Broadcasting Complaints Commission and Pat Kenny

[Myksyk]

Am I the only one dumbstruck at the BCC's indefensible upholding of Irish Psychic's Live ludicrous complaint against the Pat Kenny Show?

[lostexpectation]

Originally Posted by Myksyk

Am I the only one dumbstruck at the BCC's indefensible upholding of Irish Psychic's Live ludicrous complaint against the Pat Kenny Show?

im not surprised, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2054941429

[pH]

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...issue_id=14161

http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter68.html#2

[tbh]

Originally Posted by Myksyk

Am I the only one dumbstruck at the BCC's indefensible upholding of Irish Psychic's Live ludicrous complaint against the Pat Kenny Show?

I know exactly what you are talking about, I felt the same way initially, but only because I agree with Pat Kenny's views on the issue. However, there is a responsibility on the state broadcaster to report things in an impartial way, which he clearly didn't. If the debate were about, say, abortion, and Kenny was as biased as he was during the IPL interview, there would be a lot more noise about it because more people would disagree with what he said. Standards are standards, I'm afraid. We either change the rules so anyone can slag off IPL (I'd love that), or we apply the rules to all equally, even if we think they are shysters.

[pH]

Originally Posted by tbh

However, there is a responsibility on the state broadcaster to report things in an impartial way, which he clearly didn't. If the debate were about, say, abortion ...

I think you're confusing a number of things here :

Firstly yes - 'reporting' by the state broadcasters (as in news reporting) should be as impartial as possible. Report the facts and try an keep as neutral a point of view as far as possible.

However talk/chat shows are about opinions. It may be commercially sensible (in terms of keeping your audience) to balance the views, but it is by no means a requirement (legally or morally). If Pat interviews a victim of child abuse he isn't required to follow that up with a paedophile (to express a balanced point of view).

This 'psychic stuff' by it's very nature seems to target the vunerable of society, and has been seen with many other examples(ring tones/chat etc) premium rate phone lines are a nasty way of getting much more money from these people than they would normally part with if the service was charged for in a more open and honest way.

The BCC 'judgement' is the mildest slap on the wrist for PK and RTE, but there's no such thing as bad publicity and I'd bet that calls to IPL will spike again.

[tbh]

Originally Posted by pH

I think you're confusing a number of things here :

Firstly yes - 'reporting' by the state broadcasters (as in news reporting) should be as impartial as possible. Report the facts and try an keep as neutral a point of view as far as possible.

However talk/chat shows are about opinions. It may be commercially sensible (in terms of keeping your audience) to balance the views, but it is by no means a requirement (legally or morally). If Pat interviews a victim of child abuse he isn't required to follow that up with a paedophile (to express a balanced point of view).

Unfortunately, the opinions of the guests are fine, but presenters are not allowed state opinions as fact. Whether you agree with PK or not - and I do - it's against the law. There are probably many sad people - customers - who would swear blind that IPL is a great service and has helped them enormously.

This 'psychic stuff' by it's very nature seems to target the vunerable of society, and has been seen with many other examples(ring tones/chat etc) premium rate phone lines are a nasty way of getting much more money from these people than they would normally part with if the service was charged for in a more open and honest way.

Can I just say - I agree 100% with what you've said there. I've posted on this before and I've an ongoing thing with the BCC over IPL.

The BCC 'judgement' is the mildest slap on the wrist for PK and RTE, but there's no such thing as bad publicity and I'd bet that calls to IPL will spike again.

sadly, you're probably right.

Here's the judgement in full:

Mr. Higgins’ complaint, under Section 24(2)(a)(impartiality) of the Broadcasting Act 2001, refers to an invitation made by Ms. Valerie Cox for Mr. Higgins to guest on the ‘Today with Pat Kenny’ show. Prior to his appearance on the show, Ms. Cox recorded 5 telephone-psychic readings (within the space of one afternoon) with employees of Irish Psychics Live. Mr. Higgins advised Ms. Cox that a handful of readings obtained in this manner over such a short period of time could not be used to definitely represent the quality of readings provided by Irish Physics Live.

In the letter of the law, he's got a point. It would be unfair to judge a company based on 5 complaints, for example, if those complaints represented only .001% of customers.

Ms. Cox reported live in studio that she had found ‘nothing of value’ in the readings. Six out-of-context sound bytes were played on air: These had been carefully chosen to underline a trenchant view expounded by Pat Kenny, that all readings offered by Irish Psychics Live are ‘rubbish’ and ‘worthless’. This assessment seems to have been based exclusively on the report and recordings provided by Ms. Cox on Mr. Kenny’s privately held beliefs.

He states RTÉ failed entirely to ensure that it met its obligations to present its programme on this issue in a fair, objective and impartial manner. This was evidenced by the fact that Pat Kenny accused Mr. Higgins’ company of being ‘bogus’ and, therefore, ‘fraudulent’. There was no attempt to present a balanced view of this issue. In particular, RTÉ quoted a document provided by an effectively anonymous source, live on air, and in doing so failed to quote significant parts of the document, which would have entirely negated the unfair spin placed on the document by the source and by RTÉ. The allegations made by RTÉ were grossly defamatory of Mr. Higgins and his company. Some of these allegations were presented in a raised voice that could only be regarded as shouting.

I would be pissed off if IPL had recieved a positive spin in that story, based on the testamonials of three or four anonymous callers who said the service was great. It cuts both ways.

Station’s Response:
RTÉ in their response state Mr. Higgins is the Managing Director of a company called Realm Communications Limited. This company operates Irish Psychics Live. Mr. Higgins was invited onto the ‘Today with Pat Kenny’ programme to be interviewed by the programme presenter. The item opened with a report from Valerie Cox who informed listeners that she had spent over €200 talking to five, so-called, psychic readers. Her report included extracts from these readers as they tried to inform Ms. Cox about various aspects of her life. Any reasonable assessment of the report would conclude that the entire psychic-reading exercise is a charade and that the only purpose of Irish Psychics Live is to exploit vulnerable people by prolonging their phone calls and in the process extract the maximum amount of money from the callers.

At the end of the report, Pat Kenny put to Mr. Higgins that his operation was “unadulterated spoof and complete rubbish”. Mr. Kenny based this opinion on Ms. Cox’s report. Mr. Higgins was given the opportunity to defend his company’s performance.

RTÉ further state that the interview was a robust, spirited affair which covered the issue of the regulator for premium calls requiring that customers have to be informed when the cost of a call exceeds thirty euro. In five phone calls to Irish Psychics Live, all of which cost more than thirty euro, Ms. Cox was not informed that she had exceeded this limit. This was put to Mr. Higgins who offered no reasonable defence for this clear breach of regulations. Mr. Higgins’ complaint has no validity whatsoever. His company was caught out deceiving vulnerable people. He was given an opportunity to defend his company. He failed to do so with any credibility.

Decision of the Commission:
The Commission considered the broadcast material, the submissions made by the complainant and the broadcaster. The complaint made by Mr. Thomas Higgins has been upheld with reference to Section 24(2)(a)(impartiality) of the Broadcasting Act, 2001. This interview concerned the service offered by Irish Psychics Live. The Commission would acknowledge that the subject matter was of public interest and, therefore, one would expect the interview to be conducted in a firm and robust manner. However, the Commission noted that the presenter uttered statements throughout the broadcast piece that were an expression of his own opinions. While playing the devil’s advocate is an acceptable interviewing style, the Commission believes that the interviewer in both tone and content persisted with statements and allegations in a partial manner and concludes that the interviewer dealt with the subject matter in an unfair manner. The complaint was upheld.

Unfortunately, the rules are not just there to protect the companies we like. For the record, I think "phone psychics" are manipulative, grasping people who target the lonely and the vunerable, and I think the service they offer should have huge "FOR AMUSEMENT ONLY" banners plastered all over their ads. But then, I think that about the church as well

[Jackie laughlin]

The rules re impartiality apply only to matters of public controversy. The decision to uphold the complaint therefore removes psychic claims from the category of "swindles to be exposed" in the public interest and admits them to the category of public controversy. This is a significant advance for these people. Imagine if such people had to be covered impartially! The Commission should be severly criticised for this dreadful lapse.

[medja]

Originally Posted by Jackie laughlin

The rules re impartiality apply only to matters of public controversy. The decision to uphold the complaint therefore removes psychic claims from the category of "swindles to be exposed" in the public interest and admits them to the category of public controversy. This is a significant advance for these people. Imagine if such people had to be covered impartially! The Commission should be severly criticised for this dreadful lapse.

No i'm afriad I disagree, the person who's at fault here is Pat Kenny and RTE. ISL would not have had the level of sucess they had only for a report that went out in 1998.

Secondly, if they had stuck to the facts and researched the subject properly they could have really had ISL on the ropes. Now it's likely that ISL will take legal action and possibly win.

[Jackie laughlin]

Read the Acts. Impartiality and fairness are required only in matters of public controversy. The Commission has rendered coverage of psychics a controversy.

[DeVore]

Please be aware that we are in receipt of a legal notice on behalf of the IPL owner and business regarding this thread. We are in legal discussion as to our next actions but I would ask you to remember that you are responsible for your own words on this site. We'd ask you not to say anything that may also land Boards Ltd in court.

Thanks,
DeV.

[tbh]

oh my God I'm so curious now. DeV, I understand it's probably tricky ground, but is it possible to let the authors of the posts in question know whats going on? (maybe you've done this already)

[The_Dazzler]

One of his "psychics" must have learned about this thread while doing a reading.See its all real.

[DeVore]

This legal threat is not at the posters, its at the site (or more specifically the site owners). Please do not defame anyone on this site, thank you.

DeV.

[Cabaal]

imho I find it concerning that IPL can't take a few comments regarding their service, surely eircom would be in court everyday with people over comments made if they decided to do the same as IPL?

[Hobbes]

I suppose you could argue that IPL allowed this to happen so they could try to sue (after all they are all psychics).