Marian Finucane

Oops69

how was it today , did he drop Marion's Usual Trump bashing half hour ?, the biggest diplomatic breakthrough made in many years this week regarding north Korea and the RTE Hilary lovers are in serious denial still.

quintana76

Oops69 wrote: »

how was it today , did he drop Marion's Usual Trump bashing half hour ?, the biggest diplomatic breakthrough made in many years this week regarding north Korea and the RTE Hilary lovers are in serious denial still.

He was actually ok. When faced with the default Trump Derangement Syndrome from his guests he asked pertinent questions. E.g. How come his popularity is rising. The excellent economy can't all be down to Obama at this stage.
Don't think the questions were even heard just the usual anti-Trump autopilot reaction. Don't remember who the guests were. Didn't matter as they were all trying to outdo themselves in their outrage about the Donald. They are in effect, all interchangeable.

Callan57

Oops69 wrote: »

how was it today , did he drop Marion's Usual Trump bashing half hour ?, the biggest diplomatic breakthrough made in many years this week regarding north Korea and the RTE Hilary lovers are in serious denial still.

As a former Chinese premier is quoted as saying vis-a-vis the impact of the French Revolution "way too soon to say" ....

tampopo

sligojoek wrote: »

I turned off when he was talking to people about their dead parents.

This was the only part of the programme I heard. A radio version of Tubbs' LLS

anthonyjmaher

This was the only part of the programme I heard. A radio version of Tubbs' LLS

Or worse, a radio version of Tubb' radio show. :-)

FrancieBrady

DickSwiveller wrote: »

He is talking about the intolerance shown towards anyone who dares to go against received wisdom. Just scroll through the 8th Amendment thread in after hours and you'll see what he means.

I seen plenty getting huffy when their points were challenged or debunked. That tends to happen in debates.
The pro sides consultant got challenged in the TV debate.
I didn't see anyone moaning that it was because of 'intolerance'.
No side might need to grow up a bit and accept they were the minority view on this.

DickSwiveller

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I seen plenty getting huffy when their points were challenged or debunked. That tends to happen in debates.
The pro sides consultant got challenged in the TV debate.
I didn't see anyone moaning that it was because of 'intolerance'.
No side might need to grow up a bit and accept they were the minority view on this.

I don't think you read my post

Callan57

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I seen plenty getting huffy when their points were challenged or debunked. That tends to happen in debates.
The pro sides consultant got challenged in the TV debate.
I didn't see anyone moaning that it was because of 'intolerance'.
No side might need to grow up a bit and accept they were the minority view on this.

Right on ... I have RSI from the multitude of times I've had to flick the dial when Ronaaaaaaaaaaaan, that Quinn guy, Ganley, Steen, Sherlock etc & a plethora of Iona types were pontificating plus of course they had the captive audience from every pulpit in the country open to them.



Oh yea sure they got no air time :rolleyes: ... as the result shows they got air time well in excess of what they democratically deserved. They lost get over it

DickSwiveller

Callan57 wrote: »

Right on ... I have RSI from the multitude of times I've had to flick the dial when Ronaaaaaaaaaaaan, that Quinn guy, Ganley, Steen, Sherlock etc & a plethora of Iona types were pontificating plus of course they had the captive audience from every pulpit in the country open to them.



Oh yea sure they got no air time :rolleyes: ... as the result shows they got air time well in excess of what they democratically deserved. They lost get over it

Did you actually read what Anthony posted?

Infoanon

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Whatever happened to the presenters ACTUALLY being objective. Like the way Gay Byrne and Pat Kenny (when he was on RTE) were - you would never know how they felt on any topic.

Yes Gay Byrne was very objective in the 1990 presidential campaign that Mary Robinson ultimately won.......

FrancieBrady

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I don't think you read my post

I did. And it was just endorsing a moan that was not based on any reasonable overview.

The world was not out to get the No side. Their were of course biased opinions but there was also and mostly balanced debating of the issues.
RTE and none of the media outlets I used had a 'recieved wisdom' That is just sore loser moaning.

DickSwiveller

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I did. And it was just endorsing a moan that was not based on any reasonable overview.

The world was not out to get the No side. Their were of course biased opinions but there was also and mostly balanced debating of the issues.
RTE and none of the media outlets I used had a 'recieved wisdom' That is just sore loser moaning.

If you really believe that you're deluded.

Technocentral

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Pat Kenny (when he was on RTE) were - you would never know how they felt on any topic.

Totally obvious Pats pro choice.

FrancieBrady

DickSwiveller wrote: »

If you really believe that you're deluded.

You are overly sensitive. Yes some presenters were unashamedly pro or against repeal.
Amongst adults I fail to see why there is a problem with that.
there are no examples of a 'recieved wisdom', none whatsoever and as I said it is typical sour grapes.
RTE have a mandate to be balanced and they were in this instance, some might say they wers overly favouring what turned out to be a minority position.

DickSwiveller

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are overly sensitive. Yes some presenters were unashamedly pro or against repeal.
Amongst adults I fail to see why there is a problem with that.
there are no examples of a 'recieved wisdom', none whatsoever and as I said it is typical sour grapes.
RTE have a mandate to be balanced and they were in this instance, some might say they wers overly favouring what turned out to be a minority position.

What presenter was unashamedly against repeal? This should be interesting...

It's not sour grapes. I got over the result the day after it was announced. You haven't even addressed Anthony's point. All you're doing is spouting the usual partisan nonsense.

FrancieBrady

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What presenter was unashamedly against repeal? This should be interesting...

It's not sour grapes. I got over the result the day after it was announced. You haven't even addressed Anthony's point. All you're doing is spouting the usual partisan nonsense.

No current affairs broadcaster on the national broadcaster came out as either for or against that I am aware of. So it would just be a guess for both of us based on the latitude they gave to particular points of view. They were more or less balanced overall.
If they weren't the ombudsman's office is awaiting your submission. He/she won't deal in guesswork.

DickSwiveller

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No current affairs broadcaster on the national broadcaster came out as either for or against that I am aware of. So it would just be a guess for both of us based on the latitude they gave to particular points of view. They were more or less balanced overall.
If they weren't the ombudsman's office is awaiting your submission. He/she won't deal in guesswork.

I notice you didn't answer my question.

FrancieBrady

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I notice you didn't answer my question.

I said I (like you) could guess what way a current affairs presenter personally lent on this issue.

No current affairs presenter said what way they would vote or give massively more weight to the side I suspect they were leaning towards.

If you could show evidence of a particular broadcaster doing this, please do. Otherwise I will continue to see this as the irrational ranting of somebody roundedly shocked by the result.

anthonyjmaher

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are overly sensitive. Yes some presenters were unashamedly pro or against repeal.
Amongst adults I fail to see why there is a problem with that.

Were there ANY radio/tv presenters, aside from those with religious connections, who came out as being against repeal? You see this is where the argument of balance dies. There is a facade of balance. You will constantly hear radio presenters saying "Oh I have to give the other side 20 seconds to make up the time balance" or "We had equal numbers of representatives from both sides". But this is just box ticking. Balance would have been 1) not allowing presenters who had aired their views on the topic in the past from discussing the topic 2) Asking balanced questions where the presenters own opinion was not completely transparent by their tone and hostile treatment of the people of differing views (listen back to Philip Boucher Hayes discussing the topic when he was covering for Duffy on Liveline) 3) Creating an environment where it was actually possible for high profile, respected people to air their differing views without having their careers destroyed by Twitter and the media.
Since the BAI really does nothing, it's up to people themselves to discern the bias. Then make up their own mind and not be influenced by the subtle lobbying by people like Ray D'Arcy, Ciara Kelly etc.

Brendan Bendar

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Were there ANY radio/tv presenters, aside from those with religious connections, who came out as being against repeal? You see this is where the argument of balance dies. There is a facade of balance. You will constantly hear radio presenters saying "Oh I have to give the other side 20 seconds to make up the time balance" or "We had equal numbers of representatives from both sides". But this is just box ticking. Balance would have been 1) not allowing presenters who had aired their views on the topic in the past from discussing the topic 2) Asking balanced questions where the presenters own opinion was not completely transparent by their tone and hostile treatment of the people of differing views (listen back to Philip Boucher Hayes discussing the topic when he was covering for Duffy on Liveline) 3) Creating an environment where it was actually possible for high profile, respected people to air their differing views without having their careers destroyed by Twitter and the media.
Since the BAI really does nothing, it's up to people themselves to discern the bias. Then make up their own mind and not be influenced by the subtle lobbying by people like Ray D'Arcy, Ciara Kelly etc.

All those points are valid.

Mary Wilson should get honorable mention,in my opinion,seems to be pushing some feminist agenda, if am discerning the tones correctly

FrancieBrady

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Were there ANY radio/tv presenters, aside from those with religious connections, who came out as being against repeal? You see this is where the argument of balance dies. There is a facade of balance. You will constantly hear radio presenters saying "Oh I have to give the other side 20 seconds to make up the time balance" or "We had equal numbers of representatives from both sides". But this is just box ticking. Balance would have been 1) not allowing presenters who had aired their views on the topic in the past from discussing the topic 2) Asking balanced questions where the presenters own opinion was not completely transparent by their tone and hostile treatment of the people of differing views (listen back to Philip Boucher Hayes discussing the topic when he was covering for Duffy on Liveline) 3) Creating an environment where it was actually possible for high profile, respected people to air their differing views without having their careers destroyed by Twitter and the media.
Since the BAI really does nothing, it's up to people themselves to discern the bias. Then make up their own mind and not be influenced by the subtle lobbying by people like Ray D'Arcy, Ciara Kelly etc.

Nanny statism again.

The current affairs coverage of this issue was as balanced as it could be with, if anything, an over exposed No opinion which turned out to be the minority opinion by a goodly proportion. Exit polls showed most people had their minds made up before the main campaign kicked off.

If you are crying about magazine type presenters revealing their stances then that is a criticism of the voter who really shouldn't have their minds made up by such.

The serious debates were balanced.
If they weren't where are the challenges to the ombudsman?
All ranting and no substance/evidence here. Accept and move on

citykat

John Waters got his chance and blew it. Podcast moment of the year.

Ash.J.Williams

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nanny statism again.

The current affairs coverage of this issue was as balanced as it could be with, if anything, an over exposed No opinion which turned out to be the minority opinion by a goodly proportion. Exit polls showed most people had their minds made up before the main campaign kicked off.

If you are crying about magazine type presenters revealing their stances then that is a criticism of the voter who really shouldn't have their minds made up by such.

The serious debates were balanced.
If they weren't where are the challenges to the ombudsman?
All ranting and no substance/evidence here. Accept and move on

That's a great point... The losing side are a minority

FrancieBrady

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

That's a great point... The losing side are a minority

Yes, they come in small, medium or large and we know which one the No minority was.
According to exit polls the campaign didn't alter the size much.

quintana76

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nanny statism again.

The current affairs coverage of this issue was as balanced as it could be with, if anything, an over exposed No opinion which turned out to be the minority opinion by a goodly proportion. Exit polls showed most people had their minds made up before the main campaign kicked off.

If you are crying about magazine type presenters revealing their stances then that is a criticism of the voter who really shouldn't have their minds made up by such.

The serious debates were balanced.
If they weren't where are the challenges to the ombudsman?
All ranting and no substance/evidence here. Accept and move on

The debate hosted by Pat Kenny was interesting. His role as far as I could see was not to let Ms "Steen"? speak. He effectively used Ronan Mullen as a foil. The more Ronan spoke the more the the "no" cause was discredited. They had equal speaking time on both sides but not for individuals. Keep Ronan talking at the expense of the very capable Ms Steen was the tactic. Just an observation but that is a lesson how to exploit balance.

FrancieBrady

quintana76 wrote: »

The debate hosted by Pat Kenny was interesting. His role as far as I could see was not to let Ms "Steen"? speak. He effectively used Ronan Mullen as a foil. The more Ronan spoke the more the the "no" cause was discredited. They had equal speaking time on both sides but not for individuals. Keep Ronan talking at the expense of the very capable Ms Steen was the tactic. Just an observation but that is a lesson how to exploit balance.

Kenny has at this stage shown that Miss Steen was not the hero of the No campaign she was trumpeted as. He disected her arguments thoroughly on his radio show, so effectively that she and no campaigners called foul when it was really the case that she had no answers
The huffs in the No campaign about how she was 'silenced' or 'sidelined' really did as much damage as Mullins. She played on her superior unchallengable argument but was rather limp when anyone ignored her halo.
And that is what Kenny did with all the panelists.

Infoanon

quintana76 wrote: »

The debate hosted by Pat Kenny was interesting. His role as far as I could see was not to let Ms "Steen"? speak. He effectively used Ronan Mullen as a foil. The more Ronan spoke the more the the "no" cause was discredited. They had equal speaking time on both sides but not for individuals. Keep Ronan talking at the expense of the very capable Ms Steen was the tactic. Just an observation but that is a lesson how to exploit balance.

Pat Kenny gave Ms. Steen plenty of airtime on both radio and television.
The notion that this was a tactic is farcical and an insult to the Irish electorate who voted by a 2 to 1 majority.
The earlier posters comments about bias by Philip Boucher Hayes are also unfair - since when is fact checking and calling out falsehoods by both sides showing bias against the 'Nos'.
I personally think Mr. BouCher Hayes is an excellent presenter who cuts through the bs

honeybear

Richard is a bit hyper

honeybear

Richard is a bit hyper

anthonyjmaher

Seems like it's not enough to ask for balance on these panels/boards any more. It's now about vilifying and "social media shaming" of the men who are on the panels/ boards. I heard the McGill organiser earlier this week and he sounds like he's had enough of it. He said that when organising panels, he has to fit numerous criteria on balance like left/right, FG/FF/Shinner, male/female ... His job sounds impossible, particularly when people are just waiting for him to release the names on the panel to start tweeting to push their own agenda.