'The Irish Times dutifully on message for the 'yes' campaign'

The IT is at it again. They're going to bring that Lisbon Treaty baby home, come hell or high water.

There is a serious issue here. At a time like this the country needs the press to function as independently and objectively as possible - to present the facts and the whole range of views and commentary as objectively and fairly as possible. But that is not what is going to happen. Not if today's IT is anything to go by at any rate.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87884

Aragon, we may expect the kitchen sink et al to be thrown at us over the next few days. We should start a competition for the most outrageous/amusing threat of what will happen to us if we vote No.

"And there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth..."

cactus flower wrote:

Aragon, we may expect the kitchen sink et al to be thrown at us over the next few days. We should start a competition for the most outrageous/amusing threat of what will happen to us if we vote No.

"And there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth..."

Yep, there is the French foreign minister issuing threats to Irish voters if we don't do as we are told.


http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/p....html

Aragon - I hope you don't mind but I am going to carry this news across to the French thread too!

Thanks

The Independent wrote:

In an interview today, Bernard Kouchner says Ireland had benefited
more than others from the EU and Europe should be able to count on the
Irish for support.
He says Irish voters would only be punishing themselves if they voted 'no'.

The above sounds like a threat to me. I wonder what punishment he has in mind?

Throwing the kitchen sink is a very bad mistake to be making at this point. Traditionally speaking, we don't like to be overtly threatened and strong-armed. The above two sentences strike me as being similar to something Orwell might have said. We're all equal but some are more equal than others. Doesn't bode very well for the EU mindset does it? It's a stark admission that ass-kissers will fare well in the EU but independent thinkers will be laid low.

This type of crap completely withdraws from discussing the pros and cons of the Lisbon Treaty, imo it's quite pathetic and indeed it'll backfire horribly. As someone who doesn't care about the treaty one way or the other, in the big scheme of things, but who wants a complete withdrawl from the EU, the media is finally playing a tune I can dance to.

I hope they keep up the sterling work!

Frankly, I find it impossible to take people's complaints about this seriously. The volume of screaming from the No camp has now reached fever pitch. Anyone who proposes a Yes, or denies even the most obvious lies on Lisbon is denounced repeatedly as a traitor, a liar, a fool, an elitist pig with their nose in the Brussels trough. There have been constant verbal assaults and occasional physical assaults on Yes proponents throughout the campaign. The Sunday papers are eurosceptic, the Independent is getting its European coverage syndicated from the Daily Telegraph, and the Irish 'editions' of the British tabloids are in full spate. Every fart or scratch from any foreign politician that can possibly be mangled to sound like it's relevant to Lisbon has been screamed at us repeatedly. We've had foreign pressure in the shape of everything from demonstrations organised round Europe to astroturf letter campaigns to Tony Benn to Gerry Adams to ex-pat millionaires with private fortunes attacking the "elite". We've been guilt-tripped that we're to vote No to support the people of France and Holland despite the fact that they got the Treaty renegotiated and clearly don't give a toss. Anyone who even suggests there might be a downside to a No vote is pilloried as a bully by people who won't be doing a single thing to pick up the pieces if there is one.

Stop fucking whinging. It makes me puke. You're not victims - you're on one side of a very dirty referendum campaign. If you're genuinely disgusted by the tactics of one side, you should be equally ashamed of the tactics of the other.

In fairness Ibis, the whinging has been a very broad two-way street, as you've said - folks having different length fuses is the problem here. With some very honourable exceptions, like yourself, who stuck firmly to the issues and patiently explained your position no matter how innane the contrary view was, this has been the modus operandi in totality.

In the next few days, the bullshit is going to intensify. You know it and I know it. And both sides are going to do it. Sometimes it's impossible to completely separate the emotional from the intellectual. That's a human thing I guess. Allow me to say, that sometimes this pisses me off as much as it's getting to you now. Don't let it get you down man. It's been a long slog and tireless folks like yourself must be frustrated at the drivel one sees on this issue. For what it's worth, eventhough I disagree with you in an overall sense (as is patenty obvious I spose), I personally appreciate your effort and have had more than one falsely based opinion reversed by your work.

To be fair, the IT has been running a series of bits and pieces about Lisbon for the last while too. I've made a poor effort to follow so I can't comment on the bias but I imagine that series, which stopped a few weeks ago, gave out plenty of information from both sides.

Anyway they aren't bound by laws to fall on one side or the other so now is there time to brandish their colours.

ibis wrote:

Frankly, I find it impossible to take people's complaints about this seriously. The volume of screaming from the No camp has now reached fever pitch. Anyone who proposes a Yes, or denies even the most obvious lies on Lisbon is denounced repeatedly as a traitor, a liar, a fool, an elitist pig with their nose in the Brussels trough. There have been constant verbal assaults and occasional physical assaults on Yes proponents throughout the campaign. The Sunday papers are eurosceptic, the Independent is getting its European coverage syndicated from the Daily Telegraph, and the Irish 'editions' of the British tabloids are in full spate. Every fart or scratch from any foreign politician that can possibly be mangled to sound like it's relevant to Lisbon has been screamed at us repeatedly. We've had foreign pressure in the shape of everything from demonstrations organised round Europe to astroturf letter campaigns to Tony Benn to Gerry Adams to ex-pat millionaires with private fortunes attacking the "elite". We've been guilt-tripped that we're to vote No to support the people of France and Holland despite the fact that they got the Treaty renegotiated and clearly don't give a toss. Anyone who even suggests there might be a downside to a No vote is pilloried as a bully by people who won't be doing a single thing to pick up the pieces if there is one.

Stop fucking whinging. It makes me puke. You're not victims - you're on one side of a very dirty referendum campaign. If you're genuinely disgusted by the tactics of one side, you should be equally ashamed of the tactics of the other.

Well if that aint whinging, I don't know what is Infinitely more noise than signal, at any rate. Neither does it deal with the original post which is the irresponsible one-sidedness of the Irish Times articles. That's a valid and reasonable observation given today's coverage. Eg if Brian Cowen makes the claim that Ireland will be put at a disadvantage if we vote no, then he needs to explain exactly why and how -with concrete and measurable examples to prove his point. Any journalist worth their salt would, if they were doing their job properly, have sought the view of a no campaigner in response to this claim by Cowen.

If the French foreign minister threatens Irish voters, he ought at least to be asked exactly what he has in mind - what will he do to us? Instead, the threat itself is not even questioned but accepted at face value and faithfully regurgiated to show us all what trouble they are storing up for us if we don't do as we are told. This sort of thing isn't even journalism.

You don't say anything about the MEP vote in February - one of the most telling aspects of this whole farce - that the referendum is almost certainly irrelevant - that the Treaty is going to be ratified regardless. Now, anyone - either of yes or no persuasion - who is remotely concerned with upholding law and democracy ought to be vehemently opposed to this stitch-up. It is a big reason to vote now in its own right.

Hermes wrote:

In fairness Ibis, the whinging has been a very broad two-way street, as you've said - folks have different length fuses is the problem here. With some very honourable exceptions, like yourself, who stuck firmly to the issues and patiently explained your position no matter how innane the contrary view was, this has been the modus operandi in totality.

In the next few days, the bullshit is going to intensify. You know it and I know it. And both sides are going to do it. Sometimes it's impossible to completely separate the emotional from the intellectual. That's a human thing I guess. Allow me to say, that sometimes this pisses me off as much as it's getting to you now. Don't let it get you down man. It's been a long slog and tireless folks like yourself must be frustrated at the drivel one sees on this issue. For what it's worth, eventhough I disagree with you in an overall sense (as is patenty obvious I spose), I personally appreciate your effort and have had more than one falsely based opinion reversed by your work.

Thanks, Hermes - I appreciate that. Indeed, the bullshit is escalating - I've more or less given up attempting to keep any semblance of order on the p.ie Lisbon forum. I'd as lief try and keep order in a monkey house with a rabies epidemic.

Aragon - don't bother. I've said I'm fed up with the shite, and I am.

Auditor #9 wrote:

To be fair, the IT has been running a series of bits and pieces about Lisbon for the last while too. I've made a poor effort to follow so I can't comment on the bias but I imagine that series, which stopped a few weeks ago, gave out plenty of information from both sides.

Anyway they aren't bound by laws to fall on one side or the other so now is there time to brandish their colours.

The Irish Times prides itself in what it claims is its objective and balanced journalism. With something as significant to the lives of millions of people as this Treaty it has a duty to ensure that its coverage is always balanced and fair. That is possible within the scope of every article that is written. At the very least it should not pretend that something is objective when it is nothing of the sort. These are the critical days and its quite clear what their tack is going to be now: the nannying voice of our elders and betters telling us what is good for us and not to trouble our little heads about it too much.

Aragon wrote:

The IT is at it again. They're going to bring that Lisbon Treaty baby home, come hell or high water.

There is a serious issue here. At a time like this the country needs the press to function as independently and objectively as possible - to present the facts and the whole range of views and commentary as objectively and fairly as possible. But that is not what is going to happen. Not if today's IT is anything to go by at any rate.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87884

I don't buy your argument at all. I've read pretty much all of the IT coverage of the Lisbon Treaty and I thought it was very informative and reasonably balanced. Personally, I would have absolutely no difficulty with the 'paper of record' printing an editorial calling for a yes vote if that is where the editor stands. The IT has more than lived up to its duties. I know a couple of academics are running studies on percieved bias in relation to the Lisbon Treaty in the print media, it might be interesting when its all over.

unaligned wrote:

Aragon wrote:

The IT is at it again. They're going to bring that Lisbon Treaty baby home, come hell or high water.

There is a serious issue here. At a time like this the country needs the press to function as independently and objectively as possible - to present the facts and the whole range of views and commentary as objectively and fairly as possible. But that is not what is going to happen. Not if today's IT is anything to go by at any rate.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87884

I don't buy your argument at all. I've read pretty much all of the IT coverage of the Lisbon Treaty and I thought it was very informative and reasonably balanced. Personally, I would have absolutely no difficulty with the 'paper of record' printing an editorial calling for a yes vote if that is where the editor stands. The IT has more than lived up to its duties. I know a couple of academics are running studies on percieved bias in relation to the Lisbon Treaty in the print media, it might be interesting when its all over.

Well there are a lot of people who don't buy your argument - not by a long shot. There has been a nod in the direction of the no campaign by the IT (anything less and it would be butt naked on the objectivity front) but nothing like the sort of detailed analysis of the 'No' reasoning that it deserves. The IT has also focused largely on one small element of the No cmapaign - Libertas. Libertas is not representative of most of those who oppose Lisbon. This is how the IT traditionally satisfies itself that it is a paper 'of record'. It puts 75% or more of the emphasis on one side of an argument - including compliant staffers, columnists and editorials and then points to the remaining 25% - often the odds ere even more stacked - as proof of its fairness. It does this constantly - with the Iraq war and a whole host of other issues. There are tokenistic alternative voices - and even they tend to accept the overall context without too much serious demur. Every so often somebody is allowed to write something truly challenging, but the only effect of that is to cause the paper to feel overly virtuous about itself and then revert quickly to its usual sonnombulent journalism - smug in the knowledge that it has an impeccable record on the back of its ocasional forays into the land of unvarnished truth and fact.

The IT understand's full well that if it did detailed and accurate reporting of the concerns of those who are not convinced and how they believe they will be adversely affected by Lisbon, it would give people a lot of pause.

It has also given negligible coverage to the MEP February vote - a disgraceful omission. There should have been front page headlines about that posing the question 'Is the Irish Lisbon Referendum a sham?' A neutral and valid question that has been hushed up as quietyly and stealthily as the mainstream media can possibly manage. Of course the Independent is as guilty:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/we-need-lisbon-treaty-facts-now-1325114.html

It's one thing for an editorial to come out on one side or another and openly declare itself - that is fair enough. What is completely dishonest is for the day to day reporting to be so one-sided while pretending to be objective and balanced. The editor may have her position, but the reporting should still be accurate and fair. It is nothing of the sort - and it looks as though this week balanced reporting of Lisbon at the IT is going down the toilet.

I have read the Indymedia article and find in it the same degree of frustration at not being listened to that Ibis expressed here on the Yes side.

Quote :

The see-here-children-do-as-the-nice-men-are-telling-you style of contempt for the kids (aka the electorate) is almost a form of psychological torture.

There seems to be a gulf of incomprehension between the two sides. There are people on both sides making an honest attempt at coming to the right decision and convincing others, as well as some calculated attempts to mislead or bully on both sides.

In the normal political debate in Ireland at least we know what we are arguing about. Even people who have read the Treaty and profess to fully understand it differ seriously on interpretation and much of its contents will only take on real substance in practice and in the Courts over a period of years.

On one side we have arrogance, and on the other suspicion. A whole pile of genies have escaped out of the bottle, some of them occasion for hope and others for fear, and I don't think they will go back in again, irrespective of how the vote turns out.

cactus flower wrote:

I have read the Indymedia article and find in it the same degree of frustration at not being listened to that Ibis expressed here on the Yes side.

Quote :

The see-here-children-do-as-the-nice-men-are-telling-you style of contempt for the kids (aka the electorate) is almost a form of psychological torture.

There seems to be a gulf of incomprehension between the two sides. There are people on both sides making an honest attempt at coming to the right decision and convincing others, as well as some calculated attempts to mislead or bully on both sides.

I appreciate there's a genuine annoyance on the part of the thinking No campaign that people simply say "well, if it's good enough for my TD/Bishop, it's good enough for me" - an attitude that was all too prevalent through many years in this state, and which led to a closed, reactionary and abusive society.

However, that genuine feeling can very quickly lead to the characterisation of everyone in the political establishment as a self-serving member of an elite who pretend to represent "the people" for their own corrupt benefit, and anyone who agrees with them as either elite aspirants or fools duped by a created and pervasive establishment consensus that works to the benfit of vested interests.

Similarly, there is a genuine feeling on the part of the thinking Yes campaign that much of the No campaign consists of people who oppose the status quo simply because it is the status quo and not their status quo, who pretend to represent "the people" but who actually represent tiny minority viewpoints, and who are prepared to create any amount of fear, uncertainty and doubt by spinning material out of all recognition secure in the knowledge that they won't be the ones picking up the pieces afterwards.

cactus flower wrote:

In the normal political debate in Ireland at least we know what we are arguing about. Even people who have read the Treaty and profess to fully understand it differ seriously on interpretation and much of its contents will only take on real substance in practice and in the Courts over a period of years.

On one side we have arrogance, and on the other suspicion. A whole pile of genies have escaped out of the bottle, some of them occasion for hope and others for fear, and I don't think they will go back in again, irrespective of how the vote turns out.

Hmm. I don't expect to see anything more of most of the "issues" that have been raised until the next EU referendum, whenever that may be. Call me cynical, but we didn't hear anything about them until the campaign started - even though there was a two-year consultation process, which was plenty of time for an informed public debate to feed into the Treaty negotiation - the Forum on Europe exists partly for that reason. If people ignore the open offers of consultation in advance, they can hardly complain about having too little time for debate.

ibis wrote:

Similarly, there is a genuine feeling on the part of the thinking Yes campaign that much of the No campaign consists of people who oppose the status quo simply because it is the status quo and not their status quo, who pretend to represent "the people" but who actually represent tiny minority viewpoints, and who are prepared to create any amount of fear, uncertainty and doubt by spinning material out of all recognition secure in the knowledge that they won't be the ones picking up the pieces afterwards.

Just wondering if you've nailed much of it there .. Is there a gaping divide between bottom up and top-down, push-pull action between member states and the EU umbrella organisation which has turned out to be unsatisfactory to the many when asked?

I looked at the Irish Times at dinner in the shop and I'll admit I relegated it to the scare tactics of the Yes side which has emerged lately (is the IT trying to make itself a bit more interesting with this line they're taking?). Personally I like to hear something positive if it's from Yes or No not this with regard to the Treaty in the IT article

Quote :

In a phrase he used repeatedly yesterday during a 25-minute speech, the Taoiseach said a rejection of the treaty would take Ireland "down a new and more uncertain route".

He told members of Ógra Fianna Fáil at a youth rally in Dublin that theirs was "the most blessed generation in Irish history". He asked that people reflect on the fact that "the progress Ireland has made would not have been possible without us being positive members of the European Union".

It reminds me too much of Brian Cowen's economic scare tactics before the General Election last year to get the electorate to vote against Richard Bruton's Fine Gael as opposed to for Fianna Fáil - a tactic I think is ferociously dishonest.

So I bought the Examiner instead of the Times. The front page doesn't say much about Lisbon, instead that we are losing water from our infrastructure at the rate of 685 million litres per day - If someone was to tell me how the structures of the EU would encourage us to deal with this type of thing in a responsible way by issuing fines and generating funds then I'd be inclined to lend my ear to it.

Maybe I'm a freak and a rarity at the moment though.

cactus flower wrote:

I have read the Indymedia article and find in it the same degree of frustration at not being listened to that Ibis expressed here on the Yes side.

Quote :

The see-here-children-do-as-the-nice-men-are-telling-you style of contempt for the kids (aka the electorate) is almost a form of psychological torture.

There seems to be a gulf of incomprehension between the two sides. There are people on both sides making an honest attempt at coming to the right decision and convincing others, as well as some calculated attempts to mislead or bully on both sides.

In the normal political debate in Ireland at least we know what we are arguing about. Even people who have read the Treaty and profess to fully understand it differ seriously on interpretation and much of its contents will only take on real substance in practice and in the Courts over a period of years.

On one side we have arrogance, and on the other suspicion. A whole pile of genies have escaped out of the bottle, some of them occasion for hope and others for fear, and I don't think they will go back in again, irrespective of how the vote turns out.

Where I seem to have been misunderstood by some people in posting this thread is that it wasnt about the merits of the yes or no positions per se, but about the bias in mainstream media coverage in favour of the yes campaign.

If there is a reason for the seeming impossibility of the two sides making a connection, I'd argue it's because they are not talking about the same things. The genuine yes camp, generally speaking, are pointing to past benefits (which nobody is denying not least because many on the no side are not at all anti EU) and worry about upsetting our EU partners and what they might do to us if we say no. On the other hand the no side is looking at the Treaty in the round - the fact that specific provisions which appear positive are in fact fenced in by other provisions - legally binding principles of purpose and interpretation that belie the seeming positives. I've studied EU law - that was my degree - and I can honestly say the this Treaty is genuinely a nightmare of a document to try and make your way around.

But I think this thread is being derailed by this particular discussion - this was supposed to be about media coverage.

Sorry Aragon we can split off the derailed bit if you like, or get back on topic.

To stay on topic I would not be surprised at the IT or any other privately owned newspaper representing the interests of the class of people who run it.

If I want to read the other side I will go to Indymedia or similar.

cactus flower wrote:

Sorry Aragon we can split off the derailed bit if you like, or get back on topic.

To stay on topic I would not be surprised at the IT or any other privately owned newspaper representing the interests of the class of people who run it.

If I want to read the other side I will go to Indymedia or similar.

Blimey - don't mention the war!

We can keep an eye out in the papers this week so. I'm sure I saw some heavy skepticism in one of the Indos last week or maybe it was the Sindo.

The Sunday World is for it and that's important too.

The Irish Times, pro-Europe and pro the main political parties.
Where's the surprise in that? Are we going to get committees
imposing a dialectic on all media outlets?

Ronald Binge wrote:

The Irish Times, pro-Europe and pro the main political parties.
Where's the surprise in that? Are we going to get committees
imposing a dialectic on all media outlets?

Eh, no. We're asking for the Irish Times simply to do what it claims to do: to ensure that its reporting is balanced and fair - that it adequately represetns the facts and the various strands of opinion without fear or favour.

The 'imposed dialectic' is in fact what is happening at the moment: the IT is telling us what to think.

Aragon wrote:

The IT is at it again. They're going to bring that Lisbon Treaty baby home, come hell or high water.

There is a serious issue here. At a time like this the country needs the press to function as independently and objectively as possible - to present the facts and the whole range of views and commentary as objectively and fairly as possible. But that is not what is going to happen. Not if today's IT is anything to go by at any rate.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87884

Today's front page doesn't seem to be much better.
The main story is about how the three main parties are pulling together to get the treaty passed for the good of the country, while the other implies that Sarkozy is really a responsible man of action calling for something to be done about fuel prices (and having what I thought were good ideas), and not the loose cannon our leaders were worried about.

AfricanDave wrote:

Aragon wrote:

The IT is at it again. They're going to bring that Lisbon Treaty baby home, come hell or high water.

There is a serious issue here. At a time like this the country needs the press to function as independently and objectively as possible - to present the facts and the whole range of views and commentary as objectively and fairly as possible. But that is not what is going to happen. Not if today's IT is anything to go by at any rate.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87884

Today's front page doesn't seem to be much better.
The main story is about how the three main parties are pulling together to get the treaty passed for the good of the country, while the other implies that Sarkozy is really a responsible man of action calling for something to be done about fuel prices (and having what I thought were good ideas), and not the loose cannon our leaders were worried about.

Nicolas Sarkozy will be out by the next election. He has failed to deliver, missed his window of opportunity, is leading France into recession and is more interested in Carla Bruni than the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement of France. No wonder his approval ratings have tanked. He'll be gone by the next election.

I think the whole Carla Bruni thing made it seem like he spiralled out of control after assuming power.
I read something recently (in either the Indo or the IT) by some psychologist saying that his adolescent impulses took over once he won the presidency.