Kevin Myers-Good Journalist or 'Person of Questionalbe Origin'?

Surprised nobody has put this up until now (maybe its hidden away in another thread I can't find). I am sure everyone has by now read about and developed opinions on Kevin Myers controversial article in the times concerning children born out of wedlock...or bas tards as he liked to call them at least 50 times during his column.

Myers made a lot of very salient, valid points in the article, particularly about how the social welfare system gets abused by single parents etc...but I found his (and his newspapers decision to print them)opinions quite startling and shocking to say the least. Myers is, in my opinion, suffering withdrawal symptoms from not being in the limelight, and probably wanted to stir up a bit of controversy 'a la Dunphy'.

I see today he apologised unreservedly for his comments. But the damage is done, and the net effect achieved. Despicable use of journalistic priviliege I think.. :mad: :mad:

His articles always use controversial language, I don't like it but that's his style. He went way over the top the other day though.

His apology today in contrast was excellently written, I thought. He seemed very genuine in his apology for his use of language but refused to apologise for his opinions.

1. Myers is not a "journalist" in the commonly accepted meaning of the word. He is someone who is given space to rant, fume and spew his bile. Take away the insults, name calling and hectoring and you are left with NOTHING of any substance or validity.

2. He does not make "salient, valid points" about anything. He does little or no research, is quite often spectacularly wrong on facts, and he has little feel or understanding of any of the subjects he pontificates on.

3. His "analysis" of topics is less sophisticated than your average cranky taxi driver.

4. His pieces are reactionary polemics.

5. He is a complete misogynist who hankers for the days of the British Empire, and thinks all young men who come from a lower "class" than he should be all sent off to be killed at the front for the greater glory of his version of "freedom".

6. His articles EVERYDAY are little bits of reactionary nonsense. There was nothing in that piece that he does not do every week.

7. Himself, Steyn and Waters are a most pathetic bunch of middle-aged, curmudgeonly, bitter little tossers who feel they have to be more and more outrageous to garner a little attention for themselves and their pointless little existance.

8. I read these guys regularly for:
a) a laugh
b) lessons on how not to write newspaper articles
c) what the current gripe from the brainless "right" is

Myers, (btw, he is from Leicester, so even his byeline, "An Irishman's Diary" is inaccurate), a petty little man shouting "look at me".

:p

I heard about it, but tbh I'm surprised at the shock and outrage. Myers always has come out with this rubbish. I'll admit that if I buy an Irish Paper it would be the Times, however I only read An Irishmans Diary to remind myself what knobends the right are.

Haven't got the Pheonix for a while, but are they still carrying their series on Myers U turns on Iraq :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patsh

He is someone who is given space to rant, fume and spew his bile. Take away the insults, name calling and hectoring and you are left with NOTHING of any substance or validity.

---

I agree with Patsh, Myers is exactly the same as Pat Rabbitte

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SÓC

I agree with Patsh, Myers is exactly the same as Pat Rabbitte

---

Now, now, Sean, don't be as obvious as Myers with your predujices.......:p

leave aside his acting the maggot with the language (MoBs, ******* this that and the other etc etc - which was done deliberately to wind up certain people) which is another matter altogether his central point - if you could sift through the holier than thou tone long enough is that in the long run two parent families are a hell of a lot better than lone parent families - better for the kids - better for the parents - better for "society" if you wanna go that far.

He takes it on a step further saying welfarism here encourages lone parent families - thats a point for debate (a debate worth having - as his first point above is realistic).

I'd have a lot of respect for him if he stood by his piece more vigorously but he tamely apologised for the remarks -- so Myers , you passionately held those views on Wednesday but completely see the error of your ways on Thursday? Hypocrisy - just like the middle class liberal hypocrisy you claimed to be confronting in the article :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SÓC

I agree with Patsh, Myers is exactly the same as Pat Rabbitte

---

I thought he was just playing up Bertie - although I suppose Bertie hasn't even got the insults and name calling to his credit.... Can we stop now before the thread is locked? :D

The guy is a spiteful little worm. If he wanted to start a debate about welfareism why didn't he go on TV or radio to discuss his arguments, especially when they were all clamouring to interview him. Instead we were offered Mary-Ellen Sydon (sp?) a pompous cow, who tried to defend his use of the MOBs phrase, as just a “turn of phrase”. This is the same woman who was “offended by the sight of disabled people competing in the Special Olympics”. It amazes me why newspapers employ these people.

I do feel though, that he is trying to always hog the limelight. No matter what way you look at it, there's no such thing as Bad Publicity within publishing circles.

Myers had the opportunity in that article to define the key reasons as to why the Social Welfare system is to blame for a lot of todays problems, and could have made those points tellingly.He chose the other 'I want people to talk about this for a while' route, and he has succeeded.Countless reports in all facets of the media over the past two days, two whole Joe Duffy programmes dedicated to it, and now we're all on about it.

Who's the winner: The Irish Times, Geraldine Kennedy and of course, the West Brit himself. :(

A pompous columnist, not a journalist since, as has been mentioned, his research seems minimal. He deliberately set out to wind people up with provocative language, he knew exactly what he was doing. in the end what's most disappointing is how quickly he scuttled away with his tail between his legs, even though his is an opinion's column.

Ridiculous how 24 hours can produce such a marked difference in his outlook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeSoap

Myers had the opportunity in that article to define the key reasons as to why the Social Welfare system is to blame for a lot of todays problems, and could have made those points tellingly.

---

Myers probably does believe that, but he is to lazy/stupid to actually go out and get the evidence to support that contention.
I believe that claim (that the Social Welfare system is to blame for a lot of todays problems) is absolute boll*x, btw, but simply writing an article calling everybody who disagrees with me "facist w/-\nkers" wouldn't do much to help me convince people, would it?
All the little turd has done now is to make sure that if anybody tries to have the debate, we will get drowned in a sea of insults and counter claims.
This proves he has no interest in debate as he claims, but is a little attention seeking saddo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patsh

I believe that claim (that the Social Welfare system is to blame for a lot of todays problems) is absolute boll*x, btw, but simply writing an article calling everybody who disagrees with me "facist w/-\nkers" wouldn't do much to help me convince people, would it?

---

So, do you not think that there is need for radical reform in the social welfare system as it currently stands today?? I certainly do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wws

he tamely apologised for the remarks

---

To be fair his apology today contained the paragraphs:

"We cannot tolerate a situation in which large numbers of young women are drawn into the perils of early and unmarried motherhood by the allure of the apparent protection afforded to them by the State. This "protection" is a trap, in which young woman can spend the rest of their lives, thwarting them of ambition, purpose and any proper individuality away from a chronic State dependence.

This is good for no one, least of all the children, who not merely are raised without the disciplines of work and wage, but also without the presence of a male authority figure in their lives. Other societies have pioneered the mass experiment in fatherless families, and they have found them as way-stations to male delinquency, gang membership and criminality."

He apologised for the language he used, not for expressing his opinions which he repeated.

I can't stand the man. I find him obnoxious, unpleasant and disagreeable. I also differ from him on most of his beliefs. However, he DOES normally manage to put his point across fairly well, even if it makes your blood boil reading him. This time, he went WAY too far. Even thought the issue he was raising is one that NEEDS debate, he has made an absolute balls of it, because of his use of language

Quote:

---

"We cannot tolerate a situation in which large numbers of young women are drawn into the perils of early and unmarried motherhood by the allure of the apparent protection afforded to them by the State. This "protection" is a trap, in which young woman can spend the rest of their lives, thwarting them of ambition, purpose and any proper individuality away from a chronic State dependence.

This is good for no one, least of all the children, who not merely are raised without the disciplines of work and wage, but also without the presence of a male authority figure in their lives. Other societies have pioneered the mass experiment in fatherless families, and they have found them as way-stations to male delinquency, gang membership and criminality."

---

"Young women are drawn into.......the allure of the apparent protection afforded to them by the State"
This is the greatest load of boll*x ever. A pet little theory of those who do not want any sort of social welfare system at all.
We are asked to believe that young women from lower socio-economic backgrounds around the country sit down, plan their pregnancy and then all the wonderful financial benefit which will flow from that.
Get real, ffs......:rolleyes:
These young women get pregnant because of their own and the "boyfriends" STUPIDITY. Most of them couldn't come up with a plan for the weekend, never mind mapping out the rest of their life. They are growing up in a cycle of ignorance that only effort, money and strong will on behalf of the government, it's agencies and the will of the rest of society can overcome.
These people need to be shown that there is a better way, but that will take a long time, a lot of effort, and a lot of money. However, the response from Myersians/PDs will be "I worked hard, why should I do anything for them, I'm not working so that my taxes keep these lazy, stupid, ungrateful, criminal scumbags?"
We want all these people to be carted off to jail or somewhere and we will pay for that, but it would far too much to expect to pay for what is a difficult, but solvable, problem that in the long term will obviate the need to pay for all these prison/social welfare payments.

This whole system does not work to anyones satisfaction, yet rather than take a brave and different approach to it, we settle for the Myers/Walsh rants, the inevitable outrage in return, and the polarisation in society between the "hard men" and the "do-gooders".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeSoap

So, do you not think that there is need for radical reform in the social welfare system as it currently stands today?? I certainly do.

---

Exactly what "reforms" do you think are necessary?

There have been a few points made in other posts about the whole world becoming far too PC and while I think Myers went OTT on his use of language, this is a genuine problem in this country.
I was reading a post on this topic on the PROC message board and while most people were "horrified" etc etc not everyone was, one poster had the following to say on someone he knew...
"Sponger A - has four kids by three fathers. None of them share the house and she is still hooring around. The kids don't give a sh1te about anything or anyone. Courtesy of the State she has been given a 4 bedroom house in the same area as myself and her brother. My mortgage is 880 a month. Her rent is 40 a week. Next she has a car under her fat arse that is further supported by the State. We all know what regular people pay for tax and insurance and all that other sh1t. She gets assistance for dental and medical and get this, the State recently paid for her to have a brest reduction procedure !! My wife and daughter and I would be f*cked without the VHI I get thru work and we are paying bills hand over fist to stay above water. If both of us weren't working we would go under. This coniving bitch needless to say doesn't work a fooking tap. Sorry for being brief with exhibit A but if I were to fill in all the details we would be here til doomsday."
I can only think Myers was referring to people like this who make a career out of sponging and while his use of language was wrong the can of worms has well and truly been opened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patsh

Exactly what "reforms" do you think are necessary?

---

For a start they could introduce taxes on zoned development land not developed. Increase the supply of houses to rent or buy, lowering the cost and then social welfare payments for rent allowance, affordable housing, social housing would all come down. Myers/FF/PD would probably think that was interferring with the free market though.

They could also start by having more state provided and state subsidised child care. Then these mothers of bástards (not to mention the 1000's of mothers/fathers effectively working for nothing), could go back to work, "contribute to society", pay their taxes, have increased self worth etc. Again that'd be Government interference, and we couldn't be doing that. Myers would probably be happy as he could have a rant away about the breakdown in society with mothers working rather than staying at home and raising their kids. :rolleyes:

Anyone remember the patronising way he used to present the RTE version of University Challenge ?

Particularly enjoyed the way he would waffle on about why someone had given a good/bad answer to a question he found interesting and the next minute he would say hurry up with your answer you're taking too long !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by razor

There have been a few points made in other posts about the whole world becoming far too PC and while I think Myers went OTT on his use of language, this is a genuine problem in this country.
I was reading a post on this topic on the PROC message board and while most people were "horrified" etc etc not everyone was, one poster had the following to say on someone he knew...
"Sponger A - has four kids by three fathers. None of them share the house and she is still hooring around. The kids don't give a sh1te about anything or anyone. Courtesy of the State she has been given a 4 bedroom house in the same area as myself and her brother. My mortgage is 880 a month. Her rent is 40 a week. Next she has a car under her fat arse that is further supported by the State. We all know what regular people pay for tax and insurance and all that other sh1t. She gets assistance for dental and medical and get this, the State recently paid for her to have a brest reduction procedure !! My wife and daughter and I would be f*cked without the VHI I get thru work and we are paying bills hand over fist to stay above water. If both of us weren't working we would go under. This coniving bitch needless to say doesn't work a fooking tap. Sorry for being brief with exhibit A but if I were to fill in all the details we would be here til doomsday."
I can only think Myers was referring to people like this who make a career out of sponging and while his use of language was wrong the can of worms has well and truly been opened.

---

1. What has this got to do with "PC"?
2. I can post anything I like on a board, but that does not make it true.
3. This guyTHINKS this person gets all these benefits, and it's quite obvious that he sees her as less than himself, when he refers to "regular people ".
4. The "State" does not "support" cars or cosmetic surgery or pay for tax or insurance on private motor vehicles.

There is no doubt that there is abuse of the Social Welfare system in this country. However, it is of no use people ranting on in a completely un-informed manner, is this begrudging, ignorant way. I have had to survive on social welfare myself at times and you get the minimum they can give you, and make you feel like some sort of diseased leper while giving it. This problem COULD be largely eradicated by long term planning, but the chances of this happening in this country are zero.