Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
DCU to rejoin USI, your thoughts?
Comments
-
If they're not willing to do anything more than that's their problem; personally just tired of hearing people whine in this thread about bias and yet hearing they haven't bothered [based on what people have said here] to raise the issue directly to the CV or Journo Soc.
Errr.... what exactly do you want people to do?People are claiming bias, that doesn't mean any exists. If the article is bias, then please highlight were it is. Steve has a history with the USI, and that should have been said. The spread also should have had a lot more content, if only to create a much bigger picture of the debate going on about USI. Both are faults with the article, but I'd hardly call it personal bias.
He has a very pro USI point of view and that has come out in a number of articles. I have not said his articles have bias, I have said there is a conflict of interest.If we're going to define conflict of interest [and it is correct
] then yea, there's a conflict of interest - as I said, I think it was a poor judgment on Steve's part to involve himself in the "Yes" campaign while the CV editor. It doesn't help with the reputation of the paper, nor does it reflect well on Steve himself [raises the question about bias and personal motives]. However, I don't condemn him for it, I haven't seen anything as of yet were I would claim bias on his behalf - if I did, then I'd be the first to post about.
The conflict of interest is so great that it does not matter if there is bias or not.What change of tune? I was speaking about the USI feature there, and the editorial in that quote - two different articles.
Sorry... is it this article (The USI, is there strength in unity?)... :pac:0 -
The question of a referendum on rejoining have been mooted in the paper repeatedly last year and this year. Printing letters from USI president to get a referendum discussion going, pushing buttons by having members of the paper leak info from the constitution review committee. The CV has been trying to make the news in the union instead of reporting on it.
Well [sadly] the job of a newspaper isn't just to report the new anymore; wish it was. But pushing buttons is along way from agenda setting.Perceived bias is just as bad as actual bias, when people see that the college view's USI reporting is associated with steve and he is Mr. Yes then that damages any claim that the CV has to be anything more then his platform.
True. Personally, this is why I raised the issue about people highlighting bias [to the CV or Journo Soc] if they believe it's there. If only so that the CV is forced to deal with it; I seriously doubt that not a single member of the paper doesn't read these boards. Unless the issue is raised, it means that such complaints can be dismissed as just a few rambles on boards.The bias I saw in that article was that he glossed over the problems with USI and bigged up all the advantages. No analysis of the issues when it comes to efficacy of campaigns, to the level of power 1 seat in the HEA gets, the ability for USI to engage in rational policy making when it's policies lack any economic planning.
This is why I called it a poor article and why there should have been more sustain to it. What's there isn't bias, it's just very incomplete. It could have easily been pure pro USI, and all of this would be a non-issue, but it wasn't. More a general back story on USI and DCU's involvement. Still though, that raises another topic of discussion - quality of coverage the CV is giving the referendum. It seems pretty poor atm.I think you did see it and maybe it was a little subtle but it was there. I will be making a question of this after the vote. No point in worrying him until then.
As I said, I do take issue with some of what's there in the article, I just chalk it up to a bad piece, not complete writer bias. Still though, discussion is always good - if you do have concerns about bias then you're well within your right to raise the point.Sorry... is it this article (The USI, is there strength in unity?)... :pac:
That's from last year, though it looks like bits of it were salvaged for the most recent USI feature. Still doesn't support you point about "change of tune"
Still, here's a bit that SHOULD have been salvaged...In the interests of transparency the author wishes to have it noted that he is a former three term officer board member of USI. The survey on which this article is based was an independent survey of 200 randomly selected students in DCU.0 -
-
-
BTW I edited my last post -- was only meaning to press preview first, not post. Wanted to reply to the other points too.Well [sadly] the job of a newspaper isn't just to report the new anymore; wish it was. But pushing buttons is along way from agenda setting.
True, but unlike you I don't wish reporting the new is all what journalists do. However, there's highlighting issues and pushing agendas -- the CV has been doing the latter for the last year on the USI.True. Personally, this is why I raised the issue about people highlighting bias [to the CV or Journo Soc] if they believe it's there. If only so that the CV is forced to deal with it; I seriously doubt that not a single member of the paper doesn't read these boards. Unless the issue is raised, it means that such complaints can be dismissed as just a few rambles on boards.
Anybody likely to dismiss a message because of its medium is just as likely to dismiss a complaint or just entertain it but not treat it seriously.As I said, I do take issue with some of what's there in the article, I just chalk it up to a bad piece, not complete writer bias. Still though, discussion is always good - if you do have concerns about bias then you're well within your right to raise the point.
S/He has raised the point -- if the College View etc are not willing to reply, that's their problem.That's from last year, though it looks like bits of it were salvaged for the most recent USI feature. Still doesn't support you point about "change of tune"
Still, here's a bit that SHOULD have been salvaged...
Sorry again -- the sorry in my last post was to say sorry I had misunderstood which article was being talked about.0 -
Advertisement
-
Anybody likely to dismiss a message because of its medium is just as likely to dismiss a complaint or just entertain it but not treat it seriously.
S/He has raised the point -- if the College View etc are not willing to reply, that's their problem.
They don't have to reply to something on boards though, it isn't something directed at them because they can simply claim ignorance of it because they've no need to be here. At least with an email or a letter, then it's something direct to them - if they chose to ignore it then, well there's the opportunity to take it to the next level - Journo Soc or the SLC.Sorry again -- the sorry in my last post was to say sorry I had misunderstood which article was being talked about.
No worries, no harm no foul 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
phantom_lord wrote: »granted. but he firmly convinced me to vote no tonight.Was previously 100% positive of voting no, but I was basing that solely on what I heard from other people. After listening to the debates and looking into it myself I think my mind's been changed.
What could they possibly said to have changed your mind Daysha?0 -
-
What could they possibly said to have changed your mind Daysha?
I wasn't at the NuBar earlier, I only heard the debate on DCUfm. I wouldn't mind hearing it again, but it should be podcasted on dcufm.com soon enough.
I'm still not 100% convinced (I could very well end up voting no) but I think I've decided that if I'm paying €1500 this year and possibly €2000-2500 the next, I don't mind paying an extra €8 and at least have the knowledge that my class reps are getting training to help them and the SU are getting the support to help them. Will that make a huge difference? Only time will tell.
But what I do know is USI aren't at fault for allowing reg frees to double or quadrupled in the last few years, and they're going to go up again next year regardless of whether we're with USI or not. But at a time when the countries education system is going to face possibly its biggest challenge in the history of the state, paying 8 quid to join forces with 250,000 other students in an organisation which CAN have a say if we work with them is something I can live with.
Most if not all of you might disagree with that, but that's how I'm thinking right now. And I'm just one of 10,000 registered voters so don't kill me if you think I'm talking crap
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement