From top: Graham Linehan and Helen Linehan; The couple on the Ray’ D’Arcy show on Radio One, October 19, 2015; Dr Julien Mercille

Talk of ‘balance’ is usually used to push the media further toward the conservative end of the spectrum.

Dr Julien Mercille writes:

Last week, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) upheld a complaint against RTÉ’s The Ray D’Arcy Show over an interview on abortion.

In October, Ray D’Arcy interviewed the creator of Father Ted, Graham Linehan, and his wife Helen. The couple talked about their decision to have an abortion because their foetus had a fatal abnormality.

Two people made formal complaints to the BAI that the show was not “balanced” because anti-abortion views were not given enough weight.

It’s not the first time such complaints were made.

This brings up again the issue of “balance” in journalism. Do we need it? Should it be something that is measured by an authority like that BAI, with powers to sanction broadcasters that do not balance their shows with two opposing viewpoints when an issue is discussed?

In Ireland, those matters are regulated by the BAI’s Code of Fairness, Impartiality and Objectivity that draws on the Broadcasting Act 2009.

It is stipulated that broadcasters must present news in a way that is “impartial”, “independent” and “objective”. In other words, when a viewpoint is presented, it needs to be balanced with an opposing view.

However, it is not difficult to show that such rules are completely misplaced. The job of journalists is not to report in a “balanced” way—it’s to report the truth, as far as possible.

Think about it. Imagine RTÉ broadcasts a one-hour show on World War 2 and insisted on the inclusion of 30-minutes on the pro-Nazi view.

Or, during a hour-long show on nature, do we need 30 minutes about creationism so that we are told how the Bible understands the evolution of species to provide “balance” to the scientific consensus on evolution? It doesn’t make any sense to me.

Opposite viewpoints should be presented when there is a legitimate debate to be had on a given topic, but that’s in cases where the truth is disputed or murky.

In any case, there’s no balance at all in the media. It presents mostly viewpoints that reflect the interests of economic and political elites. This is why it was strongly pro-austerity and never bothered questioning the housing bubble seriously.

And by the way, you don’t need to be a so-called “radical” to observe this. Journalist Pat Leahy said not so long ago in the Sunday Business Post exactly the same.

He wrote:

“Newspaper proprietors are usually rich men whose chief political agenda is to see governments make the world safe for rich men to become richer.”

But the BAI won’t hold the media to account because it doesn’t present enough progressive viewpoints. In fact, talk of “balance” is usually used to push the media further toward the conservative end of the spectrum.

In any case, two other issues are rather outrageous about the Broadcasting Act 2009. It states that broadcasters should not present anything (1) that “undermine[s] the authority of the State” or (2) anything that is “likely to promote, or incite to, crime”.

The first is beyond belief.

It amounts to saying that broadcasters cannot challenge what the State does (sure, you’ll hear all sorts of denials that “no, journalists can still challenge the government”, but just read the line above again, it’s plainly obvious).

So here the whole rhetoric of “an aggressive media holding the government into account” crumbles. It’s amazing that the State is arrogant enough to state explicitly that it doesn’t allow journalists to challenge it.

The second is also dangerous when one considers that what is deemed “legal” and “illegal” is in many respects decided by the powerful.

The implications are revealing. It means, for example, that the media cannot promote abortion, since it is a crime in Ireland. It cannot either promote illegal drugs, I suppose. Nor can it promote any form of civil disobedience such as challenging the water charges.

Sure, you’ll hear that in practice, we do hear all sorts of views about abortion and illegal drugs. But the principle that the media must uphold the law across the board is very revealing about the sheepish character that is expected of journalists.

In short, codes of conduct like the BAI’s have a chilling effect on media organisations and journalists who would like to take a more dissenting stance toward the establishment.

Julien Mercille is a lecturer at University College Dublin. Follow him on Twitter: @JulienMercille

Top Pic: Brian Lawless/PA Wire