The decline of Irish journalism

Tell me how

Kivaro wrote: »

If you filter out the posts with the words "alt right" and "racist" in them, then the consensus on the thread is not only a declining journalism profession, but also a major decline of quality for that profession. The GroupThink position that most media in Ireland now adhere to is dangerous. It does not allow a journalist or investigative reporter to deviate from the new norm, which is why we have topics and groups in this country that are now untouchable; even when there is serious wrongdoing occurring.

And that results in the mistrust of journalism.

Funny your take on the consensus on the thread. I would view it more that while the industry is declining from what it was, Irish media seems to be reflective of Irish society.

What serious wrongdoing is occurring which has not been covered in the media?

lsjmhar

Kivaro wrote:

. Another departure was that of Susan Mitchell, deputy editor of The Sunday Business Post (SBP), who also took up the position of adviser to Stephen Donnelly, the health minister. To quote The Times article: "This means two journalists who would ordinarily have held the new government to account will instead be working for it."

This is a great strategy. Keep them close for the term of the government and no stories in newspapers. Everyone has a price!!!!

Invidious

KiKi III wrote: »

I could quote from some of his more memorable speeches and have a book of them at home.

I’m not familiar with any contemporary irish poets outside of the Leaving Cert syllabus, so that doesn’t really prove anything, nor does one pernickety Guardian article.

You're one ahead of me with the speeches.

As for poetry, Wes Davis's Anthology of Modern Irish Poetry (Harvard University Press, 2013) contains over 800 poems, but not a single one by our "poet president." He's simply not all that noteworthy as a poet.

Kivaro

KiKi III wrote: »

The question really is where to go from here. Do newspapers become NGOs rather than businesses? Do we support individual journalists with Patreon accounts?

The industry has to adapt, but the how isn’t clear.

Very interesting question KiKi. It may restore some journalistic integrity and give them the freedom to write without censure or special interest pressure. It would be something that I would support.

And your last line is the essence of the discussion. They have to adapt to survive.

TheCitizen

Silentcorner wrote: »

Jim Kemmy was a socialist, human rights campaigner..his lifestyle reflected his ideology and principles, like him or not.

Higgins is a spoofer let alone a poet, made an absolute fortune working in Irish politics

Is he not allowed to make money? Why would that invalidate his views if he takes the going rate for the work he does.

Silentcorner wrote: »

and has never been asked a hard question by anyone in media, especially pertinent as there are persistent rumours of his dishonesty while in office.

Persistent rumours eh? That's a damning indictment.

Michael D Higgins created a space for himself in a difficult constituency, it took him years and several elections to win the seat first in 1981. He lost his seat in the snap election of November 82 partly it was believed because he opposed the 8th amendment. Won the seat back after that and created a left vote in Galway that has endured and grown since then. He did all that while opposition in FFG et. (in the main) were labelling him a Communist. He should have been made Labour leader but they got taken over by the old Stickies from DL and SFWP before that who carved out the top positions in Labour between them. He goes on after that and becomes the most respected and popular President we've ever had. Nope, the likes of you wouldn't have respect for that.

Silentcorner

TheCitizen wrote: »

Is he not allowed to make money? Why would that invalidate his views if he takes the going rate for the work he does.



Persistent rumours eh? That's a damning indictment.

Michael D Higgins created a space for himself in a difficult constituency, it took him years and several elections to win the seat first in 1981. He lost his seat in the snap election of November 82 partly it was believed because he opposed the 8th amendment. Won the seat back after that and created a left vote in Galway that has endured and grown since then. He did all that while opposition in FFG et. (in the main) were labelling him a Communist. He should have been made Labour leader but they got taken over by the old Stickies from DL and SFWP before that who carved out the top positions in Labour between them. He goes on after that and becomes the most respected and popular President we've ever had. Nope, the likes of you wouldn't have respect for that.

So he is a distinguished politician in Galway city, fair enough....hardly makes him a statesman...and he nearly became leader of the Labour Party...wow!!!

He was losing that Presidential Election, to a "Dragon"...until RTE intervened and handed it to him, he would have lost to a novice who worked as a fixer for FF. He won my vote because he said he would serve 1 term, that was the only reason I voted for him.

Persistent rumours that have never been challenged in media, correct.

He has some people convinced he is a poet...it's true that old saying...paper never refuses ink!!! Some people are easily impressed!!!

He is the best president we have ever had...it's a hand shaking job with a fancy address and a massive salary...let's not kid ourselves here.

Mary McEleese, Mary Robinson....it's hardly the office of big hitters now is it?

TheCitizen

Silentcorner wrote: »

So he is a distinguished politician in Galway city, fair enough....hardly makes him a statesman...and he nearly became leader of the Labour Party...wow!!!

He was losing that Presidential Election, to a "Dragon"...until RTE intervened and handed it to him, he would have lost to a novice who worked as a fixer for FF. He won my vote because he said he would serve 1 term, that was the only reason I voted for him.

He has some people convinced he is a poet...it's true that old saying...paper never refuses ink!!! Some people are easily impressed!!!

He is the best president we have ever had...it's a hand shaking job with a fancy address and a massive salary...let's not kid ourselves here.

Comical Ali stuff here. In your first paragraph you deride his record by saying; "So he is a distinguished politician in Galway city, fair enough....hardly makes him a statesman.."

Then in your last paragraph you say sarcastically; "He is the best president we have ever had...it's a hand shaking job with a fancy address and a massive salary...let's not kid ourselves here"


BTW when you say you only voted for him the first time cos you wanted Gallagher to lose and Higgins said he'd only do one term; Well he got more votes the second time so didn't need your vote did he.

Silentcorner

TheCitizen wrote: »

Comical Ali stuff here. In your first paragraph you deride his record by saying; "So he is a distinguished politician in Galway city, fair enough....hardly makes him a statesman.."

Then in your last paragraph you say sarcastically; "He is the best president we have ever had...it's a hand shaking job with a fancy address and a massive salary...let's not kid ourselves here"


BTW when you say you only voted for him the first time cos you wanted Gallagher to lose and Higgins said he'd only do one term; Well he got more votes the second time so didn't need your vote did he.

What? I don't think the sun shines out of his arse...you do...we'll leave it at that.

TheCitizen

Silentcorner wrote: »

Mary McEleese, Mary Robinson....it's hardly the office of big hitters now is it?

Dear oh dear, it hurts when you lose doesn't it :pac:. Who did you vote for the second time? Did you vote for the dog whistling clown that finished second one wonders.

TheCitizen

Silentcorner wrote: »

What? I don't think the sun shines out of his arse...you do...we'll leave it at that.

You did vote for the dog whistler didn't you, you likely won't admit it though.

Silentcorner

TheCitizen wrote: »

Dear oh dear, it hurts when you lose doesn't it :pac:. Who did you vote for the second time? Did you vote for the dog whistling clown that finished second one wonders.

It's the office of the presidency....Mary McAleese was the predecessor...Mary Robinson before that...the only loser is the tax payer giving these 2nd rate politicians €250,000 a year to shake hands with whatever group signs up for a tour of The Aras...let me guess, you were all over twitter #keepthepoet like the good little subservient tax payer that you are and do as your media tells you to do!!!

meeeeh

Christ Higgins has some fanbase! I must say that after growing up in one of those socialist nirvanas I find the western politicians getting all misty eyed about socialism a bit silly. More rooted in student politics than any reality.

Anyway he is grand as president but I think Mary McAleese had bigger impact.

As for left wing right wing thing, Irish media is left wing if you compare them to Americans and economically conservative in comparison to large part of Europe.

Wibbs

meeeeh wrote: »

Christ Higgins has some fanbase! I must say that after growing up in one of those socialist nirvanas I find the western politicians getting all misty eyed about socialism a bit silly. More rooted in student politics than any reality.

True enough, though it's also a much more optimistic view of human nature, so that's an appeal too.

Anyway he is grand as president but I think Mary McAleese had bigger impact.

Funny I'd have gone for Mary Robinson myself. But I take your point M.

As for left wing right wing thing, Irish media is left wing if you compare them to Americans and economically conservative in comparison to large part of Europe.

Pretty much.

Tell me how

meeeeh wrote: »

As for left wing right wing thing, Irish media is left wing if you compare them to Americans and economically conservative in comparison to large part of Europe.

And so reflective of Irish society...

political analyst

Kivaro wrote: »

If you filter out the posts with the words "alt right" and "racist" in them, then the consensus on the thread is not only a declining journalism profession, but also a major decline of quality for that profession. The GroupThink position that most media in Ireland now adhere to is dangerous. It does not allow a journalist or investigative reporter to deviate from the new norm, which is why we have topics and groups in this country that are now untouchable; even when there is serious wrongdoing occurring.

And that results in the mistrust of journalism.

If that serious wrongdoing is brought to attention then there'll be a public outcry regardless of the wrongdoers' affiliation.

If there was a Rotherham-style scandal in this country, there'd be a public outcry because the public is disgusted by child abuse, regardless of the perpetrators' religious denomination. Child abuse is child abuse. Rape is rape.

meeeeh

Tell me how wrote: »

And so reflective of Irish society...

Oh I agree. Predictably social commentators seem to be a bit more left and economic commentators a bit more right. I find irish journalism quite good and I don't believe for a moment that's why it's in trouble.

MrMusician18

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh I agree. Predictably social commentators seem to be a bit more left and economic commentators a bit more right. I find irish journalism quite good and I don't believe for a moment that's why it's in trouble.

Ah here, Irish journalism is woeful and is often patronising and paternalistic - The Covid crisis is a prime example of this, as was 08 financial crisis where it took foreign journalists to tell us what was happening in our own country.

Cyclonius

sid waddell wrote: »

I'd rather bang me head off a wall.

Sowell compared Barack Obama to Hitler, Mao and Jim Jones.

Who thinks Obama is Hitler? Conservative columnist Thomas Sowell. A few days before the 2008 presidential election, Sowell penned a broadside against then–Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s call for “change” in American life. Warning that it could mean anything, Sowell pointed to examples of “change” that claimed millions of lives. “[M]any today seem to assume that if things are bad, “change” will make them better. Specifics don’t interest them nearly as much as inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th-century leaders with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their followers or their countries into utter disasters. These ranged from Jim Jones who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown to Hitler and Mao who led millions to their deaths.”

Sowell is beloved of white pseudo-intellectuals because he's a black man who agitates against the interests of black people, and who tells the white far right stuff they love to hear.

Friedman was a buddy of the murderous General Pinochet in Chile and worked for his regime.

The Chicago school has nothing to offer anybody. If any institution is responsible for the wealth inequality, poverty, lack of social mobility and systematic destruction of workers rights and welfare states around the world, and the resulting anger arising from such, it's the Chicago School of Economics.

In their honest moments, self styled libertarians themselves have admitted that their idea of "economic liberty" is incompatible with political freedom.

Charles Koch and James Buchanan certainly did. In fact Buchanan was hugely influential in writing the 1980 constitution of Chile which has hamstrung and neutered democracy there ever since.

Friedman never worked for Pinochet. He only gave some lectures, and met with officials, whilst in Chile. The above statement is incorrect.

The quote from Sowell does make a valid point in regards to "change", as a political slogan, could mean many things. The comparisons are over the top, precisely to illustrate the point. The most pertinent point that could be taken from it is that political slogans are largely meaningless, designed to allow supporters to project their own meanings upon them. Have many right wing political commentators been less than balanced and unbiased in their writings on left wing politicians, particularly in the US? Yes. Have many left wing political commentators been less than balanced and unbiased in their writings on right wing politicians, particularly in the US? Also yes.

Ideas based on work from the Chicago school rescued many countries from stagflation in the 1970s. To take one example, 1970s Britain was a basket case, where failing large companies were nationalised and renationalised over and over again, where strikes were plentiful, where rubbish piled up in the streets, where inflation was sky-high, and where the IMF had to be called in to bail the country out. Thatcher didn't win the 1979 election on the basis of her care free and bubbly personality, and overall likeability. She won because enough of the population were disenchanted with the way things were running that they thought they'd try something new. The result was a rapid expansion of economic growth in the 1980s. The social problems of the 1980s can't all also be ascribed to neoliberalism; the damage done by government policies in the 1970s were a large contributor to these problems. A profligate welfare state doesn't need neoliberal economic policies to destroy it, it can do that quite well all by itself. That is not to state that social welfare is bad, as my comments may be twisted to indicate I am saying, but that social welfare programmes must be carefully constructed, to avoid perverse incentives and negative outcomes, and should not become overly burdensome on the average working person to pay for. When utilised correctly, they are a fantastic thing.

Regarding the statement that some libertarians (a subsection) believe that economic liberty is incompatible with democracy, it doesn't pass the "so what" test. So what if they do believe that? Some socialists also believe socialism to be incompatible with democracy. That doesn't automatically make it so. Koch (a businessman and political activist) and Buchanan (an economist) are frequently used as boogey-men by left wing activists, as Soros is a boogey-man to some on the right. Even Vox, hardly a right wing pubication, have published articles criticising the conspiracy theories surrounding Buchanan, as can be seen here.

Anyway, this line of discussion is getting away from the topic at hand, having little to do with the current state of Irish journalism.

mariaalice

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Ah here, Irish journalism is woeful and is often patronising and paternalistic - The Covid crisis is a prime example of this, as was 08 financial crisis where it took foreign journalists to tell us what was happening in our own country.

I don't think its as bad as that, but reports are very sloppy sometimes and my English and spelling is not great and even I can see it the intellectual quality of the content ( if that is the correct way of putting it ) has gone down as well.

excludedbin

Invidious wrote: »

Saying that woke, identitarian politics is a variant of cultural Marxism — which it factually is — doesn't make someone "far right."

The far right does not have a significant presence in Ireland, compared to other European countries. The National Party got a mere 0.2% of the first-preference vote. Posters routinely complain about the so-called far-right on this forum, but most of these people in reality are centrist or centre-right posters fed up with all the woke nonsense coming at them from the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

From the late 1990s, the Frankfurt School has been the object of a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that identifies the school as the origin of an ongoing academic and intellectual movement, referred to by the theory's proponents as "Cultural Marxism", which intends to undermine and destroy Western culture and values.

"Cultural Marxism" is factually a conspiracy theory peddled by the far right et al.. People bringing it up should be sent to the appropriate forum here.

Tell me how

mariaalice wrote: »

I don't think its as bad as that, but reports are very sloppy sometimes and my English and spelling is not great and even I can see it the intellectual quality of the content ( if that is the correct way of putting it ) has gone down as well.

For a period of 18 months or so, my phone had a shortcut/news screen which showed headlines from news outlets. I had it set to show updates from Newstalk and was surprised at the number of headlines/articles which would appear with pretty obvious grammatical and spelling errors. I used to take a screenshot of them and had somewhere between 10 and 15 of them over that period.

Kivaro

mariaalice wrote: »

I don't think its as bad as that, but reports are very sloppy sometimes and my English and spelling is not great and even I can see it the intellectual quality of the content ( if that is the correct way of putting it ) has gone down as well.

The intellectual quality has indeed suffered a great deal in the last number of years, and it is doubtful if there is any hope for a recovery.

Don't get me wrong; the conservative nature of editorials and reporting from the days of old was as stifling as the current "progressive" bias of today's media in Ireland. What I would like to see is impartial reporting with all sides presented; irrespective of the topic. However, there is not a chance in hell that the Irish Times or RTE would report any negative aspect on Travellers or non-EU economic migrants. These are currently some of the untouchable cause célèbre groups for liberals. Ask a question about incidences surrounding these groups, and the default accusations of xenophobia and bigotry will follow from a certain cohort; a cohort who are in the minority in Irish society, but yet get the most headlines and sound bites.

Tell me how

Kivaro wrote: »

The intellectual quality has indeed suffered a great deal in the last number of years, and it is doubtful if there is any hope for a recovery.

Don't get me wrong; the conservative nature of editorials and reporting from the days of old was as stifling as the current "progressive" bias of today's media in Ireland. What I would like to see is impartial reporting with all sides presented; irrespective of the topic. However, there is not a chance in hell that the Irish Times or RTE would report any negative aspect on Travellers or non-EU economic migrants. These are currently some of the untouchable cause célèbre groups for liberals. Ask a question about incidences surrounding these groups, and the default accusations of xenophobia and bigotry will follow from a certain cohort; a cohort who are in the minority in Irish society, but yet get the most headlines and sound bites.

That's because crimes/individuals are discussed but to suggest that criminal behaviour is endemic within an entire community/race etc is making innocent people guilty by association and demonstrating a bias towards them.

MrMusician18

Kivaro wrote: »

The intellectual quality has indeed suffered a great deal in the last number of years, and it is doubtful if there is any hope for a recovery.

Don't get me wrong; the conservative nature of editorials and reporting from the days of old was as stifling as the current "progressive" bias of today's media in Ireland. What I would like to see is impartial reporting with all sides presented; irrespective of the topic. However, there is not a chance in hell that the Irish Times or RTE would report any negative aspect on Travellers or non-EU economic migrants. These are currently some of the untouchable cause célèbre groups for liberals. Ask a question about incidences surrounding these groups, and the default accusations of xenophobia and bigotry will follow from a certain cohort; a cohort who are in the minority in Irish society, but yet get the most headlines and sound bites.

To be honest, I think at least some of this reporting style comes from the paternalism I mentioned earlier: that if RTE or IT decided to run stories where there was poor behaviour by travellers or migrants, that the audience wouldn't be smart enough to distinguish the individuals from their ethnic groups and would fuel further xenophobia and racism. It's an attitude I could understand in a pre social media world, but not now. For example, the unreported stories of traveller riots and fights do not make the papers or bulletins but pass around in Facebook and WhatsApp groups.

Cyclonius

Cyclonius wrote: »

Over the last 5 to 10 years, I've felt that many of the national newspapers have had the analytical depth of a puddle.

What really broke my faith in them were the several occasions where they reported on issues that I would have had a good bit of knowledge of, including several that were work related. The analysis was dire; they failed to drill into where figures came from, what they meant, other reason policies were implemented, possible counteractuals (that should be fairly obvious to anyone who thought about the issues for more than five minutes), etc. One Journal.ie article basically took a misunderstanding of operational details, twisted it around a bit, and came to a conclusion that amounted to "it's all a conspiracy, maaaan!!!". Complete crap, and, when it occurs more than once, leads to the uncomfortable idea that if the reporting and analysis is this bad in relation to issues I know about, what's to say it's not similarly awful in many, if not most, other articles that these papers print (that aren't reprinted from an authoritative source, that still puts effort into the work).

To take another example, the rental crisis has been reduced, by many newspapers, to a laughably childish "renters good, landlords bad" dichotomy, as opposed to seeing it as a multi-variable system, where you have good and bad actors on both sides. There was a failure to look at research on the impact (both positive and negative) of rent controls in other countries, instead insisting on a narrative that they would fix the problem, and make the bad landlords tow the line. There is a complete lack of recognition given to the fact that the difficuty facing landlords in evicting hellish tennants (as well as the financial losses that can be incurred through property damage and loss of rental income) means that less people are willing to become/remain landlords, which will decrease the supply of units available to rent, ultimately leaving renters worse off through decreased choice and higher rental costs. Lastly, there seem to be continuous calls, by the media, for government to intervene in the situation, without any sort of recognition given to the fact that past government interventions, and poor policy choices, have caused these problems to begin with.

Regarding the decline itself, I'd believe that causation ran/runs both ways, and created something of a vicious cycle. A decline in advertising revenue (due to a greater diversity of advertising outlets/arenas, disruption from lower cost specialist outlets, etc.) led to less money to devote to investigative reporting (which is much more expensive to produce than the clickbait rubbish we often see now). Similarly, changing organisational priorities and other factors (such as the move to a 24 hour news cycle necessitating more content and stretching respouces, the adoption of a more activist/blogger-like stance by younger journalists as opposed to a more balanced journalistic style, the aforementioned revenue declines, etc.) has led to a decrease in the quality of journalistic output from many organisations, which in turn means less people are willing to spend money to buy newspapers. Less revenue leads to lower quality output, which in turn leads to less revenue, and so on, which ultimately leads to many newspapers only being a shell of their once proud selves.

There are still excellent newspapers out there, but they are fewer and further between than they used to be, unfotunately. Hopefully, those that focus more on quality content will be better positioned to ride out the storm, and will be left behind when market forces correct the problem, leaving fewer news organisations to fight over a relatively fixed amount of advertising expenditure.

Fully agree with the above. There failure of journalists to properly interrogate the facts and figures they are reporting on has always been with us, but it's getting noticeably worse as more and more journalists are forced into being generalist as opposed to specialist.

A massive issue is journalists "fact-picking" to suit their narrative, as though the write the conclusion first and work backwards to find facts and (even worse) interesting anecdotes to support what they want to conclude. Makes for better stories but it's bad journalism.

Invidious

Tell me how wrote: »

That's because crimes/individuals are discussed but to suggest that criminal behaviour is endemic within an entire community/race etc is making innocent people guilty by association and demonstrating a bias towards them.

It's possible to acknowledge that not every Traveller is a criminal while still acknowledging that criminal behavior is indeed endemic within their community.

Just look at the stats. Travellers are 0.6 percent of the Irish population but 15 percent of male prisoners and 22 percent of female prisoners. Their involvement in organised crime, gang feuds, etc, is well known. Criminality runs rampant even in the home, with Traveller women 30 times more likely than settled women to have experienced domestic violence. Here's one case where a Traveller burned his 16-year-old wife with a hot poker as part of a constant campaign of intimidation and bullying.

Telling the truth — that Travellers are vastly over-represented when it comes to criminal behaviour in Ireland, not to mention other countries — is not "demonstrating a bias towards them." If they don't want to be associated with criminality and violence, they should clean up their act rather than complain about "bias."

mariaalice

Invidious wrote: »

It's possible to acknowledge that not every Traveller is a criminal while still acknowledging that criminal behavior is indeed endemic within their community.

Just look at the stats. Travellers are 0.6 percent of the Irish population but 15 percent of male prisoners and 22 percent of female prisoners. Their involvement in organised crime, gang feuds, etc, is well known. Criminality runs rampant even in the home, with Traveller women 30 times more likely than settled women to have experienced domestic violence. Here's one case where a Traveller burned his 16-year-old wife with a hot poker as part of a constant campaign of intimidation and bullying.

Telling the truth — that Travellers are vastly over-represented when it comes to criminal behaviour in Ireland, not to mention other countries — is not "demonstrating a bias towards them." If they don't want to be associated with criminality and violence, they should clean up their act rather than complain about "bias."

But the above is not news per say, its a deep sociological question about Irish society and how discrimination may contribute to criminality, this has noting to do with this thread but I do think travellers are fetishised in the media every traveler who becomes a teacher dose not need to be patronised in the media and told well done you that only reinforced discrimination.

It a reflection of the middle class background of a lot of journalists.

SchrodingersCat

Kivaro wrote: »

You see .......... that is what I believe the majority in this country want i.e. an opportunity for both sides to express their views. Then we can make an informed decision.
At the moment with a lot of social issues/questions, there is just the one side that is presented, and if you try to present anything that deviates from that GroupThink, then the "phobe" and racism accusations are hurled at you.

That is not a healthy democracy.

Kivaro, you are a hypocrite. You claim that everyone should be open to the view of both sides to make an informed decision. However, when someone on this forum expresses a side that you dont agree with you put them on ignore:

Kivaro wrote: »

The mental gymnastics of the poster is why I have him on the ignore list

Kivaro wrote: »

There's a reason why he is on the ignore list...a lot of his claims are unrealistic even for the most liberal of liberals.

Kivaro wrote: »

I have the poster who made the comment on ignore

This is like a child sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting “la la la la".

You look for sympathy for people being called out for racist and anti-immigrant posts.
With the Glasgow stabbings last month, an asylum seeker with mental issues stabbed three others in the center along with a police officer. You insinuated that this happened due to the Black Lives Matters movement.

Kivaro wrote: »

With all the recent rhetoric focused on the police, and people recently holding up signs at marches saying that "White silence = violence", it does not surprise me that we are seeing an increase in these types of attacks.

There was no connection between the two. If you think they were connected because they were black, then yes, you are a racist. If this is how you think, then man up and own it, dont pretend otherwise and dont get butthurt when others call you out for it.

Your issue with Irish journalism is that it doesn't present much of the anti-immigration view that you hold. But neither do many of the Irish people hold these views, so why would they report on it? Its not going to sell them papers. We saw from the last election that voters dont care.

Wibbs

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Your issue with Irish journalism is that it doesn't present much of the anti-immigration view that you hold. But neither do many of the Irish people hold these views, so why would they report on it? Its not going to sell them papers. We saw from the last election that voters dont care.

And yet the 2004 amendment to our constitution that closed the loophole of unconditional birthright citizenship reflected in the birth tourism of the late 90's that kicked off Ireland's "multiculturalism" in that period was overwhelmingly passed by 80% of the Irish electorate. Today the immigration departments reject the vast majority, nearly 100% in some cases, of such cases from places that had taken advantage of that loophole and outside of a few vested interest NGO's I hear nada from the Irish electorate about reversing that decision, or do you think it wouldn't be passed today?

KiKi III

Wibbs wrote: »

And yet the 2004 amendment to our constitution that closed the loophole of unconditional birthright citizenship reflected in the birth tourism of the late 90's that kicked off Ireland's "multiculturalism" in that period was overwhelmingly passed by 80% of the Irish electorate. Today the immigration departments reject the vast majority, nearly 100% in some cases, of such cases from places that had taken advantage of that loophole and outside of a few vested interest NGO's I hear nada from the Irish electorate about reversing that decision, or do you think it wouldn't be passed today?

There have been several high profile cases in the news where communities rallied around a child of immigrants/ refugees who was born and raised here but at risk of being deported to a country they had never been to because of their parents’ status.