On last night's MidWeek show the issue of begging was raised. A recovered junkie called Willie gave a heartbreaking account of how he stole from his siblings to fund his addiction, before sleeping the streets, robbing and begging determined his life path. He spent several stints in and out of prison and finally kicked the addiction with professional help and advice. Today, Willie is a stand-up comedian who gigs all over Ireland. But was Willie one of the lucky few? And will the new law do more harm than good?
http://www.tv3.ie/shows.php?request=midweek
Willie said he earned between €100-200 a week, most of which he used to buy drugs. He said that he was "ashamed" when he was forced to beg. When he saw anyone who might recognize him he used his hoodie to mask his face. He added that gardai never asked him to move because he kept to himself and was not a public nuisance.
The new begging law would ban begging near ATM's, 10m from businesses and "begging will now be an offence where it is accompanied by unacceptable conduct such as harassment, intimidation or obstruction," the Irish Times reported.
Granted, the restriction of begging near ATM's seems fair. Nobody wants to get mugged or harassed, which has been the case in a few instances. But, is the 10m from businesses entrances fair?
Most beggars plonk themselves near businesses; it is where the crowd ponder. They cause no harm, go about their daily lives and rattle a mug. Yes businesses don't like the view, but the majority of peaceful beggars shouldn't be punished in this regard, because of a problem caused by the minority, who engage in harassment and intimidation.
An immigration officer whose name I missed landed himself in hot water. He crossed the borderline into racial discrimination a few times. He proceeded in blaming the Roma Gypsies for engaging in "professional begging", and he even went as far as to say they made a career move. Colette was forced to intervene and add that this group were an ethnic minority; distinct from Romanians and that the problem persisted long before they ever landed here. The immigration officer then made comments about Ireland no longer being a country, but an EU Province. He purported blame on the EU's free borders and tried to dismiss the Irish element of begging.
The Irish Times also reported that begging "carries a penalty of a maximum term of imprisonment of one month and/or a fine of up to €400". I am pretty sure that most beggars can't afford that fine, so if that is to be the case, our already overpopulated prisons will be getting new arrivals soon.
Personally, I hate seeing people beg, I pity them and it makes me think about how lucky I am. I'd hate to think I was funding their drug addiction or adding to their salary though. But how do you know if they are genuine? We can't exactly ask them for a begging licence now can we? We have to do something. Everyone falls on hard times. If we act now we might be able to prevent beggars like Willie from taking the wrong path. Fairplay to Willie though, it took real courage to do what he did.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0130/1224263434247.html
If you have any comments on the issue don’t be afraid to post them here. Maybe you agree or disagree; it’s your opinion that counts.
D.K
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Not as safe as we think
The Limerick taxi driver sentenced to seven years for raping a passenger has made me stop and think of the danger women and sometimes men put themselves in every time they get a cab.
You are entrusting your safety with a complete stranger, who may or may not be licensed.
On TV3s show Midday on Tuesday 09 February, they mentioned the fact that you do not have to show ID or even your licence to purchase the taxi roof sign that so many intoxicated people love to see late on a Saturday night.
http://www.tv3.ie/videos.php?video=19214&locID=1.65.185&date=2010-02-09&date_mode=1&page=1&show_cal=2&newspanel=&showspanel=1&web_only=&full_episodes=
I personally try not to get a taxi on my own, and especially at night, but so many women, especially after consuming alcohol, are putting themselves in an incredibly vulnerable position.
Driving through Limerick city on any given night of the week, you just have to drive past a night club at closing time to see so many girls, arms stretched out, feet in pain, willing to take the next lift available.
I am reminded of a night when my boyfriend, parked outside Trinity Rooms nightclub, waiting to collect me, had a girl come up to the passenger door and try to get in. After being told sorry, but this isn't a cab, she replied, do you want to be?
Gladly this incident involved a decent person who did not whisk her away, to anywhere they wanted. But it makes me wonder, did this girl stumble upon another car, where the driver decided they would make themselves a taxi for her?
The victim in relation to the Limerick case was a 19 year old student, who after a night out, got into John Ryan's taxi. He then drove her to a secluded spot, raped and sexually assaulted her.
The Irish Times website stated that Ryan had previous convictions for public order offences, common assault and forgery.
Why was this man given a licence, to hold a position of trust and responsibility??
There should be a more rigorous screening process before someone is deemed suitable to drive a taxi.
He was convicted of assault previously, he should not have been trusted in a job that requires delivering your passengers safely to their destination.
I know by saying criminals should not work in that profession, it is opening up a much larger issue of, if not taxi driver, then what?
I know in most occupations there is an element of trust and responsibility, but this particular situation often results in passengers travelling alone, unprotected and frequently at night.
It is incredibly easy for a taxi driver to pick up a girl on her own, at night, and drive wherever he wants with her.
It is also the reverse of this that is causing problems, taxi drivers being attacked, or people running out on fares.
During Midday, the presenters began a discussion on the safety of taxis, and a cab driver contacted the show saying drunk girls have offered sexual favours, in return for a free lift.
This is something that trustworthy, criminal conviction-less taxi drivers should not have to put up with.
But at the end of the day I think women are the most at risk category, and should think twice about getting a cab on their own.
Women, and men, need to protect themselves, even if it is just organising a lift home with a friend, instead of on your own.
It is not just taxi drivers with criminal convictions that can put their passengers at risk, you could be their first crime.
The BBC have a list of ways to stay safe in taxis, which is linked below.
As for me, I'm off to buy a taxi roof sign, clearly I don't have a taxi licence, I don't even have a full drivers licence, but I hear they won’t even ask to see it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crimewatch/support/personalsafety/taxis_and_minicabs_safety.shtml
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0208/ryanj.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0208/breaking71.htm
KM
You are entrusting your safety with a complete stranger, who may or may not be licensed.
On TV3s show Midday on Tuesday 09 February, they mentioned the fact that you do not have to show ID or even your licence to purchase the taxi roof sign that so many intoxicated people love to see late on a Saturday night.
http://www.tv3.ie/videos.php?video=19214&locID=1.65.185&date=2010-02-09&date_mode=1&page=1&show_cal=2&newspanel=&showspanel=1&web_only=&full_episodes=
I personally try not to get a taxi on my own, and especially at night, but so many women, especially after consuming alcohol, are putting themselves in an incredibly vulnerable position.
Driving through Limerick city on any given night of the week, you just have to drive past a night club at closing time to see so many girls, arms stretched out, feet in pain, willing to take the next lift available.
I am reminded of a night when my boyfriend, parked outside Trinity Rooms nightclub, waiting to collect me, had a girl come up to the passenger door and try to get in. After being told sorry, but this isn't a cab, she replied, do you want to be?
Gladly this incident involved a decent person who did not whisk her away, to anywhere they wanted. But it makes me wonder, did this girl stumble upon another car, where the driver decided they would make themselves a taxi for her?
The victim in relation to the Limerick case was a 19 year old student, who after a night out, got into John Ryan's taxi. He then drove her to a secluded spot, raped and sexually assaulted her.
The Irish Times website stated that Ryan had previous convictions for public order offences, common assault and forgery.
Why was this man given a licence, to hold a position of trust and responsibility??
There should be a more rigorous screening process before someone is deemed suitable to drive a taxi.
He was convicted of assault previously, he should not have been trusted in a job that requires delivering your passengers safely to their destination.
I know by saying criminals should not work in that profession, it is opening up a much larger issue of, if not taxi driver, then what?
I know in most occupations there is an element of trust and responsibility, but this particular situation often results in passengers travelling alone, unprotected and frequently at night.
It is incredibly easy for a taxi driver to pick up a girl on her own, at night, and drive wherever he wants with her.
It is also the reverse of this that is causing problems, taxi drivers being attacked, or people running out on fares.
During Midday, the presenters began a discussion on the safety of taxis, and a cab driver contacted the show saying drunk girls have offered sexual favours, in return for a free lift.
This is something that trustworthy, criminal conviction-less taxi drivers should not have to put up with.
But at the end of the day I think women are the most at risk category, and should think twice about getting a cab on their own.
Women, and men, need to protect themselves, even if it is just organising a lift home with a friend, instead of on your own.
It is not just taxi drivers with criminal convictions that can put their passengers at risk, you could be their first crime.
The BBC have a list of ways to stay safe in taxis, which is linked below.
As for me, I'm off to buy a taxi roof sign, clearly I don't have a taxi licence, I don't even have a full drivers licence, but I hear they won’t even ask to see it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crimewatch/support/personalsafety/taxis_and_minicabs_safety.shtml
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0208/ryanj.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0208/breaking71.htm
KM
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The Celtic Tiger-a series of myths?
It's not very often a lecture strikes a chord with you, questions the norm and sets you thinking. Today's Issues in Contemporary Irish Society did just that.
We were introduced to the 'official line' on the Celtic Tiger/Tigress, whichever you believe. Here, the Irish Government gave themselves plaudits for the largest period of economic growth we have ever known. The 'astute policy decisions' and the success of their fiscal policy endured them to the love of the nation. The rising tide lifted all boats. But, when the storm hit all those boats sank and the lifeguards were nowhere to be seen.
Others said the Celtic Tiger's success was down to the success of social partnerships. To me, social partnerships are a group of people with vested interests bickering at a square table. A far cry from King Arthur and the Knights Round Table.
3 myths were uncovered:
Myth 1: The Celtic Tiger economy was planned, sustainable development. Despite the discourse presented in the public domain by media professionals (that’s us), the reality is that this was an imported wealth boom. Multi-national companies set up shop here because of our low corporation tax rates. Most of the jobs created were actually low-paid service jobs.
Myth 2: Economic growth means social growth. The money didn't filter down to everyone. A growing disparity between rich and poor occurred as a result. Media circles would have you believe that we partied too hard for too long. They stress that we all have to live with the consequences. Sorry to burst their bubble, but not everyone was invited to the party and not everyone drank. Take the regeneration areas as a case in point. We had a chance to close the gap on social inequality, but instead we widened it.
Myth 3: Prosperity means a better Ireland. It's ironic that the so-called experts just don't have a clue. The Economist, for example, held Ireland as a beacon of hope. We were "Europe's shinning light" they said. Instead of creating a unified Ireland, a cohesive Ireland, a divided Ireland was established. The neo-liberal political agenda stressed the importance of the individual, at the expense of society.
Now, we are finding ourselves at the forefront of the struggle. The battle of the sectors is being used to gloss over and glaze the mistakes of these 'experts'-economists, bankers and politicians. There is an ideological battle going on, except this time we are all invited, while those who abused their position of authority get off scot free.
I’m just curious to hear from those of you who didn’t have it all rosy in the garden during the boom years and what your thoughts are. For anyone who wants to learn more-see contributions by Peadar Kirby and Kieran Allen (not related to Dee). Another question that needs asking is why nobody, including journalists questioned the weak foundations of the boom, the construction industry and banks over indulging in lending and mortgages. Sociologists were crying out for years to be heard, but no-one listened, until the S*** hit the fan.
George Lee produced a documentary on RTÉ television about the demise of the Celtic Tiger economy titled: How We Blew the Boom. Perhaps he uncovered the truth about Irish politics; it remains to be seen. The tiger itself was very real; we just put it to sleep.
D.K
We were introduced to the 'official line' on the Celtic Tiger/Tigress, whichever you believe. Here, the Irish Government gave themselves plaudits for the largest period of economic growth we have ever known. The 'astute policy decisions' and the success of their fiscal policy endured them to the love of the nation. The rising tide lifted all boats. But, when the storm hit all those boats sank and the lifeguards were nowhere to be seen.
Others said the Celtic Tiger's success was down to the success of social partnerships. To me, social partnerships are a group of people with vested interests bickering at a square table. A far cry from King Arthur and the Knights Round Table.
3 myths were uncovered:
Myth 1: The Celtic Tiger economy was planned, sustainable development. Despite the discourse presented in the public domain by media professionals (that’s us), the reality is that this was an imported wealth boom. Multi-national companies set up shop here because of our low corporation tax rates. Most of the jobs created were actually low-paid service jobs.
Myth 2: Economic growth means social growth. The money didn't filter down to everyone. A growing disparity between rich and poor occurred as a result. Media circles would have you believe that we partied too hard for too long. They stress that we all have to live with the consequences. Sorry to burst their bubble, but not everyone was invited to the party and not everyone drank. Take the regeneration areas as a case in point. We had a chance to close the gap on social inequality, but instead we widened it.
Myth 3: Prosperity means a better Ireland. It's ironic that the so-called experts just don't have a clue. The Economist, for example, held Ireland as a beacon of hope. We were "Europe's shinning light" they said. Instead of creating a unified Ireland, a cohesive Ireland, a divided Ireland was established. The neo-liberal political agenda stressed the importance of the individual, at the expense of society.
Now, we are finding ourselves at the forefront of the struggle. The battle of the sectors is being used to gloss over and glaze the mistakes of these 'experts'-economists, bankers and politicians. There is an ideological battle going on, except this time we are all invited, while those who abused their position of authority get off scot free.
I’m just curious to hear from those of you who didn’t have it all rosy in the garden during the boom years and what your thoughts are. For anyone who wants to learn more-see contributions by Peadar Kirby and Kieran Allen (not related to Dee). Another question that needs asking is why nobody, including journalists questioned the weak foundations of the boom, the construction industry and banks over indulging in lending and mortgages. Sociologists were crying out for years to be heard, but no-one listened, until the S*** hit the fan.
George Lee produced a documentary on RTÉ television about the demise of the Celtic Tiger economy titled: How We Blew the Boom. Perhaps he uncovered the truth about Irish politics; it remains to be seen. The tiger itself was very real; we just put it to sleep.
D.K
Ignorance personified
I taught this post was appropriate due to the recent heated discussions taking place as a result of the blog posted on this site entitled “a right to privacy or safety” which stated –
“The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) believe the Muslim community will be deliberately targeted. UK Transport Secretary Andrew Adonis has stipulated that no passenger will be targeted because of their “gender, age, race or ethnic origin.”
Call me racist if you want, but I would certainly feel more comfortable if passengers were targeted because of these precise reasons. Let’s call a spade, a spade. Everyone knows the group of people who pose the biggest risk. This isn’t a racist or discriminatory statement. It is a fact. I applaud the UK authorities for introducing this long overdue measure. I think security officers should be left do their job instead of being constrained from carrying out their duties for fear of causing offence.”
In this period of Middle Eastern conflict how can we get a balanced or unbiased viewpoint? The answer is, unfortunately, we can’t. Yet, we can at least attempt to listen to both sides of the story.
The two links I’ve attached lead you to the English version of al-jazeera while the other leads you to skynews' world news section. Notice the difference, especially in the reports detailing the US and British forthcoming attack on Helman province.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/02/2010291172480446.html
http://news.sky.com/skynews/World-News
The underlying point I’m getting to is that, in class yesterday the author of the “the right to privacy or safety” blog backed up his beliefs by referencing a list of “dangerous” countries compiled by the US government. However, this is only one side of the story, imagine if Afghanistan compiled a list of “dangerous” countries. I’m sure America would be at the top as a result of the amount of Afghani civilians killed by American forces. Would such a list lead to all American’s being subject to strict screening processes whenever they enter an airport? I think not.
I think the majority of our population are guilty of unintentional ignorance by simply ignoring stations such as al jazeera. And I therefore think they cannot make a fair, balanced or acceptable call on who are the most dangerous race, country or society in the world.
Craig.
“The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) believe the Muslim community will be deliberately targeted. UK Transport Secretary Andrew Adonis has stipulated that no passenger will be targeted because of their “gender, age, race or ethnic origin.”
Call me racist if you want, but I would certainly feel more comfortable if passengers were targeted because of these precise reasons. Let’s call a spade, a spade. Everyone knows the group of people who pose the biggest risk. This isn’t a racist or discriminatory statement. It is a fact. I applaud the UK authorities for introducing this long overdue measure. I think security officers should be left do their job instead of being constrained from carrying out their duties for fear of causing offence.”
In this period of Middle Eastern conflict how can we get a balanced or unbiased viewpoint? The answer is, unfortunately, we can’t. Yet, we can at least attempt to listen to both sides of the story.
The two links I’ve attached lead you to the English version of al-jazeera while the other leads you to skynews' world news section. Notice the difference, especially in the reports detailing the US and British forthcoming attack on Helman province.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/02/2010291172480446.html
http://news.sky.com/skynews/World-News
The underlying point I’m getting to is that, in class yesterday the author of the “the right to privacy or safety” blog backed up his beliefs by referencing a list of “dangerous” countries compiled by the US government. However, this is only one side of the story, imagine if Afghanistan compiled a list of “dangerous” countries. I’m sure America would be at the top as a result of the amount of Afghani civilians killed by American forces. Would such a list lead to all American’s being subject to strict screening processes whenever they enter an airport? I think not.
I think the majority of our population are guilty of unintentional ignorance by simply ignoring stations such as al jazeera. And I therefore think they cannot make a fair, balanced or acceptable call on who are the most dangerous race, country or society in the world.
Craig.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Are the noughties just a bad eighties re-run?
Big hair, hi tops, drain pipe jeans, relatives emigrating, rambling dole queues. Is anyone crying déjà vu?
Weather you lived through it he first time or were told about it by your parents it’s easy to see how these staples of life in the 1980s are creeping into the lives of the noughties population.
Yesterday on RTE News they featured a segment on emigration. For the first time in well over twenty years more people are leaving Ireland then there are coming in. Canada and Australia apparently being the hot spots for emigrating Irish looking for jobs and a better life. This begs the question, is history repeating itself more vividly than ever, in twenty years have we learned anything?
Fashion is a notoriously fickle and ever changing market. Each season some new cutting edge, innovative designer comes up with an ‘eighties inspired look.’ Blazers, shoulder pads, oversized bows, prom dressed, stone washed denims are all stocked and overpriced ready for us to consume in shops nationwide. If that’s the case one trip to my mothers wardrobe will make me the fashionista of 2010! Even websites are devoted to styling you head to toe from the eighties. Personally I love the idea of ‘vintage’ and ‘retro’ but I can’t decide if I’m a fool for letting designers get away with not creating new ideas or creating them myself.
Music seems to be all about recycling or ‘remixing’ for the noughties. Synthesisers were popular in the eighties and now feature heavily in alternative and indie type bands of the last few years. The house music created in the eighties is being rehashed and remixed to this day. Even the best selling mainstream artists have covered, remixed or borrowed lyrics or backing tracks from eighties songs; Craig David, Westlife and Flo Rida to name a few. It is said that the kids who pop today will rock tomorrow and every year Irish pre and young teens discover puberty, how much they hate there parents and of course rock music. Each year bands who either began or ruled the charts in the eighties blare from the bedrooms of Irish teens; Nirvana, Greenday, AC DC, Iron Maiden.
The starkest resemblance between now and the eighties is the state of the Irish economy. As I mentioned above there are huge emigration rates. Job losses plague every county. The country is in an even worse recession than then. The number of people signing on to the live register is still rising. We studied the hardships of the eighties, we wrote them in our history books but have we learned from it?
There is a positive note here however, I can identify two industries that have progressed since the eighties. They are Media and Technology. Publications in this country have evolved and adapted as required by our society. Once just print, each title now has a website, pod casts, sound slides and are accessible via phones for constant up dates on the go. More recently the iPad offers the experience of reading your broadsheet on screen. Media has come on leaps and bounds from typing to metal plates.
Technology pushed media to adapt and change and the industry has done so. However, who or what is going to push our government and other industries to change?
Yes, media has bettered itself along with technology and to a certain extent science. However I personally think it’s a little sad that in twenty years, excluding the aforementioned developments, all we’ve learned to do successfully is make phones smaller and Tvs bigger.
JM
Weather you lived through it he first time or were told about it by your parents it’s easy to see how these staples of life in the 1980s are creeping into the lives of the noughties population.
Yesterday on RTE News they featured a segment on emigration. For the first time in well over twenty years more people are leaving Ireland then there are coming in. Canada and Australia apparently being the hot spots for emigrating Irish looking for jobs and a better life. This begs the question, is history repeating itself more vividly than ever, in twenty years have we learned anything?
Fashion is a notoriously fickle and ever changing market. Each season some new cutting edge, innovative designer comes up with an ‘eighties inspired look.’ Blazers, shoulder pads, oversized bows, prom dressed, stone washed denims are all stocked and overpriced ready for us to consume in shops nationwide. If that’s the case one trip to my mothers wardrobe will make me the fashionista of 2010! Even websites are devoted to styling you head to toe from the eighties. Personally I love the idea of ‘vintage’ and ‘retro’ but I can’t decide if I’m a fool for letting designers get away with not creating new ideas or creating them myself.
Music seems to be all about recycling or ‘remixing’ for the noughties. Synthesisers were popular in the eighties and now feature heavily in alternative and indie type bands of the last few years. The house music created in the eighties is being rehashed and remixed to this day. Even the best selling mainstream artists have covered, remixed or borrowed lyrics or backing tracks from eighties songs; Craig David, Westlife and Flo Rida to name a few. It is said that the kids who pop today will rock tomorrow and every year Irish pre and young teens discover puberty, how much they hate there parents and of course rock music. Each year bands who either began or ruled the charts in the eighties blare from the bedrooms of Irish teens; Nirvana, Greenday, AC DC, Iron Maiden.
The starkest resemblance between now and the eighties is the state of the Irish economy. As I mentioned above there are huge emigration rates. Job losses plague every county. The country is in an even worse recession than then. The number of people signing on to the live register is still rising. We studied the hardships of the eighties, we wrote them in our history books but have we learned from it?
There is a positive note here however, I can identify two industries that have progressed since the eighties. They are Media and Technology. Publications in this country have evolved and adapted as required by our society. Once just print, each title now has a website, pod casts, sound slides and are accessible via phones for constant up dates on the go. More recently the iPad offers the experience of reading your broadsheet on screen. Media has come on leaps and bounds from typing to metal plates.
Technology pushed media to adapt and change and the industry has done so. However, who or what is going to push our government and other industries to change?
Yes, media has bettered itself along with technology and to a certain extent science. However I personally think it’s a little sad that in twenty years, excluding the aforementioned developments, all we’ve learned to do successfully is make phones smaller and Tvs bigger.
JM
How far is too far?
Ethics and morals is a very crucial issue in the Media Industry. A few of you have written on this subject and Orla in particular made some valid points on the issue. This piece is just a few examples I wish to share of the incidences, in both recent and past times, which made me think more on the subject.
So basically, morals are all about knowing the difference between right and wrong. However, I think in this celebrity obsessed time and ever more competitive media industry, morals have quite possibly been replaced by knowing how much you can get away with.
One thing we definitely know is that making someone cry is wrong, isn’t it? What if you make someone cry with the questions you ask in an interview? Is that overstepping the mark or is that nailing the tough questions and catching a usually plugging, PR spewing ‘celeb’ off guard?
A week ago, Peter Andre, ahem…singer and ex-husband of Katie Price broke down in a live Sky News interview with Kay Berley. The interviewer had played footage of Dwight Yorke, the biological father of the child Andre cares for and wishes to adopt, followed by probing questions about his relationship with his children. An investigation is now being carried out and Berley may run the risk of being fired.
I am in two minds about his event. On the one hand, a person making millions from magazine interviews, photographs of them and their children in their home and sharing secrets about past relationships while posing as a so called ‘music artist’ has opened themselves up and has no grounds to be picky or sensitive in regards to what their asked. But at the same time it is no ones business what kind of relationship he has with his children, unless the children are in danger.
Again the argument of public interest versus what the public are interested in comes into play. This type of information can’t be considered news, surely. It isn’t going to have any impact on my life so I don’t have the right to know anything about his life, even if he does lay himself wide open to the public eye. However I still can’t settle comfortably on either side of this argument.
Say for instance the person being interviewed is a political figure shaping certain aspects of my life. If they are someone who decides how much tax I have to pay or how much money the university I attend has to spend in the next year, I have a right to know about them. The tricky question is how much information do I have the right to know and how much of what I know is just me being nosey?
On his first night as the presenter of The Late Late show Ryan Tubridy caused controversy with is hard hitting interview with Taoiseach Brian Cowen. Some of the questions were only all too well deserved giving the financial state of the country a year ago. It was refreshing to see tough questions being put before the bewildered Taoiseach who usually, I presume, prepares and has answers written well in advance.
The interview, for me at least, took an uneasy turn when Tubridy began to hit the Taoiseach hard and fast with questions regarding his drinking. Was this taking things too far? Does how much alcohol Cowen consumes really concern me? You could say no, of course not, how much he drinks in his free time is private. Alternatively you could argue if our Taoiseach drinks too much it may impair his ability to lead our government effectively. There is a third option, Tubridy may have been blowing the topic of drinking way out of proportion. This makes pin pointing the interview has too harsh or just right even harder.
One thing I will say is that Tubridy may have got carried away and even if you do see his questions as valid he asked them in such a speedy succession that Cowen could not answer. Effectively the manner in which he asked the questions made them irrelevant as they weren’t answered anyway. Again, I find it difficult to come to my own definite conclusion on whether the mark was over stepped in this interview. I think perhaps some of the questions were a bit much but it isn’t any harm for those in power to get a bit of a shake now and then.
One clear cut rule is that of defamation and it is obeyed, for the most part. One slight loophole I suppose you would call it, is that it is impossible to defame the dead. This means that after the death of anyone in the public eye most publications in the media industry have a field day, case in point Michael Jackson and even closer to home, Steven Gately.
The mail received thousands of complaints after Jan Moir wrote an article in October of last year in the days following Gatelys death. Moirs article speculated that the circumstances in which Gately died were a lot more suspicious than what was initially reported.
Ultimately, forgiving her criticism his singing and belittling his accomplishments as a gay right activist, I think it was they language used and the slightly negative portrayal of the life of a gay man is what drew all the complaints. Words like “sleazy” and “bitter truth” did not help the matter. Also, implying his parents were purposely downplaying his sudden death did not go down so well. So just because he is dead it doesn’t matter what is said about him?
What about his parents, his partner and his friends still grieving and subjected to this less than complimentary article? Should the editor have allowed this article to be printed at all or perhaps held of for at least a few days? It is a right to free speech and no laws were broken by the content but I think it was distasteful. Again the right and wrong of this article is hard to fathom.
On reflection I think that perhaps there is no right and wrong in Media. Morals are a huge and ever expanding grey area and will continue to be. Each individual case has to be looked at. I know bloging is all about your opinion but the jury’s still out on the events mentioned here.
What I do think is that it’s not a simple call to make, maybe you can make more sense of it.
JM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLXcQNQJ0qk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErxADYAfJQ4
So basically, morals are all about knowing the difference between right and wrong. However, I think in this celebrity obsessed time and ever more competitive media industry, morals have quite possibly been replaced by knowing how much you can get away with.
One thing we definitely know is that making someone cry is wrong, isn’t it? What if you make someone cry with the questions you ask in an interview? Is that overstepping the mark or is that nailing the tough questions and catching a usually plugging, PR spewing ‘celeb’ off guard?
A week ago, Peter Andre, ahem…singer and ex-husband of Katie Price broke down in a live Sky News interview with Kay Berley. The interviewer had played footage of Dwight Yorke, the biological father of the child Andre cares for and wishes to adopt, followed by probing questions about his relationship with his children. An investigation is now being carried out and Berley may run the risk of being fired.
I am in two minds about his event. On the one hand, a person making millions from magazine interviews, photographs of them and their children in their home and sharing secrets about past relationships while posing as a so called ‘music artist’ has opened themselves up and has no grounds to be picky or sensitive in regards to what their asked. But at the same time it is no ones business what kind of relationship he has with his children, unless the children are in danger.
Again the argument of public interest versus what the public are interested in comes into play. This type of information can’t be considered news, surely. It isn’t going to have any impact on my life so I don’t have the right to know anything about his life, even if he does lay himself wide open to the public eye. However I still can’t settle comfortably on either side of this argument.
Say for instance the person being interviewed is a political figure shaping certain aspects of my life. If they are someone who decides how much tax I have to pay or how much money the university I attend has to spend in the next year, I have a right to know about them. The tricky question is how much information do I have the right to know and how much of what I know is just me being nosey?
On his first night as the presenter of The Late Late show Ryan Tubridy caused controversy with is hard hitting interview with Taoiseach Brian Cowen. Some of the questions were only all too well deserved giving the financial state of the country a year ago. It was refreshing to see tough questions being put before the bewildered Taoiseach who usually, I presume, prepares and has answers written well in advance.
The interview, for me at least, took an uneasy turn when Tubridy began to hit the Taoiseach hard and fast with questions regarding his drinking. Was this taking things too far? Does how much alcohol Cowen consumes really concern me? You could say no, of course not, how much he drinks in his free time is private. Alternatively you could argue if our Taoiseach drinks too much it may impair his ability to lead our government effectively. There is a third option, Tubridy may have been blowing the topic of drinking way out of proportion. This makes pin pointing the interview has too harsh or just right even harder.
One thing I will say is that Tubridy may have got carried away and even if you do see his questions as valid he asked them in such a speedy succession that Cowen could not answer. Effectively the manner in which he asked the questions made them irrelevant as they weren’t answered anyway. Again, I find it difficult to come to my own definite conclusion on whether the mark was over stepped in this interview. I think perhaps some of the questions were a bit much but it isn’t any harm for those in power to get a bit of a shake now and then.
One clear cut rule is that of defamation and it is obeyed, for the most part. One slight loophole I suppose you would call it, is that it is impossible to defame the dead. This means that after the death of anyone in the public eye most publications in the media industry have a field day, case in point Michael Jackson and even closer to home, Steven Gately.
The mail received thousands of complaints after Jan Moir wrote an article in October of last year in the days following Gatelys death. Moirs article speculated that the circumstances in which Gately died were a lot more suspicious than what was initially reported.
Ultimately, forgiving her criticism his singing and belittling his accomplishments as a gay right activist, I think it was they language used and the slightly negative portrayal of the life of a gay man is what drew all the complaints. Words like “sleazy” and “bitter truth” did not help the matter. Also, implying his parents were purposely downplaying his sudden death did not go down so well. So just because he is dead it doesn’t matter what is said about him?
What about his parents, his partner and his friends still grieving and subjected to this less than complimentary article? Should the editor have allowed this article to be printed at all or perhaps held of for at least a few days? It is a right to free speech and no laws were broken by the content but I think it was distasteful. Again the right and wrong of this article is hard to fathom.
On reflection I think that perhaps there is no right and wrong in Media. Morals are a huge and ever expanding grey area and will continue to be. Each individual case has to be looked at. I know bloging is all about your opinion but the jury’s still out on the events mentioned here.
What I do think is that it’s not a simple call to make, maybe you can make more sense of it.
JM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLXcQNQJ0qk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErxADYAfJQ4
Not So Private Life
This weekend, shamed soccer star John Terry graced the front pages of the majority of newspapers. Vanessa Perroncell, the lingerie model that he was alleged to have had an affair with also appeared in the papers but did not, however, sell her story because of the €458,000 sum paid to her by Terry to keep her silence. It seems strange that this affair should make front page news of almost every paper when affairs go on everyday, everywhere both noticed and unnoticed. But, this is what comes with the territory of being a public figure.
http://www.herald.ie/entertainment/around-town/terry-tried-to-buy-vanessas-silence-in-8364458k-deal-2051486.html
Is this, however, the way it should be? Are these 'celebrities' not entitled to a private life away from the cameras and press? Why is it that we should know the in's and out's of their lives?
On Friday, John Terry lost his England captaincy after his very public fall from favour. He remains as Chelsea captain. Moving away from my above questions but not unrelated, I now pose the question, should the goings on in Terry's life really have impacted on his footballing career? I understand that hundreds of young boys and girls uphold Terry as their idol, one day they want to be just as successful as him whilst mothers around the country deem him to be a homewrecker. Not exactly leadership material, I hear you say.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2010/0206/1224263886072.html
Leaders captain teams. Traits of a leader include a person of good character, a person who does everything they are supposed to do, someone who can command trust and someone of honourable character. Okay, so he hasn't exactly ticked all the boxes, alright then he ticked none of the boxes. But, before the country knew anything about his promiscuity, the boxes would have been all ticked.
John Terry worked hard to excell at football to be where he is today, nobody can argue that. So why then, should a slip-up in his private life prove detrimental for his footballing career? Are we judging his skill on or off the field? Should a player not be judged on his merit as a footballer rather than his scandalous private life? In my opinion, if you become a celebrity, automatically your right to privacy is infringed. However, I believe that a football player such as John Terry should be judged solely upon his ability to play football and captain a team rather than to introduce outside factors, like his private life, into the equation.
If today's game was anything to go by, Terry had no problem on the field, captaining Chelsea to victory over Liverpool, 2-0. Didier Drogba revealed after the game that the team had rallied around Terry in support.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/2843086/Didier-Drogba-We-had-to-stick-together.html
I have a feeling that Terry will be reinstated as England captain sometime in the future, much like Peter Robinson stepping down for a few weeks, just waiting for the dust to settle and another scandal to come along.
DA
http://www.herald.ie/entertainment/around-town/terry-tried-to-buy-vanessas-silence-in-8364458k-deal-2051486.html
Is this, however, the way it should be? Are these 'celebrities' not entitled to a private life away from the cameras and press? Why is it that we should know the in's and out's of their lives?
On Friday, John Terry lost his England captaincy after his very public fall from favour. He remains as Chelsea captain. Moving away from my above questions but not unrelated, I now pose the question, should the goings on in Terry's life really have impacted on his footballing career? I understand that hundreds of young boys and girls uphold Terry as their idol, one day they want to be just as successful as him whilst mothers around the country deem him to be a homewrecker. Not exactly leadership material, I hear you say.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2010/0206/1224263886072.html
Leaders captain teams. Traits of a leader include a person of good character, a person who does everything they are supposed to do, someone who can command trust and someone of honourable character. Okay, so he hasn't exactly ticked all the boxes, alright then he ticked none of the boxes. But, before the country knew anything about his promiscuity, the boxes would have been all ticked.
John Terry worked hard to excell at football to be where he is today, nobody can argue that. So why then, should a slip-up in his private life prove detrimental for his footballing career? Are we judging his skill on or off the field? Should a player not be judged on his merit as a footballer rather than his scandalous private life? In my opinion, if you become a celebrity, automatically your right to privacy is infringed. However, I believe that a football player such as John Terry should be judged solely upon his ability to play football and captain a team rather than to introduce outside factors, like his private life, into the equation.
If today's game was anything to go by, Terry had no problem on the field, captaining Chelsea to victory over Liverpool, 2-0. Didier Drogba revealed after the game that the team had rallied around Terry in support.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/2843086/Didier-Drogba-We-had-to-stick-together.html
I have a feeling that Terry will be reinstated as England captain sometime in the future, much like Peter Robinson stepping down for a few weeks, just waiting for the dust to settle and another scandal to come along.
DA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
