Sinn Féin-the southern elete and the biased media

whippet

class!!! I wonder what will the Consultants contracts be like in the Candy Mountains .. no work .. that makes sense !!

Ulster9

could someone please post a link to Sinn Fein's election manifesto?

Manifesto for 2007 election is yet to be published.

gilroyb

Schuhart wrote:

No sooner said

They're not going to like that one.

I'd avoid starting your own car any time soon.

El Stuntman

Ulster9 wrote:

Manifesto for 2007 election is yet to be published.

hmmm - seems a bit slack with an election due any moment?

Ulster9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulster9
Manifesto for 2007 election is yet to be published.


hmmm - seems a bit slack with an election due any moment?

Do you reckon?Could you tell me the date for the election so?

El Stuntman

Ulster9 wrote:

Do you reckon?Could you tell me the date for the election so?

31 May, you heard it here first

Colonel Sanders

to refer to what I originally believed the OPs main point to be, yess I do believe there is a bias against Sinn Fein in both the British & Irish Media. Gerry Adams is constantly portrayed as a terrorist. I personally have no doubt the man was and maybe still is a member of the IRA but the bottom line is he has never been convicted of mambership of the IRA let alone an actual act of terrorism and 'innocent until proven gulity' therefore has to be the verdict. Billy Hutchinson and David Irvine (for example) were always, IMO, portrayed in a more favourable light (by the british media at least) despite the former having been convicted for his part in a double sectarian murder and the latter having been found guilty of membership of an illegal organisation and possession of explosives. There are many more cases.

This thread, however, has gotten onto to the pros and cons of voting for sinn fein, so here's my 2 cents with regard to what has bcome the sub (if not main) topic of conversation. I will not vote for sinn fein until i am satisfied that they have either completely distanced themselves from the IRA or that the IRA has completely distanced themselves from criminality. thats my opinion and nothing anyone on here can say will cahnge that in time for this general election. Feel free to agree or disagree with my sentiments.

Schuhart

Colonel Sanders wrote:

I will not vote for sinn fein until i am satisfied that they have either completely distanced themselves from the IRA or that the IRA has completely distanced themselves from criminality.

I broadly agree with where you are coming from, although I’d always wonder a little at the ‘I won’t vote for SF until’ kind of statement as it seems to half suggest that there’s some reason we should all be chomping at the bit to vote for them and I just don’t see why. If SF didn’t have the IRA, would they register in our minds at all?

Colonel Sanders wrote:

I personally have no doubt the man was and maybe still is a member of the IRA but the bottom line is he has never been convicted of mambership of the IRA let alone an actual act of terrorism and 'innocent until proven gulity' therefore has to be the verdict.

I’d really just query this one point. A newspaper article is not a court conviction. I don’t think anyone really disputes the Gerry Adams holds or held a senior position in the IRA. That’s information that we can take and use in our own judgement. I think that’s really what this thread is about. SF supporters dislike newspapers printing stuff that is substantially true about their organisation. They’d prefer it if they could be intimidated into silence.

If newspapers could only print information supported by a level of proof equivalent to the evidence necessary for a criminal conviction, voters will be denied substantially true information that needs to be put before them. How else would you make a judgement that SF is or isn’t sufficiently distances from the IRA? The media is not an unbiased tool, and we have to take that into account. But I don’t see a need to criticise them when they do what a free society needs them to do.

Colonel Sanders

I never say never re. voting for a party. Hypotheticaly i may consider it at some time in the future if I was 'swept off my feet' by SF policy but until i feel they have distanced themselves from IRA criminality I won't even consider it no matter what their policy.

My other oint was highlighting a bias in the media, how the media portrays two groups of people: Republican terrorists and loyalist terrorists. Both are as bad as each other IMO but republicans get far more flak in the media.

brianthebard

Ulster9 wrote:

Do you reckon?Could you tell me the date for the election so?

4th of July. Can't go later than that. I agree that they seems a bit lax if there isn't a manifesto up at this stage of 2007. Now lets get down to the real issue here, there has been a claim in the first post that there is a bias in the media against SF and that "the elite" of this country back that up. Where are the examples of this? Hard examples, the type people link to? Apart from one or two allusions to third rate rags I haven't read anything. If you think the Irish Mirror or whatever red top represents the media here then you have a very narrow view of things. So again I ask that examples be given so people can examine them and stop this thread going round in circles.

gandalf

Colonel Sanders wrote:

My other oint was highlighting a bias in the media, how the media portrays two groups of people: Republican terrorists and loyalist terrorists. Both are as bad as each other IMO but republicans get far more flak in the media.

I reckon the media down here protrays Republican terrorists in a slightly worse light because there is a realistic possibility that elements associated with them could hold the balance of power in the Dail, something that is not very palletable to the majority of citizens and they are reflecting this.

Lets be honest the UVF, UFF or whatever other flavour of Loyalist thuggary are not going to have their political associates in that position here.

Colonel Sanders

brianthebard wrote:

If you think the Irish Mirror or whatever red top represents the media here then you have a very narrow view of things. So again I ask that examples be given so people can examine them and stop this thread going round in circles.

unfortunately a major proportion of the irish public read these 'newspapers' that imo are nothing but glorified toilet paper. That means they influence the thinking and voting patterns of a lot of people so saying they do not represent the media here is naive.

brianthebard

No its true. The media is made up of the radio, internet, tv and papers. they are one brand of news among many. I think you are overestimating their reach-If the Irish mirror has a readership of half a million and writes anti-SF stuff, does that mean half a million people don't vote SF? How many readers read a different paper, listen to the radio, watch the six one? Its much more complicated than just one paper influencing peoples' opinions, which is why I am calling for hard evidence instead of your opinion.

Edit: as far as I'm aware the Indo is the best selling paper, so mustn't it be doing the most damage by your logic?

FTA69

If you think the Irish Mirror or whatever red top represents the media here then you have a very narrow view of things

To be fair Gandalf, as the previous poster stated the tabloid rags have a huge readership, Irish society isn't confined to those who read the Times/Independent over a cappucino. Of course there is a media bias toward Sinn Féin (and Republicans in general), especially in Tony O'Reilly's Independent and Evening Herald.

I remember a SF selection convention in Limerick City which I attended a few years back, Una Heaton (Gerry McCabe's sister in law I think) walked into the meeting and took a seat before Adams went to address the crowd. She then proceeded to heckle Adams who said he would speak to her after provided she left and let the meeting proceed in peace. The next week the Sunday Independent was saying she had been assualted and forced from the room despite her leaving of her own accord. The article also said Adams refused to speak to her despite him being the one mentioning a meeting in the first place.

There is also the accromonious bullsh*t published about alledged SF members battering immigrants in Leitrim despite the fact they weren't associated with the party at all.

I'd be here all day if I was to provide other examples of media exaggeration and more often than not, downright lies but I don't feel the need to elaborate. Open any of those rags and you'll see for yourself the outright bias of articles pertaining to Republicans. Half the time they don't even make sense ie calling SF "Marxists" and then "fascists" in the same article.

jahalpin

Ulster9 wrote:

If you go back to the original post from which i was responding you will read that the poster in question was suggesting that the British army was not using enough force to protect itself and that they should use the US armys example and shoot the protesters.

Now do you think he is right or just dosent understand the situation?

There's a slight difference between a protest and attacking an ambulance, rescue services and the police when they are trying to save the lives of people injured in an accident. People that are protesting are normally marching or holidng placards, people who attack the emergency services are rioting. The soldiers were only doing their jobs and are entitled to emergency treatment as much as any other citizens.

Basic law and order is a requirement for basic civilisation, most Sinn Fein supporters don't actually seem to understand this

gandalf

FTA69 wrote:

To be fair Gandalf, as the previous poster stated the tabloid rags have a huge readership, Irish society isn't confined to those who read the Times/Independent over a cappucino. Of course there is a media bias toward Sinn Féin (and Republicans in general), especially in Tony O'Reilly's Independent and Evening Herald.

TBH they are also the most likely to vote for Sinn Fein as well as I would imagine the main customer base for the redtops would be working class people.

I remember a SF selection convention in Limerick City which I attended a few years back, Una Heaton (Gerry McCabe's sister in law I think) walked into the meeting and took a seat before Adams went to address the crowd. She then proceeded to heckle Adams who said he would speak to her after provided she left and let the meeting proceed in peace..

The next week the Sunday Independent was saying she had been assualted and forced from the room despite her leaving of her own accord. The article also said Adams refused to speak to her despite him being the one mentioning a meeting in the first place.

There is also the accromonious bullsh*t published about alledged SF members battering immigrants in Leitrim despite the fact they weren't associated with the party at all.

I'd be here all day if I was to provide other examples of media exaggeration and more often than not, downright lies but I don't feel the need to elaborate. Open any of those rags and you'll see for yourself the outright bias of articles pertaining to Republicans. Half the time they don't even make sense ie calling SF "Marxists" and then "fascists" in the same article.

LOL its the Indo and Sindo, again you take what they say with a pinch of salt. As I pointed out just look at the story published about Liam Lawlors death to see how wrong they can get it.

As regards the redtops I wouldn't even wipe my arse with them. Disregarding all this so called bias Sinn Fein has to do a hell of alot to win over support here in the South. As alot of people have stated there are too many questions that have not been answered satisfactorily by Sinn Fein.

Colonel Sanders

gandalf wrote:

LOL its the Indo and Sindo, again you take what they say with a pinch of salt
.

you and I take them with a pinch of salt as we have the intelligence to see through biased opinion, unfortunately a lot of people believe every word that is printed. Information is a very powerful commodity. you'd be amazed how often I over hear people in pubs and on public transport quote stuff they read in tabloid rags as factual information.

jank

So gandalf we can dismiss the redtops bias against sinn fein beause they are just that. Now we can dismiss the Independant because they are rags too but where do we draw the line here?

Take all those papers into account we have a huge proportion of newspaper readership in ireland and they DO have influence.

I wont be voting Sinn Fein in this election but they do get a really hard time from the D4 oriented press much of it not justified imo. If the media didnt harp on about them they wouldnt be as strong in the polls

They will do well in this election though. 10 or so seats which is unbelieveable considering where they were 15 years ago!

Also FF and FG attitude towards them is laughable. Good enough for government in the north but not the south. Are we of a greater higher moral fibre or something? Who are we kidding!!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Ulster9

Really? I think it'll be slightly disappointing for them. Not from their position in maybe 1990, but I think they've made hardly any gains since the last election certainly since the last local elections.

They increased their Dail representation from 1 to 5 in 2002.And narrowly missed out on 2 other seats.
In 2004 they increased their number of councillors across the state from 62 to 126.
It would seem that 10 Dail seats is a realistic expectation and Sinn Fein have in recent elections always done better than the polls have indicated.

It seems you are misinformed.

bmaxi

GabharBrean wrote:

I know many Protestants who vote for SF.

Really? Reading the stats of the Assembly elections in the North one thing that stood out was the almost complete absence of transfers between SF and the DUP. While Protestants were the founding fathers of Republicanism in Ireland and Protestants in the Republic tend to be less than enamoured with Unionism, I doubt if many would find common cause with the Provos.

Could I ask people that aren't doing it already to Quote the poster with name that they are replying to instead of nameless quotes,it's better for the threads.

You do that by clicking on the Quote icon instead of the quick reply or the reply icon.

That will bring up the whole post and you can simply edit out the bit you dont want to reply to.

Thank you.

El Stuntman

bmaxi wrote:

Protestants in the Republic tend to be less than enamoured with Unionism, I doubt if many would find common cause with the Provos.

true on both counts.

Prods down south tend to keep their heads down politically (Ivan Yates springs to mind as an exception. David Norris too)

The Sinn Fein vote down south is concentrated amongst what used to be called 'the working class', most Southern prods are part of the great amorphous middle class that is scared by SF

bmaxi

El Stuntman wrote:

most Southern prods are part of the great amorphous middle class that is scared by SF

I was brought up in the Ballybough/North Strand /East Wall area during the sixties and seventies and a surprisingly high percentage of my neighbours were Protestants. Hardly D4 is it?

El Stuntman

bmaxi wrote:

I was brought up in the Ballybough/North Strand /East Wall area during the sixties and seventies and a surprisingly high percentage of my neighbours were Protestants. Hardly D4 is it?

I did say 'most'

and being a Northsider Prod myself, I'm well aware of the protestant working class (lol, we don't all hunt foxes and go to fee paying schools). However I think you will find that the great majority of Southern Protestants are very much part of the 'middle classes'...

bmaxi

El Stuntman wrote:

I did say 'most'

and being a Northsider Prod myself, I'm well aware of the protestant working class (lol, we don't all hunt foxes and go to fee paying schools). However I think you will find that the great majority of Southern Protestants are very much part of the 'middle classes'...

Can't argue against insider knowledge:D

GabharBrean

It has been pointed out that Republicans don't understand that SF will not do well in the next election. Republicans don't understand that there is no middle ground support for SF.

It's not that I don't understand, it's that I take a long term view. This is not the last election Republicans are going to contest. Back in the 70's & 80's we were told we were "borrowing" votes. Moderate people would fall back into line. During the 80's & 90's every reversal (and there were) in voting numbers for SF were initial signs of SF's demise. This thinking has continued right up to the last assembly election. The SDLP employed trans-national appartchniks to bolster their last campaign. We were told repeatedly in the media that 4 seats had been targeted for capture. SF wiped them in 3. They took 1 seat off the Alliance Party.

It may that SF will not do well in the next election. So be it. Maybe by the next election they'll have become cheer leaders for the established interests and status quo and then non-affiliated Republicans will have to look to another party. This election is not the end all be all.

El Stuntman

GabharBrean wrote:

It has been pointed out that Republicans don't understand that SF will not do well in the next election. Republicans don't understand that there is no middle ground support for SF.

It's not that I don't understand, it's that I take a long term view. This is not the last election Republicans are going to contest. Back in the 70's & 80's we were told we were "borrowing" votes. Moderate people would fall back into line. During the 80's & 90's every reversal (and there were) in voting numbers for SF were initial signs of SF's demise. This thinking has continued right up to the last assembly election. The SDLP employed trans-national appartchniks to bolster their last campaign. We were told repeatedly in the media that 4 seats had been targeted for capture. SF wiped them in 3. They took 1 seat off the Alliance Party.

It may that SF will not do well in the next election. So be it. Maybe by the next election they'll have become cheer leaders for the established interests and status quo and then non-affiliated Republicans will have to look to another party. This election is not the end all be all.

I like your optimism

but you need to face facts - the raison d-etre of SF is of no interest to most people down South (as most of us would prefer if Northern Ireland remained a British problem rather than an Irish one. I'm not saying this is right but it's definitely a majority view, albeit unspoken) and they have no other attractive reason to vote for them

Ulster9

El Stuntman wrote:

I like your optimism

but you need to face facts - the raison d-etre of SF is of no interest to most people down South (as most of us would prefer if Northern Ireland remained a British problem rather than an Irish one. I'm not saying this is right but it's definitely a majority view, albeit unspoken) and they have no other attractive reason to vote for them

And what evidence to you have to prove that this is the majority view down south.Its just your opinion but i would suggest you are wrong.
If its so much a british problem then why has the Irish government been investing so much time in the peace process, investing one billion euro in Northern infrastructure projects, setting up crossborder institutions.
You dont speak for me with your majority view.

brianthebard

It is beneficial to the Republic to have a peaceful NI, with a good infrastructure. It may not be so beneficial to the Republic to have NI join it, or at least not right now. There are several threads on this topic on boards, but if you wish to continue this topic I suggest you start another one.