The Weekend On One With Brendan O'Connor

What was wrong with the question that caused him to, allegedly, put down the phone?

ShamNNspace

Did he hang up??

Hangdogroad

ShamNNspace wrote: »

Did he hang up??

Apparently not.

ShamNNspace wrote: »

Did he hang up??

Ah, turns out the line just “dropped”.

Infoanon

Wonder will Conor get invited on again after calling out Brendan and the rest of the media and their use of terms eg 'generation rent ' to exaggerate a non story in the bigger picture.
We haven't heard from Paul Sommerville since he called out Brendan, RTE and the rest of the media over Covid.

Brendan really testing Dawkins here. Dawkins showing he has more bluster than information.

Shelga

This has suddenly become extremely uncomfortable listening. Whatever you think of Brendan, and I’m not his biggest fan, he’s handling this well. He asked exactly what I was thinking- “Do you know anyone personally with Down’s Syndrome?” Dawkins replied- “no.”

Says it all really.

Infoanon wrote: »

Wonder will Conor get invited on again after calling out Brendan and the rest of the media and their use of terms eg 'generation rent ' to exaggerate a non story in the bigger picture.
We haven't heard from Paul Sommerville since he called out Brendan, RTE and the rest of the media over Covid.

He said using terms like “mess” or “crisis” weren’t helpful but what euphemisms for crisis would be better suited?

Nerdlingr

Fair play to Brendan asking the hard questions and basically showing him Dawkins for being an absolute bluffer

Deleted User wrote: »

^^^^ a cushy number for Richard he need not sit on his lonesome tod at a table in eason's waiyi for customers to get signed copies.

Imagine the BO in that queue. Those boys won't have left their bedrooms in months. Disproving christianity online is a sweaty toil.

Mav11

Ah jasus not another hairdresser rattlin’ on.

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Fair play to Brendan asking the hard questions and basically showing him Dawkins for being an absolute bluffer

O Connor is an ignoramus. He was miffed at Dawkins ref to 'disabled' foetuses being best off aborted.

Professional to his finger tips, Bendan let that remark colour his 'interview'. OConnor is not savvy enough to put it aside and talk about Dawkin's book - the reason he was asked on radio

It doesn't stop with O Connor ... claire Byrne, Duffy, Turbidy, D'Arsey .. a whole tribe of misfits .. so no surprise really

john123470 wrote: »

O Connor is an ignoramus. He was miffed at Dawkins ref to 'disabled' foetuses being best off aborted.

O'Connor's reaction is quite understandable give that his daughter has Down's syndrome and Dawkins claims it is "immoral" to allow unborn babies with Down's syndrome to live.

Brendan Bendar

john123470 wrote: »

O Connor is an ignoramus. He was miffed at Dawkins ref to 'disabled' foetuses being best off aborted.

Professional to his finger tips, Bendan let that remark colour his 'interview'. OConnor is not savvy enough to put it aside and talk about Dawkin's book - the reason he was asked on radio

It doesn't stop with O Connor ... claire Byrne, Duffy, Turbidy, D'Arsey .. a whole tribe of misfits .. so no surprise really

You forgot McInerney… the very thing I mentioned on another thread.

Brendan Bendar

Ahwell wrote: »

O'Connor's reaction is quite understandable give that his daughter has Down's syndrome and Dawkins claims it is "immoral" to allow unborn babies with Down's syndrome to live.

No it’s not, he should have ignored it, as a presenter you really cannot bring your own circumstances into an interview or debate.

I totally disagree with Dawkins, but O’Connor should have taken him on on facts and logic rather than getting personally involved.

A lot of this kind of stuff creeping into radio programmes recently.

Not a good trend, this poster would opine.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

No it’s not, he should have ignored it, as a presenter you really cannot bring your own circumstances into an interview or debate.

I totally disagree with Dawkins, but O’Connor should have taken him on on facts and logic rather than getting personally involved.

A lot of this kind of stuff creeping into radio programmes recently.

Not a good trend, this poster would opine.

Nah, I'd give him a pass on this...in fact, I'd applaud any presenter who got "miffed" at these particular views.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

No it’s not, he should have ignored it, as a presenter you really cannot bring your own circumstances into an interview or debate.

I totally disagree with Dawkins, but O’Connor should have taken him on on facts and logic rather than getting personally involved.

A lot of this kind of stuff creeping into radio programmes recently.

Not a good trend, this poster would opine.

Thought he did the fair thing by stating his had skin in the “game” but would try not to get too emotional about it.

Brendan Bendar

Ahwell wrote: »

Nah, I'd give him a pass on this...in fact, I'd applaud any presenter who got "miffed" at these particular views.

Regarding O’Connor as a person, I would fully agree, however judging as a presenter……nah.

You see what happens then is presenters could manipulate interviews into areas which they are PERSONALLY involved ,and then get a ‘get out of jail’ card if they allow that involvement to colour the interview.

Not on dude, however difficult it is to understand.

Gotta be professional.

Cole

Infoanon wrote: »

Wonder will Conor get invited on again after calling out Brendan and the rest of the media and their use of terms eg 'generation rent ' to exaggerate a non story in the bigger picture.
We haven't heard from Paul Sommerville since he called out Brendan, RTE and the rest of the media over Covid.

I had stopped listening on a Sunday, but I heard the line up at the beginning and thought I'd listen as Conor Skehan was on...and he didn't disappoint. It was so telling to hear the (literal) stumbling over words from BOC to counter him calling out the narrative on the recent housing story. The absolute silence from Niamh Hourigan was the most telling...just reflects the absolute ideological echo-chamber that her broad academic area has become (humanities/social sciences). Neither of them were expecting anyone to actually pose a different position on the story...had never even considered it.

And just as some listeners were probably screaming "right wing neoliberal capitalist" at Skehan, he showed a more 'left wing' socially liberal view on the apparent increased anti-social behaviour of the younger generation.

Now I'm not expert enough on either of the topics to really counter either of his positions, but he does seem to judge each issue on its merits/facts/evidence. That's how it should be done and not this ideological echo-chamber kind of thing that's so widespread now...sometimes on these forums too.

Ahwell wrote: »

Nah, I'd give him a pass on this...in fact, I'd applaud any presenter who got "miffed" at these particular views.

Its understandable that he might challenge Dawkins statement but not to make the whole interview about Brendan O C being upset

Dawkins was asked onto the programme to talk about his book not about O Connors pet foibles and upsets.

Also, he cut Dawkins off abruptly at the end before the man could even say goodbye. No doubting Brendan's anger here

Brendan O Connor is - how to put it delicately - a jumped up Yahoo

blackvalley

Infoanon wrote: »

Wonder will Conor get invited on again after calling out Brendan and the rest of the media and their use of terms eg 'generation rent ' to exaggerate a non story in the bigger picture.
We haven't heard from Paul Sommerville since he called out Brendan, RTE and the rest of the media over Covid.

Its not an exaggeration if you are a single person , mid thirties , good job , decent money and you would like to buy a house .
Meanwhile you are paying rent at a monthly rate which is far more than a mortgage would cost . The system is not working if renting costs more than buying .
He also went on to say that building more houses was not necessarly the answer as the laws of supply and demand do not apply to the housing market . That extraordinary assertion went unchallenged by the host .
By the way the same clown dismissed the anti social behaviour of toerags at railway stations and on the streets because ( i kid you not ) " adults were having a pint in the town center " during lockdown and showing bad example . :eek:
OcConnor never challenged him on this .

Cole

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

No it’s not, he should have ignored it, as a presenter you really cannot bring your own circumstances into an interview or debate.

I totally disagree with Dawkins, but O’Connor should have taken him on on facts and logic rather than getting personally involved.

A lot of this kind of stuff creeping into radio programmes recently.

Not a good trend, this poster would opine.

I agree with your broader point, but I think BOC did well on this. He framed it as based on logic and facts, as Dawkins is all about this. Dawkins even criticised universities for not being 'critical' enough, abandoning facts and adopting a "woke ideology" (I think that's what he said). I completely agree with Dawkins on all of that...it's a bit scary 'uncritical' in universities now.

Then when confronted on his views on DS kids and where his facts/evidence/logic came from...absolutely nothing from Dawkins. Fair play to BOC on this. Although I'm biased, as I really dislike Dawkins.

Yes, pity Marian Finucane is gone. Whatever her flaws, she was more professional than this oaf

Brendan OC and his ilk are ok for lite entertainment but don't have the depth and maturity required for tackling serious issues of the day.

Whatever BOC's grievance, he had a duty to allow Dawkins to talk about his new book on the show.
Listeners did not tune in to listen to BOC take out his perceived grievance on the guest. Beyond petty this and more revealing of BOC's character than his interviewee

Who up there in RTE is responsible for hiring this lot !

B2021M

Cole wrote: »

I had stopped listening on a Sunday, but I heard the line up at the beginning and thought I'd listen as Conor Skehan was on...and he didn't disappoint. It was so telling to hear the (literal) stumbling over words from BOC to counter him calling out the narrative on the recent housing story. The absolute silence from Niamh Hourigan was the most telling...just reflects the absolute ideological echo-chamber that her broad academic area has become (humanities/social sciences). Neither of them were expecting anyone to actually pose a different position on the story...had never even considered it.

And just as some listeners were probably screaming "right wing neoliberal capitalist" at Skehan, he showed a more 'left wing' socially liberal view on the apparent increased anti-social behaviour of the younger generation.

Now I'm not expert enough on either of the topics to really counter either of his positions, but he does seem to judge each issue on its merits/facts/evidence. That's how it should be done and not this ideological echo-chamber kind of thing that's so widespread now...sometimes on these forums too.

Yes it will all be dismissed as 'right wing' and not considered on its merits - there may be even a snide reference to Trump thrown in too as a slam dunk. Plus nobody with those views will be allowed on for another 6 months or so.

john123470 wrote: »

Its understandable that he might challenge Dawkins statement but not to make the whole interview about Brendan O C being upset

Dawkins was asked onto the programme to talk about his book not about O Connors pet foibles and upsets.

Also, he cut Dawkins off abruptly at the end before the man could even say goodbye. No doubting Brendan's anger here

Brendan O Connor is - how to put it delicately - a jumped up Yahoo

"pet foibles" is hardly apt given the subject matter. The first eight minutes were about the book. I doubt the end of Dawkins goodbye being cut was deliberate. These things happen on live radio quite often.

Mad_maxx

B2021M wrote: »

Yes it will all be dismissed as 'right wing' and not considered on its merits - there may be even a snide reference to Trump thrown in too as a slam dunk. Plus nobody with those views will be allowed on for another 6 months or so.

indeed , objective analysis based commentators like Skeehan are no use to the " Barts people " soundbite analysis merchants we have in this country

as a people we are obsessed with personal stories , so if a twenty five year old dies with covid , we cheer on another lockdown , if a couple in kildare miss out on a house , we cheer on a big state takeover of housing

Ahwell wrote: »

"pet foibles" is hardly apt given the subject matter. The first eight minutes were about the book. I doubt the end of Dawkins goodbye being cut was deliberate. These things happen on live radio quite often.

Dawkins original point was that a foetus shown to have abnormalities and thereby live a life of suffering should be aborted. His point being that the Church should not be the adjudicator in such matters. A fair enough point until you come up against a brick wall like O Connor

I heard nothing about the new book although Dawkins did try to steer the interview back on course twice .. it was all about O Connor and his perceived grievance

Thick as a plank, as they say

NIMAN

I didn't hear the interview, but I read earlier than Dawkins vanished from the interview.

Did his line die or was he cut off? Did he come back after this to continue the interview?