Newstalk - Breakfast Show

Claude Burgundy · 30-04-2015 6:55pm

wnolan1992 wrote: »

As of today's JNLR figures, they're the most listened to show on NT. Up a massive 35,000 since this time last year.

Well done to them !

SEPT 23 1989 · 30-04-2015 8:38pm

Thats some jump

Claude Burgundy · 01-05-2015 3:42pm

Did the 5k charity event go ahead ?

Unruly Hector · 20-05-2015 9:26am

Chris Donoghue should be taken off the case here.. he has no objectivity at all... Doing his best to do a hatchet job on David Quinn a couple of days before the election..

Del.Monte · 20-05-2015 9:28am

It's outrageous bs. Chris Donoghue is a disaster. How does this interview give balance to the lovey dovey YES interview earlier? :rolleyes:

dublincelt · 20-05-2015 9:30am

Chris Donoghue is absolutely ripping David Quinn apart here. Superb interview, David Quinn even denying a quote from an article that he actually wrote. Hilarious!

Del.Monte · 20-05-2015 9:32am

dublincelt wrote: »

Chris Donoghue is absolutely ripping David Quinn apart here. Superb interview, David Quinn even denying a quote from an article that he actually wrote. Hilarious!

David Quinn doesn't represent me and it's lazy for Newstalk to wheel him out as the sole NO representative. Why could they not get an ordinary NO voter to come on to balance the earlier 'ordinary' YES voter?

Unruly Hector · 20-05-2015 9:34am

Del.Monte wrote: »

It's outrageous bs. Chris Donoghue is a disaster. How does this interview give balance to the lovey dovey YES interview earlier? :rolleyes:

I read somebody posting on another thread that Newstalk dont have to be objective on the referendum, as they are a private station and not under the same obligations as the national broadcaster... Can anybody clarify this (and whether Chris should be awaiting a letter from the BAI)?

Del.Monte · 20-05-2015 9:36am

Newstalk in common with most media have been running with a blatant YES agenda since the campaign began.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 20-05-2015 9:41am

dublincelt wrote: »

Chris Donoghue is absolutely ripping David Quinn apart here. Superb interview, David Quinn even denying a quote from an article that he actually wrote. Hilarious!

Was hilarious alright. Especially the part when David Quinn repeatedly corrected him and called Chris Donohughe out for the exact type of tactics he was using

astrofool · 20-05-2015 9:56am

That was a great interview, great to see David Quinn squirming and backtracking so much, hopefully the No side aim to put as much distance between themselves and the Iona institute as possible.

joseph brand · 20-05-2015 10:00am

I'm surprised that Chris allowed the bigoted David Quinn so much air time. It was a bit rich of Quinn to accuse Chris of deflection, a tactic employed by the No side (Iona) since the beginning. "Won't someone think of the children", came the cries from the supporters of the world's largest paedophile ring (The Roman Catholic church). Pull the other one. You couldn't give a rats about children.

The reason that Chris brought up Quinn's past views on divorce (an article he had written), is the fact that the No side have consistently asked why 'the gheys' aren't happy with civil partnership. This, after they fought against civil unions. David Quinn and his ilk are on the wrong side of history. Just like those who opposed: civil rights for blacks, women's rights and human slavery (if you want to go back even further).

I'm not selfish or homophobic enough to vote No.

Vote YES!!

ThisRegard · 20-05-2015 10:03am

Unruly Hector wrote: »

Can anybody clarify this (and whether Chris should be awaiting a letter from the BAI)?

He has previously been censured by the BAI before the referendum date was even announced.

Baggy Trousers · 20-05-2015 10:05am

Del.Monte wrote: »

Newstalk in common with most media have been running with a blatant YES agenda since the campaign began.

In this case, I think it's more that the Yes campaign makes the most sense.
The No campaign is all over the shop and is full of spoof. Their arguments for the most part are nonsense.
It's hard to find someone on the No side that is credible. And that David Quinn is a vile man.

Muff Richardson · 20-05-2015 10:08am

joseph brand wrote: »

I'm surprised that Chris allowed the bigoted David Quinn so much air time. It was a bit rich of Quinn to accuse Chris of deflection, a tactic employed by the No side (Iona) since the beginning. "Won't someone think of the children", came the cries from the supporters of the world's largest paedophile ring (The Roman Catholic church). Pull the other one. You couldn't give a rats about children.

The reason that Chris brought up Quinn's past views on divorce (an article he had written), is the fact that the No side have consistently asked why 'the gheys' aren't happy with civil partnership. This, after they fought against civil unions. David Quinn and his ilk are on the wrong side of history. Just like those who opposed: civil rights for blacks, women's rights and human slavery (if you want to go back even further).

I'm not selfish or homophobic enough to vote No.

Vote YES!!

massive huge unrelenting yawn....coming from a yes voter too.

only two more days thanks be to jesus. (hope i didnt offend you with the jesus reference)

Del.Monte · 20-05-2015 10:15am

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

In this case, I think it's more that the Yes campaign makes the most sense.
The No campaign is all over the shop and is full of spoof. Their arguments for the most part are nonsense.
It's hard to find someone on the No side that is credible. And that David Quinn is a vile man.

My point in a previous post is that wheeling out Quinn as a proponent of the NO side is a cynical move by Newstalk to be seen to give balance to the previous YES interview. They did it full in the knowledge that Quinn comes across badly and it's akin to getting the DUP to back the NO side. I'm still voting NO and it's feck all to do with the Iona Institute.

ThisRegard · 20-05-2015 10:18am

Del.Monte wrote: »

They did it full in the knowledge that Quinn comes across badly

That's surely the fault of Quinn. Should stations do private interviews before hand to see how they are before allowing them on air ?

Baggy Trousers · 20-05-2015 10:19am

Del.Monte wrote: »

My point in a previous post is that wheeling out Quinn as a proponent of the NO side is a cynical move by Newstalk to be seen to give balance to the previous YES interview. They did it full in the knowledge that Quinn comes across badly and it's akin to getting the DUP to back the NO side. I'm still voting NO and it's feck all to do with the Iona Institute.

The man from Del Monte should say Yes!!

ThisRegard · 20-05-2015 10:21am

I listened back again, I don't think it was a hatchet job, Quinn did all the damage himself, such as his squirming around his tweet asking who the father is, and would he ask a single woman the same. He's just a horrible man.

Muff Richardson · 20-05-2015 10:23am

Del.Monte wrote: »

My point in a previous post is that wheeling out Quinn as a proponent of the NO side is a cynical move by Newstalk to be seen to give balance to the previous YES interview. They did it full in the knowledge that Quinn comes across badly and it's akin to getting the DUP to back the NO side. I'm still voting NO and it's feck all to do with the Iona Institute.

There was about 500 pages of a previous thread mostly on the breakfast show and a long running theme throughout, in a nutshell was that...Chris is a sh*te interviewer and a sh*te presenter and all round fairly sh*te at his job, but seems like a nice guy and is hardworking. He wants to be loved just a bit too much.

Del.Monte · 20-05-2015 10:32am

ThisRegard wrote: »

That's surely the fault of Quinn. Should stations do private interviews before hand to see how they are before allowing them on air ?

Quinn has been on Newstalk before and everybody knows where he's coming from on this issue. Breakfast either had him on because they were too lazy to find somebody else or - more likely - his OTT performance suits the station's blatant pro-YES agenda.

ThisRegard · 20-05-2015 10:34am

So you want Quinn censored then ?

jooksavage · 20-05-2015 10:37am

Del.Monte wrote: »

My point in a previous post is that wheeling out Quinn as a proponent of the NO side is a cynical move by Newstalk to be seen to give balance to the previous YES interview. They did it full in the knowledge that Quinn comes across badly and it's akin to getting the DUP to back the NO side. I'm still voting NO and it's feck all to do with the Iona Institute.

And who should they bring out to counter the Yes argument? Breda O'Brien? Ronan Mullen? John Waters? JIM WALSH?!!! They've all made a holy show of themselves.

If an organisation like the IONA Institute seem to be the go-to-guys for the No argument, then maybe that says something about the deficiencies in that campaign?

Who do you want to represent the No camp? The ordinary, decent man/woman-on-the-street? Like the one in the audience on George Hooks show who advised us that if same-sex marriage was available years ago, none of us would be here?

Del.Monte · 20-05-2015 10:44am

ThisRegard wrote: »

So you want Quinn censored then ?

Quinn has had plenty of exposure and it shouldn't be beyond the wit of Newstalk to find NO people with less baggage, but that wouldn't suit their efforts to get a YES vote.

joseph brand · 20-05-2015 10:57am

jooksavage wrote: »

And who should they bring out to counter the Yes argument? Breda O'Brien? Ronan Mullen? John Waters? JIM WALSH?!!! They've all made a holy show of themselves.

If an organisation like the IONA Institute seem to be the go-to-guys for the No argument, then maybe that says something about the deficiencies in that campaign?

Who do you want to represent the No camp? The ordinary, decent man/woman-on-the-street? Like the one in the audience on George Hooks show who advised us that if same-sex marriage was available years ago, none of us would be here?

As someone said to me: "What if this whole country was gay?" "There'd be no more children" Wow, really??

It's certainly up there with the "god made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and "men and women ARE different, they have different genitalia" arguments. Well I never knew. I'm sure that most teenagers would be embarrassed to utter such childish nonsense. Then we hear it from Breda O'Brien, David Quinn, Ronan Mullen, John Waters, Petra Conroy and their 'holier-than-thou' ilk. It's pathetic and infuriating. I suppose it's some consolation to see these fanatical, god botherering, bible thumpers being laughed at in debates.

joseph brand · 20-05-2015 11:01am

Del.Monte wrote: »

Quinn has had plenty of exposure and it shouldn't be beyond the wit of Newstalk to find NO people with less baggage, but that wouldn't suit their efforts to get a YES vote.

It can't be easy to find a No voter who's both rational and bigoted at the same time. You're asking a lot. It's like trying to find someone who is against equal rights for blacks, but who is reasonable and comes across well. It's not going to happen.

Aren't the Orange Order in the No camp? Give them a ring.

my friend · 20-05-2015 11:08am

Neither the Yes or No sides appear good at presenting their case due to those that researchers and journalists select to speak, the narrative is apparently preformed...

The argument for Yes couched in emotive sob stories told by proud mammies, daddies or sisters of gay sons / siblings

The argument for No only vocalised by Iona and shouty Waters

No peeling of the onion, no technical teasing.

The Irish media has done the people a disservice in this debate

Muff Richardson · 20-05-2015 11:09am

joseph brand wrote: »

It's like trying to find someone who is against equal rights for blacks, but who is reasonable and comes across well. It's not going to happen.

no, it's absolutely nothing like that. it's comments like these that give the yes camp a bad name and have been damaging to the campaign.

ThisRegard · 20-05-2015 11:09am

my friend wrote: »

Neither the Yes or No sides appear good at presenting their case due to those that researchers and journalists select to speak, the narrative is apparently preformed...

The argument for Yes couched in emotive sob stories told by proud mammies, daddies or sisters of gay sons / siblings

The argument for No only vocalised by Iona and shouty Waters

No peeling of the onion, no technical teasing.

The Irish media has done the people a disservice in this debate

Most, if not all, shows have had the referendum commission on at some point.

my friend · 20-05-2015 11:13am

ThisRegard wrote: »

Most, if not all, shows have had the referendum commission on at some point.

You do realise that the refcom's pronouncements are merely opinions, they are not legal rulings and are not binding and they have been contradictory in same

Del.Monte · 20-05-2015 11:14am

joseph brand wrote: »

It can't be easy to find a No voter who's both rational and bigoted at the same time. You're asking a lot. It's like trying to find someone who is against equal rights for blacks, but who is reasonable and comes across well. It's not going to happen.

Aren't the Orange Order in the No camp? Give them a ring.

And back we are again to name calling. All NO voters are homophobes. :rolleyes:

jooksavage · 20-05-2015 11:25am

Del.Monte wrote: »

And back we are again to name calling. All NO voters are homophobes. :rolleyes:

I agree it's not fair to label No voters homophobes. This kind of stuff is cancer for the Yes campaign. But I would like to know who you think would make a better case for a No vote? You're clearly not happy with David Quinn's approach.

ThisRegard · 20-05-2015 11:31am

my friend wrote: »

You do realise that the refcom's pronouncements are merely opinions, they are not legal rulings and are not binding and they have been contradictory in same

How can they be legal rulings when the referendum hasn't been voted on yet ?

Nody · 20-05-2015 11:32am

//MOD

People this is not the off topic thread so please return to Newstalk Breakfast show or I'll be handing out bans esp. relating to the upcoming referendum...

//MOD

jooksavage · 20-05-2015 11:35am

Nody wrote: »

//MOD

People this is not the off topic thread so please return to Newstalk Breakfast show or I'll be handing out bans esp. relating to the upcoming referendum...

//MOD

Fair enough. Ahem. So, does Chris still suck at interviews?

ThisRegard · 20-05-2015 11:38am

@Nody it's directly related to the handling of the referendum by Newstalk and not on the pros and cons of the referendum itself.

Nody · 20-05-2015 11:43am

ThisRegard wrote: »

@Nody it's directly related to the handling of the referendum by Newstalk and not on the pros and cons of the referendum itself.

//MOD

This is an example of relating to Newstalk breakfast show on the topic:

Del.Monte wrote: »

Quinn has been on Newstalk before and everybody knows where he's coming from on this issue. Breakfast either had him on because they were too lazy to find somebody else or - more likely - his OTT performance suits the station's blatant pro-YES agenda.

This is an example of discussing the referendum:

joseph brand wrote: »

As someone said to me: "What if this whole country was gay?" "There'd be no more children" Wow, really??

It's certainly up there with the "god made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and "men and women ARE different, they have different genitalia" arguments. Well I never knew. I'm sure that most teenagers would be embarrassed to utter such childish nonsense. Then we hear it from Breda O'Brien, David Quinn, Ronan Mullen, John Waters, Petra Conroy and their 'holier-than-thou' ilk. It's pathetic and infuriating. I suppose it's some consolation to see these fanatical, god botherering, bible thumpers being laughed at in debates.

See the difference? Posts that are directly relating to the show's presentation are fine to continue; general discussion on the referendum is off topic. Any further questions via PM please or you'll risk running into the "questioning Mod decision on thread" and that will force me to hand out cards for consistency.

//MOD

jooksavage · 20-05-2015 11:57am

For what it's worth, I do think Ivan gave the Yes guy an uncharacteristically easy time of it. But I'm assuming he reasoned that the guy was a "civilian", unlike the seasoned David Quinn, who seems to be on some show every other day.

I honestly don't think Breakfast screwed the No side by having Quinn on. Who else would have done so much better?

wnolan1992 · 20-05-2015 12:33pm

The Quinn interview was a shambles IMO. Chris really shouldn't be allowed do these interviews when it's so evident that he can't be impartial.

While I understand what he was doing by bringing up the divorce issue, it served only to further muddy the waters, and alowed Quinn to ramble on about unrelated sh*te (something which the No side are very adept at anyway). Just give him enough rope and any reasonable person will recognise that Quinn's arguments about surrogacy and adoption are completely irrelevant to the issue.

Unruly Hector · 20-05-2015 1:46pm

wnolan1992 wrote: »

The Quinn interview was a shambles IMO. Chris really shouldn't be allowed do these interviews when it's so evident that he can't be impartial.

But didnt he get pulled up on this by the BAI.

wnolan1992 · 20-05-2015 1:58pm

Unruly Hector wrote: »

But didnt he get pulled up on this by the BAI.

He did. But trust me when I say, 1 BAI ruling isn't worth the paper it's written on. And the sanctions are meaningless, as all you have to do is broadcast an apology and summary of the finding.

If NT wanted to be impartial (as a good CA station would strive to be), they would pull him from these interviews, as he clearly comes across as pushing his own view. As much as I agree with Chris' view, I think it damages the Yes side to try and railroad No supporters, even if they're Iona Institute gurriers.

joseph brand · 23-05-2015 4:23am

wnolan1992 wrote: »

He did. But trust me when I say, 1 BAI ruling isn't worth the paper it's written on. And the sanctions are meaningless, as all you have to do is broadcast an apology and summary of the finding.

If NT wanted to be impartial (as a good CA station would strive to be), they would pull him from these interviews, as he clearly comes across as pushing his own view. As much as I agree with Chris' view, I think it damages the Yes side to try and railroad No supporters, even if they're Iona Institute gurriers.

Fair enough, but is he not supposed to play devil's advocate when giving a voice to only one side? He can't just let him talk away, unchallenged.

joseph brand · 23-05-2015 4:47am

Del.Monte wrote: »

And back we are again to name calling. All NO voters are homophobes. :rolleyes:

No voters have told me that they're not homophobic. As you and I know, nobody has ever lied. Ever.

But imagine if people could tell lies. Lie to themselves even.

"I'm not homophobic, but, they should have a different partnership to what the rest of us normal people have." - Typical No voter

If it looks like sh1t, smells like sh1t and tastes like sh1t then it's probably sh1t.

"I'm not a racist but, [something racist]"

"I'm not a homophobe but [something against the gheys]"

The man from Del Monte says; "when life gives you lemons oranges, make orange juice."

wnolan1992 · 23-05-2015 11:02am

Ivan Yates' Big Gay Disco :pac:

Muff Richardson · 23-05-2015 12:48pm

joseph brand wrote: »

No voters have told me that they're not homophobic. As you and I know, nobody has ever lied. Ever.

But imagine if people could tell lies. Lie to themselves even.

"I'm not homophobic, but, they should have a different partnership to what the rest of us normal people have." - Typical No voter

If it looks like sh1t, smells like sh1t and tastes like sh1t then it's probably sh1t.

"I'm not a racist but, [something racist]"

"I'm not a homophobe but [something against the gheys]"

The man from Del Monte says; "when life gives you lemons oranges, make orange juice."

how's the head this morning old chap? have a few drinky poos last night did we?

Unruly Hector · 23-05-2015 1:01pm

joseph brand wrote: »

No voters have told me that they're not homophobic. As you and I know, nobody has ever lied. Ever.

Or a different reading of it could be that you're just not prepared to accept the genuine opinions of anybody that doesnt agree with you 100%....

buckfasterer · 28-05-2015 10:50pm

Gonna be interesting to see if they cover the breaking DOB story regarding his loans in the morning. Will they go against the boss?? Nah.

michael999999 · 28-05-2015 11:35pm

buckfasterer wrote: »

Gonna be interesting to see if they cover the breaking DOB story regarding his loans in the morning. Will they go against the boss?? Nah.

Neither of the two have the balls!

And Pat Kenny is the same, €€€ before principles!

Denis o Brien is signing the cheques and running the editorial!

Harry Angstrom · 29-05-2015 12:55am

buckfasterer wrote: »

Gonna be interesting to see if they cover the breaking DOB story regarding his loans in the morning. Will they go against the boss?? Nah.

Two chances - slim and none, and slim just left the building.

Claude Burgundy · 29-05-2015 11:42am

[QUOTE=Harry Angstrom;9567523
5]Two chances - slim and none, and slim just left the building.[/QUOTE]

They did and stated that they were unable to speak about it ! They did say the story was mentioned in the dail and that the only paper that ran the story was the times..............

Newstalk - Breakfast Show

Comments