Bring back Hook!!!

r3nu4l

Always found Hook to be boring to listen to. I agreed with his opinions on some things but not most.

Overall, he was a terrible interviewer, the type who feels his opinion is more important than the debate itself, just like most alt-right broflakes and liberal snowflakes in modern society. Who cares about debating and exploring a topic sensibly when you can grandstand and shout over the other person?

Glad he's not on prime time radio now but I don't listen to Ciara Kelly either.

RayCon

I used to listen to a lot of Newstalk - especially while driving .... but at this stage the only one I bother leaving on is Moncrieff.

Paul Williams in the morning and Ciara Kelly at lunchtime are particularly poor broadcasters.

Larbre34

seamus wrote: »

Yes.
http://www.thejournal.ie/explainer-george-hook-newstalk-3600113-Sep2017/

That's the bit. "How can you surprised that you were raped when you went back to a strange man's hotel room?".

It's offensive to men and women.

To some, no doubt. Personally I think its just clumsily put but completely true.

'Primum non nocere' is the first line of the hippocratic oath of doctors. First, do no harm. And Ive always thought of it as an ideal guidance for young people, of both sexes, making their way socially in the world. First, do no harm to yourself.

Do not put yourself in a risky environment. Above all be responsible for your own safety when it comes to alcohol, drugs, sex, the company you are in. Don't enter unfamiliar situations without companions.

Its not offensive, its the kind of basic stuff that has kept the human race kicking for this long.

_Kaiser_

meeeeh wrote: »

Hook is back. You'll have to get up earlier on Saturdays.

He's been stuck in an early morning Saturday slot when many are still asleep or busy with the kids.. Hardly prime time. Also, you can tell that the show has become a lot more sanitised.. Wouldn't surprise me if it's pre-recorded or at least on a delay.

I don't agree with a lot of what he says but the way he was hounded out was disgraceful. Let's face it, most people knew the point he was trying to make was reasonable enough.. It's just his delivery was arseways, but that was enough for the perpetually offended virtue-signalling types to force a campaign to drive him out.

Newstalk, and indeed radio and Irish society in general, badly needs opposing views on certain "controversial" subjects - we have become far too influenced and easily led by nonsense on twitter accounts IMO

padd b1975

I loved how the Trots made a pompous announcement of boycotting Newstalk in solidarity with Dil, then started reappearing on the station a month later as if nothing had happened.

Red_Wake

Al Porter was given a slap on the wrist for much worse than Hook, and Hook got destroyed.

badtoro

_Dara_ wrote: »

His and his supporters whole defence of the comments that got him suspended was that he worded his views badly.

That clashes with what I said how?

I had no difficulty in understanding him. You can replace my ham fisted comment with something about slow learners.

This is the age of outrage, and it's ****ing boring.

beauf

Hook is just a crank. Most of that show was just gibberish. Worst part of it was that technology section. The girl doing it was pleasant enough and spoke well but it's just a sales pitch for what ever was the latest fad.

badtoro

Zonda999 wrote: »

I agree with the OP about Hook and think you can apply much of whats been mentioned to Newstalk, and the Last Word (Today FM) as a whole.

There was a certain agenda that got rid of Hook. I think that same agenda would love to get Ivan Yates and Niall Boylan off the airwaves also. I know Yates is on Newstalk but he would not be too dissimilar to Hook on many opinions, also he seems less likely to go along with the common social justice warrior opinion of the time opinion on many topics. The same can be said of Boylan.

Yeah I don't care for Ivan either. He was somewhat amusing when he first appeared on NT but then descended into boring and predictable sex comments. Since he returned from his financial holiday I've found him insufferable.

Mebuntu

George Hook's opinions on many things would not be my cup of tea but I fully agreed with everything he said on that subject that day. Plenty more didn't and that is their right. However, once the ever-hovering easily-offended and PC fingers of Mná na Twitter got busy he was doomed and the rest of the (male) broadcasting fraternity rowed in behind them, fearful for their own jobs should they offer Hook even a modicum of support.

Free speech finally died that day.

whisky_galore

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Newstalk, and indeed radio and Irish society in general, badly needs opposing views on certain "controversial" subjects - we have become far too influenced and easily led by nonsense on twitter accounts IMO

It was a sad day when verbal diarrhoea from the seething masses hammering away in indignation on their pcs and smartphones somehow became influential or even newsworthy.

suicide_circus

seamus wrote: »

There's a difference between counter-cultural opinions and "wrong-think" for the sake of it. I love to hear some good "wrong-think" that's well considered and puts forward data and ideas I haven't seen before.

Katie Hopkins, Piers Morgan, Ivan Yeates, George Hook. These people are not "wrong-thinkers". They're trolls. They state controversial opinions without a shred of supporting evidence because they know these opinions are controversial. Not because they believe them.

People who state controversial opinions with supporting evidence, with a strong rationale, are incredibly important for public discourse. They force society to question their assumptions and bring about real social change.

Trolls are damaging to public discourse. They stir the pot, incit anger and division, for nothing except their own celebrity. They cannot bring about positive change because the dissent they sow has absolutely no merit to it.

In the absence of open and free dialogue where people of conservative and even right of centre opinions are allowed to speak without being labelled racists or fascists, people are going to listen to trolls - see the current US president as a beautiful illustration of my point.

The last few decades of outright leftist control of media and academia have been too successful in controlling the narrative of public discourse. There has been no escape valve. Hence Trump. Hence Brexit.

Shenshen

Larbre34 wrote: »

Do you even know what he said?

Honestly, what he said is basically the advice I'll be giving my daughter when she's old enough to need and understand it.

Rather stupefyingly, some of what had him suspended was

"There is personal responsibility because it’s your daughter and it’s my daughter. And what determines the daughter who goes out, gets drunk, passes out and is with strangers in her room and the daughter that goes out, stays halfway sober and comes home, I don’t know. I wish I knew. I wish I knew what the secret of parenting is.

But there is a point of responsibility. The real issues nowadays and increasingly is the question of the personal responsibility that young girls are taking for their own safety."

Not exactly heretical, is it.....?

Would you give her that advise after she was raped, though?

jobbridge4life

Red_Wake wrote: »

Al Porter was given a slap on the wrist for much worse than Hook, and Hook got destroyed.

Al Porter, lost his radio show, his television show, his role in a Christmas Panto.

Hook was off the air for couple of months and now has a two hour radio show on a Saturday.

blastman

Shenshen wrote: »

Would you give her that advise after she was raped, though?

When is a good time? If anecdotal evidence is correct, someone will always have been raped recently, should we not mention it ever in case we upset them?

Gravelly

seamus wrote: »

There's a difference between counter-cultural opinions and "wrong-think" for the sake of it. I love to hear some good "wrong-think" that's well considered and puts forward data and ideas I haven't seen before.

Katie Hopkins, Piers Morgan, Ivan Yeates, George Hook. These people are not "wrong-thinkers". They're trolls. They state controversial opinions without a shred of supporting evidence because they know these opinions are controversial. Not because they believe them.

People who state controversial opinions with supporting evidence, with a strong rationale, are incredibly important for public discourse. They force society to question their assumptions and bring about real social change.

Trolls are damaging to public discourse. They stir the pot, incit anger and division, for nothing except their own celebrity. They cannot bring about positive change because the dissent they sow has absolutely no merit to it.

It's news to me that one requires supporting evidence in order to hold an opinion. Who examines and weighs this evidence, the Thought Police?

Troll is now the go-to word for anyone who has a different opinion, especially if that opinion is, horror of horrors, conservative.

seamus

suicide_circus wrote: »

In the absence of open and free dialogue where people of conservative and even right of centre opinions are allowed to speak without being labelled racists or fascists, people are going to listen to trolls - see the current US president as a beautiful illustration of my point.

Actually people are always going to listen to trolls. Emotional people are much easier to engage than passive ones. And by throwing out controversial statements, you stir up both those who agree with the statement and those who don't.

IMHO, there is still perfectly open and free dialogue in most areas of the western world, the problem is that there has been increasing intolerance of unquestioned opinion. That is, people are no longer free to state an opinion and walk away. If you openly state an opinion it will now be openly challenged.

This is something which people on both sides of the discourse are not accustomed to, and it creates the illusion that you are being silenced when someone questions your statement.

The last few decades of outright leftist control of media and academia have been too successful in controlling the narrative of public discourse. There has been no escape valve. Hence Trump. Hence Brexit.

That's funny in light of the recent developments in the US suggesting that in fact vast swathes of the US media have been under the control of conservative business interests.

Brexit and Trump it seems now are largely down to clever marketing and manipulation designed to present falsehood as fact and direct that information at areas of the electorate who would be most influenced by such disinformation.

It's telling that the two campaigns were based primarily on outright lies, defamation of opponents and undeliverable promises. Rather than running on honest campaigns. It suggests that those of a conservative slant prefer the comfortable lie over the honest truth.

seamus

Gravelly wrote: »

It's news to me that one requires supporting evidence in order to hold an opinion.

I didn't say that. Hold whatever opinion you want. If you want to state it publically though, don't whinge about censorship when people ask you to justify it.

Gravelly

seamus wrote: »

I didn't say that.

You did, you said exactly that:

They're trolls. They state controversial opinions without a shred of supporting evidence because they know these opinions are controversial

seamus wrote: »

Hold whatever opinion you want. If you want to state it publically though, don't whinge about censorship when people ask you to justify it.

So to add to your evidence requirement for allowing one to hold an opinion, one also has to "justify" that opinion to some faceless jury in order to be allowed the honour of holding it?

I'm glad I don't live in your little dictatorship of the mind.

Lux23

Is he not dead yet?

seamus

Gravelly wrote: »

You did, you said exactly that:

I'm not going to engage any further with someone who posts bare-faced lies about what I've written. It's right there in front of you.

Either that or your level of english comprehension is incredibly poor.

Gravelly

seamus wrote: »

I'm not going to engage any further with someone who posts bare-faced lies about what I've written. It's right there in front of you.

Either that or your level of english comprehension is incredibly poor.

Very well, I'm not keen on engaging with someone who hasn't the guts to defend their opinion even after they've posted it.

meeeeh

Yates is fun, he does mock outrage which is much better than actual outrage. Hooks was opinionated but he expressed his genuine opinions. Which is fine but listening to at least 65 rants about Merkel per year was just boring. Yates pokes easily offended cohort for fun which is entertaining to listen to.

_Dara_

Gravelly wrote: »

You did, you said exactly that:





So to add to your evidence requirement for allowing one to hold an opinion, one also has to "justify" that opinion to some faceless jury in order to be allowed the honour of holding it?

I'm glad I don't live in your little dictatorship of the mind.

Nobody said you can’t HOLD an opinion. In your brain, seeing as you’ve mentioned the Thought Police a few times.

But if you publicly mouthfart an odious opinion, you’ll likely be questioned on it. That doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to still hold that opinion. It just means somebody in earshot might want you to explain your rationale. Diddums.

Gravelly

_Dara_ wrote: »

Nobody said you can’t HOLD an opinion. In your brain, seeing as you’ve mentioned the Thought Police a few times.

But if you publicly mouthfart an odious opinion, you’ll likely be questioned on it. That’s doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to still hold that opinion. It just means somebody wants you to explain your rationale. Diddums.

Ah "diddums" the last resort of the airhead.

So it's ok to hold an opinion, as long as you don't dare express it? Interesting. Ever read 1984? Similar theme.

_Dara_

Gravelly wrote: »

Ah "diddums" the last resort of the airhead.

So it's ok to hold an opinion, as long as you don't dare express it? Interesting. Ever read 1984? Similar theme.

No, you can express it. As I said. And any expressed opinion can be challenged. Why would you think otherwise? I didn’t say that opinions shouldn’t be expressed. Time to brush up on the ol’ reading comprehension, Gravelly. I wouldn’t be throwing around the term ‘airhead’ if I was you.

meeeeh

Gravelly wrote: »

Ah "diddums" the last resort of the airhead.

So it's ok to hold an opinion, as long as you don't dare express it? Interesting. Ever read 1984? Similar theme.

If you are not prepared to be challenged on your opinion then don't voice it. I think there was an overreaction to it and certain other circumstances didn't help. But in the spirit of his statements, he was asking for it. Maybe he should use his own advice and act responsibly.

Red_Wake

meeeeh wrote: »

Gravelly wrote: »

Ah "diddums" the last resort of the airhead.

So it's ok to hold an opinion, as long as you don't dare express it? Interesting. Ever read 1984? Similar theme.

If you are not prepared to be challenged on your opinion then don't voice it. I think there was an overreaction to it and certain other circumstances didn't help. But in the spirit of his statements, he was asking for it. Maybe he should use his own advice and act responsibly.

Hook wasn't challenged on his opinion in any manner. 

And the second bolded piece is the sort of statement that got Hook into trouble.

jobbridge4life

Red_Wake wrote: »

Hook wasn't challenged on his opinion in any manner. 

If he wasn't challenged for his opinions then how is it that he was, to quote you, 'destroyed'? You are making no sense.

Red_Wake wrote: »

And the second bolded piece is the sort of statement that got Hook into trouble.

Except one was an emploper making a decision to reprimand an employee who, by his own admission, erred.

The other was about rape. And how a woman should share some of the blame.

Not the same thing. Not remotely.

meeeeh

Red_Wake wrote: »

And the second bolded piece is the sort of statement that got Hook into trouble.

Some time tomorrow the penny will drop...