Why are Irish conservatives not represented in the media/politics?

Silentcorner

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair enough:

I don't believe you. In either case. Why not?

Welll, your word has been proven to be exaggerated ("crises" and "epidemics") and anecdotal ("I know a guy....") and not only are you completely unable to present a single factual rebuttal, you react with hostility to simple requests for more information and sources, not just from me but also from others. Essentially, you want us to believe not in research or facts or ideas but purely in faith. A bit like a rleigion.

"Ignore all the evidence of your eyes and you ears, and believe only what we tell you: it was the party's final most important command."
- Orwell, 1984.

Cocaine is readily available in nearly all cities, towns and even villages...I would call that an epidemic.

We have well documented obesity crisis, mental health crisis.

We know what happens in this country when we all avoid what is staring at us in the face...

You only need to walk around Dublin to see the Herione Epidemic that has been obvious now for for a few decades.

Again, I ask you, what criteria would I need to provide to be able to articulate an opinion on the National Childrens Hospital?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

You're doing it AGAIN. Every single one of these sentences is YOUR opinion exaggerated to the point where YOU are trying to pass off as fact.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Cocaine is readily available in nearly all cities, towns and even villages...I would call that an epidemic.
Calling it an epidemic is fine - but you are basing it on an unproven LOADED statement.
We have well documented obesity crisis, mental health crisis.
Then where are the documents?!
We know what happens in this country when we all avoid what is staring at us in the face...
Is this fact or opinion?
Fear-based langauge
Not actually about anything

You only need to walk around Dublin to see the Herione Epidemic that has been obvious now for for a few decades.
Opinion, pretneding to be fact
Anecdotal

Again, I ask you, what criteria would I need to provide to be able to articulate an opinion on the National Childrens Hospital?
None, as long as you don't try to portray it as factual, load the opinion or make an actual factual statement

Now, I'm not saying any of this is wrong. I am saying it's unproven. Challenging you is NOT saying you are wrong!!

And THIS, in a nutshell, is why conservative media doesn't flourish in Ireland: it's based on tabloid-esque emotive language deisgned to get people angry. It pretends it's based on facts but can't present any and ultimately relies on emotive lanaguge to make it's point.

Silentcorner

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You're doing it AGAIN. Every single one of these sentences is YOUR opinion exaggerated to the point where YOU are trying to pass off as fact.



And THIS, in a nutshell, is why conservative media doesn't flourish in Ireland: it's based on tabloid-esque emotive language deisgned to get people angry. It pretends it's based on facts but can't present any and ultimately relies on emotive lanaguge to make it's point.

You clearly know very little about media.....

The entire industry is gone tabloid...including the like of The Guardian and Irish Times.

This is an online forum where we all express opinions...so yes, I am also expressing my opinion....

Now you are free to disagree....but if you are going to insist on having documented evidence for every opinion posted, then at least you can tell me what the standard is....apart from some vague nonsense that is...

Now please, tell me EXACTLY what evidence do you think I should be able to provide to all you strangers on the internet when expressing my opinion that the thing is a catastrophic embarrassment.

Tell me exactly...or leave me alone.

joe40

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this is what it all comes down to, advertising is far more effective on women, women make up 80% of consumer spending and tend to be more prone to appeal to emotion type argument which is why media outlets who rely on advertising always trend left.

Perpetuating things like the gender pay gap, rape culture and all the other made up things that are designed to keep women reeled in is good for advertising which keeps outlets going.

"Emotion type argument" are the bread an butter of right wing conservative media. Fox news certainly doesn't let facts get in the way of a good rant. They appeal to their audience on a purely emotional level.
The telegraph, express etc for years provided a barrage of anti EU stories, with inflammatory headlines to produce anger but zero substance.
It is much easier to keep the angry right wing nuts "reeled in" with emotion. Worked for years.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Silentcorner wrote: »

You clearly know very little about media.....

The entire industry is gone tabloid...including the like of The Guardian and Irish Times.

This is an online forum where we all express opinions...so yes, I am also expressing my opinion....

No, you were stating "facts". BIG difference

Now you are free to disagree....but if you are going to insist on having documented evidence for every opinion posted, then at least you can tell me what the standard is....apart from some vague nonsense that is...

Again, you were passing off your opinion as factual.

Now please, tell me EXACTLY what evidence do you think I should be able to provide to all you strangers on the internet when expressing my opinion that the thing is a catastrophic embarrassment.

Tell me exactly...or leave me alone.

Well, what "thing" for a start?

1 - make your statement.
2 - state your opinion
3 - say why you came to this conclusion. If it's a discussion with a firend, fine - but DON'T pass it off as factual.

Presenting opinion as fact is why conservative media doesn't last long in serious journalistic circles and why there aren't any in Ireland.

Silentcorner

joe40 wrote: »

"Emotion type argument" are the bread an butter of right wing conservative media. Fox news certainly doesn't let facts get in the way of a good rant. They appeal to their audience on a purely emotional level.
The telegraph, express etc for years provided a barrage of anti EU stories, with inflammatory headlines to produce anger but zero substance.
It is much easier to keep the angry right wing nuts "reeled in" with emotion. Worked for years.

The entire industry does it...are you that blind?

The problem both the US and Britain has is the two party system, this polarised landscape is then reflected in media....we don't we have a different system and as such our media has a different issue.

Silentcorner

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, you were stating "facts". BIG difference



Again, you were passing off your opinion as factual.



Well, what "thing" for a start?

1 - make your statement.
2 - state your opinion
3 - say why you came to this conclusion. If it's a discussion with a firend, fine - but DON'T pass it off as factual.

So let me get this straight, yourself and the other fella have gotten ye're knickers in a twist because I should have said that I've been led to believe...

Or are ye both just being pedantic because ye both have taken a dislike to my opinions and have have just wished to undermine me....

I mean, this is pathetic, ye both have been dragging the thread off topic while simultaneously being incapable of defining what the standards are here....

So...I am going to ask one last time...tell me EXACTLY what the standard is...

If I express an opinion, what do I need to present to back it up...because I don't want to be pursued by you or your pal again...because the three points you just mentioned are nonsense...

Outline what sources are perceived to be the standard, what media outlets, what websites....if you can't do that...then kindly f##k off...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Silentcorner wrote: »

So let me get this straight, yourself and the other fella have gotten ye're knickers in a twist because I should have said that I've been led to believe...

More a case of being mild irritated ebcaue you tried to pass off opinoin as fact. Pet hate with me, sorry if it came off as being overly hostile.

Or are ye both just being pedantic because ye both have taken a dislike to my opinions and have have just wished to undermine me....

I mean, this is pathetic, ye both have been dragging the thread off topic while simultaneously being incapable of defining what the standards are here....

No, the topic is "conservative represetation in media" and I've detailed in my last few posts why it's not there.

So...I am going to ask one last time...tell me EXACTLY what the standard is...

If I express an opinion, what do I need to present to back it up...because I don't want to be pursued by you or your pal again...because the three points you just mentioned are nonsense...

No, you just need to not pass it off as fact.
"There is a cocaine epidemic" is a statement of fact.
"Cocaine is readily available in every village or town..." - is a statement of fact. I seriously believe that's not the case. Dublin, Cork, Galway maybe - but that's about it.
"... I believe that's an epidemic." - totally fine, but I personally disagree with your reasonning and have stated why.

(And this is before we even get to the point over whether this is a problem or not, as alcohol - in my opinoin - is just as dangerous on a societal level!)

Outline what sources are perceived to be the standard, what media outlets, what websites....if you can't do that...then kindly f##k off...

Well - put it this way: why do you believe cocaine is available in every village in Ireland? Did you read it somewhere (in which case where) or did you try and buy it? Or did you just hear it somewhere (in which case, why do you believe its true?)


Again - apologies if this comes off as hostile, I'm just trying to illustrate why this isn't a very well-researched opinoin and how it relates to why there is percieved to be no mainstream conservative media in Ireland: it passes off opinion as fact and as a result is unreliable.

Of course, it depends on whether you want your newspaper to portray truth or opnion, but it should be clear about it.

Sean.3516

Emmaline Tender Fowl wrote: »

This interests me on a number of levels.

I know the politics of a number of countries quite well and I noticed that in each one of them, both the liberal and conservative (mostly in the social sense) parts of the population have their own media outlets - nationwide TV, newspapers, major websites, even colleges. They also each have political parties which represent their views.

However, this does not seem to exist in Ireland, where a massive sway towards the liberal side exists. I cannot think of a single major newspaper or TV station that would cater to the conservative section of the population. Moreover, I cannot think of a single major political party that would be socially conservative.

I think it would be fair to say that the three biggest social issues of the day which divide liberals and conservatives are abortion, homosexual unions and mass Muslim migration (maybe EU membership, at a push). The referendums on the first two were by no means a landslide, and migration still does not have consensus. Yet if one was to look at the media/politics of this country, it would seem that pro-lifers, advocates of traditional marriage and immigration skeptics do not exist.

Why is that? Is it a) conservatives just fail to organize, b) they do not care about propagating their views or maybe c) they are somehow outmaneuvered/suppressed in society by the liberal media giants (yes, "giants" in the Irish sense).

With public discourse controlled by liberal-leaning media and politicians, is it time to declare that conservatism is the new counter-culture?

Originally (at the foundation of the state) it was Cumann na nGaedhal later known as Fine Gael who were what we might call the "conservative" party while Fianna Fail were liberal. Both parties were socially conservative as per the homogenous views of a Catholic country but economics was the main point of division. Fine Gael were conservative on economics (which is to say they were liberals in the classical sense). They favoured low spending, balancing the budget and allowing the economy to grow organically through minimal government intervention. Fianna Fail were liberals in that the opposed this and favoured heavy government intervention in order to plan the economy for success. In De Valera's day this meant heavy protectionism and state-sponsored monopolies. By Lemass's time, Keynesian economics was the new fad. Market liberalisation coupled with selective government spending to stimulate certain areas. FG remained suspicious of Keynesian econ, though they've embraced it slightly in recent decades.

On the social side, both parties have liberalised rapidly in recent decades. FG especially. FF is still has a notable socially conservative element. It was reported that 50% of FF members voted No in the referendum to abolish the eight amendment. But it is certainly true that our parties have liberalised (at least on social issues) faster than the Irish people have. I think this might be due to the European influence. Both FF and FG are members of centre right parties at the European level. This parties from continental Europe tend to be socially liberal across the board.

Conservatives have failed to organise themselves politically because they have no unifying political philosophy. I think there are three main types of political conservatism in the world today and the Irish right has not sorted itself into either of these lanes. (1.) The nationalist conservatism of continental Europe. FF and SF have locked down the nationalist element of Irish politics. (2.) The Burkean Anglo-American type conservatism that emphasises individual rights plus traditional institutions. (3.) The Lockean Libertarian conservatism which focuses on natural individual rights and highly constrained government. This probably wouldn't catch on since most people in Ireland are very comfortable with the government playing an active role in society.

If the Irish right wanted to unite around one of those, (2.) Burkean conservatism would be the best bet. This would probably look something like the old Fine Gael. If Irish conservatives are smart they'll go down this lane as opposed to trying to copy the American right or the European right. Edmund Burke was an Irishman too which is kind of neat.

Silentcorner

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

More a case of being mild irritated ebcaue you tried to pass off opinoin as fact. Pet hate with me, sorry if it came off as being overly hostile.


No, the topic is "conservative represetation in media" and I've detailed in my last few posts why it's not there.


No, you just need to not pass it off as fact.
"There is a cocaine epidemic" is a statement of fact.
"Cocaine is readily available in every village or town..." - is a statement of fact. I seriously believe that's not the case. Dublin, Cork, Galway maybe - but that's about it.
"... I believe that's an opinoin" - totally fine, but it's based on a fact I personally disagree with and have stated why.



Well - put it this way: why do you believe cocaine is available in every village in Ireland? Did you read it somewhere (in which case where) or did you try and buy it? Or did you just hear it somewhere (in which case, why do you believe its true?)


Again - apologies if this comes off as hostile, I'm just trying to illustrate why this isn't a very well-researched opinoin and how it relates to why there is percieved to be no mainstream conservative media in Ireland.

Now how am I supposed to provide documented proof on that....especially when you can't define what sources are even credible...you are deliberately asking me for a standard knowing I can't provide it...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/cocaine-in-ireland-the-average-consumer-is-a-farmer-or-nurse-it-s-universal-1.4064416

If you talk to bar owners they'll tell you...but you can't provide proof of that...they all operate in regional and national organisations so it is an issue facing all publicans nationwide but I can't provide proof for that...

You don't want to admit it to yourself, but you are being deliberately pedantic because you don't like my opinions or even how I express them...and that is fair enough...but please don't talk about standards you are not in a position to.

joe40

Silentcorner wrote: »

The entire industry does it...are you that blind?

The problem both the US and Britain has is the two party system, this polarised landscape is then reflected in media....we don't we have a different system and as such our media has a different issue.

"Are you blind?" ...
How fcuking dare you talk to me like that for expressing an opinion.
You have no manners and I have zero interest in a further dialogue. I leave you to your bitter existence.

Silentcorner

joe40 wrote: »

"Are you blind?" ...
How fcuking dare you talk to me like that for expressing an opinion.
You have no manners and I have zero interest in a further dialogue. I leave you to your bitter existence.

Oookay then.....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Silentcorner wrote: »

Now how am I supposed to provide documented proof on that....especially when you can't define what sources are even credible...you are deliberately asking me for a standard knowing I can't provide it...

... then don't make the statement.

If you talk to bar owners they'll tell you...but you can't provide proof of that...they all operate in regional and national organisations so it is an issue facing all publicans nationwide but I can't provide proof for that...

That's fine - but at lesat you've now told me where your coming from. But again - it's opinion, not fact.

You don't want to admit it to yourself, but you are being deliberately pedantic because you don't like my opinions or even how I express them...and that is fair enough...but please don't talk about standards you are not in a position to.

Standards dictate society which dictates governments which dictates laws and the next hing you know you have a mecia- elected president suggesting injecting bleach as a treatment to covid-19.

THAT'S the danger.

Sean.3516

L1011 wrote: »

In terms of votes received, the conservative media commentators there are are massively over-represented; with a permanent op-ed presence in the print media and basically a guaranteed seat on any discussion.

They account for about 2% of the vote.

There is no "silent majority" or anything like it - just an incredibly noisy tiny minority.

I don't think you can estimate the amount of conservatives in the country based on the vote size of the so called conservative parties like Renua or National Party. These parties tend to screw up because they take up some nutty positions or they attempt to imitate the american/european conservatism in a way that just puts people off.

I'd reckon most conservatives are just people in favour of free markets with some variety of views when it comes to the social stuff like abortion.

The vast majority of conservatives don't vote for Renua or the National Party but FF or FG or independents. There's actually a lot of diversity of thought in FF/FG. The social conservatives tend to vote FF while the free market types tend to vote FG. Some social conservatives in FG too. I'd consider myself a conservative on economics and a libertarian on the social issues with the exception of abortion and I'm a member of FG.

Lux23

There is no monopoly in the Irish media unless you mean media plurality which isn't a problem either.

Silentcorner

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... then don't make the statement.


That's fine - but at lesat you've now told me where your coming from. But again - it's opinion, not fact.



Standards dictate society which dictates governments which dictates laws and the next hing you know you have a mecia- elected president suggesting injecting bleach as a treatment to covid-19.

THAT'S the danger.

How in gods name do you think the media elected Donald Trump....

Can you provide for me documented evidence that the media industry was responsible for his election into the highest Political Office in the world please?

mariaalice

Lux23 wrote: »

There is no monopoly in the Irish media unless you mean media plurality which isn't a problem either.

You would have to consider there can be a bit of a hive mind going on, though not always.

My issue would be with the idea that it is organised in some way and that it's organised in such a way that it suppresses another view.

We are a small nation with a population of just under 5 million and we are fairly homogeneous there are no vast differences of wealth it's not the sort of society that is going to produce radical politics.

Plus lots here are all over the place, some don't know what the right is, some want American style welfare, low tax, small government, some want traditional values ect.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Silentcorner wrote: »

How in gods name do you think the media elected Donald Trump....

They didn't - they provided the platform for him to be elected.

Can you provide for me documented evidence that the media industry was responsible for his election into the highest Political Office in the world please?

Respsonible for - no (your words, not mine)
Provided the platofrm for - yes.

over the full course of the election, it was Clinton, not Trump, who was more often the target of negative coverage (see Figure 1). Overall, the coverage of her candidacy was 62 percent negative to 38 percent positive, while his coverage was 56 percent negative to 44 percent positive.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/

They were also slated for paying far more attention to Clinton's alleged emails and very little to Trump's alleged Russian connections.

Silentcorner

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

They didn't - they provided the platform for him to be elected.



Respsonible for - no (your words, not mine)
Provided the platofrm for - yes.


https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/

Hang on a minute, you said the he was a media elected President....

You didn't mention the Republican Nomination.

Can you please provide for me documented evidence that the media industry was responsible for his election to the Presidency please.

"You have a media elected President"....were your exact words...

Did you even read the report?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Silentcorner wrote: »

Hang on a minute, you said the he was a media elected President....

You didn't mention the Republican Nomination.

Can you please provide for me documented evidence that the media industry was responsible for his election to the Presidency please.

"You have a media elected President"....were your exact words...

Quoted the wrong article, apologies - post updated.

The media portrayal of the candidaes most certainly effected the result of the election. They shoose which candidate they were going to highlight, whcih one they were going to cast postiviely and which one they we going to cast negatively. Why else did they do this? They chose which candidate they wanted and cast their media as such. Or are you suggesting that I literally meant only the media were allowed to vote...?

mariaalice

This is about British conservatism but its interesting non the less.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/10/closing-conservative-mind-politics-and-art-war

rossie1977

Not to mention the thousands of free advertising hours the media gave Trump while ignoring the other candidates. US media played huge role in electing Trump https://theweek.com/speedreads/626702/fox-news-cnn-msnbc-all-broadcast-trumps-empty-podium-instead-clintons-big-speech

On the other hand vast majority of articles on Hillary Clinton were negative in nature. 13 out of the last 16 days of campaign NY Times ran a negative email story on front page regarding Clinton. When she was cleared few months ago by Republican committee of any wrong-doing the story featured on page 13 of NYT..

Silentcorner

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Quoted the wrong article, apologies - post updated.

The media portrayal of the candidaes most certainly effected the result of the election. They shoose which candidate they were going to highlight, whcih one they were going to cast postiviely and which one they we going to cast negatively. They chose which candidate they wanted and cast their media as such. Or are you suggestion that I lieteally meant only the media were allowed to vote...?

I'm sorry now....but you said Trump was a media elected president.

You have provided a report that essentially asserts the opposite of that...the report does suggest that the entire media coverage was very negative to both candidates which is what a number of us have been saying over and over again here...

Now can you please provide some documented evidence that Trump was elected by the media please?

Silentcorner

rossie1977 wrote: »

Not to mention the thousands of free advertising hours the media gave Trump while ignoring the other candidates. US media played huge role in electing Trump https://theweek.com/speedreads/626702/fox-news-cnn-msnbc-all-broadcast-trumps-empty-podium-instead-clintons-big-speech

On the other hand vast majority of articles on Hillary Clinton were negative in nature. 13 out of the last 16 days of campaign NY Times ran a negative email story on front page regarding Clinton. When she was cleared few months ago by Republican committee of any wrong-doing the story featured on page 13 of NYT..

Did you read the report that Princess Consuela Bananahammock left...I suggest you do...it's interesting.

Mad_maxx

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Originally (at the foundation of the state) it was Cumann na nGaedhal later known as Fine Gael who were what we might call the "conservative" party while Fianna Fail were liberal. Both parties were socially conservative as per the homogenous views of a Catholic country but economics was the main point of division. Fine Gael were conservative on economics (which is to say they were liberals in the classical sense). They favoured low spending, balancing the budget and allowing the economy to grow organically through minimal government intervention. Fianna Fail were liberals in that the opposed this and favoured heavy government intervention in order to plan the economy for success. In De Valera's day this meant heavy protectionism and state-sponsored monopolies. By Lemass's time, Keynesian economics was the new fad. Market liberalisation coupled with selective government spending to stimulate certain areas. FG remained suspicious of Keynesian econ, though they've embraced it slightly in recent decades.

On the social side, both parties have liberalised rapidly in recent decades. FG especially. FF still has a notable socially conservative element. It was reported that 50% of FF members voted No in the referendum to abolish the eight amendment. But it is certainly true that our parties have liberalised (at least on social issues) faster than the Irish people have. I think this might be due to the European influence. Both FF and FG are members of centre right parties at the European level. This parties from continental Europe tend to be socially liberal across the board.

Conservatives have failed to organise themselves politically because they have no unifying political philosophy. I think there are three main types of political conservatism in the world today and the Irish right has not sorted itself into either of these lanes. (1.) The nationalist conservatism of continental Europe. FF and SF have locked down the nationalist element of Irish politics. (2.) The Burkean Anglo-American type conservatism that emphasises individual rights plus traditional institutions. (3.) The Lockean Libertarian conservatism which focuses on natural individual rights and highly constrained government. This probably wouldn't catch on since most people in Ireland are very comfortable with the government playing an active role in society.

If the Irish right wanted to unite around one of those, (2.) Burkean conservatism would be the best bet. This would probably look something like the old Fine Gael. If Irish conservatives are smart they'll go down this lane as opposed to trying to copy the American right or the European right. Edmund Burke was an Irishman too which is kind of neat.

superb analysis and synopsis but i see no observations of the media ?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'm sorry now....but you said Trump was a media elected president.

You have provided a report that essentially asserts the opposite of that...the report does suggest that the entire media coverage was very negative to both candidates which is what a number of us have been saying over and over again here...

Now can you please provide some documented evidence that Trump was elected by the media please?

Again, I did not mean literally in terms of only media personally are allowed vote. I'd have thought this obvious, but...

He was elected based on media presentation as has been illustrated.

Silentcorner

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again, I did not mean literally in terms of only media personally are allowed vote. I'd have thought this obvious, but...

He was elected based on media presentation as has been illustrated.

I beg your pardon....

You have not illustrated anything other than the horrific state of media in the US.

I don't know if you expressed an opinion or you made a statement, but you said "a media elected President"...perhaps you could clarify, and then, for the third time, could you please provide evidence to back it up.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Silentcorner wrote: »

I beg your pardon....

You have not illustrated anything other than the horrific state of media in the US.

I don't know if you expressed an opinion or you made a statement, but you said "a media elected President"...perhaps you could clarify, and then, for the third time, could you please provide evidence to back it up.

Done.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again, I did not mean literally in terms of only media personally are allowed vote. I'd have thought this obvious, but...

He was elected based on media presentation as has been illustrated.

Silentcorner

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Done.

I am well aware you were not referring to how people who work in media voted, that is preposterous!

Don't hold others to standards you couldn't be bothered to uphold yourself.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Silentcorner wrote: »

I am well aware you were not referring to how people who work in media voted, that is preposterous!

Don't hold others to standards you couldn't be bothered to uphold yourself.

I backed up what I said, end of debate. We're done here.