Sean Moncrieff - Newstalk

Harry Angstrom

foxtrot101 wrote: »

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.

I was initially speaking about his intolerance of other views that are contrary to his own (not necessarily that his views are extreme), and I still stand by that. His sneering attitude towards texters who hold differing views to him are proof enough. As I said, an intolerant liberal.

foxtrot101

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I was initially speaking about his intolerance of other views that are contrary to his own (not necessarily that his views are extreme), and I still stand by that. His sneering attitude towards texters who hold differing views to him are proof enough. As I said, an intolerant liberal.

I listen to the show every day , he doesn't do it anymore, not to any great extent anyway, not since "giving up Trump for lent". Which is pity, because I would like to add examples to this, because I would maintain he was being intolerant to texts that are themselves intolerant, whereas others are claiming he is being intolerant to views simply because they differ to his. It's kind of hard to proof it either way now.

Harry Angstrom

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

In that case they should leave the seat empty to show up the political party who have refused to appear. I still remember Have I Got News For You replacing Roy Hattersley with a tub of lard because he pulled out of appearing on the show at the last minute. That was over 20 years ago. It makes a much more lasting impression than listening to Ruth Coppinger's latest Trotskyist rant.

Harry Angstrom

foxtrot101 wrote: »

I listen to the show every day , he doesn't do it anymore, not to any great extent anyway, not since "giving up Trump for lent". Which is pity, because I would like to add examples to this, because I would maintain he was being intolerant to texts that are themselves intolerant, whereas others are claiming he is being intolerant to views simply because they differ to his. It's kind of hard to proof it either way now.

Not all texts are intolerant. Merely disagreeing with Moncrieff's world view does not make them intolerant in themselves, although he would have you believe otherwise.

foxtrot101

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Not all texts are intolerant. Merely disagreeing with Moncrieff's world view does not make them intolerant in themselves, although he would have you believe otherwise.

From what I heard listening to the show the texts he had a pop at were invariably intolerant in themselves.

Harry Angstrom

foxtrot101 wrote: »

From what I heard listening to the show the texts he had a pop at were invariably intolerant in themselves.

In your opinion.

foxtrot101

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

In your opinion.

Well, yes. In my opinion.

Say Your Number

In my experience listening to the show the texts he gets really angry towards deserve all the the derision they get, he generally is more respectful to the less idiotic texts that are sent in.

foxtrot101

Say Your Number wrote: »

In my experience listening to the show the texts he gets really angry towards deserve all the the derision they get, he generally is more respectful to the less idiotic texts that are sent in.

That would be my experience too.

jooksavage

Say Your Number wrote: »

In my experience listening to the show the texts he gets really angry towards deserve all the the derision they get, he generally is more respectful to the less idiotic texts that are sent in.

A few years ago I texted in something (in relation to a movie Esther was reviewing). Sean didn't quite get the point I was making and suggested I "lay off the drugs this early in the afternoon" which was kind of funny and also miffed me into sending another text to clarify, which he also read out, apologised and wondered aloud if he should be mixing his wines "so early in the afternoon".

Harry Angstrom

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?

Moncrieff is not a 'PC left winger'.

He comes across as a classic liberal more than some kind of "SJW" (horrible term, I feel dirty for having used it), as indicated by his previous rants about junkies and his apparent cynicism about government intervention.

I think these are exactly the kinds of views that are prevalent in Irish society, combined with a basic humane tolerance for differences based on gender and sexual orientation.

And no, I'm not in an echo chamber, because I reject precisely the kind of classical liberalism that I see in Moncrieff. My views are politically to the left of Moncrieff, closer to the 'socialist' parties, and it is pretty laughable to imply that there is anything socialist in Moncrieff's politics.

Once again, if you think there is some huge untapped potential for an alternative voice in Irish radio, why do you believe none of the stations are profiting from it? It is a conspiracy or ... maybe ... you're the one who is overestimating the popularity of a more conservative narrative.

jooksavage

jooksavage wrote: »

A few years ago I texted in something (in relation to a movie Esther was reviewing). Sean didn't quite get the point I was making and suggested I "lay off the drugs this early in the afternoon" which was kind of funny and also miffed me into sending another text to clarify, which he also read out, apologised and wondered aloud if he should be mixing his wines "so early in the afternoon".

In fairness to Moncrieff, while his occasional inability to detect irony or context is irritating, he doesn't take himself too seriously, I wouldn't describe him as being egotistical, even if he doesn't take kindly to criticism... but sure we can all be like that sometimes.

Howard100

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

In fairness to Moncrieff, while his occasional inability to detect irony or context is irritating, he doesn't take himself too seriously, I wouldn't describe him as being egotistical, even if he doesn't take kindly to criticism... but sure we can all be like that sometimes.

Sport on. I worked with Sean years ago on some TV projects. He's a very down to earth dude but knows his role on radio.

chinacrisis

I've been listening to Moncrieff for about 10 years on Newstalk Now. I can honestly say I love the show as much as I ever did. Sean is such a fantastic host: funny, smart, self-depracating and just seems a very sound guy! I've always thought it's noticeable how often his interviewees comment on how good/original his questions are with what seems genuine appreciation. The key to the show is that he never takes himself too seriously. The only section I don't like is the Parenting Slot which I find boring and I dislike the American 'expert'. I'd also love if it went back to the old time-slot that finished at 4.30pm. I used to be able to catch the last 30 mins or so.
Newstalk has some lemons- I absolutely loath George Hook. Moncrieff, Off the Ball & Talking History are first class entertainment. Keep it up Sean!

Conservative

I'd like to see High Noon cut to 60 or 90 mins and the time given back to Moncrieff. It's not a patch on the Right Hook and at the last half hour is dreadful most days.

The opening interview was one of the best things about the show. I dont understand why they cut it. Some of the zany interviews are interesting but they can get tiresome also.

The farming slot aside (not the content as such but the contributor) I enjoy almost everything that is done face to face in studio. Sean really excels at that.

The snarkiness to texters doesn't bother me too much but it does sometimes give off an impression that there is only one opinion in the world worth having - his own.

He got all arsey with a guy who text in the other day saying he was from a working class area and was of the opinion that many of homeless list are people fiddling the system. This has been proven true in a number of the cases that were published in the media. Sean said sneeringly that it must be great living in a hotel room. I will take a free hotel any day of the week! Sign me up.

On the other hand some are hilarious like his response to the woman who allowed her daughter decide about vaxxing.

He's forthright with his opinions and I don't mind that at all.

chinacrisis

Conservative wrote: »

I'd like to see High Noon cut to 60 or 90 mins and the time given back to Moncrieff. It's not a patch on the Right Hook and at the last half hour is dreadful most days.

The opening interview was one of the best things about the show. I dont understand why they cut it. Some of the zany interviews are interesting but they can get tiresome also.

The farming slot aside (not the content as such but the contributor) I enjoy almost everything that is done face to face in studio. Sean really excels at that.

The snarkiness to texters doesn't bother me too much but it does sometimes give off an impression that there is only one opinion in the world worth having - his own.

He got all arsey with a guy who text in the other day saying he was from a working class area and was of the opinion that many of homeless list are people fiddling the system. This has been proven true in a number of the cases that were published in the media. Sean said sneeringly that it must be great living in a hotel room. I will take a free hotel any day of the week! Sign me up.

On the other hand some are hilarious like his response to the woman who allowed her daughter decide about vaxxing.

He's forthright with his opinions and I don't mind that at all.

Each to their own. Personally the idea of living in a small hotel room indefinitely with no cooking facilities and nowhere for kids to play/do homework etc wouldn't be my idea of fun.

yosser hughes

chinacrisis wrote: »

Each to their own. Personally the idea of living in a small hotel room indefinitely with no cooking facilities and nowhere for kids to play/do homework etc wouldn't be my idea of fun.

It's terrible isn't it but sadly some people are choosing to do that; rather than take more suitable accommodation that has been offered. That's the point.
Something that either hasn't occurred to you or or Sean or you're deliberately ignoring that fact.

foxtrot101

yosser hughes wrote: »

It's terrible isn't it but sadly some people are choosing to do that; rather than take more suitable accommodation that has been offered. That's the point.
Something that either hasn't occurred to you or or Sean or you're deliberately ignoring that fact.

How many are doing this compared to how many people are officially classified as homeless? The answer to that would be a fact. Not just stating something and presenting it as a fact.

quintana76

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

I think you are referring to Vincent Browne here, who will have a panel with three leftie sympathisers and himself against any larger party politicians who are foolish enough to appear. A case of once bitten, twice shy. They don't come back except for emergencies.

That was off topic but Sean has never had Coppinger etc on (as far as I know). I don't think his sympathies lie there. Try luvvie liberal. Himself and Madonna.

foxtrot101

quintana76 wrote: »

I think you are referring to Vincent Browne here, who will have a panel with three leftie sympathisers and himself against any larger party politicians who are foolish enough to appear. A case of once bitten, twice shy. They don't come back except for emergencies.

That was off topic but Sean has never had Coppinger etc on (as far as I know). I don't think his sympathies lie there. Try luvvie liberal. Himself and Madonna.

Coppinger was on the show quite often as it happens. "luvvie liberal" is about as good as your libtard contribution.

quintana76

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Coppinger was on the show quite often as it happens. "luvvie liberal" is about as good as your libtard contribution.

Give me a better term to describe it then? Concerned citizen who keeps up with fashionable opinion for example. Cool group think.
Dynamic groupthink. Any ideas?

foxtrot101

quintana76 wrote: »

Give me a better term to describe it then? Concerned citizen who keeps up with fashionable opinion for example. Cool group think.
Dynamic groupthink. Any ideas?

I don't tend to label people and I think Sean is a lot more nuanced in his views then you are suggesting.

quintana76

foxtrot101 wrote: »

I don't tend to label people and I think Sean is a lot more nuanced in his views then you are suggesting.

Is he? He sometime tries (I think) but it is too ingrained. He wouldn't want to offend his media buddies.

yosser hughes

foxtrot101 wrote: »

How many are doing this compared to how many people are officially classified as homeless? The answer to that would be a fact. Not just stating something and presenting it as a fact.

Well I know I'm not going to convince you foxtrot101. You have your mind made up on most issues already.
I read the reports, I speak to people involved in the provision of housing.
It' all out there in the public domain

quintana76

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Moncrieff is not a 'PC left winger'.

He comes across as a classic liberal more than some kind of "SJW" (horrible term, I feel dirty for having used it), as indicated by his previous rants about junkies and his apparent cynicism about government intervention.

I think these are exactly the kinds of views that are prevalent in Irish society, combined with a basic humane tolerance for differences based on gender and sexual orientation.

And no, I'm not in an echo chamber, because I reject precisely the kind of classical liberalism that I see in Moncrieff. My views are politically to the left of Moncrieff, closer to the 'socialist' parties, and it is pretty laughable to imply that there is anything socialist

Once again, if you think there is some huge untapped potential for an alternative voice in Irish radio, why do you believe none of the stations are profiting from it? It is a conspiracy or ... maybe ... you're the one who is overestimating the popularity of a more conservative narrative.

I agree with you 100%. Moncrieff has nothing to do with socialism. He reflects the unthinking trendy so-called liberalism rampant in the media.

As regards an alternative voice on Irish radio I think people are immune to the narrative that they are constantly fed from (sorry) the mainstream media.
There is a form of PUBLIC self censorship in existence. The media feeds us an official version of events eg the Halawa case. They report it straight faced even though the majority don't believe it. I think people are cowed in a way and are happy to say what they really feel in the pub and let the media charade carry on.

I remember the radio before the citizenship referendum. I hardly heard a dissenting voice from the liberal narrative yet the people voted 85%. Was it?
What I am trying to say is that a large part of the media are passively allowed to virtue signal. I wonder is that the definition of a 'bubble'.

quintana76

quintana76 wrote: »

I agree with you 100%. Moncrieff has nothing to do with socialism. He reflects the unthinking trendy so-called liberalism rampant in the media.

I agree that much of the so-called liberal rhetoric is rampant in the media, but it's rampant throughout Irish society. Yes, a lot of it is group-think, and knee-jerk. Most people are far too busy to make ethical or philosophical inquiry into the political and social issues of the day, and therefore it is the media which has the power to frame the news, and to process and interpret the news for the audience.

Nevertheless, there is a danger of underestimating an individual's ability to critique and sometimes reject any perceived media bias. If Newstalk became an evangelical, right-wing station, I suspect listenership would nosedive. Broadcasting and listenership is a two-way transaction. The views that are espoused by the likes of Moncrieff may not be exactly agreed-upon by his listenership, but they probably are roughly in line with the audience, and the same can be said of most broadcast media.

TL;DR: Whilst the Irish media can unquestionably be described as predominantly liberal, this is probably a crude reflection of the attitudes & opinions of the listenership, within a reasonable margin of appreciation. If it was totally objectionable to the Irish audience, there would be an alternative.

Commerce abhors a vacuum.

ballsymchugh

quintana76 wrote: »

I think you are referring to Vincent Browne here, who will have a panel with three leftie sympathisers and himself against any larger party politicians who are foolish enough to appear. A case of once bitten, twice shy. They don't come back except for emergencies.

That was off topic but Sean has never had Coppinger etc on (as far as I know). I don't think his sympathies lie there. Try luvvie liberal. Himself and Madonna.

one of his finest moments in my opinion was having Coppinger on and letting her talk. he let her come out with some of the finest bullsh1t ever spouted on the radio, and he knew well what he was at.
He asked her what would be her ideal scenario and her answer was along the lines of Russia in 1917.

he did tend to treat the interviewees with a lot of respect in that slot, letting them waffle on regardless on whether he agreed with them or not, Ronan Mullen being another example. Tara Duggan showed herself up while she interviewed him.

there have been some phone conversations over time where he had nothing but disdain for the person on the other end, from the beginning of the call to the end. Paul McKenna being one that springs to mind quickly. he couldn't wait to have a dig at him after the conversation ended, which just made me wonder, either don't interview him, or have it out with him, but don't talk shyte about him when he can't reply.

quintana76

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I agree that much of the so-called liberal rhetoric is rampant in the media, but it's rampant throughout Irish society. Yes, a lot of it is group-think, and knee-jerk. Most people are far too busy to make ethical or philosophical inquiry into the political and social issues of the day, and therefore it is the media which has the power to frame the news, and to process and interpret the news for the audience.

Nevertheless, there is a danger of underestimating an individual's ability to critique and sometimes reject any perceived media bias. If Newstalk became an evangelical, right-wing station, I suspect listenership would nosedive. Broadcasting and listenership is a two-way transaction. The views that are espoused by the likes of Moncrieff may not be exactly agreed-upon by his listenership, but they probably are roughly in line with the audience, and the same can be said of most broadcast media.

TL;DR: Whilst the Irish media can unquestionably be described as predominantly liberal, this is probably a crude reflection of the attitudes & opinions of the listenership, within a reasonable margin of appreciation. If it was totally objectionable to the Irish audience, there would be an alternative.

Commerce abhors a vacuum.

And paper never refused ink. Thoughtful reply: Eh! Tyrant.

I think there is a passivity that means people hear what they expect to hear.
They just put up with it as they are used to it and don't feel they have any power to change it.
As you say a lot are too busy living theirs lives to be too deeply engaged.

I would say people are reasonably tolerant on a lot of issues.
On some they are not and there is a sharp division of opinion that is not reflected in the media.
There are issues that people are silenced on officially (not in private).
Most people in the country are for example not in favour of open borders.
Where is this reflected in the media?
It does itself a disservice and undermines it's own credibility.

People don't like being talked down to or sneered at by the likes of Sean at his worst if they have the temerity to express what are in effect mainstream views.

quintana76

quintana76 wrote: »

And paper never refused ink. Thoughtful reply: Eh! Tyrant.

Paper never refused ink but audiences have quite regularly rejected a newspaper. Magill is a classic example of a trailblazing innovative publication, which ventilated opinion of the 'radical' left as well as the conservatives, and it simply didn't sell.

Vincent Browne is in the process of resurrecting it, but I suspect that particular Lazarus is bound to his grave.

I think there is a passivity that means people hear what they expect to hear.
They just put up with it as they are used to it and don't feel they have any power to change it.
As you say a lot are too busy living theirs lives to be too deeply engaged.

Yes, I agree with you to an extent; that is why I say the media, and its obvious biases, do indeed 'frame' the news, and nudge public opinion in one particular direction.

But where I disagree with you is in your apparent perception of the Irish audience as being, basically, a passive vessel, willing to take on whatever is put upon them.

I think a lot of people have reservations about the current, 'liberal' and monotonic nature of the Irish media landscape, myself included. But whilst it our media *clearly* doesn't reflect the attitudes & opinions of the audience, it isn't too far off. Certainly, it doesn't seem to deviate enough from public opinion for there to be commercial space for a new, viable media outlet.

I suspect we both come from very different ideological outlooks, but clearly neither of us are entirely happy with the current media landscape in this country. But I accept that my opinions are not the opinions of the majority, and in this changing Ireland, conservatives must begin to accept that their opinions do not enjoy the mainstream support they once did.

Most people in the country are for example not in favour of open borders.
Where is this reflected in the media?

I have never heard a single radio host, or even an interviewee, say they are supportive of 'open borders'; that is to say, free and universal access to migration.

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I listen to radio for most of the day, and I've never heard this. Do you have any specific examples?

People don't like being talked down to or sneered at by the likes of Sean.

I found Moncrieff hard to bear at first, and i agree that he does seem to sneer at opinions that he doesn't share. It can be frustrating to listen to.

Even though I wouldn't share his political outlook, I find his opinions worthwhile insofar as they challenge my own opinions. But yes, it would be worthwhile if he was a little less overbearing with the mic, and allowed more of a two-way exchange of ideas.

Then again, you could say they same thing of George Hook...

quintana76

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Paper never refused ink but audiences have quite regularly rejected a newspaper. Magill is a classic example of a trailblazing innovative publication, which ventilated opinion of the 'radical' left as well as the conservatives, and it simply didn't

Vincent Browne is in the process of resurrecting it, but I suspect that particular Lazarus is bound to his grave.
I can't believe he is resurrecting Magill after getting seriously burnt with 'The Village. Is he a slow learner or stubborn or foolhardy or a combination?

Yes, I agree with you to an extent; that is why I say the media, and its obvious biases, do indeed 'frame' the news, and nudge public opinion in one particular direction.

It has been nudging public opinion in one direction for so long now that it has lost some credibility as anyone who thinks about it can predict the views that will be taken on various issues.

But where I disagree with you is in your apparent perception of the Irish audience as being, basically, a passive vessel, willing to take on whatever is put upon them.

I think a lot of people have reservations about the current, 'liberal' and monotonic nature of the Irish media landscape, myself included. But whilst it our media *clearly* doesn't reflect the attitudes & opinions of the audience, it isn't too far off. Certainly, it doesn't seem to deviate enough from public opinion for there to be commercial space for a new, viable media outlet.

I suspect we both come from very different ideological outlooks, but clearly neither of us are entirely happy with the current media landscape in this country. But I accept that my opinions are not the opinions of the majority, and in this changing Ireland, conservatives must begin to accept that their opinions do not enjoy the mainstream support they once did.

I have never heard a single radio host, or even an interviewee, say they are supportive of 'open borders'; that is to say, free and universal access to migration.


I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I listen to radio for most of the day, and I've never heard this. Do you have any specific examples?

The problem is that we don't really know their opinions as it a taboo subject to debate.

The default view is very pro mass immigration. During the height of the refugee crisis in 2015 Moncrieff was for letting all in on the basis that his own father was from Scotland. He said that several times.

Again, think of the citizenship referendum, there was rarely a dissenting voice against the liberal agenda. I honestly thought that everybody held that view from what I heard. The tiny number of dissenting voices allowed on (or brave enough) were sneered at.
This is despite the fact that they were in effect standing up for unlimited immigration to Ireland due to the birth rule. That view was proven to deviate severely from public opinion, as proved by the result.

Probably why these views are so prominent is that they are easy. No complexity or contradiction is required if you just ignore those factors.
Don't delve into them too deeply and never think of consequences. Instead use soundbites and the presenter comes out smelling of roses.
Sometimes 'fear' is an issue too.

I found Moncrieff hard to bear at first, and i agree that he does seem to sneer at opinions that he doesn't share. It can be frustrating to listen to.

Even though I wouldn't share his political outlook, I find his opinions worthwhile insofar as they challenge my own opinions. But yes, it would be worthwhile if he was a little less overbearing with the mic, and allowed more of a two-way exchange of ideas.

Then again, you could say they same thing of George Hook...

I dont think Hook is taken as seriously as Moncrieff etc. He gets away with his views as he can dismissed as on old buffer. A rugby club bore.
There's a bit of ' he would say that, wouldn't he'
Then again, any contrast to the concensus is always welcome.