Sean Moncrieff - Newstalk

quintana76

foxtrot101 wrote: »

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

Give me a better term to describe it then? Concerned citizen who keeps up with fashionable opinion for example. Cool group think.
Dynamic groupthink. Any ideas?

foxtrot101

quintana76 wrote: »

Give me a better term to describe it then? Concerned citizen who keeps up with fashionable opinion for example. Cool group think.
Dynamic groupthink. Any ideas?

I don't tend to label people and I think Sean is a lot more nuanced in his views then you are suggesting.

quintana76

foxtrot101 wrote: »

I don't tend to label people and I think Sean is a lot more nuanced in his views then you are suggesting.

Is he? He sometime tries (I think) but it is too ingrained. He wouldn't want to offend his media buddies.

yosser hughes

foxtrot101 wrote: »

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.

Well I know I'm not going to convince you foxtrot101. You have your mind made up on most issues already.
I read the reports, I speak to people involved in the provision of housing.
It' all out there in the public domain

quintana76

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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

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.

I agree with you 100%. Moncrieff has nothing to do with socialism. He reflects the unthinking trendy so-called liberalism rampant in the media.

As regards an alternative voice on Irish radio I think people are immune to the narrative that they are constantly fed from (sorry) the mainstream media.
There is a form of PUBLIC self censorship in existence. The media feeds us an official version of events eg the Halawa case. They report it straight faced even though the majority don't believe it. I think people are cowed in a way and are happy to say what they really feel in the pub and let the media charade carry on.

I remember the radio before the citizenship referendum. I hardly heard a dissenting voice from the liberal narrative yet the people voted 85%. Was it?
What I am trying to say is that a large part of the media are passively allowed to virtue signal. I wonder is that the definition of a 'bubble'.

quintana76

quintana76 wrote: »

I agree with you 100%. Moncrieff has nothing to do with socialism. He reflects the unthinking trendy so-called liberalism rampant in the media.

I agree that much of the so-called liberal rhetoric is rampant in the media, but it's rampant throughout Irish society. Yes, a lot of it is group-think, and knee-jerk. Most people are far too busy to make ethical or philosophical inquiry into the political and social issues of the day, and therefore it is the media which has the power to frame the news, and to process and interpret the news for the audience.

Nevertheless, there is a danger of underestimating an individual's ability to critique and sometimes reject any perceived media bias. If Newstalk became an evangelical, right-wing station, I suspect listenership would nosedive. Broadcasting and listenership is a two-way transaction. The views that are espoused by the likes of Moncrieff may not be exactly agreed-upon by his listenership, but they probably are roughly in line with the audience, and the same can be said of most broadcast media.

TL;DR: Whilst the Irish media can unquestionably be described as predominantly liberal, this is probably a crude reflection of the attitudes & opinions of the listenership, within a reasonable margin of appreciation. If it was totally objectionable to the Irish audience, there would be an alternative.

Commerce abhors a vacuum.

ballsymchugh

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.

one of his finest moments in my opinion was having Coppinger on and letting her talk. he let her come out with some of the finest bullsh1t ever spouted on the radio, and he knew well what he was at.
He asked her what would be her ideal scenario and her answer was along the lines of Russia in 1917.

he did tend to treat the interviewees with a lot of respect in that slot, letting them waffle on regardless on whether he agreed with them or not, Ronan Mullen being another example. Tara Duggan showed herself up while she interviewed him.

there have been some phone conversations over time where he had nothing but disdain for the person on the other end, from the beginning of the call to the end. Paul McKenna being one that springs to mind quickly. he couldn't wait to have a dig at him after the conversation ended, which just made me wonder, either don't interview him, or have it out with him, but don't talk shyte about him when he can't reply.

quintana76

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I agree that much of the so-called liberal rhetoric is rampant in the media, but it's rampant throughout Irish society. Yes, a lot of it is group-think, and knee-jerk. Most people are far too busy to make ethical or philosophical inquiry into the political and social issues of the day, and therefore it is the media which has the power to frame the news, and to process and interpret the news for the audience.

Nevertheless, there is a danger of underestimating an individual's ability to critique and sometimes reject any perceived media bias. If Newstalk became an evangelical, right-wing station, I suspect listenership would nosedive. Broadcasting and listenership is a two-way transaction. The views that are espoused by the likes of Moncrieff may not be exactly agreed-upon by his listenership, but they probably are roughly in line with the audience, and the same can be said of most broadcast media.

TL;DR: Whilst the Irish media can unquestionably be described as predominantly liberal, this is probably a crude reflection of the attitudes & opinions of the listenership, within a reasonable margin of appreciation. If it was totally objectionable to the Irish audience, there would be an alternative.

Commerce abhors a vacuum.

And paper never refused ink. Thoughtful reply: Eh! Tyrant.

I think there is a passivity that means people hear what they expect to hear.
They just put up with it as they are used to it and don't feel they have any power to change it.
As you say a lot are too busy living theirs lives to be too deeply engaged.

I would say people are reasonably tolerant on a lot of issues.
On some they are not and there is a sharp division of opinion that is not reflected in the media.
There are issues that people are silenced on officially (not in private).
Most people in the country are for example not in favour of open borders.
Where is this reflected in the media?
It does itself a disservice and undermines it's own credibility.

People don't like being talked down to or sneered at by the likes of Sean at his worst if they have the temerity to express what are in effect mainstream views.

quintana76

quintana76 wrote: »

And paper never refused ink. Thoughtful reply: Eh! Tyrant.

Paper never refused ink but audiences have quite regularly rejected a newspaper. Magill is a classic example of a trailblazing innovative publication, which ventilated opinion of the 'radical' left as well as the conservatives, and it simply didn't sell.

Vincent Browne is in the process of resurrecting it, but I suspect that particular Lazarus is bound to his grave.

I think there is a passivity that means people hear what they expect to hear.
They just put up with it as they are used to it and don't feel they have any power to change it.
As you say a lot are too busy living theirs lives to be too deeply engaged.

Yes, I agree with you to an extent; that is why I say the media, and its obvious biases, do indeed 'frame' the news, and nudge public opinion in one particular direction.

But where I disagree with you is in your apparent perception of the Irish audience as being, basically, a passive vessel, willing to take on whatever is put upon them.

I think a lot of people have reservations about the current, 'liberal' and monotonic nature of the Irish media landscape, myself included. But whilst it our media *clearly* doesn't reflect the attitudes & opinions of the audience, it isn't too far off. Certainly, it doesn't seem to deviate enough from public opinion for there to be commercial space for a new, viable media outlet.

I suspect we both come from very different ideological outlooks, but clearly neither of us are entirely happy with the current media landscape in this country. But I accept that my opinions are not the opinions of the majority, and in this changing Ireland, conservatives must begin to accept that their opinions do not enjoy the mainstream support they once did.

Most people in the country are for example not in favour of open borders.
Where is this reflected in the media?

I have never heard a single radio host, or even an interviewee, say they are supportive of 'open borders'; that is to say, free and universal access to migration.

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I listen to radio for most of the day, and I've never heard this. Do you have any specific examples?

People don't like being talked down to or sneered at by the likes of Sean.

I found Moncrieff hard to bear at first, and i agree that he does seem to sneer at opinions that he doesn't share. It can be frustrating to listen to.

Even though I wouldn't share his political outlook, I find his opinions worthwhile insofar as they challenge my own opinions. But yes, it would be worthwhile if he was a little less overbearing with the mic, and allowed more of a two-way exchange of ideas.

Then again, you could say they same thing of George Hook...

quintana76

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Paper never refused ink but audiences have quite regularly rejected a newspaper. Magill is a classic example of a trailblazing innovative publication, which ventilated opinion of the 'radical' left as well as the conservatives, and it simply didn't

Vincent Browne is in the process of resurrecting it, but I suspect that particular Lazarus is bound to his grave.
I can't believe he is resurrecting Magill after getting seriously burnt with 'The Village. Is he a slow learner or stubborn or foolhardy or a combination?

Yes, I agree with you to an extent; that is why I say the media, and its obvious biases, do indeed 'frame' the news, and nudge public opinion in one particular direction.

It has been nudging public opinion in one direction for so long now that it has lost some credibility as anyone who thinks about it can predict the views that will be taken on various issues.

But where I disagree with you is in your apparent perception of the Irish audience as being, basically, a passive vessel, willing to take on whatever is put upon them.

I think a lot of people have reservations about the current, 'liberal' and monotonic nature of the Irish media landscape, myself included. But whilst it our media *clearly* doesn't reflect the attitudes & opinions of the audience, it isn't too far off. Certainly, it doesn't seem to deviate enough from public opinion for there to be commercial space for a new, viable media outlet.

I suspect we both come from very different ideological outlooks, but clearly neither of us are entirely happy with the current media landscape in this country. But I accept that my opinions are not the opinions of the majority, and in this changing Ireland, conservatives must begin to accept that their opinions do not enjoy the mainstream support they once did.

I have never heard a single radio host, or even an interviewee, say they are supportive of 'open borders'; that is to say, free and universal access to migration.


I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I listen to radio for most of the day, and I've never heard this. Do you have any specific examples?

The problem is that we don't really know their opinions as it a taboo subject to debate.

The default view is very pro mass immigration. During the height of the refugee crisis in 2015 Moncrieff was for letting all in on the basis that his own father was from Scotland. He said that several times.

Again, think of the citizenship referendum, there was rarely a dissenting voice against the liberal agenda. I honestly thought that everybody held that view from what I heard. The tiny number of dissenting voices allowed on (or brave enough) were sneered at.
This is despite the fact that they were in effect standing up for unlimited immigration to Ireland due to the birth rule. That view was proven to deviate severely from public opinion, as proved by the result.

Probably why these views are so prominent is that they are easy. No complexity or contradiction is required if you just ignore those factors.
Don't delve into them too deeply and never think of consequences. Instead use soundbites and the presenter comes out smelling of roses.
Sometimes 'fear' is an issue too.

I found Moncrieff hard to bear at first, and i agree that he does seem to sneer at opinions that he doesn't share. It can be frustrating to listen to.

Even though I wouldn't share his political outlook, I find his opinions worthwhile insofar as they challenge my own opinions. But yes, it would be worthwhile if he was a little less overbearing with the mic, and allowed more of a two-way exchange of ideas.

Then again, you could say they same thing of George Hook...

I dont think Hook is taken as seriously as Moncrieff etc. He gets away with his views as he can dismissed as on old buffer. A rugby club bore.
There's a bit of ' he would say that, wouldn't he'
Then again, any contrast to the concensus is always welcome.

kunst nugget

quintana76 wrote: »

I dont think Hook is taken as seriously as Moncrieff etc. He gets away with his views as he can dismissed as on old buffer. A rugby club bore.
There's a bit of ' he would say that, wouldn't he'
Then again, any contrast to the concensus is always welcome.

And Moncrieff gets dismissed as a woolly liberal so it's swings and roundabouts…

Tbf to Moncrieff's views are usually confined to his replies to certain messages rather than the polemics that Hook is prone to.

quintana76

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Paper never refused ink but audiences have quite regularly rejected a newspaper. Magill is a classic example of a trailblazing innovative publication, which ventilated opinion of the 'radical' left as well as the conservatives, and it simply didn't sell.

Vincent Browne is in the process of resurrecting it, but I suspect that particular Lazarus is bound to his grave.


Yes, I agree with you to an extent; that is why I say the media, and its obvious biases, do indeed 'frame' the news, and nudge public opinion in one particular direction.

But where I disagree with you is in your apparent perception of the Irish audience as being, basically, a passive vessel, willing to take on whatever is put upon them.



I think a lot of people have reservations about the current, 'liberal' and monotonic nature of the Irish media landscape, myself included. But whilst it our media *clearly* doesn't reflect the attitudes & opinions of the audience, it isn't too far off. Certainly, it doesn't seem to deviate enough from public opinion for there to be commercial space for a new, viable media outlet.

I suspect we both come from very different ideological outlooks, but clearly neither of us are entirely happy with the current media landscape in this country. But I accept that my opinions are not the opinions of the majority, and in this changing Ireland, conservatives must begin to accept that their opinions do not enjoy the mainstream support they once did.

I have never heard a single radio host, or even an interviewee, say they are supportive of 'open borders'; that is to say, free and universal access to migration.

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I listen to radio for most of the day, and I've never heard this. Do you have any specific examples?
I found Moncrieff hard to bear at first, and i agree that he does seem to sneer at opinions that he doesn't share. It can be frustrating to listen to.

Even though I wouldn't share his political outlook, I find his opinions worthwhile insofar as they challenge my own opinions. But yes, it would be worthwhile if he was a little less overbearing with the mic, and allowed more of a two-way exchange of ideas.

Then again, you could say they same thing of George Hook...

TYRANT. See my last message as there are comments added to your block of text.
Didn't show up as separate. Don't know what I did wrong.

hullaballoo

quintana76 wrote: »

TYRANT. See my last message as there are comments added to your block of text.
Didn't show up as separate. Don't know what I did wrong.

You have to separate the text out by adding [noparse]

tags as follows:

At the end of the part you want to comment on, close the quote with

[/noparse]

At the beginning of the next part you want to comment on, open the quote with

Every section must begin with [noparse]

and end with

[/noparse]

e.g. [noparse]

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

Things ATNM! said.

[/noparse] gives you:

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

Things ATNM! said.

jooksavage

quintana76 wrote: »

I dont think Hook is taken as seriously as Moncrieff etc. He gets away with his views as he can dismissed as on old buffer. A rugby club bore.
There's a bit of ' he would say that, wouldn't he'
Then again, any contrast to the concensus is always welcome.

Why wouldn't he be taken as seriously as Moncrieff? Does he "get away with his views" because he's a harmless old fool or because his views actually speak to your own politics on some level? I don't know. But why is Moncrieff being held to a different standard? Thousands of words are expended here condemining Moncrieff's liberal bias whereas Hook's agenda-peddling gets welcomed as a "contrast to the census" (presumably including the time he started wondering aloud if vaccinations were bad armed with nothing more than anecdotal junk science).

quintana76

hullaballoo wrote: »

You have to separate the text out by adding [noparse][/noparse]

At the beginning of the next part you want to comment on, open the quote with

Every section must begin with [noparse][/noparse]

e.g. [noparse][/noparse] gives you:

Thank for the help.

quintana76

jooksavage wrote: »

Why wouldn't he be taken as seriously as Moncrieff? Does he "get away with his views" because he's a harmless old fool or because his views actually speak to your own politics on some level? I don't know. But why is Moncrieff being held to a different standard? Thousands of words are expended here condemining Moncrieff's liberal bias whereas Hook's agenda-peddling gets welcomed as a "contrast to the census" (presumably including the time he started wondering aloud if vaccinations were bad armed with nothing more than anecdotal junk science).

What I am saying is that his detractors can and do use the 'old buffer' cliché to write off his views as irrelevant.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not.

quintana76

quintana76 wrote: »

What I am saying is that his detractors can and do use the 'old buffer' cliché to write off his views as irrelevant.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not.

'Old duffer'

Richard Hillman

Today's opening monologue

1. A police shooting in America. He had to get in his amazement that the victim wasn't black.

2. Scoffing over Christians in Alabama supporting Trump.

3. A Clip of Gordon Ramsey not liking Hawaiian Pizza. Ended with Moncrieff going a bit deranged and saying something along the lines of Ramsey is a closed minded conservative that needs a kick up the arse.


Completely and utterly unnecessary.

quintana76

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Today's opening monologue

1. A police shooting in America. He had to get in his amazement that the victim wasn't black.

2. Scoffing over Christians in Alabama supporting Trump.

3. A Clip of Gordon Ramsey not liking Hawaiian Pizza. Ended with Moncrieff going a bit deranged and saying something along the lines of Ramsey is a closed minded conservative that needs a kick up the arse.


Completely and utterly unnecessary.

Today on Moncrcrieff Shona Murray mentioned a neo-Nazi festival in Germany attended by 500.
No mention of the rapes at a festival in Schorndorf by Afghans during the same weekend.
No correlation between the two expressed.

Some 'genius' phoned in to say ' i'll bet they are all young white males' at the nazi event.
It was also a young white male who sent the text. (I blame the education system)

That person thinks the reason they are neo-nazis is because they are young white males.
It is just them being their true selves, showing their true colours. They are all Nazis at heart.
The theory goes that this inherent tendency must be thwarted by the other (victim) identities in society at all costs, and by all means necessary.

Thé reason being that white males are the only group that are not victims but eternal oppressors.
Everyone other group is innocent and an eternal victim.

Believe it or not this is the standard view in most (especially) US 3rd level colleges.

Sadly post-modernist thinking has twisted society to such as extent that it leads to this caller hating his own identity.

I wonder what's Sean's views. I strongly suspect I know.

styron

quintana76 wrote: »

No mention of the rapes at a festival in Schorndorf by Afghans during the same weekend.

https://www.thelocal.de/20170717/police-shocked-by-violence-as-youth-riot-at-small-town-fair

Even The Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4703386/Riots-German-festival-Iraqi-sexually-harassing-women.html

Always a good day when a 'low information' racist giddily outs himself.

Snake Plisken

Anyone hear the show today when talking about the horses did anyone bring up about Sean's beloved traveller culture and their terrible treatment of Horses?

nicedryturf

quintana76 wrote: »

Sadly post-modernist thinking has twisted society to such as extent that it leads to this caller hating his own identity.

Someone call the wambulance for white people

jooksavage

quintana76 wrote: »

I wonder what's Sean's views. I strongly suspect I know.

Well go on then, don't leave us in suspense.

quintana76

nicedryturf wrote: »

Someone call the wambulance for white people

Just saying! Bit weird someone disliking their own identity so much.
I was only expressing a political theory that is very popular on American campus's concerning the white male, not white people.

nicedryturf

quintana76 wrote: »

Just saying! Bit weird someone disliking their own identity so much.
I was only expressing a political theory that is very popular on American campus's concerning the white male, not white people.

So the texter went out on a limb to presume a Nazi rally comprised mostly of white males? And you found this offensive because.... turns out it was mostly attended by black gay jewish women?

quintana76

nicedryturf wrote: »

So the texter went out on a limb to presume a Nazi rally comprised mostly of white males? And you found this offensive because.... turns out it was mostly attended by black gay jewish women?

No. I highlighted it because it was a stupid and unnecessary comment.
Who else is it going to be? Tibetans, Vietnamese, Solomon Islanders?
Maybe gay pastifarian nuns.

nicedryturf

quintana76 wrote: »

No. I highlighted it because it was a stupid and unnecessary comment.
Who else is it going to be? Tibetans, Vietnamese, Solomon Islanders?
Maybe gay pastifarian nuns.

Bit superfluous alright. But not as silly as getting bent out of shape because some random texter has failed to demonstrate tearful pride for their own race. That's the kind of stuff that inevitably leads to hysterical claims of white genocide.

quintana76

nicedryturf wrote: »

Bit superfluous alright. But not as silly as getting bent out of shape because some random texter has failed to demonstrate tearful pride for their own race. That's the kind of stuff that inevitably leads to hysterical claims of white genocide.

Good try! I never mentioned race except in relation to identity.
That was in the context of the 'identity wars' going on on in US universities at the moment.
If you follow the logic of that philosophy his statement fits right in.

Otherwise it is a stupid, unnecessary statement.
In reality it was probably just an impulsive, throwaway comment which I am spending too much time talking about.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Today's opening monologue

1. A police shooting in America. He had to get in his amazement that the victim wasn't black.

2. Scoffing over Christians in Alabama supporting Trump.

3. A Clip of Gordon Ramsey not liking Hawaiian Pizza. Ended with Moncrieff going a bit deranged and saying something along the lines of Ramsey is a closed minded conservative that needs a kick up the arse.


Completely and utterly unnecessary.

Race Baiting should have no place on Irish radio.

Stop stoking tensions Sean.

Maybe research a few facts.

kunst nugget

In his opening monologue today, he brought up the fact that Harry Styles has four nipples. I bet he only brought it up to embarrass him because Harry is a WHITE MALE!

And then he did a bit about Sharon Shannon getting cows grooving to her music. Of course, if it was a WHITE MALE who was playing he wouldn't brought it up.