Sean Moncrieff - Newstalk

quintana76

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Then why do you give a damn? I thought been overly concerned about others being offended was the preserve of the PC brigade, a brigade Sean is often accused of been a leading light in. There's a certain degree of irony there.

Why shouldn't I give a damn. PC concerns about other people being offended is very selective.
Outside certain favoured groups causing offence is seen as a virtue.

Sean reflects this with his tendency to be intolerant of difference to his opinions. FACT!!

You are correct, he is a leading light of the PC brigade.

ballsymchugh

kunst nugget wrote: »

I've seen this argument a thousand times and it's ridiculous. If people are deemed to be open-minded by others are they not allowed to defend their own viewpoint or argue against another?

From listening to Moncrieff over the years, the messages he gets sarky with are usually the 'pc gone mad, liberal brigade snowflake' ones but if a person puts across an opposing viewpoint in a more nuanced manner, he'll address it in a calmer fashion.

I don't mind him being opinionated just like I don't mind Hook being opinionated - they can both drive you up the wall but at least they are far more interesting than most of the dross that passes for radio in Ireland. It's just a pity that when Moncrieff's show got cut that they decided to get rid of the long interviews at the beginning and concentrate on the outlandish and idiosyncratic news stories from around the world.

heard this guy calling into LBC this morning,

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/caller-james-obrien-proof-brexiteers-reason/

i would seriously doubt Moncrieff would be able to deal with this clown as well as James O'Brien did. it doesn't matter how daft the text or tweet may be, there's a level of professionalism involved in batting them away.
while deep down i'd agree with it, it still sounds shyte the way he handles it.

100% agree with you on the poor start to the show nowadays though.

foxtrot101

quintana76 wrote: »

Why shouldn't I give a damn. PC concerns about other people being offended is very selective.
Outside certain favoured groups causing offence is seen as a virtue.

Sean reflects this with his tendency to be intolerant of difference to his opinions. FACT!!

You are correct, he is a leading light of the PC brigade.

And you think you're not been selective in what you are getting offended by? As I said already, I think you are being intolerant of Sean's intolerance of views simply because he is begin intolerant of views that you share and I think that's a FACT!!.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Think he handled that interview with the woman from BPAS very well, in fairness to him. Though seeing as the issue is so much on the radar now and seeing as recent events have shown some of the pro-life crowd are not trigger shy when it comes to lodging complaints I'd say he was briefed to mind his Ps and Qs.

I do find him too snarky when dealing with the 'PC gone mad hur der dur' tweets and texts and I'd agree with him on pretty much every issue.

The reduced running time doesn't suit him and by all accounts he's had a big upheaval in his personal life, I've been listening to the show for years and think he's one of the best presenters on radio but I agree his heart isn't in it any more. If he moved to another station I'd definitely follow him, but I'm less and less bothered listening to this show tbh.

foxtrot101

I can't say I haven't noticed this "his heart isn't in it any more" thing. I do agree the wacky clips bit is a poor way to start the show, it's not very engaging and is a bit lacklustre.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

foxtrot101 wrote: »

I can't say I haven't noticed this "his heart isn't in it any more" thing. I do agree the wacky clips bit is a poor way to start the show, it's not very engaging and is a bit lacklustre.

He just doesn't seem as engaged, the interviews aren't as good and it's not purely because of the content being so weighted toward the wacky. Remember when the amount of times he was told 'that's a great question' was a running joke? Listen out for that now, those days are gone.

And God I don't even bother with the first ten minutes of the show, it's dreadful.

davef1000

Oh god. Henry's back.


EDIT - AND THE CURRENT INTERVIEWEE KEEPS SAYING NUCULAR AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHHG

Say Your Number

Was funny at the end there "Jonathan Healy and Sarah McInerney will be presenting Drive today, so listen out for the sexual tension"

Patser

What the show is now really missing is the 30 minute random chat he'd have to start the old longer show. Yes it was a who's who of Irish wantabes - Brunker, Ian Doherty frequently - but they'd go on great rambling chats about whatever, with Seán happy to engage with opposite view points. He had a great chat 1 day with Baz about vasectomies.

Now it's just rush, rush, rush. 10 minute thing of weird stuff, ads, random mad topic rushed, ad, news break, fact of day and suddenly here's Esther with things to do tonight.....

All to a time limit, no 30 minutes with 1 guest to go off on random tangents.

Edit: what's equally annoying is that George Hook gets 2 hours to have long chats about whatever, and squanders it on long rambling preambles about him, his opinions, his recollections, his ideas, him, him, him.

While Seán, who could genuinely show interest and engage with a guest, is pigeon holed into alien lizard men discovered Sir Stanley Livingston in Africa in 1872 with Mairéad Lavery from the Farmers journal for a 5 minute slot, that he'll still make interesting while George Hook would still be slobbering through his question while mentioning the lovely Ingrid....

foxtrot101

davef1000 wrote: »

Oh god. Henry's back.

Ah no, looks like he's back for good.

DEFTLEFTHAND

quintana76 wrote: »

Why shouldn't I give a damn. PC concerns about other people being offended is very selective.
Outside certain favoured groups causing offence is seen as a virtue.

Sean reflects this with his tendency to be intolerant of difference to his opinions. FACT!!

You are correct, he is a leading light of the PC brigade.

If only there was a word to describe such a person.

quintana76

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

If only there was a word to describe such a person.

Yes there is: the word is 'libtard'. By far the most intolerant of species.

kunst nugget

quintana76 wrote: »

Yes there is: the word is 'libtard'. By far the most intolerant of species.

Libtard is a handy word alright. I know I don't need to bother with someone's opinion when they use it.

ballsymchugh

kunst nugget wrote: »

Libtard is a handy word alright. I know I don't need to bother with someone's opinion when they use it.

when someone uses libtard, it's the same effect as using the phrase 'white privileged male'

the argument is suddenly lost.

Snake Plisken

Good interview with the woman engaged to Bronson, fair play to Sean for asking about why she wrote to Ian Brady when she was younger.
Why wasn't Henry left on the Drivetime show? Did they bring him back to finally kill Sean's show? Or did Chris and Sarah get fed up of him and realise there is no talent there?

quintana76

ballsymchugh wrote: »

when someone uses libtard, it's the same effect as using the phrase 'white privileged male'

the argument is suddenly lost.

I used the term deliberately. I agree it is a giveaway term.
Is there an accurate equivalent term from the left that is not bankrupt from overuse.
'Fascist' for example can exist on a bandwidth from someone not giving you enough pocket money to invading Poland.

What I am trying to say about Sean's views is that they are unadulterated.
He is 56 years of age and has lived. He has a family, career etc.
You would think that having lived that experience his views would be more nuanced.
Yet, regrettably, he seems to have held on to, intact, views that would have gone down well, in his youth, down the students union.

kunst nugget

quintana76 wrote: »

I used the term deliberately. I agree it is a giveaway term.
Is there an accurate equivalent term from the left that is not bankrupt from overuse..

I saw broflake in the Andy Murray thread on AH which I thought was kind of funny but I'd never be able to use it in a discussion because you're just reducing everything to American style flame wars when using nonsense words like those.

foxtrot101

quintana76 wrote: »

Yet, regrettably, he seems to have held on to, intact, views that would have gone down well, in his youth, down the students union.

Regrettably for who? You?

quintana76

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Regrettably for who? You?

Regrettably for him. It means he hasn't evolved in all that time. Not a good sign.

Otherwise, it could just be a coincidence, but his views match the trendiest 'right on' views common in the media.
Could it be that he lives in a media bubble where everyone has to have the same 'approved ' opinions.
To not hold these views could have negative career, social consequences.
It is strange how everyone thinks the same way (except Hook).

Vorenus400

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Good interview with the woman engaged to Bronson, fair play to Sean for asking about why she wrote to Ian Brady when she was younger.
Why wasn't Henry left on the Drivetime show? Did they bring him back to finally kill Sean's show? Or did Chris and Sarah get fed up of him and realise there is no talent there?

I cant understand how Henry has a job all these years. He hasnt the talent of a transition year student. When he was on Seans show in the old days, I thought it was a bathroom break spot.

Is Henry D.O'B's secret love child? How has he survived? Imagine if he was on RTE?

evolving_doors

quintana76 wrote: »

Regrettably for him. It means he hasn't evolved in all that time. Not a good sign.

Otherwise, it could just be a coincidence, but his views match the trendiest 'right on' views common in the media.
Could it be that he lives in a media bubble where everyone has to have the same 'approved ' opinions.
To not hold these views could have negative career, social consequences.
It is strange how everyone thinks the same way (except Hook).

Definitely think Hook is more open to 'considering' listener opinions than moncrieff. If Sean doesn't like someone's text comment ( even if they are a bit ranty) he usually defaults to sarcy comments and nit picks at some literal interpretation and moves on.
Hook however will go the general substance of the comment and provide a rationale for his position.

Say Your Number

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Definitely think Hook is more open to 'considering' listener opinions than moncrieff. If Sean doesn't like someone's text comment ( even if they are a bit ranty) he usually defaults to sarcy comments and nit picks at some literal interpretation and moves on.
Hook however will go the general substance of the comment and provide a rationale for his position.

On the flip-side of that, I've heard Moncrieff interview plenty of guests who he would disagree with, but conduct the interview in a objective, respectful manner and I've heard Hook come out with some ill-informed rubbish during interviews and get very tetchy towards the interviewee when they correct him.

Sean does overdo the sarcasm, but generally he does a good job at pointing out the flaws in texters arguments.

Say Your Number

That wrestler woman seemed mental, entertaining interview though.

Sean said American guests are told beforehand he'll say good afternoon, suppose it's understandable why he gets irritated when they say 'But its morning here'

foxtrot101

quintana76 wrote: »

Regrettably for him. It means he hasn't evolved in all that time. Not a good sign.

Otherwise, it could just be a coincidence, but his views match the trendiest 'right on' views common in the media.
Could it be that he lives in a media bubble where everyone has to have the same 'approved ' opinions.
To not hold these views could have negative career, social consequences.
It is strange how everyone thinks the same way tolerance.

Sean never had a go at texts simply because he disagreed with them He only ever reacted to the boneheadedly offensive texts or the downright stupid ones. The authors of which are the truly unevolved. You accuse Sean of being intolerant, yet here you are accusing him and the entire media(except Hook) of being unevolved and immature because they have the temerity to not reflect your own mature and evolved world view back at you. Again, the hypocrisy of this seems to be lost on you.

foxtrot101

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Sean never had a go at texts simply because he disagreed with them

I've actually come to enjoy the Moncrieff show, but.... wtf!

Sean Moncrieff has a sarky go at every almost every text that disagrees with him, or even if it is merely critical of one of his guests' ideas.

One of the only things that I dislike the show is his incapacity to let a criticism slide. Pat Kenny reads out texts that either favour or disapprove of content, and generally only responds to a comment if it raises a question of balance.

Another thing about Moncrieff, on a related matter, is that he often fails to detect irony or humour in texts. He'll sometimes read a text that was obviously intended jocularly, then retract his chin into his sternum, and attempt to disparage the comment with sarcasm.

Like I said, I happen to like Moncrieff's show, and he does a good job. But how his inability to take disapproving comments on the chin could have escaped anybody, is beyond me.

foxtrot101

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I've actually come to enjoy the Moncrieff show, but.... wtf!

Sean Moncrieff has a sarky go at every almost every text that disagrees with him, or even if it is merely critical of one of his guests' ideas.

One of the only things that I dislike the show is his incapacity to let a criticism slide. Pat Kenny reads out texts that either favour or disapprove of content, and generally only responds to a comment if it raises a question of balance.

Another thing about Moncrieff, on a related matter, is that he often fails to detect irony or humour in texts. He'll sometimes read a text that was obviously intended jocularly, then retract his chin into his sternum, and attempt to disparage the comment with sarcasm.

Like I said, I happen to like Moncrieff's show, and he does a good job. But how his inability to take disapproving comments on the chin could have escaped anybody, is beyond me.

I don't agree, the texts he was sarky to were invariable offensive and I for one enjoyed his sarkyness because I felt in most cases the texts deserved it. I've heard Pat react badly to texts as well, second captains still use one of his particularly explosive ones on their podcast.

It's all a bit academic anyway, because Sean has stopped reacting to the texts in this way - mores the pity.

Harry Angstrom

Say Your Number wrote: »

Sean does overdo the sarcasm, but generally he does a good job at pointing out the flaws in texters arguments.

That's an understatement.

Problem is, he never gives the texters right of reply so he basically reads out a text and then rubbishes it, knowing he'll never have to go any further than that.

He's a great example of an intolerant liberal.

quintana76

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Sean never had a go at texts simply because he disagreed with them He only ever reacted to the boneheadedly offensive texts or the downright stupid ones. The authors of which are the truly unevolved. You accuse Sean of being intolerant, yet here you are accusing him and the entire media(except Hook) of being unevolved and immature because they have the temerity to not reflect your own mature and evolved world view back at you. Again, the hypocrisy of this seems to be lost on you.

Boneheadedly offensive and downright stupid in your opinion.

I am not accusing the entire media of being unevolved and immature. I am wondering why they mostly come from the same political direction.
Is there not an original thinker amongst them who will diverge from the concensus that Sean so explicitly represents ?

foxtrot101

quintana76 wrote: »

Boneheadedly offensive and downright stupid in your opinion.

Yes, that is my opinion.

My name is URL

quintana76 wrote: »

Is there not an original thinker amongst them who will diverge from the concensus that Sean so explicitly represents

lol, because George Hook is such an original thinker and true to his own ideals /s

I remember a few years ago when Hook was at his height of ranting about immigrants etc, they had a FG TD on the show arguing that Ireland 'needed to do more'. Hook, of course; was all bluster and hot air as is his wont.

Anyway, sometime after the interview was done, a texter asked Hook who he'd be voting for in the election and he straight up said that he'd always vote FG regardless of their policies or whether or not they were in line with his own views, because that's how his mammy always voted.

Such a stand up guy is Georgie. A real man of integrity. lmao