Eoghan Harris terminated

magicbastarder

ooter wrote: »

When he mentions "the site" in the interview is he talking about the Twitter account?

it seems clear that he is.

magicbastarder

golfball37 wrote: »

Sean O Rourke had Bailey on as a favour to her. He tried to shut down Allison o Conner and panel discussing it when she left studio. He was sorry she went off reservation and there were many punches he chose not to throw.

funny, i listened to that interview and read it as a class in feeding rope.
he could have gone in hard and she'd have clammed up; he seemed to have the sense to go easy so she'd open up and say things she wouldn't otherwise have said.
he's not a newbie - when he asked 'were you reaching for a beer bottle' and she replied (IIRC) 'that's up to the judge to decide', he knew he'd caught a wave and just had to surf in rather than swim in.

KaneToad

I just read the infamous tweet that the female journalist suggested was sexualised and commenting on "the size of her arse" (her words)

"Moore thinks she is sniping safely from behind Derry hedges, but she’s actually sniping from an ROI hedge in the Examiner and her Sinn Féin backside is sticking up in the air.”

Harris, in his RTE interview, says this isn't sexualised. I'm inclined to agree. I don't like Harris, I think this may be the first time I've ever agreed with him.

magicbastarder

so it looks like the story is now that it was not a request to twitter for legal purposes which 'outed' the account - it was that harris was given poll results by the sindo which he tweeted before it was published:

Eoghan Harris’s secret account was discovered as a result of poll data
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/eoghan-harris-s-secret-account-was-discovered-as-a-result-of-poll-data-1.4558758

Rosita

KaneToad wrote: »

I just read the infamous tweet that the female journalist suggested was sexualised and commenting on "the size of her arse" (her words)

"Moore thinks she is sniping safely from behind Derry hedges, but she’s actually sniping from an ROI hedge in the Examiner and her Sinn Féin backside is sticking up in the air.”

Harris, in his RTE interview, says this isn't sexualised. I'm inclined to agree. I don't like Harris, I think this may be the first time I've ever agreed with him.

Yeah, I thought he explained that and the "turned on by" comments quite plausibly. Inelegant language but mainstream enough.

Rosita

Bambi wrote: »

You're assuming the people who call Harris mental have never met him.

Of course I am. Would be surprised, on the law of averages, if I am wrong on that general assumption.

McMurphy

Lunatic agrees with lunatic shocker.

https://twitter.com/RuthDE/status/1390949322146131970?s=19

Rosita

Look at the previous post here - an anonymous poster blithely calling two people "lunatics". Harris did nothing that isn't routinely happening here every day. Not the most edifying vista of the human condition but extremely common, so common in fact that we don't even notice it half the time.

Is there a substantive difference between a journalist being called an imbecile anonymously on one forum and two others being called lunatics anonymously on another? I can't see it anyway. Maybe Sarah McInerney would but I don't.

magicbastarder

i think there's a *subtle* difference between people like you and me (and i have to assume you're just like me, a randomer on the internet with an opinion), and a 'journalist' with a national profile who is helping run an anonymous twitter account with (a claimed) at least half a dozen other people, which attacks other journalists, among other things.

if the IT story is true, that's a clear fait accompli for the sindo to cut ties with him. he was tweeting what at that point was privileged info.

magicbastarder

McMurphy wrote: »

Lunatic agrees with lunatic shocker.

i have read that RDE was one of the very first people to start following the pym account. it's quite possible that she knew who was behind it.

McMurphy

Rosita wrote: »

Look at the previous post here - an anonymous poster blithely calling two people "lunatics". Harris did nothing that isn't routinely happening here every day. Not the most edifying vista of the human condition but extremely common, so common in fact that we don't even notice it half the time.

Is there a substantive difference between a journalist being called an imbecile anonymously on one forum and two others being called lunatics anonymously on another? I can't see it anyway. Maybe Sarah McInerney would but I don't.

Eoghan Harris 2008.

“I have strong views on the abuse of internet boards.. by political nerds who need anonymity to function. I have always seen them as little **** masturbating in a room and hiding behind the computer while they write nasty pieces” -
Eoghan Harris.

Eoghan Harris 2021.

https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/21950950

Those are the ramblings of a lunatic.

McMurphy

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have read that RDE was one of the very first people to start following the pym account. it's quite possible that she knew who was behind it.

There's a few people speculating she might have been of the few operating the accounts with Harris, she comes across as unhinged as he is, so that wouldn't come as a surprise to me if it later emerges that she was tbh.

Cilldara_2000

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think there's a *subtle* difference between people like you and me (and i have to assume you're just like me, a randomer on the internet with an opinion), and a 'journalist' with a national profile who is helping run an anonymous twitter account with (a claimed) at least half a dozen other people, which attacks other journalists, among other things.

if the IT story is true, that's a clear fait accompli for the sindo to cut ties with him. he was tweeting what at that point was privileged info.

Plus there's a serious professional ethics question which Harris just denies. Even if he's not a member of the NUJ, they have ethics rules which include "A journalist strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair". What sort of journalist hides behind anonymity to take hateful rhetorical potshots at people?

There's also the twitter rules he broke.

Plainly he has acted unethically here and there's a substantial difference between his actions and what us randomers do here.

magicbastarder

i was briefly perusing the twitter feed of eilis o'hanlon yesterday; she was decrying the treatment of harris, but then had to declaim 'i'm not defending what he did'. she was then pushed by multiple to people to actually condemn what he did, but in the couple of minutes i was looking there, she seemed to have ignored those comments. she may have done so since, but her omission at the time (unless i missed a condemnation) seemed obvious.

McMurphy

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Plus there's a serious professional ethics question which Harris just denies. Even if he's not a member of the NUJ, they have ethics rules which include "A journalist strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair". What sort of journalist hides behind anonymity to take hateful rhetorical potshots at people?

There's also the twitter rules he broke.

Plainly he has acted unethically here and there's a substantial difference between his actions and what us randomers do here.

Cheerleading himself in the third person was the most cringe thing of all imo.

smurgen

There's many other journalists up to this I would imagine. Will be interesting to see what else is unearthed. The irony of those bleating on non stop about internet trolls from their columns and asking Mary Lou to call off some imaginary online social media army is just delicious. It's been projection all along.

Larbre34

He's not a journalist. Never was. He was a commentator, with what qualification to do so, God knows.

A commentator and a massive egotistical spoofer.

smurgen

DeadHand wrote: »

Strange case.

Commentators can happily tweet “kill all men”, “kill white people”, “white people are subhuman and should be removed from society” (that one directly from the BLM), “white people are snivelling goblins” and be applauded for it instead of ruined.

The Pym tweets were caustic at most. An indecent amount of spin was required to now have them broadly accepted as abusive. It has been made received wisdom that having one’s backside mentioned non sexually in a communication and other, even milder, vagaries are police matters and traumatic events requiring counselling.

This was much more about the identities and politics of the sender and target than the content of the tweets.

Harris was foolish to play these stupid games on Twitter. He has been clearly psychologically unstable for decades and a break from public life would do him good.

For me, the issue is not so much about Harris. Much more undeserved, dishonest hatchet jobs were carried out against Myers and Hook. It’s about the fact that Ireland is becoming no country for contrary views. It’s about the worrying, increasing dominance of extreme progressivist ideology over Irish society.

This is an ideology that the great majority of the public has no time for yet is embraced fanatically by political and media establishments which have never been so detached from the Irish nation. And it’s currently expressing itself in infinitely more harmful ways than the ruination of Harris, ways which the same media that excoriates him will not subject to anything approaching honest, much less brave, examination. (See the changes to our asylum laws).

Twitter’s famously woke and biased standards are becoming our standards. The entire English speaking world is becoming an American campus.

It’s a bad path we’ve been placed on.

"Ireland is becoming no country for contrary views. It’s " but he attacked other journalists that didn't share his views? Let's be clear anti SF is the view of the establishment and the established media. To paint it as contrarian is disingenuous.

FunLover18

Rosita wrote: »

Look at the previous post here - an anonymous poster blithely calling two people "lunatics". Harris did nothing that isn't routinely happening here every day. Not the most edifying vista of the human condition but extremely common, so common in fact that we don't even notice it half the time.

Is there a substantive difference between a journalist being called an imbecile anonymously on one forum and two others being called lunatics anonymously on another? I can't see it anyway. Maybe Sarah McInerney would but I don't.

By his own admission Harris said he set up the account because he needed a platform in NI. It is and was absolute rubbish and McInerny correctly called him out on it.

The substantive difference is that through the Pym account on Twitter Harris directly targeted and abused people, again McInerny had proof of this as it was one of a small number of accounts she herself had to mute because of the abuse. Harris was happy to brag that he wasn't afraid to name names in his column yet he decided to go anonymous for this account.

magicbastarder

ireland is quite a place for blowhard commentators with massively inflated senses of their own piercing intellect, and a fevered belief that they don't get enough platform for their views, isn't it? harris, myers, waters, quinn, hook (well half the people who've ever presented on newstalk probably qualify...)

Rosita

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think there's a *subtle* difference between people like you and me (and i have to assume you're just like me, a randomer on the internet with an opinion), and a 'journalist' with a national profile who is helping run an anonymous twitter account with (a claimed) at least half a dozen other people, which attacks other journalists, among other things.

But the difference is subtle not substantive. That's the point. What you seem to saying is that the behaviour itself is fair enough and that seems to be the underlying implied understanding in most commentary.

It's a pity that a situation like this doesn't concentrate a bit more on the sin and less on the sinner. But I suppose people love a good big juicy target.

BQQ

FunLover18 wrote: »

By his own admission Harris said he set up the account because he needed a platform in NI. It is and was absolute rubbish and McInerny correctly called him out on it.

The substantive difference is that through the Pym account on Twitter Harris directly targeted and abused people, again McInerny had proof of this as it was one of a small number of accounts she herself had to mute because of the abuse. Harris was happy to brag that he wasn't afraid to name names in his column yet he decided to go anonymous for this account.

He's a man of many contradictions.
I wonder how he squares the circle of being anti-terrorist, but "a close friend of David Ervine and a friend of Gusty Spence".

magicbastarder

Rosita wrote: »

But the difference is subtle not substantive. That's the point. What you seem to saying is that the behaviour itself is fair enough and that seems to be the underlying implied understanding in most commentary.

no, i highlighted subtle as a subtle way of saying i don't believe it's subtle at all. that might have been too subtle of me, i apologise.

gormdubhgorm

nialler1978 wrote: »

Isn’t that what is more commonly referred to as victim blaming fella?

No it is not victim blaming it is merely looking at what is said and the background of the two individuals involved.


We all know Harris's all over the shop and now vehemently anti-SF. In the radio interview yesterday he seemed to imply at one stage that all SF people or supporters of SF deserve attack even some that some would 'inappropriate'.

I think that is wrong as Harris is:

1) Blinded by rage against SF

2) Only furthering the very cause of SF by making himself look like an absolute clown. The opposite of what he thinks he is doing.

That being said have already covered in detail why I think Moore's take on Harris's tweets are a bit disingenuous. Not as disingenuous as much of Harris's remarks on the RTE interview on other ancillary issues though!.

I cannot help contrast Sarah McInerney different reaction to been targeted by the Pym/Harris account to that of Aoife. Sarah blocked the account and did not make it a 'cause celebre' or go to guards or seek counselling. Nor did Sarah tell anyone about it publicly until the Harris interview yesterday.
Which does say a lot to me.
In that Moore is definitely using the incident for 'maximum impact' more power to her, that is her strategy. But there is a definite strategy there.

I was curious as to know more of Aoife Moores background so I delved a bit deeper.
Already knew her background was Derry City.

https://www.eolasmagazine.ie/meet-the-media-aoife-grace-moore/

'I’m very much a product of my environment. My family were one of the founding families involved in the Bloody Sunday Justice Campaign, so I was brought to different marches and protests as a child and there were always journalists around asking questions. I grew up in a house where the news was on every night during dinner, and it was always impressed on us that the media was important for challenging the establishment. I was naturally good at English at school and it just came as a logical next step and decided when I was 16 that was what I wanted to do.'

The next step for me was to listen to Moore in conversation, preferably about SF. No better time than following SF's unprecedented success in the GE 'down south' I thought.

At this time Moore was on a youtube channel that she was invited on call the 'Irish Passport' (It seems to aimed at foreigners who want to learn about Ireland)

In my view Moore focused on the positives of SF as she saw it. While glossing over the negatives. Vaguely mentioning SF's 'past' history'. Mentioning how SF were on the 'right side' of the repeal referendum. Mentioning how SF wanted to support 'renters'. No mention of SF's approach to the SCC and other clouds hanging over SF.

No mention of exactly why/how the parties prior to the GE Labour, FF, FG all said they would not go into coalition SF for obvious reasons - these three parties between them achieved the majority of the popular vote. If memory serves.

No mention of why SF were not transfer friendly, or the elephant in the room of why FF nor FG want to get into coalition with them. It was left to the female presenter of the show (Naomi) to try and provide 'balance' on the show. She implied how SF need to be more transfer friendly and make themselves more palatable to a large cohort of the electorate.

--

Now given the above could I see how Moore would drive Harris mad, given his vehemently anti-SF views?

Absolutely he is nuts at times. But even myself as a much more benign individual can see how Moore has certain biases towards SF that are clearly apparent.

Did Moore deserve the treatment she got from Harris and those on Pym account?

No in my view.

Did Moore 'play to the gallery' a bit as a result of Harris/Pym account and put a spin on Harris's tweets to point towards a narrative?

Yes in my view.

--

Moore is not afraid to gently nudge SF at times for what she sees as hypocrisy.
Such as the abortion laws in NI

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40245716.html

But by and large, I would hazard a guess the vast majority of Moore's views on SF would be positive ones.

With Harris/the Pym 'team' and their mindset would view this as an being 'enabler' or 'mouthpiece' of SF etc. Hence the 'sniping in the bushes' tweet etc.

--

golfball37

golfball37 wrote: »

Sean O Rourke had Bailey on as a favour to her. He tried to shut down Allison o Conner and panel discussing it when she left studio. He was sorry she went off reservation and there were many punches he chose not to throw.
Sarah is a complete professional who doesn’t let her personal biases effect her when discharging her duties.

I never listen to radio but she’s excellent. From what I heard.

Rosita

Rosita wrote: »

Look at the previous post here - an anonymous poster blithely calling two people "lunatics". Harris did nothing that isn't routinely happening here every day. Not the most edifying vista of the human condition but extremely common, so common in fact that we don't even notice it half the time.

Is there a substantive difference between a journalist being called an imbecile anonymously on one forum and two others being called lunatics anonymously on another? I can't see it anyway. Maybe Sarah McInerney would but I don't.

we are not journalists, well most of us I hope. And that’s why he was fired, the tweets were considered non acceptable discourse by his editor. Take it up with him.

As for the “did it turn you on” comment that wouldn’t be acceptable here. It would definitely be a thread ban.

volchitsa

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I was curious as to know more of Aoife Moores background so I delved a bit deeper.
--

Moore is not afraid to gently nudge SF at times for what she sees as hypocrisy.
Such as the abortion laws in NI


But by and large, I would hazard a guess the vast majority of Moore's views on SF would be positive ones.

With Harris/the Pym 'team' and their mindset would view this as an being 'enabler' or 'mouthpiece' of SF etc. Hence the 'sniping in the bushes' tweet etc.

--

What you're saying about Moore seems to me to come down to saying that she genuinely agrees with most of their opinions, and when she doesn't she is not afraid to say so, albeit gently because she still supports them overall, and doesn't want to harm their chances in elections, right?

But doesn't this invalidate most of Harris' (and others') objections to Sinn Fein as being fundamentally anti democratic, a bunch of terrorists who have never moved on from violent action, and whose supporters do as they are told by the Army Council? Unless we think Aoife Moore is on the AC, which seems unlikely.

Rosita

fvp4 wrote: »

we are not journalists, well most of us I hope. And that’s why he was fired, the tweets were considered non acceptable discourse by his editor. Take it up with him.

What difference if we are journalists or not? What'd be wrong with that?

You don't seriously think that journalists don't live on forums like this?!

Rosita

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, i highlighted subtle as a subtle way of saying i don't believe it's subtle at all. that might have been too subtle of me, i apologise.

Yeah, subtlety is not easy to pull off. Especially if you're trying to be subtle in doing so.

gormdubhgorm

volchitsa wrote: »

What you're saying about Moore seems to me to come down to saying that she genuinely agrees with most of their opinions, and when she doesn't she is not afraid to say so, albeit gently because she still supports them overall, and doesn't want to harm their chances in elections, right?

But doesn't this invalidate most of Harris' (and others') objections to Sinn Fein as being fundamentally anti democratic, a bunch of terrorists who have never moved on from violent action, and whose supporters do as they are told by the Army Council? Unless we think Aoife Moore is on the AC, which seems unlikely.

I think Harris's approach is wrong and he is an awful hypcrite given his past and flip flopping.

But I would agree that much of SF's political stance is a bit schizophrenic/hypocritical at times given their past and statements - even taking seats in the Dail while refusing to say the name of the State/ or SCC attitudes simple things like like. And how they govern with different policies in NI while conveniently blaming the less palatable ones on the Unionists where possible.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-31798766

How during the 2020 GE - SF did not seem to want to be questioned on their policies in NI on the one hand. While on the other styling itself proudly as the 'only all-island party' on this island.


I do believe SF and SF supporters are a very tight knit 'well ordered' community that watch each other's back. More so than 'normal' political parties. There is a lot of historical intertwining with families from 'certain parts' of Ireland.

--

Do I believe that Moore is on the army council ?

No.

Do I think that Moore is a more 'benign face of SF', furthering the 'all-island strategy', attracting the young voter, the female vote etc ?

Yes I do - she is now 'placed' down south - ideal.