Oops69 wrote: » how was it today , did he drop Marion's Usual Trump bashing half hour ?, the biggest diplomatic breakthrough made in many years this week regarding north Korea and the RTE Hilary lovers are in serious denial still.
sligojoek wrote: » I turned off when he was talking to people about their dead parents.
This was the only part of the programme I heard. A radio version of Tubbs' LLS
DickSwiveller wrote: » He is talking about the intolerance shown towards anyone who dares to go against received wisdom. Just scroll through the 8th Amendment thread in after hours and you'll see what he means.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I seen plenty getting huffy when their points were challenged or debunked. That tends to happen in debates. The pro sides consultant got challenged in the TV debate. I didn't see anyone moaning that it was because of 'intolerance'. No side might need to grow up a bit and accept they were the minority view on this.
Callan57 wrote: » Right on ... I have RSI from the multitude of times I've had to flick the dial when Ronaaaaaaaaaaaan, that Quinn guy, Ganley, Steen, Sherlock etc & a plethora of Iona types were pontificating plus of course they had the captive audience from every pulpit in the country open to them. Oh yea sure they got no air time :rolleyes: ... as the result shows they got air time well in excess of what they democratically deserved. They lost get over it
anthonyjmaher wrote: » Whatever happened to the presenters ACTUALLY being objective. Like the way Gay Byrne and Pat Kenny (when he was on RTE) were - you would never know how they felt on any topic.
DickSwiveller wrote: » I don't think you read my post
FrancieBrady wrote: » I did. And it was just endorsing a moan that was not based on any reasonable overview. The world was not out to get the No side. Their were of course biased opinions but there was also and mostly balanced debating of the issues.RTE and none of the media outlets I used had a 'recieved wisdom' That is just sore loser moaning.
anthonyjmaher wrote: » Pat Kenny (when he was on RTE) were - you would never know how they felt on any topic.
DickSwiveller wrote: » If you really believe that you're deluded.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are overly sensitive. Yes some presenters were unashamedly pro or against repeal. Amongst adults I fail to see why there is a problem with that. there are no examples of a 'recieved wisdom', none whatsoever and as I said it is typical sour grapes. RTE have a mandate to be balanced and they were in this instance, some might say they wers overly favouring what turned out to be a minority position.
DickSwiveller wrote: » What presenter was unashamedly against repeal? This should be interesting... It's not sour grapes. I got over the result the day after it was announced. You haven't even addressed Anthony's point. All you're doing is spouting the usual partisan nonsense.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No current affairs broadcaster on the national broadcaster came out as either for or against that I am aware of. So it would just be a guess for both of us based on the latitude they gave to particular points of view. They were more or less balanced overall. If they weren't the ombudsman's office is awaiting your submission. He/she won't deal in guesswork.
DickSwiveller wrote: » I notice you didn't answer my question.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are overly sensitive. Yes some presenters were unashamedly pro or against repeal. Amongst adults I fail to see why there is a problem with that.
anthonyjmaher wrote: » Were there ANY radio/tv presenters, aside from those with religious connections, who came out as being against repeal? You see this is where the argument of balance dies. There is a facade of balance. You will constantly hear radio presenters saying "Oh I have to give the other side 20 seconds to make up the time balance" or "We had equal numbers of representatives from both sides". But this is just box ticking. Balance would have been 1) not allowing presenters who had aired their views on the topic in the past from discussing the topic 2) Asking balanced questions where the presenters own opinion was not completely transparent by their tone and hostile treatment of the people of differing views (listen back to Philip Boucher Hayes discussing the topic when he was covering for Duffy on Liveline) 3) Creating an environment where it was actually possible for high profile, respected people to air their differing views without having their careers destroyed by Twitter and the media. Since the BAI really does nothing, it's up to people themselves to discern the bias. Then make up their own mind and not be influenced by the subtle lobbying by people like Ray D'Arcy, Ciara Kelly etc.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Nanny statism again. The current affairs coverage of this issue was as balanced as it could be with, if anything, an over exposed No opinion which turned out to be the minority opinion by a goodly proportion. Exit polls showed most people had their minds made up before the main campaign kicked off. If you are crying about magazine type presenters revealing their stances then that is a criticism of the voter who really shouldn't have their minds made up by such. The serious debates were balanced. If they weren't where are the challenges to the ombudsman? All ranting and no substance/evidence here. Accept and move on
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » That's a great point... The losing side are a minority
quintana76 wrote: » The debate hosted by Pat Kenny was interesting. His role as far as I could see was not to let Ms "Steen"? speak. He effectively used Ronan Mullen as a foil. The more Ronan spoke the more the the "no" cause was discredited. They had equal speaking time on both sides but not for individuals. Keep Ronan talking at the expense of the very capable Ms Steen was the tactic. Just an observation but that is a lesson how to exploit balance.
