College Trubine article on Travellers

The_Minister

FionnMatthew wrote:

I'm very grateful for that. However, I'm sure it's not necessary given that Vainglory says the motion has been withdrawn.

We posted at exactly the same time, so I didn't realise that the motion had been withdrawn until now.

Vainglory

sean_keevey wrote:

Perhaps the Militant PC Brigade should go out and campaign against and eradicate the deep rooted seperation that travellers and settled folk as opposed to trying to censor an article which is merely arising as a result of the division and the opinions of such.

Please see open meeting on Travellers' Rights organised by LY in the last three weeks and another one due for 24th March.

FionnMatthew

The_Minister wrote:

We posted at exactly the same time, so I didn't realise that the motion had been withdrawn until now.

Sure. Sorry about that.

PS. Any chance of changing the thread to "College Turbine article on Travellers", or "College Tribune article on Travellers"?

Trivial perhaps, but, there it is.

Vainglory

I withdrew it because I really have no desire to engage in points scoring on this issue - it's something I feel strongly enough about that I'm prepared to sit in the role of "the one who backed down" if it means that the right thing is done in the end - I really do hope FionnMatthew's prediction is accurate.

Also as a contributor to the Tribune I honestly do care about the paper and I don't want a standoff where pride does an awful lot of damage to something that can be a really good thing, when it's done properly.

jimi_t

Was there not a similar article in one of the Trinity newspapers? Something about a "disadvantaged youth" beating up an OAP and getting off on the "only buzzin' clause" ? Maybe I'm missing an intrinsic point somewhere about the treatmen of ethnic and social groups in Irish culture, but I don't remember such controversy being evoked by that article.

Would it not be an idea to have the UCDSU Pres and Welfare officer proof-read the paper before publishing, certainly as the SU Pres seems to be held accountable for this?

Vainglory

jimi_t wrote:

Was there not a similar article in one of the Trinity newspapers? Something about a "disadvantaged youth" beating up an OAP and getting off on the "only buzzin' clause" ? Maybe I'm missing an intrinsic point somewhere about the treatmen of ethnic and social groups in Irish culture, but I don't remember such controversy being evoked by that article.

Would it not be an idea to have the UCDSU Pres and Welfare officer proof-read the paper before publishing, certainly as the SU Pres seems to be held accountable for this?

I don't go to TCD, I go to UCD. Evidently enough.

I wasn't saying that the Pres/Welfare Officer should be allowed to stop things being published, but rather that if something is published that the student body in general finds a little distasteful, then as our representatives we can legitimately bring a motion asking them to convey that sentiment to the paper in question.

The_Minister

jimi_t wrote:

Would it not be an idea to have the UCDSU Pres and Welfare officer proof-read the paper before publishing, certainly as the SU Pres seems to be held accountable for this?

The Tribune is editorally independent of the Union.

And I think the article that you refer to was in The Spanner.

Vainglory

The_Minister wrote:

The Tribune is editorally independent of the Union.

...And allegedly, so is the Observer...Lol.

jimi_t

The_Minister wrote:

The Tribune is editorally independent of the Union.

I'm not talking about a freedom of speech or censorship issue here, I'm just saying that if members of the UCD SU are being held accountable for things published in the paper, then surely they deserve the right to see what goes out before its published to avoide future headaches for themselves?

Vainglory

jimi_t wrote:

I'm not talking about a freedom of speech or censorship issue here, I'm just saying that if members of the UCD SU are being held accountable for things published in the paper, then surely they deserve the right to see what goes out before its published to avoide future headaches for themselves?

They aren't being held accountable. Nobody is trying to say it is their fault. Where did you get that idea?

Chakar

Arguments based on semantics are really boring as such on a relatively simple issue such as this.

However many good points have been made by FionnMatthew.He obviously is very interested in this controversy about the Turbine's article and Jane's attempts to correct the situation (as she percieves it) and I support his position.

However I wonder how the article compares in terms of the articles in the satirical magazines in Trinity which are Piranha! and Miscellany?

Vainglory

Chakar wrote:

Arguments based on semantics are really boring as such on a relatively simple issue such as this.

However many good points have been made by FionnMatthew.He obviously is very interested in this controversy about the Turbine's article and Jane's attempts to correct the situation (as she percieves it) and I support his position.

However I wonder how the article compares in terms of the articles in the satirical magazines in Trinity which are Piranha! and Miscellany?

Would you support his position that if no apology was forthcoming another motion might be in order?

jimi_t

Vainglory wrote:

They aren't being held accountable. Nobody is trying to say it is their fault. Where did you get that idea?

My apologies, I got a little muddled there. I'll try and explain my point in a minute, but first could someone explain to me what the Tribune being editorially independent of the SU actually means?

Vainglory

jimi_t wrote:

My apologies, I got a little muddled there. I'll try and explain my point in a minute, but first could someone explain to me what the Tribune being editorially independent of the SU actually means?

Ok..

The Observer is editorially independent of the SU (e.g. the SU doesn't control the line it takes in any of the articles..allegedly). However, it is not FINANCIALLY independent, as the SU funds its production. Which sometimes gives rise to allegations of bias.

The Tribune is both financially and editorially independent of the SU.

Jonny Arson

Just when you thought the CTN/''fag'' thread was bad.........

I have major ****ing migrane reading through this attention seeking politically correct intellect bull**** i've ever seen in my life. I dont know whether this is funniest or the most pathetic thread ever seen on any website...... this is just ridiculous! It's a bit of crap satire FFS. It's not serious, it's poking fun at all sorts of groups.... arrghhh why am I even wasting my energy trying to argue against this hysteria! Everyone who I've talked to who read the article thought it was great, oh but wait these people have sense of humours.

I'd wonder if there would be same outcry and emergency student union council motions if there was satirical article on gingers, bald people, townies, lepers or whatever the hell I can think of.

If the Tribune give into PC censorship by apologising the world will have gone mad, it would be almost as bad as the Prophet Muhammad crap that happened in Denmark.

Anyway, I'm emailing this thread to everyone I know to make them laugh and cry.

Ridiculous, utter ridiculous.

Chakar

Vainglory wrote:

Would you support his position that if no apology was forthcoming another motion might be in order?

I would not however I would support his position on the satirical take on the Travellers.

When a individual writes a satirical piece and includes information relevant to the Travellers concerned that happens to be true for an minority and let's face it the Travellers don't exactly have an great public image do they?

I believe that its important to have an element of tolerance with the ideas and spirit of the article concerned.

Vainglory

Chakar wrote:

let's face it the Travellers don't exactly have an great public image do they?

No, and let's do all we can to make sure it stays that way!

Vorsprung

Chakar wrote:

If I was still a class rep I would probably vote against the first motion but in favour of the second and third ones.

As a class rep are you not supposed to gauge the opinion of the class you represent and vote accordingly?

Spectator#1

Chakar wrote:

Arguments based on semantics are really boring as such on a relatively simple issue such as this.

But they are necessary when there is disagreement about what words mean, specifically in this case, the word 'satire'. The issue won't be simple at all until everyone's agreed that they're referring to the same thing! It does read quite tediously though, I'd agree with you. Presumably only people with an interest in it are going to read it though, I mean, it's hardly there for entertainment!

Oh, wait...

Jonny Arson wrote:

I have major ****ing migrane reading through this attention seeking politically correct intellect bull**** i've ever seen in my life. I dont know whether this is funniest or the most pathetic thread ever seen on any website...... arrghhh why am I even wasting my energy trying to argue against this hysteria! Everyone who I've talked to who read the article thought it was great, oh but wait these people have sense of humours...

...

Anyway, I'm emailing this thread to everyone I know to make them laugh and cry.

I stand corrected.

I bet you saw American Pie when you were younger and decided that Stifler was the coolest guy on the planet.

Non?

jimi_t wrote:

could someone explain to me what the Tribune being editorially independent of the SU actually means?

It's entirely independent: financially, editorially, everything. The only connection the SU and the Tribune have is that students write for the Tribune and the Tribune occasionally prints articles about the SU.

scop

Vainglory wrote:

This is all so great.

I look forward to a rapturous reception tomorrow, when I bring out my freesheet newspaper around campus entitled "Fluck N***ers and Spicks and their thieving ways".

It'll have "It's satire, stupid!" at the top though, so that's alright.

Next issue - Personal attacks on UCD students.

But it's satire, right? Huzzah for Free Speech!!

I think whoever wrote the article has succeeded.

scop

pretty*monster wrote:

We-el, the principle target of the article appears to be the politically correct brigade (incidentally that fact makes the out-cry in this thread deliciously ironic).

Beat me to it.

Chakar

bigjimthefirst wrote:

As a class rep are you not supposed to gauge the opinion of the class you represent and vote accordingly?

Well I've already said I'm not a class rep in the post above in the word 'If' but you're correct that I would vote as to the views of my class.When I was class rep last year I did make an effort to do so but they weren't really very interested I have to say.

funktastic

Yup have to agree, it's like the CTN thread about the use of the word 'fag'. It seems people are stretching PC to its limit.

cast_iron

A bit of a ridiculous thread. Sad state of affairs that it took so many (good, clear) posts to show somebody they were having a bit of a hissy-fit.

Chakar wrote:

... but they weren't really very interested I have to say.

Really!

hullaballoo

Wow. That's ten minutes I'll never see again.

What is it with this forum and travellers?

Vainglory

cast_iron wrote:

A bit of a ridiculous thread. Sad state of affairs that it took so many (good, clear) posts to show somebody they were having a bit of a hissy-fit.


Really!

If I could just clarify..

Those posting the "good, clear" posts that you refer to did not disagree with me that there were elements in the Tribune article that were offensive, cheap shots, and that should probably be apologised for.

They just disagreed about the way of going about getting such an apology.

If you re-read those posts I think you'll see that.

Chakar

Vainglory wrote:

If I could just clarify..

Those posting the "good, clear" posts that you refer to did not disagree with me that there were elements in the Tribune article that were offensive, cheap shots, and that should probably be apologised for.

Absolutely with a get out clause.

jimi_t

It's entirely independent: financially, editorially, everything. The only connection the SU and the Tribune have is that students write for the Tribune and the Tribune occasionally prints articles about the SU.

My point would be then, if it's so "independent" then why is everyone running to the SU President to complain and demand he illicit an apology? Should the editor or someone be solely accountable for the newspapers actions if the SU, as it has been claimed, has absolutely nothing to do with the paper?

Chakar

jimi_t wrote:

My point would be then, if it's so "independent" then why is everyone running to the SU President to complain and demand he illicit an apology? Should the editor or someone be solely accountable for the newspapers actions if the SU, as it has been claimed, has absolutely nothing to do with the paper?

Because the President is the main man for the students of UCD.The Council representing the views of UCD students can mandate the President on behalf of the Union to seek an apology from the Tribune.

Its that simple.

Spectator#1

The Tribune is independent as an entity, it has no affiliations with any other body in UCD than itself.

However, this doesn't mean that it can do what it wants when it wants. It isn't a law unto itself. As a paper that is printed in UCD, it is required to remain within the rules and guidelines laid down by the college.

It is also subject to criticism by the SU, as a representative of the students in the college. The SU has no beureaucratic power over the paper. As a political body within the college though, it is in a position to put pressure on the Tribune to apologise.

Some students took issue with the article, they are within their rights to petition the SU - as their representative body - to bring that problem to the Tribune as a political body.