Complaint upheld against Derek Mooney for 'supporting same-sex marriage' on air

I Heart Internet

SpaceTime wrote: »

My concern is that broadcasters won't touch it with a bargepole if they can't get main stream guests on both sides so you'll end up with one or two heated debates on RTE, and that'll be it.

They will. They'll have sensible (or as sensible as usual) debates on a serious constitutional matter.

All Derek Mooney had to do to avoid this telling off is NOT just blurt out "I hope ye get same sex marriage next year" (or something along those lines).
It's radio presenting 101 and Mooney failed it.

SpaceTime

Links234 wrote: »

What a complete and utter farce, I mean seriously... I should lodge a complaint that they don't have a message praising our glorious lord Lucifer alongside the Angelus, you know, for balance

You wouldn't have much hope with the Angelus because there's no presenter and it's not current affairs.

It would be interesting to try it though.

However, you could probably lodge formal complaints against any RTE religious programming, against environmental programming, farming programming, etc ... many of these may just take a consensus opinion etc

SpaceTime

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They will. They'll have sensible (or as sensible as usual) debates on a serious constitutional matter.

All Derek Mooney had to do to avoid this telling off is NOT just blurt out "I hope ye get same sex marriage next year" (or something along those lines).
It's radio presenting 101 and Mooney failed it.

The most odd aspect of it is that it also implies that Mooney's opinion is so powerful that it could alter the entire Irish political system and that it is so dangerous that it must be regulated.

gozunda

As the poll stands 78% have voted against the decision that the upholding of the complaint of ' supporting same-sex marriage was wrong'

It would appear that the BAI decision looks somewhat unpopular

Barely There

SpaceTime wrote: »

My concern is that broadcasters won't touch it with a bargepole if they can't get main stream guests on both sides so you'll end up with one or two heated debates on RTE, and that'll be it.

So what?

The issues doesn't need to be endlessly debated on air. Most people have already made up their minds. Push out the referendum and let us vote on it.

Why people feel that we need to hear the views of the most radical before we can make up our mind on an issue always confuses me.

Shenshen

gozunda wrote: »

As the poll stands 78% have voted that the decision upholding the finding of ' supporting same-sex marriage' on air was wrong' by Derek Mooney was wrong.

It would appear that the BAI decision looks somewhat unpopular

Well, if those are the regulations, then those are the regulations and he broke them.

Personally, I think the regulations are highly dubious, though.

I Heart Internet

SpaceTime wrote: »

The most odd aspect of it is that it also implies that Mooney's opinion is so powerful that it could alter the entire Irish political system and that it is so dangerous that it must be regulated.

It just assumes he has an audience, he is broadcasting, so the rules must apply to him. It's nothing personal to Mooney.

gozunda

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, if those are the regulations, then those are the regulations and he broke them.

Personally, I think the regulations are highly dubious, though.

I do not believe the regulations are clear cut tbh. As to the finding of the BAI - I find very dubious tbh given the circumstances. The vote here also appears to find major dissatisfaction with the BAI decision.

I Heart Internet

gozunda wrote: »

I do not believe the regulations are clear cut tbh. As to the finding of the BAI - I find very dubious tbh given the circumstances. The vote here also appears to find major dissatisfaction with the BAI decision.

I think people are letting their support for gay marriage cloud their judgement on what was a very clear and obvious failure by Derek Mooney.

If Derek had David Quinn in and Derek expressed his hope that next years referendum would be defeated, the poll would be reversed and people would be up in arms, supportive of the BAI reminding Mooney of his responsibilities.

SpaceTime

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It just assumes he has an audience, he is broadcasting, so the rules must apply to him. It's nothing personal to Mooney.

Well, you can look forward to every lobbying organisation starting to use these rules to take down all sorts of controversial opinions over the coming years.

All I see is the rules hamstringing broadcasters to the extent that it just accelerates the death of commercial radio and TV in Ireland.

Commercial radio's already struggling badly, TV will follow in a few years as everything moves online and you'll be left with some kind of a bland shell of a 100% publicly funded RTE with totally politically correct programming watched exclusively by the >65s.

Shenshen

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I think people are letting their support for gay marriage cloud their judgement on what was a very clear and obvious failure by Derek Mooney.

If Derek had David Quinn in and Derek expressed his hope that next years referendum would be defeated, the poll would be reversed and people would be up in arms, supportive of the BAI reminding Mooney of his responsibilities.

Not really - it's voicing opinions like this that makes me change the dial away from Newstalk anytime George Hook is on. But I respect the fact that it's his opinion and his airtime, so I can't say I'd support anyone trying to gag him.

SpaceTime

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I think people are letting their support for gay marriage cloud their judgement on what was a very clear and obvious failure by Derek Mooney.

If Derek had David Quinn in and Derek expressed his hope that next years referendum would be defeated, the poll would be reversed and people would be up in arms, supportive of the BAI reminding Mooney of his responsibilities.

I've heard other presenters, for example that night time talk show on Newstalk, expressing fairly strongly held personal opinions too. Nobody's lodged any complaints that I'm aware of.

What's going to happen is that organised lobbies will use these to torpedo presenters they don't like.

You'll get freedom of speech unless it's a controversial issue with a powerful lobby group behind it.

I Heart Internet

Shenshen wrote: »

Not really - it's voicing opinions like this that makes me change the dial away from Newstalk anytime George Hook is on. But I respect the fact that it's his opinion and his airtime, so I can't say I'd support anyone trying to gag him.

I take your general point, but to be fair, George is pro same sex marriage. Was on a late late show debate about it a couple of years ago.

efb

I can't see how Mooney's show could be classed as "Current Affairs" it's a light afternoon magazine program

SpaceTime

I'm still very convinced that these tighter rules came in because of the financial / banking crisis though.

If you cast your mind back to 2008/9 the Government was under enormous pressure from certain broadcast media outlets, particularly Vincent Brown's show on TV3.

That's why I'm a little dubious about the reasons for all this hyper-concern about impartiality that emerged around then. I think the poor dears were feeling the heat of having driven the economy into the wall and the angry man on the tellybox was asking them too many awkward questions.

The 2009 Act significantly tightened those rules by the looks of it but it didn't get implemented by the BAI properly until 2013 when they updated their codes. So, you're seeing a 4 year time lag between the moves in the Oireachtas and the actual law being put into force.

Sarky

So John Waters resigns from the BAI for bullying a gay man who criticised him, and somehow the organisation becomes more homophobic bloody stupid? How the bejesus does that work?

gozunda

efb wrote: »

I can't see how Mooney's show could be classed as "Current Affairs" it's a light afternoon magazine program

Plus the referendum hasn't even been given any date for being held. Tbh I reckon the Iona institute have infiltrated the BAI

Akrasia

Riskymove wrote: »

while I agree with this I don't think it would be fair to compare any political debate to scientific fact

Thats true, but the fact is climate change was hijacked by political ideologues and corporate lobbiests and not usually treated as a purely scientific matter in the media.

it was highly politicised, just like the gay marriage debate is being hijacked by the religious lobby and not treated as the human rights issue that it clearly is.

I Heart Internet

Sarky wrote: »

So John Waters resigns from the BAI for bullying a gay man who criticised him, and somehow the organisation becomes more homophobic? How the bejesus does that work?

Wow!

They're some hysterical claims.

Chief amongst them that the BAI is somehow homophobic. Just wow.

man98

So if a presenter says "It's a wonderful morning" or "Traffic is bad today" they now need someone to oppose those opinions? After all, those are technically current affairs!

I Heart Internet

efb wrote: »

I can't see how Mooney's show could be classed as "Current Affairs" it's a light afternoon magazine program

It is, of course, a light afternoon magazine show, but when the presenter deliberately and very clumsily wades into current affairs. He's gonna be in trouble.

Shenshen

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I take your general point, but to be fair, George is pro same sex marriage. Was on a late late show debate about it a couple of years ago.

I wasn't aware of that. It wasn't so much his opinion on same sex marriage that made me stop listening to him and more his opinions about... well, lots of other things.
But I never saw my dislike of his opinion as enough of a reason to complain about him. It's his show, his opinion. I'm always free to turn the dial, after all.

jimgoose

Mooney is a knobjockey. But I'll bate any man who says he can't speak his mind.

SpaceTime

I don't think the BAI is being homophobic or unbalanced. However, I think the process is open to being quite impartial because it is driven by public complaints.

So, naturally unless someone's annoyed enough by a programme to write in and fill in a long form to make a complaint, it will not be acted upon.

So, obviously the more organisations that emerge that want to use this system to lodge complaints, the more complaints that will reach the BAI and get upheld.

If you'd a set of rules on impartiality that were just policed by the BAI through its own monitoring activities (which it does actually do), you'd have a far fairer system. This system is really throwing it open to a whole load of other factors as the complaints have to be initiated by someone.

What we have created is a 'complainers charter'

I Heart Internet

Shenshen wrote: »

I wasn't aware of that. It wasn't so much his opinion on same sex marriage that made me stop listening to him and more his opinions about... well, lots of other things.
But I never saw my dislike of his opinion as enough of a reason to complain about him. It's his show, his opinion. I'm always free to turn the dial, after all.

George is a gent. I get very defensive when people bad-mouth dear old George!

He is very pro same-sex marriage - took to the late late show podium to defend it.

Sarky

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Wow!

They're some hysterical claims.

Chief amongst them that the BAI is somehow homophobic. Just wow.

Gosh, I'm sorry. I'll just replace "homophobic" with "bloody stupid". Better?

I Heart Internet

Sarky wrote: »

Gosh, I'm sorry. I'll just replace "homophobic" with "bloody stupid". Better?

Yes. Your first statement labelling them homophobic was ridiculous. That's certainly better.

Barely There

jimgoose wrote: »

Mooney is a knobjockey. But I'll bate any man who says he can't speak his mind.

If Mooney wants to speak his mind, he can get a write a column in a newspaper or on some online blog. Matt Cooper writes a weekly column for the Sunday Times and expresses his opinion about all manner of current affairs.
He's not entitled as a broadcaster under the current Broadcasting Act to speak his mind on issues such as a forthcoming referendum on gay marriage.
It's pretty simple really.

Zubeneschamali

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It is, of course, a light afternoon magazine show, but when the presenter deliberately and very clumsily wades into current affairs. He's gonna be in trouble.

Yes, imagine saying you hope that a couple on your show will be allowed to marry one day!

Divisive! Controversial!

Clearly yerwan should have said "Well, I hope not, ye perverts!" for balance.

Akrasia

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They will. They'll have sensible (or as sensible as usual) debates on a serious constitutional matter.

All Derek Mooney had to do to avoid this telling off is NOT just blurt out "I hope ye get same sex marriage next year" (or something along those lines).
It's radio presenting 101 and Mooney failed it.

There's a show on newstalk called 'Global village' where the focus is on social issues, immigrant rights and minority rights. This show is supposed to be a space where these issues can be discussed in a space safe from the usual 'point - counterpoint' style of discussion. Presumably after this ruling, this show will be the next target of the Catholic censorship machine?