and hatred at the government, individual politicians, Irish Water, and various other topics that people love to whine about. And those are the ones that don't get deleted.

You are arguing from a false premise.
Kanye West has never done anything newsworthy

Tea drinker wrote: »

This kind of censorship is always protecting the few, it really doesn't do any good for society as a whole.

They're the guys with high-powered legal teams on speed dial. This isn't an online problem, in fact a lot more remains under the radar of these guys on the internet than could ever appear in print.

Well they were forced to take organised action, and decremented service for their users was the result.

They could have paid a little more moderator attention to MCD related topics, as they do to many things, if their concern was really about getting sued.

Really it came across as a petulant "Yeah? Well **** you too, MCD" and why not I suppose, if it could make them think about the damage they were doing to their brand/reputation among a significant chunk of their target demographic.

oscarBravo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Really it came across as a petulant "Yeah? Well **** you too, MCD" and why not I suppose, if it could make them think about the damage they were doing to their brand/reputation among a significant chunk of their target demographic.

I'm not sure why you'd call it petulant. The MCD action was on the basis that posters were saying bad things about them. Until the legal issues were resolved, boards.ie had two options: confine posters to only ever saying nice things about MCD, or prevent them from mentioning the company at all.

Would you take the option of only ever allowing nice things to be said about a party that's suing you?

Tea drinker

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Source for this?

Boards is the source ...where you are now ;-) blocked further discussion on the MCD topic. They didn't do that for the craic, they did it as a business reason, same as any business does what is prudent to stay alive.
I'm not saying the ERU was outside in a black helicopter, but they were forced to take action in the best interest of the business.

I understand there may be some shouldering going on here - no one forced me to do xyz Joe!

ancapailldorcha

Tea drinker wrote: »

Boards is the source ...where you are now ;-) blocked further discussion on the MCD topic. They didn't do that for the craic, they did it as a business reason, same as any business does what is prudent to stay alive.
I'm not saying the ERU was outside in a black helicopter, but they were forced to take action in the best interest of the business.

I understand there may be some shouldering going on here - no one forced me to do xyz Joe!

I was looking for a source stating that they had to rather than that they chose to.

C14N

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I disagree to an extent. It has to be accepted that as of right now, certain websites on the global internet and certain media organizations in individual nations have a quasi monopoly on the dominant discourse, and to allow that to go unchallenged is pretty dangerous. For instance, if a site like Facebook adopted a policy saying "no travellers can post here", sure they could set up their own tiny site, but only they would use it, so they have in effect been segregated from the general population's mode of communication.

It's certainly a complex area, but personally now that private companies effectively control the "town square" in internet terms, I'd argue that certain free speech provisions should be legally impossible to tamper with. But that's just me.

I think that's a false equivalency. Banning someone on the basis of ethnicity is definitely getting into murkier territory legally than banning someone whose opinion you dislike.

I don't think they should really be under any obligation. If they held some real kind of monopolistic power then maybe but a website like the Irish Times has so many competitors that it just doesn't make sense, especially when setting up a rival news blog or forum is such an easy thing to do. In much the same way a pub or nightclub are allowed to remove a patron who keeps stirring up trouble, a website should be allowed to remove anybody they think is doing the same. It's needed to an extent and they're kept in check by customers who will feck off if they start thinking the site is too restrictive.

K-9

That's a good point and something I struggle to make when stuff like this comes up!

Freedom of the Internet works both ways. Freedom of choice sometimes excludes us, nothing personal, just others exercising their freedom.

Freedom of speech means others might not particularly like you!

jmayo

William F wrote: »

For the past few years I have been commenting on online newspaper articles and discussion forums.

In recent times the following online newspapers have blocked or deleted my comments;

The Irish Times
The Irish Independent
The Belfast Telegraph
And new to the list; the Journal.ie.

I think it's fair enough that they are privately owned but is it really fair that someone like Denis O Brien can control over 30 % of Ireland's media and influence what we should think and do?

It's as though freedom of speech no longer matters in this country.

How would journalists like it if we stopped them on the street and silenced what they had to say? Is freedom of speech becoming restricted to those who own newspapers?

I think this country is going down a dangerous path. Freedom of speech being gradually eroded, protests no longer a loud. When will it stop?

Ehh Freedom of Speech never existed in this country and if you think it did then I don't what you have been drinking.

Afaik a journalist who raised ray burke's finances back in the 70s was hounded from his job and out of the state.
Where was the freedom of speech then ?

You can say what you want in the street, don't expect others to shout it for you.
Internet forums get hit with legal threats and the cost can be closure.

Granted some internet forum moderation may go too far in protecting the sensitivities of some (supporters of certain ex government parties would be one I found), but you can understand if they get a bit worried when something may be outright libelous, defamatory or slanderous.

Media owners can decide what is discussed and not discussed on their outlets and interet websites are really another outlet.
What is galling is when they sanction discussion in order to set their own slant or spin on the discussion and further their own vested interests.

A certain property related forum was founded because of the desire of posters on another forum to discuss our impending property bubble meltdown.

True it is worrying when so much of the nations media is falling into the hands of one particular person.
They get to set the tone of public discourse and discussion.

But guess what if people got off their ar**es and boycotted these outlets then we might have more open media not owned by a few.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not sure Boards was forced to do anything. I believe they chose to.

Persauded might be another interpretation.

FreudianSlippers

I think people fundamentally misunderstand freedom of speech in a way that they don't usually misunderstand other freedoms. All fundamental rights are not inherently equal and, even if they were, they must balance with each other - for example, the right to earn a livelihood and the right to protect your good name must always balance freedom of speech.

Does it mean that your freedoms are somewhat restricted? Of course it does.

Hotblack Desiato

You have the apparent freedom to shout whatever you want into the public space

You do not have the right to oblige a broadcaster or website to facilitate your speech.

You also have to bear in mind libel, slander and public order legislation.

So you don't really have the freedom to shout whatever you want into the public space at all. You never did. And nobody in any society in the world ever ever had an unfettered right to free speech, either.

imme

Are you a journalist OP.

I find 'comments' on newspaper websites a nonsense, a waste of time and effort, maybe even something like Boards.ie is a waste of time and effort.

Comments on newspaper websites are there to generate revenue for newspapers, simple as.

They are a symptom of new media, a questionable new addition to the world.

If you don't like certain newspapers or newspaper proprietors don't comment on their websites, don't even visit their websites.

FreudianSlippers

imme wrote: »

Are you a journalist OP.

I find 'comments' on newspaper websites a nonsense, a waste of time and effort, maybe even something like Boards.ie is a waste of time and effort.

Comments on newspaper websites are there to generate revenue for newspapers, simple as.

They are a symptom of new media, a questionable new addition to the world.

If you don't like certain newspapers or newspaper proprietors don't comment on their websites, don't even visit their websites.

Go read the comments on a Journal.ie article. It will make you want to end society.

Eric Cartman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Go read the comments on a Journal.ie article. It will make you want to end society.

if thejournal.ie comments section was a reflection of actual society, gerry adams would be taoiseach , una mullally would be a credible journalist and conspiracy nut job theories about Denis O'Brien and Bertie Ahern secretly running the world would run rampant. Thankfully those people are too busy with the comment section to go out in the real world. Its a news site so detached from reality it disturbs me.

For Forks Sake

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Go read the comments on a Journal.ie article. It will make you want to end society.

The best possible reason against having comments sections is thejournal and it's infestation of lowlifes.

Chips Lovell

imme wrote: »

Comments on newspaper websites are there to generate revenue for newspapers, simple as.

This is it. They're there to make news sites "stickier". The longer people browse, the more you'll pick up in advertising revenue.

Getting your comments deleted from the journal.ie is quite the feat, OP. It must have been dripping with slander and smear.

For Forks Sake

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Getting your comments deleted from the journal.ie is quite the feat, OP. It must have been dripping with slander and smear.

Expressing any opinion on there that doesn't vaguely revert to "f*ck the gubbermint, dem corrupt backstards" will usually see the coterie of Anti Anything Alliance types there round on you. Even on articles related to sport.

For Forks Sake

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Expressing any opinion on there that doesn't vaguely revert to "f*ck the gubbermint, dem corrupt backstards" will usually see the coterie of Anti Anything Alliance types there round on you. Even on articles related to sport.

The problem with any radical movement promoting justice for the disadvantaged is that it quickly becomes full of people who are disadvantaged and, almost by default, uneducated and angry, thus weakening the movement and its credibility.

It's a sort of credibility negative-feedback-loop.

The greatest harm to the AAA and the Socialist Party is wreaked by online supporters hammering angrily on their keyboards, discrediting those organisations on every online platform they can find. Some of them even get elected, and hammer away like pneumatic drills in the national parliament, saying absolutely nothing of value.

It's a really terrible paradox, depending on your politics.

Hotblack Desiato

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The problem with any radical movement promoting justice for the disadvantaged is that it quickly becomes full of people who are disadvantaged and, almost by default, uneducated and angry, thus weakening the movement and its credibility.

Nah it's not that (and isn't it funny how the marxists are the only ones obsessed with 'class')

There are daycent people in all walks of life, there are 'me me me gimme and f everyone else' people in all walks of life too, it doesn't matter whether they live in a council flat or a 'bog standard mansion' (although I would wager there are far more decent people living in council flats)

Problem is the AAA / water protest thing encourages only the 'me me gimme stuff for free, pay nothing' types who can't see any common interest - ironically the exact opposite of what socialism/communism/marxism was supposed to be about.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nah it's not that (and isn't it funny how the marxists are the only ones obsessed with 'class')

Marxism is not the only ideology obsessed with class, or I would rather say 'class conscious'. Class consciousness exists among all classes.

Marxism is the only coherent ideology dedicated to the destruction of class, and so reference to class is more frequent in Marxist writing than in the political pronouncements of those who are content with, and wish to retain, their station in life, such as the employers of labour.

Obviously someone who is content with their class position is not going to go marching down O'Connell Street drawing attention to 'how much more privileged we are'.

Problem is the AAA / water protest thing encourages only the 'me me gimme stuff for free, pay nothing' types who can't see any common interest - ironically the exact opposite of what socialism/communism/marxism was supposed to be about.

That's essentially what I am saying. Those movements attract people who are not necessarily of any use to it: the movement recognizes that this class of people are disadvantaged, or under-educated, but suddenly the movement becomes thronged with disadvantage, quite literally. This erodes the credibility of the movement, and diminishes the potential for co-operation from individuals in another class, particularly the middle classes and lower-middle classes.

C14N

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The problem with any radical movement promoting justice for the disadvantaged is that it quickly becomes full of people who are disadvantaged and, almost by default, uneducated and angry, thus weakening the movement and its credibility.

It's a sort of credibility negative-feedback-loop.

The greatest harm to the AAA and the Socialist Party is wreaked by online supporters hammering angrily on their keyboards, discrediting those organisations on every online platform they can find. Some of them even get elected, and hammer away like pneumatic drills in the national parliament, saying absolutely nothing of value.

It's a really terrible paradox, depending on your politics.

Honestly, the Socialist Party and the other 1-member parties we have right now take care of the bad press themselves. The actual supporters usually don't seem to be as extreme as the muppets running it. I agree that socialism as an actual concept probably gets a bad rap out of it but the AAA and Socialist Party are ruined by their own terrible leadership.

Dr_Bill

Maybe websites should ask users to register their real name and address which is confirmed by credit card and then folks can have an account to post whatever they want on the internet so when an entity wants to sue for comments made they can go straight to the poster and hit them with the massive claim for damages?

Hardly practical so in the meantime folks have to accept that their comments will be moderated.

FreudianSlippers

Dr_Bill wrote: »

Maybe websites should ask users to register their real name and address which is confirmed by credit card and then folks can have an account to post whatever they want on the internet so when an entity wants to sue for comments made they can go straight to the poster and hit them with the massive claim for damages?

Hardly practical so in the meantime folks have to accept that their comments will be moderated.

Whilst the poster would be liable, the host would also be liable (depending on the level of pre/post moderation). Think about it: why go after an individual for damages when the host has deeper pockets?

folamh

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if thejournal.ie comments section was a reflection of actual society, gerry adams would be taoiseach , una mullally would be a credible journalist and conspiracy nut job theories about Denis O'Brien and Bertie Ahern secretly running the world would run rampant. Thankfully those people are too busy with the comment section to go out in the real world. Its a news site so detached from reality it disturbs me.

Why is Una Mullaly not a credible journalist?

kidneyfan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if thejournal.ie comments section was a reflection of actual society, gerry adams would be taoiseach , una mullally would be a credible journalist and conspiracy nut job theories about Denis O'Brien and Bertie Ahern secretly running the world would run rampant. Thankfully those people are too busy with the comment section to go out in the real world. Its a news site so detached from reality it disturbs me.

Well I don't bow to the lamestream media and ONLY get my news from After Hours.

C14N

C14N wrote: »

Honestly, the Socialist Party and the other 1-member parties we have right now take care of the bad press themselves. The actual supporters usually don't seem to be as extreme as the muppets running it.

It's not a question of being extreme, or rather, radical. The orthodox socialist leadership across Europe (i.e. excluding nominally-socialist parties like France's PS) is quite content to assert a radical ideology. How on earth could one be an orthodox socialist and not be a radical?

Complaining that a socialist party is radical is akin to grumbling about snow being cold.

Whether or not we want the socialists (PBP, the Socialist Party, United Left) to succeed electorally, it is perfectly clear that they have a major problem in attracting a well-educated and articulate membership such as are attracted to the conservative parties in urban Ireland. This is a problem faced by all radical-left political parties, but it is especially aggravated by social media, which lays bare the base stupidity of most of the supporters of radical left-wing parties in Ireland, and alienates those movements from voters who might otherwise have been sympathetic to their cause.

You are correct about the leadership of course, in that a weak supporter-base will inevitably lead to a cesspool of inept potential leaders. But the strength of a party always, always launches from its grassroots. Heavens tonight, have Fianna Fail taught us nothing?

jackofalltrades

folamh wrote: »

Why is Una Mullaly not a credible journalist?

Here's one of her articles where she's holding all men responsible for men who rape.

And that's just one that I can think of off hand, there are many other example of her "journalism".

oscarBravo

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Here's one of her articles where she's holding all men responsible for men who rape.

That's a... slanted... reading of that article.

Eric Cartman

folamh wrote: »

Why is Una Mullaly not a credible journalist?

her twitter is literally just blaming men for everything

"Una Mullally ‏@UnaMullally May 30
Looking at the festival lineups this weekend, you'd swear women were banned from playing outdoor shows. #ladfest"

articles like this : http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/women-at-the-top-should-not-forget-sisters-lower-down-1.1768437


she is a straight out misandrist and a fantasist in which the bad things that happen in the world are all the fault of white straight men, and every development in society was stolen from a woman or minority and presented as a white male creation.

I have no doubts behind saying that she outdoes john waters as the journalist with the biggest rhetoric to spew, and is the single worst person in Ireland to ever have their anal emanations converted to type and pressed to paper.

I don't see why anyone feels the need to defend her, regardless of political outlook.

Una Mullaly writing on progressive ideals is about as useful as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking competition.

She once rejoiced in the fact that the Celtic Tiger never got near the Liberties. Do you know why? Because it preserved the poverty-chic urban landscape.
I daresay the #authentic urban poor, living in #vintage near-derelict tenements were somewhat less overjoyed at the consistency of their distress.

Bad enough to say such a thing if someone is funnelling Bloody Marys down your neck in the privacy of a gated house-party. But sober? In print?
She's either terrifically witless, or this is all part of some ironic, postmodern denunciation of bourgeois manias. I know where my money would be.

For Forks Sake

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't see why anyone feels the need to defend her, regardless of political outlook.

Una Mullaly writing on progressive ideals is about as useful as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking competition.

She once rejoiced in the fact that the Celtic Tiger never got near the Liberties. Do you know why? Because it preserved the poverty-chic urban landscape.
I daresay the #authentic urban poor, living in #vintage near-derelict tenements were somewhat less overjoyed at the consistency of their distress.

Bad enough to say such a thing if someone is funnelling Bloody Marys down your neck in the privacy of a gated house-party. But sober? In print?
She's either terrifically witless, or this is all part of some ironic, postmodern denunciation of bourgeois manias. I know where my money would be.

I notice she's deleted her old unarocks blog which was full of the sort of meandering nonsense you mention above (possibly out of mortification, but I doubt that. Probably a condition of her employment at the IT that it never be mentioned again) Here's an interview from the same era (presumably carried out by one of her equally painfully hip mates)