Infoanon wrote: » You are the one hailing your 'lad' - simple question was everything your 'lad' said today true ?
Brendan Bendar wrote: » You are the one implying that someone said “everything he said was true” Who said that, and we can start from there. Who said by implication from you “Everything he said was true”?
Infoanon wrote: » Did you not say that voters know the difference between the truth and bluster implying that your lad was telling the truth. I don't think Alan Farrells contribution today was in anyway helpful - you have a different opinion.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » I wouldn’t amongst ‘those people’ Ty. However, and I say this whilst admitting I didn’t fully listen to the show today, given that most discerning folk know the ‘form’ of journalists and which ‘side‘ they are batting from, one would expect the panel to be more balanced. I mean constructing a panel of journalists like say, Vincent Browne, Gene Kerrigan’ Collette Browne and say Oliver Callan, I think even the most biased observer wouldn’t call that balanced. Acute observers know well what would be expected from them, I would suspect.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » You inferred wrongly that that is what I said or meant.Nowhere next or near it. Now I don’t mind insults, name calling, personal abuse, well used to it. What I don’t like is folk trying to put words into my mouth. Please don’t try a stunt like that on me again. Appreciate that.
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » I totally agree, Brendan — that would not be balanced. And whilst some of us would go out of our way to hear a panel of the socialist left "Dream Team" consisting of the people you've named, that isn't what happened here. Alan Farrell, possibly the most economically right-wing backbencher of the Dáil in living memory, was there to counterbalance the views of a milquetoast socialist. I hadn't heard the exchange myself until this morning, but I submit there was a balance of views.
PieOhMy wrote: » Did brenda just refer to John Hume as 'Pat'?
NIMAN wrote: » Thats not Sarah today! Edit: Marty? FFS. Backfired on RTe today, with such big news to have MM at the helm.
NIMAN wrote: » john's wife is Pat.
NIMAN wrote: » Edit: Marty? FFS. Backfired on RTe today, with such big news to have MM at the helm.
Cole wrote: » Sarah's inconsistent 'tough' interviewing (for which she often gets credit) again. The students union rep. wanting the universities to hold their hand and provide everything for them...just bring your mask and wear the fecking thing...it took a texter to state the obvious. Sarah (yet again) picking and choosing who/what to challenge.
Tell me how wrote: » Is there any chance she sees things differently to you and what is the best way to approach an interview? All interviewers adapt their style based on the topic, the interviewee and their personal views on the matter. I wouldn't see it as a weakness unless it is obvious that an interview is a fluff piece purely being held to give the interviewee some free press (what Maria Bailey thought she was getting).
Tell me how wrote: » Is there any chance she sees things differently to you and what is the best way to approach an interview?
Tell me how wrote: » All interviewers adapt their style based on the topic, the interviewee and their personal views on the matter.
Cole wrote: » I think there's a very good chance that many people see many things differently, but this is a radio forum for Sarah McInerney's show, where we offer out our views (positive and negative) on her show and how she interviews/handles issues. Isn't that the whole point? See that's where we clearly differ...and that's okay. Of course she can adapt her style based on the topic/interviewee, but I'm not so sure she should be bringing her personal views to most topics typically covered on this show. Today's topic (Covid19/public health) is one where she has 'grilled' some guests (and maybe rightly so) but has let others completely off the hook. I think not challenging a student union rep, who was putting herself forward to pose some ridiculous (imo) questions on university policies related to public health/Covid19, is utterly inconsistent...like she did with Claire Daly a couple of months ago.
Tell me how wrote: » Yes, but if her opinions were the same as yours, would you be posting here saying she shouldn't let them influence her style?
Cole wrote: » Yes...when dealing with important issues that require balance and consistency, unless it's a (as you said) a"fluff piece" where it's not of much significance what Sarah's taste in movies or music is, for example. Anyway, I didn't make any point about her opinions in the first place. My point was about inconsistency, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with her (perceived) opinions on the topic.
Klonker wrote: » I just want to say fair dues to John Halligan, he's no longer a TD but is still working to get legislation passed that he thinks will help people. I agree with his bill for the right to die but I have a feeling it'll be at least 10 years until such a bill would be passed in Ireland.
bossdrum wrote: » John Halligan announced in January he was retiring from political life. Unfortunately like most politicians he just can't keep a promise. As for a right to die bill being passed in Ireland within 10 years, the recent abortion figures would show that life has very little value and any such bill will be heavily promoted as being compassionate. In an ideal world many of us would like the option to end our lives if pain or quality of life was significantly impacted by illness. Unfortunately people cannot be trusted and the legislation would be used by some carers, relatives, medics etc. to put pressure on patients to request such a service.