The Pat Kenny Show

Ahwell

mattser wrote: »

Latest JNLR Radio figures ;


Pat Kenny ..............up 2,000 to 150,000

Sean O' Rourke.......up 27,000 to 322,000

This really is not comparing like with like. Pat had 328,000 listeners when he left that time slot on RTE Radio 1 and I seriously doubt Sean O' Rourke would have anything like 150,000 listeners if it were him who joined Newstalk instead of Pat Kenny. RTE Radio 1's ratings are bombproof, despite how much Newstalk spent on that ad campaign, people just don't "move the dial" away from RTE.

kneemos

Ahwell wrote: »

This really is not comparing like with like. Pat had 328,000 listeners when he left that time slot on RTE Radio 1 and I seriously doubt Sean O' Rourke would have anything like 150,000 listeners if it were him who joined Newstalk instead of Pat Kenny. RTE Radio 1's ratings are bombproof, despite how much Newstalk spent on that ad campaign, people just don't "move the dial" away from RTE.

Explains the Late Late Show.

jeremyj1968

Don't forget the Healy factor. As much as they have a campaign for people to "move the dial", if I turn on and hear Jonathan F**king Healy (we like to refer to him by his full name in this house), this is effectively a "move the f**king dial back permanently" campaign for me.

It wasnt me123

Why do we have to give these neanderthals air time. David Quinn and the rest of IONA just want to drag us all back into the 19th century and catholic oppression

meeeeh

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Why do we have to give these neanderthals air time. David Quinn and the rest of IONA just want to drag us all back into the 19th century and catholic oppression

Because Irish law demands equal coverage for both sides on referendum issues. I think David Quinn actually discovered he can make money with media appearances being against any change when there is no one else to oppose the referendum issue.

Tell me how

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Don't forget the Healy factor. As much as they have a campaign for people to "move the dial", if I turn on and hear Jonathan F**king Healy (we like to refer to him by his full name in this house), this is effectively a "move the f**king dial back permanently" campaign for me.

It's hardly permanent is it when you keep tuning in again.

i71jskz5xu42pb

meeeeh wrote: »

Because Irish law demands equal coverage for both sides on referendum issues.

That's a misconception.

Declan McLoughin, the BAI’s compliance and policy manager, said there was “no statutory or legal requirement in our codes for equal airtime”.

and more relevant for this referendum:

Mr McLoughlin added: “At the same time, if there is very little opposition to a particular referenda proposal, there is no obligation to fill up airtime to meet a 50:50 obligation. It can be perfectly appropriate for the majority of airtime to be in favour of one particular proposal if the proposal is not controversial. Ultimately the editorial responsibility lies with broadcasters.”

From this IT article

Callan57

meeeeh wrote: »

Because Irish law demands equal coverage for both sides on referendum issues. I think David Quinn actually discovered he can make money with media appearances being against any change when there is no one else to oppose the referendum issue.

Whatever about money it gives him profile & airtime for his ultra conservative agenda way in excess of what the support for his agenda amongst the general population would warrant.

I often felt Sinn Fein did the same cynical thing when they opposed various European referenda & because they were only political party voicing the "opposing" view they garnered 50% of the air time ... funny how they have suddenly since Brexit become so pro-Europe. :rolleyes:

plodder

Callan57 wrote: »

Whatever about money it gives him profile & airtime for his ultra conservative agenda way in excess of what the support for his agenda amongst the general population would warrant.

I often felt Sinn Fein did the same cynical thing when they opposed various European referenda & because they were only political party voicing the "opposing" view they garnered 50% of the air time ... funny how they have suddenly since Brexit become so pro-Europe. :rolleyes:

At the same time, we shouldn't go back to the pre-McKenna judgement days where the state thought it could use taxpayers money to fund one side of the argument exclusively. It seems reasonable as well that state funded organisations like RTE should strive for some semblance of balance, which they do it has to be said (though I would accept they have been overly strict in interpreting the rules)

I know Quinn is a hate figure for many, but if he is the only person putting that side of the argument then so what?

Loafing Oaf

meeeeh wrote: »

Because Irish law demands equal coverage for both sides on referendum issues. I think David Quinn actually discovered he can make money with media appearances being against any change when there is no one else to oppose the referendum issue.

And even his opposition is pretty qualified:

To be clear, I have no particular objection to the waiting time being reduced to two years, but I think it would be better to put that in the constitution rather than leave the matter to the tender mercies of politicians, who will always find a reason to make the law in this area more permissive.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/david-quinn-quick-divorce-makes-a-mockery-of-marriage-0jjh6cpj9

It wasnt me123

plodder wrote: »

......

I know Quinn is a hate figure for many, but if he is the only person putting that side of the argument then so what?

But I don't think he would be but I think its lazy journalism that they just roll him out to say no.

His draconian thinking is totally abhorrent to current more liberal thinking and shouldn't get any air time, IMO

Tell me how

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

But I don't think he would be but I think its lazy journalism that they just roll him out to say no.

His draconian thinking is totally abhorrent to current more liberal thinking and shouldn't get any air time, IMO

You could argue that that is why he should get the air time, to allow said voice to be heard.
38% voted against SSM, 34% against repealing the 8th. There are many who still hold his position on such matters, shutting down discussion on what still are subjective matters is not advisable in my view even though I'm not sure I agree with him on anything.

It wasnt me123

I'm not talking about shutting down any discussion - I'm talking about using someone else other than David Quinn.

Is he the only person they can find to oppose everything?

Of those percentages of 38% and 34% I wonder how many of those have died since - younger people (less than aged 60) think live and let live and are not so bent on trying to impose their will on others.

Loafing Oaf

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

I'm not talking about shutting down any discussion - I'm talking about using someone else other than David Quinn.

Is he the only person they can find to oppose everything?

Of those percentages of 38% and 34% I wonder how many of those have died since - younger people (less than aged 60) think live and let live and are not so bent on trying to impose their will on others.

Well there's no organised campaign against the referendum. And the 'opposition' from the usual suspects on the Catholic Right seems to be half-hearted bordering on indifference. Ronan Mullen is quoted in today's Daily Mail saying the referendum proposal "wouldn't make much difference." So it's no wonder the broadcasters are struggling to fulfil their legal obligations re the referendum...

kneemos

Ballot papers I believe will come in a folder.

plodder

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

I'm not talking about shutting down any discussion - I'm talking about using someone else other than David Quinn.

Is he the only person they can find to oppose everything?

Quite possibly. Breda O'Brien, Ronan Mullen might be alternatives - two notorious hate figures as well. I can't think of anyone else who would subject themselves to it.

meeeeh

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

younger people (less than aged 60) think live and let live and are not so bent on trying to impose their will on others.

Isn't that a bit ironic since you just suggested someone shouldn't be on radio because his thinking is "totally abhorrent to current liberal thinking"?

Anyway out of Maria Steen, Ronan Mullen and Breda O'Brien I would choose Quinn anytime.

It wasnt me123

meeeeh wrote: »

Isn't that a bit ironic since you just suggested someone shouldn't be on radio because his thinking is "totally abhorrent to current liberal thinking"?

Anyway out of Maria Steen, Ronan Mullen and Breda O'Brien I would choose Quinn anytime.

I don't think anything I said was ironic. If IONA is the only organisation that has anything to offer in reply and as most people would not profess to follow IONA leanings, I actually think they have nothing to offer and there is no need to have a reply.

If all they can roll out to say no is the same 3 then what is the point. You only have to have an opposite view if there is an opposite view and IMO they don't count any more.

Tell me how

meeeeh wrote: »

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Of those percentages of 38% and 34% I wonder how many of those have died since - younger people (less than aged 60) think live and let live and are not so bent on trying to impose their will on others.

Isn't that a bit ironic since you just suggested someone shouldn't be on radio because his thinking is "totally abhorrent to current liberal thinking"?

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

I don't think anything I said was ironic.
If all they can roll out to say no is the same 3 then what is the point. You only have to have an opposite view if there is an opposite view and IMO they don't count any more.

This is the irony, it is your opinion that they don't count any more so you think they should get no airtime, yet, you are saying that young people are not bent on trying to impose their will on others.

Not allowing a voice because you disagree with it, is effectively trying to impose your beliefs on others.

DEFTLEFTHAND

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

But I don't think he would be but I think its lazy journalism that they just roll him out to say no.

His draconian thinking is totally abhorrent to current more liberal thinking and shouldn't get any air time, IMO

There's nothing liberal about censoring opinions. Leftist maybe but certainly not liberal.

serfboard

meeeeh wrote: »

Anyway out of Maria Steen, Ronan Mullen and Breda O'Brien I would choose Quinn anytime.

Agree with this.

If somebody is looking for a media-savvy person (as in, someone who is used to going on radio) instead of the Gang Of 4 above, who do they have in mind?

Callan57

Tell me how wrote: »

This is the irony, it is your opinion that they don't count any more so you think they should get no airtime, yet, you are saying that young people are not bent on trying to impose their will on others.

Not allowing a voice because you disagree with it, is effectively trying to impose your beliefs on others.

I don't have a problem with ultra-conservatives being given media time but I do have a problem when they are given media exposure totally at variance with the size of their support base. How many of them are regular newspaper columnists given a free run to expound their views totally unchallenged?

serfboard

Callan57 wrote: »

I don't have a problem with ultra-conservatives being given media time but I do have a problem when they are given media exposure totally at variance with the size of their support base.

It depends what you mean by ultra-conservatives.

Because if you mean socially conservative, but economically left-wing, then 1930's Fianna Fail, AKA Aontu (slogan: Life. Unity. Economic Justice), will show how much of a support base there is.

It wasnt me123

Callan57 wrote: »

I don't have a problem with ultra-conservatives being given media time but I do have a problem when they are given media exposure totally at variance with the size of their support base. How many of them are regular newspaper columnists given a free run to expound their views totally unchallenged?

This was the point I was trying, badly, to make.

There is little or no support base for ultra conservative views but everytime they have someone on saying yes to whatever new issue on a referendum, then they roll out IONA saying no. They get 50% airtime whereas the rest of the airtime is divided between all the other parties/organisations that want to say yes.

plodder

Callan57 wrote: »

I don't have a problem with ultra-conservatives being given media time but I do have a problem when they are given media exposure totally at variance with the size of their support base. How many of them are regular newspaper columnists given a free run to expound their views totally unchallenged?

If you were talking about political parties or elections even, I might agree.

For a constitutional referendum though, I don't think support base comes into it. It's usually a simple yes or no question. You can vote for the proposition or against it. There should be some modicum of balance in the coverage of both sides. The state can't decide this one is a shoo-in, so we'll only give the No side 10% of the coverage or whatever. The courts would shoot that down pretty quick.

Though, I think there could be more transparency in the process and if there are other people willing to step forward and make the case for the "unpopular" side, they should be given the opportunity. There could be some public list of "lobbyists" who are prepared to argue either side maybe.

Tell me how

Callan57 wrote: »

I don't have a problem with ultra-conservatives being given media time but I do have a problem when they are given media exposure totally at variance with the size of their support base. How many of them are regular newspaper columnists given a free run to expound their views totally unchallenged?

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

This was the point I was trying, badly, to make.

There is little or no support base for ultra conservative views but everytime they have someone on saying yes to whatever new issue on a referendum, then they roll out IONA saying no. They get 50% airtime whereas the rest of the airtime is divided between all the other parties/organisations that want to say yes.

It has already been pointed out that IONA's views had support of between 34% and 38% of those who voted in the recent referendums.

I would hazard that not only do those voices not get 50% of exposure relative to sides which were in favour of Yes on both counts, but that they in fact got considerably less than 35%.

If you were to line up every newspaper columnist who was advocating for No, they'd have been vastly outnumbered by those arguing for Yes votes.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

It has already been pointed out that IONA's views had support of between 34% and 38% of those who voted in the recent referendums.

I would hazard that not only do those voices not get 50% of exposure relative to sides which were in favour of Yes on both counts, but that they in fact got considerably less than 35%.

If you were to line up every newspaper columnist who was advocating for No, they'd have been vastly outnumbered by those arguing for Yes votes.

The No views in both Repeal and Same Sex Marriage refs got more airtime than their support. They got 50% airtime, their support was way below that level.

Its pretty clear they're over-represented, and it takes some spectacular mental gymnastics to deny that. Quite painful to watch, in fact. Let's not strain ourselves?!

Tell me how

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The No views in both Repeal and Same Sex Marriage refs got more airtime than their support. They got 50% airtime, their support was way below that level.

Its pretty clear they're over-represented, and it takes some spectacular mental gymnastics to deny that. Quite painful to watch, in fact. Let's not strain ourselves?!

I was a yes voter on both, but while No voices were heard, I do not think they were any way close to 50%. In many cases, they were outnumbered 2:1 on panel shows and the like.

And, as I said, in terms of journalists advocating positions, they were probably outnumbered 10:1

I think people feel they got more attention because when they were present, some paid more attention because they were incensed that they were getting any platform.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I was a yes voter on both, but while No voices were heard, I do not think they were any way close to 50%. In many cases, they were outnumbered 2:1 on panel shows and the like.

But all the major radio stations interpret the BAI rules as requiring 50/50 coverage of both views.

Granted, contributors sometimes speak indirectly in favour of a particular outcome, but I can't think of any case where the broadcaster provided a numerical disadvantage to either side.

If anything, I think the broadcasters are interpreting the BAI rules too rigidly. It doesn't have to be a precise 50/50 balance.

plodder

You can read the BAI guidelines for coverage of referendums at http://www.bai.ie/en/download/132680/

It says things like - there should be as wide a diversity of views as possible and it says nothing about limiting coverage based on pre-conceived notions about the levels of support for any viewpoint.

I can't see how you would do it differently. How would you measure what the level of support is accurately? Why would you want to do this even? Does it not contradict the 'diversity of opinions' goal?