College Trubine article on Travellers

Vainglory

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?

Nobody wanted the SU President to apologise for it...we wanted the SU President, as a representative of students, to ask for an apology FROM the editor for it.

Agree with Spectator's post, basically.

Steibhin

Just to point out to some how so far have failed to grasp the point, the article is not just being condemned by the 'PC brigade' but by a traveler representative group.

We also have the copyright infringement issue to look into regarding the photo.

If being someone who stands up to rasicm and prejustise makes me a member of the mythical 'PC brigade' than so be it. If people want to label me than go ahead. Some love putting others into convient grouping and belittling so that they can feel better about themselves.

I would ask people to recall the images of the Irish that were published in the Punch magazine on Britain and ask weather these cartoon, which were 'jokes' contributed positively or negativly to the racial sterotypes and prejustice that existed with Britain druning the 19th and early 20th century.

Also, please note that the author of this article publishes autonomously. Very brave.

humbert

I think your spell checker may have played a dirty trick on you.

Spectator#1

Also, please note that the author of this article publishes autonomously. Very brave.

I think you meant 'anonymously'.

In which case, as do you.

Very brave.

jimi_t

Vainglory wrote:

Nobody wanted the SU President to apologise for it...we wanted the SU President, as a representative of students, to ask for an apology FROM the editor for it.

Should have made it clearer.

jimi_t wrote:

...why is everyone running to the SU President to complain and demand he illicit an apology?

Ah right, thats cleared up. I was just confused as to why the guy from Pavee Point et al would go to the SU President rather than to the Editor, as he has no affiliation with UCD and is not a student.

Vainglory

jimi_t wrote:

Vainglory wrote:

Nobody wanted the SU President to apologise for it...we wanted the SU President, as a representative of students, to ask for an apology FROM the editor for it.

Should have made it clearer.



Ah right, thats cleared up. I was just confused as to why the guy from Pavee Point et al would go to the SU President rather than to the Editor, as he has no affiliation with UCD and is not a student.

I think he's going to both.

FionnMatthew

jimi_t wrote:

Ah right, thats cleared up. I was just confused as to why the guy from Pavee Point et al would go to the SU President rather than to the Editor, as he has no affiliation with UCD and is not a student.

Because he seems to be more interested in 'standing up and making a statement' than in actually addressing the article, or in doing anything constructive.

Vainglory

FionnMatthew wrote:

Because he seems to be more interested in 'standing up and making a statement' than in actually addressing the article, or in doing anything constructive.

To be fair you don't know what else he's planning to do yet. Like with the Tribune, wait and see, yeah?

FionnMatthew

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!

Oh, come on. That's unkind. What happened here wasn't good, clear people beating down irrational people, but proper debate reaching some level of parity.

This isn't, and shouldn't be, about putting people down.

Vainglory wrote:

To be fair you don't know what else he's planning to do yet. Like with the Tribune, wait and see, yeah?

Yeah, I'd go along with that. Don't think too much of his letter though. I think the only way entrenched prejudices can be overcome is if everyone sophisticates the way they think about it. And that letter didn't demonstrate that he had.

It's just my own reading of it though, I suppose.

Steibhin wrote:

Just to point out to some how so far have failed to grasp the point, the article is not just being condemned by the 'PC brigade' but by a traveler representative group.

We also have the copyright infringement issue to look into regarding the photo.

If being someone who stands up to rasicm and prejustise makes me a member of the mythical 'PC brigade' than so be it. If people want to label me than go ahead. Some love putting others into convient grouping and belittling so that they can feel better about themselves.

I would ask people to recall the images of the Irish that were published in the Punch magazine on Britain and ask weather these cartoon, which were 'jokes' contributed positively or negativly to the racial sterotypes and prejustice that existed with Britain druning the 19th and early 20th century.

Also, please note that the author of this article publishes autonomously. Very brave.

With respect, I don't think you're following what's gone on on this thread half as much as you think you have. After the discussion that happened here since you started the thread, what you just wrote sounds rather trite. It's gotten a bit more complicated.

Just to demonstrate:

Steibhin wrote:

I would ask people to recall the images of the Irish that were published in the Punch magazine on Britain and ask weather these cartoon, which were 'jokes' contributed positively or negativly to the racial sterotypes and prejustice that existed with Britain druning the 19th and early 20th century.

If they were to appear nowadays, they'd be far more likely to be making fun of the kind of people who wrote them, or who found them funny, than of the people who appear to bear the direct brunt of the joke. It's in that sense you should take the article, albeit only tentatively, since it was inexpertly written.

GuffFromSwine wrote:

In my first post I said that this piece would not be out of place in a neo-nazi rag, and i stand by that.

I really don't think you should stand by that. The Tribune article is offensive, more because it's badly written than anything else, but it is a bit more sophisticated than neo-nazi cartoonistry.

It's simply not that bad - it doesn't intend to incite violence against travellers, it isn't unequivocally encouraging hatred of travellers.

There's a level of (implicit) argument in the article, that comes out despite its obfuscatory style, which is quite categorically different to the blind, dogmatic advancement of doxa in hate-literature.

Steibhin

Spectator#1 wrote:

I think you meant 'anonymously'.

In which case, as do you.

Very brave.

I did. And I have written for the tribune in the past and published my name. Also there is quite a difference between writing for a newspaper and posting online. Incidentally, this is my name.

FionnMatthew wrote:

With respect, I don't think you're following what's gone on on this thread half as much as you think you have. After the discussion that happened here since you started the thread, what you just wrote sounds rather trite. It's gotten a bit more complicated.

I am trying address several posters at once who have posted over the past 5 pages. I don't have the time to address each one individually. I am not really involved in your discussion with Vainglory. But I did start this thread, emailed both Pavee point and the Tribune. Am am trying to rebutt some of the less clever one line posts that have put up here which have attacked the entire thread and praised the Tribune.

This thread does not revolve around you and it is not up to you to adjudge who is or is not following things. If you think things 'have moved on' than perhaps it is you that is failing to follow the thread. There are still stupid comments being made. In any case, lets play the ball not the player.

I am not getting involved in the SU council issue here. There are loads of issues aside from that, such as the copyright issues, which thus far has not been addressed.

Dontico

i thought it was hilarious. if you didnt like it, tough freedom of speech rules.

Spectator#1

Steibhin wrote:

I did. And I have written for the tribune in the past and published my name. Also there is quite a difference between writing for a newspaper and posting online. Incidentally, this is my name.

In case you hadn't noticed. Nobody prints their name on the Turbine page. It's anonymous in general. To print people's names would ruin the whole thing and introduce an element of vanity into it - as well as, perhaps, protect people who write satirical articles that people don't like on top of that.

Your name is Steibhin and you're in UCD. Very nonymous. Very brave as well. You are, for all intents and purposes, anonymous as well. Not that it matters, I'm not looking for your name. I was just pointing that out.

And FionnMatthew is right, he's not making the thread about him. We've already moved on from the fact that you had a problem with the article. We've established that the article is, in fact, satirical, it just wasn't executed very well, and so it isn't in the same spirit as those articles in Punch that you mentioned.

Steibhin

Spectator#1 wrote:

In case you hadn't noticed. Nobody prints their name on the Turbine page. It's anonymous in general. To print people's names would ruin the whole thing and introduce an element of vanity into it - as well as, perhaps, protect people who write satirical articles that people don't like on top of that.

I had noticed. It was merely an obseravtion that backs up the my assertation that this was a really cheap and cowardily shot at the travelling community.

Your name is Steibhin and you're in UCD. Very nonymous. Very brave as well. You are, for all intents and purposes, anonymous as well. Not that it matters, I'm not looking for your name. I was just pointing that out.

I had realised that I was posting anomonoously. But in fairness there is a big difference between and internet board and an newspaper.

And FionnMatthew is right, he's not making the thread about him. We've already moved on from the fact that you had a problem with the article. We've established that the article is, in fact, satirical, it just wasn't executed very well, and so it isn't in the same spirit as those articles in Punch that you mentioned.

Who is this 'we'? You and Fionn? Everyone on this thread?

The parralel with Punch is vali, imo. It has been argued by some that because this was 'humour' normal rules need not apply. I was demonstrating that in the past the same logic was used to promote on consolidate racial stereotypes. I'm sure the people in Punch didn't see any great harm in it at the time and thought it was all a good laugh.

If Fionn didn't like my post he could have ignored it rather than getting personal and let other decided whether is was 'trite' or not. Like I said, lets play the ball not the man.

cast_iron

Vainglory wrote:

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.

You are correct. And I don't need to re-read anything.

I was referring to what I perceive to be your over-reaction, by, amongst other things, bringing a motion to SU council - not the contents of the actual article.

FionnMatthew wrote:

That's unkind. What happened here wasn't good, clear people beating down irrational people, but proper debate reaching some level of parity.

Unkind - perhaps, unfair - I don't think so. Whilst it may well be reasoned debate, my point is that if people didn't get overly excited in the first place, it wouldn't even have been needed.

Spectator#1

Steibhin wrote:

I had noticed. It was merely an obseravtion that backs up the my assertation that this was a really cheap and cowardily shot at the travelling community.

So, would you say everything printed on the Turbine page is a cheap and cowardly shot at everything?

It's not like they set up the page to take a shot at the Travellers, that's an unfair way of looking at it, it was an article in a satire section that you think was unfair. I wouldn't argue with that; a lot of people on this thread would agree with you.

As far as I'm concerned, if it is in poor taste - which opinion I could at least entertain - I'd put it down to bad judgement, bad timing, or bad editing, it's not a vendetta against the travellers, which is what you seem to be implying.

I had realised that I was posting anomonoously. But in fairness there is a big difference between and internet board and an newspaper.

This is on the internet, essentially people all over the world can read this. The article in question is in a newspaper with a 2000 or so circulation. I wouldn't agree with that at all.

Who is this 'we'? You and Fionn? Everyone on this thread?

The parralel with Punch is vali, imo. It has been argued by some that because this was 'humour' normal rules need not apply. I was demonstrating that in the past the same logic was used to promote on consolidate racial stereotypes. I'm sure the people in Punch didn't see any great harm in it at the time and thought it was all a good laugh.

If Fionn didn't like my post he could have ignored it rather than getting personal and let other decided whether is was 'trite' or not. Like I said, lets play the ball not the man.

It just seemed to me like you sat it out for the whole conversation and then came back in and repeated yourself without engaging in anything anyone said or recognising that there is at least a satirical element to the article in question.

I think you're over-reacting a little. Fair enough, you have a right to be annoyed.

Steibhin

Spectator#1 wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, if it is in poor taste - which opinion I could at least entertain - I'd put it down to bad judgement, bad timing, or bad editing, it's not a vendetta against the travellers, which is what you seem to be implying.[/qoute]

I agree 100% and said such in my email to the Tribune, where incidently I suggested rather than an apology maybe an article on travellers and third level in the next edition might be a more positive step. This would also give some legitimacy to the argument that the Turbine were trying to start a debate.

It just seemed to me like you sat it out for the whole conversation and then came back in and repeated yourself without engaging in anything anyone said or recognising that there is at least a satirical element to the article in question.

:cool: I recognized that it was satire in my very first post. I did occur to me that I maybe over reacting - that is why I emailed a travelers rights group to get their position on it. There reaction was similar to mine. I am from, Tuam as I mentioned, and am fully aware of inter community sensitivities. That is probably why I was taken aback to see such material published. I reminded my of stuff you would hear in the playground in 4th class and not becoming of a student newspaper.

If I did repeat some sentiment that I felt was worth repeating, what about it? I should be allowed to do this without being called 'trite'. Fionn was being very unfair in my view. In anycase, I stand over everything I said and it is up for others aside from Fionn do judge appropriateness or otherwise of my posts. When you say not engaging with anything anyone said (I have already said this..) I was trying to respond to a number of posters who had said some silly things like that we were a bunch of PC D4 liberal etc. It appeared to me that Fionn got angry because I didn't address his posts in particular. I would rather that we keep on topic here. My posts is not the issue and it was remiss of Fionn to make it so.

***End of this crap***


Does anyone know what the legal issues are regarding the publishing of the picture of Winne and Rose Mongan?

Dontico

dont see why they should apologise. you dont see the traveling community ever apologising for the damages they do to OUR society.

what about the article they did on sadam husein? would you not think that was disrespectfull to the victims of his tyranny?

hullaballoo

Steibhin wrote:

Does anyone know what the legal issues are regarding the publishing of the picture of Winne and Rose Mongan?

Surely that's between The Tribune and the copyright owner and shouldn't be discussed here.

FionnMatthew

Dontico wrote:

dont see why they should apologise. you dont see the traveling community ever apologising for the damages they do to OUR society.

what about the article they did on sadam husein? would you not think that was disrespectfull to the victims of his tyranny?

Oh dear.

Steibhin

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Surely that's between The Tribune and the copyright owner and shouldn't be discussed here.

Okay. It was mentioned in Pavee Points response to the Tribune.

Can we speak in general terms? Does anyone know if the permission of people is required before their image was published?

Steibhin

FionnMatthew wrote:

Oh dear.

Indeed. I found it rather trite myself

FionnMatthew

steibhin wrote:

I should be allowed to do this without being called 'trite'.

You weren't called trite. I said that (1)what you were saying (2)sounded trite. There were two degrees of seperation from me saying you were trite personally. I did that because I didn't intend to insult you.

steibhin wrote:

Fionn was being very unfair in my view. In anycase, I stand over everything I said and it is up for others aside from Fionn do judge appropriateness or otherwise of my posts.

I think everyone here has a nominal right to judge that, including me. Bear in mind that I was talking to you, not about you.

steibhin wrote:

It appeared to me that Fionn got angry because I didn't address his posts in particular.

No. I wasn't angry at all. I think that was obvious from the wording.
Also, come on! I don't mind if you ignore my posts. I was just saying that you were repeating yourself, where, for the most part, the rest of us had explored the issue a little more.

Correction taken, though.

hullaballoo

Steibhin wrote:

Okay. It was mentioned in Pavee Points response to the Tribune.

Can we speak in general terms? Does anyone know if the permission of people is required before their image was published?

No, because that would be off topic. You could post a thread in Legal Discussion about copyright ownership of images that are readily available online etc., however.

Steibhin

hullaball&#250 wrote:

No, because that would be off topic. You could post a thread in Legal Discussion about copyright ownership of images that are readily available online etc., however.

Boo.

John_C

Vainglory wrote:

I think we can philosophise all we want about the quasi-intellectual undertones of the piece, but the bottom line for me is that some traveller kid thinking about coming to college definitely wouldn't take it that way. And I think we can all agree on that.

And we're all in favour of increased access, right?

I think I could even write a better satirical piece that makes the same point as you suggest the traveller piece did, but without the cheap shots and without the inevitable offence caused. And if I didn't have two essays due on Friday, I probably would.

EDIT: And as I've said to the Editor of the Tribune myself, I don't think he's a racist or that the person who wrote it is a racist. I just think it was a hell bad decision to publish the article in that form and as such some sort of an apology should be forthcoming.

The bit I've highlighted above is the kernel of the debate as far as I'm concerned. Even excellently written satire can (and usually will) offend some people.

The question is whether the paper should publish a satirical piece it knows will cause offence.
There seem to be three points of view on the issue;
1. Yes
2. No
3. It depends on who you’re offending.
I have little time for the argument that it’s only OK to offend the powerful or elite. We’re all supposed to be equal in this country and (conveniently enough) the idea that the downtrodden have rights above the rest of us is something this article was satirising.
I can respect the opinion of people who say, ‘No, the paper should avoid offending people’ but I don’t agree with them. Part of the papers job is to look critically at the world and you can’t do that without offending some people. Similarly, part of attending university is about having your perceptions and beliefs challenged which is also something that can’t be done without causing some offence.

Blowfish

RuggieBear wrote:

Jesus.

I'm so glad I'm out of college and don't have to suffer the utter wankology that is college politics and its over-active participants.

Ah its actually quite simple to avoid really, you just get used to it and it becomes background noise.

For instance, I haven't actually read this thread past where the article was posted but I can pretty much tell you how the thread evolved.

Offense is taken
One or two agree, most don't
Bitch.
Rant.
Moan.
Irrelevent bringing in of the SU somewhere along the line
Eventually thread simmers down, with people deciding racism is bad, article was stupid but not intentionally racist.
Beginning of wandering off of point.
mod warning
Thread trickles to a stop

Janacopolis

I think you're all missing the point here, offensiveness and political correctness aside, it's just plain unfunny! I don't think I've ever read a less funny student publication.

Now this is satire: http://www.theonion.com

FionnMatthew

Janacopolis wrote:

I think you're all missing the point here, offensiveness and political correctness aside, it's just plain unfunny! I don't think I've ever read a less funny student publication.

Now this is satire: http://www.theonion.com

It doesn't matter whether it was funny or not. 'Funny' differs from person to person.

The point is whether or not it was satirical (funny or not funny, it doesn't matter) or plainly and genuinely racist.

You've missed the point.

Ps. I think The Onion is hit or miss really.

DadaKopf

I didn't see the article, but the Turbine is a deformed second-cousin of The Evil Gerald, which preceded it. It was hilarious. And it got in trouble once for doing a funny piece on paedophelia when that was in the news. Something about attacks on paediatricians on the increase. Some people got right annoyed when they had no reason to.

Janacopolis

FionnMatthew wrote:

It doesn't matter whether it was funny or not. 'Funny' differs from person to person.

The point is whether or not it was satirical (funny or not funny, it doesn't matter) or plainly and genuinely racist.

You've missed the point.

Ps. I think The Onion is hit or miss really.

I've missed no point. It is satire. Bad satire, and very bad at that. So poorly written and without tact is it, that it clearly comes across as bigoted and hyperstereotypical. Such is the quality of the publication.

P.S. Click on that link immediately and tell me that issue isn't side-splittingly funny! (Especially the 'Point-Counterpoint' segment!)

http://www.theonion.com