Jim Cusack's 'Idiot's guide to the troubles'.

[meriwether2]

I bought the Sunday Independent this evning. I did this because it was the only paper in the shop, and I am bored, and I have no money to go out (Im just pre-empting the 'Why are you buying the Sindo anyway'? question).

In the magazine (the tits and ass section) Jim Cusack has an article where he 'paints an idiot's guide to 50 years of madness' with a review of physical force republicanism over the past 50 odd years.

My first question is: Is Jim Cusack definitely a serious journalist? Because this looks like it was written by Barry Egan.
It opens with a very nice photo of Ruairi O'Bradaigh. Its a very striking photo, in that he is sitting in his kitchen, and it is clearly a very old fashioned kitchen. The Stove, the turf holder, the decor, the rather hard looking chair.

(I have nothing against this. In fact, its alomost refreshing to see a politician who is so clearly not on the take, because if he was, he'd have a nicer stove. And an electric kettle.)

Anyway Jim uses this scene to paint a metaphor of physical force rfepublicanism as backward, old fashioned, stuck in the 1950's. The kitchen is old you see. Geddit? Norman Mailer would be proud.

The article then goes downhill from there, if thats possible.

More or less, the problems in the North originate from 'scobes' (yes, he used this word).

'What is your point Meriwether'? I hear you scream.
My point is that this article is depressingly badly written and analysed. Its awful. I wouldn't be the worlds biggest republican lover, but even this is so bad.
And we do ourselves no favours by mis-analysing and over simplifying the complex northern situation either into goodies and baddies, with the baddies being pantomime bad.

[Factorem]

Don't worry. Independent newspapers are going down the tubes.

Soon there won't be an ISEQ left.

[Iwillin Mebollox]

An idiot's guide is appropriate because you'd want to be an idiot to take Cusack seriously on the North.

[Gabha Óir]

Did Cusick not once score a hat-trick in one edition where it lead to the paper having to issue an apology for three different stories that were carried that day? I believe it was 'Liam Lawlor' dies in Russia story but cannot recall what the other two were. I'll have to hunt out the old copies of Phoenix.

I do remember an attempted security van robbery in Dalkey which he blamed on a myriad of groupings as was appropriate to that week's news when he worked in the Irish Times. Or when a young fella blew his hand off messing with fireworks at a territorial army base in London and Jim was in there with the IRA planted it before a 'it is not now thought there was any terrorist involvement in the incident' retraction a few days later. It'll take more than a pinch of salt to swallow Jim's empire.

[Simply]

Journalists like Cusack seemed to think their role in the conflict was to keep the audience misinformed and ignorant.To be fair many of the audience liked it that way.

[bogtrotter]

Journalists like Cusack seemed to think their role in the conflict was to keep the audience misinformed and ignorant.To be fair many of the audience liked it that way.

True.. but why do we listen to or read garbage like this.....Just dont buy the INDO...

[Fir Bolg]

....Just dont buy the INDO...

Under any circumstances whatsoever. No excuses!

[Kf]

A truly shocking journalist - from the Paul Williams lazy self centred school of journalism.

BTW - was Cusack fired/let go/downsized from the Irish Times or did he leave for more flexible standards that are applied at the Sunday independent?

[Gabha Óir]

A truly shocking journalist - from the Paul Williams lazy self centred school of journalism.

BTW - was Cusack fired/let go/downsized from the Irish Times or did he leave for more flexible standards that are applied at the Sunday independent?

I'm not certain but I think a particular precentage of stories have to be true from time to time in the IT. Not too many, just the occasional one while in Sindoland the imagination is allowed to run riot

[markeys]

Wow, he really got up a few noses didn't he. But lets look at it from a sane perspective.

1. You have to be short a one or two marbles if you think shooting mothers and blowing up kids will move you any closer to a United Ireland. Similarly, blowing up the local hotel, or burning a few people alive.

2. You have to be short ten or twenty marbles to think you can proclaim yourself as the Govermental Authority of Ireland and refuse to obey the people's decisions.

3. You have to be short a couple a hundred marbles to think that murdering Irish people will help your cause in any way. Blowing up town centers to 'further the cause' has to be the height of stupidity.

4. You have to be bonking raving mad to think anybody would support the people who are too afraid to stand before them in elections.


Generally you'll find people of lower intelligence constitute the vast majority of the foot solders. They'll also have a string of criminal convictions. They can be characterised by not learning from the past and are bound to repeat mistakes in a slow learning process.


Backward is an understatement.