BAI in breach of Coughlan Judgement

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
BAI in breach of Coughlan Judgement?

So the Citizens Assembly recently covered the 50/50 media requirement coming up to a referendum.

The "experts" invited to what imo was a fit up argued we don't need this 50/50 coverage.

In a cut and paste like decsion the BAI have gone with the CA.

"At a briefing today on its guidelines on referendum coverage the BAI said that fairness objectivity and impartiality can be achieved by including interests from both sides of the debate.

There is no obligation to automatically balance each contribution with an opposing contribution as fairness can be achieved in a number of ways including presenter input, the make up of audience, the structure of the programme as well as other means, the BAI said."

https://www.rte.ie/amp/947067/

Unconstitutional I believe. See the Coughlan Judgement.

""The Supreme Court has upheld a High Court judgement that RTÉ acted unfairly in the allocation of free and unchallenged airtime to the 'Yes' and 'No' sides of the debate in the 1995 Divorce Referendum. The High Court action was taken by Trinity College lecturer Anthony Coughlan. He challenged RTÉ's treatment of the referendum and the decision of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission to dismiss his complaints."

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/5300/

The Coughlan Judgement is central, but so also is the McKenna Judgement in that the public broadcasters and the apparatus of the 'airwaves' are public assets that the Government cannot leverage to sway a vote in a particular direction.


It starts with the 8th amendment referendum.
 
Last edited:


The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,036
You got your arse handed to you on this so started a thread?

This was a clarifying ruling after silly things like RTE going back to a speaker for 6 seconds to mathematically balance all time. Balance is broader than RTE interpreted it.

Also pointed out to you this has her haw to do with the constitution. It's the 1998 act.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
You got your arse handed to you on this so started a thread?

This was a clarifying ruling after silly things like RTE going back to a speaker for 6 seconds to mathematically balance all time. Balance is broader than RTE interpreted it.

Also pointed out to you this has her haw to do with the constitution. It's the 1998 act.
BS.

The Coughlan Judgement is central but so also is the McKenna Judgement in that the public broadcasters and the apparatus of the 'airwaves' are public assets that the Government cannot leverage to sway a vote in a particular direction.
 
Last edited:

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
54,440
It's more about the Coughlan judgement.
 

Mushroom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
15,474
Poor ger is running around like demented hamster as she tries to convince everyone that her view of the world is correct!

I reckon she's already been on to Joe Duffy and look forward to hearing her hysterical ravings in about an hour's time!
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
So the Citizens Assembly recently covered the 50/50 media requirement coming up to a referendum.

The "experts" invited to what imo was a fit up argued we don't need this 50/50 coverage.

In a cut and paste like decsion the BAI have gone with the CA.

"At a briefing today on its guidelines on referendum coverage the BAI said that fairness objectivity and impartiality can be achieved by including interests from both sides of the debate.

There is no obligation to automatically balance each contribution with an opposing contribution as fairness can be achieved in a number of ways including presenter input, the make up of audience, the structure of the programme as well as other means, the BAI said."

https://www.rte.ie/amp/947067/

Unconstitutional I believe.

It starts with the 8th amendment referendum.
Misleading thread title. The new guidelines have not been found to go against the McKenna judgment. The 50-50 rule was always a licence for flakery. And an opportunity for people representing tiny minorities occupying inordinate amounts of air time.

I think the decision is sensible. It will inevitably be challenged in court. I hope it passes that challenge.
 

The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,036
Misleading thread title. The new guidelines have not been found to go against the McKenna judgment. The 50-50 rule was always a licence for flakery. And an opportunity for people representing tiny minorities occupying inordinate amounts of air time.

I think the decision is sensible. It will inevitably be challenged in court. I hope it passes that challenge.
I'm not sure it even goes that far.

We both have a minute. You go 55 seconds. I go 65. The go back to you for 10. You look blankly at the camera. It happened and was a pedantic interpretation. Similarly if your column has 20 more words than mine they are t 'balanced'. The BAI are allowing RTE and others to use a bit of cop.

And it still has nothing to do with the constitution.
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
32,410
Can we just bar ger from starting threads til the end of May.

How many abortion threads do we need.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
54,440
Misleading thread title. The new guidelines have not been found to go against the McKenna judgment. The 50-50 rule was always a licence for flakery. And an opportunity for people representing tiny minorities occupying inordinate amounts of air time.

I think the decision is sensible. It will inevitably be challenged in court. I hope it passes that challenge.
You can be a tiny minority in the Dail but still be in a majority in a referendum result.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,055
So the Citizens Assembly recently covered the 50/50 media requirement coming up to a referendum.

The "experts" invited to what imo was a fit up argued we don't need this 50/50 coverage.

In a cut and paste like decsion the BAI have gone with the CA.

"At a briefing today on its guidelines on referendum coverage the BAI said that fairness objectivity and impartiality can be achieved by including interests from both sides of the debate.

There is no obligation to automatically balance each contribution with an opposing contribution as fairness can be achieved in a number of ways including presenter input, the make up of audience, the structure of the programme as well as other means, the BAI said."

https://www.rte.ie/amp/947067/

Unconstitutional I believe.

It starts with the 8th amendment referendum.
Which clause in the constitution has been broken?
 

The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,036
You can be a tiny minority in the Dail but still be in a majority in a referendum result.
One of the dissenting voices to the Kenna ruling was if we were doing the GFA now. Where do you find 50% of the chat against it?

Abortion has people of good conscience on both sides but some referenda don't and won't.
 
Last edited:

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
I'm not sure it even goes that far.

We both have a minute. You go 55 seconds. I go 65. The go back to you for 10. You look blankly at the camera. It happened and was to pedantic. The BAI are allowing RTE and others to use a bit of cop.

And it still has nothing to do with the constitution.
I hope you're right about it having no problem with the constitution. And I hope you're wrong about it not going as far as to cease the free and pointless air time that McKenna has given to flakes.

My impression from the arse end of the piece on SOR was that it would mean some radically new way of providing balance and objectivity. I could be wrong, especially since I only heard the end of the segment.
 

The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,036
I hope you're right about it having no problem with the constitution. And I hope you're wrong about it not going as far as to cease the free and pointless air time that McKenna has given to flakes.

My impression from the arse end of the piece on SOR was that it would mean some radically new way of providing balance and objectivity. I could be wrong, especially since I only heard the end of the segment.
I think of more relevance to the wingnuts is not their right to be heard, which I support, it's where the specific nutters are found.

I read this as balance doesn't have to be the same airtime to the second for either side and following a piece up directly with a rebuttal. Editors and producers have a bit of leeway.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
I think of more relevance to the wingnuts is not their right to be heard, which I support, it's where the specific nutters are found.

I read this as balance doesn't have to be the same airtime to the second for either side and following a piece up directly with a rebuttal. Editors and producers have a bit of leeway.
I hope they have a lot of leeway, and that the requirement to be fair, balanced and objective is not mistaken for an imagined duty to provide a platform for lies and other obvious untruths, which is very clearly what has happened in a number of referenda in the past.
 

Expose the lot of them

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
20,744
You got your arse handed to you on this so started a thread?

This was a clarifying ruling after silly things like RTE going back to a speaker for 6 seconds to mathematically balance all time. Balance is broader than RTE interpreted it.

Also pointed out to you this has her haw to do with the constitution. It's the 1998 act.
I suppose we should be grateful that the demented Ger spends so much time on p.ie, every minute spent here is a minute during which some poor unfortunate patient is spared her "care".
 

The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,036
I hope they have a lot of leeway, and that the requirement to be fair, balanced and objective is not mistaken for an imagined duty to provide a platform for lies and other obvious untruths, which is very clearly what has happened in a number of referenda in the past.
Fingers crossed. But the fact ger is lying about this already doesn't fill me with confidence.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
It's more about the Coughlan judgement.
It's both.

The Coughlan Judgement is central but so also is the McKenna Judgement in that the public broadcasters and the apparatus of the 'airwaves' are public assets that the Government cannot leverage to sway a vote in a particular direction.
 
Last edited:


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top