# Response to journalistic "opinion pieces"



## Orga (10 Apr 2008)

I understand fully that journalistic opinion pieces are simply that: opinion pieces expressing the author's personal opinions. However, I believe that what distinguishes a journalist's op piece from their personal diary entry is that the op piece is written to draw attention to or to comment on something that is newsworthy and worthy of further thought and consideration by the reader.

What I wonder is: does anyone else who reads a certain columnist's pieces believe that they are used to promote a personal dogma with scant regard to newsworthiness, balance, or use of considered tone? Rather, they seek to use the newspaper column to pour scorn on those with whom the columnist disagrees.


----------



## Green (10 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



Orga said:


> What I wonder is: does anyone else who reads a certain columnist's pieces believe that they are used to promote a personal dogma with scant regard to newsworthiness, balance, or use of considered tone? Rather, they seek to use the newspaper column to pour scorn on those with whom the columnist disagrees.


 
This issue has always intrigued me too. So when I used to work with an ex journalist colleague who used to work for a national newspaper, I put this question to him. He replied that sometimes the opinion piece, in his particular paper, was written by who ever was available to do it and as you have pointed out, was reflective of their own personal dogma.


----------



## The_Banker (10 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



Orga said:


> they seek to use the newspaper column to pour scorn on those with whom the columnist disagrees.


 
TBH I thought that was a given!


----------



## Orga (10 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*

Here's a thought - we pay for the newspaper so imagine if there was significant feedback from readers to say that they no longer wished to pay for articles of this nature unless written in a mature and professional manner - I'm thinking of one article in a national newspaper today in particular, along with similar articles written by the same dodgy pen.


----------



## stir crazy (10 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*

I havent bought newspaper in years. If I want to read an article badly enough Ill pop into a library.

While in a newsagents this morning, I saw one dodgy looking headline something like 'gentleman jewel thief.'
I dont read the article and I dont care about it but where does this dogma come from, this set of cliches that seem to propagate over and over again ? I know this is one of those propagations because I've seen the headline 'gentleman jewel thief' many times before. 
The only gentleman jewel thieves were probably characters played by Cary Grant and David Niven in old movies made before my time. What the hell has that go to do with anything ? Why cant they come up with original news instead of recycling a headline thats been used a million times before and was never newsworthy. I really wish I could find a newspaper I was happy with which didnt waste my time on some journalists abundance of ego combined with lack of talent.


----------



## annR (10 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*

Related question, is anyone else surprised by the vitriolic nature of any opinion pieces published about feminists or women working etc - mostly written by women I might add.  It's rare to read something which helps shed any light on these complex issues which, let's face it, I'm usually looking for when I bother reading an article.  But it's usually some really angry review or critique of either one woman in particular for instance the author of a book, or another journo, or a group of women for instance women who do or say xyz or have a particular lifestyle or viewpoint about working / childcare / marriage / whatever.


----------



## michaelm (11 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



annR said:


> Related question, is anyone else surprised by the vitriolic nature of any opinion pieces published about feminists or women working etc


You must be reading the Daily Mail, if you read the Irish Times you might find that the vitriolic pieces are by feminists.





annR said:


> mostly written by women I might add.


Betraying the sisterhood? Surely their gender is irrelevant.


----------



## annR (11 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



michaelm said:


> You must be reading the Daily Mail, if you read the Irish Times you might find that the vitriolic pieces are by feminists.Betraying the sisterhood? Surely their gender is irrelevant.


 
I never thought about whether they're feminists or not writing them - I notice that even in general discussion the topic gets most women into really heated/angry discussions.  The gender is irrelevant I was just trying to preempt it being pointed out to me that women write these articles.


----------



## Purple (11 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



Orga said:


> What I wonder is: does anyone else who reads a certain columnist's pieces believe that they are used to promote a personal dogma with scant regard to newsworthiness, balance, or use of considered tone? Rather, they seek to use the newspaper column to pour scorn on those with whom the columnist disagrees.


That's why they call 'em opinion pieces.


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*

not to defame anybody (would I ....) is the OP referring to a Mr. Myres or someone else?

While the said individual can be a bit "over-polished" and precious in his views it still makes for interesting reading. All for thought provoking pieces, good on you old chap.

Who are the others in question - the Sindo seemed littered with such types when last I bought it (a few years ago at this stage).

A certain floppy-haired economist also has his agenda, increasingly proven correct ...sadly, but I think he writes well (he doesnt get into his cringey acronyms).


----------



## ubiquitous (11 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



Orga said:


> Here's a thought - we pay for the newspaper so imagine if there was significant feedback from readers to say that they no longer wished to pay for articles of this nature unless written in a mature and professional manner - I'm thinking of one article in a national newspaper today in particular, along with similar articles written by the same dodgy pen.



Columnists thrive on controversy. The more negative feedback the better. The biggest misfortune in that game is to be ignored.


----------



## cork (11 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*

Opinion pieces are lazy pieces of journalisim.

When did these papers last break a story?

Papers are simply full of these opinion fluff pieces.

Many of these journalists opinions are a joke. You would be better to go and talk to your neighbours down the pub than spend €1.70 on a paper.

Openion pieces are largely liberal, left wing and anti government.

Pretty boring stuff really.

Some openion writers are parodys of themselves.


----------



## ubiquitous (11 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



cork said:


> Opinion pieces are largely liberal, left wing and anti government.



...and when they're not liberal, left wing and anti government, they're castigated for this, eg Harris, Myers etc


----------



## cork (11 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*

Many would be liberal, left wing and anti government.

I surpose most are negative.

Positivity and controversy don't work well together.

Another crib is the lack of writing in Irish in newspapers. 

The Irish Times on a Wendnesday is fine.

The Irish Examiner is very poor with a large gaelteact area in the county.

But apart from openion pieces - fluff pieces are all over the papers.

It would be better - if they started breaking stories.


----------



## Staples (11 Apr 2008)

I think, bottom line, is that the paper ultimately has to stand over anything its columnists put to print but a certain amount of license has to be given.  The alternative is a short cut to censorship.  

It's the same with any job if you think about it.  An employer is happy enough to give a worker flexibility as long as it gets the job done.


----------



## Blueberry08 (12 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



michaelm said:


> if you read the Irish Times you might find that the vitriolic pieces are by feminists.



So you've missed the weekly vitriol by that well know feminist, John Waters? 

I would have said misogynist but I can't spell it.


----------



## Purple (12 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



Blueberry08 said:


> I would have said misogynist but I can't spell it.



Ask a man, there's a good girl


----------



## diarmuidc (12 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



ubiquitous said:


> ...and when they're not liberal, left wing and anti government, they're castigated for this, eg Harris, Myers etc


Maybe, but I think Harris and Myres are castigated because they are idiots. I mean who whould bother to publish a piece like this


----------



## Purple (12 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



diarmuidc said:


> Maybe, but I think Harris and Myres are castigated because they are idiots. I mean who whould bother to publish a piece like this


I think that Myres makes some very valid points about how biased and ill-informed the Irish media is. This bias is particularly pronounced in the print media but RTE is close behind. The coverage of international news in the Irish media is abysmal, with many major international stories ignored. There is a strong anti-American and anti Israeli slant to just about all RTE and Irish Times coverage. Their coverage of the Middle East in particular shows a bias which appears, in my opinion, to border on plain old-fashioned anti Semitism. 
The IT goes out of its way to attempt to establish moral equivalences between the actions of America and her partners and terrorists who would blow up a bus full of children in Tel-Aviv or Jerusalem. However biased Mr. Myres is he in no way balances the plethora of self-righteous pseudo-liberal pinkos led by the morally pure Fintan O’Toole.


----------



## stir crazy (12 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



diarmuidc said:


> Maybe, but I think Harris and Myres are castigated because they are idiots. I mean who whould bother to publish a piece like this



That article makes little sense to me. 




Purple said:


> There is a strong anti-American and anti Israeli slant to just about all RTE and Irish Times coverage. Their coverage of the Middle East in particular shows a bias which appears, in my opinion, to border on plain old-fashioned anti Semitism.



I have heard this accusation so many times (I think in this forum but could have been elsewhere too) and being interested at this stage at forming an unbiased opinion on the matter, I would love to actually be shown an example of an article/news story from RTE or the Irish Times which was biased in this way. I have to admit I dont usually read newspapers and much prefer something like a history book or an encyclopedia.


----------



## Orga (13 Apr 2008)

It's interesting that a deliberately vague original post should now be primarily focusing on two columnists. 

I wonder if there is an argument to be made for a columnist doing some "real" journalism - breaking a story - rather than simply opining on rehashed analysis. If they did break the odd story it might support and build credibility for them.

(Any ed reading this did you spot the Em rule?)

I've had a look at the linked story: It's interesting that the columnist did't feel the compulsion to challenge the "smug, unchallenging, consensual journalistic culture" by attending the event for fear of being outnumbered. I recall the words of GB Shaw: "Perhaps you could bring a friend, if you have one."


----------



## room305 (13 Apr 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> Maybe, but I think Harris and Myres are castigated because they are idiots. I mean who whould bother to publish a piece like this


 
I thought the piece quite interesting. Granted this was probably because it confirmed opinions I had already formed about much of the Irish media.



Purple said:


> The coverage of international news in the Irish media is abysmal, with many major international stories ignored. There is a strong anti-American and anti Israeli slant to just about all RTE and Irish Times coverage.


 
Couldn't agree more. I'm not even sure they do it conciously. Stand-outs as far as I'm concerned have been Carole Coleman's interview with president George Bush and some nonsense piece by Vincent Browne attempting to justify the attempted bombing of Glasgow airport.



Orga said:


> I've had a look at the linked story: It's interesting that the columnist did't feel the compulsion to challenge the "smug, unchallenging, consensual journalistic culture" by attending the event for fear of being outnumbered. I recall the words of GB Shaw: "Perhaps you could bring a friend, if you have one."


 
Having attended a Hitchens debate that was entirely ruined by idiot hecklers demanding to know why he was "mates" with George Bush, I can understand Myers reluctance to present himself for a metaphorical kicking as he puts it. It also begs the question, as Myers asks, why did they feel the need to have six presenters debating their side of the argument?



> Either way, in a debate on the role of the media in Iraq, it is an unusual definition of balance to have six critics of US foreign policy on the one hand, and on the other, a single supporter of the US, aka, Muggins. Which merely leaves me to ask my liberal-left friends: Do those odds suit you? Or are they perhaps a little stacked in my favour? Perhaps you could have got Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, Ho Chi Minh, Tony Benn, Harold Pinter, Michael D Higgins, and the many, many media luvvies of Dublin in the line-up, just in case.


----------



## Orga (13 Apr 2008)

room305 said:


> Having attended a Hitchens debate that was entirely ruined by idiot hecklers demanding to know why he was "mates" with George Bush, I can understand Myers reluctance to present himself for a metaphorical kicking as he puts it. It also begs the question, as Myers asks, why did they feel the need to have six presenters debating their side of the argument?



So, instead of debating albeit as he describes it as against the odds, instead of suggesting to the organisers that there appeared to be an imbalanced panel and suggesting what might contribute to greater balance, instead of these options the columnist declined the invitation without reference to the real reason and then used his column in a widely read national paper to deliver a national "metaphorical kicking" to named individuals (none of whom I ever heard of before - but for all of whom I now have empathy). 

This is not journalism in my opinion, it's petty and it's small minded. In a nutshell, it's like: you invited me to something I didn't want to go to cos I was afraid of what might happen cos I'd be on my own and I thought you might bully me so I used my job to write things about you in a way that lots of people might think little of you and where your potential response would be consigned to a small largely unviewed letters section. 

Now, where's the journalistic integrity in that?!!!


----------



## Blueberry08 (15 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



Purple said:


> ....the plethora of self-righteous pseudo-liberal pinkos led by the morally pure Fintan O’Toole.



It always amuses me how much O'Toole irks Harris, Myers and their cheerleaders (Purple?). Their endless attempts at ridiculing him suggest he hits a raw nerve. O'Toole, no doubt, needs to lighten up, but I respect his decency, especially in a period of Irish history when it's desperately uncool to give a flying **** about anything but your bank balance. Of course that makes you a self-righteous pseudo-liberal pinko . Says it all really.


----------



## diarmuidc (15 Apr 2008)

room305 said:


> I thought the piece quite interesting. Granted this was probably because it confirmed opinions I had already formed about much of the Irish media.


So you read opinion pieces to confirm your own opinions? 


			
				Purple said:
			
		

> I think that Myres makes some very valid points about how biased and ill-informed the Irish media is.


I was referring more to the tone and style of the article. I am not aware of the debate to which he was referring.  A more coherent letter published a few day ago make it look like Myers misrepresented the debate

As for Eoghan Harris ....


----------



## Purple (15 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



Blueberry08 said:


> It always amuses me how much O'Toole irks Harris, Myers and their cheerleaders (Purple?). Their endless attempts at ridiculing him suggest he hits a raw nerve. O'Toole, no doubt, needs to lighten up, but I respect his decency, especially in a period of Irish history when it's desperately uncool to give a flying **** about anything but your bank balance. Of course that makes you a self-righteous pseudo-liberal pinko . Says it all really.


I find Harris just as superior as O'Toole, his defence of Bertie is farcical. I don't agree that O'Toole has a high level of decency, I find him deeply hypocritical on some issues and utterly morally superior on most issues. I think it's a long time since Mr. O'Toole was a man of the people, or even a man for the people. His interest seems to extend to the arts (where he is quite good) and scoring political points. He is a very smart man and a brilliant writer so when he writes an article which only shows one side of the story I am quite sure he does so knowingly; that’s why I don’t like him. 
He is a very well paid member of the media establishment who seeks to stand in judgement over those whom actually generate employment for (and from) the "working classes" which he claims to represent. I find his words hollow and I am quite sure his bank balance is in a healthier state than mine as I cut my income in order to keep the "workers" whom I employ in a job. I very much doubt that Mr. O'Toole has ever done so... but then again it's a lonely spot up there on the moral high ground.
I find his kind of well-heeled socialism offensive in how it talks down to the so called “workers” that need to be protected from their own stupidity by the pinko intelligentsia.


----------



## Purple (15 Apr 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> So you read opinion pieces to confirm your own opinions?
> 
> I was referring more to the tone and style of the article. I am not aware of the debate to which he was referring.  A more coherent letter published a few day ago make it look like Myers misrepresented the debate
> 
> As for Eoghan Harris ....


I agree that Myres has a bombastic tone but Harry Browne's letter misrepresented the central accusation that Myres made. He could fill in for Fintan O'Toole when he's off supervising the extension to his holiday home


----------



## room305 (15 Apr 2008)

Orga said:


> So, instead of debating albeit as he describes it as against the odds, instead of suggesting to the organisers that there appeared to be an imbalanced panel and suggesting what might contribute to greater balance, instead of these options the columnist declined the invitation without reference to the real reason and then used his column in a widely read national paper to deliver a national "metaphorical kicking" to named individuals (none of whom I ever heard of before - but for all of whom I now have empathy).


 
I reckon Myers probably wouldn't have written the article if they hadn't posted one of his articles on their website under the heading "scribes of the empire" implying some Fox News-like level of stoogery on his part. I'm only guessing though and you make a fair point in his not providing a reason for electing not to join the debate.



diarmuidc said:


> So you read opinion pieces to confirm your own opinions?


 
Funnily I was going to mention that most people are guilty of certain confirmation bias in the articles they choose to read (or find enjoyable at the very least). However, I presumed it unnecessary since I had implicitly acknowledged this by adding "Granted this ...".

I'll assume from your statement that you only ever read writers with whom you disagree. Must make for a pretty frustrating life.


----------



## Blueberry08 (15 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



Purple said:


> I think it's a long time since Mr. O'Toole was a man of the people, or even a man for the people.



When did O'Toole ever claim to be a man of (or 'for' - whatever that means) the people? I thought only Bertie claimed that title. 



Purple said:


> when he writes an article which only shows one side of the story I am quite sure he does so knowingly; that’s why I don’t like him.



Eh, it's called an 'opinion' piece.



Purple said:


> He is a very well paid member of the media establishment....



What have his earnings got to do with anything? 



Purple said:


> .....who seeks to stand in judgement over those whom actually generate employment...



So the 'standards' of those who generate employment should never be judged? They should be exempt from questioning?



Purple said:


> .....the "working classes" which he claims to represent.



Wtf! When has he ever claimed to represent the working classes?!



Purple said:


> I am quite sure his bank balance is in a healthier state than mine....



We're back to his earnings again. It's the classic Irish response when you're devoid of facts in an argument: resort to begrudgery.



Purple said:


> ....as I cut my income in order to keep the "workers" whom I employ in a job.


 
So you employ 'workers' for altruistic reasons only? Give us a break Purple.



Purple said:


> I very much doubt that Mr. O'Toole has ever done so... but then again it's a lonely spot up there on the moral high ground.


 
Funny, you seem to put the mighty who employ the mere 'workers' on a higher moral plane to the rest of us....but where would the mighty employers be without the  mere workers? That's a two-way street Purple. Neither group can survive without the other. You should remember that.



Purple said:


> I find his kind of well-heeled socialism offensive in how it talks down to the so called “workers” that need to be protected from their own stupidity by the pinko intelligentsia.



Sounds to me like you're the only one talking down to the little old 'workers'.


----------



## Blueberry08 (16 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> I agree that Myres has a bombastic tone but Harry Browne's letter misrepresented the central accusation that Myres made. He could fill in for Fintan O'Toole when he's off supervising the extension to his holiday home



Ah, here we go again. I love this notion that anyone who cares about anything other than their own well being - Purple calls them Pinkos (yawn) - should be impoverished, preferably sleeping in a plastic bag on Parnell Street. And if they're not they have no _entitlement_ to comment on those less well off than themselves.

It's funny Purple - and by all means call me a Pinko - I have even more respect for those people who are doing well in life who show some concern for those who aren't. Rather than those loathsome creatures who say "I've made it, **** the rest". 

So, Fintan has a holiday home?  Oh dear.


----------



## diarmuidc (16 Apr 2008)

room305 said:


> I'll assume from your statement that you only ever read writers with whom you disagree.


You assumed incorrectly, I try to read both sides, although I too, suffer from a confirmation bias (otherwise I wouldn't subscribe to the Economist)



Blueberry08 said:


> and by all means call me a Pinko - I have even more respect for those people who are doing well in life who show some concern for those who aren't. Rather than those loathsome creatures who say "I've made it, **** the rest".


Just for clarification, are they meant to be definitions of socialism and Libertarianism respectively ?


----------



## Blueberry08 (16 Apr 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> Just for clarification, are they meant to be definitions of socialism and Libertarianism respectively ?



Have no idea and even less interest. 

But I'm always curious about people obsessed with tags. Why the need to compartmentalise everything/one, is it because it makes it easier to comprehend those freaks who give a ****?  PINKO ALERT!

PS I worry too about anyone who looks to Wikipedia to explain socialism and libertarianism.


----------



## Purple (17 Apr 2008)

*Re: Response to opinion pieces*



Blueberry08 said:


> When did O'Toole ever claim to be a man of (or 'for' - whatever that means) the people? I thought only Bertie claimed that title.
> 
> Eh, it's called an 'opinion' piece.


 He has stated on many occasions that he is a socialist and his writings frequently concern globalisation, capitalism (and the evils there of) and other topics which highlight what he sees as unjust. Much of his writing is excellent and many of the topics he covers are very worthwhile but he has a habit of choosing his facts very selectively when constructing the framework within which his arguments stand. That’s what I have a problem with.




Blueberry08 said:


> What have his earnings got to do with anything?


 He is the one who draws the connection between wealth and the lack of a social conscience. My opinion is that in a republic everyone is equal and should be accorded the same level of respect as everyone else. 





Blueberry08 said:


> So the 'standards' of those who generate employment should never be judged? They should be exempt from questioning?


 No, but it should not be presumed that they are corrupt, greedy or any less interested in social justice than Mr. O’Toole.





Blueberry08 said:


> Wtf! When has he ever claimed to represent the working classes?!


 He is a self professed socialist and writes about the “normal people” frequently.





Blueberry08 said:


> We're back to his earnings again. It's the classic Irish response when you're devoid of facts in an argument: resort to begrudgery.


 My earnings are in the top 5% of people in Ireland. The last thing I feel for anyone who, through luck or, in Mr. O’Toole’s case, their own ability and hard work, has done well for themselves. My problem is that he applies a different standard, or at least presumes on, to those who have made their money by employing what socialists refer to as members of the “working classes”. I find this hypocritical. 



So you employ 'workers' for altruistic reasons only? Give us a break Purple. [/QUOTE] I work with people who I respect and admire. I am acutely aware that my actions affect their ability to pay their mortgage. They also know that their actions affect my ability to pay my mortgage. The notion that there are “workers” and “managers/Bosses” is ridiculous. Everybody that works is a worker; it doesn’t matter if they are an owner, shareholder or just an employee. 




Blueberry08 said:


> Funny, you seem to put the mighty who employ the mere 'workers' on a higher moral plane to the rest of us....but where would the mighty employers be without the  mere workers? That's a two-way street Purple. Neither group can survive without the other. You should remember that.


 Your notion of “us” and “them” (employers) is outdates, outmoded and quite frankly offensive to all concerned. This is a democratic republic; people can be employees or employers or both and different times or both at the same time or neither. They can be all of the above at different times in their lives. Socialist class politics seeks to pigeon-hole people and trap them in categories which were outmoded 50 years ago.





Blueberry08 said:


> Sounds to me like you're the only one talking down to the little old 'workers'.


 I think I’ve covered that. Take of your pink tinted glasses and have another go…


----------



## Purple (17 Apr 2008)

Blueberry08 said:


> Ah, here we go again. I love this notion that anyone who cares about anything other than their own well being - Purple calls them Pinkos (yawn) - should be impoverished, preferably sleeping in a plastic bag on Parnell Street. And if they're not they have no _entitlement_ to comment on those less well off than themselves.


 When did I say that?
If you do your homework you will find that the National Art gallery and Trinity College have received, and continue to receive, massive funding from one of the richest capitalist employers in Ireland.



Blueberry08 said:


> It's funny Purple - and by all means call me a Pinko - I have even more respect for those people who are doing well in life who show some concern for those who aren't. Rather than those loathsome creatures who say "I've made it, **** the rest".


 Good, there’s hope for you yet. I find that the people with the screw them attitude come from all walks of life. Money does not change this.



Blueberry08 said:


> So, Fintan has a holiday home?  Oh dear.


 Fintan writes frequently about planning issues and has strong opinions on preserving the countryside but he had a bit of bother when he wanted to put a large extention on his own holiday home. I suspect that if a government minister (particularly a FF one) did the same Mr. O’Toole would not be long voicing his opinion on the topic.


----------



## ubiquitous (17 Apr 2008)

Imagine what Fintan & friends would have made of the recent Cathal O'Searcaigh controversy if Cathal was a government minister (particularly a FF one), or even a county councillor.


----------



## Blueberry08 (17 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> My earnings are in the top 5% of people in Ireland



That’s very impressive Purple, although quite how this nugget of information is relevant here I’m not sure. But please God/Allah you’ll make the top 4% soon.

Personal wealth, of course, far from guarantees having a generous outlook on the fortunes of others, indeed I would guess that some in the top 5% might have overwhelming feelings of begrudgery towards, say, those in the top 4%. 

So, no, being rich doesn’t ensure someone isn’t a begrudger, it’s a character flaw that afflicts a fair old percentage of our population, regardless of their personal circumstances. So your own wealth – hard-earned, I’m sure – is inconsequential in this argument. 


Believe it or not, I actually have mixed feelings about Fintan O’Toole’s writings. There are times I think he is so far removed from ‘real’ life that he belongs with the birds, but there are other times when I think he provides a refreshing blast of decency in a country filled with folk who rate themselves according to where they stand in our highest earners’ list. _No offence_.

I laugh out loud when I hear people complain that our media is packed with “self-righteous pseudo-liberal pinkos” – I’d guess the three most prominent columnists in Ireland are Eoghan Harris, Kevin Myers and John Waters. Pseudo-liberal pinkos? What do _you_ think?

But O’Toole has many flaws, a bit like you and me Purple, but I have yet to hear/read him claim to be a “man of/for the people”. Since when does stating you are a socialist imply that you believe you are a man of the people? It doesn’t. By all means attack O’Toole’s arguments, but don’t misrepresent him in an effort to boost your own argument and attempts to ridicule him.

(“A self professed socialist”…you make it sound like it’s on a par with “a self-professed paedophile” ).

Your efforts to explain why you repeatedly referred to O’Toole’s own “earnings” are puzzling. Indeed, you said that his bank balance is healthier than yours – so he’d be in the top 4%, at least?




Purple said:


> “He is the one who draws the connection between wealth and the lack of a social conscience.”



Does he? I thought he made a connection between _‘irresponsible’_ wealth and a lack of a social conscience? I don’t recall him ever claiming that being wealthy automatically makes you a nasty person – can you provide a link to him making such a claim? 

Similarly, can you provide a link to where he claims that all those who generate employment “are corrupt, greedy...and....less interested in social justice than Mr. O’Toole”? I would guess that he accused those employers who *are* corrupt and greedy of not having much interest in social justice (you would too, right?), but every employer? 

“He….writes about the “normal people” frequently.” Does he? The “normal people”? Again, any chance of a link? I read him most weeks, I must have missed the columns where he talked about the “normal people”. 

I’m glad that you “respect and admire” your ‘workers’, I apologise for this but I detected a certain exasperation with them when you said “I cut my income in order to keep the workers whom I employ in a job”.

‘Keeping’ them in a job suggested to me that they were really rather lucky to have jobs at all, but clearly I misunderstood your meaning. Again, apologies. 




Purple said:


> “The notion that there are “workers” and “managers/Bosses” is ridiculous. Everybody that works is a worker; it doesn’t matter if they are an owner, shareholder or just an employee.”



I agree. Perhaps it was a slip of the keyboard when you referred to your employees as _“workers”_ and your efforts to "keep" them in a job? 




Purple said:


> “Your notion of “us” and “them” (employers) is outdates, outmoded and quite frankly offensive to all concerned.”



I agree again. Perhaps that’s why I was a bit taken aback by your statement: “I cut my income in order to keep the workers whom I employ in a job”.




Purple said:


> “Take of your pink tinted glasses and have another go…



You’re struggling now, aren’t you? 




Purple said:


> “If you do your homework you will find that the National Art gallery and Trinity College have received, and continue to receive, massive funding from one of the richest capitalist employers in Ireland.”



Your point is? 

Do you need to paint me as a “self-righteous pseudo-liberal pinko” to win the argument here? Is that the best that you can do? 




Purple said:


> Fintan writes frequently about planning issues and has strong opinions on preserving the countryside but he had a bit of bother when he wanted to put a large extention on his own holiday home. I suspect that if a government minister (particularly a FF one) did the same Mr. O’Toole would not be long voicing his opinion on the topic.



So you assume Fintan’s extension, so to speak, would have obliterated the Irish countryside? Like Michael McDowell’s Roscommon extension? Or do you just have a problem with a self-righteous pseudo-liberal pinko owning a second home?


----------



## Purple (17 Apr 2008)

Blueberry08 said:


> That’s very impressive Purple, although quite how this nugget of information is relevant here I’m not sure. But please God/Allah you’ll make the top 4% soon. Personal wealth, of course, far from guarantees having a generous outlok on the fortunes of others, indeed I would guess that some in the top 5% might have overwhelming feelings of begrudgery towards, say, those in the top 4%.


 Personal wealth or lack thereof has no bearing on a person’s character or true value as a person one way or another. I realy don’t know why you keep bringing it up. 



Blueberry08 said:


> So, no, being rich doesn’t ensure someone isn’t a begrudger, it’s a character flaw that afflicts a fair old percentage of our population, regardless of their personal circumstances. So your own wealth – hard-earned, I’m sure – is inconsequential in this argument.


 Yes, that’s the point I was making. Thank you for agreeing with me.




Blueberry08 said:


> Believe it or not, I actually have mixed feelings about Fintan O’Toole’s writings. There are times I think he is so far removed from ‘real’ life that he belongs with the birds, but there are other times when I think he provides a refreshing blast of decency in a country filled with folk who rate themselves according to where they stand in our highest earners’ list. _No offence_.


 I think you do every Irish person a disservice with that comment. Fintan O’Toole is a very intelligent man and an excellent writer. I simply have a problem with how he frames the context of his articles. What he presents as opinion is fine; that’s his job. It’s how he fails to provide balance when he puts those opinions into context that I have a problem with. 



Blueberry08 said:


> I laugh out loud when I hear people complain that our media is packed with “self-righteous pseudo-liberal pinkos” – I’d guess the three most prominent columnists in Ireland are Eoghan Harris, Kevin Myers and John Waters. Pseudo-liberal pinkos? What do _you_ think?


 I have already offered my opinion on Eoughan Harris. Kevin Myres and John Waters are not, by any stretch of the imagination liberal or left wing but they are the exceptions, not the rule. 



Blueberry08 said:


> But O’Toole has many flaws, a bit like you and me Purple, but I have yet to hear/read him claim to be a “man of/for the people”. Since when does stating you are a socialist imply that you believe you are a man of the people? It doesn’t. By all means attack O’Toole’s arguments, but don’t misrepresent him in an effort to boost your own argument and attempts to ridicule him.


 I agree that his profession of socialism does not mean that he is a man of or for the people but he is a social activist (not a bad thing BTW) and does write on a broad range of social issues. It is in this context that I say that he positions himself as a man of or for the people.



Blueberry08 said:


> (“A self professed socialist”…you make it sound like it’s on a par with “a self-professed paedophile” ).


 I admire those who state their bias. It may be that your own bias or preconceptions lead you to your conclusion.



Blueberry08 said:


> Your efforts to explain why you repeatedly referred to O’Toole’s own “earnings” are puzzling. Indeed, you said that his bank balance is healthier than yours – so he’d be in the top 4%, at least?


 It is he who refers to “Wealthy developers” etc as if being wealthy was a bad thing in itself. I merely pointed out that I find this hypocritical from a man who is himself wealthy. I draw no conclusion about a person’s character  from their financial status, race, religion, nationality, address or sexual preference. 






Blueberry08 said:


> Does he? I thought he made a connection between _‘irresponsible’_ wealth and a lack of a social conscience? I don’t recall him ever claiming that being wealthy automatically makes you a nasty person – can you provide a link to him making such a claim?
> 
> Similarly, can you provide a link to where he claims that all those who generate employment “are corrupt, greedy...and....less interested in social justice than Mr. O’Toole”? I would guess that he accused those employers who *are* corrupt and greedy of not having much interest in social justice (you would too, right?), but every employer?


 He draws no distinction and so creates a presumption of guilt by association. 



Blueberry08 said:


> “He….writes about the “normal people” frequently.” Does he? The “normal people”? Again, any chance of a link? I read him most weeks, I must have missed the columns where he talked about the “normal people”.


 I don’t have access to the IT archives.



Blueberry08 said:


> I’m glad that you “respect and admire” your ‘workers’, I apologise for this but I detected a certain exasperation with them when you said “I cut my income in order to keep the workers whom I employ in a job”.


 You are quoting me out of context but let me make it clear, my fate and that of everyone who works with me is intertwined. When things are going well we all make extra money, when things are tight we don’t. I am no better or worse than anyone who works for me and am entitled to no more or less respect. Since I am in a position to make extra money when things are going well I consider it only proper that I cut back before I sack anyone (and damage the business in the process). It’s not only correct from the personal integrity point of view it also makes good business sense.



Blueberry08 said:


> ‘Keeping’ them in a job suggested to me that they were really rather lucky to have jobs at all, but clearly I misunderstood your meaning. Again, apologies.


No, they are lucky to have a job at all but so am I. They keep me in a job just as much as I keep them in one. Remember what I said about how the Worker/ Boss distinction is ridiculous?



Blueberry08 said:


> I agree. Perhaps it was a slip of the keyboard when you referred to your employees as _“workers”_ and your efforts to "keep" them in a job?


 I was using the term Worker ironically. My apologies if that was not clear.



Blueberry08 said:


> I agree again. Perhaps that’s why I was a bit taken aback by your statement: “I cut my income in order to keep the workers whom I employ in a job”.


 I think I’ve covered that.



Blueberry08 said:


> You’re struggling now, aren’t you?


 Not even close






Blueberry08 said:


> Your point is?


... self evident.



Blueberry08 said:


> Do you need to paint me as a “self-righteous pseudo-liberal pinko” to win the argument here? Is that the best that you can do?


 I did no such thing. If I gave that impression I am sincerely sorry. That title was offered when describing Mr O’Toole 



Blueberry08 said:


> So you assume Fintan’s extension, so to speak, would have obliterated the Irish countryside? Like Michael McDowell’s Roscommon extension? Or do you just have a problem with a self-righteous pseudo-liberal pinko owning a second home?


 I think you may be exaggerating the impact that Mr. O’Toole’s extension will have. Good comparison with Michael McDowell’s extension though; while the former ministers excavations were of a larger scale I still think there was quite a bit more media coverage about his wrangling. 
I have no problem with anyone owning a second home, even someone who writes about the impact on the countryside of development for people seeking their first home.  

Anyway, it’s good to debate with someone who offers their own opinions and doesn’t just nay-say those offered by other posters.


----------



## Purple (17 Apr 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Imagine what Fintan & friends would have made of the recent Cathal O'Searcaigh controversy if Cathal was a government minister (particularly a FF one), or even a county councillor.



Indeed!
The moral outrage may well have made some of their less hardier members burst!


----------



## Blueberry08 (17 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> Anyway, it’s good to debate with someone who offers their own opinions and doesn’t just nay-say those offered by other posters.



I agree, we'll have to keep on searching for just such a person


----------



## Purple (18 Apr 2008)

Blueberry08 said:


> I agree, we'll have to keep on searching for just such a person


 Rubbish


----------



## Blueberry08 (18 Apr 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Imagine what Fintan & friends would have made of the recent Cathal O'Searcaigh controversy if Cathal was a government minister (particularly a FF one), or even a county councillor.




So you missed this then? 

*A lesson in denial and disingenuousness*

   The church was despised for moral equivocation and for putting loyalty ahead of honesty. Now those same critics are doing the same in relation to Cathal Ó Searcaigh, writes   * Fintan O'Toole* .
  HERE'S THE familiar story. The sexual behaviour of a senior and much respected Irish intellectual becomes a matter of public controversy. He is middle-aged and gay. He has much more power and prestige than those around him.
  The allegation is that he has misused that power to make sexual approaches to young men. The young men were above the age of consent, so nothing he did was illegal. But they lived in a culture that was unusually sheltered and many of them had little experience of sex. The older man would, the allegations went, select some of these young men on the basis of their good looks. His offer of favours would be intertwined with an obvious sexual interest.
  This man's name is not Cathal Ó Searcaigh. It is Micheál Ledwith. He is the former president of St Patrick's College, Maynooth, where he was professor of dogmatic theology. Before 2003, when the allegations emerged, he was regarded as a distinguished international theologian and a probable future member of the Irish episcopacy.
  Although far more serious allegations concerning boys who were below the age of consent were later to be raised, the initial controversy was about his behaviour in the mid-1980s towards young adult seminarians. No one at the time maintained that he had sex, consensual or not, with any of these young men. The perceived problem was that he had misused his power and authority to make vague but inappropriate advances towards students he fancied. When these allegations emerged no one, so far as I can remember, objected that the publicity given to these allegations was fuelled by homophobia. No one defended him on the basis that his supposed behaviour was part of a "gay culture". No one implied that the allegations would not have been made if the man in question had been heterosexual and the young people he approached had been female.
   No group of Irish intellectuals wrote to   _ The Irish Times_ expressing their outrage at the man's treatment and attacking those who had besmirched his reputation. No distinguished senators or artists stood up to defend him and revile his accusers. It seemed clear to everyone that the issue here was power, not sexual orientation. Yet everything that Cathal Ó Searcaigh's supporters have said in his defence actually applied with far more justification to Micheál Ledwith.
  In itself, Ledwith's alleged behaviour certainly deserved opprobrium. Older people in positions of authority, of any gender, should not make sexual advances of any kind towards those who are in their care - full stop.
  But actually, in Ledwith's case, there really was a discernible element of homophobia. The behaviour initially complained of was not nearly as bad as that of many heterosexual men in positions of power in the academic world at the time. And the complaint to the Irish bishops from six mature students at Maynooth was explicitly about not exploitation, but homosexuality.
  As the Ferns Inquiry report subsequently put it, "this concern was definitely more of an anxiety with regard to orientation and propensity rather than with specific sexual activity". When these allegations surfaced in 2003, however, the concern of the intelligentsia was not that Ledwith might have been the victim of anti-gay double standards but, on the contrary, that the bishops had not immediately fired him.
  All the sympathy went to the former senior dean of the college, Fr Gerard McGinnity, who had been victimised for raising his concerns about Ledwith. And we don't even have to ask why Ledwith got no sympathy in media and liberal intellectual circles. He was a priest. He was not "one of us".
   What saddens me about the whole Cathal Ó Searcaigh affair is the proof that so many distinguished, thoughtful liberal intellectuals have refused to learn the lesson that we took it on ourselves to teach the Catholic Church over recent years. We despised the church for its moral equivocation, for its culture of denial, for putting tribal loyalty ahead of ethical honesty. When we saw the agony of church people at having to give up "one of their own", we thought that "people like us" would never be like that.
   We would know, surely, that you don't need moral courage to point out the failings of the other side. You need it for your own side, for people you know and like and believe in. It's precisely when friendship and loyalty are at stake that morality is tempered in the fire.
  There would have been something morally bracing in 2003 about a group of poets writing a letter in defence of Micheál Ledwith like the one that appeared in   _ The Irish Times_ last week in defence of Ó Searcaigh. A claim that the allegations against him were tinged with homophobia would have been a revelation of an uncomfortable reality rather than a distraction from an obvious truth. But, as a defence of someone whose admitted behaviour was so clearly exploitative it would have taught the church, in its worst days, lessons in denial and disingenuousness.
 © 2008 The Irish Times


----------



## Purple (18 Apr 2008)

I stand corrected; he's not selling himself as a man of the people he's a "distinguished, thoughtful liberal intellectual". 
Good to know


----------



## Blueberry08 (18 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> The moral outrage may well have made some of their less hardier members burst!



Oh dear, looks like Purple misrepresented someone's views...._again_.

Getting to be something of a habit, hey?


----------



## Purple (18 Apr 2008)

Blueberry08 said:


> Oh dear, looks like Purple misrepresented someone's views...._again_.
> 
> Getting to be something of a habit, hey?


 What are you on about?  What/who's views did I misrepresent?


----------

