Sir, - I welcome the recently reported decision of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission (BCC) in upholding part of my complaint, and I accept, of course, its decision on the other elements. My complaint had been in relation to the performance of Messrs Bowman, Browne and Byrne in the conduct of three particular interviews during the Presidential election campaign, and the adequacy or existence of systems within RTE for ensuring compliance with Section 18 of the Broadcasting Act.
One of the points at issue, in the context of an election very largely fought out in the studios of RTE, was the absence of some means of ensuring that the public was aware of the personal views of interviewers.
In the case of Vincent Browne, the readers of The Irish Times, at least, were in no doubt as to where he stood, and so could judge his interviews in that light. According to his article on August 20th, 1997, Dana (Rosemary Scallon) was an anti-abortion "fundamentalist", whom it would be "very unhealthy" to have as President. Like everyone else, broadcasters have their personal views and are entitled to them. Notwithstanding his view, he felt that her candidacy would be beneficial, in that it would offer an opportunity "for the discussion and elucidation of the values of political liberalism".
But what of non-Irish Times readers, and what of the personal views of the other two interviewers? The BCC held that RTE was not obliged (emphasis mine) to inform the public of the personal views of broadcasters, and that the obligation to perform their duties in an objective and impartial manner was not infringed on the Late Late Show of October, 17th or on Questions and Answers of October 6th, the two other broadcasts complained of.
The media, of which RTE is a part, has been properly assiduous in calling for proper ethical standards, including transparency, openness and accountability, in public life. As a result, we have the greatly beneficial Freedom of Information Act, We also have a requirement that persons serving on public boards declare their interests, and that their declarations are accessible to the public.
However, in the case of RTE, we have the irony that a register of interests exists for the board of RTE, but that nothing similar exists for its vastly more influential broadcasting and support staff. The BCC, like the courts, has to take the law as it stands.
Without prejudice to the decisions in this case, which I fully respect, I think this is a matter that should be rectified. In my view, people are entitled to know and so be in a position to judge for themselves, whether or not there is objectivity and fair treatment. It should not be left to management alone to evaluate.
In this respect, at the least, the law should be changed, as a first step to bringing the public service broadcaster into line with some of the standards that the media, rightly, expects of others in public life. - Yours, etc., Donal O'Driscoll,
Dargle Road, Blackrock, Co Dublin.
