oh my god, they killed ...accurate journalism

by Graham Caswell Fri Feb 07, 2003 14:05

If Pot is telling 250,000 people that Ciaran O'Reilly & Co. are violent thugs, and they're not, then surely the famous five have a good case against Pot and his fat salary?

by Brian J Goggin Fri Feb 07, 2003 14:15

I sent an email calling attention to the error.

I suggest making a formal complaint to RTE, irrespective of whether the activists take action.

bjg

by Amanda Fri Feb 07, 2003 14:56

Why is everybody here jumping to conclusions??

It is my understanding that this case will be heard in open Court and all the facts will be given. How do you know the Guard was not assaulted? I wasn't there so I dont know and I wonder how you know.

Funny people jumping to complain to the media about inaccuracy when Indymedia itself has a proven track record of inaccuracy and (worse still) Censorship.

by Eamonn Crudden Fri Feb 07, 2003 15:07

1. They are not being charged with assault
2. The Garda Press Office are not claiming they carried out an assault - simply that the Garda was 'overcome'. That is a story that was broken by IMC and followed pretty quickly by the same from an unspun Irish Times article/Journalist.
3. Pot Kennedy is not the first to pursue this unfounded claim. He is in company with public representatives and producers/editors of a number of Mainstream radio programmes and Journalists with other newspapers on that score. The 'assault' thing was never attributed to an identifiable source throughout the whole debacle which is why IMC went to the horses mouth for the story - ie. those in custody and the Garda Press Office.

So who is the authentic journalistic voice on this?

by Daithi - 1 of IMC IE Fri Feb 07, 2003 15:30

You are alleging that Indymedia is engaged in censorship. Could you please point to an example of such censorship? Or are you just flinging words around in order to insult people? Provide a reference and then your claims might perhaps be credible.

You also say that Indymedia has a proven track record of inaccuracy. Of course, you will be aware that while features are produced by Indymedia collectively, the newswire articles are written by contributors all across Ireland and the world, and the responsibility for that content is that of the contributor, not the site. Furthermore, under our editorial policy (you did read it, right?) warns authors that we will hide content that is obviously false (and we have done so within the last week on a number of occasions). Again, would you be so kind to provide a link to examples of this terrible track record?

And while we're at it - I don't see your lies being censored - do you really think that RTE or the Independent would provide you with space ON THE SAME LEVEL AS THE ACTUAL ARTICLE to respond? I'd say that it was ironic except I'm not quite sure that you'd get it.

by Amanda Fri Feb 07, 2003 15:40

Its a bit difficult to link to articles that Indymedia censored since they are gone from the site!
Basically one has to keep a look out for anything criticising you guys and low and behold in an hour or so its gone!!
At least if somebdoy gets onto RTE they can have their say and its not edited out, unless of course its slanderous. I'm no fan of RTE, and they often put slants on stories but at least there is no censorship there.
I also read your editorial policy and it does not say anything about articles criticisig Indymedia being disallowed.

Also dont get so worked up Dotty, you can hardly take a site like this too seriously!!

by ollie - Katalyzer Fri Feb 07, 2003 15:44

doesn't all of this adverse publicity about/against the 5 catholic workers make a fair trail 'difficult' to say the least...one interview on RTE featuring Mary Harney and a few posters around town was a major cause of CJ gettin off the hook a few years back...I mean, RTE are still sending 'mixed signals'(UHF ultra high farce and VHF very high farce) and contradicting themselves 5 days after later...

by Annonymous Fri Feb 07, 2003 15:57

Well said Eamonn and well summized.

The false reporting and telling of this event by so many journalists and commentators has been a disgrace.

No wonder it is only one side of the world story that we perpetually hear from the mainstream media.

When people find out whats really going on today in 100 years time they are going to be shocked and wonder how humanity left it happen. Kinda reminds me of other atrocities 50 years ago which people ask the same thing of now.....

by Ray - as an editor Fri Feb 07, 2003 16:03

Pretty much all deleted articles are posted here.
As you can see, nothing there has been deleted for being critical of indymedia.

Anyone can look back over the newswire and find articles and comments critical of indymedia
Here are a couple from the last few days
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=27506&start=40
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=27421&start=50
Amanda is just the latest person to cry 'censorship' when things don't go their way, and as usual the claims are without foundation.

by Daithi Fri Feb 07, 2003 16:09

OK, I'll try and make it a bit easier for you. Go to the front page and look at the "first birthday" feature (second one down). There you will find some links to articles criticising Indymedia for various different reasons.

There is no policy that says that critical comments are deleted. What exactly was your message? If we used that policy then your comment would be gone already! This exchange is living proof that you don't know what you are talking about.

And there is no censorship on RTE? There is a rich history of stories pulled before going to air; injunctions taken against the broadcaster by private interests; series and programmes cancelled - not to mention the fact that not all callers get on air, not all issues are covered. RTE are not perfect, nor are we. But at least the decisions on Indymedia are made openly and transparently. Again, imagine that you thought RTE were censoring criticism - would you really be welcomed on air for an exachange like this? Yeah right. That what call screeners are employed for. It's not necessarily wrong, but it's different to the way that things are done here. You are obviously gaining from the freedom to criticise at Indymedia, and that's welcomed by all concerned.

And believe me, we don't take ourselves all that seriously - but when people like you are making false assertions about something that we put work into, you can hardly expect that your lies are going to go unchallenged. It's not the first time that this sort of allegation has been made and it will certainly not be the last - usually, though, the contributor complaining has a particular example that is putting the bee in their bonnet, so to speak.

by Donnacha - none Fri Feb 07, 2003 16:22 donnacha at sortedmagazine dot com London

A classic example of RTÉ/authority bias is in the figures they report as attending marches (contrasting nicely with the SWP tendency to inflate figures so that it's virtually impossible to get an accurate figure without counting heads yourself). Garda figures, reported as fact by RTÉ, are always deliberately lower than the reality (much like their drugs "street price" valuations are always higher). Do people remember the hilarious report about the protest against the Taoiseach where both Garda and SWP figures were used and a certain journo who shall remain nameless reported that between 1,000 and 2,000 protestors turned up?

D.

by corkboy Fri Feb 07, 2003 16:35

Its seems to me that we all need to become more informed about the complaints procedure regarding public and private broadcasters. Does anyone have links to websites etc that igive such information. re: solicitors letters, case law, apologies/ retractions, libel etc.

I have met Ciaron briefly a couple of times. I have found him to be an extremely articulate guy ant pationately pacificist (with regard to humans!!) He should sue Pat Kenny and anyone else who repeats that claim.

by iosaf Fri Feb 07, 2003 16:36

just to let you know.

by Terry Fri Feb 07, 2003 18:15

While it is true that many newspaper reporters and researchers for TV and radio
couldn't really be bothered checking or updating their facts, I reckon to a certain
extent stuff like this constant referral to the 'assault' that never happened
is part of a disinformation campaign.

The advantage of lies and other disinformation, is that if you keep repeating it
and it is getting out to audiences of 250,000 to 500,000 at a time, then this is what
people are going to remember. What is important is that the lies are propagated while
the emotion is still running high. The human ability to remember things is very
strongly linked to the emotional intensity of a particular event. Thus we see, when
the breaking news comes in, this is the time to spin the lies and then reinforce these
lies for as long as possible, during the timeframe of say a week or so, when the
memory is being transferred to long term memory.

It doesn't matter, whether a retraction is published later, because hardly anybody
reads them or notices them since they are always small-print /small stories.

By the time you have spent a fortune sueing, the damage has already been done,
people have already made up their minds, and the original lies have had the
effect of changing the course of events and or opinions.

The only chance we have is that there are enough other scandels happening elsewhere
that the people in general lose all trust in the goverenment. The only trouble
is the media pretend they are independent and an awful lot of people still believe
that. So the challenge is to demonstrate this is not so to the wider public.

by Albo Fri Feb 07, 2003 18:30

Isn't it libellious to say that someone committed a crime that they haven't been convicted of? Look out for the word "alledgedly".

If RTE said that they alledgedly assaulted a guard, then they have committed no offense. If however they said that they assaulted a guard, as far as I know, they are guilty of libel.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Feb 07, 2003 19:21

If you look toward the bottom of the thread you'll find that I posted information on how to complain. They _must_ respond to you within a certain period of time and if that's not satisfactory then you complain to the Ombudsman.

This is a REPOST:
RTE policy body chaired by Smurfit Group buddy(!)
by Phuq Hedd Fri, Jan 17 2003, 10:28pm

Well "Devil's avocado" here's the skinny on what RTE should be doing and why their treatment of Tim Hourigan and the anti-war movement was wrong. The "Guidelines for Programmers" is an official RTE policy document that states in the Introduction (pg.4)
"RTE is the national public service broadcaster of Ireland. What does this mean? It means that RTE exists to serve all the public. RTE is "owned" by the public in the sense that its only purpose is to make and broadcast programmes which satisfy the audience.[...] RTE's programme makers have a special responsibility to reflect in a fair and generous manner the interests and values of all the people in Ireland."

More importantly Mr.Devils avocado is the fact that Section of 18 of the 1950 Broadcasting Act (and Section 3 of the 1976 Broadcasting Authority Amendment Act) state in no uncertain terms that RTE is supposed to be fair in its broadcasting policies. This coupled with the Broadcasting Act (2001), which emphasises freedom from political influence, leads us to believe that the Primetime episode in question did not fulfill the high standards that RTE so rightly expects from its broadcasters.

The best way to redress this is to let RTE know about this appalling act of bad faith on the part of the "Primetime" producers. Details on how to do this follow below:

To make a complaint email [email protected]:

If members of the public are of the opinion that a programme or a segment of a programme has breached the Guidelines they are entitled to complain either in writing or by e-mail. Initially the complaint should be addressed directly to the programme or the relevant department if known (e.g. News, Current Affairs, etc.).

RTÉ is committed to replying to all serious complaints within four weeks.

If the person making the complaint is not satisfied with RTÉ's response s/he may seek a review of the original complaint and the response. The review will always be carried out by someone more senior than the person issuing the original reply. The request should be made in writing to:

Complaints Review
c/o the Freedom of Information Office
RTÉ
Donnybrook
Dublin 4

or by e-mail to [email protected]

related link: wwa.rte.ie/about/organisation/index.html

by Phuq Hedd Fri Feb 07, 2003 19:29

[email protected]
also
[email protected]

Keep a copy for your reference.

by in wonder... Fri Feb 07, 2003 19:31

I noticed it before and couldn't figure it out so I guess asking is the best way...

by Frosty Nights Fri Feb 07, 2003 20:21

Mandy has a point - Indymedia have deleted plenty of stuff that didnt go down well with the censorship, sorry 'Editorial' crew. Wasn't there an item about Mary Kellys U-Turn mentioned two days ago. Same was posted on this site and later vanished without trace.

As for complaining to RTE, a pure waste of time. You energies could be better usedin other ways man!

by ollie - Katalyzer Fri Feb 07, 2003 22:40

complaining is not a waste of time - cf RTS...
Also, you're "complaining" about the pointlessness of, let me see now...oh yea "complaining" - so why did you bother...
you defeat your own argument with yourself. Powerful stuff...

by Graham Sat Feb 08, 2003 00:41

The item about Mary Kelly's U-Turn was removed because it wasn't true. If you are interested in contributing to IMC Ireland's editorial policy then why not join the editorial email list (http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland-editorial) and join the discussions. You might also come to the next meeting in the HA'PENNY INN at 12:00 NOON on FEBRUARY 15th.

Imagine how good Indymedia.ie would be if everybody who used it contributed something to it. Why not come along and help contribute to building Indymedia in Ireland?

by to roost Sat Feb 08, 2003 12:11

no censorship - just selective deletion of untrue postings?

There are many postings up at the moment that are substantially untrue. If the editorial policy is selective in regard to what needs to be deleted, then you are effectively applying censorship. I assume you are not under any threat of legal action for libel, given that you only act as a conduit for other people's views?

Invitation to sit on the editorial board doesn't really address the core concern now, does it?

by Donnacha - none Sat Feb 08, 2003 12:23 donnacha at sortedmagazine dot com London

Have you any idea how strict the Irish libel laws are? Every effort must be made to keep Indymedia true. There's a big difference between stating contrasting opinions about actions and trends, but publishing untrue or even simply unsupportable statements about individuals could lead to the end of Indymedia. If someone decided to sue, then the ISP, the editorial board and the poster would be liable and the page would be shut down. It's not in anyone's interest to have Indymedia closed because someone wants to voice some kind of vendetta against an individual.

D.

by Graham Caswell Sat Feb 08, 2003 22:26 caswell at indigo dot ie

You don't seem to get it. 'to roost'. No one is 'inviting' you to join the IMC 'editorial board' because there is no 'editorial board' and nobody can 'invite you'. EVERYBODY who uses Indymedia is entitled to join the editorial collective and discuss their ideas and concerns with the others involved. Not only that, but it could be argued that regular Indymedia users have a responsibility to get involved and not just consume, consume, consume. Add value, don't just use it.

More specifically, if you are aware of items on Indymedia.ie that are factually untrue, and you refuse to contribute to the editorial effort, then surely the least you could do is to send an email to the editorial group giving the details of the inaccuracies with evidence of why they are inaccurate ([email protected], even if you don't want to join the list). Contribute something besides criticism.

ALL expression, including editorial expression, is subjective. However unlike commercial media, Indymedia offers ANYONE the opportunity to become involved and participate. And THAT is what makes it genuinely democratic and genuinely independent.