Discussion

1. Comment by: Niall

   Apr 9th 2008 at 13:04

   “I am putting together an article on the Irish media which will argue that because of their specific business interests the media in Ireland is effectively blocking political change in this country.”

   There’s probably a good article in how the focus of hatred for the left has moved from the actual body politic to the mainstream media in recent times. The thesis would be something like this: it’s easier for the left to blame the MSM for the failure of left-wing politics than to blame itself. Blaming right-wing politicians would be tantamount to an admission of defeat, so the myth of the all-powerful and persuasive media which fixes the rules of the game have to be invented. It’s like Scunthorpe FC blaming the referee after they get a 10-0 drubbing by Man United.

   Actually the media have shown to be rather ineffective in influencing people’s decisions as the last election results proved. Relentless coverage of Bertie’s finances made no impact. The press does have power, however: it was instrumental in bringing about Bertie Ahern’s departure from government despite no visible popular support for this from the electorate. I don’t hear leftists complaining too much about this though.

   The newspapers are a handy scapegoat for the failure of leftists to organise or persuade people to join them. Maybe if there was a coherent and sensible left-wing movement in the country it would get covered more. Since there isn’t, I guess its all the fault of the ‘meejya’.

2. Comment by: Chekov

   Apr 9th 2008 at 15:04

   Way to go Niall. That strawman is reeling in the face of the incisiveness of your argument. The concept of a logical proof has also come off second best.

3. Comment by: Niall

   Apr 9th 2008 at 16:04

   Please explain, Chekov. Shouting ’strawman’ doesn’t illuminate your argument in the slightest.

4. Comment by: Chekov

   Apr 9th 2008 at 17:04

   “the myth of the all-powerful and persuasive media” - an obvious straw man. Or who exactly claims this?

   “Blaming right-wing politicians would be tantamount to an admission of defeat” - another obvious straw man since there are exactly no left wing groups ever in the history of the world that haven’t complained about the stuff that right wing politicians do.

   Which brings us to the crime against the concept of ‘proof’.

   “Actually the media have shown to be rather ineffective in influencing people’s decisions as the last election results proved.”

   Assumption one: the media tried to get the opposition elected (which is totally counter-factual unless you limit your definition of the media to some journalists in the Irish Times).

   Totally fallacious deduction: the fact that the electorate voted for Bertie _proves_ that the media do not influence people’s decisions.

   If you can’t see how wrong this conclusion is, there’s no helping you.

   Incidentally, the idea that the media does not influence people’s decisions is actually quite mental. The entire global spend on advertising and PR is a total waste since, sure, it doesn’t make a difference what they say anyway? Ludicrous, nonsensical and absurd perhaps, but certainly not proven.

   I seem to recall seeing a comment from you somewhere where you claimed that the output of the media is not influenced by property advertising. I find that hilarious. Do you really think that the editorial content in property supplements is balanced and objective? You must be a salesman’s dream.

5. Comment by: Niall

   Apr 10th 2008 at 09:04

   You can argue about semantics all you like but the main newspapers and RTE were relentless in covering Bertie Ahern’s financial woes yet it didn’t harm him in the slightest when it came to voting time. The Irish electorate are not the dupes mindlessly coerced by the media that the left-wing brigade would like to think. They make up their own minds, for their own selfish reasons, and don’t need the Times or the Independent to teach tell them who is a suitable leader.

   “the myth of the all-powerful and persuasive media” - an obvious straw man. Or who exactly claims this?”

   Eh, you do: “Incidentally, the idea that the media does not influence people’s decisions is actually quite mental. The entire global spend on advertising and PR is a total waste since, sure, it doesn’t make a difference what they say anyway? Ludicrous, nonsensical and absurd perhaps, but certainly not proven.”

   Apart from contradicting yourself, you’re not even aware that you’re not comparing like and like. How newspaper content and advertising content influence people’s behaviour are two wholly separate things.

   “Blaming right-wing politicians would be tantamount to an admission of defeat”

   Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say blaming the electorate would be tantamount to an admission of defeat.

   “Do you really think that the editorial content in property supplements is balanced and objective?”

   You should do some proper research before you start making assumptions but it seems to be second nature to you at this stage. My point was that property supplements are so obviously commercial supplements that anybody who looks to them for impartial coverage needs their head examined.

6. Comment by: Chekov

   Apr 10th 2008 at 11:04

   “The Irish electorate are not the dupes mindlessly coerced by the media that the left-wing brigade would like to think. “

   Q. Who exactly thinks that the Irish electorate are “dupes mindlessly coerced by the media”?

   A. Our friend the Straw man!

   “the myth of the all-powerful and persuasive media” - an obvious straw man. Or who exactly claims this?”

   Eh, you do: “Incidentally, the idea that the media does not influence people’s decisions is actually quite mental.”

   Your problem with “semantics” becomes clear - in English “having an influence” and being “all-powerful and persuasive” are generally considered to be phrases with tremendously different semantic significance. Or, are you perhaps using some bizzare Alice in Wonderland language?

   “Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say blaming the electorate would be tantamount to an admission of defeat”

   A change of goalposts - nice. But the fact that a mere dozen lines before you were claiming that the left considered the electorate to be “mindless dupes” does little to allay the suspicion that you’re making it up as you go along and, to borrow a phrase from the vernacular, talking out of your hole.

   “You should do some proper research before you start making assumptions but it seems to be second nature to you at this stage.”

   Oh bless. My straw-man baiting, semantic shape-shifting, goalpost moving interlocutor is lecturing me about research. Teach me master.

   “My point was that property supplements are so obviously commercial supplements that anybody who looks to them for impartial coverage needs their head examined.”

   That’s amazing! I mean you managed to make this point without using any language constructs at all which would be generally considered to have semantic significance remotely related to that point.

   Lets see:

   “The Irish Times Ltd’s business depends on property, true, but it also depends on its paper being seen as an impartial, objective commentator. Does the Times want to be losing readers down the line who felt conned into buying overpriced houses now?

   ….

   That’s a disingenuous argument. You suggest they are talking up the market and as proof you offer only that they would have a lot to gain if they did, not any evidence that there is an editorial decision to do so.

   …

   Maybe so but the Times et al would aspire to tell the truth as they see it. This is of course not the same as telling the objective truth (let’s not get into philosophical arguments about what is truth) but you are suggesting not just that their reporting is informed by their background and outlook but that they are prone to wilful distortion for commercial gain - knowingly obscuring the facts as they see them - which is another thing entirely.”

   Hmmm, the point about the bias and partiality being so blatant that any fool would spot it just escapes me in such formulations. You know, to my naive eyes, it appears that you are arguing directly against the point that you now claim you were making.

   As we’ve established, proper research is not my forte, so you’re going to have to help me out here. Where can I find you making this point that you claim you were making?

7. Comment by: Niall

   Apr 10th 2008 at 12:04

   “Q. Who exactly thinks that the Irish electorate are “dupes mindlessly coerced by the media”?
   A. Our friend the Straw man!”

   Perhaps the people who propose the idea that the media is preventing a left-wing political block emerging? If you want to call yourself a strawman by all means go ahead.

   “having an influence” and being “all-powerful and persuasive are generally considered to be phrases with tremendously different semantic significance”

   Yawn. You leftist nerds are so obsessed with language you shape it to limit the confines of any argument. Forgive me for not speaking like a verbal autocrat. My point is clear.

   “A change of goalposts - nice.”

   A clarification, but changing goalposts is a practice you’re adept at.

   “Oh bless. My straw-man baiting, semantic shape-shifting, goalpost moving interlocutor is lecturing me about research. Teach me master.”

   The condescension, the mock admiration: glad to see your letting your emotion run riot in your writing but you don’t address the point at all.

   When somebody misrepresents what I say I tend to correct their ignorance. Get your facts straight before you tell me what I said.

   “Hmmm, the point about the bias and partiality being so blatant that any fool would spot it just escapes me in such formulations”

   It escapes you because that is not where I made that formulation; I made it on previous property threads on Dublin Opinion and Tuppenceworth.

   As for me contradicting myself, now you’re making it up. You accused me of saying the editorial in the property supplement is impartial. I have stated previously that supplement is obviously a commercial supplement and you’d want to be mad to think otherwise. What I was discussing in the quotes you dug out was the Irish Times proper, ie the main body of the paper. Do try to read what I say and what you write yourself more clearly.

8. Comment by: Chekov

   Apr 10th 2008 at 12:04

   “Yawn. You leftist nerds are so obsessed with language you shape it to limit the confines of any argument. Forgive me for not speaking like a verbal autocrat. My point is clear.”
   Your point is very very clear indeed. The stuff you say means, well whatever you want it to mean, and that has nothing to do with the words used - only a ‘leftist nerd’ would be such a pedant to actually assume that you mean what the words you use mean.

9. Comment by: Donagh

   Apr 10th 2008 at 16:04

   Hi Niall, I’d just like to respond to the thesis you suggest.

   it’s easier for the left to blame the MSM for the failure of left-wing politics than to blame itself.

   Now, needless to say, I haven’t elaborated on my argument, but you don’t need it to realize that it’s highly unlikely that I would try and use the argument you suggest. What this site is all about (and you need look no further than the articles we’ve put up so far to realize this) is an attempt to look critically at the strategies used by Left-wing parties in Ireland up to now and to come up with better alternatives. You’re suggesting that we’re looking for an easy fall guy in the media and saying the reason why Ireland doesn’t have strong social democratic representation, unlike other European countries, is because the media is blocking it, end of story.

   That, if you don’t mind me saying, is a bit lazy of you.

   Actually the media have shown to be rather ineffective in influencing people’s decisions as the last election results proved.

   I was going to argue that the Irish media is not interested in influencing people’s decisions. To a certain extent they are simply catering to the preferences of their readership and for one reason or another they don’t say anything that would provide them with anything that could be described as genuine insight into how politics works in this country. First of all, I wasn’t going to approach the media in the blanket way that you and John Waters choose to describe it, and I wanted to acknowledge that there were many competing pressures on different media organizations. I didn’t state that in my short summation of my argument, but then I think you knew that and choose to jump in instead.

   In my piece I am going to point to detailed studies which examine the Irish media’s coverage of Irish elections and to show that the indications are that the media is not out to get Fianna Fail specifically, as you suggest, nor do they have any other objective, other than to increase their readership.

   It is not in the media’s interest to bring about political change, nor should it. Its remit is to report accurately and comment with authority on what is actually happening in the political and public sphere, so that the citizens of this country are properly informed about what their democratically elected representatives are up to. Or at least that is what they would like to suggest it is.

   I believe that in general, they have failed this remit and this is why I suggest they are a block on political change. If you don’t think that the media is capable of influencing opinion why have Fianna Fail increased their media budget in recent elections and given increasing attention to media management? Why do they employ expensive PR consultancies and why do they land like a ton of bricks using a variety of means whenever there seems to strong opinion against them in the media. Why do they use focus groups and arrange interviews in the national media that they know will go soft on them? Why do leader of the largest political party attend a meeting with the proprietor of one of the largest private media company in Ireland and why does the flagship newspaper of that media organization publish very positive articles about that politician after that meeting?

   It seems that you and mainstream political parties in this country have a very different opinion about how influential the media really is.

   . The press does have power, however: it was instrumental in bringing about Bertie Ahern’s departure from government despite no visible popular support for this from the electorate.

   I would like to see the evidence for that conjecture. How exactly were they instrumental? Do you believe there was a concerted campaign to bring Bertie down? Or was the decision inspired more by the fear that the revelations as they came out in the tribunal would get wide coverage in the media (let’s be honest, how could they NOT report on it) and generate increasing public disquiet about Bertie’s irregular financial activities at a time when the Government was pushing for a yes vote in the upcoming Referendum.

   Could it be that an electorate with a history of voting no in EU referendum (remember Nice?) and that most electorates has a tendency to vote no in referendum anyway (psychological tendency, studies have shown, is if unsure vote no) and that when it comes to the EU this skepticism is magnified, might be preying on the mind of a Government that is desperate to get a yes vote, considering also that Ireland is the ONLY EU country who is putting the question of the Lisbon Treaty to the people and are therefore potential blockers to its success.

   I’m sorry, but you’re trying to tell me that I’m guilty of blaming the media for the lack of support for the Left in Ireland, and your trying to blame the media for Bertie’s resignation?

   If I’m talking absolute bollocks, what sort of bollocks are you talking?

   Maybe if there was a coherent and sensible left-wing movement in the country it would get covered more.

   You know, somehow I doubt it. What you’re saying here is that the reason that the Irish media doesn’t give lots of coverage to Left wing points of view is because it is not coherent and sensible. First of all this suggests that mainstream right wing parties in Ireland are coherent and sensible. The planning debacle in Ireland, the crap health service, congestion on our roads, the over reliance on the construction sector, the escalation of the cost of living, the shafting of the majority with unchecked house prices leading to a rapidly deflating housing market forcing people to pay over the odds for the price of their house while trying to pay household bills at a time when the economy is sinking and the budget for public services stripped. That is coherent and sensible?

   My problem with the media is that they fail to challenge politicians when their plans and actions are not coherent and are not sensible.

   By the way, your comment on the Irish Times property supplement is hilarious. I should contact the editor and inform her that if anyone believes what they read in the Irish Times’ Property supplement then they need their head examined and see what she has to say. If that is the case Niall, why do they bother saying that rents are going up when they are going down and why do they say that the market is stabilizing when it is not. Because everyone knows, nutters don’t buy houses. It’s only gullible investors and doltish first time buyers who do.

10. Comment by: Niall

    Apr 11th 2008 at 13:04

    Vis-a-vis Bertie, I don’t believe the media were out to get him. I think they were right to focus on his financial troubles to the extent they did. The decision to do so went against the appetite of the public which showed remarkably little interest in his finances, however, and doesn’t tie in with your argument that the media just panders to the prejudices of its readers. In that way they were instrumental.

    “What you’re saying here is that the reason that the Irish media doesn’t give lots of coverage to Left wing points of view is because it is not coherent and sensible.”

    I actually said the lack of a coherent “left-wing movement” reduces the scope for coverage of “left-wing points of view”, which is very different from saying left-wing points of view are incoherent as I’m sure you know.

    The litany of debacles you recited have all received coverage in the media. I think you expect journalists to be politicians, not just reporters and commentators.

    “I should contact the editor and inform her that if anyone believes what they read in the Irish Times’ Property supplement then they need their head examined and see what she has to say.”

    By all means do. As a matter of interest have you brought your concerns about the property supplement to the Irish Times?

    Of course the media has influence and intelligent criticism of it is needed, but I have two main problems with the habitual trashing of the MSM that occurs on left-wing blogs and indeed on many other blogs in Ireland.

    1. It overstates the influence of the media.
    2. It refuses to acknowledge the diversity of opinion in the media and overlooks honest reporting and good writing.

    1.People are discerning. A survey I saw some years ago showed of all the professions journalists were considered only slightly more trustworthy than used car salesmen by the public. Incidentally, by elevating the importance of the media in influencing public opinion bloggers elevate the importance of critiquing the media, which is the easiest way to fill a blog post when you’re out of ideas.
    2. I’m no fan of much of what is contained in our national press but amid all the stuff I’m not interested in and the stuff I disagree with or find poorly reported there is enough good writing and analysis to pique my interest.

11. Comment by: Niall

    Apr 11th 2008 at 13:04

    Just on the reasons for FF upping their media budget, I wouldn’t downplay the role of clever PR and marketing agencies persuading FF of the need for their services. After all, they’ve convinced the other parties of this as well. A perceived need isn’t the same as an actual need.