St. Lukes Hospital Protest Ad

WildIrishRose · 13-12-2007 1:49am

St Lukes is a wonderful hospital!

tallaght01 · 13-12-2007 3:38am

I think roundtower2 has touched on the important issue here. The world over, in the better healthcare systems, expert care is often centralised. It means that the specialists all go to one or a small number of hospitals. The scanners are based there, and people from all over the country get the same treatment. It, in theory, eliminates "treatment by postcode".

Now, a lot of people would prefer that the services were on their doorsteps, regardless of how specialised they are.

Most people want services on their doorstep AND a specialist service. This won't happen in Ireland. However, in this case, there will still be specialist services available in Beaumont.

Therefore, the idea is to try and centralise cancer care to an extent.

This will hopefully lead to better outcomes for patients.

So, that's the opposing argument. People may take whatever side they like.Personally I think centralisation of some services is reasonable, although I'm no oncologist.

The point I'm making is that there is a reasonable argument for the closure of St. Lukes. I don't have very strong feelings either way. I'm just pointing out the fact that if boards is seen as opposing the closure, you should be aware of the reasons why you support it, and be able to provide some counter-arguments to the above.

However, is an ad the same as support, whether real or implicit? I don't know. Certanly if it got to the stage where we were saying "campaign X, supoported by boards.ie" we'd have a bigger issues to contend with.

Boston · 13-12-2007 10:23am

Crash&Burn wrote: »

Hello people, my motive for asking Gerry to put up the banner was to make people aware of what was going on as I feel this topic has gone unnoticed.

I have been a user of boards threw the years maybe my post count might not show it but i am more of a "lurker" I am of no political agenda or member of any party. The reason why I got involved in trying to keep the hospital open is because my own mother was in this hospital and I think it will be a loss to the country not just dublin. I felt that a way to show was happening was to use boards as a outlet.

So I was not looking to drag boards in to a political debate but just to use it as a way to voice a problem that I feel is gripping our nation. I do not disagree with what any one has said here. I thought people should here from my self why I chose boards to help my cause.

Well thats my story and I hope people can respect it.

Thanks Gerry Tom regi and the rest of the lads

Ciaran

Political campaigns can be hi-jacked as various groupings try to score points against each other. Image that some sinn fein or swp councilor decided to try and use this for political gain, that would probably disenfranchise allot of people from boards itself by association.

regi · 13-12-2007 10:41am

WildIrishRose & Tallaght01, this isn't a thread to discuss the merits of closing down the hospitals.

tallaght01 · 13-12-2007 12:27pm

I think you've missed the point, regi. I don't even work in Ireland, and amn't really bothered either way.

I was highlighting the fact that the closure is part of a wider strategy of centralisation of specialist services, that's the gold standard internationally.

Therefore, IF boards is supporting the protest against closure then you guys should be aware that it's not an issue of cutbacks etc and should have a good reason why you don't think it's a good idea.

Vexorg · 13-12-2007 1:24pm

In this instance Boards was not supporting the cause, the intention was to highlight a request by a boards.ie user for an apparent good cause.

No consideration was given to the political ramifications of the request and indeed at the time none were seen, very few have felt strongly enough to comment - except by a handful of posters on this thread. The banner was pulled on the 8th btw, as the admins were discussing it also.

V.

Blowfish · 13-12-2007 3:31pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think you've missed the point, regi. I don't even work in Ireland, and amn't really bothered either way.

I was highlighting the fact that the closure is part of a wider strategy of centralisation of specialist services, that's the gold standard internationally.

Therefore, IF boards is supporting the protest against closure then you guys should be aware that it's not an issue of cutbacks etc and should have a good reason why you don't think it's a good idea.

Yes, but in this case (and this may sound strange), the particular cause is irrelevant, if it wasn't this one it would be another one. It's about whether or not advertising certain causes (regardless of what they actually are) would put boards in a situation where it is no longer apolitical.

Boston · 14-12-2007 10:36am

Vexorg wrote: »

In this instance Boards was not supporting the cause, the intention was to highlight a request by a boards.ie user for an apparent good cause.

No consideration was given to the political ramifications of the request and indeed at the time none were seen, very few have felt strongly enough to comment - except by a handful of posters on this thread. The banner was pulled on the 8th btw, as the admins were discussing it also.

V.

I think tallaght01 posts highlights a problem here. People expect the admins to defend the cause being hightlighted.

Sleepy · 14-12-2007 6:05pm

I don't have anything new to input to this really, I think nesf and Boston have expressed my opinion on this. I've said it both on these boards and to your face before, Dev, that were you to ever consider a run at politics you'd have my full support but I would worry about Boards.ie being seen to be a political entity. Even if it were only a perception, it could discourage people from joining and, worse, discourage debate.

DeVore · 14-12-2007 10:38pm

What will we do if at the next election one political party should come to us and ask to buy banner ads?

Refuse or accept?

What if they use Google to place them?

(replace political party with activist group if needs be).

DeV.

Hagar · 14-12-2007 10:47pm

Take them all or take none. Apolitical commerce in action.

My 2c.

nesf · 15-12-2007 2:59am

Arrange that each major party gets equal coverage.

And then throw a bone to Labour et al to make sure they don't kick up a fuss.

DeVore · 15-12-2007 3:36am

How will we demand that one political party buys as many ads as another? What if one doesn't want to buy any?

I agree with Hagar in that we shouldnt refuse advertising from any political party but we can't ensure parity of exposure...

DeV.

DeVore · 15-12-2007 3:37am

What if the people who were protesting the closure of St Luke's had *bought* the ads from us? Would that be different?

DeV.

DMC · 15-12-2007 4:01am

While in recent times, I have not partaken in b.ie navel gazing sessions, this one pricked my attention.

Having ad campaigns for protests, however well meaning and intentioned, would open a can of worms that would be hard to close.

A banner ad is not a community noticeboard.

Boston · 15-12-2007 2:33pm

DeVore wrote: »

What if the people who were protesting the closure of St Luke's had *bought* the ads from us? Would that be different?

DeV.

Its hard to argue that boards should turn away money, but there has to be a balance between the need to fund the site and remaining true to what the site is about. If the admins make a decision to go this far and no further then thats one thing, but to have open ended political affiliation which may see the day that FF or others propaganda being advertise is something I wouldn't like to see.

nesf · 15-12-2007 2:46pm

DeVore wrote: »

What if the people who were protesting the closure of St Luke's had *bought* the ads from us? Would that be different?

That depends completely on whether you want to remain apolitical or not. The site is no longer small enough for it not to be noticed that you're running ads supporting this campaign or another one. I think you guys need to decide on whether you want to go down this road or not and then after that you should know whether you're going to run these ads (for free or for money).

DeVore · 15-12-2007 6:59pm

Ok this is getting very interesting... honestly, I'm not sure where the lines should be drawn.

My personal opinion (ie: speaking for myself and not on behalf of the admins):
I dont think we should give free ads to anyone but SSF and Boards organised events (like Boards beers).

So, lets take the subject of the site "supporting" issues and external charities offline. We are now solely talking about purchased ad campaigns.

I'm not clear what is being suggested. I agree that we should refuse all or accept all, ie: we should not get into the murky waters of saying "We like you and we'll let you buy our ads, but we don't like those other guys, so we wont sell them ads".

The problem is that as Skunky Anansie sang, "Everything's Political". If we go the first route, allowing anyone who wishes to buy the ad space then we need to be clear that the ads shown in the ad-space do NOT represent the opinion of Boards admins or mods etc. I would have thought that that was fairly obvious already, there are a few companies who have advertised with us that I wouldnt spit on if they were on fire.

If we go the route of not selling them to partisan organisations, where do we draw the line? We could exclude political parties en masse, though I don't like that idea because political parties are part of our democracy (such as it is). We shouldnt treat them like lepers, why are we excluding the site from the political process? But ok, lets say we ban them.

Then there are politicised charities like St Lukes. I guess we have to ban them, now we are into deciding which are devisive and which are warm and fuzzy.

What about companies like Nestle? There are a lot of people who don't like them at all.
Esso? What about Eircom... plenty of people who have a beef with them?

God forbid that 3 should come along and want to buy ads from us! Somebody think of the children...

So... where does that leave us? Where do we draw our line?

These arent rhetorical questions. I genuinely am not sure.

Btw, this isnt about site income (ok, if we said, take no ads at all, then it would be

). Its about considering how far the rabbit hole takes us in the future...

DeV.

RoundyMooney · 15-12-2007 7:08pm

DeV wrote:

I'm not clear what is being suggested. I agree that we should refuse all or accept all, ie: we should not get into the murky waters of saying "We like you and we'll let you buy our ads, but we don't like those other guys, so we wont sell them ads".

I don't see on a personal level why the admins should not vet prospective advertisers as they see fit.

It's your party after all.

Additionally, being in a position to pick and choose in the first instance is A Good Thing, and infinitely preferable to refusing all content, or allowing all-and then dealing with the attendant accusations of selling out, or "How could you take money from X?"

Don't relinquish control for the sake of impartiality

DeVore · 15-12-2007 7:22pm

I think the problem then becomes alienation of people who don't agree with our selections or who don't want to be associated with a site of our "persuasion".

I'm fairly comfortable with putting a flag in the sand and saying "this is us, if you are like us and like how we run things, stay" but as you can see from the St Lukes thing, these sorts of decisions can really divide a community when they are made even with the best will in the world...

DeV.

nesf · 15-12-2007 7:34pm

DeVore wrote: »

Then there are politicised charities like St Lukes. I guess we have to ban them, now we are into deciding which are devisive and which are warm and fuzzy.

What about companies like Nestle? There are a lot of people who don't like them at all.

There's a difference between advertising a protest and advertising a new chocolate bar though, which is what this boils down to really.

RoundyMooney · 15-12-2007 7:39pm

DeVore wrote: »

I think the problem then becomes alienation of people who don't agree with our selections or who don't want to be associated with a site of our "persuasion".

I'm fairly comfortable with putting a flag in the sand and saying "this is us, if you are like us and like how we run things, stay" but as you can see from the St Lukes thing, these sorts of decisions can really divide a community when they are made even with the best will in the world...

Of course. Thing is though, despite the best will in the world, someone is always going to be unhappy.

If you were to maintain the editorial control that you have, rather than say, having a free for all policy, at least you could steer clear of more incendiary and controversial causes.

I don't think too many people will take umbrage at seeing a Nestle ad at the top of the page, whereas if it were a PETA banner (just as an example), there'd be quite a few question marks.

Use your judgement and discretion, its served us all well up to now.

DeVore · 15-12-2007 8:00pm

nesf wrote: »

There's a difference between advertising a protest and advertising a new chocolate bar though, which is what this boils down to really.

See, I would be happier advertising a political party then Nestle myself. But thats just me.

DeV.

nesf · 15-12-2007 8:03pm

DeVore wrote: »

See, I would be happier advertising a political party then Nestle myself. But thats just me.

Most people don't know enough about Nestle to feel the same way though. Protests ads on the other hand inform people about a political cause etc.

Sleepy · 15-12-2007 10:30pm

DeVore, I guess at the end of the day it'll have to come down to whatever yourself and the rest of the Admins are comfortable with. It's your party so of course you can refuse advertising from whomever you wish (and I'd understand not wanting to take adverts from Nestlé / Esso tbh).

Speaking purely for myself I would prefer not to see ads from any political party / lobby group here, as the last election showed more and more of our politicians are using the internet to promote their campaigns. To the majority of boards.ie users who don't take an active interest in the running of the site, it would seem like boards were endorsing whomever took out the banner advertising and that's not conducive to open discourse which I feel should be the raison d'etre for Boards.ie

Boston · 16-12-2007 11:11am

In a lot of ways the commercial adds won't necessarily be a problem. By taking money for advertising space you can simply call it business and leave it at that. It when space is given for free that people look for a motivation of something along the lines of personal support.

Commercial political adds I feel will become a major issue next time an election rolls around in this country. If you 1) allow all legitimate parties and campaigns, and 2) allow discussion which undermines the message of the advertisement then I think boards will be pretty safe from criticism.

regi · 16-12-2007 1:14pm

If the admins selectively choose who we like and don't like, we've more trouble too - the admin's personal political leanings cover almost the entire political spectrum :-)

Beruthiel · 16-12-2007 2:35pm

are ya a ragin' commie or a right winged nut job regi?

Hitchhiker's Guide to... · 16-12-2007 6:33pm

Think it is best to keep out of political causes full-stop. Just let the debates happen in the forums, but not have any ads from either side.

To my mind, politics.ie has been ruined by its partisanship.

DeVore · 16-12-2007 7:55pm

I don't know the political persuasions of the other admins. The last admin dinner we had had soooo much trolling between us, I still don't know who supports whom.

I think we are going to have to play this one by ear. I think we definitely need to be careful about giving free ads to campaigns but purchased ads I think we should leave to the free market economies.

My 2c.

How do newspapers who have a political slant handle political advertising? anyone know?

DeV.

St. Lukes Hospital Protest Ad

Comments