Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

maxwell smart

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you give an example of when she rams her opinion down the throat of the listener? Because I listen, and what I hear is someone who has an opinion, expresses it, and asks for input.

The very fact that she asks for and then gives voice to those that disagree with her is, in my view, proof that she is not forcing her opinion on anyone.

How am I missing this?

Her views on the HPV vaccine. She used the death of Emma Nic Mathuna on the show to ram her view down the throats of people. Doesn't matter if she is right or wrong, she won't let anyone disagree with her.
Was delighted when that lady today told her she had actually been raped and knew what she was talking about. I'd say Ciara was fuming inside

Sleeper12

Hurrache wrote:

You're under no obligation to be so on your own show on an independent station.

I agree.

Many giving out about her voicing her own opinion love to hear Hook voice his own opinion.
I definitely didn't agree with her today, she was borderline man hating in a very unhealthy way but she is entitled to voice her opinion. My opinion is that she came across as a total whack job today. I enjoy her show but today must have been her worst ever

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I agree.

Many giving out about her voicing her own opinion love to hear Hook voice his own opinion.
I definitely didn't agree with her today, she was borderline man hating in a very unhealthy way but she is entitled to voice her opinion. My opinion is that she came across as a total whack job today. I enjoy her show but today must have been her worst ever

She is entitled to her opinion , but not to constantly “voice” her opinion on a radio show that is meant to promote open debate. It seems to be the “Ciara show” a platform for her, what she thinks , her beliefs and her prejudices.
She allows opinions but shuts things down if they don’t match hers.

Her bias against men and their behavior is borderline paranoia. She mentioned her daughter today, afraid of wearing gym gear on the Luas in case she gets looked at. I know what I would have said to my daughters if they had these issues - “welcome to the world , live your life, pay no attention, life is going to be like this at times “


If you tell your daughters that men are to be feared, put down, blamed, not trusted, not respected, if you tell your daughter that women are victims and helpless against the base instinct of men who just want to abuse and rape you then it’s putting women and the women’s movement back hundreds of years. We should be rearing strong independent young women who enjoy men’s company not fear it !

Ciara Kelly sounds like a man hater and is promoting the myth that women are helpless victims at the mercy of evil men. It’s not healthy

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

She is entitled to her opinion , but not to constantly “voice†her opinion on a radio show that is meant to promote open debate. It seems to be the “Ciara show†a platform for her, what she thinks , her beliefs and her prejudices. She allows opinions but shuts things down if they don’t match hers.

I'm not sticking up for Ciara. Her job should be at risk after yesterday in my opinion. However my point is that Hook voiced his opinion everyday including giving false information about the HPV vaccine and in the long run possibly putting women's lives in danger with his stance on the subject.

My point is that some giving out about ciara voicing her opinion is a damaging way had no issues with Hook doing the same or worse. Her show & Hooks show are all about their opinion. It's the structure of the show.

Her show is on in 15 minutes. I'm wondering if she will apologise for yesterday

meeeeh

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Her show is on in 15 minutes. I'm wondering if she will apologise for yesterday

Why, for having an opinion? As I said I didn't agree with a lot she said but this stuff about man hating is just nonsense. I also don't understand why exactly should she be fired. Because some snowflakes had their delicate feelings hurt?

Sleeper12

meeeeh wrote:

Why, for having an opinion? As I said I didn't agree with a lot she said but this stuff about man hating is just nonsense. I also don't understand why exactly should she be fired. Because some snowflakes had their delicate feelings hurt?

George had an opinion & blamed a rape victim. It was only his opinion yet it was a dangerous & damaging opinion. Ciaras opinion yesterday was also a dangerous and damaging opinion. I usually expect a broadcaster to apologise after making such a bags of the show

meeeeh

Sleeper12 wrote: »

George had an opinion & blamed a rape victim. It was only his opinion yet it was a dangerous & damaging opinion. Ciaras opinion yesterday was also a dangerous and damaging opinion. I usually expect a broadcaster to apologise after making such a bags of the show

I'm not going to rehash Hook controversy but comments were in no way comparable. (not that I thought he should be fired.)

Sleeper12

meeeeh wrote:

I'm not going to rehash Hook controversy but comments were in no way comparable. (not that I thought he should be fired.)

I don't think he should have been fired either. His apology was enough but Newstalk handled it so badly by pretending nothing wrong was said that public opinion forced hook to lose the show. His producer should have been permanently sacked. With the main sponsor being a family hotel, how the producer thought it was a good idea to talk about a rape in a hotel is beyond me. It wasn't even a story that was in the Irish media. They actually introduced a hotel rape story from the UK and when they went to break the sponsor hotel chain was mentioned. The mind truly boggles. The hotel chain had no option but to pull out of the deal.

Newstalk isn't run very well at the best of times imo.

I think Ciaras opinion yesterday & the way she attacked her guest for daring to hold a different opinion was terrible. I don't get offended often but my blood was boiling yesterday at the show. It was without doubt the worst & most amateurish segment of any radio show that I have heard in years & I listen to radio from 9 to 4 almost every day. My wife had never heard her before and she was shocked by ciara.

Tell me how

She didn't mention yesterday in any shape or form.

On the first topic, having to ban alcohol on some trains is a pity but unfortunately necessary given some peoples behaviour.

meeeeh

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I think Ciaras opinion yesterday & the way she attacked her guest for daring to hold a different opinion was terrible. I don't get offended often but my blood was boiling yesterday at the show. It was without doubt the worst & most amateurish segment of any radio show that I have heard in years & I listen to radio from 9 to 4 almost every day. My wife had never heard her before and she was shocked by ciara.

She got excited but she didn't attack Larissa Nolan, she challenged her opinion a bit too excitedly. Larissa Nolan will be back on her show in few weeks. They are both paid to challenge stuff.

meeeeh

Tell me how wrote: »

She didn't mention yesterday in any shape or form.

On the first topic, having to ban alcohol on some trains is a pity but unfortunately necessary given some peoples behaviour.

Couldn't they ban just stag and hen parties on the trains. No entrance to a groups carrying pink dildos and similar.

Sleeper12

meeeeh wrote:

She got excited but she didn't attack Larissa Nolan, she challenged her opinion a bit too excitedly. Larissa Nolan will be back on her show in few weeks. They are both paid to challenge stuff.

She is supposed to a professional. She kept talking over her "guest", but, but, but. It was horrible. She seems totally unable to interview a guest without turning it into a debate. You will never hear the likes of that on RTE. In RTE the presenter treats the guest with respect. Their job is to play devils advocate but in a respectful way. They ask a question from another point of view & then listen to the answer. Not talk over them. Ciara has the mentally that the most dominant person wins the debate. Obviously that is not the case. It's the person who presents the best case or argument wins. But, but, but, me, me, me doesn't win an argument. Not that it's even supposed to be an argument.

We could talk about her opinion that asking men not to rape will cut down on rape. No, no, no! Women don't have to take precautions. No! Men have to stop raping!

Please someone explain how that is going to change anything? She seems to think that she is empowering women by saying no, it's not up to us to be careful, it's up to men to stop raping.

Here's what she forgot to say yesterday. Men & women should be careful about unlit roads. Maybe men more than women. More men are mugged, stabbed and murdered on Irish Streets than women. Ciara won't let us forget that women account for 51 percent of the population yet there is a much higher rate of violent attacks against men. More men are stabbed or attacked by weapons much more often than women. It's not just a female issue yet in true form according to ciara women =good & man =bad.

Lane ways, dark roads, shortcuts through parks. As a male I was warned about the danger of these places 40 odd years ago. Never walk alone at night. These dangers effect both men and women. More so men than women yet the show yesterday told a totally different story. It was misleading and very dangerous. Ciara is a misandrist.

Tell me how

Sleeper12 wrote: »

She is supposed to a professional. She kept talking over her "guest", but, but, but. It was horrible. She seems totally unable to interview a guest without turning it into a debate. You will never hear the likes of that on RTE. In RTE the presenter treats the guest with respect. Their job is to play devils advocate but in a respectful way. They ask a question from another point of view & then listen to the answer. Not talk over them. Ciara has the mentally that the most dominant person wins the debate. Obviously that is not the case. It's the person who presents the best case or argument wins. But, but, but, me, me, me doesn't win an argument. Not that it's even supposed to be an argument.

We could talk about her opinion that asking men not to rape will cut down on rape. No, no, no! Women don't have to take precautions. No! Men have to stop raping!

Please someone explain how that is going to change anything? She seems to think that she is empowering women by saying no, it's not up to us to be careful, it's up to men to stop raping.

Here's what she forgot to say yesterday. Men & women should be careful about unlit roads. Maybe men more than women. More men are mugged, stabbed and murdered on Irish Streets than women. Ciara won't let us forget that women account for 51 percent of the population yet there is a much higher rate of violent attacks against men. More men are stabbed or attacked by weapons much more often than women. It's not just a female issue yet in true form according to ciara women =good & man =bad.

Lane ways, dark roads, shortcuts through parks. As a male I was warned about the danger of these places 40 odd years ago. Never walk alone at night. These dangers effect both men and women. More so men than women yet the show yesterday told a totally different story. It was misleading and very dangerous. Ciara is a misandrist.

Shaking my head at this stage. Not everyone is a mysogynist or a misandrist.

At this stage you are sounding as hysterical as I'm led to believe Ciara was yesterday in your attempts to squeeze her in to a label. Do you not see any hypocrisy in doing that which you accuse her of?

Sleeper12

Tell me how wrote:

At this stage you are sounding as hysterical as I'm led to believe Ciara was yesterday in your attempts to squeeze her in to a label. Do you not see any hypocrisy in doing that which you accuse her of?

Listen to the podcast from yesterday and then judge. I'm not a poster that only criticises the show. I do post positive things too. Yesterday was the worst & most amateurish show I have heard in decades. That show made the old Radio Dublin look professional

Tell me how

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Listen to the podcast from yesterday and then judge. I'm not a poster that only criticises the show. I do post positive things too. Yesterday was the worst & most amateurish show I have heard in decades. That show made the old Radio Dublin look professional

Listening at the moment. 60% through.

meeeeh

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Listen to the podcast from yesterday and then judge. I'm not a poster that only criticises the show. I do post positive things too. Yesterday was the worst & most amateurish show I have heard in decades. That show made the old Radio Dublin look professional

Actually no. That speech from Hook was much worse.

bloodless_coup

Ciara doing a segment on menopause and how the word "men" should be removed from it.

Sleeper12

meeeeh wrote:

Actually no. That speech from Hook was much worse.

I totally disagree. Her stance yesterday was dangerous and damaging. Her guest was 100 percent correct. Bringing this topic up, especially in the way she did, hurts the cause. Singling out women when men are actually more likely to be attacked and assulted with weapons is a real dick move.

meeeeh

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I totally disagree. Her stance yesterday was dangerous and damaging. Her guest was 100 percent correct. Bringing this topic up, especially in the way she did, hurts the cause. Singling out women when men are actually more likely to be attacked and assulted with weapons is a real dick move.

All attacks are not equal. Plus sexual assaults are majorly underreported. And If that is the case why are women advised not to wear headphones, not walk in the dark, not to wear short skirts, not to drink too much? Why are men not told not to be careful and especially not to drink? An awful lot of attacks happen when people get drunk so how often when going out were you told not to get drunk because you could be assaulted? And did anyone tell you if something happened well it suits you right because you were drunk? (G. Hook argument which apparently isn't problematic.)

Tell me how

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Listen to the podcast from yesterday and then judge. I'm not a poster that only criticises the show. I do post positive things too. Yesterday was the worst & most amateurish show I have heard in decades. That show made the old Radio Dublin look professional

Just finished. Seriously, 70% of the piece was absolutely fine with two people holding alternate views on a topic. Ciara was passionate about her position but she did not talk down to Larissa, or talk over her or her dismiss her comments out of hand.
On the main point of disagreement, "being raped is equal to being falsely accused of committing rape", if any of us were to tell that to our female friends and colleagues and I suspect we might get more reacting like Ciara than like Larissa.

The only part of the piece I personally had a problem with was the single listener contribution for over 4 minutes at the end who said that Ciara was right. Purely in the interest of balance, I would like to have heard and alternative view from a listener also.

The guy Damien who texted in that "this is incitement to hatred of men and we know that most women are lying f*cking b*tches" shows that there are extremes on the male side as bad as any female who claim all men are potential offenders.

I don't for a second see how Ciara or the station needed to apologise for anything today. I didn't think George Hook was treated fairly at the time but just because his claims were reacted to in one way (largely driven by public discourse at the time) I don't necessarily think the station has to react in a similar manner way here.

Sleeper12

meeeeh wrote:

All attacks are not equal. Plus sexual assaults are majorly underreported. And If that is the case why are women advised not to wear headphones, not walk in the dark, not to wear short skirts, not to drink too much? Why are men not told not to be careful and especially not to drink? An awful lot of attacks happen when people get drunk so how often when going out were you told not to get drunk because you could be assaulted? And did anyone tell you if something happened well it suits you right because you were drunk? (G. Hook argument which apparently isn't problematic.)

Where are you getting this from? Do you even know any men?
Men are told to be more careful when drunk. My mother warned me 30 odd years ago. I tell my son & daughter both in their 20s. I give them the same warning. I have no extra warnings for my daughter that I don't give my son.

Men are advised not to wear headphones too. Even in the 80s when the Walkman was only hitting Ireland during karate classes you were warned not to have headphones on. I actually give this advice to cyclists too, day or night. My own son was mugged with headphones on, despite warning him. I have five more nephews all mugged in late teens and early 20s. None reported to the police. Well maybe not quite true. For my son police were called. He couldn't ID the muggers. Police said they would be in touch so he can make a formal complaint but never did.

I'm not trying to belittle rape or women being attacked (I have a wife and daughter) but men get violently attacked more than women. More likely to be attacked by a weapon & a lot more likely to die from an attack. There was no balance to yesterday's show. Men=bad & woman =good. Woman =victim & man =attacker. This is plain wrong.

Having cat calls and rape in the same sentence is plain wrong and dangerous. It is scaremongering. Someone who Wolfe whistles is no more likely to attack. Possibly less likely as most attackers like to supprise you.

It is as dangerous for men to cross a dark park with or without headphones as a woman. Though men have a higher chance of dying crossing the field than women. Her show suggests otherwise.

Men on their own feel just as nervous and insecure in dangerous places. The show yesterday suggests otherwise.

The spin she tried to put on the topic yesterday was dangerous and her guest pointed this out to her.

Grolschevik

Sleeper12 wrote: »

men get violently attacked more than women. More likely to be attacked by a weapon & a lot more likely to die from an attack.

I do see where you're coming from, but the issue that shouldn't be glided over is:

Yes, men are violently attacked. Predominantly by other men.

Women are violently attacked. predominantly by men.

Men are by far the predominant perpetrators of violent assaults and sexual assaults, on both other men and on women.

meeeeh

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Where are you getting this from? Do you even know any men?
Men are told to be more careful when drunk. My mother warned me 30 odd years ago. I tell my son & daughter both in their 20s. I give them the same warning. I have no extra warnings for my daughter that I don't give my son.

Men are advised not to wear headphones too. Even in the 80s when the Walkman was only hitting Ireland during karate classes you were warned not to have headphones on. I actually give this advice to cyclists too, day or night. My own son was mugged with headphones on, despite warning him. I have five more nephews all mugged in late teens and early 20s. None reported to the police. Well maybe not quite true. For my son police were called. He couldn't ID the muggers. Police said they would be in touch so he can make a formal complaint but never did.

I'm not trying to belittle rape or women being attacked (I have a wife and daughter) but men get violently attacked more than women. More likely to be attacked by a weapon & a lot more likely to die from an attack. There was no balance to yesterday's show. Men=bad & woman =good. Woman =victim & man =attacker. This is plain wrong.

You mean the majority of violence isn't committed by men?

And don't bs me with how men are given the same warnings. Btw I know plenty of men. I grew up surrounded by up to 30 mechanics at one time who were working for my parents, I have a brother, my best friends are mostly male, my cousins are all male, my partner and son. I went to mixed school. So maybe I should ask you do you know any women at all? Btw among my male friends I am the only one who was assaulted or harrased.

Tell me how

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There was no balance to yesterday's show. Men=bad & woman =good. Woman =victim & man =attacker. This is plain wrong.

But there was balance. Larissa was the counterpoint to Ciara's position. That is what balance is.

There wasn't balance in the listener call in during the piece but that aside, it was a good debate because there were two participants who felt strongly about their views on the topic.

If Ciara had had Louise O'Neil on I imagine I would feel you had a point.

Sleeper12

Tell me how wrote:

The guy Damien who texted in that "this is incitement to hatred of men and we know that most women are lying f*cking b*tches" shows that there are extremes on the male side as bad as any female who claim all men are potential offenders.

I believe yesterday's show or at least part of the show was incitement to hate men. The rest of Damiens comment are off the wall & I definitely wouldn't agree with them.

Tell me how wrote:

I don't for a second see how Ciara or the station needed to apologise for anything today. I didn't think George Hook was treated fairly at the time but just because his claims were reacted to in one way (largely driven by public discourse at the time) I don't necessarily think the station has to react in a similar manner way here.

The hook show was sponsored by a family hotel chain. They may even have been running a hotel stay giveaway at the time. He brings up rape in a hotel. He fumbles with the blame comment and goes to a break naming the family hotel. This is terrible for the hotel. Really the hotel had no option but to pull the plug. It's as much the producers fault as George. Maybe even more the producer but the mess was created. Newstalk won't be bullied so they ignored the issue and made it worse. In the end George had to go. They couldn't get advertising for his slot.

I believe if Newstalk acted faster George's job could have been saved. I like George. He made a mistake. It doesn't matter what he actually meant. It was his inexperience in broadcasting that let him down. No one who served their apprenticeship at RTE would have put themselves in that position. Had he entered broadcasting at a much younger age I believe that George would have phrased his point in such a way that we wouldn't be talking about it today and he would have been on at midday instead of ciara

Tell me how

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I believe yesterday's show or at least part of the show was incitement to hate men. The rest of Damiens comment are off the wall & I definitely wouldn't agree with them.

It absolutely wasn't. Because of Larissa's involvement.

And I'm not suggesting that if Ciara had been speaking on her own that it would have amounted to incitement to hatred of men, because, that didn't happen and even so, incitement to hatred is a very strong term which I'm not sure would even be applicable in such a case.

Sleeper12

meeeeh wrote:

You mean the majority of violence isn't committed by men?

And the majority of victims are male. The only mention of men yesterday was as attackers. Not a hint that men can be victims too.

meeeeh wrote:

And don't bs me with how men are given the same warnings. Btw I know plenty of men. I grew up surrounded by up to 30 mechanics at one time who were working for my parents, I have a brother, my best friends are mostly male, my cousins are all male, my partner and son. I went to mixed school. So maybe I should ask you do you know any women at all? Btw among my male friends I am the only one who was assaulted or harrased.

Ask your male friends. Ask them did their parents warn them about walking alone, accepting lifts, dark parks, unlit roads. Where they warned not to take that short cut home because they were more at risk. Did their parents not warn them that they are more at risk whilst drunk and the more drunk then the more at risk they were? This is standard parenting. Even crossing the road you are more at risk drunk. You honestly believe that parents don't warn their sons about these dangers? Do you have sons? Would you not warn them of the dangers of being too drunk? Dark roads empty parks? If not then please explain why you wouldn't try protect your son as much as your daughter? It doesn't make sense.

Sleeper12

Tell me how wrote:

But there was balance. Larissa was the counterpoint to Ciara's position. That is what balance is.

Men=attacker and women =victim is not factual nor balanced. Larissas opinion was poo pooed until she said that she was raped. Obviously this suited ciaras mantra of women =victim.

Tell me how

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Men=attacker and women =victim is not factual nor balanced. Larissas opinion was poo pooed until she said that she was raped. Obviously this suited ciaras mantra of women =victim.

Men=attacker and women =victim was (to some degree*) Ciara's position but Larissa challenged it.

Hence. the. balance.

If you had each contributor speaking out of both sides of their mouth then it would feel like they did not have an opinion but were sitting on the fence.

I am very much of a similar viewpoint to Larissa on this topic, (but I can understand the other position also) but I am discussing this here simply because I think it is excessive to suggest an apology is in order.

* this wasn't exactly the entirety of her argument but howsoever

Grolschevik

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Ask your male friends. Ask them did their parents warn them about walking alone, accepting lifts, dark parks, unlit roads. Where they warned not to take that short cut home because they were more at risk. Did their parents not warn them that they are more at risk whilst drunk and the more drunk then the more at risk they were? This is standard parenting. Even crossing the road you are more at risk drunk. You honestly believe that parents don't warn their sons about these dangers?

Mine didn't. But then I grew up in Belfast, so the radio reports in the morning did that for me...