Protection From Harm

at | 21 Replies

This morning.

Via RTÉ News:

Grieving father Andrew McGinley has called on representatives from RTÉ to meet with him and explain the reasoning behind a decision to drop him from The Late Late Show.

The father of three was due to appear on the primetime TV show on October 8 to announce plans for a fundraising concert in his children’s memory.

…It is understood the broadcaster decided not to proceed with the interview on the basis that representation from some members of Deirdre Morley’s family fell under its obligation to adhere to the “protection from harm” principle of the BAI code of programme standards.

Ms Morley killed the couple’s three children at their Dublin home in January 2020.

Grieving father Andrew McGinley calling on RTÉ to meet over ‘Late Late’ decision to cancel interview (Independent.ie)

Meanwhile…

Principle three of the code recognises that there are “some viewers and listeners who, by virtue of their age, particular circumstances or vulnerability, may be in need of special consideration”.

Mr McGinley said that he could not see how his planned interview and discussion about charitable work could be perceived as causing harm to anyone. “I don’t see how a charity launch is harmful to anybody. I don’t see how a colouring competition is harmful to anybody.”

RTÉ interview with Andrew McGinley pulled over wife’s family objections (Irish Times)

Yesterday: Not For Broadcast

Sponsored Link

21 thoughts on “Protection From Harm

  1. Redundant Proofreaders Society

    It’s worth mentioning that the expected €100k the appearance would generate includes an estimated 10,000 raffle tickets for a Daniel O’Donnell concert and a prize from Louis Fitzgerald Hotel, Sodexo and Derry Clarke. It would also no doubt have raised RTE ratings and advertising revenue.

    This just sounds wrong to capitalise on a tragedy. Mr. McGinley has the sympathy and respect of the entire country and it’s honourable how he is sharing the memories of his beloved children – but a prime-time entertainment chat show is not the forum for this. RTE know they have a passive and empathetic audience when they broadcast tragic human stories. The focus should be on improving mental health services and rehabilitation, to prevent murders so awful as this happening again.

    Reply
    1. Optimus Grime

      Yes and raising the awareness about the need for improving mental health services and rehabilitation is probably best done on a primetime chat show. If its too hard to take I would suggest changing the channel.

      Reply
      1. Redundant Proofreaders Society

        Is it?
        The Graham Norton Show doesn’t do this.
        There are more effective avenues to campaign for more government funding for mental health services.
        RTE seem to over-indulge in so many tragedies to boost their ratings.

        Reply
      2. Andrew

        On a prime time chat show? Ireland is weird. Mental health has been monetized now, the collection of snake oil merchants jumping on and making a living from it is disgusting.
        RTE are shamelessly going down this route for ratings

        Reply
    2. ian-oG

      It wasn’t murder though, she woman was found not guilty by reason of insanity so probably best to use the correct terminology. I appreciate its an easy mistake to make but we should not stigmatize the woman even further.

      Reply
      1. Redundant Proofreaders Society

        Noted, and you are right, thank you.
        Retracting the word ‘murders’ and replacing with ‘killings’.

        Reply
        1. ian-oG

          No worries – I got a bit a paranoid after I posted that it sounded like I was having a go, I wasn’t of course but if could look that way so thanks for understanding, I was only recently corrected on this very issue to do with this case by my wife the other day so fresh in my mind!

          Reply
    1. ian-oG

      Why not?

      Seems to me that there is a huge lack of mental health supports, even for those who can afford to go private.

      Reply
      1. GiggidyGoo

        My comment was tongue-in-cheek. It just struck me as strange that RTE made this decision on this item at the drop of a hat. Were they instructed to do so from greater heights? Were they afraid of bad publicity for the HSE?

        Reply
        1. ian-oG

          Ah OK, fair point.

          As for RTE, who knows why they do what they do, suffice to say the term ‘public service broadcaster’ is a misnomer. Should be called the self service broadcaster.

          Reply
          1. GiggidyGoo

            Interestingly, that paragraph 3 that they are quoting would lead me to believe that the viewer would have to have already seen the program and would have to have been offered support mechanisms after seeing it. That paragraph reads…..

            “Broadcasting can be a force for public good. In enriching people’s lives through entertainment, information or other programming, broadcasters must be free to make programmes that may be provocative or deal with sensitive issues. However, broadcasters must take due care to ensure that audiences are not exposed to harmful content and must provide adequate information to audiences
            to allow them to make informed choices about what they listen to and watch.

            This principle recognises that there are some viewers and listeners who, by virtue of their age, particular circumstances or vulnerability, may be in need of special consideration. Individual viewers and listeners may require support mechanisms or further information/guidance where they are exposed to content with which they identify strongly by virtue of their own personal circumstances or experiences and that may cause them distress.

            Some people require protection from programme material that can cause a physical reaction, for example, material that affects those with photo sensitive epilepsy or those who are susceptible to hypnosis. Some viewers and listeners may require protection from content that purports to be one thing when it is another, for example, something seemingly factual that is actually fictional or controversial.”

    1. Chuckenstein

      That was precisely his intention yet RTÉ decided to presume the content of an interview that they had plenty of time to control. Spineless.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie