Geraldine Kennedy losing the run of herself over Lisbon?

The IT is already, from recent coverage of the anticipated second referendum, in something of a wax about ensuring the No side do not carry the argument again. This morning's edition carries a shock-horror tale of the bias of the London Times against Lisbon written by ex LT journalist Sarah Carey. The cat is well out of the bag now and if there isn't an almighty war between these two august organs, I'll be immensely surprised. Here's a little piece I put up on Indymedia about it:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89918

tho - the same paper also carried an opinion piece by Vincent Browne arguing against the treaty.

Having read the IT over the last few months - it seems to be thats its the only paper that seems to be making a stab at allowing all opinions be heard -even if they disagree with the papers editorial stance - which it is well entitled to have.

Cant say Im surprised by Carey's piece - all one has to do is look at Murdock and Associated Newspapers and the Telegraph groups output over Europe in the last 10 months - it would be easier to find a needle in a haystack than find a pro-european article of any description.

Does anyone have any theories or come across any as to Murdock's agenda? He is poisonously and rabidly anti EU, why and whose agenda does he serve?

Edo wrote:

tho - the same paper also carried an opinion piece by Vincent Browne arguing against the treaty.

Having read the IT over the last few months - it seems to be thats its the only paper that seems to be making a stab at allowing all opinions be heard -even if they disagree with the papers editorial stance - which it is well entitled to have.

Cant say Im surprised by Carey's piece - all one has to do is look at Murdock and Associated Newspapers and the Telegraph groups output over Europe in the last 10 months - it would be easier to find a needle in a haystack than find a pro-european article of any description.

I'm unsurprised that the eurosceptic knives are out for Carey. The IT is undoubtedly pro-Lisbon, but does carry balancing pieces - it's little surprise to learn that a Murdoch vehicle, on the contrary, explicitly has a policy of allowing no such balance. It's sad, but predictable, that people who have accused the IT of bias should choose to attribute Carey's article to further bias by the paper they love to hate, rather than dealing with the more obvious concern that British papers are pursuing a British eurosceptic agenda in Ireland.

The IT is not balanced about this. It allows a small amount of no coverage and refuses an equal voice to people like Joe Higgins, Sinn Fein, the Unions etc - the people who actually canvassed the most no votes. It's 'balance' is a sneaky sham in this regard. So long as that is the case then it has no right to complain about bias in other publications. Unlike with the Irish Times, you know what the London Times' agenda is.

Sarah Carey took a long time to find her conscience about this and in the end the story amounted to nothing more than what we already knew - that the London Times is run for and by Murdoch. Just like The Independent is run for Tony O' Reilly. Are we going to ban all foreign newspapers because they take a different view of what this is about. When it comes to supporting the vicious invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, these two elitist papers will close ranks once more and chirrup gayly from the same blood-soaked hymnsheet. I know journalists who have been dumped by the Irish Times for not following the script - Kennedy has been pretty ruthless at ensuring that horses of the same PD colour dominate her little fifedom. This is a piece of rank hypocrisy by the IT every way you look at it.

Aragon wrote:

The IT is not balanced about this. It allows a small amount of no coverage and refuses an equal voice to people like Joe Higgins, Sinn Fein, the Unions etc - the people who actually canvassed the most no votes. It's 'balance' is a sneaky sham in this regard. So long as that is the case then it has no right to complain about bias in other publications. Unlike with the Irish Times, you know what the London Times' agenda is.

Sarah Carey took a long time to find her conscience about this and in the end the story amounted to nothing more than what we already knew - that the London Times is run for and by Murdoch. Just like The Independent is run for Tony O' Reilly. Are we going to ban all foreign newspapers because they take a different view of what this is about. When it comes to supporting the vicious invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, these two elitist papers will close ranks once more and chirrup gayly from the same blood-soaked hymnsheet. I know journalists who have been dumped by the Irish Times for not following the script - Kennedy has been pretty ruthless at ensuring that horses of the same PD colour dominate her little fifedom. This is a piece of rank hypocrisy by the IT every way you look at it.

Sarah Carey stated exactly what she said in the IT piece online on various sites, at the time, during the referendum. She could hardly state it in the paper she worked for.

I don't think that Murdock pushes a British agenda, it is simply cynical Euroscepticism and his agenda is probably not the interests of Britain or Ireland. He does not wish a strong and united Europe, so whose interests does he serve? His own?

Here is one summation of him.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122948.html

Squire wrote:

Does anyone have any theories or come across any as to Murdock's agenda? He is poisonously and rabidly anti EU, why and whose agenda does he serve?

Many monarchical Australians who are proud of their links to the "old country" were shocked at Britain's joining of the EEC in the early 1970s, not just because of the fact that politically Britain was now closer to Europe than to the Old Commonwealth states, but that EEC membership trumped Commonwealth membership for Britain meaning that there were also certain economic consequences for places like Australia and New Zealand. If I remember rightly Murdoch had roots in the Austraian cattle/agri business and would have been none to pleased with Britains ascession in 1973. But I'd say the hostility has more than economic reasons. It would be a part of his old-australian mentality.

The great war(1914-1918) is a defining national coming of age moment for Australians and in some ways has more significance for them than it has for Europeans including the British. Many down under volunteered heeding the worsd of the Australian PM at the time that if Britain was to go to her Armageddon then so would Australia. As Lord Beeverbrook pointed the volunteers were not inspired by some jack-booted imperialism or the cause of Belgium. They went forward out of loyalty to the Empire - their Empire too.
No one will deny that there is some emnity between Australia and the old country, particularly in sporting events and when Galipoli is remembered. Nevertheless being at the far end of the world, surrounded by oriental cultures, means that the links are an important part of equilibrium in making up the identity of Australia and account for why the referndums to replace the monarchy with a republic have failed.

For Empire in 1914 read Anglo-sphere in 2008. I believe that Murdoch probably see's the EU as being divisive to the unity of the Empire/Anglo-sphere. I would also argue that it is in Australia's interests in terms of her indentity to ensure that Britain does not become subsumed into some european superstate. The logical progression of this is that ties will be lost and Australia will become subsumed into south east asia.

Squire wrote:

I don't think that Murdock pushes a British agenda, it is simply cynical Euroscepticism and his agenda is probably not the interests of Britain or Ireland. He does not wish a strong and united Europe, so whose interests does he serve? His own?

Here is one summation of him.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122948.html

He has a very strongly right-wing agenda, in the economic sense - and while I appreciate that the left-wing think of the EU as a right-wing conspiracy, people like Murdoch consider it anathema to the "spirit of free enterprise" - dirigiste, statist, etc etc. In the US, he's most obviously connected with the Republicans through Fox News - interestingly, Ganley also comes across as very much a Republican (to some extent, I think what he's trying to do is put together a European Republican Party).

Amusingly enough, Murdoch has declared that he's not a Euro-sceptic.

ibis wrote:

Squire wrote:

I don't think that Murdock pushes a British agenda, it is simply cynical Euroscepticism and his agenda is probably not the interests of Britain or Ireland. He does not wish a strong and united Europe, so whose interests does he serve? His own?

Here is one summation of him.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122948.html

He has a very strongly right-wing agenda, in the economic sense - and while I appreciate that the left-wing think of the EU as a right-wing conspiracy, people like Murdoch consider it anathema to the "spirit of free enterprise" - dirigiste, statist, etc etc. In the US, he's most obviously connected with the Republicans through Fox News - interestingly, Ganley also comes across as very much a Republican (to some extent, I think what he's trying to do is put together a European Republican Party).

Amusingly enough, Murdoch has declared that he's not a Euro-sceptic.

No, so long as Britain is not a part of it. Thats the key.

ibis wrote:

Aragon wrote:

The IT is not balanced about this. It allows a small amount of no coverage and refuses an equal voice to people like Joe Higgins, Sinn Fein, the Unions etc - the people who actually canvassed the most no votes. It's 'balance' is a sneaky sham in this regard. So long as that is the case then it has no right to complain about bias in other publications. Unlike with the Irish Times, you know what the London Times' agenda is.

Sarah Carey took a long time to find her conscience about this and in the end the story amounted to nothing more than what we already knew - that the London Times is run for and by Murdoch. Just like The Independent is run for Tony O' Reilly. Are we going to ban all foreign newspapers because they take a different view of what this is about. When it comes to supporting the vicious invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, these two elitist papers will close ranks once more and chirrup gayly from the same blood-soaked hymnsheet. I know journalists who have been dumped by the Irish Times for not following the script - Kennedy has been pretty ruthless at ensuring that horses of the same PD colour dominate her little fifedom. This is a piece of rank hypocrisy by the IT every way you look at it.

Sarah Carey stated exactly what she said in the IT piece online on various sites, at the time, during the referendum. She could hardly state it in the paper she worked for.

Carey says explicity in today's article that she did not take the stand she should have. She went on drawing down a salary so long as it suited her and now that her principles will cost her nothing she has gone public in the Irish Times. It is of course right that these sorts of editorial decisions should be in the public doman but the behaviour of Frank Fitzgibbon is identical to Geraldine Kennedy's where other journalists and issues are concerned. Perhaps Sarah Carey would like to write an article in the IT about that? There is no shortage of topics for her to apply her principles to - hundreds crying out for her honesty.

Unless we see some consistently challenging journalism by Sarah Carey across a whole host of seriously neglected issues in the Irish Times, today's pantomime by Carey and the IT will increasingly be evident for what it is - outrageous hypocrisy.

Aragon wrote:

ibis wrote:

Aragon wrote:

The IT is not balanced about this. It allows a small amount of no coverage and refuses an equal voice to people like Joe Higgins, Sinn Fein, the Unions etc - the people who actually canvassed the most no votes. It's 'balance' is a sneaky sham in this regard. So long as that is the case then it has no right to complain about bias in other publications. Unlike with the Irish Times, you know what the London Times' agenda is.

Sarah Carey took a long time to find her conscience about this and in the end the story amounted to nothing more than what we already knew - that the London Times is run for and by Murdoch. Just like The Independent is run for Tony O' Reilly. Are we going to ban all foreign newspapers because they take a different view of what this is about. When it comes to supporting the vicious invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, these two elitist papers will close ranks once more and chirrup gayly from the same blood-soaked hymnsheet. I know journalists who have been dumped by the Irish Times for not following the script - Kennedy has been pretty ruthless at ensuring that horses of the same PD colour dominate her little fifedom. This is a piece of rank hypocrisy by the IT every way you look at it.

Sarah Carey stated exactly what she said in the IT piece online on various sites, at the time, during the referendum. She could hardly state it in the paper she worked for.

Carey says explicity in today's article that she did not take the stand she should have. She went on drawing down a salary so long as it suited her and now that her principles will cost her nothing she has gone public in the Irish Times. It is of course right that these sorts of editorial decisions should be in the public doman but the behaviour of Frank Fitzgibbon is identical to Geraldine Kennedy's where other journalists and issues are concerned. Perhaps Sarah Carey would like to write an article in the IT about that? There is no shortage of topics for her to apply her principles to - hundreds crying out for her honesty.

Unless we see some consistently challenging journalism by Sarah Carey across a whole host of seriously neglected issues in the Irish Times, today's pantomime by Carey and the IT will increasingly be evident for what it is - outrageous hypocrisy.

That's the same sad rubbish that's being spouted over on p.ie - that she should become the next Olivia Guerin or else there's no need to believe her. It's an ad hominem. Her journalistic record, whether she chose, as she says, to keep taking the money, are all irrelevant to the substantive issue - which is that the Sunday Times instructed its journalists that the paper would not take any pro-Lisbon pieces, in pursuit of the agenda of its ownership, in what is, let's face it, a clear bid by a foreign businessman to influence the outcome of an Irish referendum.

Sarah Carey is barely relevant to the story. The only question is whether she's lying - and we both know she's not. There's a real issue here, and you're trying to muddy the waters.

Respvblica wrote:

No, so long as Britain is not a part of it. Thats the key.

No I don't think it is, IMO he does not want a European Union at all.


Ibis

'he's not a Euro-sceptic', That made my day, he is losing it, who does he think he is fooling or what exactly does he mean by that? That geographically he accepts that Europe exists? A pan European Republican party, I can't wait for the opportunity to vote against them.

I'm glad you raise the issue of foreign businessmen influencing Irish politics. We can also look at why our government is proceeding with issuing 8 billion to US pharmaceuticals for R&D for commercial products - even while slashing spending on desperately needed health services. A hospital shut down yesterday because it ran out of money.

Sarah Carey WROTE the story. She is central to it. Nice try Ibis, but you're over a barrel with this one. The London Times and the Irish Times are as devious and manipulative as each other in most respects - the only difference being the sly pretence at balance in the case of the latter. Carey's piece is there to serve the 'yes' agenda of Geraldine Kennedy. It is nothing to do with the nasty, interfering Brit stuff that you are claiming. That line is just an attempt to play on pubic jingoism, a call on lingering anti-British sentiment. the Irish Times itself is frequently accused of being an agent of the British stage - which it most certainly has been in the past.

There are warring corporate factions here: on the Irish side a powerful US corporate lobby, endlessly revered by Kennedy, who are worried about EU intentions for corporate taxation. On the other side, there is the EU-centred corporate/political lobby with its militaristic ambitions that the US does not like. That's what the IT/LT row is about. This anti-British/Foreigner guff is what is actually irrelevant.

In the middle there are millions of human beings whose lives will be directly affected by the terms of the treaty. Neither the Irish Times nor the London Times gave the people who spoke for most of those people in Ireland fair coverage last time around.

Aragon wrote:

I'm glad you raise the issue of foreign businessmen influencing Irish politics. We can also look at why our government is proceeding with issuing 8 billion to US pharmaceuticals for R&D for commercial products - even while slashing spending on desperately needed health services. A hospital shut down yesterday because it ran out of money.

Sarah Carey WROTE the story. She is central to it. Nice try Ibis, but you're over a barrel with this one. The London Times and the Irish Times are as devious and manipulative as each other in most respects - the only difference being the sly pretence at balance in the case of the latter. Carey's piece is there to serve the 'yes' agenda of Geraldine Kennedy. It is nothing to do with the nasty, interfering Brit stuff that you are claiming. That line is just an attempt to play on pubic jingoism, a call on lingering anti-British sentiment. the Irish Times itself is frequently accused of being an agent of the British stage - which it most certainly has been in the past.

Let's cut to the chase. Are you saying she's lying?

I'm saying that the sort of thing she is telling us about Frank Fitzgibbon, she could just as easily be telling us about Geraldine Kennedy in other contexts.

Aragon wrote:

I'm saying that the sort of thing she is telling us about Frank Fitzgibbon, she could just as easily be telling us about Geraldine Kennedy in other contexts.

She hasn't, though - and neither has anybody else. Are you saying she's lying?

Squire wrote:

Respvblica wrote:

No, so long as Britain is not a part of it. Thats the key.

No I don't think it is, IMO he does not want a European Union at all.

Because its a threat to anglo-spheric dominance. Why do you think he would care about France, Germany and the rest of them ?

ibis wrote:

Aragon wrote:

I'm saying that the sort of thing she is telling us about Frank Fitzgibbon, she could just as easily be telling us about Geraldine Kennedy in other contexts.

She hasn't, though - and neither has anybody else. Are you saying she's lying?

I'm sure she believes every word she has said. We'd need to hear Frank Fitzgibbon's side of it I suppose before any of us could make a judgment. Come to think of it, it might be possible that FF is consulting his lawyers even as we write. But the IT has shot itself in the foot with this story, for sure.

The Lisbon coverage in the Irish Times has a biased context just as the coverage in the London Times does. Carey's piece, as an avowedly pro Lisbon journalist cannot be viewed in isolation either from her own opinion - stated squarely in the piece itself - or from the clear pro Lisbon bias of the Irish Times - which was staggeringly obvious in the run up to the referendum - and yet another serious blight on its claim to be a paper of record. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I'm no lover of Murdoch or any of his papers - haven't bought one for donkeys years. The Irish Times and the London Times are as bad as each other where Lisbon is concerned - as this piece makes so clear. Ordinarly they are of course singing in perfect harmony on most major issues.

Aragon wrote:

ibis wrote:

Aragon wrote:

I'm saying that the sort of thing she is telling us about Frank Fitzgibbon, she could just as easily be telling us about Geraldine Kennedy in other contexts.

She hasn't, though - and neither has anybody else. Are you saying she's lying?

I'm sure she believes every word she has said. We'd need to hear Frank Fitzgibbon's side of it I suppose before any of us could make a judgment. Come to think of it, it might be possible that FF is consulting his lawyers even as we write. But the IT has shot itself in the foot with this story, for sure.

The Lisbon coverage in the Irish Times has a biased context just as the coverage in the London Times does. Carey's piece, as an avowedly pro Lisbon journalist cannot be viewed in isolation either from her own opinion - stated squarely in the piece itself - or from the clear pro Lisbon bias of the Irish Times - which was staggeringly obvious in the run up to the referendum - and yet another serious blight on its claim to be a paper of record. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I'm no lover of Murdoch or any of his papers - haven't bought one for donkeys years. The Irish Times and the London Times are as bad as each other where Lisbon is concerned - as this piece makes so clear. Ordinarly they are of course singing in perfect harmony on most major issues.

What an amazing amount of obfuscation. You want to imply she's lying, or somehow untrustworthy, or that the piece can otherwise be discounted, but you apparently don't want to say she's lying. Your opinions of the various papers are irrelevant.

Come on, Aragon, don't make me go all Paxman on your ass. Are you saying she's lying?

The Irish Times has its own case to answer for biased coverage of Lisbon. It has a nerve carrying any criticism of another newspaper's coverage in this respect while its own record is so tarnished. And as mentioned before Carey has a million topics to chose from, all throughly neglected by fearelss journalists if any such exist, on which to salve her conscience if she is so worried about what Frank Fitzgibbon has done. Fitzgibbon and Kennedy are no better than each other is my point. I belive Carey knows that full well - contrasting the Irish media favourably against the British media is nauseating sycophancy.

I'm no fan of Geraldine Kennedy and her evidence destroying antics. If Sarah Carey is that dark haired journalist who has been on Q&A acting as a shouting FG propagandist then I am no fan of hers either.


EDIT: DELETE

EDIT: DELETE

The Irish Times, as annoying as Geraldine Kennedy is and as liberal and biased as its views and agenda are, reflects the views of its journalists and not its paymasters. It is not an organ serving the interests of an individual. It also allows for contradictory points of view.


EDIT: DELETE

Aragon wrote:

The Irish Times has its own case to answer for biased coverage of Lisbon. It has a nerve carrying any criticism of another newspaper's coverage in this respect while its own record is so tarnished. And as mentioned before Carey has a million topics to chose from, all throughly neglected by fearelss journalists if any such exist, on which to salve her conscience if she is so worried about what Frank Fitzgibbon has done. Fitzgibbon and Kennedy are no better than each other is my point. I belive Carey knows that full well - contrasting the Irish media favourably against the British media is nauseating sycophancy.

Again, that's all irrelevant. If Carey is telling the truth, then there is an issue of interest - the use of an Irish-based paper to carry a Murdoch campaign. I appreciate that's not something you want to look at, but that's the only factual issue at stake here.

So, once again - are you saying she's lying? If you're not, then perhaps you might like to talk about what Rupert Murdoch will mean to this country? You can hardly claim that the Murdoch papers are uninfluential in the UK, or Fox News in the US, so Murdoch has a history of using his media outlets to influence politics - successfully. Do you find that acceptable as long as his agenda is the same as yours - and what will you do when it isn't?

ibis wrote:

Aragon wrote:

The Irish Times has its own case to answer for biased coverage of Lisbon. It has a nerve carrying any criticism of another newspaper's coverage in this respect while its own record is so tarnished. And as mentioned before Carey has a million topics to chose from, all throughly neglected by fearelss journalists if any such exist, on which to salve her conscience if she is so worried about what Frank Fitzgibbon has done. Fitzgibbon and Kennedy are no better than each other is my point. I belive Carey knows that full well - contrasting the Irish media favourably against the British media is nauseating sycophancy.

Again, that's all irrelevant. If Carey is telling the truth, then there is an issue of interest - the use of an Irish-based paper to carry a Murdoch campaign. I appreciate that's not something you want to look at, but that's the only factual issue at stake here.

So, once again - are you saying she's lying? If you're not, then perhaps you might like to talk about what Rupert Murdoch will mean to this country? You can hardly claim that the Murdoch papers are uninfluential in the UK, or Fox News in the US, so Murdoch has a history of using his media outlets to influence politics - successfully. Do you find that acceptable as long as his agenda is the same as yours - and what will you do when it isn't?

Ibis, I'm saying now once and for all that you will have to leave your fixation with whether or not Sarah Carey was/is lying at the front door so far as I am concerned. That notion was never referred to until you raised it - why not ask her yourself if you are so worried about it? You're the one to raise the possibility but nobody can help you with your curiosity about it other than Sarah herself - or possibly Frank Fitzgibbon. I have no way of knowing whether she is lying or not but I dare say she would not be best pleased to see you continually suggesting the idea like this.


David Manning of MediaBite wrote to Sarah Carey today and has put the genuinely relevant matters to her very well:

Quote :

Dear Sarah,

Thank you for your latest piece in the Irish Times, it's not often journalists encourage readers to ask "Who is behind this and what is their agenda?"

But in directing attention towards your former employer, the Sunday Times, were you not deflecting attention away from the actions of your current employer? Irish Times readers of course are primarily concerned with the vested interests and intentions of the Irish Times.

Are you aware how pro-treaty the Irish Times coverage was? In effect, pursuing an opposite agenda to the Sunday Times in silencing the anti-treaty dissent.

Irish Times coverage in the 5 days leading up to the referendum is summarised here:

http://members.boardhost.com/mediabite/msg/1215014337.html

There was a similar story told at the Irish Independent:

http://members.boardhost.com/mediabite/msg/1215158957.html

In the event that the Irish government hold another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, will you be calling for anti-treaty views to be given fair prominence in the debate, or will this point of principle be again discouraged by an unfavourable 'financial position'?

Best wishes,

David Manning


1. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1119/1227026409184.html

Aragon wrote:

ibis wrote:

Aragon wrote:

The Irish Times has its own case to answer for biased coverage of Lisbon. It has a nerve carrying any criticism of another newspaper's coverage in this respect while its own record is so tarnished. And as mentioned before Carey has a million topics to chose from, all throughly neglected by fearelss journalists if any such exist, on which to salve her conscience if she is so worried about what Frank Fitzgibbon has done. Fitzgibbon and Kennedy are no better than each other is my point. I belive Carey knows that full well - contrasting the Irish media favourably against the British media is nauseating sycophancy.

Again, that's all irrelevant. If Carey is telling the truth, then there is an issue of interest - the use of an Irish-based paper to carry a Murdoch campaign. I appreciate that's not something you want to look at, but that's the only factual issue at stake here.

So, once again - are you saying she's lying? If you're not, then perhaps you might like to talk about what Rupert Murdoch will mean to this country? You can hardly claim that the Murdoch papers are uninfluential in the UK, or Fox News in the US, so Murdoch has a history of using his media outlets to influence politics - successfully. Do you find that acceptable as long as his agenda is the same as yours - and what will you do when it isn't?

Ibis, I'm saying now once and for all that you will have to leave your fixation with whether or not Sarah Carey was/is lying at the front door so far as I am concerned. That notion was never referred to until you raised it - why not ask her yourself if you are so worried about it. You're theone to raise the possibility but nobody can help you with your curiosity about it other than Sarah herself.

It's obvious why it's important whether she's lying. Why are you trying to avoid the issue of Murdoch using his papers to campaign here, as he has done elsewhere?