Ian O'Doherty takes a swipe at P.ie?

[Kevin Doyle]

Article here

Ian O'Doherty is many things, politically relevant isn't one of them. Despite this, having read his column this morning, he deserves a mention. What is immediately apparent is that any sense of compunction you may have felt for the poor chap after being lambasted on-line recently is going to evaporate fast.

From the opening headline "Is anything sadder than anonymous web cowards?" to the thinly veiled threat of litigation, you come away from the article with a feeling that all sense of Irony has escaped the man.
IO'D uses sweeping generalisations, from Muslims to Scousers, uses humour to deride those he personally feels are disserving yet cant take a bit of criticism himself. And now that posters on P.ie decided to air their views on O'Doherty the generalisations now include all those who post on P.ie

"D'interweb has always been home to crazies, of course. In fact, part of its genius is its democratisation of opinions. Got a beef with George Bush? Cool, simply set up a blog or message board or create a site and, bingo, you're in business."

He continues by placing his own vitriol at variance to that directed at him simply because he signs his name to it.

A point in case being the hapless Pete Doherty -a talentless charisma vacuum and fully deserving of mass contempt. He is a regular target for O'Dohertys ire. A widely contended reason for this is that Ian is jealous that Pete Doherty managed to drop the 'O' from his name. Many of the column inches devoted to dismantling the myth that this 'poet' is anything other than a bag of bones that had the good fortune to bed a rather famous mobile clothes hanger are warmly welcomed and are for the most part reflective of a considered opinion. But does that make it any less hurtful for Doherty to read? Because Ian signs the column does that makes it morally and ethically more expectable or legitimate than those who criticised him anonymously? Or is he in his own delectable way calling us out for a spot of handbags at dawn?

As for his defence of Myers, that just takes the biscuit. Myers has on more than one occasion allowed his pen to elope with his decorum and has written allegations which where (to quote IO'D) "cruel and vicious beyond the realms of any reasonable disagreement. It was also cowardly beyond belief and beyond contempt."
Pots and Kettles etc.

His libel claims are barely worth a mention, the DGDS rule seems to have completely escaped him. Anything written about O'Doherty on this site that is untrue and/or libelous is removed by the mods.

It must have been a quiet week Ian if this is all you came up with.

[HanleyS]

Two articles in the Sindo/Indo mentioning P.ie in one week? Dave must be pleased!

Nice of them to plug the medium that is quickly plunging them and their print buddies into irrelevance.

[Starkadder]

Two articles in the Sindo/Indo mentioning P.ie in one week? Dave must be pleased!

Nice of them to plug the medium that is quickly plunging them and their print buddies into irrelevance.

I think it was Chekov Feeney who pointed out that if you do a search for say, "Eoghan Harris", a lot of hostile P.ie, Indymedia, etc.
articles about EH come up.This may be the reason the likes of O'Doherty dislike it.

[David Cochrane]

Anything written about O'Doherty on this site that is untrue and/or libelous is removed by the mods.

It must have been a quiet week Ian if this is all you came up with.

Yes, because he emails asking for things to be removed, which I happily do whenever something should be removed. He even emailed last week

Well, just as long as the personalised insults and lies are taken off I’ve no problem with them slagging the ************************ out of what I said

[constitutionus]

to quote one of the comments on that page "another "journalist" hates the internte, boo hoo "

these guys get as bent out of shape about posterss as the political establishment do about libertas. :mrgreen:

[PaintingMedium]

I think it is very rich of a man who has on many occassions stereotyped groups of people in his column to be giving out about the internet and the freedom for posters to post their opinions.

It also is quite ironic that he forgets to compare himself who gets paid to write such trash to posters who do not get paid. If he wants users to give up their anonymous identites, perhaps he might share part of the salary he gets paid.

It is also quite amusing to hear someone from the Indo give out about personal insults when his title of the article is a personal insult to posters. So we can see he prefers it down in the gutter like the rest of us. If a journalist is complaining about the ethics of online posters, perhaps they should lead by example? What do you think of Liverpool Ian?

I think this is a swipe at the online world which creates less demand for such "journalism" skills that O'Doherty possesses. We can see that new media has created the long goodbye of the print media, and O'Doherty might be worried, that one day, he like us will become anonymous and unpaid for his mediocre efforts to be a British tabloid writer.

It is amazing that he is more interested in laughing with his libel lawyer about these couple of conspiracy theories rather then write about the much delayed Defamation Bill which is going to make decent journalism even harder to practice, but why would the Indo care about that? Would they ever bite the hand that feeds them? I think they prefer stroking the heads of the "Medusa Bertie" where each head represents his different fairytale of acquiring money and explaining irregularities.

I think Lacan would have a field day with O'Doherty and his obvious mirror complex. Is there only room in the gutter for one Ian?

O'Doherty has seen the Desert of the Real, it is full of O'Dohertys doing exactly the same thing, except doing it for free :mrgreen:

At least Harris is funny!

P.S We also have a beautiful thing that the Indo does not really have, its called right to reply Ian, something many of your victims of abuse never get.

[KingKane]

Just for the sake of being pedantic but none of the contributions here are "blogs" as Ian and Jody yesterday stated. Some of us have blogs true enough but blogging happens elsewhere. This is a political discussion site, an old style bulletin board if you will. Contributions here are no more blogs than a snippet from a political conversation down the pub is a piece of oratory or some other form of political speech making.

[The OD]

Here wishing a nasty, short term, bowel related disease to Mr O'Doherty.....

[constitutionus]

Just for the sake of being pedantic but none of the contributions here are "blogs" as Ian and Jody yesterday stated. Some of us have blogs true enough but blogging happens elsewhere. This is a political discussion site, an old style bulletin board if you will. Contributions here are no more blogs than a snippet from a political conversation down the pub is a piece of oratory or some other form of political speech making.

Ssshh!....you'll ruin his little rant. waters routinely does the same thing. TBH i think half em are technophobes and as such dont know the difference. in the end it only mitigates against their arguement.

[Solipsist]

Well if the Indo hate P.ie then I love it - after all the mildly dissaproved of site of my enemy is my friend