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
Supporting a party with links to a terrorist organisation
Options
Comments
-
Wicknight,
I certainly don’t want biased coverage. I want issues thrashed out fully in public.
I want to hear the SF/IRA argument for violence and the civil rights argument against. RTE is supportive of the peace process (An IRA oxymoron) and tries to avoid issues which would “derail” (another IRA term) it.
SF are anxious to appear normal, just another party. They therefore want to speak about anything except violence. In covering a controversy RTE’s obligation to the citizen is to relay all the relevant ARGUMENTS, not necessarily the comments of all political parties. If the controversy is about, say, energy policy, SF will be baying to be heard. Unless they have a unique point of view, there is no need to hear them ON THIS ISSUE because their argument is available from another source. SF’s UNIQUE contribution to controversy concerns political violence.
I’ve heard thieves and paedophiles interviewed about their crimes and directly associated issues. I’ve never heard them being asked about bogs, energy policy, soccer etc. I have heard many, many times a convicted gun-runner talking about anything and everything EXCEPT murder and mayhem.0 -
Don't get personal. I won't warn you again.Mighty_Mouse wrote:Stemming from your own insecurity maybe?0 -
Not trying to mod or anything, but could you all use the quote function. It's a bit hard to read some of the above. Ta.0
-
What would satisfy you?Jackie laughlin wrote:Wicknight,
I certainly don’t want biased coverage. I want issues thrashed out fully in public.
I want to hear the SF/IRA argument for violence and the civil rights argument against. RTE is supportive of the peace process (An IRA oxymoron) and tries to avoid issues which would “derail” (another IRA term) it.
SF are anxious to appear normal, just another party. They therefore want to speak about anything except violence. In covering a controversy RTE’s obligation to the citizen is to relay all the relevant ARGUMENTS, not necessarily the comments of all political parties. If the controversy is about, say, energy policy, SF will be baying to be heard. Unless they have a unique point of view, there is no need to hear them ON THIS ISSUE because their argument is available from another source. SF’s UNIQUE contribution to controversy concerns political violence.
I’ve heard thieves and paedophiles interviewed about their crimes and directly associated issues. I’ve never heard them being asked about bogs, energy policy, soccer etc. I have heard many, many times a convicted gun-runner talking about anything and everything EXCEPT murder and mayhem.
Would Sinn Féin and the hundreds of thousands of supporters disappearing do?
I was ecstatic when the IRA put down their guns and authorised Sinn Féin to engage in negotiations on their behalf. The things the IRA, British and loyalists did in the last phase of conflict were awful and now we are at the point where violence can be a part of the history books and we can move on in the hope that the situation that ‘called’ for violence never occurs again, yet you are sitting at a computer constantly complaining about the fact that the ‘men of violence’ are trying constitutional methods. Do you think that they are going away because a lot of people distain the actions of their associates? We all know what happened and are not going to forget. Give your holier than thou malarkey a rest. They are politicians with a large mandate and as politicians they have the right to give the opinion of their supporters on matters which concern the running of the country whether it is about bogs or the establishment of a public toilet.0 -
Jackie laughlin wrote:RTE is supportive of the peace process (An IRA oxymoron) and tries to avoid issues which would “derail” (another IRA term) it.
Im thinking of my last banning and all I can say is thats POST is B/S.
Northern bank raid?
The so called Sinn Fein spy ring? (Which never happened because the person who was suppose to of had the information he himself was an informer he is now dead). This is what made the NI goverment collapse. Which should not of happened in the first placce.
Sinn Fein been banned from talking on RTE.
All your comments to be honest are a load of poo. The way your talking about Sinn Fein now do you forget the PIRA are only organization to DECOMMISSION there is no active units in the PIRA that was the deal done that most people on this island voted for and the IRA have kept up there side of the argreement! Oh yeah let's kick Sinn Fein out of office! There is no peace agreement without them! But maybe none of that matters to you! People in northern Ireland are fare happer now than they were 30 years ago but you just wanna bring it back to then when innocent people were getting murdered on both sides. Some have moved on some on the other hand have not.0 -
Advertisement
-
joebhoy1916 wrote:I
All your comments to be honest are a load of poo. The way your talking about Sinn Fein now do you forget the PIRA are only organization to DISBAN and DECOMMISSION there is no PIRA that was the deal done that most people on this island voted for and the IRA have kept up there side of the argreement!
Even if one accepts that full decommissioning has taken place the IRA have by their own admission not disbanded and have stated that they will not disband. Only last week the IRA issued a press statement about Jean McConville, if they had truly disbanded there would be no IRA to make this statement.0 -
They decomissioned their arms damo, they didn't disband.0
-
My understanding was that the vote of the entire Irish people would finish it. It hasn't; the IRA still exists. I thought that legitimate police and armies would be the only forces north and south. I'll repeat again, I saw the IRA march in their uniforms in Dublin THIS YEAR at the head of the "Make Partition History" parade. They busy themselves enforcing THEIR justice on unfortunate working class estates north and south.
My intention in stating difficult facts is not to rake up long buried resentments but rather to hope that we do not again mythologise and sanitise evil. History as lies legitimated the violence of the last 30 odd years.
To say that the present agreement is "Sunningdale for slow learners" is witty but the slow learners killed a lot of people in the meantime.
Of course, I'm happy that weapons have been decommissioned but I want what I voted for: the IRA and all political violence gone.
By the way, could meaningless accusations of "holier than thou" be decommissioned here?0 -
Yes sorry they did not disban they decommissioned!Jackie laughlin wrote:I'll repeat again, I saw the IRA march in their uniforms in Dublin THIS YEAR at the head of the "Make Partition History" parade.
Yes they march every year the orange order can march but not republicans?Jackie laughlin wrote:Of course, I'm happy that weapons have been decommissioned but I want what I voted for: the IRA and all political violence gone.
So you voted for good friday agreement but yet your against Sinn Fein.
The IRA no longer wanted a war so they decided to go down the political route rather than war political route as in Sinn Fein! So by you voting for the good friday agreement you voted Sinn Fein into goverment. If there was no good friday agreement Sinn Fein would not have seats right or wrong? So therefore you as good as put Ferris in his seat!
"all political violence gone"
This im sure you already know it will more than likely never happen even if there was no republican groups.
You do know soon there will be no FF/PD's in goverment with each other! Sinn Fein will be there
I wonder how you would feel Martin Ferris minister for defence 
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I've only read Junior Cert history books recently and it seemed pretty much on the mark.I wish it were so.
You never set out to put them "right"? (in your opinion the correct version of history that is?Where did you get that idea? I merely said that I asked some young people about what they had been made aware of in school.
Not sure where you went to school. But how is it possible to characterise a huge population of Dubliners as treacherous. ?I knew about the Dubliners spitting at the 1916 prisoners. At my school they were characterised as treacherous, Dublin, bowsies.
If I remember my education in school correctly, I was told that there was not much public support for the movement at the time.
What you refering to here?I found out through my own efforts that the 1916 "patriots" had murdered unarmed men, women and children.
Sorry, what do you mean by "give them credit"? "thats all"?Republic = a 32 county, united Ireland. That's all? Nothing more? I was prepared to give them more credit than that!
Where we not talking about the definition of republican?
Do you want a bigger definition? Maybe you should offer one?
. Have you not heard them?:eek: Was this not the major topic of convesation for the last 30 years?I want to hear the SF/IRA argument for violence and the civil rights argument against
Have you a better term for the process?RTE is supportive of the peace process (An IRA oxymoron)
And issues which force the peace-process to a standstill. What would you like those referred to as?and tries to avoid issues which would “derail” (another IRA term) it
Does the IRA submit words for use in relation to the northern peace process to all papers and media outlets in the country?
..........ill get back to this later..........0 -
I’ll root out a Junior Cert History and check it out. However, see Whassup2’s posting. Moreover, my discussion with recent secondary school graduates alarmed me.
I certainly told the young people the truth as I know it but there was no question of putting them right. That’s oppression and I’ve been a victim. People should be equipped to come to a decision. I’m smiling at the thought of putting one of my kids right! I’d be told to F off and to argue if I wanted to convince.
It was my teachers' labelling of Dubliners as treacherous that was partly responsible for triggering independent reading on my part.
From memory, there was an unarmed policeman shot, an unarmed woman shot at Boland’s Mill for taking the “patriots” to task. I can’t recall the exact number of child fatalities or the total civilian or unarmed fatalities.
Republicanism supports a huge library. Believe me, having a borderless Ireland doesn’t feature. Surely the idea of killing for the removal of a border and nothing more is extreme to say the least?
SF try to avoid discussing the morality of IRA violence. During the Section 31 years interviews were banned. RTE and later other broadcasters refused to make discursive programmes about violence without the use of interviews. Violence has been the dominant theme of Irish politics for a long time. It is under-discussed.
I voted for peace not a process.
SF/IRA has a much admired PR machine. Yes, it does manage to impose its terminology on the debate. An important part of debate is the struggle over terminology.0 -
RTE aren't "supportive" of anything, they are a news organisation. They report the news.Jackie laughlin wrote:I want to hear the SF/IRA argument for violence and the civil rights argument against. RTE is supportive of the peace process (An IRA oxymoron) and tries to avoid issues which would “derail” (another IRA term) it.
You seem to be confusing not bashing SF/IRA with supporting SF/IRA. In reality they do neither. People support or don't support Sinn Fein. I personally can't stand them, I think they have ridiculous public polices. But I still require RTE to report everything they say and do, because they are major political party in Ireland and I want to know exactly what they are up to.
No its not. RTE New's obligation is to put forward no arguments or opinion, since any attempt to do so would be bias on the part of RTE. There would probably be an infinate amount of argument around any one piece of news (look at Boards.ie), so putting forward every argument would be impossible anyway.Jackie laughlin wrote:In covering a controversy RTE’s obligation to the citizen is to relay all the relevant ARGUMENTS, not necessarily the comments of all political parties.
RTE News should report the news. Report, that is all. It is up to the public to make up their own mind on a subject. RTE should not be arguing for or against Sinn Fein. Of course SF/IRA believe they are constantly aruging against them, but that is the nature of politics.
That doesn't mean a news organisation should not challange the spin put foward by political parties. The news should seek the truth, but not comment on that truth.
Firstly, what other source can you get Sinn Fein's energy policy from?Jackie laughlin wrote:If the controversy is about, say, energy policy, SF will be baying to be heard. Unless they have a unique point of view, there is no need to hear them ON THIS ISSUE because their argument is available from another source.
Secondly you are talking about censoring SF because you disagree with them. That is not the purpose of a news organsiation.
That is not a reason for RTE not to report on them. Like it or not they are significant political part and news worthy.Jackie laughlin wrote:SF’s UNIQUE contribution to controversy concerns political violence.
Why would they be? And even if they were what would be wrong with that?Jackie laughlin wrote:I’ve heard thieves and paedophiles interviewed about their crimes and directly associated issues. I’ve never heard them being asked about bogs, energy policy, soccer etc.
That is not because the paedophile is dying to put forward a position on soccer and is being censored by the interviewer. Its because that subject is largely irrelevent to the interview, and I very much doubt the paedophile even wants to discuss it.
I don't see many Sinn Fien concilors commenting on soccer related issues either. They do comment on public policy because they are a major political party in Ireland0 -
Wicknight,
You can’t possibly believe that all news is neutral data. News is a construct. People decide what is news and how it will be presented. The news that you see is the outcome of a struggle to talk to the public. A huge proportion of news output is about political controversy. Indeed, it is the presentation of the controversies that we as citizens call for. We need to hear all the relevant arguments so that we can be informed and make up our minds.
RTE’s legal obligation is to avoid editorialising, i.e. presenting its own view on any matter of public controversy. This certainly does NOT mean refusing to carry arguments. Indeed news without argument would be a very short bulletin. Moreover, it would be in defiance of the legal obligation to cover matters of public controversy.
I don’t want SF silenced. I want them dragged into the media spotlight. They have a PR machine which is so effective that it is studied by PR professionals. Their news manipulation objective is to avoid mention of violence and get as much coverage as possible on issues where they feel that they can make a good impression; they also want coverage to use their terminology, e.g. “peace process”, “derail”. In this struggle to control the news, they are no different to any other party, business, government etc. except in two respects: they wish to hide IRA violence and to hide their attempts to subvert the state by imposing their rule in (usually) working class estates. Thanks to good journalism, they are not always succesful but they are too successful. As I said, they are the envy of many commercial PR companies.
The job of a journalist is to sort out the competing PR work and present the full debate.
A convicted paedophile would be interviewed in order to hear about …?
A convicted thief would be interviewed to hear about ….?
A convicted gunrunner would be interviewed to hear about ….?
The last one regularly features on QandAs. I doubt you will ever see the first two featured except perhaps if they had reformed and wished to bring new insights.0 -
Thats the editor sacked!:DRTE’s legal obligation is to avoid editorialising,
Has RTE got a legal obligation?
Sorry maybe it's me but I dont understand this sentence.This certainly does NOT mean refusing to carry arguments. Indeed news without argument would be a very short bulletin. Moreover, it would be in defiance of the legal obligation to cover matters of public controversy.
Your saying: RTE SHOULD present all sides of the argument?
Are you saying they dont? What examples do you have? Doesnt Ian Paisley & Jeffrey and co get complete coverage in the presentation of northern political affairs?
Are you saying RTE avoids matters of public controversy? Name ONE example cos I can't think of any.
In fact I would think that RTE has some of the finest investigative reporters between Ireland and the UK.
Is it?They have a PR machine which is so effective that it is studied by PR professionals
They certainly have some very smart people working for them. Their poltical anlysts are top class and I presume their PR guys are pretty good too?
How much did Bertie spend on make-up last year?
Im sorry but this is complete madness.Their news manipulation objective is to avoid mention of violence and get as much coverage as possible on issues where they feel that they can make a good impression;
You say that like its an accusation. Of course they want to drag all sides to the table to talk about issues.
The GFA, "war is over", complete decommissioning, the IRA is gone Jackie. What should they talk about?
This was something I asked earlier.they also want coverage to use their terminology, e.g. “peace process”, “derail”.
What should we refer to the process towards lasting peace in the north as?
Them SF buggers slipping in cagey words like that!!!
As for "derail".!!Write to SF headquaters or RTE and expain why you have a problem with the use of the word "derail".!!
Pub fights being protrayed as IRA hits you mean?they wish to hide IRA violence
Anyways its ex-IRA members at this stage.
Explain exactly what you want to hear.The job of a journalist is to sort out the competing PR work and present the full debate.
Balanced debate which I think we pretty much have (if not anti-republican e,g Independant Newspapers). Or would you prefer if every paper and news outlet followed the independants line on republicans?
An elected politician with a mandate you mean. Did the other two get elected?A convicted gunrunner would be interviewed to hear about ….?0 -
So who issued the statement about the "inquiry" into Jean McConville's murder?Mighty_Mouse wrote:...the IRA is gone Jackie.
You have to know you're being disingenuous. I don't think anyone believes the murder of Robert McCartney was a sanctioned hit, but to write it off as just another pub brawl - with no IRA shading to it whatsoever - is naive in the extreme.Mighty_Mouse wrote:Pub fights being protrayed as IRA hits you mean?0 -
MightyMouse,
All broadcasters is this state including RTE are forbidden to editorialise. That is to say that, unlike newspapers who publish editorials stating the paper's position, RTE is not allowed to espress an RTE viewpoint except where the controversy is about broadcasting itself.
You ask, "Has RTE got a legal obligation?" Yes, of course. All Irish broadcasters have. There is a considerable body of law covering broadcasting in Ireland.
In replying to Wicknight, who seemed to think that news should be devoid of the coverage of argument, I pointed out that RTE was in fact legally obliged to cover public controversy and therefore argument. I certainly did NOT say that RTE failed to cover political controversy. For the record, while like most people I would have my criticisms, I think that RTE do a fine job. I rely on them.
Let's turn attention now to SF/IRA because I must have failed to make myself clear. They have a fabulously effective PR machine. I don't know of a single commentator or academic who would dispute this.
The purpose of PR in relation to media other than advertising is to move the media agenda on to arguments which reflect well on the organisation whose image is being promoted. SF/IRA PR personnel try to keep violence and fascism off the media agenda and instead try to get their people seen making statements which suggest that they are a routine, democratic political party.
They are successful in this; they even have you believing that the IRA no longer exists!
I voted for peace not a "peace process" that could be "derailed". This notion of a "process" is a device for spinning the campaign along. Then if someone criticises SF/IRA it's handy to tell them to keep quiet in case they "derail the peace process". There should be PEACE and NO IRA; the people of Ireland north and south voted for that.
I certainly don't like the political perspective of the Irish Independent. Unlike broadcasters they are free to have a political perspective. There is nothing I or anyone else can do about that.
I don't see why or how election should wipe the slate clean for a convicted criminal. This is elitist nonsense. An elected gun-runner can take his seat in the Dail but he is not any better than an unelected gun-runner. Gun-running is morally not too far from murder. An unapologetic gunrunner is, on consideration and it is a tight judgement call, worse than a paedophile and certainly much worse than a thief. That ought to be reflected in his media coverage.0 -
They are successful in this; they even have you believing that the IRA no longer exists!
"" On the 23 October 2001 the IRA announced that it had begun to decommission its weapons. This was then repeated on two further occasions on 8 April 2002 and 21 October 2003. On Thursday 28 July 2005 the leadership of the IRA issued a statement which formally ordered an end to its armed campaign and instructed all IRA units to dump arms. On Monday 26 September 2005 it was announced by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) that the IRA had completed the decommissioning of all of its arms. ""
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/decommission.htm
As far as I'm concerned the IRA no longer exists.0 -
MightyMouse,
The one thing they have NOT said is that the IRA has ceased to exist or that it has disbanded.
I've said a number of times here that I saw them march in uniform in Dublin this year at the head of the "Make Partition History" demonstration.
They also continue to issue press releases.
Moreover they provide the muscle for dangerous vigilante activity in many areas. Their fantasy that they are the legitimate army of Ireland, that they are an effective police force, that they provide a judiciary and a civil service continues.0 -
Mighty_Mouse wrote:As far as I'm concerned the IRA no longer exists.
That quote refers to the disarming of IRA units it does not state that it is to disband.MightyMouse,
All broadcasters is this state including RTE are forbidden to editorialise. That is to say that, unlike newspapers who publish editorials stating the paper's position, RTE is not allowed to espress an RTE viewpoint except where the controversy is about broadcasting itself.
You ask, "Has RTE got a legal obligation?" Yes, of course. All Irish broadcasters have. There is a considerable body of law covering broadcasting in Ireland.
Hmmmm Jackie sorry, can you actually point out the relevant piece of a legislatation where RTE is expressly forbidden to editorialise?
Because if thats the case it would be illegal for RTE to show, for example, Farhenheit 9/11 a polemic aganist the Bush regieme.0 -
Advertisement
-
Diogenes,
You'll find it in the 1960 Broadcasting Act. (This breaks my vow never to cite material here because once I get into that I'll be writing academic essays rather than having a discussion. That was said with tongue in cheek. Of course I'll give info to you or anyone else just as others here have given it to me.)
RTE can show a programme which is essentially an anti-bush polemic but this must not become the RTE position. (Consider the difference between an Irish Times editorial - which a broadcaster would not be allowed "publish" - an a piece by, say, Gerry Adams on another page.) "Balance" in broadcasting is not necessarily required within a single programme. Should RTE or any other broadcaster in the state favour one point of view, a citizen may complain and if not satisfied take the complaint to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission which was initiated by the Cruiser in the 1976 Act.0 -
Not from our news organisations.Jackie laughlin wrote:We need to hear all the relevant arguments so that we can be informed and make up our minds.
This is the problem with modern "infotainment" channels like FOX News. People are no longer just happy to get the news and make up their own minds. They want the news to explain what opinion they should have as well. We want our news to say "this is good", "this is bad" so we don't have to bother trying to figure it out ourselves.
What do you mean by "arguments". Who's arguments? Yours? Mine? RTE's? The governments?Jackie laughlin wrote:RTE’s legal obligation is to avoid editorialising, i.e. presenting its own view on any matter of public controversy. This certainly does NOT mean refusing to carry arguments.
An argument is a position or opinion on a certain things phrased to attempt to convince others of that position or opinion.
Why the hell would RTE News be putting forward arguments for or against any position? That is not their responsibiliy, and more generally, it is a bad idea, since it would be impossible to put forward, or even understand, every argument out there on a certain event.
They are very short bulletins. The 6.1 news is 29 minutes, in which approx 10-20 news items are covered. Thats 3 to 1.5 minutes for each item, just enought time to explain what happened, and possibly why it happened, but not enought time to express every different opinion or position under the sun relating to the event. Which is a good thingJackie laughlin wrote:Indeed news without argument would be a very short bulletin.
I think you will find they are very much in the public spotlightJackie laughlin wrote:I don’t want SF silenced. I want them dragged into the media spotlight.
What you want is news organisations to denounce SF. Which would be pointless, and more importantly, a very bad thing for a news organisation to have the power to do.
Have you ever asked yourself the question why if RTE denounced Sinn Fein would you accept RTE's opinion in the first place?
None of this has anything to do with RTE's obligation to report the true.Jackie laughlin wrote:They have a PR machine which is so effective that it is studied by PR professionals. Their news manipulation objective is to avoid mention of violence and get as much coverage as possible on issues where they feel that they can make a good impression; they also want coverage to use their terminology, e.g. “peace process”, “derail”. In this struggle to control the news, they are no different to any other party, business, government etc. except in two respects: they wish to hide IRA violence and to hide their attempts to subvert the state by imposing their rule in (usually) working class estates. Thanks to good journalism, they are not always succesful but they are too successful. As I said, they are the envy of many commercial PR companies.
You seem to want RTE to tell you that when Sinn Fein say A they really mean B. RTE can't do that, RTE can tell you they mean A, if A is obviously spin the reporter can challange SF on A (which they constantly do), but they can't say "What Adams really means is B"
That would turn news reporting into a nonsense profession, where reporters can just make up what they think a public figure actually meant by their statements.
The job a journalist is to not get involved in a debate at all, it is to be a neutral outsider who simply reports or journals the events, seeking the truth but expressing no opinion on this truth.Jackie laughlin wrote:The job of a journalist is to sort out the competing PR work and present the full debate.
If you want your news media to make up your mind for you, watch FOX News
No idea, I've never interviewed a convicted paedophile. Persumable what ever the interviewer wanted to know.Jackie laughlin wrote:A convicted paedophile would be interviewed in order to hear about …?
There is no law, or even reason I can think of, why you cannot ask a convicted paedophile what ever you wish (assuming he agrees to be interviewed).
You seem to think the reason paedophiles across the country are not constantly being interviewed for their opinion on the peace process is because they are paedophiles, and therefore being punished for the crime, so their valid opinions are being silenced. That is nonsense.
They are not being interviewed because no one cares what they think about the subject as opposed to anyone else. It is nothing to do with their crime. No one cares about my opinions on the matter either, so I'm not interviewed either. It is not in the public interest.
Like it or not, Sinn Fein's statements on the peace process are very much in the public interest and a lot of people care about what they say on the subject. Whether SF put forward a paedophile or a gun runner as a spokes person is largely irrelevent to this fact.0 -
Depends on what you mean by "argument"Jackie laughlin wrote:In replying to Wicknight, who seemed to think that news should be devoid of the coverage of argument
RTE should cover what public figures say on relivent matters. If SF say one things, and the government say another, both sides should be reported. As they are. RTE should nto shape this argument, simply report on what was said.
I don't believe the IRA no longer exists.Jackie laughlin wrote:They are successful in this; they even have you believing that the IRA no longer exists!
None of which has anything to do with RTE.Jackie laughlin wrote:I voted for peace not a "peace process" that could be "derailed". This notion of a "process" is a device for spinning the campaign along. Then if someone criticises SF/IRA it's handy to tell them to keep quiet in case they "derail the peace process". There should be PEACE and NO IRA; the people of Ireland north and south voted for that.
What do you suggest? No person who has been convicted of a crime should be allowed to be reported by the news? That would make covering criminal proceedings rather hard would it not?Jackie laughlin wrote:I don't see why or how election should wipe the slate clean for a convicted criminal.
Fair enough. I suggest you don't vote for himJackie laughlin wrote:An elected gun-runner can take his seat in the Dail but he is not any better than an unelected gun-runner.Jackie laughlin wrote:That ought to be reflected in his media coverage.
How? Should RTE digitally place little horns over McGuninesses head everytime he is on telly so people know he is evil ... ? Should RTE explain at the end of each SF piece that gun runners are in fact worse than paedophiles ..?
I mean seriously Jackie, what are you talking about. This is nonsense.0 -
Wicknight,
Do you really believe that if SF put forward a paedophile as a spokesperson on drainage that the media would treat him or her in the way that they treat the gunrunner?
The first of your last two postings offers a completly mistaken view of the nature and function of news. News is not confined to the delivery of facts - insofar as facts are ever uncontested. News is frequently the reporting of someone's point of view or argument. You accept this in your 2nd posting. However, you say that RTE should not "shape" a public argument. It's stronger than "should not"; RTE and all Irish broadcasters are legally forbidden to editorialise in this way.
All reputable media outlets struggle against the shackles of increasingly effective and expensive PR.
Media outlets regularly discuss the terminology which they will use. They are very aware of the power of words! They will have editorial meetings at which they will decide whether the verb "to kill" is more appropriate than the verb "to murder" or "to execute". They are aware of the manipulation in the term "peace process" but they haven't found an easy way to deal with it. This is a victory for the SF/IRA PR people, who have succeeded in moving away from a demand for peace now (today) to a process towards an elusive horizon.
I know that you don't think the IRA is disbanded. The remark was addressed to MightyMouse.
"Infotainment" is an separate issue which I'd be happy to discuss.
I greatly appreciate the broadcasting legislation in this country which prevents a slide into "Fox" denial of debate.
I think you know very well that I wasn't suggesting that criminals or their doings be ignored by media. I do suggest, however, that the media treat elected criminals as they would treat all other criminals.
Just for the record, if I thought that RTE were editorialising - even against SF/IRA - I would complain that they were acting in breach of broadcasting law.0 -
An army with no arms is what?That quote refers to the disarming of IRA units it does not state that it is to disband
To all intents and purposes the IRA no longer has a role to play in northern politics. The current state of the IRA is further than anyone thought we were gonna get when initial peace talks began.
The difference for me is IRA no longer has a purpose so as far as I'm concerned any further illegal activities are criminal. (as opposed to generation of capital for the continuation of an armed political struggle).
Nobody on boards.ie or in Unionism can legitimately argue that the IRA is a roadblock to peace any longer IMO.
Therefore, any further activites by ex-IRA members (IMO) are a matter for the police (if we can get a force recognised by both communities).
Thanks, it was a genuine question. I didnt no where the legal obligation came from.You'll find it in the 1960 Broadcasting Act.They will have editorial meetings at which they will decide whether the verb "to kill" is more appropriate than the verb "to murder" or "to execute"
I imagine they do but whats you issue with SF actually discussing what they want to say? They're hardly unique?
Most of the words you've mentioned are non-debatable as far as SF are concerned anyways. SF republicans don't view IRA as murderers or criminals so hardly a need to tell their own polticians not to use the word "murder"?
By the way do you know the internal workings of SF PR for a fact;
or are you guessing the obvious?
ps
What exactly is your point about RTE in relation to how they protray SF?0 -
An army. One that retains the ability to procure more arms. As opposed to an army that has disbanded, which is no longer an army.Mighty_Mouse wrote:An army with no arms is what?0 -
If even this bunch of cowboys are happy (http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/)
then Im happy to move on with functioning politics. Are you?
I dont see the obsession with the word disband anyways. People talk about the threat of the IRA returning, operating poltics on the force of a gun etc etc etc
Its all BS as far as I'm concerned. Whats the difference in the IRA using the word "disband" and the current state of the IRA?
Whats prevents a bunch of disillusioned 18 year olds "re-banding!!!!" the IRA in 15 years time anyways?
The point is to replace the void with politics. To provide people with an alternative to voilence to pursue their goals.
IMO once an alternative to voilence exists within a NI society then the troubles will never return.
On the other hand, another 15 years of stalling by unionism...........the next generation of 18 -30 years will be just old enough to have forgotten the horror of the last 30 years...............0 -
MightyMouse,
No one is obsessed with the word "disband". The IRA continues as a threat to democracy. They do more than march around posing in their uniforms. We are meant to feel threatened by their appearance and organisation. They impose their rule on areas where they can.0 -
If by "treat" you mean report on what he said as an offical spokes person for Sinn Fein, then yes.Jackie laughlin wrote:Wicknight,
Do you really believe that if SF put forward a paedophile as a spokesperson on drainage that the media would treat him or her in the way that they treat the gunrunner?
What do you suggest, RTE News saying "SF today made a statement on the worsing crisis at in the North tody, but as the SF public relations officer is a convicted criminal we are refusing to report on the contents of this statement as we think criminals are bad people and should not be listened to"?
How does that serve the public interest?
"Uncontested" ... Jackie if RTE report that SF has stated the IRA has gone away that is not the same as RTE saying the IRA has gone away.Jackie laughlin wrote:News is not confined to the delivery of facts - insofar as facts are ever uncontested.
It is preciesely because the opinion of RTE should not matter is why RTE News should not express an opinion.
Which is exactly what you claim they should do, they should censor the level of news they report from SF because the party contains past criminals (and possibly some current ones too).Jackie laughlin wrote:News is frequently the reporting of someone's point of view or argument. You accept this in your 2nd posting. However, you say that RTE should not "shape" a public argument. It's stronger than "should not"; RTE and all Irish broadcasters are legally forbidden to editorialise in this way.
Peace Process is a term commonly used by all politions, it is therefore the term reported. It is a peace process. This term was not invented by Sinn Fein spin doctors.Jackie laughlin wrote:They are aware of the manipulation in the term "peace process" but they haven't found an easy way to deal with it.
I've no idea what you mean by thatJackie laughlin wrote:I think you know very well that I wasn't suggesting that criminals or their doings be ignored by media. I do suggest, however, that the media treat elected criminals as they would treat all other criminals.
How do news media "treat" other criminals?0 -
Advertisement
-
The IRA continues as a threat to democracy.
They do more than march around posing in their uniforms.
We are meant to feel threatened by their appearance and organisation. T
hey impose their rule on areas where they can.
Ok at the fear of repeating myself. Would any of the above change with disbandment apart from no uniforms?
Does disbandment mean that the IRA can't just reform at any stage they like?
(or worse a group of young, idealist republicans reform the IRA in 10 years time)?
I just don't understand what people mean when they rant on about "disbandment".0
That's what I said. I was pointing it out to joebhoy1916 who had asserted they did (which he has since retracted). 
Advertisement