Statements on Broadcasting Standards - 4th November 2008

Statements on Broadcasting Standards - 4th November 2008
Senator David Norris: I doubt I will need that. I would like to take up a couple of things said by my good friend Senator Ó Murchú. He is naturally sensitive about matters to do with the Roman Catholic Church. That is understandable, as he is a devout member. I am a devout member of the Church of Ireland, and sometimes I feel a bit bruised when I hear the kind of gloating that goes on when some ghastly politicians such as Anne Widdecombe or John Gummer, or even that toothy little creature Blair, who is now so completely discredited-----
Acting Chairman: I remind the Senator he should not refer to people who are not here to defend themselves.
Senator Jim Walsh: Hear, hear.
Acting Chairman: And in such unsavoury terms.
Senator David Norris: Well, I doubt he could defend himself.
Deputy Seán Power: It is unlikely he would be here.
Senator David Norris: He is up to his ears in war crimes affairs, like his pal George Bush, whom we will see the end of tonight.
Acting Chairman: I did not mean to cause the Senator to deviate.
Senator David Norris: I am not deviant in any sense. I represent the plain people of Ireland.
We all have little sensitivities, but I do not think broadcasting can be tailored to them. However, I say "Hear, hear" to Senator Ó Murchú's comments about the Angelus. I was one of those Church of Ireland people who objected strongly to being made a cat's paw of by disaffected Catholics who wanted to use us as a ruse to get rid of the Angelus. I like things that are distinctive about this country and this culture. The Angelus is part of that and I respect it. If one is a believer one can stop and say a few prayers. If one is not, it is only a couple of minutes before the news. People can go to the lavatory or put on the kettle for cup of tea. It can be regarded simply as a practical sos, as we call it in the Oireachtas. I am certainly on message with Senator Ó Murchú.
The Senator also mentioned the impossible impact of this debate. I can reassure him it will have absolutely no impact.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: This is what is known as a filler. Since we came back we have had statements on this and that and the other. Let us be frank about it. This is in the aftermath of the Russell Brand - I forget the other fellow's name-----
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Jonathan Ross.
Senator David Norris: It was those two clowns who precipitated this debate. It was a good idea for a filler. Let us have a look at this incident. There was an offence, and it was gross. It was at the expense of that decent man Mr. Sachs, who played Manuel in "Fawlty Towers". It was a gross personal insult to him and it was nasty and treacherous - even if it had been only a private telephone call - to telephone a person and say in vulgar language that one had enjoyed - or experienced, as I do not know whether he enjoyed it - sexual relations with his grand-daughter. What was the purpose of that except to hurt and to wound? It was an editorial decision to broadcast this. The presenters clowned around apparently on the basis that since this was an edited programme, the offensive material would be edited out before broadcast, but it was not. However, the initial human offence remains, but is limited.
Let us consider the structure within the BBC, because that is also a problem. Privatisation and competition - all these things that have frequently militated against the interest of the ordinary citizen - come into play again. Like our own RTE, the BBC has franchised out the making of programmes to independent companies.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: The BBC was prepared to pay one of these performers £18 million on a three-year contract. That inevitably sparked some rivalry or jealousy, particularly in view of the fact that the BBC is slimming down its operations, including the BBC World Service, its foreign language operations and the range of its journalists. It is looking for a popular market - the reality TV market. There is a degradation of standards involved, and jealousy inspired by money. Naturally, journalists, who are paid a small amount of money and are vulnerable to what our American cousins call downsizing, may have an interest in putting a snag in front of those who are put in such an eminent position. Thus, there is an administrative broadcasting situation of which we would be well advised to take notice here.
Those were the facts at the moment the broadcast was made, to be met by almost total silence. I am not sure if anybody has actually mentioned this yet, but there were two complaints about the programme in the week or so following, and they had nothing whatever to do with the Andrew Sachs episode. They were about the use of a one-word profanity by Mr. Jonathan Ross. Enter that paragon of virtue and primness, the Daily Mail group. The newspaper contacted the agent of Mr. Sachs and then published a large article which acted as a catalyst for all the pent-up indignation of the British middle classes. It was an artificially created event in terms of the outrage involved - the kind of thing for which the Daily Mail group is hypocritically responsible all over the joint. We must bear that in mind. We must also remember that the BBC, for its own reasons, targets its audiences with particular kinds of material. A survey was carried out afterwards which investigated the reactions to the programme of people queueing up to go into one of the young people's satirical programmes. They did not have a bother about it. The investigators then asked people going into a programme such as the "Antiques Roadshow" or "Songs of Praise" - the kind of thing I watch - and they were met by considerable indignation. Thus, we have the problem of the targeted audience. It was a very nasty thing to do on a human level. However, the fuss and furore was caused by the Daily Mail and was almost entirely hypocritical. I would not take too much out of it. It was a media-created event.
There are issues to do with language and attitudes. In The Irish Times health supplement today there is a very interesting article about the work of two American women scientists who investigated the impact on young teenagers of certain sexual elements in programmes such as "Sex and the City", which I suppose is fairly mild, and others. They appear to have discovered a correlation between a rise in unwanted pregnancy and the highly sexualised context of some of these programmes. I do not have expertise in this area and I only read an account of the research, but it would be interesting to consider whether there is actually such an effect. I am not against sexual activity but only against the difficulties it presents to young people. I do not want to place this in a negative context.
It also might be worth considering the endorsement of violence on certain programmes, particularly on American television, and the devaluation of decent impulses. For example, let us consider sport. I used to watch wrestling from Manchester with Kent Walton when the sport was populated by people such as Mick McManus and Giant Haystacks. It was immense fun.

Then the World Wrestling Federation went to the United States and the ethos behind it was smash and grab, as much fouling as possible, injure one's opponent, deceitfully if possible, and win at all costs. I was worried about that ethos. It is the kind of ethos behind the war in Iraq, that might is right. A message is given to young people. I do not know how much effect that has, but I am sure it has some.
There is the question of language and blasphemy. It is right that certain time restrictions after which certain things can be broadcast. I listened to a book at bedtime slot on RTE recently where a novel - I cannot remember the name of it - was read about life in Cuba. It was a rich, wonderfully written, human document, was peppered with sexual ideas, profanities and obscenity, and was performed brilliantly by Mr. Frank Twomey from the Cork studio. I wrote to the Director General of RTE to congratulate him and say this was superb broadcasting, but not something young schoolchildren should listen to. I could understand the anxiety of parents if they heard it. It was appropriate to broadcast it, it showed sophistication and humanity, and displayed great acting and production values on the part of RTE radio. I am happy to endorse that kind of production.
There is the question of the ways in which the complexities of society are reflected. I am glad that on RTE radio recently there were a number of plays broadcast which dealt with the experience of the immigrant community. We can all learn from this. It was very helpful. Approximately 18 months ago, I was delighted to hear a very sensitive play dealing with the experiences of a young, working class, gay man in Dublin. These may be controversial matters, but it is good that they are aired.
This debate will not be listened to, nobody will pay a blind bit of attention to it, it is plainly a filler but we can reflect on the situation. It was prompted by Russell Brand and-----
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Jonathan Ross.
Senator David Norris: They are talented people, but were foolish, clownish and nasty. Mr. Sachs is owed an apology, as is his granddaughter. What damage was done? Mr. Sachs must be treated with respect. His granddaughter acknowledged she slept with Mr. Brand, but it has done wonders for her career. Her band has been resurrected and she is being plagued by requests for appearances.