nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Claire Byrne - Dil Wickremasinghe

ShowMeTheCash

So anyone watch the Claire Byrne show on Monday night?

https://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-30003252/10787446/

Can have a look:

So they had Dil Wickremasinghe on the show.
Essentially Dil was out spoken over the George Hook fiasco.
If I remember correctly in the interview with Claire she more or less said "She did not feel comfortable sharing the airwaves with George" after he made his comments around rape.

She said that she did not want George to be sacked... Not entirely sure if I believe that considering her position she took but anyways....

George was suspended from NT and a week or two later Dil's show was also axed.

So on the show Dil gave some emotional speak to her own life, things she went threw as a child and a story about an uncle who was a journalist.
However I could not help think there is a huge element of hypocrisy in what she was saying.

She spoke about being a gay woman and talked about her uncle who was a journalist who was killed for speaking out against this government (I think) in Sri Lanka and how as a journalists they should be allowed to speak out without fear. She talked about how her uncle was her inspiration. This I think was really in response to her own show being axed.

So Dil I think likes the idea of free speak and being able to report as long as the opinions and ideas are in fitting with her own. She was happy to silence George Hook, but wants to call foul when she gets the same treatment?

I see this as a reoccurring thing, an extreme leftist ideology that has gotten out of control.

On one hand it's like
"Your words offended me you should be silenced"
Then on the other hand
"How dare you try and silence me you fascist!!"

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

suicide_circus

Was she trying to equate her own work with that of her journalist uncle who was the subject of a political murder?

Pelvis

What's the big dil?

The_Valeyard

suicide_circus wrote: »

Was she trying to equate her own work with that of her journalist uncle who was the subject of a political murder?

Latch onto an emotional connection to justify her own actions and create sympathy for her

givyjoe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So anyone watch the Claire Byrne show on Monday night?

https://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-30003252/10787446/

Can have a look:

So they had Dil Wickremasinghe on the show.
Essentially Dil was out spoken over the George Hook fiasco.
If I remember correctly in the interview with Claire she more or less said "She did not feel comfortable sharing the airwaves with George" after he made his comments around rape.

She said that she did not want George to be sacked... Not entirely sure if I believe that considering her position she took but anyways....

George was suspended from NT and a week or two later Dil's show was also axed.

So on the show Dil gave some emotional speak to her own life, things she went threw as a child and a story about an uncle who was a journalist.
However I could not help think there is a huge element of hypocrisy in what she was saying.

She spoke about being a gay woman and talked about her uncle who was a journalist who was killed for speaking out against this government (I think) in Sri Lanka and how as a journalists they should be allowed to speak out without fear. She talked about how her uncle was her inspiration. This I think was really in response to her own show being axed.

So Dil I think likes the idea of free speak and being able to report as long as the opinions and ideas are in fitting with her own. She was happy to silence George Hook, but wants to call foul when she gets the same treatment?

I see this as a reoccurring thing, an extreme leftist ideology that has gotten out of control.

On one hand it's like
"Your words offended me you should be silenced"
Then on the other hand
"How dare you try and silence me you fascist!!"

Thoughts?

She's a bit of whinger whose show was axed because 'no one' listened to it. Her view on George Hook probably did prompt them to give her the axe sooner. i.e. don't be telling us what to do mentality.

ShowMeTheCash

suicide_circus wrote: »

Was she trying to equate her own work with that of her journalist uncle who was the subject of a political murder?

She seemed pretty emotional I am not entirely sure the reason. Her part on the player is really only 10 minutes towards the end of the show.

Mitch Connor

Free speech is about being able to say what you want without being jailed for it.

It has nothing to do with any right to a platform to say what you want.

Dil didn't want to be associated with a platform that Hook represented and one which condoned his message. So she left.

The only hypocrisy would be if she was demanding he be arrested for his comments (which, if he had something mean about God he could have been...).

If she said something on her show that Newstalk didn't agree with or felt was against their code of ethics, they could chose to stop airing her show - that isn't a free speech issue.

Being able to speak without fear of being killed by your government is different to be able to say what you like, whereever you like, without fear of consequences of any sort.

Boom_Bap

Hang on....I seem to recall that she issued the radio station, her employer and ultimatum!

Is that not the case.

Now if I marched into HR now and demanded that someone is taken off a certain duty or I will walk, what does one think will happen?

B0jangles

Is Dil the new bogeyfeminist?

Poor Louise O'Neill will be heartbroken

Barry Badrinath

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So she left.

Left?

I thought her show was cancelled...she did not leave, she was sacked.

Also, fcuk off Dil, you annoying fcuktard.

Aaaaaaahhhhh thats better.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So anyone watch the Claire Byrne show on Monday night?

https://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-30003252/10787446/

Can have a look:

So they had Dil Wickremasinghe on the show.
Essentially Dil was out spoken over the George Hook fiasco.
If I remember correctly in the interview with Claire she more or less said "She did not feel comfortable sharing the airwaves with George" after he made his comments around rape.

She said that she did not want George to be sacked... Not entirely sure if I believe that considering her position she took but anyways....

George was suspended from NT and a week or two later Dil's show was also axed.

So on the show Dil gave some emotional speak to her own life, things she went threw as a child and a story about an uncle who was a journalist.
However I could not help think there is a huge element of hypocrisy in what she was saying.

She spoke about being a gay woman and talked about her uncle who was a journalist who was killed for speaking out against this government (I think) in Sri Lanka and how as a journalists they should be allowed to speak out without fear. She talked about how her uncle was her inspiration. This I think was really in response to her own show being axed.

So Dil I think likes the idea of free speak and being able to report as long as the opinions and ideas are in fitting with her own. She was happy to silence George Hook, but wants to call foul when she gets the same treatment?

I see this as a reoccurring thing, an extreme leftist ideology that has gotten out of control.

On one hand it's like
"Your words offended me you should be silenced"
Then on the other hand
"How dare you try and silence me you fascist!!"

Thoughts?

Generally speaking, free speech is something you have but also have to take responsibilty for. It has ramifications, it has consequences, as Hook found out.

It's not about saying what you like when you like, it's choosing when to say what you want and on what forum to express certain viewpoints.

That said, part of being a broadcast journalist is having to share the airwaves or interview people who may make you feel uncomfortable and debating withpeople who will have extreme or alternate views.

suicide_circus

Basically she sought to exploit the situation with hook to raise her own profile and right-on credentials and it backfired on her.

Mitch Connor

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Hang on....I seem to recall that she issued the radio station, her employer and ultimatum!

Is that not the case.

Now if I marched into HR now and demanded that someone is taken off a certain duty or I will walk, what does one think will happen?

Are you more popular and/or powerful than the person you are demanding sacked?

Boom_Bap

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Are you more popular and/or powerful than the person you are demanding sacked?

It's making the demand in the first place is where the problem lies.

Mitch Connor

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Left?

I thought her show was cancelled...she did not leave, she was sacked.

Also, fcuk off Dil, you annoying fcuktard.

Aaaaaaahhhhh thats better.

I don't know. I assumed from the tone of the OP she left, but whether she left or issued an ultimatum that resulted in her being sacked doesn't really change the point I am making.

She didn't want to be associated with a platform represented by Hook, and one way or another she is not.

It isn't an issue of Free Speech.

Mitch Connor

Boom_Bap wrote: »

It's making the demand in the first place is where the problem lies.

I dunno.

If Hook demanded Dil was removed (for some reason, make one up in your head) do you think Hook would have been sacked and saw Dil moved to a different time slot?

I would think the position/power of the person making the demand (and same for the person they are making a demand of) will play massively into any decision a company makes.

Are you arguing that a company would automatically side against, and sack, the person making the demand? I would think history proves that not correct.

KrustyUCC

The same Dil who thought she knew more about giving birth than the professionals who helped her when she decided to have a home birth

Always the victim

alchemist33

B0jangles wrote: »

Is Dil the new bogeyfeminist?

Poor Louise O'Neill will be heartbroken

I think I'll dress up as a Bogeyfeminist for Halloween.

Barry Badrinath

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I don't know. I assumed from the tone of the OP she left, but whether she left or issued an ultimatum that resulted in her being sacked doesn't really change the point I am making.

She didn't want to be associated with a platform represented by Hook, and one way or another she is not.

It isn't an issue of Free Speech.

Im not making an argument for/against free speech.

Saying she "left" puts a very different slant on the situation, considering her show was axed and it was a bit of a surprise to her...apparently.

Anyway. Im just here to say how much of an insufferable arsehole I think she is.

Thats all.

[Deleted User]

suicide_circus wrote: »

Was she trying to equate her own work with that of her journalist uncle who was the subject of a political murder?

No. She wasn't. She explained that journalism requires standing up for civic freedoms, even if it's a bad career move. She said that's a lesson her cousin taught her -- she didn't imply for a moment that she had suffered the same fate as him.

It's like someone entering politics because they were inspired by Martin Luther King. It doesn't mean they have suffered like MLK, obviously. It just means they see his integrity as inspirational.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

She seemed pretty emotional I am not entirely sure the reason.

Because she lost her job, maybe her career? Just a wild guess.

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Hang on....I seem to recall that she issued the radio station, her employer and ultimatum!

There was no ultimatum. Newstalk accepted that she wasn't happy going on-air that weekend, she made it clear she wasn't looking for Hook to be fired.

Newstalk are claiming that dropping DW had nothing to do with her decision not to go on air that weekend. They say it's a scheduling issue. Some people even believe them.

B0jangles

alchemist33 wrote: »

I think I'll dress up as a Bogeyfeminist for Halloween.

Don't forget the fangs!

http://www.harkavagrant.com/?id=341

Boom_Bap

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I dunno.

If Hook demanded Dil was removed (for some reason, make one up in your head) do you think Hook would have been sacked and saw Dil moved to a different time slot?

I would think the position/power of the person making the demand (and same for the person they are making a demand of) will play massively into any decision a company makes.

Are you arguing that a company would automatically side against, and sack, the person making the demand? I would think history proves that not correct.

See I think that you are missing my point...what you are saying is completely valid, 100%, I agree with you.

But, why is any employee demanding a co-worker is sacked?

There are proper channels for this type of thing through HR, put publicly demanding ultimatum style.

ShowMeTheCash

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I don't know. I assumed from the tone of the OP she left, but whether she left or issued an ultimatum that resulted in her being sacked doesn't really change the point I am making.

She didn't want to be associated with a platform represented by Hook, and one way or another she is not.

It isn't an issue of Free Speech.

The way she worded it on Monday was, usually if the show needs funding they will tell her there is no funding, in the past she has said she had to go find funding of her own to keep the show alive.

She said this time there was no conversation just that the show was being cancelled. She then said people can make up their own minds to why.

SafeSurfer

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No. She wasn't. She explained that journalism requires standing up for civic freedoms, even if it's a bad career move. She said that's a lesson her cousin taught her -- she didn't imply for a moment that she had suffered the same fate as him.

It's like someone entering politics because they were inspired by Martin Luther King. It doesn't mean they have suffered like MLK, obviously. It just means they see his integrity as inspirational.

Because she lost her job, maybe her career? Just a wild guess.

There was no ultimatum. Newstalk accepted that she wasn't happy going on-air that weekend, she made it clear she wasn't looking for Hook to be fired.

Newstalk are claiming that dropping DW had nothing to do with her decision not to go on air that weekend. They say it's a scheduling issue. Some people even believe them.

She said she wasn't comfortable sharing the airwaves with someone like George Hook. When she is being listened to online she is sharing the airwaves with ISIS videos, snuff videos, rape porn and other despicable things. She has no control over who or what material she shares the airwaves or any other medium with.

Her show had few listeners. Her show got axed. Now she is trying to equate her failed broadcasting career to her being a victim. No the only victims here are the people that stumbled across your show by accident.

[Deleted User]

SafeSurfer wrote: »

She said she wasn't comfortable sharing the airwaves with someone like George Hook.

She said she wasn't comfortable using Newstalk as a platform, when there was no review of Hook's words. Newstalk accepted that.

She didn't say she wasn't comfortable in Hook remaining on air. Quite the opposite, she said she didn't want him to lose his job.

i could be wrong, of course; can point me to the mysterious quote of hers you're referencing? I haven't heard it anywhere.

Her show had few listeners.

Yeah? Do you know how many?

endacl

She lost me at the word ‘triggered’.

First.
Bloody.
Sentence.

:rolleyes:

uck51js9zml2yt

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Hang on....I seem to recall that she issued the radio station, her employer and ultimatum!

Is that not the case.

Now if I marched into HR now and demanded that someone is taken off a certain duty or I will walk, what does one think will happen?

It depends where you work. Some places will promote you out of the way!

SafeSurfer

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

She said she wasn't comfortable sharing the airwaves with someone like George Hook.

She said she wasn't comfortable using Newstalk as a platform, when there was no review of Hook's words. Newstalk accepted that.

She didn't say she wasn't comfortable in Hook remaining on air. Quite the opposite, she said she didn't want him to lose his job.

i could be wrong, of course; can point me to the mysterious quote of hers you're referencing? I haven't heard it anywhere.

Her show had few listeners.

Yeah? Do you know how many?

25,000 according to her tweet

Vyse

SafeSurfer wrote: »

25,000 according to her tweet

I think that might have been cumulative over the lifetime of the show though.

[Deleted User]

SafeSurfer wrote: »

25,000 according to her tweet

which is a substantial reach for that time, on a weekend evening, on a commercial broadcaster.

By way of comparison, John Creedon, who has a weekday show (when listener reach is higher), and who broadcasts on the state broadcaster, has about 35,000 listeners. RTÉ Arena has only about 30,000 listeners.

For a very commercial broadcaster outside of prime time listening, DW could not reasonably have been expected to perform better.

I wasn't the show's biggest fan, I often criticised it. But nobody can doubt that she managed to pull impressive audience figures, whether you like her or not.

blue note

I was disappointed that Claire Byrne didn't put it to her that given the position she put her employer, was it not fair that they fired her? I know she'd obviously have said no, but the viewers deserved to have her position questioned. The consensus here is that her sacking was fully understandable, but that wasn't even put forward as a viewpoint by Claire Byrne.