Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…1011131516…24

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    It's one of those systems that's all seems fine in theory and was implemented largely by a bunch of 'do gooders' but could be a disaster in practice.

    There's a reason why the simple notion of Freedom of Speech tends to work quite nicely.


  • Options
    #363
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


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

    In what way are they 'bloody stupid'.
    Please outline how they have interpreted the Act incorrectly in relation to this case - because from what I can see, it was a pretty open and shut decision.
    Perhaps you could argue the Act itself is 'bloody stupid', but that's another matter entirely.


  • Options
    #364
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,177 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Barely There wrote: »
    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.

    Oh? Chapter-and-verse if you don't mind, because if that's the way there's a lot of them at similar. Really.


  • Options
    #365
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Akrasia wrote: »
    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?

    I also think that Ear to The Ground isn't expressing enough opinions opposed to commercial farming! Totally unbalanced programme.
    50% of the programme should be dedicated to discussing grow-your-own and animal rights activists :D

    Eco Eye also failed to have 50% of the programme dedicated to why the oil and nuclear industry are actually lovely.


  • Options
    #366
    ZiabR
    Registered Users Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭ZiabR


    21% of bordies agree with the complaint being upheld... please one of you explain.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    jimgoose wrote: »
    Oh? Chapter-and-verse if you don't mind, because if that's the way there's a lot of them at similar. Really.

    Well go and make a complaint about them so if it annoys you.


  • Options
    #368
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    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.

    Mooney said:
    “I hope you do get gay marriage… I hope it does come in”.

    Clearly indicating his preference for the result of next years referendum.

    He was wrong to do this on his radio show.


  • Options
    #369
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,177 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Barely There wrote: »
    Well go and make a complaint about them so if it annoys you.

    It doesn't. Quite the converse. What annoys me is quasi-government interset groups attempting to censor the media. There's enough of that as it is.


  • Options
    #370
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Akrasia wrote: »
    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?

    I listen to Dil quite a bit and I believe she has a lot more sense than to tell people how she wished them to vote.


  • Options
    #371
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    logik wrote: »
    21% of bordies agree with the complaint being upheld... please one of you explain.

    Have you not read the thread?

    Derek Mooney made a mistake, he was slapped on the wrist for it.

    This is not a reflection on the merits of same-sex marriage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Can you imagine how history will see this though?

    Let's say if we look back at the Catholic Emancipation in the 1800s.

    I'd say we'd be taking a dim view if Catholic newspaper journalists of the era were banned from expressing an opinion about their situation before the The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829.

    You can see how this situation could be seen as censorship of sorts in many ways.

    I think broadcast media in Ireland is simply completely over regulated and it comes down to a Government fear of the power of television and radio that has existed for a very long time. It took decades before genuine commercial broadcasting happened. The state here (and elsewhere win Europe) always saw it as its right to control broadcasting in a way that it wouldn't have dared to do with the print media.


  • Options
    #373
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    jimgoose wrote: »
    It doesn't. Quite the converse. What annoys me is quasi-government interset groups attempting to censor the media. There's enough of that as it is.

    But the complaint was not about 'censoring the media' it was about the failure of a broadcaster to comply with his responsibilities.


  • Options
    #374
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,799 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Mooney said:

    Clearly indicating his preference for the result of next years referendum.

    He was wrong to do this on his radio show.

    Only is so far as he didn't have someone there to say "well I hope it doesn't".

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #375
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,177 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Barely There wrote: »
    But the complaint was not about 'censoring the media' it was about the failure of a broadcaster to comply with his responsibilities.

    It was about a particular interest group with a particular agenda taking a particular interpretation of the law of the land that suited them and using that as grounds to hit back at an expressed view that displeased them.


  • Options
    #376
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    jimgoose wrote: »
    It was about a particular interest group with a particular agenda taking a particular interpretation of the law of the land that suited them and using that as grounds to hit back at an expressed view that displeased them.

    People (and groups) having access to and using the law, well I never!!:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #377
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,177 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    People (and groups) having access to and using the law, well I never!!:rolleyes:

    To be sure. And sometimes you will disagree with a particular use of it. This sort of thing happens in Western jurisdictions. The other thing you'll notice is that some people (and groups) have more and better access to the law than others.


  • Options
    #378
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,495 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    Barely There wrote: »
    But the complaint was not about 'censoring the media' it was about the failure of a broadcaster to comply with his responsibilities.

    Hardly, this decision was the result of a pressure group using a provision in law to try and censor another individuals stance on a particular topic.

    This will backfire. The broadcast was last january and the complainants response demonstrates the reactionary nature of those opposed to equality in Irish society.

    SD


  • Options
    #379
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    jimgoose wrote: »
    To be sure. And sometimes you will disagree with a particular use of it. This sort of thing happens in Western jurisdictions. The other thing you'll notice is that some people (and groups) have more and better access to the law than others.

    All the BAI require for a complaint to be made is a letter or email. Almost everyone has the resources for that.


  • Options
    #380
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    jimgoose wrote: »
    It was about a particular interest group with a particular agenda taking a particular interpretation of the law of the land that suited them and using that as grounds to hit back at an expressed view that displeased them.

    Which is why if you've a complaints-driven reactive system it will always be like that.

    The more logical and fair approach would be to issue guidelines and monitor their implementation impartially.

    If the process is basically entirely being driven by complaints, then it cannot be impartial.

    You're into a situation of 'he who shouts loudest'.


  • Options
    #381
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,177 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    All the BAI require for a complaint to be made is a letter or email. Almost everyone has the resources for that.

    Ain't that the truth.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    jimgoose wrote: »
    Ain't that the truth.

    So what's the problem? First you mention that certain organisations have better access to law, and when I point out that the BAI is very accessible, you seem to suggest that's a bad thing.


  • Options
    #383
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,177 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    So what's the problem? First you mention that certain organisations have better access to law, and when I point out that the BAI is very accessible, you seem to suggest that's a bad thing.

    My problem is that the ability to effectively silence the broadcast media on certain issues at the flick of an email is something that should not exist. The only people who are inclined to use it are those who are inclined to abuse it.


  • Options
    #384
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    jimgoose wrote: »
    My problem is that the ability to effectively silence the broadcast media on certain issues at the flick of an email is something that should not exist. The only people who are inclined to use it are those who are inclined to abuse it.

    I don't think that's true at all.

    Anyone and everyone has the right to use the complaints process of BAI. It's not up to you or I to decide who merits this right or not.


  • Options
    #385
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,177 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I don't think that's true at all.

    Anyone and everyone has the right to use the complaints process of BAI. It's not up to you or I to decide who merits this right or not.

    Certainly not. I would argue that this law should not exist.


  • Options
    #386
    DeadHand
    Registered Users Posts: 2,748 ✭✭✭DeadHand


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

    The Irish Voltaire!


  • Options
    #387
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,177 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    DeadHand wrote: »
    The Irish Voltaire!

    Tellin' ya bah! :cool:


  • Options
    #388
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    jimgoose wrote: »
    Certainly not. I would argue that this law should not exist.

    So I pay my licence fee but I should have no right to complain about something that's clearly illegal or that offends me on the radio or TV???


  • Options
    #389
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,177 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    So I pay my licence fee but I should have no right to complain about something that's clearly illegal or that offends me on the radio or TV???

    What I am saying is that it should not be illegal for a broadcaster to give his/her opinion on a matter such as this on the air, while stopping short of actually trying to influence voters.


  • Options
    #390
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,227 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Mooney said:



    Clearly indicating his preference for the result of next years referendum.

    He was wrong to do this on his radio show.

    Do you think he'd be wrong to state that global warming is real?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Akrasia wrote: »
    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.

    my point is that climate change can be set out in terms of fact and figures etc while many other issues cannot

    One could rationally decide not to allow someone who is debating agaist fact have a voice on your station. But not allowing someone an opinion is different


Advertisement