Liveline thread 09/04/2013 to 19/7/2013

The BAI has reinforced what posters on this thread have been stating for quite a while.

Joe won't like this at all.

1st instance....

Notwithstanding this, the Committee noted that, in comparison to the treatment of contributions made by those callers alleging that Fr. McKevitt’s article had inappropriately compared An Taoiseach with King Herod, the programme presenter interrupted the contribution from Fr. McKevitt on a regular basis. In addition, the callers made strong, and in some instances, lengthy uninterrupted comments in respect of the perceived intentions and motives of Fr. McKevitt and the Alive! publication. It was the Committee’s view that listeners would have benefited had such contributions been examined and challenged by the presenter.
 The Committee also noted the difference in the treatment of contributors who supported the views of Fr. McKevitt and/or the Alive! publication. In particular, the Committee noted that such contributors were interrupted and challenged by the presenter in a manner that other callers were not.
 The Committee also noted that in some instances, the issues highlighted in the programme were those that were raised by the programme presenter alone rather than callers to the programme (contrary to the audience driven format that normally prevails) and also that a number of issues discussed in the programme by the presenter and contributors were not related to the Alive! article under discussion. Such issues included an alleged libel against an RTÉ producer in a previous edition of Alive!, the support and role of the Dominican Order in the publication of the Alive! and the coverage by Alive! about, and the familiarity of Fr. McKevitt with, priests from the Dominican Order convicted of child sexual abuse.
 While the Committee agreed that the article in question merited a serious, challenging and robust discussion and that Fr. McKevitt was a very able contributor equipped to engage in a discussion of this nature, it was also its view that on balance, and for the reasons set out above, the manner in which the discussion was handled was not in the interests of listeners and lacked fairness, objectivity and impartiality, contrary to the requirements of the Broadcasting Act.

I'm outraged Joe, outraged..about language

What's a c word?