You are easily shocked by human nature. They didn't slaughter the natives, and then enslave millions of other foreigners by not being self interested and transactional.
It absolutely makes sense to “both side” it. If you refuse to listen to and analyse the other side you’re literally not getting the whole picture. Information is king.
Most of the arguments I hear against Trump are emotive….he’s a racist, he’s a bigot, he’s this, he’s that etc.
Most of the arguments I hear for Harris are also emotive….she’s a woman, she’s black, she’s this, she’s that etc.
Heaven forbid we’d discuss either candidate based on merit. 🤷♂️ Also, if Trump was scrutinised more rigorously and “academically”, it might give ammunition to dismantle the myth of the man. Attacking his character isn’t exactly working.
I already apologised for misrepresenting your post.i misread it. So apologies again. Still don't get your concern for media's treatment of Trump here tho.You should be delighted they're treating that thug like a pariah.
Ok, well thanks for apologising for misrepresenting my post. I was replying at length to another poster when you jumped in. I only saw your post acknowledging your error after I had posted my reply.
You have however also accused me of being a Trump supporter (you also said I “love” him), of lying about it, and wanting him to win just to annoy people. Despite all of this I’ve still been courteous to you, have explained my position, and haven’t insulted you. Perhaps you should reflect on that?
Give it a rest dude, this thread has drifted too far from its core subject to be wholesome.
I'm sure there’s a thread somewhere on American politics where folk can bang away to their hearts content about
Harris and Trump.
It’s shot it’s wad here I feel.
When is Ballsy back, this Nordie one annoys me a bit.
I think you might have better luck if you start a new thread addressing RTE panels and how they are selected. We tend to get balanced panels for CA and news. More general talking head type panels on magazine shows.
Should there be balance on all panels? How do we define balance? How are panels selected? Etc
Why do the same guests Brenda Power, Niall Breslin, Colm O'Gorman, etc keep popping up across RTE panels?
Irish analysis of US politics is absolutely dreadful and often cringey.
I think they view Democrats are just like us and Republicans are not like us.
That seems to be the Irish established view as expressed on RTE.
The devastation in Gaza under a Democratic President has been difficult for some Irish people on their perceived notions about Democrats. Harris too boasted about owning a gun and clamping down on illegal migration. All stuff that the established view seems to forget.
The real problem is finding a levelheaded Trump supporter willing to come on any show. The only one willing to appear are, generally, weirdos who, straight away, start parroting Trump’s proven lies. The sort of things you expect from “entertainment news” not a current affairs show.
‘The Home Show’ on Newstalk had a lad on who sold bomb shelters. When he was asked a question about politics he went “off the deep end” about stolen elections and the like.
You can’t expect to get any “balance”, or serious discussions, people like that. Seth Barrett-Tillman was a good Trump supporting commentator on with Pat Kenny awhile back but haven’t heard from him lately. Michael Graham was good too, not sure how much he supported Trump though. Haven’t heard him in a long time.
Again, you don’t need a Trump “supporter” for balance, you need someone with no outward bias, someone neutral, someone who can ask the same questions of both candidates and their suitability, policies, etc.
I’ll again refer to the rather excellent Niall Stanage on this. Listening to him you’d have no idea which side of the fence he’s on as he subjects both candidates to the same level of scrutiny. Even though he’s Northern Irish, I hadn’t heard of him before this election, he’s been on Dunphy’s podcast for the last year or so (even if you don’t like Dunphy, it’s worth listening to Stanage); and had since popped up on the BBC, Sky News, and various US channels. He frequently will dissect and deride elements of Trump’s campaign, but it’s on a significantly deeper level than “he’s racist”, “he’s a pig” etc. More of this type of analysis is needed, rather than emotive name calling.
Let it go Peter…good lad.
Let it go dude.
Yeah, it’s crazy to ask for the same scrutiny to be applied to both candidates.
As above.
Let it go here. Start a new thread like I suggested.
There is an intresting discussion to be had about radio panels. Should we require experts on them, should they just be for colour, how are they picked etc.
And it could start with doing proper analysis on how often Brenda Power or whoever actually appears. I did an exercise like that on the thread, which I can't find now. But from memory over the course of a few weeks there were about 40 different guests, and of course some with more than one appearance. But nobody on "every single week" as the hyperbole would have it.
All these talking heads need to do is say something about what is in the papers. The same way that the papers dedicate space to what they hear on the radio. It is the same formula on other stations on Sunday mornings, including the BBC. If we could get some Salt of the Earth types out of bed on Sunday to read the papers, they might liven up things a bit. But if it causes some listeners to get annoyed, there are plenty of music stations, and the Off button. They should know by now whether the format is something they want to come back to every weekend.
Have you stats to back up that ?
Like I said I can't find them. But I invite you or anyone else to note the names of all the guests for the next few months to get new stats. From memory I took the names from the website back then, but currently it does not seem to be any way consistent in the listings. And I would rarely listen to O'Connor myself, maybe just a bit before 1 o'clock on occasions.
Someone actually tabulated that in one of the papers (from memory) or perhaps online - I honestly can’t recall where or the duration of the study (but it was months, not weeks). Power was the most frequent guest, and it wasn’t “occasional”. It’s nothing against power btw, it’s the frequency of her appearances - and this criticism is true for many other “regulars”.
I’m chasing my tail today and quite tired after staying up very late last night but I will look for it later.
Somwhere in between "occasional" and "every single week" lies a number which would be instructive. Did that research address the questions raised by the other poster. How are they chosen, are they experts on something, or just there to add colour to discussions?
With respect, your post (whether intentionally or not) reads as if she wasn’t a frequent guest. She absolutely is.
Did you also miss the part where I said I’d look for the piece later?
Frequent and occasional are not proper measures. It needs exact numbers.
The Brendan O'Connor podcast feed helpfully lists the guests against each episode. The podcast feed on RTÉ website has episodes going back to August 25th, so it's not a very detailed list. But just to note - Brenda Power has been on twice since August 25th (8th September & 3rd November, Newspaper panel for both). Others I spotted on twice in same period: Alison O'Connor, Scott Lucas, Pat Leahy, Louise Burne, Gerard Howlin.
For the newspaper panel in that period there were 11 panels. They all had 4 guests (bar 1 exception where someone is listed as joining on the phone). There were a total of 39 different guests used, 6 of whom appeared twice.
Obviously a wider period would be more useful here.
That chimes with what I recall from my own research.
knock yourself out:
Includes downloadable spreadsheet with numbers for your reading pleasure.
I don't have Excel, or any other application which can read the spreadsheets. Can you tell me how many times Brenda Power was on, and over what time period? It's a well written piece, but the authors are part of the privileged set themselves.
Mark Cullinane is a post-doctoral researcher in the school of applied Social Studies, University College Cork. With special thanks to Paul Frewen of the same School for his many contributions to this analysis.
They don't hold back when having a go at others with privilege:
Alongside O’Connell, the upper part of the table of most frequently used panellists comprises a tier of guests on semi-regular rotation: think columnists Alison O’Connor and Brenda Power, sociology and political science academics Niamh Hourigan and Gary Murphy respectively, economist Dan O’Brien and security analyst Declan Power, to name a few.
Perusing the names and affiliations of this privileged set of effectively tenured voices reveals not only a dominance of the upper professional classes but also the preponderance of eminently known quantities with considerable (sometimes bordering on ubiquitous) access to national media platforms and who in some cases stand in for whole disciplines and fields all by themselves.
For a lad who lives and breathes by statistics………and you don't have Exel!
My Jaysus! Get a loan from Starry Boy😲
(well done P dragon for digging that up)
Didn't the Moncreiff show have something similar. Some salt of the earth types, some "How yas" and Henry McKeens mam. I wonder why they stopped that segement.
You no longer need a stand alone application. You can create a temp Google account and use Google sheets.
I have a very quick look and for the period covered, the most frequent quests are
Alison O'Connor
14
Gráinne Ní Aodha
Kate O'Connell
13
Brenda Power
12
Dan O'Brien
Declan Power
Gary Murphy
Incorrect. The number for Brenda Power was 14.
Sorry my mistake. I guess I messed up the data wrangling. Ugh.
