Ask A Broadsheet Reader



Fintan O’Toole: Why I will not appear on Newstalk again (Irish Times)

109 thoughts on “Ask A Broadsheet Reader

    1. SOMK

      Absolutely shocked first comment here is expressing this sentiment, my jaw is in Australia and I may have to lie down several weeks before I fully recover.

  1. newsjustin

    Whatever about this, I do think it’s an awful strategy to pack a radio schedule with grumpy old codgers (or people doing the grumpy old codger routinue).

    Williams in the morning, Hook at lunch and Yates at drive time. Boring, negative and unimaginative. Bad idea.

        1. A snowflake's chance in hell

          Generally if newsjustin is for something I’m against it

          If he’s against it, I’m for it

          Hope that helps, these are good rules to live by

        2. Brain warp

          That may well be the case and I don’t disagree but is it not clear that this is part of a well known commercial strategy for shock jock radio? Yates is the one who annoys me the most, personally btw

    1. TheRealJane

      Totally agree. Listening to the same perspective on the same set of stories that interest a particular group of people is really tedious, like when their schedule appeared to suggest they were going to devote around ten hours of broadcasting time to the horrors of the dreaded young people’s snowflakery.

      1. A snowflake's chance in hell

        Yeah it’s a bit like listening to the same tired bunch of tooty-toots in here going on about repeal the 8th or the male dominated patriarchy or whatever the cause de jour is that I’m supposed to be outraged about

      1. A snowflake's chance in hell

        I like her for what it’s worth

        She’s a bit like that quare one you secretly fancy and also are slightly scared of because you know she doesn’t cook or wash or play camogie and also you know the lads will all slag you if you actually did it

      2. Harry Molloy

        I like her, any time I hear her speak she comes across as sound, I was almost moved to tears when I heard her speak of her illness at the same time as the marriage referendum on the Irishman abroad podcast – but I think most of her columns are ill thought out simplistic muck to be honest. They seem to have little critical thought, always appear to be written in a rush, and moulded to fit a predetermined point of view. But fair play to her for making a living doing something she loves.

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          ‘I’m not one of those sad man-children that whine about Una because they feel threatened. I think she’s sound. I just think her work, the thing everyone knows her for, is ill thought out muck. I can say that because I’m an expert at writing. Also, some of my best friends are black.’

      3. Digs

        The “lads” don’t hate Una. It’s just that she’s as predictable, contrived and polemic as most of her Guardian reading peers.

        I too am predictable, but I don’t call myself a journalist. Neither should she.

  2. Milo

    Aren’t these the same guys who wrapped themselves in Charlie Hebdo when that tragedy happened? About the importance of defending free speech wasn’t it? Its all very complicated although Im sure someone will mansplain it to me in a minute.

      1. Milo

        Purposefully missing the point and diverting again Nigel, but no matter. These people used the Charlie Hebdo massacre to declare how they are in favour of free speech, no matter how hurtful to those offended. (last week they called the victims of Hurricane in Houston nazis). But now free speech is something that they will decide on case by case. Selective censorship at best, hypocritical at worst. But then again, no worse than half the posse on here.

        1. Nigel

          The Charlie Hebdo attack wasn’t censorship it was murder. Not appearing on a radio show isn’t censorship it’s free speech. Disapproving of murder and exercising your free speech is about as far from hypocritical as you can get, as is objecting to calling hurricane victims Nazis but not wanting the people who do so to be murdered. You keep saying I miss the point or divert when all I actually do is point out how poorly thought-out I think your points are.

          1. Milo

            It wasn’t the murders the journalists complained about, it was the attack on freedom of expression. Attacking Charlie Hebdo for insulting Muslims is based on the same principle as attacking George Hook for insulting women. One was bad, the other you approve of. That is all. Personally I wouldnt be happy with this incongruence in my behaviours as it could smack of hypocrisy and double standards. Others, like you, are made of tougher stuff.

          2. Milo

            Simple enough to read. And stop hanging off every single one of my comments trying to get noticed. It demeans even you.

          3. Nigel

            You say that as if disapproving of murderous attacks but approving of free and open expressions of disagreement is a… bad thing?

          4. ReproBertie

            Just to be clear, George Hook didn’t insult women. George Hook blamed rape victims for being raped. I do not understand why you feel the need to find some sort of angle that allows you to defend that stance.

          5. Milo

            You dont understand why anyone who doesn’t share your viewpoint is allowed the oxygen of expression. You have good fellow travellers on here. The new pulpit of the interweb. Full of the same hypocrisy, false outrage, judgement and condemnation as priests were. Your views on women aren’t much better either.

          6. Milo

            You know you have won when those who oppose you resort to lies. I make a point about hypocrisy and suddenly Im defending the blaming of women for being raped? When the oppressed become the oppressors. Its a cycle.

          7. MoyestWithExcitement

            “You know you have won when those who oppose you…”

            I love how you felt so strongly that you had to write that twice. Where do you think you are by the way? You “won” against “those who oppose you”?

            “When you were partying, I studied the blade. When you were having premarital sex, I mastered the blockchain. While you wasted your days at the gym in pursuit of vanity, I cultivated inner strength. And now that the world is on fire and the barbarians are at the gate you have the audacity to come to me for help.”


          8. Milo

            When faced with people who wont bow to your bullying, some like Bertie resort to lies, others like you collapse in a pathetic babble of nonsense.

          9. ReproBertie

            When most people can see that Hook was completely in the wrong, after countless experts have spoken about the damage Hook’s remarks will have caused, and after Hook has admitted his remarks will have caused damage, you rush to his defence under the guise of making some hackneyed point about free speech by equating journalists murdered by terrorists with a guy who victim blamed rape victims.

          10. Milo

            So you are a liar. I wrote yesterday that he was wrong. I still think he was wrong. The point i made, rather eloquently, was that people those journalists signalling their virtue today should be called out for their hypocrisy. They are usually seen as defenders of free speech, and the permission to insult, mock, degrade whomever you like. But not now. That inherent contradiction is one Im not comfortable with, because I dont liken being two faced or using other peoples misery to get social standing on twitter or Broadsheet. Obviously that is something you and the rest of the bullies on here are comfortable with. Good luck to you, just not my thing.

          11. ReproBertie

            I demonstrated quite clearly where you are defending Hook victim blaming rape victims under the guise of some freedom of expression bull and playing the “you can’t be against one thing unless you are against all the things” card so favoured with idiots who think their attention seeking contrarian position constitutes a valid point.

            You also seem to think that he merely “insulted women” when what he did was much more than that so I’d be interested to hear you defend your playing down of his victim blaming.

          12. ReproBertie

            Also, disagreeing with you doesn’t make me a bully and throwing bully around as if it somehow invalidates anything said in disagreement with you shows a distinct lack of maturity on your part.

            Also also, what exactly are my views on women?

          13. mildred st. meadowlark

            I’m going to say yes…

            Though I really hope not. And I wouldn’t engage with him if possible. He’s a twatwaffler of the first degree.

            All of his points are nonsensical warbling. Actually, Milo, is your real name George Hook?

          14. Brain warp

            Milo what are you blabbering on about? I think on some level you want to be able to say to the others here: look someone got raped because they were “too” liberal. Is that it?

          15. ReproBertie

            More deflection. One could be forgiven for thinking you can’t back up anything you say. For example, you said “Your views on women aren’t much better either.”


    1. MoyestWithExcitement

      “About the importance of defending free speech wasn’t it? Its all very complicated although Im sure someone will mansplain it to me in a minute.”

      I will. They are exercising their free speech and right to association by not appearing on a privately funded platform. You are implying that they *should* be appearing on a private platform even if they don’t want to. That’s the authoritarian core in every whiney Mens Rights Activist and right winger.

        1. Clampers Outside!

          I can see it now, at a Movies & Booze event…. Harry, Nigel, Tony and myself…. swaying, arm in arm, bleeting on that we all love Moncrieff …then someone steps on a toe and all hell breaks loose ! :)

    1. MoyestWithExcitement

      Yes they will probably be avoiding a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper in America they have never “appeared” on before.

Comments are closed.