'Offensive' programs review

Hitchens

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/dail-to-hear-proposals-for-offensive-programmes-on-radio-and-tv-627582.html

Goodbye Mrs Brown? :D

delbertgrady

The Late Late Show doesn't give "equal weight" to any discussion.
It's dictated solely by what questions Tubs has on those precious cards of his, and heaven forbid they go off topic...

AnonoBoy

'Equal weight' in discussions is what gets those Iona Institute people on the airwaves over and over again even though they speak only on a behalf of a minority in Ireland.

NormanNicetouch

AnonoBoy wrote: »

'Equal weight' in discussions is what gets those Iona Institute people on the airwaves over and over again even though they speak only on a behalf of a minority in Ireland.

You do realise that back in the day when 'those Iona Institute people' and their ilk spoke for the great majority of people in this country it was this equal weight requirement which ensured that campaigners for the liberal agenda received a platform? Now the worm has turned you want to close down the debate. Not very liberal is it?

AnonoBoy

NormanNicetouch wrote: »

You do realise that back in the day when 'those Iona Institute people' and their ilk spoke for the great majority of people in this country it was this equal weight requirement which ensured that campaigners for the liberal agenda received a platform? Now the worm has turned you want to close down the debate. Not very liberal is it?

The Iona Institute was not around back in the day so no, they didn't speak for the majority back in the day. That's incorrect.

What you're talking about is the Church and you'll find I didn't mention them. I'm talking specifically about the Iona Institute which was set up in the last decade or so.

The Iona Institute don't speak for the Church and surveys would indicate that they don't speak for the majority of Catholics in this country.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed speak, or debate. But I would much prefer a representative of the church be on a panel discussing gay marriage rather that someone from a US-funded pressure group who speaks only for a small minority of religious people in the country.

They receive unproportionate representation because they make the most noise and that's what I have a problem with.

expectationlost

NormanNicetouch wrote: »

You do realise that back in the day when 'those Iona Institute people' and their ilk spoke for the great majority of people in this country it was this equal weight requirement which ensured that campaigners for the liberal agenda received a platform? Now the worm has turned you want to close down the debate. Not very liberal is it?

climate change, lets deny science in order to keep our polluting industries going, deserve equal weight too?

RayM

It's not about 'closing down the debate'. Some arguments are simply wrong, and shouldn't be given equal airtime. Climate Change deniers and anti-marriage-equality campaigners should be wheeled out as amusing oddities on Louis Theroux-style shows - not treated as though their arguments are in any way valid. Like people who claimed that the earth was flat, or those who believe that white people are superior, they lost their respective arguments some time ago.

expectationlost

NormanNicetouch wrote: »

You do realise that back in the day when 'those Iona Institute people' and their ilk spoke for the great majority of people in this country it was this equal weight requirement which ensured that campaigners for the liberal agenda received a platform? Now the worm has turned you want to close down the debate. Not very liberal is it?

i think "balance" of opposing sides squeezes out the broadcasters themselves looking at the facts.

NormanNicetouch

RayM wrote: »

It's not about 'closing down the debate'. Some arguments are simply wrong, and shouldn't be given equal airtime. Climate Change deniers and anti-marriage-equality campaigners should be wheeled out as amusing oddities on Louis Theroux-style shows - not treated as though their arguments are in any way valid. Like people who claimed that the earth was flat, or those who believe that white people are superior, they lost their respective arguments some time ago.

Who decides what arguments are simply wrong and don't deserve a balanced debate? Is there some sort of tipping point, say 70% or 80% of the population taking a certain view, where it can then be assumed that anyone who takes a difference stance is basically just an out-of-touch nutjob who deserves to be held up to ridicule? I support marriage equality but as long as a significant minority of people oppose it it's important that we have balance in coverage before any referendum.

Tordelback

By all means give the climate-change deniers equal time, weighted by the proportion of scientsts that support their position. Which is less than 2%, so that's about 1 minute over an hour's broadcast. Luckily this is all they need to cover the full range of their incoherent ranting, so it's perfectly fair. The anti-vaxxers can have the same deal.

AnonoBoy

NormanNicetouch wrote: »

I support marriage equality but as long as a significant minority of people oppose it it's important that we have balance in coverage before any referendum.

I agree that people should be allowed put forward their opinions on this. What my issue is that you seemed to have misunderstood is that it's the same people from the Iona Institute getting a disproportionate amount of air and screen time.

Despite what they might claim they don't speak for the church or the majority of Catholic people in this country.

RayM

NormanNicetouch wrote: »

Who decides what arguments are simply wrong and don't deserve a balanced debate? Is there some sort of tipping point, say 70% or 80% of the population taking a certain view, where it can then be assumed that anyone who takes a difference stance is basically just an out-of-touch nutjob who deserves to be held up to ridicule? I support marriage equality but as long as a significant minority of people oppose it it's important that we have balance in coverage before any referendum.

With regard to marriage equality, the most important question to ask anybody who opposes it is: "In what specific way will granting equal rights to same-sex couples negatively affect you?" If a person can't answer that question without obfuscation, then they don't have a valid argument. I've yet to hear any of them answer that question without obfuscation. Remove religion from the equation and you'll struggle to find anybody who opposes it.

And as for climate change deniers - not wanting anthropomorphic climate change to be true doesn't count as an argument. Certainly not when almost every climate scientist in the world says that it very much is happening. That argument is pretty much over.