Trinity News vs University Times

Mr Pseudonym · 05-06-2014 09:49PM #1

In terms of content, what differentiates them? I never really thought about it, but is one considered superior to the other? Before I came, I assumed (based on their names) that the UT was upmarket of TN, but I gather the opposite is the case. Certainly TN seems to have a much larger staff:

TN Staff

UT Staff

The TN website used to be deplorable - to such an extent that I once wondered was it no longer publishing regularly. But, it's much improved.

Is it a case of, like Phil/Hist, from the outside they look the same, but from the inside they each have a distinct identity?

Does anyone have any insight?

Mr Pseudonym · 05-06-2014 10:13PM

From Wikipedia: the UT is "financially supported by the Students' Union", and replaced the SU's "community publication The University Record, in 2009". It is editorially independent. It won the award for Newspaper of the Year in 2010, '11, and '12, at the National Student Media Awards. TN was founded in 1953, and won Newspaper of the Year in 2008, '09, and '13.

Lawliet · 05-06-2014 11:05PM

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

The TN website used to be deplorable - to such an extent that I once wondered was it no longer publishing regularly. But, it's much improved.

I can't stand the TN site, it is literally unreadable for me. This could be the dyslexia talking but it's like the text is under a blurry filter: instant headache. No matter how much I want to read an article I can never get past the first line.
I've never come across another site that has their text like that, its such a bizarre choice.

Bears and Vodka · 06-06-2014 11:37AM

Think of TN as a broadsheet and UT as a tabloid, in fact that's what they are. TN is a less regular paper I believe, but it has the more serious news items covered as well as some interesting opinion pieces. TN2, the cultural magaize that goes with it is really great.
UT have a far better online presence and they tend to write up articles about current events quicker and put them up online. It's a slightly more frivolous paper but it does cover the serious stuff. And don't forget that it's TCDSU run, and while they are "editorially independent", they are kind of not.

AndrewJD · 06-06-2014 10:29PM

Bears and Vodka wrote: »

And don't forget that it's TCDSU run, and while they are "editorially independent", they are kind of not.

I think when the editor is a sabattical officer of the student union, works side by side with all the other SU officers and is involved in most of the student unions campaigns, the idea of the paper being independant is quite far-fetched.

Mr Pseudonym · 06-06-2014 10:55PM

AndrewJD wrote: »

I think when the editor is a sabattical officer of the student union, works side by side with all the other SU officers and is involved in most of the student unions campaigns, the idea of the paper being independant is quite far-fetched.

I hadn't realised that the Communications Officer is the editor of the UT.

Mr Pseudonym · 06-06-2014 11:05PM

In case anyone's interested, here are each's recent archives:

University Times | ISSUU

Trinity News | ISSUU

I think Bears and Vodak is a little unfair in suggesting UT is the equivalent of a tabloid. Wait till The Tab comes to Dublin!

Keen2win · 16-06-2014 10:10PM

Both papers are pretty biased TBH, and it really is laughable to suggest that the UT is editorially independent of the SU (lol). However, I think there was some sort of constitutional review group set up last year and they suggested that the Comms officer should not be the editor of the UT, so we will see if this will be implemented!

I can't wait for the Tab, I really don't know much about it, but competition can only be good for the normal Trinity student.

VincentLeB · 17-06-2014 01:59AM

Keen2win wrote: »

Both papers are pretty biased TBH, and it really is laughable to suggest that the UT is editorially independent of the SU (lol). However, I think there was some sort of constitutional review group set up last year and they suggested that the Comms officer should not be the editor of the UT, so we will see if this will be implemented!

I can't wait for the Tab, I really don't know much about it, but competition can only be good for the normal Trinity student.

Actually, the last referendum of the year confirmed the split with the constitution change, so the UT editor will be split from next year's elections.

I totally agree with how laughable it is to suggest that it's editorially independent, but I do know some people involved and there is some effort made, and it depends on the person in charge. For instance, I believe the outgoing editor isn't someone who would have been a huge fan of the union before, even though they're the communications officer now. But I'm glad it's being fixed and split.

Which one is better each year depends on who's in charge. The University Times beat Trinity News for Publication of the Year at the Student Achievement Awards, but the impression I got was that Trinity News was far better last year, and they won some big award that year, so it's not clear cut.

With regards to the larger staff, The University Times has a significantly larger staff as far as I know. What's listed at the above links are masthead staff – just the most important people.

Anyway, I don't think one is very clearly better than the other. Anyone suggesting that one is a tabloid or one is a broadsheet or whatever doesn't know what they're talking about, because I read both religiously and have friends on both staffs, and even they can't say for sure which is better. If it was the case that there was a large difference, you can bet they would be dismissive of each other or whatever. They both do good work. UT has a very good online presence and TN does some very good feature coverage of stuff in college. (The magazine that comes with UT got some national media coverage fairly regularly with their stories, too.) The SU influence on UT is overemphasised too, but it depends on the year. Yet there were very frequent pieces criticising the SU this year in UT as far as I can recall. If I was to say it this year, UT probably edged it a bit, but not by a whole lot (with stuff like their coverage of the SU elections and some breaking/exclusive stories). Things could be different next year, and they were last year.

Raspberry Fileds · 17-06-2014 11:30AM

Keen2win wrote: »

Both papers are pretty biased.

I can't wait for the Tab, I really don't know much about it, but competition can only be good for the normal Trinity student.

What do you think their bias is?

Afaik, Tab is an online publication. I think any additional publication that is sustainable is positive. Much will depend on the editorial team.

VincentLeB wrote: »

With regards to the larger staff, The University Times has a significantly larger staff as far as I know. What's listed at the above links are masthead staff – just the most important people.

Anyway, I don't think one is very clearly better than the other. Anyone suggesting that one is a tabloid or one is a broadsheet or whatever doesn't know what they're talking about, because I read both religiously and have friends on both staffs, and even they can't say for sure which is better. If it was the case that there was a large difference, you can bet they would be dismissive of each other or whatever.

Why do you think one woul have a "significantly" larger staff? Out of interest, what gave you that impresion?

Not wishing to start a feud or anything (!), but I've heard a few slightly condescending remarks by people involved in TN regarding UT. From a brief read through back issues, UT is a lot more campus-orientated, whereas TN seems to give a bigger platform to those wanting to write about life and current affairs outside The Bubble. The Comment in TN is comfortably superior. While they have slightly different identities, I would say TN2 is superior to UT's equivalent. It's difficult to judge the quality of reporting, but, echoing what I said, UT seems to have more "scoops" from campus. If I had to chose one to pick up, I'd go for TN every time (unless some lads went crazy on, say, a ski trip, or something

).

Obviously, the identity of each is largely dependent on each year's senior editorial staff, but the previous staff is responsible for appointing them, so can still influence from the grave.

Keen2win · 17-06-2014 11:53AM

VincentLeB wrote: »

The SU influence on UT is overemphasised too, but it depends on the year. Yet there were very frequent pieces criticising the SU this year in UT as far as I can recall.

Can you link one or two, I can't remember any! The only one I can think of was this recent piece by the TN that reviewed the performance of the officers! http://trinitynews.ie/tcdsu-review-2013-14/

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

What do you think their bias is?

They are both very left wing. Very hard to get the other side of this identity iniative also, it is just article after article attacking it! I know a few people who don't think that the iniative is that bad of an idea, for instance!

Raspberry Fileds · 18-06-2014 10:47AM

Keen2win wrote: »

They are both very left wing. Very hard to get the other side of this identity iniative also, it is just article after article attacking it! I know a few people who don't think that the iniative is that bad of an idea, for instance!

That they are left wing would obviously be expected given that students overwhelmingly tend to lean that way. However, the response to the "rebranding initiative" was disappointing because there didn't even seem to be an attempt to assess its merits (in fairness, because it was announced without consultation, maybe that's understandable).

Has anyone read The Bull or Agora? Standard in both is very good. Don't like the name of the former, though.

PirateParty · 19-06-2014 08:34AM

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

That they are left wing would obviously be expected given that students overwhelmingly tend to lean that way. However, the response to the "rebranding initiative" was disappointing because there didn't even seem to be an attempt to assess its merits (in fairness, because it was announced without consultation, maybe that's understandable).

Has anyone read The Bull or Agora? Standard in both is very good. Don't like the name of the former, though.

You're joking right? The Bull is a copy and paste newspaper. Students rip off FT articles and claim the opinions or news stories for their own. Agora just doesn't exist with no readership and no contributors.

PirateParty · 19-06-2014 08:39AM

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

Not wishing to start a feud or anything (!) but I've heard a few slightly condescending remarks by people involved in TN regarding UT.

Yeah because that HAS to be an unbiased perspective.

Raspberry Fileds · 19-06-2014 11:17AM

Of course, I wouldn't argue that someone involved in either isn't liable to have a bias. I gave that anecdote to contradict a claim by another poster that there is mutual admiration between the two.

I confess, I haven't read much of The Bull. You'd contend that it's s**t, though, would you? I think, given that the contributors are time-constrained and (relative to the FT) greatly under-resourced students, it would be expected that they would rely to a large extent on media sources for their pieces. Obviously, though, rewording FT articles wouldn't be acceptable. I suppose, one can concede that point, yet still question its legitimcay as a publication. From what I've seen, it's modelled on the FT: international focus; coverage of business stories; restrained language; pink pages; etc. It's for that reason that I think it's misleadingly named - Bull is obv a reference to the Wall Street sculpture, yet it has a much wider focus than that implies. I wonder should not its, for want of a much better phrase, official raison d'etre (the one for which it receives funding) be as a newspaper specifcally covering national and international issues (and with a business section).

There is, IMO, a niche for a Harvard Political Review equivalent - a collection of comment pieces by students on (largely) non-campus topics. At the moment, we have UT which is primarily inward looking, TN which (it appears to me) is most likely to cover a national social rather than political issue, and Agora and Bull which cover international stories (in writing which, students are overwhelmingly likely to be under-informed), but nothing which seeks to give a student-perspective on national issues.

By the way, what do you mean about Agora? Does it struggle to get contributors? If it can start regularly publishing in print, it should be able to build a readership.

Vivara · 22-06-2014 07:52PM

PirateParty wrote: »

You're joking right? The Bull is a copy and paste newspaper. Students rip off FT articles and claim the opinions or news stories for their own. Agora just doesn't exist with no readership and no contributors.

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

I confess, I haven't read much of The Bull. You'd contend that it's s**t, though, would you? I think, given that the contributors are time-constrained and (relative to the FT) greatly under-resourced students, it would be expected that they would rely to a large extent on media sources for their pieces.

The Bull really is quite poor, and I haven't heard anyone speak highly of it. Maybe I'm just not associating with the right people, but really there is nothing very impressive about it at all. It's fine like. I'd always pick up a copy of it too, so unlike you, I have read much of The Bull. If I recall correctly, their front-page story of one issue was the missing Malaysian airplane. I mean WTF. Talk about a poor editorial decision: it was a very rapidly developing story, and anyone with half a brain could have figured out it would be extremely out of date before it arrived on campus. Plus, it's not like the story fits the bill of a "financial newspaper".

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

Why do you think one woul have a "significantly" larger staff? Out of interest, what gave you that impression?

The University Times does have a significantly larger staff. If you have a read through the news and opinion sections, or even online, you'll see that there are much more writers than in Trinity News, where most of the stories seem to be written by the same people like the news editor/deputy news editor, etc. It becomes clear if you regularly follow it and see it. The reason for this is really that The University Times has a much larger brand and more people are aware of it. I have met a fair few people who actually haven't heard of Trinity News (sounds made-up, but the average student isn't as informed about the publication sphere as we are). They don't have as good a distribution across campus, they have a small and less frequent online presence, and this year anyway, they came out a bit less than The University Times. As such, people seem to gravitate to The University Times and they don't have trouble maintaining a large staff.

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

From a brief read through back issues, UT is a lot more campus-orientated, whereas TN seems to give a bigger platform to those wanting to write about life and current affairs outside The Bubble. The Comment in TN is comfortably superior. While they have slightly different identities, I would say TN2 is superior to UT's equivalent.

You are either extremely ignorant or either involved with Trinity News, because you've got it wrong. As someone said, TN definitely have a better features section when it comes to reporting about college- and campus-related stuff. But the comment section in The University Times is regarded as superior when it comes to college and national-related issues. The University Times has two of the best opinion writers in the sphere, Dan O'Brien and Aisling Curtis. In fact, Aisling Curtis won Journalist of the Year for her opinion writing. The opinion editor, Samuel Riggs, (who is going to be editor next year) is also a really superb opinion writer. There are also people who feature less frequently like Michelle O'Connor and Sinead Baker who are excellent too. Trinity News also have some excellent opinion writers, like William Foley, Conor McGlynn and Eva Short, but to argue that Trinity News's section is "comfortably superior" is wrong – either ignorant or biased.

With regards to TN2 being superior to "UT's equivalent", I don't know how you can say that either. They're completely different magazines and have a totally different focus. The University Times Magazine covers nationals politics and features in depth, as well as some cultural aspects. Like the Features Writer of the Year and Journalist of the Year came from it last year! Also, they had some pretty major national stories this year that were picked up by the Independent, the Irish Times, broadsheet.ie and The Herald. It succeeds in its focus, and I suppose so does TN2, but calling it superior is wrong – once again, either ignorant or biased.

Finally, the whole thing about The University Times being more campus-orientated is definitely true, but before, The University Times and Trinity News were accused of being mini Irish Times. If people want to read good opinion about national and international issues, you can just look at The Irish Times or even The New York Times. Where college newspapers trump them though is coverage of college and campus-related events and issues. And doing that well is good – because obviously no-one else is. If that's not something you value, fine, but putting down The University Times for covering it doesn't hold as much weight as you think it does. Just because Trinity News cover national and social-related issues doesn't mean that they're somehow prestigious. Loads of places cover it better than they do, like the national and international newspapers.

PirateParty · 01-07-2014 06:13PM

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

I confess, I haven't read much of The Bull. You'd contend that it's s**t, though, would you? I think, given that the contributors are time-constrained and (relative to the FT) greatly under-resourced students, it would be expected that they would rely to a large extent on media sources for their pieces.

By the way, what do you mean about Agora? Does it struggle to get contributors? If it can start regularly publishing in print, it should be able to build a readership.

I think the answer to what's **** about the Bull was covered largely above. If writers from UT and TN can cover things in depth with a turnaround of 3 - 4 weeks then I think the Bull should be stepping up their game too. One idea would be for them to cover all the entrepreneurial and innovation stuff that's going on in Trinity and in universities/ITs across Ireland. They would get more attention if they were catering to students by giving them tips on money and banking rather than trying to show off by saying "quantitative easing" a million times over.

Agora could be good as well, it's just that there seems to be very little interest in contributing. This is disappointing because we have one of the best political science departments in the world and a lot of interest in our society through studies etc. in our university. It doesn't translate. However, that could be down to the team not really being too enthusiastic about the publication in the first place.

Raspberry Fileds · 07-07-2014 05:02PM

Vivara wrote: »

The Bull really is quite poor, and I haven't heard anyone speak highly of it. Maybe I'm just not associating with the right people, but really there is nothing very impressive about it at all. It's fine like. I'd always pick up a copy of it too, so unlike you, I have read much of The Bull. If I recall correctly, their front-page story of one issue was the missing Malaysian airplane. I mean WTF. Talk about a poor editorial decision: it was a very rapidly developing story, and anyone with half a brain could have figured out it would be extremely out of date before it arrived on campus. Plus, it's not like the story fits the bill of a "financial newspaper".

The University Times does have a significantly larger staff. If you have a read through the news and opinion sections, or even online, you'll see that there are much more writers than in Trinity News, where most of the stories seem to be written by the same people like the news editor/deputy news editor, etc. It becomes clear if you regularly follow it and see it. The reason for this is really that The University Times has a much larger brand and more people are aware of it. I have met a fair few people who actually haven't heard of Trinity News (sounds made-up, but the average student isn't as informed about the publication sphere as we are). They don't have as good a distribution across campus, they have a small and less frequent online presence, and this year anyway, they came out a bit less than The University Times. As such, people seem to gravitate to The University Times and they don't have trouble maintaining a large staff.

You are either extremely ignorant or either involved with Trinity News, because you've got it wrong. As someone said, TN definitely have a better features section when it comes to reporting about college- and campus-related stuff. But the comment section in The University Times is regarded as superior when it comes to college and national-related issues. The University Times has two of the best opinion writers in the sphere, Dan O'Brien and Aisling Curtis. In fact, Aisling Curtis won Journalist of the Year for her opinion writing. The opinion editor, Samuel Riggs, (who is going to be editor next year) is also a really superb opinion writer. There are also people who feature less frequently like Michelle O'Connor and Sinead Baker who are excellent too. Trinity News also have some excellent opinion writers, like William Foley, Conor McGlynn and Eva Short, but to argue that Trinity News's section is "comfortably superior" is wrong – either ignorant or biased.

With regards to TN2 being superior to "UT's equivalent", I don't know how you can say that either. They're completely different magazines and have a totally different focus. The University Times Magazine covers nationals politics and features in depth, as well as some cultural aspects. Like the Features Writer of the Year and Journalist of the Year came from it last year! Also, they had some pretty major national stories this year that were picked up by the Independent, the Irish Times, broadsheet.ie and The Herald. It succeeds in its focus, and I suppose so does TN2, but calling it superior is wrong – once again, either ignorant or biased.

Finally, the whole thing about The University Times being more campus-orientated is definitely true, but before, The University Times and Trinity News were accused of being mini Irish Times. If people want to read good opinion about national and international issues, you can just look at The Irish Times or even The New York Times. Where college newspapers trump them though is coverage of college and campus-related events and issues. And doing that well is good – because obviously no-one else is. If that's not something you value, fine, but putting down The University Times for covering it doesn't hold as much weight as you think it does. Just because Trinity News cover national and social-related issues doesn't mean that they're somehow prestigious. Loads of places cover it better than they do, like the national and international newspapers.

Apologies for delay in replying; been v. busy and your response requires that I dedicate some time to research before (hopefully) refuting your points - something I have not yet done!

I am not involved in either publication, but would like to think that I am not "extremely ignorant".

I will properly reply in next day or two.

PirateParty · 02-03-2015 04:10PM

I'm sad there was no more debate on this.

Raspberry Fileds · 02-03-2015 04:39PM

My bad! I'll read through it again and respond as I promised.

PirateParty · 02-03-2015 04:40PM

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

My bad! I'll read through it again and respond as I promised.

Huzzah.

Raspberry Fileds · 03-03-2015 02:46AM

Sorry about delay. My response to PirateParty and Vivara.

First: Bull and Agora. I've read both pretty extensively this year. Agora's only been out once and quality wasn't great at all. Bull is slightly more complicated. The range of contributors in quite small (mainly the editorial staff) and some of the articles aren't terrific. But, overall, I feel it's a more-than-credible effort. As for putting MH370 on the front page, I see nothing wrong with that: was a huge story, was on the front of FT as well, and, by saying it oughtn't to have been because it was a fast-developing story, it seems to me that it follows that it shouldn't have appeared on national front-pages either.

Having read every edition of UT and TN this year, I can acknowledge that Vivara was certainly correct about UT having a greater staff and brand recognition.

This is where it gets juicy:

You are either extremely ignorant or either involved with Trinity News, because you've got it wrong. As someone said, TN definitely have a better features section when it comes to reporting about college- and campus-related stuff. But the comment section in The University Times is regarded as superior when it comes to college and national-related issues. The University Times has two of the best opinion writers in the sphere, Dan O'Brien and Aisling Curtis. In fact, Aisling Curtis won Journalist of the Year for her opinion writing. The opinion editor, Samuel Riggs, (who is going to be editor next year) is also a really superb opinion writer. There are also people who feature less frequently like Michelle O'Connor and Sinead Baker who are excellent too. Trinity News also have some excellent opinion writers, like William Foley, Conor McGlynn and Eva Short, but to argue that Trinity News's section is "comfortably superior" is wrong – either ignorant or biased.

With regards to TN2 being superior to "UT's equivalent", I don't know how you can say that either. They're completely different magazines and have a totally different focus. The University Times Magazine covers nationals politics and features in depth, as well as some cultural aspects. Like the Features Writer of the Year and Journalist of the Year came from it last year! Also, they had some pretty major national stories this year that were picked up by the Independent, the Irish Times, broadsheet.ie and The Herald. It succeeds in its focus, and I suppose so does TN2, but calling it superior is wrong – once again, either ignorant or biased.

Curtis won her award at USI awards. Nothing impressive in that. Even the Student Media Awards are dubious, but certainly more prestigious. I think TN's comment this year has been superior, but I confess saying it's "comfortably" so is wrong.

In saying that TN2 is superior, I meant in terms of product: as in, London Review of Books is entirely different concept from The Sun, but that doesn't stop it being more impressive. I think the UT Magazine has had a different focus this year from last year. But, based on what I've read this year, it's filled with many of the same writers from the main section, and I've never been especially impressed by any.

Finally, the whole thing about The University Times being more campus-orientated is definitely true, but before, The University Times and Trinity News were accused of being mini Irish Times. If people want to read good opinion about national and international issues, you can just look at The Irish Times or even The New York Times. Where college newspapers trump them though is coverage of college and campus-related events and issues. And doing that well is good – because obviously no-one else is. If that's not something you value, fine, but putting down The University Times for covering it doesn't hold as much weight as you think it does.

That is true. And a good point. But while the journalistic quality of one can be equal to the other, one can legitimately think one focus more worthy than the other.

Last, I found Vivara's condescending tone more than a little grating.

Trinity News vs University Times

Comments