Complaint upheld against Derek Mooney for 'supporting same-sex marriage' on air

loh_oro

What is wrong with people how can a complaint like that be upheld, ridiculous!

I cant post links yet but its an article on the indo

hatrickpatrick

F*ck the BAI, and indeed f*ck censorship in general. We'd be better off without them. They do well in cases involving obvious scams like Play TV on TV3 a few years ago, but they shouldn't take moral stances regarding "offensive" content at all IMO. The right not to be offended does not trump the right to freedom of speech.

takamichinoku

loh_oro wrote: »

What is wrong with people how can a complaint like that be upheld, ridiculous!

I cant post links yet but its an article on the indo

Link

What exactly does a complaint being upheld entail? Establishing precedent?

efb

Iona et al will be all over RTE like a rash if anyone supports marriage equality unchallenged

The Moldy Gowl

Today I was buying a coffee but I didnt want a latte, I wanted an espresso.

The lad in front ordered a latte. I compliained on the grounds I didn't like lattes.

The lad didn't get his latte

Karl Stein

Complaint upheld against Derek Mooney

The complainant, Donal O’Sullivan – Latchford from the Family and Media Association, stated that the show’s presenter Derek Mooney had made “several statements implicitly and explicitly supporting same-sex marriage” during a discussion on the number of civil partnerships in Ireland.

The Family and Media Association

MISSION STATEMENT

(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.

Roll on the referendum.

Piliger

The broadcasting standards watchdog is clearly completely out of control. This is becoming a circus of censorship and bigotry.

catallus

That's what happens with these "independent" oversight quangos, their lust for power and control ends up with this sort of nonsensical censorship.

Hitchens

gets popcorn

Links234

What a complete and utter farce, I mean seriously... I should lodge a complaint that they don't have a message praising our glorious lord Lucifer alongside the Angelus, you know, for balance

GLaDOS

Not surprised in the slightest

Pawwed Rig

takamichinoku wrote: »

Link

What exactly does a complaint being upheld entail? Establishing precedent?

It means the complaint was deemed valid and Mooney was in the wrong

GLaDOS

Links234 wrote: »

a message praising our glorious lord Lucifer alongside the Angelus, you know, for balance

I can imagine this before the 6.1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mbxe33BYW8

marienbad

How is this a big deal. it is not preventing anything being said ,just saying in an issue of current public debate the opposition viewpoint must be heard.

Can't see the fuss and I am on the for side.

ScumLord

(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.

What a load of delusional bollox.

So a person didn't make a complaint, a media whoring Christian propaganda group made a complaint about people discussing things that goes against their dogma.

eviltwin

It wasn't a debate on ssm, it was just a guy who had been through a civil partnership talking about it, seems like a logical question to ask him if he would upgrade to marriage if ssm is made legal. On that basis I find the ruling quite odd. Its so stupid, can we not have an interview with anyone who has a point of view without now having to counter balance that with someone who is of a different opinion.

LeinsterDub

So will creationist and holocaust deniers be allow to use the same argument?

nc6000

This is an absolutely ridiculous decision.

marienbad

ScumLord wrote: »

What a load of delusional bollox.

So a person didn't make a complaint, a media whoring Christian propaganda group made a complaint about people discussing things that goes against their dogma.

No they complained the opposing viewpoint wasn't facilitated .

Kermit.de.frog

I didn't know Derek Mooney was gay.

You would have to wonder what kind of people would take the time to complain about something like that?

krudler

marienbad wrote: »

No they complained the opposing viewpoint wasn't facilitated .

But it wasn't a debate, so why would an opposing voice be needed?

ScumLord

marienbad wrote: »

No they complained the opposing viewpoint wasn't facilitated .

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.

marienbad

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So will creationist and holocaust deniers be allow to use the same argument?

Not the same issue - those issues at least the holocaust one - is an established fact. Their is no contrary view . The judgement a few years ago in London on Irving vs Lipstadt makes that quite clear.

On creationism -let rant away , cuts no ice on this side of the ocean.

Hopefully after the referendum gay marriage will be a settled issue and we will see the end of this ****e.

hfallada

Would BAI uphold a complaint on arguing for equal rights for minorities on the ground you must hear the opposing sides views? Giving homosexual people the same rights as heterosexual people is a human rights issue and not a bs moral issue like some people are making out.

There is very little scientific reason for opposing same sex marriage. Why should some nut job church be allowed to comment on someone else's rights?

efb

Isn't it ironic that they demand equal time to prevent equal rights???

catallus

hfallada wrote: »

Why should some nut job church be allowed to comment on someone else's rights?

It is called free speech.

The Rabbit

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I didn't know Derek Mooney was gay.

You would have to wonder what kind of people would take the time to complain about something like that?

You know what kind of people.

The backwards and God fearing kind.

shruikan2553

If someone talks about getting married to a person of the opposite sex do they have to have someone there against it?

marienbad

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.

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.

ScumLord

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.

So basically they're saying gays can't discuss their rights without religious oversight?

Pappacharlie

I have no problem with same sex marriage but Derek Mooney is an arrogant little ??it. He is an opinionated pompous little ??ick.
On a recent show he said he went to his sisters friends wedding and did not give any gift to the people who invited him. He then went on to complain about someone who did not pay their way on a night out. Could he not see the relationship between the two situations. He makes me sick!!!

What a mean tosser????

eviltwin

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I didn't know Derek Mooney was gay.

You would have to wonder what kind of people would take the time to complain about something like that?

It was someone from one of those pop up Catholic right wing groups. You would think they would know that a show presented by a gay dj would have a pro SSM slant, why listen to something about a gay couple if you find the subject matter offensive in the first place. They must just listen waiting to be outraged.

losthorizon

marienbad wrote: »

How is this a big deal. it is not preventing anything being said ,just saying in an issue of current public debate the opposition viewpoint must be heard.

Can't see the fuss and I am on the for side.

The trouble is though that people mention every day on the radio and on the TV that they are in loving, caring heterosexual relationships and marriages. We then dont hear that you can have same thing in a homosexual relationship (we dont have the marriage bit yet). And why should we have to hear it? But by this logic we should or else are we going to have complaints going into the broadcasting commission.

It sounds to me that the person who complained wanted to be offended. And you always get people like that.

And remember this wasnt a political debate as such.

Stella Virgo

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I can imagine this before the 6.1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mbxe33BYW8

very catchy ....

marienbad

ScumLord wrote: »

So basically they're saying gays can't discuss their rights without religious oversight?

No I am not saying that, gay marriage is right now an open question and a political question , we may not think so or agree that it should be. But it is - that is why we are having a referendum.

Whatever we might think of having a 'balanced' discussion look at America where Regan struck down those broadcasting rules and they ended up with Fox news and Rush Limbaugh et al poisoning every issue to the point of paralysis, all following a rightwing agenda

Knasher

takamichinoku wrote: »

What exactly does a complaint being upheld entail? Establishing precedent?

Well the precedent it would establish is that the rules around balance from broadcasters during elections and referendums applies after the referendum has been announced, even if a date hasn't been set yet.

I'm very much on the yes side in this issue, but at the same time I do see the reasoning behind requiring broadcasters to be impartial in the run up to referendums, and it is pretty clear cut that RTE broke the code. So the only question would be if the code was in place yet.

marienbad

Knasher wrote: »

Well the precedent it would establish is that the rules around balance from broadcasters during elections and referendums applies after the referendum has been announced, even if a date hasn't been set yet.

I'm very much on the yes side in this issue, but at the same time I do see the reasoning behind requiring broadcasters to be impartial in the run up to referendums, and it is pretty clear cut that RTE broke the code. So the only question would be if the code was in place yet.

bang on 100%

Custardpi

Personally as someone who supports marriage equality & is looking forward to voting yes whenever they fix a date for a referendum on it I'm actually quite happy about this decision & if it leads to anti ssm campaigners having a greater voice on RTE then so much the better. Regardless of what's presented on RTE there is a growing groundswell of opinion in favour of equality on this issue. Given that reason & logic are on the side of gay marriage being legalised a full & open debate can only benefit the Yes campaign as the No side will be forced to retreat behind faith based arguments.

In the absence of their voice being properly heard during the debate it is likely that those opposed to gay marriage will argue that the public were hoodwinked by a biased media & that if they had only been exposed to the Christian position more they would have made a more sensible choice. BS of course but you might be surprised at the number who would believe it, thus bolstering conspiracy theories & a persecution complex among many on the Right, which can be useful recruitment & motivational tools. I hope that those arguing against ssm are given a more than fair crack at the whip in the media, even to the disadvantage of the Yes campaign so that when they lose they'll know that despite their best efforts an increasingly secular & independent minded Irish public have heard, understood & rejected their arguments. With luck this will help further diminish the power of right wing Catholicism in this country.

vicwatson

The complainant, Donal O’Sullivan – Latchford

Never trust a man (or woman) with a double barrel name

vicwatson

Pappacharlie wrote: »

I have no problem with same sex marriage but Derek Mooney is an arrogant little ??it. He is an opinionated pompous little ??ick.
On a recent show he said he went to his sisters friends wedding and did not give any gift to the people who invited him. He then went on to complain about someone who did not pay their way on a night out. Could he not see the relationship between the two situations. He makes me sick!!!

What a mean tosser????

He also recently spoke, live on air, about riding his bicycle home from work with no saddle, in a carry-on sort of way, get offa the radio

Hitchens

vicwatson wrote: »

Never trust a man (or woman) with a double barrel name

...or anam as Gaeilge

Sky King

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

f*ck censorship .

:pac:

hatrickpatrick

Piliger wrote: »

The broadcasting standards watchdog is clearly completely out of control. This is becoming a circus of censorship and bigotry.

Exactly. I'd almost consider it a badge of credibility to be censored by them now. "Derek Mooney, award winning presenter with X years of experience at RTE and a proud censoree of the BAI" :rolleyes:

conorh91

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.

That's not a legitimate comparison.

Most people are missing the fundamental point. The content was determined to be "news and current affairs content".

That's because the topic under discussion was statistical information which had been released from a State agency, and furthermore, a topic of legitimate public debate regarding which a referendum is due to be held.

It is necessary that where broadcast material is "news and current affairs" that it be broadcast in an evenhanded way.

If it were a lifestyle feature about gay relationships, or God, or stay-at-home mothers, or the Eurovision, the broadcaster would be under no obligation to broadcast material with the same level of fairness to both 'sides'.

hatrickpatrick

Sky King wrote: »

:pac:

:D:D:D:D Only just got that

hatrickpatrick

conorh91 wrote: »

That's not a legitimate comparison.

Most people are missing the fundamental point. The content was determined to be "news and current affairs content".

That's because the topic under discussion was statistical information which had been released from a State agency, and furthermore, a topic of legitimate public debate regarding which a referendum is due to be held.

It is necessary that where broadcast material is "news and current affairs" that it be broadcast in an evenhanded way.

If it were a lifestyle feature about gay relationships, or God, or stay-at-home mothers, or the Eurovision, the broadcaster would be under no obligation to broadcast material with the same level of fairness to both 'sides'.

...So what about current affairs related opinion columns in newspapers then? It wasn't a news bulletin...

ScumLord

marienbad wrote: »

No I am not saying that,

Sorry I wasn't accusing you of saying anything, it was directed at the Christian group.

JONJO THE MISER

The complaint was right to be upheld, they should of had someone opposing the view on instead of a big love in for the gay marriage crowd.

TerrorFirmer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...So what about current affairs related opinion columns in newspapers then? It wasn't a news bulletin...

According to the code presenters are supposed to remain objective unless they're playing devils advocate in the absence of an opposing voice.

The ruling was basically that in the context of current affairs, too much weight was given to one viewpoint, and the broadcaster was wrong to take a side.

The 'current affairs' bit is the crucial bit.

You can't compare live current affair programming to the print media.

ScumLord

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

You can't compare live current affair programming to the print media.

You can't really expect live debate to stay on a restricted path either. I'm in favour of even debate but that doesn't mean the minority view should be oppressed unless it has supervision from the controlling opinion.

This move in particular was a move by a Christian group to silence what they see as an evil viewpoint.

TerrorFirmer

ScumLord wrote: »

You can't really expect live debate to stay on a restricted path either. I'm in favour of even debate but that doesn't mean the minority view should be oppressed unless it has supervision from the controlling opinion.

This move in particular was a move by a Christian group to silence what they see as an evil viewpoint.

Not sure what you're saying there because there's nothing saying it has to stay on a restricted path.

All the code asks is that broadcasters remain impartial and give both sides a voice. They can't and weren't trying to silence it. The complaint is that they weren't afforded air time as an opposing view which is relevant to an upcoming referendum - that's the vital bit.

I do see where the BAI is coming from on this. It's really the same as the abortion issue, in that both sides are supposed to get equal air time and they deserve the right to have a presenter remain impartial in the debate.

If broadcasters started taking sides on everything it'd be a disaster.