Claire Byrne Live (RTE1)

AndrewJRenko

elperello wrote: »

Ah here, you said -

"If the BBC interviewed Ming Flanagan as representing Ireland on any national issue, we'd be laughing all day long. But when RTE do the same, it's apparently an important voice to listen to."

I took that to be having a go at Ming rather than complaining about BBC policy.

Please clarify which it is.

I'm pointing out how ridiculous it would be for BBC to be interviewing an independent regional MEP about a national, indeed international issue.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Awright Andrew, Nigel Farage is just an MEP who had nothing to do with Brexit.

Stop digging like a sensible chap.

If you want to have a discussion, leave the patronising stuff out.

Berserker wrote: »

Farage is, he really is. Brexit has and will define his political career.

What career? He drove his party into the ground. He has absolutely no power or influence now. Why would you interview Farage over, let's say a Tory Minister?

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm pointing out how ridiculous it would be for BBC to be interviewing an independent regional MEP about a national, indeed international issue.



If you want to have a discussion, leave the patronising stuff out.



What career? He drove his party into the ground. He has absolutely no power or influence now. Why would you interview Farage over, let's say a Tory Minister?

You are getting patronised because you persist in this line that your likes and dislikes should be allowed to dictate to a current affairs producer who gets to give an opinion. That is just a form of censorship. And it's an ineffably silly and petulant position tbh.

*RTE have interviewed a wide range of people on Brexit, from the man on the street to President Higgins.

elperello

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm pointing out how ridiculous it would be for BBC to be interviewing an independent regional MEP about a national, indeed international issue.

I still don't see why they wouldn't seeing as he represents a border constituencey.

I thought when you mentioned "laughing" that you were suggesting we would be laughing at Ming.

Sorry for any confusion.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are getting patronised because you persist in this line that your likes and dislikes should be allowed to dictate to a current affairs producer who gets to give an opinion. That is just a form of censorship. And it's an ineffably silly and petulant position tbh.

Except that's not my line, as has been repeatedly stated. I'd have no problem with them interviewing a Tory Minister (who'd be fairly high on my dislike list) instead of Farage. I had no problem with them interviewing Stella O'Mahony on the Prime Time transgender programme, given her personal experience in the issue, even though I dislike what she said.


Here's a good explanation of some of the broader concerns about that programme.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057951543



So once again, maybe you'd like to get your facts right before you go patronising people.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that's not my line, as has been repeatedly stated. I'd have no problem with them interviewing a Tory Minister (who'd be fairly high on my dislike list) instead of Farage. I had no problem with them interviewing Stella O'Mahony on the Prime Time transgender programme, given her personal experience in the issue, even though I dislike what she said.


Here's a good explanation of some of the broader concerns about that programme.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057951543



So once again, maybe you'd like to get your facts right before you go patronising people.

There are many people who are not afraid of opinion. I am one of them. You clearly have a problem with some opinions.

I think you need to deal with that.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are many people who are not afraid of opinion. I am one of them. You clearly have a problem with some opinions.

I think you need to deal with that.

I can only refer you the post above again, as it seems that you didn't read it.

This isn't about what opinions I like or dislike. This is about media choosing trolls for the sake of trolling.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I can only refer you the post above again, as it seems that you didn't read it.

This isn't about what opinions I like or dislike. This is about media choosing trolls for the sake of trolling.

A troll is somebody who causes rancour by stating things they don't really believe and want only to get a reaction.

I get no sense that Linehan doesn't believe in what he saying nor Farage for that matter.

They may be wrong imo, but that does not mean they are saying it for the sake of it, or to be controversial.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A troll is somebody who causes rancour by stating things they don't really believe and want only to get a reaction.

I get no sense that Linehan doesn't believe in what he saying nor Farage for that matter.

They may be wrong imo, but that does not mean they are saying it for the sake of it, or to be controversial.

Where did you get that definition of the troll from? I don't think that's a common definition. Try this one instead
https://spunout.ie/opinion/article/dont-feed-the-trolls

Once again, this isn't about the rights and wrongs of their opinion. This is about their selection by RTE for major news interviews, for no good reason.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where did you get that definition of the troll from? I don't think that's a common definition. Try this one instead
https://spunout.ie/opinion/article/dont-feed-the-trolls

Once again, this isn't about the rights and wrongs of their opinion. This is about their selection by RTE for major news interviews, for no good reason.

There you go again. That is your 'opinion'.

I think Linehan was cogent, pointed and articulate. Just because I don't like what he has to say, is not a good enough reason to try to silence him. I'm sorry, I think your stance is nasty and dangerous.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There you go again. That is your 'opinion'.

I think Linehan was cogent, pointed and articulate. Just because I don't like what he has to say, is not a good enough reason to try to silence him. I'm sorry, I think your stance is nasty and dangerous.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Linehan was cogent and articulate. He still had no experience or expertise to bring.

And again, I didn't like what Stella O'Mahony had to say, but I recognise why she was there - because of her personal experience.

Linehan had no experience or expertise in the matter. That's a fact.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

For the sake of argument, let's say that Linehan was cogent and articulate. He still had no experience or expertise to bring.

And again, I didn't like what Stella O'Mahony had to say, but I recognise why she was there - because of her personal experience.

Linehan had no experience or expertise in the matter. That's a fact.

I have no experience of abortion or divorce, is my opinion invalid?

I have no experience of many things, but I have opinions on them and how they might impinge on me and people like me and the society I want to live in. We are democrats, all opinion is valid. Debate, argue that opinion, but NEVER attenpt to silence it.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no experience of abortion or divorce, is my opinion invalid?

I have no experience of many things, but I have opinions on them and how they might impinge on me and people like me and the society I want to live in. We are democrats, all opinion is valid. Debate, argue that opinion, but NEVER attenpt to silence it.

Not being invited to Prime Time is not 'silencing' anyone. It was a 32 minute segment, so by definition, there HAS to be a selection exercise which will limit participants.

He's entitled to his opinion. Prime Time should take a rigorous, professional approach when choosing guests to choose people with experience or expertise.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not being invited to Prime Time is not 'silencing' anyone. It was a 32 minute segment, so by definition, there HAS to be a selection exercise which will limit participants.

You are attempting to decree who is 'invited' with ridiculous criteria. That, my friend is censorship.

He's entitled to his opinion. Prime Time should take a rigorous, professional approach when choosing guests to choose people with experience or expertise.

So your answer is, 'No, I am not entitled to an opinion on abortion and divorce and other social change', because I have 'no experience nor expertise'...very good mein dictator. :rolleyes:

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are attempting to decree who is 'invited' with ridiculous criteria. That, my friend is censorship.



So your answer is, 'No, I am not entitled to an opinion on abortion and divorce and other social change', because I have 'no experience nor expertise'...very good mein dictator. :rolleyes:

How many times do I have to say it : he's entitled to his opinion.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How many times do I have to say it : he's entitled to his opinion.

As long as he has no platform to express it on.
As long as no producer thinks it is interesting or representative.

That is the essence of what you have been arguing.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How many times do I have to say it : he's entitled to his opinion.

As long as he has no platform to express it on.
As long as no producer thinks it is interesting or representative.

That is the essence of what you have been arguing.

No, it's not - and unless you are very silly person, you know well that it's not what I'm arguing - but you keep twisting my words, presumably because you're struggling to find anything in what I'm actually saying that is wrong or unreasonable.

So to sumarise:

1) He's entitled to his opinions
2) He's entitled to express his opinions on his own platforms, or on 'opinion' shows, like Cutting Edge for example
3) Not inviting him onto Prime Time would not have involved 'censorship' or 'silencing'. It would just have meant that a news show covering a sensitive topic that would be new to much of the audience would focus on facts from professional experts and opinion from experts by experience - instead of rants from Twitter trolls.

What's not to like?

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, it's not - and unless you are very silly person, you know well that it's not what I'm arguing - but you keep twisting my words, presumably because you're struggling to find anything in what I'm actually saying that is wrong or unreasonable.

So to sumarise:

1) He's entitled to his opinions
2) He's entitled to express his opinions on his own platforms, or on 'opinion' shows, like Cutting Edge for example
3) Not inviting him onto Prime Time would not have involved 'censorship' or 'silencing'. It would just have meant that a news show covering a sensitive topic that would be new to much of the audience would focus on facts from professional experts and opinion from experts by experience

There is no mandate for a current affairs show looking at opinion around these matters to only seek contributions from the above. You keep saying this and it doesn't make it true.

- instead of rants from Twitter trolls.

What's not to like?

And again you reveal yourself and the control of public debate you seek. I found nothing trollish about what he had to say.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is no mandate for a current affairs show looking at opinion around these matters to only seek contributions from the above. You keep saying this and it doesn't make it true.

Why would a current affairs show be "looking at opinion"? What next - we ask the plumbers union for their opinion on the cervical check crisis. We ask the Poetry Society for opinions on the children's hospital overspend.

If you want opinions, you do a vox pop on the street. You don't choose a Twitter troll from another country.

elperello

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would a current affairs show be "looking at opinion"? What next - we ask the plumbers union for their opinion on the cervical check crisis. We ask the Poetry Society for opinions on the children's hospital overspend.

If you want opinions, you do a vox pop on the street. You don't choose a Twitter troll from another country.

Are you back on that tack again suggesting that Graham Linehan is from another country?

Let's put it to bed for once and all he is an Irishman living in London.

You can call him a twitter troll if that's your opinion but it is a matter of fact that while he may reside in the UK he is one of us.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would a current affairs show be "looking at opinion"? What next - we ask the plumbers union for their opinion on the cervical check crisis. We ask the Poetry Society for opinions on the children's hospital overspend.

If you want opinions, you do a vox pop on the street. You don't choose a Twitter troll from another country.

When you are talking about the implications of a law or social change, it is all just 'opinion'.

Learn to listen to it and own your own mind. It isn't a great big conspiracy, just a programme exploring an issue.

AndrewJRenko

elperello wrote: »

Are you back on that tack again suggesting that Graham Linehan is from another country?

Let's put it to bed for once and all he is an Irishman living in London.

You can call him a twitter troll if that's your opinion but it is a matter of fact that while he may reside in the UK he is one of us.

Who is this 'us' that you speak of? You don't speak for me.

He hasn't lived here in a generation.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When you are talking about the implications of a law or social change, it is all just 'opinion'.

Learn to listen to it and own your own mind. It isn't a great big conspiracy, just a programme exploring an issue.

Eh no, not true. All the other 6 or 7 speakers all had expertise or personal experience. The comedy writer from London was the only one with 'all opinion'.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh no, not true. All the other 6 or 7 speakers all had expertise or personal experience. The comedy writer from London was the only one with 'all opinion'.

You are coming across loud and clear as someone who favours censorship of those you disparage. 'Comedy writer from London', how pathetically low do you need to go to prove your argument, if it is even an argument.

elperello

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Who is this 'us' that you speak of? You don't speak for me.

He hasn't lived here in a generation.

I'm not speaking for you.

I'm simply stating a fact that Graham Linehan is an Irishman.

If he never set foot in Ireland again he would die an Irishman.

Your continued attempts to use his residence against him are becoming tiresome.

AndrewJRenko

elperello wrote: »

I'm not speaking for you.

I'm simply stating a fact that Graham Linehan is an Irishman.

If he never set foot in Ireland again he would die an Irishman.

Your continued attempts to use his residence against him are becoming tiresome.

He is indeed an Irish man. An Irish man who has lived in the UK for a generation.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are coming across loud and clear as someone who favours censorship of those you disparage. 'Comedy writer from London', how pathetically low do you need to go to prove your argument, if it is even an argument.

How about you try arguing with what I actually said, instead of 'how I'm coming across'?

You know, the stuff about him having no expertise and experience, while all the other interviewees had expertise or experience.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He is indeed an Irish man. An Irish man who has lived in the UK for a generation.

Imagine, he says he is Irish and somebody else insists he isn't.

Kinda the theme of the programme we were discussing.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Imagine, he says he is Irish and somebody else insists he isn't.

Kinda the theme of the programme we were discussing.

Oh he's Irish all right, no argument there. An Irish man who has lived in the UK for a generation.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How about you try arguing with what I actually said, instead of 'how I'm coming across'?

You know, the stuff about him having no expertise and experience, while all the other interviewees had expertise or experience.

There is nothing in the mandate for current affairs programming that says a contributor has to have 'expertise' or 'experience' to give an opinion on social issues or the implications of a law. Which is, if you look at the outline of what the programme set out to do, what they were doing.
You are a not just coming across as a proponent of censorship, you actually are proposing it. Well done. All you had to do was argue his opinion with the superior fact, if you had it.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Oh he's Irish all right, no argument there. An Irish man who has lived in the UK for a generation.

And if somebody says 'You are a man, you always are and always will be, no matter what you do', fireworks of indignation go off.

Fair play. You have reached hypocrisy central Andrew.