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

Sleeper12

Mens health was interesting. I found it odd that she had a male doctor in the studio giving the advice. As a GP I'd be gobsmacked if she didn't know the answer to every medical question on the show today. Apart from that the segment was ok imo

meeeeh

She doesn't answer medical questions in medical slots regardless of the topic, she gets others in. The only exception I remember was one time around smear test scandal but I suspect that was because they ran out of time to get someone when the story broke.

pc7

meeeeh wrote: »

She doesn't answer medical questions in medical slots regardless of the topic, she gets others in. The only exception I remember was one time around smear test scandal but I suspect that was because they ran out of time to get someone when the story broke.

I remember that one, I think they released a 'specialised' segmant on the podcast for that too. It was at a time when there was a huge amount of fear going round over the scandal, it was quite good and balanced (if the pod was the same as the slot).

meeeeh

I actually think her medical slots are very good. It's clear she knows the subject, so she can ask the right questions in comparison to presenters with non medical background. Having an expert in works better than presenter answering questions.

Sleeper12

I wonder if as she is no longer a GP and possibly let her medical licence laps is she prohibited legally from giving professional medical advice

maxwell smart

meeeeh wrote: »

I actually think her medical slots are very good. It's clear she knows the subject, so she can ask the right questions in comparison to presenters with non medical background. Having an expert in works better than presenter answering questions.

I know what you are saying, but I find while she certainly has medical knowledge she doesn't welcome other peoples viewpoints if they differ from her own. The HPV vaccine is something she is a strong advocate for, but I feel that a good presenter would also try to add a bit of nuance to discussions on such hot public health topics that introduce the alternative view and then try to explain to people, through a discussion, why one point is better than the other.

For non medical issues she comes across as a complete expert on everything and won't take anyone else's view into consideration. When she is challenged on he views she simply shuts people down.

JeffKenna

She must suffer from a complete lack of confidence as she can't handle other people having different opinions to her.

She could do with a good dose of Xanax at times.

Tell me how

JeffKenna wrote: »

She must suffer from a complete lack of confidence as she can't handle other people having different opinions to her.

She could do with a good dose of Xanax at times.

Well on the show yesterday where there was a professor talking about having to bring a case against her university because she had been overlooked for promotion, Ciara said that when she was going through her education, she never once felt that professorship was beyond her or that there was a glass ceiling above her.

On the difference opinions thing, she says frequently that she wants to hear other peoples opinions and hers is the only show on Newstalk which facilitates live callers. Is that not evidence that she is ok with being challenged?

I know she defends her position robustly but I think she is ok with actually being challenged.

Grolschevik

JeffKenna wrote: »

Could do with a good dose of Xanax at times

New thread title? Cuts all ways... :pac:

meeeeh

maxwell smart wrote: »

I know what you are saying, but I find while she certainly has medical knowledge she doesn't welcome other peoples viewpoints if they differ from her own. The HPV vaccine is something she is a strong advocate for, but I feel that a good presenter would also try to add a bit of nuance to discussions on such hot public health topics that introduce the alternative view and then try to explain to people, through a discussion, why one point is better than the other.

The problem with HPV is that there is no verifiable proof against it. Balanced discussion would be like giving flat earther same prominence as someone with science background. The more air you give to those arguments, regardless how ridiculous they are, more people will listen to them. This is not just about C. Kelly, any programme giving anti hpv nonsense some credence is just causing damage.

J Mysterio

Kamili wrote: »

I see they are using the segment where Ciara loses the plot as an advertisement to the show - personally that would put me off from listening.

I havent listened to her show in a long, long time (I change the dial after Pat Kenny), but I heard the advertisements... She sounds unhinged! Very aggressive and not appropriate. She is always on a crusade.

The Bishop Basher

J Mysterio wrote: »

I havent listened to her show in a long, long time (I change the dial after Pat Kenny), but I heard the advertisements... She sounds unhinged! Very aggressive and not appropriate. She is always on a crusade.

Listened back to the show yesterday.

The very first segment was man = bad

Yawn

Got to the piece about the knickers. If I was the barrister I would have hung up when she lost it. I suppose he’s probably used to being shouted at in such an adversarial manner but if it was me I’d put the phone down and walk away. Likewise if it was face to face i’d turn on my heels.

It was incredibly rude and unprofessional and doesn’t make for a good interview.

She really is out of her depth.

Tell me how

I think she has reached a point where she doesn't care that some just don't like her. She sees that as their issue and isn't interested in trying to get them change their minds.
It doesn't bother her that they try to tell her she shouldn't have an opinion. They have one, why shouldn't she?

She is highly qualified, and is asked to comment and contribute on shows on RTE, TV3 and obviously her own show on Newstalk.

There seems to be many online who are glad that she spoke out as she did yesterday as the premise that a woman's choice of clothing implies consent was thought to have been left in the past but clearly not in some circles by some who then try to shoot the messenger.

i71jskz5xu42pb

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I've never heard how it was referenced in context within the closing statement and I'm curious as to how it would be referenced in context as it seems an odd thing to reference.

Just this excerpt from here

Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

I think she has reached a point where she doesn't care that some just don't like her. She sees that as their issue and isn't interested in trying to get them change their minds.
It doesn't bother her that they try to tell her she shouldn't have an opinion. They have one, why shouldn't she?

She is highly qualified, and is asked to comment and contribute on shows on RTE, TV3 and obviously her own show on Newstalk.

There seems to be many online who are glad that she spoke out as she did yesterday as the premise that a woman's choice of clothing implies consent was thought to have been left in the past but clearly not in some circles by some who then try to shoot the messenger.

The fact is that Ciara Kelly was not able to maintain her composure whilst conducting the interview yesterday.
I got into my car and turned on Newstalk only to hear the shrill shrieking voice of a person who had completely lost control of herself.

I have to say that I was taken aback by the interview and her behaviour.
Your assessment of her being "highly qualified" is undone by listening to that interview.

Ciara Kelly seems to be of the opinion that she has to take an emotive and confrontational approach to any issues that in any way effect women as if she were the sole voice in Irish media taking a stand on behalf of women.

The thing is that there are plenty of highly qualified and experienced female radio and television presenters in Ireland who would not engage in the type of unprofessional and frankly embarrassing display that was yesterday's interview.

Ciara Kelly has been a contributor on a number of television and radio shows in the past and has done a good job at offering a doctors opinion in that context. There is a massive difference however between being a good contributor and a qualified and capable presenter, which is a chasm she is clearly struggling to bridge.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

The fact is that Ciara Kelly was not able to maintain her composure whilst conducting the interview yesterday.
I got into my car and turned on Newstalk only to hear the shrill shrieking voice of a person who had completely lost control of herself.

I have to say that I was taken aback by the interview and her behaviour.
Your assessment of her being "highly qualified" is undone by listening to that interview.

Ciara Kelly seems to be of the opinion that she has to take an emotive and confrontational approach to any issues that in any way effect women as if she were the sole voice in Irish media taking a stand on behalf of women.

The thing is that there are plenty of highly qualified and experienced female radio and television presenters in Ireland who would not engage in the type of unprofessional and frankly embarrassing display that was yesterday's interview.

Ciara Kelly has been a contributor on a number of television and radio shows in the past and has done a good job at offering a doctors opinion in that context. There is a massive difference however between being a good contributor and a qualified and capable presenter, which is a chasm she is clearly struggling to bridge.

I think that yesterday's show was an emotive topic as it referred to something which happened in a court of law. The statistics for conviction in rape crimes versus those who claim to have been raped indicate that it is hard for many women to get justice.
To think that they can be judged in this way has to be very frustrating.

I have a broad but not intense acceptance of the#metoo movement, I have a lot of issues with the #ibelieveher movement as it implies a claim equals conviction but I can see how the incident yesterday made Ciara's blood boil as it was something which happened in one of the cases which actually made it to court.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

I think that yesterday's show was an emotive topic as it referred to something which happened in a court of law. The statistics for conviction in rape crimes versus those who claim to have been raped indicate that it is hard for many women to get justice.
To think that they can be judged in this way has to be very frustrating.

I have a broad but not intense acceptance of the#metoo movement, I have a lot of issues with the #ibelieveher movement as it implies a claim equals conviction but I can see how the incident yesterday made Ciara's blood boil as it was something which happened in one of the cases which actually made it to court.

She is according to you a "highly qualified" radio presenter. As such she should not have lost control in the way she did, regardless of the topic at hand or her personal feelings. Some people are capable of remaining calm under pressure, Ciara Kelly it would seem does not fir into that category.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

She is according to you a "highly qualified" radio presenter. As such she should not have lost control in the way she did, regardless of the topic at hand or her personal feelings. Some people are capable of remaining calm under pressure, Ciara Kelly it would seem does not fir into that category.

I thought it should have been clear to readers of my post that she is highly qualified in that she is a qualified Dr. This I am taking to imply a degree of intelligence and ability to look for evidence and to view things objectively.

I think that is broadly speaking more advantageous to the listener than someone who has been told to speak in a particular and continuous tone.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

I thought it should have been clear to readers of my post that she is highly qualified in that she is a qualified Dr. This I am taking to imply a degree of intelligence and ability to look for evidence and to view things objectively.

I think that is broadly speaking more advantageous to the listener than someone who has been told to speak in a particular and continuous tone.

Your wording was somewhat ambiguous, I would have assumed that you were talking about her ability as a radio presenter. I understand she is a qualified doctor and would assume that her qualification as such was not up for discussion.

It is a matter of record now that she lost control in yesterday's interview and that in itself is indicative of her struggles to get to grips with her role as a radio presenter.

As for somebody speaking in a monotonous tone, that is clearly not a realistic expectation and not something that is practiced by other presenters.

Do you feel her behaviour yesterday was that of a professional radio presenter?

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

Your wording was somewhat ambiguous, I would have assumed that you were talking about her ability as a radio presenter. I understand she is a qualified doctor and would assume that her qualification as such was not up for discussion.

It is a matter of record now that she lost control in yesterday's interview and that in itself is indicative of her struggles to get to grips with her role as a radio presenter.

As for somebody speaking in a monotonous tone, that is clearly not a realistic expectation and not something that is practiced by other presenters.

Do you feel her behaviour yesterday was that of a professional radio presenter?

That isn't a matter of record. It is a subjective opinion. One not held by Ciara, many online (it seems) and Newstalk hirearchy who are using that clip as an advertisement type piece throughout all day today.

Yes of course her behaviour was that of a professional radio presenter. Because, she is a radio presenter.

I have heard many radio hosts get animated from time to time. Absolutely, it was nowhere near as calm or measured as many would be but it is a particulalrly emotive topic fro Ciara and as such I can live with how she carried out the show.

I would have more of an issue with her asking Professor Skeffington did she want to comment on texts disagreeing with her position and when she refused to Ciara laughed with her. You can't ask people to text in and then trat their texts like that without complaint.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

That isn't a matter of record. It is a subjective opinion. One not held by Ciara, many online (it seems) and Newstalk hirearchy who are using that clip as an advertisement type piece throughout all day today.

Yes of course her behaviour was that of a professional radio presenter. Because, she is a radio presenter.

I have heard many radio hosts get animated from time to time. Absolutely, it was nowhere near as calm or measured as many would be but it is a particulalrly emotive topic fro Ciara and as such I can live with how she carried out the show.

I would have more of an issue with her asking Professor Skeffington did she want to comment on texts disagreeing with her position and when she refused to Ciara laughed with her. You can't ask people to text in and then trat their texts like that without complaint.

I'm sorry but this is not a matter of subjective opinion, the woman was clearly not in control of herself. Newstalk using soundbites of her shouting at her guest is a no brainer, controversial behaviour garners interest so it is prudent to capitalise on it.

If you feel that Ciara Kelly going off on an Alex Jones-esque rant and not allowing her guest time to answer questions is professional then that's your opinion, an opinion you are entitled to have but an opinion that is wrong.

Lest we forget the genesis of Ciara Kelly's career as a radio presenter stems from a supposedly misogynistic comment made by George Hook and a possibly tokenistic appointment from Newstalk who had to sack Dil Wickremasinghe (the then incumbent "social justice" presenter at the station) who refused to present her show until Hook was dismissed thus creating something of a perception of institutional misogyny that needed to be addressed.

Ciara Kelly may well be attracting a "love to hate her" audience as a result of her behaviour but her lack of professionalism is becoming increasingly obvious.
She mighty be employed as a radio presenter but putting on gloves doesn't make you a fighter and I'm afraid she is being found out at the moment.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is not a matter of subjective opinion, the woman was clearly not in control of herself. Newstalk using soundbites of her shouting at her guest is a no brainer, controversial behaviour garners interest so it is prudent to capitalise on it.

If you feel that Ciara Kelly going off on an Alex Jones-esque rant and not allowing her guest time to answer questions is professional then that's your opinion, an opinion you are entitled to have but an opinion that is wrong.

Lest we forget the genesis of Ciara Kelly's career as a radio presenter stems from a supposedly misogynistic comment made by George Hook and a possibly tokenistic appointment from Newstalk who had to sack Dil Wickremasinghe (the then incumbent "social justice" presenter at the station) who refused to present her show until Hook was dismissed thus creating something of a perception of institutional misogyny that needed to be addressed.

Ciara Kelly may well be attracting a "love to hate her" audience as a result of her behaviour but her lack of professionalism is becoming increasingly obvious.
She mighty be employed as a radio presenter but putting on gloves doesn't make you a fighter and I'm afraid she is being found out at the moment.

A - OK, I'm now pretty sure you don't understand what subjectivity means.

B - Comparing her to Alex Jones is just a tad ott don't you think.

C - How exactly is she being found out? Her show numbers are up and if anything her presence across other media is also up.

charlietheminxx

The general opinions here on boards seem to be massively out of step with what I’m seeing elsewhere. At the end of the day, a 17 year old who alleged to have been through an intensely traumatising experience had her underwear shown around a courtroom and whether people want to admit that or not, it came with an implication that a thong said something about her and what she wanted or would consent to. That’s not ok. Imagine it was your daughter in that courtroom, having been through that, with her knickers then being shown to a jury and discussed on the news. Imagine another rape victim at home this week, hearing about this girl and feeling like maybe she shouldn’t press charges because she wore the “wrong” kind of underwear on the night in question.

I get that a lot of people don’t like Ciara but her intention yesterday was obvious - to find out what reasoning the legal profession have for using such a tactic. The interviewee was constantly side-stepping the question and I can see how it become frustrating for her. Like her or not, she got more people talking about how we treat victims of sexual assault in the courtroom and that’s an important topic.

Tell me how

charlietheminxx wrote: »

The general opinions here on boards seem to be massively out of step with what I’m seeing elsewhere. At the end of the day, a 17 year old who alleged to have been through an intensely traumatising experience had her underwear shown around a courtroom and whether people want to admit that or not, it came with an implication that a thong said something about her and what she wanted or would consent to. That’s not ok. Imagine it was your daughter in that courtroom, having been through that, with her knickers then being shown to a jury and discussed on the news. Imagine another rape victim at home this week, hearing about this girl and feeling like maybe she shouldn’t press charges because she wore the “wrong” kind of underwear on the night in question.

I get that a lot of people don’t like Ciara but her intention yesterday was obvious - to find out what reasoning the legal profession have for using such a tactic. The interviewee was constantly side-stepping the question and I can see how it become frustrating for her. Like her or not, she for more people talking about how we treat victims of sexual assault in the courtroom and that’s an important topic.

It is a topic that had a member of Dail Eireann use a pair of underwear as a prop in the Dail.
The report on what happened has to have been very evocative for females.

meeeeh

nullzero wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is not a matter of subjective opinion, the woman was clearly not in control of herself.

So what those who disagree is subjective opinion but what you state is objective fact. That's just nonsense, your opinion is just as subjective as any other opinion because opinion can't be fact or objective.

While she was aggressive she was perfectly in control of what was she saying and of the point she was making and the point O'Neill was deflecting.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

A - OK, I'm now pretty sure you don't understand what subjectivity means.

B - Comparing her to Alex Jones is just a tad ott don't you think.

C - How exactly is she being found out? Her show numbers are up and if anything her presence across other media is also up.

A; there is no need to be condescending, I stated subjectivity was not applicable in this case as she was completely out of control and acting in an unprofessional manner.

B; she was ranting and raving, something Alex Jones is known for so the comparison is valid.

C; she is being found out in as much as her lack of professionalism is becoming more notable.

nullzero

meeeeh wrote: »

So what those who disagree is subjective opinion but what you state is objective fact. That's just nonsense, your opinion is just as subjective as any other opinion because opinion can't be fact or objective.

While she was aggressive she was perfectly in control of what was she saying and of the point she was making and the point O'Neill was deflecting.

No, you're wrong, just like the other poster pushing this point.
The interview in question was unbelievably unprofessional, she didn't allow her guest time to speak and shouted in an uncontrolled manner.
This has nothing to do with how I saw things this is a very simple situation where the evidence speaks for itself.

I'm starting to get a little irritated by this suggestion that Ciara Kelly's unprofessionalism is merely a matter of subjectivity when she was acting in a demonstrably unprofessional manner.
The issue being emotive isn't a valid argument.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

A; there is no need to be condescending, I stated subjectivity was not applicable in this case as she was completely out of control and acting in an unprofessional manner.

B; she was ranting and raving, something Alex Jones is known for so the comparison is valid.

C; she is being found out in as much as her lack of professionalism is becoming more notable.

I disagree with all your points above. Night night.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

I disagree with all your points above. Night night.

That's fine disagree all you like but please don't have the neck to condescend to me about my ability to understand basic concepts like subjectivity simply because you cannot construct a reasonable argument.

Fann Linn

Tell me how wrote: »

It is a topic that had a member of Dail Eireann use a pair of underwear as a prop in the Dail.
The report on what happened has to have been very evocative for females.

In fairness Coppinger doesn't need much of a catalyst to get her storming for the barricades.
A bit like Ciara Kelly in that regard, likes the sound of her own voice.