Bring back Hook!!!

_Dara_ wrote: »

I gotta say I never think of him in that way. He has always come across well-to-do to me.

That's just his posh Cork accent. It adds a certain gravitas to what would otherwise sound like the opinionated ramblings of an angry white van man.

If he spoke with a different accent, such as the one you hear from the Adrian Kennedy show callers, he'd just sound like the kind of person who calls Adrian Kennedy.

mariaalice wrote: »

Like, Ivan Yeats and Sean Moncriffe, Ciara Kelly is alright bit crisp in her delivery, Stoped listening to the breakfast news show one of the presenters cant think of his name used to be a crime reporter anyway he comes across as having a massive ego he is just really irritating.

Not to mention neither of them being able to pronouce "th"...

I liked listening to Hook. It was a very enjoyable show.

khaldrogo wrote: »

Hook had his issues but at least he was fun to listen too IMO.

I've given Ciara Kelly the benefit of the doubt for long enough. She, as a broadcaster is woeful. The topics she is opting to feature are dull and over obvious. Its like she has a list of topics ranging from handy to hard and she pick the handy ones every time. By handy I mean topics that ask questions that nearly answer themselves. She's also constantly virtue signalling. It's nauseating at this point.
.

As long as no-one mentions drink, shes grand.

Thread needs a poll.

I agree with the OP about Hook and think you can apply much of whats been mentioned to Newstalk, and the Last Word (Today FM) as a whole.

There was a certain agenda that got rid of Hook. I think that same agenda would love to get Ivan Yates and Niall Boylan off the airwaves also. I know Yates is on Newstalk but he would not be too dissimilar to Hook on many opinions, also he seems less likely to go along with the common social justice warrior opinion of the time opinion on many topics. The same can be said of Boylan.

Deleted User wrote: »

A self-absorbed, bloated, garrulous, bombastic, prolix gentleman who struggles deeply with asking concise, pointed sharp questions - and then letting his guests answer without interruption.

There's no sense of empathy with the guest, no sense of genuine interest in what they feel or think. No actual engagement. No listening other than to hook on to a word and bring the whole thing back to himself. Most of all, because of this "It's all about me" approach to interviewees listeners do not get any insight or perspective which they could apply to or inspire their own lives.

He has ruined so many potentially good interviews by making each one all about him. And his pathetic patter of "I'm ignorant..." and "The lovely Ingrid" is just more of the same "It's all about me" blubber. At heart he's a dense, creatively limited gobshíte.

Don't hold back now - say what you really think.

quintana76 wrote: »

"Incapable of changing his opinion" Wouldn't be considered a crime if he held views of the more "approved" persuasion. Would it?

Sure it would. Anyone who continually bangs the same drum, even when confronted with facts that disprove it, is irrational.

People who are incapable of changing their opinion are amongst the most dangerous to have in positions of power or broadcasting.

The number of salty people going on about "PC Agenda" in regards to Hook is hilarious. He was suspended for saying scumbag things about a woman that was raped. There's no getting around that.

suicide_circus wrote: »

That may all be true but at least he was in some way entertaining. It was nice to have a bit of wrong-think on the airwaves. Every presenter on radio now has the same safe space approved opinions and they toe the line. It's like listening to beige.

There's a difference between counter-cultural opinions and "wrong-think" for the sake of it. I love to hear some good "wrong-think" that's well considered and puts forward data and ideas I haven't seen before.

Katie Hopkins, Piers Morgan, Ivan Yeates, George Hook. These people are not "wrong-thinkers". They're trolls. They state controversial opinions without a shred of supporting evidence because they know these opinions are controversial. Not because they believe them.

People who state controversial opinions with supporting evidence, with a strong rationale, are incredibly important for public discourse. They force society to question their assumptions and bring about real social change.

Trolls are damaging to public discourse. They stir the pot, incit anger and division, for nothing except their own celebrity. They cannot bring about positive change because the dissent they sow has absolutely no merit to it.

Hook was a great pinball table. Terrrible movie but great pinball table: Got to save Sally, got to save Jack. BANERANG!!!!!!!

....... oh wait, what now?

seamus wrote: »

He was suspended for saying scumbag things about a woman that was raped. There's no getting around that.

Do you even know what he said?

Honestly, what he said is basically the advice I'll be giving my daughter when she's old enough to need and understand it.

Rather stupefyingly, some of what had him suspended was

"There is personal responsibility because it’s your daughter and it’s my daughter. And what determines the daughter who goes out, gets drunk, passes out and is with strangers in her room and the daughter that goes out, stays halfway sober and comes home, I don’t know. I wish I knew. I wish I knew what the secret of parenting is.

But there is a point of responsibility. The real issues nowadays and increasingly is the question of the personal responsibility that young girls are taking for their own safety."

Not exactly heretical, is it.....?