If even half of the same media time had been devoted to the other issues to be balloted, which will have a much greater effect on our lives and society, we would be better armed going to the polls.

I would urge undecided and/or apathetic voters to spend the remaining few days examining the real issues, and less time on presidential red herrings.

its been like a bad episode of the x factor

if we scrutinized their policys as much as their past we have a much better idea of who would be best for the job. Ive learnt very little from the media about what any of the candidates would do if elected and theres been no scrutiny to see if theyre policys would actually work

I am probably going to come under attack now, but I’m just wondering if the way the poll question is posed is a little leading? Of course anyone running for office should be scrutinised, and most people when asked that would say yes, they should be. No one wants anyone to just wander into the highest office in the country without their character and suitability for the office being thoroughly scrutinised and assessed.

The poll assumes that we feel the media has adequately scrutinised anyone at all. All that has happened is the media have dragged up (sometimes completely irrelevant) incidents from candidates’ pasts and asked stupid questions over and over again about these incidents even after the question has been answered. There is a big difference between scrutinising and downright sensationalism. They could have tried asking real relevant questions about their opinions, characters, qualifications and visions.

And before anyone wants to put my comments down to hurt feelings because I support Norris or someone else that some may feel have been treated unfairly, I am a Michael D woman myself.

Being honest the Media left themselves down big time for the scrutiny they put the Candidates under. Not for the obvious reason, It’s because they allowed themselves be distracted by the Presidential Election so much they haven’t discussed/debated the 2 constitutional Referendums nearly enough.

The Presidential Election is an xfactor style Ego trip for 7 candidates that affect only the future of the winning candidate. The Referendums affect the entire State and it’s Citizens.

The candidates haven’t really been scrutinised though, have they?
They’ve been profiled and muckraked allright, but if they’d been scrutinised, we’d have seen *someone* ask them in one of these debates, what they think of the constitutional referendums happening on the same day as their election, and what they’d like to see coming out of the constitutional convention next year.
Instead, nothing.
I understand Gavin Reilly’s asked the question independently and heard back from less than half the field, but from RTE or the “official” debates, not a peep…

Voted yes.
That being said however, I would’ve preferred equal scrutiny for all candidates; Michael D Higgins got a fierce easy time of it from the media…

The real problem was, some were more scrutinized than others, while others got away with softball questions (Gay Mitchell’s association with the Christian right in particular).

It seems to be fashionable to give everyone a hard time “Jeremy Paxman” style. Those in the media are out to make a name for themselves and lose sight of the fact that they are supposed to be professional journalists … not sensationalist hacks. What chance would a genuinely decent presidential candidate have anyway, this shower are the only ones who have the nerve to give it a go … who would want the job anyway, after seeing the trial by fire they have to go through?

The candidates haven’t been scrutinized. Some of them have faced some gutter journalism from media empires with their own personal agenda. That’s not scrutiny.

The US media right would be embarrassed.

Miriam o’c really let herself down with the attack on MmcG. Im not a fan of either but thats not how you conduct a debate. She just looked like a very bitter lady!

Yes, but there should have been more focus on actual presidential issues, not the flippant personalities, or lack thereof (not mentioning any Fine Gael candidates), of the nominees. If that perspective had been used, media scrutiny would have practically been a public service!

McGuinness and Norris have been subjected a sustained witch hunt. In the case of McGuinness, astonishing displays of hypocrisy were on show. Fine as Deputy First Minister in the North, great job Martin, pat on the back and so forth, but the establishment decided that a different ethical standard, a lower one, applied over the border. The result was quasi-hysterical attacks on his character, and a determination to ignore his achievements. Norris for different reasons angered the establishment and was met with the kind of political wrath once reserved for medieval lepers. Yes, he showed poor judgement, he was never allowed forget it, but he was never allowed to ‘unshow’ it. That was too inconvenient. All the other candidates have had their lives and bank accounts in some cases raked over. Higgins and Mitchell were not subjected to what the media defines as legitimate scrutiny. Mitchell’s campaign was so hopeless from day one that if he hadn’t been so strident, he would have garnered pity. Higgins has been anointed by the media and professional elites as their man. His constant trumpeting of how university educated he is, the countries he has been in,the big noises he met and the books he has written, suggested smugness and must have made many ordinary electors feel like intellectual pygmies. Over all the campaign has unfolded like a prolonged badly choreographed ‘reality show’, an unwelcome from the real problems facing the country.

I am am still at logger heads on this ,but am swayed towards towards Michael D Higgins .I like his ideas and he is a very well educated man in the heritage etc ;of our country .

Baldy Bertie(Gallagher) has it in the bag – he played a great PR game with the media. Who is his PR agent?
He has so much in common with the real Bertie it is uncanny.
He got a fortune from the state agencies even up to last year – a total of 795,000 Euro over the years and still threatened to sue them for libal.
At the same time he expects us to believe he survives on wages last year of 230 Euro per week.
Come back the real Bertie as the lies are not as hard to swollow.

The line was crossed with enquiries into the health of certain candidates and in particular the barely concealed ageism directed towards Michael D Higgins. There does appear to have been orchestrated campaign’s against each of the independents as well as towards Martin McGuinness but I think this may have only confirmed rather than swayed the opinions of the electorate.

The way some of the candidates were treated was abysmal. Considering one of them will be Uachtarán na hÉireann in a couple of weeks, it is just appalling that the media was allowed to treat them with such disdain and embarrassment.

A proper debate should be conducted in an unbiased fashion. Miriam O’C came across as vindictive towards MmcG. I do not agree with him as a candidate myself, with the tension that seems to be stirring up north, I think it is the wrong time for MmcG as a candidate.
Many of the candidates have been dragged through the mud in such a disgusting fashion by the Media which seems to have proved to be led by the government as both party candidates have had the least scrutiny from the media. There is more negativity in the press about the candidates than positivity. Most of the candidates have done great things for this country and barely any of it is being written about. The people of this country are being led on a very negative road. There are so few days left in the campaign, and I think the debates and the media need to start focusing on the good other wise there will be no balance in what is an already unbalanced race.

Anybody with their hand (s) in my pocket would need to be scrutinized..

At least mcguinness has been exposed for what he really is ! ! !

Think of all the money spend on security by the Irish government over the years on watching policing and attempting to prevent various massacres that were been attempted by the IRA .
The cheek of mcguinness talking about governments wasting money . . .
And him and his cronies being the cause of it !

Go back up north !

The scrutiny was essential. Given the given the nepotism, cronyism, greed, dishonesty, lies etc. that is such a feature of Irish politics it is of absolute importance that the candidates are properly scrutinized. We are electing someone to stand on the international stage and represent our country. The media were right to put the dodgy side of these characters out there so that we can make the right if we can. Lets see…

i think this presidential election has been a complete diseaster for the country.

our last two presidents cannot be matched…but the candidates (bar michael D) seem to have some very dodgy skeletons and the fact political parties nominated and supported them says little for our politicians.

i wish mary raftery had gone up for presidency.

I like michael D and i like the fact he says his wife will also bring alot to the aras. strikes me as balanced, intelligent, experienced and a quiet man of substance.

any man who acknowledges his wife as a true partner gets my vote

One has to distinguish between the private media organisations which are entitled to be biased (as they have been, mostly in favour of MDH) but RTE is a different matter.Letting Senator Norris relaunch his campaign on the Late Late Show was a disgrace. I don’t know why he got another solo run on This Week today? Watch the lot of them pull out all of the stops in the next few days to get Higgins across the finish line.

I have grave issue with the misreporting that has become a feature of some hacks. I do feel that a certain amount of digging is permitted, however accurate journalism is a critical part of a fair and balanced process.

Democracy my ass,the way they treating Martin Mc Guinness is very undemocratic.

It’s funny stuff. Before nominations closed everyone was complaining about how the nomination process wasn’t open enough and anyone should be able to run. The local councils feel the pressure and decide to let every Tom Dick and Harry into the race. The race then turns into a 7-way mudslinging furball of insanity and everyone complains that it’s the meeja’s fault! Perhaps if we had gone down the path of only nominating senior politicians with solid reputations and limited the field to three or four serious candidates we would have had a more dignified election!

Hey Guys Im just sick of it, it won’t matter a jot this time next week, the whole campaign is just a red herring, kept us all from following the real problems of the big wide Europe .

‘It’s a demonstration………………’ should be prefaced by ‘Electing a President of our lovely country is a demonstration of…………’

I agree with so much that appears here. Especially with Alice, and several more. It’s comforting in a negative kind of way – as I’d thought I was alone in my observations re the harshness and aggressiveness of the treatment of the candidates. It struck me as the most horrendous ‘job interview’ and I take my hat off to them all for their staying power. Ireland didn’t need this additional fiasco – we already have a huge one to deal with, and that has reduced our stock globally. It’s a demonstration of our inherent ability to produce a person of good character, charm, warmth, humour, not forgetting intelligence, knowledge and experience. As for the media – look hard enough and you’ll find skeletons. ‘Let he who is without sin……………….’ etc. Their determination to anialate the candidates is shameful, cruel and demeaned the position of President as far as I am concerned. No political candidate has suffered such unfairness. It isn’t the media’s job to appoint a President; somehow they’ve taken on that mantle, and I don’t just mean the newspapers. And why must the candidates stand like naughty schoolchildren whilst being ‘interviewed’??? Talk about disrespect for their guests..