Maybe, but I think Harris and Myres are castigated because they are idiots. I mean who whould bother to publish a piece like this
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.
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."
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.
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?
....the plethora of self-righteous pseudo-liberal pinkos led by the morally pure Fintan O’Toole.
So you read opinion pieces to confirm your own opinions?I thought the piece quite interesting. Granted this was probably because it confirmed opinions I had already formed about much of the Irish media.
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 debatePurple said:I think that Myres makes some very valid points about how biased and ill-informed the Irish media is.
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.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 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 homeSo 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 ....
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).
So you read opinion pieces to confirm your own opinions?
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 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...
.....the "working classes" which he claims to represent.
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.
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
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)I'll assume from your statement that you only ever read writers with whom you disagree.
Just for clarification, are they meant to be definitions of socialism and Libertarianism respectively ?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 ?
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.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 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.What have his earnings got to do with anything?
No, but it should not be presumed that they are corrupt, greedy or any less interested in social justice than Mr. O’Toole.So the 'standards' of those who generate employment should never be judged? They should be exempt from questioning?
He is a self professed socialist and writes about the “normal people” frequently.Wtf! When has he ever claimed to represent the working classes?!
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.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.
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.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.
I think I’ve covered that. Take of your pink tinted glasses and have another go…Sounds to me like you're the only one talking down to the little old 'workers'.
When did I say that?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.
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.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".
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, Fintan has a holiday home? Oh dear.
My earnings are in the top 5% of people in Ireland
“He is the one who draws the connection between wealth and the lack of a social conscience.”
“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.”
“Your notion of “us” and “them” (employers) is outdates, outmoded and quite frankly offensive to all concerned.”
“Take of your pink tinted glasses and have another go…
“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.”
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.
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.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%.
Yes, that’s the point I was making. Thank you for agreeing with me.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.
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.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 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.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 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.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 admire those who state their bias. It may be that your own bias or preconceptions lead you to your conclusion.(“A self professed socialist”…you make it sound like it’s on a par with “a self-professed paedophile”).
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.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?
He draws no distinction and so creates a presumption of guilt by association.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?
I don’t have access to the IT archives.“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”.
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.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”.
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?‘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.
I was using the term Worker ironically. My apologies if that was not clear.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 think I’ve covered that.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”.
Not even closeYou’re struggling now, aren’t you?
... self evident.Your point is?
I did no such thing. If I gave that impression I am sincerely sorry. That title was offered when describing Mr O’TooleDo 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 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.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?
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.
Anyway, it’s good to debate with someone who offers their own opinions and doesn’t just nay-say those offered by other posters.
RubbishI agree, we'll have to keep on searching for just such a person
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?