Andrew ‘Beef’ Johnston-inspired debate exhibits the true clowns are those that attempt to ban dialogue


talkSPORT Drive presenter Adrian Durham debates the deserves of on-line polls and debating totally different factors of view…

The Buggles bought it spectacularly incorrect (fortunately for me) with their 1979 primary hit “Video Killed The Radio Star,” and now Twitter must doff its cap to radio as effectively, regardless of one of the best efforts of a senseless minority.

The outpouring of anger and rage – a number of it faked for impact clearly – when my colleagues The Two Mikes put out a ballot on Twitter to accompany their present on the weekend was laughable.

The ballot requested if golfer Andrew “Beef” Johnston was a clown or an inspiration. The ballot end result confirmed 61% believed Beef to be an inspiration. Which meant 39% thought he was a clown. But folks appeared determined to be offended by the query. Bizarre.

Let’s make clear a couple of issues right here, as a result of on Drive we get the identical pretend anger in response to our Twitter polls. If the query is so ridiculous it results in a one-sided ballot, then truthful sufficient – it’s pointless.

But when there’s a break up within the end result, no landslide, then there’s debate.

The truth that 39% voted that Beef is a clown disenchanted me, however I’d prefer to know their causes for pondering that, possibly they might subsequently be educated.

If they’d seen that video of Beef selecting the boy up for his birthday shock, and selecting fellow golfers up alongside the best way, with the child getting wider-eyed at each cease, they’d realise Beef is an inspiration, they usually may change their vote.

What’s incorrect with a debate that enlightens folks in that approach? Anybody bought a solution to that query?

Extra crucially from talkSPORT’s viewpoint, is that twitter polls don’t stand in isolation. They accompany a present (therefore the Twitter account from which the polls are posted). So to guage The Two Mikes’ ballot with out listening to what they mentioned is poor.

I really listened to the present and heard what they mentioned. Mike Graham was very complimentary about Beef. Mike Parry much less so, and I felt he was massively out of order for calling Beef a “clown” and suggesting he lacked dignity. These feedback have been too private, and from what I perceive of Beef, these feedback have been completely groundless. 

However what’s incorrect with asking a query and having a debate? If Parry might be proved incorrect by a caller who has extra info and a backed up opinion, then that’s a very good factor, proper?

As a substitute the knee-jerk, reasonably ignorant response is to shout and wail, tweet abuse, and attempt to ban any type of debate. This isn’t Stalinist Russia, questions are allowed to be requested, and debates ought to observe – unpunished.

The ballot end result confirmed a number of love for Beef, so I might have thought that was a very good factor.

We had one ballot on Drive final week, asking which is finest: The Open or The Masters? Easy stuff, however one tweeter was so incensed he responded: “Is that a serious question?” Not abusive, however definitely senseless. The ballot completed 55% in favour of the Masters. Good debate, an in depth one.

So subsequent time you see a ballot tweeted from a radio present account, tune in and pay attention earlier than getting all pompous and offended. Don’t be a clown, be an inspiration. It would make it easier to formulate an opinion price listening to, and it would simply make it easier to get the higher of Mike Parry once you cellphone in. Now that may be price it, absolutely? 

Radio will all the time be a much better and constructive medium for dialogue and dialog than Twitter. That’s definitely not up for debate.

Tune in to Adrian Durham for one of the best in sports activities dialogue and debate, each weekday, Four-7pm UK time, on the talkSPORT Drive present. Click here for details on how to listen.