Broadcasting Bill 2008 - Committee - 4th June 2008
Senator David Norris: I support this series of amendments in principle, as I would have supported the previous amendment about religious broadcasting, but I simply do not like mandatory quotas because they tend to get filled up with pap if one has a requirement for a particular percentage.
I am slightly surprised that the amendment survived because it seemed that if it were to work, as I hope it does, it might create a charge on the Exchequer. I know the Department of Finance is very finicky in managing to excise from the Seanad anything that might have the slightest appearance of causing a charge on the Exchequer.
It is a very good and well-conceived amendment. We are all aware of the number of bought-in programmes, especially from the US, which are televisual pap and fillers. It is not just RTE which does this. If one looks at the schedules of Channel 4, which was a very advanced station in its day, one sees all these competitions, game shows and programmes about moving house and buying places in the sun. They are not of any great content and I am amazed they get viewers but, clearly, they must.
We have some very good stations, one of the best of which is TG4, which is a descendant of the station created by Deputy Michael D. Higgins when he was Minister in a move similar to that suggested by Senator Mullen. The latter is correct not to limit it just to the examples he gave. There certainly are large numbers of elderly people, including people in nursing homes, a fair proportion of whom do not seem to notice very much of what is on, although there will be some who do. It is mind-numbing if they are forced to watch these bought-in game shows all the time.
Many others would welcome a civilised heritage channel. During the vote, I asked Senator Mullen what this kind of heritage channel might be. I have criticised American programmes but the US has some very good public broadcasting channels, for example, the Public Broadcasting Service, PBS, and Home Box Office, HBO. They show classics of both British, American and perhaps even Irish drama. They show Jane Austen and things like "Moby Dick". That would be very welcome.
We need to make it quite clear that if this does get off the ground, as I hope it may, it will not just be so-called "diddley-aye" music and that we will not define Irish culture in these narrow terms. I am sometimes quite shocked at the way in which Irish culture is defined. A friend of mine from abroad has repeatedly said to me, when I complain about drinking and vomiting on the streets, that it is part of our culture. It is not as far as I am concerned.
We have things of which we can be very proud, such as the films of George Morrison which rarely get an airing. We have some very capable and creative people. There are programmes on architectural heritage going back to the beehive oratories, ranging through the great monastic buildings and cathedrals and taking in remarkable Georgian architecture. For example, we only have to look at the ceiling of this Chamber which is a masterpiece of 18th century craftsmanship by the stuccodore, Michael Stapleton. Perhaps some programmes could be broadcast on that.
How will this station be financed? If this proposal goes ahead, we need to be clear about the way in which it will be financed and how it will get its budget. I am very pleased to support it. I am satisfied that the definition of culture that has been suggested in contributions in the debate is wider than what I, perhaps unfairly, dismissed as "diddley-aye" music because there is some such music which is very good. There is also some very good jazz music and some remarkable Irish jazz musicians. If the definition of culture is to be fairly broad, I am very pleased that we should have a heritage channel. If it is handled in the same way as TG4, it could be very much to the benefit of people and give enjoyment to a fairly wide range of people.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of Senator Mullen and on which I congratulate him. The detail of his proposition of the amendment was such that in the unlikely event that his political career were ever to fade, he would have a future in production and direction within one of the broadcasting organisations. He has the potential for another career. Indeed, Senator Norris is already a distinguished broadcaster whom I hear some Sunday mornings. Based on what we have heard, Senator Mullen also has that capacity.
Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Seán Power): He is serving as an apprentice to Senator Norris.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: He could be and is getting a fine apprenticeship there.
Senator David Norris: I thank my colleagues for advertising Newstalk 106-108 FM and my show from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Sundays.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: I have given Senator Norris sufficient publicity for his programme.
Senator David Norris: My Sinn Féin colleagues tell me it is repeated in the evening.
Acting Chairman: Senator Norris is getting carried away.
Senator David Norris: I agree with the sentiment of this amendment but I am not sure I can agree with the sentiment as framed. Senator Mullen may be satisfied if the Minister of State agrees to look at this area and give a response to show that this sector of the population is catered for.
If we are going to boast about age, I am required to tell the House that I shall be 64 in a few weeks.
Deputy Seán Power: Are we sitting that day?
Senator David Norris: No, and Deputy Power is not invited to the party either, which will be in Cyprus. I do not know that I have changed all that much over the years although people might like to think that I ought to have.
Senator Jim Walsh: Senator Norris has mellowed.
Senator David Norris: I do not think I have mellowed at all. I wonder about categorising and sectioning people into age groups. I understand what Senators Mullen and Quinn are addressing, that there is material unsuitable to most people over 65. Heavy metal is an example and I have never liked it. Certain things happen as one gets older, the hearing range changes and one can get sound distortion which affects one's pleasure in music. Certain kinds of music can be distinctly unpleasant for a significant proportion of people in the higher age groups. I worry about dividing society into different groups without thinking about it carefully.
Perhaps Senator Mullen can tell us if any market research has been done on the programmes this group would like. Knowing him as a thorough person, he may well have undertaken this research or he may not have had the resources to do so. Perhaps this is something one of our academic institutions, the ESRI or a group that functions for the elderly might examine. We might be quite surprised at the content of such programmes as suggested by the elderly.
As, I hope, Senator Quinn and I demonstrate, elderly people are not all grim people who want devotional services that prepare them for the grave or programmes that tell them how to rinse their false teeth before they go to bed. That is what Yeats was getting at and I cannot resist the opportunity to quote from another Yeats poem: "We who are old, old and gay". This has always made me laugh, particularly as it now clearly refers to me as well. That was not the sense in which the former Senator and Nobel prize winner, W.B. Yeats, intended it but it is one of the reasons that makes me glad we have successfully politically colonised that innocuous and irritating little word. It now means something more sensible than it did when it referred to goblins tripping down the mountainside.
Senator Doherty echoed a feeling of mine when he referred to understanding the Minister's previous difficulties about quotas. If that is true, it is also true of percentages, which may be arbitrary. If there is a resistance to quotas, logically the same resistance exists for a specific percentage. I am not against the principle but I wonder what will happen if we say we must have 10% for Irish culture, 10% for the elderly and 10% for something else. What we need, which is in some respect what Senator Mullen has sensitively proposed, is that the broadcasting authorities should be aware of, and sensitive to, the requirements of different sections of their audience.
I applaud the Senator for raising this. As Senator Quinn said, it is a very positive way to look at it. We are not howling about discrimination but are saying let us do something positive. If it is to be 10%, at what time would it be? Would it all be in one slot at 10 p.m. or would it be at 6 a.m.? Many practical issues need to be teased out.
There is a strong case to be made for being age sensitive. For example, some programmes deal with the disabled, although I am not sure if it is politically correct to say "disabled" because the language keeps changing. Old fogies like me used to refer to the "disabled" which was a big improvement on what we called them before. However, programmes such as "Outside the Box" with Olan McGowan are wonderful and can attract a general audience. A good programme, which could be elder-proofed to ensure it is not grossly obnoxious to older people, might attain a much wider audience than we imagine. I am strongly in favour of the amendment.
We should also have some older broadcasters. I remember with great pleasure listening to Val Joyce on the radio. One of the lovely things about him was that one knew he was as old as a bush, and he said it himself. He fiddled around with the CDs, which used to get lost, and he used to make mildly irritated noises at the machine. It was all part of the entertainment. If we sanitise broadcasting to keep this kind of thing out, we do a terrible injustice to the whole spectrum of broadcasting.
I applaud Senator Mullen for tabling this amendment. I have some reservations about it as it stands, but I am fully in agreement with the principle of it.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: I commend Senator Mullen on tabling this worthy amendment which merits serious consideration. I also take note of the observations and qualifications Senator Norris made in respect of it which also merit serious consideration in terms of how one might practically implement the spirit of the amendment.
The number of people aged over 65 years continues to rise. There is much use of the broadcasting media among that sector and, for obvious reasons, they use it disproportionately more in terms of time than other sectors of the population. For that reason, it is worth proposing that all broadcasting services are aware of the over 65 sector and of producing material relevant to, and likely to be enjoyed by it, bearing in mind what Senator Norris said about this being blurred. Some people of 20 years will enjoy programming for the over 65s and vice versa. It is not cut and dried but a reasonable assessment could be made.
If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, he should consider the spirit of it, what it seeks to achieve and amend the legislation to include the concept it contains. It is a worthy idea. It is arguable that all these things are implicit in the broad principles of the Bill but it is no harm making them more explicit and definite in order to preserve such a principle in situations which might not be as benign.
I hear from the older people I know - we are all moving quickly in that direction - that they very much enjoy radio, particularly Radio 1 and their local radio stations, and the content of radio programmes. If that is the case, we should consider making television more friendly to that sector. I have been told older people enjoy radio more but more research might be required.
The principle of the amendment is good and the Minister should seriously consider it. I have no difficulty supporting the amendment. Senator Norris made very reasonable points about its implementation, delineation, demarkation, etc., in terms of programme content, timing and so on. I do not propose to go over those issues because he went through them very adequately. Subject to consideration of Senator Norris's points, we should support the amendment, the principle of which is good. I appeal to the Minister to give it serious thought.
Senator Paul Bradford: I support the amendment and concur with the previous speaker. I appreciate the practical difficulty of implementing what the amendment proposes. It is, however, a question of trying to be sensitive, of reaching out and of ensuring our broadcasting service is for the entire population and not only the under 30s, 40s or 50s.
Much lip-service is paid to senior citizens. However, there is a Minister of State with responsibility for older people. I hope that person would have a role in this type of legislation and would bring ideas to it which would advocate the type of amendment suggested by Senator Mullen.
Television and radio are designed to entertain and educate. That service is required by all sectors of the community and not only younger people. Senator Norris concluded by referring to Val Joyce and perhaps to the "Late Date" programme.
Senator David Norris: It was brilliant.
Senator Paul Bradford: I listened to it frequently as I traversed the country at all hours of the night and early morning. If he puts on his leisure hat, the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power, will recall Val Joyce's "Airs and Races" programme on a Saturday evening. RTE made an error removing "Airs and Races" approximately 20 to 25 years ago which gave us all a little insight into the wonderful world of horse-racing. It also made an error removing the "Late Date" programme.
Senator David Norris: It is still there.
Senator Paul Bradford: Mr. Joyce has been removed from the show. His programme showed that radio broadcasting is not only about young, vibrant disc jockeys and that every sector has a role to play. Perhaps we are reminiscing a bit too much.
I am coming across as a fuddy-duddy but another programme which reaches out to the elderly is Donnacha O'Dulaing's programme, "Fáilte Isteach" on Radio 1 on a Saturday night and to which emigrants listen. It relays little stories about the Irish community in Britain. It shows that true public service broadcasting must try to appeal to all sectors of the market and must have a variety of programming not all commercially successful or paying for themselves through advertising revenue, etc. It is all part of the jigsaw of the sort of broadcasting service we must offer the people.
The amendment makes a statement that the over 65s matter and that their concerns must be addressed.
Senator Cecilia Keaveney: I agree with the remarks of Senator Norris on this matter. When one talks about quotas and percentages in this context, one has to understand the subtleties involved if one is to understand what this is really about. We need to be sensitive to the differences among the people we are trying to cater for. The valid point has been made it is important to assess such people's needs. If one asks older people what they want to watch, one might be surprised by the results one gets. When I sit down with people over the age of 65 in my house or in other houses, I find it incredible to observe that their tastes are not too different from my own. Some of the programmes they like to watch, such as "The Weakest Link", are not shown on RTE. People of all ages watch "The Weakest Link" to try to answer the questions and see what Anne Robinson will say to the contestants.
Similarly, soap operas cross many divides. It is hard to define the age group at which any given soap is aimed. I ran into rocky territory when I spoke about "Fair City" when I was a member of the Joint Committee on Health and Children. Those involved in "Fair City" thought I was complaining about product placement. I had not noticed the picture that was in the newspapers. If I had, I would have complained about product placement. I was complaining about the fact that a young pop band that had been brought into the programme, to boost its ratings at that time, was shown to spend most of its time in a bar. I pointed out that there is more to life than standing in a bar with a glass in one's hand. Given that soap operas are watched in houses throughout Ireland every day of the week, we should avail of their ability to transmit positive subliminal messages to young people.
I admire programmes such as "Nationwide" that focus on matters of local interest. Senator Bradford spoke about the importance of documentaries. We need to reflect on the roles of news and current affairs programmes, soap operas and quizzes. Senator Mullen suggested that RTE's orchestras be used for classical "prom" concerts. We spoke earlier about whether heavy metal is appropriate for people over the age of 65. Other forms of music are insufficiently exploited. We are paying for the RTE symphony and concert orchestras, which are not given enough opportunities to display their wares as often as they could. If the approximately 100 members of the National Symphony Orchestra were to break into groups of three or four, they could give the benefit of their experience to at least 25 schools at a time. Television programmes like "Nationwide" could document such work. Grannies, parents and children would watch such programmes. It would be as valid as any other event.
We need to consider the scheduling of programmes aimed at people over the age of 65. While I think the programmes they require are being made, they are not always shown at appropriate times. A number of programmes of this nature are broadcast at the same time on Saturday evenings. Most people would like to enjoy programmes like "Casualty", "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" and "Winning Streak", but they are shown on three different stations at the same time. When one turns on one's television at the same time on Sunday evening, one might find there is nothing on that interests one. We need to ensure that programmes are scheduled in a balanced manner. We should focus on variety, as much as possible. That is sometimes the biggest problem.
The fundamental thing I would say about the three amendments before the House is that they demonstrate the value of doing research. I suggest that much of our programming is good enough, but the best programmes sometimes collide. The manner in which programmes are scheduled is often as important as the programmes themselves.
Deputy Seán Power: I am not sure if Senators Mullen and Norris were differing in their interpretations of the work of William Butler Yeats. I had some difficulty in trying to interpret what Senators Norris and Quinn were saying. I am not sure whether they are thinking about heading for greener pastures in the near future. If they are thinking along those lines, I will tell them, as I told my colleague, Senator Walsh, earlier, about a gentleman who recently came to see me. He told me that he was interested in securing employment. He said he thought it would be a promotion for him. When I was taking down his details, I said, "Do you mind me asking you, John, what your date of birth is?". He gave me a date in May 1922. Senators Quinn and Norris should reflect on that as they consider making an emergency exit from the House.
Senator Rónán Mullen: I do not think either of them are considering that,
Deputy Seán Power: Amendments Nos. 22, 82 and 90 seek to set out specific requirements for programming aimed at those over the age of 65. In particular, they will require broadcasters to ensure that a minimum of 10% of programming is devoted to people over that age. Under these amendments, the broadcasting authority of Ireland will have to consider the needs of over 65s when it is awarding contracts in areas in which 10% or more of the population is in that age bracket. When RTE is drafting its public service charter, these amendments will require it to provide commitments in relation to the nature and number of hours per year of television programming aimed at people over the age of 65. RTE is currently required to appeal to a wide audience. If it did not appeal to a wide audience, it would not survive. A great deal of criticism would be expressed in such circumstances. RTE is required to provide commitments in respect of the amount of children's programming it makes each year. This ensures that adequate suitable programming of an educational and general entertainment nature is available to children in their formative years. Over the years, RTE has been careful to provide a wide variety of programming, including programmes relating to current affairs, sports, nostalgia, music and history, as well as chat shows, films, soap operas and speciality programmes, to suit people in all other specific age groups. This wide variety of programming offers all viewers a choice. Therefore, I am not convinced that additional commitments are necessary in respect of adults over the age of 65.
When commercial broadcast contacts are being awarded, there is merit in ensuring that applicant broadcasters will cater for the needs of all members of the community. I consider that there is sufficient scope in the current Bill to provide for this. Section 66(2) outlines the matters to be considered by the contract awards committee when awarding a contract. Section 66(2)(c) provides that the committee must consider "the quality, range and type of the programmes proposed to be provided by each applicant or, if there is only one applicant, by that applicant". Section 66(2)(f) provides that the committee must consider "the desirability of having a diversity of services in the area specified in the notice catering for a wide range of tastes including those of minority interests". I have no difficulty in accepting the spirit of these amendments. However, I am confident that these proposals are already catered for in the Bill. For that reason, I cannot accept the proposed amendments.
Section 39.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
Section 39 agreed to.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
Senator David Norris: On a point of order, I take it amendment No. 24 can be resubmitted by the Labour group on Report Stage.
An Cathaoirleach: The amendment was discussed with amendment No. 1. It is a matter for the Labour group if they wish to resubmit it on Report Stage.
Section 40.
Question proposed: "That section 40 stand part of the Bill."
Senator Jim Walsh: It was suggested on Second Stage that the advertising area as a whole should be examined. A number of Senators raised the issue of curbing the advertising of alcohol and have tabled amendments in this regard. We also need to examine the issue of betting. A number of bookmakers advertise on television. Recent reports highlighted the problems associated with betting for individuals. The report states that in many instances betting addiction is a bigger problem than alcohol addiction. One report suggested that up to 10% of the population are affected by betting addiction. I accept a great deal of betting is done on-line and as such cannot be easily controlled.
Perhaps this matter, which is giving rise to serious problems for individuals and their families could be considered in the context of this Bill as it makes it way through the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Senator David Norris: I support Senator Walsh's proposal. When flicking through the television channels one night around 11 p.m., I came across an American bought programme which was glorifying betting and poker games. There appeared to me to be quite large sums of money involved. Whether they were real, I do not know.
I take Senator Walsh's point that there are people who are addicted to betting. The programme which I saw related to a young female lawyer in America who sued a Casino which continued to offer her facilities to bet when she had exhausted her funds. Senator Walsh's point is well made.
Along with a proliferation of drink outlets there now exists a huge proliferation of betting outlets not alone in Ireland but in Cyprus and other countries. I am astonished by the staggering number of glitzy betting shops which not alone permit traditional betting in respect of horse-racing and so on but permit betting in regard to card games such as poker. I do not know how they do it. I strongly support Senator Walsh's remarks in this regard. Also, I reassure him that a number of amendments in this regard have been tabled. Senator Mullen has tabled an amendment in regard to the control of betting outlets while I am much more draconian in that I am seeking that it be totally banned.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 41.
An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 105 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: Is it in order to speak to amendments Nos. 25 and 26, to hear the Minister's response to them and then return to speak on amendment No. 105?
An Cathaoirleach: Yes.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: I find it easier to deal with the amendments in this way.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 43, subsection (2), line 33, to delete "any hour" and substitute "any two hours".
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 seek to achieve something simple and practical. The Bill provides that there should be only ten minutes of advertisements in any hour, a principle which is accepted across the House as being in the best interests of good programming. We do not wish a total commercialisation of our television stations. Anyone who has been to America and watched television there will have noticed it appears programmes are interrupting the advertisements. Nobody aspires to that happening here.
The Bill provides for a maximum of ten minutes advertising in any hour. It is not mandatory that ten minutes of advertisements be broadcast in any hour. On the face of it, that is fair enough. However, there could be exceptional circumstances - this issue has been raised with me by people in the industry - where this should not apply. For example, the Dalai Lama is to be invited to address this House, a proposition put to the House and readily accepted. If this visit occurs and is to receive live coverage on a given media surely it would wrong to interrupt that coverage with a sequence of advertisements. It would make sense in that situation that the advertising quota be averaged out over two hours. This is a simple and practical measure which could apply in respect of a football match, a special event or ground-breaking interview. We do not need silly examples in this regard. Are we to interrupt a special interview just to run a sequence of advertisements?
I am proposing the deletion of "any hour" and substitution of "any two hours" thereby providing that in exceptional circumstances there be no more than ten minutes advertising in any two hours. This would facilitate coverage of for example outside broadcasts, big events, festivals and so on. Nobody is seeking a carte blanche for advertisers or radio stations. I fully support the objective of maintaining a maximum standard. I have no difficulty with that. The amendment seeks only to adjust that standard in exceptional circumstances.
It would not be in the interests of a radio station to broadcast 20 minutes of advertisements in any given hour. It is in their interests to balance them out over one hour. I am sure this is what their clients would want. The likelihood is that in reality the Minister's objective will be achieved. My proposal relates only to exceptional circumstances. It would not make sense not to run the advertisements for ten minutes in any hour. One hopes that in some instances there would not be ten minutes of advertising within an hour.
Senator David Norris: I strongly support Senator O'Reilly's amendment. I was concerned when I received the initial brief on this in case it meant commercial pressures within radio stations would lead them to seek to increase the revenue by expanding the amount of advertising but this is not the case. It is exactly as Senator O'Reilly described. From my inquiries I realised that radio stations do not want to increase advertising revenue because over the ten minutes advertising operates as a disincentive to listenership. Advertising revenue is mathematically related to audience penetration. Radio stations want to maximise their audience and not put them off by saturating them with advertisements.
Exceptional occasions do exist and I am not sure they are quite as infrequent as Senator O'Reilly suggests. It may be that they are. I do a certain amount of broadcasting and on a couple of occasions I filled in for other people with far more glamorous programmes than mine with live feed to Hollywood for the Oscars. One does not break that because if one does the people on the other end will buzz off. With regard to coverage of the US elections, stations in the US break in with advertising right at a vital point and this is regrettable.
The idea of averaging out the advertising time in a manner which ensures no increase in advertising is good. It would be silly to penalise a station simply because it had an important item and did not want to break the link. If a programme has a feed from Iraq or Afghanistan by satellite phone and connection is lost it can be difficult to re-establish it. It might be lost if a commercial break is taken. This is a reasonable and non-threatening amendment and I hope the Minister will be able to consider it.
Senator David Norris: The Minister stated advertisements would be loaded into a prime slot and there would be overloading, which is extremely irritating, particularly on television. I agree some of the advertisements are very professional. I am not totally opposed to advertising and advertisements are absolutely necessary, particularly in the independent sector, which is not served by the television licence. However, our contributions have centred on radio, not television, but the examples given by the Minister all related to television. Not all broadcasters are as professional as Gay Byrne, with whom I had the pleasure of working from time to time. He had a genius for bringing an item to a close exactly on the button of the commencement of an advertisement. Some people go over during live feeds and so on.
The Minister's argument about the relative value of the different slots, although initially attractive, is not at all persuasive. The amendments refer to adjacent hour slots. We did not refer to a ban on advertising during peak times in the morning and evening and all advertising to be slotted in at 3 a.m. for an hour. If, for example, advertisements could interrupt a programme in mid-flight to fulfil the hourly quota, they should be aired in the following hour at the end of the interview, which might cause a dislocation in the time loading.
The Minister referred to sensitivity and he treated this subject from an aesthetic point of view. A number of programmes, especially on talk radio, deal with serious subjects and it would not be appropriate to interrupt them with advertisements. For example, I will treat the Minister to a little Vermeer scene on North Great Georges Street. A few Saturdays ago I was washing my breakfast vessels late in the morning and I was riveted to an interview between Marian Finucane and the late Nuala O'Faolain. A series of advertisement slots would not have been appropriate during that interview and none was used. Extremely jarring material could have interrupted an extraordinary powerful radio broadcast. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate to examine not only the one-hour slot but the two-hour slots and average them out. The difference in audience participation between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. and 11 a.m. and 12 noon is not substantial enough to back up the Minister's case that there would be a loading of advertisements from one hour to the next, which would cause a distortion, for grossly commercial reasons. That is not the intention.
I was interested in the response of those who briefed me. They were horrified and they said they did not want more advertising, as it deters listeners. My colleague and friend, Senator O'Reilly, will not press the amendment but that gives the Minister an opportunity to consider the arguments made and perhaps review his position.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: On earlier amendments, I stated I was a great supporter of the concept of a film channel. It is welcome and I congratulate everybody concerned with that initiative. I am delighted it has been included in the legislation. Senator Mullen tabled a well thought out amendment relating to a heritage channel. Amendment No. 105 provides for five minutes per hour of advertising on the film channel, which, at a minimum, would make it self-financing and which would cause little interruption. I hope the advertising would be run at the end of a film or at appropriate times. I do not wish to have good cinema interrupted ridiculously by advertisements. Five minutes per hour with occasional interruption could mean the channel becomes self-financing. Niche advertising relevant to the audience of the films would be involved.
The five minutes per hour would readily finance the station and it might even provide for further expansion by the public service broadcaster without over commercialisation or anything ugly or distorting. I fully agree with the Minister that we do not want to go down the road of overly commercialised broadcast media. That is not being proposed and we should adhere to that principle. That will not be challenged by amendment No. 105, which provides for the film channel to be self-financing and money could be in the coffers to fund another station or other developments in broadcasting. There is an advertising sector particular to film, which would be happy to pay the money to advertise and the result would only be for the good when it is controlled and considered. It would not destroy film, the audience or anything else. This would be positive and a number of advertisers could use this niche channel to reach a target audience. They might not necessarily wish to advertise at other times of the day or on other stations and, therefore, an additional revenue would be attracted into the broadcasting sector.
Senator David Norris: This is a reasonable amendment but I remind the Senator it states "advertisements should not interrupt film showings". He weakened this in his contribution by saying they could be interrupted.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: I accept that.
Senator David Norris: However, it is reasonable that if a film channel is introduced, it should engage in some element of self-financing. I am not acquainted with the figures and, therefore, I am not sure whether the advertising proposed by Senator O'Reilly would pay for the entire station.
I am amused and perhaps we will hear more about what niche advertising in this sector implies. Is it that everybody boozes at home watching huge liquid television screens, which are large and flat and transmit good colour and precise definition and so on? To make it feel more like a cinema, will popcorn be advertised? I recall a wonderful film I saw years ago called "The Smallest Show on Earth". It was about a young couple who inherited a cinema, which they mistook to be big and flashy. It turned out to be a little bijou flea pit. To maximise their profits, they showed a film about a man struggling across a desert in great heat and conditions of extreme thirst. They turned up the heating to the maximum and then there was a slight intermission during which the ice cream girl was mobbed. Is that what is meant by advertising or some equivalent for television?
An Cathaoirleach: That is hardly relevant to the amendment.
Senator David Norris: It is completely relevant.
Senator Jim Walsh: This is an interesting section, as it provides for a film channel and an Oireachtas channel. I wonder how they will be funded. With the advent of digital broadcasting, there will be an opportunity to roll out more choice. Reference was made to regional channels, which the Oireachtas channel could become because local authorities will be involved.
I was watching MUTV, the Manchester United channel, and saw advertising on that for golf clubs, as well as a programme on golf. It strikes me that some of these niche stations could attract niche advertising which might not necessarily go to mainstream channels. I do not know whether it is allowed. Perhaps the Minister might clarify whether advertising would be allowed on some of these channels and possibly other channels that might be rolled out. If not, the question arises as to how they will be funded. Given the success of local radio and the number of local radio stations, there is great potential in this section to roll out many new Irish channels which would reflect the culture and heritage of the country. Through satellite technology, we now have myriad foreign channels, some of which are fairly alien to what we stand for as a people.
Deputy Eamon Ryan: In respect of Senator Norris's point about radio advertising, the same principle applies. Radio has an even more powerful effect. The connection to the radio in our kitchen, car or bedroom is far stronger in many ways. It goes right into one's mind and is a connection that is particularly important to the Irish people. In every house in this country throughout the day and evening, people return to radio as a key communication in their lives.
It is appropriate for us to define and limit the advertising input, not because I am against advertising, but because it breaks that communication. The one thing about radio advertising that irritates me is when the advertising break is too long. I get deeply frustrated because I want to get back to the communication for which I am looking. It could well be in the short-term interest of a particular station to apply such a policy but it is not in the long-term interests of radio in this country. It is our job as regulators to set the long-term interest.
I imagine that there is a world of difference between radio advertising between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m., and 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. If I was an advertising manager and was given complete freedom, I would stack my advertising between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. because my audience is much larger. Perhaps I would not do so if I was the controller of the station in the long run. I do not want to hear more than ten minutes of advertising while I am putting toast on, feeding the kids and am in a hurry. In such situations I want the content and the connection. In those circumstances, it is right for us to put a limit on advertising in the long-term interests of radio and television in this State. We must recognise that there is a limited pool so that those stations that are the best and get the largest audiences will get the higher price for an advertising slot to make them commercially viable. Simply spreading it out into larger and more flexible mechanisms will not necessarily expand the pool of advertising that is available.
I appreciate the chance to speak on the concept of the film channel in respect of this amendment. It is a new channel in a new broadcasting era. We have what is known as the long tail in communication terms. Previously the vast majority of the population's broadcasting viewing, listening or reading was concentrated on a small number of channels and outlets. This is changing radically with the development of the Internet where one can access a range of different channels and supplies of books. One is not limited to one's local bookshop anymore because one has a huge choice available on the Internet and through different providers. One's interest might be in a very small and specific niche area but it can now be served.
This is a similar concept in terms of the development of the film channel. We are not necessarily looking for a mass audience. Within such a channel, we will often look for niche audiences that might not otherwise be served in a commercial television world. We have the opportunity with such a channel to show world cinema. This might be of real interest to certain immigrant communities in this country.
Senator Mullen asked whether we would have programming with a religious content. We could look for something that some people might consider to be an utterly non-commercial niche area in which nobody is interested. With this channel, we could have a slot where one could show such a film that might be of interest. I do not want to restrict the editorial freedom of the organisers of this channel by putting commercial advertising into that mix. As sure as night follows day, that would colour some of the editorial decisions one would make in terms of what niches one wants to serve, whether it is commercial or what sort of viewership one will get.
It is far better for us to create a new public service channel that will be very creative in how its resources can be used. Advertising will not pay for such a channel but the channel could take advertising revenue from some of the other channels that are already dividing up that pie. This channel will not be expensive to run. The reason one gets this long tail development is that the cost of digital platforms is a minute fraction of what it cost previously to broadcast a television channel. This is particularly so when one is dealing with something like film where one has long sections with the material already available so one does not have to do considerable production or processing work with it.
As a State, we have already invested hundreds of millions of euro in tax breaks for the film industry and other support measures we have given to studios. We have hundreds of films gathering dust in the archive that will never be used unless we take them out, convert them to digital form and give them a platform. The costs are minimal. We are talking about a small studio space that allows a simple introduction facility and gives viewers a short history of a film, for example, that it was made in 1950 in Waterford. Perhaps only 5,000 people will watch it. Perhaps only Waterford will tune in that night but that is a great service to the people there. One goes to the Waterford newspapers and says "Do you know what is coming up next week? A picture made here back in 1950." Otherwise, the film will not be shown but it will be of interest to those 5,000 people and would be a real service. Perhaps 5,000 Chinese people would watch a Chinese film in the afternoon. Perhaps we will go to the colleges involved in making all sorts of short films and productions and tell them they can put them up on our film channel. Perhaps only 1,000 relatives, friends and college mates of the people who made that film will watch it, but they will be proud because their work has been shown.
Those are the possibilities we have in this new long tail broadcasting environment. More than anything else, film fits into it because it is an hour and a half of production that is already available to us. We will not be making films; we will show them. This can be done very cheaply and is better without advertising because it gives us real freedom to be creative and innovative and to provide thinking television.
Senator David Norris: What the Minister said about the film channel is very interesting and exciting. On the basis of my own experience, the Chinese, with whom I am quite familiar because Chinatown is at the bottom of my street which is Parnell Street, already get Chinese films so I do not think 5,000 Chinese people will watch whatever RTE or anyone else can dredge up because they are already running. I frequently see them in the little restaurants.
The Minister addressed the earlier point in a very interesting way. The BBC used to be the broadcasting equivalent of the Garda Síochána. It was unarmed and had the proud boast that it did not have advertisements at all but now it does. The BBC has advertisements on its international service which are mainly for banks and big institutions like that so advertising has penetrated there.
What we were talking about, as I understand my brief, was a situation which would not be a particularly regular one but which might occur from time to time. Supposing there was a four-minute advertising slot, it would run over on the hour, for reasons Senators O'Reilly and Mullen and I have already suggested. In other words, if, because of a very important interview on a news programme, one started the advertisement sequence at 9.58 p.m. instead of 9.56 p.m., there would be no technical infringement by leaking over into the next hour.
[Senator David Norris continuing]
How will this be policed? Will there be a monitoring service? In many ways, I would like to think there would be. I am a great fan of RTE but I do not think they listen to themselves. Sometimes they go off the air, one gets bleed from another studio, music pops in unexpectedly, one hears conversations between presenters and so forth. It seems that nobody in RTE is actually listening and I would like the Minister to explain, in order to make sure this is efficient, if there will be an agency monitoring broadcasts. How will we be able to tell if the advertisements go over time or are broadcast at an inappropriate time?
Such monitoring seems to be a useful option and perhaps could operate like the telephone-based home security services. Companies offering such services send the gardaí to one's home if one's alarm is activated but if they send them out on a false alarm more than three times in six months they cancel one's cover. That is an option which could be examined. Let us imagine a would-be margin of appreciation whereby a radio station that had a current affairs obligation allowed occasional leaks of advertisements from one hour to another. If there was somebody monitoring the broadcasts, we would know if such leakages were on the cusp of the hour or not and a system of three, six or eight strikes and the station is out could apply. I ask the Minister to explain how he will know if there are infringements.
Senator David Norris: Regarding the question of radio advertising and the hours between 7 o'clock and 8 o'clock and 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock, with commuting times, there is little difference between these two times. Radio advertising is sold on a time-slot basis. Prime slots attract a particular rate. It is not conceivable that anyone could make the argument that there was an accidental overrun necessitated by a particular non-recurring circumstance. They could not make the case that it was accidental if they were selling it. The only advantage to a station would be if it were selling it as prime time slot. They could not honourably or legally do that. That, I believe, counters the Minister's argument. The Minister claims this is done to generate extra revenue. If a radio station were found doing this, it would be guilty of an offence.
Deputy Eamon Ryan: No one is looking to hammer or punish an accidental breach. The Bill sets out that the compliance committee would look to the adherence of duties, codes and rules for broadcasters and it will carry out similar work to the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. It will carry out random checks on an intermittent basis to see what advertising is being carried. It is not going to pick up on an accidental breach and call the Minister urgently that Gaybo has run on into the 9 a.m. slot.
Senator Rónán Mullen: If it were Gay Byrne, the legislation would be retrospective and would not be allowed under the Constitution.
Deputy Eamon Ryan: The nature of these codes is that there is an authority that applies them. Where there are routine and flagrant breaches, it would take a certain decision. I am sure it would have ways and means of dealing with such cases.
The proposed Irish film channel will also run popular and commercially successful movies which will be typically Irish. This concept came from the Irish Film Board which recognised the large store of brilliantly crafted Irish films that will attract an Irish audience. In many of these cases, the film was not commercially successful because it did not have, say, a distribution agreement. The film will be shown on the channel which will not be commercial and not carry advertising. As well as the benefit of not influencing editing decisions, such a set-up will be easier to sell to the industry. Rather than having a film languishing in the Irish Film Board's archive, it has proposed this outlet. The channel could also broadcast, say, a French film at a certain time in the morning which schools could use. Another time slot could be used for a particular age group for a movie they might not see on other channels.
One can do all sorts of things so long as it is cheap. One of the principles of this type of channel in this new digital platform is not to break the budget because it will not be big. There will not be the annual row with the mandarins, as one Senator said, because the nature of what we will be trying to do is to use what is already easily and freely available.
Senator David Norris: I think Senator Mullen is using this amendment to make an ideological point and there is merit in some aspects of it. I was rather surprised, however, to hear him - even with a sense of irony - appearing to equate the Roman Catholic Church with tarot cards, fortune tellers and that sort of business.
From time to time, I have criticisms of the Vatican and even of the distinguished hierarchy of this country and some of its organs but I would hesitate to put them at that level. Senator Mullen is a braver man than I am.
It is true that members of the public are routinely gulled by people who present themselves as being able to forecast the future, read palms and so on. These activities, for example, reading the horoscope in evening newspapers, are often harmless but they become inimical to people's interests when considerable sums of money are extracted from people through telephone charges and the lengthy introduction and preamble one has before getting to the meat of the situation. This practice has been exposed on radio programmes and by investigative journalists and I understand the communications regulator has intervened on occasion.
I assume the same circumstances apply in the case of sex services, although having not called them, I am not 100% sure what they are. I might try to do so this evening - prompted by Senator Mullen - to find out what takes place. I imagine the process is similar to the other practices to which the Senator referred. I am not sure if it involves telephone sex or whether tarts are available on the other end of the line. I imagine the telephone sex lines operate in exactly the same manner as tarot card lines, with callers being required to go through a long build-up during which they are asked whether they are sitting comfortably or what is the colour of the wallpaper and told the weather is nice. They might then be told by the person on the end of the line that they are feeling warm and will now remove a glove - that sort of thing. The whole point is not so much to get one excited but to keep one on the telephone for as long as possible. If the caller gets too excited, it all might come to the boil which would end the conversation. I am not sure it can be taken entirely seriously.
While I would not be very happy with the idea of proselytising, it would not bother me that much if it would satisfy some people. However, it would be an extraordinary device and one I would not like if politically motivated religious groups had an opportunity to intervene in political matters and use paid advertisements to attempt to influence decisions from outside the House on what are viewed as moral matters, such as sex services or whatever terms are used.
I agree with Senator Mullen on one point. I remember a number of occasions on which perfectly reasonable advertisements, some of which were religious, were refused on RTE. It was prim of RTE to exclude these advertisements in the manner it did. It was wrong also not to allow radio advertisements for concerts organised to protest against the Iraq war. People do not have to go to such concerts and it was not as if the organisers were making arguments in paid advertisements, which merely stated that those who opposed the Iraq war might like to attend the concert. The advertisement was banned. On balance, Senator Mullen has raised a point, albeit one that is not as substantial as he believes and is likely, if the discussion is prolonged, to lead to levity and low humour in the House.
Senator Jim Walsh: I will confine my remarks to amendment No. 33. I do not see a great deal of difference, other than the inclusion of the word "balanced", between the amendment and the wording in section 42 (2)(a) and (b). I welcome the inclusion of these two paragraphs. It would be wrong of the House to introduce provisions preventing broadcasters from making critical comments or implied criticism and we would be accused of censorship and ridiculed for doing so. Equally, however, it is unacceptable that broadcasters can peddle personal prejudice in their programmes. There is a justifiable expectation that comment will be fair and reasonable and programmes impartial. That this expectation will be underpinned in legislation is welcome.
I am concerned that in many cases broadcasters do not need to display prejudice on air as they can promote their personal bias and prejudice in editorial and topic selection. The provisions of section 42 should be extended to cover this practice because by setting their own agenda, broadcasters can influence important social issues and promote their personal bias. The principle of impartiality should apply not only in broadcasting but also in the editorial and selection of programming. I strongly welcome the inclusion of this desirable and necessary provision in the Bill.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: I congratulate Senator Mullen on tabling these amendments on which he has invested considerable thought and work. I do not have a difficulty with cases such as that of an advertisement for the Franciscan order which the Senator cited or advertisements for other religious exercises or efforts.
Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.
Senator Rónán Mullen: I thank my colleagues for their comments, particularly those that were supportive. I am a little disappointed by some of the comments because when we make light of psychic services in that way, as Senator O'Toole appeared to do, it can have a chilling effect on legislators trying to legislate in the public interest. We are talking about channels coming into people's living rooms, not pay-per-view. We are operating in a world where people of all ages are watching television at all hours of the day. Although I have an amendment that refers to a watershed of 9 p.m., in many ways watersheds are a theoretical phenomena because people are watching television at all hours of the day.
Senator O'Reilly outlined the way in which people can be vulnerable and be gulled, and how young, immature people can spend a fortune. That was a much more healthy contribution than that of my esteemed colleague, Senator O'Toole, who gave the vaguest hint that telephoning psychics is a bit of fun.
I have no problem with people going into Gypsy Lee at the Ballinasloe horse fair. The question is whether Gypsy Lee can advertise on television. I ask people not to be nervous of protective legislation. Senator O'Toole talked about going too far by way of regulation but Senator O'Reilly more correctly points to the fact that there are vulnerable people in society who get hurt in different ways. Senator O'Toole would be the first to come into the Chamber and speak strongly in favour of the consumer if we were talking about false advertising of some product. This is exactly what is going on in respect of psychic services. People are being told that they can have certainty about their future lives and are being encouraged to pin their hopes on it at considerable cost to themselves.
That is my major theme, religious advertising is a minor theme but the contrast is remarkable. One is legal, the other is not. One is in the public interest, the other is not, but it is the one that is not in the public interest that is allowed to operate untrammelled. It is interesting that RTE has no truck with this advertising but other commercial stations do. I encourage the Minister to state that this is an area that must be examined.
Senator Norris suggested I was making an ideological point. I do not know what he means by that. My only ideological point is that we should not be afraid of having the law exercise a protective effect where, in the case of tarot cards or sex chat lines, people are being exploited. Their personal sense of inadequacy is being exploited and their pockets are being filleted at the same time. In the case of chat lines there is the collateral damage of objectification of women in particular because it tends to be women that one is invited to dial up late at night.
Can we move beyond these fears? These debates suffer from a backwash from the 1960s, when people were scared stiff of moral debate because they thought it was taking us down the road of having to subscribe to some religious dogma. We have moved on from that. Ireland is a free country, and always was, but never more than today are people free to choose how to live their lives and to what values they adhere. Can we get back to the discussion on legislating in the public interest to protect the more vulnerable members of society? It is not good enough to suggest the television advertising of high cost services offering to tell people about the future is some harmless fun when we hear repeatedly of vulnerable people being gulled into spending large amounts of money. Are we so market-oriented that we do not care about that and are happy for it to go on?
Let me give the House proof that we should consider restricting this area. I do not suggest that there should not be channels for which people can pay to have access to these services but we are talking about the public thoroughfare in broadcasting terms. Is it not interesting that although we show the races on a Saturday and give the betting prices, we never invite people to dial a number at high cost to place a bet on Lucky Lad? We recognise that there are people who would gamble away a lot of money, not only at their own expense but at the expense of their loved ones. We make a distinction, the law does operate in a protective way and we do establish standards. It is not for any desire to recreate a nanny state that I put this on the agenda. I do so because it is in the public interest. The debate deserves better than the nudge-nudge, wink-wink, "This is all a little bit strict, Reverend Mother". That is not where we are at in the 21st century and we should legislate in the public interest.
I agree with Senator O'Reilly's point that if we were to lift the ban on religious organisations advertising membership or merits, there would have to be a regulatory structure. This is where codes come in, it is not a question that the law would establish a free-for-all. Given that the State has established a structure for dialogue with religious organisations and non-faith based organisations, it has a mechanism to decide what groups it does and does not talk to. By the same logic could we not have a code permitting certain kinds of ads and excluding others? Judgment calls must be made.
I have referred to tarot card and chat lines. I have two other amendments that are being discussed in this group. One relates to fairness and balance, a proposed amendment to section 42 of the broadcasting code, the other is an amendment to section 42. The broadcasting code deals with advertising and I have suggested the insertion after section 42(2)(f) of: "A broadcaster shall not broadcast an advertisement which is sexually explicit in nature,". Everything that I have said in respect of chat lines can be applied to this without my going on ad nauseam.
The rationale involved is about the law exercising a protective effect with confidence, not worrying about the sneers. We already have codes on alcohol advertising to the effect that it should never promote sexual or social success. By the same token, and given the fact that watersheds are increasingly a theoretical concept and people of all ages watch television at all hours of the day, our legislation should specifically prescribe that advertising should not be sexually explicit in nature. This can be characterised as a narrowly moralistic aspiration but I remind Senators, not that they need reminding, that to do otherwise would be to condone exploitation. We have had the debate on trafficking and we know that women, in particular, are exploited in the sex industry, which is run on trafficking. Anything that adds to that by engaging in the exploitation of people, especially women, is not in the public interest nor is it conducive to the common good.
Under our employment law, the display of sexually provocative or explicit posters or calendars in the workplace can constitute sexual harassment. By the same logic, is it not a form of public harassment to engage in advertisement which is sexually explicit? I am not saying there is a huge problem in this area at present but we might be getting there, particularly as broadcasting services become more commercially driven. An axiom in the advertising industry is that sex sells so for that reason, we should have a specific legislative bar on advertisements which are sexually explicit in nature.
Turning to the issue of fairness and balance, I propose the deletion of paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 42(2), which relates to broadcasting codes. I propose that all news broadcast by a broadcaster be reported and presented in a balanced, objective and impartial manner. The word "balanced" appears twice in my amendment. The reason is that the issue of balance is a very controversial one.
During elections, referenda or in situations of intense public controversy, complaints about impartiality are often made. I have tabled another amendment which refers to the need to speed up adjudication on such complaints. I believe the "Liveline" programme engaged in discussions with women who had abortions and had not regretted them a day or two before the 2002 abortion referendum and before there could be any redress on the balance front. It was a highly ideological intervention in a matter which was to be determined by the people. That type of thing goes on from time to time.
I hope one does not have to be a social conservative on some issue to see the point because it is visible from outer space. I mentioned on Second Stage that RTE's former director general, Bob Collins, said in the wake of the divorce referendum that if somebody had come down from Mars, he or she would never have thought the referendum result would be as tight as it was given the type of media coverage of the issues at the time. I hope people on all sides of the argument would be willing to be authentic liberals and see that there has been a problem in this area in the past.
As I said on Second Stage, it is not only in regard to controversial social issues that this arises. There may well be other bodies who feel that broadcasters and public service broadcasters steal a march sometimes and allow their own agenda to be set in the context of supposedly fair and balanced coverage. The absence of any clear obligation on RTE - I would argue there should be one - to provide urgent redress in such situations can allow individual broadcasters to conduct totally partisan and biased interviews, for example, on the eve of an election or referendum even though a moratorium is supposed to be in place - I gave one such example - safe in the knowledge that no redress can be sought until it is too late.
I am aware of occasions where people have made complaints to RTE. They have received letters which state it must be fair and impartial but that it does not have to be balanced. It has sought to be "Jesuitical", if I may use that word, on the issue of its obligations to balance. Senator Alex White is a former producer with RTE and I look forward with interest to hearing what he might say on this amendment if he speaks on it. There has been a repeated failure on the part of our public service broadcaster to ensure objective and impartial programming.
The Minister said on Second Stage that he was promoting a light regulatory touch and he sought to reassure us that fines would not be too punitive in certain situations. However, the possibility of financial penalties where there is a failure to comply with broadcasting duties, including the issue of balance, needs to be examined.
Only in the past couple of weeks there were debates on stem cell research and same sex parenting and those debates were not balanced. Whatever one might think of the issues, where one introduces a real life, emotionally wrenching story and then tries to have a two person interview, supposedly to debate the intellectual dimension when the emotional agenda has already been set, is a very subtle kind of agenda setting and I do not care whether it is the liberal or conservative side of the debate which is on the losing end on any occasion. It should not happen.
My amendment would require a very explicit commitment not only to fairness and objective and impartial programming but a guarantee of balance. In considering this amendment, will the Minister consider the precise mechanism under which this commitment to balance would be brought about and more thoroughly enforced than has been the case to date?
Senator David Norris: What constitutes an advertisement on radio, for example, with these soothsayers, fortune tellers and so on? Sometimes they will say that if one wants to telephone the programme, one should telephone a particular number. Is that an advertisement? We need to look at this issue. I am a little concerned about people who are moulted for large sums of money. However, I believe that is already handled and we may be using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
I am slightly concerned that Senator Mullen appeared to say it did not matter if people accessed gambling and other channels if they paid for them.
Senator Rónán Mullen: No. I will clarify that.
Senator David Norris: That would seem to sell out the principle regarding the sex channels and telephone lines as well.
I use the word "ideological" and do not see anything wrong with it. It is a neutral word. "Ideological" could be used as a word in a negative fashion but it need not necessarily be. To say that an item is ideological means that it is formed as a result of a systematically formulated response to a situation and it may well be in concert with other people's ideas and so on. I do not necessarily believe it is always a bad thing. Certain positions I would take could be described as "ideological" but it does not mean they are inappropriate or incorrect. I would certainly espouse a left-wing ideology, and I am utterly unashamed of that.
Unfortunately, I have not observed the nudging and winking nuns to which Senator Mullen referred nor have I had the pleasure of seeing the various referendum phenomena which he apparently viewed from outer space. I have not been there so I do not know whether they are visible from outer space.
In regard to amendment No. 33, the business of balance is a moot one. It is important things are objective and impartial but sometimes this notion of balance can be abused just as much as the question of impartiality. In other words, to give equal weight to an absolutely unsustainable view logically and every other way seems daft. It is this old stuff about there being two people in it or that one is as bad as the other. That is not always the case. I refer to this idea of a kind mechanical balance. I understand the idea of balance but it is covered by impartiality and fairness.
Even in regard to the expression of a broadcaster's view, I agree with Senator Mullen in that it would not matter to me whether it was a right-wing or left-wing view or whether it was ideologically or not ideologically driven. Sometimes it is quite interesting to hear a broadcaster's view. I quite like to hear it and it does not matter whether I agree with him or her. Perhaps this is a weakness in my argument but I would probably agree with most of the people who come to my mind straightway. It would be a pity not to have the views of people like Robert Fisk or Tony Benn or people of interest on the other side aired. I do not see why they should not express their views.
I am happy to hear the expression of a broadcaster's point of view, as long as he flags that is what it is. I do not like the points of view of broadcasters to be presented to me as facts. That is the danger. It is sometimes better for one to be told by a broadcaster "this is my point of view". One can then add a few pinches of salt to what the broadcaster says. If broadcasters were not permitted to express any point of view, it would be terribly bland.
