The Weekend On One With Brendan O'Connor

NIMAN

RandomViewer wrote: »

O Connor has a Downs child,

I know that, but did Dawkins make the comments about aborting on todays interview, or are people just quoting what he has said in the past?

secman

Thought the interview was handled very well by BOC, Dawkins tripped himself up on the use of the word morally and in the ended withdrew it. BOC outboxed Dawkins. Laughable how people genuinely believe he's as thick as a plank they must be looking in the mirror too often

secman

secman wrote: »

Thought the interview was handled very well by BOC, Dawkins tripped himself up on the use of the word morally and in the ended withdrew it. BOC outboxed Dawkins. Laughable how people genuinely believe he's as thick as a plank they must be looking in the mirror too often

It was an excellent interview.

Brendan 1
Dawkins 0

cameramonkey

Did they cover the Harris story this weekened?

Cole

blackvalley wrote: »

He also went on to say that building more houses was not necessarly the answer as the laws of supply and demand do not apply to the housing market .

That's not exactly what he said.

blackvalley wrote: »

That extraordinary assertion went unchallenged by the host .

It was challenged by BOC.

blackvalley wrote: »

By the way the same clown dismissed the anti social behaviour of toerags at railway stations and on the streets because ( i kid you not ) " adults were having a pint in the town center " during lockdown and showing bad example . :eek:

I think you are kidding us because that's not what he said.

I'm not defending what he actually said, as I don't really know enough about the topics. He did seem a bit overly dismissive at times, but I'm guessing that a lecturer in environment and planning knows just a little about housing, so I wouldn't dismiss him as a clown and just (mis)represent what he said because I don't agree with him.

But hey, why break this forums habit of just selectively listening/reading/interpreting and then making assumptions about broadcasters/politicians/posters to fit a preferred narrative on an issue.

john123470

secman wrote: »

Thought the interview was handled very well by BOC, Dawkins tripped himself up on the use of the word morally and in the ended withdrew it. BOC outboxed Dawkins. Laughable how people genuinely believe he's as thick as a plank they must be looking in the mirror too often

Or maybe not looking in the mirror enough, eh ?

Outboxed - yep right ..
The Scientist and the Bogman .. Lols

Beechwoodspark

Just listened back

Minor quibble - BOC was overly emotional (in my opinion) when the discussion went to Down’s syndrome

Otherwise it was a very pleasant conversation

Chapeau to both

Beechwoodspark

Also just to add - at the end I got the sense BOC was very passive aggressive borderline nasty in how he ended the interview.

Dawkins was very polite throughout.

blackvalley

Cole wrote: »

That's not exactly what he said.



It was challenged by BOC.



I think you are kidding us because that's not what he said.

I'm not defending what he actually said, as I don't really know enough about the topics. He did seem a bit overly dismissive at times, but I'm guessing that a lecturer in environment and planning knows just a little about housing, so I wouldn't dismiss him as a clown and just (mis)represent what he said because I don't agree with him.

But hey, why break this forums habit of just selectively listening/reading/interpreting and then making assumptions about broadcasters/politicians/posters to fit a preferred narrative on an issue.

You are making the assumption that because he is a lecturer ( jenuflect at this point ) he knows what hes talking about rather than being a spouter of theory.

OK so what he said exactly and I quote is " The normal rules of supply and demand do not apply to the housing market "

And in relation to anti social behavour.

"Go down to that village green and tell the sixty , fifty , forty thirty year olds to stop drinking in public BEFORE tackling those kids "


So take the pint off grandad because what he is doing is causing little Johnny to throw people under trains.

ShamNNspace

Ahwell wrote: »

Nah, I'd give him a pass on this...in fact, I'd applaud any presenter who got "miffed" at these particular views.

But its not really a presenters job to get "miffed"at an interviewees views imo. He should be calm and professional and detached at all times.the only one who should be getting miffed or annoyed or not as the case may be should be the listener. That is good broadcasting, leaving the listener to make up their own minds

Cole

blackvalley wrote: »

You are making the assumption that because he is a lecturer ( jenuflect at this point ) he knows what hes talking about rather than being a spouter of theory.

It doesn’t have to be one or the other …you can ‘spout theory’ and also know what you’re talking about or ‘spout’ theory and not really know. I’m in the same game, so I know all about lecturers who are spoofers. In fairness to Skehan, I don’t think he’s the typical PhD and research only academic; he’s done a lot of ‘real life’ stuff too. So there were no assumptions or suggestions to revere someone just because of being a lecturer, but I also wouldn’t go to the other extreme of calling him a “clown”. His background suggests that he might know “just a little” (my words) but maybe not everything about the topic…i.e. I’d be prepared to listen carefully to what he’s saying and maybe then agree/disagree.

blackvalley wrote: »

OK so what he said exactly and I quote is " The normal rules of supply and demand do not apply to the housing market "

And in relation to anti social behavour.

"Go down to that village green and tell the sixty , fifty , forty thirty year olds to stop drinking in public BEFORE tackling those kids "


So take the pint off grandad because what he is doing is causing little Johnny to throw people under trains.

As for any quotation, there’s the minor inconvenience of having to interpret them in the context of the words that become before or after…putting them in bold and underlining them doesn’t change that.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. We could go back and forth, but it would just end up like pulling teeth.

blackvalley

Cole wrote: »

It doesn’t have to be one or the other …you can ‘spout theory’ and also know what you’re talking about or ‘spout’ theory and not really know. I’m in the same game, so I know all about lecturers who are spoofers. In fairness to Skehan, I don’t think he’s the typical PhD and research only academic; he’s done a lot of ‘real life’ stuff too. So there were no assumptions or suggestions to revere someone just because of being a lecturer, but I also wouldn’t go to the other extreme of calling him a “clown”. His background suggests that he might know “just a little” (my words) but maybe not everything about the topic…i.e. I’d be prepared to listen carefully to what he’s saying and maybe then agree/disagree.




As for any quotation, there’s the minor inconvenience of having to interpret them in the context of the words that become before or after…putting them in bold and underlining them doesn’t change that.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. We could go back and forth, but it would just end up like pulling teeth.

Exactly. As should be the case in any discussion.
Regards.:)

plodder

Shelga wrote: »

This has suddenly become extremely uncomfortable listening. Whatever you think of Brendan, and I’m not his biggest fan, he’s handling this well. He asked exactly what I was thinking- “Do you know anyone personally with Down’s Syndrome?” Dawkins replied- “no.”

Says it all really.

It was very uncomfortable listening and could have been worse if O'Connor had pressed him on some of the questions he asked. Personally, I have a lot of time for Dawkins, but it was interesting to hear him row back on his most strident claims that it could be "immoral" to allow a foetus with Down's Syndrome to live. I wonder if Dawkins was aware of O'Connor's situation. I suspect not, and I think they both handled it quite well.

Beechwoodspark

plodder wrote: »

It was very uncomfortable listening and could have been worse if O'Connor had pressed him on some of the questions he asked. Personally, I have a lot of time for Dawkins, but it was interesting to hear him row back on his most strident claims that it could be "immoral" to allow a foetus with Down's Syndrome to live. I wonder if Dawkins was aware of O'Connor's situation. I suspect not, and I think they both handled it quite well.

BOC told him about his family situation during the interview.

plodder

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

BOC told him about his family situation during the interview.

Yes, I heard him say that. What I meant was did he know beforehand.

Furze99

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Just listened back

Minor quibble - BOC was overly emotional (in my opinion) when the discussion went to Down’s syndrome

Otherwise it was a very pleasant conversation

Chapeau to both

Heard it in the moment - thought O'Connor was being pretty passive aggressive. He obviously was set on point scoring even though he insisted he wasn't. Rude, even to the point of alleging on air that Dawkins had hung up at one stage to avoid a question. He knew Dawkins is too clever to be boxed in but still tried to bully him. Unlikable as a host.

john123470

Furze99 wrote: »

Heard it in the moment - thought O'Connor was being pretty passive aggressive. He obviously was set on point scoring even though he insisted he wasn't. Rude, even to the point of alleging on air that Dawkins had hung up at one stage to avoid a question. He knew Dawkins is too clever to be boxed in but still tried to bully him. Unlikable as a host.

Would not surprise me if it was O Connor himself that hung up the phone. You could feel him bristle with righteous indignation throughout the interview

Dawkins has long held that were a pre-delivery scan to show up deformity (incl Downs syndrome) then that foetus should be aborted - pro-life etc should not stand in the way. Like it or not, it is his opinion.

He did not know O Connor's child was a Downs Syndrome child but OConnor left him in no doubt before the interview was over. He ran him off the air.

Extremely petty behaviour. Can it be so difficult for RTE to find a suitable, mature candidate to present what could be a very engaging Sunday morning current affairs radio programme ?

Seems not. Instead we get a double dose of the chap at weekends

watch your language - post edited - mod

Hangdogroad

Furze99 wrote: »

Heard it in the moment - thought O'Connor was being pretty passive aggressive. He obviously was set on point scoring even though he insisted he wasn't. Rude, even to the point of alleging on air that Dawkins had hung up at one stage to avoid a question. He knew Dawkins is too clever to be boxed in but still tried to bully him. Unlikable as a host.

That's O Connor the wannabe hardman of Dont Feed The Gondolas era slipping out.

PieOhMy

Just calling back to a discussion from a few weeks ago about people with names that match their profession. There was a lady on the news there from the DSPCA speaking about ducklings whose surname was 'Bird'!!!!

southstar

john123470 wrote: »

Would not surprise me if it was O Connor himself that hung up the phone. You could feel him bristle with righteous indignation throughout the interview

Dawkins has long held that were a pre-delivery scan to show up deformity (incl Downs syndrome) then that foetus should be aborted - pro-life etc should not stand in the way. Like it or not, it is his opinion.

He did not know O Connor's child was a Downs Syndrome child but OConnor left him in no doubt before the interview was over. He ran him off the air.

Extremely petty behaviour. Can it be so difficult for RTE to find a suitable, mature candidate to present what could be a very engaging Sunday morning current affairs radio programme ?

Seems not. Instead we get a double dose of the chap at weekends

watch your language - post edited - mod

I thought O Connor handled the interview quite well..seems some people feel his role is mimic the style of a bank official interviewing a mortgage applicant like some robotic clone from Westworld....funny that's an image much more relatable to Dawkins rather humourless and rigid persona.Its also revealing how readily some people will swoon over his every utterance...which is basically the same old,same old that he's been hawking for years..a bit lame brained and gullible I'd say...

Alfred123

southstar wrote: »

I thought O Connor handled the interview quite well..seems some people feel his role is mimic the style of a bank official interviewing a mortgage applicant like some robotic clone from Westworld....funny that's an image much more relatable to Dawkins rather humourless and rigid persona.Its also revealing how readily some people will swoon over his every utterance...which is basically the same old,same old that he's been hawking for years..a bit lame brained and gullible I'd say...

Bank officials and mortgage lenders / swooning ?!

O'Connors job is to be impartial in these interviews. He let the Corkman loose on poor old Dawkins. OConnor needs to be reined in

ShamNNspace

southstar wrote: »

I thought O Connor handled the interview quite well..seems some people feel his role is mimic the style of a bank official interviewing a mortgage applicant like some robotic clone from Westworld....funny that's an image much more relatable to Dawkins rather humourless and rigid persona.Its also revealing how readily some people will swoon over his every utterance...which is basically the same old,same old that he's been hawking for years..a bit lame brained and gullible I'd say...

Where are all these people swooning over Dawkins every utterance on this thread? Haven't seen too many of them myself... As for your assertion that some people want O connor to act like a bank manager interviewing a mortgage applicant, well imv thats missing any points made re how O Connor conducted the interview by some distance

southstar

Alfred123 wrote: »

Bank officials and mortgage lenders / swooning ?!

O'Connors job is to be impartial in these interviews. He let the Corkman loose on poor old Dawkins. OConnor needs to be reined in

What exactly does impartiality mean to you in respect of this interview....sit back like a dummy and leave the guest engage in a monologue( I suspect Dawkins would be quite content to repeat his views as if no one had already heard endless iterations of same for the past few years...that would be great radio!)....maybe ask him what his favourite animal was or glean his opinions on women sporting tattoos...jaysus you've really set the bar very high here.

Alfred123

That you, Brendan ?
Good man. Crack a few skulls

Alfred123

Alfred123 wrote: »

That you, Brendan ?

Those

"That you [Presenter]?
Hi, [Presenter]

posts are so over-done, there was even a rule where people were just banned for doing it. That's how predictable it was. People are strongly urged not to do it. -Mod

southstar

A Lamb Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Those

"That you [Presenter]?
Hi, [Presenter]

posts are so over-done, there was even a rule where people were just banned for doing it. That's how predictable it was. People are strongly urged not to do it. -Mod

Thanks Lamb ...Brendan here ..the whinge about impartiality is baffling ...has Dawkins declared his candidacy in the South Dublin by election or what... I'll tell you that one or two posters here need to get the vaccine ASAP(if not already done...Ahem )...because at this point a dose of brain fog could seriously impair their chances of getting up off the sofa...Up da Rebels

Bellbottoms

southstar wrote: »

What exactly does impartiality mean to you in respect of this interview....sit back like a dummy and leave the guest engage in a monologue( I suspect Dawkins would be quite content to repeat his views as if no one had already heard endless iterations of same for the past few years...that would be great radio!)....maybe ask him what his favourite animal was or glean his opinions on women sporting tattoos...jaysus you've really set the bar very high here.

I think he could of done a better job in getting Dawkins to draw out his point. I don't think that Dawkins necessarily has any personal issues with people with down syndrome or disabilities.

I think the argument Dawkins argument is more over quality of life for them. They will always needs someone to look after them.

I think he could of done a better job teasing out Dawkins argument and having him explain it. Instead of asking him if he knew anyone with down syndrome.

TBH I don't expect BOC to be an impartial journalist. He isn't one, and never really has been. He is just a personality, and the show an aural equivalent of a weekend column, or magazine. Mostly fluff couloured with opinion.

southstar

Bellbottoms wrote: »

I think he could of done a better job in getting Dawkins to draw out his point. I don't think that Dawkins necessarily has any personal issues with people with down syndrome or disabilities.

I think the argument Dawkins argument is more over quality of life for them. They will always needs someone to look after them.

I think he could of done a better job teasing out Dawkins argument and having him explain it. Instead of asking him if he knew anyone with down syndrome.

TBH I don't expect BOC to be an impartial journalist. He isn't one, and never really has been. He is just a personality, and the show an aural equivalent of a weekend column, or magazine. Mostly fluff couloured with opinion.

Well summed up....he fits that role...and quite good I'd say
Seems to have matured quite noticeability as person/professional..over the past few years

Alfred123

Bellbottoms wrote: »

I think he could of done a better job in getting Dawkins to draw out his point.


TBH I don't expect BOC to be an impartial journalist. He isn't one, and never really has been. He is just a personality, and the show an aural equivalent of a weekend column, or magazine. Mostly fluff couloured with opinion.

Spot on. "Fluff coloured with opinion" hahaha. Perfect. We expect too much from the poor Corkman

Bellbottoms

I just heard the Dawkins BOC promo. It's awful so cringey. I don't know how BOC or any of his team could listen to that and think it some sort of smack down on Dawkins.