Sean Moncrieff - Newstalk

Harry Angstrom

My name is URL wrote: »

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

I think most Irish people would find themselves somewhere in the middle ground between the ridiculous right-wing nonsense of Hook and the painful political correctness of Moncrieff, but that rarely seems to be represented anymore because it doesn't garner ratings so much.

Harry Angstrom

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I think most Irish people would find themselves somewhere in the middle ground between the ridiculous right-wing nonsense of Hook and the painful political correctness of Moncrieff, but that rarely seems to be represented anymore because it doesn't garner ratings so much.

Have you asked yourself why not?

Maybe the opinions you refer to aren't given much of a voice on the radio, because Ireland is changing, and there is very limited appetite for the opinions you think are mainstream.

Surely you don't believe that station managers are witholding some ratings bonanza and impeding (presumably) big profits because of some grand 'PC' agenda?

jooksavage

It's kind of telling that this debate is playing out to this extent on the Moncrieff thread as opposed to Hook's. Seems like the latter's bullish agenda-peddling is just generally accepted as part of the show whereas Moncrieff is expected to be more "tolerant" of divergent views.

Harry Angstrom

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Have you asked yourself why not?

Maybe the opinions you refer to aren't given much of a voice on the radio, because Ireland is changing, and there is very limited appetite for the opinions you think are mainstream.

Surely you don't believe that station managers are witholding some ratings bonanza and impeding (presumably) big profits because of some grand 'PC' agenda?

Do you think that most of the population can be split between raging right-wingers such as Hook and PC left-wingers such as Moncrieff? Somehow I think not. There's a great swathe of in-betweens who go about their daily business without being too concerned about which "wing" they're on. Of course, hanging around certain echo-chamber social media outlets might lead one to believe that their views are pervasive throughout Irish society but this isn't really borne out by opinion polls, is it?

foxtrot101

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Do you think that most of the population can be split between raging right-wingers such as Hook and PC left-wingers such as Moncrieff? Somehow I think not. There's a great swathe of in-betweens who go about their daily business without being too concerned about which "wing" they're on. Of course, hanging around certain echo-chamber social media outlets might lead one to believe that their views are pervasive throughout Irish society but this isn't really borne out by opinion polls, is it?

Which opinion polls? I would maintain Ireland is a fairly socially liberal place but economically the majority would be conservative or center right. This is borne out by our election & referendum results and the media we consume.

Harry Angstrom

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Which opinion polls? I would maintain Ireland is a fairly socially liberal place but economically the majority would be conservative or center right. This is borne out by our election & referendum results and the media we consume.

Put it this way: For all the bluster of PBP etc. they still occupy a relatively tiny amount of support according to opinion polls, yet if you look at Twitter you'd think they're the ruling party of this country. Most people don't want to see extremes, be it right or left.

foxtrot101

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Put it this way: For all the bluster of PBP etc. they still occupy a relatively tiny amount of support according to opinion polls, yet if you look at Twitter you'd think they're the ruling party of this country. Most people don't want to see extremes, be it right or left.

The PBP are an insignificance, there only in the news these days because of that stupid trail. The media is hardly a echo chamber for the views of the PBP. Saying the PBP don't represent the views of the majority doesn't proof anything.

Harry Angstrom

foxtrot101 wrote: »

The PBP are an insignificance, there only in the news these days because of that stupid trail. The media is hardly a echo chamber for the views of the PBP. Saying the PBP don't represent the views of the majority doesn't proof anything.

Strange that, because more often than not, one of their representatives turns up on a political discussion programme - be it Vincent Browne, Sean O'Rourke, Pat Kenny, Marian Finucane et al. For a party with fairly insignificant support they seem to get a fairly disproportionate amount of airtime. Not sure how they relate to people in rural areas outside the Pale, but that doesn't really matter to trendy D4 media types.

My name is URL

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Strange that, because more often than not, one of their representatives turns up on a political discussion programme - be it Vincent Browne, Sean O'Rourke, Pat Kenny, Marian Finucane et al. For a party with fairly insignificant support they seem to get a fairly disproportionate amount of airtime. Not sure how they relate to people in rural areas outside the Pale, but that doesn't really matter to trendy D4 media types.

They're usually the only ones willing to come on air and speak about the shit that's in the news.

For every one time you hear Murphy or Coppinger giving out on a radio station, you'll also hear "Mr/Mrs X from the Y party were invited to argue but nobody was available for comment"

That's hardly the fault of media, or the likes of Murphy. It's the fault of those either unable or unwilling to lend a contrary view. And it's the electorate that voted for those people, too.

foxtrot101

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Strange that, because more often than not, one of their representatives turns up on a political discussion programme - be it Vincent Browne, Sean O'Rourke, Pat Kenny, Marian Finucane et al. For a party with fairly insignificant support they seem to get a fairly disproportionate amount of airtime. Not sure how they relate to people in rural areas outside the Pale, but that doesn't really matter to trendy D4 media types.

I wouldn't equate Moncrieff with the PBP, I doubt he would either. I think his social views would be shared by the majority these days. I don't think his views are that extreme really.

Harry Angstrom

foxtrot101 wrote: »

I wouldn't equate Moncrieff with the PBP, I doubt he would either. I think his social views would be shared by the majority these days. I don't think his views are that extreme really.

I was initially speaking about his intolerance of other views that are contrary to his own (not necessarily that his views are extreme), and I still stand by that. His sneering attitude towards texters who hold differing views to him are proof enough. As I said, an intolerant liberal.

foxtrot101

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I was initially speaking about his intolerance of other views that are contrary to his own (not necessarily that his views are extreme), and I still stand by that. His sneering attitude towards texters who hold differing views to him are proof enough. As I said, an intolerant liberal.

I listen to the show every day , he doesn't do it anymore, not to any great extent anyway, not since "giving up Trump for lent". Which is pity, because I would like to add examples to this, because I would maintain he was being intolerant to texts that are themselves intolerant, whereas others are claiming he is being intolerant to views simply because they differ to his. It's kind of hard to proof it either way now.

Harry Angstrom

My name is URL wrote: »

They're usually the only ones willing to come on air and speak about the shit that's in the news.

For every one time you hear Murphy or Coppinger giving out on a radio station, you'll also hear "Mr/Mrs X from the Y party were invited to argue but nobody was available for comment"

That's hardly the fault of media, or the likes of Murphy. It's the fault of those either unable or unwilling to lend a contrary view. And it's the electorate that voted for those people, too.

In that case they should leave the seat empty to show up the political party who have refused to appear. I still remember Have I Got News For You replacing Roy Hattersley with a tub of lard because he pulled out of appearing on the show at the last minute. That was over 20 years ago. It makes a much more lasting impression than listening to Ruth Coppinger's latest Trotskyist rant.

Harry Angstrom

foxtrot101 wrote: »

I listen to the show every day , he doesn't do it anymore, not to any great extent anyway, not since "giving up Trump for lent". Which is pity, because I would like to add examples to this, because I would maintain he was being intolerant to texts that are themselves intolerant, whereas others are claiming he is being intolerant to views simply because they differ to his. It's kind of hard to proof it either way now.

Not all texts are intolerant. Merely disagreeing with Moncrieff's world view does not make them intolerant in themselves, although he would have you believe otherwise.

foxtrot101

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Not all texts are intolerant. Merely disagreeing with Moncrieff's world view does not make them intolerant in themselves, although he would have you believe otherwise.

From what I heard listening to the show the texts he had a pop at were invariably intolerant in themselves.

Harry Angstrom

foxtrot101 wrote: »

From what I heard listening to the show the texts he had a pop at were invariably intolerant in themselves.

In your opinion.

foxtrot101

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

In your opinion.

Well, yes. In my opinion.

Say Your Number

In my experience listening to the show the texts he gets really angry towards deserve all the the derision they get, he generally is more respectful to the less idiotic texts that are sent in.

foxtrot101

Say Your Number wrote: »

In my experience listening to the show the texts he gets really angry towards deserve all the the derision they get, he generally is more respectful to the less idiotic texts that are sent in.

That would be my experience too.

jooksavage

Say Your Number wrote: »

In my experience listening to the show the texts he gets really angry towards deserve all the the derision they get, he generally is more respectful to the less idiotic texts that are sent in.

A few years ago I texted in something (in relation to a movie Esther was reviewing). Sean didn't quite get the point I was making and suggested I "lay off the drugs this early in the afternoon" which was kind of funny and also miffed me into sending another text to clarify, which he also read out, apologised and wondered aloud if he should be mixing his wines "so early in the afternoon".

Harry Angstrom

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Do you think that most of the population can be split between raging right-wingers such as Hook and PC left-wingers such as Moncrieff?

Moncrieff is not a 'PC left winger'.

He comes across as a classic liberal more than some kind of "SJW" (horrible term, I feel dirty for having used it), as indicated by his previous rants about junkies and his apparent cynicism about government intervention.

I think these are exactly the kinds of views that are prevalent in Irish society, combined with a basic humane tolerance for differences based on gender and sexual orientation.

And no, I'm not in an echo chamber, because I reject precisely the kind of classical liberalism that I see in Moncrieff. My views are politically to the left of Moncrieff, closer to the 'socialist' parties, and it is pretty laughable to imply that there is anything socialist in Moncrieff's politics.

Once again, if you think there is some huge untapped potential for an alternative voice in Irish radio, why do you believe none of the stations are profiting from it? It is a conspiracy or ... maybe ... you're the one who is overestimating the popularity of a more conservative narrative.

jooksavage

jooksavage wrote: »

A few years ago I texted in something (in relation to a movie Esther was reviewing). Sean didn't quite get the point I was making and suggested I "lay off the drugs this early in the afternoon" which was kind of funny and also miffed me into sending another text to clarify, which he also read out, apologised and wondered aloud if he should be mixing his wines "so early in the afternoon".

In fairness to Moncrieff, while his occasional inability to detect irony or context is irritating, he doesn't take himself too seriously, I wouldn't describe him as being egotistical, even if he doesn't take kindly to criticism... but sure we can all be like that sometimes.

Howard100

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

In fairness to Moncrieff, while his occasional inability to detect irony or context is irritating, he doesn't take himself too seriously, I wouldn't describe him as being egotistical, even if he doesn't take kindly to criticism... but sure we can all be like that sometimes.

Sport on. I worked with Sean years ago on some TV projects. He's a very down to earth dude but knows his role on radio.

chinacrisis

I've been listening to Moncrieff for about 10 years on Newstalk Now. I can honestly say I love the show as much as I ever did. Sean is such a fantastic host: funny, smart, self-depracating and just seems a very sound guy! I've always thought it's noticeable how often his interviewees comment on how good/original his questions are with what seems genuine appreciation. The key to the show is that he never takes himself too seriously. The only section I don't like is the Parenting Slot which I find boring and I dislike the American 'expert'. I'd also love if it went back to the old time-slot that finished at 4.30pm. I used to be able to catch the last 30 mins or so.
Newstalk has some lemons- I absolutely loath George Hook. Moncrieff, Off the Ball & Talking History are first class entertainment. Keep it up Sean!

Conservative

I'd like to see High Noon cut to 60 or 90 mins and the time given back to Moncrieff. It's not a patch on the Right Hook and at the last half hour is dreadful most days.

The opening interview was one of the best things about the show. I dont understand why they cut it. Some of the zany interviews are interesting but they can get tiresome also.

The farming slot aside (not the content as such but the contributor) I enjoy almost everything that is done face to face in studio. Sean really excels at that.

The snarkiness to texters doesn't bother me too much but it does sometimes give off an impression that there is only one opinion in the world worth having - his own.

He got all arsey with a guy who text in the other day saying he was from a working class area and was of the opinion that many of homeless list are people fiddling the system. This has been proven true in a number of the cases that were published in the media. Sean said sneeringly that it must be great living in a hotel room. I will take a free hotel any day of the week! Sign me up.

On the other hand some are hilarious like his response to the woman who allowed her daughter decide about vaxxing.

He's forthright with his opinions and I don't mind that at all.

chinacrisis

Conservative wrote: »

I'd like to see High Noon cut to 60 or 90 mins and the time given back to Moncrieff. It's not a patch on the Right Hook and at the last half hour is dreadful most days.

The opening interview was one of the best things about the show. I dont understand why they cut it. Some of the zany interviews are interesting but they can get tiresome also.

The farming slot aside (not the content as such but the contributor) I enjoy almost everything that is done face to face in studio. Sean really excels at that.

The snarkiness to texters doesn't bother me too much but it does sometimes give off an impression that there is only one opinion in the world worth having - his own.

He got all arsey with a guy who text in the other day saying he was from a working class area and was of the opinion that many of homeless list are people fiddling the system. This has been proven true in a number of the cases that were published in the media. Sean said sneeringly that it must be great living in a hotel room. I will take a free hotel any day of the week! Sign me up.

On the other hand some are hilarious like his response to the woman who allowed her daughter decide about vaxxing.

He's forthright with his opinions and I don't mind that at all.

Each to their own. Personally the idea of living in a small hotel room indefinitely with no cooking facilities and nowhere for kids to play/do homework etc wouldn't be my idea of fun.

yosser hughes

chinacrisis wrote: »

Each to their own. Personally the idea of living in a small hotel room indefinitely with no cooking facilities and nowhere for kids to play/do homework etc wouldn't be my idea of fun.

It's terrible isn't it but sadly some people are choosing to do that; rather than take more suitable accommodation that has been offered. That's the point.
Something that either hasn't occurred to you or or Sean or you're deliberately ignoring that fact.

foxtrot101

yosser hughes wrote: »

It's terrible isn't it but sadly some people are choosing to do that; rather than take more suitable accommodation that has been offered. That's the point.
Something that either hasn't occurred to you or or Sean or you're deliberately ignoring that fact.

How many are doing this compared to how many people are officially classified as homeless? The answer to that would be a fact. Not just stating something and presenting it as a fact.

quintana76

My name is URL wrote: »

They're usually the only ones willing to come on air and speak about the shit that's in the news.

For every one time you hear Murphy or Coppinger giving out on a radio station, you'll also hear "Mr/Mrs X from the Y party were invited to argue but nobody was available for comment"

That's hardly the fault of media, or the likes of Murphy. It's the fault of those either unable or unwilling to lend a contrary view. And it's the electorate that voted for those people, too.

I think you are referring to Vincent Browne here, who will have a panel with three leftie sympathisers and himself against any larger party politicians who are foolish enough to appear. A case of once bitten, twice shy. They don't come back except for emergencies.

That was off topic but Sean has never had Coppinger etc on (as far as I know). I don't think his sympathies lie there. Try luvvie liberal. Himself and Madonna.

foxtrot101

quintana76 wrote: »

I think you are referring to Vincent Browne here, who will have a panel with three leftie sympathisers and himself against any larger party politicians who are foolish enough to appear. A case of once bitten, twice shy. They don't come back except for emergencies.

That was off topic but Sean has never had Coppinger etc on (as far as I know). I don't think his sympathies lie there. Try luvvie liberal. Himself and Madonna.

Coppinger was on the show quite often as it happens. "luvvie liberal" is about as good as your libtard contribution.