Today Show with Sarah McInerney

Infoanon wrote: »

How was it crazy carry on ? , mixed messaging and 3 FF ministers saying the opposite would leave confusion.

Mixed messaging continued with the staycation and the tax refund re Failte Ireland AND the Vat rate cut and if it was to be passed on (Leo says no and Pascal says Yes....)

I must have missed this --what 3 ministers said the opposite?

The government advice is to staycation but if you want to go foreign you won't have to quarantine if you go to countries on green list. If you go anywhere else you have to do 14 day quarantine when you come back.

What is so hard to understand with this?

the gotcha type interview is bizzarre-- why would anyone want to go on her show to be interviewed? She should have a look at how Pat kenny or clare byrne ask questions. Even Ivan Yates who we all know is opinionated doesn't carry on like that.

jay0109 wrote: »

Hazel Chu yet again

dominatinMC wrote: »

Has she told us we're racist yet?

Lord Mayor of Dublin, first citizen of the capital city.

An interesting guest on any radio show.

Just listened back to the show from this morning. She was seriously good, such an improvement from her days in newstalk. I thought Claire Byrne was good. But hands down Sarah mcinerney is better. She is super I really hope she keeps the show.

Dempo1 wrote: »

Poor Leo got an eye opener on interview preparation, seems he wasn't aware the staycation tax refund can only be availed of when spending money in a premises that is Failte Ireland registered, indeed Adrian Cummins from THE RAI texted Sarah to confirm this is the case, Leo caught out. I could sense Adrian having a good snigger.

I wondered how many Pubs, Restaurants are actually registered with Failte Ireland? Not many I suspect, absolute shambles of an idea anyway.

Varadkar also messed up regarding the travel ban on Irish people entering the USA.

Not a good morning from the Tánaiste/Taoiseach - early mornings mustn't suit.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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

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).