Eoghan Harris terminated

Rosita

Harris is what he is and you either accept that or not. But to be fair I didn't hear or see any particular car crash in the interview given that he was defending the indefensible anyway.

McInerney was well coached to not get sucked into defending RTÉ against the pro-SF accusation. But while she did well enough it was a no lose interview for her. But I thought his situation was no worse at the end than at the start. That's just trying to be open-minded about it.

JeffKenna

Rosita wrote: »

Harris is what he is and you either accept that or not. But to be fair I didn't hear or see any particular car crash in the interview given that he was defending the indefensible anyway.

McInerney was well coached to not get sucked into defending RTÉ against the pro-SF accusation. But while she did well enough it was a no lose interview for her. But I thought his situation was no worse at the end than at the start. That's just trying to be open-minded about it.

I'm not sure, Sarah really caught him when she said the account had sent her abusive messages and she had to block it.

Rosita

blackcard wrote: »

Eoghan was full of his own self importance. He mentioned on many occasions that the nation of Ireland was being deprived because RTE chose not not to have him appear on tv where he could dispense his wisdom to the masses. Very considerate of him to point this out. I think that he was expecting a mass uprising to demand that this outrageous situation would be rectified.

To be fair to him, the words "deprived", "dispense his wisdom to the masses", and "mass uprising" are yours. He never mentioned any of them in that interview. He did complain about not being invited onto programmes by RTE and, based on his constant writing on the topic, seems to view this editorial policy as a pro-SF thing. I'd be amazed if he was right but he's entitled to say it and to have it reported in the way that he said it rather than the exaggerated stylised way you do.

Like I said in the previous post, he is what he is, and there's hardly a requirement to make stuff up that he said. He's entrenched enough anyway.

And he wouldn't be the first or last person to have an RTE obsession. Read through a thread here and you'll see that.

FrancieBrady

JeffKenna wrote: »

I'm not sure, Sarah really caught him when she said the account had sent her abusive messages and she had to block it.

She flummoxed him to when she read out the list of others ways he could have created a platform.

It was ultimate car crash radio and he kept ramming the car too.

Rosita

JeffKenna wrote: »

I'm not sure, Sarah really caught him when she said the account had sent her abusive messages and she had to block it.

Maybe. But "caught him out"? Not sure he ever claimed it was pleasant.

And his explanation of some of the comments that caused upset to the girl from the Examiner actually created a plausible context for them, I thought anyway.

magicbastarder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She flummoxed him to when she read out the list of others ways he could have created a platform.

i thought that was the most effective part of all. he had many ways of airing his views, but he chose a deliberately anonymous manner which was so onerous, he needed the help of six (six!) other people to manage it.

his ongoing protestations that RTE were not courting him for what he so obviously thinks is his enormous intellect were just funny (and mortifying)

FrancieBrady

Just reading what he said about Mary McAleese in her presidential campaign, he described her as a 'tribal timebomb'.

I don't have a lot of time for Mary McAleese's viewpoints but that is really a shocking and toxic thing to say. This 'journalist' was protected for far too long.

Rosita

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She flummoxed him to when she read out the list of others ways he could have created a platform.

/QUOTE]

But so what? She could do a podcast but instead chooses to work with RTE, as is her entitlement. There's nothing inherently wrong with the actual platform he used. Pointing out alternatives is hardly flummoxing anyone. It was his own behaviour and temperament which flummoxed him, not S McInerney (who did fine, but she was playing with the wind today, let's be honest - it'd have been hard not to do okay).

FrancieBrady

Rosita wrote: »

But so what? She could do a podcast but instead chooses to work with RTE, as is her entitlement. There's nothing inherently wrong with the actual platform he used. Pointing out alternatives is hardly flummoxing anyone. It was his own behaviour and temperament which flummoxed him, not S McInerney (who did fine, but she was playing with the wind today, let's be honest - it'd have been hard not to do okay).

Nothing 'inherently wrong' with abusing and possibly defaming people?

Cilldara_2000

Rosita wrote: »

But so what? She could do a podcast but instead chooses to work with RTE, as is her entitlement. There's nothing inherently wrong with the actual platform he used. Pointing out alternatives is hardly flummoxing anyone. It was his own behaviour and temperament which flummoxed him, not S McInerney (who did fine, but she was playing with the wind today, let's be honest - it'd have been hard not to do okay).

The platform he used kicked his troll account off because he broke their rules.

And there is something deeply sinister and wrong about using a sock puppet to target other members of his own profession even for fair and balanced criticism never mind the toxic abuse he was spewing out left, right and centre.

Itssoeasy

I’m listening to the interview now and Jesus I’m only a few minutes in and he’s barely keeping it together.

Itssoeasy

Oh here we go he’s getting thick with Sarah.

magicbastarder

Rosita wrote: »

But so what? She could do a podcast but instead chooses to work with RTE, as is her entitlement. There's nothing inherently wrong with the actual platform he used.

i think you missed the point by a country mile.

Rosita

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

The platform he used kicked his troll account off because he broke their rules.

Yeah, that's my point succinctly made. It was the behaviour not the platform that was the issue. So her suggestion of alternative platforms, while reasonable in the context of the anonymity argument, was irrelevant.

Rosita

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think you missed the point by a country mile.

Why, on the Internet, is it always a "country" mile? A city mile just is never dramatic enough maybe?

Itssoeasy

Haha she says she’s not a “shrinking violet” and fair play to her for saying that because it sounds like he wanted to get a reaction out of Sarah. This interview is another reason why I think Sarah McInerney should have gotten the today show on rte.

gmisk

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I’m listening to the interview now and Jesus I’m only a few minutes in and he’s barely keeping it together.

It gets worse/better....

gmisk

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Haha she says she’s not a “shrinking violet” and fair play to her for saying that because it sounds like he wanted to get a reaction out of Sarah. This interview is another reason why I think Sarah McInerney should have gotten the today show on rte.

She was doing a great job it should never have went to Claire Byrne.

Itssoeasy

gmisk wrote: »

It gets worse/better....

I’m listening to it now and he’s not helping himself.

magicbastarder

he was claiming he didn't have a platform, that his views were being suppressed - someone who (i believe) has a weekly column in a sunday broadsheet ('broadsheet' used loosely), clearly suffering from being gagged, created an incoherent, self congratulatory twitter account because that was the only avenue he could think of open to him to get his views across. it certainly was genuinely serving the people of the north, as was his claim.

Cilldara_2000

Rosita wrote: »

Yeah, that's my point succinctly made. It was the behaviour not the platform that was the issue. So her suggestion of alternative platforms, while reasonable in the context of the anonymity argument, was irrelevant.

I have no idea what your point is tbh.

Here’s the relevant part of the transcript:

SM: You know, I suppose the thing is Eoghan, most people would agree that you have the right to free speech in terms of your views on Sinn Féin, which are obviously very strongly held. And you had the right to express those views every week in a very big Sunday newspaper. You had the right to set up a blog post if you wanted to write about it further during the week. You had the right to set up a named Twitter account if you wanted to write about it further. You had the right to set up a podcast if you wanted to talk about it further. There were many different ways you could have gotten your views across without restoring to an anonymous account which tweeted abusive tweets regularly at journalists and other public figures.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/full-transcript-eoghan-harrissextraordinaryinterview-with-sarah-mcinerney-as-he-defends-anonymous-twitter-account-40399974.html

Rosita

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing 'inherently wrong' with abusing and possibly defaming people?

Seriously, you are not that clueless are you? Read my post and see what I actually said.

In case it slips you on a second reading - I said there was nothing inherently wrong with the platform, so McInerney's point (about a platform she acknowledges using herself) is irrelevant.

JeffKenna

Rosita wrote: »

Maybe. But "caught him out"? Not sure he ever claimed it was pleasant.

And his explanation of some of the comments that caused upset to the girl from the Examiner actually created a plausible context for them, I thought anyway.

Course she did. As you say, he defended the tweets to the Irish Examiner journalist quite well but as soon as she said that account was one of 15 ever that she had to block, it became fairly obvious this was systematic.

magicbastarder

Rosita wrote: »

Why, on the Internet, is it always a "country" mile? A city mile just is never dramatic enough maybe?

uhm, it's not just on the internet?

tipptom

What is the most shocking about this is how Irish journalists stood by and let this bullying,misogyny,bigotism etc carry on and not a word even though they knew who was behind this account.

It was obvious who was the mouthpiece of this account because all it done was praise himself and there was nothing more Eoghan liked more than praising himself

What is more disgraceful here is the names and abuse he brought on this woman at the Examiner for nothing more than been a Derry Catholic and the abuse of calling her a "terrorist" seems to have started the very minute she took up the post and this seemed to be a theme for any journalist who was a Northern Catholic and that is a hate crime,yet our journalists stood by and let this happen.

I always remember an article he wrote years ago deriding Nationalists in NI and how they should be grateful to "good strong Northern Protestants who worked in old peoples care homes and how they were able to get over the job of washing Catholic ars@s".
He got away with stuff like that frequently and i didnt expect him to be called out on it by his editor Fanning but i did think at the time that it was a disgrace that not one Irish journalist would speak out,and so it was not surprising the hate continued unchecked.

Harris is shameless but Irish journalism should be ashamed of themselves for letting this lunatic operate so long with an agenda of hate against any NI Catholics he targeted,and i am not talking about SF as they can defend themselves and most people just found that comical,but the press would not even stand up against him when he was abusing many of their own and this would not have even got of the ground in the Irish media if he was shouting this type of hate from the other side.

Itssoeasy

Well that was fun.

RandomViewer

Rosita wrote: »

Why, on the Internet, is it always a "country" mile? A city mile just is never dramatic enough maybe?

City mile is measured, its a mile, country mile could be anything up to 5 actual miles

Rosita

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

I have no idea what your point is tbh.

Here’s the relevant part of the transcript:



https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/full-transcript-eoghan-harrissextraordinaryinterview-with-sarah-mcinerney-as-he-defends-anonymous-twitter-account-40399974.html

Very good, thanks. Proves my point that it was the 'anonymous' thing she took issue with. I suppose when she's a self acknowledged Twitter user herself she couldn't credibly disavow the platform.

Cilldara_2000

magicbastarder wrote: »

he was claiming he didn't have a platform, that his views were being suppressed - someone who (i believe) has a weekly column in a sunday broadsheet ('broadsheet' used loosely), clearly suffering from being gagged, created an incoherent, self congratulatory twitter account because that was the only avenue he could think of open to him to get his views across. it certainly was genuinely serving the people of the north, as was his claim.

Not just a Sunday “broadsheet” but the largest circulating newspaper in the country, or at least it was before they decided to suppress the circulation figures.

Rosita

magicbastarder wrote: »

uhm, it's not just on the internet?

I said "on the Internet". I didn't say "only on the Internet". Read the post before replying maybe?