Tonight With Vincent Browne Thread v2.0

Lumbo

Skid wrote: »

yep.

Never liked her.

Skid

Lumbo wrote: »

Never liked her.

I was never a fan either. She is very full of herself.

Lady Chatterton

Skid wrote: »

It would be interesting to know if The Star's sales went up (or down) significantly on Saturday.

I think it was poor judgement to publish the photographs. It looks like the Editor might be sacked, in order to save the Paper.

I think it was poor judgement too but I think it would be wrong for O'Kane to be sacked, it is a sad day when an editor has to worry about offending his shareholders.

More editoral interference from wealthy newspaper owners :mad::mad::mad::mad:

Skid

MrsD007 wrote: »

I think it was poor judgement too but I think it would be wrong for O'Kane to be sacked, it is a sad day when an editor has to worry about offending his shareholders.

He was very naive. The British part of The Star joint venture have been considering pulling out of Ireland for a while. This could be the final straw.

nudger

Looks like Joe O Shea is hedging his bets on having a job around Christmas.

imme

Skid wrote: »

I was never a fan either. She is very full of herself.

can anyone be 'very full of themselves',
either full of themselves or not imo.

imme

is there something wrong with the sound on the show?

Skid

imme wrote: »

can anyone be 'very full of themselves',
either full of themselves or not imo.

Yes they can. There are various degrees of fullness of oneself. imo.

imme

Vinny B seems to be struggling with the limitations of the topic and that of the guests.

Lady Chatterton

Skid wrote: »

He was very naive. The British part of The Star joint venture have been considering pulling out of Ireland for a while. This could be the final straw.

So he should only have published material that the newspaper's owners approved of? That would make him a very poor editor in my book.

Callan57

The whole story is a load of hypocrisy.
I'd like to know is Kate all that concerned, she seems to me to be a fairly level headed & confident woman & I'd be inclined to bet she's not loosing any sleep over a couple of photos.




Load of nonsense ...... I'm going to bed

le la rat

Is her hair wet or greasy?

Skid

Callan57 wrote: »

The whole story is a load of hypocrisy.
I'd like to know is Kate all that concerned, she seems to me to be a fairly level headed & confident woman & I'd be inclined to bet she's not loosing any sleep over a couple of photos.

Seeing as she has initiated legal action against the magazine which published the photographs, I think it is reasonable to assume she is not best pleased with recent events.

Lady Chatterton

Skid wrote: »

Seeing as she has initiated legal action against the magazine which published the photographs, I think it is reasonable to assume she is not best pleased with recent events.

I think Prince William is probably more upset than Kate. I'm sure he has a pretty poor opinion of the French paparazzi since his mother's death.

le la rat

Maybe the Royal family could do a charity calender now that they have two profoessionals

Skid

MrsD007 wrote: »

So he should only have published material that the newspaper's owners approved of? That would make him a very poor editor in my book.

It was reckless to print such controversial pictures without consulting the (joint) owners.

No newspaper editor has absolute discretion over what is published. it is naive to think otherwise.

Lady Chatterton

Skid wrote: »

It was reckless to print such controversial pictures without consulting the (joint) owners.

No newspaper editor has absolute discretion over what is published. it is naive to think otherwise.

I'm sorry but I think that is complete rubbish, the editor of a national newspaper shouldn't be consulting the newspaper's owner for permission to publish pictures or a stories no matter how controversial.

Having said that I think Denis O'Brien would probably approve of the model you have presented.

Skid

MrsD007 wrote: »

I'm sorry but I think that is complete rubbish, the editor of a national newspaper shouldn't be consulting the newspaper's owner for permission to publish pictures or a stories no matter how controversial.

Having said that I think Denis O'Brien would probably approve of the model you have presented.

Well, if The Star is closed down over this their employees will see it as a very hollow victory for Editorial Independence.

You have to pick your battles. This wasn't a crusading expose of wrongdoing. It was a cheap tawdry publication of illegally obtained photographs which serve no pubic interest. The Editor might have had the right to publish them, but he also has responsibilties to the Newspaper owners and his employees.

imme

I think the issue being discussed now (Islamic worlds repsonse to US made

movie) should have been the main part of the show instead of the non issue of

the Kate, even with the non-answers from the Islamic Centre man.

Lady Chatterton

Skid wrote: »

Well, if The Star is closed down over this their employees will see it as a very hollow victory for Editorial Independence.

You have to pick your battles. This wasn't a crusading expose of wrongdoing. It was a cheap tawdry publication of illegally obtained photographs which serve no pubic interest. The Editor might have had the right to publish them, but he also has responsibilties to the Newspaper owners and his employees.

The Star published the Prince Harry pictures and there was no fall out. It is a bit rich that the Star's owners are getting all precious about royal nudity now.

I wonder how many complaints have been received from members of the Irish public, very few I'd imagine.

Skid

MrsD007 wrote: »

The Star published the Prince Harry pictures and there was no fall out. It is a bit rich that the Star's owners are getting all precious about royal nudity now.

I wonder how many complaints have been received from members of the Irish public, very few I'd imagine.

The two incidents are totally different. Harry was behaving idiotically while partying with young women in a Hotel. He knew the photo was being taken.Kate Middleton was in a privately rented house. Her right to privacy should not be diminished because of the actions of her Brother in Law.

Public opinion in Britain was very different in the two cases. The Editor of The Star does not live in a vacuum and he must have been aware that the British part of the operation would come under huge pressure following the publication of these photographs.

It was a cheap, tacky, naive decision to publish. He has paid the price for poor judgement.

Lady Chatterton

Skid wrote: »

The two incidents are totally different. Harry was behaving idiotically while partying with young women in a Hotel. He knew the photo was being taken.Kate Middleton was in a privately rented house. Her right to privacy should not be diminished because of the actions of her Brother in Law.

Public opinion in Britain was very different in the two cases. The Editor of The Star does not live in a vacuum and he must have been aware that the British part of the operation would come under huge pressure following the publication of these photographs.

It was a cheap, tacky, naive decision to publish. He has paid the price for poor judgement.

I agree with you that the photographs should never have been published but I don't believe that it is serious enough for an editor of a national newspaper to be sacked or made resign. The issue is about editorial independence, if the Star survives and O'Kane is replaced by a new editor, are we to take it that he/she will effectively have no editorial independence? Who wants a spineless editor?

Personally, I found TV3's coverage of the late Brian Lenihan's illness far more offensive and upsetting but the journalist/news editor responsible for the St. Stephen's Day broadcast weren't suspended or sacked because the report was deemed to be in the public interest yet the report breached Mr. Lenihan's right to privacy.

Skid

MrsD007 wrote: »

The issue is about editorial independence, if the Star survives and O'Kane is replaced by a new editor, are we to take it that he/she will effectively have no editorial independence? Who wants a spineless editor?
.

In an ideal World Editors would have complete independence. In the real World they don't. Compromises have to be made. If you are going to stick your neck out and upset your backers, who are already talking about closing the newspaper, it should be about something worthwhile.

Also, his appearances on the Airwaves on Saturday did him no favours. His 'She's not our Queen, so we will do what we like' rant was inarticulate, ill-judged and untimely.

Happyman42

Skid wrote: »

Also, his appearances on the Airwaves on Saturday did him no favours. His 'She's not our Queen, so we will do what we like' rant was inarticulate, ill-judged and untimely.

It does have a lot everything to do with who she is though, if it was an actress, there wouldn't be a word about it. It's all a bit hypocritical and fawning to boot.

le la rat

Tonight would want to be better than last night

vicwatson

le la rat wrote: »

Tonight would want to be better than last night

That wouldn't be hard, last night was dire

tayto lover

I smell a row -- Luke v Lucinda. Go on the Luke !!

nudger

Good panel, could be fun with Ming.

vicwatson

I posted this back in December last Re Lucinda Creton - same applies tonight (just replace Europe with The Moriarity Tribunal!) !

Is it my imagination or does she have a snigger on her face when she is "trying" to explain what's going on in Europe at the moment to us ordinary folk?

Almost like she is dying to burst out laughing.

Almost laughing like she couldn't give a toss

Havermeyer

I think FG should stop putting Lucinda Creighton forward for shows like this. She appears to be out of her depth far too often.