Metropol

Alexia wrote:John Pilger and Paul Foot are/were investigative journalists. Some local TV bint with a microphone isn't.

So where does Donal MacIntyre fit into that?

Alexia wrote:John Pilger and Paul Foot are/were investigative journalists. Some local TV bint with a microphone isn't.

Could you have produced a more-weak retort than that?

GavBelfast wrote:

Alexia wrote:John Pilger and Paul Foot are/were investigative journalists. Some local TV bint with a microphone isn't.

Could you have produced a more-weak retort than that?

It's the truth.

Alexia wrote:

GavBelfast wrote:

Alexia wrote:John Pilger and Paul Foot are/were investigative journalists. Some local TV bint with a microphone isn't.

Could you have produced a more-weak retort than that?

It's the truth.

So let's sum up your position. If you aren't an "investigative journalist" of a non-defined standard acceptable to you, then you shouldn't ask questions, and leaders of Northern Irish political parties should not be asked difficult questions in case it endangers the peace process.

I'm sure even "investigative journalists" that do come up to the standards you desire would find your views rather odd.

Alexia is redefining EVERYTHING this weekend!

Alexia wrote:

GavBelfast wrote:

Alexia wrote:John Pilger and Paul Foot are/were investigative journalists. Some local TV bint with a microphone isn't.

Could you have produced a more-weak retort than that?

It's the truth.

So, I was wrong. You could produce an even more weak retort than the last one. And you just did.

Forgive me, but you don't come across as someone who would be into investigative journalism at all.

There is a mighty difference between investigative journalism and Sharon O'Neill.

Col wrote:There is a mighty difference between investigative journalism and Sharon O'Neill.

Agreed. But Alexia seems to think it's wrong of her to ask questions. I disagree. She should practice this at every opportunity.

Col wrote:There is a mighty difference between investigative journalism and Sharon O'Neill.

Some might argue it is quite brave of a reporter to ask difficult questions of Gerry Adams (though possibly less so now the private army has gone). Sharon O'Neill isn't particularly my cup of tea either, by the way, but that's not really here nor there.


A more generally moot point is that too many "politicians" have been indulged for too long, to the extent that they regard themselves as practically untouchable. Remember Paisley/ McGuinness and their "stupid questions" charge? Even now, Peter Robinson does not seem to be comfortable unless the News Letter is asking the questions, equally Adams unless it's An Phoblacht.

The more reporters / journalists grow a pair, the better. They should be encouraged to do so, not be condemned for it. Without them, there's little way out of this political slum.

It is her job indeed, but from what I've seen of her work (which I try to keep to a minimum), whoever O'Neill interviews, she comes across as smug and insincere to the point of near contempt to her subject; Adams, as illustrated, or in particular the members of the public included in the more didactic of her reports.

And yes, my opinion is tainted by the personal resentment at how screwed up UTV's newsroom has become that long-serving, capable and well respected staff found themselves taking voluntary redundancy while she and other non-entity, ephemeral females* were handed contracts.

*Before I get labelled as sexist or misogynist, please just watch any UTV News bulletin (at your peril) to draw your own conclusions.

I apologise if I've confused anyone here.

Firstly, GavBelfast brought up the whole notion of investigative journalism; I merely retorted with my opinion that Sharon O'Neill, based on her performance in that clip, does not come up to the standard expected of one. She may be a local TV news reporter, but that's about it.

Furthermore I didn't say it was wrong of her to ask questions, far from it, but my opinion is it is wrong of her to repeatedly harangue someone with loaded questions when the man in question has already given a clear answer to an allegation. It came across like she was the one doing the accusing rather than the author of the book. In effect she briefly became a mouthpiece of the book's author. She'd be better off cross-referencing the sources of the book, interviewing other people involved rather than plunging straight in to the lion's den and asking questions which she is clearly not going to get the answer she desires. She is quite literally wasting her time.

It's very clear that the political system in NI is fragile at best. And while I don't disagree with keeping our (or your) political masters in check, I do think that in order to make this peace process work, certain truths must, like a sleeping dog, be left alone for now rather than poked with a stick. One day Gerry Adams will retire from front line politics. I don't deny he must answer for any crimes, and in my (quite possibly fantastically idealistic) opinion now isn't the right time. But you can't have your cake and eat it too - Martin McGuinness sits in power and has been accused of far worse things than Adams. It all seems illogical to me.

Also in answer to Marksi - yes I have certain standards for investigative journalism. As an avid Private Eye reader, I believe in the immense power of investigative journalism to be a power for good. That means getting facts, testimonies, witnesses, the whole shebang. Not shouting down an elected representative after he has already given up his time for you. The whole thing stunk of tv sensationalism, nothing more.

Again, apologies for any confusion or offence I may have caused. I do have conflicting opinions about things, and my views are sometimes distorted by my own senses and feelings. I do not profess to know anything and everything about NI, nor do I want to. No offence to our Ulstermen friends here, but I'm thankful that I wasn't born there, I'm thankful I'm not religious, and I'm thankful that I'm now growing up in a Britain not threatened by IRA bombs.

M