To save people the hassle ...

The IT and editorial judgement? The IT has long-ceased to be an objective newspaper. Heavy slant is to be expected whether by accident or design.

It's a long piece. Can you quote some parts you think are xenophobic?

Culture and Opinion pieces in newspapers are not supposed to be objective.

Does nobody understand how to read a newspaper any more?

I wasn't commenting on Culture and Opinion pieces - I was making an observation on the paper generally (which would include IT editorial opinion pieces, since editorial opinion can be expected to drive editorial decision making).

The recent abortion referendum coverage would be a good example of slanted journalism. The IT has a liberal secularizing agenda and it's coverage is skewed in that direction. Like, you didn't have to hold your breath long before predictable photos of rosary bead-wielding ancients stood alongside pert-breasted young women in tight fitting pro-choice tee-shirts began adorning referendum coverage in the IT.

Ah right. Well, maybe the rosary bead crowd need to show a bit of cleavage to get their message across.

I don't think the IT is particularly "liberal", but it depends where you're coming from.

http://www.socialistworkeronline.net/na ... -unt-nibh/

"But this doesn’t deter Ms Cretin [Creighton] and her Dejavu crew. What they lack in real policies they make up for in spin, PR and empty metaphors. And some of the media, like the Irish Times, lend a helping hand, describing her as ‘the luminous woman in white’."

Lovely. So from a Trot perspective the Irish Times is a deeply conservative (small 'c') pro-establishment rag. There's no pleasing some people, eh?

Is the IT left or right of public opinion? I'm not sure. The reporting of the housing crisis, something which has become a defining cause for Ireland's depleted left wing, has been extremely muted. There's no campaigning there, but people are taking to the streets over it. Nor on the "health crisis", patients on trolleys and all that. The tabloids are where the action is on those issues.

Abortion and gay marriage? Well, the coverage was fairly progressive but that just matches the outcome of the voting, so they were fairly bang on there, and I don't think the IT is important enough to have moved the dial.

What did they have to say about economics in the noughties? Nothing of any consequence, it was all property porn ad revenue.

Going back a bit further...

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoint ... 89691.html



So maybe what sets the agenda in the IT is simply whatever the government of the day wants it to be, plus or minus a bit.

Making it a Battle of the Blessed Virgins..



I wouldn't disagree.

I recall, in the heady days just after d'Landslide, an IT opinion piece on religious divestment of schools (another goal of government). The Citizens Assembly served us so well in the matter of the abortion referendum (went the IT argument) that one ought be set up to look at the matter of divestment.

The reality is that the Citizens Assembly was cobbled together by the government to allow the government to point to "the view of the people" as being responsible for the shaping of the abortion referendum. That it couldn't (and was never intended to) be representative of the view of the nation is bad enough. But to encourage it's ongoing use??

Point is: the IT isn't really a place to be going for objective, impartial news.

You've a strong opinion yourself. Make an effort to back that up.

I don't agree with that. The CA was used a bit like one of those bomb disposal boxes, to make sure that whatever heat, noise and damage was caused in the debate happened at sufficient distance from government so as to avoid political damage.

Back to the IT opinion pieces, the goal is not objectivity but balance. Opinion is by definition subjective.

Sufficient distance? That's precisely the image that was intended to be conveyed - with sobre, respectful nodding, by any number of politicians, towards the findings of the grandiosely named "Citizens Assembly" a.k.a. the view of the people.

The no-hope-of-being-representative-CA's (a.k.a. government's) findings were rubber stamped by the pro-choice weighted Oireachtas Committee (a.k.a. government) to become the framework for the Referendum, including the scope of the proposed legislation. The proposed legislation could be sold as stemming from the peolple - whereas it stemmed from government agenda.

Add in a healthy dose of non-campaigning by government parties and the optics turn positively 20/20. There was nothing illegal in all this - the government are free to play the electorate like a fiddle if they so choose.

But you'd think this kindergaarten-level subterfuge would arouse the interest of an investigatively-minded journo?




If a paper is clearly campaigning in a direction by means of it's main editorial, you can assume balance won't be found. e.g. rosary bead swinging photos.

*it is interesting to note that task #1 for the Citizens Assembly was the abortion referendum. And that task #4 (of 4) was to examine the manner in which referenda are held! You'd have thunk that they'd have put #4 as #1 - before embarking on the referendum of a generation. Although it's a bit bootstrapish, first item on the list ought to have been the examination of the wisdom of using a Citizens Assembly in a referendum.