It was only a few months ago the Irish Times culture editor Hugh Linehan was blaming readers for fake news and now they paper can’t even be bothered to check pieces.
Hopefully the examiner also owned by the
Irish Times actually works for the money.

25 comments

  1. Mix it up, stir it round, then throw it on the ground, when it lands with a splat, you’ll know what you’ve found.

  2. The writer’s argument raises a fair point regarding the decline in trust in the media. They suggest that the media’s own flaws may not be the sole reason for this decline, but rather the toxic state of politics, particularly the portrayal of the media as an enemy by figures like Trump. In Ireland, the media landscape is relatively neutral, with less sensationalism compared to outlets like Fox or CNN. Irish media prioritizes accuracy and is not driven solely by viewership. It provides a more balanced and objective approach to reporting. Additionally, the article highlights that aiming for far-right or far-left positions on an individual level may not be beneficial. Instead, seeking a more nuanced and moderate perspective can lead to a better understanding of complex issues and avoid the pitfalls of extreme ideologies.

  3. I don’t really think there’s much of a link between Linehan’s piece and this blunder by the Irish Times.

    Linehan was, for the most part, correct. Politics is becoming increasingly divisive and lots of people only want to read and listen to things which they find agreeable or which reinforce their line of thinking. This is the case on both sides of the spectrum.

    This opinion piece online a few days ago is not classed as news, so I don’t see how it has any relevance to a discussion on “fake news”. It was a big mistake by the Irish Times for sure, and a warning of how easy it is for bad actors can get their viewpoint published on respected sites, so I hope it’s something they learn from.

  5. They’re right about the Tv spreading lies. They tried to spread the rumour that Protestants aren’t an urban legend and actually exist in Ireland. Fucking ludacris.

  9. Trust is gone for me with MSM. No questioning of vaccine manufacturers being liability free or no pieces on association of being overweight/ obese on outcomes with covid yet strung along the government narrative without question. They have pieces like this fake tan shite that are “controversial” but doesn’t really question more important things

  10. People can’t differentiate between opinion pieces and actual news pieces anymore these days.

  12. I fucking called it as soon as I saw that headshot. The eyes don’t even align, how the fuck did this get past anyone?

  18. Hold on, they get paid for submitting garbage pieces? Know how I’m making some extra cash in the next few weeks.

  19. In the US, most people don’t trust the media because they have a conflict of interest due to “donations” by corporations. Fox is funded by the oil companies, CNN is funded by the pharmaceutical companies, and the way they report shows it.

  20. They will spin this as the IT being duped by the evil of AI. But the real story is that they have an editor who thinks a story about fake tan being ‘problematic, or ‘appropriation’ is suitable for a serious newspaper.

    I’d forgive them for the AI part of the story, the other part is unforgivable. They need to sack the editors and go back to base on the culture – no more culture war nonsense.

  21. Click on that link and it has a paywall, they don’t understand the internet at all it’s hilarious

  22. Media has become decentralised.

    Writers who are any good are producing their own work on their own sites or third party sites.

    The only people who end up working in traditional media have failed at going it alone or are too afraid to back their own work.

  23. I’m a bit late to this story. Can anyone explain how this happened? Did the Irish Times publish an opinion piece by someone who was using a fake identity? I’m seeing stuff about the writer’s image being AI generated. How would this person have duped the Irish Times that they were a real journalist/columnist?

  24. Some things are taken for granted that hopefully I can point out. First, it’s not actually possible for media to be completely objective, neither is it for any human being, whether writing the articles or reading them. That’s something not enough people understand, it’s a very deep and unfortunate philosophical reality. You either wrestle with it until you understand it and it doesn’t bother you as much, or you disregard it at your peril, believing your own perspective and whatever your preferred perspectives are the purest interpretations of truth. Expecting absolute objective truth from the media, or really anything, is itself a falsehood too many have come to expect. It’s not that truth doesn’t exist or can’t be reasonably obtained or pursued, but that it is forever beyond the veil of subjectivity, and often comes faceted and complex. This isn’t exactly anyone’s fault, it just is, especially when it comes to information. Getting versed in philosophy and relaxing a bit can go a long way to ease these pains.

    Second, the supposed glory days of media, as much as it might be true that it was a relative golden age of consensus, was itself an aberration of bias in the media and the public. At least in the US, prior to the 70s, the news was mostly so relatively objective compared generally to today, that no one really paid attention or cared anyway. They began to be disregarded as talking heads. No one wanted to hear the dry reported deaths of the Vietnam War, as it was an insult to the equally righteous causes of continuing or ceasing the war. It’s amazing going back and looking at old news footage of people often sanely an amicably discussing these divisions about that war. The US public in particular diverged in that time and it’s never come back to consensus, but these divisions has deeper roots in the Cold War, and going far back enough, they go back to the greet revolutions; the Reformations; and even back to antiquity. These heady ideals and appeals to truth and objectivity themselves root in human nature and nature itself. You run a relatively simple quantum experiment and reality itself isn’t being forthcoming about itself, and you are forced to deal with that (or not) as an observer.

    I apologize for not being more knowledgeable about Irish media, politics, and history, but that’s why I am here, to learn more.

    Ironically, it seems in these comments there’s somewhat of a majority consensus that the media, or this article, or its publisher are false. Which, I’m sorry to point out, highlights in an unexpected way that the article has some truth. I’d like to point out that the article itself is mostly quotations of someone interviewed in another article, with some citations to books and polls, all pointing to this real and perceived consensus that trust in the media has declined. For that, for those bits that are objective, and that are simply citing the interviewed person’s quotes, are unfortunately not wrong. The article maybe could have used a better headline, as it is itself divisive and almost gaslighting and baiting, but if the headline had been more objective, there might have been less chance for a thread about it and therefore no discussion. It’s paradoxical, but the article has done its, which is to direct eyeballs to a link that plasters you with ads. Which leads us to the next inevitable point.

    Money and media, corporate interests, political interests, public in the politicians, and private in every mind. Yes, it’s all there, the money, and every participant. But this is nigh unavoidable, especially in a profit driven sense, but also in a sense that at the end of the day you have to think something and therefore for yourself, even if you don’t care to think about it. There has to be bias. Even in seeking truth and objectivity there must be bias. Because the truth is rarely so straight forward and obvious as to be directly conveyed and beamed into our heads.

    I don’t think there’s much that can be done about it, except where it lay in personal responsibility to do ones best as an individual to pursue truth. If more people did that, maybe we could revisit the age of consensus and there would be less divisions in our societies that would be exploited by corporate and political interests. The living generation of the 60s and 70s answered it in their own way, they either “tuned in or checked out.” Nixon – like so many other figures – was villainized and lionized. Then all the news trimmings and archives, those are all for history to reflect on and digest. They might have gotten some things wrong then, as we may have inherited and could still have wrong today, or be wrong in our own way; or maybe some things were right, and we can be right too.

    There will be divergences and divisions about that, which are inevitable. The internet was supposed to save us, but that turned out to be tech utopism. It was still believed that truth was absolute and immutable and that human beings could arbitrate it and consume it directly in a more or less democratic way. It’s not and it probably never will be, and we therefore might not even ever know. Maybe someday we’ll all be wired into Elon’s inventions and turn a dime for him as we calculate a human quantum consensus, and the hive mind is perpetually split into two main groups and myriad others, doing the exact thing we are doing now and probably have always done, just faster.

    Anyway, I hope this all helps, or maybe it worsens everything. I’ll have no way of really knowing, as it will be subject to subjectivity and is subject to my own as well. All I can do is my best to share what glimmers of insights I have on it all, which to varying degrees, is what we are all doing as nodes in the precursor to Elon’s neural network haha. All I can really offer is that everyone should lighten up a bit. Because what a joke it all is.

    Have a good evening. Good night Ireland, good night America. May peace be among us and find us all in our time.

Leave a Reply