Search results

You are looking at 11 - 20 of 28 items for

  • Author: Mark O’Brien x
  • Refine by access: All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Mark O’Brien

This chapter examines the impact that the arrival of television had on journalism. It argues that Section 18 of the Broadcasting Authority Act had a profound influence on the trajectory of journalism. This section required RTÉ to be ‘fair and impartial’ in its news and current affairs – a very different requirement to that which had previously informed journalism. This inevitably put pressure on other media outlets to distance themselves from their political allegiances and give journalists greater autonomy. The chapter examines how, in a decade of unprecedented social change, this new dynamic in journalism took root and looks at the clashes that erupted between journalists and institutions that had, up to then, had it all their own way.

in The Fourth Estate
Mark O’Brien

This chapter examines the fraught relationship that emerged between journalists and government and amongst journalists themselves during the 1970s. As the Northern Troubles escalated the dangers for journalists, both physically and politically, quickly became apparent and the imposition of censorship brought the journalist–politician relationship to a new low. While the government was concerned about the security of the state, journalists were concerned about the survival of free speech. As the conflict wore on the debate on censorship became more fractious as did relations among and between journalists, editors and government.

in The Fourth Estate
Mark O’Brien

This chapter examines the development of social affairs journalism during the 1960s and 1970s. It outlines how much of the journalism that was critical of Irish society during this period was written not by Irish journalists, but by outsiders who had made Ireland their home. As the late 1970s and early 1980s unfolded many social issues – such as contraception, abortion, and divorce – that had simply not been written about were now very firmly on the political and media agenda. However, many journalists were not simply observers; they were also participants on both sides of the various campaigns and debates on controversial social issues that dominated the late 1970s and early 1980s.

in The Fourth Estate
Abstract only
Mark O’Brien

This chapter examines the development of investigative journalism from the early 1970s onwards. It looks at the ground-breaking Sweepstakes éxpose of 1973, how the early investigations into corruption in local government were frustrated, and the infamous Heavy Gang investigation into police brutality by the Irish Times. It also looks extensively at how a new generation of journalists sought to instil transparency and accountability into Irish public life through the development of periodicals such as Hibernia, Magill, Hot Press and In Dublin. In time the journalists who cut their teeth on these periodicals would migrate to mainstream media – bringing their investigative zeal with them.

in The Fourth Estate
Mark O’Brien

This chapter examines the relationship that existed between journalists and Charles Haughey. It outlines the telephone tapping controversy of the early 1980s – during which the telephones of several journalists were tapped by the government – and how numerous journalists sought to varying degrees of success to investigate the source of Haughey’s wealth and the corruption then endemic in Irish public life. It looks at how the concerted efforts by Haughey and his supporters to frustrate journalistic inquiry created an atmosphere of fear and risk avoidance on the part of media organisation during the 1980s.

in The Fourth Estate
The evolution of a discipline
Mark O’Brien

By the mid-1700s the increased circulation of newspapers, coupled with political strife among Dublin politicians, resulted in journalism becoming sensitised to the demand for political commentary. In 1742 Charles Lucas began a campaign for municipal reform and published a series of pamphlets that exposed the internal machinations of Dublin Corporation. Summoned before the House in October 1749, Lucas was sentenced to imprisonment as an enemy of the state. Although he fled the country the episode left an indelible mark on Irish journalism. In 1807 the Evening Post asked why, since the express delivery from London was paid for out of the public purse, the Correspondent, a Castle newspaper, was the sole beneficiary. Throughout the 1830s Irish journalism continued to flex its autonomy. In May 1838 the country's first representative body for journalists was established.

in Irish journalism before independence

Art and culture are supposed to bring society together. Culture is bad for you challenges the received wisdom that culture is good for us. It does this by demonstrating who makes who and consumes culture are marked by significant inequalities and social divisions.

The book combines the first large-scale study of social mobility into cultural and creative jobs, hundreds of interviews with creative workers, and a detailed analysis of secondary datasets. The book shows how unpaid work is endemic to the cultural occupations, excluding those without money and contacts. It explores unequal access to cultural education and demonstrates the importance of culture in childhood. The book looks at gender inequalities, analysing key moments when women leave cultural occupations, while men go on to senior roles. Culture is bad for you also theorises the mechanisms underpinning the long-term and long-standing class crisis in cultural occupations. In doing so it highlights the experiences of working-class origin women of colour as central to how we understand inequality.

Addressing the intersections between social mobility, ethnicity, and gender, the book argues that the creative sector needs to change. At the moment cultural occupations strengthen social inequalities, rather than supporting social justice. It is only then that everyone in society will be able to say that culture is good for you.

Orian Brook, Dave O’Brien, and Mark Taylor

Cultural occupations have long-standing problems associated with a lack of social mobility. This chapter explains how those problems are experienced by cultural workers. In doing so it shows some of the mechanisms by which exclusions operate.

The chapter introduces academic critiques of the idea of social mobility, linking them to the way particular individuals and communities are given value in cultural occupations.

The chapter outlines the idea of embodied cultural resources, or capitals, along with the ‘norm’ of the White, middle-class male, in cultural occupations. This somatic norm helps to explain the negative experiences of cultural workers who are not White, middle-class origin men. The chapter highlights the experiences of socially mobile women of colour, a group who are most likely to face marginalisation and discrimination. In doing so the chapter shows the powerful underlying mechanisms preventing change in cultural occupations.

in Culture is bad for you
Orian Brook, Dave O’Brien, and Mark Taylor

There are many ways that culture is good for individuals and for society. It has positive effects on health, on education, on places, and on communities. Culture has value in and of itself, irrespective of its impact on social or economic issues. The good culture can do is a key reason for cultural workers’ commitment to cultural occupations, as well as central to much government and organisational policy.

This chapter looks at the ways culture is good for us, drawing on recent policy and research documents. The chapter complements the analysis of policy and research with interview data from cultural workers.

By making the case that culture is good for you, the chapter introduces the problem of inequality that is the subject of the rest of the book. Inequalities in production and in consumption mean that, sadly, culture is only good for narrow and closed sections of society.

in Culture is bad for you
Orian Brook, Dave O’Brien, and Mark Taylor

Inequalities in cultural production and cultural consumption begin very early in an individual’s life. This chapter analyses survey and interview data to understand how access to culture in childhood might influence getting in and getting on in cultural occupations later in life.

The chapter introduces the concept of cultural capital, the cultural resources that help some people feel at home in cultural, and other professional, occupations.

The interview data illustrates a theme that runs throughout the rest of the chapters. What seems to be a set of experiences shared by all cultural workers actually hides significant differences. The differences in childhood experience of, and access to, culture reflect social inequalities. In particular social class is crucial in determining who gets access to cultural resources. These include music, drama, poetry, and dance, along with books and libraries. Differing levels of cultural capital, in the context of our unequal education system, mean that the absence of a level playing field for cultural occupations begins very early in life.

in Culture is bad for you