nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

Find more posts tagged with

i'm so angry

liberal outrage

Comments

P_1

The ruling stinks but I can see the reasoning behind it. Something tells me that this will backfire on Mr Fundie Christian in a Streisand Effect kind of way though.

padd b1975

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Why are people making this into a religious argument? There are plenty of atheists against same sex marriage.

Plenty of gays opposed to it too.:cool:

fran17

loh_oro wrote: »

When their is a heterosexual couple on a TV program and the presenter wishes them well can I complain because I don't want them to be happy and no one was there to represent my view ?

of course you can complain,everyone is entitled to make a complaint.but there is not an uncoming referendum on hetrosexual marriage.there's standards for debating on the public airways and on this occasion they were breached.seems pretty black and white to me

efb

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Why are people making this into a religious argument? There are plenty of atheists against same sex marriage.

Really? I've never met one

conorh91

Manach wrote: »

It is important for an organisation that is supposedly neutral to have that balance, so that one of shows is used to present a one-sided attack on traditional marriage and undermine its institution then there could have no other result - no matter how much that sticks in the craw of the PC cultural revisionists, that there objections to such social engineering that have an equal voice.

Oh pull the other one.

Let me be clear, I support the BAI ruling because Mooney was clearly in breach of the standards expected of him in the course of a news and current affairs broadcast.

But to assert, as you seem to, that in regular human interest stories, nobody in RTÉ can ever express an opinion or engage in the free and meaningful exchange of ideas without reference to some ideological stopwatch is absolutely… I was going to say daft, it's worse… mind bogglingly stupid.

Deranged96

Sooner this referendum is passed the better.
I don't wan't to be listening to Iona and Co. throwing tantrums for the next 7 odd months

pablomakaveli

So if RTE interview anyone about Christianity can i now demand an atheist view be included and cite this case as a example of why my complaint be upheld?

I'm getting sick of these Christian fascists curtailing free speech when it suits them.:mad:

padd b1975

conorh91 wrote: »

Oh pull the other one.

Let me be clear, I support the BAI ruling because Mooney was clearly in breach of the standards expected of him in the course of a news and current affairs broadcast.

But to assert, as you seem to, that in regular human interest stories, nobody in RTÉ can ever express an opinion or engage in the free and meaningful exchange of ideas without reference to some ideological stopwatch is absolutely… I was going to say daft, it's worse… mind bogglingly stupid.

Presenters on programs such as Morning Ireland actually use a stopwatch to ensure each side get an equal amount of air time when a referendum is taking place.

Harry Palmr

conorh91 wrote: »

Oh pull the other one.

Let me be clear, I support the BAI ruling because Mooney was clearly in breach of the standards expected of him in the course of a news and current affairs broadcast.

But to assert, as you seem to, that in regular human interest stories, nobody in RTÉ can ever express an opinion or engage in the free and meaningful exchange of ideas without reference to some ideological stopwatch is absolutely… I was going to say daft, it's worse… mind bogglingly stupid.

Since when was the Mooney show news or current affairs, its a fluffy pink chat show, the discussion took place with the referendum date not yet known.

Knasher

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Why are people making this into a religious argument?

The group who brought the complaint are a religious group. Whose stated aim, as Karl pointed out is to

Karl Stein wrote: »

(1) To promote greater understanding and appreciation of Christian values in the media with particular reference to Catholic teachings.

Nobody is making it a religious argument, it started out that way.

Knasher

Deranged96 wrote: »

I don't wan't to be listening to Iona and Co. throwing tantrums for the next 7 odd months

Is it weird that I'm kinda looking forward to it?

TerrorFirmer

pablomakaveli wrote: »

So if RTE interview anyone about Christianity can i now demand an atheist view be included and cite this case as a example of why my complaint be upheld?

I'm getting sick of these Christian fascists curtailing free speech when it suits them.:mad:

They're not curtailing free speech. How are they curtailing or even attempting to curtail free speech? Do you not get the irony in that? They want the right to have their free speech heard in a current affairs issue under debate. It's nothing to do with suppressing free speech whatsoever.

People aren't getting the 'current affair's' and 'impartiality' thing at all.

It's not as if when a show has a feature on green t-shirts, they must have someone on to argue in defense of red t-shirts. :rolleyes:

There is an onus on broadcasters to have a balanced debate and remain impartial on matters of public interest and current affairs. It's as simple as that. Don't understand how people don't get that.

Nobody's trying to silence anyone. The amount of rabble rousing...

Guy:Incognito

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.
.

Does it only apply to state broadcasters, ie RTE?

Presumably independent stations can push whatever agenda they want?

Deranged96

Knasher wrote: »

Is it weird that I'm kinda looking forward to it?

You're one of those cantankerous types that gets a kick out of a no-holes-barred all out war of words, I'd say?
We could get on

Guy:Incognito

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.

Dara O'Briain had a good bit on this sort of thing when talking about astrology and the like iirc.

TerrorFirmer

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Does it only apply to state broadcasters, ie RTE?

Presumably independent stations can push whatever agenda they want?

No, they can't. They all fall under BAI code.

krudler

Manach wrote: »

It is important for an organisation that is supposedly neutral to have that balance, so that one of shows is used to present a one-sided attack on traditional marriage and undermine its institution then there could have no other result - no matter how much that sticks in the craw of the PC cultural revisionists, that there objections to such social engineering that have an equal voice.

"An attack on traditional marriage" will you ever give over. Wanting equality isn't attacking or destroying anything bar your own homophobic views.

Guy:Incognito

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

No, they can't. They all fall under BAI code.

So wheres the atheist views on the God channel?

conorh91

padd b1975 wrote: »

Presenters on programs such as Morning Ireland actually use a stopwatch to ensure each side get an equal amount of air time when a referendum is taking place.

They do that on news and current affairs content, yes, because that's right and proper.

I'm saying this rule should apply to news and current affairs (including segments of Mooney, and other shows that may, from time to time, have news and current affairs components), and not to 'feature' programming, or so-called 'authored' programming (effectively opinion pieces, which are clearly demarcated as such at the outset).

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Since when was the Mooney show news or current affairs

Aspects of it can be.

The BAI have to be able to adjudge aspects of any programming to be news and current affairs. This is to stop a broadcaster from evading the rules of news and current affairs by allowing its music-programming presenters to go off on a rant in the course of a referendum campaign, for example. Each case has to be judged on its own merits, and in this case, it's clear that this particular segment within the Mooney show did constitute news and current affairs material.

That's because it concerned statistical information which had just been released, and it further concerned a marriage referendum, with direct references to that referendum.

Kidchameleon

efb wrote: »

Really? I've never met one

Probably because the majority of the worlds population (hence the people you meet) are religious

marienbad

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Probably because the majority of the worlds population (hence the people you meet) are religious

so are you atheist and against gay marriage ?

Kidchameleon

Knasher wrote: »

The group who brought the complaint are a religious group. Whose stated aim, as Karl pointed out is to

Nobody is making it a religious argument, it started out that way.

I'm sure they are Irish aswell, does that make it an Irish debate? Plenty of religious people are for and against same sex marriage ditto for atheists.

efb

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I'm sure they are Irish aswell, does that make it an Irish debate? Plenty of religious people are for and against same sex marriage ditto for atheists.

Have any stats on that?

Kiwi in IE

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Why are people making this into a religious argument? There are plenty of atheists against same sex marriage.

I think the complainant made it into a religious issue. Besides religion is most often the basis of the 'argument' against SSM, regardless of which smokescreens are used in attempt to hide it.

efb

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Probably because the majority of the worlds population (hence the people you meet) are religious

The majority of my friends are not religious

Kiwi in IE

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I'm sure they are Irish aswell, does that make it an Irish debate? Plenty of religious people are for and against same sex marriage ditto for atheists.

Well seeing as it's about the Irish state broadcaster it's not a Chinese one is it?

LorMal

pablomakaveli wrote: »

So if RTE interview anyone about Christianity can i now demand an atheist view be included and cite this case as a example of why my complaint be upheld?

I'm getting sick of these Christian fascists curtailing free speech when it suits them.:mad:

Hello??? Many of the posters on here decrying this decision (defending Mooneys right to share his opinion on his programme) seem to me to want to completely stifle their opponents opinions.
In fairness, not everyone who is against same sex marriage is a Christian, certainly not all Fundementalists, and probably none are Fascists.

Mooney does not own his radio programme. He is paid by license fee payers, we own it - both those in favour and those against SSM. He is forever using his privileged position to push his own agenda. He should stick to the squirrels.

dxhound2005

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I think the complainant made it into a religious issue. Besides religion is most often the basis of the 'argument' against SSM, regardless of which smokescreens are used in attempt to hide it.

No mention of religion here:

Complaint Summary:
Mr. O’Sullivan-Latchford’s complaint is submitted on behalf of Family and Media Association under
the Broadcasting Act 2009, 48(2)(a)(fairness, objectivity & impartiality in current affairs and Code
of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs – Rules 4.1 and 22).

If anyone wants to read the complaint, the response from RTE, and the BAI determination they are here. Might stop some people making up their own version.

http://www.bai.ie/?page_id=183

padd b1975

efb wrote: »

The majority of my friends are not religious

The majority of my friends are.

What point are you trying to make?

Annasopra

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.

This is actually a very shocking decision

Lets step back and think about this. If a straight person is allowed to mention that they are married, and speak about their spouse and children without the need for someone to tell them that it ought to be against the law then it is discrimination.

In effect this ruling could mean people in same sex relationships cannot discuss their family or their relationship without the need for ‘balance’, that is, a person who opposes their relationship or family, during any form of broadcast discussion.