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

loh_oro

Riskymove wrote: »

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

That doesn't answer my question.

Riskymove

loh_oro wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question.

How can I say why some people have a problem with something that doesn't impact on them?

loh_oro

Riskymove wrote: »

How can I say why some people have a problem with something that doesn't impact on them?

Well you said that the referendum changes how we view marriage. Why would anyone have a problem with that ? You cant just say general things like that and not provide a reason why someone might be against it ... Let me guess its good old fashioned homophobia right ? What else could it be if you have any other ideas I would be glad to hear them

Riskymove

loh_oro wrote: »

Well you said that the referendum changes how we view marriage. Why would anyone have a problem with that ? You cant just say general things like that and not provide a reason why someone might be against it ... Let me guess its good old fashioned homophobia right ? What else could it be if you have any other ideas I would be glad to hear them

well there will undoubtably be people against SSM for homophobic reasons

but I do believe that there will be people who are not homophobic but see marriage in a certain way and will not be for SSM as a result. That they will be happy to see same sex couple have civil partnerhsip and rights etc but not marriage. They ar enot necessarily homophobic as they probably view non-married heterosexual couples in the same fashion

Zubeneschamali

Riskymove wrote: »

They ar enot necessarily homophobic as they probably view non-married heterosexual couples in the same fashion

Say what? They don't think marriage should be allowed for non-married heterosexual couples?

FloatingVoter

I'd imagine most of the presenters on national TV have voted at some time or another. I have no idea which way they voted and thats as it should be.
I would equally assume that most of the people I see presenting current affairs shows are against the burning of witches, consider the world to revolve around the sun* and don't believe that fire is magic.
The SSM debate is about whether or not you're on the wrong side of history. I watched Reeling In The Years from 1991 last night. The lady arguing that the sale of condoms was going to have all the young people at it was eh....quaint. This will be too in 20 years time.



*excepting those who believe the sun revolves around themselves

Riskymove

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Say what? They don't think marriage should be allowed for non-married heterosexual couples?

No...hmmm...hopefully i can explain this

They would see marriage as meaning something with particular implications, including but not limited to religious factors etc that should be protected

and would have a problem with unmarried couples and married same-sex couples to be considered the same!

tbh I'd rather not go on about this as, while I believe such views exist, I don't share them and don't want to come across as trying to defend them etc

Akrasia

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???

Yeah, cause hoping for the happiness of others is so offensive.

Akrasia

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???

Yeah, cause hoping for the happiness of others is so offensive.

Mooney's comments were not 'clearly illegal' because they were made back in January. it's august now and there still hasn't been a date announced for this referendum.

There's also going to be a referendum on the minimum age for voting at some stage in the next few years, if I can find any broadcaster who supported one side or the other on this topic without proper 'balance' at any time in the last 2 years, will you submit a complaint to RTE as a licence-payer incensed at their 'clear breach of the law?'

diddley

Really not seeing what the big deal is here.

I'll be voting for SSM in the upcoming referendum.

If those campaigning for a no vote want to have their say then they should have every right to do that.

I'd hope that every issue up for debate on national airwaves or in the media has some degree of objectivity, particularly on the part of the host?

I Heart Internet

diddley wrote: »

Really not seeing what the big deal is here.

I'll be voting for SSM in the upcoming referendum.

If those campaigning for a no vote want to have their say then they should have every right to do that.

I'd hope that every issue up for debate on national airwaves or in the media has some degree of objectivity, particularly on the part of the host?

Hear, hear diddley.

People are letting their feelings on SSM get in the way of their objectivity regarding this obvious mistake by Derek Mooney.

Akrasia

Riskymove wrote: »

I didn't vote

but as mentioned, they viewed him as breeching their guidleines and so the complaint was upheld

I haven't seen anyone show otherwise

the problem is that people are looking at the topic and implying the BAI must be taking sides in the topic

I disagree

I also believe that if Mooney had said "I hope ye all vote FF" or "I hope we never have abortion in ireland" that the judgement would be the same......but I believe the figures in the poll would be very different

Many broadcasters regularly express their view that they are opposed to abortion and I have never heard of pro-choice groups rushing to the BAI to censor them.

The law is a major problem in that it is open to abuse by lobbiests and political extremists seeking to shut down debate. But this does not excuse the extremists for their disrespect for public discourse in using any opportunity to censor views they don't agree with.

Shakespeare's Sister

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Hear, hear diddley.

People are letting their feelings on SSM get in the way of their objectivity regarding this obvious mistake by Derek Mooney.

Objectivity would be this same organisation also complaining about a broadcaster saying in a roundabout way that they are opposed to same-sex marriage. But we all know they wouldn't make such a complaint.
They dislike Mooney's view - that's why they complained. It's got **** all to do with wanting impartiality in the media. That is a smokescreen.

Akrasia

Riskymove wrote: »

but the media is not silenced

rather they have to operate in a certain way

there is nothing stopping Mooney or anyone else having a discussion on same-sex marriage once it operates in a balanced way

the media is absolutely ruined by this 'balanced' malarky.

Fox News is 'Fair and Balanced'. Often they have a representative of both sides in a debate, except they get to choose the representatives, they get to choose the questions and they get to choose who speaks first and for how long.

I don't want to watch 'balanced' news I want to watch accurate and honest analysis by skilled journalists with a reputation for integrity.

Often times this requires that two or more sides are given the chance to present the facts from their own persepective, other times, the best thing to do is ignore the propaganda from both sides and report on the facts as the journalist has interpreted them.

in human interest stories, 'balance' is not always appropriate. If Derek Mooney was talking to a victim of clerical abuse, would he have to interrupt him at regular intervals to read statements from the vatican?

Mooney was talking to an individual about his experience as a gay man in Ireland and his aspirations to some day get married and be equal under the law to all the heterosexual married couples in Ireland. There was no need for 'balance' in that interview.

Akrasia

Riskymove wrote: »

but that is exactly what all this rules and guidelines are about

Broadcasters have a voice, an inflience and an audience, and a duty to be balanced

A duty to be honest and fair and have integrity, but not to be 'balanced'

Balance implies that both sides to any argument are always equally valid when this is clearly not the case. if one side can not come up with any coherent arguments to support their case, and the other side can, then any journalist worth anything should immediately conclude that the other side has more merit and has won the debate.

Zubeneschamali

Akrasia wrote: »

if one side can not come up with any coherent arguments to support their case, and the other side can, then any journalist worth anything should immediately conclude that the other side has more merit and has won the debate.

No, they shouldn't!

:pac:

Shakespeare's Sister

Akrasia wrote: »

Fox News is 'Fair and Balanced'. Often they have a representative of both sides in a debate, except they get to choose the representatives, they get to choose the questions and they get to choose who speaks first and for how long.

Yeh like Hannity & Colmes.
Colmes is the "liberal" and barely gets a word in. That programme is the Sean Hannity Show ffs.

diddley

Magaggie wrote: »

Objectivity would be this same organisation also complaining about a broadcaster saying in a roundabout way that they are opposed to same-sex marriage. But we all know they wouldn't make such a complaint.
They dislike Mooney's view - that's why they complained. It's got **** all to do with wanting impartiality in the media. That is a smokescreen.

I don't think it's just that they dislike Mooney's view. Any journalist with half a brain knows that impartiality is needed. In the absence of someone who was against SSM, the presenter should have just played devils advocate and raise points that 'well some people believe that x, y or z'. It's pretty simple. All this moral outrage should be directed at actual displays of homophobia that take place around Ireland every day.

Riskymove

Akrasia wrote: »

Mooney was talking to an individual about his experience as a gay man in Ireland and his aspirations to some day get married and be equal under the law to all the heterosexual married couples in Ireland. There was no need for 'balance' in that interview.

I agree, the interview is not the issue

the media is absolutely ruined by this 'balanced' malarky

again I agree as I pointed out about previous referendums earlier in the thread

Riskymove

Akrasia wrote: »

A duty to be honest and fair and have integrity, but not to be 'balanced'

unfortunately that's not how certain rules around this are being interpreted

Shakespeare's Sister

diddley wrote: »

I don't think it's just that they dislike Mooney's view.

But we can all be very confident that they wouldn't complain about a broadcaster/writer expressing a disagreement with same-sex marriage, and they would no doubt deem any resultant criticism as "liberal fascism" and the usual bullsh-t soundbites.
It's the intent behind their complaint which I have an issue with - the way they're saying it's because the media shouldn't be biased is highly disingenuous of them.

Grayson

Magaggie wrote: »

Yeh like Hannity & Colmes.
Colmes is the "liberal" and barely gets a word in. That programme is the Sean Hannity Show ffs.

It is the Hanitty show. Colmes left years ago

diddley

Magaggie wrote: »

But we can all be very confident that they wouldn't complain about a broadcaster/writer expressing a disagreement with same-sex marriage, and they would no doubt deem any resultant criticism as "liberal fascism" and the usual bullsh-t soundbites.
It's the intent behind their complaint which I have an issue with - the way they're saying it's because the media shouldn't be biased is highly disingenuous of them.

I'm sure they wouldn't complain in that case. But you could complain, and I'm sure most of the posters here probably would too, as is their right.

Like I said, I don't think the complaint would have been upheld just on the grounds of Mooney's comments, if there was a guest who opposed SSM.

Shakespeare's Sister

Grayson wrote: »

It is the Hanitty show. Colmes left years ago

D'oh!

It's spelled Hannity though. Look it up.

I Heart Internet

Magaggie wrote: »

Objectivity would be this same organisation also complaining about a broadcaster saying in a roundabout way that they are opposed to same-sex marriage. But we all know they wouldn't make such a complaint.
They dislike Mooney's view - that's why they complained. It's got **** all to do with wanting impartiality in the media. That is a smokescreen.

I don't doubt they dislike his viewpoint, that's what primarily motivated their complaint. What justified their complaint, however, was that Derek Mooney was in breach of broadcasting guidelines, he was very clearly in the wrong and the BAI have, therefore, upheld the complaint.

If every person who complains about one thing is bound to complain about all other things, then that would get a bit ridiculous.

efb

Very clearly in the wrong... Where on the judgement does it say that...

I Heart Internet

efb wrote: »

Very clearly in the wrong... Where on the judgement does it say that...

I don't believe it does say that. That's what I've said.

The findings of the judgement itself illustrate that the BAI found Derek's actions to be unacceptable.

I Heart Internet

I should probably point out, I actually like Derek Mooney. His show can be a bit silly and boring at times, but he's a pretty decent skin from what I've heard from him over the years.

He just made a blunder on this occasion.

SpaceTime

I think you're going to see a lot more lobby groups and individuals on both sides of at m the argument using the BAI complaints system to score political points from now on thanks to this high profile decision.

The BAI must must love paperwork!

Ash.J.Williams

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I should probably point out, I actually like Derek Mooney. His show can be a bit silly and boring at times, but he's a pretty decent skin from what I've heard from him over the years.

He just made a blunder on this occasion.

it's not really a blunder....he spoke from his mind, which is normal and correct.