The disgraceful media coverage of election

jonniebgood1

Firstly I think that MD Higgins is the best choice for President from the candidates. He has the correct aura of a statesman that none of the others have IMO.

Now the election. What went on. The president of our country is supposed to be an office of esteem and prestige. The office holder is our representative and has got to hold great respect and authority to fulfill their duties in a meaningful way. My contention is that the conduct of many of the candidates and much of the media was nothing short of a disgrace. The negativity was so prevalent that I think it would have been difficult for the office holder to do their job for any of the other 6 candidates. That the election was decided by purporting lies from Sinn Fein by our national broadcaster through an overpaid presenter was nothing short of farcical. Gallaghers inconsistency's could be exposed without that type of low brow tabloid crap. That a man who refuses to provide information about people who killed Irish soldiers in living memory was allowed to take the moral high ground crowns Pat Kennys narrative in that particular episode. Earlier in the campaign the same candiate McGuinness was accused without proof by another overpaid RTE stooge of being a murderer without substantiation of the point. This followed their earlier campsite outside David Norris's door to drive him out of the campaign, Camp David indeed! So the media will come out all sanctimonious and lightly question themselves- I heard Kenny breeze by his use of the tweet that was not true today.

So what do people think of the media's coverage of the election? Is it fair to blame them for the depressing nature of the campaign- was there to much co-operation with all the debate requests? I know Enda Kenny stuck to his guns on just 3 debates in the General electionand I now think he was correct. I heard a commentator today say that the media coverage was always going to be dirty once Sinn Fein were involved! I'm not a fan of Sinn Fein but for the media to blame them for the disgusting coverage is a joke. Ultimately the election was decided on the whim of media which is a dangerous occurance and something that needs to be discussed as it surely has negative conotations.
Rant over- What do people think?

Wolfe Tone

Yeah the media wee a bit of a joke, but I think MMG did us all a service by exposing Gallagher on live TV as a FF bagman. He saved the Irish people from themselves tbh.

Gallagher deserved what he got imo, which was about 2 and a half days of intense scrutiny.

Einhard

I thought the reaction of candidates to legitimate coverage of their past was astonishing tbh. I like Norris- but he had questions to answer. I have no opinion on Davis- but she questions to answer. Same for Dana. And MMG surely had questions to answer.

Yet, every time the media published something critical, or a candidate portrayed another in anything less than a flattering light, and we got whining about dirty tactics and mud slinging. Gallagher accuses MMG of dirty tactics; Norris does so of the media; Dana of her cousin for raising alleged abuse.

It's as if, for the candidates, the past really is a different country- and one that none of the rest of us are allowed visit. The questions asked of the candidates were, for the most part, valid, and if they didn't want their histories pried into and raised, then they should have thought twice before putting themselves before the electorate in what is, essentially, a vote in the character of the candidate.

Jeboa Safari

It wasn't so much the questions that the media brought up (or was brought up for them), but the spin they put on it. RTE should at least be impartial being the national broadcaster, but everything seemed to be spun by all outlets, it seemed impossible for the just to report the facts as they were

gawker

I honestly think it was a case of "If there is nothing to report on, make some news happen." The candidates were all happy to plod along without murmering a word against one another. That is perfectly fair - they wanted to put forward their strengths and not go about bashing others. The media feeds on conflict however and were always going to be looking for new ways to stir the pot. Just look at David Norris - 3 apologies this week so far in the media. I am sure other candidates will get some too if they push for them. The media saw a void (conflict) and filled it themselves.

Interestingly, Mitchell seemed to be the only one who went on attack early on. He seems to be getting punished for that right now.

BTW, I agree with the OP, Higgins will make an excellent president.

hotmail.com

The media has every right to scrutinise the candidates and to ask robust questions of them.

Some people don't understand the notion of a freedom of speech in this country. The media is within their right to print stories about the candidates so long as it's true and doesn't involve the children of the candidates.

The public can judge for themselves whether the stories are relevant, important to them or they can completely ignore the media stories altogether.

It suited the candidates to say that it was a dirty election and all that stuff.

I do think in hindsight that there was way too many debates. The candidates should have been braver to refuse to take part in some of the debates.

jonniebgood1

Part of the problem I had was understanding what the candidates would bring to the role. I actually don't know the positives that Michael D was proposing as they got swamped. There was no analysis of what people could propose to do in the job. Perhaps it was a competition between the presenters on the debates, e.g. Vincent Browne gave them a tough grilling over so Pat Kenny or Miriam thought they had to beat that?

InchicoreDude

Gallaghers inconsistency's could be exposed without that type of low brow tabloid crap.

Probably not. You have more faith in the Irish people than I do.

jonniebgood1

hotmail.com wrote: »

The media has every right to scrutinise the candidates and to ask robust questions of them.

Scrutinise- Yes. but pick their winner and use any means to get him?
I am happy enough that MD won but part of me is horrified that it was by these means. Just because I am happy with the winner does not mean that he should be elected and by extension an election decided by media impinges on proper democracy (whether it is then democracy is another days debate).

jonniebgood1

InchicoreDude wrote: »

Probably not. You have more faith in the Irish people than I do.

I posted elsewhere a quote by Churchill which resonates- "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Ozymandius2011

I'm totally with you on this. I thought the most disgraceful examples were:

- Despite the fact Gallagher said he didn't know that Hugh Morgan had criminal convictions ast the time, the media ran with headlines saying 'Gallagher admits he may have received donation from fuel smuggler'. The implication from such headlines is that he knew beforehand of the man's background, which he denied in the "Frontline" debate farce.

- The myth was propounded that Gallagher had denied being a former member of FF. In fact, it was already in the public domain that he was on the National Executive. The myth of this dishonesty was part of the process of sowing doubt in voter's minds as to his honesty.

- The use of highly inflammatory and emotive terms like "bagman" when that term refers to protection-rackets.

- The hypocrisy of believing SF on Gallagher but not believing them on McGuinness not being in the IRA since 1974.

- Pat Kenny citing a fake twitter account as a "Sinn Fein" page in the debate and presenting its claims as fact without verification of its veracity, were tabloid journalism and its most invidious and highly disingenous to voters.

- The audience composition on Frontline was very unrepresentative given what the polls at the time were saying. Gallagher got all the hostile questions and it reeks of collusion between RTE and the other candidates to bring him down so their man would get in. This is where the Labour/WP origins of many RTE journalists comes into it.

- The lack of scrutiny of Michael D's past, including being the second highest drawer of Oireachtas expenses in 2002, his role as a Cabinet Minister during the tax-amnesty (Vincent Browne was the only journalist to tackle him on this), and the impact of his anti-American positions on American investment in Ireland.

vallo

You can't put yourself forward for the highest office in the land if you have skeletons in your cupboard.
I think Sean Gallagher started to believe his own hype that he was this amazing dynamic entrepeneur who could re-invent Ireland given half a chance. I do think he believes that himself, so was sort of well-intentioned. Unfortunately for him, his business dealings with Home Wiring systems / Smart Homes expose him as being a total crook. He probably believes he is a nice guy, but is totally deluded. I put him last on my ballot.
Unfortunately for Gay Mitchell, you also can't put yourself forward for president if you are as dull as ditchwater.
Higgins will be great. He is a man of substance. Any dirt that the media managed to find on him was good dirt in my opinion.
I think the media did a good job in this election.

Jeboa Safari

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I'm totally with you on this. I thought the most disgraceful examples were:

- Despite the fact Gallagher said he didn't know that Hugh Morgan had criminal convictions ast the time, the media ran with headlines saying 'Gallagher admits he may have received donation from fuel smuggler'. The implication from such headlines is that he knew beforehand of the man's background, which he denied in the "Frontline" debate farce.

- The myth was propounded that Gallagher had denied being a former member of FF. In fact, it was already in the public domain that he was on the National Executive. The myth of this dishonesty was part of the process of sowing doubt in voter's minds as to his honesty.

- The use of highly inflammatory and emotive terms like "bagman" when that term refers to protection-rackets.

- The hypocrisy of believing SF on Gallagher but not believing them on McGuinness not being in the IRA since 1974.

- Pat Kenny citing a fake twitter account as a "Sinn Fein" page in the debate and presenting its claims as fact without verification of its veracity, were tabloid journalism and its most invidious and highly disingenous to voters.

- The lack of scrutiny of Michael D's past, including being the second highest drawer of Oireachtas expenses in 2002, his role as a Cabinet Minister during the tax-amnesty (Vincent Browne was the only journalist to tackle him on this), and the impact of his anti-American positions on American investment in Ireland.

Leave out the may, The Star at least were reporting it as fact that he received the cheque while delivering a photo of the event.

Ozymandius2011

vallo wrote: »

You can't put yourself forward for the highest office in the land if you have skeletons in your cupboard.
I think Sean Gallagher started to believe his own hype that he was this amazing dynamic entrepeneur who could re-invent Ireland given half a chance. I do think he believes that himself, so was sort of well-intentioned. Unfortunately for him, his business dealings with Home Wiring systems / Smart Homes expose him as being a total crook.

Excuse me but he has not been accused of any crime. Unlike Martin McSemtex and Hugh Morgan both of whom were convicted of illegal activity. You are innocent until proven guilty.

Jeboa Safari wrote:

Leave out the may, The Star at least were reporting it as fact that he received the cheque while delivering a photo of the event.

Based on what a convicted terrorist and his convicted fuel-smuggler friend have claimed. A funny position for a publication that prides itself on being anti-Republican, suddenly to afford the Shinners so mucn credibility.

jonniebgood1

vallo wrote: »

Higgins will be great. He is a man of substance. Any dirt that the media managed to find on him was good dirt in my opinion.
I think the media did a good job in this election.

Hopefully he will be. I admire many things about him. I dont think the right result means that the media did a good job as I have already outlined. Due I think to coverage of the campaign I feel I dont know what his plans for the office are. I think this is repeated across the country. If people posting here on an elction forum (impying interest in the election) do not readily identify what higgins proposes then it does not auger well for the rest of the countries expectations.

vicwatson

X-Factor tv

Ozymandius2011

Yes the candidates should be scrutinised but it should be a fair process and based on evidence not FUD.

jonniebgood1

vicwatson wrote: »

X-Factor tv

Perfect summary. I hate reality TV!

ChippingSodbury

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

It wasn't so much the questions that the media brought up (or was brought up for them), but the spin they put on it. RTE should at least be impartial being the national broadcaster, but everything seemed to be spun by all outlets, it seemed impossible for the just to report the facts as they were

I get the impression that the media deem it their job to nitpick and assassinate anybody or anything put in front of them. They always have to forward their opinion as if it's the only opinion that matters. I'd rather make up my own mind.
I'll bet the result in the Dublin West By-Election would have been quite different if it had not been run at the same time as the Presedential Election: I'm sure the media would have given their full attention to cutting David McGuinness down to size.
Ireland would be a sorry place without a free press but I think they need to take a step back and take a close look at themselves: the opinion of a few should not be allowed to have such an influence in our country.

Lastly, congratulations to our probable new President, great to see a man from the "right" side of the Shannon in the Aras!

vicwatson

Perfect summary. I hate reality TV!

Or should I have said X-Factory tv !:rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I'm totally with you on this. I thought the most disgraceful examples were....

I'm on mobile and there are far too many inaccuracies and flaws in that to reply on a screen keyboard.

Some quick examples:

No-one claimed he denied EVER being in FF; the issue was whether he had left; he hadn't, while claiming that he had

McG's connections to SF & IRA weren't ignored.

Higgins isn't anti-American; in fact, if you're complaining that McG's atrocities weren't highlighted enough while suggesting that someone should overlook America's atrocities, you're being severely hypocritical for some reason or other.

vallo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

- Despite the fact Gallagher said he didn't know that Hugh Morgan had criminal convictions ast the time, the media ran with headlines saying 'Gallagher admits he may have received donation from fuel smuggler'. The implication from such headlines is that he knew beforehand of the man's background, which he denied in the "Frontline" debate farce.

He was exposed in two clear lies by Bryan Dobson.
1. As a means of downplaying his profile in FF fundraising, he said he only invited a few people that he knew personally. This was clearly untrue as he stated on 6-1 news that he had been given Hugh Morgan's name from another person and didn't know him personally.
2. He said that he did not "solicit a donation" but then went on to say that attendees would be expected to contribute up to 5000.
SG did a very good job of putting his honesty into question himself.
It seems to me that he mentioned Hugh Morgan's criminal record on Frontline as a means of discrediting MMG's attack. That came back to bite him.

vallo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Excuse me but he has not been accused of any crime. Unlike Martin McSemtex and Hugh Morgan both of whom were convicted of illegal activity.

Not being accused of any crime is a pretty low bar for the highest office in the land! Excuse me, but I demand better of someone who fancies themselves as presidential material!

Ozymandius2011

vallo wrote: »

He was exposed in two clear lies by Bryan Dobson.
1. As a means of downplaying his profile in FF fundraising, he said he only invited a few people that he knew personally. This was clearly untrue as he stated on 6-1 news that he had been given Hugh Morgan's name from another person and didn't know him personally.
2. He said that he did not "solicit a donation" but then went on to say that attendees would be expected to contribute up to 5000.
SG did a very good job of putting his honesty into question himself.
It seems to me that he mentioned Hugh Morgan's criminal record on Frontline as a means of discrediting MMG's attack. That came back to bite him.

He said they "may" donate "up to €500". Not that they would be expected to. Debatable if that is "solicitation" which would mean asking them to donate.

The criminal record relates to the credibility of Hugh Morgan and were it a court of law such a person's credibility would be under attack as you well know.

hoorsmelt

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

- Despite the fact Gallagher said he didn't know that Hugh Morgan had criminal convictions ast the time, the media ran with headlines saying 'Gallagher admits he may have received donation from fuel smuggler'. The implication from such headlines is that he knew beforehand of the man's background, which he denied in the "Frontline" debate farce.

Everyone in that neck of the woods knew who Hughie Morgan was and his past. Btw, if Gallagher didn't know beforehand, why did he himself refer to Morgan as a fuel smuggler on the Frontline?

- The myth was propounded that Gallagher had denied being a former member of FF. In fact, it was already in the public domain that he was on the National Executive. The myth of this dishonesty was part of the process of sowing doubt in voter's minds as to his honesty.

That myth was just that, a myth, because no one anywhere argued that Gallagher had denied he was a member of FF, what they did challenge was his argument that it was only on-off membership. You don't get onto the NEC of a political party unless you have been there for the long haul and have shown dedication and commitment above and beyond the call of duty to the party.

- The use of highly inflammatory and emotive terms like "bagman" when that term refers to protection-rackets.

Over the top, I agree.

- The hypocrisy of believing SF on Gallagher but not believing them on McGuinness not being in the IRA since 1974.

Put some perspective on it- McGuinness denies IRA membership because if he admitted it he could be arrested and jailed, would you expect anyone to put themselves at risk of a prison sentence? Unionists in the North trust him enough to do business with him in the Northern Exec, that says more about his trustworthiness to my mind than his denial of IRA membership.

- Pat Kenny citing a fake twitter account as a "Sinn Fein" page in the debate and presenting its claims as fact without verification of its veracity, were tabloid journalism and its most invidious and highly disingenous to voters.

That's the fault of the idiot researcher who passed the tweet on to Kenny, not the Plank himself.

- The audience composition on Frontline was very unrepresentative given what the polls at the time were saying. Gallagher got all the hostile questions and it reeks of collusion between RTE and the other candidates to bring him down so their man would get in. This is where the Labour/WP origins of many RTE journalists comes into it.

Jesus H Christ :rolleyes:. The audience was composed of equal representation from the different campaigns, not the opinion polls, as to do so would have resulted in an audience stacked in favour of Gallagher. Obviously not something you have a problem with, but the only valiud opinion poll is the ballot box, and until the vote has been held RTE was legally bound to treat them equally despite the disparity in support. As for the the Sticks in RTE, it's ancient history at this stage and in any case, the Sticky wing of Labour has treated MDH and the liberal wing of the LP very badly in the past.

- The lack of scrutiny of Michael D's past, including being the second highest drawer of Oireachtas expenses in 2002, his role as a Cabinet Minister during the tax-amnesty (Vincent Browne was the only journalist to tackle him on this), and the impact of his anti-American positions on American investment in Ireland.

So in other words, he was challenged on salient points by the press. Outline please how MDH's 'anti-American' statements impacted on US investment to Ireland. Just a couple of press releases will be sufficient evidence for that absurd claim :rolleyes:

Ozymandius2011

hoorsmelt wrote: »

Everyone in that neck of the woods knew who Hughie Morgan was and his past. Btw, if Gallagher didn't know beforehand, why did he himself refer to Morgan as a fuel smuggler on the Frontline?

He didn't know about the criminality when he met him. He knew about it by the time of the Frontline debate years later. Simples.

That myth was just that, a myth, because no one anywhere argued that Gallagher had denied he was a member of FF, what they did challenge was his argument that it was only on-off membership. You don't get onto the NEC of a political party unless you have been there for the long haul and have shown dedication and commitment above and beyond the call of duty to the party.

Over the top, I agree.
Put some perspective on it- McGuinness denies IRA membership because if he admitted it he could be arrested and jailed, would you expect anyone to put themselves at risk of a prison sentence? Unionists in the North trust him enough to do business with him in the Northern Exec, that says more about his trustworthiness to my mind than his denial of IRA membership.


That's the fault of the idiot researcher who passed the tweet on to Kenny, not the Plank himself.

Jesus H Christ :rolleyes:. The audience was composed of equal representation from the different campaigns, not the opinion polls, as to do so would have resulted in an audience stacked in favour of Gallagher. Obviously not something you have a problem with, but the only valiud opinion poll is the ballot box, and until the vote has been held RTE was legally bound to treat them equally despite the disparity in support. As for the the Sticks in RTE, it's ancient history at this stage and in any case, the Sticky wing of Labour has treated MDH and the liberal wing of the LP very badly in the past.


So in other words, he was challenged on salient points by the press. Outline please how MDH's 'anti-American' statements impacted on US investment to Ireland. Just a couple of press releases will be sufficient evidence for that absurd claim :rolleyes:

I meant that if he became President and continued such utterances, it could deter US investment by angering their CEOs.

hoorsmelt

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

He didn't know about the criminality when he met him. He knew about it by the time of the Frontline debate years later. Simples.I meant that if he became President and continued such utterances, it could deter US investment by angering their CEOs.

How? US corporations generally pay little attention to how belligerent or otherwise a country's government is so long as they can do business with them. In any case, once MDH is in the Áras he won't be able to make a statement that isn't approved by the government, and I can't see Inda letting criticism of US foreign policy slip through into a President's speech.

raymon

I agree

Media coverage was horrendous

What took them so long to report this boom parasite as a liar.

He had been lying for months and nobody picked upon his lies

Some lone posters on boards.ie and politics.ie reported his antics and lies, but the mainstream media ignored them completely.

Even Irish times ,Rte and Time Magazine employed Noel whelan as an independent observer and pundit. This FFer was Gallaghers roommate in Maynooth. Whelan gave many glowing accounts of this liar

So to answer the OP .... the media gave the liar too easy a time. We should make sure that reporters disclose their connections before reporting

Example " Noel Whelan .. FFer and Ex Roommate of Sean Gallagher"

Ozymandius2011

hoorsmelt wrote: »

How? US corporations generally pay little attention to how belligerent or otherwise a country's government is so long as they can do business with them.[

Iran suggests otherwise.

fishy fishy

i was watching miriam o callaghan interview mmg last night - she was referrening to mmg working for peace for all those years - it was a far cry from her calling him a murderer a couple weeks ago - I suppose it is okay to call him a peacemaker now tho. MMG did brilliantly = gained even more support and fair play to mmg for ousting the ff bagman.

MMG stated that they were so far ahead up north regarding politics and the south have a long long long way to go before they get things right. I tend to agree.

Ozy - despite your obvious venem for MMG and SF they are gaining ground day by day and you are going to have to learn to accept that.
Open your mind a little - it will do you good love

Ozymandius2011

fishy fishy wrote: »

i was watching miriam o callaghan interview mmg last night - she was referrening to mmg working for peace for all those years - it was a far cry from her calling him a murderer a couple weeks ago - I suppose it is okay to call him a peacemaker now tho. MMG did brilliantly = gained even more support and fair play to mmg for ousting the ff bagman.

MMG stated that they were so far ahead up north regarding politics and the south have a long long long way to go before they get things right. I tend to agree.

Ozy - despite your obvious venem for MMG and SF they are gaining ground day by day and you are going to have to learn to accept that.
Open your mind a little - it will do you good love

Is that why your candidate won less than half the votes of SG?

A "bagman" is a protection-racketeer. Something the Shinners have plenty of experience of.

fishy fishy

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Is that why your candidate won less than half the votes of SG?

A "bagman" is a protection-racketeer. Something the Shinners have plenty of experience of.

ya gotta look at the bigger picture ozy how many times have i told you that. and what a great coup by SF to oust gombeen gallagher like that - class - will be replayed again and again. plenty of future votes for sf there i would imagine and the labour supporters wont forget it either. At last someone came along to expose FF games. long time coming but its here now and won't go away - bye bye FF. Brown Envelope suppliers the next jobs to go.

Ozymandius2011

fishy fishy wrote: »

ya gotta look at the bigger picture ozy how many times have i told you that. and what a great coup by SF to oust gombeen gallagher like that - class - will be replayed again and again. plenty of future votes for sf there i would imagine and the labour supporters wont forget it either. At last someone came along to expose FF games. long time coming but its here now and won't go away - bye bye FF. Brown Envelope suppliers the next jobs to go.

There is no suggestion Gallagher pocketed the donation. unlike Bertie and Haughey so it's not the same! :rolleyes:

Sunnyisland

Ozymandias 2011 wrote: »

Iran suggests otherwise.

Iran Listen ozymandias I know you are upset over SG losing the election buts its over, move on as i am sure SG has,

Re Iran if you think that the US government/businessmen/investors thinks Ireland has a president that even resembles someone/policy of Iran you are losing the plot completely,there is no comparison what so ever. MDH is now the elected president of Ireland respect the peoples choice.



Ps he wasent my first choice.

Sunnyisland

Ozymandias 2011 wrote: »

There is no suggestion Gallagher pocketed the donation. unlike Bertie and Haughey so it's not the same! :rolleyes:

I/We don't know enough about SG yet to call that, Time will tell ? but it certainly doesn't look good does it.

fishy fishy

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

There is no suggestion Gallagher pocketed the donation. unlike Bertie and Haughey so it's not the same! :rolleyes:

well, lets put it this way, he won't be pocketing any donations in the future now will he, cause SF will be up his aras watching now won't they.

of course pity they weren't there when he was giving advice on how to fill out forms -for a fee - some community spirit that was - whatever way you look at it gombeen gallagher was out for himself, and himself only. now do try to get over it. you'll make yourself sick with venom if your'e not careful.

lugha

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Is that why your candidate won less than half the votes of SG?

A "bagman" is a protection-racketeer. Something the Shinners have plenty of experience of.

There was no wrong done by SG in being a "bagman", there is nothing amiss with raising funds for a political party. His sin was at worst, to lie.
Such is the moral confusion of some that the fascist is being feted for exposing the liar! (Though as you point out, the electorate as a whole have a better understanding of relative wrong)

This moral confusion must be a companion of amnesia as those that now cheer lead the MMG ambush of SG were and are, still whinging about the same treatment being meted out to MMG by GM and some sections of the press.

fishy fishy

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Is that why your candidate won less than half the votes of SG?


wow are you serious. did some SG supporters give their vote to MMG - thats amazing = delighted to hear that. I thought all of their votes went to michael D. And its great that martin won't even be eliminated in the counts. but the FG man will. good news all round then. thanks for letting me know about that. Even better than I thought.

Sunnyisland

Ozymandias 2011 wrote: »

Is that why your candidate won less than half the votes of SG?

A "bagman" is a protection-racketeer. Something the Shiners have plenty of experience of.

:D sore loser aren't we :D The more I read your desperate posts the more I am thinking SG is dirty your starting to sound like a gay dont mind the polls Mitchel supporter.

Sunnyisland

lugha wrote: »

There was no wrong done by SG in being a "bagman", there is nothing amiss with raising funds for a political party. His sin was at worst, to lie.
Such is the moral confusion of some that the fascist is being feted for exposing the liar! (Though as you point out, the electorate as a whole have a better understanding of relative wrong)

This moral confusion must be a companion of amnesia as those that now cheer lead the MMG ambush of SG were and are, still whinging about the same treatment being meted out to MMG by GM and some sections of the press.

I am not cheering anything nor did I give out about what way the media treated MMG as as in my opinion what Independent newspapers(& its nothing new & to be expected) did helped him more than hindered him and I include GM in that.

fishy fishy

anyway its the start of a long weekend. I'm off to enjoy it. Cheer up Ozy, it could be worse - SG could have been the next president only for SF Yesterday was a good day for Ireland, in more ways than one. HAVE a nice weekend all.

michael999999

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Excuse me but he has not been accused of any crime. Unlike Martin McSemtex and Hugh Morgan both of whom were convicted of illegal activity. You are innocent until proven guilty.Based on what a convicted terrorist and his convicted fuel-smuggler friend have claimed. A funny position for a publication that prides itself on being anti-Republican, suddenly to afford the Shinners so mucn credibility.

It was Fianna Fail he was funding!

Sean Gallagher accused Morgan on the Frontline of being a fuel smuggler and being investigated by CAB, but had no problem sticking a cheque from him into hes back pocket and running with it to Fianna Fail the party that raped this country.

So moralise that if you can!

Sunnyisland

Listen to rte radio 1 now, he is digging his own grave. its on playback.

raymon

This Rte / Irish times pundit was Gallaghers roommate.

I agree with the op. Disgraceful for Rte and the times to present him as a unbiased reporter

Well done jonnie for highlighting the issue


[IMG][/img]

efb

What about the treatment of David Norris- The Daily Mail and the Hearld printing apologies yesterday after they sowed the seeds

Nitochris

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

- The audience composition on Frontline was very unrepresentative given what the polls at the time were saying. Gallagher got all the hostile questions and it reeks of collusion between RTE and the other candidates to bring him down so their man would get in. This is where the Labour/WP origins of many RTE journalists comes into it.

- The lack of scrutiny of Michael D's past, including being the second highest drawer of Oireachtas expenses in 2002, his role as a Cabinet Minister during the tax-amnesty (Vincent Browne was the only journalist to tackle him on this), and the impact of his anti-American positions on American investment in Ireland.

As far as I know the audience was picked from supporters of the candidates in equal numbers.

All your points on MDH were in the public domain and he addressed the one you seem most worked up with when interviewed by Matt Cooper he said as President it was important to use discretion and that he could park his criticisms.

Ellis Dee

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I posted elsewhere a quote by Churchill which resonates- "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Churchill must have been a bit slow on the uptake. I'd have thought one minute was more than enough. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

thebman

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Churchill must have been a bit slow on the uptake. I'd have thought one minute was more than enough. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Maybe they weren't in such a rush in his day :pac:

Anyway I think people who think it is a dirty election are generally people whose number one candidate didn't elected.

If you have skeletons in your closet, you need to be able to explain them effectively. If you have so many skeletons that you don't know what one they will focus on and can't be prepared to answer questions on them then you shouldn't have run in the first place.

raymon

To again agree with the op

This article appeared in Time magazine, with quotes from guess who ?
A political analyst called Noel Whelan ,
what ??
Noel whelan ?
Gallaghers old roommate??
In time magazine ?
What the hell??

Most media was stacked in favour of the liar Gallagher

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097715,00.html

jonniebgood1

efb wrote: »

What about the treatment of David Norris- The Daily Mail and the Hearld printing apologies yesterday after they sowed the seeds

The treatment of Norris was ridiculous. Apologies printed when his chances have been ruined are farcical. The media decided this election by their coverage. We will all remember them hounding him, camped outside his door until he resigned. The fuss made on radio of Helen Lucy Burkes targetting of Norris was a front page story. However when she found her tape of the interview it was a farce as she tried time after time to trap him with her narrow minded views. There was no coverage worth noting of her farce tape as it showed that earlier media outrage was wrong. All in all the negativity has I think scared the role of President permanently. It was negative in its outlook on all people involved.

anymore

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Firstly I think that MD Higgins is the best choice for President from the candidates. He has the correct aura of a statesman that none of the others have IMO.

Now the election. What went on. The president of our country is supposed to be an office of esteem and prestige. The office holder is our representative and has got to hold great respect and authority to fulfill their duties in a meaningful way. My contention is that the conduct of many of the candidates and much of the media was nothing short of a disgrace. The negativity was so prevalent that I think it would have been difficult for the office holder to do their job for any of the other 6 candidates. That the election was decided by purporting lies from Sinn Fein by our national broadcaster through an overpaid presenter was nothing short of farcical. Gallaghers inconsistency's could be exposed without that type of low brow tabloid crap. That a man who refuses to provide information about people who killed Irish soldiers in living memory was allowed to take the moral high ground crowns Pat Kennys narrative in that particular episode. Earlier in the campaign the same candiate McGuinness was accused without proof by another overpaid RTE stooge of being a murderer without substantiation of the point. This followed their earlier campsite outside David Norris's door to drive him out of the campaign, Camp David indeed! So the media will come out all sanctimonious and lightly question themselves- I heard Kenny breeze by his use of the tweet that was not true today.

So what do people think of the media's coverage of the election? Is it fair to blame them for the depressing nature of the campaign- was there to much co-operation with all the debate requests? I know Enda Kenny stuck to his guns on just 3 debates in the General electionand I now think he was correct. I heard a commentator today say that the media coverage was always going to be dirty once Sinn Fein were involved! I'm not a fan of Sinn Fein but for the media to blame them for the disgusting coverage is a joke. Ultimately the election was decided on the whim of media which is a dangerous occurance and something that needs to be discussed as it surely has negative conotations.
Rant over- What do people think?

The media had virtually cast Norris as a latter day saint who was being martyred by the ' refusal ' of Political parties to facillitate his triumphal Entry into the Presidential race ! No other independent candidate in the history of this State has seen such adulation from the mainstream media. When he did make his truimphant return, he was treathed as a hero.