Talk:The Irish Times

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ireland (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Title[edit]

It is important to leave the 'The' in the newspaper's name, as it itself uses it as part of its full title and name. JTD 23:43 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Under "political position" is it really necessary to include every position ever held by the newspaper during its existence: "originally Protestant Irish nationalist, became Irish Unionist, now left Liberal". What's wrong with specifying its current political outlook, and leaving the rest to the "History" section in the article? --Ryano 10:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Alec Newman (editor) link points to the wrong person. At least, I presume he wasn't also the Scottish actor who played Paul Atreides. Perhaps I am underestimating the man's versatility.
somehow i think the following is incorrect;
'1875 it became the first newspaper to feature a "Page 3 Girl"'
Lol, sadly this policy has been discontinued. I think it can be left out!AleXd (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Irish Times Trust article merge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into The Irish Times. With more content the article can always be re-created later. -- Debate 01:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a merge tag to the Irish Times Trust article, suggesting that it should be merged into the main Irish Times article. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

With this little content, it would fit easily, and I am not clear that the mechanism is distinct enough to be notable for a separate article. However, if someone could expand it enough. Comarison with the Scott Trust - Guardian situation seems a good test. SeoR 09:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


M3 Motorway Controversy[edit]

There's mention of "an independent opinion poll by Red C Market Research for the Sunday Business Post", and then "Both surveys". I don't see the other survey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.203.54.200 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Alleged 2007 bias[edit]

Re: However with regard to the 2007 General Election the paper has come under severe criticism from all quarters[citation needed] for its strigent anti-Fianna Fail stance, with many questionining its abitity to provide balanced journalism. is this, added just a couple of days ago, a valid item for an encyclopedia. "All quarters" seems too sweeping, and I am not aware of any such allegations. I suggest deleted this sentence. Feedback?

The next paragraph seems in need of a little work also. SeoR 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No neutrality[edit]

"The paper is generally perceived as liberal, socialist and neutral on Irish unity, in contrast to the Irish Independent, which is perceived as populist and economically right wing and the pro Fine Gael Irish Examiner."

"As examples of alleged bias, The Irish Times was seen by some as supportive of Mary Robinson's campaign for the presidency of Ireland (a claim the newspaper disputes), and of legal changes to Ireland's divorce, contraception and abortion laws. It also opposed the 2004 referendum on Irish citizenship."

(Where is the citation for this and evidence?)

The Irish Times Trust (1974) mandate is: " ... to publish an independent newspaper primarily concerned with serious issues for the benefit of the community throughout the whole of Ireland, free from any form of personal or party political, commercial, religious, or other sectional control ... " (Irish Times, 150 anniversary supplement magazine, Friday, March 27, 2009)


I recall the last Irish times opinion poll before polling day saying that 54% of people were going to vote yes for the changes to the constitution with the citizenship referendum. 79% of people voted yes. What kind of margin of error is that? They obviously either fiddled the figures or only polled people in areas of the country which they knew were far left-leaning.

The IT, no more than any other paper, does not do surveys itself but commissions them. So any issues with numbers are rather more to do with their agency than the paper. SeoR 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"..becoming a more radical voice in the Irish media.

(Where is the citation for this and evidence?)"

"Today, its most prominent columnists include controversial former Sunday Tribune editor, Vincent Browne... " (Where is the citation for this and evidence?)


The following entire section is biased, and contains no citations:

"M3 Motorway Controversy The paper has been on the receiving end of veiled criticism from Kells Chamber of Commerce and the NRA in December 2004 who both publicly accused the general media of unbalanced reporting in a Meath Chronicle article and in a full page counter argument advertisement respectively. An article search for "M3 Motorway" at Ireland.com returns 327 references showing The Irish Times to be one the most negative sections of the media regarding the route of the M3 motorway in County Meath. Of the 327 results the vast majority of these are opinion pieces and articles critical of the planned road.

The paper has included satirical sketches and editorials (A Wrong Road) against the M3 and in the 8 publishing days from December 28th 2006 to January 6th 2007 ran stories referencing the Save Tara "anti-M3" campaign on 5 of those 8 days.

However, in contrast to the criticism, an independent opinion poll by Red C Market Research for the Sunday Business Post, carried out nationally, showed a big majority in favour of preserving the historical and cultural sancity of the Gabhra Valley by re-routing the motorway.

Both surveys were commissioned by groups with polar opposite views and agendas and so the impartiality of both in regard to what questions were asked is equally questionable, however it is important to note that the 2005 Meath bye-election went ahead at the height of the controversy. Its finding of 71% support for political parties supporting the current route of the motorway is unquestionable as transport was widely reported to be the key issue of the election at the door steps."

Glad this has been raised. Also in other newspaper articles? SeoR 07:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The newspaper is generally perceived as pro-Protestant. It has Protestant roots and features Church of Ireland, Methodist and Presbyterian (but not Roman Catholic) Notes. Apart from the Roman Catholic Pro-Cathedral of St Mary, all the church service times it gives in its Saturday edition are of Protestant cathedrals and churches. It gives a high profile to Church of Ireland prelates and activities in the same way as the Murdoch press favours the Roman Catholic church. And a leader a year or two back referred to the "scandalous" decree of Ne Temere. Millbanks (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


I have changed the text on the Lisbon Treaty as it was completely biased, including accusations of bias on behalf of the paper because it printed the results of opinion polls unfavourable to the No side - opinion polls carried out by reputable organisations, which would not be contradicted by the No campaigners if they reported the result they favour. The Irish Times (in common with any other newspaper, the Independent group in particular) does have an editorial line, but unlike most other Irish newspapers allows opposing opinion pieces to be printed, these have included pieces by Declan Ganley and other prominent No campaigners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.141.242 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Circulation[edit]

The article does not give details of circulation. However, talking to someone who used to work for the Irish Times, he told me that in the last two decades it had made considerable increases, largely amongst Roman Catholic readers: the southern Protestant market was already saturated. Getting sales in the North seems more problematic, even though the newspaper is priced substantially more cheaply there (£1 as opposed to €1-80). Certainly there are not many letters from northern readers. One suspicion is that northern Protestants have reservations about buying a (southern) Irish newspaper, and Roman Catholics in the North still preceive it as Protestant. Millbanks (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganisation of Article[edit]

I think the article needs to be restructured a little. The lead section contains much opinion and unverified claims, rather than summarising the article below. The sentences about promient columnists could be moved down the article. I also doubt whether Miriam Lord merits special mention. Nor would I describe her as a "satirist". The History section also contains material which is relativly recent and merits at least some subsections. The Content section could also be further divided into the main paper and the supplements. Finally there should be a new section including its auxilary business, such as myhome.ie and Irish Times Training, which isn't mentioned.AleXd (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"The Irish Times is the only newspaper in Ireland, and one of only a few worldwide, to be protected in this way."[edit]

The German version was translated from this article and, consequentially, contained this sentence. I deleted it from the German version, since this is not true. There are still examples of newspapers which are still independent and owned by their readers or cowokers, so they can't be sold without their permission, these are die tageszeitung, junge Welt, jungle World (Germany) and Die Wochenzeitung (Switzerland, no English article available yet). Historically it was also the case with Il Messaggero (Italy) and Libération (France). And these are only the examples I know by heart and for Europe. --Marcus Schätzle (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Marcus. It's refreshing to get a view from beyond the anglophone world. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, true indeed! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Irish Times political stance on economics[edit]

This edit was reverted because 89.204.203.159 has a very short history, most of which consists of dubious edits (i.e. the comments about "lazy chestnuts").Autarch (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have twice reverted edits relating to the paper's political stance on economics since they are lacking in support from third party sources. As per WP:Sources, they must be from reliable publications, external to the subject preferably academic books and articles. This is a fundamental principle of wikipedia. The editor who has classified the paper's opinions has cited editorials written in the paper, this means he is the one interpretating the paper's point of view.
The reference for the Kevin Myers story in section 1.4, does not set a precedent. That article is from a seperate publication, and the wikipedia entry does not make judgement (such as the rightness or leftness of the event) it simply reports the fact that the column was not published and its writer was irritated. That sad, the source in question is barely passable, the use of "spiked" for example is unclear. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The reference to the paper being right wing on economic issues should obviously be deleted. In what way is arguing that spending needs to be cut in order to protect our economic sovereignty right wing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.101.227 (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Irish Times Trust: much more info needed[edit]

This article badly, badly needs more information on the Irish Times Trust. Why was it set up/ Why did the owner surrender his ownership for nothing, it seems? How many people are on the Trust? How are they appointed? How often are they appointed? Is there a religious bias in such appointments? How can the Trust influence editorial policy, if at all? What are the benefits of The Irish Times being governed by a Trust rather than by a privately-owned company? What are the pitfalls of the Trust? Could this type of newspaper ownership be a serious alternative to the current abuses of power which are ongoing in O'Reilly and O'Brien-dominated media in Ireland? I realise the last question is not directly linked, but the reason I want to know more about the Irish Times Trust is to see if it could be used in other newspapers to counter the current abuses of power there. 89.101.59.188 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Kate Fitzgerald[edit]

This article needs to mention the role of The Irish Times in this scandal. Editing the final testimony of a now deceased 25-year-old lady, conflicts of interest between its journalists and the employer whom that lady made serious allegations against. It stinks. This morning it published an "apology" not to Kate Fitzgerald for editing (on 28.11.2011) the letter she wrote (published on 9.09.2011) before her death but to The Communications Clinic, where they essentially called Kate Fitzgerald a liar. This is not the last we'll hear about The Irish Times' shameful behaviour here. Fyodor Dostoevsky (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)