OK, this is a good one: a letter from the National Union of Journalists expressing concern about a possibly disastrous development in broadcast journalism. That development? Broadcasters might have to be balanced about everything.
The NUJ’s complaint was occasioned by the decision of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) to uphold a complaint about an item on the Derek Mooney show [1] in which two panellists and the presenter himself expressed support for the passage of the same-sex marriage referendum without any dissenting voice being heard. This bothers NUJ Secrectary Seamus Dooley, who said:
“The requirement of fairness, objectivity and balance has now been interpreted to mean that broadcasters are required to seek out alternative views in a range of programme settings. Any matter ‘of current public debate’, to quote the phrase used in the BAI note, is apparently deemed so sensitive that researchers, producers and presenters have to make contingency provision for the expression of a counter-opinion in all settings. This represents an extension of the Guidelines in respect of Coverage of Referenda beyond the period of the referendum campaign in a manner which is inimical to the public interest.”
Yeah, that ‘interpretation’… is the text of the Broadcasting Act. “The phrase used in the BAI note” comes straight from there.
39.—
(1) Every broadcaster shall ensure that—
(a) all news broadcast by the broadcaster is reported and presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of the broadcaster’s own views,
(b) the broadcast treatment of current affairs, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate, is fair to all interests concerned and that the broadcast matter is presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of his or her own views, except that should it prove impracticable in relation to a single broadcast to apply this paragraph, two or more related broadcasts may be considered as a whole, if the broadcasts are transmitted within a reasonable period of each other,
Notice, if you will, the lack of mention of referendums anywhere. This isn’t an extension of the guidelines around referendums – it’s the enforcement of the standard rules that govern the coverage of public debates, be they about property taxes, medical cards, or the definition of marriage.
But this isn’t the best part. Dooley’s statement continues:
“Our members, researchers, producers and presenters, are now put in a very difficult position in evaluating stories and, in particular, studio interviews. The BAI would appear to be singling out discussion on so called same-sex marriage, imposing restrictive conditions even before the government has provided wording on a possible referendum on civil marriage equality, never mind setting the date. Every interviewee likely to expression an opinion in favour of civil marriage equality must automatically be confronted with the alternative viewpoint. Likewise, a guest likely to oppose civil marriage equality cannot be interviewed without an advocate of civil marriage equality.
Well, no, actually. Let’s look at Section 39 (1) (b) of the Broadcasting Act again:
(b) the broadcast treatment of current affairs, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate, is fair to all interests concerned and that the broadcast matter is presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of his or her own views, except that should it prove impracticable in relation to a single broadcast to apply this paragraph, two or more related broadcasts may be considered as a whole, if the broadcasts are transmitted within a reasonable period of each other,
So it’s perfectly possible to have an item favourable to same-sex marriage – say, an interview with two longtime civil partners who support its passage – as long as it’s balanced with an item that reflects the other side of the argument – take a similar interview with two donor-conceived children who think that redefining marriage will weaken a child’s right to a mother and a father.
The NUJ statement then frets that the BAI ruling means that broadcasters will have to deal with a whole bunch of other stuff, pretty much everything actually, in a balanced way.
Balance on everything? Won’t someone save us from this unspeakable horror?
The NUJ complaint is, in fairness, actually a pretty common one, almost always made by those who have safe, ‘Official Ireland’ views. The complainants often see ‘balance’ as a goal not particularly not worth pursuing – after all, there are some things that all right-thinking people believe.
But journalists should be in the business of seeking the truth – they should have no qualms about leaving space to hear both sides of an argument.