guff in the irish press

Paul,

I’m not sure if you are aware of this but Eoin English of the Irish Examiner (a gentleman along with many of his IE colleagues who has frequently taken information and stories from the LADSOCL website and used them – with which the thread contributors have rarely complained regarding) has published an article in todays IE regarding Archiseek. Mr. English has a 1/4 page article related to the comments made by some posters on the LADSOCL thread. It condemns comments made regarding residents of Bishopstown and members of Cork Sustainable Development group – with whom some contributors have apparently made ‘ageist’ comments claiming the ‘OAP residents’ shouldn’t have a voice. Mr. Scully of the Equality Authority (I’ll have to double-check that) has actively encouraged those who feel ‘offended’ by these comments to take legal action against the website.

For some of the comments, if I have made ones that have insulted persons of this category, I wholeheartedly apologise on my behalf. Generally, I (more and more so) have tried to offer more reasonable posts when discussing CAHRA/CSD and An Taisce. In all honesty, I have found myself in complete agreeance with many of the comments made from such perspectives. In many cases supported them. If anyone takes the time to read the posts in detail they will see this. However, it must be stated that the article took a very one sided and out of context perspective. I personally would like to bring a few truths forward and in the open regarding this article and the persons associated – who have much to answer for also.

As of now, and while discussing legal dimensions with appropriate sources and authorities. I for one will no longer be contributing to the Look at the state of Cork, like! forum – at least for the time being, until some sort of new arrangement can be made.

As for comments made by others, I can’t speak on their behalf. I think the forum has been a good contributor to debate regarding development AND architecture in Cork and has certainly generated more awareness at some level.

I would like to thank Paul Clerkin for providing a wonderful service – although I’m sure quite often that the thread drove him up the walls, he has been a most fair and positive webmaster.

I would like to be able to contribute to the forums in the future – as I think there is still much to said and discussed regarding the architecture and progress of Cork city, but for the time being, not in the LADSOCL thread.

Furthermore, if there is anything I can do to aid Archiseek.com in the meantime (whether informational, legal etc) please do not hesitate to ask.

Lexington

@lexington wrote:

Paul,

I’m not sure if you are aware of this but Eoin English of the Irish Examiner (a gentleman along with many of his IE colleagues who has frequently taken information and stories from the LADSOCL website and used them – with which the thread contributors have rarely complained regarding) has published an article in todays IE regarding Archiseek. Mr. English has a 1/4 page article related to the comments made by some posters on the LADSOCL thread. It condemns comments made regarding residents of Bishopstown and members of Cork Sustainable Development group – with whom some contributors have apparently made ‘ageist’ comments claiming the ‘OAP residents’ shouldn’t have a voice. Mr. Scully of the Equality Authority (I’ll have to double-check that) has actively encouraged those who feel ‘offended’ by these comments to take legal action against the website.

As of now, and while discussing legal dimensions with appropriate sources and authorities. I for one will no longer be contributing to the Look at the state of Cork, like! forum – at least for the time being, until some sort of new arrangement can be made. Lexington

Can you post the article?

I would be interested to see it

There is no question that a small fraction of posts on all discussion forums can be outrageous at times, the more offensive posts are generally challenged by other forum members and are rarely sustained by anyone other than the most dogged troll.

It must be a very slow news day when a national broadsheet is reduced to publishing an article based on the internet rantings of some individuals who are very obviously unhinged, do not have the general support of 99% of the members of the forum, have been challenged on their remarks and backed down and due to the lack of support and inability to back their arguments up with any real facts and have then vanished.

Since following these forums, I started in June 2004, I have been nothing but impressed by the standard and depth of the arguments posed.

As a developer based in Cork, the Look at the state of Cork thread has assisted my knowledge of the local market and its activity immensely and in no small part, focussed my company’s future projects design issues. Following on much of the advice, input and commentary made on the forum – my company has 3 projects in the wings that have sought to enhance the standards of architecture for the city and its environs.

I read the article in today’s Irish Examiner by Mr. English and am frankly appalled. Clearly Mr. English is unaware of the individuals who regularly use and contribute to the forum – the article has stained the good name of the thread and of the website and insulted those who positively contribute to its continuation. This is not an ‘expose’ – it is opportunism. I wish to lend my agreeance to the above contributor’s post.

My company intends to make a number of significant development announcements over the coming months in Cork city, county and one midlands project.

Traditionally our relationship with the press has been positive. Mr. English has done his paper and the persons of this city a dis-service. Indeed, let the culprits be responsible. But as commented by the above, their comments fade or are ignored – it does not represent the decency of other contributors.

i think some1 has been itchin to get back at the forum ever since a critique of one of his articles! 😀 hey free speech as long as everyone agrees with it eh? hey shouldnt csd change some of the propaganda on their website too then??? cos if we tidy up they have to do. it makes a nice ‘david & goliiath’ story but the truth is, its no news at all. yes people have to be careful what they say but i think the thread has copped on generally with the exception of about 1 or 2 posts – so they should cop on like.

hey eoin come on and join the discussion! the more the merrier! hey! contribute like youve got enough out of the forums give somethin back! 🙂 and relaxxx!!!

as for the quotes – em, i saw some of ’em, but talk about out of context! was that the sun or the examiner???

anyway keep up the good work lads. dont let the nay sayers put you off good work. and remember, feed your goldfish! i learnt that the hard way on waking up this morning. at first i thought ol’ goldie was just doing a back stroke on the water surface. turns out, he was dead!!!

but on a serious note – this is an opinion forum. part of the problem there is opinion is expressed. now as it is widely read and public, discipline must be exercised so lets not get annoyance get the better of us. it does development in the city no favors and only strengthens the david side of the fence. dont give them the ammunition. its not about developers making millions (although profit has to be made to allow for further development – duh like!) – its about improving quality of life and architecture for all in the long run. that may all sound lawdeedaw but believe it or not its true. so less old people bashing, more community beneficial development and sure at the end of the day, youre all invited to my house for a nice bbq. that includes csd AND eoin english. sure arent we all livin in the same city at the end of the day! hurrah! 🙂

I’ve seen some cheap and nasty journalism in my time (usually though not within the pages of the Irish Examiner) but this mornings article takes the biscuit. Thsi is what is known as a non-story, clearly the journalist has grown tired of lifting stories directly from the site and has sought further ways to use it to fill space.
The language used on this site is in the most part impeccable and the arguments full and informed. What has happened here is that this journalist (or someone else mentioned in the article) has thrawled through the pages and picked out language used by SOME members. This is then taken out of context and used to somehow discredit the whole site.
We can learn a number of things from this incident:
1. Despite the high standards kept by all users of this sight and indeed the webmaster, we must ensure at all times nothing we say can be taken out of context in this way by irresponsible journalists.
2. I personally have been taken aback by the apparently poor editorial process within the Irish Examiner which would allow this article to be published without allowing comment from the owner and operator of this site. The journalist in question should be embarressed with this nasty, ill-informed piece and the way he was used to forward the views of one particular pressure group. His standing as a journalist as well as that of his colleagues has suffered because of this article.

I notice the LATSOC thread has been stalled and another thread opened. I hope this is not as a result of the said article. We should be proud of the depth of debate opened up on that thread and should not leave this incident deter us.

But the lesson has got to be learned about abusing groups of people, some of the discussion in relation to old age pensions and childrens allowance being removed demeans everyone. It has stopped over recent months and the timing of the article surprised me but if the comments weren’t made…….

Would someone post a link to the article on the IE site, if indeed it is contained in their online version? Have trawled through the site unsuccessfully for the last 20 minutes. Can’t find the article – what section is it in?

It is not online. It is contained in their “local news” section- published only in their munster edition.

just managed to read that article.

I’m 58 years old and i’ve been ready de paper for as long as I can remember. I live in Bishopstown as well as fate would have it. and quite genuinely i’ve never read such a cheapshot article. I’m surprised that it has come from a broadsheet like the Cork Examiner.

Ive seen the comments on the forum and most certainly i dont always agree with them. I was supporter of some objections like the one at Dennehys cross Postoffice. But I’ve never seen such a one sided and insulting article not only to the users but the whole site. Its nothing more than an unwarranted attck. Also reading how corksouthwest supporters have been treated on this forum when they have issued their opposition to comments I have always found them to be treated with nothing more than respect. And I’m an occassional supporter of the sustainable group.

I will be writing a letter to the editor please God soon.

i’ll have it in a few minutes and i’ll send it on.

FYI
Inside Cork today also carried the same story.

Bollox I asked to see a copy of this more than 12 hours ago,

I’ve seen a million commercially generated images and all I’m asking for is one scanned image and this proves impossible.

If I was landlord I’d set a deadline before closing a certain free space.

the copy i got didn’t include the article.

Inside Cork is a free newspaper in the Cork City area. The two articles look very similar which would suggest they came from a press release issued by the campaign group mentioned in both reports.

I’ve attached an image of the Irish Examiner article to this post.

<img src="http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/7228/iearticle2dc.th.jpg&quot; border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at http://www.ImageShack.us” />

There appears to be more of the article than is visible in your post.

no, thats the full article, baring the little bit of headline that was cut off.
That is complete and unedited.

The full headline should read:
ANGER OVER ATTACK ON OAPS OVER CITY DEVELOPMENT

Thank you Radioactiveman for posting the article.

What a ridiculous piece. Considering the day that’s in it, the term ‘slow news day’ hardly seems appropriate but is apt nonetheless in this instance.
Three, if not four of those comments are valid opinions, and are in no way ‘vicious attacks’, with just one of these four being mildly offensive.

Granted the three other comments are blatently offensive and completely inappropriate, and should not have been posted referring to a specific group of people.

But the idea that three comments on an internet site – some if not all maybe even made by the same person – become the focus of a newspaper article is ridiculous.
To bring down the name of Archiseek in the process is unfair.

Irish Examiner article. The wording is, for one, inaccurate. Secondly, not to say that it isn’t there, but I genuinely don’t even recall reading some of those comments. In fact, the 1st comment quoted as being on the website belongs to the website http://www.ageaction.ie and was NEVER quoted on Archiseek by any user and any time. It is an utter mistruth. See the quote by CSD representative Mick Murphy in the Inside Cork article proving this – the Irish Examiner article has falsified this information. Also, the 2nd and 3rd comments were made as 1 post by 1 contributor and are NOT seperate user comments – the article portrays these comments as being seperate – thus representative of the other users.

The 2nd last apparent comment was not a post condemning the members of CSD, it was actually a defence against another comment by a prominent Archiseek contributor (who generally doesn’t involve with the thread in question) and who was defending the OAPs. This is another twisted portrayl and is entirely inaccurate and misleading.

I however accept responsibility for the last highlighted point about ‘the local butcher’ as I remember posting that, however it was taken out of context in a discussion about objecting to plans based on their impact in depriving a community of local services and was in NO way related to an attack on the elderly, but the effects of development on community. It has nothing to do with the portrayed description in the Irish Examiner.

In total, of all the comments made apparently by users criticising the elderly, about 2 stand – one with a question mark over it. The remaining quotes would seem to be either falsified, misrepresented and/or misquoted.

Inside Cork article. Paul, Inside Cork is a free local circulation paper now owned by the Galway Independent. Its circulation averages 25,000. Please note that the quoted comments are completely inaccurate and that it claims Archiseek.com did not avail of the opportunity to respond – which is a blatant lie. Katie Mythen’s e-mail address is printed. Her editor is Eddie Lyons at eddie@insidecork.ie

Apologises for the late posting.

This article will attract people to the web site. I don’t understand the panicked response by people to this crappy piece. Why not write to de paper and ask for a right of reply so you can generate more interest in archiseek down south? Then do a feature about architectural needs of older people.

Correct me if I’m wrong but making disparaging remarks about old people is not a crime. It wouldn’t fall under equality legislation or incitement to hatred.

Archiseek has readers and contributors and then there are people who have never heard of it. The readers and contributors make up their own minds about the quality of the site.

i’d politely suggest we don’t discuss this topic further until the owners of the site make a decision on how they intend to deal with the matter.

At the risk of dragging this out and giving the publication and reporter involved added publicity, a further piece appeared in todays Irish Examiner basically repeating the same allegations. Again they suggest that a spokesperson for this website declined to comment.

Radioactiveman have you a scan of that article? I’m out of the country at the moment. They are riding it now – thats most unfair and harassment.

What do the webmaster(s) think of the articles???

If the CSD are the source shouldnt we be directing ay rebuttal efforts toward them also???? :confused:

Unfortunately I wont be able to upload a copy of this second article due to prior commitments. Perhaps someone else could oblige.
It is basically the same article with a suggestion that the LADSOCL thread was shut down due to yesterdays article. Quotes from members of aforementioned pressure group welcoming the ‘shutdown’ and there are also extensive quotes from Lexington’s posting on THIS thread.
It does try to row back by mentioning that the ‘offensive’ postings were made by a minority of users.

Am curious what problem people have with that article.
If the site wasn’t asked for its side of the story, then the article is unbalanced.
But Age Action Ireland might take the view that what’s on the website is already a publication, so the article is their own right to reply. I can’t see how anyone would be surprised that OAPs would be offended at ‘take their pensions off them’ jibes.
That said, I doubt they called the paper with this story – I think the Examiner is basically shit-stirring and is probably delighted at the response here.

Are the quotes attributed to the site accurate? If not, then the site has been misrepresented, and that’s a different matter and should be followed up.

@AndrewP wrote:

Am curious what problem people have with that article.
If the site wasn’t asked for its side of the story, then the article is unbalanced.
But Age Action Ireland might take the view that what’s on the website is already a publication, so the article is their own right to reply. I can’t see how anyone would be surprised that OAPs would be offended at ‘take their pensions off them’ jibes.
That said, I doubt they called the paper with this story – I think the Examiner is basically shit-stirring and is probably delighted at the response here.

Are the quotes attributed to the site accurate? If not, then the site has been misrepresented, and that’s a different matter and should be followed up.

@AndrewP wrote:

Am curious what problem people have with that article.
If the site wasn’t asked for its side of the story, then the article is unbalanced.
But Age Action Ireland might take the view that what’s on the website is already a publication, so the article is their own right to reply. I can’t see how anyone would be surprised that OAPs would be offended at ‘take their pensions off them’ jibes.
That said, I doubt they called the paper with this story – I think the Examiner is basically shit-stirring and is probably delighted at the response here.

Are the quotes attributed to the site accurate? If not, then the site has been misrepresented, and that’s a different matter and should be followed up.

Just saw that article there Radioactiveman.

AndrewP – indeed 2 of the comments were genuine and that is unfortunate. More regretable however is that many of the other comments were misrepresented, including one which was taken by the Examiner from a quote by Mick murphy of CSD who was himself quoting a phrase on the Age action ireland website that basically said ‘they (the elderly) shouldn’t have a voice regarding the future because they will disappear’. This was not posted on archiseek – see an earlier post outlining the inaccuracies.

Id really like to see this get no more coverage and get back to work on the cork thread (whichever one) and get back to what this place is suppose to be all about. Not this phooey. Why should such a good thing suffer because of about 2 people and a newspaper thingy.??

Ive no more to say on this subject lets get back to work!

Using the structure of taking select phrases from this forum as the author of the article has for his piece, may I suggest (in a complete random order): “Irish Examiner” “slow news day” “shit” “Ian English” “phooey” “mistruth”

Of course these are just random words and phrases but should someone make a sentence out of them that is pure conjecture

Your right to express your opinion on the issues is your utmost entitlement. But I would ask you, to please consider the situation in the context that it does not need to be roused unduly any further. What goes from here, as sw101 suggested should be left to those in charge to deliberate. That’s my final comment on the matter for the time being. A new thread is now active – and I hope it will be positive on all counts.

I agree with ewankennedy ‘s sentiment expressed above – proactive action (for Archiseek, CSD etc etc).

I am merely posting this article for the benefit of those without access to the resepctive publication so that they may keep updated. As I said my comments on this matter are over for the time being and I, for one, am anxious to see the good work continue. Hope it is clear enough – apologises for any poor quality.

Well – if you value archiseek, it is time to step up and defend it.

Sent to: katie@insidecork.com, eddie@insidecork.com, eoin.english@examiner.ie and features@examiner.ie
Subject: Archiseek.com – not for publication
Dear Mr. English, Mr. Hobbs and Ms. Mythen,

It is with no little disquiet I read articles in recent issues of Examiner and Inside Cork relating to archiseek.com.

I am in no way qualified in any form of urban design, merely an interested expatriot who enjoys reading about developments in Cork and Ireland as a whole. Apart from reading and contributing to discussions I have no position of management or material contribution to the Archiseek website.

Interested watchers of any human activity will offer opinions and sometimes they will be over the top to the point of offensiveness. This is the nature of public fora of any sort. It is to the management of archiseek’s credit that the “signal to noise” ratio is actually creditably high compared to other internet forums. Reading the one-sided nature of the articles in question, it must have taken no little effort to seek out the posters who take less care with their words and to so completely ignore the extremely useful information provided by several contributors regarding development in Dublin, Limerick and particularly Cork’s “look at de state of Cork, like”, a discussion thread which at time of writing comprised 1,870 separate contributions alone. Being a subforum about Cork, with the hysteria and the insight comes banter, something that should not have to be explained to Cork newspapers, especially in an era of peoplesrepublicofcork.com or wheresmeculture.com.

While some developers in Cork over the years have made dreadful errors, residents groups have done so too. It is unsurprising that feelings run high. However, we have surely not seen a quantum leap in Irish development since Lemass and this development must be fully debated by the public as we must live with it for the next half century. To oppose an OAP group like CSD must seem like opposing motherhood and apple pie but while they are entitled their opinion, they cannot hold a veto either on planning development or indeed on commentary as to their motivations and the effect their lobbying may have on the progress of Cork development.

Free speech comes with a high cost but it is a cost worth paying compared to than the alternative. A New York Times journalist has just been imprisoned for defending this principle, at a time when Ireland has revisited the Doherty phone taps. If the Irish media take such a dim view of freedom of speech by blithely reprinting pressure group press releases they will find themselves without defenders when Government again seeks to limit press freedom in Ireland.

The publication of these articles and the hysterical responses of certain parties have led to the withdrawal of contributors from the discussion who had provided much light on the often puzzling nature of development and planning in Cork. I encourage you to revisit Archiseek as a normal reader rather than using the Search tool to find quotes to fit the frame you wish to fit on this matter. I also ask that proper facilities for comment be given to the administrators of Archiseek rather than claim they “did not avail of the opportunity” when they themselves were trying to find out what they were being accused of.

Yours faithfully,
Mark Dowling
(address supplied in original)
Toronto, Canada

any response from the examiner yet to mark or paul?

There is no mention from what I can see – but maybe the powers that be have heard different. I seems as though it was a matter of ‘stain and walk-away’. An apology would compromise their reputation in terms of reporting. My problem is, that they have compromised the reputation of this website and that irritates me something un-natural. I would have thought, given the many inaccuracies and mistruths that they solicited, at the very least a printed apology would have been in order. But they seem to be ignoring it.

What bugs me is that they seem to think they have won a victory over the website. I think I set up the CAD thread to allow some form of discussion continue regarding Cork while the powers that be deliberated and while a chance was enabled to go through the thread to see if there was any truth in the article – but they have since proven to be false and misleading. The article which followed in the IE claiming that Archiseek.com had ‘pulled’ the thread in response to their article bugged me – that too was misleading. I would love to re-continue the LADSOCL thread if only to show that they were wrong and that their claims were hollow. New visitors to the site would be able to see that the IE reports were false when viewing the thread still active for themselves – but it has to be one or the other I suppose. Hmmm.

Is Archiseek.com actively seeking an apology themselves might I ask, or is consideration being given to just rising above it and getting on with things? Just curious.

sw101

nothing to me but I don’t care if they do as long as they read and take notice. I do hope they apologise to Paul C though.

i doubt that an apology will be forthcoming.

The Sunday Tribune gives some oxygen to “Architects seek a row with Examiner” in today’s edition, although it’s cost-walled to viewers. It’s extracted here:

http://irish.typepad.com/classroom/2005/07/sunday_tribune__1.html

@Topgold wrote:

The Sunday Tribune gives some oxygen to “Architects seek a row with Examiner” in today’s edition, although it’s cost-walled to viewers. It’s extracted here:

http://irish.typepad.com/classroom/2005/07/sunday_tribune__1.html

The article raises a very valid point that the actual context of the remarks i.e. links to the individual posts wasn’t included in the responses]https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=30460&postcount=860[/url] 26/01/05

Secondly reinforcement of an earlier comment as the above post was made in the context of this post on the 21/01/05

https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=30280&postcount=829

Thirdly this post made on the 14/01/05

https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=30082&postcount=807

What Eoin English didn’t have the analytical ability to understand is that none of the remarks made by particular people and challanged by others were not anti-oap they were anti third-party objector.

I expect an apology as I was never contacted to verify the context of my remark which was deliberatley misrepresented by this journalist and plagerised by another publication.