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

Tell me how

givyjoe wrote: »

How convenient. Wouldn't want to read anything that might challenge your views. Amazeballs.

Challenging views is fine. What the complainants about the show seem to present as evidence is subjective nonsense implying production meetings within Newstalk where items 1-4 on the agenda are how do we reduce the number of men in the world.

And how they'll never listen again. Until tomorrow of course.

J Mysterio

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I disagree. An awful lot of the commentary on the thread seems to be about how totes amazeballs Ciara is, how wonderful she is, how "brave" she is so to speak, how she's never at fault, never emotional, never hysterical, etc. etc......and how, even when she's wrong, she's right!

I've personally never on this thread claimed men have it hard, and I've never claimed to be a victim. I have used the thread to voice my concern and misgivings about the constant misandristic rants and man-bashing of the unprofessional host. Apparently in the eyes of some however, said host is not to be subjected to criticism based solely on a defence of her sex; which goes against the very principles and foundations of equality itself. The fact that I've said worse about multiple male hosts across numerous threads is ignored as it does not sit well with this audience as it's much easier (and lazy) to label all criticism as sexist. Even when female posters criticise Kelly (and thus inherently you would think removing the sexism argument), that's not considered valid by her defenders.

I've never once criticised her for being a woman. I've criticised her for the nonsense that comes out of her mouth - in the same way that I criticise Joe Duffy
for his buffoonery, death and misery fetishes and amateurishness almost daily; previously criticised Paul Williams constantly (until his recent departure) for his gross exaggeration and tabloid style of "journalism", and continue to criticise Alan Quinlan for being out of his depth.

You say the thread has become one long whingefest - a question then, do you think the Ciara Kelly supporters apparent refusal to see any fault in her performance contributes to this?

Wait... Alan Quinlan is out of his depth?! Explain yourself!

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

The question I asked was:
You say the thread has become one long whingefest - a question then, do you think the Ciara Kelly supporters apparent refusal to see any fault in her performance contributes to this?
.

No I don't.

Btw I'm not a supporter. She is not my favourite Newstalk presenter, I prefer Yates, Moncrieff (ignoring yucky interviews) and Kenny but I think a lot of criticism of her is disproportionately stupid.

Huntergonzo

Hahaha jaysus they were at it again this morning, less than a minute after switching on the radio and they turned to their poxy poisonous poll again.

Hats off to them though, they don't even pretend to be unbiased, yer wan said that tomorrow they're talking about groping, and she specifically wanted to ask women about it, men can fúck off cause no woman ever pinched an arse......it just didn't happen ever.

Ps, the poll wasn't even 50-50 men and women, it's 51-49 in favour of women, so it's fundamentally sexist itself.....oh the irony :-)

Newstalk really is the gift that keeps giving.

Huntergonzo

Tell me how wrote: »

Challenging views is fine. What the complainants about the show seem to present as evidence is subjective nonsense implying production meetings within Newstalk where items 1-4 on the agenda are how do we reduce the number of men in the world.

And how they'll never listen again. Until tomorrow of course.

What do you think of Newstalk's recent poll and why do you think they're reporting this information?

Tell me how

Huntergonzo wrote: »

What do you think of Newstalk's recent poll and why do you think they're reporting this information?

I think they are taking a topical issue which has been in the News globally over the last several months and using a recognized polling organisation to conduct research in to views relating to this in Ireland.

When their presenters voice their views on items, they are lambasted for "just wanting to have their opinion", when they use a very recognized professional format to gauge public opinion, they are accused of having an anti-male focus. Even though they have only 3 regular female presenters totalling less than 20 hours a week.

Also, all shows are discussing these findings to see if there is merit in the poll results and why they might be as they are. This is what is called having an informed public debate.

Some (on this thread) don't seem to like it which I suspect is because of some form of a lack of self-confidence in their own capability or worth and a fear that if women are treated equally, it will somehow mean less opportunity for them.

VinLieger

J Mysterio wrote: »

Wait... Alan Quinlan is out of his depth?! Explain yourself!

Have you heard him whens hes discussing any other sport apart from Rugby? It would be fine if hes was just there to do Rugby stuff except he was brought on as their sports guy for the morning show

Gravelly

What I want to know is which of the presenters is leading in the “Mention Trump in segments that have absolutely nothing to do with him” competition. My money is on either Ciara or Moncrieffe. Moncrieffe seems to manage to start off nearly every interview, regardless of subject by mentioning him. Kenny would be well up there too.

sligojoek

Gravelly wrote: »

What I want to know is which of the presenters is leading in the “Mention Trump in segments that have absolutely nothing to do with him” competition. My money is on either Ciara or Moncrieffe. Moncrieffe seems to manage to start off nearly every interview, regardless of subject by mentioning him. Kenny would be well up there too.

None of them would get a look in with Ryan Tubridy.

Huntergonzo

Tell me how wrote: »

I think they are taking a topical issue which has been in the News globally over the last several months and using a recognized polling organisation to conduct research in to views relating to this in Ireland.

When their presenters voice their views on items, they are lambasted for "just wanting to have their opinion", when they use a very recognized professional format to gauge public opinion, they are accused of having an anti-male focus. Even though they have only 3 regular female presenters totalling less than 20 hours a week.

Also, all shows are discussing these findings to see if there is merit in the poll results and why they might be as they are. This is what is called having an informed public debate.

Some (on this thread) don't seem to like it which I suspect is because of some form of a lack of self-confidence in their own capability or worth and a fear that if women are treated equally, it will somehow mean less opportunity for them.

I have to say I find your post quite naive, you're right in saying that this topic (discrimination against women) has been in the news globally over the last few years but failed to really address why. It's led by the modern liberal media who seem to focus almost solely on womens issues and all the terrible things men do to them, this is the narrative of stations like Newstalk and it's a dangerous one which needs to be called.

Ps, I don't have a whole lot of interest in the 'opinions' of radio presenters to be honest, their format is incredibly obvious concerning most topics:

Presenter 1 = I agree with x
Presenter 2 = I disagree with x
Followed by = text us in, let us know what you think

It's pretty fúckin basic stuff, except it is worth noting that they seldom disagree when it comes to discrimination against women, that's unquestionable fact in their eyes.

WinnyThePoo

Redneck Culchie wrote: »

tayto lover wrote: »

Lost all respect for that fibber when she said she wouldn't mind living beside travellers.
She would in her hole live beside them.

I doubt there are any travellers in Greystones where Ciara Kelly lives.

Yes there are.

Tell me how

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I have to say I find your post quite naive, you're right in saying that this topic (discrimination against women) has been in the news globally over the last few years but failed to really address why. It's led by the modern liberal media who seem to focus almost solely on womens issues and all the terrible things men do to them, this is the narrative of stations like Newstalk and it's a dangerous one which needs to be called.

Ps, I don't have a whole lot of interest in the 'opinions' of radio presenters to be honest, their format is incredibly obvious concerning most topics:

Presenter 1 = I agree with x
Presenter 2 = I disagree with x
Followed by = text us in, let us know what you think

It's pretty fúckin basic stuff, except it is worth noting that they seldom disagree when it comes to discrimination against women, that's unquestionable fact in their eyes.

Obviously I don't think I am naive, but even if I was, I'd rather that than being misogynistic.
That's fine. It's your prerogative. Just own it.

ButtersSuki

J Mysterio wrote: »

Wait... Alan Quinlan is out of his depth?! Explain yourself!

:pac:

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

No I don't.

Btw I'm not a supporter. She is not my favourite Newstalk presenter, I prefer Yates, Moncrieff (ignoring yucky interviews) and Kenny but I think a lot of criticism of her is disproportionately stupid.

Re. you don't. Ok, am I getting this right then - the sole reason this thread has in your opinion become one long whingefest is entirely due to people criticising Ciara? One can only take from that then that you believe all of that criticism to be unwarranted, invalid, or both? Please correct me if I'm making assumptions here.

Re. the text in bold - that simply beggars belief given your postings on her.

ButtersSuki

VinLieger wrote: »

Have you heard him whens hes discussing any other sport apart from Rugby? It would be fine if hes was just there to do Rugby stuff except he was brought on as their sports guy for the morning show

I think/assume he was being sarcastic Vin! At least I hope so!

Huntergonzo

Tell me how wrote: »

Obviously I don't think I am naive, but even if I was, I'd rather that than being misogynistic.
That's fine. It's your prerogative. Just own it.

So would I to be honest, misogynists have no place in the modern world.

ButtersSuki

Tell me how wrote: »

Some (on this thread) don't seem to like it which I suspect is because of some form of a lack of self-confidence in their own capability or worth and a fear that if women are treated equally, it will somehow mean less opportunity for them.

Would the women who criticise her also hold this fear?

Tell me how

Huntergonzo wrote: »

So would I to be honest, misogynists have no place in the modern world.

And yet they do on this thread obviously.

meeeeh

Huntergonzo wrote: »

What do you think of Newstalk's recent poll and why do you think they're reporting this information?

Because it brings up listener-ship numbers and listener engagement. I would say they got plenty of reaction to previous similar topics and as commercial station they are following the money. So more outraged you are and more you listen to be outraged and more you voice it, better it is for them. Keep on the good work.

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Re. you don't. Ok, am I getting this right then - the sole reason this thread has in your opinion become one long whingefest is entirely due to people criticising Ciara? One can only take from that then that you believe all of that criticism to be unwarranted, invalid, or both? Please correct me if I'm making assumptions here.

I think most of it is stupid and overly personal. There might be some valid but the pure venom spitting nature of it makes it a bit hysterical. It's not just what you criticise but also how you criticise (your lowest of the low in medical profession would be great example).

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

I think most of it is stupid and overly personal. There might be some valid but the pure venom spitting nature of it makes it a bit hysterical. It's not just what you criticise but also how you criticise (your lowest of the low in medical profession would be great example).

And once again you deliberately misquote to attempt to change what I said. I didn't actually say that - and I've explained this several times.

What I said was she was "She is a GP, the lowest of the low in the doctor hierarchy"; an important point of clarification and a statement of fact, not opinion. But that doesn't suit your narrative. Instead you and others change what i said to attempt to cast what I said in a completely different light. This was in response to some posters fawning over the fact she was (not is) a doctor, holding a GP in some circa-1960s Ireland fawning adulation of said profession. Coming from a family of medics I do understand the difference tiers and levels of qualification required for different posts, GP being the lowest. There's more than one GP in my family, and there's more than one Doctor who is eminently more
qualified than them.

I didn't mean she's a scumbag or anything "low" in that sense of the word; but of course you either can't or refuse to see the nuance and context of what I said.

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

I think most of it is stupid and overly personal. There might be some valid but the pure venom spitting nature of it makes it a bit hysterical. It's not just what you criticise but also how you criticise (your lowest of the low in medical profession would be great example).

On this, you have called me "obsessed", "a bitter little man", and "cowardly". Despite this, I have refrained form getting personal with you. Double standards?

ButtersSuki

Tell me how wrote: »

And yet they do on this thread obviously.

Are the women who criticise Kelly on here misogynists too? Or are they perhaps suffering from some sort of inferiority complex or hold an unhealthy degree of self-loathing?

For Forks Sake

https://www.thejournal.ie/amanda-brunker-high-court-4361743-Nov2018/

A SOLICITOR HAS filed High Court proceedings against Amanda Brunker and Independent Newspapers, over a piece written by the columnist in The Herald.

Phelim O’Neill has initiated defamation proceedings over the column, which concerned recent commentary about rape trials in Ireland.

It followed O’Neill’s appearance on the Newstalk Lunchtime Show with Ciara Kelly, which featured commentary on the use of women’s underwear as evidence in a sexual assault trial.

The piece, which named the solicitor, has since been removed from the Herald’s online site.

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

On this, you have called me "obsessed", "a bitter little man", and "cowardly". Despite this, I have refrained form getting personal with you. Double standards?

I didn't claim my critism of you or others couldn't be taken as personal (in my opinion fairly accurate).

As for the doctor comment you meant it to discredit her. How much more qualified are your relatives has very little relevance until they start their own radio show.

sydthebeat

For Forks Sake wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/amanda-brunker-high-court-4361743-Nov2018/

between this and the indo article which caused a rape cause to collapse.... one has to wonder about the competencies of the editors of these newspapers.

Unbelievable. Both Newstalk Breakfast and Ciara Kelly pushing the agenda today that women are being discriminated against simply by virtue of the fact they bear children and cant have it all. Almost ALL texters on both shows clearly showed NO support for the Newstalk agenda. Texters were saying actually we have evolved, we share the chores, the housekeeping, the childminding, we both have jobs. If a child is sick we take it in turns to leave work.

Why oh why are Newstalk absolutely intent on pushing this agenda down our throats. They try and portray the image that women are helpless, downtrodden, victims with no voice and no redress against discrimination and men are rapists and predators. Its hugely damaging to society and especially to the views of younger people.

We have never had it so good. Women are not weak and helpless and most women I know don't see themselves as such. We have so many choices. Why are Newstalk and especially Ciara Kelly doing this!!

On a separate note why does Ciara Kelly make EVERY SINGLE topic about her? She spends so much time debating issues with ...."Well I feel this, or I feel that, I do this, I do that, me me me me me me me me I I I I I I I I I I I I I... I'm a doctor, I'm a woman, I'm bolshie, I'm extrovert" etc etc etc

sasta le

God any listening today between 12 and 1 moaning about children stopping there life’s.Of course children change everything

meeeeh

I didn't hear the whole discussion but that is not the impression I got from the conversation. Also stop with the weak and helpless nonsense, who claimed that women are weak and helpless?

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

I didn't claim my critism of you or others couldn't be taken as personal (in my opinion fairly accurate).

As for the doctor comment you meant it to discredit her. How much more qualified are your relatives has very little relevance until they start their own radio show.

My God. Do you go out of your way to completely miss the point? I mentioned my relatives purely to explain that their is a hierarchy within the doctor segment of the medical profession - something you and others seem to refuse to understand, accept or acknowledge.

I absolutely did not mean it to discredit her - I meant it simply to illustrate the above. It’s amazing how you can understand my intent now too? It is a statement of fact that GPs are at the bottom of the Doctor hierarchy. Do I aim to discredit one of my parents and a sibling by saying this?