I welcome the opportunity to engage with Senators in a debate on the important issue of broadcasting standards. I am sure it is influenced by the public debate that has been ignited in recent weeks with regard to certain radio broadcasting events on the neighbouring island and in our own television broadcasting environment. It is right and proper for us as politicians to review broadcasting standards. In a sense, however, it is dangerous for politicians to veer into talking about comedy, which in itself is a serious business. It is difficult to refer to it because, by its nature, comedy should be at the expense of politicians so we should take it lightly and enjoy the mockery or wit that might be applied to us. However, we have an interest in the quality of broadcasting in our country. We also have an interest in supporting structures and standards that make comedy easier and that, while it might throw light and humour into our lives, does not cause harm or offence. It is a difficult area because when one starts to lay down codes for what may be moral issues and defining exactly what is harmful, one is into difficult waters.
Some of the great moral and religious leaders would have breached all the codes as they smashed up a temple full of money changers. I am sure that would have gone against a code or two, so we have to be careful. I am very much taken by Patrick Kavanagh's view of God and the devil. He said that when he met God the Father in the street, the adjectives by which he described Him are:
amusing, experimental, irresponsible about frivolous things. He was not a man who would be appointed to a board, nor impress a bishop or a gathering of art lovers.
As a Cavan man, Senator O'Reilly will enjoy Kavanagh's description of meeting the devil, using the adjectives:
solemn, boring, conservative. He was a man the world would appoint to a board. He would be on the list of invitees for a bishop's garden party.
When we delve into some of the issues concerning truth and humour, we should always take Kavanagh's descriptions to heart.
Comedy is particularly different because, by its nature, it has to take risks and stretch the boundaries of people's credulity and understanding. I am taken by a quote from Woody Allen who knows something about comedy. In "Crimes and Misdemeanours", he states: "If it bends it's comedy and if it breaks it's tragedy." That may be an interesting quote with which to start our debate. It is difficult for us to define or set rules or codes as to what is or is not proper comedy. I imagine that it is incredibly difficult for broadcasters to make such decisions on a day-to-day basis, but that is their task. Rather than the first test being made on the basis of some legislative, legal or political code, it should probably be one of simple awareness — is that comedy funny or is it embarrassing? That may be a simple test of whether comedy is working.
I suppose broadcasters can only get to that stage when they have a sense of their own self-awareness and can reflect in a proper manner on what they are doing. It is not done on the basis of a code or what the establishment or anyone else thinks, but a simple human test, asking whether the material is cringe-making or adding to humour and our understanding of life. That is a difficult matter to legislate for or to proscribe, but it is real. It is threatened in a range of instances in broadcasting by other instincts, which can get in the way of such simple self-awareness. It can be distorted by commercialism where the instinct to make a profit through increased advertising might include using shock tactics to get an audience.
In the end, however, one might not hold that audience if, based on human instinct, the dividing line is crossed between material that is amusing or that makes one cringe. I imagine, however, that broadcasters must use self-awareness to separate themselves from that commercial instinct and the real quality of what they are doing. They must separate themselves from a current culture — what Andy Warhol called "everyone's 15 minutes of fame" — and the desire to get on television or radio. In modern circumstances, that culture could be used by a broadcaster, with such a widespread availability of technology, to use people on television. While it might fulfil a short-term interest in being on radio or television, in the end it is cringe-making in the way it uses its subject for programming.
Sometimes there can be mock outrage in our broadcasting system because it is easier to sell on a short-term basis, but it does not meet the self-awareness test that I believe any good editorial team must apply in making programmes. The real questions must be asked by editorial production teams, rather than by the up-front creative talent, including presenters. It is they who provide the check against the natural fluctuations in quality of a performer or artist. It is ultimately up to the broadcasting companies themselves to provide a further editorial check on the talent of a broadcaster. I do not mean they should act as a censor before the event because broadcasters must be given the freedom to attack the establishment rather than attacking some other establishment that has had its day. It is appropriate for us to allow those broadcasters act independently in the management of self-censorship on the basis of honest self-awareness rather than a board of any broadcasting authority trying to apply censorship in advance of an editorial decision being made.
Structures are being strengthened. The Broadcasting Authority Bill is a Seanad Bill which will establish a new broadcasting authority. This new authority is the appropriate vehicle for the after-the-fact checks on broadcasting standards which we may wish to apply to broadcasting. The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland was established in September 2001. In January 2005 it introduced a code governing advertising aimed at children. In March 2005 it introduced access codes which regulate access for people with disabilities such as audio or other sensory disabilities. The advertising code was introduced in April 2007. Crucially, the programme standards code was also introduced in April 2007 and it applies to all broadcasters in the State, both public and independent. This code deals with a range of issues regarding the treatment of children, whether due care has been exercised in the production of programmes and what are commonly referred to as taste and decency issues which in the future will be referred to as harm and offence issues. This code will arbitrate on whether a programme has been harmful or offensive to its audience and this audience perspective will be taken into account. It deals with violence and a number of other issues which would fit appropriately under the programming standards codes. These codes will be brought within the remit of the new broadcasting authority of Ireland. We will be seeking new codes to apply to standards of impartiality innews and current affairs, such as regulation of party political broadcasting. Those standards and codes exist although they cannot ultimately provide the real day-to-day test and measure which any commissioning editor must apply as to whether a programme is truly adding to or detracting from our store of human wit and wisdom. Structures are currently in place for recourse in the case of complaint about a broadcast. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission acts within the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. The public has the right to make complaints about specific programming and seek redress. One of the advances set out in the Broadcasting Bill is the evolution of that system of complaint which will be managed by the compliance committee of the new authority. I am trying to introduce real flexibility into the system. Rather than a loss of broadcasting licence being a sanction against a breach of a code, we are looking for graded measures in conjunction with fines in order that the authority has an interim measure to apply rather than the revocation of a licence as a sanction against a breach of standards.
I refer to the introduction in the new legislation of a right of reply scheme whereby the public will have the right to write to broadcasters requesting a right of reply should they have been damaged by a particular comment. If this is not acceptable to the broadcaster, the compliance committee will adjudicate in that regard and make directions accordingly to the broadcaster.
I believe the structures already in place will be able to ensure the highest quality programming for the Irish audience. This system of programming standards must be flexible enough to allow a modern-day Paddy Kavanagh who offended many persons in his day around Baggot Street and wider, or to allow the comedian who is willing to say something that may outrage some but presents a real truth which is badly needed to be told. At the same time a regulatory system is needed to provide some sanction if broadcasters continually or systematically lose the trust of their audience. In my view, no broadcaster benefits from being harmful and offensive to its audience. The crucial aspect is a certain sense of self-awareness in a broadcaster as to whether something is either genuinely witty or else cringing. The ultimate test must be based on a knowledge of the audience and that respect for the audience surely must be the fundamental basis upon which any quality broadcaster survives. If a broadcaster loses that sense of understanding and respect for the audience, it will in the end lose that audience and this would be the final sanction which rightly should apply to any broadcaster.
