Sir, - I welcome the statement in your Editorial of June 21st that the criticisms you make there of the manner in which the recent local government referendum was held, are not "intended to question the validity of the case being pursued against RTE" in the judicial review by the Supreme Court of my complaint about the allocation of political party broadcasts in referendums.
There are, however, some inaccuracies in your Editorial's reference to this case. I have not "sought to have the McKenna judgment applied to RTE's coverage of referendums". RTE's coverage of referendums is governed by the provisions of the Broadcasting Acts, which require it to be fair, impartial and objective in its coverage of issues of public controversy and debate, including referendums. RTE claims to achieve such impartiality and objectivity in its general current affairs programming by allocating roughly equal weight and coverage to proponents of different points of view on controversial matters. But in the past RTE has regarded that section of the Broadcasting Act which permits political party broadcasts in referendums, exercises that are partial of their nature, to be a derogation from its general obligation of impartiality.
In the Coughlan case my counsel are contending that RTE's legal obligation of impartiality still applies. That is the crucial difference. In a referendum such impartiality can be achieved through a series of free broadcasts, as the Broadcasting Act itself recognises can be done, whether by political parties or non-party groups, divided roughly equally between the proponents of each side. Alternatively, impartiality and fairness can be achieved if there are no free broadcasts at all, but coverage of the referendum is confined to RTE's general current affairs programmes, where the views of all relevant civic organisations can be put.
Also, it is quite wrong of your Editorial to say that "the referendum process has been further restricted by the Coughlan case". The verdict in this case has not yet been given, and will not be until the case is re-heard by the Supreme Court next month, having been heard for the first time in February last. - Yours, etc., Anthony Coughlan, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy,
Trinity College, Dublin.