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…1617192122…24

Comments

  • Options
    #542
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    conorh91 wrote: »
    What you're suggesting is tantamount to the idea that Brian Dobson could come on the news at 9 o'clock tonight and shriek in outrage that the State has not legislated for X, Y or Z.

    Yes, that's exactly like interviewing someone and saying that you hope the State stops discriminating against them some day.


  • Options
    #543
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    From the grovelling apology read out before the show today it appears the issue was with Mooney covering a current affairs topic with only one side of the debate represented by both his guests and himself and no real opposing view. He can get away with a certain amount on the show when he sticks to "light entertainment" topics but when he crosses over to current affairs" the bar is raised significantly.

    http://www.bai.ie/?ddownload=53028
    Complaint Summary:
    Mr. O’Sullivan-Latchford’s complaint is submitted on behalf of Family and Media Association under
    the Broadcasting Act 2009, 48(2)(a)(fairness, objectivity & impartiality in current affairs and Code
    of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs – Rules 4.1 and 22).

    The complainant states that in the course of an item introduced as “following news today that over
    two and a half thousand gay people legally got hitched since 2011, we ask, ‘what next for gay
    couples in Ireland?’” both guests, Mr. Michael Murphy and Mr. Tiernan Brady of the Gay and
    Lesbian Equality Network (GLEN) and also the presenter, made several statements implicitly and
    explicitly supporting same-sex marriage. The complainant states that no voices were heard
    opposing same-sex marriage and that the programme presenter openly expressed his own views
    stating “I hope you do get gay marriage…I hope it does come in”.

    The complainant claims that same-sex marriage is supposed to be the matter of debate in an
    upcoming referendum. The complainant states that this debate should not be pre-empted by an
    unbalanced programme or by the direct expression of a personal opinion on the matter by the
    presenter, which the complainant believes, appears to be in breach of the BAI Code of Fairness,
    Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs – Rules 4.1 and 22.

    The complainant clams that in RTÉ’s initial reply, there was a suggestion that a comment by one
    of the guests, Mr. Michael Murphy was indicative of balance. The complainant believes however,
    that Mr. Murphy’s confession to only recently “beginning to be persuaded” that same-sex marriage
    is a “civil rights issue”, is something which would have helped to persuade any wavering listeners
    to come down on the side of support for same-sex marriage and not against. The complainant
    claims that this incident only served to highlight the one-sidedness of the discussion which
    amounted, in his opinion, to a debate where one side was forcibly absent.

    The complainant also refers to RTÉ’s point that the item was broadcast “at least 12 months in
    advance of the referendum” and claims that this refers to Rule 27 and does not affect the
    requirement that “a presenter and /or a reporter on a current affairs programme shall not express
    his or her own views on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject of current public
    debate such that a partisan position is advocated”


  • Options
    #544
    MrJones1973
    Closed Accounts Posts: 997 ✭✭✭MrJones1973


    krudler wrote: »
    Must be awful feeling condemned by people who just want other humans to have the same legal rights you do, poor petal.

    Enough. Your comments are snide but revealing. I drew attention to the intolerence of democratic debate. You are really the other side of a conservative zealot.

    Same sex marriage-can be argued its a debasement of what marriage is meant to be-a union between man and woman. Give all the rights you want but dont pretend its marriage. Its about raising children-children you procreate. Sure some couples dont-but 90% will in all probability.We need stable families for kids-watering down the franchise aint a help.

    The current system of family law is broken. We dont treat men fairly in family law courts and we have no definite proposals on how to deal with two men in the courts.. Not thought out (argument 2)

    The above arguments are not fully fleshed out but I dont denigrate you or other posters or the gay community by putting them out there.

    I can easily argue the other side-ever heard of an argument?

    Ireland is fantastic at throwing out unsupportd rights.


  • Options
    #545
    loh_oro
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭loh_oro


    Mrwhite1970 wrote: »
    Enough. Your comments are snide but revealing. I drew attention to the intolerence of democratic debate. You are really the other side of a conservative zealot.

    Same sex marriage-can be argued its a debasement of what marriage is meant to be-a union between man and woman. Give all the rights you want but dont pretend its marriage. Its about raising children-children you procreate. Sure some couples dont-but 90% will in all probability.We need stable families for kids-watering down the franchise aint a help.

    The current system of family law is broken. We dont treat men fairly in family law courts and we have no definite proposals on how to deal with two men in the courts.. Not thought out (argument 2)

    The above arguments are not fully fleshed out but I dont denigrate you or other posters or the gay community by putting them out there.

    I can easily argue the other side-ever heard of an argument?

    Ireland is fantastic at throwing out unsupportd rights.



    So when marriage was not allowed between people of different color was it wrong for that to be changed since changing that at the time could be seen as a "debasement" of what marriage was at the time ?


  • Options
    #546
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

    The above arguments are not fully fleshed out but I dont denigrate you or other posters or the gay community by putting them out there.

    Yes you do. LGBT folk debase marriage. That's a denigrating claim.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #547
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    How does it debase marriage????


  • Options
    #548
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    More that Britney did???


  • Options
    #549
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    So what happens if a member of the 'no' side declines an invite to a debate. Will the debate be allowed to happen or will an announcement have to be made at the start of it basically saying "we invited x from y, on the 'no' side, to participate but they declines"


  • Options
    #550
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Mrwhite1970 wrote: »
    Enough. Your comments are snide but revealing. I drew attention to the intolerence of democratic debate. You are really the other side of a conservative zealot.

    Same sex marriage-can be argued its a debasement of what marriage is meant to be-a union between man and woman. Give all the rights you want but dont pretend its marriage. Its about raising children-children you procreate. Sure some couples dont-but 90% will in all probability.We need stable families for kids-watering down the franchise aint a help.

    The current system of family law is broken. We dont treat men fairly in family law courts and we have no definite proposals on how to deal with two men in the courts.. Not thought out (argument 2)

    The above arguments are not fully fleshed out but I dont denigrate you or other posters or the gay community by putting them out there.

    I can easily argue the other side-ever heard of an argument?

    Ireland is fantastic at throwing out unsupportd rights.
    What do the rights of fathers have to do with gay marriage? Gay marriage is about two adults. Nothing to do with children.


  • Options
    #551
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    P_1 wrote: »
    So what happens if a member of the 'no' side declines an invite to a debate. Will the debate be allowed to happen or will an announcement have to be made at the start of it basically saying "we invited x from y, on the 'no' side, to participate but they declines"

    This is what should happen, it shows that people from the opposing side were offered a right to reply or enter the debate but declined.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #552
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    lazygal wrote: »
    What do the rights of fathers have to do with gay marriage? Gay marriage is about two adults. Nothing to do with children.

    If anything, long-term it might improve the rights of fathers. If there's an inherent bias toward the mother in divorce custody cases, cases with two mothers/ two fathers going through the courts could help balance it out. Fathers can be a victim of traditionalist views towards marriage and children-rearing, if marriage equality changes the prevalence of those views (and I can't see how it wouldn't), then fathers' rights could definitely benefit.

    But you're right, it's a tangential point at best.


  • Options
    #553
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Mrwhite1970 wrote: »
    Enough. Your comments are snide but revealing. I drew attention to the intolerence of democratic debate. You are really the other side of a conservative zealot.

    Same sex marriage-can be argued its a debasement of what marriage is meant to be-a union between man and woman. Give all the rights you want but dont pretend its marriage. Its about raising children-children you procreate. Sure some couples dont-but 90% will in all probability.We need stable families for kids-watering down the franchise aint a help.

    The current system of family law is broken. We dont treat men fairly in family law courts and we have no definite proposals on how to deal with two men in the courts.. Not thought out (argument 2)

    The above arguments are not fully fleshed out but I dont denigrate you or other posters or the gay community by putting them out there.

    I can easily argue the other side-ever heard of an argument?

    Ireland is fantastic at throwing out unsupportd rights.

    Again with the children argument. What about gay couples who don't have any interest in kids? and just want the legal protection offered to me should I get married? Does marriage automatically give children stable ubringings? hardly. There's a few boardsies with same sex couple parents who are just fine.

    A zealot? come on now, I'd just like to live in a society where people can be afforded the same rights I have regardless of their sexuality. That's it. Can you give me an argument against gay marriage without using children? I've asked this question over and over again and nobody has the balls to answer it.


  • Options
    #554
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Yes, that's exactly like interviewing someone and saying that you hope the State stops discriminating against them some day.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Yes, that's exactly like interviewing someone and saying that you hope the State stops discriminating against them some day.

    Is this some sort of bot?

    The fact that the State has not yet legislated to make same-sex marriage legal—indeed, the fact the the People have not yet made that decision—makes same-sex marriage a topic of legitimate debate in terms of news and current affairs content.


  • Options
    #555
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    loh_oro wrote: »
    36 pages in and still not one valid reason given to explain why someone would be opposed to SSM

    Perhaps, just perhaps, that's because the merits of SSM are not the subject of this thread. Just a thought.


  • Options
    #556
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Dimithy wrote: »
    Simple, you just make it illegal for them to marry...

    These threads always remind me of a game of pictionary or something - All they really want to say is "I just dont like the gays", but they cant be that direct so have to just throw out any old reason they can think of and stick with it.

    Its as if people convince themselves that there has to be a logical reason they're against SSM, that they cant be homophobic. Being homophobic is a bad thing, and they're a nice person, so cant possibly be a homophobe.

    What?

    Do you understand what this thread is about?


  • Options
    #557
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    P_1 wrote: »
    So what happens if a member of the 'no' side declines an invite to a debate. Will the debate be allowed to happen or will an announcement have to be made at the start of it basically saying "we invited x from y, on the 'no' side, to participate but they declines"

    That often happens, and the interviewer plays devil's advocate. Really simple to be fair, just Derek made a pigs ear of it.


  • Options
    #558
    takamichinoku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭takamichinoku


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    What?

    Do you understand what this thread is about?
    Obviously a thread like this is going to get derailed into the larger topic. There have been numerous posters arguing for both sides (obviously significantly leaning in favour of one side, but still) and one side hasn't given any valid reasoning for their stance.

    Not entirely sure what the point of repeatedly replying to people who are talking about pros/cons of legalising it with "get back on topic" stands to do unless you're either 1) EXTREMELY interested in the broadcasting laws and really want to discuss it in detail or 2) Don't like the opinions being expressed.
    ...and it could be option number one, to be fair.


    Is the actual show the complaint was for available online anywhere, by the way?


  • Options
    #559
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,071 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Mrwhite1970 wrote: »
    Amazing how many of you leap around like a remote amazonian tribe slaying a pig. You dont have all the details but god forbid you dont want to be left off the bandwagon. In many respects liberals zealots are the reverse of conservative zealots in terms of intolerance. Im surprised he wasnt able to voice an opinion but you got to listen to the whole thing.

    Personally I have not made my mind up on same sex marriage but the way it is in modern Ireland-you cant express anti liberal consensus views for fears of being condemned by the new orthodoxy.
    Mrwhite1970 wrote: »
    Enough. Your comments are snide but revealing. I drew attention to the intolerence of democratic debate. You are really the other side of a conservative zealot.

    Same sex marriage-can be argued its a debasement of what marriage is meant to be-a union between man and woman. Give all the rights you want but dont pretend its marriage. Its about raising children-children you procreate. Sure some couples dont-but 90% will in all probability.We need stable families for kids-watering down the franchise aint a help.

    The current system of family law is broken. We dont treat men fairly in family law courts and we have no definite proposals on how to deal with two men in the courts.. Not thought out (argument 2)

    The above arguments are not fully fleshed out but I dont denigrate you or other posters or the gay community by putting them out there.

    I can easily argue the other side-ever heard of an argument?

    Ireland is fantastic at throwing out unsupportd rights.

    Are you really undecided?

    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
    #560
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    takamichinoku wrote: »
    Obviously a thread like this is going to get derailed into the larger topic. There have been numerous posters arguing for both sides (obviously significantly leaning in favour of one side, but still) and one side hasn't given any valid reasoning for their stance.

    That the BAI are correct in their decision is the only stance I've taken on this thread. Some people seem to have left their views on SSM cloud their judgement on this.


  • Options
    #561
    takamichinoku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭takamichinoku


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    That the BAI are correct in their decision is the only stance I've taken on this thread. Some people seem to have left their views on SSM cloud their judgement on this.
    Yep, that's how I've been reading your posts. Think there's definitely some big issues with how the way all of this is regulated but it does sound like their decision at least has a good grounding in the rules which they are working under. There've been a good few responses which are basically not replying to the topic at all too, but there's been plenty of well reasoned ones littered through the thread too (...should've probably bookmarked some :o)
    There probably would be a bit more interesting of a thread in discussing whether there are issues with that legislation which needs to be changed rather than the SSM discussion that has happened but you can't force a thread to delve into the areas you want it too. Perhaps there's another thread that could be started about current affairs broadcasting legislation in a more general sense?



    However, there have been others using the same point as a form of defence while also chucking in comments about their wariness of legalising it though, "stay on topic" can't be used as a magical shield when the person saying it wants to get their piece on the other matter in before closing the door on everyone else.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #562
    Dimithy
    Registered Users Posts: 351 ✭✭Dimithy


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    What?

    Do you understand what this thread is about?

    Yes, I understand that the content of about half the posts has focused on the pros and con's of SSM, rather than sticking to the bai decision.

    What's your point?


  • Options
    #563
    Hootanany
    Registered Users Posts: 5,477 ✭✭✭Hootanany


    Whats wrong with SSM i cant see fault with it it let it be no skin off my nose.


  • Options
    #564
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    takamichinoku wrote: »
    Obviously a thread like this is going to get derailed into the larger topic. There have been numerous posters arguing for both sides (obviously significantly leaning in favour of one side, but still) and one side hasn't given any valid reasoning for their stance.

    Not entirely sure what the point of repeatedly replying to people who are talking about pros/cons of legalising it with "get back on topic" stands to do unless you're either 1) EXTREMELY interested in the broadcasting laws and really want to discuss it in detail or 2) Don't like the opinions being expressed.
    ...and it could be option number one, to be fair.


    Is the actual show the complaint was for available online anywhere, by the way?

    Who decides what is valid reasoning? You?


  • Options
    #565
    takamichinoku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭takamichinoku


    LorMal wrote: »
    Who decides what is valid reasoning? You?
    Yes.


  • Options
    #566
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Derek Mooney mincing his words


  • Options
    #567
    Lou.m
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,532 ✭✭✭Lou.m


    http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/08/15/gay-couples-not-allowed-appear-on-radio-without-a-bigot-rules-bai/

    This satirical article is great!


  • Options
    #568
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,071 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/bai-marriage-equality-ruling-1621869-Aug2014/#comment-2800499

    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
    #569
    fran17
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭fran17


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/bai-marriage-equality-ruling-1621869-Aug2014/#comment-2800499

    what a load of old cobblers.oh no the big bad straight people are conspiring yet again to silence us! this issue has already on this thread been ludicrously compared to apartheid and slavery.the bai committee on such rulings are eight people,four appointed by the government minister,who are of the highest character.mooney was out of order,and proven so.


  • Options
    #570
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,226 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Mrwhite1970 wrote: »
    Ireland is fantastic at throwing out unsupportd rights.

    Except in this case it's not about giving gay people the right to marry it's about stopping denying them the same rights as others.

    If we stopped everyone from marrying or allowed everyone to marry, that would be one thing. But we're not. We're specifically targeting a subgroup of people.

    btw, never, ever use "traditional" as an argument. It's only ever used when there's absolutely no other reason to keep something. When people can't actually state that something is bad or provide any logical or empirical evidence why their position is correct, they trot out traditional.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #571
    fran17
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭fran17


    Grayson wrote: »
    Except in this case it's not about giving gay people the right to marry it's about stopping denying them the same rights as others.

    If we stopped everyone from marrying or allowed everyone to marry, that would be one thing. But we're not. We're specifically targeting a subgroup of people.

    btw, never, ever use "traditional" as an argument. It's only ever used when there's absolutely no other reason to keep something. When people can't actually state that something is bad or provide any logical or empirical evidence why their position is correct, they trot out traditional.

    you could say that's the traditional counter arguement


Advertisement