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
12467…24

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    No mention of religion here:

    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).

    If anyone wants to read the complaint, the response from RTE, and the BAI determination they are here. Might stop some people making up their own version.

    http://www.bai.ie/?page_id=183

    His group campaigns for Catholic Family Values


  • Options
    #93
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    No mention of religion here:

    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).

    If anyone wants to read the complaint, the response from RTE, and the BAI determination they are here. Might stop some people making up their own version.

    http://www.bai.ie/?page_id=183

    Taken from the Family and Media Association's website:

    The aims of the Family and Media Association are:

    1…  To promote greater understanding and appreciation of Christian values in the media with particular reference to Catholic teachings;

    2…  To promote public understanding of the functioning and power of the media and, in so doing. foster high standards of honesty, decency, fairness, objectivity, impartiality and truthfulness.

     



    No, no not driven by religion at all!


  • Options
    #94
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,046 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    efb wrote: »
    His group campaigns for Catholic Family Values

    I know. But the complaint was made under the Broadcasting Act and the BAI upheld it. No reference to religion anywhere. It is a political matter, soon to be the subject of a referendum.


  • Options
    #95
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,071 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    marienbad wrote: »
    I didn't hear the programme and have only read the summary of the decision so correct me if I am wrong - but there were three people on the segment and all in favour , imho that is what made the difference. If it was just one guy giving his life experience fair enough but it went beyond that.

    And the view was taken that it is current topic soon to be voted on and in effect the campaigns have already started .

    I think the McKenna Judgement even though unrelated affects all these decisions.

    On the atheist question , yeah you are right and we should lodge more complaints' going into the future now that we have a precedent.

    There is no legal requirement for balance outside of the period leading upto a referendum so McKenna is not relevant

    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
    #96
    rawn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭rawn


    I think the complaint is that, as a presenter, he is supposed to be impartial and not show his own opinions. He is there to encourage other people to discuss their opinions and be blank himself so as not to lean the discussion in one direction. It's not the subject that's being complained about, it's his unprofessional-ism

    And, yes, I do support same-sex marriage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,046 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Taken from the Family and Media Association's website:

    The aims of the Family and Media Association are:

    1…  To promote greater understanding and appreciation of Christian values in the media with particular reference to Catholic teachings;

    2…  To promote public understanding of the functioning and power of the media and, in so doing. foster high standards of honesty, decency, fairness, objectivity, impartiality and truthfulness.

     



    No, no not driven by religion at all!

    Did you read the complaint?


  • Options
    #98
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    I know. But the complaint was made under the Broadcasting Act and the BAI upheld it. No reference to religion anywhere. It is a political matter, soon to be the subject of a referendum.

    Arghhhhhhh! Why can't people just say 'I am against SSM because my religion tells me to be'? Aren't religious people supposed to be proud of their religions? So why hide behind a load of bollocks and pretend what is blatantly obvious is not the case?


  • Options
    #99
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,046 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    This is actually a very shocking decision

    Lets step back and think about this. If a straight person is allowed to mention that they are married, and speak about their spouse and children without the need for someone to tell them that it ought to be against the law then it is discrimination.

    In effect this ruling could mean people in same sex relationships cannot discuss their family or their relationship without the need for ‘balance’, that is, a person who opposes their relationship or family, during any form of broadcast discussion.

    The straight person would not be looking to change to law.


  • Options
    #100
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Did you read the complaint?

    so if the guest had taken an anti ssm stance mr latchford would have complained about balance and fairness? give over, its totally driven by his religion


  • Options
    #101
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,943 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Plenty of gays opposed to it too.:cool:

    So what? If some straight people were opposed to marriage, would it be right to ban marriage altogether to placate them?

    Oh wait, I forgot, they're somehow superior to "quares".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    furiousox
    Registered Users Posts: 6,970 ✭✭✭furiousox


    "Catholic Family Values" :rolleyes:
    The phrase alone sickens me.

    CPL 593H



  • Options
    #103
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,046 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    There is no legal requirement for balance outside of the period leading upto a referendum so McKenna is not relevant

    And if you had read the material on the BAI website you would have seen that exact point being dealt with in the decision.


  • Options
    #104
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    There is no legal requirement for balance outside of the period leading upto a referendum so McKenna is not relevant

    I think the authority leaned towards the view that we are in referendum mode and thus the ruling.


  • Options
    #105
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,046 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Arghhhhhhh! Why can't people just say 'I am against SSM because my religion tells me to be'? Aren't religious people supposed to be proud of their religions? So why hide behind a load of bollocks and pretend what is blatantly obvious is not the case?

    And everyone who does not support SSM is homphobic? Including the hundreds of thousands of people who will vote NO in the referendum?


  • Options
    #106
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    This is actually a very shocking decision

    Lets step back and think about this. If a straight person is allowed to mention that they are married, and speak about their spouse and children without the need for someone to tell them that it ought to be against the law then it is discrimination.

    In effect this ruling could mean people in same sex relationships cannot discuss their family or their relationship without the need for ‘balance’, that is, a person who opposes their relationship or family, during any form of broadcast discussion.
    Sorry but this is just sensationalism.

    There is no impediment to a straight person or a gay person discussing their private family life on air with respect to the relevant BAI rule, including discussion of their civil partnership or marriage as the case may be, whether they are gay or straight.

    The BAI rules are clear. You can say almost anything on air, including give your unfiltered, biased opinions on political matters, along as it is made perfectly clear to the audience that the presenter is now broadcasting an "authored" broadcast, i.e. this is not news or current affairs.

    If that warning is not given, and if the material is adjudged to be news and current affairs content (e.g. it discusses statistics, or a matter of current public debate, or both in the Mooney case), then rules of impartiality will apply.
    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    There is no legal requirement for balance outside of the period leading upto a referendum so McKenna is not relevant
    This is just wrong.


  • Options
    #107
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,071 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    No mention of religion here:

    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).

    If anyone wants to read the complaint, the response from RTE, and the BAI determination they are here. Might stop some people making up their own version.

    http://www.bai.ie/?page_id=183

    Lots of religion here

    http://fma.ie/fma/

    and here

    http://www.stgenesius.com/council.html

    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
    #108
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,071 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    marienbad wrote: »
    I think the authority leaned towards the view that we are in referendum mode and thus the ruling.

    But legally we're not

    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
    #109
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    And everyone who does not support SSM is homphobic? Including the hundreds of thousands of people who will vote NO in the referendum?

    Can you give me an example why someone who is not would vote no?


  • Options
    #110
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,943 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    I'm sure they are Irish aswell, does that make it an Irish debate? Plenty of religious people are for and against same sex marriage ditto for atheists.

    "Plenty" isn't a majority:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/support-for-same-sex-marriage-increasing-poll-finds-1.1752448 - 67% support, April 2014, Ipsos/MRBI/Irish Times

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/majority-irish-voters-support-lgbt-marriage-gay-graham-norton - 76% support, February 2014, Red C/Sunday Business Post

    According to the last census, about 90% of the Irish population had a religion (let's just ignore the cultural phenomenon of "Mammy writing "Catholic" in the census form when I'm not one"). Even if you assume all of that irreligious 10% supported marriage equality, that still leaves at least 57% of the population who are religious and support marriage equality.

    I'm sure you're just passive-aggressively posting as usual, though.


  • Options
    #111
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    The straight person would not be looking to change to law.

    They would if that law prevented them from the same equal status as a gay person.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,046 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Can you give me an example why someone who is not would vote no?

    No.


  • Options
    #113
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Arghhhhhhh! Why can't people just say 'I am against SSM because my religion tells me to be'? Aren't religious people supposed to be proud of their religions? So why hide behind a load of bollocks and pretend what is blatantly obvious is not the case?

    I think you are wrong to believe that all people who oppose SSM are doing so on religious grounds.

    Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that Mooney cannot use RTE broadcasts to push his own agenda.


  • Options
    #114
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    No.

    OK we are on the same page then. I can't think of a reason why someone who is not homophobic would vote no either.


  • Options
    #115
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    This is actually a very shocking decision

    Lets step back and think about this. If a straight person is allowed to mention that they are married, and speak about their spouse and children without the need for someone to tell them that it ought to be against the law then it is discrimination.

    In effect this ruling could mean people in same sex relationships cannot discuss their family or their relationship without the need for ‘balance’, that is, a person who opposes their relationship or family, during any form of broadcast discussion.

    It really isn't schocking. Actually I find it a little bit scary how quickly those in favour (of which I am one) of ssm can't see that this is just a judgement about balance .

    The motives of the participants is simply irrelevant . free speech applies to everyone , even those we don't like


  • Options
    #116
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    LorMal wrote: »
    I think you are wrong to believe that all people who oppose SSM are doing so on religious grounds.

    Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that Mooney cannot use RTE broadcasts to push his own agenda.

    I've asked this question so many times on boards and never been given an answer.
    I'd love a actual, rational reason to oppose SSM without using religion or children, in the "the gheys will be raising gay adopted babies" nonsense argument.


  • Options
    #117
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    OK we are on the same page then. I can't think of a reason why someone who is not homophobic would vote no either.

    Homophobic, fundamentalist, fascist, Christians then..?


  • Options
    #118
    sun structures
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25 ✭sun structures


    Ah religious people, crying "freedom of speech" while fighting to uphold a law denying others their freedom to marry whoever they wish.


  • Options
    #119
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    sun structures wrote: »
    Ah religious people, crying "freedom of speech" while fighting to uphold a law denying others their freedom to marry whoever they wish.

    The only freedoms that matter are my own basically


  • Options
    #120
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Why should it be, is every conversation on radio to be preplanned and censored? Radio hosts shouldn't have to check in with religious media groups before they can talk to a gay person.

    I don't think they'd appreciate an atheist being on call every time god get's mentioned on the radio.

    Bong... "There's no God", Bong... "There's no God", Bong... "There's no God", Bong... "There's no God", Bong... "There's no God", Bong... "There's no God"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    This is very welcome. For all too long RTÉ has been peddling propaganda as fact. Notably this idea of "marriage inequality" when in Ireland everyone is able to get married on the same basis, two consenting adults of different gender. There is no discrimination. The institution of marriage may not suit what everyone wants to do, but that is a different issue.
    I can't think of a reason why someone who is not homophobic would vote no either.

    Probably because prejudice has blinded your thinking facilities. Try and think harder.


Advertisement