Really? What I’m saying is that they tend to give one side of the story - the estate agents side, of which they happen to be on. I’m not saying that the Irish Times is prone to wilful distortion for commercial gain - rather that its financial interests are not ours. As you said, it gives the truth as it sees it - I’m showing the parameters of that truth - as well as highlighting where the Irish Times and its estate agent experts have got it wrong in the past.

Tomaltach, a small point on the paper of record thing. There is no such thing in historical research. There are sources - and all are good depending on how you use them. And you use all of them that are available. Historians give as much credence to the Sligo Champion as to the Irish Times. It depends on what is the subject matter.
The Irish Times has this idea of itself as the newspaper that historians read as the “first draft” of history - and that is something that historians do not do at all. It’s a source, as good and as flawed as any other - but that’s all it is.

you seem to discount even the principle of honest reporting.

Sure, there are honest reporters. And then there are the reporters who, like many of us, for the sake of an easy life and wolves away from the door, convince themselves they are honest, or, simply abandon critical thought when working.

If a principle of honest reporting is generally observed in newspapers, I imagine it is observed in the same way that the principle of corporate social responsibility is observed, i.e. only to the extent that it does not negatively impact business objectives.

On the regional issue. For sure the IT has a Dublin bias. You hear little of the regions, but that is probably true of any “big national” newspaper which gets loaded up with government policy, parliamentary coverage, world news, features for ABC consumers, and so on. Also, to the extent that our national debate lacks a regional dimension, I think it’s a wider flaw. We hear about Galway when the water is full of shit or about Tipperary when there’s a rezoning mess, and so on. But we don’t hear enough about the challenges facing our 1.6m rural inhabitants.

Regarding the main point: the bias in the property debate. Absolutely spot on. I laughed the other day when I saw the heading in one of the papers saying that interest rate reductions are now unlikely. One of your posts had mocked how the IT had quoted a property agency, I forget who, saying Trichet’s last statement pointed to a reduction in rates fairly soon, when in fact, the statement said the opposite.

NUJ code? Long-standing journalistic ethics? Maybe I am grasping at straws given the shortcomings in our media but you seem to discount even the principle of honest reporting.

“such a thing - an impartial newspaper - does not exist.”

Maybe so but the Times et al would aspire to tell the truth as they see it. This is of course not the same as telling the objective truth (let’s not get into philosophical arguments about what is truth) but you are suggesting not just that their reporting is informed by their background and outlook but that they are prone to wilful distortion for commercial gain - knowingly obscuring the facts as they see them - which is another thing entirely.

Also, the Irish Times has NEVER been an impartial newspaper. In fact, such a thing - an impartial newspaper - does not exist. The Irish Times is a moderate, conservative newspaper that has shifted to the right in recent years.

I do not know of any historian who would use the Irish Times as an impartial newspaper, or even as the newspaper of record. It is a national newspaper, with a strong Dublin bias in its outlook and reportage. Indeed, there is a strong case to be made for saying that the Irish Times is a regional newspaper with a national distribution.

I know the Irish Times sees itself as the paper of record, but it’s a self-appointed title.

And it’s not just the Irish Times that has been doing this - bias in reporting the property market, over-reliance on estate agents for clarity statements, etc - the Irish Independent has been at it as well.

That’s a bit of an assumption to make. If a newspaper accepts advertising it is automatically, implicitly incapable of presenting the truth seems to be your argument. Might as well not read any of them or watch TV or listen to the radio for that matter if that’s the case.

I think it’s quite a safe assumption to make, since my argument is that it is fundamentally incapable of presenting the whole picture because decisions on what to publish and how to publish it are underpinned by financial interest. I don’t see how this is all that controversial: newspapers are businesses and, like any other business, those who work for them will carry out their duties in line with business priorities. If you know what side your bread is buttered on, you don’t go about your duties in a way that fundamentally undermines the business objectives of the firm, but in any case, the firm’s recruitment policies will usually filter out the type of people who would be inclined to do these things. If it applies in other businesses, why not journalism?

It doesn’t mean that you should stop reading the paper, but it helps to be aware of the limits to the usefulness of the information it presents.

That’s a bit of an assumption to make. If a newspaper accepts advertising it is automatically, implicitly incapable of presenting the truth seems to be your argument. Might as well not read any of them or watch TV or listen to the radio for that matter if that’s the case.

The Irish Times Ltd’s business depends on property, true, but it also depends on its paper being seen as an impartial, objective commentator. Does the Times want to be losing readers down the line who felt conned into buying overpriced houses now?

“what could the investors of €50 million in a property website possibly gain from talking up the market?”

That’s a disingenuous argument. You suggest they are talking up the market and as proof you offer only that they would have a lot to gain if they did, not any evidence that there is an editorial decision to do so. I might have a lot to gain by mugging a rich person on the street; doesn’t mean I’m going to do it though. At the same time you say their reporting is “schizophrenic”, ie multiple viewpoints are being expressed.

I think you give too much credence to the influence of newspapers on the property market. Buying a house isn’t like buying a tin of biscuits; people spend months or even years deliberating before they buy a house and seek a variety of opinion before they do so. An editorial in the Times isn’t going to make them rush out and splurge.