Lisbon: Equal airtime abolished by BCI

gnxx

It is probably safe to assume that the BCI revised their guidelines under pressure from the govt.

This could blow-up in the governments face. If the BCI decision is subject to a court action, a general view will be that the government are attempting to censor the no camp and "have something to hide".

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Can we do the assurances thing on a different thread ?

I've started a thread on the guarantees, but I don't see any reason not to point out where the guarantees directly refute arguments being put forward.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

gnxx wrote: »

It is probably safe to assume that the BCI revised their guidelines under pressure from the govt.

This could blow-up in the governments face. If the BCI decision is subject to a court action, a general view will be that the government are attempting to censor the no camp and "have something to hide".

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? To assume the Govt put pressure on BCI (maybe using an bord snip) is not something the public should accept.

The BCI are meant to be an independent statutory organisation responsible for a number of key areas of activity with regard to television and radio services in Ireland.

I understand a legal challenge to the decisio will not be accepted, certainly not by October 2nd.

To say that both sides will get fair and proportional airtime is very subjective.
Basing airtime on, for example, political party numbers means the Government will always have the upperhand.

Equal airtime is the only means of fair balance in debate.

It seems that debate is certainly being curtailed if not supressed.

Censorship by stealth of political debate seems is the way to go about it.

Reminds me of a Russian cartoonist - I am afraid I cannot recall the name, but he may have worked for Krokodill.
It was an interesting interview.
Under the Soviet system, censorship was constant.
Once he was asked to draw a cartoon critical of Gorbachov - not for publication, but so the Soviets could show the US they alowed dissent in the new Russia.
Then came Yeltsin, and for a few years he had freedom.
After that was what he called the regulator censor.
A cartoon critical of Putin et al was followed by a visit from Health and Safety, the Firewarden, the Taxman, the Building inspector - magazines and papers were shut down for weeks on end.
Critiscism soon stopped, not through force, but through various state aparatus enforcing Government regulations, such as cutbacks perhaps.

koHd

On the original topic; both sides should always get equal airtime on rte (publicly funded station) in any kind of national vote.

Or in the case of this treaty, as mentioned in an earlier post, educational programmes on the treaty should be aired with the straight forward information on the treaty. Not debates with personal opinions and interpretations of the treaty.

Surely we can be given enough credit to break down the treaty's implications ourselves' when provided with the full unbiased document.

I'm not fully clued up myself on the whole thing. And would appreciate such an informative program without personal interpretations and opinions involved.

Because reading this thread it seems there are a lot of interpretations that are being put out as fact and are in some cases being taken as fact by the general public.

I'm neither a yes or no at this stage. So I'm aiming that at no particular side, as both sides seem to have done it.

oscarBravo

koHd wrote: »

On the original topic; both sides should always get equal airtime on rte (publicly funded station) in any kind of national vote.

Always?

What about the referendum on children's rights, should that ever happen. Should those opposed to children having rights be given equal airtime?

Zuiderzee

oscarBravo wrote: »

Always?

What about the referendum on children's rights, should that ever happen. Should those opposed to children having rights be given equal airtime?

'Ah, jasus, tink of de childers'
Why not other potential issues, such as the removal of the Trinity and God or blasphemy references in the Constitution.
An emotive subject will always ellicit an emotional response.

I suppose some will say that those who oppose all aspects of a childrens rights referendum are all child abusers, but what do you mean by childrens rights?

Parents are custodians and caretakers as well, and they have certain duties.
Those duties include the exercise of control for a childs benefit and development.

Look at it this way, we already have debated a right to life for unborn children, that was debated in several abortion referenda.

Should children have a right to travel under any circumstances, despite their parents wishes? A good example is teenage year old girls or boys being picked up on the internet and running away to meet the "love of their life" Children can be naive and immature, and sadly there are those who would take advantage of this, parents exercise control to protect them from this.

We have laws in place for assault, should a smack on the bum from a parent qualify as abuse? Should parents have the right to exercise reasonable chastisment? I think yes.
Banning this will not stop child abusers and beaters.

Should children have a right to privacy or should reasonable parents keep an eye on what they download from the internet - never mind porn and the objectification of sex, children do not have much life experience and many are impressionable, so racist, sectarian or extremist websites are not in their best interest, or societies for that matter.
Should kids because of a right to privacy be able to access websites promoting anorexia or scuicide?

Should children have a right to association or freedom of religion, Scientology could sue parents for trying to stop their kids attending their centres.

All of these are reasonable valid points that would need to be addressed in a future debate on childrens rights.

Debate in our public broadcasting system would not be a charter for child abusers. We have laws to fight the abuse of children, these would be the basis of any bill of rights for children.

Like it or not, win or lose, debate is a neccessary part of our system.

ei.sdraob

Zuiderzee wrote: »

'Ah, jasus, tink of de childers'
Why not other potential issues, such as the removal of the Trinity and God or blasphemy references in the Constitution.
An emotive subject will always ellicit an emotional response.

I suppose some will say that those who oppose all aspects of a childrens rights referendum are all child abusers, but what do you mean by childrens rights?

Parents are custodians and caretakers as well, and they have certain duties.
Those duties include the exercise of control for a childs benefit and development.

Look at it this way, we already have debated a right to life for unborn children, that was debated in several abortion referenda.

Should children have a right to travel under any circumstances, despite their parents wishes? A good example is teenage year old girls or boys being picked up on the internet and running away to meet the "love of their life" Children can be naive and immature, and sadly there are those who would take advantage of this, parents exercise control to protect them from this.

We have laws in place for assault, should a smack on the bum from a parent qualify as abuse? Should parents have the right to exercise reasonable chastisment? I think yes.
Banning this will not stop child abusers and beaters.

Should children have a right to privacy or should reasonable parents keep an eye on what they download from the internet - never mind porn and the objectification of sex, children do not have much life experience and many are impressionable, so racist, sectarian or extremist websites are not in their best interest, or societies for that matter.
Should kids because of a right to privacy be able to access websites promoting anorexia or scuicide?

Should children have a right to association or freedom of religion, Scientology could sue parents for trying to stop their kids attending their centres.

All of these are reasonable valid points that would need to be addressed in a future debate on childrens rights.

Debate in our public broadcasting system would not be a charter for child abusers. We have laws to fight the abuse of children, these would be the basis of any bill of rights for children.

Like it or not, win or lose, debate is a neccessary part of our system.

Zz

are they being prevented from going on air?

no?! hence no ones freedom of speech is being infringed on

so whats the problem :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

'Ah, jasus, tink of de childers'
Why not other potential issues, such as the removal of the Trinity and God or blasphemy references in the Constitution.
An emotive subject will always ellicit an emotional response.

I suppose some will say that those who oppose all aspects of a childrens rights referendum are all child abusers, but what do you mean by childrens rights?

Parents are custodians and caretakers as well, and they have certain duties.
Those duties include the exercise of control for a childs benefit and development.

Look at it this way, we already have debated a right to life for unborn children, that was debated in several abortion referenda.

Should children have a right to travel under any circumstances, despite their parents wishes? A good example is teenage year old girls or boys being picked up on the internet and running away to meet the "love of their life" Children can be naive and immature, and sadly there are those who would take advantage of this, parents exercise control to protect them from this.

We have laws in place for assault, should a smack on the bum from a parent qualify as abuse? Should parents have the right to exercise reasonable chastisment? I think yes.
Banning this will not stop child abusers and beaters.

Should children have a right to privacy or should reasonable parents keep an eye on what they download from the internet - never mind porn and the objectification of sex, children do not have much life experience and many are impressionable, so racist, sectarian or extremist websites are not in their best interest, or societies for that matter.
Should kids because of a right to privacy be able to access websites promoting anorexia or scuicide?

Should children have a right to association or freedom of religion, Scientology could sue parents for trying to stop their kids attending their centres.

All of these are reasonable valid points that would need to be addressed in a future debate on childrens rights.

Debate in our public broadcasting system would not be a charter for child abusers. We have laws to fight the abuse of children, these would be the basis of any bill of rights for children.

Like it or not, win or lose, debate is a neccessary part of our system.

Well, there was a complete evasion!

amused,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

'Ah, jasus, tink of de childers' ...

You might want to read the text of the proposed amendment, and come back to me with a more constructive reply.

worldrepublic

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, there was a complete evasion!

amused,
Scofflaw

I don't consider the matter of child-abuse to be in any way "amusing".

Zuiderzee

The problem is the reduction of airtime for the view opposing the Government is supression, and supression is an infringement of freedom of speech.

Referenda on the constitution are the cornerstone of our democracy.
The protocall has been that both sides have been given equal airtime.

Debate is important, even if your stated point of view is that Declan G mand Mary Lou McD are pains, and that all No voters are Zeitgeist watching cranks, you have had the chance to listen and come to that conclusion.
This protocall has now been thrown out the window, It might be worth your while looking at previous posts and taking everything into context.

But then again, it seems to be your opinion that debate is different to mine

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thank god we dont have to give equal airtime here on boards

- although I am sure this is tounge in cheek

Dont forget the 1948 European councils declaration of human rights included article 10, that Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority

Just one thing in conclusion. I understand internet forums are free flowing, and debate changes over the course of a long thread, so I am really trying hard to stay on topic.

One other thing I would like to ask - and mea culpa I am guilty of this myself at times, but there is a tendancy by posters like Pope, OB, yourself and myself to personalise postings although Scofflaw and Futuretaoseach tend to avoid it, lets try to do the same

Zuiderzee

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, there was a complete evasion!

amused,
Scofflaw

I dont think so, I was trying to point out that we need to allow for debate.

And as for the proposed ammendment I can handle one referendum at a time :P Blonde you see

PopeBuckfastXVI

Requiring 50/50 balance restricts the majority expert opinion from being heard and presented as such, that's my problem with it. I consider any legal obligations on the make up of a panel, or discussion, or presentation of facts as being restrictive.

A legal requirement for 50/50 balance, actually is interference.

I'm for unregulated (but factual) free editorial policy, which I think *should* reflect the balance of expert opinion.

Zuiderzee

In that case should McDermott, of the back of the last result and the current poll here be given the lions share of Airtime?

Zuiderzee

worldrepublic wrote: »

I don't consider the matter of child-abuse to be in any way "amusing".

I dont think Scoff wanted to imply that at all - I do go on a bit, but still believe the post was valid - we need debate

Yours supercilliously flockyknockyvillification
citizensimon.blogspot.com

oscarBravo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

A legal requirement for 50/50 balance, actually is interference.

Precisely.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

In that case should McDermott, of the back of the last result and the current poll here be given the lions share of Airtime?

Not on the back of the last result, or the current poll here, but because he is an *expert*.

However, he may not be representative of all expert opinion, he may well be in the minority in his field.

oscarBravo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

However, he may not be representative of all expert opinion, he may well be in the minority in his field.

Therein lies the problem. If there are six hundred experts in his field who disagree with him, and he's the only one with his point of view, then the 50:50 guidelines require that his views be given the same exposure - and thereby the same legitimacy - as those of the experts who disagree with him.

PopeBuckfastXVI

oscarBravo wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. If there are six hundred experts in his field who disagree with him, and he's the only one with his point of view, then the 50:50 guidelines require that his views be given the same exposure - and thereby the same legitimacy - as those of the experts who disagree with him.

You've summed up my problem with 50/50 better than I did myself!

Zuiderzee

So is it not just simpler to go back to 50/50.
It is simple, so no one can be accused of bias.

When it comes to support for McDermotts position in his field, Judge Frank Clarke appears to be on the same page.

Despite the numbers OB, debate is necessary. We have one state broadcaster. Protocall has been equal time, this latest development is setting a precident that makes me feel very uncomfortable. It means a Government in power will always have the advantage in a referendum

citizensimon.blogspot.com

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

So is it not just simpler to go back to 50/50.
It is simple, so no one can be accused of bias.

It is biased against the majority opinion.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

When it comes to support for McDermotts position in his field, Judge Frank Clarke appears to be on the same page.

The chairman of Refcom?

Do you have quotes from him?

rcecil

on Ireland's race to the corporate bottom. I don't know who the winners are but the losers will be the majority. The majority voted no based on the assurances from liars and thieves. Now we have more assurances that all concerns are met.

Progressives and Sinn Fein will lead the no side. Declan G will be investing his right wing money and opinions elsewhere.

www.sinnfein.ie

djpbarry

koHd wrote: »

I'm not fully clued up myself on the whole thing. And would appreciate such an informative program without personal interpretations and opinions involved.

Therein lies the problem; try finding proponents of a ‘No’ vote who can put forward their argument without “personal interpretations and opinions involved”.

PopeBuckfastXVI

rcecil wrote: »

The majority voted no based on the assurances from liars and thieves.

I agree with that, many people voted no, based on what liars and thieves told them...

:cool:

worldrepublic

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I agree with that, many people voted no, based on what liars and thieves told them...

:cool:

I'm not seeing much in the way of debate here. By the same token one could exaggeratedly say that the government's arguments for accepting the Treaty are false on the basis that the government is composed of "thieves and liars". That kind of thinking skews the debate and hurts both sides.

PopeBuckfastXVI

worldrepublic wrote: »

I'm not seeing much in the way of debate here. By the same token one could exaggeratedly say that the government's arguments for accepting the Treaty are false on the basis that the government is composed of "thieves and liars". That kind of thinking skews the debate and hurts both sides.

Can you actually not see the posts I am replying to?

oscarBravo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

So is it not just simpler to go back to 50/50.
It is simple, so no one can be accused of bias.

Simpler isn't necessarily better.

When it comes to support for McDermotts position in his field, Judge Frank Clarke appears to be on the same page.

Source?

Despite the numbers OB, debate is necessary.

Of course debate is necessary. Do you think that every political party should get equal coverage in the run-up to an election? Should the Christian Solidarity Party get the same amount of air time as Fine Gael?

Zuiderzee

And Fianna Fail are not liars and thieves?
As for quotes etc. again, please search this thread, or check out the blog.

Its this simple,
When Judge Frank Clarke says it is exactly the same treaty as the first one - despite what others say, I listen.
When someone of McDermotts calibre says, whoa - hang on I listen, despite of what Mary Coughlan says.

When debate is in any way on any constitutional issue supressed by any Govt I have concerns.

We have had this constitution as the basis of our system since the 30's.

Any changes to that depend on referenda.

Those changes should be debated on a free and equal basis on state owned media.

Zuiderzee

oscarBravo wrote: »

Should the Christian Solidarity Party get the same amount of air time as Fine Gael?

Basing time on political party profile is not the way to do it, thats the problem with the BCI decision.

I believe the Yes camp and No camp should get equal time.

There will be people on the Yes side who are embarrasing as the CSP is to the No's, a good example being the current Cean Comharle.
There are people like Gen. Yes, Peoples Alliance and PANA who also should take part in the debate.

Reducing the amount of time given to either side on party political basis means an overwhelming advantage in airtime for the Yes campaign, and that is in no way democratic on any issue - now or in the future

citizensimon.blogspot.com