But it's up to the People to decide what way they vote. Armed with the views from both sidesTo give you one example off the top of my head, coverage of the second divorce referendum (which my side won) was perverse.
No problem. But, as I say, providing a disproportionate platform for obvious lies is not one of the things that the McKenna and Coughlan judgments would seem to require, though that appears to have so far been the effect of it as the public service broadcasting establishment has interpreted it.But it's up to the People to decide what way they vote.
The two sides have got to be heard in a functioning democracy.
Hold in, the Repeal side are claiming on social media that pregnant women are forced to carry dead babies and Irish women can't have pregnancies terminated where there's an ectopic pregnancy. Absolutely falseIf youth defence continue to lie like they did with nurse Noel, is there not an obligation to restrict their access to the airwaves?
Well they are.Hold in, the Repeal side are claiming on social media that pregnant women are forced to carry dead babies and Irish women can't have pregnancies terminated where there's an ectopic pregnancy. Absolutely false
That doesn't excuse what the BAI are now suggesting which is a cut and paste from the Citizens Assembly which imo was a fit up, by this government.
This is serious abuse of power.
Both sides should be heard. The People will then decide.
Just look at thejournal fact checks.No problem. But, as I say, providing a disproportionate platform for obvious lies is not one of the things that the McKenna and Coughlan judgments would seem to require, though that appears to have so far been the effect of it as the public service broadcasting establishment has interpreted it.
They can invite prolife politicians and prolife doctors. There's plenty of them out there. There's also other prolife organizations out there than just Mullen and YD.Well they are.
But that's not what's happening here.
Who do RTE go to for anti content? YD OR Mullen. And they have form. So immediately we have a problem in a practical sense.
You can be a tiny minority in the Dail but still be in a majority in a referendum result.
Just look at thejournal fact checks.
The side doing this is being aired on our airwaves and TV's.
FactCheck: Who got it right on "abortion up to birth" - Cora Sherlock or Ivana Bacik?
FactCheck: Who got it right in this abortion debate between Ruth Coppinger and Cora Sherlock?
FactCheck: Does this pro-life leaflet stand up to scrutiny?
FactCheck: Who's right about Ireland's record on maternal deaths?
They couldn't find any pro-life doctors for the committee. Where do RTE find them?They can invite prolife politicians and prolife doctors. There's plenty of them out there. There's also other prolife organizations out there than just Mullen and YD.
This is an attempt to silence them.
Unlikely to be unconstitutional per say. The wording from the judgment itself is: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."
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."
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.
However, there are advantages to simple (perhaps coarse) easily arbitrated rules. I actually suspect RTE and state-funded media will stick to the 50%:50% format (far less likely to end up in legal hot water). Coughlan only applies to broadcast media and not to the newspapers anyway. I think the BAI have previously made the very same point in the past, and we still have 50:50. Is this really new?The scales must be held equally between those who support and those who oppose an amendment to the Constitution.
For something as contentious as this issue, then it probably will be equal air time overall, and roughly,What's so difficult in providing equal air time?
It's not rocket science and is the simplest and safest way of doing so.