Can we trust Fine Gael?

jmayo

dlofnep wrote: »

FG are a bunch of slimey twats. No, I wouldn't trust them.

and what would ff be then by that summation ?
A bunch of fine lads who look after their friends or a bunch of lying theiving unethical whores ?

truebluedub wrote: »

Liam Byrne - And what about the proposal of cultural genocide? And I've already indicated I'm not FF.

Yeah right :rolleyes:
For someone that is not FF you are going to great effort to drum up excuses why people shouldn't vote for FG. You must be tired with all the typing and cutting and pasting you are doing recently.
Also I recall you voicing a pro FF opinon on another tread :rolleyes:

Oh and to answer your point about FG being anti traveller based on the Nally incident.
Talk to people in Mayo, or indeed most of Ireland, and no matter what party they support you would find they had sympathy for Nally and his plight.
There were numerous deaths of old people in the West of Ireland, old people were tied up and left to die, something like 3 or 4 died over the years.
But of course say nothing and let people terrorise others.
If we adopt that mentality then we might as well reopen the industrial schools.
We have too many scumbags be they settled, traveller, foreign, native, or whatever and it was about time someone stood up to them.

It may only be a minority of travellers that cause the trouble but Pavee Point has to start condemning their own as well as jumping on the race bandwagon everytime something happens.

BTW thefts and breakins decreased drastically in the area following "Frog" Wards death. Coincidence ?

rant_and_rave wrote: »

Utter rubbish. I hereby invite all Travelers to camp out in truebluedub’s back yard.

For once I agree with you.

It's marvellous to see the good old soldiers of desentry clapping the OP posts, but these same posters won't dare post on any threads asking why the FF party signed a deal that let the likes of the rapists apolgosing christian Brothers off or why it looks like directors of Anglo will be immune from posecution.

Is it ff party policy now to try and target FG as a racists organsation ?
Well you can't use the economy anymore so what next will they trawl out of the barrel ?

Liam Byrne

Thankfully it seems like truebluedub is no longer putting words in FG's mouths....

What doesn’t count: Olwyn Enright’s sleeping arrangements

Then why mention it, other than to ****-stir ? :rolleyes:

With all of Bertie's shennanigans, no-one EVER raised his sleeping arrangements or snidely mentioned them as irrelevant in a pathetic attempt to highlight them while seeming PC (until of course, it became relevant when discovered that Celia Larkin had been loaned cash from FF party funds)

A key word search of LexisNexis for Fine Gael and Corruption brings up 2162 results but this includes comments on corruption by FG members, making up the vast majority of articles and they also include historical examples such as the sweeps.

So you're searching online now ? Did you check those 2162 to see if there's a few that say "FG complained about FF corruption", or "FG are against corrution" ? Jeez, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel if you need to resort to "look how many web pages I found using these two words!

Is it possible that 50% of those relate to Lowry ?

That figure of 2162 is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT unless you can categorically state that you've read each page and that each page relates to an actual individual corruption query directly attributed to FG.

BTW, a keyword search on Google for "Fianna Fail" + "corruption" gives me the following:

Results 1 - 10 of about 20,500 for "fianna fail" corruption. (0.24 seconds)

And what does that prove ? Absolutely nothing.

And to give you an example of what COULD be within those links that you desperately grabbed at in order to make it look like your arguments were based on fact, here's 3 :

Fine Gael Policy Statements - Justice, Equality & Law ReformSpeech by Fine Gael Justice Spokesman Charlie Flanagan TD on the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2008 in Dáil Éireann on Thursday 30th October ...

Fine Gael News - Root out corrupt politicians - Cummins

Root out corrupt politicians - Cummins. Contact: Rachel Horan

Politics in the Republic of Ireland - Google Books Resultby John Coakley, Michael Gallagher - 2005 - Political Science - 504 pages
Former Fine Gael leader Alan Dukes was at one stage an economist with the I FA, ... Justice and Communications, Ray Burke, had received corrupt payments ...

Yes, Lowry is dodgy - no question.

But quit the pathetic attempts at American-style bull****; it didn't work for your first topic, and unless you start being at least remotely objective, it won't work for this one.

BTW - if faced with two corrupt parties, one of whom has proven that they'll make a bollox of the economy, and one that hasn't, then the corruption is actually irrelevant.


And if we're relying on random mentions in search engines, then I'm glad to know that RTE helped you find your roots, Joe: :rolleyes:

RTÉ Television - Who do you think you are?

True Blue Dub Joe has now found his culchie roots, and as he says, “You can't get more country than this!”.

http://www.rte.ie/tv/whodoyouthinkyouare/outline_joe-duffy.html

And add in the FACT that the "whistle-blower Michael Smith*" was an FG person themselves, and you'll see straight away that at least some people in FG don't tolerate corruption, and that they're prepared to blow the whistle.......how many FF people stood up to blow the whistle on Burke, Haughey, Lawlor, Bev Flynn & Bertie ?

*Thanks for the reference, BTW.....while we all knew Lowry was dodgy, it is a great help for you to provide the reference above to show that people in FG won't put up with corruption

truebluedub

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Thankfully it seems like truebluedub is no longer putting words in FG's mouths....

Show me one case when I put words into anyones mouth otherwise withdraw that comment.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So you're searching online now ? Did you check those 2162 to see if there's a few that say "FG complained about FF corruption", or "FG are against corrution" ? Jeez, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel if you need to resort to "look how many web pages I found using these two words!

Is it possible that 50% of those relate to Lowry ?

That figure of 2162 is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT unless you can categorically state that you've read each page and that each page relates to an actual individual corruption query directly attributed to FG.

BTW, a keyword search on Google for "Fianna Fail" + "corruption" gives me the following:



And what does that prove ? Absolutely nothing.

And to give you an example of what COULD be within those links that you desperately grabbed at in order to make it look like your arguments were based on fact, here's 3 :

LexisNexis is an online newspaper archive, which allows access to many articles not otherwise available on the internet. Interestingly you suggest that I didn't do the very thing which I refer to in my post

truebluedub wrote: »

A key word search of LexisNexis (http://www.lexisnexis.com.jproxy.nuim.ie/uk/nexis/auth/bridge.do?rand=0.7347152226413399) for Fine Gael and Corruption brings up 2162 results but this includes comments on corruption by FG members, making up the vast majority of articles and they also include historical examples such as the sweeps.

If you're too lazy to read the post why bother responding, you only discredit yourself. Where do you think I got the examples from, think your points through.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And add in the FACT that the "whistle-blower Michael Smith*" was an FG person themselves, and you'll see straight away that at least some people in FG don't tolerate corruption, and that they're prepared to blow the whistle.......how many FF people stood up to blow the whistle on Burke, Haughey, Lawlor, Bev Flynn & Bertie ?

*Thanks for the reference, BTW.....while we all knew Lowry was dodgy, it is a great help for you to provide the reference above to show that people in FG won't put up with corruption

Wasn't I the one to point out that Smith was a Fine Gael whistle-blower pointing out the level of corruption in his own party?What did they do with the internal inquiry? Sweet f.a.

jmayo wrote: »

Oh and to answer your point about FG being anti traveller based on the Nally incident.
Talk to people in Mayo, or indeed most of Ireland, and no matter what party they support you would find they had sympathy for Nally and his plight.
There were numerous deaths of old people in the West of Ireland, old people were tied up and left to die, something like 3 or 4 died over the years.
But of course say nothing and let people terrorise others.
If we adopt that mentality then we might as well reopen the industrial schools.
We have too many scumbags be they settled, traveller, foreign, native, or whatever and it was about time someone stood up to them.

It may only be a minority of travellers that cause the trouble but Pavee Point has to start condemning their own as well as jumping on the race bandwagon everytime something happens.

BTW thefts and breakins decreased drastically in the area following "Frog" Wards death. Coincidence ?

I assume from this you condone shooting a wounded man execution style in the back. Enjoy Government with SF they seem perfect for you. Also how about the stats to back that up the decrease in figures because in court we find that:

A Garda said during the trial of Padraig Nally the level of crime in the area was similar to the crime levels elsewhere in the county and were not exceptional

http://www.village.ie/Society/Travellers/Enda_Kenny_and_the_racist_media_campaign_against_Travellers/

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Then why mention it, other than to ****-stir ?

To contextualise a working definition of corruption.

Liam Byrne

truebluedub wrote: »

Show me one case when I put words into anyones mouth otherwise withdraw that comment.

In the very first post you used the perfectly acceptable stances by FG members to deduce that they were being racist, which they weren't.

LexisNexis is an online newspaper archive, which allows access to many articles not otherwise available on the internet. Interestingly you suggest that I didn't do the very thing which I refer to in my post

truebluedub wrote: »

If you're too lazy to read the post why bother responding, you only discredit yourself. Where do you think I got the examples from, think your points through.

You highlighted the fact that there were 2,162 articles, and while you did admittedly point out that some were not relevant, you still mentioned the figure 2,162. Why ? Because it's a high number ?

I'll stand over my statement, because you mentioned 2 examples; were the other 2,160 related to those, making the total number of recorded instances of corruption 2 ? You failed to make this clear. Why ?

truebluedub wrote: »

Wasn't I the one to point out that Smith was a Fine Gael whistle-blower pointing out the level of corruption in his own party?

Yes, and I thanked you for it, because it highlights an immediate difference to the three-monkeys approach of FF, something you refused to acknowledge.

truebluedub wrote: »

I assume from this you condone shooting a wounded man execution style in the back.

"execution style", eh ? More bull**** hyperbole!

If a scumbag breaks into your house and you confront him to defend your property, and he leaves, chances are that he'll be back later, possibly while you're asleep.

While what Nally did is not completely condone-able, it is understandable.

And the fact is that while Nally had some justification in defending his property and his own life, Frog Ward had zero reason or right to be where he was.

If Frog Ward wasn't on the property, then he wouldn't have been shot.

Enjoy Government with SF they seem perfect for you. Also how about the stats to back that up the decrease in figures because in court we find that:

Interesting link:

Padraig Nally had no previous history of violence

His rural home near Cong, Co Mayo, had been burgled on a number of occasions and various implements had been taken from his farm outhouses

Nally spoke to the driver, Tom Ward, who told him that his father, John Ward, had "gone for a look around the back (of the house)"

[Nally] saw Ward at his kitchen door

Why did Ward do this ? What right had he to do this ?

Ward had a troubled psychiatric history and had 12 convictions on various charges, mainly to do with burglary. He was awaiting trial, at the time of his death, arising from the threatened use of a slash hook against a Garda. He previously had engaged in bare knuckle boxing and had inflicted serious injuries on opponents

the jury clearly accepted Nally had acted under provocation

And the most interesting point of all ?

Enda Kenny's alignment with the most partisan and anti-Traveller of the newspapers

Not Enda Kenny's agreement with, not Enda Kenny's racism; just the fact that by agreeing that Nally had a case, Kenny ended up wanting the same thing on a legitimate basis as a couple of crap tabloid newspapers who were being racist.

It DOES NOT SAY that Kenny was being racist.

Padraig Nally was entitled in law to use force to dislodge John Ward from his property, especially as there were good grounds for believing John Ward was there to no good purpose

So therefore, had Nally just done that and not continued with what he did, he would have been 100% within "acceptability" in the eyes of the law.

By continuing with his actions - due to the fear of a bunch of known thiefs and scumbags coming back - he stepped over that line.

And Kenny basically stated that there is not enough protection for the homeowner in this regard.

Browne seems to think Kenny is wrong, because the homeowner can defend themselves, but Kenny is correct because there is no protection - particularly in resource-starved and isolated rural Ireland - should a bunch of thugs come back.

Justified ? Probably not. Understandable ? Definitely.

It would seem that the mere presence of a Traveller was provocation enough.

There is no basis for Village to include this statement, which is as tabloid-esque as the papers that they complained about.

They could easily have replaced the word "Traveller" with "threat" or "thoughts of return" or "known criminal" and the statement would have been just as apt.

Ergo : it is The Village that is guilty of racism; Ward's "ethnicity" was irrelevant - his actions and reputation were.

And those actions - not where he was born or what his surname was - led to his death.

If it were an "ordinary" thug or gang-member, would you defend them in the same way ? Because I'd pass the exact same comment and I'd believe that they deserved most, if not quite all, of what they got, and I'd prefer to see them dead than Nally - REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY WERE.

Remove the fact that Ward was a traveller and see if you have the same strong opinion as to the scenario. I know that I would.

So - like The Village - I would suggest that it is YOU that is guilty of racism; singling out an individual for different treatment because of their ethnic background.

InFront

truebluedub wrote: »

I started to read the paper again to find proof of my point of view and I didn't have to go far:

Five dominant negative frames in international media discourses are identified. These themes are examined in the context of theories of racism and
xenophobia to highlight their negative potential for displaced persons and attitudes towards them in their host countries. Theory is also employed to explore the potential utility of such negative
narratives for the media and social elites.

There is little point in my asking you if you are still reading replies because it is evident that you are not. Either that or you are not actually reading the articles you link to.
Again, the above article does not analyse media outputs for racist discourse on asylum seekers, it analyses negative discourse on asylum seekers. Doing so in the context of discussing racism still does not make the media output racist. This would be evident to any reasonable, logically thinking individual.
Do you have a specific reason for putting forward this research, given that you wish to discuss racist discourse as opposed to negative discourse? There are many more relevant academic papers out there which lay out specific methods in measuring racist discourse and are not difficult to come across. I've listed some examples below.
Jackson, R. Religious Education's Representation of 'Religions' and 'Cultures'. (1995) The Society for Educational Studies. Available from JSTOR
Brewer, J.D. 'Competing Understandings of Common Sense Understanding: A Brief Comment on 'Common Sense Racism''. (1984) The British Journal of Sociology Available from JSTOR

You fail to achieve anything in your posts firstly by failing to align your arguments to the academic papers you link to.
Secondly, where you do make an (albeit unsubstantiated) point of reference, you abandon it almost entirely: In your original post, you described your 'method' in measuring racism and then dropped it, barely even referring to it again in your post and thereby failing to give it structure.

Of course now that your interpretation is shown to flawed you will use the wiggle room you left in your previous post and say something like you have no respect for findings of these academics, or anyone who is of the opposing view to yourself.

You cannot be taken seriously when you simply choose to second-guess people who disagree with you by countering points we have not made.
I already said that my issue is not with the academic papers in themselves, its you abuse of their message that is faulty. See above. You fail to grasp what these papers are saying.

If I misread you fine if not then you believe these findings cannot be generalised from one group to another and therefore show no understanding of how theory works.

Again with the second guessing. This is the second instance whereby you have countered this argument in response to me, despite the fact that I have never put forward this argument

His use of it. The term has been a form of racist abuse for donkey's years, if he thought it was ok to use it even in casual conversation, in a context where either journalists would here it or it could be reported to them, then he clearly does not recognise the connotations.

Enda Kenny was remarking (in private company) on the irony of a black man denigrating Patrice Lamumba by calling him the n-word in the company of white men, and making a statement about what this says may say about African politics.
Your failure to take account of this and actually use it to accuse FG of racism is symptomatic of your incapacity to recognise genuine cases of racism that you display throughout your posts on this thread.

Thank you. You see you've made the argument for me. First look at post 36 I started demonstrating travellers being a separate group:

This is the third instance of baseless second guessing.
Look, I have never countered the issue of travellers being entitled to classification as a unique ethnic group. Why are you wasting your own time, mine as a reader, and everyone's time who read that post, in countering something that is not up for argument, at least on my behalf To make it all the more ridiculous, it's the second time that diatribe appeared in the thread word-for-word so hardly needed to be repeated wholsale - it's very offputting for anyone trying to muddle their way through your replies - which already suffer from a lack of clarity.

Next I answered much of your substantive point So Olivia Mitchell is proposing the removal of the central element of traveller ethnicity, traveller identity, an imposition of settled identity on them.

No, No, No...
What Fine Gael were proposing, as was described in the articles you linked to were

1. The removal of travellers from makeshift camps with no facilities, to halting sites with permanent facilities on specifically designated council lands
2. The introduction of legislation to protect against trespassing onto private property as an encouragement for travellers to take up halting site accommodation; to be secured by way of a Pivate Member's Bill

This position is backed up by the 1963 and 1983 reports I alluded to earlier and which you woud do well to familiarise yourself with.

To qualify your claim that the above legislation would remove the right to a nomadic lifestyle, you must substantiate it thoroughly.
You have put forward no evidence to support your claim that halting sites and trespass legislation abolish the right to a nomadic lifestyle.
Furthermore you have put forward no evidence to support the claim that should halting sites infringe upon the right o a nomadic lifestyle, that this was the stated intent of Olivia Mitchell, and that it therefore constitutes genocidal behaviour.

I would out it to you that halting sites are simply a matter of facilities and since a contract of permanent or longterm residence is not a pe-requisite to any residence therein, nobody is tied to them. A resident may pursue a nomadic lifestyle after being situated there for two, six, twelve, or eighteen months or any variation of such time as he or she chooses.

Unless there is a clause of permanent residency which a traveller may not legally contravene, then you have no case in implying the abolition of the right to freedom of movement. The Private Members Bill, for certain, required that no such clause be enforced.

You yourself have indicated that she proposed permanent accomadation which would erode their separate ethnic identity.

Permanent accommodation does not equal enforced permanent residency. It just means that the halting site is a permanent fixture which cannot be taken with them when they leave.

By all means go ahead but put them in a new thread as this one is about FG and otherwise you'd be off topic. However it is always a useful exercise to demonstrate parties indulging in racism, so I eagerly await your new thread.

Again, you're not reading replies. The point is not that Labour are racist, the pint is that your criteria for defining racist policies are so hazy and loose that things like Labours rejection of statutory rights for asylum seekers as proposed by Fine Gael, and a Labour councillor's opposition to halting sites in South Dublin could easily be put forward as racist policies. This belies a credibity issue with your criteria and the very foundations of your posts.

Furthermore I would add, any serious assessment of policy that claims to be objective ought to take full account of policy. In that respect, it ought to balance what might be seen as negative attitudes to diversity, human rights and race with positive attitudes to diversity, human rights, and race.
By focusing solely on negative stories and failing to balance it with Fine Gael motions such as statutory rights for asylum seekers and other inclusionist policies, you show yourself to be operating with a clear bias and incapable of approaching the issue from an objective point of view.

That's fine by me, but where a bias exists it ought to be identified.

I'll even give you a head start. The first thing you do is go into LEXISNEXIS's newspaper archive (they give a representative sample http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/auth/bridge.do?rand=0.7347152226413399) and search for key terms. From your point of view Labour, immigration, Asylum seeker are a good starting point, you add the date range, you seem to have a fair idea of that yourself. Don't forget to indicate you're looking for Irish sources. You then filter this sample by reading them to remove irrelevant ones.
You now have your sample read through them again manually looking for keywords or phrases, taking careful note of what context they are used in and the ideology behind them.
Finally construct your argument like I did looking for free versions of the articles.

Please don't embarrass yourself with this kind of self-congratulations. Your arguments are muddy, lack coherency, and a logical approach to substantiating and making claims. Most people are well aware of how to use electronic databases and I suggest that you learn to do so that you might finally bring some admissible evidence to your case.

truebluedub wrote: »

The most important article in this regard is a whistle-blowing FG member’s (Michael Smith) comments to the Irish Independent (July 22 2006)

Wrong. Michael Smith was not a member of Fine Gael. How can you expect to be taken seriously with a fundamental error like that?

While Sean Barrett, who was referred to in this same article was open with the money Dunlop had given him, he was still under the influence of Dunlop which while not corrupt is a matter of concern.

To whom? That's empty speculation, going nowhere unless you do something to give it some weight

The important point here is that there is evidence provided by a member of FG that corruption was endemic.

FFS Smith was not in Fine Gael. Whats more he accepted that allegations of corruption may have been an attempt at character assasination when cross examined - link:

PAUL CULLEN. 2006. Monahan 'boasted about bribes' :Environmentalist says developer told him he was paying councillors to rezone Mahon tribunal. The Irish Times (1874-Current File), July 14,

In fairness to Enda Kenny he has been quick to respond to instances of corruption, however it is clear that current and former party members do not share Mr. Kenny’s scruples. His predecessor John Bruton for example procrastinated over sacking Lowry.

What are you talking abut? Bruton told him bluntly that he was finished with Fine Gael. There was unanimity and it pervades. Michael Noonan also refused to ever consider the repatriation of Lowry into the party again. Alan Shatter also came out publicly and repudiated such suggestions.
In 2000, Fine Gael called on the Governemnt to introduce legislation requiring all politicians to provide evidence of tax compliance. Is an f this really indicative of a corrupt party?

This clearly reflects an attitude among some FG people that Lowry’s unscrupulous actions were right.

No. It is the recognition that once his tax affairs are in order and continue to be, it is alright to admit that he might actually be a good representative, even if this has not always been the case. He tops the poll in North Tipperary consistently, which would seem to endorse his popularity and abilities significantly.

Who funds FG? SIPO’s website (http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/AnnualDisclosures/DisclosurebyPoliticalParties/)indicate FG has not revealed its funding sources in the last three years, this is separate from individual TD’s, many of whom have had the integrity to do so most recently Lucinda Creichton, James Reilly and Simon Coveny.

Fine Gael is fully comliant with disclosures as set down by standards in public office legislation. If you think they should disclose every single donation below the disclosure limit down as far as a few euro that's fine, but it really isn't related to corruption so, meh.

We know that in the past FG has along with FF and Labour been in the pockets of Larry Goodman (Understanding corruption in Irish politics, by Neil Collins, Mary O'Shea Cork University Press, 2000 pages 23-5). In the absence of funding disclosures how can we believe that they are not still up to their old tricks? Backing the vested interests of corporate donors.

That means nothing. Labour could well be getting twenty donations of 4,000 euro each, for example and not be disclosing it. Just because they are disclosing some information, doesn't mean that's the whole story. You could say the same about any party so the above is irrelevant to your argument.

Your whole argument, your entire contribution, is a load of rubbish and a wasted read. You never prove anything, you rely on shaky principle to establish facts that cannot then be deemed credible, your information is often uninformed or inaccurate. You forget to make links and conclusions. It's messy. It's all just empty political spin that's badly dressed up in fact.

Chris Lowe

OK firstly treat me gently I'm a newbie to this thread it strikes me that neither the OP or some of the subsequent the posters are objective. I'm not saying that anything is wrong with subjectivity I'm just giving my opinion.
In regards to infronts comments to truebluedub about not connecting the article mentioned at the opening of the first post to subsequent points she made I'd have to agree and I'm a sociology postgraduate specialising in the sociology of the media and audience reception admittedly in reference to popular culture. I mean she seems to be trying to emulate the article but if she was serious about it she would have matched elements of her articles to the 5 frames she mentions so from a sociological point of view her argument is at best incomplete, she claims to be developing a theoretical framework but does not connect theory and data. At best she is lazy at worst dishonest.
Also I note she's been attempting to discredit other posters by clinging to science, neglecting to mention that sociology is a social science and she is referring to qualitative methodologies which are far more interpretive then the hard sciences. While obviously sociological theories are valid it is wrong to use them in a deliberate attempt to chill debate. Or use them in a way that does not engage with the topic that she claims to be tackling, these theories are a lens through which we can view the social world if, and only if, used appropriately.

Chris Lowe,
Phd Candidate,
Dept. of Sociology,
NUI Maynooth.

Pride Fighter

No I dont trust them. Looking at their past history it is a bit creepy. Richard Mulcahy murdered a lot of anti-treaty prisoners and Fine Gael were allies to Hitler, Mussolini and Franco in the Spanish Civil war.

I'd prefer FF over the blueshirts and I really hate FF.

meglome

Pride Fighter wrote: »

No I dont trust them. Looking at their past history it is a bit creepy. Richard Mulcahy murdered a lot of anti-treaty prisoners and Fine Gael were allies to Hitler, Mussolini and Franco in the Spanish Civil war.

I'd prefer FF over the blueshirts and I really hate FF.

Well in a thread of ridiculous, tenuous and simply made-up justifications for not voting Fine Gael your post fits in nicely.

truebluedub

I’ll deal with Chris Lowe first since his claims are the most damaging. You set your self up with some kind of expertise in the media, misrepresenting yourself. I assume this is you

12. Lowe, Chris
Pilgrims to Fictional(ised) Spaces: Media themed places of spectacle and fandom in Ireland.
The aim of this research is to gain a sociological understanding of locations themed around media products and the fans (and aficionados) who visit them. This will be examined within the Irish context using several cases. Supervisor: Eamonn Slater; Second Supervisor: Aphra Kerr

http://sociology.nuim.ie/documents/Researchpostgradslist08_000.doc
Your expertise is fans don’t pretend otherwise. Also actually read my posts, I'm giving people the tools to reach their own conclusions not imposing my views.

InFront wrote: »

There is little point in my asking you if you are still reading replies because it is evident that you are not. Either that or you are not actually reading the articles you link to.
Again, the above article does not analyse media outputs for racist discourse on asylum seekers, it analyses negative discourse on asylum seekers. Doing so in the context of discussing racism still does not make the media output racist. This would be evident to any reasonable, logically thinking individual.
Do you have a specific reason for putting forward this research, given that you wish to discuss racist discourse as opposed to negative discourse? There are many more relevant academic papers out there which lay out specific methods in measuring racist discourse and are not difficult to come across. I've listed some examples below.
Jackson, R. Religious Education's Representation of 'Religions' and 'Cultures'. (1995) The Society for Educational Studies. Available from JSTOR
Brewer, J.D. 'Competing Understandings of Common Sense Understanding: A Brief Comment on 'Common Sense Racism''. (1984) The British Journal of Sociology Available from JSTOR

You fail to achieve anything in your posts firstly by failing to align your arguments to the academic papers you link to.
Secondly, where you do make an (albeit unsubstantiated) point of reference, you abandon it almost entirely: In your original post, you described your 'method' in measuring racism and then dropped it, barely even referring to it again in your post and thereby failing to give it structure.

The problem with ethnic stereotyping is of course that we find it difficult to see beyond the generalisation, to the individual. Ethnic stereotyping is therefore concomitant of ethic prejudice and supports racism.

p. 6

News-values encourage the use of stereotypes, which are familiar and recognisable to people; they make articles easy to read and relevant. Niall Crowley (1992: 97), director of Ireland’s Equality Authority and formerly of the Irish Traveller Movement, laments the media’s tendency to adopt conventional prejudices:
“No statistics, no comparisons, ... no analysis of media reporting ... The media is a key institution for the transmission of racist stereotypes .... consciously or unconsciously”.
Conclusion
News values transform fact into story, objective reality into symbolic reality. This symbolic reality tends to focus upon spontaneity, action, superficiality and negativity. It often excludes minority opinion and gives voice to those with wealth and status. The simplification of complex situations is encouraged. Stereotypical perceptions of situations and people are emphasised. It is within this context that the media, however unconsciously, may perpetuate racism.

pp. 8-9
Conclusion: The Limits of Xenophobia
Analysis of negative representations of displaced persons in the English-speaking press internationally, supports the existence of five key frames. Each frame has been found to consist of a variety of related narratives and devices. However, all of these negative frames share in common their contribution to the ‘othering’ of asylum seekers and refugees. They maintain, rather than reduce, the social distance between the national readership and displaced persons. Asylum seekers and refugees are constructed as ‘other’ through their representation as a threat -fraudsters, con-artists, drug-dealers, sexual deviants, barbarians, carriers of disease and extremists in the dominant negative discourses. The homogenised in-group is, in turn, unified by the common threat of cultural, social and economic annihilation by the invading ‘other’ and through the provision of a powerless scapegoat for a range of economic and social ills.
Despite the enormous diversity of the group in question, we would argue that the stereotyping and scapegoating of asylum seekers and refugees does represent their racialisation; racist stereotypes commonly invoke “fantasies related to dirt, danger, deviance, and crime” (O’Connell, 1997). Certainly, xenophobia – if we are to define it in terms of fear of the unknown – is an insufficient basis for interpreting the public’s increasing racism towards asylum seekers and refugees. It is clear that the public are provided with very definite characterisations of displaced persons.
Negative frames heighten the newsworthiness of the topic by facilitating narratives which meet a wide range of news values - an egocentric focus on we the elite nations, the comforting familiarity of stereotypical depictions of and unambiguous positions on the divisions between
occident and orient, the negativity of the threat itself, the completeness of this threat given its relevance to cultural, social and economic scarcity, and the intensity of the imminent danger - its immutability reflected in references to flood, tides, and waves.
The otherness of asylum seekers/refugees is emphasised through the reinforcement of a homogenous national identity. Appeals to a sense of unity based on the shared legal protection of citizenship and an unquestioned entitlement to resources and opportunities are bolstered through reference to assumed social and cultural homogeneity – arguably evidence that our own racialisation and the suppression of diversity within the in-group, is also part of this ‘othering’ process.
In summary, it is our contention that dominant negative discourses regarding asylum seekers and refugees act to perpetuate and advance the social distance between ‘us’ and ‘them’. Moreover, we view this ‘othering’ process as rooted in the devices of stereotyping and scapegoating. These feed a sense of common threat, which in its creation of a sense of both tantalising danger and comforting unity is perceived as highly saleable. We argue that such constructions embody many key news values, producing profitable negativity. Moreover, the highly excluded and powerless position of the subjects facilitate the lazy journalism of stereotypes and myths.[/quote] pp. 12-3
As you can see it does support my points that these frames are core elements of racism within discourse. I would say pot, kettle, black but that would imply I hadn't read it.

InFront wrote: »

Wrong. Michael Smith was not a member of Fine Gael. How can you expect to be taken seriously with a fundamental error like that?To whom? That's empty speculation, going nowhere unless you do something to give it some weight

FFS Smith was not in Fine Gael. Whats more he accepted that allegations of corruption may have been an attempt at character assasination when cross examined - link:

Fine, I made a mistake I'm not infallible, I've edit the post accordingly just I always do when someone demonstrates a genuine mistake or oversight. Must be a good feeling after stalking me across several threads for questioning your beloved GL to finally be able to call me on something. How about you remove inaccurate info on the dole thread?
Liam Byrne, I put news articles up and let them speak for themselves that is not putting words in their mouths now withdraw thos comments or I’ll report you.
So, the Village is supposed to have access to information from the appeal before the appeal happened. You seem to have followed the case and so should know full well that Ward’s record only entered the public domain after the trial.
Shooting a wounded man in the back, after incapacitating him isn’t execution style news to me.

irish_bob

truebluedub wrote: »

Show me one case when I put words into anyones mouth otherwise withdraw that comment.



LexisNexis is an online newspaper archive, which allows access to many articles not otherwise available on the internet. Interestingly you suggest that I didn't do the very thing which I refer to in my post

If you're too lazy to read the post why bother responding, you only discredit yourself. Where do you think I got the examples from, think your points through.

Wasn't I the one to point out that Smith was a Fine Gael whistle-blower pointing out the level of corruption in his own party?What did they do with the internal inquiry? Sweet f.a.

I assume from this you condone shooting a wounded man execution style in the back. Enjoy Government with SF they seem perfect for you. Also how about the stats to back that up the decrease in figures because in court we find that:

http://www.village.ie/Society/Travellers/Enda_Kenny_and_the_racist_media_campaign_against_Travellers/
To contextualise a working definition of corruption.

as regards padgraid nally shooting that tinker who was persecuting him , if you knew anything about tinkers you would know that you never take on one tinker , not only would the burglar have been back , he would have been back with about 20 of his cousins

is_that_so

Chris Lowe wrote: »

OK firstly treat me gently I'm a newbie to this thread it strikes me that neither the OP or some of the subsequent the posters are objective. I'm not saying that anything is wrong with subjectivity I'm just giving my opinion.
In regards to infronts comments to truebluedub about not connecting the article mentioned at the opening of the first post to subsequent points she made I'd have to agree and I'm a sociology postgraduate specialising in the sociology of the media and audience reception admittedly in reference to popular culture. I mean she seems to be trying to emulate the article but if she was serious about it she would have matched elements of her articles to the 5 frames she mentions so from a sociological point of view her argument is at best incomplete, she claims to be developing a theoretical framework but does not connect theory and data. At best she is lazy at worst dishonest.
Also I note she's been attempting to discredit other posters by clinging to science, neglecting to mention that sociology is a social science and she is referring to qualitative methodologies which are far more interpretive then the hard sciences. While obviously sociological theories are valid it is wrong to use them in a deliberate attempt to chill debate. Or use them in a way that does not engage with the topic that she claims to be tackling, these theories are a lens through which we can view the social world if, and only if, used appropriately.

Chris Lowe,
Phd Candidate,
Dept. of Sociology,
NUI Maynooth.

Welcome. I don't think anyone denies the expertise that you or anyone else cited by truebluedub has. It is the absurd and bewildering links that they have invited us to make without making a reasonable case in favour of their own position.

Liam Byrne

truebluedub wrote: »

Liam Byrne, I put news articles up and let them speak for themselves that is not putting words in their mouths now withdraw thos comments or I’ll report you.

From your VERY first post:

truebluedub wrote: »

there are several verifiable examples of racism coming from FG. This racism is aimed at two groups travelers and immigrants.

That is NOT letting the articles speak for themselves, especially when the articles contain ABSOLUTELY ZERO BASIS from which to imply that FF were being racist.

You "put words in their mouths" in the sense that you attempted to make their words appear to be implying something that they obviously weren't. In their own context, the articles could be read as meant; by starting with your intro line (re-quoted above - in particular your use of the phrase "verifiable examples of racism") it was obvious what you were attempting to do.

If you - or the mods - want me to phrase that slightly differently or more appropriately, that's not a problem with me; but that's what you did and that's what I meant.

truebluedub wrote: »

So, the Village is supposed to have access to information from the appeal before the appeal happened. You seem to have followed the case and so should know full well that Ward’s record only entered the public domain after the trial.

:rolleyes: Anything that I quoted in response to the Village article was taken directly from the article, so anything that I posted was known at the time they wrote the article. :rolleyes:

truebluedub wrote: »

Shooting a wounded man in the back, after incapacitating him isn’t execution style news to me.

I was under the impression that executions involved blindfolding people, standing them against a wall with their hands tied behind their back, and shooting them.

But the above is partially irrelevant and off-topic because you ducking the relevant part of the question : if it weren't a traveller, would you have the same view ? Would you be defending him ?

This is MAJORLY relevant to the thread, because you're banging on about racism.

While our views may differ, the FACT is that I would apply the above logic, morals and opinion to ANYONE who was trespassing with intent to steal and be a threat.

So if this was a typical scumbag, would you defend them ? i.e. would you treat EVERYONE in the above scenario in the exact same way ? Regardless of nationality, ethnic background, colour, etc ?

So answer that question so that we can see if this is even relevant to the thread. We can have a debate about the Nally case itself elsewhere, but the main point here is that the Nally case has nothing to do with racism.

And furthermore, implying that there's another "racist" angle to Kenny because he thought that Nally got a raw deal is a joke! Yes, he wanted the same outcome as the racist tabloids but for different reasons.....much like a Barcelona fan and an ABU wanted the same result last night, but for different reasons. Does that make all ABUs suddenly Barcelona fans ?

is_that_so

truebluedub wrote: »

I’ll deal with Chris Lowe first since his claims are the most damaging. You set your self up with some kind of expertise in the media, misrepresenting yourself. I assume this is you
http://sociology.nuim.ie/documents/Researchpostgradslist08_000.doc
Your expertise is fans don’t pretend otherwise. Also actually read my posts, I'm giving people the tools to reach their own conclusions not imposing my views.

I have no doubt that he can defend himself but your own position as an "expert" to date appears to have been predicated on your ability to search through a variety of online sources. This is not debate nor does it validate your own position. It is also a bit disingenuous to dismiss an individual who might have a good understanding and real knowledge of the research you quote. You have really offered no tools whatsoever beyond read what I have read and you will understand. Whilst enlightenment is always welcome there is no core at the heart of what you have attempted to present here to allow us move towards that "enlightenment". And my own link to science Relevance Theory.

The central claim of relevance theory is that the expectations of relevance raised by an utterance are precise enough, and predictable enough, to guide the hearer towards the speaker’s meaning.

Whilst it refers to utterances or speech I suspect it is appropriate here.

Chris Lowe

Thanks for the support is_that_so.

Truebluedub - please remove my email address from your post.

truebluedub wrote: »

I’ll deal with Chris Lowe first since his claims are the most damaging.

Ah, sweet flattery. But other posters deserve more credit for damaging your arguments, yourself included.

As for my "expertise" my research is on fans of media products who go to themed spaces associated with those media products, and the interaction between the space, fans and texts. This necessitates familiarity with theories of the media, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to call it expertise.

If I was misrepresenting myself why would I have signed my post, giving my name and position within the sociology department?

Chris Lowe,
Phd Candidate,
Dept. of Sociology,
NUI Maynooth.

oscarBravo

Chris Lowe wrote: »

Truebluedub - please remove my email address from your post.

I've just done so - truebluedub, don't post anyone's contact details on this website without their explicit permission.

InFront

truebluedub wrote: »

As you can see it does support my points that these frames are core elements of racism within discourse. I would say pot, kettle, black but that would imply I hadn't read it.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Truebluedub you're wrong. Why don't you just quote a paper that expicitly studies racist trends in media output. I'm not going to get into trying to align that article (which has nothing actually wrong with it) with your somewhat different approach. The reason largely is that you don't seem to care.
You began with this article as the basis of establishing trends in FG, but then never actually get around to referring back to the article anyway.. it's a joke!

You've completely ignored to substantiate how permanent halting site facilities aboish the right to freedom of movement, and thereafter to substantiate how Olivia Mitchell's support for trespass legislation and halting sites is an indictment of genocide. You can't be taken seriously

Fine, I made a mistake I'm not infallible, I've edit the post accordingly just I always do when someone demonstrates a genuine mistake or oversight. Must be a good feeling after stalking me across several threads for questioning your beloved GL to finally be able to call me on something. How about you remove inaccurate info on the dole thread?

Stalking You're the one googling CHris Lowe here.
I think I've debated with you in two threads in total on boards? Have there been three? I use boards almost daily and always reply to threads pertaining to Dublin South, Fine Gael and Irish Parliamentary Politics. Rest assured, you are not being "stalked".

When you post an article about "endemic" corruption in Fine Gael, and call it your most relevant article, and then it transpires that the basic facts you garner from it are totally incorrect (MS is not a member of the party) then expect to get called up on it. The MichaelSmith case is the fundamental basis of the Mahon Tribunal and if you don't bother familiarising yourself with it, or getting the basic facts right, your posts can be afforded little to no credibility.

truebluedub

Every time (2 or 3 now)I've made a factually inaccurate statement I have corrected them when it has been pointed out to me, for example the misreading of an article which led me to incorrectly label an FF politician as a FG politician with standards.
The fact is most of my arguments remain intact.