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

Today Show with Sarah McInerney

[Deleted User]

Séan O’Rourke has left the desk for good, and Sarah McInerney has stepped into his seat. We wish her well.

The usual rules of decency apply, carry on.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

First Up

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

Please tell me what's wrong with saying that? Varadkar was asked to say it and wouldn't.

I just watched his interview on Prime Time and he could not have said it more clearly. It probably helped that David McCullough didn't keep interrupting him while he did.

[Deleted User]

Robert McGrath wrote: »

I’m with First Up on this. It’s extraordinary how little personal responsibility people are willing to take on this issue. There is a spectrum of reasons for people to travel abroad that range from the clearly essential to the clearly non-essential. It’s impossible for the government to prescribe in granular detail

Nobody was asking for rules on this occasion. Only guidelines. A simple "People should stay in Ireland and avoid unnecessary foreign travel".

Please tell me what's wrong with saying that? Varadkar was asked to say it and wouldn't.

First Up

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

Did he? I thought he only said "the best thing" to do would be to stay at home. He explicitly refused to say anyone "should", that would be advice.

You interpret "the best thing" any way you like. Some people have valid reasons to travel. Varadkar explained what happens if they do.

Robert McGrath

I’m with First Up on this. It’s extraordinary how little personal responsibility people are willing to take on this issue. There is a spectrum of reasons for people to travel abroad that range from the clearly essential to the clearly non-essential. It’s impossible for the government to prescribe in granular detail where the binary line is between essential and non-essential in each specific circumstance. So the government guidelines are as specific as they can be. It’s not simple because human behaviour and circumstances are varied and complicated. But it is clear and it is understandable

Cole

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Did he? I thought he only said "the best thing" to do would be to stay at home. He explicitly refused to say anyone "should", that would be advice.

All this 'confusion' that people have drives me mad, as I think it's clear, but I did cringe when listening to that exchange he had with Sarah. He could have been so much clearer and direct...just say should not travel or don't travel. He was more effective when putting David McCullagh straight on Primetime.

[Deleted User]

First Up wrote: »

He has advised people to stay home.

Did he? I thought he only said "the best thing" to do would be to stay at home. He explicitly refused to say anyone "should", that would be advice.

First Up

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

There are no consequences. There is no quarantine for green listed countries. People are telling themselves that the Green List is safer than Ireland (too simplistic but people will tell themselves anything to excuse a foreign holiday), and why not? The Tanaiste won't say people should stay at home.

There consequences for visiting non greenlist countries are a two week quarantine.

He has advised people to stay home. He (and everyone else) has also advised people to observe safety measures wherever they are. That is all the government can do. It is down to personal responsibility after that.

[Deleted User]

First Up wrote: »

If you listened properly (between McInerney's interruptions) you'd have heard him say that nobody is saying people can't travel, but there are consequences.

The rest of his statement explained what those consequences are.

There are no consequences. There is no quarantine for green listed countries. People are telling themselves that the Green List is safer than Ireland (too simplistic but people will tell themselves anything to excuse a foreign holiday), and why not? The Tanaiste won't say people should stay at home.

First Up

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

As Varadkar says, nobody is saying people shouldn't travel â€” that's the only soundbite that matters to people who want to travel. The rest of his statement can be dismissed.

If you listened properly (between McInerney's interruptions) you'd have heard him say that nobody is saying people can't travel, but there are consequences.

The rest of his statement explained what those consequences are.

Mad_maxx

First Up wrote: »

Do you consider Covid/HSE/Nursing Homes a fluff lifestyle topic?

The added gimmickry of late with Claire sitting on mock plane's etc has made it feel a bit afternoon show

[Deleted User]

First Up wrote: »

That was neither a transcript or an accurate summary of the conversation.

The essence (as Varadkar carefully and patiently repeated) is that it would be best if people didn't travel. If they do travel, some countries are considered safer than others and that affects how you need to behave on returning. That's the factual, objective bit. Why people travel (work, holiday, family) is subjective.

Mcinerney did her best to make it more complicated than that (and suceeded in your case).

With respect, I am not going to transcribe the conversation, nor did you.

Varadkar contradicted 3 other Ministers. Don't assume that McInerney, or anyone else, was unable to understand him. The point is that the ambiguity makes any advice not to travel meaningless. As Varadkar says, nobody is saying people shouldn't travel — that's the only soundbite that matters to people who want to travel. The rest of his statement can be dismissed.

First Up

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

Sarah McInerney: I'm a bit confused about the travel advice. Varadkar: Look, the advice is stay at home, the safest thing to do is holiday in Ireland McInerney: So people shouldn't travel abroad unnecessarily? Varadkar: No, we're not saying that.

So they're saying stay at home, and the'yre not saying to make unnecessary trips abroad, but they're also not hot saying to make unnecessary trips abroad.

That was neither a transcript or an accurate summary of the conversation.

The essence (as Varadkar carefully and patiently repeated) is that it would be best if people didn't travel. If they do travel, some countries are considered safer than others and that affects how you need to behave on returning. That's the factual, objective bit. Why people travel (work, holiday, family) is subjective.

Mcinerney did her best to make it more complicated than that (and suceeded in your case).

[Deleted User]

Moon_shoes wrote: »

This whole "confusion" is a complete media hype/fabrication, like the pay by weight bin charges a few summers ago.

Sarah McInerney: I'm a bit confused about the travel advice.
Varadkar: Look, the advice is stay at home, the safest thing to do is holiday in Ireland
McInerney: So people shouldn't travel abroad unnecessarily?
Varadkar: No, we're not saying that.

So they're saying stay at home, and the'yre not saying to make unnecessary trips abroad, but they're also not hot saying to make unnecessary trips abroad.

He also didn't have a clue about Irish tourists being banned from the USA, and didn't have a grasp of the basics of the stimulus package. He sounded like he wasn't prepared tbh, she caught him mitching.

Robert McGrath

First Up wrote: »

A good example of what I find annoying about her. The travel advice, green list stuff is clear but mildly complicated to explain. Varadkar was doing that but instead of helping listeners understand it, Sarah was just trying to score debating points.

Trying to score debating points is a very good way of putting it. She was the same with Cillian de Gascun a few weeks ago when he was explaining the change in policy to NPHET encouraging mask use in some settings. Her default interview style is a “gotcha” style and it’s not appropriate for every topic and every interviewee.

That style of interviewing may have been mildly entertaining on Vincent Browne’s TV show but the Today show has a public service remit that isn’t served by sowing unnecessary confusion In public health issues to get plaudits from #vinb fans on Twitter

First Up

Mad_maxx wrote:

Have you watched " Claire Byrne Tonight " ?

Mostly fluff lifestyle features

Do you consider Covid/HSE/Nursing Homes a fluff lifestyle topic?

Mad_maxx

touts wrote: »

For Gender balance David McCullough's place on prime time is likely to go to Cormac ó Headhra. Sarah likely to replace Cormac on Saturday Lunchtime.

o Headrha is the Jonathan Healy of RTE, awful

Mad_maxx

First Up wrote: »

I'll leave the entitlement and ambition bit to you. Both seem up to speed on the political stuff to me.

I just prefer interviewers who let people answer the question they were asked without interrupting them as soon as they start.

Have you watched " Claire Byrne Tonight " ?

Mostly fluff lifestyle features with thee odd heavy subject

touts

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think Claire already has the job and it is just waiting to be announced at this stage. Her soft interview saying she really wants the job wouldnt have happened if she didnt already know she had it. Same with Miriam saying she didnt want the job, she did want it but came out and said she didnt because she was told Claire has got it so said that to save face.

Sarah is probably likely to end up on Prime Time now as David McCulloghs replacement. She will do well there but personally I would have preferred to see her stay on the Today show. I think she has done very well in this 3 month stint and with another 3 or 4 months to hone her skills further she could have been a great host of the show. I think Claire Byrne is definitely better than Miriam at interviewing Ministers but also think that Sarah has a higher ceiling to reach than Claires ceiling that has been reached already.

For Gender balance David McCullough's place on prime time is likely to go to Cormac ó Headhra. Sarah likely to replace Cormac on Saturday Lunchtime.

Cole

First Up wrote: »

A good example of what I find annoying about her. The travel advice, green list stuff is clear but mildly complicated to explain. Varadkar was doing that but instead of helping listeners understand it, Sarah was just trying to score debating points.

Yes. Leo could have been a bit clearer in how he communicated it, but pretty easy to understand and then clarify with him.

First Up

Cole wrote:

I just heard a snippet of it on Playback...might listen back later. Sarah is clearly a bright person, so saying to Leo that she is confused by the travel advice just seems to be the intentional hyping of the 'confusing travel advice' narrative...yet again.

A good example of what I find annoying about her. The travel advice, green list stuff is clear but mildly complicated to explain. Varadkar was doing that but instead of helping listeners understand it, Sarah was just trying to score debating points.

Moon_shoes

Cole wrote: »

I just heard a snippet of it on Playback...might listen back later. Sarah is clearly a bright person, so saying to Leo that she is confused by the travel advice just seems to be the intentional hyping of the 'confusing travel advice' narrative...yet again.

This whole "confusion" is a complete media hype/fabrication, like the pay by weight bin charges a few summers ago.

Cole

Infoanon wrote: »

Are you listening to Sarahs interview with Leo ? , Leo is tying himself up in knots and Sarah is well able to push when required - Sarah is well prepped for this interview.

I just heard a snippet of it on Playback...might listen back later. Sarah is clearly a bright person, so saying to Leo that she is confused by the travel advice just seems to be the intentional hyping of the 'confusing travel advice' narrative...yet again.

Joe_ Public

Not sure why people assume this is a done deal. Claire Byrne was the overwhelming favourite to get it last time too and didnt happen. Nobody was talking about Sean O'Rourke that i can remember. I'd say there's a fair chance they still haven't a clue out there which way they're going.

headtheball14

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Claire Byrne is all entitlement and ambition ,she's a lightweight really on the political stuff compared to Sarah

Still, the golden girl will get the gig

I’ve been a fan of Sarah mcinerney for a long time, I thought the way she was treated by news talk was disgraceful however Claire Byrne is not a lightweight by a long shot.

Ivan Yates was talking yesterday about how she talked him through his first few weeks. That just very dismissive. She had worked a long time 20 years or so in a lot of different settings .

First Up

Mad_maxx wrote:

Claire Byrne is all entitlement and ambition ,she's a lightweight really on the political stuff compared to Sarah

Still, the golden girl will get the gig

I'll leave the entitlement and ambition bit to you. Both seem up to speed on the political stuff to me.

I just prefer interviewers who let people answer the question they were asked without interrupting them as soon as they start.

Mad_maxx

Claire Byrne is all entitlement and ambition ,she's a lightweight really on the political stuff compared to Sarah

Still, the golden girl will get the gig

First Up

Stewball wrote:

You're in the minority on that one Claire.

No skin off my nose either way. I've turned off a few of Sarah's interviews and would switch to Lyric just as quickly if Claire Byrne adopts the same style.

Stewball

First Up wrote: »

No harm she was given a shot at it but she has struggled and probably needed a longer apprenticeship.

You're in the minority on that one Claire.

First Up

I had expected Claire Byrne to get the job straight after Sean O'Rourke. She had a proven track record. Sarah McInerney was a new name to me. No harm she was given a shot at it but she has struggled and probably needed a longer apprenticeship.

Muahahaha

serfboard wrote: »

Have to say, I think that there's something quite "unclassy" about this "RTE insider" bullshít about Claire being the favoured one - and now being followed up with these media articles. It has all the hallmarks of a PR campaign, and I find it a bit distasteful.

Anyway, what is the point of it? Surely the management in RTE are supposed to know how this stuff works, and so should be immune to it? Are they trying to generate some letters into the oul' RTE Mailbag to suggest that Claire is the people's favourite, and thus should get the job?

I think Claire already has the job and it is just waiting to be announced at this stage. Her soft interview saying she really wants the job wouldnt have happened if she didnt already know she had it. Same with Miriam saying she didnt want the job, she did want it but came out and said she didnt because she was told Claire has got it so said that to save face.

Sarah is probably likely to end up on Prime Time now as David McCulloghs replacement. She will do well there but personally I would have preferred to see her stay on the Today show. I think she has done very well in this 3 month stint and with another 3 or 4 months to hone her skills further she could have been a great host of the show. I think Claire Byrne is definitely better than Miriam at interviewing Ministers but also think that Sarah has a higher ceiling to reach than Claires ceiling that has been reached already.