Sean Moncrieff - Newstalk

DEFTLEFTHAND

quintana76 wrote: »

Why shouldn't I give a damn. PC concerns about other people being offended is very selective.
Outside certain favoured groups causing offence is seen as a virtue.

Sean reflects this with his tendency to be intolerant of difference to his opinions. FACT!!

You are correct, he is a leading light of the PC brigade.

If only there was a word to describe such a person.

quintana76

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

If only there was a word to describe such a person.

Yes there is: the word is 'libtard'. By far the most intolerant of species.

kunst nugget

quintana76 wrote: »

Yes there is: the word is 'libtard'. By far the most intolerant of species.

Libtard is a handy word alright. I know I don't need to bother with someone's opinion when they use it.

ballsymchugh

kunst nugget wrote: »

Libtard is a handy word alright. I know I don't need to bother with someone's opinion when they use it.

when someone uses libtard, it's the same effect as using the phrase 'white privileged male'

the argument is suddenly lost.

Snake Plisken

Good interview with the woman engaged to Bronson, fair play to Sean for asking about why she wrote to Ian Brady when she was younger.
Why wasn't Henry left on the Drivetime show? Did they bring him back to finally kill Sean's show? Or did Chris and Sarah get fed up of him and realise there is no talent there?

quintana76

ballsymchugh wrote: »

when someone uses libtard, it's the same effect as using the phrase 'white privileged male'

the argument is suddenly lost.

I used the term deliberately. I agree it is a giveaway term.
Is there an accurate equivalent term from the left that is not bankrupt from overuse.
'Fascist' for example can exist on a bandwidth from someone not giving you enough pocket money to invading Poland.

What I am trying to say about Sean's views is that they are unadulterated.
He is 56 years of age and has lived. He has a family, career etc.
You would think that having lived that experience his views would be more nuanced.
Yet, regrettably, he seems to have held on to, intact, views that would have gone down well, in his youth, down the students union.

kunst nugget

quintana76 wrote: »

I used the term deliberately. I agree it is a giveaway term.
Is there an accurate equivalent term from the left that is not bankrupt from overuse..

I saw broflake in the Andy Murray thread on AH which I thought was kind of funny but I'd never be able to use it in a discussion because you're just reducing everything to American style flame wars when using nonsense words like those.

foxtrot101

quintana76 wrote: »

Yet, regrettably, he seems to have held on to, intact, views that would have gone down well, in his youth, down the students union.

Regrettably for who? You?

quintana76

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Regrettably for who? You?

Regrettably for him. It means he hasn't evolved in all that time. Not a good sign.

Otherwise, it could just be a coincidence, but his views match the trendiest 'right on' views common in the media.
Could it be that he lives in a media bubble where everyone has to have the same 'approved ' opinions.
To not hold these views could have negative career, social consequences.
It is strange how everyone thinks the same way (except Hook).

Vorenus400

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Good interview with the woman engaged to Bronson, fair play to Sean for asking about why she wrote to Ian Brady when she was younger.
Why wasn't Henry left on the Drivetime show? Did they bring him back to finally kill Sean's show? Or did Chris and Sarah get fed up of him and realise there is no talent there?

I cant understand how Henry has a job all these years. He hasnt the talent of a transition year student. When he was on Seans show in the old days, I thought it was a bathroom break spot.

Is Henry D.O'B's secret love child? How has he survived? Imagine if he was on RTE?

evolving_doors

quintana76 wrote: »

Regrettably for him. It means he hasn't evolved in all that time. Not a good sign.

Otherwise, it could just be a coincidence, but his views match the trendiest 'right on' views common in the media.
Could it be that he lives in a media bubble where everyone has to have the same 'approved ' opinions.
To not hold these views could have negative career, social consequences.
It is strange how everyone thinks the same way (except Hook).

Definitely think Hook is more open to 'considering' listener opinions than moncrieff. If Sean doesn't like someone's text comment ( even if they are a bit ranty) he usually defaults to sarcy comments and nit picks at some literal interpretation and moves on.
Hook however will go the general substance of the comment and provide a rationale for his position.

Say Your Number

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Definitely think Hook is more open to 'considering' listener opinions than moncrieff. If Sean doesn't like someone's text comment ( even if they are a bit ranty) he usually defaults to sarcy comments and nit picks at some literal interpretation and moves on.
Hook however will go the general substance of the comment and provide a rationale for his position.

On the flip-side of that, I've heard Moncrieff interview plenty of guests who he would disagree with, but conduct the interview in a objective, respectful manner and I've heard Hook come out with some ill-informed rubbish during interviews and get very tetchy towards the interviewee when they correct him.

Sean does overdo the sarcasm, but generally he does a good job at pointing out the flaws in texters arguments.

Say Your Number

That wrestler woman seemed mental, entertaining interview though.

Sean said American guests are told beforehand he'll say good afternoon, suppose it's understandable why he gets irritated when they say 'But its morning here'

foxtrot101

quintana76 wrote: »

Regrettably for him. It means he hasn't evolved in all that time. Not a good sign.

Otherwise, it could just be a coincidence, but his views match the trendiest 'right on' views common in the media.
Could it be that he lives in a media bubble where everyone has to have the same 'approved ' opinions.
To not hold these views could have negative career, social consequences.
It is strange how everyone thinks the same way tolerance.

Sean never had a go at texts simply because he disagreed with them He only ever reacted to the boneheadedly offensive texts or the downright stupid ones. The authors of which are the truly unevolved. You accuse Sean of being intolerant, yet here you are accusing him and the entire media(except Hook) of being unevolved and immature because they have the temerity to not reflect your own mature and evolved world view back at you. Again, the hypocrisy of this seems to be lost on you.

foxtrot101

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Sean never had a go at texts simply because he disagreed with them

I've actually come to enjoy the Moncrieff show, but.... wtf!

Sean Moncrieff has a sarky go at every almost every text that disagrees with him, or even if it is merely critical of one of his guests' ideas.

One of the only things that I dislike the show is his incapacity to let a criticism slide. Pat Kenny reads out texts that either favour or disapprove of content, and generally only responds to a comment if it raises a question of balance.

Another thing about Moncrieff, on a related matter, is that he often fails to detect irony or humour in texts. He'll sometimes read a text that was obviously intended jocularly, then retract his chin into his sternum, and attempt to disparage the comment with sarcasm.

Like I said, I happen to like Moncrieff's show, and he does a good job. But how his inability to take disapproving comments on the chin could have escaped anybody, is beyond me.

foxtrot101

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I've actually come to enjoy the Moncrieff show, but.... wtf!

Sean Moncrieff has a sarky go at every almost every text that disagrees with him, or even if it is merely critical of one of his guests' ideas.

One of the only things that I dislike the show is his incapacity to let a criticism slide. Pat Kenny reads out texts that either favour or disapprove of content, and generally only responds to a comment if it raises a question of balance.

Another thing about Moncrieff, on a related matter, is that he often fails to detect irony or humour in texts. He'll sometimes read a text that was obviously intended jocularly, then retract his chin into his sternum, and attempt to disparage the comment with sarcasm.

Like I said, I happen to like Moncrieff's show, and he does a good job. But how his inability to take disapproving comments on the chin could have escaped anybody, is beyond me.

I don't agree, the texts he was sarky to were invariable offensive and I for one enjoyed his sarkyness because I felt in most cases the texts deserved it. I've heard Pat react badly to texts as well, second captains still use one of his particularly explosive ones on their podcast.

It's all a bit academic anyway, because Sean has stopped reacting to the texts in this way - mores the pity.

Harry Angstrom

Say Your Number wrote: »

Sean does overdo the sarcasm, but generally he does a good job at pointing out the flaws in texters arguments.

That's an understatement.

Problem is, he never gives the texters right of reply so he basically reads out a text and then rubbishes it, knowing he'll never have to go any further than that.

He's a great example of an intolerant liberal.

quintana76

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Sean never had a go at texts simply because he disagreed with them He only ever reacted to the boneheadedly offensive texts or the downright stupid ones. The authors of which are the truly unevolved. You accuse Sean of being intolerant, yet here you are accusing him and the entire media(except Hook) of being unevolved and immature because they have the temerity to not reflect your own mature and evolved world view back at you. Again, the hypocrisy of this seems to be lost on you.

Boneheadedly offensive and downright stupid in your opinion.

I am not accusing the entire media of being unevolved and immature. I am wondering why they mostly come from the same political direction.
Is there not an original thinker amongst them who will diverge from the concensus that Sean so explicitly represents ?

foxtrot101

quintana76 wrote: »

Boneheadedly offensive and downright stupid in your opinion.

Yes, that is my opinion.

My name is URL

quintana76 wrote: »

Is there not an original thinker amongst them who will diverge from the concensus that Sean so explicitly represents

lol, because George Hook is such an original thinker and true to his own ideals /s

I remember a few years ago when Hook was at his height of ranting about immigrants etc, they had a FG TD on the show arguing that Ireland 'needed to do more'. Hook, of course; was all bluster and hot air as is his wont.

Anyway, sometime after the interview was done, a texter asked Hook who he'd be voting for in the election and he straight up said that he'd always vote FG regardless of their policies or whether or not they were in line with his own views, because that's how his mammy always voted.

Such a stand up guy is Georgie. A real man of integrity. lmao

Harry Angstrom

My name is URL wrote: »

lol, because George Hook is such an original thinker and true to his own ideals /s

I remember a few years ago when Hook was at his height of ranting about immigrants etc, they had a FG TD on the show arguing that Ireland 'needed to do more'. Hook, of course; was all bluster and hot air as is his wont.

Anyway, sometime after the interview was done, a texter asked Hook who he'd be voting for in the election and he straight up said that he'd always vote FG regardless of their policies or whether or not they were in line with his own views, because that's how his mammy always voted.

Such a stand up guy is Georgie. A real man of integrity. lmao

I think most Irish people would find themselves somewhere in the middle ground between the ridiculous right-wing nonsense of Hook and the painful political correctness of Moncrieff, but that rarely seems to be represented anymore because it doesn't garner ratings so much.

Harry Angstrom

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I think most Irish people would find themselves somewhere in the middle ground between the ridiculous right-wing nonsense of Hook and the painful political correctness of Moncrieff, but that rarely seems to be represented anymore because it doesn't garner ratings so much.

Have you asked yourself why not?

Maybe the opinions you refer to aren't given much of a voice on the radio, because Ireland is changing, and there is very limited appetite for the opinions you think are mainstream.

Surely you don't believe that station managers are witholding some ratings bonanza and impeding (presumably) big profits because of some grand 'PC' agenda?

jooksavage

It's kind of telling that this debate is playing out to this extent on the Moncrieff thread as opposed to Hook's. Seems like the latter's bullish agenda-peddling is just generally accepted as part of the show whereas Moncrieff is expected to be more "tolerant" of divergent views.

Harry Angstrom

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Have you asked yourself why not?

Maybe the opinions you refer to aren't given much of a voice on the radio, because Ireland is changing, and there is very limited appetite for the opinions you think are mainstream.

Surely you don't believe that station managers are witholding some ratings bonanza and impeding (presumably) big profits because of some grand 'PC' agenda?

Do you think that most of the population can be split between raging right-wingers such as Hook and PC left-wingers such as Moncrieff? Somehow I think not. There's a great swathe of in-betweens who go about their daily business without being too concerned about which "wing" they're on. Of course, hanging around certain echo-chamber social media outlets might lead one to believe that their views are pervasive throughout Irish society but this isn't really borne out by opinion polls, is it?

foxtrot101

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Do you think that most of the population can be split between raging right-wingers such as Hook and PC left-wingers such as Moncrieff? Somehow I think not. There's a great swathe of in-betweens who go about their daily business without being too concerned about which "wing" they're on. Of course, hanging around certain echo-chamber social media outlets might lead one to believe that their views are pervasive throughout Irish society but this isn't really borne out by opinion polls, is it?

Which opinion polls? I would maintain Ireland is a fairly socially liberal place but economically the majority would be conservative or center right. This is borne out by our election & referendum results and the media we consume.

Harry Angstrom

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Which opinion polls? I would maintain Ireland is a fairly socially liberal place but economically the majority would be conservative or center right. This is borne out by our election & referendum results and the media we consume.

Put it this way: For all the bluster of PBP etc. they still occupy a relatively tiny amount of support according to opinion polls, yet if you look at Twitter you'd think they're the ruling party of this country. Most people don't want to see extremes, be it right or left.

foxtrot101

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Put it this way: For all the bluster of PBP etc. they still occupy a relatively tiny amount of support according to opinion polls, yet if you look at Twitter you'd think they're the ruling party of this country. Most people don't want to see extremes, be it right or left.

The PBP are an insignificance, there only in the news these days because of that stupid trail. The media is hardly a echo chamber for the views of the PBP. Saying the PBP don't represent the views of the majority doesn't proof anything.

Harry Angstrom

foxtrot101 wrote: »

The PBP are an insignificance, there only in the news these days because of that stupid trail. The media is hardly a echo chamber for the views of the PBP. Saying the PBP don't represent the views of the majority doesn't proof anything.

Strange that, because more often than not, one of their representatives turns up on a political discussion programme - be it Vincent Browne, Sean O'Rourke, Pat Kenny, Marian Finucane et al. For a party with fairly insignificant support they seem to get a fairly disproportionate amount of airtime. Not sure how they relate to people in rural areas outside the Pale, but that doesn't really matter to trendy D4 media types.

My name is URL

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Strange that, because more often than not, one of their representatives turns up on a political discussion programme - be it Vincent Browne, Sean O'Rourke, Pat Kenny, Marian Finucane et al. For a party with fairly insignificant support they seem to get a fairly disproportionate amount of airtime. Not sure how they relate to people in rural areas outside the Pale, but that doesn't really matter to trendy D4 media types.

They're usually the only ones willing to come on air and speak about the shit that's in the news.

For every one time you hear Murphy or Coppinger giving out on a radio station, you'll also hear "Mr/Mrs X from the Y party were invited to argue but nobody was available for comment"

That's hardly the fault of media, or the likes of Murphy. It's the fault of those either unable or unwilling to lend a contrary view. And it's the electorate that voted for those people, too.

foxtrot101

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Strange that, because more often than not, one of their representatives turns up on a political discussion programme - be it Vincent Browne, Sean O'Rourke, Pat Kenny, Marian Finucane et al. For a party with fairly insignificant support they seem to get a fairly disproportionate amount of airtime. Not sure how they relate to people in rural areas outside the Pale, but that doesn't really matter to trendy D4 media types.

I wouldn't equate Moncrieff with the PBP, I doubt he would either. I think his social views would be shared by the majority these days. I don't think his views are that extreme really.