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…1314161819…24

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Daith wrote: »
    That's unfair. It's a process which was followed.

    I'm questioning the process and, ironically considering your statement, it's fairness


  • Options
    #453
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭Daith


    efb wrote: »
    I'm questioning the process and, ironically considering your statement, it's fairness

    If the opposite happened and Iona were on and the presenter wished that "traditional" marriage would stay and somebody made a complaint and it was upheld you wouldn't have an issue though.


  • Options
    #454
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Daith wrote: »
    If the opposite happened and Iona were on and the presenter wished that "traditional" marriage would stay and somebody made a complaint and it was upheld you wouldn't have an issue though.

    Were talking about BAI's processes not my opinion


  • Options
    #455
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Daith wrote: »
    If the opposite happened and Iona were on and the presenter wished that "traditional" marriage would stay and somebody made a complaint and it was upheld you wouldn't have an issue though.

    Do you think their process is fair?


  • Options
    #456
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    efb wrote: »
    I'm questioning the process and, ironically considering your statement, it's fairness

    can you point to anything in the process which you believe is unfair?

    most types of investigations begin with a complaint


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,943 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    I absolutely f*cking hate it when the anti- side claims they're victims of bullying. It's their weaselly attempt to wriggle out of a discussion. God(s) help them if they ever encountered real bullying - or in the case of the Opus Dei wannabes, ended up in Loyalist territory.


  • Options
    #458
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Daith wrote: »
    I thought there was a timescale involving referendum stuff though? I didn't even think that Enda announced that there would be a referendum until July of this year yet this was broadcast in January.

    The Govt announced last November that they would hold a referendum on the issue, as recommended by the Constitution Convention. In July this year, Enda announced that it would probably be Spring next year when the referendum would be held.

    The official date hasn't been announced yet though, so the rules of coverage of referendums won't kick in until then.
    Daith wrote: »
    A benefit I would see is if pro-equal marriage groups decline to appear on broadcasts until closer to the referendum. Would be nice not to hear from Iona, et all until then.

    Broadcasters would just get politicians on air instead, and I think it's better for this campaign if it's civil groups like GLEN or Marriagequality that the public see debating the matter, instead of politicians. Besides, the likes of Quinn, Waters, and O'Brien would just use their weekly columns to make their case if the opportunities for on air discussions dried up.


  • Options
    #459
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Riskymove wrote: »
    can you point to anything in the process which you believe is unfair?

    most types of investigations begin with a complaint

    I thought I had explained it- they only act on complaints rather than proactively manage the code


  • Options
    #460
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Daith wrote: »
    If the opposite happened and Iona were on and the presenter wished that "traditional" marriage would stay and somebody made a complaint and it was upheld you wouldn't have an issue though.

    To be honest I'd rather if somebody objected to something that somebody said they were to say it to their face and explain why they object rather than hiding behind a complaints mechanism.


  • Options
    #461
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    I think whether this is going after Derek Mooney about gay marriage or a presenter that mentions they're going to Mass, it's over regulation and it's stifling aspects of the Irish broadcast media.

    It's very much nanny state legislation and it's very definitely over kill.

    Impartiality can never be achieved in broadcasting or any media outlet. Everyone has some kind of cultural bias. That's just being human.

    I would prefer to trust the judgement of the Mooney Show and RTE radio's editorial team than outsource that to a relatively remote quango that is simply responding to individual complaints.

    There's going to be a cringe inducing thing now where RTE will have to broadcast an apology.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I think whether this is going after Derek Mooney about gay marriage or a presenter that mentions they're going to Mass, it's over regulation and it's stifling aspects of the Irish broadcast media.

    Why would a complaint be held up by the BAI because someone mentioned they go to Mass?????? That is not a contentious issue of current affairs or anything that is likely to be put to a public vote.

    A direct comparison to what Derek Mooney was guilty of is if Matt Cooper had a husband and wife on his show, they all discussed their distaste for gay marriage and Matt closed by telling them, "I hope the country votes no to the idea of SSM next year."

    That's what Derek did. He has been rightly called to book for it.


  • Options
    #463
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Why would a complaint be held up by the BAI because someone mentioned they go to Mass?????? That is not a contentious issue of current affairs or anything that is likely to be put to a public vote.

    A direct comparison to what Derek Mooney was guilty of is if Matt Cooper had a husband and wife on his show, they all discussed their distaste for gay marriage and Matt closed by telling them, "I hope the country votes no to the idea of SSM next year."

    That's what Derek did. He has been rightly called to book for it.

    Not really- how would the couple benefit from a no? Why would he say it to them???


  • Options
    #464
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    efb wrote: »
    Not really- how would the couple benefit from a no? Why would he say it to them???

    Sigh.

    None of that matters.


  • Options
    #465
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    efb wrote: »
    I thought I had explained it- they only act on complaints rather than proactively manage the code

    and how is that unfair?

    and who is that being unfair to?


  • Options
    #466
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Well, for example one could argue that where a presenter regularly refers to their religious beliefs (as some do). That it's displaying bias much like mentioning your political affiliation.

    All I'm saying is that this doesn't just impact a gay presenter, it could very easily be used against overtly conservative or religious presenters too.

    If I went on air as a presenter and said that smoking was bad for you, I could have a complaint in on behalf of some individual concerned citizen who turns out to be the tobacco industry.

    It's pretty crude and not very well designed regulation that's largely totally unnecessary.


  • Options
    #467
    buckfasterer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,198 ✭✭✭buckfasterer


    Surely a complaint against Mooney and the fact he gets paid a fortune should be more on the agenda.


  • Options
    #468
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Riskymove wrote: »
    and how is that unfair?

    and who is that being unfair to?


    Read my earlier post


  • Options
    #469
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Well, for example one could argue that where a presenter regularly refers to their religious beliefs (as some do). That it's displaying bias much like mentioning your political affiliation.

    someones religious habits has nothing to do with suggesting how someone should vote??


  • Options
    #470
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    efb wrote: »
    Read my earlier post

    ok that's end of that one I guess


  • Options
    #471
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Riskymove wrote: »
    someones religious habits has nothing to do with suggesting how someone should vote??

    Did he suggest how someone should vote? I don't think he did based on what I've read.

    Also at the time (and now) there is no referendum campaign running.

    The rule they're using applies to ANY topic of public debate at ANY time. It has nothing to do with the referendum rules.

    We don't even have the bill to call the referendum yet! It's just some vague date of spring 15.

    So it's actual still a hypothetical referendum that may or may not happen.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Did he suggest how someone should vote? I don't think he did based on what I've read.

    He said something along the lines of "I hope they bring it in here"

    which was viewed as endorsing an outcome on the referendum


    deciding that someone indicating they were religous means that you would immediately infer their position on issues is pretty unfair

    no different than deciding that just because someone referred to their sexuality that you could infer their positions


  • Options
    #473
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    So it's actual still a hypothetical referendum that may or may not happen.

    I understand that and I have already set out that there is a seperate system for actual campaigns


  • Options
    #474
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Riskymove wrote: »
    I understand that and I have already set out that there is a seperate system for actual campaigns

    What you're not appearing to understand is how broad, vague, subjective and open to interpretation the current BAI rules and Broadcasting Act 2009 are.


  • Options
    #475
    AlanG
    Registered Users Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭AlanG


    I am not against SSM but I agree with this finding.
    If the opinion was given by the guest it would be ok but it is very important that presenters on the state broadcaster do not give unchallenged opinions on upcoming referendums. If this was allowed you would have presenters being pressurised by their bosses to give opinions that conform with the establishments view. Many posters on here seem to this the judgement was given on the basis of what the guests said, I am pretty sure it was against the presenter for giving an opinion on what he wanted as a result of a very likely referendum.


  • Options
    #476
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    What you're not appearing to understand is how broad, vague, subjective and open to interpretation the current BAI rules and Broadcasting Act 2009 are.

    what's not to understand

    its even more of a reason why the complaint would be upheld


  • Options
    #477
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Sigh.

    None of that matters.

    But it's not a direct comparison


  • Options
    #478
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,072 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Riskymove wrote: »
    we already have equality and anti-discrimination laws

    the upcoming referendum will not change that


    the referendum will essentially be about how the people of Ireland view the concept of "marriage" and family units and what that implies

    And?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #479
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    And?

    and....

    ... therefore it is quite possible that some people will take a position that has little to do with being for or against "equality"


  • Options
    #480
    loh_oro
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭loh_oro


    Riskymove wrote: »
    and....

    ... therefore it is quite possible that some people will take a position that has little to do with being for or against "equality"

    Why? ... Why would they have a problem with something that doesn't impact them in the slightest?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    loh_oro wrote: »
    ... Why would they have a problem with something that doesn't impact them in the slightest?

    isn't that what seems to take up most people's time?


Advertisement