The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

RandomViewer

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The US situation is completely different regarding voter suppression. Requiring people to reaffirm their registration is not a lot different than we have here with our regular pre-election campaigns to make sure you are on the voting registry.
I certainly don't believe that republicans nowadays are in any way more disadvantaged than unionists.

It's more likely that Sinn Fein's hoopla about this is because they know their voting base is more likely to whinge-post on Facebook than actually go out and make an effort to register and vote.

SF would be very good at getting their vote out and last election would have canvassed in time to get as many people back on the register, FG or FF didnt bother c anvassing other than leaflets through the letterbox in the middle of the night, FF had a row in the camp and FG didn't have a local candidate so that may have been why

smurgen

Morto for the Indo. The government presstitutes have serious egg on their face.

https://twitter.com/MaryLouMcDonald/status/1363924959039520768?s=19

James Brown

smurgen wrote: »

Morto for the Indo. The government presstitutes have serious egg on their face.

https://twitter.com/MaryLouMcDonald/status/1363924959039520768?s=19

The idea they post a leader of the opposition above such a story says enough about their bias.

McMurphy

smurgen wrote: »

Morto for the Indo. The government presstitutes have serious egg on their face.

https://twitter.com/MaryLouMcDonald/status/1363924959039520768?s=19

Egg on their face world indicate they made some kind of accident or mistake.

They knew exactly what they were doing with that headline and that photo however.

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

Egg on their face world indicate they made some kind of accident or mistake.

They knew exactly what they were doing with that headline and that photo however.

Getting crucified trying to justify it.

https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/1363937106872176647

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Getting crucified trying to justify it.

https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/1363937106872176647

Brilliant, even Mary-Lou didn’t read the article, only looked at the headline and picture.

Sums SF up to a tee, image over substance.

Whatisthisnow

blanch152 wrote: »

Brilliant, even Mary-Lou didn’t read the article, only looked at the headline and picture.

Sums SF up to a tee, image over substance.

More votes for the Shinners after tonight's school fiasco and Donnellys car crash TV appearance

Tomorrow is going to get them even more.

This thread will be busy

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Brilliant, even Mary-Lou didn’t read the article, only looked at the headline and picture.

Sums SF up to a tee, image over substance.

I would guess she doesn't subscribe to the Indo, like the vast majority of other people who would need to subscribe to get past the paywalled first paragraph and headline.

They knew exactly what they were doing.

The public know exactly what the Indo were trying to do too. It was a spectacular backfire.

Fann Linn

Whatisthisnow wrote: »

More votes for the Shinners after tonight's school fiasco and Donnellys car crash TV appearance

Tomorrow is going to get them even more.

This thread will be busy

Fawlty Powers according to today's Indo-starring Manuel Donnelly and Sybil Varadkar.

CrazyFather1

blanch152 wrote: »

Brilliant, even Mary-Lou didn’t read the article, only looked at the headline and picture.

Sums SF up to a tee, image over substance.

What an idiot :P
She gets a positive article in a paper and she complains about it because she doesn't bother reading the article. You couldn't make it up
Even better is the desperate back tracking on here.

Deleted User wrote: »

tbf it is a scandel,low brow tabloid,tactics

Id be suprised if the PCI didnt receive a complaint about it tbh

Scandal? good one
I would be surprised if they didn't from "hundreds" because poor old Mary Lou has made a clown of herself.

CrazyFather1

Whatisthisnow wrote: »

More votes for the Shinners after tonight's school fiasco and Donnellys car crash TV appearance

Tomorrow is going to get them even more.

This thread will be busy

Any proof of more votes for SF? was an opinion poll done before/after?

Also what TV appearance? was something on, some more information would be useful.

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

The public know exactly what the Indo were trying to do too. It was a spectacular backfire.

And that is the point. Mary Lou is kinda immaterial here.

What happened with that article is that the party political toxicity of the Indo got found out in a big way. A 'newspaper' like that is as useful to idea of good journalism as An Phoblacht is.

CrazyFather1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And that is the point. Mary Lou is kinda immaterial here.

What happened with that article is that the party political toxicity of the Indo got found out in a big way. A 'newspaper' like that is as useful to idea of good journalism as An Phoblacht is.

Yes it is everyone else's fault because Mary Lou made herself look like a complete idiot
Maybe you could explain how the Indo would know she wouldn't bother to read the actual article before she posted a stupid comment on twitter

No surprise on here defending that stupidity, we shall not say anything bad about SF is the motto isn't it?

FrancieBrady

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Yes it is everyone else's fault because Mary Lou made herself look like a complete idiot

No surprise on here defending that stupidity, we shall not say anything bad about SF is the motto isn't it?

Well it is typical that you would hold SF to account here and not the perpetrator of sinister and biased 'journalism.
There is a long record of depending on the Indo for ammo when it comes to bile about SF. The only thing unique about this from the Indo is the blatancy of it.

I think the public conversation that the 'editor' had to so clumsily address shows that you are just doing what you guys do, defending a sinister agenda...again.

CrazyFather1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well it is typical that you would hold SF to account here and not the perpetrator of sinister and biased 'journalism.
There is a long record of depending on the Indo for ammo when it comes to bile about SF. The only thing unique about this from the Indo is the blatancy of it.

I think the public conversation that the 'editor' had to so clumsily address shows that you are just doing what you guys do, defending a sinister agenda...again.

As I posted after, could you explain to me how the Indo would know Mary Lou wouldn't read the article before posting on twitter about it?
If she had a problem with her picture been used then post about that. Would you not think?

CrazyFather1

Deleted User wrote: »

The media is corrupt here.....the carry on with that photo placement is just another glaring example of it



The indo is now,the irish equilivalent of the daily express in its level of partisan bias

If she had an issue with her photo been used then post about that
Desperate back tracking on here, you are starting to look as bad as Mary Lou at this stage

McMurphy

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

As I posted after, could you explain to me how the Indo would know Mary Lou wouldn't read the article before posting on twitter about it?
If she had a problem with her picture been used then post about that. Would you not think?

The piece in the "article" were it stated McDonald actually refused the pay increase was buried behind the paywall.

Are you seriously suggesting the independent do not have data on how many visitors to their site clicked on it, but who didn't have subscriptions to get to that paragraph?

With that in mind, it's not about McDonald, it's about the visitors to the site who didn't get past the paywall. I'm not surprised this needs clarification for you.

Tell me, why other than the backlash did they change their photo to one of McGrath?

Fionn1952

A question for anyone suggesting the Mary Lou photo above that article wasn't any sort of funny business, or that she is being ridiculous by complaining about it.

How would you react if a newspaper in such heavy circulation ran with the headline, 'Ireland's most notorious fraud perpetrator finally caught', the article opens with a paragraph about the nature of the fraud, how much money had been stolen through it, and your photo is above that headline. The article goes on to clarify that you were a key part of the investigation, but that part is behind a paywall.

You wouldn't feel that the article misrepresented you by placing your photograph above that headline? You wouldn't feel that there was potential for you to be misidentified as the subject of the article? No way you'd feel aggrieved at all?

CrazyFather1

McMurphy wrote: »

The piece in the "article" were it stated McDonald actually refused the pay increase was buried behind the paywall.

Are you seriously suggesting the independent do not have data on how many visitors to their site clicked on it, but who didn't have subscriptions to get to that paragraph?

With that in mind, it's not about McDonald, it's about the visitors to the site who didn't get past the paywall. I'm not surprised this needs clarification for you.

Tell me, why other than the backlash did they change their photo to one of McGrath?

Please explain how the Independent could tell Mary Lou wouldn't read the article before posting a stupid tweet?

CrazyFather1

Fionn1952 wrote: »

A question for anyone suggesting the Mary Lou photo above that article wasn't any sort of funny business, or that she is being ridiculous by complaining about it.

How would you react if a newspaper in such heavy circulation ran with the headline, 'Ireland's most notorious fraud perpetrator finally caught', the article opens with a paragraph about the victims and your photo is above that headline. The article goes on to clarify that you were a key part of the investigation, but that part is behind a paywall.

You wouldn't feel that the article misrepresented you by placing your photograph above that headline? You wouldn't feel that there was potential for you to be misidentified as the subject of the article? No way you'd feel aggrieved at all?

If Mary Lou had a problem with the picture, then post a tweet complaining about that. She didn't.

End of story.

FrancieBrady

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

As I posted after, could you explain to me how the Indo would know Mary Lou wouldn't read the article before posting on twitter about it?
If she had a problem with her picture been used then post about that. Would you not think?

Why did the editor feel the need to explain CF1? Because Mary Lou complained?

Keep it up, blame the person targeted here, you are clearly in the minority. The Indo got caught with it's pants down.

McMurphy

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Please explain how the Independent could tell Mary Lou wouldn't read the article before posting a stupid tweet?

Let me know what part of "it's not about McDonald, it's about the visitors to the site who didn't get past the paywall" you're having difficulty grasping, and I'll go through it with you.

Fionn1952

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Please explain how the Independent could tell Mary Lou wouldn't read the article before posting a stupid tweet?

I'd imagine they could've avoided the whole thing by either not putting the piece of information about Mary Lou behind a paywall, or by using a less misleading photograph in the first place.

It is the double whammy of both which makes the hatchet job look a bit obvious. If they'd gone with the former, at least there would be a degree of plausible deniability to hide behind.

Triangle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The media is corrupt here.....the carry on with that photo placement is just another glaring example of it



The indo is now,the irish equilivalent of the daily express in its level of partisan bias....a trash newspaper,for a trashy readership

It's amazing how ye SF supporters resemble trump supporters at times.
The fact is that 'sinister' news papers are constantly looking for click bait articles about anything and everything but ye only complain about SF articles and non SF articles are pure truth.

A bit of perspective is a great thing.

Fionn1952

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

If Mary Lou had a problem with the picture, then post a tweet complaining about that. She didn't.

End of story.

She posted a tweet clarifying the contexts of their misleading article. Still doesn't answer my question.

McMurphy

Triangle wrote: »

It's amazing how ye SF supporters resemble trump supporters at times.
The fact is that 'sinister' news papers are constantly looking for click bait articles about anything and everything but ye only complain about SF articles and non SF articles are pure truth.

A bit of perspective is a great thing.

Why did the independent issue the statement clarifying, and subsequently change the photo?

Here's a tip.

When you're explaining you're losing.

When you change the photo, you're backtracking with your tail between your legs.

Wouldn't be surprising if there'll be a mealy mouthed apology explaining it all away imminent. Watch this space.

Fionn1952

Triangle wrote: »

news papers are constantly looking for click bait articles about anything and everything
.

All that being said, while I certainly think there are varying degrees of bias within journalism.....I'd be easily convinced that this is 90% of the reason rather than a sinister plot.

Perhaps they're even more clever than we give them credit for and the whole furore over this was predicted and intentionally allowed to happen to drive traffic.


That doesn't make it acceptable, it doesn't make it not gutter journalism, but it makes sense to me.

FrancieBrady

Triangle wrote: »

It's amazing how ye SF supporters resemble trump supporters at times.
The fact is that 'sinister' news papers are constantly looking for click bait articles about anything and everything but ye only complain about SF articles and non SF articles are pure truth.

A bit of perspective is a great thing.

Are you claiming the Indo hasn't got a legendary reputation for this kind of reporting on SF? :D:D:D

As I said and stand by, the only unique thing about this is the blatancy of it. And the fact that the wider public are wise to it.

Scratchly

Embarrassing stuff from Mary Lou. Makes a song and dance over the increase and puts on a big show about giving it back. Then complains about making the papers because she wasn't arsed reading past a headline.

And then the usual conspiracy nonsense from her supporters trying to claim the media are out to get SF because something something spin, something something establishment is running scared.

CrazyFather1

McMurphy wrote: »

Let me know what part of "it's not about McDonald, it's about the visitors to the site who didn't get past the paywall" you're having difficulty grasping, and I'll go through it with you.

So you are saying Mary Lou hasn't signed up for access to one of the main newspapers in Ireland? SF can't afford a few quid a month?

If it was about the visitors then why didn't Mary Lou post and explain she didn't want her photo over it.