Co-host Patrick Geoghegan, a history lecturer himself, invited "a whole school of professors to discuss the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The panel consisted of US authors/academics Joan Hoff, Mark Lytle and Bob Brigham, and UCD's professor of American studies, Liam Kennedy.

They began with a gentle, almost fond appraisal of the Reagan years. Hoff called to mind his mellifluous voice and how he brought his (admittedly limited) acting skills to bear on his political career. Brigham remarked on the cleverness of his handlers, who would never allow him to appear in public wearing a hat or coat for fear anyone would see his decrepitude.

Kennedy supplied the fascinating news that Reagan's early career was as a "visualiser" for radio sports broadcasts in the 1930s. "They weren't watching the game, they were telegraphed snippets of information about it live and they then had to create the whole game in the imagination of the listener.

There is real skill in it."

Geoghegan kept returning to the idea that Reagan was a half-wit, with the inescapable implication that he was somehow harmless. He supported this with the use of quotes, such as Reagan's famous reported remark after his first visit to Latin America: "I have learned a lot from my trip. I discovered they are all different countries."

It was almost 20 minutes in, when they had all begun to discuss Reagan's strong personal sympathy for the poor and the disadvantaged, that Joan Hoff had suddenly had enough. "The fact that he responded sympathetically to individuals does not disguise the fact that there was an unpublished viciousness to his policies, both domestically and internationallyf To use these anecdotes about how he personally responded to individuals, to turn him into some kind of human president, is misguided. The overall impact of his policies was negative for masses of people in the US and Central America and ultimately in the Middle East."

She must have spoken for a full five minutes, warding off revisionism. Then, to put the tinpot hat on it, Michael D Higgins came on the line, incensed.

Speaking ill of the dead wasn't in it with him. He raged about Reagan's policies in Central America, and about how in the Reagan era, US foreign policy became covert, moving outside the frame of international law, and about Reaganomics, with its "demolition of theories of citizenship", and about how Reagan managed "to fool people into thinking that if you roll back the state and eliminate bureaucracy you will suddenly have a kind of communitarian Eden".

He was mighty. Whatever anyone thinks about Michael D Higgins, there's no denying we need him.

But naturally he inspired various listeners to text in and harangue him. One person seemed to think that he resented Ronald Reagan purely for his role in the downfall of communism. "That's just a kind of vulgar ignorance, so let's not waste time on it, " said Higgins.

In fact, the only real criticism you could level at the otherwise excellent Talking History is that it invites messages from listeners. Just about every programme on the radio does this now, and it's a menace. It seems it's no longer enough to allow experts to speak; we have to let every ass in Ireland have his say as well.