The sickening hypocrisy of Sinn Féin.

Mighty_Mouse

Thats a very sweeping statement to make about close to three quarters of the adults in the country.

unlike you to twist things Earthman..:rolleyes: I was commenting on the paper not the people

Have you any credible evidence to back it up?

No I haven't commissioned any research into credibility ratings of newspapers recently.Lets say its an opinion i've come to through talking with people I know.

Let me ask you this : Do YOU think the Sunday World is a credible newspaper?

monument

You are watching FOX News. Welcome to our TRUTH.

By most the Sunday Indo is considered the bottom of the pile with broadsheets, and the Sunday World is considered so in tabloid world.

The disappointing sales figures for the Sunday Indo gives them a lot more to be sensationalist about then the daily Indo.

And as most people buy more then one paper on a Sunday, it’s highly possible that there is a high number of cross over readers for the two papers.

Originally posted by Earthman
Ah come on mighty mouse, the sunday indo and the sunday world would have nearly 2 million readers every week between them, thats half the population.

?

ABC figures…

0 = name
1 = Actively Purchased (Total)
2 = Average Net Circulation Per Issue (Total)
3 = Newstrade, Single Copy and Subscription Sales (Total)
4 = Regular Multiple Copy/Bulk Sales (Total)

0 - 1 - 2 - 3
Sunday Indo - 273,474 - 292,49 - 273,474 - 18,262
Sunday World* - 285,503 - 219,221 - 219,221 - na

* = "All Editions Group"

vorbis

honestly monument, could you stop with the sweeping generalisations? MOST people I know view the Sunday Indo as a respectable paper. They certainly don't see it as any worse than the Times, Tribune etc. Also people wanted a sensational readm wouldn't they buy a tabloid? That argument doesn't hold up at all with regard to the Independent.

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
unlike you to twist things Earthman..:rolleyes: I was commenting on the paper not the people

You said:

Do you take any news story in the indo as reliable

Unless you can show that most of it's news stories are untrue, then you made a sweeping statement.

Originally posted by monument
You are watching FOX News. Welcome to our TRUTH.

By most the Sunday Indo is considered the bottom of the pile with broadsheets, and the Sunday World is considered so in tabloid world.
{snip}
ABC figures…

0 = name
1 = Actively Purchased (Total)
2 = Average Net Circulation Per Issue (Total)
3 = Newstrade, Single Copy and Subscription Sales (Total)
4 = Regular Multiple Copy/Bulk Sales (Total)

0 - 1 - 2 - 3
Sunday Indo - 273,474 - 292,49 - 273,474 - 18,262
Sunday World* - 285,503 - 219,221 - 219,221 - na

* = "All Editions Group"

Well monument if you look at the ABC figures you will see that they have audited average readership of the Sunday indo at one million ( yes one million ) and sixty four thousand readers.
You are presenting sales above as if to suggest that , in order for there to be a million readers that each five person household must buy five seperate sunday indo's as you seem to think that if one paper comes into a house hold it's only read by the person that bought it.
Thats a very silly position to have.
My point stands as regards what might mouse said.
He did make a sweeping statement without any evidence regarding what people thought of a newspaper.
And as regards the Indo being the bottom of the pile, that is totally without foundation considering the ABC put it at the top in terms of readership.

sceptre

Originally posted by monument
ABC figures…

0 = name
1 = Actively Purchased (Total)
2 = Average Net Circulation Per Issue (Total)
3 = Newstrade, Single Copy and Subscription Sales (Total)
4 = Regular Multiple Copy/Bulk Sales (Total)

0 - 1 - 2 - 3
Sunday Indo - 273,474 - 292,49 - 273,474 - 18,262
Sunday World* - 285,503 - 219,221 - 219,221 - na

* = "All Editions Group"

Ah, but they're the sales figures aren't they?

Assuming they are there's a multiplier to turn that into readership figures. I don't know what that is but it's 3 or above AFAIK. (still mightn't turn it into 2 million but it'd make it rather closer than 400k)

monument

Originally posted by vorbis
honestly monument, could you stop with the sweeping generalisations? MOST people I know view the Sunday Indo as a respectable paper.

I'm sure most people who view FOX News see them in the same light.

I don’t think I’ve make any sweeping generalisations, I’ve just conveyed a view that the Sunday Indo is considered the bottom of the pile, as you have conveyed the views of people you know.

I have also said that Sunday and daily Indo are sensationalist, this is also just a view held by myself, and people I know.

Apologies for any confusion.

Actually it the jnrs survey that turn the two titles into a readership of close to two million.
They put the Sunday INDO at 1064000 and the Sunday world at 827000.
Thats about 1.9 million.
Assuming most of these are voters that would be a great majority of the voting public .

I'm confusing my ABC's with my jnrs's but at least I am quoting an industry standard statistic

*edit*
Just to add it's possible or indeed probable that some households buy both papers which to be fair would mean that at least a million pluss read one or both.
That means I shouldn't have said 2 million readers.
2 million reads would be more accurate.

That said there are no figures that I know of , that study that statistic so I'll settle for a million and a quarter seperate individuals as my best guess but thats only speculative.

Still taking the readership figures separately,if one simply stated that over a million people who read a newspaper regularally didn't think it was a credible read... one would ( without some similar survey to back ones statement up ) be making a sweeping statement in my humble opinion

Mighty_Mouse

He did make a sweeping statement without any evidence regarding what people thought of a newspaper.

Its an opinion which I stand by. How about you disprove it?
Do you work for the Sunday World or something?

Are anti-republicans so biased that they can't accept any opinion put forward by republican? I always thought that that the majority of people considered the INDO a tabloid broadsheet. We are going a little off topic here anyways. Maby someone should start another thread on the credibility of our nations newspapers.

Again, the popularity of any given media doesnt give it credibility. Their two different concepts. Theres no point in argueing readership because the papers content is the issue.

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
Unless you can show that most of it's news stories are untrue, then you made a sweeping statement.

Actually, its impossible for a question to be a sweeping statement, unless perhaps it is rhetorical.

So unless you believe that he was saying that you believe everything you read, rather than asking it, then this question couldn't possibly be a sweeping statement.

Of course, that isn't the quote you originally said was sweeping at all. No, that was the comment to the effect that popularity does not necessarily equate to accuracy. This is not a sweeping statement - if anything it is pointing out that making such a sweeping connection between popularity and accuracy would be unreasonable.

jc

monument

Originally posted by Earthman
I'm confusing my ABC's with my jnrs's but at least I am quoting an industry standard statistic

ABC is the industry trusted standard statistic.

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Its an opinion which I stand by. How about you disprove it?

It's an opinion which you are entitled to, however it is an ill informed opinion as it has no survey to back it up.
It suggests that Irish people continue en mass to read a newspaper that they think has no credibility.

The onus is not on me to disprove it as it's your opinion.
You cannot state it as a fact.

Mighty_Mouse

:dunno: I've just put together a comprehensive answer which I lost due to been logged out in the process of typing my answer.

Ok the point I had made (with figures) was that the Daily Mirror, The Sun, The Star, The NewsofTheWorld all have very high circulation figures also. Does this mean they are credible sources of journalism? I dont think so. Do you?

If not why? doesnt well over 100,000 people buy/read these papers every day/week? Credibility is NOT estimated by circulation.

It can only ever be an opinion. IMO the Independant is a tabloid-broadsheet. What I mean by this is that its (use of "unknown" sources) general reporting is dodgy at best IMO.

I always thought that the Sunday World was accepted as being a dodgy source of information by the general population. I'm quite surprised to see you defend it so gallantly. (hence the question of whether you work for it)

I can't "PROOVE" anything to you with research because I can't find any reporting on the credibility of Irish newspapers. (I'm not about to commission a study.Are you?)But you also cannot disprove my ascertain that the INDO is dodgy.

My head is so fried today that I can't think of detailed examples and incidences of the INDO's dodgyness. Exposing witnesses, accused, victims before and during trials is one, its coverage of SF is crazy (provo Gerry Adams), its GAA bashing agenda is also sickening. I find that the majority of the journalists are twisted with prejudice and agenda( but it does have good sports journalists. )

Are your arguing that the INDO is compeltely credible or 95%, 80% ?
I'm not sure I could make any such statement about any newspaper but I could say that some publications are more credible that others.

By the way Earthman theres many many other "credible" publications with anti-SF agendas if you care to look. Its just that they present their arguments in a choerent manner instead of always going for the easy "man eats baby!!" shock and horror headlines.

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
But you also cannot disprove my ascertain that the INDO is dodgy.

I can attack your assertions credibility though as not being a fact.
you have only your and your friends/acquaintences opinions on the Sunday Indo to go on which is no basis for attacking it's credibility.
Fair enough if you were to say that a majority of its stories were incredible and were to show proof of that...
Indeed I'd like to see such an analysis compared and contrasted with the other papers.
Otherwise to be honest it's only as valid an opinion as say mine would be on an Phoblacht rather than an indisputable fact.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Earthman
Otherwise to be honest it's only as valid an opinion as say mine would be on an Phoblacht rather than an indisputable fact.

I would say An Phoblacht is about as fair and balanced as your average North Korean daily. And I'm not exaggerating when I say that.

Mighty_Mouse

Well I've seen this discussed on the "Agenda" programme and also on the Vincent Browne show and the majority of those present agreed that some of the reporting in the Indo was sickening . Just indicating that its not just republicans that have a problem with the Indo.
For example in the Father Fortune trial tha judge stated that Father Fortune was not to be named for legal reasons and interferance with the legal process. The Indo got round this by publishing a photo of the man !!! typical sort of tabloid stunts

To be frank I've no problems with any newspaper printing pictures of paedophiles or alledged paedophiles.
TV cameras are usually at the court and these guys throw coats over their heads.
I can recall episodes where INDO reporting has been praised on similar programmes.
They do like all newspapers carry out investigative journalism catching out the likes of Lowry and Haughey for instance.
If Sinn Féin don't like some of their articles why aren't they sue-ing?

Mighty_Mouse

To be frank I've no problems with any newspaper printing pictures of...... alledged paedophiles

Thought you would say that
What about alleged murderers,
Alledged drug smuglers
Alledged bicycle thiefs
Alledged tax evaders?

It's common depending on how high profile they are, that they be reported on Television and newspapers with pictures even when it is only alledged.

It's not a stick to beat the INDO with, malosevic's trial had tv coverage and newspaper pictures everywhere.
And look at the treatment John Leslie got?

To get back on Topic, why doesn't Sinn Féin sue the Indo for it's persistant reporting of the links between the IRA and Sinn Féin?

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
you have only your and your friends/acquaintences opinions on the Sunday Indo to go on which is no basis for attacking it's credibility.

Yes, and no.

While good law says "innocent till proven guilty", good science says "untrustworthy until proven".

If you want to accept something as a good source of fact, reliable information, or any other similar classification of information, then the most sensible approach is to assume all sources are suspect until you can come up with sufficient grounds to consider a source to be more meritous.

Legally, it would be wrong to assume that the source is lying, but it is a sensible precaution to assume that the source is not reliable until otherwise.

So, in fact, it is not unreasonable to assume that any/all papers are untrustworthy (in the absence of benchmarking etc. of any sort). If anything, it is more reasonable than "they are trustworthy until proven otherwise" as you are arguing, which is effectively saying that gullibility is a good trait to use as a base measure.

jc

Mighty_Mouse

It's common depending on how high profile they are, that they be reported on Television and newspapers with pictures even when it is only alledged.It's not a stick to beat the INDO with, malosevic's trial had tv coverage and newspaper pictures everywhere.And look at the treatment John Leslie got?

Now, now Earthman. I'm starting to think you really do work for the Sunday World/Indo ..........................................."republican attacks free speach"!!!!

Ps. I dont agree with the treatment John Leslie got

To get back on Topic, why doesn't Sinn Féin sue the Indo for it's persistant reporting of the links between the IRA and Sinn Féin?

Yes, smack bang back on topic we land!!!!:eek: I suppose the better question would be, "whats the best use of respurces". I think that Shinners are well-equipped to handling silly articles in the Indo that can't land any real body-blows by tackling the issues in the public domain whilst remaining focused on the issue at hand. Increasing the size of the political party in the north and south and the peace process.
I don't think there would be much point in SF going to court over anything the Sunday World of Indo has to offer.

"stakeknife" --- now that was another piece of journalistic briallance by the Indo, or how about Martin Ferris racketeering or Gerry a leading member of the IRA!!!! All fantastic pieces of well-researched coherently written and argued journalism, !!!!!!

Mighty_Mouse

In the context of the days events i must mention the unbiased professional reporting by the Indo of the columbia 3 case.

nlgbbbblth

Originally posted by Earthman
To be frank I've no problems with any newspaper printing pictures of paedophiles or alledged paedophiles.

alleged?

no way.

kneejerk reactions harm too

nlgbbbblth

Originally posted by ReefBreak



I always find it funny when the shinners start accusing people that criticise SF of being "west-brit".

somewhat off-topic so apologies

I find that a section of Irish Celtic supporters consider their fellow countrymen "West Brits" if they don't share their enthusism for the Bhoys.

I kid you not

Tolka Park 1998 - St Patricks Athletic v Celtic.
St Pat's fans were called "Orange bastards" and "West Brits" by a small minority of Dublin Celtic fans.

Their crime: supporting a team of ten Irishmen and one Englishman against a Scottish team with no Irish players [as far as I recall]

Originally posted by bonkey

So, in fact, it is not unreasonable to assume that any/all papers are untrustworthy (in the absence of benchmarking etc. of any sort). If anything, it is more reasonable than "they are trustworthy until proven otherwise" as you are arguing, which is effectively saying that gullibility is a good trait to use as a base measure.
jc

Fair enough.
But I think it's also reasonable to say that in the context of how this discussion developed over the last few posts, my contributions were a roundabout way of answering a direct attack on one newspaper in particular as opposed to the media in general.

Originally posted by mighty_mouse
I think that Shinners are well-equipped to handling silly articles in the Indo that can't land any real body-blows by tackling the issues in the public domain whilst remaining focused on the issue at hand. Increasing the size of the political party in the north and south and the peace process.I don't think there would be much point in SF going to court over anything the Sunday World of Indo has to offer.

It is fishy though that they don't after all if the case is decided in their favour SF don't pay a penny in legal costs and would get damages.
It leads one to think that they feel that they would lose.
Thats a perception by the way but for what its worth my own perception is that they won't sue because almost paradoxically the publicity they have from the INDO suits them.
Its the kind of accusation that is easily denied without having to provide evidence in a court room situation.
If I was SF I wouldn't be giving the INDO the satisfaction of a day out.

"stakeknife" --- now that was another piece of journalistic briallance by the Indo, or how about Martin Ferris racketeering or Gerry a leading member of the IRA!!!! All fantastic pieces of well-researched coherently written and argued journalism, !!!!!!

Again has anyone sued? your sarcasm suggests the cases would be easily won, I'd have to conclude that the reason for there being no law suit would be a fear of what might come out in court.

Mighty_Mouse

Cost of Legal Action
Its not so easy to pursue a paper for libel.

If I was SF I wouldn't be giving the INDO the satisfaction of a day out.

I agree. Plus in fairness, do you honestly think it would be in thebest interests of the party to sue any newspaper in relation to criminal accusations. The negative publicity would be around the globe in minutes. It would be the biggest story of the year. It wouldnt be very smart electioneering

Its the kind of accusation that is easily denied without having to provide evidence in a court room situation

Does the fact that no SF politician has been convicted of any criminal charge whilst pursueing a political path not matter?(EDIT)

Again has anyone sued? your sarcasm suggests the cases would be easily won, I'd have to conclude that the reason for there being no law suit would be a fear of what might come out in court.

I don't know really. Probably would have some allegations in relation to British forces collusion to murder civilians etc. The problem with this story was the complete lack of evidence that the man who was identified was the british agent "stakeknife"

Errrrrm
Ian Bailey, Mandy Johnson and Beverly cooper Flynn...

They are very bad examples as they had very, very shaky cases.
Sinn Féins case that it has no links to the IRA is cast iron is it not

Does the fact that no SF politician has been convicted of any criminal charge not matter?

Gun running is a crime for which Martin Ferris served time.

Mighty_Mouse

They are very bad examples as they had very, very shaky cases.

There examples of the difficulties of persueing libel. Are they not?

Sinn Féins case that it has no links to the IRA is cast iron is it not

Twisting again are we Earthman? I never thought this was the case you proposed SF to persue!!!I certainly never suggested it.

Gun running is a crime for which Martin Ferris served time.

Not when he was a SF representative. Are you suggesting that anyone who has served time should be disallowed from entering politics?

Mighty, I was at all times referring to SF Vs the INDO potentially.

Are you suggesting that anyone who has served time should be disallowed from entering politics?

No I was just correcting you when you stated that no SF representative had ever been convicted of criminal activity.
Mr Ferris didn't do the time when he was a TD, but he did do the time.
You didn't say that you meant that no sitting representative had been convicted of a crime during their term of office.
Your statement gave the impression that SF rep's have a totally clean criminal record which Martin Ferris does not.
Theres only one other sitting TD in Dáil Éireann as far as I'm aware that has been in jail and thats Joe Higgins and for something far removed from bringing in weapons to kill people with.

I know we have been over this ground before,and there was Haughey etc, but was he in jail?
Lawlor certainly was.
Anyway I've no intention of going down this road any further you will be glad to know unless you want to, as I'm perfectly aware that if you head up to the six counties you might find an abundance of publics rep's with criminal convictions for obvious reasons.
Thats pragmatism.
Plus my views on what activities I'd like to see ceased have been made to you before.

As regards libel laws, the example you gave are examples of shaky cases that were found to be unproven.
Now unless you are suggesting/confirming that SF could not win cases against the IND, I would suggest that you should have quoted some of the many cases in the public domain where newspapers have been sucessfully sued and damages paid and not the dodgy ones.
I can certainly understand why SF would not like to go down the law suit route, for the reasons you have outlined , even if it does give the perception among many that they may not want that kind of publicity for what it might drag up into the public domain.
But I can also see how the INDO would relish if they did Sue. and thats not something that SF would probably ever give them satisfaction on-also understandable.

monument

Originally posted by Earthman
Mighty, I was at all times referring to SF Vs the INDO potentially.

What article has any Independent Media publication published that SF would have a possible case to sue?