The journalism students at UL produced a newspaper which was mostly very good, apart from one derivative, cliché-filled piece of fluff, which would be unsuitable for a free local rag, and which I commented on. It was a non-news story about the “tide of vice” overwhelming Limerick city, and I expressed the opinion that it was a load of shite, which it was.
The young men responsible for this piece of nonsense don’t brook opposition easily and saw fit to delete all critical comments. Very unprofessional. As you probably know, I operate a comments policy here which will get some comments deleted, but never for criticising me. The boys, however, don’t like to be questioned, though I don’t know why. Maybe they never heard the word NO as they grew up and maybe they’re all the poorer for it.
This is the journalistic equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and shouting I Can’t Hear You.
If this sort of immaturity is the future of Irish journalism, where are we going?
These young lads didn’t even possess the maturity to accept valid criticism. Is it any wonder people ask what point there is to a degree course in journalism? Pampered, juvenile, overbearing youths shouting down their opponents will not make effective journalists, though they might serve as footsoldiers for the Sun or the Daily Mail.
This incident is very depressing and doesn’t inspire confidence in the future of journalism. When inexperienced, unformed youths think themselves superior to grown adults, where are we going?
I notice they deleted the pingback from this post as well. Less and less impressive. These boys are clearly destined for the red-tops. (Or the free sheets. I haven’t quite decided yet).
I posted another question, asking what the statutory role of city councillors is in policing. If they delete that, you can draw your own conclusions about their integrity. They should bear in mind that many people are watching what they do next, and not all those people are fellow students. Before deleting it they should take careful note of the fact that others have acknowledged its existence. Now, what they have to ask themselves is this: who gave a thumbs up to this comment?
It might be somebody who fits into their game-plan or it might not. Research required. Another first.
Before deleting it, choose wisely, Grasshopper.
Just received this email from somebody called Rowan Gallagher:
Apologies for what just happened – I blocked you from my personal Facebook page which in turn deleted the comments on the website. It was unintended – Here is the comment I wrote before realising what had happened – I subsequently deleted my own comment as it was irrelevant without a visible dialogue.
Please keep on the subject matter of the story – any administrative questions should be directed towards the online editor. (Contactable through the contacts tab) Posts not relating to the story or of a personal/vindictive nature will be deleted as seen fit by the editorial staff. Linking external websites that the editorial staff deems as advertising or spam will also be deleted on a case by case basis. The comment procedure is being reviewed at the moment and comment segment on the website may be subject to deletion entirely.
Thanks. I’ll publish this email in my original post.
I don’t know why you’d block me. You flatter yourself that I’d consider your Facebook page important enough to read.
I never heard of Rowan but he obviously thinks he’s somebody to be reckoned with.
Anyway, he has now broadcast his hubris to an audience he might not be entirely comfortable addressing. You’d be surprised who dips in here from time to time.
But wait. I’m just some fool with a website. Why not block the real movers and shakers? I hear Vladimir Putin does little else but read Rowan’s Facebook page, Block him.
Obama, the Dalai Lama and Nama. Out!
Elvis, just in case. Oh, and Bono.
That should cover it for now, but one mystery remains: since a character called Craig Hughes wrote the drivel I refer to, what on earth gave Rowan the idea that I’d be looking at his Facebook page?
Strange. Still, I suppose you can’t be too careful when you’re a big-time editor.
Cityvoice has taken down the silly article, which raises the question: was that because someone realised what poor work it was, or because someone didn’t want any more criticism of it?
Which in turn leads to another string of questions: which students have administrative rights on the site? How did they acquire them? Who removed my earlier comments critical of the article? Do some students have more influence than others?
If so, why?
Why would an article be taken down without explanation? I’d never do that. More evidence of inexperience.
I ask myself what the reasons might be.
Was it defamatory?
Was it inaccurate?
Certainly not, since it contained no facts.
That leaves only one option: it was shit and its author realised it was indefensible. Perhaps, but that’s not the end of the story. Once your piece is accepted and published, you really shouldn’t have any say in what happens after that, so who decided it was shit? Did the entire editorial team have a say in this removal, or did Craig get special privileges?
And if he did get special privileges, who gave him such rights, over and above his fellow students?
Curiouser and curiouser.