Why do RTE refuse to use the word 'traveller'

steelcityblues

I have just watched the brief mention on the RTE news bulletin about the arrests of four people in the Ennis school incident.

Read any of the newspapers today, or listen to any other stations, and they mention that the people being questioned are from the travelling community.

Is it out of some tedious political correctness, or something else, that RTE fail to mention this today, and on other stories previously?

coylemj

steelcityblues wrote: »

Is it out of some tedious political correctness, or something else, that RTE fail to mention this today, and on other stories previously?

Yes, it is part of the current wave of political correctness. For example, the media in the US now refer to a person 'of colour' rather than a 'black' person. Despite this, in the UK recently Alan Hansen on Match of the Day referred to a black football player as 'coloured' whereupon the ceiling fell in on him with the media deciding that that was a non-PC term and he had to issue a grovelling apology.

The thought police are well and truly in charge in the media.

steelcityblues

coylemj wrote: »

Yes, it is part of the current wave of political correctness. For example, the media in the US now refer to a person 'of colour' rather than a 'black' person. Despite this, in the UK recently Alan Hansen on Match of the Day referred to a black football player as 'coloured' whereupon the ceiling fell in on him with the media deciding that that was a non-PC term and he had to issue a grovelling apology.

The thought police are well and truly in charge in the media.

That was Alan Hansen.

Funnily, what bothered me more was his fudging of whether Suarez was a victim or not, rather than the description he used. Media never really discussed this, though.

IRE60

I heard that story this morning on M.I and thought to myself "what ethnic minority in Ireland has a predilection to using the trusted 'slash hook' outside a school accompanied by a female"

Personally I was stumped.

Most of the media reporting steered away from the elephant, bar the Irish Times on its website which mentioned a that two of the 'angles' lived on the halting site on the Quin Rd, which gave me my answer!

Horsebox_twenty

There is a simple reason why RTE did not say they were Travellers. Because it was not relevant to the story.

Newspaper content is overseen by the Press Council. RTE's content is overseen by the BAI. They have different sets of rules.

Broadcasters cannot bring a person's racial background, sexual orientation etc into the reporting of a straight news story unless it has some relevance to the issues the story is about. It is to stop potentially prejudicial reporting.

The people who ran through the school may have been travellers, but the fact they were travellers is not necessarily relevant. If they weren't travellers, do you think RTE would report that four settled people ran through the school? Of course not, because it isn't relevant. RTE was trying to avoid sanction by the BAI, simple as that.

IRE60

In this case the fact that they are travellers has relevance to the story - the travelling community is beset with 'family' fights- many very very public, like in Mullingar last year. Call a spade a shovel, it is relevant to the story - may not be PC - but sill gives some 'clarity' to the article

steelcityblues

Horsebox_twenty wrote: »

There is a simple reason why RTE did not say they were Travellers. Because it was not relevant to the story.

Newspaper content is overseen by the Press Council. RTE's content is overseen by the BAI. They have different sets of rules.

Broadcasters cannot bring a person's racial background, sexual orientation etc into the reporting of a straight news story unless it has some relevance to the issues the story is about. It is to stop potentially prejudicial reporting.

The people who ran through the school may have been travellers, but the fact they were travellers is not necessarily relevant. If they weren't travellers, do you think RTE would report that four settled people ran through the school? Of course not, because it isn't relevant. RTE was trying to avoid sanction by the BAI, simple as that.

Leading traveller pressure groups want 'ethnic' status. That means they have to accept if they are involved in any incident - victim or perpetrator - they are identified as such, just like someone from Lithuania, China, etc would be too.

mikemac1

Horsebox_twenty wrote: »

There is a simple reason why RTE did not say they were Travellers. Because it was not relevant to the story.

It's relevant if the reason for what happened was a feud between families

And if you know the reason then why wouldn't you report it

RGDATA!

steelcityblues wrote: »

Leading traveller pressure groups want 'ethnic' status. That means they have to accept if they are involved in any incident - victim or perpetrator - they are identified as such, just like someone from Lithuania, China, etc would be too.

i get where you're coming from, but you're not comparing like with like

is 'lithuanaian' enough for a when it's a black lithuanian? Do we need reports saying "Joe Bloggs, a black Irishman, was convicted of drunk driving"?
Ethnic status is not the same as nationality

personally I don't think travellers need to be specifically identified as such when it's not directly relevant to the case.

Horsebox_twenty

IRE60 wrote: »

In this case the fact that they are travellers has relevance to the story - the travelling community is beset with 'family' fights- many very very public, like in Mullingar last year. Call a spade a shovel, it is relevant to the story - may not be PC - but sill gives some 'clarity' to the article

Travellers may or may not be "beset" with family fights. But that assertion still isn't relevant to the reporting of the story in question, PC or not.

On your logic, RTE may as well have reported that these people ran through the school because they are Travellers. That's effectively what you are saying. If so, that constitutes racially-prejudicial reporting, and would be against the BAI rules, as well as being journalistically suspect.

If, however, you are not saying these people ran through the school because they are Travellers, then that's proof that it has no relevance to the story. If they weren't tunning through the school because they are travellers, then why report the fact they are travellers at all?

You would only do it if you wanted to draw a link between their ethnicity and their behaviour. In society, many people may choose make that link between ethnicity and behaviour. But that's not the job of a reporter, especially one operating in a heavily regulated industry.

I'm not arguing one way or the other about what Travellers do or don't get up to. That's a different debate altogether. I'm merely pointing out, dispassionately, why RTE did not report they were Travellers in the story.

IRE60

OP:
I understand where you are coming from in terms of the obligations on the different media serving different ‘masters’ – but its lunacy.

And, perhaps our friends in Donnybrook are taking it too seriously. A great example was that the RTE website reported over the weekend that five people had been treated in hospital after a row in a hotel in Limerick. Fair enough.

The print media reported further that the row was specifically in Rathkeel (Limerick being geographically correct – but not very precise in this case) and that the fight was, in fact, between members of the travelling community.
Which version appeals to me more – the latter fact laden (or fact embellished depending on your take) version.

Therefore, the different medium report the facts in a different fashion because of the different statutory bodies take on how they should each go about their business.

RGDATA!

RGDATA! wrote: »

personally I don't think travellers need to be specifically identified as such when it's not directly relevant to the case.

I agree, and I wish the newspapers would take the same approach.

That's because I get the sudoku and crossword done really quickly and it would add to the entertainment value of the paper if I had to do a bit of work to guess whether or not travellers (or skangers, gang members or Dublin southside husbands as appropriate) were involved based on whatever hints or clues are available in the story copy. :pac:

bill_lehane

It's not purely a question of ethnicity, or even of Travellers alone as the Equal Status Act 2000 outlaws discrimination on nine different grounds, including membership of the travelling community.

How crime suspects are identified is an important aspect of this equality and an important part of journalism, because otherwise stereotypes can be formed in all kinds of ways.

Wild Bill

bill_lehane wrote: »

It's not purely a question of ethnicity, or even of Travellers alone as the Equal Status Act 2000 outlaws discrimination on nine different grounds, including membership of the travelling community.

How crime suspects are identified is an important aspect of this equality and an important part of journalism, because otherwise stereotypes can be formed in all kinds of ways.

A lot of stuff here about PCness - I don't disagree.

But I might get more interested when the same folk start calling for the meeja to cease using PC terms like "terrorist" for resistance to Western imperialism.

Supporting travellers at home while, through silence, endorsing slaughter of their equivalents in the Middle East is the zenith of sickening hypocrisy.

bill_lehane

Well I can't say the word 'terrorist' has never been used in a way you may find inappropriate on RTE, but I do think insurgent is much more commonly ascribed in the case you refer to. Moreover, terrorism is a tactic rather than an ideology so its factual usage is valid.