Latest news with #Gript
Extra.ie
5 days ago
- Politics
- Extra.ie
Varadkar slams Fox segment on 'surging crime' in Ireland
Former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has taken to social media to respond to a stunning Fox News segment where questionable data was used to claim that crime is 'surging' in Ireland. The Fox News segment, which went viral on social media on Wednesday, claimed that Ireland has seen a '114% increase in murder and assault attempts'. It also claimed that Dublin now ranks among the 'top ten most dangerous cities in Europe' after being named as one of the safest cities in the world back in 2003. Yesterday, Trump singled out Irish Pharmaceuticals for new yesterday, Fox News did a hit job on Ireland… citing 2024 headlines about crime statistics and bringing on Douglas Murray as a panel guest to discuss it. If your business depends on American tourists…… — Nick Delehanty (@Nick_Delehanty) August 6, 2025 The piece openly 'connected the dots' between rising immigration numbers and supposed rising crime rates and has subsequently proven to be very popular with the far-right. However, taking to social media on Wednesday evening, former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar lauded a 'fact-based' response to the segment, highlighting how Fox had used 'the most brazen manipulation of statistics' to produce the already infamous segment. Twitter account, Danny boy, which frequently tackles misinformation online, responded to the clip writing: 'Fox News aired a segment on crime in Ireland, specifically Dublin, on 'The Will Cain Show'. The most brazen manipulation of statistics you're ever likely to see, lapped up by Trump-voters who don't care if something is true or not… Leo Varadkar at the count in the RDS on Saturday morning. Pic: Michael Chester 'Firstly, there was an increase in murders in the Dublin Metropolitan Region in 2024. 2023: 12 2024: 13 'One additional case of murder was recorded, which is not a 114% increase obviously. 13 murders in a population of 2.1 million people is one of the lower rates in the world. 'Secondly, this is the number of murders in the Dublin Metropolitan Region in recent years and I'll include a few older years for reference. '2007: 31 2008: 23 2009: 26 2010: 29 2021: 10 2022: 18 2023: 12 2024: 13 'Maybe by 'surging' he meant '58% fewer murders in 2024 vs 2007.' Leo Varadkar. Pic: Leah Farrell/ 'Fox News claimed 'city of Dublin where murder and assault attempts are surging 114%.' The actual statistic Fox News is butchering appears stolen from Gript, who stupidly claimed: 'Attempts or Threats to Murder, Assaults, Harassments & Related offences up 114% since *2003*' '1. CSO (Central Statistics Office) say you can't compare 2024 with 2003 due to the problems with PULSE that weren't fixed until recently. Not that it stopped Gript doing it. '2. Moreover, that offence group includes online stalking and social media barely existed back in 2003.' The account didn't stop there, also tackling one of the more egregious claims that Dublin is now one of the most dangerous cities in Europe. Varadkar took to Twitter/X to laud a response to the Fox segment. Pic: Niall Carson/PA Archive/PA Images 'Quote: 'Dublin was once one of the safest cities in the world, it now ranks as one of the top 10 most dangerous cities in Europe.' I'm sure Fox News will have a reputable source for this claim. 'And that source is…. comical, in some respects, also existentially depressing. 'Source = 'A study by the Online Betting Guide' in a survey titled 'Europe Nightlife Index Casinos' 'So, according to a clickbait gambling company, who wouldn't say what their methodology was, Dublin is in the Top 10 most unsafe cities in Europe. 'Made it up' school of statistics. To sum up his points, Danny Boy wrote: '1. There was no '114% increase in murder or assault attempts' in Dublin. '2. clickbait gambling company cited as a source. In summary, entire segment is utter… Dublin, like all cities, has crime. It's one of the safer capital cities in the world, come visit.' I think the fact-based content this guy produces is one of the few reasons to stay on X. And, no, I don't know him from Adam and that's not the point anyway. — Leo Varadkar (@LeoVaradkar) August 6, 2025 Responding to the impressive thread, Leo Varadkar wrote: 'I think the fact-based content this guy produces is one of the few reasons to stay on X. And, no, I don't know him from Adam and that's not the point anyway.'
The Journal
26-07-2025
- Politics
- The Journal
News website Gript files High Court action against DCU and the Press Council
NEWS WEBSITE GRIPT has filed legal action against Dublin City University and the Press Council following a decision by the latter to uphold two complaints made by the university against Gript. Gript filed the High Court action yesterday, naming DCU and the Press Council as defendants in the case. The complaint was in relation to two articles published on 4 and 24 October 2024 by Gript about a postgraduate diploma course in SPHE/RSE run by DCU for secondary school teachers. The Gript articles were based on testimony by former SPHE teacher Mary Creedon. In its correspondence with the Press Ombudsman and Press Council, Gript said it also reviewed documents and other materials and relied on statements from other unnamed course participants. Creedon had falsely claimed that she was expected to teach extreme sexual material to children. There was also discourse over the use of an audio clip by Gript that was 'obtained through subterfuge' that the Press Ombudsman ultimately said was not justified to have been publicised and did not reveal information that substantiated Gript's reporting. Advertisement In a decision in May, the Press Ombudsman upheld DCU's complaint and remarked that Gript provided 'no evidence' that the DCU course 'gave adult teachers to understand that sexually explicit exercises used during their training were to be replicated in school classrooms'. 'Adaptation of material so that it is age appropriate is not replication and to suggest otherwise, as the publication does, is distortion,' said the Press Ombudsman. The decision was appealed by Gript to the Press Council. The Press Council appoints the Press Ombudsman and decides on appeals related to decisions of the Ombudsman. Gript had claimed that there had been an error in the Press Ombudsman's application of the Truth and Accuracy, Fair Procedures and Honesty, and Privacy principles in the Press Council's Code of Practice. However, the Press Council last month upheld the decision by the Press Ombudsman and said the Ombudsman didn't err in their application of these principles. In a statement on Monday, DCU welcomed the decisions. It noted that the Press Ombudsman found that the Gript articles 'contained no evidence that DCU was doing anything other than running a postgraduate course to enable adult teachers of SPHE/RSE to teach the subject to secondary school children'. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Irish Independent
26-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Independent
Gript news site takes Press Council to High Court over ruling it breached code of practice
The conservative Irish news site Gript has taken High Court action against the Press Council after it ruled that the website breached three principles in its code of practice.
The Journal
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The Journal
DCU welcomes decision by Press Council to uphold complaints about two SPHE articles
DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY (DCU) has welcomed a decision by the Press Council to uphold complaints regarding two articles published by website Gript last year. The complaint was in relation to two articles published on 4 and 24 October 2024 by Gript about a postgraduate diploma course in SPHE/RSE run by DCU for secondary school teachers. Social, Personal and Health Education/Relationships and Sexuality Education (SPHE/RSE) is a secondary school subject that has regularly been targeted by far-right groups in Ireland in recent years . The DCU course teaches tutors and SPHE coordinators about the syllabus, offered at schools, which has changed in recent years. The Gript articles were based on testimony by former SPHE teacher Mary Creedon. In its correspondence with the Press Ombudsman and Press Council, Gript said it also reviewed documents and other materials and relied on statements from other unnamed course participants. In a video that was widely shared last year, Creedon alleges that while on the DCU course, she watched a video depicting a female cartoon masturbating and other images showing sex and sexual activities between heterosexual and homosexual couples. She falsely claimed that she was expected to show similar imagery to her second-level junior-cycle students. DCU said it was made 'explicitly clear to those taking the course that exercises and resources that were not age appropriate were not to be used in school classrooms'. Audio by subterfuge One of the articles also contained an audio clip that DCU said was 'obtained through subterfuge and without the knowledge or permission of those recorded'. In a decision in May, the Press Ombudsman upheld DCU's complaint and remarked that Gript provided 'no evidence' that the DCU course 'gave adult teachers to understand that sexually explicit exercises used during their training were to be replicated in school classrooms'. 'Adaptation of material so that it is age appropriate is not replication and to suggest otherwise, as the publication does, is distortion,' said the Press Ombudsman. Regarding the audio recording, Gript acknowledged that it was obtained by a source using subterfuge and relied on the public interest justification. However, the Press Ombudsman said this 'private, informal chat during a break in the course that revealed nothing of investigative import'. It added that this 'material obtained by use of subterfuge was not justified by the public interest'. It also found that those who were secretly recorded had a 'legitimate expectation that their conversation was private' and that while the right to privacy should not prevent publication of matters of public interest, this audio recording 'had no public interest content'. Advertisement This audio recording was not made by a Gript employee but a person described by Gript as an 'an involved party' who believed it to be in the public interest. The decision was appealed by Gript to the Press Council. The Press Council appoints the Press Ombudsman and decides on appeals related to decisions of the Ombudsman. Gript had claimed that there had been an error in the Press Ombudsman's application of the Truth and Accuracy, Fair Procedures and Honesty, and Privacy principles in the Press Council's Code of Practice. However, the Press Council last month upheld the decision by the Press Ombudsman and said the Ombudsman didn't err in their application of these principles. The Press Council said it considered the appeal at its meeting on 18 June 'on the grounds relied upon and on the information, documentation and submissions made by both parties to the appeal'. It decided that Gript 'did not show that the Press Ombudsman had erred in her application of Principle 1 of the Code in respect of the publication's obligation to show that it had striven for truth and accuracy'. One the use of the audio, the Council said the Ombudsman had not erred 'in as much as ultimate responsibility for publication of material obtained by subterfuge rests with the publication, and that publication of the information was not justified in the public interest'. In her original decision, the Ombudsman said the audio clip 'indicated that vocabulary discussed at the DCU course 'came up' in a classroom setting. It does not show that the teacher brought up the vocabulary or that there was replication.' 'The Press Ombudsman finds that these articles were presented as a journalistic exposé,' she continued. 'However, while the articles indicated that the publication shared its sources' misgivings about the SPHE/RSE curriculum and what a source described as its 'gender ideology', the university has been funded precisely to support that curriculum. is entitled to express its views but is required by the Code of Practice to base its reporting on facts.' In a statement today, DCU welcomed the decisions. It noted that the Press Ombudsman found that the Gript articles 'contained no evidence that DCU was doing anything other than running a postgraduate course to enable adult teachers of SPHE/RSE to teach the subject to secondary school children'. 'The University has always maintained that materials used on the Graduate Diploma in SPHE/RSE are provided only to the teachers as adults in the context of their broader SPHE/RSE education on the programme,' said a DCU spokesperson. 'The Ombudsman's decision, and that of the Press Council, vindicates this. The University stands firmly over the content of the course and with the academic staff who deliver it.' The spokesperson also noted that the Graduate Diploma in SPHE/RSE continues to train teachers and welcomed a new cohort at the beginning of this year. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Irish Times
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Ruth Coppinger seems to think free speech applies only to views she likes
A little over a week ago, a small phalanx of journalists gathered outside Leinster House for what is called a doorstep with the People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Ruth Coppinger. Ben Scallan, who works for the right-leaning publication Gript and was a candidate in the 2020 general election for the Irish Freedom Party, asked a question that amounted to a standard, 'What's your reaction?' The context was Jim O'Callaghan 's plan to speed up deportations of failed asylum seekers. It must be frustrating for politicians (and other journalists) to repeatedly hear representatives from the same outlet ask the same handful of questions over and over, particularly when almost every issue – as is the case with Gript – seems to be filtered through the prism of immigration. But politicians find lots of questions journalists put to them irritating, and they are generally adept at channelling implacable courtesy in the reporter's general direction, while saying precisely nothing. Coppinger did not do that. She pointedly refused to answer, saying 'Not for Gript, no.' READ MORE Politicians shirk tricky or unwelcome questions all the time. But they don't blacklist entire media organisations, which are members of the Press Council, because they object to their editorial line She and her colleague Paul Murphy later laid out their position in some detail, which boils down to a refusal to take questions from that outlet. Coppinger says taking this stand against Gript has resulted in two serious death threats by online posters, but it is her view that the trolling 'confirms we were right to not engage'. Several commentators who would probably describe themselves as liberal and left-leaning agreed with her, arguing that politicians have a right to refuse to deal with media outlets they don't like. The issue here isn't actually very complex, despite Coppinger's attempt to roll it up into everything from an ideological clash between right and left to her perception of the failings of individual journalists. (In a late-night tweet, she called two journalists who challenged her position on this 'very pathetic', for which she subsequently apologised – though not, it is fair to say, with gushing sincerity. She also claimed, without offering any evidence, that the same journalists would not have made an issue of a politician refusing to engage with a left-wing outlet. This isn't an issue of right or left, or about whether you like or detest Gript's editorial line or its goady approach to politicians, or Coppinger's own politics. It's whether you believe in freedom of the press and believe politicians should be accountable to the media, and by extension to the electorate. At a time when all sorts of values feel in flux, freedom of speech and by extension freedom of the press remain one on which it is refreshingly easy to tell where you stand. There's a simple test. Do you believe in free speech? Do you believe in it for views and people you loathe? Unless you answer 'yes' to both questions, you don't believe in it. If this all sounds like a story you've seen play out before, it's because you have. You've seen it before when Donald Trump excluded the Associated Press from pooled press events at the Oval Office and on Air Force One because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the 'Gulf of America'. You've seen it when the US president calls individual reporters or their questions 'stupid' or says they are 'animals' or 'some of the worst human beings you'll ever meet' or when he suggests, as he did recently, that CNN and MSNBC are 'illegal'. You don't have to look to Trump, Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin to see independent journalism under assault. Moderate, liberal politicians might baulk at playground insults but they contribute to undermining the media when they drag their heels on reforming libel laws , cut funding to public media, refuse to engage with freedom of information requests or do nothing as big tech cannibalises the work of journalists. Despite frequent accusations of chumminess, there is for the most part a healthy distance between politicians and the media in this country. Sometimes it's more like a gulf. Sinn Féin robustly denies that it has a policy of encouraging its representatives to pursue media outlets they feel wronged by, but if it's not an actual policy, the party's willingness to resort to legal writs is certainly a noteworthy trend. Still, few salvos aimed at the media from political parties in this part of the world have been quite as overt as this. Politicians shirk tricky or unwelcome questions all the time. But they don't blacklist entire media organisations, which are members of the Press Council, because they object to their editorial line. Murphy vociferously denied that the position taken by People Before Profit-Solidarity had echoes of Trump's attacks on the media. 'That's different,' he said, when the similarities to the move to exclude AP from Air Force One were pointed out. 'We don't have the power to do that to Gript,' he added, a retort several football pitches from the point. Coppinger claimed, with equally perplexing logic, that 'the comparison to Trump is just ludicrous. I'm not a sexual predator.' But it is not a stretch to make that comparison. And the reason why this matters beyond the relatively narrow spheres of influence of Gript and PBP-Solidarity is because we are living through what has been called a 'democratic recession'. In many countries, democratic norms are being eroded by politicians who, once elected, start chipping away at anything that makes them accountable: civil service, courts and the media. It never happens overnight, but starts gradually, with a conflation of issues that have nothing to do with each other, or the suggestion that certain rights and values may not be absolute, or with the mocking and deriding of journalists. As Noam Chomsky puts it: 'If you're in favour of freedom of speech, that means you're in favour of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech. There's two positions you can have on freedom of speech. Now you can decide which position you want.'
