An entertaining analysis of Michael O’Leary… November 4, 2016Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
…though not necessarily entertaining in the way its author intended. Hard to decide whether it is intended to be parodic, but Mark Paul in the IT a few weeks back, having lambasted critics and cheerleaders of O’Leary for caricatures and a lack of complexity in their critiques, whether pro or con and noting the ‘mass of contradictions’ of this iconic figure, he then treats us to this.
O’Leary is almost always interesting to listen to and he delivers ready-made quotes that capture the attention of readers.
I am regularly driven to the point of despair trying to make some colourless sod sound interesting because I don’t want to put my readers to sleep. O’Leary, on the other hand, is usually entertaining and, even when he is being unfair or downright wrong and insulting, he is usually funny about it.
It is not a crime nor is it lazy for journalists to seek out interesting quotes and observations. It is an imperative. O’Leary understands this more than most, and he tailors his entreaties to match. Journalists should make no apology for reporting something that someone says simply because it is interesting.
The other thing about copy derived from O’Leary’s rants is that he has an unerring ability to zero in on the nub of an issue. This holds true whether you agree with what he is saying or not. He doesn’t dance about a concept, he punches it in the face.
Right so, unleash the complexity and contradictions of the great man there Mark.
When O’Leary says British politicians are acting like “headless chickens” and “haven’t a f***ing clue” about how to approach the upcoming Brexit negotiations, it is hard to argue that he isn’t on to something.
Well I never. Such novel and forensic precision in his approach. Tell us more, Mark.
When he says Ireland should tell Brussels to “f*** off” over the Apple tax ruling, you can agree with him or not. Either way, with one vulgar sentence he encapsulated the choice for the Government: either accept the ruling or fight.