Robbie keane

LuckyLloyd

Paul Hyland is an idiot.

Xavi6

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Paul Hyland is an idiot.

Why? I personally don't mind him. He has opinions and expresses them. Calling him an idiot and not backing it up is just mindless abuse, something apparently not now tolerated in these parts.

LuckyLloyd

Xavi6 wrote: »

Why? I personally don't mind him. He has opinions and expresses them. Calling him an idiot and not backing it up is just mindless abuse, something apparently not now tolerated in these parts.

Sigh. He comes across to me as ill informed and lazy - I never feel that he has any real depth of knowledge of the game. Plus, it seems that his starting point before he gets out the laptop is: "what strong opinion can I think up on the spot?". Then flesh it out for a paycheck.

There are so, so many more capable football journalists working today than the likes of Hyland.

Xavi6

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Sigh. He comes across to me as ill informed and lazy - I never feel that he has any real depth of knowledge of the game. Plus, it seems that his starting point before he gets out the laptop is: "what strong opinion can I think up on the spot?". Then flesh it out for a paycheck.

There are so, so many more capable football journalists working today than the likes of Hyland.

Did you ever think that maybe his different views on the game are what make him a good journalist and keep people interested in reading what he has to say. Dunphy is another example of this and the guy is a national hero.

LuckyLloyd

Xavi6 wrote: »

Did you ever think that maybe his different views on the game are what make him a good journalist and keep people interested in reading what he has to say. Dunphy is another example of this and the guy is a national hero.

When the likes of Duggan or Humphries tackle football they bring a slightly different view to the table. But at least you can read what they say and appreciate that a well constructed argument has been put forth and that they really mean it. It always seems to me that Hyland is different purely because it's a niche he can get paid for inhabiting. Plus, he doesn't write particularly well. Which is a drawback for a journalist imo.

Xavi6

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

When the likes of Duggan or Humphries tackle football they bring a slightly different view to the table. But at least you can read what they say and appreciate that a well constructed argument has been put forth and that they really mean it. It always seems to me that Hyland is different purely because it's a niche he can get paid for inhabiting. Plus, he doesn't write particularly well. Which is a drawback for a journalist imo.

I agree with you about his writing alright. However, entitled as you are to not like him, there is obviously a reason why he has been in the same job for so long. He sells papers and is therefore good at what he does.

LuckyLloyd

Xavi6 wrote: »

I agree with you about his writing alright. However, entitled as you are to not like him, there is obviously a reason why he has been in the same job for so long. He sells papers and is therefore good at what he does.

Well, Xavi, whether he is good at the business of selling papers or not is a different question to that of whether he is a good journalist and writer. Tabloids sell lots of papers and have figured out ways to give a certain type of person exactly what they want. But the content of tabloid papers (including the Herald) is far from what I would call "good".

Xavi6

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well, Xavi, whether he is good at the business of selling papers or not is a different question to that of whether he is a good journalist and writer. Tabloids sell lots of papers and have figured out ways to give a certain type of person exactly what they want. But the content of tabloid papers (including the Herald) is far from what I would call "good".

Is that down to a personal bias against red tops or because you can spot a good journalist when you see one?

LuckyLloyd

Xavi6 wrote: »

Is that down to a personal bias against red tops or because you can spot a good journalist when you see one?

Well, I buy a copy of the Irish Times every day; I'd buy the Guardian when I'm in England; the NY Times when I'm in the States. But a copy of the Herald arrives to my house every day and the Sunday World is purchased every weekend - and I flick through them.

In my experience, I have never read a decent piece of sports journalism on any of the occassions I have browsed a tabloid (or a decent and objective general news story for that matter). But I enjoy the sports section of the papers I read regularly and the work of many of the journalists that write for them. But yes, there are average journalists working for braodsheet publications. Malone at the times is fairly storeboard and insipid imo. Not bad persay, but I wouldn't think that reading his take on something was essential.

So I guess you can say that I have my opinion on what is "good" journalism or "bad" journalism. Ultimately, the nature of tabloids is not conducive to intelligent and balanced writing. Such papers are not set up with the intention of delivering that. Strong opinions for the sake of them and meaty speculation that has little or no factual basis - that is what sells the rags.

_blank_

Herald is an absolute rag.

That Hyland creature has a different opinion on topics every time he writes a piece.

Fitzmaurice is alright, but his Bohs bias is cringeworthy when it comes to eL stuff.