talking to yourself ah!!

how exactly was he, personally, guitly?

Wait. This was FF’s fault too?!
We weren’t even in the presidential race & we still get blamed for stuff(!)

1. Never said he was guilty of anything – but don’rt let that come between what I’ve actually posted and one’s ability to read what one might just want to see!

2. A number of FF media persons made it clear by their viciousness, they were out to get him – via in print (The Independent was one paper) or by RTE presenters who ought to know better but let their guard down and showed their real character!

Yes you were Paul, trying to get in the backdoor with Gallagher.

“Norris was far from innocent”…”Never said he was guilty”.

Yet people are reading what they want, into what you’re posting?

Okay then.

Christ – does everything have to be spelt out like we have to educate five year olds?
Seriously, do some of ye have any kop on at all?

I said “Norris was far from innocent” – thus indicating that he might have questions to answer (or did) !
I did NOT say he was fully guilty of anything. Have you got that or are ye still going act be belligerent and act stupid?

The level of comprehension – or should I say the lack of it – astounds me daily!

You last post seems to indicate that you believe someone can be slightly innocent or slightly guilty, in the same way that someone can be slightly pregnant.

Your last post seems to indicate that you believe someone can be slightly innocent or slightly guilty, in the same way that someone can be slightly pregnant.

My last post can indicate that no one is entirely snow white in life but can also not be the devil incarnate either – as did my first post.
…If one can take a moment and not rush into hasty incomprehensions!

So you post under 2 names on here then? :-) Sorry, I digress…

ha, stung there mate

For the record, separate computer!

im sure youre a lovely person but thats a retarded answer

well regardless of what work (Biggins31 – for obvious reason) or home personal machine (Unitedpeople Ireland – more personal) I have logged in from, your wish to side track the issue, my point still stands as I have first commented.
Sorry you don’t like it but thats the way reality is.

Here Here! Adam.
Self regulation has been a disaster all around. From the self regulation of the building industry and banking sectors to the appalling standards of reporting in the media which seem to be more directed towards the opinionated pursuit of notoriety than factual and unbiased reporting.
Yes, it is good to see David Norris back to his old self enlightening the Seanad with his wit, passion and aplomb.

whilst self-regulation has certainly not been the best, I’d be a lot more worried if they were government regulated; I don’t want a press that is afraid of the gov

Yes, they should be government regulated Sheila.
Of course that regulation should not equate with censorship or the vilification of investigative journalists who highlight issues of public concern. Regulation should ensure that media is not spreading a message that suits the purpose of the corporate interests that own it rather than the public interest that it is there to serve.
The media has served this country very well over the years but that is being threatened now by corporate influences that have only one thing in mind – the circulation of their publications and the protection of their interests.

Yes, government regulated like that fine example Pravda. You could always be sure of appropriate deference to the powers that be.

Hi John this is the first time I’ve ever disagreed with you ;-)

I recognise what you’re saying and why you’re saying it but unfortunately spreading a message that suits the purpose of the corporate interests is completely applicable to the gov too…….

At the UK Levinson enquiry, it was the one point that everyone agreed on when questioned by Lord Levinson if the UK press should be gov controlled – everyone from ALL sides answered no.

I don’t think we have much at odds here Sheila.
I wasn’t very clear in what I meant. There is a government appointed press commission or press council (estb. 2007) and a press ombudsman who together clearly have not being doing their job, if Mr. Norris is to be believed. It would seem from recent reports that while all the structures are in place (like much more in this country) the regulations have not been enforced. It is clearly the case (like in the building industry) that window dressing forgoes actual regulation and the corporate interests rule the roost.
Regarding window dressing it is interesting to look over the names of the luminaries that make up this body and one would indeed wonder why people like Mr. Norris are so aggrieved with such fine people in charge!
Self regulation took over from a government appointed panel that was not doing it’s job. Tail wagging the dog yet again!

John I’m delighted that we’re back in agreement!!! You’re correct; re: the Press Ombudsman & Commission – mirror image of the Financial regulator – they all seem to have found the comfortable and taken back seat(s)!!!!!

*** they all seem to have taken a back seat(s)!!!!!***

They sadly contribute the ability to make more bills and expenses!

Agreed, the Indo and its drooling Sunday cousin are absolute rags.

NO argument there.
Gutter press!

The government doesn’t need help in that anyway – they are making a laughing stock of themselves quiet easily, daily now!

He isn’t part of the Government, he’s an Independent Senator. And he’s no fool.

He certainly isn’t and he oft times tells the very truths many here clearly don’t want to hear!

No fool Norris. Sure hasn’t he a grand job?

Yes, it should be the law that media should have (opp of disclaimers- ‘proclaimers’?) when they publish or broadcast anything that implies conflict of interest.

I could give very clear and unambiguous examples from personal experience of how some newspapers choose the subject and content of articles to further the ends of contiguous business interests… but would probably be deleted for libel. Nevertheless, when our larger national media are owned by business people with a vested interest in (the very malleable) public opinion being swayed in certain ways, and can produce content without proclaimations, there is a definite abuse of trust going on that is very sinister.

Agreed.. However, that would get in the way of this sort of behaviour…

http://en.www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_manipulation

Not that this would be a bad thing, but something tells me that those who indulge in this behaviour hold a tad too much sway..

What Sun debacle?

Ooops sorry, notw, same rag, different name. Apologies the sun.

Exactly mr. cassidy. If he had nothing to hide he wouldn’t have ruined his own chances. He has no one to blame but himself.