Sean O'Rourke Today Show

Auguste Comte

BarryD2 wrote: »

Are RTE going to interview every person with a cancer diagnosis? It's getting ridiculous at this stage and people are being used as political footballs to be kicked about.

I'm of the opinion that people need to hear these people's story. It's not some paper exercise, these are real people who are dying. To hear that poor woman crying because she is afraid that her baby won't remember her was just heart breaking.

If these women's stories can bring pressure on politicians and public service bosses to do the right thing rather than the cheap thing into the future then maybe some tiny positive can be taken from the whole sorry mess.

anthonyjmaher

Such sensationalist nonsense from Diarmuid Ferriter. Honestly, who remembers anything of significance from the history they studied in school. The sky will not fall if kids stop studying history after junior cert. It's probably better that they are thought more relevant life skills for the present than being thought about what people did in the past.

Callan57

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Such sensationalist nonsense from Diarmuid Ferriter. Honestly, who remembers anything of significance from the history they studied in school. The sky will not fall if kids stop studying history after junior cert. It's probably better that they are thought more relevant life skills for the present than being thought about what people did in the past.

Diarmuid clearly has a vesed interest but I loved history in school & college & it is still an abiding interst. It has given me hours of interesting & enjoyable reading & led me to loads of interesting places to visit. I find it fascinating to discern the developement of ideas and the evolution of political movements. It is what people did in the past that influences the present whether that is developing the Iphone or the upcoming referendum ... todays present is tomorrows history!

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. .... George Santayana

Squatter

Callan57 wrote: »

Diarmuid clearly has a vesed interest but I loved history in school & college & it is still an abiding interst. It has given me hours of interesting & enjoyable reading & led me to loads of interesting places to visit. I find it fascinating to discern the developement of ideas and the evolution of political movements. It is what people did in the past that influences the present whether that is developing the Iphone or the upcoming referendum ... todays present is tomorrows history!

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. .... George Santayana

While I agree with you about the value of the subject, I developed my interest in history as an adult. LC history in school was all about the bloody Brits, the famine and the causes of world war one.

BarryD2

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that people need to hear these people's story. It's not some paper exercise, these are real people who are dying. To hear that poor woman crying because she is afraid that her baby won't remember her was just heart breaking.

Yes and they are individually tragic stories... but we've been hearing much the same for over two weeks now. And we've been hearing politicians of various hues picking up the stories and using them to drive their own political agendas. The media are all over it, it keeps listeners, drives clicks and paper sales. Between them and the grandstanding politicos, they must have every woman of a given age in the country worried by this stage when in all likelihood the vast majority have no problem.

Where do you stop with this? And what do people want? What would be a satisfactory outcome?

Auguste Comte

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yes and they are individually tragic stories... but we've been hearing much the same for over two weeks now. And we've been hearing politicians of various hues picking up the stories and using them to drive their own political agendas. The media are all over it, it keeps listeners, drives clicks and paper sales. Between them and the grandstanding politicos, they must have every woman of a given age in the country worried by this stage when in all likelihood the vast majority have no problem.

Where do you stop with this? And what do people want? What would be a satisfactory outcome?

I think the interview this morning with Emma Mhic Mhathúna was the most powerful radio piece I've ever heard. I would disagree with the "if you heard one victim you heard them all" theory.

This was public service broadcasting at its best, giving otherwise voiceless citizens a platform to communicate their issues to the people who have the authority and might be pressured into doing something to change things. While it is too late for this woman maybe it will be someone in your family or mine who is the next victim of state malpractices.

If interviews like this are what it takes to get the politicos actually doing something other than just paying lip service to the issue then that's a win for RTE and the public in general and going by the reaction to the interview in Leinster House today something changed in their attitude.

dxhound2005

Callan57 wrote: »

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. .... George Santayana

That's why it took me so long to pass my history exams.

Brendan Bendar

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Such sensationalist nonsense from Diarmuid Ferriter. Honestly, who remembers anything of significance from the history they studied in school. The sky will not fall if kids stop studying history after junior cert. It's probably better that they are thought more relevant life skills for the present than being thought about what people did in the past.

Ferriter just ensuring his wedge in UCD .

elperello

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Ferriter just ensuring his wedge in UCD .

I think DF is a serious academic and a good communicator and at this stage in his career is hardly worrying about money.

BarryD2

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I think the interview this morning with Emma Mhic Mhathúna was the most powerful radio piece I've ever heard. I would disagree with the "if you heard one victim you heard them all" theory.

This was public service broadcasting at its best, giving otherwise voiceless citizens a platform to communicate their issues to the people who have the authority and might be pressured into doing something to change things. While it is too late for this woman maybe it will be someone in your family or mine who is the next victim of state malpractices.

If interviews like this are what it takes to get the politicos actually doing something other than just paying lip service to the issue then that's a win for RTE and the public in general and going by the reaction to the interview in Leinster House today something changed in their attitude.

Yes, all understood. But you haven't said what's wanted from all this. What would be a good outcome of all this outcry?

Cancer is still going to happen.... screening tests will continue to be less than perfect as that is the nature of them ..... some citizens (a majority) will benefit from screening ... but some will be unlucky ... there will continue to be Vickys and Emmas. So what do you want the politicians to do? Life ain't guaranteed.

Callan57

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yes, all understood. But you haven't said what's wanted from all this. What would be a good outcome of all this outcry?

Cancer is still going to happen.... screening tests will continue to be less than perfect as that is the nature of them ..... some citizens (a majority) will benefit from screening ... but some will be unlucky ... there will continue to be Vickys and Emmas. So what do you want the politicians to do? Life ain't guaranteed.

First and foremost stop lying & being "economical" with the truth ... tell the patient the full, unvarnished facts at the earliest opportunity & stop treating women like some kind of imbeciles!

The quid pro quo for a huge salary & massive pension has to be personal accountability and responsibility & that salary/pension have to be conditional on performance & delivery. Rediculous in this country that people can walk away into the sunset with massive payoff & pensions regardless of the lives destroyed & the mess they leave behind.

Get rid of this culture of being led by the nose by PR & legal gurus!

That would be a start .... :mad:

Auguste Comte

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yes, all understood. But you haven't said what's wanted from all this. What would be a good outcome of all this outcry?

Cancer is still going to happen.... screening tests will continue to be less than perfect as that is the nature of them ..... some citizens (a majority) will benefit from screening ... but some will be unlucky ... there will continue to be Vickys and Emmas. So what do you want the politicians to do? Life ain't guaranteed.

I don't think it's the job of radio shows to be deciding what the appropriate outcome is to issues, their job is to present the issues warts and all in an honest and unbiased way. If by doing that they show our politicians and public servants in an extremely bad light then maybe they can be a catalyst for change.

Imho the women affected by this are in a better position today than they were before yesterday's morning Ireland and SOR show.

At what stage do you think that RTE should have drawn a line under this and stopped reporting /presenting articles on the issue and why, considering the massive public interest in it?

BarryD2

Callan57 wrote: »

First and foremost stop lying & being "economical" with the truth ... tell the patient the full, unvarnished facts at the earliest opportunity & stop treating women like some kind of imbeciles!

The quid pro quo for a huge salary & massive pension has to be personal accountability and responsibility & that salary/pension have to be conditional on performance & delivery. Rediculous in this country that people can walk away into the sunset with massive payoff & pensions regardless of the lives destroyed & the mess they leave behind.

Get rid of this culture of being led by the nose by PR & legal gurus!

That would be a start .... :mad:

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I don't think it's the job of radio shows to be deciding what the appropriate outcome is to issues, their job is to present the issues warts and all in an honest and unbiased way. If by doing that they show our politicians and public servants in an extremely bad light then maybe they can be a catalyst for change.

Imho the women affected by this are in a better position today than they were before yesterday's morning Ireland and SOR show.

At what stage do you think that RTE should have drawn a line under this and stopped reporting /presenting articles on the issue and why, considering the massive public interest in it?

You see, you can't really point a way forward. All people are doing are raging against the system. And the fact is, that life sometimes sucks. People get ill, some recover, some don't. Some get diagnosed, some don't.

When you boil all this down, it really comes down to two things 1) the public maybe misunderstood what a screening programme is and it's statistical effectiveness and 2) the HSE were slow, reluctant to advise women that they were the unlucky ones for whom the test was unreliable.

But that's about it and neither are major hanging offence in normal circumstances.

Radio5

Not major hanging offences really ? Really ? So what would be in your book? Do give us the benefit of your wisdom...........

Auguste Comte

BarryD2 wrote: »

You see, you can't really point a way forward. All people are doing are raging against the system. And the fact is, that life sometimes sucks. People get ill, some recover, some don't. Some get diagnosed, some don't.

When you boil all this down, it really comes down to two things 1) the public maybe misunderstood what a screening programme is and it's statistical effectiveness and 2) the HSE were slow, reluctant to advise women that they were the unlucky ones for whom the test was unreliable.

But that's about it and neither are major hanging offence in normal circumstances.

That's all well and good and probably worthy of a post in the smear test scandal thread but how does it relate to the Sean O'Rourke show?

Squatter

Auguste Comte wrote: »

That's all well and good and probably worthy of a post in the smear test scandal thread but how does it relate to the Sean O'Rourke show?

Because the role of his program isn't to be be an extension of the Joe Duffy whine-in.

By all means let people call da loivline and emote until the cows come home - but I want hard news and analysis from O'Rourke.

God only knows what Finnucane is up to this morning - I gave her show a big miss; but I wager that it won't be pretty.

SEPT 23 1989

Let "Frank" live in one of the flat complexes for a month and see if he still feels the same afterwards

anthonyjmaher

Enormous sense of entitlement.

elperello

Both Mannix and Frank love the city.
Somewhere in between the wreckers ball and museum like living conditions for residents there is a solution.
I hope it can be found.

Yeah it was an interesting interview. Its worthy of debate but we need to be realistic about what must be done with these old places.

Frank: "architectural gems"

Mannix: "sewage is coming up through the floorboards"

:pac:

BarryD2

Good old ding dong on the abortion issue this morning and fair dues to Alison there for standing up to the bullying. But why is Nuala O'Loan, Baroness O'Loan no less - telling us how to vote????????? She doesn't even have a vote here as far as I know.

BarryD2

S'OR going by the stopwatch at least and turning the mics off!

dulpit

BarryD2 wrote: »

S'OR going by the stopwatch at least and turning the mics off!

Is he? *sigh*

The broadcasters were told that fair and equal coverage does not mean every discussion/debate needs to be exactly balanced, so long as their coverage as a whole is.. Can get a bit annoying when they need to give one side or the other an extra 30 seconds to even things up...

BarryD2

dulpit wrote: »

Is he? *sigh*

The broadcasters were told that fair and equal coverage does not mean every discussion/debate needs to be exactly balanced, so long as their coverage as a whole is.. Can get a bit annoying when they need to give one side or the other an extra 30 seconds to even things up...

True, but IMHO as a casual listener without a stopwatch, things were out of hand in recent weeks with noticeably more coverage to the No side.

Callan57

Why does the NO side dismiss real women as "hard cases" ... disgusted with Nuala O'Loan doing it again this morning.
It is as if they don't matter and their lives and health disposable.

Get out and vote YES to show that we are a compassonate country & these women do matter to us.

hotmail.com

O'Loan brought in the Good Friday Agreement as a reason to vote No. This nonsense undermines her authority in the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Coillte_Bhoy

hotmail.com wrote: »

O'Loan brought in the Good Friday Agreement as a reason to vote No. This nonsense undermines her authority in the affairs of Northern Ireland.

On what basis?

alaimacerc

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

On what basis?

Didn't hear the item, but judging by the bit in the Examiner, she's taking the line "The Irish Government will also take steps to further strengthen the protection of human rights in its jurisdiction" from the GFA, and vamping with it desperately. I mean, it's not like bodily autonomy is a human right or anything... Handy alphabet soup directory.

BarryD2

John Bruton putting his oar in this morning regarding the referendum - rambling, inconsistent, hypocritical. Frankly John's views are dated and utterly irrelevant to the current child bearing generations. He should realise that his time has passed and just stay schtum.

serfboard

BarryD2 wrote: »

John Bruton putting his oar in this morning regarding the referendum - rambling, inconsistent, hypocritical. Frankly John's views are dated and utterly irrelevant to the current child bearing generations. He should realise that his time has passed and just stay schtum.

In fairness though, RTÉ want to have a “No” voice who is able to speak on Radio and who is not one of the Iona crowd or Mullen/Simons etc.

Joe_ Public

Only been half listening (or maybe quarter) but who on earth is this presenter who had to ask "who is Roy Race?"

serfboard

Up until today I don't think I had ever heard Una Mulally speak - I know she's not liked (and that's putting it mildly) on boards, but I had never read her columns either so had no opinion on her one way or the other.

After this morning on Sean O'Rourke, all I can say is oh my god - talk about intolerant!

Anyway, she got her ass handed to her by everyone on the panel including Sean and she did what every bad debater does - constantly shifted the point of attack when she was being caught out. And when they pointed out that the next point of attack was wrong, she moved again.

An example, if you don't want to listen back - Una says (paraphrasing), RTE shouldn't be giving platforms to fundamentalist Christians. When Sean points out that RTE is bound by law, to provide balance on any referendum debate, Una says yeah, but ...

I see now why she's held in such low esteem around these parts.

Callan57

serfboard wrote: »

Up until today I don't think I had ever heard Una Mulally speak - I know she's not liked (and that's putting it mildly) on boards, but I had never read her columns either so had no opinion on her one way or the other.

After this morning on Sean O'Rourke, all I can say is oh my god - talk about intolerant!

Anyway, she got her ass handed to her by everyone on the panel including Sean and she did what every bad debater does - constantly shifted the point of attack when she was being caught out. And when they pointed out that the next point of attack was wrong, she moved again.

An example, if you don't want to listen back - Una says (paraphrasing), RTE shouldn't be giving platforms to fundamentalist Christians. When Sean points out that RTE is bound by law, to provide balance on any referendum debate, Una says yeah, but ...

I see now why she's held in such low esteem around these parts.

Unless I misunderstood I think what she was saying was that the likes of the Iona crowd were getting disproportonate air time on the basis of an assumption that they represent a large silent ultra conservative constituency. I think she was questioning why, without any evidence to support it, this assumption was accepted.

Joe_ Public

serfboard wrote: »

Up until today I don't think I had ever heard Una Mulally speak - I know she's not liked (and that's putting it mildly) on boards, but I had never read her columns either so had no opinion on her one way or the other.

After this morning on Sean O'Rourke, all I can say is oh my god - talk about intolerant!

Anyway, she got her ass handed to her by everyone on the panel including Sean and she did what every bad debater does - constantly shifted the point of attack when she was being caught out. And when they pointed out that the next point of attack was wrong, she moved again.

An example, if you don't want to listen back - Una says (paraphrasing), RTE shouldn't be giving platforms to fundamentalist Christians. When Sean points out that RTE is bound by law, to provide balance on any referendum debate, Una says yeah, but ...

I see now why she's held in such low esteem around these parts.

With all due respect to her, she's basically punching way above her weight in her present position. Whatever you think of his output, O'Toole at least brings some necessary intellectual rigour to the post of Irish Times columnist. As did the likes of Mary Holland and Nuala O Faolain before her.

Coillte_Bhoy

Callan57 wrote: »

Unless I misunderstood I think what she was saying was that the likes of the Iona crowd were getting disproportonate air time on the basis of an assumption that they represent a large silent ultra conservative constituency. I think she was questioning why, without any evidence to support it, this assumption was accepted.

Agreed. I thought she was being deliberately misrepresented by the other panellists. She's right though, the amount of airtime Iona reps get is ridiculous, and im not talking about the referendum campaign.

hotmail.com

Callan57 wrote:

Unless I misunderstood I think what she was saying was that the likes of the Iona crowd were getting disproportonate air time on the basis of an assumption that they represent a large silent ultra conservative constituency. I think she was questioning why, without any evidence to support it, this assumption was accepted.

And Sean didn't mention that John Murray is in the Iona Institute, Una had to mention it. I suspect even mass goers don't have much time for the Iona Institute. Perhaps a more moderate group needs to be set up to represent Catholic views.

DickSwiveller

Can't listen to Mullally and her annoying inflection. She does it all the time? it's very annoying?

Brendan Bendar

hotmail.com wrote: »

And Sean didn't mention that John Murray is in the Iona Institute, Una had to mention it. I suspect even mass goers don't have much time for the Iona Institute. Perhaps a more moderate group needs to be set up to represent Catholic views.

John Murray, the RTE Sports dude?

sligojoek

There's a "Doctor John Murray" listed as a director on Wikipedia. I don't think it's the same guy.

dulpit

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

John Murray, the RTE Sports dude?

No, he's a theologian from DCU.

The big issue is RTÉ are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have to provide balance in these sorts of issues, but there are so few talking heads available that they have to go back to the Iona Institute well again and again.

DickSwiveller

dulpit wrote: »

No, he's a theologian from DCU.

The big issue is RTÉ are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have to provide balance in these sorts of issues, but there are so few talking heads available that they have to go back to the Iona Institute well again and again.

Ye, I don't know what people's problem is. Do they want a discussion were everyone is agreeing?

dulpit

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Ye, I don't know what people's problem is. Do they want a discussion were everyone is agreeing?

Suppose the issue is that if you can only find Iona to speak on a certain side of an issue, it's clear that the majority of the populace is against it... Gets tiring the same voices being wheeled out...

Spanish Eyes

There are many pro life groups out there. Google told me that. But I am sure they are intertwined with Iona anyway one way or another. Still....

DickSwiveller

dulpit wrote: »

Suppose the issue is that if you can only find Iona to speak on a certain side of an issue, it's clear that the majority of the populace is against it... Gets tiring the same voices being wheeled out...

But Ireland has probably one of the most conformist group of journalists in Europe. RTE need to give the other side sometimes.

Drifter50

serfboard wrote: »

Up until today I don't think I had ever heard Una Mulally speak - I know she's not liked (and that's putting it mildly) on boards, but I had never read her columns either so had no opinion on her one way or the other.

After this morning on Sean O'Rourke, all I can say is oh my god - talk about intolerant!

Anyway, she got her ass handed to her by everyone on the panel including Sean and she did what every bad debater does - constantly shifted the point of attack when she was being caught out. And when they pointed out that the next point of attack was wrong, she moved again.

An example, if you don't want to listen back - Una says (paraphrasing), RTE shouldn't be giving platforms to fundamentalist Christians. When Sean points out that RTE is bound by law, to provide balance on any referendum debate, Una says yeah, but ...

I see now why she's held in such low esteem around these parts.

Agreed she seemed way out of her depth, SOR really sent her out for the Evening Herald when the told here, RTE were bound by law to provide balance. She spluttered and tried to go in a different direction but she was exposed for what she is

dulpit

DickSwiveller wrote: »

But Ireland has probably one of the most conformist group of journalists in Europe. RTE need to give the other side sometimes.

Ya but ultimately the 60-odd percent who voted yes were represented by a large number of pundits across TV and radio. The 30-odd percent who voted no were represented by the same few iona heads and politicians. That's the main issue.

DickSwiveller

dulpit wrote: »

Ya but ultimately the 60-odd percent who voted yes were represented by a large number of pundits across TV and radio. The 30-odd percent who voted no were represented by the same few iona heads and politicians. That's the main issue.

Who else would you suggest? David Quinn and Breda O Brien are columnists for national newspapers.

serfboard

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Who else would you suggest? David Quinn and Breda O Brien are columnists for national newspapers.

Agreed. By default, radio and television programmes will go to journalists, PR people, current and former politicians, and lawyers as these people are the best communicators.

To see why they don't go to "ordinary" folks, have a look at Crimecall any week, and see how some Gardai come accross :eek:

djemba djemba

what is the purpose of the family courts segment other than nosiness. Do they do it every week.

Drifter50

djemba djemba wrote: »

what is the purpose of the family courts segment other than nosiness. Do they do it every week.

To prey on other peoples misfortunes...It really is intrusive and especially when that reporter visits courts outside of Dublin, he can be condescending when asking Billy from BallyX why did he do it