RTÉ getting ready to snuff the No vote for next Referendum

This is really incensing:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1112/1226408553762.html

We discussed this on the Libertas thread briefly, I will merge the one or two posts on it into this thread.

/Mod

The two previous comments on this subject are visible in quotations below

/Mod

johnfás wrote:

I noticed the issue of the Government requirement that broadcasters
give 50-50 airtime to competing camps on a Referendum has been
questioned by broadcasters before an Oireachtas Committee today.

It
is important to note that this requirement is a Government one rather
than a Constitutional one. It comes out of the Supreme Court McKenna
judgment where the Court held that the funding of the Government of one
side to the obvious detriment of another, breached the doctrine of
equality as enshrined in the Constitution. It is one of the few
successful challenges to a Constitutional Referendum. However, the
Supreme Court stopped short of prescribing what the doctrine of
equality should entail, leaving it instead to the Oireachtas, as is
their role. The Government thereafter decided that one aspect of this
equal role was to give 50-50 time for each side on broadcasts (as well
as other matters).

Some broadcasters today complained that this
was particularly unhelpful during the current campaign as there were a
disproportionately small number of actors promoting a no vote. The
requirement for absolute 50-50 coverage therefore meant that
disproportionate airtime was granted to a small number of actors (Sinn
Féin and Libertas were highlighted) and that this arguably did more to
promote personal reputation than the aim of the policy which is to
promote equal treatment of the issues.

Opinions?

ibis wrote:

johnfás wrote:

I noticed the issue of the Government
requirement that broadcasters give 50-50 airtime to competing camps on
a Referendum has been questioned by broadcasters before an Oireachtas
Committee today.

It is important to note that this requirement
is a Government one rather than a Constitutional one. It comes out of
the Supreme Court McKenna judgment where the Court held that
the funding of the Government of one side to the obvious detriment of
another, breached the doctrine of equality as enshrined in the
Constitution. It is one of the few successful challenges to a
Constitutional Referendum. However, the Supreme Court stopped short of
prescribing what the doctrine of equality should entail, leaving it
instead to the Oireachtas, as is their role. The Government thereafter
decided that one aspect of this equal role was to give 50-50 time for
each side on broadcasts (as well as other matters).

Some
broadcasters today complained that this was particularly unhelpful
during the current campaign as there were a disproportionately small
number of actors promoting a no vote. The requirement for absolute
50-50 coverage therefore meant that disproportionate airtime was
granted to a small number of actors (Sinn Féin and Libertas were
highlighted) and that this arguably did more to promote personal
reputation than the aim of the policy which is to promote equal
treatment of the issues.

Opinions?

I would mostly
agree, I think. Essentially, that someone would choose to capitalise on
the airtime offered by the ruling tells you that it's probably badly
undervalued. I don't like the government being able to dominate the
airwaves at whim, but I also think that this kind of prescriptive
"balance" is nothing of the kind. If we had a referendum on allowing
the teaching of Creationism in schools, for example, my view would be
that the ruling would result in giving publicity to outright
lies.

They will still have to achieve equality in the manner in which the issues are treated i.e. fair and balanced coverage, Aragon. It is merely the case that it will not be a requirement to have equality of personality. I have demonstrated in my initial post why this is important.

I'm all for it. The No side gained c 54% of the popular vote so they should get 54% of all media time.

When a nation, its govt and its media, are afraid to give equal time and weight to opposing views on a topic for debate, the nation and its society are regressing back into the dark days of censorship and shallow, self-serving propoganda.

If any given side in a debate must cheat, distort or lie in order to to win the debate, its original proposition must have been rotten. They cannot win by force of persuasion or argument so they revert subterfuge.

Everyday the very people who declare themselves democrats and champions of liberty in Ireland spend more and more time chipping away at the foundations of free speech, assembly and any notion of equality.

This country is becoming irredemably corrupt and immoral in a political sense.

As the original poster of this thread Ive registered my objection to having had it coopeted by a 'yes' supporter (without any notice to me) who happens to be a moderator of this site and who has seen fit to put his OWN previous comment from another thread in first place on this thread!!! Outrageous! This is exactly the sort of thing which No campaingners can expect to see a lot more of in the lead up to this next 'referendum' - whcih is as likely to be as fixed as this thread has been, imo.

We cannot order the manner in which we merge threads. It is good site management to have comments on precisely the same issue within the same thread. If you would rather that the comments that were made prior to your thread was established be moved down the thread, I am happy to do so but they will appear as quotes, not posts. As I have said, there is no way to merge threads in a manner which sees you reorder the chronological order of the thread.

There is really no need to get quite so angry and personalised, Aragon - a simple PM can suffice. Are you now happy with the manner in which the thread reads?

You chose to reorder the thread which I posted. You chose to take control of it and to put yourself and your own views in pole position.

No, I chose to merge two threads, which is in keeping with good site management. If I had the power to reorder the thread I would have moved the posts below yours. However, the platform which we are using does not allow for the reordering of comments. As a consequence, when the threads were merged it automatically bumped Ibis and my comments above yours are they were posted at a prior date. This was then explained in my post in the thread where I explicitly explained that the two prior comments were merged from a previous thread. Owing to your unhappiness with the situation I have taken the time to delete Ibis and my comments and add them in a quote format. This is the only possible way to order these relevant comments below your initial one.

I trust that now clears the matter up for you.

Well, I see that you have now changed things around again so that my original comment comes first. Thank you for that,

I did that even before your last comment, as is explained in my two previous comments. You just must not have seen it before you responded. No worries.

Aragon wrote:

This is really incensing:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1112/1226408553762.html

The gloves are off and the knives are out. However, RTE couldn't find their arse with both hands and should they attempt to sideline the NO side when we vote on the same issue again they may be suprised to find that the no side will, once again, run rings around them in other forms.

This does not mean that the No side will be sidelined cookie. It merely means that Mr Ganley may have to actually gain election before his organisation gets more airtime than, for example, a political party with 51 elected representatives in Dáil Éireann.

However, of course it does not suit the political agenda of the organisation which you support which is as much to promote itself as a viable pan european organisation as it is to campaign against Lisbon.

If RTE did seek to sideline one side of a campaign there is plenty of oppertunity for them to either complain to the BCC or bring an action through the courts.

I can't make my mind up about this one.

Although one side of a referendum may consist of very few elected representatives, a constitutional debate is really a peoples debate, not an oireachtas debate. Does that mean anything ? And although the majority of oireachts members may take one side, this should not be allowed to bludgeon the voices of the other side.

OTOH, I'm not comfortable seeing minority groups being spoonfed large portions of airtime, just because they have a few seats in the Dáil or managed to print up a few leaflets.

Aragon wrote:

This is really incensing:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1112/1226408553762.html

I agree with loads of that article.