Fairness and Impartiality – Training resource
Aim:
This workshop will deal with the BAI’s Codes on Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality.
This material is aimed at experienced community media trainers. The workshop deals with the essentials for understanding BAI regulations and looks at examples from Irish media. Experienced producers and presenters who are non-trainers will also find the information accessible and useful,
The Activity
Ask the participants to think of an issue that they feel very strongly about, and to hold that thought.
Start the activities by asking participants what they understand by fairness, objectivity and impartiality.
Outline the BAI code and follow it with a presentation of 1 – 3 examples depending on time available.
Introduce each example with the presentation explaining the key points in the complaint. Give the trainees the full text of the complaint and divide the trainees into smaller groups to discuss for five minutes what response they would give if they were the station.
Bring the groups back to report and then reveal the key points in the actual station response.
Take comments and questions from the group before giving the groups the full text of the station response and asking the groups to discuss what the BAI decision might have been again for five minutes.
Get the groups to report back and reveal the key points of the BAI decision. Take more comments and questions from the trainees.
Participants will need to be clearly informed that the workshop documents will need some reading in order to become familiar with some past cases and judgements from the BAI.
Tip for Trainers:
People can imagine that regulations are dull, so it is important to make this as participative as possible. Ask ‘expert trainees’ to hold onto their opinions and not to make the initial suggestions, and get novices to make the first suggestions.
Materials
PowerPoint presentation
Note: Some of these are famous cases, and you can usually mention them and develop the argument around each sample question from the FAQs and presentation. See samples above.
Use well known examples that people will be familiar with to get them to think. Usually once you mention them people will have an opinion about them.
It is much better to have recent or local material, or material relevant to your trainees, e.g. Youth group, or Immigrant group.
The complaint concerns ‘Déise Today’, which is a current affairs programme broadcast daily from 10am to 12 noon. The complaint refers to comments made by the presenter during an interview when discussing the increase in managers employed by the Health Service Executive (HSE).
Summary of Initial Complaint to the Broadcaster
The complainant states that the presenter conducted an interview with Mr. Stephen O’Brien, journalist with the Sunday Times newspaper. The subject of the interview was the increase in management staffing levels in the HSE over the last two years.
The complainant states that he has no issue with the subject matter being discussed. Rather, the complaint centres on what the complainant states was the presenter’s disparaging tone towards the HSE and, in particular, HSE management. The complainant cites the following examples:
In response to Mr. O’Brien’s comment that “they (HSE Directors) have gone from 200 to 270”, the presenter asks the question – “Are they breeding them in the laboratory or what?” This response elicits a laugh from Mr. O’Brien which the complainant believes sets the tone for the remainder of the interview.
Mr. O’ Brien outlines the increase at Grade 8 management level and the presenter responds by saying “Stephen…hello!”” in a disparaging manner.
The next comment was “Earth calling”, trying to create the impression for listeners that HSE management are somewhat divorced from reality.
In response to Mr. O’Brien’s comments about the increase in the number of frontline workers, the presenter says “that’s incredible. So consultants up around 5% roughly, nurse managers again crucial position for lots of reasons, bed management and everything 5% so they’re all on the 5% but the number of managers goes up 35% [laughs] they’re fantastic; you have to admire them, in fairness. Did you ever see those alien films where they kinda have to breed loads to keep themselves going? – that’s what it reminds me of.” Mr. O’Brien then laughs and the presenter says “This shower are unbeatable, aren’t they?”
When Mr. O’Brien comments on the increase at Grade 7 management level, the presenter responds “Sure they’re all in – a great time for them…Fantastic.” On the difficulty recruiting staff nurses the presenter says in a sarcastic tone “Well look Stephen, in fairness, if you can’t get a staff nurse let’s get in a few more managers. I mean we can never have enough managers can we?”
After reading texts from listeners the presenter says “Alright, let’s see what, let’s see are they on the phone line, about what HSE management says about this”. At this point the presenter plays the sound of a donkey braying and then quickly adds “sorry, sorry, I pressed the wrong button there.”
The complainant states that the interview was not fair to all interests concerned in that the HSE was not asked to take part in the programme or to submit a statement or provide comment.
Summary of Broadcaster’s Response to the Initial Complaint
The broadcaster refutes the claim by the complainant that the presenter adopted a disparaging tone throughout this interview and believes this is an opinion held by the complainant. Furthermore, the broadcaster maintains that if a comment elicits a laugh from Mr. O’Brien, this does not provide the basis for “setting of the tone” for the reminder of the interview.
The broadcaster states that much of what the complainant sets out as a disparaging tone is in fact an opinion formed by the complainant. The broadcaster also states it is not responsible for Mr. O’Brien’s reaction, i.e. laughter, at the presenter’s remarks.
Referring to the presenter pressing a button when the sound of a donkey braying could be heard, the broadcaster states that their Breakfast programme, aired directly before the programme complained of, had a competition running for the Copper Coast Mini Farm. As part of this competition, the crew used animal sounds in the mechanics of the competition. The sound of the donkey braying remained in the system after being used by the Breakfast presenters earlier that morning. Mr. Keane did apologise immediately after playing the audio.
With regard to issue of the treatment of current affairs by the broadcaster, including matters that are of public interest, the broadcaster states having many examples over the years of matters of public interest involving the HSE. Requests have been made for interviewees and other than where a HSE public campaign is being run on something, the broadcaster states to have rarely had contributions from spokespersons. Instead they have been told the HSE has a policy of not commenting on individual cases.
The broadcaster states that this interview was conducted by the presenter with Mr. O’Brien from The Sunday Times newspaper following an article written by Mr. O’Brien relating to the HSE. Given that the content of the interview was based on a document submitted by the HSE to the Joint Health Committee of the Oireachtas, following a request for further information from Senator Colm Burke, the broadcaster is sure there were no inaccuracies in the interview.
Broadcaster’s Response to BAI
The broadcaster refers to the initial reply (above) sent to the complainant and has nothing further to add.
Decision of the Compliance Committee: Uphold in Part (Unanimous)
Having considered the broadcast and the submissions from the complainant and the broadcaster and having also had regard to the Broadcasting Act 2009, Section 48(1)(a)(fairness, objectivity and impartiality in current affairs) and the BAI Code of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality, (Section 4, Rules 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22), the Committee has decided to uphold the complaint in part.
In this regard:-
The Committee considered the topic in question to be a legitimate subject for discussion on the programme. It found no issue with the facts as presenter by the programme contributor from the Sunday Times newspaper and no evidence from the submissions by the complainant that the figures presented were inaccurate. Moreover, analysis and comment on those figures in the context of the health service and how it serves citizens is part of the role of a programme such as Déise Today and a critical assessment of the performance of an organisation such as the HSE may be warranted where the facts support such an approach. In view of this, the Committee did not agree with the complainant that the programme infringed Rule 4.17 of the BAI’s news and current affairs code which requires content to be presented with due accuracy. Separately, as the item was a current affairs programme and not a news programme Rule 4.21 was not relevant. The Committee also found no grounds for upholding the complaint further to Rule 4.20.
Notwithstanding this, the Committee considered the programme to have infringed Rules 4.19 and 4.22 of the news and current affairs code. Rule 4.19 requires presenters to be sensitive to the impact of their language and tone so as to avoid misunderstanding of the matters covered. Rule 4.22 notes the important role of presenters in providing audiences with access to a wide variety of views on the subject of a programme or programme item. It also prohibits a presenter from articulating a partisan position on a matter of current public debate.
In this respect, the Committee found that the presenter’s comments and the tone of those comments were problematic in a context where the perspective of the HSE was not provided either by the presenter or by another contributor (except for a single comment by the programme guest from the Sunday Times newspaper). The Committee considered the presenter comments to be disparaging in tone and these included:
– “Are they breeding them in the laboratory or what?”
– “Earth calling!”
– “They’re fantastic; you have to admire them, in fairness.”
– “Did you ever see those alien films where they kinda have to breed loads to keep themselves going – that’s what it reminds me of?”
– “This shower are unbeatable aren’t they?”
The item concluded with the presenter stating
– “Let’s see, are they on the phone there…let’s see what HSE management has to say about this…” The presenter then played the sound of a donkey braying.
While the broadcaster stated in its response to the complainant that this was an error, the Committee was of the view that this defence would only have been credible if the programme makers did, in fact, have a response from the HSE. However, it was quite evident that no response had been sought or was available and the only reasonable conclusion that can therefore be reached is that the playing of the sound effect was wholly intentional.
Taking the above into account, the Committee was of the view that the presenter’s handling of the topic did not provide for a variety of views and entailed the articulation of a partisan position on the part the presenter, contrary to Rule 4.22. The Committee was also of the view that the tone of presentation was such that it would result in a misunderstanding of the matters covered, contrary to Rule 4.19. For these reasons the Committee has decided to uphold the complaint in part.
The complaint concerns The Ray D’Arcy Show, which is a lifestyle/entertainment programme broadcast each weekday afternoon from 3.00pm to 4.30pm. The item about which the complaint was made was an interview with Mr. Graham Linehan and Mrs. Helen Linehan on the topic of abortion.
Complaint Summary
The complainant states that, in her opinion, the presenter promoted his personal view in respect of abortion during this discussion. The complainant states that the presenter ignored the side effects/harmful effects of abortion on the mother, let alone the baby. The complainant states that, once during the interview, the presenter mentioned that abortion may have a negative psychological effect on the mother, but he did not explore it further and allowed Mr. Linehan to counteract this comment immediately. The complainant also states that the presenter allowed his guests to make a number of comments in respect of abortion which should have been challenged. This included comments about the views of those who oppose abortion and the impact that Irish laws have on couples. The complainant also notes that, while the presenter read out texts from people holding other views to those of his interviewees, these were not explored and the guests were allowed to comment on these texts without any examination of these comments by the presenter.
The complainant states that the broadcaster will argue, as it has previously, that this is a chat show, but even if it is a person’s own testimony, abortion is a matter of current affairs, public controversy and the subject of current public debate. Therefore, the complainant argues that the presenter was completely unfair and biased during this interview.
Broadcaster’s Response to Complainant
RTÉ states that the editorial format of The Ray D’Arcy Show consistently includes human interest interviews which explore the personal experience behind current topics. The editorial format does not generally include the hosting of debates between antagonists and the format of the interview with Mr. Graham Linehan and Mrs. Helen Linehan was conducted in the exploratory, conversational style which is known and expected by the programme’s audience.
The broadcaster states that Principle 2 of the BAI Code of Programming Standards may have some relevance with regard to the likely expectations of the audience as to the nature of the particular programme. The broadcaster states that The Ray D’Arcy Show frequently covers a wide diversity of items for their broad audience. The broadcaster states that Principle 1 of the BAI Code of Programming Standards recognises that community standards are ever evolving and broadcasting must be facilitated in representing the rich diversity, plurality and realities of contemporary Irish society. This may sometimes involve editorial content which might cause offence to some listeners but is justified for creative or editorial reasons.
The broadcaster states that the focus of the interview was primarily on the personal trauma endured by the couple. It states that prior to the interview, RTÉ canvassed for and received separate statements from the Pro Life Campaign and Every Life Counts which were read out during the interview. The presenter also offered alternative viewpoints to the couple throughout the interview. The broadcaster states that neither organisation has registered any complaints about the interview, in light of the input they were afforded prior to broadcast.
Broadcaster’s Response to BAI
RTÉ states that the context of the item was the release of a video by Mrs. Helen Linehan and Mr. Graham Linehan in which they recounted their experience of a diagnosis that their first baby would not survive beyond birth.
The broadcaster states that the greater part of the interview focused on the personal experience of the couple and the presenter’s questions in this respect were designed to draw out that experience and its effect on the couple and their thinking in regard to abortion in such circumstances.
The broadcaster states that the item did include discussion of the view of Irish abortion legislation which the couple had reached through their experience and the presenter put questions to them so that listeners might understand the connection between their own experience and such views.
The broadcaster states that it may be noted in the context of fairness, objectivity and impartiality that the presenter pointed out that some women choose to carry their baby to term in circumstances such as those experienced by the couple. In the same context, the programme had requested in advance and the presenter read out on air statements in response to the video by the couple from the organisations the Pro Life Campaign and Every Life Counts. The broadcaster states that this was a predominantly human interest item in which the programme legitimately took that editorial angle on a matter of current public debate in relation to a life experience which had just come into the public domain.
Decision of the Compliance Committee: Uphold (Majority)
In this regard:- The Committee noted that the topic of fatal foetal abnormalities and the experiences of Irish people dealing with the complications arising from such conditions in the context of Irish law has been the subject of a number of complaints considered by the Committee in the past year. The Committee also noted that this topic is a matter of current public debate. This does not, however, mean that any discussion of the topic will fall under the heading of news and current affairs and be subject to the requirements of the BAI Code of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs and the Broadcasting Act 2009. A determination in this regard will depend on the specific content of a given programme.
In this context, the Committee has rejected a number of complaints on the basis that the content was focused on the human interest aspects of this issue, in particular, the personal impact of current Irish law on the difficult choices made by individuals and couples dealing with a pregnancy where the foetus has a fatal foetal or life-limiting condition.
It has also noted that a discussion on a current affairs topic does not automatically require the presence of another party holding opposing views, because the presenter can fulfil this role or because the content is simply an exploration of a perspective on a topic.
Notwithstanding the above, the Committee was of the view that the complaint in question did not meet the requirements of its Code or the Broadcasting Act. In particular:
The Committee did not agree with the characterisation of the interview by the broadcaster as predominantly human interest in nature. It noted that the interviewees had created the video that was discussed during the programme in support of a campaign to change the Irish Constitution. This was evident from the comments by the interviewees and by the interviewer.
The Committee noted that the campaign in question, ‘She is not a Criminal’, is one being run by Amnesty International. The campaign calls for the repeal of Article 40.3.3 (the Eighth Amendment) of the Irish Constitution, requests the decriminalisation of abortion and the repeal of two Acts, namely, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 and the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State for the Termination of Pregnancies) Act 1995.
– In view of this, while agreeing that the interview did include an exploration of the experiences of the interviewees, these views were secondary and set out so as to encourage support for the Amnesty International campaign and the interview could not therefore be considered simply or primarily as an exploration of the interviewee’s personal experiences.
Having reviewed the content, the Committee noted that the interviewees made consistent and strong criticisms of the approach of the Irish State to access to abortion and what they saw as the impact of the law on Irish men and women and on the medical profession.
The interviewees also criticised opposing views to their own, describing such views as ‘fundamentalist’, ‘simplistic’ and ‘childish’ and characterised the actions of politicians on this matter as ‘particularly cowardly’. The interview concluded with the presenter inviting the interviewees to elaborate on the campaign and the guests informed listeners that the video that they had created was available online and encouraged them to sign the campaign petition and to pressure politicians to bring about a change to the Irish Constitution.
The Committee noted that the programme included comments from the Pro Life Campaign and Every Life Counts which had been sought in advance of the programme and also comments from those who had sent texts to the programme. It also noted that the presenter made references to other choices that couples had made when faced with a pregnancy where the foetus had a fatal foetal abnormality or a life-limiting condition. However, it found the treatment of these other views during the item as cursory and the issues highlighted by those statements were not examined in any detail by the presenter with his guests.
The Committee noted that the topic under discussion was editorially appropriate and in line with audience expectations for The Ray D’Arcy Show, given the range and mix of items commonly addressed on the programme. In this context, it was legitimate and in line with the right to free expression to give the interviewees the opportunity to outline their honestly held reasons for participating in the Amnesty International campaign.
However, in a context where the interviewees were actively engaging in a campaign to change the Irish Constitution, the Committee was of the view that the other perspectives provided (as set out above) were insufficient, particularly where there were no other contributions via interviewees and where the presenter did not challenge in any significant manner the views of the interviewees.
The complaints concern The Ray D’Arcy Show, which is broadcast each weekday afternoons on RTÉ Radio 1 from 3.00pm to 4.30pm. This is a lifestyle/entertainment programme. The topic discussed on both programmes was the Marriage Referendum.
Complaint Category
The complaints are submitted under the Broadcasting Act 2009, Sections 48(1)(a)(fairness, objectivity and impartiality in current affairs); the BAI Code of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs (Section 4: Rules 4.1, 4.3, 4.22).
Complaint Summary
25th May – The complainant believes that the presenter’s introduction to this programme regarding the results of the Marriage Referendum was a gross contravention of the Codes. The complainant states that in his introduction, the presenter referred to the result as truly historic and as being one of the most important in the history of the state. The complaint states that the presenter also commented that he [the presenter] had cried tears of pride, that he was proud to be Irish because of this and that it was a great thing because it sent out a message that the Irish are tolerant and inclusive. The complainant states that the presenter also described the idea of children bringing this news to school as being healthy, powerful, and brilliant. The complainant states that the presenter then concluded by stating that the show was going to celebrate the passing of the Marriage Referendum.
The complainant claims that, ironically, by celebrating inclusion the presenter was excluding approximately 40% of the electorate.
Broadcaster’s Response to Complainant
RTÉ acknowledged the complaints but no follow-up occurred.
Broadcaster’s Response to BAI
RTÉ state that the complainant is correct that at the beginning of the programme of 25th May 2015, when introducing the coverage of the Referendum result on the programme, the presenter, briefly welcoming that result on a personal basis, in addition described it as a historic occasion and, citing the example of children bringing the story for classroom discussion, one which would change attitudes towards LGBT people in Ireland.
The broadcaster states that the presenter also described newspaper, radio and television coverage of the results which contained an element of personal reaction entirely proper to the programme format – this was also an appropriate introduction to the subsequent coverage of the Referendum result. It may also be noted that the presenter expressed the inclusive hope that those who had voted ‘No’ in the Referendum, would in time, come to see it as positive. In addition, informing the audience that the following hour would contain a “celebration” of the result, gave listeners the opportunity to choose whether or not to listen to the occasion being marked in that way.
RTÉ notes that the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland Guidelines in Respect of Coverage of Referenda (March 2015) state:
Effective Date
These Guidelines come into effect from 25th March 2015 until the closing of polling stations on the day of the referenda.
RTÉ claim that as the polling stations, having closed two days previously, the BAI Guidelines did not apply. RTÉ further state that to suggest that the Guidelines would continue to apply through the means of the BAI Code of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs would be to render the Guidelines of little assistance to broadcasters.
RTÉ further state that the Referendum, contrary to the claim by the complainant, was no longer a matter of public controversy or debate. The result of the vote had been announced and there was, on that date, no reason whatsoever to suggest that the constitutional amendment would not proceed, as it did. The presenter’s comments were confined to the completed vote and result, as was the programme which he was introducing.
Decision of the Compliance Committee: Reject (Unanimous)
Having considered the broadcasts and the submissions from the complaint parties and having had regard to the Broadcasting Act 2009, Sections 48(1)(a)(fairness, objectivity and impartiality in current affairs) and the BAI Code of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs (Section 4: Rules 4.1, 4.3, 4.22), the Committee has decided to reject the complaints.
In this regard:
- In considering this complaint, the Committee had regard to the fact that the programme was broadcast on the Monday after the polling day for the Marriage Referendum. This poll has resulted in the passing of the 34th Amendment to the Irish Constitution. As such, the campaign had concluded and the matter, while one that constituted news or current affairs, was no longer deemed to be one of public controversy or debate at the time of the broadcast.
- The Committee noted that the presenter gave his opinion on the outcome of the Marriage Referendum and while the BAI’s regulations prohibit the articulation by a presenter of a partisan position, they do not prohibit a presenter, when dealing with a current affairs issue, from giving opinions. This differs from news presenters since news is centrally concerned with the presentation of facts, and the BAI considers it inappropriate that news presenters would give their views when relaying such facts. In the case of programme presenters, the BAI also acknowledges that some current affairs output can be synonymous with personalities, where the manner in which the presenter presents or interviews contributors can be keenly anticipated by audiences. To prohibit presenters giving opinions on current affairs would therefore likely impact on audience enjoyment and engagement. However, broadcasters must also guard against their presenters articulating a partisan position which results in the content being skewed such that it becomes unfair or lacks objectivity or impartiality. In the case of the programme in question, the Committee found that, given the content and having regard to the comments made by the presenter, the presenter did not articulate a partisan position.
- The Committee noted that the passing of the Referendum changed the fundamental legal basis for the State and conferred new rights on Irish citizens who had been the subject of discrimination for many years and who would reasonably have cause to celebrate the passing of the Referendum.
Reflecting this change in the Constitution and drawing on the experiences and reactions of these and other citizens was considered by the Committee to be a legitimate editorial focus, particularly given that the question of whether to change the Constitution had been settled once the voting had concluded.
- In reaching this view, the Committee also had regard to the fact that broadcasters are free to choose the editorial angle that will be taken to the coverage of a current affairs story once that angle is fair, objective and impartial. A focus on a particular aspect of a story is not de facto evidence of bias and the Committee found that there was nothing in the programme content to indicate that the views of those who opposed the Constitutional change were treated unfairly.
In view of the above, the Committee did not agree that the programme infringed the Broadcasting Act or the BAI Code of Fairness, Objectivity or Impartiality in News and Current Affairs in the manner specified by the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint has been rejected.
BAI Guidelines
Sample 1 – Complaint
Sample 2 – Complaint
The Presenter promoted his personal view.
The views of the guest were not challenged.
Other views were not explored.
Sample 2 – Broadcaster’s Response
The interview was primarily about the guest’s personal experiences and the audience would expect this approach.
Statements from pro-life groups were read out on air and these groups did not subsequently complain.
Alternative views were put forward by the presenter.
Sample 2 – BAI Decision
The interview was not primarily an exploration of the interviewee’s personal experiences but referred to a political campaign.
The exploration of other views by the presenter was cursory.
The statements from pro-life groups was insufficient.
Sample 3 – Complaint
The celebrations excluded 40% of the population.
Sample 3 – Broadcaster’s Response
RTE acknowledged the response to complainant but no follow-up occurred.
Responding to BAI: Personal reaction was appropriate and viewers had enough notice to avoid celebratory elements of the broadcast. Referenda rules no longer applied at time of broadcast.
Sample 3 – BAI Decision
Issue was no longer one of public controversy.
The presenter’s giving of his opinion did not make the content unfair or partial.
More on approach for Trainers
Get people to think about the thing that they have strong feelings about and how they would like to hear that presented on radio.
Mention well known issues, e.g. 8th Amendment, Marriage Equality, Good Friday Agreement*, here, and let people discuss their own opinions on this, before bringing it back to the learning, and the regulations. Working in groups, get people to prepare some questions that would be put to both sides of an argument.
There can also be much more ordinary matters like local hospital, or the type or new school that an area needs.
There are a few samples below, which you can use, but you can find lots more.
*Good Friday Agreement may need to be explained a little to younger people, but it is a good example whereby there was only minimal support on the ‘No’ side, and this also has to be taken into consideration.
