# George Lee



## Stephenkelly (21 Jun 2007)

I Cant stand George Lee - He id the most depressing and negitive person in the media - we dont need people like him reporting and talking us into doom and recession - He never has anything positive to say, he's always highlighting the bad points of the economy even if there is many good points.

What are your views?


----------



## MugsGame (21 Jun 2007)

I can't stand people being negative about others, always highlighting their bad points, even if there are many good points.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Jun 2007)

MugsGame said:


> I can't stand people being negative about others, always highlighting their bad points, even if there are many good points.




_Stephenkelly _- I can't stand _GL _either but I just switch the _TV_/radio/my brain off when he appears. Why don't you do the same?


----------



## MugsGame (21 Jun 2007)

ClubMan, do you regularly hallucinate when listening to him?


----------



## Stephenkelly (21 Jun 2007)

Mugsgame - Name his goodpoints - I'm not being negative i'm only pointing out that this man is creating so much negative economic press. We need to aware of potential downfalls to improve on them but we equally need to be aware of our strengths for the same reason. My point is that thousands of people listen to this mans reports every day and will be influenced by him therefore his reporting (like the majority of RTEs reporting) shouldn't be so anti FF. 

When reporting on the economy you are not arguing left against right you are purely highlighting fact and arguing potential eventualities of this fact. George Lee only highlights negative fact - never highlights positives and what good is being done in the economy. 

I'm not a FF buff by any means but RTE's reporting of the election was very anti FF and GL seemed to be the leader of the pack!


----------



## z108 (21 Jun 2007)

I think that kind of reporting is firmly established in human nature and history. Even in the bible  two thousand years ago the Jews thought the end of the world was nigh  and were preparing themselves for the worst. Nothing has changed. I guess one day someone will say the end of the world is nigh and he or she will be correct.
This kind of reporting has gotten to me slightly as I do remember as a child that Ireland was in an extremely bad way and I have seen how once successful economies do encounter difficulties. If we were really so good at managing ourselves then the 80's wouldnt have happened so I dont think we should be arrogant.

Maybe GL is the best RTEs way of trying to make us wear a hair shirt  and talk people into having less personal debt and being more responsible with their finances.


----------



## Stephenkelly (22 Jun 2007)

I agree that we have huge problems with personal debt but there has to be better ways to educate ppeople


----------



## Johnny Boy (25 Jun 2007)

GL is turning out like Charlie Bird in that he now more of a "celebrity" than a jounolist. He needs an image and gloom and doom is his. As they say a stopped clock is correct twice a day


----------



## z108 (25 Jun 2007)

Stephenkelly said:


> I'm not a FF buff by any means but RTE's reporting of the election was very anti FF and GL seemed to be the leader of the pack!




Who controls RTE  really ? I remember Gay Byrne saying years ago when interviewed that he was told in no uncertain terms about Gerry Adams appearing on his show for the first time. 'Shake his hand and your career is finished.' I always assumed there was a political agenda from the government. Money = power  and the government control the flow of money dont they ?
The government also got rid of the legislation making it necessary that both sides of an argument get equal time before a referendum. I would call that real power.


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2007)

sign said:


> Who controls RTE  really ? I remember Gay Byrne saying years ago when interviewed that he was told in no uncertain terms about Gerry Adams appearing on his show for the first time. 'Shake his hand and your career is finished.' I always assumed there was a political agenda from the government. Money = power  and the government control the flow of money dont they ?


 At one stage  years ago they were controlled by the workers party hacks now they are a law unto themselves J. Charley Bird and George Lee are no friends of FF and RTE would have a left wing colouring in most of it’s current affairs offerings. The old saying that you shouldn’t argue with a man who buys his ink by the tonne can also be applied to those who schedule the national news.



sign said:


> The government also got rid of the legislation making it necessary that both sides of an argument get equal time before a referendum. I would call that real power.


 Not necessarily a bad thing.

I can't stand George Lee either.


----------



## z108 (25 Jun 2007)

Purple said:


> At one stage  years ago they were controlled by the workers party hacks




Thanks for the info Purple. I cant verify if this is a conspiracy theory or not but it sounds good  
They havent seemed to have persuaded many to vote for the Workers Party when it was in existence and the present crowd didnt seem to have the ability to vote out FF during the last election either.

I am not sure what to think of GL in this context as I like to think the best of everyone and believe negativity eats away at the soul . I believe the altogether more harmless individual Duncan Stewart was once pushed into the Stephens Green pond by an obsessed fan for example.

I can say without a doubt that when I lived in the USA the newspapers appeared  so positive, enterprising and optimistic to me and since returning home I do believe the newspapers here do little for the reader unless the reader wishes to enter a depression so I read very little news and always skip to the sport and financials. This could be evidence of an agenda but it could be  a parish pump mentality here. Once I got home I noticed a lot more the constant  headlines  screaming bad news about events which 99% of readers cannot change.
An well educated American friend who is a doctor came to visit me last year for  New years and he had to comment he never saw so many headlines screaming about rape and murder and shame and scaremongering we basically dont need to know and which pragmatic Americans arent interested in. This was a view I already held since returning. I think the best way of explaining it is dont take my word for it but  make a comparison  then make up your own mind..


----------



## z109 (25 Jun 2007)

sign said:


> An well educated American friend who is a doctor came to visit me last year for  New years and he had to comment he never saw so many headlines screaming about rape and murder and shame and scaremongering we basically dont need to know and which pragmatic Americans arent interested in.



Pragmatic?
Murders/1000 1998-2000:
Ireland: 0.00946215
US: 0.042802

Rapes/1000 1998-2000:
0.0542829
0.301318
(source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders)

So the US has four times the murder rate and five times the rate of reported rapes?

And educated Americans don't care to read about it.

Blimey, I could go on.

Frankly, I'd rather know if the country was in a parlous state even if it is only scumbags killing each other. God bless us all if all we had to read was USA Today or the Wall Street Journal.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Jun 2007)

yoganmahew said:


> God bless us all if all we had to read was USA Today or the Wall Street Journal.


Indeed - the _US _printed media is pretty dire alright!


----------



## DrMoriarty (26 Jun 2007)

Liam Fay, High Curmudgeon of the 'Irish' _Sunday Times_, has a great hatchet piece on GL/_Future Shock _in the current 'Culture' section (p. 32).

What _is _it with this country and celebrity financial experts...?


----------



## bullbars (26 Jun 2007)

I always heard that the US media intentionally keeps those kinds of stories off the front pages and always tries to keep everything positive; a kinda "think happy thoughts and athe bad stuff will go away mentality"?!
Similiarly Its the reasoning behind those special reports after news bulletins, they dont want to leave the public with a sour taste of another Irag story but rather close with a story about how 12 ducks were recued from an old pond and given a new home blah blah blah.........


----------



## Johnny Boy (26 Jun 2007)

All we want is the truth not sensationism. By the way I heard the opposite that if you want to keep people down you just keep giving them depressing news. I will never forgive goverment and papers in the 1980s because they gave one no hope. This country is as good a country as is in the world at the present, thank God.The media got burned during this election they thought they had more power than they did, they probaly thought that people had respect for them.


----------



## z108 (26 Jun 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Indeed - the _US _printed media is pretty dire alright!



In comparison to which media ?




bullbars said:


> I always heard that the US media intentionally keeps those kinds of stories off the front pages and always tries to keep everything positive; a kinda "think happy thoughts and athe bad stuff will go away mentality"?!
> Similiarly Its the reasoning behind those special reports after news bulletins, they dont want to leave the public with a sour taste of another Irag story but rather close with a story about how 12 ducks were recued from an old pond and given a new home blah blah blah.........



I had that preconception too and felt sure some people would have a problem with my observation yet humbly submitted it anyway. I'm not talking about the issue of propaganda in support of any government (which took the form in UK broadsheets of jingoistic interviews of 'role models' who were young patriotic teens who supported  Blair while expressing a desire to go to the war in Iraq and a portrayal of Blair as church going etc).

I'm talking about reverse propaganda here which seems so negative. Even the duck story appears exploitative when written about in our newspapers. In an Irish duck story the ducks wouldnt have survived !
                                        On the day in question when my American friend was visiting, we fell out of a club at 5 am and walked into a newsagents at some wee hour of the morning and every single one of the newspapers had a sensationalist headline on the day.
Only about week ago there was a headline in the Herald (I think) which screamed something along the lines of 'MADDY SIGHTED IN DUBLIN'. My bull**** detector went off straight away. How the hell could she be sighted in Dublin and not be safe at home already by the time the paper was printed. Absolutely anyone who saw Madeline that poor unfortunate girl walking around Dublin would start kicking some serious ass. I know I would start kicking ass if I saw her with someone and I resent the newspapers winding people up with headlines which evaporate into lies once the main story is read.
Its  flippant and disrespectful attitudes towards real issues like this which I cant stand.



Johnny Boy said:


> All we want is the truth not sensationism. By the way I heard the opposite that if you want to keep people down you just keep giving them depressing news. I will never forgive goverment and papers in the 1980s because they gave one no hope. This country is as good a country as is in the world at the present, thank God.The media got burned during this election they thought they had more power than they did, they probaly thought that people had respect for them.




I agree with  the sentiment about sensationalism. I think the media serve a useful purpose as another force in democratic public life but they have failed on many levels. 
A glaring example for many  of the AAM'ers is the way property is advertised with 'assured guaranteed returns' when the reality is nothing of the sort. Any finance editor worth his salt would have commented on this an extremely long time ago. The fact the media earns money from these exploitative adverts is proof they are not any more above corruption than politicians are.
There is good news as well as bad news but too often the headline  screams the negative news by default. They should include all the facts inside in medium to small print for anyone who wants to find them instead of trying to shock and insult the senses with a headline frequently taking poetic license. Maybe thats what people buy newspapers for but it wouldnt be one of my reasons.

*rant over*


----------



## DrMoriarty (26 Jun 2007)

sign said:


> ...shock and insult the senses with a headline frequently taking poetic license. Maybe thats what people buy newspapers for but...


Unfortunately, I think that's precisely the problem. The business of newspapers is to sell newspapers. Full stop.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Jun 2007)

sign said:


> In comparison to which media ?


_Irish/UK _for example.


----------



## Purple (26 Jun 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Indeed - the _US _printed media is pretty dire alright!


This is a common view, but in my opinion the New York Times is the best newspaper printed. It consistently reports from Iraq on actual events, some of it's reporting is scathing of US actions, some is not. It also consistently reports from Darfur with factual essays that strive to provide a context to what is going on there. The same applies to it's reporting around the world. I don't have the background knowledge to judge it's reporting on Indian and Chinese affairs but I do have it to judge it's reporting in Africa and it is exemplary. Given the complex nature of reporting there this is no mean feat.
For all the criticism we level at the American media for international reporting the NY Times puts our papers to shame. The Indo just doesn't bother and the Irish Times is badly researched, out of context and frequently plain wrong.

The standard of prose in the NY Times is also consistently better than any Irish newspaper.
The Washington Post is also a good paper. The Wall Street Journal is biased toward it’s own free market agenda but it does some good genuine journalism where they provide background and context. The same cannot be said for any Irish broadsheet.

We as a nation as frequently contemptuous of American stereotypes of us, it is ironic that we are at least as guilty of stereotyping them. Broad brushstrokes rarely paint a clear picture.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Jun 2007)

I read the _NY Times _on a few occasions over in the _US _and found the coverage to be very superficial, biased and parochial. At one time the whole anti-_French _thing was at its peak and even the _NY Times _had childish sarcastic comments about _France _in a front page article. Maybe I was just unlucky in terms of my sampling but it would not encourage me to revisit it.


----------



## Purple (26 Jun 2007)

Read it on-line and see what you think.


----------



## bond-007 (27 Jun 2007)

Make GL RTE's entertainment correspondent?


----------



## Johnny Boy (28 Jun 2007)

actually he can be the next Harry Potter as in Harry Potter and His Dark Cloud


----------



## diarmuidc (28 Jun 2007)

Purple said:


> This is a common view, but in my opinion the New York Times is the best newspaper printed. It consistently reports from Iraq on actual events, some of it's reporting is scathing of US actions, some is not.



Their coverage in the run up to the Iraq war was so poor that they apologised. 
At least they apologised, the rest just repeat whatever Tony Snow tells them. As [broken link removed]said :
_"But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"_


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2007)

diarmuidc said:


> Their coverage in the run up to the Iraq war was so poor that they apologised.
> At least they apologised


 What UK or Irish newspaper has ever been so self critical?


----------



## diarmuidc (29 Jun 2007)

Purple said:


> What UK or Irish newspaper has ever been so self critical?


I don't know, however the damage was done at that stage.  But holding up the NYT or Washington Post as typical of the US media I think is not quite accurate. How about comparing the BBC to Fox or CNN? Or USA Today to the Irish Times?


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2007)

diarmuidc said:


> I don't know, however the damage was done at that stage.  But holding up the NYT or Washington Post as typical of the US media I think is not quite accurate. How about comparing the BBC to Fox or CNN? Or USA Today to the Irish Times?


I agree that much of the US media is of a very low standard, but so is much of the Irish media. The standard of coverage of international affairs in the Irish media, be it the Irish Times or RTE, is very low. They just don’t cover many stories and write opinion pieces rather than factual stories about the issues that they do cover. I don’t rate the Indo at all; it is recycled coverage from the British media, as they don’t have any foreign correspondents. 
The Irish Times is no less biased than USA today. The format is better but that’s it.

The BBC is better than Fox or CNN, it’s website is excellent for news but it is also selective in how it covers issues in regions where there are/was British influence and/or interests. 
I have yet to read any Irish media site that gives the in-depth background information that the New York Times website gives.


----------

