Irish Daily Star to shut?

Lord TSC

later12 wrote: »

Most of your post is a repeat of what you've said but ultimately fails to respond to the actual point, in that it's not appropriate to print pictures of a person who is undressed, when they are not aware of that fact. No need to go off on a tangent about whether or not people should be shocked, and so on. The point relates to what the photographer and the publishers have done.

Appropriate or not, to me, does not matter in this debate. It's a bit late to be calling the print media on what is appropriate or not to print, when most of them have been printing pictures of this nature for years. Barely a day goes by that the papers don't have upskirt shots or beach candids of some sort. Crying out about privacy now is redundant, since the papers have been selling millions of copies based on these sorts of images for years.

The photographer was likely given a five figure sum for those pictures; moral or not, he got what most of us would consider a years wage for that one picture. The publisher is a business, not a moral compass; they bought the pictures cause they knew there'd be a profit to be made there. We look to the media for a moral compass and fail to realise that they are in the money making business first and foremost. Sex sells. If the publishers publish the pictures, it's because they know it will shift copies of their publications. Don't blame the media for giving people what they want.

There's many aspects of Irish culture I find inappropriate. Personally, when I want to see nudity, I go to the net which has a far better selection :P I agree that newspapers should not be printing pictures of celebrities caught at their worst moments. But that's me. And you. And several other people on here.

I don't buy newspapers anymore. BUT I just don't blame papers for doing....
1. What they need to to remain relevant.
2. What they need to to appeal to the buying market.
3. What they have been doing for years anyway.

Secondly, on a smaller but nevertheless relevant point, why are you calling her Kate?

Her name is Kate Middleton or whatever her married name is ; I'm not saying this because I think she deserves respect as a member of whatever pantomime she's married to, but simply by observation of her private identity, as anybody else gets. This casual address of calling someone Kate belies the fact that neither do we know the woman, nor is she our property, it's the same sort of mentality that causes incredulity when someone makes the rather ordinary statement that we don't have some God given right to see her naked.

Ah now, come on. I refer to her as Kate so people know who I am refering to. Nothing more, nothing less. These debates would become mind-numbing if we had to give her a full title every time we name her. We're having a casual discussion of a topic absed around a person, and when I say "Kate" in the context of this discussion, people know who I am talking about. No need to start trying to turn this into a topic on how we refer to her really.

wicklowwonder

GSF wrote: »

oldmangrub wrote: »

I don't go the whole way with you on it being a British paper. See Cavehill's post and mine above. It's one of the few tabloids that are Irish. (somewhat) I do feel very sorry for the hundred or so Irish staff that will possibly lose their jobs, and I feel sorry for their families.

There is some ambiguity as to who owns it. Desmond says he owns the title name but INM own 50% of the JV. If he refuses to allow the title name to be used, in theory the Star is closed. In practice INM could set up a new title. They could just run the Sunday World on a 7 day a week basis for example, folding the 2 operations together.

INM let the Tribune close and didn't replace it, I wouldn't be surprised if they let the Star go.

GSF

wicklowwonder wrote: »

INM let the Tribune close and didn't replace it, I wouldn't be surprised if they let the Star go.

The Star is profitable; the Tribune never made any money

wicklowwonder

GSF wrote: »

wicklowwonder wrote: »

INM let the Tribune close and didn't replace it, I wouldn't be surprised if they let the Star go.

The Star is profitable; the Tribune never made any money

True, however a new title may not be profitable, they may feel their money would be better spent on an online publication or platform. I hope we don't lose the Star as I feel it served a purpose but from a business point of view INM will do what they feel will make the most money.

GSF

wicklowwonder wrote: »

True, however a new title may not be profitable, they may feel their money would be better spent on an online publication or platform. I hope we don't lose the Star as I feel it served a purpose but from a business point of view INM will do what they feel will make the most money.

well why did Dennis O'Brien buy into INM in the first place then? It wasnt to make money

wicklowwonder

GSF wrote: »

wicklowwonder wrote: »

True, however a new title may not be profitable, they may feel their money would be better spent on an online publication or platform. I hope we don't lose the Star as I feel it served a purpose but from a business point of view INM will do what they feel will make the most money.

well why did Dennis O'Brien buy into INM in the first place then? It wasnt to make money

I don't think DOB is interested in the Star.... It was the Indo and Sam Smyth he wanted I think.

oldmangrub

Hopefully they can successfully rebrand and any gutter press tendancies will be dispelled. Maybe this is different in their eyes than printing topless pics of Lady Gaga etc because they're trying to write about controversial pics and the pics themselves are relevant. I didn't get that from Michael O'Kane's comments though. And it would be a woeful excuse anyway.

I suppose the staff are going to have a fair amount of extra work on their hands over the next couple of days if they're denied access to the British copy.
I don't think ordinary staff will know their fate until Tuesday at the earliest.
I hope the British owners can't claim breach of contract or anything like that that would impact on severance packages.

A very stressful position to be in for the staff. I hate people losing jobs in this climate. The best of luck to them.

later12

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I just don't blame papers for doing....
1. What they need to to remain relevant.

You're ignoring the fact that the media outlets, like no other private enterprises, themselves frame public opinion to begin with; particularly, in terms of this sort of vulgar reporting, perpetuating what has been termed 'narcotizing dysfunction'.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Fungus wrote: »

The closure of Independent Star LTD has had nothing to do with Kate's tits, and everything to do with financials. It was an opportunistic decision to do the inevitable.

Circulation:

The Irish Daily Star have lost 14% of their customers year on year. This follows years of heavy losses.

Their circulation is down at 75K from over 100K a few years ago.

Declining Profits:

Profits were down 10% in the last set of accounts from 2010. They have still not published their 2011 accounts which cannot be a good sign.

IN&M and N&S are in serious trouble:

IN&M and N&S own Independent Star LTD.

IN&M are balance sheet insolvent.

N&S have suffered massive declines in their magazines over the last year. Their flagship OK Magazine is down a whopping 25% year on year. . In fact all of N&S's publications suffered massive declines.

The whole Intraweb & tablet thing is only going to make things worse :

Smartphones are booming. Tablets are booming. Twitter is booming. The way we consume news is changing. All newspapers are on a terminal decline slope. There was no long term future for the Irish Daily Star.

In a nutshell, N&S used Kate as a cover story for a company that was going nowhere and needed to be closed.

I argue that it's because of their printing stories like this that they are losing interested readers and have to close down.

There is hope.

oldmangrub

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I argue that it's because of their printing stories like this that they are losing interested readers and have to close down.

There is hope.

They don't usually print stories like this. I mean of the topless variety.
They don't even do the page three thing.

There is hope that they won't have to close down and can rebrand.

oldmangrub

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/irish-star-future-under-threat-from-kate-middleton-topless-shots-3230143.html

The quotes from Irish owners don't seem too pessimistic at least.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oldmangrub wrote: »

They don't usually print stories like this. I mean of the topless variety.
They don't even do the page three thing.

There is hope that they won't have to close down and can rebrand.

I meant regarding the over-hypeing of people who generally contribute little or nothing worthwhile to society rather than the specific toplessness.

I fail to see how rebranding it can be a good thing?

Ikky Poo2

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I argue that it's because of their printing stories like this that they are losing interested readers and have to close down.

There is hope.

Well if the pile of unsold papers in the local shop yesterday evening was anything to go by, there circulation figures are in real decline!

JTMan

GSF wrote: »

The Star is profitable; the Tribune never made any money

Profitable in 2010? You need to look at the bigger picture.

The 2010 accounts for Independent Star LTD displayed accounting profits.

However:
1) Independent Star LTD have not published their 2011 or interim 2012 accounts yet.
2) Independent Star LTD has lost 25% of their sales in recent years and 14% in the last year alone.
3) Independent Star LTD has a massive unfunded pension deficit.
4) Independent Star LTD has massive bank debts.
5) Independent Star LTD has not real digital sales or even digital strategy.
6) The parent companies are in serious trouble. IN&M are balance sheet insolvent.
7) The industry is in terminal decline.
8) They shut Star on Sunday due to poor performance.
9) There is known to be disputes between the owners.

Independent Star LTD is a total basket case with no future.

oldmangrub

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I meant regarding the over-hypeing of people who generally contribute little or nothing worthwhile to society rather than the specific toplessness.

I fail to see how rebranding it can be a good thing?

The Star generate most of their sales through sports, not celebrity news. If they fall out of the tabloid market, it won't make that market any better for it.
And newspapers are losing circulation because of the interent not because people don't enjoy celebrity gossip.

If it closes down, Mr.Desmond hypocrite whose press standards are even more questionable than that of the Irish daily star will have succeeded in not pissing off his British readership and might even increase profits. That's the only good thing about it closing down. But he's doing alright for himself so I'm not overly concerned for him.

What I am concerned about is the staff of the newspaper. If you consider the journalists who will lose their jobs, you might succeed in seeing rebranding as a good thing. Nothing wrong with justifying your view based on human empathy. That's why these pics were wrong in the first place. A little bit of empathy wouldn't go amiss.

Aidric

wicklowwonder wrote: »

I hope we don't lose the Star as I feel it served a purpose but from a business point of view INM will do what they feel will make the most money.

Could you expand on this point please?

Aidric

oldmangrub wrote: »

If it closes down, Mr.Desmond hypocrite whose press standards are even more questionable than that of the Irish daily star will have succeeded in not pissing off his British readership and might even increase profits. That's the only good thing about it closing down. But he's doing alright for himself so I'm not overly concerned for him.

Indeed, I think you've nailed it here. This is a move to appease his core market.

MakeEmLaugh

What about the 70 journalism jobs that will be lost if the Irish Daily Star closes? Journalism is an extraordinarily difficult field in which to sustain a career. It is deeply unfair that these 70 individuals be thrown out on their behinds because of one person's decision to print these photos.

The Irish Daily Star has been publishing topless photos of celebrities for years. If it was acceptable to print them then, why is it unacceptable to print them now? This is an enormous double standard, and hundreds of people's lives - not just the journalists but their family members - will be negatively effected if the paper is pressured into shutting down.

purple'n'gold

The sooner this obnoxious rag is closed down the better.

IRE60

Desmond gets about €4m from the joint venture, which is small change in terms of his finances. His main interest are in the UK where he nets a huge amount of cash– and much of this coming from the Daily Express, Sunday Express and Hello – all of which are massively pro-royal.

The sabre-rattling that he’ll close the paper is utter sh1te. He has a joint venture agreement with a multiple of profits buy-out clause i.e. big money to buy out. I’d say that there is no morality clause in the agreement - certainly not covering this scenario.

On the other hand he has huge operational control in terms of the copy supplied and that could be a real issue.
I rant about it here

oldmangrub

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

What about the 70 journalism jobs that will be lost if the Irish Daily Star closes? Journalism is an extraordinarily difficult field in which to sustain a career. It is deeply unfair that these 70 individuals be thrown out on their behinds because of one person's decision to print these photos.

The Irish Daily Star has been publishing topless photos of celebrities for years. If it was acceptable to print them then, why is it unacceptable to print them now? This is an enormous double standard, and hundreds of people's lives - not just the journalists but their family members - will be negatively effected if the paper is pressured into shutting down.

I agree with your sentiment but the Irish Daily Star actually isn't a tabloid that has been publishing topless photos of celebrities for years. They're generally a story-based (however sensationalist) tabloid. They're not one of the worst ones at all. The pics went with the story. There's no way they should have been published or their trashiness can be justified and the editor and Colleran have put their staff in an awful position.

Richard Hillman

There seems to be a lot of sympathy for the journalists at the paper. Some of them I am sure do great work but a lot of them are horrid just like the editor. Its not just the editor making up and exaggerating the stories, he needs his journalists to write the trash. I would imagine the journalists at the papers share the same beliefs as he does. I feel for the ones that genuinely report news; sports reporters, music guides, court reporters etc but not for the ones that exaggerate things to make news or blatantly make it up. The Star is well known for its great coverage of underage and junior football, it will be a sad loss in that aspect.

Ireland will be a better place without this rag and hopefully the likes of the Sun, the Herald and the Mirror fall like the Star.

oldmangrub

Richard Hillman wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of sympathy for the journalists at the paper. Some of them I am sure do great work but a lot of them are rats just like the editor. Its not just the editor making up and exaggerating the stories, he needs his journalists to write the trash. I would imagine the journalists at the papers share the same beliefs as he does.

Ireland will be a better place without this rag and hopefully the likes of the Sun, the Herald and the Mirror fall like the Star.

A lot of them are rats?
They're people who did journalism in college and went on to apply for jobs in that field.

Sympathy is normal. Having empathy for people and being able to imagine the distress they're in is normal and healthy. Assuming that other people have the same right to financial security and as stress-free existence as possible as yourself is healthy and to be expected.

Presuming people are "rats" and somehow morally inferior to yourself is pretty unhealthy and also hilarious considering that you were the one attributing Nazi undertones to the Star's logo two pages back.

Biggins

From The Times (England) presently:

Northern and Shell, the British 50% shareholder in the Irish Daily Star newspaper, has announced it is “taking immediate steps to close down the joint venture” after yesterday’s decision by the newspaper’s Dublin-based management to publish photographs of Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, sunbathing topless.

We have not heard the end of the photo fiasco itself:

Chi magazine in Italy has said it plans to publish a 26-page photo special using the topless photos of the duchess. The magazine is owned by the family of Silvio Berlusconi, the former Italian prime minister, who also owns Closer. Alfonso Signorini, Chi’s editor, said he would publish 50 of the 200 photos because it was a “journalistic scoop”.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1127448.ece

200 Photos?

MORE than 200 pictures were taken of the Duchess of Cambridge sunbathing topless, it emerged yesterday, as the royal couple struggled to prevent their publication around the world.

In a day when the photographs proliferated on internet websites, Chi magazine in Italy announced it would publish a 26-page special edition tomorrow featuring 50 images of the 200 in its possession.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/royalwedding/article1127303.ece

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oldmangrub wrote: »

The Star generate most of their sales through sports, not celebrity news. If they fall out of the tabloid market, it won't make that market any better for it.
And newspapers are losing circulation because of the interent not because people don't enjoy celebrity gossip.

What I am concerned about is the staff of the newspaper. If you consider the journalists who will lose their jobs, you might succeed in seeing rebranding as a good thing. Nothing wrong with justifying your view based on human empathy. That's why these pics were wrong in the first place. A little bit of empathy wouldn't go amiss.

If that's the case, then why not simply rebrand as a sports paper?Years ago, when I last looked at it, only about 25% of it was sport related (unless a premiership footballer had been caught in bed with someone he shouldn't have).

As regards the journalists - it's a face of life. Businesses that don't do well close down and people lose jobs. Those that are good will find employment elsewhere. Those that aren't, won't and it'll be a good thing all round.

wicklowwonder wrote: »

I hope we don't lose the Star as I feel it served a purpose but from a business point of view INM will do what they feel will make the most money.

Seriously...??

Richard Hillman wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of sympathy for the journalists at the paper. Some of them I am sure do great work but a lot of them are rats just like the editor. Its not just the editor making up and exaggerating the stories, he needs his journalists to write the trash. I would imagine the journalists at the papers share the same beliefs as he does.

Ireland will be a better place without this rag and hopefully the likes of the Sun, the Herald and the Mirror fall like the Star.

Journalists, see above. I think you're being a bit unfair, though.

Last line - bingo.

oldmangrub

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If that's the case, then why not simply rebrand as a sports paper?Years ago, when I last looked at it, only about 25% of it was sport related (unless a premiership footballer had been caught in bed with someone he shouldn't have).

As regards the journalists - it's a face of life. Businesses that don't do well close down and people lose jobs. Those that are good will find employment elsewhere. Those that aren't, won't and it'll be a good thing all round.

They do brand themselves as a sports paper in the most part. And the majority of their readership chose it because of the sports coverage in comparison to other tabloids. They have to tell other news stories too; they are a newspaper; and they tell them in an accessible and sensationalist way because that's what their readership wants. There's only one national newspaper that I consider completely non-tabloid now despite many of them not classing themselves as tabloid. That's what people are buying, and seventy unemployed staff are not going to redress this. The Star shutting down would only increase profits for other tabloids, it won't change practises.

The Star is doing well. It's making a profit that most businesses would envy. Not so much greedy media moguls who have other profits to protect elsewhere. If all those that find employment in a field are "good" and all those that don't are not good, then, seeing as all the staff members in the Star have managed to find employment, they all deserve a job. I don't share this logic but I don't really want to see another seventy people on the dole either.

Three or four maximum will be able to get a job in the Sun. The rest will be unemployed. No other papers are hiring.

What we should hope for is a rebranding of some form.

And the Star obviously has a purpose. People buy it. People enjoy it. It circulates money in the Irish economy. It provides Irish people with jobs. It keep people informed on world affairs and sporting achievements. It makes a profit.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oldmangrub wrote: »

They do brand themselves as a sports paper in the most part. And the majority of their readership chose it because of the sports coverage in comparison to other tabloids. They have to tell other news stories too; they are a newspaper; and they tell them in an accessible and sensationalist way because that's what their readership wants. There's only one national newspaper that I consider completely non-tabloid now despite many of them not classing themselves as tabloid. That's what people are buying, and seventy unemployed staff are not going to redress this. The Star shutting down would only increase profits for other tabloids, it won't change practises.

Either it's a dying readership or they've got it wrong judging by the readership figures being bandied about here.

The Star is doing well. It's making a profit that most businesses would envy. Not so much greedy media moguls who have other profits to protect elsewhere. If all those that find employment in a field are "good" and all those that don't are not good, then, seeing as all the staff members in the Star have managed to find employment, they all deserve a job. I don't share this logic but I don't really want to see another seventy people on the dole either.

Three or four maximum will be able to get a job in the Sun. The rest will be unemployed. No other papers are hiring.

What we should hope for is a rebranding of some form.

And the Star obviously has a purpose. People buy it. People enjoy it. It circulates money in the Irish economy. It provides Irish people with jobs. It keep people informed on world affairs and sporting achievements. It makes a profit.

If only three or four of them can get jobs and even then only with the S*n, I'd argue the quality of jounalism isn't that high to begin with.

I'd go for rebranding if it moved away from topless royal pictures and at least tried to present itself in soem way seriously. If, as you say, people have no interest in real news and intelligent journalism, the country is facing a bigger problem.

JonathanAnon

Dont think Michael O'Kane did the paper any favour with his self righteous performances on the radio during the week... If it was a picture of his missus or his daughter in the paper, I'm sure he'd change his tune..

oldmangrub

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Either it's a dying readership or they've got it wrong judging by the readership figures being bandied about here.

If only three or four of them can get jobs and even then only with the S*n, I'd argue the quality of jounalism isn't that high to begin with.

I'd go for rebranding if it moved away from topless royal pictures and at least tried to present itself in soem way seriously. If, as you say, people have no interest in real news and intelligent journalism, the country is facing a bigger problem.

The readership of all newspapers are seeing this decline, tabloid and non-tabloid. Because of this, newspapers aren't hiring. Recent graduates are not unemployed due to incompetence, but because there are no jobs available. This is mimicked in other sectors as well, not just journalism. The decline in newspaper-circulation was going to take place even without the recession and the recesssion has made the situation worse.
Journalists don't work in tabloids because the quality of their journalism isn't that high. They write to their employers' practises. They're guidelines they have to follow. They're perfectly qualified to write spreadsheet or tabloid articles alike.
I never said people have no interest in real news and intelligent journalism. Where did you get that from? I don't presume people who read tabloids are less intelligent than myself. I have female friends who love reading gossip mags and would beat me on any debate if they didn't prefer reading about that man with the dimples in their spare time.

Jellicoe

There's bound to be an opening for a decent middle of the road national newspaper in Ireland, that does't have the sleaze of the star and sunday world, and the corrupt cronie lies and propaganda of the 'independent'

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oldmangrub wrote: »

The readership of all newspapers are seeing this decline, tabloid and non-tabloid. Because of this, newspapers aren't hiring. Recent graduates are not unemployed due to incompetence, but because there are no jobs available. This is mimicked in other sectors as well, not just journalism. The decline in newspaper-circulation was going to take place even without the recession and the recesssion has made the situation worse.
Journalists don't work in tabloids because the quality of their journalism isn't that high. They write to their employers' practises. They're guidlines they have to follow. They're perfectly qualified to write spreadsheet or tabloid articles alike.

I don't see how this is any dfferent from any othe sector where supply exceeds demand?

I see your point about the reasoning for working at a tabloid paper, but it doesn't change the fact: the better journalists will get the jobs. The others wil either have to improve or do something else. Same as every other job market.

I never said people have no interest in real news and intelligent journalism. Where did you get that from? I don't presume people who read tabloids are less intelligent than myself. I have female friends who love reading gossip mags and would beat me on any debate if they didn't prefer reading about that man with the dimples in their spare time.

Yeah, I know, that was just a general comment, should really have made it clearer. Didn't mean to infer you said somethign you didn't, apologies.

But my point is: is this REALLY what people want to read? (Genuine question.)

ejmaztec

Desmond's come a long way since he had a barrow in the market place.

oldmangrub

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I see your point about the reasoning for working at a tabloid paper, but it doesn't change the fact: the better journalists will get the jobs. The others wil either have to improve or do something else. Same as every other job market.

I'm repeating myself a lot. There is a demand for the Star. It makes a profit. It has a readership.
The fact: "the jobs" don't exist. The better journalists will be unemployed.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oldmangrub wrote: »

I'm repeating myself a lot. There is a demand for the Star. It makes a profit. It has a readership.
The fact: "the jobs" don't exist. The better journalists will be unemployed.

You're saying the same thing over and over again without reading the points made by the other person.

WHY is this different from any other industry?
WHY are their no other opportunities for journalists?
- Freelancing isn't an option?
- No one gets their news from the internet?

Also contradicting yourself: you say the Star is doing well and there is demand for it (depsite evidence to the contrary) but ALL newspers readerships are declining....?

Simple facts: it's a changing industry. It is an industry with a limited number of jobs. The better people get those jobs.

Galwayguy35

Seems the Brits have got all self rightous about the pictures being published over here judging by the coverage on Sky News last night.

They published them, so what?

It would be sad to see Irish journalists out of a job just to keep an english duchess who won't ever have to work a day in her life happy.

oldmangrub

I've numbered your points so you can see where I've read and replied to them.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You're saying the same thing over and over again without reading the points made by the other person.

1. WHY is this different from any other industry?
2. WHY are their no other opportunities for journalists?
3. - Freelancing isn't an option?
4. - No one gets their news from the internet?

5. Also contradicting yourself: you say the Star is doing well and there is demand for it (depsite evidence to the contrary) but ALL newspers readerships are declining....?

6. Simple facts: it's a changing industry. It is an industry with a limited number of jobs. The better people get those jobs.

1. Perhaps you are talking to another poster when you ask why this is different from any other industry? I never made such a comment. A loss of jobs in any industry I would see as negative. I would not hope for the misfortune of a person I had not met. And to jump to your point 6 for a moment, people on the dole are not there because they're a bit crap at what they do. Most of them are there because they were unlucky.
2. There are no jobs because newspapers aren't hiring. They're keeping their present staff and sustaining profits as much as possible. I don't see your point.
3. No, freelancing isn't a viable option. Freelancing is affected by the decline for the same reason on-staff positions have been.
4. I've already said that the internet is the main cause of the decline in newspapers. So yes, I think people get their news from the internet.
5. This is not a contradiction. a) Newspaper readerships are declining. b) There is still a demand for the Star. If I was too say "The demand for the Star is declining" and also "there is still a demand for the Star" this would be a qualification, not a contradiction.
6. You're posting about the better people getting jobs in a thread about seventy people finding themselves unemployed through no fault of their own. Do you not think this is a bit insensitive?

geeky

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You're saying the same thing over and over again without reading the points made by the other person.

WHY is this different from any other industry?
WHY are their no other opportunities for journalists?
- Freelancing isn't an option?
- No one gets their news from the internet?

Also contradicting yourself: you say the Star is doing well and there is demand for it (depsite evidence to the contrary) but ALL newspers readerships are declining....?

Simple facts: it's a changing industry. It is an industry with a limited number of jobs. The better people get those jobs.

Yes, media is a changing industry, and that change is making some people redundant.

You can accept that change, while still having some compassion for the human victims of progress. It's worth noting, for example, that some great 'old school' newspaper journos are going on the worldwide scrapheap in favour or people with more digitally focused skills.

In this case, though, several people at an apparently profitable title have their jobs at risk because of a single stupid bloody decision to print pictures of some royal baps. They're well within their rights to be a bit miffed at the situation.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oldmangrub wrote: »

I've numbered your points so you can see where I've read and replied to them.



1. Perhaps you are talking to another poster when you ask why this is different from any other industry? I never made such a comment. A loss of jobs in any industry I would see as negative. I would not hope for the misfortune of a person I had not met. And to jump to your point 6 for a moment, people on the dole are not there because they're a bit crap at what they do. Most of them are there because they were unlucky.
2. There are no jobs because newspapers aren't hiring. They're keeping their present staff and sustaining profits as much as possible. I don't see your point.
3. No, freelancing isn't a viable option. Freelancing is affected by the decline for the same reason on-staff positions have been.
4. I've already said that the internet is the main cause of the decline in newspapers. So yes, I think people get their news from the internet.
5. This is not a contradiction. a) Newspaper readerships are declining. b) There is still a demand for the Star. If I was too say "The demand for the Star is declining" and also "there is still a demand for the Star" this would be a qualification, not a contradiction.
6. You're posting about the better people getting jobs in a thread about seventy people finding themselves unemployed through no fault of their own. Do you not think this is a bit insensitive?

1 and 6 - What you're suggesting here is that businesses that are either failing or on dubiously moral ground should be kept open purely to provide employment. Why is this? Also, if they wer that intereste in keeping peoples' jobs, why pritn something that gets you closed down? THAT'S the threat here.
2 and 3 - What you're saying her is that supply exceeds demand. This natual economics. Why are people still going into an industry where the demands for their services ar low?
4 - We seem to agree on.
5 - So, only the Star is doing well, then? Says it all about the average Irish newspaper-reader.

Anyway, as I said - I've no probelm with rebranding. Move away from the sleeze, print somethign worthwhile, keep peoples' jobs. Everyone wins.

kentreaper

ejmaztec wrote: »

Desmond's come a long way since he had a barrow in the market place.

Is he still with Molly?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

geeky wrote: »

Yes, media is a changing industry, and that change is making some people redundant.

You can accept that change, while still having some compassion for the human victims of progress. It's worth noting, for example, that some great 'old school' newspaper journos are going on the worldwide scrapheap in favour or people with more digitally focused skills.

In this case, though, several people at an apparently profitable title have their jobs at risk because of a single stupid bloody decision to print pictures of some royal baps. They're well within their rights to be a bit miffed at the situation.

Exactly.

It's not that I have a compassionate-less approach, I just do not see the sense in keeping a business going when it makes poor decisions, is hypocritical to the extreme, serves no real puropose, just because a few nice people work there.

oldmangrub

No I am not suggesting that businesses that are on dubiously moral ground should be kept open purely to provide employment. That isn't even misquoting for God sake, that's shoving words down my throat. Privacy laws are going to change and they should. This would make me happy. I would hope they do change. Seventy unemployed people just doesn't do it for me, sorry. I do not hope that this happens. I've clearly stated my offence to these pics.
I don't think "they" are overly concerned with keeping people's jobs. "They" are not the seventy people who might find themselves unemployed and who have my sympathy.
Why are people still going into an industry where the demands for their services ar low? Why? Do you really need to ask that in a recession? There's a list as long as my fingernail of industries where demand isn't low.
I never said only the Star was doing well.
Calling seventy people "a few nice people" sure seems to be lacking compassion to me and actively hoping they find themselves unemployed likewise. And I don't think there is anything morally satisfying in seventy suffering for the misdeeds of one or two. I would go as far to say that that action would be morally dubious.

Originally posty by Icky Poo 2 : Anyway, as I said - I've no probelm with rebranding. Move away from the sleeze,
print somethign worthwhile, keep peoples' jobs. Everyone wins.

Originally posty by Icky Poo 2 : I fail to see how rebranding it can be a good thing?

Fine, good! Quit arguing with me/massively misquoting me.
Please. Thank you. We can agree to morally disagree.

Jellicoe

geeky wrote: »

It's worth noting, for example, that some great 'old school' newspaper journos are going on the worldwide scrapheap in favour or people with more digitally focused skills.

Seems strange, good writing is good writing, and will be so on any format. Easy and cheap to get someone to maintain the technical/website end for you if you want.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oldmangrub wrote: »

No I am not suggesting that businesses that are on dubiously moral ground should be kept open purely to provide employment. That isn't even misquoting for God sake, that's shoving words down my throat. Privacy laws are going to change and they should. This would make me happy. I would hope they do change. Seventy unemployed people just doesn't do it for me, sorry. I do not hope that this happens. I've clearly stated my offence to these pics.
I don't think "they" are overly concerned with keeping people's jobs. "They" are not the seventy people who might find themselves unemployed and who have my sympathy.
Why are people still going into an industry where the demands for their services ar low? Why? Do you really need to ask that in a recession? There's a list as long as my fingernail of industries where demand isn't low.
I never said only the Star was doing well.
Calling seventy people "a few nice people" sure seems to be lacking compassion to me and actively hoping they find themselves unemployed likewise. And I don't think there is anything morally satisfying in seventy suffering for the misdeeds of one or two. I would go as far to say that that action would be morally dubious.






Fine, good! Quit arguing with me/massively misquoting me.
Please. Thank you. We can agree to morally disagree.

Well, then be cleaer about what you are saying. You want it kept becaue it keeps jobs or you don't? You want it to stop showing pics of clebrities tits because it sells, or you don't? What is your stance?

I ask questions, not because you said something, but because I want to find out more about your stance. Example: you said that one of the reasons it should be kept open is because it provides jobs in a over-subscribed market. I said, how is this different from any other industry? You said, you never said it was different.
I know that, but I'm still entitled to ask the bloody question!

Because of all this vagueness, I still don't know what your stance is. So I have to ask questions about what you mean. Hence the "?" on the end. Meaning, I didn't say you said something, I asked if you meant something.

Regarding the rebranding, I'm for it IF it changes it's policies regarding privacy. I have little faith in that happening though. IN which case, let it die. Let the journalists either find new jobs or do something else. Just because someone can write doesn't mean they have a devine right to a job in a newspaper (and I know you didn't say that before you jump down my troath, I'm juts making the point).

Yes, there is a recession on. Yes there are talented people on the dole. Facts of life. But you could use the same arguments in favour of legalising prostitution.

MrSing

I'm delighted they printed the pictures, all of a sudden the british media have morals and criticise our half brit rags.

What are the royals for if not for our entertainment!? It's the 21th century ffs.

Buckingham palace said printing the pictures was nothing but pure greed; A topic they know plenty about so I trust them on this one;)

The world would be a better place without the Irish daily star and royalty throughout the world.

Viva La Republic

Roisy7

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You're saying the same thing over and over again without reading the points made by the other person.

WHY is this different from any other industry?
WHY are their no other opportunities for journalists?
- Freelancing isn't an option?
- No one gets their news from the internet?

Also contradicting yourself: you say the Star is doing well and there is demand for it (depsite evidence to the contrary) but ALL newspers readerships are declining....?

Simple facts: it's a changing industry. It is an industry with a limited number of jobs. The better people get those jobs.

Sorry, as a journalist, I have to say, you do not know what you're talking about.

I've just graduated and I'm already considering leaving Ireland. ONE person in my class of 16 has a permanent job. She is an excellent journalist, but the other 15 of us are hardly knuckledraggers.

To answer your points.

It is different to other industries. The recession hit journalism hard as the newspaper model was not just based on selling newspapers, but selling advertising. Advertisers find they have less money to spend, so newspapers find it hard to sell ads. Less people are buying newspapers, which makes advertisers doubly reluctant to take out an ad in a newspaper.

Other opportunities for journalists? Let's see, TV. We have four television stations in Ireland, one of which requires fluent Irish, two of which are a closed shop currently rocked by the biggest editorial scandal in its history, and the other is operated on a shoestring and can't afford to hire staff. Radio: there is a huge difference between broadcasting and writing, some people are simply not wired that way, and jobs are hard to come by in this sector. Writing online, which is what I do, is largely unpaid. There's always McDonalds.

Freelancing is not an option if you want to eat. I recently did a short article for a UK newspaper which paid me 30 pounds or 37 euro. So if I wanted to make a decent weekly income I would have to do at least 6 articles for various publications a week, allowing for the fact that a. I would be able to find 6 sufficient stories and b. the newspaper wanted to accept my pitch. Given that most newspapers pay monthly that would still require me to go hungry. Freelancing is to supplement your existing income.

Everyone, including myself, gets their news from the internet. Boards, Twitter, The Journal, etc etc are the first places my generation goes for news. Take for example the Guardian. It has suffered a MASSIVE decline in print readership simply because its website is so good, and people go, "well, I read that online this morning, why would I buy the print version and read it all again?" It is just like how no-one buys CDs anymore when they can get it online for free.

I think Oldmangrub means that, although the Star was suffering losses, it is still more profitable than other newspapers on the market.

The better people do not necessarily get the jobs. Life is not that simple. Do you think that there isn't someone in college now who is talented and won't ever get the chance? The fact that, say, John Waters gets book deal after book deal for stuff that would disgrace an undergraduate philosophy class, or Kevin Myers gets paid for trolling, is testament to the cream not always rising to the top.

As for this:

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

What you're saying her is that supply exceeds demand. This natual economics. Why are people still going into an industry where the demands for their services ar low?

You are not in the real world. I went into journalism because I love to write. I'm terribly sorry that not all career paths serve an economic interest.

Anyway, I feel that it would a pity for the Star to close. Just as I felt it was a pity when the Tribune had to close. It is always a sad day when Irish jobs are lost.

oldmangrub

Icky Poo 2, I do not want the paper to close down. I do not want them to publish pics of topless celebrities. Anyone can find my stance at posts #158, #166, #172, #177, #180. There you'll find things I've actually said, and not things you may think I've said or implied. Read them if you're interested in my stance, if not, don't. Simple.

Letting the newspaper die won't do anything to get rid of invasions of privacy; all it shows is that you don't f**k with the Royals. Other papers with a tendancy to print topless shots of everyday celebs without permission will still be in existence. I don't want this paper to "die". I think a better and more meaningful alternative would be a change to privacy laws. This would actually change things for the better. Unlike you I do think this is going to happen in the next couple of years.
I wouldn't describe prostitution as a talent.

Again, we can agree to disagree. There are other people posting on this thread. They don't find my posts vague and there's no benefit in repeating myself. Goodbye.

Allyall

Just letting us know, if we don't fall in line, then that is what will happen.

Hopefully the Irish (Rag) Star, will be shutdown, and resurrected as a fully blown Oirish paper. Keeping everyone in Employment.

Now to Convince the Irish Daily Mail, The Irish Sun, Mirror, TV3 etc.. to publish them, and get them shut down also.

Also, if i recall
There was little sympathy when the Brits published Princesses of Monaco.
Didn't they Publish Stephanie, Caroline (I think was a German photographer, but the Brits published them) and Grace with their tops off?

This is a perfect example of one rule for them, and a different rule for everyone else.

"Irish Paper publishes Kate Middleton Photographs" has gone International...
So F*****g what? So have plenty of other Rags.. I think the rest of the World also see's us as a state in the UK.
I think it's a GOOD thing, that the Irish Star has published them, it shows how the World really seems to see us, as they all seem to be equally shocked..

admiralofthefleet

if it closes how many jobs will be lost because of a bit of frumpy flesh?

ejmaztec

kentreaper wrote: »

Is he still with Molly?

No, things changed when they joined the yacht club, and they just drifted apart.:(

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Roisy7 wrote: »

Sorry, as a journalist, I have to say, you do not know what you're talking about.

I've just graduated and I'm already considering leaving Ireland. ONE person in my class of 16 has a permanent job. She is an excellent journalist, but the other 15 of us are hardly knuckledraggers.

Em... hang on - in what world did I ever suggest anything like this?

To answer your points.

It is different to other industries. The recession hit journalism hard as the newspaper model was not just based on selling newspapers, but selling advertising. Advertisers find they have less money to spend, so newspapers find it hard to sell ads. Less people are buying newspapers, which makes advertisers doubly reluctant to take out an ad in a newspaper.

No it isn't.

The recession hit it hard. It's hit a lot of industries hard.
Gradualtes have to leave to find jobs. Lots of graduates of other industires have to leve to find jobs.

How is the advertising angle relvant?

Other opportunities for journalists? Let's see, TV. We have four television stations in Ireland, one of which requires fluent Irish, two of which are a closed shop currently rocked by the biggest editorial scandal in its history, and the other is operated on a shoestring and can't afford to hire staff. Radio: there is a huge difference between broadcasting and writing, some people are simply not wired that way, and jobs are hard to come by in this sector. Writing online, which is what I do, is largely unpaid. There's always McDonalds.

So the market is over-subscribed and has few openings. A lot of industires have are oversubscribed and have few openings.
A lof of very qualified people work as watiers and so forth in jobs that habe nothing to do with their qualifications. I'm one of them. Why is this any different to journalism?

Freelancing is not an option if you want to eat. I recently did a short article for a UK newspaper which paid me 30 pounds or 37 euro. So if I wanted to make a decent weekly income I would have to do at least 6 articles for various publications a week, allowing for the fact that a. I would be able to find 6 sufficient stories and b. the newspaper wanted to accept my pitch. Given that most newspapers pay monthly that would still require me to go hungry. Freelancing is to supplement your existing income.

I know. I do this also. But how is this different from journalism?

Everyone, including myself, gets their news from the internet. Boards, Twitter, The Journal, etc etc are the first places my generation goes for news. Take for example the Guardian. It has suffered a MASSIVE decline in print readership simply because its website is so good, and people go, "well, I read that online this morning, why would I buy the print version and read it all again?" It is just like how no-one buys CDs anymore when they can get it online for free.

A am aware of this.

I think Oldmangrub means that, although the Star was suffering losses, it is still more profitable than other newspapers on the market.

It may well be. But if it decides to break privacy laws or indulge in morally ambigous behaveiour, why should it be examplte to the rules?

The better people do not necessarily get the jobs. Life is not that simple. Do you think that there isn't someone in college now who is talented and won't ever get the chance? The fact that, say, John Waters gets book deal after book deal for stuff that would disgrace an undergraduate philosophy class, or Kevin Myers gets paid for trolling, is testament to the cream not always rising to the top.

Okay, now here you have a point. Talent is not enough in today's world. But it's going off the point, because it sounds like you're sayign that the inferior journalists are getting the positions and the work. If this is the case, this is an internal problem for the industry, but it also makes my point: a lot of peopel simply don;t want to read good jouralism. Crap situation, I agree.

As for this:


You are not in the real world. I went into journalism because I love to write. I'm terribly sorry that not all career paths serve an economic interest.

Anyway, I feel that it would a pity for the Star to close. Just as I felt it was a pity when the Tribune had to close. It is always a sad day when Irish jobs are lost.

I'm sorry too, but you are right. Money talks. I'm an artist, I know what you're talkign about. But I still don't have a right to a job as an artist simply because I love to paint.