The decision published today of the ‘compliance committee’ of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland upholding a complaint about a RTÉ Radio 1 Derek Mooney Show item last January discussing the latest Civil Partnership figures with RTÉ’s Michael Murphy and Tiernan Brady of GLEN, the Gay and Lesbian Equality network.
GLEN Chairman Kieran Rose asks:
“Can lesbian and gay people not now talk about their lives and their aspirations as Irish citizens on the airwaves, or about their experiences of love and commitment without somebody opposing them?
Today’s ruling by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland raises worrying concerns about the nature of debate and discussion on issues of current affairs across the airwaves in Ireland.
The ruling has implications for all issues that are topics under public discussion, not just lesbian and gay issues.
Does it now mean contributors to a broadcast programme may not now talk about possible future constitutional change on any issue, unless the programme segment has opposing views? We would have serious concerns that this ruling would restrict open debate on issues that directly impact lesbian and gay people in Ireland”
It’s like in the US where some schools mandate that creationism should be taught as an “alternative viewpoint” or that you can’t talk about climate change without also giving airtime to climate change deniers.
Bullsh1t.
i think a robust holocaust denial would put paid to this notion.
I’m kind of at a loss for words.
This is disgusting.
who made the complaint?
ABM’s
girlfriendsister.These idiots
http://www.stgenesius.com/council.html
Mmmm…they have an “Apostolate for Epilepsy” position. That’d make a good JobBridge advert.
Hamas
Jesus people have little to be worrying about. Let everyone be equal and get the f€&k on with it.
It is somewhat positive that the gay marriage debate is bringing to the forefront the faults in broadcast and media regulation and the small-minded, petty, and perhaps scared nature of a section of our society.
We won’t learn anything, of course.
Say for instance, there might be a future discussion on the radio about the holocaust, will the program have to invite a holocaust denier onto the program for balance?
What about discussions about racism ?
I suppose the BAI’s position would be that deploring racism and the Holocaust are standard positions, endorsed by the state and almost universally held. Marriage equality, on the other hand, is against the law.
It’s not against the law it just doesn’t exist in the law.
Yep, that’s better phrased.
I’m pretty sure if they had a discussion on racism that in the interests of balance they’d get a grand wizard of the KKK and maybe someone from the DUP or even Noel O’Flynn to say that racism is completely right and that black people aren’t really people, they’re animals.
Because there’s two equally valid sides to every argument of course.
That’s a very silly point, and not in any way responding to the story here.
Apparently my tone wasn’t sufficiently mocking that it was obvious.
Sorry, Jay. The irony meter gets worn to a stub around here.
It’s only an issue here because there’s an upcoming referendum on that particular subject and it’s giving the impression that RTE are biased.
I did read elsewhere that we should complain about the Angelus as it’s a symbol of Catholicism, a religion that condemns homosexuality and therefore shows that RTE are biased against it.
so they rejected the Panti complaints but upheld this?? This country is reaffirming its Christianity and its ugly and reprehensible. RTE you should be ashamed
It’s the BAI who are saying the broadcast was unacceptably liberal. RTE defended the case.
that is my point, and they were reproached for not being Catholic enough. get it now?
*correction Catholic bigoted. of course I say this because you are not obliged to be bigoted as a Catholic but in Éire, it sure helps
I can’t speak for Violet, but you’ve confused the phuk out of me. What *is* your point? I can’t see how RTE can be asked to shoulder any blame for this.
You can certainly speak for me, Spartacus. You’ve asked my question a lot more politely than I was about to.
looking forward to (somewhere in the future) the debates about legalizing cannabis.
the next 9/10 months or so are going to be tough to stomach :-/
Yip :(
Yup but it’ll be for the good.
The referendum will pass and the anti-gay marriage brigade will huff and puff to their heart’s content, all the while eroding the goodwill held by anybody other than their committed base.
Yep, the referendum results day in the RDS will be treated to a blast of “Yis wife-swapping sodomites , yis”.
Which will, at that point, actually be plausible :)
Would there be any value in flooding the BAI with spurious complaints ?
I can list about 10 complaints about Fair City (if I ever bothered to watch it) plenty of blasphemy in there too …
The Angelus, thats not balance, we can surely fit in a muslim call to prayer….
Actually, that’s a great idea. Let’s all complain about the angelus and how it’s unfair towards other people’s beliefs, I really would love to see that pulled off the airways. Maybe something good can come from this ruling!
Don’t forget their weekly Sunday service
Surely we should keep it relatively on topic and any time someone is asked about the their relationship/marriage we should force people to also come on and talk about their lack of a relationship/marriage?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt9MP70ODNw
I’d prefer this to the angelus.
Go for it. Maybe we should be collectively showing them with complaints to prove the point. There is basically no balance in most radio slots.
The BAI (like all such ‘authorities’) is a government appointed body, full of those to whom political favours were owed, or who are friends of the minister. So independent thinking or a willingness to rock the establishment boat isn’t to be expected.
In any debate on current issues, especially when we are in the “warm zone” approaching a referendum, RTE is obliged to be fair to both sides of that debate. That is all this is saying. Im sure most well thinking people would be in favour of fairness. Consider the outrage if 3 Iona spokespeople were on unopposed and the presenter agreeing with them. Or imagine a blog where all the people held the same opinions and just dissed anyone with opposing ones.. Oh wait…
Yeah, for every reasoned argument/position of tolerance, we have to have some intolerant lunatics, like for balance – i.e. Iona.
You have made my point there Anne.
We need lunatics for balance?
Wasn’t this broadcast before any referendum was mooted?
Was this a debate? It doesn’t seem so.
Me talking to you on the airwaves about my relationship and hopes for the future is not the same as Iona talking to you on the airwaves about my relationship and how they’d like my future to be.
I’m not advocating a political agenda by saying I’d like to get married – they however are when they say I should not be permitted to get married.
You are advocating a change in the law, which is a matter of current affairs and public interest. Therefore a publicly funded news organisation must carry that debate fairly. They are saying keep the law as it is, you are saying change it. The outcome affects everyone so the debate must have consideration for all points of view. This kind of open, fair, equal debate is something other societies can only dream of.
No, the outcome doesn’t effect everyone. Only gay people who might like the choice to marry. I can’t see how it is anyone else business. To allow bigots a vote on the matter is absurd.
And will you select the “bigots” who you will deny a vote?
Not at all absurd. Even bigots have the right to vote – that’s our democracy.
Why should there be a vote on matters of equality? It should be a given.
It isn’t a given. To allow same sex marriage requires a change to the constitution. We need a referendum to allow (or disallow) that change, there is no practical alternative.
Bluebeard, could you kindly explain how the decision “effects everyone”? I’m heterosexual & I’m at a loss to think of a single reason why gay marriage should effect me. A yes vote might make me feel happier that I live in a more tolerant society. What possible benefit would a no vote give me?
The decision changes the parameters of the society you live in. It may not affect you, but it could affect your neighbour, child or friend, thereby affecting you.
“I’m heterosexual & I’m at a loss to think of a single reason why gay marriage should effect me.”
There would be slightly less chance of there being a free date when booking a church for a wedding?
Just a joke. Marriage equality for all!
And presumably every time a female presenter broadcasts from RTE, she is by her very existence in the studio advocating a change in the constitution? And in the run-up to the blasphemy debate, all expressions of atheism are advocating a change?
Like, the problem here is that two gay people aspiring to be married, in a time before the referendum was called when it really was just an amorphous desire rather than urging people to vote a particular way, has been deemed to be political speech. It’s often been implicit in the way we’re treated, but this is gratingly explicit: LGBT people aren’t *normal* people, they’re social experiments. Their lives can’t just be the subject of the type of standard fluff piece RTE would do for *any* time-filling social milestone; they have to be examined, objected to, debated and held up for scrutiny to the rest of Ireland. LGBT people don’t have dreams, they have political stances. It’s dehumanising, and makes a mockery of the notion of ‘tolerance’ – we’re to be tolerated as long as we know our place, but the slightest whisper of hoping for something better is automatically a Statement, which requires Balance lest we corrupt the hapless Irish public with our “just wanting to get married in peace”.
Great points. It’s the soft tyranny, endemic in Ireland, of not actually applying the letter of the law uniformly, just cherry picking bits to rely on when something feels like it’s maybe a bit different or weird, or could potentially spook the horses, in the safe expectation that most “normal” people “know what you really mean” and won’t kick up a fuss because ah sure god what harm.
Hear hear! That was a terrific comment, Nially.
What Barry the Hatchet said. Great comment!
My exact feelings on the matter, great comment!
It’s a fair point, Bluebeard, but it starts to become farcical – climate change deniers etc.
RTE are forced to present pointless debates even when there is no real support or basis for the contrarian position.
Not having seen this show, I’ll refrain from passing judgement.
It was funny then, not so much now
http://youtu.be/uDYba0m6ztE
Obviously we all like the upcoming referendum, but when there are any referendums there needs to be an opportunity given to both sides of the argument.
Hence all the odd folk coming out from the crevices and being given space to write pieces against the children’s referendum.
It just happens that most people like this referendum. I hope it passes. And I hope that if ever there is a government that wants undo the referendum, the BAI ensures that that particular government’s views aren’t the only ones heard on radio.
This all arises from Supreme Court judgments like McKenna and others that stipulated the Government could spend money promoting one side of the argument in a referendum and that equal say have to be given to both sides of the argument. That’s why we establish a Referendum Commission. broadcasters and broadcasting regulators are petrified at violating this case-law.
The show aired in January.
The referendum was announced in July.
I look forward to a day when we live in a world where presenters ask questions like; Have you got a partner? Who is the lucky one at home? Rather than the assumption that when they speak to someone that their loved one is of the opposite sex. So many days of my adulthood I listen to a world that reiterates that in some way my life style is not normal. That my love is different or weird. What harm do my choices do to others. Why do I have to constantly fight for my right to be seen as an equal! My fight with my acceptance of who I was and fear of the word gay ended when I was 31. This ruling states that our viewpoints about our human rights deserve to be subjected to some form of censorship for the purpose of creating balance on the airwaves. Where has been the balance up until now. Where has been the fairness?