Readers' blog: Sifting opinion from fact
More than ever the public has been required to carefully sift opinion from what seems factual in the print and picture media.
Alison O’Connor writes that Cambridge Analytica helped to elect Trump. We must stop here.
The public could not have been manipulated by the work of Cambridge Analytica unless the media put it into print.
The media spread the work of this agency, so to speak, printing, reprinting, analysing the work of this agency as news. (Although the actual fact of Analytica’s influence cannot ever be proven.)
However, those same journalists are complaining that they were duped, thus avoiding their own responsibility.
Journalists do not like to admit to their bias or error. Let us draw the picture using a current example.
Micheál Martin’s job as the opposition leader is to encourage negative opinion, or to discredit Varadkar. That is how politicians work.
Then along comes Alison O’Connor to help the cause by putting Martin’s opinion into print and then to add her own.
In this case her view of Trump, the enemy of democracy.
Varadkar was heard agreeing with the president about out of control media.
Varadkar is entitled to his opinion especially having to live in the eye of the so many journalists.
As to then naming Trump “the enemy of democracy” and then Varadkar by association, I do not know where O’Connor gets these facts.
Trump was popularly elected. He has high popularity ratings (as does Varadkar). Why would both not favour democracy? Once again the facts are missing.
Amidst all the blathering, name-calling, bluster and rhetoric, Trump is a man of the people.
Some of us are not duped by the former but look to actions and proposals that make common sense to us voters.
We want our constitution supported. We want our borders protected... Let us deal in facts.
Your opinions, O’Connor are predictable and fallacious.
