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

I Heart Internet

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

That's nonsense.

The BAI decision is a warning to broadcasters not to wander off script and give their personal views on contentious matters of current affairs. That is all.

suicide_circus

If SSM is permitted, next thing you know goldfish will be marrying toasters

>_>

NuMarvel

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's nonsense.

The BAI decision is a warning to broadcasters not to wander off script and give their personal views on contentious matters of current affairs. That is all.

The BAI didn't make this decision just because Mooney gave his own opinion. They made it because in their opinion the opposing point of view should have been put forward during the interview:

"It was the view of the Committee that in the absence of alternative views on this topic, a matter of current public debate and controversy, the role of the presenter was to provide alternative perspectives to those of his guests and that this requirement was not met on this occasion."

If it was just a matter of the presenter saying something he shouldn't have, then I'd agree with you that it's not a big issue. But it's wider than that, it's the BAI saying they expect broadcasters to have opposing viewpoints put forward at all times, even in human interest interviews and discussions.

We already saw how mainstream media froze in the aftermath of Pantigate. They wouldn't touch the story at all for the first two weeks, and it was only when Iona blabbed about the payout that they started covering it. They're going to be as equally risk averse after this.

B0jangles

What happens now if the anti-crowd simply refuse en masse to be involved in any broadcast discussion of marriage equality?

Could they effectively prevent ALL discussion of marriage equality on the basis of this decision?

dxhound2005

NuMarvel wrote: »

The BAI didn't make this decision just because Mooney gave his own opinion. They made it because in their opinion the opposing point of view should have been put forward during the interview:

"It was the view of the Committee that in the absence of alternative views on this topic, a matter of current public debate and controversy, the role of the presenter was to provide alternative perspectives to those of his guests and that this requirement was not met on this occasion."

If it was just a matter of the presenter saying something he shouldn't have, then I'd agree with you that it's not a big issue. But it's wider than that, it's the BAI saying they expect broadcasters to have opposing viewpoints put forward at all times, even in human interest interviews and discussions.

We already saw how mainstream media froze in the aftermath of Pantigate. They wouldn't touch the story at all for the first two weeks, and it was only when Iona blabbed about the payout that they started covering it. They're going to be as equally risk averse after this.

If you google for news regarding decisions made by the BAI you will find far more coverage of this particular decision compared to all the others. In fact I could not find any media coverage of the other decisions made in August. Hardly evidence of some media blackout on this subject.

O'Neill was all over the media following that other story. He was on prime time TV in the first place, having his say. But I wouldn't blame media organisations for being a bit careful when there are legal proceedings involved.

Just because legal judgements and BAI decisions go against your opinion doesn't mean you should ascribe some sort of victimhood to the losers.

NuMarvel

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If you google for news regarding decisions made by the BAI you will find far more coverage of this particular decision compared to all the others. In fact I could not find any media coverage of the other decisions made in August. Hardly evidence of some media blackout on this subject.

O'Neill was all over the media following that other story. He was on prime time TV in the first place, having his say. But I wouldn't blame media organisations for being a bit careful when there are legal proceedings involved.

Just because legal judgements and BAI decisions go against your opinion doesn't mean you should ascribe some sort of victimhood to the losers.

What legal judgement?

fran17

http://www.newstalk.ie/opening-debate-on-samesex-marriage-referendum

I urge anyone who is unbiased on this issue to listen in total to this "debate" from a few weeks back.granted the interviewer was very much out of her depth but I think it gives a good example of what may have contributed to the BAI decision in the current case.

Akrasia

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.

That argument reveals the bigoted attitude that the love between two people of the same sex is inferior to the love of two people of opposite sexes.

I certainly never considered the defining feature of marriage to be a union between a man and a woman. I have always considered a marriage as a commitment to be faithful to one other person for the rest of your life.

The legal privileges associated with marriage are not inconsequential and to discriminate against homosexual couples is a breach of their human rights and it's well past time that we end this discrimination once and for all.

Corkfeen

LorMal wrote: »

Who decides what is valid reasoning? You?

Based on facts, reason and evidence is pretty good. If you're gonna provide reasons to object you should back it up. The pro side consistently backup statements while the opposition do not. For example, who is to say those who are opposed to interracial marriage aren't using valid reasoning?

Answer : Their beliefs are nothing more than beliefs, they were based out of prejudice and bigotry. It was irrational. The same can be said for those avid objectors to same sex marriage.

Akrasia

fran17 wrote: »

http://www.newstalk.ie/opening-debate-on-samesex-marriage-referendum

I urge anyone who is unbiased on this issue to listen in total to this "debate" from a few weeks back.granted the interviewer was very much out of her depth but I think it gives a good example of what may have contributed to the BAI decision in the current case.

I'm listening to this now and it's obvious that Ciara McDonagh is going harder on Ronan Mullen than on the other guest, but, Ronan Mullen has absolutely no argument to support his own position. He was on the defensive from the very start because he knows that his position is discriminatory and his only real argument is based on religious opposition to homosexuality, but he can not state his true position as it would be damaging to his side.

He wants to set the 'ground rules' to the debate where any accusations of homophobia are cut off at the pass, even where the motivations of one side are blatantly homophobic.

hard to believe this issue is still being discussed,, in 2014.

Hard to believe so many are against other peoples happiness. Why do you care if your neighbours are two married men, or two married women? How on earth does if effect your life??

dxhound2005

Jake1 wrote: »

hard to believe this issue is still being discussed,, in 2014.

Hard to believe so many are against other peoples happiness. Why do you care if your neighbours are two married men, or two married women? How on earth does if effect your life??

Hard to believe that some people have such a simplistic view of politics and the law.

Akrasia

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Hard to believe that some people have such a simplistic view of politics and the law.

What's complicated about treating all citizens of the state equally?

fran17

Corkfeen wrote: »

Based on facts, reason and evidence is pretty good. If you're gonna provide reasons to object you should back it up. The pro side consistently backup statements while the opposition do not. For example, who is to say those who are opposed to interracial marriage aren't using valid reasoning?

Answer : Their beliefs are nothing more than beliefs, they were based out of prejudice and bigotry. It was irrational. The same can be said for those avid objectors to same sex marriage.

the only problem with giving us THE answer to this issue is that most people have there own opinions on it

dxhound2005

Akrasia wrote: »

What's complicated about treating all citizens of the state equally?

Lots of things to do with marriage, divorce, children and inheritance are complicated. And becoming more complicated with the advent of assisted reproduction and surrogacy. It's OK saying why not let men get married to each other and why don't you want them to be happy. There is no mention of happiness in marriage legislation. When our marriage legislation was drafted there was no discussion whatsoever of same sex marriages.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1972/en/act/pub/0030/index.html

Akrasia

fran17 wrote: »

the only problem with giving us THE answer to this issue is that most people have there own opinions on it

It would be nice if people would provide valid arguments to support their opinions.

Akrasia

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Lots of things to do with marriage, divorce, children and inheritance are complicated. And becoming more complicated with the advent of assisted reproduction and surrogacy. It's OK saying why not let men get married to each other and why don't you want them to be happy. There is no mention of happiness in marriage legislation. When our marriage legislation was drafted there was no discussion whatsoever of same sex marriages.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1972/en/act/pub/0030/index.html

I didn't say anything about happiness. Its about equality. there should be no distinction in law between the sexual preferences of married couples. If anything, removing the prohibition on same sex marriage should make the law less complicated

dxhound2005

Akrasia wrote: »

I didn't say anything about happiness. Its about equality. there should be no distinction in law between the sexual preferences of married couples. If anything, removing the prohibition on same sex marriage should make the law less complicated

There is no legal prohibition. It simply was not considered in the legislation up to now, marriage was only ever one man and one woman. You challenged me when I said the other poster was being simplistic, writing about happiness, that's why I mentioned it.

This is the list of people who are prohibited from marrying by law.

Consanguinity – blood relationships

A man may not marry his:
•Grandmother
•Mother
•Father’s sister (aunt)
•Mother’s sister (aunt)
•Sister
•Father’s Daughter (half sister)
•Mother’s Daughter (half sister)
•Daughter
•Son’s Daughter (granddaughter)
•Daughter’s Daughter (granddaughter)
•Brother’s Daughter (niece)
•Sister’s Daughter (niece)

A woman may not marry her:
•Grandfather
•Father.
•Father’s Brother (uncle)
•Mother’s Brother (uncle)
•Brother
•Father’s Son (half brother)
•Mother’s Son (half brother)
•Son
•Son’s Son (grandson)
•Daughter’s Son (grandson)
•Brother’s Son (nephew)
•Sister’s Son (nephew)

Affinity – relationship by marriage

A man may not marry his:
•Grandfather’s Wife (step-grandmother)
•Father’s Wife (stepmother)
•Father’s Brother’s Wife
•Mother’s Brother’s Wife
•Son’s Wife
•Son’s Son’s Wife
•Daughter’s Son’s Wife
•Brother’s Son’s Wife
•Sister’s Son’s Wife
•Wife’s grandmother (grandmother-in-law)
•Wife’s Mother (mother-in-law)
•Wife’s Father’s Sister
•Wife’s Mother’s Sister
•Wife’s Daughter (stepdaughter)
•Wife’s Son’s Daughter
•Wife’s Daughter’s Daughter
•Wife’s Brother’s Daughter
•Wife’s Sister’s Daughter

A woman may not marry her:
•Grandmother’s Husband (step-grandfather)
•Mother’s Husband (stepfather)
•Father’s Sister’s Husband
•Mother’s Sister’s Husband
•Daughter’s Husband
•Son’s Daughter’s Husband
•Daughter’s Daughter’s Husband
•Brother’s Daughter’s Husband
•Sister’s Daughter’s Husband
•Husband’s Grandfather (grandfather-in-law)
•Husband’s Father (father-in-law)
•Husband’s Father’s Brother
•Husband’s Mother’s Brother
•Husband’s Son (stepson)
•Husband’s Son’s Son
•Husband’s Daughter’s Son
•Husband’s Brother’s Son
•Husband’s Sister’s Son

Grayson

fran17 wrote: »

the only problem with giving us THE answer to this issue is that most people have there own opinions on it

Far too many opinions are formed based on superstitious bullsh1t and have no coherent argument behind them.

If someone is basing a decision on how the law today should be, they shouldn't be using the laws that iron-age cavemen used.

fran17

Grayson wrote: »

Far too many opinions are formed based on superstitious bullsh1t and have no coherent argument behind them.

If someone is basing a decision on how the law today should be, they shouldn't be using the laws that iron-age cavemen used.

they were stone age...but how come then in thousands of years and in hundreds of civilisations has same sex unions in the main been deemed as wrong?

Corkfeen

fran17 wrote: »

the only problem with giving us THE answer to this issue is that most people have there own opinions on it

Back your opinion up so, something you have failed to do in every one of these discussions.

marienbad

fran17 wrote: »

they were stone age...but how come then in thousands of years and in hundreds of civilisations has same sex unions in the main been deemed as wrong?

so what, do you believe in the repressive treatment of women in muslim countries that has gone on for over a thousand years .

Longevity does not equal legitimacy

hatrickpatrick

Riskymove wrote: »

There is a clear difference between thousands of anonymous people posting on a board and an idenitifed public figure

and...there was no complaint about the actual topic or the person interviewed giving his personal experiences

I'd apply the same to both. The provider of a platform should not be held responsible for what that platform is used for. It creates too much of a chilling effect.

EDIT: Anyone care to answer how a presenter referring to 9/11 as a disgraceful act of monstrous inhumanity is any different?

conorh91

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

Yet again The Journal gets it spectacularly wrong.

What is wrong with those people? That piece is reactionary and uninformed, even by the Journal's standards.

At this stage, I'm convinced that website is only interested in clickbaiting internet users, and not interested in genuinely informing public debate.

fran17

Corkfeen wrote: »

Back your opinion up so, something you have failed to do in every one of these discussions.

I made my reasons very clear in a previous thread on this matter as you well know.that thread was then usurped by certain individuals but that's all water under the bridge now

fran17

marienbad wrote: »

so what, do you believe in the repressive treatment of women in muslim countries that has gone on for over a thousand years .

Longevity does not equal legitimacy

so much of the pro side remind me of the Qin dynasty in china.lets ignore all of history and its teachings,thus sterilising any argument that doesn't conform

krudler

Grayson wrote: »

Far too many opinions are formed based on superstitious bullsh1t and have no coherent argument behind them.

If someone is basing a decision on how the law today should be, they shouldn't be using the laws that iron-age cavemen used.

fran17 wrote: »

they were stone age...but how come then in thousands of years and in hundreds of civilisations has same sex unions in the main been deemed as wrong?

You think the bible was written in the stone age?

marienbad

fran17 wrote: »

so much of the pro side remind me of the Qin dynasty in china.lets ignore all of history and its teachings,thus sterilising any argument that doesn't conform

just more meaningless cant, slavery was ok for virtually all of human existence and still is in some places, are you saying this legitimises it ?

Nodin

fran17 wrote: »

they were stone age...but how come then in thousands of years and in hundreds of civilisations has same sex unions in the main been deemed as wrong?

You could make the same silly argument for taking the vote off women.

catallus

Most of the population of the western world subsists under the condition of slavery; it is our perception of ourselves that has changed.

The slave-owners are the corporations, and we are the willing slaves. Work hard and each day you'll earn just enough to survive!