The Pat Kenny Show

murpho999

crossman47 wrote: »

That must be the biggest joke posted here for a long time. RTE and Newstalk were virulently anti Catholic in the lead up to the abortion referendum. Why should one third of the population be silenced?

I'm not saying one third of the population should be silenced.

I'm asking why is The Iona Institute, of which one third of the population is not connected to in any way, is the body that the media turn to as representative of the minority when they are not?

Also, RTE and Newstalk are by no means anti-Catholic.

Look at RTE still broadcasting The Angelus and when they report on Covid 19 they invariably show it's impact on St Peter's Square in almost every report.

HeidiHeidi

Was the Iona Institute mentioned once in the interview with Pat Kenny today?


I don't think it was, but I can't be sure and the podcast isn't up yet, so I can't confirm that.

I literally haven't seen St. Peter's square once in news reports.

meeeeh

murpho999 wrote: »

I'm not saying one third of the population should be silenced.

I'm asking why is The Iona Institute, of which one third of the population is not connected to in any way, is the body that the media turn to as representative of the minority when they are not?

Also, RTE and Newstalk are by no means anti-Catholic.

Look at RTE still broadcasting The Angelus and when they report on Covid 19 they invariably show it's impact on St Peter's Square in almost every report.

And David McWilliams gets disproportionate amount of coverage in comparison to other economists. Karl Dieter gets disproportionate amount of coverage in comparison to other mortgage brokers. Newstalk is in no way obliged to be balanced, they are private radio station and if it's in their business interest they can have Quinn on 24/7.

L1011

crossman47 wrote: »

That must be the biggest joke posted here for a long time. RTE and Newstalk were virulently anti Catholic in the lead up to the abortion referendum. Why should one third of the population be silenced?

Can you back up this extraordinary claim in any way?

jay0109

murpho999 wrote: »

So being articulate is good enough to be given a platform?

Hitler was articulate too.

The Iona Institute is shady.

They are a lobby group, with a lot of connections to politicians that pushes a religious agenda.

I think posters here should look at their patrons and the origins.

They fact they call themselves an "Institute" is misleading as if they're an educational body.
The word "Institute" would not be permitted in their name in other countries.

I do not see how the media have come to conclude that they are the organisation that represent the views of religious people in this country and they are been given a far bigger platform than their support or membership would normally warrant.

Hitler gets a mention :rolleyes:....time to bow out of this one.

murpho999

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Was the Iona Institute mentioned once in the interview with Pat Kenny today?


I don't think it was, but I can't be sure and the podcast isn't up yet, so I can't confirm that.

He was introduced as director of The Iona Institue at the start.

I literally haven't seen St. Peter's square once in news reports.

Well here's a RTE Report from Monday that leads with pictures of Nuns in the Vatican.

Here's anotherentire Article about St Peter's reopening.

RTE constantly gives prominence to church related news.

murpho999

jay0109 wrote: »

Hitler gets a mention :rolleyes:....time to bow out of this one.

Why?
The point is that being articulate does not give one the right to have a platform on the National airwaves to express religious viewpoints.

Billgirlylegs

murpho999 wrote: »

Not censorship but why do they get a voice?

They had an incredible amount of airtime during recent referenda and they are pushing their own agenda which has been shown to be not popular.

If he and Archbishop Martiin who was on yesterday apparently are pushing for opening of churches then why wasn't the opposing viewpoint put to them in interest of balance?

Either way it just shows the pre - religion bias that still seems pertinent in RTE and lately moreso with Newstalk but that's an other matter entirely.

i would't complain too much.
either he talks sense or he doesn't.
If he doesn't it gets pretty hypocritical and lecturing.
I think people see through the bluff at this stage.
Let him at it.

At least he doesn't drone on about maybe 60-75% risk reduction masks

bloodless_coup

Eamon Ryan is never off the radio, and he represents a tiny fraction of the population.

uptherebels

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

He's a journalist with the Sunday Times at the moment (was previously with the Indo I think) - he's at the briefing every day asking questions of Tony Holohan et al.


As far as I remember (I wasn't listening particularly carefully) he wasn't introduced by Pat Kenny as Iona Institute, but as David Quinn from the Sunday Times.

David Quinn is a columnist. He writes opinion pieces. These pieces are rarely composed of facts nor grounding in reality.
That he is at the briefing everyday doesn't lend any weight to his opinion nor to your claim that he is a 'journalist". Judging from his social media, I'd be questioning his suitability to be the head of a "research institute" due to his inability to understand basic statistics.

crossman47

L1011 wrote: »

Can you back up this extraordinary claim in any way?

Well I was reacting to a poster who said RTE were pro religous and that is a really extraordinary claim.

HeidiHeidi

uptherebels wrote: »

David Quinn is a columnist. He writes opinion pieces. These pieces are rarely composed of facts nor grounding in reality.
That he is at the briefing everyday doesn't lend any weight to his opinion nor to your claim that he is a 'journalist". Judging from his social media, I'd be questioning his suitability to be the head of a "research institute" due to his inability to understand basic statistics.

How does any of that affect his entiltlement to appear on a magazine programme offering his opinion?

uptherebels

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

How does any of that affect his entiltlement to appear on a magazine programme offering his opinion?

Your the one who responded that he was a "journalist" and at the briefings every day, in response to a poster questioning his and his institutes relevancy.
Why does he have an entitlement to be wheeled out over anyone else?
He has no expertise or qualifications other than his self appointed mandate, that makes his opinion anymore relevant than a random person on the street.

HeidiHeidi

uptherebels wrote: »

Your the one who responded that he was a "journalist" and at the briefings every day, in response to a poster questioning his and his institutes relevancy.
Why does he have an entitlement to be wheeled out over anyone else?
He has no expertise or qualifications other than his self appointed mandate, that makes his opinion anymore relevant than a random person on the street.

I used the term "journalist" in the sense that he writes for newspapers.

Lots of people with differing viewpoints and agendas are "wheeled out" on magazine programmes - why would he not be entitled to have his say?

L1011

crossman47 wrote: »

Well I was reacting to a poster who said RTE were pro religous and that is a really extraordinary claim.

That doesn't answer the question.

hotmail.com

murpho999 wrote: »

So being articulate is good enough to be given a platform?

Hitler was articulate too.

The Iona Institute is shady.

They are a lobby group, with a lot of connections to politicians that pushes a religious agenda.

I think posters here should look at their patrons and the origins.

They fact they call themselves an "Institute" is misleading as if they're an educational body.
The word "Institute" would not be permitted in their name in other countries.

I do not see how the media have come to conclude that they are the organisation that represent the views of religious people in this country and they are been given a far bigger platform than their support or membership would normally warrant.

Hitler?

uptherebels

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I used the term "journalist" in the sense that he writes for newspapers.

Lots of people with differing viewpoints and agendas are "wheeled out" on magazine programmes - why would he not be entitled to have his say?

And I highlighted the innacuracy in your comment.
He is entitled to have his say, and has had his say over and over and over again.
Not too many people who have no expertise or experience are wheeled out as often as Dave. You still haven't established why he is given so much air time over anyone else!

HeidiHeidi

uptherebels wrote: »

And I highlighted the innacuracy in your comment.
He is entitled to have his say, and has had his say over and over and over again.
Not too many people who have no expertise or experience are wheeled out as often as Dave. You still haven't established why he is given so much air time over anyone else!

Because I think he isn't given noticeably more airtime than anyone else. He's a voice, among many, who occasionally appears on magazine shows. I used to hear a lot more of him years ago, I actually don't hear him that much these days.

There's this conspiracy theory that he's taking over the airwaves and brainwashing the country or something, it's ridiculous.

Maybe you could provide evidence for your claim that "he's given so much more airtime than anyone else"?

And what was inaccurate?


journalist
/ˈdʒəːn(ə)lɪst/

noun
a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast.

Mad_maxx

murpho999 wrote: »

David Quinn is regularly on radio and TV and I just don't get why the media turn to them.






The Iona Institute is an organisation with a political agenda.

They have shown in the past to be against gay rights and also the rights of the individual in other social matters.

They're an organisation that has been shown to be out of step with Irish societies views on social issues and I find that they get an disproportionate amount of air time for what they promote and the size of their membership.

they are " out of step " with irish medias views on social issues , of that there is no doubt

i imagine they are in tune with a sizeable minority of the general population however , perhaps 10% , thats more than double the number of communists out there judging by the electoral performance of PBP - solidarity - paul murphys new dingbat outfit , yet the far left are never off the airwaves , richard boyd barrett was regularly on rte years before even getting elected to dun laoighre council

i reckon the iona institute get a fair bit of airtime because the media want to portray them as typical of conservative viewpoints , they are social conservatives , mainstream conservative opinion is non existent in the irish media

touts

murpho999 wrote: »

So being articulate is good enough to be given a platform?

Hitler was articulate too.

The Iona Institute is shady.

They are a lobby group, with a lot of connections to politicians that pushes a religious agenda.

I think posters here should look at their patrons and the origins.

They fact they call themselves an "Institute" is misleading as if they're an educational body.
The word "Institute" would not be permitted in their name in other countries.

I do not see how the media have come to conclude that they are the organisation that represent the views of religious people in this country and they are been given a far bigger platform than their support or membership would normally warrant.

I don't agree with Quinn and his conservative religious fundamentalists beliefs.

But if we ban conservative fundamentalists then we have to also ban left wing Marxist extremists like Brendan Ogle, Paul Murphy and Richard Boyd Barrett. No one is permitted on the airways from as far on the right wing spectrum as those fundamentalists are on the left wing spectrum. Arguably they are lucky to be permitted to peddle their empty Marxist propaganda and if we start to ban their opponents then the state slips further down the path of the dictatorships they idolize.

So that's why Quinn is allowed on the airways. If we banned him we would have to ban all fundamentalists no matter how many people they have conned to believing their ideology.

Ahwell

touts wrote: »

I don't agree with Quinn and his conservative religious fundamentalists beliefs.

But if we ban conservative fundamentalists then we have to also ban left wing Marxist extremists like Brendan Ogle, Paul Murphy and Richard Boyd Barrett. No one is permitted on the airways from as far on the right wing spectrum as those fundamentalists are on the left wing spectrum. Arguably they are lucky to be permitted to peddle their empty Marxist propaganda and if we start to ban their opponents then the state slips further down the path of the dictatorships they idolize.

So that's why Quinn is allowed on the airways. If we banned him we would have to ban all fundamentalists no matter how many people they have conned to believing their ideology.

Nobody called for him to be banned, people are asking why is he given so much airtime. Paul Murphy and Richard Boyd Barrett were elected, Quinn wasn't. He's a self-appointed spokesman for a religion that has a rather large organisation all of it's own, which is more than capable of getting it's message across.

coolshannagh28

Ahwell wrote: »

Nobody called for him to be banned, people are asking why is he given so much airtime. Paul Murphy and Richard Boyd Barrett were elected, Quinn wasn't. He a self-appointed spokesman for a religion that has a rather large organisation all of it's own, which is more than capable of getting it's message across.

So how do we explain Brendan Ogle again whom I like for his straightforward no nonsense delivery but whose political views are uncompromising and dangerous .

Ahwell

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

So how do we explain Brendan Ogle again whom I like for his straightforward no nonsense delivery but whose political views are uncompromising and dangerous .

I don't get the connection. Brendan Ogle is trade union official, he's not self-appointed like Quinn.

coolshannagh28

Ahwell wrote: »

I don't get the connection. Brendan Ogle is trade union official, he's not self-appointed like Quinn.

Ogle has ideas that are much more extreme than any I have heard from Quinn.

southstar

Ahwell wrote: »

I don't get the connection. Brendan Ogle is trade union official, he's not self-appointed like Quinn.

I suspect Quinn is invited on shows because he articulates opinions that many conservative Catholics share...as he does in his newspaper column.... that's all....not a fan but can't make out what the fuss is about.. certainly no more prominent than than many of a range of fringe political figures who populate the airwaves ...eager to pass off their views as mainstream and commonsense....elected or otherwise.

It wasnt me123

southstar wrote: »

I suspect Quinn is invited on shows because he articulates opinions that many conservative Catholics share...as he does in his newspaper column.... that's all....not a fan but can't make out what the fuss is about.. certainly no more prominent than than many of a range of fringe political figures who populate the airwaves ...eager to pass off their views as mainstream and commonsense....elected or otherwise.

But he isn't a political figure - he isn't elected, he doesn't have political views, he has rigid religious views and I for one think he gets way too much air time.

murpho999

touts wrote: »

I don't agree with Quinn and his conservative religious fundamentalists beliefs.

But if we ban conservative fundamentalists then we have to also ban left wing Marxist extremists like Brendan Ogle, Paul Murphy and Richard Boyd Barrett. No one is permitted on the airways from as far on the right wing spectrum as those fundamentalists are on the left wing spectrum. Arguably they are lucky to be permitted to peddle their empty Marxist propaganda and if we start to ban their opponents then the state slips further down the path of the dictatorships they idolize.

So that's why Quinn is allowed on the airways. If we banned him we would have to ban all fundamentalists no matter how many people they have conned to believing their ideology.

I never said he should be banned I'm asking why they are consulted so often on Ireland's social and religious matters.

Other groups can be consulted but they're not.

Also, you're comparing them to politicians who are elected members of the parliament and therefore their opinions should be listened to as they have a mandate to represent people.
The Iona Institute do not.

uptherebels

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Because I think he isn't given noticeably more airtime than anyone else. He's a voice, among many, who occasionally appears on magazine shows. I used to hear a lot more of him years ago, I actually don't hear him that much these days.

There's this conspiracy theory that he's taking over the airwaves and brainwashing the country or something, it's ridiculous.

Maybe you could provide evidence for your claim that "he's given so much more airtime than anyone else"?

And what was inaccurate?


journalist
/ˈdʒəːn(ə)lɪst/

noun
a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast.

I have already explained to you why he shouldn't be considered an actual journalist. You need to re read the post.
How much air time have you had?

meeeeh

Why do some think they should be able to police who commercial stations invite on? What gives you the right, are you above the programme makers judging who people should be allowed to listen to and how much?

BPKS

That was some can of worms I opened.

I just thought it was a ridiculous suggestion Mr Quinn wanting to have the churches open for mass when the vast majority of parishioners are those most at risk from the virus.

I didn't think it would turn into a debate about Marxists and religious fundamentalists!