January marks 150 years since the US House of Representatives passed the historic 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, a defining political achievement for President Abraham Lincoln.
Cast under an enlightened 21st century lens, the opposing arguments cry of oblivious inequality and exploitation by entitlement. While the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage in Ireland is an inexact and emotive parallel, it has been described by former tánaiste Eamon Gilmore as the civil rights issue of this generation.
The broadcast treatment of this polarising subject is, in itself, contentious and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland is on the defensive about recent decisions. BAI chief executive Michael O’Keeffe wrote ambiguously in this paper on December 10th that “while there may be some instances where balance may be required, an automatic requirement for balance is considered unnecessary and inappropriate by the authority.
“Indeed the authority has consistently expressed the view that the application of such an artificial balance can, in and of itself, amount to a lack of fairness in certain circumstances.” It is a pity that he did not elaborate on what these instances or circumstances might be. The relationship between decisions by the BAI Compliance Committee and the codes upon which they are based is analogous to the relationship between case law and statute. As broadcasters, we must be conscious not only of the provisions within the codes but of the implications of decisions relating to them. That the BAI has upheld two complaints in quick succession concerning the marriage equality debate has understandably heightened the anxiety of programme-makers in how they approach the subject in future.
Both decisions concentrated on the role of the presenter. In its November finding against Newstalk Breakfast, the compliance committee opined “that the statement by one of the presenters that he would vote in favour of any forthcoming referendum on marriage equality and his stated impatience with not being able to vote immediately constitutes the statement of a partisan position by a news and current affairs presenter on a matter of current public debate”.
The principle underlying the relevant rule is commendable in that it seeks to avert the type of one-sided commentary and distorted narratives that pervade the media in some other jurisdictions. Its flaw emerges once the rule is applied in practical scenarios and followed to its logical conclusion. For instance, human trafficking is a modern form of slavery, one that is the subject of public debate. If a presenter, in the course of an interview with an NGO such as Ruhama, expresses support for their efforts and hopes that trafficking can be eliminated, this is a partisan position on a matter of news and current affairs. The reasonable view is that no sanction should apply as opposing arguments would be contrary to individual liberty and human rights.
If a partisan position is justified in certain circumstances, could it be warranted in a matter acknowledged as a civil rights issue? While there is a logic to many arguments about marriage rights, the issue also tests our ethical convictions and these are entirely subjective.
I may be a radio presenter but I am first and foremost a person, one with a network of family, friends and colleagues, some of whom are gay. My personal view is that a moral society should not afford superior rights to one set of consenting adults over another in matters of love. I will neither abandon my conscience at the door of the studio nor will I lie by omission to listeners who are perfectly capable of forming their own opinions. I do not propose to obstruct contributors who oppose the referendum, only to be honest in my position and how it may colour my approach. This is prohibited under a BAI code that lists transparency among its core principles.
If Abraham Lincoln was embarking in his efforts today, how would broadcasters be required to treat the 13th Amendment? Would the BAI insist that proponents of slavery be afforded a platform for their views? Would broadcasters be sanctioned for speaking in favour of abolition? How will we be judged on this debate 150 years from now? Will Faulkner presents The Midlands Today Show on Midlands 103 and is the recipient of a bronze award for PPI Speech Broadcaster of the Year