Newstalk Megathread

mike65

As a riposte she was doing quite well until the last para.

Mike.

FlutterinBantam

Yeah true enough Mike.

can't blame O'Brien for wanting to avoid Fisk and McCann though.

Guy obviously wanted balanced objective views,not geezers pushing their own agendas.:cool:

Radio Mad.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Yeah true enough Mike.

can't blame O'Brien for wanting to avoid Fisk and McCann though.

Guy obviously wanted balanced objective views,not geezers pushing their own agendas.:cool:

If that's the case, he shouldn't have taken Dunphy on in the first place. Like him or loathe him, we all know Dunphy's form. He's always been opinionated. And his radio track record was clear for all to see, as he'd presented the Last Word on Today FM for several years. Therefore, O'Brien knew precisely what type of presenter he was going to get and the style off programme that would be broadcast when he employed Dunphy.

The truth is O'Brien needed somebody to boost his dismal morning ratings. No use trying to compete with the mighty Morning Ireland, so he decided to go the controversial, not entirely balanced and objective, route by taking on Dunphy.

gilroyb

I used to listen to almost all of the Newstalk schedule (other than Brenda Power), but it has annoyed me more and more recently. Every story seemed to be CRISIS in the health service, and then that 'health famine' ad which seemed to be on every five minutes. Recently they've kept their emphasis on health but have managed to annoy the HSE so much that they don't even want the free airtime that Newstalk offer them. It has modeled itself on the Irish Daily Mail, something that no organisation with any self respect should do.

Another thing that really drives me to distraction is the willingness to read anything that anyone texts in about any topic. It's like the part in Anchorman where they change Ron's autocue and he reads it without a second thought. While the odd text is insightful, the majority drag any discussion down towards the gutter. When the texts weren't at a premium rate most listeners were willing to text, now it just seems to be the nutjobs. Also, Dunphy was willing to edit out texts and read only (what he believed were) the quality ones. Every crazy text that is read out brings in an even crazier text from the opposing viewpoint. I'm sure it's good for revenue in the short term, but it makes it impossible for Hook/Gilroy/Byrne to get into any topic when every second thing they say is a listeners' comment along the lines of, "so you think that solving this murder is important, but wouldn't this money be better spent on this countries crumbling health service and let these people just kill each other?".

In the same way as a journalist should be careful about what they will put their name on for advertising purposes, they should be even more careful about what opinions they give voice to. The cost of reading out an unworthy readers text is paid for by the presenter with their own credibility.


I started turning over to Phantom whenever Newstalk would read out listeners texts and trying to go back only for the business news and the regular news. At this stage of the two or three hours of rush hour radio I hear every day Newstalk are lucky to get five minutes of it. So far this week Phantom have gotten the entirety of the time and I so far I haven't missed Newstalk one bit.

raven136

said contributors including Fisk have been on newstalk since Dunphy left,just the love in he had with him,McCann and Wheatcroft doesnt exist anymore.
Dunphy was better suited to an evening show.
Why would the irish times have allowed him to write the piece? as anyone who recently listened to his conversation's with...programme with Fisk would realise they both publicly came out against the takeover and commended O'Reilly on his non editorial interference(in the london independent anyway)

DMC

"Different nation, different station"

I've always hated it, yet I hear they are now using the tag line in different languages, using Polish and Nigerian voices to illustrate their multicultural-ness.

If the station is so different, where can one hear these voices on a regular basis , or are they still the domain of the not-for-profit community stations?

thejuggler

Newstalk has made very little impact outside Dublin since its national launch. I don't know why that is the case - perhaps they need to market the station more. Maybe people feel it has a Dublin bias (don't all national stations!) It must be a money pit to operate as they don't have a huge amountof advertising. I wonder at what stage Denis O'Brien will pull the plug.........

mike65

Well could we see a merger with Today FM? Not sure how exactly though.

Mike.

DMC

I suppose Mike, something has got to give between Matt Cooper and George Hook now that Denis holds both their contracts.

thejuggler raises an interesting point. Local stations mix it up between national and local. Local TD's and councillors discuss local and national issues. They get the balance right and know their audience. People get the news thats important to them.

For Newstalk, you can't appear to do local news specific to, say Waterford, that might make the rest of the country turn off. A fine balancing act.

LostinBlanch

For all the fact that it's gone downhill in a big way over the last couple of years it's still got some shows that are better than anything else in their timeslot.

Moncrieff - no competition worthy of the name, though I think this tends to make him very complacent at times.

Off The Ball - no other station has so much varied sports coverage.

Culture Shock - IMO the best programme that Newstalk have at the mo.

As for the rest. M'eh, it's the same ol same ol but with more ads.

Bum Boy

Have to say I've made the switch ! I used to listen to R1 overnights but now listen to Newtalk at night. Only problem is the audio is far too bassy and the programmes sometimes get stuck on a loop...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and anyone else notice this ?

Profiler

LostinBlanch wrote: »

For all the fact that it's gone downhill in a big way over the last couple of years it's still got some shows that are better than anything else in their timeslot.

Off The Ball - no other station has so much varied sports coverage

I have to disagree with you on that one. Off the ball is terrible, it is dreadful stuff.

I think it only appears good in the sense that there is no other show out there that covers sport for as many hours in the evening as they do.

However I’ve lost count of the number of times they have had a fantastic guest on the show only to have some stuttering mumbling clown ask them stupid amateur questions.

The show could so easily be very very good but no matter how they try the always make a balls of it.

ronbyrne2005

Bum Boy wrote: »

Have to say I've made the switch ! I used to listen to R1 overnights but now listen to Newtalk at night. Only problem is the audio is far too bassy and the programmes sometimes get stuck on a loop...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and repeat...and anyone else notice this ?

Yeah, it's headwrecking, happens a fair bit too, obviously no one checking what's being broadcast through the night.

themont85

Profiler wrote: »

I have to disagree with you on that one. Off the ball is terrible, it is dreadful stuff.

I think it only appears good in the sense that there is no other show out there that covers sport for as many hours in the evening as they do.

However I’ve lost count of the number of times they have had a fantastic guest on the show only to have some stuttering mumbling clown ask them stupid amateur questions.

The show could so easily be very very good but no matter how they try the always make a balls of it.

What you mean interviews like with Mike Spitz last week, personally thought it was one of the best sport interviews i've ever heard on the radio. They have the best guests, wide vareity of topics which nobody else does and presenters who seem to have a passion about sports. What kind of 'stupid amateur questions' qs are you talking about? I always find they have excellent qs and are the complete opposite to what your saying tbh.

Utopia Parkway

berliner wrote: »

Imagine working with a babe like claire byrne every morning.Jammy git gilroy!

I still find her annoying but I admit she is rather fine in a hot school teacher kinda way.

Profiler

themont85 wrote: »

What you mean interviews like with Mike Spitz last week, personally thought it was one of the best sport interviews i've ever heard on the radio. They have the best guests, wide vareity of topics which nobody else does and presenters who seem to have a passion about sports. What kind of 'stupid amateur questions' qs are you talking about? I always find they have excellent qs and are the complete opposite to what your saying tbh.

I have to admit I didn't catch all of the Mark Spitz interview but what came across was how good at speaking Spitz was. So while it might have been one of the best you've heard that IMO as was more down to Spitz than it was to Eoin McDevitt.

What I mean by stupid & amateur would be for example they arguably had the greatest swimmer of all time on your show in an Olympic year and all you can do is is ask him the same 10 questions he has been asked hundreds if not thousands of times. WHy not try and get something new from SPitz as opposed to hearing the same tales that are out there already?

One thing that stuck out to me was it appears that it was Spitz who mentioned Michael Phelps first and it was towards the end of the interview, I get the impression that had Spitz not mentioned him McDevitt would not have.

Like I said I didn't hear all the interview, but in an Olympic year for McDevitt to not mention Phelps was just sports journalism at its lowest common denominator.

They also have some country pages bit with the presenter from Galway whose name escapes me and half of what he reads out is about non sports incidents, why do they do that on a Sports show? that to me shows a lack of planning and a dearth of research.

I do agree they have some great guests, but those they have are criminally underused, and while they do cover a wide range of sports they barley scratch the surface, why do everything poorly and in a shallow way when you could do a few things well? they do so because it's commercially clever to do so, cover lots and get more listeners but only do the bare minimum on each sport.

Off the Ball is the Sun or the Star of radio shows, all hype and little real content.

mike65

OTB suffers from the obvious - 3 hours to fill every night. Even fivelive don't do that and they have live matches to broadcast.

Mike.

connundrum

themont85 wrote: »

What you mean interviews like with Mike Spitz last week, personally thought it was one of the best sport interviews i've ever heard on the radio. They have the best guests, wide vareity of topics which nobody else does and presenters who seem to have a passion about sports. What kind of 'stupid amateur questions' qs are you talking about? I always find they have excellent qs and are the complete opposite to what your saying tbh.

Apologies for going off topic, but does anyone have a link for the Spitz interview? Missed it first time around

Stylo

If all you guys and gals, have so much to offer on how things should be done, why aren't YOU working in radio - get a bloody grip will ya and turn around and do it yourselves - sheesh, you'd imagine it was that easy - put yourselves in front of a live mic and tell us how it should be done - and then we'll bitch on you f*^ked it up

mike65

Ha! Another Newstalk employee? Must get Dev to run an IP check

Mike.

Toto Wolfcastle

Stylo wrote: »

If all you guys and gals, have so much to offer on how things should be done, why aren't YOU working in radio - get a bloody grip will ya and turn around and do it yourselves - sheesh, you'd imagine it was that easy - put yourselves in front of a live mic and tell us how it should be done - and then we'll bitch on you f*^ked it up

I actually think that a good few people posting here have some experience on live radio. (myself included)

Not that it makes a difference. People are entitled to their opinions.

Personally, the first think I learned when I started doing radio was that I should speak clearly (as in not slur), and not make those awful dry mouth noises. There are one or two on Newstalk who have yet to learn this.

Also, saying 'emmm' every second word isn't great either. (I'm looking at you Eamonn Keane!)

These are basic things that need to be addressed before you can even begin to think about interviewing people.

Profiler

Stylo wrote: »

If all you guys and gals, have so much to offer on how things should be done, why aren't YOU working in radio - get a bloody grip will ya and turn around and do it yourselves - sheesh, you'd imagine it was that easy - put yourselves in front of a live mic and tell us how it should be done - and then we'll bitch on you f*^ked it up

Right I'm going to guess that as it is way past Ger's bed time then that has to be Ken... get a hair cut man for the love of god! you look like Worzel Gummidge's less talented cousin :eek:

themont85

Profiler wrote: »

I have to admit I didn't catch all of the Mark Spitz interview but what came across was how good at speaking Spitz was. So while it might have been one of the best you've heard that IMO as was more down to Spitz than it was to Eoin McDevitt.

What I mean by stupid & amateur would be for example they arguably had the greatest swimmer of all time on your show in an Olympic year and all you can do is is ask him the same 10 questions he has been asked hundreds if not thousands of times. WHy not try and get something new from SPitz as opposed to hearing the same tales that are out there already?

One thing that stuck out to me was it appears that it was Spitz who mentioned Michael Phelps first and it was towards the end of the interview, I get the impression that had Spitz not mentioned him McDevitt would not have.

Like I said I didn't hear all the interview, but in an Olympic year for McDevitt to not mention Phelps was just sports journalism at its lowest common denominator.

They also have some country pages bit with the presenter from Galway whose name escapes me and half of what he reads out is about non sports incidents, why do they do that on a Sports show? that to me shows a lack of planning and a dearth of research.

I do agree they have some great guests, but those they have are criminally underused, and while they do cover a wide range of sports they barley scratch the surface, why do everything poorly and in a shallow way when you could do a few things well? they do so because it's commercially clever to do so, cover lots and get more listeners but only do the bare minimum on each sport.

Off the Ball is the Sun or the Star of radio shows, all hype and little real content.

Well when your interviewing a guy like that its pretty obvious that you'd ask some of the routine qs. But then they covered an array of subjects surrounding swimming i.e. his opinion on drugs and new technologies in swimming. I highly doubt they're the kind of routine qs one would ask. And Btw as regards same old storys told, you can't expect the entire audience to know these stories just because you've heard them before, not to ask about stories about about the worlds greatest swimmer's storys would be bad journalism imo.

These are the kind of guests they have football-Graham Hunter, Sid Lowe, Gabriel Marcotti ect, all of whom are highly venrable journalists offering topics such as Italian, German and Spanish football which are hardly discussed a lot on normal sport shows. Then there's rugby-Gerry Thornley one of the most respected in Ireland, GAA all Indo and IT journalists. Then there's the likes of Paul Kimmahe and Walsh from the ST, on drugs in cycling. These are hardly stories covered in the Sun or other tabloid papers who devout 50 bloody page mags to the english league. They covered Balco extensively. They always give stories a good run, if fact things such as the country pages thing show they maybe have too much time.

Could I ask if you presented a sports programme how would you do it, what guests are criminally underused. I have to say I lived in england for a while and BBC 5live and talksport were ,considering the resources, on a par with OTB.

Profiler

themont85 wrote: »

Well when your interviewing a guy like that its pretty obvious that you'd ask some of the routine qs. But then they covered an array of subjects surrounding swimming i.e. his opinion on drugs and new technologies in swimming. I highly doubt they're the kind of routine qs one would ask. And Btw as regards same old storys told, you can't expect the entire audience to know these stories just because you've heard them before, not to ask about stories about about the worlds greatest swimmer's storys would be bad journalism imo.

These are the kind of guests they have football-Graham Hunter, Sid Lowe, Gabriel Marcotti ect, all of whom are highly venrable journalists offering topics such as Italian, German and Spanish football which are hardly discussed a lot on normal sport shows. Then there's rugby-Gerry Thornley one of the most respected in Ireland, GAA all Indo and IT journalists. Then there's the likes of Paul Kimmahe and Walsh from the ST, on drugs in cycling. These are hardly stories covered in the Sun or other tabloid papers who devout 50 bloody page mags to the english league. They covered Balco extensively. They always give stories a good run, if fact things such as the country pages thing show they maybe have too much time.

Could I ask if you presented a sports programme how would you do it, what guests are criminally underused. I have to say I lived in england for a while and BBC 5live and talksport were ,considering the resources, on a par with OTB.

Newstalk in general goes the lowest common denominator route almost all of the time, they do that to attract as many listeners as is possible and therefore squeeze as much out of advertising as they can. This is very much the case with OTB.

Oh and "Indo journalists" since when do the Indo employ journalists? Fanning is no more a sports writer then I am a radio journalist.

The Irish journalists are there as much for self promotion rather than to add some class and volume to the show. As for Graeme Hunter, I see him all the time on Sky Sports' Spanish coverage and he isn't great.

5 Live on the BBC is miles ahead of OTB, given the potential audience that it has you are comparing apples with oranges! and I've not heard much from Talksport to be honest.

Dub13

Stylo wrote: »

If all you guys and gals, have so much to offer on how things should be done, why aren't YOU working in radio - get a bloody grip will ya and turn around and do it yourselves - sheesh, you'd imagine it was that easy - put yourselves in front of a live mic and tell us how it should be done - and then we'll bitch on you f*^ked it up

So you have to work in radio to express an opinion on it..?

Dub13

Profiler wrote: »

. As for Graeme Hunter, I see him all the time on Sky Sports' Spanish coverage and he isn't great.

Have to disagree Hunter is one of the best football journalist's around.I hate it when he only gets about 90 seconds on the Newstalk breakfast show.

Imhof Tank

OTB the equivalent of the Sun/ Star?

3 hours radio equivalent of the Sun/ Star sports sections would be 2 and three quarters hours coverage of the premiership, with a few sweeping assumptions and generalisations about foreign teams thrown in. The other 15 mins would be given over to the Dubs.

Whatever about the rest of the station (ie Clare Byrne in particular) I don’t know how anyone could accuse OTB of being dumbed down. Their analysis is absolutely unique and downright hillarious.

For example, they had Martin Lipton on last night, who on the night of the Liverpool Chelsea match on Tuesday stayed at the same hotel as the Chelsea team, Tom Hicks and members of the Dubai consortium, and he was speaking about the scene in the lobby with Hicks signing autographs inside while being barricaded in by irate Liverpool fans outside. He also told of Chelsea fans sarcastically chanting “USA, USA…..” through the game in reference to Hicks and Gillett, and the Dubai guys who were guests of the yanks joining in with middle eastern accents thinking the chant was in support of the Americans.

This stuff might seem like ladish humour, and that is true and its an important part of the show, but the fact remains that you don’t get that approach or the likes of Ken Early reporting fans signing “Stand up if you want Stan out” at CP, anywhere else on radio that I know of and thats what makes OTB unique.

BTW, I thought Fanning was good during the Stan era when he would regularly contribute in the aftermath of disasters eg in San Marino in reation to Robbie Keane celbrating with "a win is a win" and getting slaughtered quite rightly by the fans, and also at CP after the Cyprus game.

Leaving the humour angle aside, there is nothing lacking in class (to the extent that class is a definable quality in the context of this type of show) or volume to the shows output IMO - quite the opposite. In fact I challenge anyone to name a classless/ shallow regular contributor on OTB (who is not asked on the show for comic purposes of course)

Excluding OTB, you do have a point in the case of the breakfast show’s agenda – although Ger Gilroy does occasionally break away from the set agenda to make an unexpectedly original point. Claire Byrne on the other hand basically gets stroppy if guests don’t fall in with the show’s particular line on a topic – eg; for everything bad that happens in the health/ education sectors – there must be a scapegoat; but for stuff like pig racing in Naas during Punchestown week – well sure that’s only a laugh and these animal rights people are crazy tree huggers or whatever.

LordSutch

I've recently given up on Newstalk after listening to it from the very beginning!

I now find the station boring, staid, parochial, & just void of any new ideas or formats, morning, noon, or nights (repeats).

I now have my Roberts Radio plugged into the NTL FM socket and I enjoy all five BBCs, in the morning (Wogan) & at night (Janice Long) on Radio One, or better still Radio Three just before midnight then I have Radio Five for great Sports coverage (newstalk take a feed off Radio Five for the footie) then 'Radio Four' for a bit of culture & News + the World Service should I be in the mood.

I still have Newstalk on a DAB Pre-set, and I still put it on sometimes in the morning, but God Almighty its such a relief to get away from the (30c Text messages) & Claire Byrne's Quick-fire 'Hard ball' style of interviewing, and Moncrief 'Stuck' in a Rut, Hookie opinionated as ever, & then the repeats at night ~
Jesus Wept!

themont85

Profiler wrote: »

Newstalk in general goes the lowest common denominator route almost all of the time, they do that to attract as many listeners as is possible and therefore squeeze as much out of advertising as they can. This is very much the case with OTB.

Oh and "Indo journalists" since when do the Indo employ journalists? Fanning is no more a sports writer then I am a radio journalist.

The Irish journalists are there as much for self promotion rather than to add some class and volume to the show. As for Graeme Hunter, I see him all the time on Sky Sports' Spanish coverage and he isn't great.

5 Live on the BBC is miles ahead of OTB, given the potential audience that it has you are comparing apples with oranges! and I've not heard much from Talksport to be honest.

Again I'd ask the question if you presented/produced a 3 hour sports show what would you do? BBC have similar guests as OTB, hardly tabloid. I really don't see how you can call there sports coverage 'tabloid'. No offence but IMO you typify the attitude thinking that anyone could present on radio.

I agree that there's been a general dumbing down of there other shows, the 30c and the 'Health Famine' crusade ect. But they look like a managment decision to go that route, they're definately aiming at the 'Joe Duffy' segment of the market. But OTB i think is the best produced/researched show they have.

LordSutch

janeybabe wrote: »

I actually think that a good few people posting here have some experience on live radio. (myself included)

Not that it makes a difference. People are entitled to their opinions.

Personally, the first think I learned when I started doing radio was that I should speak clearly (as in not slur), and not make those awful dry mouth noises. There are one or two on Newstalk who have yet to learn this.

Also, saying 'emmm' every second word isn't great either. (I'm looking at you Eamonn Keane!)

These are basic things that need to be addressed before you can even begin to think about interviewing people.

You might also include Orla Barry & her unusual habit of trying not to breathe after every sentence, in fact it sounds to me like she only breathes after she has squeezed the very last bit of air out of her lungs!

Or maybe she is a heavy smoker? either way, it sounds a bit strained at the end of each sentence for whatever reason.

And as for Marian Finucane ............... :rolleyes: