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
DCU to rejoin USI, your thoughts?
Options
Comments
-
-
I wish this thread was a poll, I could see who was on each side without having to read the whole thing then.
I am voting no & from what I can tell from those I have spoken to, the first year nurses are not going to go out of their way to come in while on placement to vote.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Those videos are just as biased as the RTE coverage they lambaste. :rolleyes:
As for "I have been on roughly 15 of such type protests and never once have I seen a protestor start the violence" line, setting aside who "started" the violence, does that mean that any protester should continue it? No.
As for the voting issue, can someone on the No side please get a nicer website together please?
Sidenote, the No side should put this on their website too. Hopefully it should discourage people from voting Yes.0 -
-
-
-
-
Well call me paranoid, but I would say that on the basis that this guy is leading the Yes-To-USI campaign in DCU that he has some bias on the matter.
Well then you're paranoid Could the author have a bias? Yes. But that's not the issue. It's whether the article itself is.As for the content of the article; it sets opens with a trumpeting of USI and its past successes...
It opens by highlighting the USI's history - the only aspect of it I would call 'trumpeting of USI' is the line about fees in 1998. Just because you disagree with USI, doesn't mean that the organisation hasn't merit. It's a fact of history that a lot of prominent individuals have been involved with it over the years.sets up a number of reasons that DCU left USI- but the details given distort the importance of the various issues at the time and on these issues the article has a number of very significant inaccuracies; and then on each these points the article argues why these issues have been dealt with and are no longer relevant.
Such as? If there were significant (perhaps misleadingly) inaccuracies in the piece, did you seek to have them corrected? Did you contact the College View, or Journalism Society, or even the SLC to dispute the piece?and then on each these points the article argues why these issues have been dealt with and are no longer relevant.
No it doesn't. It clearly shows that Northern Irish universities and the structure of USI [and it's officer payment] are still issues that need addressing. What happened with USIT, no one could have foreseen - but it does go to show just how much money USI is willing to waste. As for the part about finances, as I said, if what was written was incorrect [and I'm not claiming it is or isn't] - did you, or anyone, do anything about it?It is an entirely biased article. It was grossly dishonest of the College View to publish such an article without labeling it as an opinion piece, providing an alternative point of view or flagging the author's (past and present) affiliations and biases.
It wasn't an opinion piece, not even close to one. To call it such is just an attempt to distract from/dismiss its content. It is an information feature detailing USI. Should there have been opinion with it? God yes - there should have been a con and pro side to it; opposing viewpoints from both sides, if only to make it mildly interesting. Though I do agree with you that the author's background should have been noted.As for people opposing USI being negative and unsympathetic, I would have thought that came with the territory of opposing USI affiliation.
Again, I ask why? USI's problems are pretty straightforward - there isn't a need to come out always on the attack or negatively. If the "No" side do so, then they can easily be dismissed. Highlighting the serious issues that USI has in a calm and collective way will be more effective at attracting support; lets see if the "Yes" campaign can actually counter them - realistically they can't, all they can do is point were improvements have been made [and to USI's credit, it has made some changes though not nearly enough] and hark on about what USI membership could mean.
The referendum will come down to which side can overcome the most student apathy - from my own personal experience talking to people, very few people from outside the shell that is student politics in DCU actually care about USI or this referendum.There is no need for us to offer an alternative to USI. We are saying that the status quo is better.
Maintaining the status quo is an alternative to USI I wish to god that the DCUSU were just better/more visible when it comes to doing things then they currently are; I mean no offence to those involved in the SU but everything from them comes across as lacklustre. The recent protest march was the perfect opportunity for them to show that DCU students don't need USI.Personally I think if USI reformed, became a lower budget organisation and offered more to students than it currently does, then it might be worth joining.
Agreed.Btw nice to see a new user joining in this discussion. I see that you joined Boards.ie this month and that the above is your first post.
I was reading this thread and your comment peaked my interest enough to actually register so I could take issue with it. People find bias all the time in content that doesn't conform to their view of things and just because they do, doesn't mean it's actually there. I take issue with some of the wording of the piece in question, and I agree with you that the topic could have been dealt with in a better way, but to claim its an opinion piece and completely one-sided is ridiculous. Again, if this is an example of how the "No" side will conduct its campaign next week, then I'm seriously worried that they'll just end up aliening people and handing things over to the "Yes" side and USI.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Well then you're paranoid Could the author have a bias? Yes. But that's not the issue. It's whether the article itself is.
It opens by highlighting the USI's history - the only aspect of it I would call 'trumpeting of USI' is the line about fees in 1998. Just because you disagree with USI, doesn't mean that the organisation hasn't merit. It's a fact of history that a lot of prominent individuals have been involved with it over the years.
Such as? If there were significant (perhaps misleadingly) inaccuracies in the piece, did you seek to have them corrected? Did you contact the College View, or Journalism Society, or even the SLC to dispute the piece?
No it doesn't. It clearly shows that Northern Irish universities and the structure of USI [and it's officer payment] are still issues that need addressing. What happened with USIT, no one could have foreseen - but it does go to show just how much money USI is willing to waste. As for the part about finances, as I said, if what was written was incorrect [and I'm not claiming it is or isn't] - did you, or anyone, do anything about it?
It wasn't an opinion piece, not even close to one. To call it such is just an attempt to distract from/dismiss its content. It is an information feature detailing USI. Should there have been opinion with it? God yes - there should have been a con and pro side to it; opposing viewpoints from both sides, if only to make it mildly interesting. Though I do agree with you that the author's background should have been noted.
Again, I ask why? USI's problems are pretty straightforward - there isn't a need to come out always on the attack or negatively. If the "No" side do so, then they can easily be dismissed. Highlighting the serious issues that USI has in a calm and collective way will be more effective at attracting support; lets see if the "Yes" campaign can actually counter them - realistically they can't, all they can do is point were improvements have been made [and to USI's credit, it has made some changes though not nearly enough] and hark on about what USI membership could mean.
The referendum will come down to which side can overcome the most student apathy - from my own personal experience talking to people, very few people from outside the shell that is student politics in DCU actually care about USI or this referendum.
Maintaining the status quo is an alternative to USI I wish to god that the DCUSU were just better/more visible when it comes to doing things then they currently are; I mean no offence to those involved in the SU but everything from them comes across as lacklustre. The recent protest march was the perfect opportunity for them to show that DCU students don't need USI.
Agreed.
I was reading this thread and your comment peaked my interest enough to actually register so I could take issue with it. People find bias all the time in content that doesn't conform to their view of things and just because they do, doesn't mean it's actually there. I take issue with some of the wording of the piece in question, and I agree with you that the topic could have been dealt with in a better way, but to claim its an opinion piece and completely one-sided is ridiculous. Again, if this is an example of how the "No" side will conduct its campaign next week, then I'm seriously worried that they'll just end up aliening people and handing things over to the "Yes" side and USI.
Hi SyrngeR6. I’m not a current student. I happened to be on campus for work reasons when I got a copy of the College View. I’m not inclined to contact the College View about this piece, but that doesn’t mean my criticisms of it are not valid. I was a student when we dis-affiliated from USI, indeed I represented DCU the last time they attend USI Congress. I was later an officer with DCUSU and saw some very poor work by USI that year and since. The article makes no references to the multiple gaffes and scandals that have led DCUSU to keep its distance from USI since then. Nor does it reference the manner in which USI has piece by piece shut dis-affiliates out of its activities.
Aside from the bias in the article the reason it reads like an opinion piece in that it shows no evidence of investigation of DCU’s relationship with USI. For example there are no quotes from former officers of USI or DCUSU neither on the issues surrounding disaffiliation nor on the relationship in the years since.
BTW I hope you don’t mind me asking; are you a current DCU student, are you active in the SU, are you involved with the College View, are you involved in the Yes to USI campaign, have you been involved with USI either now or in the past?0 -
-
tomar-re wrote:Look I think we can agree that MR obvious troll is obvious.
Why?tomar-re wrote:Secondly does it really matter that a piece in the college view which is just CV padding anyway was wildly sparing with objectivity? The paper is crap and has been pushing an agenda for the last two years.
And what agenda is that? Cause if its USI, then show me where the CV has actually campaigned for DCU returning to USI? Looking at an important issue, isn't the same as endorsing it.tomar-re wrote:If the current editor was any good they would put in a retraction without having to be asked about having someone run a yes campaign writing that. Ah wait no that is steve too!
And what should they retract on? If you thought that the article was bias or contained misleading information, did YOU do anything about it? Did you send in a letter detailing its in inaccuracies. Did you contact Journo Soc expressing your concern about objectivity? Etc... Or did you just do nothing about it?tomar-re wrote:If you want to look for issues with the yes campaign then why were they asking the SU officers for feedback on the website that they designed?
I've no clue. Why don't you bring it up with the SU since they're suppose to be impartial in all this?tomar-re wrote:The no campaign are hitting the big issues the money and the €26k for national congress, the immovable rock that is USI's constitution, the fact no change has been made on the issues we left for and most importantly that USI were asleep at the wheel and let the reg fee move from €190 to €1500.
The yes campaign are talking about nightlinks(which DCU has 40,41N) and cheap condoms and better shag packs.
Good. If that's the best the "Yes" side have, then hopefully DCU wouldn't be rejoining USI any time soon. I was merely voicing my concern that the "No" side would be overly aggressive/negative in its campaign.monument wrote:The significant problem with the article is that it seems to have been written by a former USI officer but there was no disclosure of such.
That does not mean it was misleading, or inaccuracy. It may not have even broke any rules. But it most likely has lost The College View even some more trust on this issue.
There's also a wider conflict of interest issue of the newspaper's editor also running a campaign -- or part running, or even just talking about doing so.
No, the significant problem seem to be having with the article is that its clearly bias, a claim that no one as of yet has tried to back-up.
I completely agree that the author's background should have been noted.
Is there a conflict of interest? Has Steve used the CV to endorse DCU's return to USI? Because if he has, though I haven't seen it in the last two issues, well then that's surely a serious issue that should be taken to the Journo Soc committee.
On a personal note, I do think it is an error of judgment of him to involve himself in the "Yes" campaign; whatever his feelings on DCU rejoining USI, his role as editor of the CV should come with it a level of disconnect, if only to prevent questions about the CV's impartiality.monument wrote:Editorials are unquestionably opinion pieces.
Yes they are, but that's not the article people here were taking issue with. On the editorial, Steve does praise and attack the USI in equal measure.Aside from the bias in the article the reason it reads like an opinion piece in that it shows no evidence of investigation of DCU’s relationship with USI. For example there are no quotes from former officers of USI or DCUSU neither on the issues surrounding disaffiliation nor on the relationship in the years since.
Oh I agree that should have been there; ultimately it wasn't a good piece and had issues, I just don't believe absolute bias was one of them. Had there been other aspects [comment, head2head, news stories, etc...] accompanying it, then it would have actually been a much stronger spread and I don't think we'd been having this discussion - though as I said, people tend to find bias in that which they don't agree with. Trust me, got plenty of experience of thisBTW I hope you don’t mind me asking; are you a current DCU student, are you active in the SU, are you involved with the College View, are you involved in the Yes to USI campaign, have you been involved with USI either now or in the past?
No problem; yes, no, I was, god no, no and no.0 -
And what should they retract on? If you thought that the article was bias or contained misleading information, did YOU do anything about it? Did you send in a letter detailing its in inaccuracies. Did you contact Journo Soc expressing your concern about objectivity? Etc... Or did you just do nothing about it?
Why would anybody bother? What would it achieve? If people within a college publication don't see a problem them self they won't care what any letter writer says.
Just to add to this: There's a few who would care but even among those, they would already likely be up against an uphill struggle or just too busy to do anything.No, the significant problem seem to be having with the article is that its clearly bias, a claim that no one as of yet has tried to back-up.
I completely agree that the author's background should have been noted.
No, the main significant problem is a conflict of interest. It's from that conflict that some people here are claiming bias, but any reasonable person can't be blamed for thinking there may be bias given that conflict and the unwillingness to note that conflict from the outset.Is there a conflict of interest? Has Steve used the CV to endorse DCU's return to USI? Because if he has, though I haven't seen it in the last two issues, well then that's surely a serious issue that should be taken to the Journo Soc committee.
On a personal note, I do think it is an error of judgment of him to involve himself in the "Yes" campaign; whatever his feelings on DCU rejoining USI, his role as editor of the CV should come with it a level of disconnect, if only to prevent questions about the CV's impartiality.
Yes, there is a conflict of interest.
There's no question about it.
A conflict of interest is where there is a possibly of a conflict between two things somebody does. There does not have to be any actual bias or wrong done for something to be a conflict of interest. The old Guardian Editorial Code used to have this great quote from The Washington Post’s Code: “Reporters should make every effort to remain in the audience, to stay off the stage, to report the news, not to make the news.”
Here's links to the old and new Guardian ed code if anybody is interested.Yes they are, but that's not the article people here were taking issue with. On the editorial, Steve does praise and attack the USI in equal measure.
You've changed tune so quickly on this it's worth quoting you:
"It wasn't an opinion piece, not even close to one. To call it such is just an attempt to distract from/dismiss its content. It is an information feature detailing USI. Should there have been opinion with it? God yes - there should have been a con and pro side to it; opposing viewpoints from both sides, if only to make it mildly interesting. Though I do agree with you that the author's background should have been noted." 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Why would anybody bother? What would it achieve? If people within a college publication don't see a problem them self they won't care what any letter writer says.
Just to add to this: There's a few who would care but even among those, they would already likely be up against an uphill struggle or just too busy to do anything.
If they're not willing to do anything more than that's their problem; personally just tired of hearing people whine in this thread about bias and yet hearing they haven't bothered [based on what people have said here] to raise the issue directly to the CV or Journo Soc.No, the main significant problem is a conflict of interest. It's from that conflict that some people here are claiming bias, but any reasonable person can't be blamed for thinking there may be bias given that conflict and the unwillingness to note that conflict from the outset.
People are claiming bias, that doesn't mean any exists. If the article is bias, then please highlight were it is. Steve has a history with the USI, and that should have been said. The spread also should have had a lot more content, if only to create a much bigger picture of the debate going on about USI. Both are faults with the article, but I'd hardly call it personal bias.
If we're going to define conflict of interest [and it is correct] then yea, there's a conflict of interest - as I said, I think it was a poor judgment on Steve's part to involve himself in the "Yes" campaign while the CV editor. It doesn't help with the reputation of the paper, nor does it reflect well on Steve himself [raises the question about bias and personal motives]. However, I don't condemn him for it, I haven't seen anything as of yet were I would claim bias on his behalf - if I did, then I'd be the first to post about.You've changed tune so quickly on this it's worth quoting you:
"It wasn't an opinion piece, not even close to one. To call it such is just an attempt to distract from/dismiss its content. It is an information feature detailing USI. Should there have been opinion with it? God yes - there should have been a con and pro side to it; opposing viewpoints from both sides, if only to make it mildly interesting. Though I do agree with you that the author's background should have been noted."
What change of tune? I was speaking about the USI feature there, and the editorial in that quote - two different articles.0
Advertisement