AndrewJRenko wrote: » Since when is 'an informed opinion' the threshold to get on Prime Time? Can you identify other cases where this has happened on Prime Time?
FrancieBrady wrote: » But has an informed opinion on. Happens all the time. I don't have to nor do I necessarily agree with him, but he knew how to articulate what his thinking was and made sense. You do know that a certain amount of rational capability is assumed on shows like this after the watershed?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » This isn't about Linehan 'having an opinion'. He's welcome to have his opinion. He's welcome to speak his opinion. The issue is about choosing him to speak on the public broadcaster's flagship current affairs show, to speak about something that he has no expertise or experience in.
FrancieBrady wrote: » + the divorce, SSM and Abortion debates would have been very tame had they only had the opinion of experts and experienced.
elperello wrote: » Granted it's not a parallel but living abroad does not disqualify any Irish citizen from participating in media discussions about matters of concern. Just because someone lives in another country doesn't mean they don't have an opinion about public issues in Ireland.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Mmmm, nurses speaking about a nurses strike. I'm not quite sure I see the parallel with a comedy writer speaking about transgender rights?
elperello wrote: » I saw two Irish nurses living in London interviewed on the RTE news tonight. They were part of a demo in support of the forthcoming nurses strike. I think it's ok for Irish people living abroad to be vocal about issues in Ireland
FrancieBrady wrote: » I have no expertise or experience of divorce, am I or anyone similar barred from giving an opinion?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Had the show pretended that they were presenting experts, you would have a point. But imo the views of interested persons are a part of current affairs. Have you ever watched similar programmes? Something tells me you haven't because it is common on social issues.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I'm not demeaning him. He's written some great comedy in the past. Comedy writers are good at writing comedy. They're not great for contributing to news/current affairs shows on issues that they have no experience of or expertise in.
FrancieBrady wrote: » He is irrelevant for you, because you have your mind made up on the issues involved. He isn't irrelevant to everyone. Your childish jibe at his profession is just that, childish petulance. I suggest you grow up a bit, in the real world there are many opinions, just argue you position without the attempts at demeaning your opposition.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » The 'relevance' of the 'comedy writer from London' is the repeated reminder of the irrelevance of Linehan to this issue in Ireland. It's like asking rural cyclists from Clare who never come to Dublin to comment on the M50 traffic chaos. This isn't 'a TV show'. This is the flagship current affairs shows. It's not a show for 'opinions'. It is a show for facts and lived experiences.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You certainly do have a problem. You don't like 'comedy writers from London'.(is that meant to a disparaging remark, because I am not quite sure what it's relevance is.) I suggest calming down a bit, the sky hasn't fallen in because someone gave their opinion on a TV show. And does your stance here mean that nobody who lives outside Ireland has a right to contribute to debate in Ireland? Is that not a bit parochial and insular?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Except that he's not a member of the public. He's a comedy writer from the UK, where he's lived for a couple of decades. Why would a middle-aged white London male have anything relevant to say about transgender rights in Ireland? It wasn't fair or honest because he was raising issues about prisons that can't happen here because of the policies of the Irish Prison Service. It wasn't fair because there was no interviewer to challenge him about the two successful years of self-identification in Ireland with zero issues since then. It further marginalised transgender people by raising these 'bogeymen' issues that haven't occured in Ireland and largely, can't occur in Ireland because of the different regulations here. I've no problem with a balanced debate involving people with experience or expertise in the issue. The London comedy writer had neither.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Then we had an interested member of the public - shock horror. How was it not fair to all interests concerned? Was Linehan censored? Surely not presenting the objections would be classed as being 'not fair to ALL interests'. Again, where was the dishonesty? You were on here complaining about his inclusion before the show. How were groups 'marginalised' or 'excluded'? You detailed the people involved, those with experience and expertise and an interested member of the public who happens to be a writer. Where you expecting a onesided soapbox affair?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » There was no 'members of the public' segment of the show. All other interviewees were experts by profession or experts by experience - and then we had the comedy writer with the furious typing speed.
And yes, there are directives, like RTE's obligations under the Broadcasting Act;"fair to all interests concerned" - "presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of his or her own views"
And then there's the RTE's Honesty In Programming policy;'Highest standard possible' - 'always in the public interest' - 'audience's trust not diminished in any way'.
And then there's the Respect for Diversity policy:'Must present an inclusive image of Ireland and not exclude marginalised groups'
FrancieBrady wrote: » Oh dear...Trump and Brexit? He spoke for less than 2 minutes overall, had sensible stuff to say imo, and has contributed to the general debate around this subject. So what? You don't agree with him. I know I found what he had to say, interesting, as I did the contributions of the others who took part. There is no qualification necessary that I know about to speak on a current affairs programme on the telly. Can you link to this directive? After all, 'My god, did you see the members of the public interviewed about the effects of a hard border, shocking!' is hardly going to be the response you will see to that segment of the show.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Not sure how many times I need to explain it - there is no problem with him having an opinion. There is a problem with him being presented on a flagship current affairs programme as somehow significant or relevant. This wasn't a chat show, or a Cutting Edge opinion piece. This was current affairs - a factual show. There is no place for opinionated rants. And you're right, the sky hasn't fallen in. The storm largely passed by overhead without breaking. But there is a huge danger in this kind of 'news'. This is exactly the kind of 'news' that brought you Brexit and Trump. Do we really want to go there?
FrancieBrady wrote: » So ordinary citizens shouldn't have an opinion on future legislation? This was a TV programme ffs, it wasn't a cabinet meeting, a legislative gathering...it was an airing of opinions. We get it, you didn't like his opinion, the sky hasn't fallen in because he aired it. :rolleyes:
AndrewJRenko wrote: » He was setting out what future legislation should be. Maybe I'm strange, but I'd prefer future legislation to be guided by people who actually know something about a topic - either through professional expertise or personal experience. And it definitely wasn't a 'vox pop'. All the other participants had professional expertise or personal experience.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It wasn't trying to set 'best practice' or propose treatment which would have required expertise in certain fields. It was essentially a vox pop on the issues with talking heads. And Linehan talked some sense about it. Calm down, you are giving to much importance to this particular segment.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Interested and passionate? Is that the bar to get on the flagship current affairs programme to cover an extremely sensitive topic that involves a high suicide rate and most serious mental health issues? Jaysus, if interested/passionate is the requirement to be on Prime Time, then they should be inviting me on it every couple of weeks. But they don't. Is it entirely crazy to suggest that for a flagship current affairs show, maybe you should have people who have some expertise in the matter, or some experience in the matter?
FrancieBrady wrote: » When you write for a living, is that all you are? Can you not become interested/passionate about something else? Ridiculous complaint there tbh.
Aska wrote: » True but in her defense on that one it's something she could relate too after the passing of her father due to Suicide though she received the sympathy vote and took his seat the next time around so the public get what they deserve to an extent.
sligojoek wrote: It's not so long since Helen McEntee was on with Ray Darcy telling us how she was going to sort out the countries mental health and suicide problems. Dropped it like a hot spud when the new portfolio came along.
Muahahaha wrote: » I'd hardly call him brave. If he went undercover with hidden cameras to make a documentary about political corruption in Russia that would be brave. But acquiring the transcipts of the interviews in the Bulger case is not brave, its smart. It was a case that astounded the world so dramaitising it was always going to be a winner. He's got an Oscar nomination now so its worked. Agree with you about the censorship thing but think its a bit stretched to be calling him brave as a documentary maker.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Censorship comes in many guises and should be resisted, politely, if necessary. What we have here is a brave film maker and I think brave art/film making needs to be encouraged, in this day and age especially.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/23af546224513cf852af4d456d68d01c.svg)
