Covid 19 Part XXXIII-231,484 ROI(4,610 deaths)116,197 NI (2,107 deaths)(23/03)Read OP

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course it isn't. To be absolutely clear: My specific issue with this group, based on the leaked emails, is the fact that they were able to get their propaganda pushed by the national broadcaster and disguised as organic, homegrown content. That's the issue. To give you an analogy, it would be a similar situation if RTE did a special talk show or investigation into the environmental dangers of meat consumption, and then we discovered that in fact, the content of those shows was authored and produced by an animal rights group who had a totally different agenda than the one RTE ostensibly had for airing the segment, and we were never told that this lobby group had written it. In other words, it was claimed to be about environmentalism, but in fact that aspect was a trojan horse to push an animal rights agenda by the back door.

According to the leaks, this group's objective in running these segments on RTE was to scare and depress the public in order to manipulate us into supporting their zero COVID strategy and lobbying our politicians accordingly. Yet RTE aired the segments as if they were just lighthearted craic at best and a factual take on the future of living with COVID at worst.

This kind of fundamental dishonesty simply cannot be allowed in my view. It's similar to the whole issue of Instagram influencers not declaring when a product they "just picked up and are so excited about!" turns out to be something they've been paid or given freebies in exchange for shilling.

Bottom line is this. If a lobby group is being approached about writing and producing segments for supposedly "factual" television programmes aired by our national broadcaster, then either that fact must be disclosed to the public at the time of the segment's airing, or the national broadcaster is essentially abusing its trust-relationship with the public by disguising agenda-driven propaganda as neutral programming.

Does this make more sense?

Another analogy would be if they "just happened" to run a bunch of segments featuring interviews with recovering alcoholics and liver specialists around the subject of binge drinking, and it was subsequently leaked that they had been in direct contact with say AAI about running such a segment, and AAI were privately admitting in their own internal communication to using this platform in order to try and "trick" the public into supporting minimum pricing or earlier closing times.

The issue isn't what was said, it's the fact that it was disguised as a random, organic segment that RTE came up with for the craic, when in fact we have it in black and white (assuming, again, that the emails are legitimate) that it formed part of a sustained campaign to manipulate public opinion into supporting a specified political ideology or objective.

I don't think it's remotely controversial to suggest that being a publicly funded, public service broadcaster and engaging in this type of behaviour - for whatever reason - are mutually exclusive. If segments appearing on current affairs programmes are being written and directed by lobby groups - lobby groups which RTE is in regular direct contact with, apparently - then this must be disclosed openly and obviously to those viewing it. It should be watermarked into the beginnings of the segments as far as I'm concerned - just as I would have to publicly state for the record that the SuperDry hoodie I "just picked up" in the shops was in fact gifted to me by SuperDry on the provisio that I give them some free publicity in my Instagram story.

Without such rules, public service broadcasting has an inherent deficit of trust. In my opinion, this incident should by rights severely damage RTE's credibility, and necessitate a very public statement from those in charge addressing it and, assuming the allegations are true, profusely apologising - not for airing the segment, but for not informing the public as to its true origins.