RTE can not be trusted to produce balanced broadcasting

The airing today of the decision made by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission in finding RTE had transmitted a biased and unbalanced current affairs programme is of enormous significance and the way it is reported by the rest of the media will indicate whether or not they are complicit with RTE.

From any analysis of the submissions on the Family provisions, made to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, it is clear that society is divided between those who support the moral and current Constitutional position of being pro-Life, pro-Family and pro-Common Good and those who oppose this.

One would expect therefore in a debate about any of these important issues that RTE, being the state broadcaster and funded by the public purse, would seek to represent the positions of both sides of the argument.

In fact RTE's licence conditions specifies that failure to provide this balance invalidates their licence.

RTE were found to have shown bias and lack of balance in relation to a specific broadcast about the issue of same-sex couples being permitted to adopt children, but the topic itself is not the most important feature of this finding.

The National Mens Council of Ireland, like many other pro-Life, pro-Family groups have made numerous complaints to RTE about a perceived lack of balance. Typically we were treated with replies from Mr Feeney, their Complaints Manager similar to his reply in relation to this complaint that, "RTE is fully confident that when members of the BCC board listen to a recording of the programme they will hear a programme conducted in an impartial manner".

The BCC, in its upholding of a violation of Section 24(2)(a) of the Broadcasting Act (impartiality), issued a very robust condemnation of the way RTE handled the programme and confirms that Mr Feeney and RTE were very wrong. The BCC found, "... the broadcaster did not ensure that adequate representation was given to both sides" and undue prominence was given to the pro-homosexual agenda.

By its own response showing an absence of contrition, RTE have shown they are incapable of self-regulation and of ensuring balance. The evidence clearly shows that RTE relies only on its own internal prejudices instead of objective standards of what constitutes balance.

If RTE is to be allowed to continue to avail of its licence, it is necessary for an independent body to be set up immediately to provide the essential governance that RTE lacks in this vital aspect of broadcasting. This body must necessarily be formed to include the legitimate views of society, i.e.  those of the majority, who acknowledge the virtue of traditional family values.

Until this is done no-one should be expected to fund, through their license-fee, a broadcaster who, the evidence shows, has an institutional incapacity to be impartial and provide balanced current affairs programmes.

God bless

Roger Eldridge
Chairman, National Mens Council of Ireland

***

Broadcasting Complaints Commission/Decisions April 2007

http://www.bcc.ie/decisions/Apr_07_decisions.html 
 
Re: Complaint No. 84/07
 
The Text of the decision:
 
‘The Broadcasting Complaints Commission received four complaints in relation to a broadcast of Liveline on 12 February 2007.  The complainants believed that the subject matter was not treated in a fair and balanced manner.
 
The discussion in question dealt with issues raised in an article by the journalist Hermann Kelly in an Irish newspaper, which was critical of the director of the One-in-Four organization and gay and lesbian adoptions and fostering. Mr. Kelly participated in the discussion.
 
The commission noted that overall the presenter did not challenge the opinions expressed by callers opposed to Mr. Kelly’s views. The majority of callers put on-air there were opposed to his views. Given the manner of presentation it was important that Mr. Kelly be permitted to respond to achieve balance. Our hearing the broadcast the Commission was of the opinion that Mr. Kelly was not afforded adequate opportunity to respond. The presenter did not challenge the callers opposed to Mr. Kelly’s views and her manner of questioning was at times unfair to Mr. Kelly n that it clearly indicated her own opinion.
 
The commission acknowledges that the format of Liveline is such that the presenter can and does express opinion. Balance can be achieved through ensuring that adequate representation is given to both sides of the debate by all of the contributors to the programme.

The Commission is of the opinion that on this occasion the broadcaster did not ensure that adequate representation was given to both sides. There was undue prominence given to opposing views.

The commission was of the view that the subject matter was not treated fairly in this program.

The complaint was upheld with regard to section 24(2)(a)(impartiality).’
 
The decision was aired on Monday, 11 June 2007 at 13.45 approximately.