Would like to appeal warning in Radio.

Peter Dragon

Hi,

I would like to appeal a warning issued in Radio for the following post:

There is huge potential for radio gold here - if Sarah is true to herself she will not be plámásing auld lads and auld wans and excusing stupidity and common sense. I don’t think she can fake sincerity or sympathy like her part-time predecessor, I sincerely doubt she’s capable of asking the same level of stupid questions as he frequently did, nor do I suspect she has a fixation on death, or the ability to employ “sad voice” quite like the former host. A naive caller expecting sympathy after being on the end of a sophisticated scam might be in for a shock when Sarah tells him or her “you really only have yourself to blame for being so stupid”. Then again she might see the pay cheque and decide credibility goes out the window and go full on 🤡 show.Only time will tell.

I was warned for an overly personal attack on the former host, Joe Duffy. I have tried to discuss with the moderator in PM but with no resolution. The only part relevant to Duffy is:

I don’t think she can fake sincerity or sympathy like her part-time predecessor, I sincerely doubt she’s capable of asking the same level of stupid questions as he frequently did, nor do I suspect she has a fixation on death, or the ability to employ “sad voice” quite like the former host.

The comment in question was a critique of his broadcasting style rather than a personal attack - I didn’t comment on for example his physical appearance, accent, working class roots, etc. It compared two radio hosts in terms of their approach to presenting, questioning, and tone. Specifically, it referenced traits commonly associated with the former host, Joe Duffy, who is frequently satirised on Irish television, radio, and online platforms for his dramatic “sad voice”, repeated focus on death-related topics, and at times superficial questioning style.

The remark about “faking sincerity or sympathy” was not an assertion that the new host is insincere or lacking in empathy; rather, it contrasted her communication style with that of her predecessor, who was perceived by many listeners (and comedians) as somewhat “theatrical” in his delivery. Similarly, describing his questions as “stupid” was a comment on the superficial framing used for effect rather than an accusation of ignorance.

Overall, while the phrasing was pointed, the intention was critical commentary on public broadcasting style, not an ad hominem personal attack on either individual’s character. Critique of public figures is common and expected and such commentary remains within the bounds of fair opinion, especially when referencing well-documented and widely parodied traits.

I would therefore like to have this warning rescinded on those grounds.

Thank you.

On a separate but related point, it seems we have reached a stage in radio where - with the bizarre short-term relaxation of the rules a few weeks back aside - we can only say positive things about radio hosts (particularly those managed by a certain talent agency) and anything less than gushing positivity will be deemed a personal attack - if this is true then be please just be honest and say it and save us all a lot of time.

Peter Dragon

Update: I have now received a 2 point warning for replying to the troll/re-reg, and a further warning not to reply to the mod who gave me this 2 point warning. How is this fair? This is victim blaming.

I tried to report the post but the report function wouldn’t work - looping on “Flag” - a common error on the site. I subsequently PM’ed a mod to ask for it to be removed.

Everyone knows who the troll/re-reg is btw. Everyone but the mods it seems. And this further sanction is giving them exactly what they want.