MarkHumphrys.com

Irish. Atheist. Liberal-right. Anti-jihad. Pro-American. Pro-Israel.

Home      Blog      Contents      Contact

Search:

July 2010 entries      June 2010 entries      Random page

168,000 page views per month

Donate to help Hector Aleem, a Christian facing death for "blasphemy" in Islamic Pakistan. I gave $100.


Politics - The Irish left - Media


 

Newspapers

Radio and TV

Blogs

The western media

The BBC

The Guardian


The Irish left (media)



"Liberal" used here in the American sense of meaning "left-wing".
From 9-11justice.org, now moved to Sacred Cow Burgers. See fair use policy.



Introduction

For some of the Irish media below, it's open anti-Americanism. They hate America and want it to fail. They are hostile to democracies like Israel, and romanticise third world fascist revolutionaries like the Palestinians. They hate capitalism and long for socialism. They hate the fact that Ireland, of all places, is one of the greatest capitalism success stories in the history of the world.

For others below, it's not so much open anti-Americanism as just general negativity - endless carping and criticism of America, Britain and Israel (the three countries that have leadership or frontier roles in the defence of western liberal civilization). These journalists believe it is the duty of a journalist to be slyly cynical and negative about everything the government does.



There is some merit in this, of course, but it is not the same thing as a dispassionate search for truth. In particular, if you feel that the government is doing something far more idealistic, noble and heroic than anything the media have ever done in their lives, then the media's endless negativity is hard to take. For anyone who cares about the War on Islamism, much of this commentary is just tedious, pointless and demoralising to listen to. It is the criticism of people who don't seem to care, who don't seem to really want the west to win. It is the negative criticism of enemies and neutrals, who wish you ill, rather than the positive criticism of friends.




Newspapers


The Irish Times


Irish Times headlines

The Irish Times has a particular genius in spinning the news in its headlines:

  1. After the 21 July attacks, 23 July 2005: "Muslims fearful as attacks prompt hostility"
    • Not: "Non-Muslims fearful of never-ending future of Muslim attacks", which would be far more to the point. No, "Muslims fearful after Muslim attacks" is obviously the main story.

  2. After the killing of Zarqawi, 9 June 2006: "Fears killing may lead to retaliatory attacks".
    • No one expects the Irish Times to celebrate the killing of blood-soaked terrorists, but how about just a simple headline: "America kills leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq". But no, the headline had to be: "Fears killing may lead to retaliatory attacks". But of course.

  3. 3 Aug 2006: "Hizbullah counters Israeli raid with rocket barrage"
    • Manhattan Notes suggests: "Attack on Israeli Civilians Counters Military Raid". Why does the Irish Times never use headlines like that?

  4. This made me laugh in derision, 30 June 2008: "Former Nato commander questions value of McCain's military experience"
    • Ooh, that sounds bad. Until you realise (as the headline hides from you) that this is Wesley Clark, well-known partisan Democrat who ran for the 2004 Democrat presidential nomination. But somehow "Democrat criticises Republican" doesn't have the same ring to it!
    • In fact the real story is "Wesley Clark is now completely mad", since he is pouring cold water on McCain's decades of military and security experience, while supporting Obama, who has no military and security experience at all!
    • Hot Air titled this "How stupid is Wesley Clark?" This headline difference sums up why I prefer blogs to the mainstream media. The blogs always get the real story.

  5. 10 Nov 2008: "Fears execution of Bali bombers will encourage militants"
    • Why not simply: "Justice at last for the butchers of Bali". Whose side are the Irish Times on?

  6. 7 Nov 2009: "Guns in the US"
    • Oh this is genius. The worst Islamist terror homeland attack in 7 years happens under the watch of their beloved Obama, and what is the Irish Times editorial about? Gun laws! Yes, that was the cause of the attack, obviously. Not jihad. Not Islamism. Gun laws!



This hilariously biased CNN report on talk radio, Oct 2009, reminds me of the patronising way the Irish Times often spins the news.
Instead of wondering why people prefer talk radio to CNN (or blogs to the Irish Times), they bring on a New York psychiatrist to explain what is wrong with their brains.
(By the way, I did some Googling and discovered to my surprise that the psychiatrist is a donor to the Democrats.)
As Greg Gutfeld says, this report is pure bias: "CNN Perplexed By Talk Radio ... Now, only CNN could do this with a straight face. According to the network, some say talk radio is "viciously partisan," without of course defining "some," as "people who work at CNN." And so the segment began, with CNN using a shrink to examine the typical listener, as though he belonged to a rare breed of lizard that dines only on feces."
Comment: "Am I the only one who is at the point where I simply roll my eyes when I see / hear this crap? Do those tools really think people are that stupid?"



Other newspapers



Radio and TV


State radio and TV (RTE)

Anti-American, Anti-Israeli - And I am forced to pay for it by law.

Private radio and TV



Carole Coleman's RTE interview of Bush, June 2004



Carole Coleman's sneering RTE interview of President Bush before his visit to Ireland, June 2004, perfectly encapsulates RTE's institutional anti-Americanism.
See full transcript.






The BBC




RTE and the BBC are left-wing?

Some people think it is a sign of right-wing madness to think RTE and the BBC are left of centre. Surely it is obvious, they say, that RTE and the BBC are objective. Right-wingers are bound to find it "left-wing", and left-wingers are bound to find it "right-wing". That's just a sign of its success, they would say.

Consider the following:

  1. When I had a soft left view of foreign policy, I considered RTE and the BBC to be objective. Doesn't that indicate something wrong?
  2. I suspect you are soft left of centre yourself, if you think RTE and the BBC are objective. Am I right? Be honest.
  3. What you need to do is show me right-wingers who think RTE and the BBC are objective. Tell me here.
  4. Survey of Americans, Jan 2007 shows Democrats are far more likely to think the media is unbiased than Republicans. Doesn't that more or less prove the media is biased towards the Democrats?
  5. Leftist Harry Browne graphs the media, and thinks RTE is left of centre. Doesn't that indicate something wrong?
  6. When it comes to things I still agree with the left on, such as sex and atheism, I still feel RTE and the BBC are pretty objective. But I guess that means something really is wrong.
  7. Or put it this way. On this page I list newspaper and TV/radio people that I think are left-wing. On this page I list newspaper people that are right-wing, but I am unable to list any TV/radio people. I cannot think of any TV/radio people in Ireland that are clearly right-wing. Newspapers, even the left-wing newspapers, are much more diverse than TV/radio.

  8. I don't actually mind that RTE and the BBC are not objective. I'm not objective myself. I look on the world a certain way. I spin the news. Everybody spins the news based on how they look at the world. It's impossible not to. What I object to is: (1) the claim that they are objective, and: (2) that I have to pay for it. Either make them private and voluntary (in which case they can be as subjective as they like), or, if taxpayers have to pay for them, make them objective.
  9. Is it possible to be objective at all? I think it's impossible for one person to be objective. But there is a model for how a collective can produce something fairly objective. I find Wikipedia to be broadly objective (neither left nor right). So I'm not impossible to please. It's not the case that unless something is right-wing I will consider it left-wing. I can give you an example of objective (neither left nor right): Wikipedia.
  10. How does Wikipedia manage it? The answer is simple. Both left-wing and right-wing people are writing. The right-wing positions are not paraphrased by unsympathetic left-wingers. They are written in the language the right-wingers would use themselves. Then the left respond in the language they would use themselves. The right-wingers also force the inclusion of uncomfortable topics that the left-wingers would avoid (just as the left-wingers force the inclusion of uncomfortable topics the right would avoid).

The lesson for RTE and the Irish Times is that it's not enough to have left-wing journalists trying to summarise what the strange right-wingers believe. You have to hire right-wing journalists as well as left, and let them write it in the way a right-winger would think. Wikipedia has left-wing and right-wing writers, and the end product sounds objective. RTE and the Irish Times have only left-wing writers, and when they try to paraphrase right-wing ideas they invariably distort them.



The poverty of Irish media



Media Bite

The "Media Bite" site is interesting because it shows the view of the Irish media from the intelligent but extreme left.



Left-wing Irish blogs

I must admit I don't read left-wing Irish blogs much. Why bother when you get the same analysis on RTE, BBC and the Irish Times? Whereas the right-wing Irish blogs offer something different to the mainstream discourse.


Dormant or extinct:


See also:




Tony Allwright surveys letters to the Irish Times after the Gaza flotilla clash of 31 May 2010.
It is hard for a young person growing up in Ireland to realise that the Israelis are the good guys.
It takes a lot of independent thought and standing against the crowd, often including one's own parents and teachers.




 
"The mentality of the English left-wing intelligentsia can be studied in half a dozen weekly and monthly papers. The immediately striking thing about all these papers is their generally negative, querulous attitude, their complete lack at all times of any constructive suggestion. There is little in them except the irresponsible carping of people who have never been and never expect to be in a position of power."
- George Orwell, "England Your England", 1941, The Lion and the Unicorn (also here).
The negative, defeatist, hypercritical whining I hear on my radio, my TV, and in my newspaper is perfectly described by Orwell.
I really understand why politicians pay so little attention to negative whining critics like the above.


"Throughout history, civilizations rise and fall. They fall for the same reason ... the lack of will to defend her, a cancer which starts not from the bottom but invariably from the top. ... It has always been this way. If you feel you see it happening now, before your very eyes, well .. you are not alone. A society unwilling to enforce the laws that civilize it, that is unable or unwilling to see the advantages of civilization, a society led by the pampered, the narcissistic and the corrupt, is not long for this Earth. Our enemies look at us and see precisely these symptoms, and the symptons are worsening. ... One thing they do not see, however - also there. They do not see the Remnant. They do not see the power and resilience of what the irreplaceable Victor Davis Hanson has referred to as "the Old Breed." Nock and Isaiah believed that the purpose of the Remnant was to rebuild a new civilization from the ashes of those destroyed by their own masters. And certainly to date this has always been their main function. But there is something different -- just perhaps, something fundamentally different this time around. Because today, for the first time in human history, common people can communicate directly with one another. We are no longer dependent on spineless politicians and the jaded masters of the press to color our opinions of the world. For the first time in human history, the Remnant can reach out to each other on these gossamer threads of a world-wide web. I believe - utterly - that this ability for the common person to communicate with other common people, this internet, will allow us to end-run the cycle of civilization. I believe it in my bones. My friends, Western Civilization is not on its last legs. Western Civilization is going to the stars. Count on it."
- Bill Whittle, May 21, 2007.
The fantastic thing about the modern world is that we are no longer dependent on the media. And this may ultimately mean that Iraq will be won where Vietnam was lost.
For example, when, in any previous war, could one read, whenever one liked, positive, morale-boosting, optimistic propaganda by those who wished the troops well? (I do not use "propaganda" here as a negative word, but rather to describe writing that is open and honest about being subjective and partisan.) One could never read such happy propaganda easily in Vietnam, the Cold War, or even WW2 or any previous war, except dull state propaganda written by the civil service. But now one can everywhere read optimistic, pro-troops propaganda written by private individuals for free as a labour of love. This is something new, that the Internet has enabled, and that old media had suppressed.



Return to The Irish left.



Feedback form

 
Enter a URL for me to look at:
Enter this password:

See explanation. You cannot enter comments or send email. All you can do is enter a web address (a URL) for me to look at. You can put your comments at that address.

Bookmark and Share           Since 1995.