We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
BROADCASTERS DON’T HAVE to include people on both sides of every debate after a recent complaint against an RTÉ radio show for failing to provide balance on same-sex marriage was rejected.
The industry watchdog, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI), today said it was not an “absolute requirement” for individuals carrying all views to be featured on a programme – as long as there was “fairness” in the way the topic was dealt with.
It came after a complaint from Ray McIntyre about a slot on RTÉ Radio One’s The Marian Finucane Show in June which dealt with same-sex marriage.
McIntyre claimed no panellist “challenged the view that legislation for same-sex marriage would be anything but good, right and progressive”.
The host on the day, comedian Brendan O’Carroll, should have provided the balance in the absence of any opposing views but “indeed, quite the reverse took place”, he also claimed.
BAI says no
But the BAI said its committee didn’t think O’Carroll “actively endorsed” proposals to legalise same-sex marriage, although the programme could have “benefited from more active engagement by the presenter with the guests”.
It said the issue would be dealt with fairly as long as some guests put forward the views of those who opposed the change – as it believed happened on the programme.
Last month the BAI upheld another complaint from McIntyre, this time about Newstalk presenter Chris Donoghue stating his support for same-sex marriage on-air. Donoghue branded that ruling “daft and depressing”.
The BAI has bit back against censorship claims on the issue, despite separately ruling that RTÉ Radio One’s Mooney also broke regulations in broadcasting a piece that supported gay marriage.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
This McIntyre chap clearly has little to be worrying about.
He’s probably trying to make sure he isn’t exposed to “the gayness” in case he succumbs to his inner temptation!!
I’m telling ya, those who shout loudest have more to hide than hate.
I’d give you short odds on the answer to that question!
My comment appears to have been removed. As it contained no bad language, and wasn’t in bad taste, I can only surmise that the Journal must have had an attack of the vapours worrying about complaints from Mr. McIntyre.
Tinker’s, your attempt to poke fun at an anti-gay figure by suggesting they are gay, is part of the real problem.
Makes a bit of a joke of the newstalk ruling.
The BAI are feeling stung by the recent media rebukes that the body aren’t fit-for-purpose. Well enough for them.
It often takes State bodies far longer than this to admit they’ve made bad decisions, so the fact that they’re trying to make amends for their brutal decision-making at this stage is to be applauded. No State body should be held to ransom by a band of indoctrinated (and vocal) marginal elements of society.
* Certain religious lobby groups do a good enough job of that already!
They need to have balance to their decisions so that they find for and against gay marriage complaints in equal quantities.
I’m looking forward to the crap these idiots spew over the next 5 months. It’s gonna get more and more desperate and more and more hilarious. On the other hand you have to feel sorry for them. I mean all their marriages are going to be RUINED!!!
Ray McIntyre needs to turn off his radio. He keeps getting offended by supporters of equality. How many complaints that homophobes are underrepresented will he make before May 2015?
and so it begins , the extremists backed up by US money will soon be taking every opportunity to sabotage society.
Why don’t I know this Ray McIntyre? You’d think that someone with their head up their hole would be recognisable.
Scientia you win comment of the week with that one.
lol
Ha Ha good one i wonder what the view is like
I’m looking forward to the absolute backward, rubbish and downright laughable ads that the Iona crowd are going go come up with! #backwardbigots
How very open minded of you! Anyone who disagrees with you is a “backwards bigot”? How intelligent and enlightened you must be that you can judge anyone with doubts on gay marriage and conclude that they are hateful bigots. That makes you just as bad as any backwards bigots on the opposing side. Instead of writing silly comments why not try to explain your views and convince others of them instead of trolling?!
Trolling!? I think not. No explanation needed. Love is love. End of.
Tell you what, Benito, how about you start by convincing us that your reasoning for denying equality to some Irish citizens is based on something other than bigotry or superstition. I’ve yet to hear a single one (and the arguments have been well-travelled), but maybe you’ll be the first!
Tell you what Nick, point out where I said I’m against it? Very presumptuous of you. My point is I can’t stand these smug pot-calling-the-kettle-black comments.
Love is love? Is anyone saying gay people aren’t allowed be in love? It was about gay marriage, not love. You are total hypocrite did you know that? You’re a liberal bigot, a contradiction in terms “ooh I’m all in favour of equality, love is love, but disagree with me and you’re a bigot!”
His point is that nobody has yet offered a reason to be against it that is not hypocritical, discriminatory or based on wild factless assumptions. Therefore it seems that there is no logical reason not to support it and people can be forgiven for thinking those that do not support it have a hidden agenda, such has homophobia, if the arguments they put forward are moot.
He wasn’t attacking you, so no need to get so defensive (unless of course he did interpret you incorrectly by thinking you do not support it).
At the same time Ailbhe, I didn’t see him make any type of intelligent comment in favour of it, just scathing, snide remarks about a whole section of the population who may have doubts about what effects it might have in shaping our society. Just “love is love”, really! That’s supposed to convince anyone? I see a lot of that, self righteous, intolerant people claiming to tolerant and oh so enlightened and morally superior to any “backwards” people who don’t share their views. Just grinds my gears that’s all!
And Nick reacted in a very unoriginal way, getting over-excited and jumping to conclusions. I never said I was for or against, personally I don’t know yet if gay marriage is good or bad but I won’t be jumping on the feel-good, mob mentality band wagon based on feeble arguments like “love is love”.
“personally I don’t know yet if gay marriage is good or bad” Then I’d suggest you educate yourself on the plenty of evidence out there, rather than looking to see who you think is nicer to you. It’s a pretty simple human rights issue.
You know where you can stick your suggestions Nick
Really, Benito, that doesn’t seem to be the way to convince people. Sure, didn’t you yourself say that courtesy only convinces more people?
Gay marriage is definitely good for the people who want to have the legal protection afforded to straight couples who marry. Can’t see how it will affect other people’s marriages.
Think you’ve just made your stance pretty clear, Benito.
Benito, you are very aggressive, possibly angry. I understand that anger. What makes me angry is all the self righteois mob mentality you have described…..only it is from those opposing my equality because they believe me being equal is somehow an attack on them. For this they have no proof and yet still seek to oppress me. It’s not just me that’s angry, it’s those who can see through their religious, homophobic or illinformed BS. Maybe you just do not see it.
I think ‘love is love’, is a very deeply true and convincing statement. Why do we dismiss love between 2 men or 2 women as less valid? Great comment, great slogan. Shove that up your wazoo benito.
Poor auld ray. Seems he doesn’t like progress.
I dont know if progress is the best word. Technicaly a gay relationship is not really progressing human evolution its more like a stagnation of a gene pool. (In the nicest possible way lest the sensitive feel that they should be offended)
Progress is about the evolution of society not the evolution of the species. So yes, the granting of equality to all people regardless of sexuality is very definitely progress. It reflects a society which has evolved past the need to conform to religious, historical or political norms which exist just because “it’s always been that way”. As a society, we collectively reevaluate the needs of the collective and adapt. Progress.
Fair point and i agree. progress in socieity can be mesured by how we treat minorities . But how will voting yes better the majority.
Yeah we need real, evolutionary progress – survival of the fittest. We can start by having a cull of all the morons in the society. Perhaps you’d like to volunteer?
@Brendan – It won’t. I don’t understand why you’re asking the question. Should we only do things as a society that benefit the majority? Abandon the homeless, the jobless, the immigrants, the ethnic minorities, the disabled, the young, the old, the ethnic minorities, the Religous minorities…?
This isn’t about doing anything for the majority. We are voting Yes to give the Minority the same rights so that they join the Majority.
Voting Yes improves the lot of the Minority without taking anything away from the Majority. One would have to be selfish and inhumane to do otherwise.
In the spirit of the BAI, I’ll propose that Brendan looks up how evolution works, and realise that homosexuality is an evolved genetic trait that has proven advantageous to the species and the individual group (otherwise it wouldn’t have evolved at all). If you want to look everywhere else in nature (i.e. bees, ants, seals etc.) You will see that they more than usual don’t get to shift the opposite sex, but still have full lives of value to the rest of the pack.
Breeding isn’t everything!
“Progress” doesn’t have to better the majority.
Allowing same sex marriage will not benefit me, but at the same time it won’t harm me or indeed undermine my marriage. However allowing it will (possibly) benefit a large numbers of my friends and colleagues. So my mind is already make up. But I will look forward to the arguments as to why I should vote No to ‘protect my marriage’
You do not have to have children to “progress human evolution”.
So… will there be equal and balanced discussion on radio shows such as “faith alive” oh and at all times on spirit FM?
That’s a great point Larry.
Except none of us are listening to those stations and we wouldn’t complain about balance if we were.
But you’re right I bet they’re not held to the same standard.
Of all the times I have found Brendan Offensive, This has to be the least.
Jesus what sort of moron finds stating the bleeding obvious a reason to contact the BAI?
Crawl back under Your rock Mr McIntyre.
Jesus christ Ray you’re so Gay…
That Ray fella seems to be very interested in the subject of what two men do with their penises ..it’s a little gay don’t you think?
Some people have WAY to much time on their hands…. Lets get the referendum passed and have done with all this PC bolox
There is always one …………..
Will they apologise to Chris O’ Donoghue now?
I wonder what Darwin would make of homosexuality. We can cure most illnesses and diseases now. We are really taking the fight to “natural selection” with health and safety regulation and warning lables on everything even stupidity is safe to procreate and multiply freely. Just saying its an interesting situation we find ourselves in.
And why the red thumbs? Lets hear your theory.
Can you please explain what Darwin has to do with marriage equality?
I wonder what Darwin would make of you Brendan?
Brendan, “mag contain traces of nut” isn’t going to affect evolution. Im not sure you understand evolution, no insult intended.
May*! My damn keypad has evolved since my first phone.
“Stupidity is safe to procreate and multiply freely”…
Well, yes. As you’ve just demonstrated.
You do know that Darwin himself stated that survival of the fittest is just a model of evolution, not a model for a just society, and actively spoke out against what would become known as social darwinism.
@brendan I’m sure he was fine with it….Homosexuality didn’t just happen last week
Nothing….. i didnt mention marrige equality.
If you apply “survival of the fittest” it does
I aggree. But I never said anything about a just society.
What an intelligent comment. Well done you. I see your social skills are well honed. lambast the people who disaggree with you shout louder if they continue and if they still persist throw an insult and walk away.
Ah Brendan, you left yourself wide open there in fairness! :)
“I wonder what Darwin would make of homosexuality. We can cure most illnesses and diseases now.”
Nevermind what Darwin has to do with Homosexuality. What has Homosexuality got to do with Illness and Disease??
“And why the red thumbs? Lets hear your theory” I wouldn’t hold my breath Brendan, most people here base their views on feel good emotionality and what’s “nice” rather than through carefully weighing up pros and cons and carefully studying both sides of the argument. It’s a very feminine society we’re becoming, basing our views and decisions on emotions rather than cold hard logic.
That’s some pretty feeble trolling there Benito.
You don’t have to tell me what you’re doing Jane, I can see that for myself.
Benito, if you exclude emotion (religion would be included in this) and stick with cold hard facts, then you would conclude marriage equality should be a given. Marriage is a civil contract, and civil law must, as directed by our constitution, be extended equally to all consenting adults.
However, civil rights can be limited to protect certain groups from harm. No harm will come to anybody if civil msrriage is extended to all consenting adults ( the ‘think of the children’ argument is baseless, studies show these kids do just as well if not better when raised by same sex parents).
Now, no emotions here. Hard facts. Peer reviewed research. Constitutional law.
I challenge you to provide an argument against marriage equality that is void of emotions.
Thanks Ailbhe, fair points. I agree religion should not come into the equation, however I respect the views of religious people even if I disagree.
If legislation was passed tomorrow do you think that would be it? We are all equal now, so the lobbyists can stop campaigning and making noise? I think gay marriage is a stepping stone to gay-adoption and I am unconvinced that that is a good idea. I think then where will it end, what will be the outcome? Will we have protests and pressure groups trying saying gay sex education needs to be taught to children in schools and that children’s storybooks where the price and princess fall in love is intolerant, and that it shouldn’t be insensitive? I would be very sceptical about that.
*it shouldn’t be taught because it is insensitive
Who is being emotional now Benito?
Why shouldn’t equality be taught? And what’s insensitive about teaching children that a man can love a man or a woman can love a woman? I really don’t get your point
Benito, all form of sex ed should be taught in schools, and what is your issue with gay adoption?
He’d probably give Brendan his award!
I’d stop digging if I were you, Brendan!
Benito, your points are all of those I have described before. Emotional, illinformed, based on assumptions and without any basis. Research shows us it is a good idea and ‘gay’ adoption will happen with or without marriage. Denying me equality, oppressing me, not treating me as your equal has no advantages, only disadvantages. I’d love to explain to you all the emotional effects but those are personal to me. The legal effects however are clear, the complete lack of social protections for me and my partner are there for all to see or read about. I would hope people would recognise these rather than ignore them and reach for baseless arguments all because of a fear of change or what they do not fully understand.
Anyway, no point trying to convince you. I fear your mind is made up regardless.
Ailbhe, you mentioned “studies show these kids do just as well if not better when raised by same sex parents” Can you provide me with an example. I remember reading about one study from the University of Texas which showed the total opposite of what you said. It found, on average that children raised by same-sex couples were more likely to fail academically, suffer with depression, take drugs, abuse alcohol, commit suicide, break the law and commit acts of sexual abuse. Now, the first reaction you’d come out with naturally is, “I’d be a great parent with my partner” and “there are lots of straight couples who can’t parent” and I don’t deny that, but on average, same sex parents are less effective. Any thoughts?
I haven’t the link to hand as I’m in work but I will get it to you. Have you a link for your study? I believe I have seen that and I recall this study was funded and conducted by an evangelical christian group and had not undergone the scrutiny of independent peer reviewing processes.
If this is he study I recall, it’s so biased that it is not worth wiping ones rear end with in the context of reviewing peoples ability to parent. Let’s withhold judgement until that is confirmed by you Benito.
Just home Benito. No link from you?
I smell a rat..publicity stunt? This is at once a good decision and makin em seem a bit hypocritical-what have they to say about their Newstalk decision sure with this in mind?
I don’t care one way or another, but I’ll vote against it just to spite this government.
It’s not the government you will be harming, it is your fellow citizens that will have less rights and less social protections than you.
I also can’t stand trendies jumping on the band wagon.
Who is a trendie? Moi? No I’m far from. I’m just somebody that votes based on my convictions, rather than misguidedly using my vote as a weapon…..an ineffectual weapon at that….
Not you, I meant the usual Labour slimeballs.
God help us
Mr Spaghetti Monster, help Denise
*bows down before Ailbhe* :)
Ah Jane, you are far superior…..it is I that should bow down to you
BAI says having people on both sides of every debate is not an “absolute requirement”.
Definition of debate “a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote”. So by definition it is a requirement. this happened before on the Derek mooney show awhile back. Even though I am backing a yes vote in May 2015, it still would be good to have a fair classic style debate, where both sides given equal time, without interruption, to express their opinion and reasoning and then let us humble informed citizens decide.
have your say