Journo writes 'cyclist-hate' piece , then is sorry about it shock!

greenspurs

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/apology-for-article-on-sportive-for-irish-cyclist-killed-by-van/

What a gombeen, was only sorry because the cycle was for a killed cyclist! But does he still 'hate' cyclists ?:(

ednwireland

Total hypocrite. I would have had more respect if he stuck to his original story.

greenspurs

ednwireland wrote: »

Total hypocrite. I would have had more respect if he stuck to his original story.

Yep, shooting at an easy target, but they when he finds out the full story, tries to backtrack....
"hundreds of cars" "MURDEROUS RAGE" WTF ?! :eek::mad:

RainyDay

Here's the journo for anyone who wants to chat

https://twitter.com/moville_red

buffalo

RainyDay wrote: »

Here's the journo for anyone who wants to chat

https://twitter.com/moville_red

Let's ratchet up the Internet outrage, sure that always leads to a reasonable and civil debate that doesn't polarise arguments and demonize people.

CramCycle

buffalo wrote: »

Let's ratchet up the Internet outrage, sure that always leads to a reasonable and civil debate that doesn't polarise arguments and demonize people.

So long as you say it's OK then I am on board

greenspurs

buffalo wrote: »

Let's ratchet up the Internet outrage, sure that always leads to a reasonable and civil debate that doesn't polarise arguments and demonize people.

he deserves to be demonized..... gombeen ......

RainyDay

buffalo wrote: »

Let's ratchet up the Internet outrage, sure that always leads to a reasonable and civil debate that doesn't polarise arguments and demonize people.

Ah no, let's just moan about him behind his back in a classic passive-aggressive style, but FFS don't try talking to him under any circumstance.

doozerie

So oncoming motorists who “edged out onto [his] side in a desperate bid to get past”, causing him to have to frequently “duck in toward the left” are to be forgiven for what sounds like reckless driving fuelled by what we are expected to accept as understandable rage, whereas the cyclists are somehow villains.

Standard ill-informed tripe from someone that shouldn’t be airing their prejudice under the guise of some kind of news or public interest, and arguably should have their driving license revoked if they consider such behaviour on the roads acceptable.

I can completely understand someone getting frustrated because of being delayed behind something else on the roads. Using that as justification for reckless or dangerous behaviour, on your part or on the part of others, though is where you throw away any semblance of maturity and social responsibility and *you* become the problem.

ted1

Can't imagine the paper has a huge circulation

liam7831

What's the big deal ?

greenspurs

liam7831 wrote: »

What's the big deal ?

about???
Have you read the piece ?

smacl

CramCycle wrote: »

So long as you say it's OK then I am on board

Good ol' boys boardsie lynch mob. Excellent! Let me just grab a slab of Bud, my shotgun and pitchfork and I'll be right there. Maybe we could call Jethro, Cletus and the rest of the crew from AH, they do love to partay :pac:

ednwireland

I'm just thankful that he wasn't near our event on saturday

terrydel

He made a mistake and was man enough to apologise, humans make mistakes.
Get over yourselves with the righteous indignation.

CramCycle

terrydel wrote: »

He made a mistake and was man enough to apologise, humans make mistakes.
Get over yourselves with the righteous indignation.

He apologised because his rant maybe seen as insensitive to the family of the deceased rider.

Not because what he said, in his view, was wrong.

He was right to apologise for possibly offending the family but he was wrong not to apologise for everything else he wrote.

CramCycle

Deedsie wrote: »

For having an opinion? I totally disagree with his article but it's a bit much to expect an apology to an opinion piece? We can't all agree on everything thankfully.

You are right, everyone is entitled to an opinion. His would seem to be that if the actions of others irk or delay you, then you are right to start acting in a fashion that risks both their and your life.

My opinion is that presenting that behaviour as understandable or condonable, is irresponsible and wreckless.

This said, it is clickbait from Stickybottle so I would like to read the full article before I get my cousins round for a night of burning at the stake :pac:

greenspurs

Deedsie wrote: »

Not really that shocking.

.... but very irresponsible.
using cyclists to fill his reporting quota? Lazy 'reporting' , with plenty of half truths/lies and speculation.....
Hes a jackass , and should know better.

greenspurs

terrydel wrote: »

He made a mistake and was man enough to apologise, humans make mistakes.
Get over yourselves with the righteous indignation.

ohh the outrage , at other peoples outrage...... im outraged !:rolleyes:

CramCycle

Deedsie wrote: »

I see cyclists get worked up over these articles and comments. Dont think it achieves anything to react to it really. It is presumably the exact reaction the journalist wants. People allow themselves to be manipulated by advertising and media techniques far too easily. Some clown in the county with the worst drivers in the country has a go at cyclists. Not really that shocking.

TBF as soon as people stop posting here, I will completely forget about it. I am not outraged, just shocked, or maybe at this point, not shocked that he will get away with condoning what is essentially reckless driving. I have no idea of the the cyclists at the time, maybe they were worse but just because someone errs, does not give anyone the right to do what they want. It's what driving in the country is, I have spent many an hour stuck behind a tractor, overloaded and unsafe to pass. The tractor driver was irresponsible to overload the trailer but it in no way gives me a right to overtake the tractor in a reckless and dangerous fashion.

greenspurs wrote: »

.... but very irresponsible.
using cyclists to fill his reporting quota? Lazy 'reporting' , with plenty of half truths/lies and speculation.....
Hes a jackass , and should know better.

Lets not call it reporting, that's a columnist piece, nothing more.

Nothing will really come of it, it's unlikely anyones attitude will change because of it, but it might, which is where I say he is irresponsible. The other point is the "outrage"(hardly) at the piece will hopefully have a similar effect, pointing out the idiocy and irresponsibility of his piece may open one persons eyes to what is acceptable behaviour if they did not already know.

smacl

greenspurs wrote: »

ohh the outrage , at other peoples outrage...... im outraged !:rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBCq8XDgrP0

Tenzor07

ted1 wrote: »

Can't imagine the paper has a huge circulation

I'm sure the Inishowen Indo's 10 reader's won't take much heed of this trash article... :pac:

check_six

greenspurs wrote: »

.... but very irresponsible.
using cyclists to fill his reporting quota? Lazy 'reporting' , with plenty of half truths/lies and speculation.....
Hes a jackass , and should know better.

I'd agree that it is irresponsible to try and push an attitude that the cyclists were some kind of lesser creatures and that it is okay to try to push them around and endanger them with risky overtakes. This kind of ape-ish bike hate in the media should be removed as it encourages the more ape-ish consumers of that media to think it okay to hate bikes and their riders.

One ape that particularly bugs me is the one who presents a national radio show every evening at 'drive-time' who has at least one cut at how much they hate cyclists every show. In theory, this could twist peoples' attitudes and not in a positive manner.

I'd like to think that the journalist from the article in this thread takes a moment to re-evaluate his attitudes before he goes spouting guff again.

MugMugs

Jesus lads. Let he without sin !

Seriously. He wrote an article. He was told how wrong he was to write it and why and he apologised and retracted it.

What do you want? Blood ?

CramCycle

MugMugs wrote: »

Jesus lads. Let he without sin !

Seriously. He wrote an article. He was told how wrong he was to write it and why and he apologised and retracted it.

What do you want? Blood ?

He didn't apologise for the article though, he apologised in case he caused offence to the family.

I'd love if he wrote a piece saying, I seen this happening, I suffered from it myself but, after thinking it through, despite my annoyance, I realise that dangerous driving is not justified because someone is annoying me a bit but in the grand scheme of things, doing nothing of great danger or risk to anyone.

Don't get me wrong, if he replaced driver with Ambulance/Garda/Fire brigade then I would be far more outraged as not only are they beyond ignorant, they are also potentially endangering others.

I drive a bit, there are plenty of times where I could skirt around an obstacle, I can see it in my head. Probably think about it because i am annoyed over nothing but then, I realise that a)such actions are stupid, potentially life threatening b) I left early because I know these things happen
and if I am running late, so be it,

CramCycle

Deedsie wrote: »

It could never be the behaviour of some cyclists that inspire these reactions. I would happily see ****head cyclists be exposed for their behaviour as they give us all a bad name. I like George Hook, not his opinions really. But at least he is not afraid to have an opinion.

Undoubtedly it happens quite alot, but just because a persons behaviour annoys you or is even seen as provocative, it in no way gives you or anyone else the right to put other people at risk or to punish them.

doozerie

MugMugs wrote: »

Jesus lads. Let he without sin !

Seriously. He wrote an article. He was told how wrong he was to write it and why and he apologised and retracted it.

What do you want? Blood ?

No, just less of the sanctioning of completely unacceptable behaviour on the roads (the reckless driving that the journalist seems to be condoning) as somehow reasonable and rational. It’s another example of victim blaming, we have enough of that already when it comes to our roads without letting an apparently prejudiced individual promote it further.

People get delayed on the roads all the time, sometimes it’s because of cycling events, sometimes it’s because of tractors, sometimes it’s because of funerals, etc. Of those 3 in particular I suspect you could moan publicly about all but the funerals without incurring some public backlash, quite the opposite in fact you are likely to have people cheer your “brave” stance against the social evils of cyclists and farmers, there is something very wrong with that. We can just accept such prejudice without challenge, which is arguably how we’ve ended up with the existing divisiveness on the roads, or we can address it in the hope of promoting awareness, understanding, and ultimately empathy.

As for his apology, what little appears in that Stickybottle article suggests he didn’t apologise for his stance because he now considers it wrong, he apologised for adopting his stance so publicly in the context of the cycle being for a particular cause. To me that sounds like the only mistake he feels he made was not checking the reason for the cycling event before lashing at cyclists for simply being on the roads e.g. “Cyclists are bastards, one and all! Oh, there are children listening? Sorry for using the word bastards. I said sorry, what more do you want?”

check_six

Deedsie wrote: »

It could never be the behaviour of some cyclists that inspire these reactions. I would happily see ****head cyclists be exposed for their behaviour as they give us all a bad name.

I'm concerned about the timing and the platform for these rants. You're rolling home in your car, you're tired, you're stuck in traffic, you're getting a bit frustrated. You have an ape on the radio giving out about stuff. You are listening.

If they give out about some political shenanigans you can't swing your car at a politician in a fury of righteous indignation.

If they give out about some criminal kingpin you can't swing your car at a gangster.

If they give out about cyclists, well..., they're right there beside you, why not give them a fright, sure doesn't the whole world agree with me?

Trojan

Deedsie wrote: »

A little overly dramatic no? The majority of people are not psychopaths so regardless of what George says I think you will be fine.

Also during George's rants he is usually accompanied by a PC voiced sidekick. Shane Coleman or Ciara Kelly etc will correct his obvious shock jock commentary.

It's a broadcasting style nothing more.

Broadcasting style doesn't excuse what people like him are doing. Radio drivetime hosts are playing up to a driving audience with anti-cyclist vitriol, and it puts cyclists in danger from frustrated drivers who have no idea what it's like to cycle in traffic regularly.

doozerie

Deedsie wrote:

Of course not, my gripe is at some cyclists crying fowl at any level of criticism.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m crying foul at the attitude behind the criticism, that attitude being that frustration at being delayed is a perfectly reasonable basis for rewriting all rules of social behaviour to let you behave in a manner that in any other circumstances would be considered at best irresponsible and at worst malicious and dangerous. I read many of the posts in this thread in the same vein, I don't read them as a knee jerk reaction to an assumed criticism, I read them as focusing on the bigger underlying issue of prejudice and associated passive aggression.

The Stickybottle article provides no information on what, if anything, the cyclists did wrong. But regardless of what they did, the reaction of the motorists the journalist described should be condemned, and his apparent condoning of it should be too.

In general I think irresponsible behaviour of cyclists should be criticised as much as such behaviour by anyone else, but that’s not what that journalist was doing (again, based on the Stickybottle article).

cdaly_

Deedsie wrote: »

And I am arguing the attitude or motivations behind comments from broadcasters such as George Hook are motivated more from an "entertainment" draw in a crowd approach than any real substantive criticism of most cyclists?

And yet it has the effect...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

MugMugs

CramCycle wrote: »

He didn't apologise for the article though, he apologised in case he caused offence to the family.

I'd love if he wrote a piece saying, I seen this happening, I suffered from it myself but, after thinking it through, despite my annoyance, I realise that dangerous driving is not justified because someone is annoying me a bit but in the grand scheme of things, doing nothing of great danger or risk to anyone.

Don't get me wrong, if he replaced driver with Ambulance/Garda/Fire brigade then I would be far more outraged as not only are they beyond ignorant, they are also potentially endangering others.

I drive a bit, there are plenty of times where I could skirt around an obstacle, I can see it in my head. Probably think about it because i am annoyed over nothing but then, I realise that a)such actions are stupid, potentially life threatening b) I left early because I know these things happen
and if I am running late, so be it,

I think you may be teetering on a fine line of over sensitive.

Journo wrote:

He said they were delaying hundreds of motorists behind them.

“My side of the road was mostly clear but I frequently had to duck in toward the left as one or two increasingly irate motorists coming the other way decided they could stand no more and edged out onto my side in a desperate bid to get past,” he wrote.

“Judging by the faces of some drivers, they had worked up a near murderous rage inside their (cars)…”.

The man has written an article observing what he witnessed. He hasn't justified the actions of those motorists and has stood by his point albeit apologising to any offence caused having learnt the nature of the event.

I'm really not seeing the issue here.

greenspurs

MugMugs wrote: »

The man has written an article observing what he witnessed. He hasn't justified the actions of those motorists and has stood by his point albeit apologising to any offence caused having learnt the nature of the event.

I'm really not seeing the issue here.

"murderous rage" ... "delaying hundreds of motorists" ...
Colourfully dressed up language...
1oo's of motorists !?!?! in Donegal ???? B-S
"FREQUENTLY had to duck in toward the left as ONE or TWO ....."
would ducking in Once or Twice be catagorised as frequently ???

THE ISSUE is he came across a charity cycle, and decided that this was gonna fill his few column inches in the paper, so instead of just writing a bland " met cyclists on the road.."
he decided to fluff it up into a tour de france style peloton with hundreds of cars stuck behind it.... Cars ducking out and racing up the outside of the cyclists, with he himself also ducking out of the way of the psychotic crazy murder inspired drivers ...... that were launching "desparate bids" to get past ...
Absolute twaddle, hes a **** stirring fool, who thought this was gonna be a great piece in the paper, but hes famous now for it, and his pathetic apology.....:(

MugMugs

A journalist that writes sensationalism (is that a word?). What next, a politician who tells fibs?

Point I am trying to make is that I think a bit too much offence is being taken from the article and there's a degree of refusing to accept a fairly outright apology.

greenspurs

MugMugs wrote: »

Point I am trying to make is that I think a bit too much offence is being taken from the article and there's a degree of refusing to accept a fairly outright apology.

The point is, he apologised because it was a cycle for a cyclist that was killed, he didnt apologise for his "sensationalist" cliche ridden piece about cyclists on the road ........

CramCycle

MugMugs wrote: »

I think you may be teetering on a fine line of over sensitive.

I just think hes an idiot, it's not really annoyed me, I have no desire to make contact or rectify his ignorance. It was in a debate forum, it was a click bait piece on his apology. I disagree that he apologised for his comments, he hasn't, it is almost a non apology or an apology for something he didn't do. Like I said earlier, once people stop responding to this thread, this coloumnist will never cross my mind again.

MugMugs wrote: »

A journalist that writes sensationalism (is that a word?). What next, a politician who tells fibs?

Point I am trying to make is that I think a bit too much offence is being taken from the article and there's a degree of refusing to accept a fairly outright apology.

I don't have to accept because it wasn't aimed at me. I don't even know if the family were offended, maybe there was no need for the apology at all.

He wants to write like Jeremy Clarkson or talk like George Hook, have at it. I'd be more outraged at them as they have national coverage. What his editor should have joined in and noted was that their paper in no way condones the behaviour of these red faced, anger filled rage monsters but I suspect, the editor, in all honesty, should have said, we shouldn't have printed the piece by our red faced, anger filled, raging columnist.

terrydel

CramCycle wrote: »

He apologised because his rant maybe seen as insensitive to the family of the deceased rider.

Not because what he said, in his view, was wrong.

He was right to apologise for possibly offending the family but he was wrong not to apologise for everything else he wrote.

Jesus Christ will you get over yourself!
Theres more import things going on in the world to be getting worked up over than a journo offending a bunch of people cycling around Ireland.
Priceless.

terrydel

greenspurs wrote: »

ohh the outrage , at other peoples outrage...... im outraged !:rolleyes:

I'm just laughing at the hilarious self rightousness of the mob on here! I'm not outraged at all my friend, I'm amused by it.

terrydel

MugMugs wrote: »

Jesus lads. Let he without sin !

Seriously. He wrote an article. He was told how wrong he was to write it and why and he apologised and retracted it.

What do you want? Blood ?

Seems so!

CramCycle

terrydel wrote: »

Jesus Christ will you get over yourself!
Theres more import things going on in the world to be getting worked up over than a journo offending a bunch of people cycling around Ireland.
Priceless.

I'm not worked up though, it's a debate forum, it popped up in front of me and I responded. Outrage is far from it, irked but bar this thread, I really would never pass a blind bit of notice.

This said, my non outrage seems to have outraged yourself a bit. Maybe take a leaf out of Buddy Christs book and as Frankie says:

doozerie

terrydel wrote:

Jesus Christ will you get over yourself!

terrydel wrote:

I'm just laughing at the hilarious self rightousness of the mob on here! I'm not outraged at all my friend, I'm amused by it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsA0Z5lNrUo

Roadhawk

Absolute farce. He should be able to write a condemning articles and take the criticism as it comes.