Geraldine Kennedy losing the run of herself over Lisbon?

I'm going to send a private message to you and to the moderators about your conduct. I politely ask you meanwhile not to address me again on this or any other thread. Thanks.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Reply to Ibis: I'm no fan of Sinn Fein, but I think they went out and campaigned, as did other left wing groups. They went around the estates and banged on doors. This may be a different style to writing IT articles, but was still very much a "No campaign".

Do you count Sinn Fein in with Libertas then?

In terms of the honesty of their Lisbon slogans? Sure - indeed, most of Libertas' slogans were recycled SF ones. SF campaigners on the ground apparently had little hesitation about bringing up abortion, tax, neutrality, and the rest - and the hypocrisy of a nominally left-wing party campaigning on lower corporate tax rates should need no pointing out. As for the claims of foreign interference...

That's a fairly slippery use of the word apparently there ibis. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and refrain from using words like dishonest and cowardly.

I seem to recall Mary Lou explicity stating on Q&A that Lisbon had nothing to do with abortion when asked by a Cóir body in the audience. Ganley of course had no qualms about using it to scare up a few more No votes. Why would SF be hesitant about bringing up neutrality? That seems to have been a fairly consistant thread in their policies for more than a century. As regards corporation tax, my understanding is that they want Ireland free to set its tax rates as it sees fit - so it is really a question of neutrality rather than any firm position on raising or lowering any specific taxes per se.

Personally, I think SF and other smaller left wing parties were largely responsible for delivering the working class No votes. Cóir/Youth Defence delivered the uber-catholic No votes and Ganley delivered a much smaller Freedom Insititute grumpy PD element. I think the media created the Ganley monster to justify not letting SF dominate the No side, since who would imagine (2 years ago) that Libertas would ever be an electoral threat?

I'd say the IT would happily deliver An Phoblacht as a Thursday supplement now, if only they could put the Ganley genie back in the bottle!

Really though, Lisbon was lost because of the Yes-men's ineptitude. FF, FG, and Labour failed to sell the treaty to their own bases, thus allowing a rag tag of disparate groups with nothing in common to prevail, for often diametrically opposite reasons.

If the Lisbon II Yes campaign is going to be dominated by attacking the character of SF, Cóir, Libertas members and supporters, then it is already lost. If Lisbon II can't be sold on its merits then it shouldn't be sold at all.

Campaigners for political parties bring up all sorts of things on the doorstep without the consent of the party leadership. I have a friend who was told that a local candidate in the general election was 'an abortionist' by a campaigner for a prominent Fianna Fáil TD and that the other candidate's party (FG) had a stated intention of passing law to legalise abortion.

My friend rang the TD in question and got nowhere.

However, would it be surprising if campaigners were telling lies on the doorstep with the knowledge and tacit agreement of the party leadership? Of course not, politics is a dirty dirty game. Just as it was not surprising when people started a whispering campaign that John McCain had an illegitimate black child.

I am quite sure the TD in question in the scenario above knew what was going on.

coc wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Reply to Ibis: I'm no fan of Sinn Fein, but I think they went out and campaigned, as did other left wing groups. They went around the estates and banged on doors. This may be a different style to writing IT articles, but was still very much a "No campaign".

Do you count Sinn Fein in with Libertas then?

In terms of the honesty of their Lisbon slogans? Sure - indeed, most of Libertas' slogans were recycled SF ones. SF campaigners on the ground apparently had little hesitation about bringing up abortion, tax, neutrality, and the rest - and the hypocrisy of a nominally left-wing party campaigning on lower corporate tax rates should need no pointing out. As for the claims of foreign interference...

That's a fairly slippery use of the word apparently there ibis. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and refrain from using words like dishonest and cowardly.

I seem to recall Mary Lou explicity stating on Q&A that Lisbon had nothing to do with abortion when asked by a Cóir body in the audience. Ganley of course had no qualms about using it to scare up a few more No votes. Why would SF be hesitant about bringing up neutrality? That seems to have been a fairly consistant thread in their policies for more than a century. As regards corporation tax, my understanding is that they want Ireland free to set its tax rates as it sees fit - so it is really a question of neutrality rather than any firm position on raising or lowering any specific taxes per se.

Personally, I think SF and other smaller left wing parties were largely responsible for delivering the working class No votes. Cóir/Youth Defence delivered the uber-catholic No votes and Ganley delivered a much smaller Freedom Insititute grumpy PD element. I think the media created the Ganley monster to justify not letting SF dominate the No side, since who would imagine (2 years ago) that Libertas would ever be an electoral threat?

I'd say the IT would happily deliver An Phoblacht as a Thursday supplement now, if only they could put the Ganley genie back in the bottle!

Really though, Lisbon was lost because of the Yes-men's ineptitude. FF, FG, and Labour failed to sell the treaty to their own bases, thus allowing a rag tag of disparate groups with nothing in common to prevail, for often diametrically opposite reasons.

If the Lisbon II Yes campaign is going to be dominated by attacking the character of SF, Cóir, Libertas members and supporters, then it is already lost. If Lisbon II can't be sold on its merits then it shouldn't be sold at all.

There was a lot of arrogance involved too. They failed even to begin to take seriously the significant grassroots effort because it didnt occur that it was significant - to them it was just the hoi polloi carrying on some sort of irrelevant fuss outside the spheres of influence which they believe are the only ones that matter. They're so used to owning the agenda they forgot the nature of what was happening. Was their obsession with Ganley really to put SF in the shade? Ganley is one of their own - as mentioned above - the media racket was mostly warring factions within the same corporate elite. He seemd to them to be the biggest threat because he was in their own image and likeness. Ganley they could understand. I don't hold a candle for Ganley but it aint right at the same time that they are now very dishonestly smearing him too with allegations that are not true. Again the IT and Kennedy are a disgrace in this regard.

The consensus among all other parties about SF at any time is to ignore them as much as possible. They're recent re-arrival on the scene has necessarily meant they're stepping on everyone's corns in a crowded party political market place. Nobody wants to give them an inch of room.

I think Sinn Féin deserve a lot of credit for their campaign, but I don't think they did any better than Libertas (and probably no better then FF's many own-goals). I was upset when that hairy wanker came down from north after the No-victory (he knew full well not to show his face beforehand) and tried to steal Mary Lou's thunder.

Did SF peddle the line about conscription, because that's the one that seems to have caught on where I come from. Maybe we're especially gullible in Meath.

905 wrote:

...
Did SF peddle the line about conscription, because that's the one that seems to have caught on where I come from. Maybe we're especially gullible in Meath.

I don't think so, but would be happy to be corrected. Of course SF would have pushed the concerns about increased militarisation of what was originally conceived as an economic project, but I'm not sure they ever pushed a fear of conscription specifically, although there isn't too far a leap from fear of militaritsation to fear of conscription even if one is specifically dealt with in the Lisbon treaty while the other is not at all.

Not too far a leap, but deep down I feel it was Cóir. Or maybe I want to lump all the really malicious fabrications together.

Ah now, coc you need to take off those green-tinted glasses. There was probably one credible speaker from Sinn Féin regarding Lisbon and it wasn't Mary Lou McDonald because, frankly she wasn't up to it. Killian Forde presented one of the most reasonable and reasoned No arguments to Lisbon and showed consistently that he had done his homework.

Well I don't think I specifically praised Mary Lou's input over any other SF reps, did I? I agree with you Killian Forde is one to watch. Green tinted glasses or not, I think it is generally accepted that Mary Lou played well and put her in with a real shout of holding her seat next year. Would you have preferred it if she had played better?

coc wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Reply to Ibis: I'm no fan of Sinn Fein, but I think they went out and campaigned, as did other left wing groups. They went around the estates and banged on doors. This may be a different style to writing IT articles, but was still very much a "No campaign".

Do you count Sinn Fein in with Libertas then?

In terms of the honesty of their Lisbon slogans? Sure - indeed, most of Libertas' slogans were recycled SF ones. SF campaigners on the ground apparently had little hesitation about bringing up abortion, tax, neutrality, and the rest - and the hypocrisy of a nominally left-wing party campaigning on lower corporate tax rates should need no pointing out. As for the claims of foreign interference...

That's a fairly slippery use of the word apparently there ibis. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and refrain from using words like dishonest and cowardly.

Well, then, I'll specifically say that that at least two people I have spoken to said the matter had been raised by SF campaigners on their doorsteps. I say apparently because I don't have first-hand experience of it.

coc wrote:

I seem to recall Mary Lou explicity stating on Q&A that Lisbon had nothing to do with abortion when asked by a Cóir body in the audience. Ganley of course had no qualms about using it to scare up a few more No votes. Why would SF be hesitant about bringing up neutrality? That seems to have been a fairly consistant thread in their policies for more than a century. As regards corporation tax, my understanding is that they want Ireland free to set its tax rates as it sees fit - so it is really a question of neutrality rather than any firm position on raising or lowering any specific taxes per se.

Personally, I think SF and other smaller left wing parties were largely responsible for delivering the working class No votes. Cóir/Youth Defence delivered the uber-catholic No votes and Ganley delivered a much smaller Freedom Insititute grumpy PD element. I think the media created the Ganley monster to justify not letting SF dominate the No side, since who would imagine (2 years ago) that Libertas would ever be an electoral threat?

I'd say the IT would happily deliver An Phoblacht as a Thursday supplement now, if only they could put the Ganley genie back in the bottle!

Really though, Lisbon was lost because of the Yes-men's ineptitude. FF, FG, and Labour failed to sell the treaty to their own bases, thus allowing a rag tag of disparate groups with nothing in common to prevail, for often diametrically opposite reasons.

And as usual, I agree. The campaign by the official Yes side, if one can dignify it by the name campaign, consisted of bluster and bullying, along with patronising platitudes. It's as if the Nice I debacle had never happened.

coc wrote:

If the Lisbon II Yes campaign is going to be dominated by attacking the character of SF, Cóir, Libertas members and supporters, then it is already lost. If Lisbon II can't be sold on its merits then it shouldn't be sold at all.

Very true - there are such merits, and the official Yes campaign almost totally failed to mention them.

Kate P wrote:

Ah now, coc you need to take off those green-tinted glasses. There was probably one credible speaker from Sinn Féin regarding Lisbon and it wasn't Mary Lou McDonald because, frankly she wasn't up to it. Killian Forde presented one of the most reasonable and reasoned No arguments to Lisbon and showed consistently that he had done his homework.

Why do say she wasn't up to it Kate? I thought she was more articulate than most though she may not have been the best.

Aragon wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Ah now, coc you need to take off those green-tinted glasses. There was probably one credible speaker from Sinn Féin regarding Lisbon and it wasn't Mary Lou McDonald because, frankly she wasn't up to it. Killian Forde presented one of the most reasonable and reasoned No arguments to Lisbon and showed consistently that he had done his homework.

Why do say she wasn't up to it Kate? I thought she was more articulate than most though she may not have been the best.

I thought she did quite well, though I'm no judge. Aonghus Ó Snodaigh was a liability I thought.

But aren't we a little off-topic?

I have no real experience of Sarah Carey, apart from knowing her as the vaguely hot one that appears on Q&A from time to time. Both oif her articles have raised hackles in the IT's letters section. I have no particular problem with either article, but is there a risk she may become (or be seen to be) a controversialist?

As for the Irish Times, I'm not sure I understand the argument so I shouldn't comment. They are hypocritical for condemning the Murdoch paper's bias while revelling in their own? I don't think they were as biased. And I don't think a lot of thier post-ref ire can be put down to Madame throwing a childish tantrum because the little people didn't listen to their betters. That sort of talk sounds a bit childish to me.

905 wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Ah now, coc you need to take off those green-tinted glasses. There was probably one credible speaker from Sinn Féin regarding Lisbon and it wasn't Mary Lou McDonald because, frankly she wasn't up to it. Killian Forde presented one of the most reasonable and reasoned No arguments to Lisbon and showed consistently that he had done his homework.

Why do say she wasn't up to it Kate? I thought she was more articulate than most though she may not have been the best.

I thought she did quite well, though I'm no judge. Aonghus Ó Snodaigh was a liability I thought.

But aren't we a little off-topic?

I have no real experience of Sarah Carey, apart from knowing her as the vaguely hot one that appears on Q&A from time to time. Both oif her articles have raised hackles in the IT's letters section. I have no particular problem with either article, but is there a risk she may become (or be seen to be) a controversialist?

As for the Irish Times, I'm not sure I understand the argument so I shouldn't comment. They are hypocritical for condemning the Murdoch paper's bias while revelling in their own? I don't think they were as biased. And I don't think a lot of thier post-ref ire can be put down to Madame throwing a childish tantrum because the little people didn't listen to their betters. That sort of talk sounds a bit childish to me.

Well that's you squarely on the side of the IT then, 905. But it's pretty amazing to pretend that the IT wasn't biased towards the yes vote in Lisbon. Even a cursory count of the pro and anti articles will show you that's true. I don't think even Geraldine Kennedy would openly swear the paper is balanced about it - though she tries to imply it.

Of course they weren't impartial, they were unashamedly so. But I'd say they'd lay claim to being more impartial than whatever Murdoch rag is in question.

Has anyone actually counted the articles in the Times or are we assuming? Whatever about opin ion pieces on their own, add in the editorials and you're certainly onto a bias.

Aragon wrote:

905 wrote:

As for the Irish Times, I'm not sure I understand the argument so I shouldn't comment. They are hypocritical for condemning the Murdoch paper's bias while revelling in their own? I don't think they were as biased. And I don't think a lot of thier post-ref ire can be put down to Madame throwing a childish tantrum because the little people didn't listen to their betters. That sort of talk sounds a bit childish to me.

Well that's you squarely on the side of the IT then, 905. But it's pretty amazing to pretend that the IT wasn't biased towards the yes vote in Lisbon. Even a cursory count of the pro and anti articles will show you that's true. I don't think even Geraldine Kennedy would openly swear the paper is balanced about it - though she tries to imply it.

To summarise - Irish Times evil. People who don't think the Irish Times is evil = wrong, probably evil. That's essentially the same argument that was made on p.ie, that it's OK for the ST to be biased, because it's on the right side, and it's not OK for the IT, because it isn't. When Frank Fitzgibbon says "the Lisbonistas should take a chill pill", he is being charmingly irreverent. When the Irish Times suggests that we may have shot ourselves in the foot over Lisbon, they are being hysterical and childish.

Pathetic.

905 wrote:

Of course they weren't impartial, they were unashamedly so. But I'd say they'd lay claim to being more impartial than whatever Murdoch rag is in question.

Has anyone actually counted the articles in the Times or are we assuming? Whatever about opin ion pieces on their own, add in the editorials and you're certainly onto a bias.

We don't have to do that, though, because the editor of the ST, Frank Fitzgibbon, said in his letter in response to the Carey article that he was "running an upfront campaign opposing the treaty" - and that's a direct quote. I am assured, though, that running an upfront campaign (even though he didn't say so at the time) is more honest than having balancing articles.

All right, never mind the ST, did anyone count the IT articles, or are we happy to assume?

Aragon wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Ah now, coc you need to take off those green-tinted glasses. There was probably one credible speaker from Sinn Féin regarding Lisbon and it wasn't Mary Lou McDonald because, frankly she wasn't up to it. Killian Forde presented one of the most reasonable and reasoned No arguments to Lisbon and showed consistently that he had done his homework.

Why do say she wasn't up to it Kate? I thought she was more articulate than most though she may not have been the best.

She is articulate but listening to what she actually says shows the SF argument was mostly hot air. When she came up against Peter Sutherland at the Forum, she at least debated the issue - economic implications I think - that Sutherland didn't and she could respond well to his emotive blathering. That was the day Ganley had a conscientious objection to sharing the platform with Sinn Féin. I admire the way she stood up to him but did anyone learn anything about the treaty that day? No - he avoided the issue and she didn't understand it when she did address it.

She was crucified and mortified at the Law Society debate where she was clearly outclassed by people who have a far superior understanding of the EU and EU matters than she has. Only John McGuirk, who had the grace to blush for the entire afternoon was worse.

I say it because when she's up against weak opposition she looks good - and I was impressed a few times, there's no doubt about it. But put her on a platform with someone logical, informed and rational and she's lost.

Kate P wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Ah now, coc you need to take off those green-tinted glasses. There was probably one credible speaker from Sinn Féin regarding Lisbon and it wasn't Mary Lou McDonald because, frankly she wasn't up to it. Killian Forde presented one of the most reasonable and reasoned No arguments to Lisbon and showed consistently that he had done his homework.

Why do say she wasn't up to it Kate? I thought she was more articulate than most though she may not have been the best.

She is articulate but listening to what she actually says shows the SF argument was mostly hot air. When she came up against Peter Sutherland at the Forum, she at least debated the issue - economic implications I think - that Sutherland didn't and she could respond well to his emotive blathering. That was the day Ganley had a conscientious objection to sharing the platform with Sinn Féin. I admire the way she stood up to him but did anyone learn anything about the treaty that day? No - he avoided the issue and she didn't understand it when she did address it.

She was crucified and mortified at the Law Society debate where she was clearly outclassed by people who have a far superior understanding of the EU and EU matters than she has. Only John McGuirk, who had the grace to blush for the entire afternoon was worse.

I say it because when she's up against weak opposition she looks good - and I was impressed a few times, there's no doubt about it. But put her on a platform with someone logical, informed and rational and she's lost.

I think that is a problem all Sinn Fein people have now you mention it - I've never seen Mary Lou at anything like that but I've seen other Sinn Fein people and they have all seemed like it now I think back to it - often sort of disappointing. Gerry Adams was the same on the televised opposition party debate pre-election - had no grasp of the details on any of the issues discussed and had to rely mostly on rhetoric. Perhaps they are really still more of a one issue party (united Ireland) despite big efforts to make it seem otherwise.

Aragon wrote:

But it's pretty amazing to pretend that the IT wasn't biased towards the yes vote in Lisbon. Even a cursory count of the pro and anti articles will show you that's true. I don't think even Geraldine Kennedy would openly swear the paper is balanced about it - though she tries to imply it.

Sarah Carey "....Sure, The Irish Times has its whole Dublin 6-intolerant-liberal thing going on. There is also the problem of a "newsroom culture" in which without any actual coercion, journalists will eagerly adopt each other's views...."

I think that is an admission of a tendency towards bias in a newspaper. However, it doesn't equte to actually "running an upfront campaign opposing" which Fitzgibbon claimed to do. Charles Kane eat your heart out.

Quote :

And as usual, I agree. The campaign by the official Yes side, if one can dignify it by the name campaign, consisted of bluster and bullying, along with patronising platitudes. It's as if the Nice I debacle had never happened.

What do you mean the "official" Yes side ibis?

evercloserunion wrote:

Quote :

And as usual, I agree. The campaign by the official Yes side, if one can dignify it by the name campaign, consisted of bluster and bullying, along with patronising platitudes. It's as if the Nice I debacle had never happened.

What do you mean the "official" Yes side ibis?

The political parties, the great and the good. Primarily FF.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Aragon wrote:

But it's pretty amazing to pretend that the IT wasn't biased towards the yes vote in Lisbon. Even a cursory count of the pro and anti articles will show you that's true. I don't think even Geraldine Kennedy would openly swear the paper is balanced about it - though she tries to imply it.

Sarah Carey "....Sure, The Irish Times has its whole Dublin 6-intolerant-liberal thing going on. There is also the problem of a "newsroom culture" in which without any actual coercion, journalists will eagerly adopt each other's views...."

I think that is an admission of a tendency towards bias in a newspaper. However, it doesn't equte to actually "running an upfront campaign opposing" which Fitzgibbon claimed to do. Charles Kane eat your heart out.

This misses the point of what was originally mooted: that the Irish Times has in fact been running a virulently pro Lisbon campaign while pretending to be balanced. It has just now, at Geraldine Kennedy's personal request, published a piece attacking another newspaper for taking an opposite view of the Treaty and for doing no more than the IT itself has done. The only difference between Frank Fitzgibbon and Geraldine Kennedy is that the former has been entirely honest about his paper's anti Lisbon stance - has explicity stated his papers position, while Kennedy has wanted to pretend that she is being balanced when she is anything but. Carey's article is a piece of stinking hypocrisy in this regard. She didn't volunteer to write it herself, she did it because she was asked to by Kennedy. The purpose of Carey's piece was clearly to torpedo the reputation of another editor and by extension his views on Lisbon by accusing him of exactly the sort of editorial manipulation of which Kennedy was most guilty herself - ironically in the very piece in which those accusations were made by Carey/Kennedy/IT. I'm not pretending for one second that either of these editors are better or worse than each other overall - they are not. But when it comes to Lisbon, it's beyond doubt that Fitzgibbon has been entirely straightforward while Kennedy has not. Kennedy is now like a bear with a sore paw because her 'leading and shaping' of public opinion about Lisbon did not work out as planned.

I can't help but think that the accusation of running a "virulently pro-Lisbon campaign" is factually contradicted by the IT carrying articles against Lisbon, whereas if you actually are running a campaign, as the ST has admitted they were, you do as they did, and carry nothing that contradicts your message. Certainly there is no PR company anywhere that would advise a client to run a mixed-message campaign.

Still, that would be logic, as opposed to ideological blindness.

Newspapers are not obliged to provide the same balance and fairness in reporting as broadcasters are, for example. - so perhaps the principle that seems to be at the root of this debate is a moot point.

If there were a "virulently pro-Lisbon" stance - I hesitate to use the word campaign because I don't think it's accurate in the context, there would be overwhelming evidence of it. I haven't seen it. It's not something we'd be debating the existence of here if it were as vividly evident as your hyperbole seems to suggest. I use the word hyperbole because there's no meaningful substantiation of the arguments you make and little anecdotal evidence of it.

What the Irish Times has done - and what other papers failed to do for quite a while in the lead up to the Referendum, was provide consistent coverage of the issues. They were way ahead of, for example, the Indo which came to the Lisbon game considerably later. There were a considerable number of head-to-head columns and debates and there was balanced coverage of a lot of Lisbon events.

My understanding of your argument on the first page Aragon, is that you are outraged that the IT would print an article by Carey criticising another publication for doing what you say the IT are doing but have provided no evidence for - not even anecdotal evidence. Would you have preferred that the IT had not run the story at all? That might have been a less honourable stance in the circumstances.

What the IT did, that the majority of other papers did not do, was provide a forum for a full and frank representation of all the issues from all the voices for a long time and from a variety of styles of reportage - there were articles from Europe, reports on events, opinion columns, letters, expert analyses and an array of presentations, for want of a better word, from all kinds of interests.

I'm not saying that the IT didn't/doesn't have a bias - the editorials have been quite clear in that regard. But I would argue that in terms of detailed and varied coverage of the treaty and discussions thereof, there wasn't a paper in the country that went within a mile of the detail that the IT did.

Aragon wrote

Quote :

But to get back to the story, as it turns out, in this instance the Sunday Times was, on balance, actually more more neutral than the IT. I'm not for one second making a case for Murdoch and his agenda. What we are really looking at here imo is warring factions among the same 'elite' group.

You still haven't provided any empirical evidence to support either element of that opening sentence.

Quote :

Added to all of that though is the unmistakable fact that Sarah Carey was in cahoots with Kennedy about this article. The IT is in no way less manipulative of public opinion than Murdoch's papers are. The only difference is that the IT much more devious because it cultivates an appearance of liberlaism only to ensure that its equally pro-corporate agenda goes down unnoticed.

In cahoots? Because Kennedy commissioned it - or because you say she did, I didn't see any source to back up the fact that she did. 'Commissioning' in journalistic terms is a pretty loose word and from a freelance perspective can simply boil down to the name of the person who gave you the go ahead to write it so you can put it on the invoice. If the article involves the specific criticism of another newspaper - and papers rarely engage in any mention of each other at all, then it's likely that it would have been okayed by the editor. The piece being commissioned by the editor is not evidence of a conspiracy - it's simply the way things are done.

Your last statement in the above paragraph requires considerable substantiation.