Sean Moncrieff - Newstalk

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

The guy obviously lived a very full life

Before graduating from medical school in UCC? That's the bit Sean told the interviewee he was skipping through.

I really can't see what the issue was there

It sounds rather stale, clearly prepared. There's very little spontaneity, or where it is spontaneous, it's usually a stupid question.

kunst nugget

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Before graduating from medical school in UCC? That's the bit Sean told the interviewee he was skipping through.


It sounds rather stale, clearly prepared. There's very little spontaneity, or where it is spontaneous, it's usually a stupid question.

So what? You want him not to prepare anything and just pull whatever questions he can out of his hole? I had enough of that hearing D'arcy in the mornings… Give me prepped and prepared anyday.

alaimacerc

I assume that's not quite what he's saying, especially if he's a Plank Tenner fan. Seems to be more a matter of Sean not going through his prep with quite the same relentless long-winded tedium as certain other presenters...

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

So what? You want him not to prepare anything and just pull whatever questions he can out of his hole?

can you please not be so disgusting I've just eaten.

Of course all presenters must prepare—or perhaps more likely, this is the work of sedulous researchers (Sean O'Rourke says he is given notes to read, for example)

I don't have an objection to research. Of course not. But it should never sound obvious that the host is working off a sheet. The interview loses its fizz. I would never describe Sean Moncrieff's questions as fizzy nor his technique as versatile.

That's why I mentioned Pat Kenny, whose more protean style enables him to flit easily 'off-script' and pursue an interesting thread that has wound itself into the conversation. Moncrieff never really picks up on these threads, he only tucks his chin into his breastbone, says "ehhhhhhhh", and asks something from the page in front of him.

foxtrot101

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's why I mentioned Pat Kenny, whose more protean style enables him to flit easily 'off-script' and pursue an interesting thread that has wound itself into the conversation. Moncrieff never really picks up on these threads, he only tucks his chin into his breastbone, says "ehhhhhhhh", and asks something from the page in front of him.

Pat Kenny is very good at current affairs, struggles with anything even approaching light entertainment and is terrible at sport. Moncrieff is far more versatile imo. You don't rate him as a presenter, fine, other people do.

Arsemageddon

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Before graduating from medical school in UCC? That's the bit Sean told the interviewee he was skipping through.

It sounds rather stale, clearly prepared. There's very little spontaneity, or where it is spontaneous, it's usually a stupid question.

I agree with you that the interview in question sounded a bit formulaic due to the prepared questions, however in Moncrieff's defence there was an awful lot of ground to cover so I think it was better not to get side tracked on the more minor aspects of the doctor's story and risk running out of time.

Overall, I think Moncrieff is an excellent interviewer, the half hour interview at the start of the show gives him a lot more scope for him to improvise and can be excellent when he has decent guests.

foxtrot101

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Pat Kenny is very good at current affairs, struggles with anything even approaching light entertainment and is terrible at sport. Moncrieff is far more versatile imo. You don't rate him as a presenter, fine, other people do.

By versatile, I am referring to an interviewer's capacity to deviate from a loosely-planned formula of questions, and explore something from left-field.

I'll give you an example off the top of my head. I remember, years ago, Marian Finucane was phoning up a listener who had won a car, or perhaps a holiday. The caller mentioned they had recently become redundant. Aha! Marian saw the dangling thread and seized upon it. By the time the interview finished, perhaps ten minutes later, the caller had bared their life-story to the whole country, speaking about some very emotional, personal tragedies in her life.

Gay Byrne once did something very similar with a competition-winner who had won a car, and whose daughter had recently died in a traffic accident.

Now, you or I may not particularly like Gay Byrne or Marian Finucane's style, but they both have the same pellucid impulse of curiosity that we see in Pat Kenny, Tubridy, the lesser-spotted Audrey Carville and yes, even divisive characters like Derek Mooney. They all share the journalistic 'sixth sense' which is not possessed of lesser men, like Moncrieff, who think nothing of ignoring these threads of curiosity, if they ever recognize them in the first place.

Into this bracket of lessers, alongside Moncrieff, I put Ray Darcy, Shane Coleman, Jonathan Healy and their ilk. None of them are outrageously bad interviewers, but they all lack brio & natural intelligence to some degree.

Say Your Number

Sean strikes me as someone with little interest in sport but every time he covers it, he's as good as any half decent sports presenter, in comparison to Tubridy who doesn't have any interest in sport and it shows.

It's only when he goes on holidays you realise there are very few presenters can do a show like that and make it look effortless.

The show covers a diverse range of topics, do some people expect him to know all this stuff off the top of his head with no preparation at all.

foxtrot101

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Now, you or I may not particularly like Gay Byrne or Marian Finucane's style, but they both have the same pellucid impulse of curiosity that we see in Pat Kenny, Tubridy, the lesser-spotted Audrey Carville and yes, even divisive like Derek Mooney. They all share the journalistic 'sixth sense' which is not possessed of lesser men, like Moncrieff, who think nothing of ignoring these threads of curiosity, if they ever recognize them in the first place.

Into this bracket of lessers, alongside Moncrieff, I put Ray Darcy, Shane Coleman, Jonathan Healy and their ilk. None of them are outrageously bad interviewers, but they all lack brio & natural intelligence to some degree.

And I don't agree, it's all just matters of opinion. I think Marian Finucane has been phoning in her weekend shows for years and is completely lacking any sense of curiosity these days. Turbridy failed on 2FM because he failed utterly to sense what the listeners wanted, nevermind a journalistic 'sixth sense. Derek Mooney is the most self indulgent presenter there is. I would rate Moncrieff much higher than any of them.

alaimacerc

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's why I mentioned Pat Kenny, whose more protean style enables him to flit easily 'off-script' and pursue an interesting thread that has wound itself into the conversation.

You've evidently been listening to some other "Pat Kenny" than the boor that's been talking over interviewees for far too much money on far too many channels for far too long, then. Neither "protean" nor indeed "conversation" would remotely describe that PK's style. More like a bumptious monologue, occasionally interwoven with the odd couple of comments the "interviewee" is from time to time allowed to make.

alaimacerc

Say Your Number wrote: »

Sean strikes me as someone with little interest in sport but every time he covers it, he's as good as any half decent sports presenter, in comparison to Tubridy who doesn't have any interest in sport and it shows.

Tubridy used to have the honesty to admit that he wasn't "a Johnny sportspants", as he once put it. These days he seems to feel obliged to go for a lowest common denominator approach, so has to go through the motions. Especially when there's a bit of an ol' sporting nationalism bandwagon going.

Personally, I'd rather have a little less "one size fits all". Maybe -- gasp! -- allow different broadcasters to play to their own strengths, rather than buying into the same supposed zeitgeist. Or in the case of Pat Kenny, who can't do "light entertainment", can't do "human interest", can't do "sports", and certainly can't do "serious current affairs", go into retirement and spare us his vastly overpaid and overrated "deuce of all trades" routine.

alaimacerc

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Overall, I think Moncrieff is an excellent interviewer, the half hour interview at the start of the show gives him a lot more scope for him to improvise and can be excellent when he has decent guests.

It'd be fair to say that some of his down-the-phone-line interview can seem a little rushed. Rather the nature of the format of the show. Sometimes it's a little disappointing when they clearly have a lot more to contribute, and it ends up somewhat truncated. About as often it's a mercy, mind you. "Ah yes, well, the science is all to do with the body's merdians..." *pulls big red lever*

Turtle_

I really like the research that's done, very often it's about something quite obscure in a work that's really interesting but wouldn't normally come up naturally. If that makes it seem a bit jilted to some people then who cares? It means we get the most interesting bits rather than the same ****e the interviewee trots out to everyone who asks a question on their topic.


That said, I found the shark thing poorly researched. Sharks teeth are actually hardened scales. Their ancestors were filter feeders whose large open mouth was formed by ribs and covered internally with skin and scales, they evolved so that the forward ribs could hinge closed.. Modern shark jaws are basically ribs. Have a look at a great white with its mouth open. The rows and rows of teeth are actually rows and rows of scales. The skin rolls forward and new rows brought into service as required... Not grown the way human adult teeth grow beneath baby teeth.. I had little to be doing today!

alaimacerc

Turtle_ wrote: »

That said, I found the shark thing poorly researched. Sharks teeth are actually hardened scales.

Other way 'round. Shark teeth are actually teeth... and shark "scales" are little teeth, too. Whereas the scales and teeth of bony fish and other vertebrates are developmentally distinct structures.

Turtle_

alaimacerc wrote: »

Other way 'round. Shark teeth are actually teeth... and shark "scales" are little teeth, too. Whereas the scales and teeth of bony fish and other vertebrates are developmentally distinct structures.

Oops! Still, it seemed nuts to have a whole long interview on something that is so clearly different on a structural level to human teeth.

delaad

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

One thing that really annoys me about Moncrieff (apart from that chin-in-the-throat voice) is how obviously scripted the interviews are.

It is blindingly obvious that "that's a great question" because Moncrieff has been given prior synopsis of precisely what the interviewee wants to tell us!

Often it seems like Sean is barely listening, because he asks an (obviously scripted) question that the interviewee has already explained. I assume Sean is reading texts or the twitterfeed when contibutors are actually speaking, then returns to the script without a clue where the interviewee has paused. He is 'lost' on the script.

I don't mean 'script' literally, of course. I am assuming that interviewees provide fact-sheets to guide the presenter, and maybe this is a standard practice on all chatshows. But it is only on Moncrieff that it is so obvious.

Other presenters seem to be able to multi-task and lead contributors down a particular line with relative ease, even Jonathan Healy!

Pat Kenny can play a round of tennis whilst a contributor rattles along, only come back, ask a pertinent question, then go off for a game of bezique before wrapping up the interview and reading texter comments. The whole apparatus of Moncrieff increasingly comes across stilted and scriped.

That's feckin brilliant, and the rest to the knuckle about Moncreiff.

alaimacerc

Turtle_ wrote: »

Oops! Still, it seemed nuts to have a whole long interview on something that is so clearly different on a structural level to human teeth.

Not that different. Look at some of the mad ol' configurations of teeth in other mammals, come to that. Actually, I thought that was one of the weaknesses of the interview -- or the interviewee. Elephant teeth, for example, those come in a fairly mad number of sets, and very clearly are all about the heavy-duty vegetation-chewing. So doesn't really fit with his pat explanation about why most close(ish) relatives to humans have just one set of adult teeth...

delaad

alaimacerc wrote: »

You've evidently been listening to some other "Pat Kenny" than the boor that's been talking over interviewees for far too much money on far too many channels for far too long, then. Neither "protean" nor indeed "conversation" would remotely describe that PK's style. More like a bumptious monologue, occasionally interwoven with the odd couple of comments the "interviewee" is from time to time allowed to make.

Maybe when he's interrogating a Sinn Fein contributor!

delaad

A challenge to the fans of the "Moncreiff Interview"...at the end of any show, and to yourselves, write down the name of any interviewee you heard and the kernel of their message.

serfboard

delaad wrote: »

A challenge to the fans of the "Moncreiff Interview"...at the end of any show, and to yourselves, write down the name of any interviewee you heard and the kernel of their message.

When you say the "Moncrieff Interview" do you mean the slot at the start of the show or are you talking about any guest?

Becuase if it's any guest we really can't be expected to remember the name of "American female author", can we?

Say Your Number

Say Your Number wrote: »

Sean strikes me as someone with little interest in sport but every time he covers it, he's as good as any half decent sports presenter, in comparison to Tubridy who doesn't have any interest in sport and it shows.

With the exception of current news stories surrounding doping and the Olympic Games, I really cannot recall Moncrieff covering much in the way of sports.

His lack of interest in the farming slot, however, is abundantly clear.

That said, the programme is chewing gum for the mind.As a previous poster said, the content is mostly forgettable. Listening to Moncrieff is a bit like leafing through the Daily Mail.

delaad

serfboard wrote: »

When you say the "Moncrieff Interview" do you mean the slot at the start of the show or are you talking about any guest?

Becuase if it's any guest we really can't be expected to remember the name of "American female author", can we?

Any guest.

Wine snobbery hit a new high (low?) today, as the wine critic referred to the habits of "the bottom tier of society".

I know it was only a gaffe, but you'd expect an otherwise intelligent grown-up to have some level of self-awareness, especially if he's trying to reach out to new wine enthusiasts.

Muff Richardson

some cracking movie reviewing yet again "just didn't do it for me..."..."a lot of things wrong with it..." "nope, just not for me"...."I really, really enjoyed it"..."it was a lot of fun"

Rambling Rake

I'd only place PK ahead of Sean as far as interviewers on Irish radio go.

His researchers are excellent and think his questions are usually of a high standard. Better to read from a prepared script than to bumble your way through life like D'arcy.

I think his interest or lack thereof in the topic at hand sometimes comes across but on the whole I couldn't fault him or his team.

When he's on form he is easily one of the best we have on Irish radio.

sheep?

The interview with the lady about people faking their death was great. Interviews like that are why I usually tune in.

Say Your Number

The one with 'Pricasso' was gas too, as much as people like to moan about those type of interviews, they're a great antidote to the usual doom and gloom that dominate most talk radio shows.

serfboard

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Wine snobbery hit a new high (low?) today, as the wine critic referred to the habits of "the bottom tier of society".

I know it was only a gaffe

Peoples true personalities are often revealed through off-the-cuff remarks.

Say Your Number

This is one more for the Newstalk Megathread if it was still around

Orla Barry was talking to the grandson of the fella who lobotomised the epiletic man a few minutes ago that Sean had on Monday, I thought they made sure two shows don't cover the same item, I hope someone gets fired for that (not really)

jooksavage

Say Your Number wrote: »

This is one more for the Newstalk Megathread if it was still around

Orla Barry was talking to the grandson of the fella who lobotomised the epiletic man a few minutes ago that Sean had on Monday, I thought they made sure two shows don't cover the same item, I hope someone gets fired for that (not really)

Well spotted. That interview was pretty interesting. Not interesting enough for two renditions though.