Broadcasting proposals - Objectivity clause is a Trojan horse

There is a certain irony in the fact that in the very week that Margaret Thatcher died, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland announced it is to ask the Government to legislate to make a register of financial interests for radio or television presenters mandatory so any conflict of interest might be avoided.

The broadcasting authority also wants, in a new code on “fairness and objectivity”, to preclude broadcasters expressing any opinions in a current affairs debate, reducing them to some sort of silent, deferential eunuchs directing studio traffic.

Thatcher, admire her or loathe her, changed our world because she had the courage of her convictions and the energy to try to have them made real by changing the policies she opposed.

Her driving force was belief. And belief is the driving force behind all good, worthwhile journalism, be it broadcast, printed or online. Expressed in its simplest form, that belief can be articulated as an absolute commitment to the truth. And belief is expressed, advanced and defended through opinion, objective or otherwise. Even by spiky, irreverent broadcasters.

The BAI may not expect a broadcaster to sit like a nodding dog inside the rear window of a car when, say, Bertie Ahern tells them that he won the money on the horses, but it is more than likely that any “fairness and objectivity” muzzle would be used by individuals to challenge, to silence or at least undermine their interrogators. What a wonderful way for anyone caught in the spotlight to find the sanctuary they crave.

Does the authority have the capacity to rule on such a subjective challenge or the disputed facts of such a challenge, or is a new layer of constraint being introduced, albeit inadvertently?

Undoubtedly, the BAI has the highest of objectives but, as the consequences of the disastrous, terribly wrong RTÉ Prime Time programme on Fr Kevin Reynolds shows, the system as it now stands, revised and stronger, is more than capable of controlling itself.

This proposal is doubly worrying as it might be seen as the second half of a pincer movement initiated by management at Independent News and Media where it is proposed that “sustained or repeated adversarial editorial material concerning individuals or organisations will only be maintained on the basis of justification in the public interest with the written approval of the managing editor”. That means no cage rattling without the approval of a management team dominated by Denis O’Brien’s representatives. The BAI may not have intended to become Mr O’Brien’s dancing partner but that is a consequence of their proposals.

There is a certain preposterousness to the proposals too, standing as they do like King Canute trying to hold back the great tsunami of online commentary, some of it vile, some of it occasionally accurate, but none of it constrained by “fairness and objectivity” clauses.

The phrase “light touch regulation” was used to define some of the many failings that destroyed this country and it would be a terrible pity if we endorsed light touch broadcasting without considering it in the very coldest light. It would be far better to rely on the professionalism, honesty and plain decency of the great majority of broadcasters working in this country, especially as it is already very easy to silence those who misuse their position to betray that great trust.