Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lisbon: Equal airtime abolished by BCI
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Hitler was elected in '33 because of the Reichstag Fire Decree (a result of them burning the Reichstag and blaming the communists) , which allowed hitler to have the leaders of other parties arrested.
A lack of a free debate and campaigning before the election was the reason he was elected.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=Q8L42KtTrw0C&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76"... the parties program remained vague, and it was above all Hitler's personal party. It was in all probability the figure of the Fuhrer himself, promising strong and charismatic leadership, that caused people to freely give their vote to the Nazis ..."
why does reading the above make me think of Declan G and Libertas?
oh yes how can one forget Caroline Simons famous quote
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0602/1224247881520.htmlIt concerned a fire at the party’s office on Dublin’s Baggot Street. “The cause is unknown,” said the breathless release, which quoted the party’s Dublin candidate Caroline Simons as “shocked that something like this would happen. The basement of our office building is on fire. I hope that this is not the action of some political crank. I know the political establishment are against us, but this is highly unusual. If this fire is found to be the action of an opposing political party – we will seek prosecutions. Fires are dangerous things.”0 -
-
-
Lies, lies, about the No Vote, go ahead and Vote yes, and then get ready for the new fascist goverment that's at the power of Brussels. We were blinded and duped into going into the EEC in the first hand. The ordianry people of Ireland got nothing out of the millions of pounds that came into Ireland. But the powers who held goverment at the time, thats were the money went to. What did the goverment do with all the money, please show me ?
Our fisherman have lost the fishing livinghood around this island, ask them if they got any money from the EEC...
There are several thousands employed in the department of fishery, when the commercial fishing industry is almost gone from these shores. Why do we have a minister of fishery in the first place? costing the country money. Wake up?
Lets get real, the present goverment here, are no more than message boys and girls for
the wasteful dossiers of Brussels. They give no account on there expences, so why do you want the irish people vote yes? For what?
It's a fact, the people don't trust who's in power today, and why these dossiers, want the people to vote yes, amazes the heck out of me.
Where are the articles of the Lisbon treaty, why have they not been published in all newspapers. Why are the people of Ireland not been showing what the benifits, and cons of this treaty. Again our goverment wants to hide the real issues that are at hand, of not publishing the pro's and con's, like they did in the last several years of the downturn in the economy of the country...
The people vote No, cause they have no trust, and they did not believe the goverment,
thats why?
The party is over Boys,
Wake up !
thank god we dont have to give equal airtime here on boards
the above poster just confirmed and highlighted the arguments made in this thread
all while managing to blurb out a bunch of "lies" that have nothing to do with Lisbon
now im gonna go have a shower, i feel dirty after reading the above post :rolleyes:0 -
thank god we dont have to give equal airtime here on boards
the above poster just confirmed and highlighted the arguments made in this thread
all while managing to blurb out a bunch of "lies" that have nothing to do with Lisbon
now im gonna go have a shower, i feel dirty after reading the above post :rolleyes:
Taking it slightly more seriously - would most people say that the view above deserves to be treated exactly the same as any other view on Lisbon?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Can you delve a little bit deeper into the "centralization of power article", i want to know more and we can have a lively debate
Don't want to drag this off-topic, but I'll most likely end up mentioning it on another thread at some stage in which case I'll go into more detail. I'll be only too happy to debate it.
Media are product/service if you dont like Fox news does it mean you are forced to watch it? Theres plenty of debate on Lisbon on the internet (media) which caters for a wide spectrum of opinions from tinfoil hatters to more refined debates like we have here on boards.
When media are a private product/service then fine, they are entitled to be as biased as they like. Even though a newspaper should (ideally) always try to be impartial, fair and unbiased in reporting the facts, and should encourage balanced debate... by virtue of the fact they are private, and we have a choice to pay or not, they are entitled to put their own slant on things.
RTE is a public service though. They are not entitled to start taking sides, especially over a referendum. They should be legally obliged to give a 50/50 split. This isn't some silly, minor issue... it is something that is going to help define the shape of Europe in the future. Both sides deserve the chance to demonstrate their points of view. The quality of the people representing each side, and the validity of their arguments is a seperate issue altogether.0 -
RTE is a public service though. They are not entitled to start taking sides, especially over a referendum. They should be legally obliged to give a 50/50 split. This isn't some silly, minor issue... it is something that is going to help define the shape of Europe in the future. Both sides deserve the chance to demonstrate their points of view. The quality of the people representing each side, and the validity of their arguments is a seperate issue altogether.
But why are RTE a drain on the public? If i had it my way I would detach RTE from the public tit and let them float (or sink) on their own
as I already mentioned TV license is a bad joke and they make money from ads as well, not to mention paying crazy salaries to bad presenters, tho thats a whole other thread
You speak as if RTE will prevent the NO side from participating altogether, now that would be wrong! and not fair
The artificial restriction last year gave airtime more than they deserve to extreme parties with extreme views (see parallel threads today about SF and Garda murderers) whats even more scary is that people fell for some of these "nuts"
actually knowing RTE they would still try to balance things, for example Question and Answers, as some of these "weights" such as M Lou are rather entertaining to watch for some0 -
-
-
-
That's really saying something, don't you think? You think that there is a legitimate argument to be made against this treaty, but you can't think of anyone who could properly articulate your argument?
It's a pity isn't it.
Those are the "best", suitably-known public figures I can think of. Other people like Patricia McKenna, Gerry Adams... well, who's going to listen to them? Declan Ganley was the closest thing the "no" side had to someone who could actually speak. Well, Joe Higgins is quite a good speaker on occasion, but the other two... nope.
I do feel there is a very legitimate argument for the "no" side, and I even feel there is a legitimate argument for the "yes" side - I do see positives in the Lisbon Treaty. However, those are not arguments we're getting mostly presented.
I watched Nightly News a few weeks back, and they had some guy on, can't remember his name - and he was trying to explain why we should vote yes - all I heard was crap. "Enhances democracy", "heart of Europe" blah blah blah... no actual reasons. However, the "yes" side are able to articulate rubbish like that far better, and make it sound valid, so I'll give them credit.
The "yes" campaign is also lucky to have the newspapers nearly universally in favour of it. That means you have the benefit of well thought out editorial pieces. Off the point slightly, but thought I'd mention it.
The "no" campaign needs somebody knowledgeable and well-spoken to spearhead the effort and participate in debates, somebody who can pick the flaws in the "yes" side's arguments. Because I don't think many of "yes" side public figures actually understand how the treaty works or what it's about beyond the soundbites. Who this mythical person may be... I really don't know sadly.
Until we get someone like that, we are almost destined to lose this campaign. "No" figures and "yes" figures will continue to have soundbite arguments... and I think the "yes" side will come out on top on that basis.
But it doesn't change my original point... both sides should be given 50/50. Few of the people debating this issue on TV have any real quality on either of the sides to be quite frank. But if the public are gonna make their opinion based on soundbites, they should at least get an equal share of soundbites from each side.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement