Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
FINE GAEL TD Noel Rock has criticised an idea from Fianna Fáil which would see the establishment of a fund to aid newspapers in Ireland.
The Dublin deputy said that there should be no preferential treatment in Irish media in response to Timmy Dooley’s proposal to establish a so-called Print Journalism Unit, within an expanded Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.
The proposal was announced earlier today by Dooley, who is the party’s communications spokesperson, as a means to secure the future of Irish print journalism.
Rock believes that these proposals have not clearly been thought out, specifically referring to changing consumer habits and how more people obtain their news online.
In a statement issued after a press briefing by Dooley, Rock said:
The desire to support quality journalism is laudable, but to only support print journalism is bizarre.
Rock makes reference to the Reuters Institute Digital Report 2018 which found that people rely more on the online version of newspapers as their main source of news (44%) ahead of the print editions (35%) – but this is behind television (56%), social media (53%), and radio (45%).
It pointed out that the decline of print newspapers continues, falling from 40% in 2017 to 35% in 2018.
The same report found that among online brands, TheJournal.ie is the most popular (34%), followed by RTÉ News Online (33%) and Irish Independent Online (30%).
“Quality journalism provided only in an online context would be excluded entirely under these proposals. Is that fair use of public funds? What about independent broadcasters and online websites who offer the country and their communities good journalism? Why exclude them?” Rock continued.
The motivation behind these proposals may be good but we are left with far more questions than answers. Whatever initiatives are taken in relation to the media need to reflect modern realities and be future-proofed.
Under Fianna Fáil’s proposal, the remit of the proposed unit would be to disperse grant aid to support newspaper publishers in providing public service content and to deliver schemes to support the work of print journalists at both national and local level.
According to Dooley, the proposals will “secure the future of quality print journalism in the country for generations to come”.
“Many print newspapers see their work being shared widely and freely on digital platforms. They receive no payment for this content, and this needs fixing.
Newspaper journalists research and fact check – this costs money. Those reusing their work must pay for that, otherwise, we risk seeing newspapers go bust.
Dooley has proposed that 6% of the digital advertising levy could be imposed on all digital advertising sales in Ireland, a market which was estimated to be worth around €500 million in 2018, yielding around €30 million.
“This levy would ensure that the success of online platform does not come at the cost of independent public interest journalism,” Dooley said.
Reacting to Dooley’s announcement, Susan Daly, Editor of TheJournal.ie, welcomed any move towards supporting for quality journalism but said the Fianna Fáil proposals are ”myopic and unsustainable”.
“Public service content is not the sole responsibility or remit of the state broadcaster and a handful of print publications, nor should it be,” she said.
“All reputable media organisations in Ireland are keenly aware of the challenges faced by shrinking advertising revenues and the proliferation of disinformation on numerous platforms. However, Deputy Dooley’s assertion that ‘newspaper journalists research and fact check – this costs money’ is archaic and exclusionary.
“As the sole IFCN-verified (International FactChecking Network) news outlet in Ireland, the online-only TheJournal.ie is only too aware of the cost of providing such a public service.”
Daly said that proposing to extend funds exclusively to organisations with a print arm would create an anti-competitive environment in an industry where the content of every large print publication is also carried on its digital platform.
“To suggest funding such grants through a levy on digital advertising is baffling, to say the least. This would have the potential to not only represent a double penalty on quality digital news outlets, stifling growth and strangling innovation, but it would also damage the new business models of those very print-origins organisations who is proposing to support,” Daly said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Sure give them a house there!
@DL_8_5: Yeah. At least they’ll have proper shelter in prison haha.
@DL_8_5: You will have to wait a few hours maybe till 10 or 11 am before you get counter arguments from the “everyone in the audience gets a free house brigade” or the its the “governments/bankers/tax payers fault crew” as it was dole day yesterday so they had to put in a long day in at the bookies or pub.
@Jonathan Whelan: Ohhhhhh that’s gonna BURN. Well said
@Jonathan Whelan: Stereotyping much?
@Andrew Giles: hmm I’d say its more stastical analysis than sterotyping!
@Jonathan Whelan: you’ve obviously never had the displeasure of being unemployed and on the dole then, trust me, you’re stereotyping.
@Jonathan Whelan: What are you talking about Johnny boy, did you not hear we are back to full employment. If you don’t believe me ask Leo.
Ps I get a half day today
@Derek Poutch: ha ha good man good to see some light hearted comments!
@Andrew Giles: awww no I actually have been, was on a project 9 years ago and they were laying lads off. I put my name forward as the rest of the lads had mortgages and one had a baby on the way. Was nothing going work wise so diversified and went out trawling to make a quid! All about drive n attitude!
Why suspend part of a sentence for a man with 67 convictions? Mind boggling.
@Dj: I think the idea of suspending part of a sentence is , that you have to abide by probation rules and can be monitored , and that if you let slip , you have to finish out your sentence .
So in a way , it’s keeping tabs on you when you get out .
@Ken Hayden: Fair enough but someone who has dozens of convictions has obviously proved to be a high risk repeat offender so why not just give him the full sentence and put him on probation when he gets out.
@Dj: Am no legal expert , but I would imagine the probation part would have to be included in your sentence , hence the suspended part .
Maybe someone knows the law and can post .
I hope we never get to the 3 strikes rule , but some people obviously consider the rule of law a joke , when they can commit 67 crimes and not be jailed .
@Ken Hayden: they cant be keeping tabs on him if he had a string of convictions!!! And i highly doubt they will now…
@Ken Hayden: I’m no legal w pert either but isn’t privation different Dron suspending part of your set sentence? The for is decided by the judge at sentencing time, when the latter is more to do with prisons letting you out early in a monitored way?
“snuck”. Fabulous. The standard term for the past tense of the word “sneak” is “sneaked”. “Snuck” is informal and really has no place in professional journalism.
@Maria Hickey-Fagan:
“snuck” is a recognised word but more commonly used in North American english:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/is-snuck-a-real-word
@Maria Hickey-Fagan:
Journal.ie ran a story the other day about broadband in Ireland with the phrase “in shite” used in the headline,I kid you not!
‘Mannerly Burglaries’. Love it!
Homeless men with an address at…
Sure they have a roof over their heads now and food everyday.
Well when your government won’t take care of you what do you expect to happen?
How about they take care of themselves
@Cameron O’Toole: Yes Talbot should be doing a life sentence. After 67 convictions its clear he will be nothing other than a criminal. The government has failed the people of Ireland.
As for your comment. It is not upto the government to house every junkie in the country. The government do not have to take care of people. Most of us take care of ourselves. The government didnt put the syringe into these men
@Cathal: They were until the Guards got involved :-)
@Cameron O’Toole: the government has never looked after me and im not living on the streets or on drugs or go around commiting crime… i look after myself!! And why should the government look after them??
Probably the only time in their lives these two guys will ever wear high-vis jackets.
Homeless, great tag line,
Two ##### bags more like it
At least they’ll get better treatment in prison. A warm bed and food, maybe a chance at rehabilitation that could lead to education and getting them off the streets, and people in prison won’t ignore them and pretend they are not there.
@Liberal Larry: Ya, it’s society’s fault that one of these men decided to leave school at 12 and go on to lead a life of crime. Instead of ignoring these criminal drug addicts society should have embraced them. How many criminals are you friends with Larry?
@Liberal Larry: yes Larry it’s the Governments fault, numbnuts
67 convictions? Where is the social equality when normal people struggling to make ends meet dont pay the likes of a tv licence and get jail ? Anything over 20 convictions automatic maximum jail term applicable for each particular crime. If working people pay more tax for the more they earn, like wise career criminals should have to pay more time in jail for the increasing number of convictions. Also in respect to free legal aid for criminal cases, guilty verdict = defendant liabile for legal costs. Garnish there future dole to recoup.
If homeless how come they gave addresses of where they lived
Why the big ‘homeless’ in the heading. Cheap shot headline.
If they have addresses how are they homeless?
How dare they. The cheek of them coming over here to our country and taking our women….and phones……oh wait!!@
Shame they didnt put as much effort into hetting a job
Snuck?
Does anyone ever serve the suspended part of these sentences? People seem to be serial offenders but I have never heard of time being added to convictions because they had reoffended after a previous suspended sentence. Can anyone shed light on this?
Lock them up and throw away the “glide”
have your say