The Pat Kenny Show

Tell me how

jay0109 wrote: »

I've no evidence but the people in the report did though I doubt you listened to it.

My point as I'm sure you well know but are trying to deflect from, is that when I hear a news item in the media I'd like it to contain all the facts and provide as much info as possible. Not attempt to suppress info because of some liberal agenda

Once more on this point.

Did you listen to the Friday Forum today?
On it was Joan Burton, David Quinn and Ian O'Doherty. Whatever about Joan Burton, David and Ian could hardly be described as holding liberal views.

During the conversations relating to Brexit and then multiculturalism the point was made about Ireland needing to learn about the failings of attempting multiculturalism elsewhere in Europe leading to women being raped by Pakistani gangs. Pat also asked if it was right that we should bend over backwards to accommodate other cultures when if we were to go to other countries we would be expected to behave as per their cultural rules and practices.

People are very quick to accuse Irish media of being ultra-liberal without listening to the conversations which are being held.

I suspect it's because they are just looking to complain, or they don't pay attention to what is going on.

quintana76

Tell me how wrote: »

Once more on this point.

Did you listen to the Friday Forum today?
On it was Joan Burton, David Quinn and Ian O'Doherty. Whatever about Joan Burton, David and Ian could hardly be described as holding liberal views.

During the conversations relating to Brexit and then multiculturalism the point was made about Ireland needing to learn about the failings of attempting multiculturalism elsewhere in Europe leading to women being raped by Pakistani gangs. Pat also asked if it was right that we should bend over backwards to accommodate other cultures when if we were to go to other countries we would be expected to behave as per their cultural rules and practices.

People are very quick to accuse Irish media of being ultra-liberal without listening to the conversations which are being held.

I suspect it's because they are just looking to complain, or they don't pay attention to what is going on.

That's all very well but see how Matt Cooper or snarky Moncrieff would handle the same issue.

RTE would ignore it.

Tell me how

quintana76 wrote: »

That's all very well but see how Matt Cooper or snarky Moncrieff would handle the same issue.

RTE would ignore it.

Moncrieff spent 3 minutes yesterday discussing a text someone had sent in accusing him of being ultra-liberal and wanting free immigration of whoever wanted to come to Ireland.

He outlined his views and why he holds them (which by the way were absolutely not that he is suggesting there should be open immigration). 3 minutes is not a massive amount of time but it is a lot in terms of responding to a listeners text on such a topic.

As I've said (once or twice ) I think people are quick to castigate presenters without actually listening to what they say.

Mad_maxx

Tell me how wrote: »

Once more on this point.

Did you listen to the Friday Forum today?
On it was Joan Burton, David Quinn and Ian O'Doherty. Whatever about Joan Burton, David and Ian could hardly be described as holding liberal views.

During the conversations relating to Brexit and then multiculturalism the point was made about Ireland needing to learn about the failings of attempting multiculturalism elsewhere in Europe leading to women being raped by Pakistani gangs. Pat also asked if it was right that we should bend over backwards to accommodate other cultures when if we were to go to other countries we would be expected to behave as per their cultural rules and practices.

People are very quick to accuse Irish media of being ultra-liberal without listening to the conversations which are being held.

I suspect it's because they are just looking to complain, or they don't pay attention to what is going on.

It's a real rarity to have a predominantly Conservative panel on any programme discussing any topic

Faugheen

Tell me how wrote: »

Moncrieff spent 3 minutes yesterday discussing a text someone had sent in accusing him of being ultra-liberal and wanting free immigration of whoever wanted to come to Ireland.

He outlined his views and why he holds them (which by the way were absolutely not that he is suggesting there should be open immigration). 3 minutes is not a massive amount of time but it is a lot in terms of responding to a listeners text on such a topic.

As I've said (once or twice ) I think people are quick to castigate presenters without actually listening to what they say.

That's because they don't actually listen.

They hear what they want to hear. The fact that Ciara Kelly was immensely criticised for her take on knicker-gate tells you everything about this forum.

What I saw was passion and a determination to want to remove this narrative of what women wear meaning whether or not they want sex was masked by some posters who just commented on her shouting.

People don't listen to what the presenters are actually saying and to be honest they don't care. People just love to have a whinge whenever someone's opinion doesn't agree with them.

Another one was a year ago when Shane Coleman did an interview with John Boyega about his role as a black security guard caught between a rock and a hard place. The movie brought up so many issues such as race, culture and loyalty.

Low and behold Coleman was actually criticised for bringing up the issue of race. It was the definition of moaning for the sake of moaning.

Ol' Donie

Faugheen wrote: »

That's because they don't actually listen.

They hear what they want to hear. The fact that Ciara Kelly was immensely criticised for her take on knicker-gate tells you everything about this forum.

What I saw was passion and a determination to want to remove this narrative of what women wear meaning whether or not they want sex was masked by some posters who just commented on her shouting.

People don't listen to what the presenters are actually saying and to be honest they don't care. People just love to have a whinge whenever someone's opinion doesn't agree with them.

Another one was a year ago when Shane Coleman did an interview with John Boyega about his role as a black security guard caught between a rock and a hard place. The movie brought up so many issues such as race, culture and loyalty.

Low and behold Coleman was actually criticised for bringing up the issue of race. It was the definition of moaning for the sake of moaning.

Never forget, in the Boards poll, Peter Casey won the presidential election. 54% of the vote.

That's what you're dealing with.

Tell me how

Faugheen wrote: »

That's because they don't actually listen.

They hear what they want to hear. The fact that Ciara Kelly was immensely criticised for her take on knicker-gate tells you everything about this forum.

What I saw was passion and a determination to want to remove this narrative of what women wear meaning whether or not they want sex was masked by some posters who just commented on her shouting.

People don't listen to what the presenters are actually saying and to be honest they don't care. People just love to have a whinge whenever someone's opinion doesn't agree with them.

Another one was a year ago when Shane Coleman did an interview with John Boyega about his role as a black security guard caught between a rock and a hard place. The movie brought up so many issues such as race, culture and loyalty.

Low and behold Coleman was actually criticised for bringing up the issue of race. It was the definition of moaning for the sake of moaning.

I'm very interested in the motivations behind serial complainers.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to not like a show.
But where is the motivation coming from to continuously listen to a show and complain about it?
Particularly when they (according to me obviously) misinterpret what is being said and so their complaint is devoid of fact. Again, that last point is fine but at least defend your position if posting it on a discussion forum.

Ol' Donie wrote: »

Never forget, in the Boards poll, Peter Casey won the presidential election. 54% of the vote.

That's what you're dealing with.

That's a good example. In today's world, it is very difficult to have a conversation. Threads often tend to veer to the dark side. I suspect because of the anonymity involved. Opinions are so often black and white and many in each group have no interest (or understanding) in debate.

I started a thread about Peter Casey asking how do we explore the points he made in order to get to an objective position. I stepped away from it after being accused of being both an ultra-liberal and a racist within the same thread.

zell12

Bertie educating us on de Brexiting shambles

Technocentral

Is there a bigger bunch of bourgeois nonsense than Pats Book Club?

serfboard

Technocentral wrote: »

Is there a bigger bunch of bourgeois nonsense than Pats Book Club?

Marian Finucane's Sunday Morning Dinner Party?

jeremyj1968

This is great stuff. Finally a bit of opposition for the Democratic Party narrative that Larry Donnelly has broadcast without challenge for the last two years.

Howitzer the 5th

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

This is great stuff. Finally a bit of opposition for the Democratic Party narrative that Larry Donnelly has broadcast without challenge for the last two years.

Seth Barrett Tillman while acknowledging his intimidate detailed knowledge of U.S. politics and its structures and trends is an avowed Trumpist who prattled on for two years similarly in defence of 'The Donald'.

His viewpoint is in counterpoint to Larry Donnelly 'Democratic party narrative or whatever that is.

Opposition from Niamh Horan? Did she happen to be around. Or what? Why would this would be polemicist have the first clue if only to wind up the listenersip which she succeeded in by displaying her warped world view.

meeeeh

Howitzer the 5th wrote: »

Opposition from Niamh Horan? Did she happen to be around. Or what? Why would this would be polemicist have the first clue if only to wind up the listenersip which she succeeded in by displaying her warped world view.

I haven't heard the whole thing but Niamh Horan is annoying. I don't mind the other two, they have their point of view but I think Horan just takes whatever position she thinks will go against liberal media and get her attention (and earnings from appearance on different programmes). She isn't great journalist but she gets attention because she is one of the few taking her position.

hotmail.com

Perhaps we might see a reduction in the Trump segments in 2019.

I think Pat isn't biased against Republicans or the US system. He's just anti Trump, Trump the man. He doesn't like him and doesn't think he's qualified to be president. He dislikes his mannerisms and poor use of English.

Some mistake this as left wing bias. Pat Kenny is not left wing.

Tell me how

hotmail.com wrote: »

Perhaps we might see a reduction in the Trump segments in 2019.

I think Pat isn't biased against Republicans or the US system. He's just anti Trump, Trump the man. He doesn't like him and doesn't think he's qualified to be president. He dislikes his mannerisms and poor use of English.

Some mistake this as left wing bias. Pat Kenny is not left wing.

The whole Trump situation is one of the most significant political events of the last ten years if not longer.

It is significant in relation to political, governance, societal expectations, media influence, global influences, climate change, criminal influence on elections. In fact, if you were organising a conference on any of these topics, you could easily expect to have participants relate in detail to Trump's influence in these areas.

Pat isn't talking about him because he doesn't like him. Pat, and others are talking about him because of his influence on the world we live in.

hotmail.com

Tell me how wrote:

Pat isn't talking about him because he doesn't like him. Pat, and others are talking about him because of his influence on the world we live in.

I just don't believe that Pat and most of the media is actually doing this.

Most of the segments on Trump concentrate on the trivial and inconsequential. The cabinet sackings, the rumours, what Melanie wears, his crazy tweets. Even the Russia stuff is largely inconsequential to people's every day lives.

In any event, it's not up to the Irish media to hold the US president to account. I recall that the day after the Chartleton Tribunal was published, Pat didn't even mention it. Yet he finds almost daily Trump slots to discuss the trivial and increasingly boring presidency of Donald Trump.

hotmail.com

As for climate change, it would nice to see Pat focus on our government's failings on climate change.

Tell me how

hotmail.com wrote: »

I just don't believe that Pat and most of the media is actually doing this.

Most of the segments on Trump concentrate on the trivial and inconsequential. The cabinet sackings, the rumours, what Melanie wears, his crazy tweets. Even the Russia stuff is largely inconsequential to people's every day lives.

In any event, it's not up to the Irish media to hold the US president to account. I recall that the day after the Chartleton Tribunal was published, Pat didn't even mention it. Yet he finds almost daily Trump slots to discuss the trivial and increasingly boring presidency of Donald Trump.

I disagree. Everything about Trump which is false should have a light shone on it as to not do so helps to normalise it.

People referring to it as increasingly boring is not good because if many see it as boring, it will stop getting attention and he will carry on with his ridiculous behaviour.

Why is this relevant for Ireland? Because it normalises such behaviour and will encourage others to use such strategies. (Not looking at any presidential campaign contenders in particular)

hotmail.com

Tell me how wrote:

Why is this relevant for Ireland? Because it normalises such behaviour and will encourage others to use such strategies. (Not looking at any presidential campaign contenders in particular)

Well you may have a point there. But the solution to this is for the Irish media to stop devoting so much time to Trump. If most of the Trump stuff doesn't influence the lives of ordinary Americans, it certainly doesn't affect anyone in Ireland.

Tell me how

hotmail.com wrote: »

Well you may have a point there. But the solution to this is for the Irish media to stop devoting so much time to Trump. If most of the Trump stuff doesn't influence the lives of ordinary Americans, it certainly doesn't affect anyone in Ireland.

I don't believe either of the points within this sentence to be true.
Not just because of the influence of normalising behaviour, but also because his activities do have real world impact.

hotmail.com

Tell me how wrote:

I don't believe either of the points within this sentence to be true. Not just because of the influence of normalising behaviour, but also because his activities do have real world impact.

My point is that most of the coverage does not focus on stuff that affects us, it focuses on the trivial and irrelevant for an Irish audience.

Let's take gun control. It makes zero difference to anyone in Ireland and yet receives attention as if it affects us. And then they lump Trump into it to make it more of a ratings winner. The pro and anti Trump stuff. You have Irish people arguing over American gun laws!

The Irish media have colluded in normalising Trump by constantly talking about him.

Tell me how

hotmail.com wrote: »

My point is that most of the coverage does not focus on stuff that affects us, it focuses on the trivial and irrelevant for an Irish audience.

Let's take gun control. It makes zero difference to anyone in Ireland and yet receives attention as if it affects us. And then they lump Trump into it to make it more of a ratings winner. The pro and anti Trump stuff. You have Irish people arguing over American gun laws!

The Irish media have colluded in normalising Trump by constantly talking about him.

I see your point. Personally, I disagree with it but you're not the only one I have heard making it.

I understand that the best way to deal with an attention seeker is not to give them attention, but, given the office the hold (and the power that goes with it) I think every serious misstep of his should be flagged. He has chosen to use Twitter to fight his battles, he deserves to have his tweets used to counter his behaviour.

jobbridge4life

hotmail.com wrote: »

I just don't believe that Pat and most of the media is actually doing this.

Most of the segments on Trump concentrate on the trivial and inconsequential. The cabinet sackings, the rumours, what Melanie wears, his crazy tweets. Even the Russia stuff is largely inconsequential to people's every day lives.

In any event, it's not up to the Irish media to hold the US president to account. I recall that the day after the Chartleton Tribunal was published, Pat didn't even mention it. Yet he finds almost daily Trump slots to discuss the trivial and increasingly boring presidency of Donald Trump.

So what do you believe?

hotmail.com

jobbridge4life wrote:

So what do you believe?

The media here give way too much attention to Trump and to America in general.

This attention started well before Trump but has gone up a level since Trump came into office.

mattser

What a tame interview with Peter Casey. Quickfire questions, and get him out of here.

Kenny touched on the Late Late ambush, but fell well short. I suppose he was never going to undermine his pathetic successor.

Piss poor broadcasting as is his want.

jeremyj1968

mattser wrote: »

What a tame interview with Peter Casey. Quickfire questions, and get him out of here. Kenny touched on the Late Late ambush, but fell well short. I suppose he was never going to undermine his pathetic successor.

Oh I must listen back to this. You may remember that he had Tubridy in with a free promotion for that f**king nonsense book of his, and Kenny didn't ask him any questions about the interview either. I don't give a sh1t if he was in to promote his book, the questions should have been asked.

jay0109

He could have had Casey on for an hour and it would be interesting start to finish. He just rushed through a list of questions. Could have been good

mattser

jay0109 wrote: »

He could have had Casey on for an hour and it would be interesting start to finish. He just rushed through a list of questions. Could have been good

Yes indeed. Seemed like he was instructed to interview PC, but only agreed on the basis that it was quickfire.
Any amount of time now to talk the usual ****e about the U.S. and Trump, though.

Tell me how

Didn't hear Peter Casey interview (will listen later) but did hear Robert Fisk and Simon Coveney. Both were very good.

Always enjoy listening to Robert Fisk. He must be one of the most knowledgeable westerners on the political realities in the Middle East.

Very impressed by Simon Coveney once again. Think he is doing an excellent job in representing Ireland as he is doing on the Brexit front. Pat gave him plenty opportunities which if it was an English Politician on the BBC or Sky, they would have taken cheap shots and sly digs but Simon was both pointed and diplomatic. I agree completely with his point that the Irish political system currently has it's major parties working together in the best interests of the country in relation to Brexit whereas in the UK they do not seem to be doing so.

DEFTLEFTHAND

hotmail.com wrote: »

As for climate change, it would nice to see Pat focus on our government's failings on climate change.

I know but how is paying more tax going to stop a natural phenomenon which has been occurring since the dawn of time.

What can our government realistically do to impact the situation?