Irish journalism and the culture of secrecy

finfacts

Recently, the Irish Times Education Editor Sean Flynn criticised the Department of Education's "culture of secrecy." However, is this a case of the camel seldom seeing his own hump?

The profession of journalism is an anomaly in today’s vibrant Irish economy. Competition in the media market is limited. However, a well-paid golden circle of broadcasters, editors and columnists sets the media agenda. It uses the Freedom of Information Act to shed light on the workings of the public bureaucracy while jealously guarding information about itself. Meanwhile, journalism is the only profession in Ireland today where some entrants can only get a foot on the ladder by working for nothing. In the small media market, the journalists who are beyond the top of the pyramid, have little if any independence.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10002526.shtml

Michael Hennigan

flogen

I'd prefer a Journalist to be keeping secrets from me than a politician. The thing is, secrecy is often a big part of journalism, be it in relation to sources or leads or to other things. It's not a journalists job to tell the public everything he/she knows and doing so would probably land them with 100's of libel cases. It is the journalists job to find out if companies are screwing over workers or the public, or if the government is doing its job to serve the people.
As for the golden circle mentioned, there is no doubt that the newspaper we get in Ireland are owned by a small number of companies but it's a bit of a tin-foil theory to suggest that NewsCorp, The Irish Times, RTE, INM and TCH all sit down and decide what's going to happen. I'm pretty sure that at least 2 of the aforementioned groups can often be very select about what they cover, but I have seen nothing to suggest that the other three run with anything other than what they feel is news worthy.

Sure, entrants often have to work for a small amount of money or even nothing but I personally don't see a problem with that. If you've got what it takes it won't be long before you're snapped up by someone. If you don't, you won't.

May I ask exactly what secrets you'd like the Journalists to come clean about?

santosubito

This is my first post. I'm a reporter and, I suppose, somewhat high up in the supposed pyramid to which Finfacts refers, having worked for 12 years in national papers.

I read finfacts' post and the article on his website. I'm somewhat puzzled, I have to admit.

Competition in the media market is limited.

Really? Ireland is one of the most competitive media markets in the whole of Europe. Just look at how many Sunday papers there are, or daily versions for that matter. In Ireland, the market is crowded not only with indigenous produtcs, but papers from the UK. The competition is intense.

However, a well-paid golden circle of broadcasters, editors and columnists sets the media agenda.

I haven't heard of this golden circle. I fear it may the imaginings of someone who doesn't know the media. The media agenda, in my experience, is set by stories. We either react to breaking stories, or we break the stories which cause a stir.
Having said that, I'm a reporter, not a columnist and I don't read columinsts. I prefer the facts of a news story. I think, and hope, that people would read a news story ahead of some pompous idiot just out of journalism school who is doing some think piece. Also, people outside journalism always seem to ascribe us with some sort of Machiavellan genius.They always think that there is some deep plan or hidden agenda behind the way we write stories. In the real world there's not, of course. We're just reporters trying to write our pieces as quickly as possible and go home.


It uses the Freedom of Information Act to shed light on the workings of the public bureaucracy while jealously guarding information about itself.

Very few reporters now use the FoI. It's much easier to go and ask the direct questions to press officers. Anyway, why shouldn't we guard information about ourselves? Most media, with the exception of RTE, are PRIVATE companies. Why should you know how much I earn?

Journalism is the only profession in Ireland today where some entrants can only get a foot on the ladder by working for nothing.

You obviously don't know many reporters! I don't know a single one who would work for nothing. In my organisation, for example, students come in on work placement in the summer - they always get paid.

The journalists who are beyond the top of the pyramid, have little if any independence.

Haven't got a clue what that means.

flogen

In fairness, I know of someone who is working for RTE on a work placement, and it's a pretty good one too, and they don't get paid. It does happen, and if I had the chance I'd take the work for no pay too. But it is only a temporary thing. And if I manage to find a good story and offer it to a newspaper, they will offer money for it, even though I'm still "beyond the top of the pyramid" in your estimations.

There's a lot of odd stuff in that piece alright, like claiming that Journalists are afraid to challenge politicians but politicians are afraid to attack Journalists. Which do you think it is?!

As santosubito said, the stories set the agenda, not the individuals.

KnowItAll

Ever notice how all the media report the same things from the same viewpoint?

It's well known the media is controlled by people who are part of the loony left brigade. They are only interested in money so are against things thats not money obscessed like the catholic church for example.

Journalists are tested to see how left wing their views are and then hired or let go accordingly and so the brainwashing keeps going.

The media can make or break any politican so they hold more power than people think. Another example would be the lack of coverage of the BNP on the British channels. Only when something negative happens to the BNP do they report...

zenith

KnowItAll, you know nothing. Obviously Rupert, Sir Tony, the Crosbies and Kerry Packer, amongst others, are crypto-anarchists pretending to be right-wing profit mongers with lifestyles of excess and plenty. It's such a clever ruse.

The test consists of Room 101-type torture, with pints of porter within reach of thirsty hacks if only they renounce, erm, the Pope and the light side of the force.

Can you and the other 30 people who think the BNP have a point just push off?

Grrr, you make me so angry I'm almost incoherent.

zenith

finfacts wrote:

Recently, the Irish Times Education Editor Sean Flynn criticised the Department of Education's "culture of secrecy." However, is this a case of the camel seldom seeing his own hump?

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10002526.shtml

Michael Hennigan

Errah, don't accountants have to do apprenticeships. And Barristers have to be devilled. And plumbers have to serve time.

What's wrong with journalism work experience, then?

flogen

KnowItAll wrote:

Ever notice how all the media report the same things from the same viewpoint?

It's well known the media is controlled by people who are part of the loony left brigade. They are only interested in money so are against things thats not money obscessed like the catholic church for example.

Journalists are tested to see how left wing their views are and then hired or let go accordingly and so the brainwashing keeps going.

The media can make or break any politican so they hold more power than people think. Another example would be the lack of coverage of the BNP on the British channels. Only when something negative happens to the BNP do they report...

please back up this bile with something solid or else stop spouting it.

Brendan552004

The Cian O'Connor story, who stepped over the line, do not upset Sir Tony, pretend nothing happened, no drugs, no nothing, no olympic medal had to be handed back, no photo's of the handing back cermony, censorship in high places, independent journalist's my ass.

KnowItAll

I'm just trying to enlighten people to what goes on! Brainwashing is happening all the time. Every time you see an advert on TV you may wonder why the company pays so much for the advertisment, likewise companies like nike who abuse people in the 3rd world and pay somebody like beckham millions. They do that because people will associate their products with the top stars, hence people are brainwashed. It's just another example of what happens in the real world.

Why do people feel like they have to buy big expensive things to be happy and that they are nobodies unless they are rich or famous?

zenith

Brendan552004 wrote:

The Cian O'Connor story, who stepped over the line, do not upset Sir Tony, pretend nothing happened, no drugs, no nothing, no olympic medal had to be handed back, no photo's of the handing back cermony, censorship in high places, independent journalist's my ass.

Gosh, who leaked the story so? I think I read about it somewhere.

(I don't actually think there was a handing-back ceremony either: maybe a padded envelope?)

flogen

KnowItAll wrote:

I'm just trying to enlighten people to what goes on! Brainwashing is happening all the time. Every time you see an advert on TV you may wonder why the company pays so much for the advertisment, likewise companies like nike who abuse people in the 3rd world and pay somebody like beckham millions. They do that because people will associate their products with the top stars, hence people are brainwashed. It's just another example of what happens in the real world.

Why do people feel like they have to buy big expensive things to be happy and that they are nobodies unless they are rich or famous?

I asked you to give something solid to back up your claims, and so far you haven't done that. Instead you've moved on to the issue of companies brainwashing consumers and abusing poor countries. I'll say it once more, please back up your claims in relation to media workers or stop making them.

As for the Cian O Connor story I wasn't reading the Indo at the time but I find it hard to believe they ignored the whole thing. They may have been a bit softer on Cian than others, but they couldn't have ignored it. Saying that I have seen the Indo avoid stories that damage Sir Tony's investments, such as those in relation to Eircom.

supersheep

KnowItAll wrote:

Ever notice how all the media report the same things from the same viewpoint?

It's well known the media is controlled by people who are part of the loony left brigade. They are only interested in money so are against things thats not money obscessed like the catholic church for example.

Journalists are tested to see how left wing their views are and then hired or let go accordingly and so the brainwashing keeps going.

The media can make or break any politican so they hold more power than people think. Another example would be the lack of coverage of the BNP on the British channels. Only when something negative happens to the BNP do they report...

Left-wing? Do you know what it means? Lefties are the ones who are NOT interested in money, they want to get rid of it and replace the system with a lovely socialist utopia... The Irish Times is slightly left of centre, and the Independent a little to the right. The Village is the only Irish paper I know that is left-wing. (Excluding leftist party sheets, and magazines I don't know.)
And the reason nothing good is reported about the BNP is because there is nothing good about it. Apart from maybe it gets all the racist (brass studs) together in one place, so we can burn them more easily. <evil grin>
I do feel that the Irish media could be more forceful and investigative, true, but compared with most countries' reportage, we are blessed.

finfacts

I was not referring to how individual journalists do their work but to the lack of transparency in the principal media organisations.

My key point is that the big media organisations which criticise others for secrecy and lack of transparency should surely show that they operate differently themselves.

The function of ombudsman/Public Editor has been established by significant newspaper groups overseas but as Michael McDowell has pointed out, Irish newspapers have given little if any attention to engaging readers in more than a one-way communication.

The first Public Editor of the New York Times Daniel Okrent (who had never worked at the news paper) wrote in Dec 2003:

WHEN The New York Times invites you to be the first person charged with publicly evaluating, criticizing and otherwise commenting on the paper's integrity, it's hard to say no: this is a pretty invigorating challenge. It's also hard to say yes: there are easier ways to make friends.

Reporters and editors (the thickness of their skin measurable in microns, the length of their memories in elephant years) will resent the public second-guessing. The people who run the newspaper may find themselves wondering how they might get away with firing me before my 18-month term is up. Too many combatants in the culture wars, loath to tolerate interpretations other than their own, will dismiss what I say except when it serves their ideological interests.

But those are their problems, not mine. My only concern in this adventure is dispassionate evaluation; my only colleagues are readers who turn to The Times for their news, expect it to be fair, honest and complete, and are willing to trust another such reader -- me -- as their surrogate.

Okrent's successor wrote last month:

The first public editor, Daniel Okrent, boldly established the genuine independence essential to carrying out the job and elegantly dissected many of the major issues of journalistic integrity. A bit more of a nitty-gritty newspaperman, I hope to raise the blinds at The Times in some new ways to allow readers to get a clearer view inside the newsroom process. Greater transparency, I believe, can help you as readers better understand the news judgments that shape each day's paper -- and hold The Times's news staff more accountable.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html

- anyone interested in journalism should go to the bother of registering and reading some of this excellent material. (An example of Daniel Okrent's direct journalism when he worked for Time Magazine and wrote in the issue dated Jan. 24, 2000, on what turned out to be the ill-fated merger between Time Warner and AOL - "Time Warner's stuttering, stumbling, ill-managed attempts to score on the Internet (in which I and several of my Time Inc. bosses have participated) have foundered on the inability of the various divisions to work collaboratively and on the relentless bottom-line pressure that discouraged investment in the distant future when there was a quarterly target to meet.")

As to transparency in broadcasting, should there be any concern for example, in the double-standard of RTE's ban on product placement by members of the Gaelic Players' Association and practice of car companies giving either discounts or free cars to some of RTE's presenters/journalists?

The Irish car industry group SIMI has termed Ryan Tubridy "an ambassador for Lexus."

Dempsey to review accountability of RTÉ staff

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0505/rte.html

Last year the issue of newscaster Brian Dobson providing private training services for health authority executives, paid out of public funds, became an issue. Any potential here for a conflict of interest??

Should RTE be transparent on issues like the foregoing?

bonkey

KnowItAll wrote:

I'm just trying to enlighten people to what goes on!

You mean tell people whats giong on, despite having no evidence to back it up...

Brainwashing is happening all the time.

I keep hearing these people telling me whats really going on, which they do with no evidence and expect me to believe them.

I can only assume they are trying to brainwash me. God knows they're not trynig to convince me in any logical manner.

So I'd agree with you on this one, except not in the manner you'd maybe like me to.


jc

Gurgle

Off on a bit of a tangent, but whats really started to bug me recently is the way they report traffic accidents.

'The car went out of control'
'The car hit a pole'
'The vehicle swerved and ploughed through oncoming traffic'

Its only the cars with auto-pilot installed that cause crashes ?

Maybe if they announced;
"This twat killed himself and two other people when he dropped his mobile phone in the passenger footwell and went to get it without slowing down......'
then maybe all the other twats might get the hint and realise that they could be next.

(re. OP: Pile of crap)

bonkey

finfacts wrote:

My key point is that the big media organisations which criticise others for secrecy and lack of transparency should surely show that they operate differently themselves.

But where is the onus on media to act in a transparent manner? The onus exists on those they criticise for a lack of transparency, but I don't see why that means that the media must also be transparent itself.

Indeed, how would such transparency work, given that many aspects of information gathering available to reporters are utterly reliant on their not being made transparent.

As to transparency in broadcasting, should there be any concern for example, in the double-standard of RTE's ban on product placement by members of the Gaelic Players' Association and practice of car companies giving either discounts or free cars to some of RTE's presenters/journalists?

I thought we were discussing journalism, not broadcasting?

Should RTE be transparent on issues like the foregoing?

Arguably, yes, but I still don't see what the connection to journalism is, unless your complaint is not just that RTE doesn't have this transparency but that no-one else in the media is making a deal out of it.

jc

Bateman

Irish newspapers have given little if any attention to engaging readers in more than a one-way communication.

Not too sure what that means. All Irish newspapers that I can think of, and certainly the Times & Independent if we're talking about high-end, have ample letter opportunities, and I know people who have had letters printed, so it's far from a clique that dominates letters pages, in case that were to be your next wild allegation. Also with regard to letters in the Times, when people were incensed by Myers' infamous Irishman's Diary which dealt with single mothers, a whole page was given over to letters of complaint, many of which, some inherently and some openly, also criticised the paper and it's editor.

BTW, is Michael Hennigan the same one who is based in South America and gives occasional South American football analysis to Newstalk?

KnowItAll

Brendan552004 wrote:

The Cian O'Connor story, who stepped over the line, do not upset Sir Tony, pretend nothing happened, no drugs, no nothing, no olympic medal had to be handed back, no photo's of the handing back cermony, censorship in high places, independent journalist's my ass.

They hyped him up so much they was hardly a whisper in the papers compared to when he (it was the horse actually) won the medal.

KnowItAll

flogen wrote:

I asked you to give something solid to back up your claims, and so far you haven't done that.

I gave you plenty of examples so it's your choice if you want to ignore them.

flogen

KnowItAll wrote:

I gave you plenty of examples so it's your choice if you want to ignore them.

Actually all you've done is claim Journalists are tested and brainwashed to ensure a left-wing bias without backing it up, complain that the BNP dont get enough coverage without explaining why they should and suggest that there is a media conspiracy against the catholic church which has been created by left wingers whom, for some reason are very right-wing in their pursuit of profits. And you didn't back that up either.

Then you said something about the Beckhams.

zenith

finfacts wrote:

The function of ombudsman/Public Editor has been established by significant newspaper groups overseas but as Michael McDowell has pointed out, Irish newspapers have given little if any attention to engaging readers in more than a one-way communication.

This is all part of the horsetrading that's going on at the moment with regard to reform of the defamation laws and the formation of a press council. McDowell's usual cynical MO is to lob in a grenade ("Newspaper accountability is teh bad, says Justice Minister" - as if it was any of his business in the normal course of affairs) in order to introduce a 'negotiating position' on the unfair defamation laws in this country that do not permit the defence of 'honest mistake, gov', and which therefore force newspapers to be unable to admit their mistakes for fear of creating an expensive liability issue in court. He gets to knock down and drag, and keeps the whole merry-go-round alive for another couple of years.

Don't confuse that with the other ongoing debate about interactivity in papers, which is why Uncle Rupe is buying blogging sites.

finfacts wrote:

As to transparency in broadcasting, should there be any concern for example, in the double-standard of RTE's ban on product placement by members of the Gaelic Players' Association and practice of car companies giving either discounts or free cars to some of RTE's presenters/journalists?

This isn't an editorial issue, to be honest, but a commercial one. In any case, should RTE be double-dipping with both the licence fee and advertising? If RTE2 and 2FM - which have no public service role - were floated, could the 'public service bit' not be dealt with on the licence fee alone?

finfacts wrote:

The Irish car industry group SIMI has termed Ryan Tubridy "an ambassador for Lexus."

He's got a Lexus, then? Hardly a smoking gun for journalists in general. I know one journalist who has a Lexus, and he paid for it.

finfacts wrote:

Last year the issue of newscaster Brian Dobson providing private training services for health authority executives, paid out of public funds, became an issue. Any potential here for a conflict of interest??

If you're beef is with RTE, then you should state that. I've got lots of beefs with RTE - state-sponsored p*iss-poor competition with private enterprise paid for out of the licence fee - but Dobson's work on the side in PR presumably didn't prevent him putting in a full week in RTE.

finfacts wrote:

Should RTE be transparent on issues like the foregoing?

Yes, but they won't be: I also don't think any of your examples are real sins.

zenith

KnowItAll wrote:

I gave you plenty of examples so it's your choice if you want to ignore them.

Flogen, isn't life too short to be endlessly rebutting this sort of thing?

KnowItAll

flogen wrote:

Actually all you've done is claim Journalists are tested and brainwashed to ensure a left-wing bias without backing it up,

I said that the media hire, not the best journalists but the journalists that mostly suites their agenda. Its that simple. To back it up the way you want I would have to prove what people are thinking which is impossible.

flogen wrote:

complain that the BNP dont get enough coverage without explaining why they should

Because they are a political party like the other political parties.

flogen wrote:

and suggest that there is a media conspiracy against the catholic church which has been created by left wingers whom, for some reason are very right-wing in their pursuit of profits. And you didn't back that up either.

There is a conspiracy against the catholic church! Nothing good is ever said about the church in the media. The church is constantly critiscised for the things it done in the past. There is never a mention about the good things like educating the country, working overseas etc. As for the paedophiles in the church, you would think the church recruited them from the impression the media gives. They never see what really happened, that the paedophiles actually used the church to aid their crimes!

Politics are too complicated to say that right wingers are driven by money and left wingers are not driven by money. I always thought that the difference is more about things like the freedom to do things (legalise drugs etc).

flogen

KnowItAll wrote:

I said that the media hire, not the best journalists but the journalists that mostly suites their agenda. Its that simple. To back it up the way you want I would have to prove what people are thinking which is impossible.

Just incase you haven't read the charter for this site, here it is here. You may want to pay special attention to point 3, Avoid Libelous Statements. If you wish to make claims as grand as the above, back them up with facts or else keep them to yourself. If it is impossible to back it up then you shouldn't be spreading what is basically idle gossip.

Because they are a political party like the other political parties.

Here is a list of what is only some of the British Political Parties . Have you ever heard of most of them, because I sure haven't. There is no bias when it comes to political party coverage, not that I can see anyway. It's just that some parties (the main 3) are the most important in political terms and to voters, and so need to be covered. Currently the BNP have no seats in the British or European Parliment and so represent no body.
If you think that the left wing media is keeping right wing parties out of the picture in the UK, can you explain why UKIP were given so much time at the European elections? Was it because the leftwing media hated them, or because people voted for them and the media responded.

There is a conspiracy against the catholic church! Nothing good is ever said about the church in the media. The church is constantly critiscised for the things it done in the past. There is never a mention about the good things like educating the country, working overseas etc. As for the paedophiles in the church, you would think the church recruited them from the impression the media gives. They never see what really happened, that the paedophiles actually used the church to aid their crimes!

It isn't in the nature of the media to report the good that everybody does, it is its nature to report the most newsworthy topics of the time to the public. The church puts itself forward as an aid to its followers and so it's not news when they do that. I don't think anyone thinks the church hired people because they were paedophiles, but they did turn a blind eye when the truth came to light. That's pretty abhorent and it warrents full exposure in my opinion. However, we won't get into the goods and bads the church has done, it's not for this forum for one.

Now, this is the final warning I'm giving you. This is not a conspiracy forum. You can think what you want about the media, but unless you can back up these opinions with hard facts then I suggest you keep them to yourself. I've given you plenty of oppertunities to justify your comments and all you can do is tell us that everyone knows but you can't prove it.

Your next post that breaks the charter rules will result in a 1 week ban.

KnowItAll

Could you give proof to me that there is not a conspiracy? I don't think so...

sceptre

KnowItAll wrote:

Could you give proof to me that there is not a conspiracy? I don't think so...

Could you give proof to me that there is not an elephant in my living room?

You're not "enlightening" people - you're stating an opinion, passing it off as fact (especially by saying you're enlightening people) and then expect people to accept the notion that your opinion is fact merely because they can't disprove the proposition that there's an elephant in your living room. It's up to you to prove your, erm, theories that you brought up without being asked (see paragraph 2), not for the rest of the world to disprove them.The burden of proof is on you as the theory advancer/proposer, otherwise you're just talking out of your asshat.

Waste of time. And you're thread-hijacking by attempting to switch the topic of alleged secrecy in Irish journalism by repeatedly dragging what appears to be a personal pet-project lack of media coverage for the BNP in UK journalism into the thread. Why not start a new thread if you feel like talking about your favourite political charmers and why they're not on the front pages of the red tops ever day as they clearly deserve.

monument

sceptre wrote:

Could you give proof to me that there is not an elephant in my living room?

I could give you proof - it's there because I say so! So there!

finfacts wrote:

The first Public Editor of the New York Times Daniel Okrent (who had never worked at the news paper) wrote in Dec 2003:

The Guardian put it better, at least with the name "Readers' editor", and they got to the punch before the NY Times...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/readerseditor/
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/readerseditor/

What's in a title? / what's it all about...

The brief answer to the question is that the readers' editor is the independent internal ombudsman of the Guardian. It is a full-time job conducted from a room - a glass box - on the main news floor of the paper in a cluster of offices known (ironically perhaps) as the Bunker, at the centre of which is the editor of the paper. Setting up the role was his idea, as an exercise in self-regulation providing greater access and accountability, and, it was hoped, increasing the bond of trust between the paper and its readers.

The "independence" is something I am always questioned about. How can you be paid by the Guardian and at the same time investigate complaints against it independently? It is true that I am paid by the Guardian, no longer as a member of its staff but on a two-year contract. My independence is underwritten by a number of clauses in the terms of reference. For example, the paragraph requiring me to write this weekly column says, "The content to be determined independently and not subject to prior approval by the editor or others on his staff."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,635670,00.html

KnowItAll

sceptre wrote:

Could you give proof to me that there is not an elephant in my living room?

Actually that could technically be proved by viewing your living room! Anyway the point I was trying to make is that I cannot read peoples minds and until a device is invented to do that, no proof can be got.

sceptre wrote:

Waste of time. And you're thread-hijacking by attempting to switch the topic of alleged secrecy in Irish journalism by repeatedly dragging what appears to be a personal pet-project lack of media coverage for the BNP in UK journalism into the thread. Why not start a new thread if you feel like talking about your favourite political charmers and why they're not on the front pages of the red tops ever day as they clearly deserve.

Pet project! Ha ha. Your funny. I gave an example of something and I think your reading far too much into it!

flogen

right, well that's enough crap for one lifetime.

Let's bring this thread right back on topic. The next poster to go off topic will be banned for 2 weeks.

KnowItAll

flogen wrote:

right, well that's enough crap for one lifetime.

Let's bring this thread right back on topic. The next poster to go off topic will be banned for 2 weeks.

I believe the thread was titled 'Irish journalism and the culture of secrecy'. You can't accuse me of going off topic!

flogen

KnowItAll wrote:

I believe the thread was titled 'Irish journalism and the culture of secrecy'. You can't accuse me of going off topic!

I believe that you've gone off topic again.

2 week ban.

mycroft

KnowItAll wrote:

I believe the thread was titled 'Irish journalism and the culture of secrecy'. You can't accuse me of going off topic!

Well er seeing as you're ranting about the insidious nature of coverage of a minority british political party, would you care to provide examples of "Irish Journalism" and it's failure to cover the "british national party" considering coverage of said party considering said party's philosophy would be oxymoron for "irish" journalists.

You know "knowitall" never has a users nick failed to live up to reality of their worldview and position.

Could you give proof to me that there is not a conspiracy? I don't think so...

The general argumentive theory is the person making the assertion is the one that must provide proof.

For example you could not stride into a room and announce that you are infact Margaret Thatcher, and then demand those around you disprove that you are not. You're making the assertion the onus is on you to support that accusation.

Incidently sceptre, I know a fantastic garden center which will take all that elephant dung off your hands to use as fertiliser.

I said that the media hire, not the best journalists but the journalists that mostly suites their agenda. Its that simple. To back it up the way you want I would have to prove what people are thinking which is impossible.

Unfortunately and this is one of those rare things in Knowitall land I have this lovely lil gems at my disposal, more commonly known as "facts" Facts like Mary Kenny, Eilis O Hanolan's, Conor Cruise O Brien's, Brendan O'Connor, and Mark Steryn's weekly columns in the broadsheets. The noted right wing bias of tabloids (when they decide to cover actual news) which display the strong right wing bias in the Irish print media.

There is a conspiracy against the catholic church! Nothing good is ever said about the church in the media. The church is constantly critiscised for the things it done in the past. There is never a mention about the good things like educating the country, working overseas etc. As for the paedophiles in the church, you would think the church recruited them from the impression the media gives. They never see what really happened, that the paedophiles actually used the church to aid their crimes!

And what about the church's habit of moving and hiding paedophiles, to preserve their reputation. What would you prefer, today Fr O Haughney didn't fiddle a kid, news stories. Theres plenty of examples of the church's role in the media, do you really think the angelus would be shown once a day if your theory was true? The fact that I and you have to pay part of the cost of church abuse is outrageous.

Politics are too complicated to say that right wingers are driven by money and left wingers are not driven by money. I always thought that the difference is more about things like the freedom to do things (legalise drugs etc)

Brilliant. yes thats it, left wingers are just a bunch of sandal wearing drug users, while right wingers are buttoned down clean livers.

I swear "knowitall" your nick is almost, just almost, the least accurate thing about you.