Conor Lenihan on Newstalk on Sunday Morning

Macha

John_C wrote: »

Lenihan and a presenter from newstalk had a row over whether a previous piece on her show was biased. He said it was. She said it wasn't her fault, as she had asked a FF TD to come on but he pulled out at short notice and that this relieved her of her obligation to be unbiased. I think that the argument she made is dubious.

The mere lack of a FF-head on the panel doesn't mean it was biased. That was Lenihan's flawed logic. If that were the case, every panel would need to consist of a member of each main political party (and what about independents?) to avoid the accusation of being biased.

It's also quite insulting for him to suggest that the only way people can understand FF's point of view is to have a FF person tell them. I get FF and I despise them. Putting down my intense dislike of them to a bias is as childish as it is transparent.

FF are happy to lap up the positive media & polls when it suits them and stamp their feet and dismiss polls when it doesn't suit them. It was a simple case of Lenihan not liking what he was hearing about public sentiment and thinking he could come on air and shout everyone else down.

meglome

taconnol wrote: »

The mere lack of a FF-head on the panel doesn't mean it was biased. That was Lenihan's flawed logic. If that were the case, every panel would need to consist of a member of each main political party (and what about independents?) to avoid the accusation of being biased.

It's also quite insulting for him to suggest that the only way people can understand FF's point of view is to have a FF person tell them. I get FF and I despise them. Putting down my intense dislike of them to a bias is as childish as it is transparent.

FF are happy to lap up the positive media & polls when it suits them and stamp their feet and dismiss polls when it doesn't suit them. It was a simple case of Lenihan not liking what he was hearing about public sentiment and thinking he could come on air and shout everyone else down.

I agree. He should have shut up but he kept going making himself look stupid.

teednab-el

Conor Lenihan behaviour on this show is one of the reasons why this country is going down the toilet. He got so personal to the presenter and clearly has a low IQ by the way he was carrying on. If he is re-elected as a TD in the future well then we deserve what we get if things get as bad again.

John_C

taconnol wrote: »

The mere lack of a FF-head on the panel doesn't mean it was biased. That was Lenihan's flawed logic. If that were the case, every panel would need to consist of a member of each main political party (and what about independents?) to avoid the accusation of being biased.

It's a week now since the show so I'm only working from memory but I think that's the exact opposite of what he said. When the presenter said that she had attempted balance by asking on a FF person, he said that balance isn't only about picking people to be on panels. The key point here is that the presenter doesn't owe a duty of impartiality to the politicians but to her audience. The fact that FF TDs are dodging her show doesn't remove her own obligations.

Later in the discussion when Lenihan accused her of being biased in favour of George Lee she didn't deny the accusation, rather she said that the bias is acceptable since George Lee is up in the polls. She said something like; maybe I'm in favour of him because he's the most dynamic and articulate candidate and, according to the polls, the people the people agree with me.

I didn't hear the newspaper review that they were talking about so I can't judge the matter for myself but the arguments the presenter was making don't hold any water.

Macha

John_C wrote: »

It's a week now since the show so I'm only working from memory but I think that's the exact opposite of what he said. When the presenter said that she had attempted balance by asking on a FF person, he said that balance isn't only about picking people to be on panels. The key point here is that the presenter doesn't owe a duty of impartiality to the politicians but to her audience. The fact that FF TDs are dodging her show doesn't remove her own obligations.

If Lenihan wasn't using the lack of a FF person on the panel as proof, where was his proof? He didn't provide any other evidence that the panel was biased - at all. You can't just go on radio and start accusing a station of being biased with no facts/proof to back you up.

Actuallly what he said in the beginning was that the construction of the panel did not matter and then at the end, all else failed, he went back to the panel argument. Contradicting himself within 5 minutes.

She specifically asked him to explain his case in more detail and he started rabbiting on about George Lee.

John_C wrote: »

Later in the discussion when Lenihan accused her of being biased in favour of George Lee she didn't deny the accusation, rather she said that the bias is acceptable since George Lee is up in the polls.

She most certainly did not accept the bias. She totally rejected it and had to explain that their coverage of the poll was due to its coverage in the national papers. The segment of the show was a review of the sunday papers.

In addition, she was forced to defend the ridiculous accusation that she wanted to talk about George Lee because he was a "colleague" ("one of your own") - never mind the fact that Lee worked for RTE, a competitor of Newstalk.

John_C wrote: »

She said something like; maybe I'm in favour of him because he's the most dynamic and articulate candidate and, according to the polls, the people the people agree with me.

No, this is exactly the kind of crap Lenihan tried to pull. There is a link further up where you can listen to it again so no need make stuff up in the remembering.

What she said was that perhaps he was perceived to be the most dynamic etc by the polls. He starts saying "that's what YOU think Karen". And she offered to replay her comments. She then had to repeat that the polls show Lee to be for ahead of the rest of the candidates yet Lenihan tried to claim that the polls don't show Lee to be considered the most dynamic candidate and therefore Coleman was biased.

Lenihan even said himself at the beginning that he wasn't listening to the programme that morning.

John_C wrote: »

I didn't hear the newspaper review that they were talking about so I can't judge the matter for myself but the arguments the presenter was making don't hold any water.

Sorry but nothing you have said holds any water.

Sleipnir

John C, you're making the same arguments that Lenihan made and, like Lenihan in the interview, don't have anything to back them up.

He accused Newstalk of being biased even though
1.) the previous week, they had asked Lenihan to be on the panel and he refused.
2.) They had a Fianna Fail TD on the panel the week previous to that.
3.) Said that George Lee was a colleague of Karen Coleman even though he works for RTE who are in direct competition with Newstalk.
4.) She asked Lenihan the question "do you think George Lee is ahead in the polls because the people think he's more dynamic...."

He made a complete arse of himself and when he realised that, he got the hell off the phone as quickly as he could.

Again, your arguments don't hold water at all. It's like you're Lenihan and Taconnol is Karen Coleman!

Macha

Sleipnir wrote: »

Taconnol is Karen Coleman!

>>

<<

sshh!!

Lorcan 17

Have thought for some time now that Conor Lenihan is probably the biggest clown in Dail Eireann . He is probably everything that is wrong with politics in the country at present in that the name "Lenihan" has got him were he is . Still there are people out there voting for him .

Red Alert

Seamus Brennan's children are the exact same - the election literature from Shay Brennan and Aoife Brennan is more about "why you should vote for me because of all my dad did".

teednab-el

Red Alert wrote: »

Seamus Brennan's children are the exact same - the election literature from Shay Brennan and Aoife Brennan is more about "why you should vote for me because of all my dad did".

I'd believe it. Thats gives people a good reason not to vote for them.

Lorcan 17

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKMuYOU7AW4

Ostrom

Davidth88 wrote: »

Did anyone else hear Conor Lenihan make a complete dope of himself on Newstalk on Sunday morning ?

Basically FF central office complained that the newspaper review that Newstalk did was biased , because they led with the story in the Sunday Indo that FG had a huge lead in the polls , esp George Lee.

Anyway Conor Lenihan came on to complain about the biased reporting and came across as a total prat. He bitched and whined , put it this way I think he would have turned any voter against him

If you didn't hear him , it's worth downloading , I think it's available on podcast.

http://newstalk.ie/newstalk/news/19290/minister-blames-media-for-anti-government-sentiment.html

Good old kebabs, always good for a laugh

edanto

Wow!! Brennan puts his head in the guillitine, locks his head in, pulls up the blade and then shoots himself in the head just to make sure.

thebigcheese22

Fair play to Karen Coleman for keeping her head, I would have flipped out tbh!

Lenihan was beyond rude and showed no respect whatsoever. Just shows the contempt that FF now has for the media, particularly independant outlets like Newstalk.

Keep up the good work Karen

Trotter

Conor Lenihan was an absolute joke. The presenter ran a ring around him and he answered questions like he hadn't even heard the question.

I find it depressing that 20% + of the Irish population are still voting for these clowns that Conor attempted to represent.

How bad does FF and its members have to be before people will stop giving them a nod, a wink, and a vote.

The mind boggles.

John_C

taconnol wrote: »

If Lenihan wasn't using the lack of a FF person on the panel as proof, where was his proof? He didn't provide any other evidence that the panel was biased - at all. You can't just go on radio and start accusing a station of being biased with no facts/proof to back you up.

Actuallly what he said in the beginning was that the construction of the panel did not matter and then at the end, all else failed, he went back to the panel argument. Contradicting himself within 5 minutes.

I think we're talking across each other a little bit here. I agree with what you've written here but saying that the minister made a weak argument is not the same as saying that the presenter made a strong argument. You said earlier:

taconnol wrote: »

The mere lack of a FF-head on the panel doesn't mean it was biased. That was Lenihan's flawed logic. If that were the case, every panel would need to consist of a member of each main political party (and what about independents?) to avoid the accusation of being biased.

and I agree with you that this argument was flawed when the minister made it. Where we disagree is that I think this argument was equally flawed when the presenter made it. If you listen to the link above, about the first one third of it consists of the presenter making this point. She says that she had a green party person on previously and that she'd invited FF people on but she was having trouble getting someone to agree. This argument which she made is neatly summarised by one of the other posts here;

Sleipnir wrote: »

He accused Newstalk of being biased even though
1.) the previous week, they had asked Lenihan to be on the panel and he refused.
2.) They had a Fianna Fail TD on the panel the week previous to that.

If you believe that these arguments were invalid when the minister made them, you must also believe that they were invalid when the presenter made them. That's the point I made in my first post.

taconnol wrote: »

She most certainly did not accept the bias. She totally rejected it and had to explain that their coverage of the poll was due to its coverage in the national papers. The segment of the show was a review of the sunday papers.

I had another listen to the piece and I'll correct what I wrote earlier. She didn't say "maybe I'm in favour of him because he's the most dynamic and articulate candidate and, according to the polls, the people the people agree with me", she said "maybe the newspapers are in favour of him because he's the most dynamic and articulate candidate and, according to the polls, the people the people agree with that". She's one step further removed from the coverage that I thought she was.
The basic shape of her argument is the same as I remembered it. You said "their coverage of the poll was due to its coverage in the national papers" which is roughly what the presenter argued, that they're coverage represented the good coverage Lee got in the papers. That's not the same thing as rejecting a bias, rather it's explaining the source of it. Whether a radio review should reflect the editorial line the papers have taken is separate to the question of whether the radio review did reflect that editorial line.

meglome

John_C wrote: »

I had another listen to the piece and I'll correct what I wrote earlier. She didn't say "maybe I'm in favour of him because he's the most dynamic and articulate candidate and, according to the polls, the people the people agree with me", she said "maybe the newspapers are in favour of him because he's the most dynamic and articulate candidate and, according to the polls, the people the people agree with that". She's one step further removed from the coverage that I thought she was.
The basic shape of her argument is the same as I remembered it. You said "their coverage of the poll was due to its coverage in the national papers" which is roughly what the presenter argued, that they're coverage represented the good coverage Lee got in the papers. That's not the same thing as rejecting a bias, rather it's explaining the source of it. Whether a radio review should reflect the editorial line the papers have taken is separate to the question of whether the radio review did reflect that editorial line.

I don't think Karen Coleman was biased. They were talking about what was in the newspapers and what Karen Coleman said is a fair reflection of that as far as I've seen. He really got it wrong, and came across as arrogant and condescending. Worse than that he hadn't even the gumption to shut up or realise he was talking rubbish and try to save some face.

Macha

John_C wrote: »

I think we're talking across each other a little bit here. I agree with what you've written here but saying that the minister made a weak argument is not the same as saying that the presenter made a strong argument.

I don't see your point. If Lenihan makes an accusation, he is the one that has to present a strong argument. If he doesn't, he doesn't have a leg to stand on and the issue is closed.

John_C wrote: »

If you believe that these arguments were invalid when the minister made them, you must also believe that they were invalid when the presenter made them. That's the point I made in my first post.

There are two issues here:
1) was FF given adequate opportunity to participate in the panels
2) does this impact on the bias of the panels' discussion.

Seeing as you ask, I personally think that FF were given adequate opportunity but that this issue doesn't impact on the panels' bias. I'm not contradicting myself, merely responding to the issues that were raised.

Initially, Lenihan said that it didn't matter who was on the panel, as he knew that FF had been given adequate opportunity to participate and that following that line of logic wouldn't have come off well for him. Ultimately, his other arguments failed and he went back to accusing Newstalk of not having FF members on their panels. This made it clear that he was just trying to throw mud at Newstalk with whichever brush he could.

John_C wrote: »

I had another listen to the piece and I'll correct what I wrote earlier. She didn't say "maybe I'm in favour of him because he's the most dynamic and articulate candidate and, according to the polls, the people the people agree with me", she said "maybe the newspapers are in favour of him because he's the most dynamic and articulate candidate and, according to the polls, the people the people agree with that". She's one step further removed from the coverage that I thought she was.

Sorry but you still haven't proven that she is biased. You're deliberately refusing to make the obvious connection between high poll ratings of a candidate and a positive public perception of that candidate. I don't see how you can argue this. You think that George Lee is high in the polls but that we cannot infer from this that the public have a positive impression of him? I'd love to see you argue that one.

John_C wrote: »

The basic shape of her argument is the same as I remembered it. You said "their coverage of the poll was due to its coverage in the national papers" which is roughly what the presenter argued, that they're coverage represented the good coverage Lee got in the papers. That's not the same thing as rejecting a bias, rather it's explaining the source of it. Whether a radio review should reflect the editorial line the papers have taken is separate to the question of whether the radio review did reflect that editorial line.

This section of your post just doesn't make sense. They were discussing the high poll rating of Lee, and possible explanations (indeed, some might say blindingly obvious extrapolations from the rating), not stating their own editorial line of support or non-support for the results of the poll.

Fianna Fail are happy to ride the good opinion polls and need to learn to suck it up when they don't go their way.

briktop

ha ha ha

" if you want to brow beat me ... "

be some job, considering how thick his brow must be

dumbfcuk

John_C

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry but you still haven't proven that she is biased.

I think I can put my finger on our disagreement here. I'm not arguing that the presenter is biased. I think that's why we're talking across each other, we're discussing two different things.

The point I'm making is that most of the presenter's arguments weren't valid. You said that the make up of the panel doesn't impact on the shows bias. I agree with this. I think that the discussion between the presenter and the minister about the make up of the panel was completely irrelevant to the argument and that irrelevant discussion took up more than half the interview.

It's for the same reason that I'm not getting into a discussion on George Lee's merits as a candidate. I think that George Lee's virtues are completely irrelevant to the topic. It's perfectly possible for a candidate who's up or down in the polls to receive good, bad or indifferent radio coverage. That's why I think the discussion between the minister and the presenter on the reasons for George Lee's popularity was not relevant to the topic of whether he got fair coverage.

When you add those two things together, almost the entire radio discussion was conducted on flawed logic.

The disagreement between us isn't that you've picked one side and I've picked the other, but that you've picked a side and I haven't. You think that the minister was wrong and the presenter was right. I think that they were two different shades of wrong.

Macha

John_C wrote: »

I think that they were two different shades of wrong.

Please explain further.