Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The decline of Irish journalism

Options
1…1213151718

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    Baggly
    Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Mod

    SchrodingersCat & Kivaro - either talk to each other or ignore each other. Stop doing half and half. Its damaging the discussion.


  • Options
    #423
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Tell me how wrote: »
    This is something which frustrates the hell out of me. I am a strong advocate for action in relation to the environment and sustainability. The Green Party were vocal champions for this throughout last year and used it as a rallying cry for the European and General elections. After the GE, they started to focus more on the ancillary issues and suggesting not going in to government unless commitments were made on these areas. And now, they are undermining the government and their own leadership because everything is not perfect.
    Their desire for a utopian government is going to mean any achievements in relation to the environment will be tokenistic or non-existent.

    I will still advocate for action in relation to the above areas but I fear that the last few months have been 1 step forward (commitment to more money on sustainable commuting practices) and 2 steps back (no meaningful action on emissions and undermining the Green message).

    I think that's partly because of how Green Party does things. I think more of their members voted to go into government than in FF. There is plenty of back stabbing going in FF at the moment but nobody is doing it openly. Greens are more honest but I agree that thats probably not overly helpful to achieve what they want to achieve.


  • Options
    #424
    SchrodingersCat
    Registered Users Posts: 771 ✭✭✭SchrodingersCat


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Another difference is that right wing voters tend to be more disciplined, they will vote for parties that have a chance to get in government. .

    Probably because they would be more conservative voters and wouldnt like to stray too far from the herd.

    To add to this, the more extreme right-wing candidates and parties support has fallen considerably in the last few elections and more noticeably, failed to gain from the mass exodus from FG and FF in the last elections.


  • Options
    #425
    SchrodingersCat
    Registered Users Posts: 771 ✭✭✭SchrodingersCat


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I don't have to.
    And it's not as of media doesn't get it wrong regarding the "views of the people". Hell look at that muppet trump and his campaign. Most of the US media and pollsters, even those who were supportive of him were unsure or convinced he'd not win, until he did.

    Not true at all. You are using Trumps election as an example that journalists did not share the same views of the people. The largest cable news organisation supported trump in his election, Fox news. :confused:


  • Options
    #426
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    Tell me how wrote: »
    This is something which frustrates the hell out of me. I am a strong advocate for action in relation to the environment and sustainability. The Green Party were vocal champions for this throughout last year and used it as a rallying cry for the European and General elections. After the GE, they started to focus more on the ancillary issues and suggesting not going in to government unless commitments were made on these areas. And now, they are undermining the government and their own leadership because everything is not perfect.
    Their desire for a utopian government is going to mean any achievements in relation to the environment will be tokenistic or non-existent.

    I will still advocate for action in relation to the above areas but I fear that the last few months have been 1 step forward (commitment to more money on sustainable commuting practices) and 2 steps back (no meaningful action on emissions and undermining the Green message).
    Wholeheartedly agree.
    They would have received a great deal more votes from people like me, who has an active interest in sustainability and the environment, but when I saw their primary focus in their manifesto before the election, I did not vote for their candidate in my area. The Green Party would have been a perfect fit for many voters who were disgruntled with FFG, but would not generally vote left. Unfortunately, they seemed to have lost their way and the green message got lost.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,979 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Maybe it’s just me, but does any one else ever wonder why the need for a full paper every day?

    I mean, does so much really happen in every 24 hours period?

    Does anyone else find themselves reading the same story just worded a little differently day in and day out?

    Take the Saturday and Sunday bumper editions. Page after page after page on a Saturday, and within a few hours, a bigger paper on Sunday? I mean, wtf happened between Saturday and Sunday to justify all this waffle?


  • Options
    #428
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,522 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    walshb wrote: »
    Maybe it’s just me, but does any one else ever wonder why the need for a full paper every day?

    I mean, does so much really happen in every 24 hours period?

    Does anyone else find themselves reading the same story just worded a little differently day in and day out?

    Take the Saturday and Sunday bumper editions. Page after page after page on a Saturday, and within a few hours, a bigger paper on Sunday? I mean, wtf happened between Saturday and Sunday to justify all this waffle?

    This might be difficult to comprehend. But, outside of the main headline stories, most topics would be covered in either or editions more often than in both. Where they would be covered in both, if they were topical/active events, then it is reasonable to expect there would be an update in the later version.

    Not to mention that a lot of weekend papers would have a significant portion allocated to sports stories and so the different editions would focus on previews and predictions versus updates and analysis.

    Bear in mind, that in the past, many papers posted morning and evening editions. Papers did to the town crier what the internet is doing to them. We are in the transition phase right now but there will always be a need for journalism to produce the content. Or at least there should be, this article about the move to AI in place of real world journalists is a concern, in my view.


  • Options
    #429
    MrMusician18
    Registered Users Posts: 7,269 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    Wibbs wrote: »
    The tail can wag the dog too. So if Irish media for some reason started down the Daily Mail route the Irish people would start to care, one way or another. It's how human nature works and is evident all over the place.

    Indeed, that's the whole point of propaganda - people are easily led. If the media decide something is a huge issue, even if the general populace initially do not care a whole lot about it, they can.

    And if the whole media are in agreement on that issue, it effectively turns into one sided campaigning.


  • Options
    #430
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    Tell me how wrote: »
    this article about the move to AI in place of real world journalists is a concern, in my view.

    If journalists choose to write like automatons parroting dogma and press releases then they offer nothing that AI cannot.
    Similarly, as long as media puts out copy no better than what people will write for free online then it won't survive the internet.

    There will always be a place for quality, investigative journalism that cannot be replicated by machines or amateurs but media outlets cannot complain about losing share when they chase kudos from the Twitter herd and replace views with news (as for instance the Irish Times did in recent years by letting go veteran journalists of merit while hiring right-on opinion-spouters).

    David Simon rightly pointed out in an interview a couple of weeks ago that the decline in media pre-dated the internet.


  • Options
    #431
    SchrodingersCat
    Registered Users Posts: 771 ✭✭✭SchrodingersCat


    More complaining of journalism in Ireland outside the RTE studio in Donnybrook today.

    The Trump-esque "fake news" calling is getting legs over here in Ireland.


    520357.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    lalababa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭lalababa


    Piss poor article on the journal today about an extradition order from France. You'd know less about it after reading it!... Can't put up link.


  • Options
    #433
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    MrMusician18 wrote: »
    Indeed, that's the whole point of propaganda - people are easily led. If the media decide something is a huge issue, even if the general populace initially do not care a whole lot about it, they can.

    Many news editors would argue that the opposite is true. I read an article at the height of the war in Syria by an editor who claimed no matter how prominently the news was positioned on the website, people simply did not click on it. They didn’t care. Same now for Yemen, the media is still reporting on starving children there but most of us don’t click it because we don’t want to know.

    But what did Meghan Markle’s yoga instructor have to say about how Meg stays buff? Straight to the top of Most Read lists.


  • Options
    #434
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    KiKi III wrote: »
    Many news editors would argue that the opposite is true. I read an article at the height of the war in Syria by an editor who claimed no matter how prominently the news was positioned on the website, people simply did not click on it. They didn’t care. Same now for Yemen, the media is still reporting on starving children there but most of us don’t click it because we don’t want to know.

    But what did Meghan Markle’s yoga instructor have to say about how Meg stays buff? Straight to the top of Most Read lists.
    Hence the Daily Mail is the world's biggest news site. They know the mob well. Bread and circuses? More like sideboob and celeb gossip.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #435
    2u2me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭2u2me


    SchrodingersCat wrote: »
    Not true at all. You are using Trumps election as an example that journalists did not share the same views of the people. The largest cable news organisation supported trump in his election, Fox news. :confused:

    Not quite. While he was in the primaries they slated him. They only really started to get behind him when he became the nominee, they had a pre-existing hatred of Clinton. Even today many of their analysts regularly criticize Trump. (obviously he has the likes of Hannity there too)


  • Options
    #436
    SchrodingersCat
    Registered Users Posts: 771 ✭✭✭SchrodingersCat


    2u2me wrote: »
    Not quite.

    But In general, yes. The point still stands, he was supported by Fox news in his election. The incorrect point was made that journalists did not share the same views of the people in his campaign to get elected.


  • Options
    #437
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    SchrodingersCat wrote: »
    But In general, yes. The point still stands, he was supported by Fox news in his election. The incorrect point was made that journalists did not share the same views of the people in his campaign to get elected.

    Excluding clearly partisan media like Fox majority got it wrong expecting Clinton to win. I suspect almost nobody saw Trump to win the election but almost nobody also asked in the right places. Partly because media tends to be based in urban centres, journalists who work and live in urban centres and have a bit of a blind spot about what is happening in more sparsely populated, less diverse areas.


  • Options
    #438
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    People act like it was a media failure not predicting Trump’s win, completely erasing from their memories that Hillary Clinton was 11 points ahead with less than two weeks until the election James Comey intervened. Even with that, she won the popular vote.

    The media pegged it as unlikely that Trump would win because it was unlikely. But sometimes unlikely things happen.


  • Options
    #439
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,381 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Don't think they will be as quick with their prediction this November, although Trumps handling of corona might just be the thing to get sleepy Joe in the Oval Office.


  • Options
    #440
    TomTomTim
    Registered Users Posts: 2,838 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    KiKi III wrote: »
    People act like it was a media failure not predicting Trump’s win, completely erasing from their memories that Hillary Clinton was 11 points ahead with less than two weeks until the election James Comey intervened. Even with that, she won the popular vote.

    It's still on the media class. If there was any good journalists they would of been on the ground in many states, seeking to understand the pulse of the nation. If they did that they would of had a better awareness of the potential outcome, instead of all the proclamations that Hillary had it in the bag.

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • Options
    #441
    2u2me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭2u2me


    TomTomTim wrote: »
    It's still on the media class. If there was any good journalists they would of been on the ground in many states, seeking to understand the pulse of the nation. If they did that they would of had a better awareness of the potential outcome, instead of all the proclamations that Hillary had it in the bag.

    I think there were good journalists trying to figure this all out. The problem being that a stigma became attached to voting for Trump, just like for voting for Brexit; many people voting as such became afraid to admit it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    Invidious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Invidious


    meeeeh wrote: »
    I suspect almost nobody saw Trump to win the election but almost nobody also asked in the right places.

    Well, four days before the election, Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 35% chance of winning. The polls were actually showing that he had a decent shot, but the media chose not to take his chances seriously because they already had pegged Hillary as the preordained winner. Ironically, the degree of certainty projected by the liberal media probably helped Trump. Many potential Hillary voters may not have bothered going to the polls, thinking she already had it in the bag.


  • Options
    #443
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    Invidious wrote: »
    Well, four days before the election, Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 35% chance of winning. The polls were actually showing that he had a decent shot, but the media chose not to take his chances seriously because they already had pegged Hillary as the preordained winner. Ironically, the degree of certainty projected by the liberal media probably helped Trump. Many potential Hillary voters may not have bothered going to the polls, thinking she already had it in the bag.

    By many accounts, the most surprised person that Trump won was Trump himself. He considered it the world’s greatest marketing campaign for the Trump brand and never really expected (or wanted) to win.


  • Options
    #444
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,202 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    KiKi III wrote: »
    By many accounts, the most surprised person that Trump won was Trump himself. He considered it the world’s greatest marketing campaign for the Trump brand and never really expected (or wanted) to win.

    Can you believe that someone actually believes this nonsense!!!

    He'd been threatening for years that he would run for president.


  • Options
    #445
    Cal4567
    Registered Users Posts: 625 ✭✭✭Cal4567


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Excluding clearly partisan media like Fox majority git it right expecting Clinton to win. I suspect almost nobody saw Trump to win the election but almost nobody also asked in the right places. Partly because media tends to be based in urban centres, journalists who work and live in urban centres and have a bit of a blind spot about what is happening in more sparsely populated, less diverse areas.

    In 2016 I had my friends in New York and San Francisco tell me Hilary only had to show up to win. RTE told me the same. Those I spoke to you in the Red states were calling it not quite a Trump win but certainly too close to call.

    We can see it here with Dublin and the rest of the country. London and the rest of the UK as well.


  • Options
    #446
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    KiKi III wrote: »
    People act like it was a media failure not predicting Trump’s win, completely erasing from their memories that Hillary Clinton was 11 points ahead with less than two weeks until the election James Comey intervened. Even with that, she won the popular vote.

    The media pegged it as unlikely that Trump would win because it was unlikely. But sometimes unlikely things happen.
    Trump didn't win in last two weeks. Most media (excluding clearly Conservative outlets) narrative was that nobody will vote or should vote for Trump. There were gags about his performance in debates, social media had meltdowns. People didn't want to admit that they would vote for Trump to polling companies but vote they did. It wasn't that unlikely happened, what happened was perfectly likely but most of us (I'm including myself in this) didn't see it.


  • Options
    #447
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Cal4567 wrote: »
    In 2016 I had my friends in New York and San Francisco tell me Hilary only had to show up to win. RTE told me the same. Those I spoke to you in the Red states were calling it not quite a Trump win but certainly too close to call.

    We can see it here with Dublin and the rest of the country. London and the rest of the UK as well.

    I remember being at the wedding in 2016 talking to an American guest. We were slagging Trump and he went with it. And then one of us asked him if he is voting for Clinton then. He said oh no I'm definitely not voting for her. The conversation went on asking him so you are not voting then and he said no I am voting. When we left we both knew he is going to vote for Trump. We also knew that he didn't want to admit it because of our attitude towards Trump. After Trump was elected it was clear to me we didn't listen and see what was really going on.


  • Options
    #448
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Trump didn't win in last two weeks. Most media (excluding clearly Conservative outlets) narrative was that nobody will vote or should vote for Trump. There were gags about his performance in debates, social media had meltdowns. People didn't want to admit that they would vote for Trump to polling companies but vote they did. It wasn't that unlikely happened, what happened was perfectly likely but most of us (I'm including myself in this) didn't see it.

    Of course Trump won last 2 weeks. The email stuff dominated every news cycle those last 2 weeks. Clinton's emails were front page on NY Times 12 times in last 14 days..


  • Options
    #449
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    Of course Trump won last 2 weeks. The email stuff dominated every news cycle those last 2 weeks. Clinton's emails were front page on NY Times 12 times in last 14 days..

    Hillary lost an awful lot of on-the-fence voters there. A lot of Democrats and independents who didn’t like either candidate stayed home when they might have voted for her otherwise.


  • Options
    #450
    growleaves
    Registered Users Posts: 7,724 ✭✭✭growleaves


    meeeeh wrote: »
    I remember being at the wedding in 2016 talking to an American guest. We were slagging Trump and he went with it. And then one of us asked him if he is voting for Clinton then. He said oh no I'm definitely not voting for her. The conversation went on asking him so you are not voting then and he said no I am voting. When we left we both knew he is going to vote for Trump. We also knew that he didn't want to admit it because of our attitude towards Trump. After Trump was elected it was clear to me we didn't listen and see what was really going on.

    It is a secret ballot. As long as there is very strong condemnation of parties and candidates and that condemnation is extended to people who vote for them then there is going to be a veil of secrecy. People will lie to pollsters as well.

    Then the public view of politics becomes like a frozen lake - the water beneath the lake is swirling in different directions and changing temperature but all you see is the surface.

    So seemingly unexpected results and reversals can come out of nowhere on election day.

    The media bear some of the blame for this because they do so much to create and sustain the atmosphere of extreme bitterness around politics which drives people underground, so to speak. (I'm only saying that that is one factor, btw.)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    Of course Trump won last 2 weeks. The email stuff dominated every news cycle those last 2 weeks. Clinton's emails were front page on NY Times 12 times in last 14 days..

    that and her ignorance of the mid west definitely hurt her.


Advertisement