Response to journalistic "opinion pieces"

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."
 
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.

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.


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?!!!
 
Re: Response to opinion pieces

....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.
 
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 ....
 
Re: Response to opinion pieces

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.
 
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
 

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.

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.
 
Re: Response to opinion pieces

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.

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.

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

What have his earnings got to do with anything?

.....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?

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

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

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.

....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.

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.

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'.
 
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.
 
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)

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 ?
 
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.
 
Re: Response to opinion pieces

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.


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.



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.



Wtf! When has he ever claimed to represent the working classes?!
He is a self professed socialist and writes about the “normal people” frequently.



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.


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.



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…
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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?


“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.


“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?


“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”.


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

You’re struggling now, aren’t you?


“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?



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?
 
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.

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


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.

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 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.

(“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.

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.




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

I don’t have access to the IT archives.

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.

‘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?

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.

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.

You’re struggling now, aren’t you?
Not even close




Your point is?
... self evident.

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

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.
 
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!
 
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