Hey guys, please don't destroy civil society

super_furry

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0206/media.html

Because Alan Crosbie reckons that you will if you don't continue to buy his newspapers and ignore the internet. This, coming a week after the so called 'new media' made absolute ****e of the Irish Independent's 'Magda' article, is particularly delicious.

Edit - Indo type error ammended, with a full and heart felt apology.

lividduck

super_furry wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0206/media.html

Because Alan Crosbie reckons that you will if you don't continue to buy his newspapers and ignore the internet. This, coming a week after the so called 'new media' made absolute ****e of his Irish Independent's 'Magda' article, is particularly delicious.

Alan Crosbie is not with the Indo, he is with the Examiner , he is Chairman of Thomas Crosbie Holdings, who publish the Examiner.
Maybe the OP could check his facts or if he prefers unchecked facts he could get a job with the Indo!

smash

I can 100% guarantee that most of their news stories come from online sources.

chin_grin

lividduck wrote: »

Alan Crosbie is not with the Indo, he is with the Examiner , he is Chairman of Thomas Crosbie Holdings, who publish the Examiner.
Maybe the OP could check his facts or if he prefers unchecked facts he could get a job with the Indo!

Got you there OP.

Just one more question.....

Duggy747

2012: The year of the war on the internet.

seamus

He said "new media can sometimes give credibility to news that maybe should not have that credibility."

Oh wow. If only it weren't for all these damn trees, I might be able to find some wood...

foxyboxer

When you can buy the excellent i newspaper for 30cent (though mainly UK focused), it really put's the Irish daily papers prices into perspective.

Liam Byrne

foxyboxer wrote: »

When you can buy the excellent i newspaper for 30cent (though mainly UK focused), it really put's the Irish daily papers prices into perspective.

When you can convince people in the UK market to inexplicably buy a paper that is (mainly Ireland focussed) then come back to us.

Why anyone would buy a UK focussed paper is beyond me - if an Irish paper has 5 times the relevant content then the 30c becomes a false economy.

foxyboxer

The point is that a quality daily paper is produced at a fraction of the price.

Why can't that be done in Ireland?

seamus

foxyboxer wrote: »

The point is that a quality daily paper is produced at a fraction of the price.

Why can't that be done in Ireland?

Economies of scale. The UK has 15 times the possible readership.

foxyboxer

I say it's UK focused in terms of the Internal Politics. However, it's World News, Entertainment and Sport is generic to any English language newspaper.

Logical Fallacy

seamus wrote: »

Economies of scale. The UK has 15 times the possible readership.

Plus a higher circulation = bigger ad money = being able to sell for less.

AnonoBoy

Personally I ignore all media outlets except the oldest.... that lad at the end of the bar that everyone calls Jimmy and smells kinda like onions most of the time. If he doesn't confirm a story then as far as I'm concerned it hasn't happened.

Chuck Stone

Speaking at a conference on media diversity in Dublin, Alan Crosbie said that the public service remit of newspapers like the Irish Examiner, the Irish Independent and the Irish Times should be recognised.

Fuck off with you 'public $€rvic€ r€mit' bull$hit. If your business model is failing then adapt like everyone else.

Doc Ruby

foxyboxer wrote: »

The point is that a quality daily paper is produced at a fraction of the price.

Why can't that be done in Ireland?

I get two completely free newspapers delivered to my door every week.

The biggest problem I think facing newspapers is they are having a hard time charging as much for ads online as in print. Advertisers are getting a lot more shrewd about how much bang they get for their advertising buck when it comes to the internet, and the competition is huge.

mikom

Speaking at a conference on media diversity in Dublin, Alan Crosbie said that the public service remit of newspapers like the Irish Examiner, the Irish Independent and the Irish Times should be recognised.

Ah, shur give them a crutch like the TV licence.
They are offering a "public service" after all.
Minister, see to it that a section of the broadcast charge goes to them......

Fucking luddites when it suits them.

ArmaniJeanss

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why anyone would buy a UK focussed paper is beyond me - if an Irish paper has 5 times the relevant content then the 30c becomes a false economy.

I'd often purchase a newspaper specifically because it's UK focused.
We get an Irish Times in work so if I was going to buy a newspaper myself during the week it would be one of the UK broadsheets.

I also gave up buying some of the UK broadsheets on a Sunday because they over Irish-ified their editions.
The Sunday Times in particular seemed to develop a rule that there must be 2 pages of GAA even if its the middle of December, Irish rugby must have a page even if nothing of note has happened, the Northern Ireland politics editor had to have a full page, at least 33% of all the previewed TV programmes must be on Irish TV etc.

Nodin

...the indo has a "public service remit"?......I feel all weak all of a sudden....Now I now why Pippa O'Connor falling off a horse was on the front page those two to three days...why did I not see this before? I suppose its because I'm a thick and menace to civil society.

Mr Crosbie said information from traditional media such as newspapers, radio and TV has a provenance. "We should value organisations that produce good information."

Ahaha. Ahahahahaha. Yeah.....Brendan O'Connor's property advice, Myers borderline hatemongering, various articles that were not only wrong, but never properly corrected......Fuck off.

Liam Byrne

foxyboxer wrote: »

I say it's UK focused in terms of the Internal Politics. However, it's World News, Entertainment and Sport is generic to any English language newspaper.

Sport ? Really ? How would they cover an Ireland v England rugby match ? Do they have coverage of Irish GAA games ? Irish boxers ?

mikom

Mr Crosbie said information from traditional media such as newspapers, radio and TV has a provenance. "We should value organisations that produce good information."

Good information?
Lies, more like.
Case in point.... http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/314491_185342624876395_182354901841834_390458_1736182_n.jpg

Sonics2k

foxyboxer wrote: »

The point is that a quality daily paper is produced at a fraction of the price.

Why can't that be done in Ireland?

Because our population is tiny compared to the U.K. and they'd obviously have a higher circulation over there, so they can reduce the price but still make a profit.

How is this complicated

thebigbiffo

Last time I defended newspapers I got meself a 2 month ban...best thread carefully...

It’s laughable how the holier than thous on here love to indulge themselves in great little rant every time a newspaper is proven to have made a mistake – like the shagging internet is the last bastion of ‘the truth’. Unverifiable news from unaccountable organisations and individuals means that t’internet is the basis for a huge amount of false or misleading information, propaganda, scaremongering, scurrilous rumours and whatever else you’re having yourself. Newspapers have been the cornerstone of democracy and society for hundreds of years and you know what – they’re accountable. If mistakes have been made or there are inaccuracies then the least you can expect is a correction and a named individual can be held accountable. Fair enough, angles are taken and details or stories can be spinned but this will happen in any type of media from radio to TV to press to – dare I say it – even…OMG…the internet. As bad as some of the phone hacking ‘revelations’ were – I sort of view that hunger for a story that lead to that culture as not 100% a bad thing…just bad in that it was sensationalist celeb stories that particular rag was after. A good journo needs to get down with the filth and do some damn dirty work and if even 5% of the time he comes up with a story of real importance (and there are ‘000’s of example down through the years) then all the BS will have been worth it. I have never seen one stand-alone online entity (possibly barring wikileaks…but that’s not exactly day to day, locally focused journalism) that works every single day to dig out stories that the public need to hear to make our society better.

Ok ok, some papers are mindless s’hite. But this unbridled glee every time a newspaper gets it wrong is annoying

Nodin

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Last time I defended newspapers I got meself a 2 month ban...best thread carefully...

It’s laughable how the holier than thous on here love to indulge themselves in great little rant every time a newspaper is proven to have made a mistake –

'mistakes'? Mistakes are a small part of the problem. It's the deliberate nonsense that causes most of the trouble.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

like the shagging internet is the last bastion of ‘the truth’. Unverifiable news from unaccountable organisations and individuals means that t’internet is the basis for a huge amount of false or misleading information, propaganda, scaremongering, scurrilous rumours and whatever else you’re having yourself.

As are the papers, funny enough.

woodoo

Imagine some of your taxes going to pay for the likes of the Sunday Independent so they can present the average public service worker like some sort of alien monster. At the same time never ever mention how useful some of the rich Irish peoples taxes would be to this country right now ... including the owners of Independent newspapers.

Nodin

woodoo wrote: »

Imagine some of your taxes going to pay for the likes of the Sunday Independent so they can present the average public service worker like some sort of alien monster. At the same time never ever mention how useful some of the rich Irish peoples taxes would be to this country right now ... including the owners of Independent newspapers.

.....near on 25% of the indo being owned by the noted citizen and measure of probity Denis O'Brien. Surely with the likes of he and Tony O'Reilly about, the decent thing is give them financial support.

thebigbiffo

Nodin wrote: »

[/COLOR]

'mistakes'? Mistakes are a small part of the problem. It's the deliberate nonsense that causes most of the trouble.
[/COLOR]

and there's no deliberate nonsense on the internet (and I'm actually taking 'deliberate' to mean in this case: 10% deliberatly misleading/outright lies and 90% an opinion Nodin doesn't agree with)? but again my point is that in the vast majority of cases someone within a newspaper group must defend what/how they've written a piece. This accountability is not present with a huge amount of information on the internet.

mikom

thebigbiffo wrote: »

and there's no deliberate nonsense on the internet

Have you seen the fucking size of it?

thebigbiffo

mikom wrote: »

Have you seen the fucking size of it?

not the point. it's all relative. it's the keyboard warriors undermining the importance of accountable media organisations i've a problem with. it's quantifiable how many inaccuracies are printed in papers every day - it's infinite the amount of rubbish posted online every day. society does in fact need a free press so what Crosbie said is true...in broad terms.

the same people on here who would take to the streets in support of a free internet get on their high horses over a couple of innaccurate newspaper articles. it's laughable is all.

Nodin

thebigbiffo wrote: »

....... but again my point is that in the vast majority of cases someone within a newspaper group must defend what/how they've written a piece. ..........

...Really? And if the agenda of that piece is a product of the managment/editorial staff?

You'll also find that there's infinetly more weight attached to what appears in 'traditional' broadsheets and printed media than what flys around on the net. Theres damn few times you see stories originating with worldnet daily and the like floating around for years.

Nodin

thebigbiffo wrote: »

not the point. it's all relative. it's the keyboard warriors undermining the importance of accountable media organisations i've a problem with. it's quantifiable how many inaccuracies are printed in papers every day - it's infinite the amount of rubbish posted online every day. society does in fact need a free press so what Crosbie said is true...in broad terms.

,,,,,,,,.

....we don't have a fuck knows how many pages thread on some woman in donegal because of a comment on a message board.

mikom

thebigbiffo wrote: »

it's the keyboard warriors undermining the importance of accountable media organisations i've a problem with..

http://translate.google.com/#pl|en|

Ellis Dee

Scofflaw has another thread on this theme and there are some good points made in the comments posted so far.

What Crosbie is saying is that there is such a flood of information available to us nowadays that we can't possibly handle it ourselves and we need people to filter and arrange it and put it into perspective for us.

"In fact, what's important is the information itself,not what carries it.If we want to achieve variety of opinion and action in a society, then that society needs lots of different streams of information. That's important.But, just as important is the provenance of that information, the quality mark, where it comes from and how it stands up to scrutiny.Right now, in this country and almost everywhere else in the world, people have more information coming at them than at any time in history.Someone told me recently that one edition of any of the major Sunday newspapers for example the Sunday Business Post would have more information in it than a scholar in the middle ages would have encountered in the entire course of his life. --- The key difference is that the newspaper stuff has been gathered by trained, professional reporters, filtered by trained, professional editors, considered, in some cases, by lawyers, sub-edited and double-checked before it arrives with the reader[/B]"

In other words, what he is saying in the bit I've boldfaced is that we can't be trusted to check things for ourselves. He and his colleagues in the old media can be trusted to decide what we are told and what slant is put on it.

That's a lot to ask when we look at rags like the Indo and some of the hacks in the media even today. And especially remember that it is not so long since some of them were wholeheartedly in favour of Section 31.

No thanks, Mr. Crosbie, I'll stick with the new media, that give me a big choice of sources that I can check and compare against each other. In no way do I want my tax money going to help pay the likes of Own Arse or Kevin Myarse decide what it's good for me to know.:rolleyes:

thebigbiffo

Nodin wrote: »

...Really? And if the agenda of that piece is a product of the managment/editorial staff?

You'll also find that there's infinetly more weight attached to what appears in 'traditional' broadsheets and printed media than what flys around on the net. Theres damn few times you see stories originating with worldnet daily and the like floating around for years.

Nodin wrote: »

...Really? And if the agenda of that piece is a product of the managment/editorial staff?

You'll also find that there's infinetly more weight attached to what appears in 'traditional' broadsheets and printed media than what flys around on the net. Theres damn few times you see stories originating with worldnet daily and the like floating around for years.

I’ve a feeling it’s more the perceived agenda of what’s written and not the accuracy that’s a real problem then? Like if they printed a completely inaccurate piece on why accepting asylum seekers is a good thing I can’t imagine you’d be too put out. I’m not trying to be smart btw, just saying.

And that’s my point! More weight should be attached to print journalism – it’s a profession and in many cases a vocation. There are bad ones yes, but in general it’s a very honourable job for little thanks and one or 2 inaccurate stories shouldn’t taint the entire medium.

Nodin

thebigbiffo wrote: »

I’ve a feeling it’s more the perceived agenda of what’s written and not the accuracy that’s a real problem then?

After a certain number of times, one can only conclude that it's agenda=lack of 'accuracy'.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Like if they printed a completely inaccurate piece on why accepting asylum seekers is a good thing I can’t imagine you’d be too put out. I’m not trying to be smart btw, just saying.

I wouldn't be put out, I'd be dead of shock.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

And that’s my point! More weight should be attached to print journalism – it’s a profession and in many cases a vocation. There are bad ones yes, but in general it’s a very honourable job for little thanks and one or 2 inaccurate stories shouldn’t taint the entire medium.

One or two? Myers alone would take a thread to go through.

And we're talking about Irish media here, and three papers.

mikom

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Someone told me recently that one edition of any of the major Sunday newspapers for example the Sunday Business Post would have more information in it than a scholar in the middle ages would have encountered in the entire course of his life.

"Someone told me"
The mark of quality.

Nodin

Ellis Dee wrote: »

the newspaper stuff has been gathered by trained, professional reporters, filtered by trained, professional editors, considered, in some cases, by lawyers, sub-edited and double-checked before it arrives with the reader[/B]"

..........

I'm sure they do, the odd time. It seems to depend on who they're targeting.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/interpreter-in-lawlor-case-settles-libel-actions-1213491.html
That never would have happened with CJH.

And of course, when targeting groups - "the unemployed" "single mothers" etc, that's rather different again and where the real crap flies.

cocoshovel

What type of "new media's" is he referring to specifically? Is it just websites as whole, or different genre's of media websites?

He can piss back to his little hole of out dated forms of media the little greedy git.
I avoid most forms of traditional media as its complete bull and doesnt cover the whole story. News papers, news channels, and even the large news websites arent very accurate etc.
I have a select few places I visit to read about what really happened and see the stuff they're afraid to show elsewhere and hear about the things that matter and isnt heavily edited/blown out of proportion. Its not all neccesserily things that are taboo either, they are things that should and need to be seen by everyone.

This is nothing but pure scare mongering and is suggesting that we go back rather than advance. Something that is all too prevalent in this country especially amongst the older people, they dont want to advance, they just want to stay as they are and not change anything and písses me right off.

Solair

I really find these pleas from old industries to restrict the internet are getting a bit ridiculous.

Selling people stories once a day, printed on paper, is not really the way forward.

The Examiner's also behind www.breakingnews.ie which is one of the most successful Irish news sites.

Maybe newspapers need to find a new way of presenting themselves online. So far, all I've seen is either sites that give the paper away for free, or cumbersome PDF type downloads where you pay.

I think with the growth of tablet devices, like the iPad and Android tablets, newspapers and magazines will be able to be purchased online once again. These devices all have payment methods.

K-9

mikom wrote: »

"Someone told me"
The mark of quality.

Usually treated with disdain online as well.

DeVore

I'll try not to accidentally the whole civil society.

Alan Crosbie has since been replaced as head of the Examiner group.

This whole thing reminds me of an article where the author listed over a hundred inaccuracies in Wikipedia where Encyc. Brittania only had roughly sixty.
The first comment on the article said "Check them again now."

The first post on this thread is a great example. The OP makes a glaring mistake and the second post corrects it! Far from zinging the OP's point, the second post effectively *makes* it.

New Media is held to a higher level of scrutiny and correction than old. There is a place for investigative journalism. Its called "online".

LH Pathe

Keep em hobo fires burnin

yelofmail

How can one express their displeasure directly to Thomas Crosby Holdings? I mean an email address that goes to corporate HQ and not an individual paper or radio station?

Latchy

I love getting my news from the internet ...even the shyte online newpapers can be a good source of amusement .

Nodin

super_furry wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0206/media.html

Because Alan Crosbie reckons that you will if you don't continue to buy his newspapers and ignore the internet. This, coming a week after the so called 'new media' made absolute ****e of the Irish Independent's 'Magda' article, is particularly delicious.

Edit - Indo type error ammended, with a full and heart felt apology.

Yep, we anonymous thugs will destroy the pure and true works of such pillars as Tony O'Reilly and his successor, Citizen in Good Standing Denis O'Brien.


Jaysus I feel terrible guilty....

Battered Mars Bar

There's nothing civil about this society imvfho