I welcome the delegations from Independent Broadcasters of Ireland and RTE and thank them for being with us. I remind witnesses that guests who are not members of the sub-committee do not have absolute privilege, which extends to the sub-committee.
Discussion with IBI and RTE.
Mr. Willie O’Reilly
I thank the sub-committee for the opportunity to come here this morning. First I will tell the sub-committee who we are. I represent the members of Independent Broadcasters of Ireland. We represent two national radio stations, four regional radio stations and 27 local radio stations. I think members would agree we have the ears of the Irish public, with 63% of the population tuning in to an independent radio station on a daily basis.
Ireland's membership of the European Union has been a vital part of our coming of age as a country. It has been an immensely positive part of our lives as a people. Over the past 35 years the European Union has become an integral part of our capacity as a country. I see, in a personal way, the narrative beginning somewhere around independence, following through to our becoming a Republic, our accession to the EEC and then the EU. The question now is: where do we go next?
I do not want to underestimate what was achieved in the 50 years before we joined the EEC. I do not subscribe to the revisionism that consigns to a black hole in history the considerable achievements of the founders of the State. We recall with pride that Ireland established an enduring democracy against the backdrop of a European continent almost divided entirely at one time or another between the opposing forces of fascism and communism. Our institutions endured; we have enjoyed in Europe the longest period of continuity under a written and democratic constitution. It is arguable that the robustness of our constitutional system, as illustrated in the Crotty v. An Taoiseach case, is the nub of the problem in our interaction as an independent state with a closely integrated, almost federalist international system.
The third aspect of the sub-committee's work covers the principal issues of our engagement and understanding of the European Union. I put it bluntly to the sub-committee that our engagement and understanding are poor. I ask the Chairman to indulge me while I ask members how many of them have good competency in another language, excluding English and Irish? I put myself in the same set. If I went to the Dutch, Swedish, French or Dutch Parliaments, I would get a different result. Perhaps this is an issue to be considered.
The core of Irish citizenship is responsibility. This is something for which we must bear considerable responsibility. Irish people take a considerable interest in politics, yet there is no commensurate interest in, or knowledge of, the European Union. This was clearly highlighted in the recent Eurobarometer report, in which 46% of respondents said they had little or no sense of attachment to the Union, while 6% felt this way about their attachment to Ireland. If being Irish is the crucial indicator, 59% of Irish people rejected the offered degree of European identity and adopted an exclusively Irish identity. This was second only to the frequency in Britain, at 63%. While the European Union is deeply ingrained in our governance at home and our modus operandi abroad, the Irish people may be in the Union but are not of it. It is not part of the Irish self-identity, we have external association in our own interests.
There are many reasons for this. We have largely been apart from the common history and shared memories that bind so many continental Europeans. Another reason is that the business of the European Union is conducted in a lingo that is equally foreign in every spoken language. Part of the reason for this is that the lingo is conducted by an elite group of public servants. I refer to elite not in a disparaging way but to praise them. The people concerned have been a cadre that was genuinely outstanding in the representation of Ireland's interests. However, their focus was on representing Ireland's interest in the EU system rather than representing or explaining the European Union to the Irish people. As civil servants, that perspective is understandable but they are guilty of perpetuating a lingo of Eurobabble that does their work no service.
There is a democratic deficit at the heart of the European Union. It operates largely behind closed doors and the lack of traction with the daily concerns of ordinary people has taken a cumulative toll in terms of its popular regard. The steps in front of us are to bring the European Union back to first principles and put everything it does in plain language that is easily understandable.
Ireland voted to join the European Union to serve its own national interests and the Union remains vital to every Irish citizen. This must be spelled out in ways directly and personally relevant to people through the media and idiom they use. The Single Market, with 500 million people, offers a lifeline to every job in the country. As an island nation with a negligible domestic market, we must export to survive. Our pupil-teacher ratio, medical card scheme and State revenues to build roads and infrastructure are inextricably linked with our capacity to successfully exploit our economic opportunities in the European Union.
It is our place in the European Union that attracted so many American companies to establish here. The European Union is a no-brainer for Ireland and Irish people but the basic facts need to be explained a lot more clearly and a lot more often in terms and in a language that people can understand. Ireland has a vital interest and even a selfish interest, and individually we have a real personal interest, in ensuring Ireland remains at the heart of Europe.
I am in the media business. From a media perspective, local content will always drive the content of local radio stations and in a national perspective, local national news is what drives our content. There needs to be local content or at least a very clearly explained local relevance as well as both real knowledge and passion from credible spokespersons. This has largely been absent. Explaining the European Union is like anything else that is regarded as everybody's job, unfortunately it ends up being nobody's job. The promotion of the European Union needs to be driven by local and European politicians as well as by other knowledgeable champions and not just through the European Commission and the European Parliament offices. Functionaries cannot drive public debate; they seldom have the skills and they usually do not have the mandate either.
I was looking for an example to try to bring my points to life and I know of one which was on our doorstep only last week. A very good example was when Margot Wallström, the Vice President of the European Commission, visited Ireland last week. The members will not be unaware that she was on the Irish media quite a lot. She was on Matt Cooper's programme and she went head to head with Mary Lou McDonald on "Morning Ireland". She was given excellent radio news coverage. She was passionate about Europe and she had first-hand knowledge and experience of other countries and not just a single focus on Ireland. She engaged the audience and she was really on top of her subject. The European Union needs more spokespersons like Margot Wallström. As a broadcaster I can tell the committee that what the EU needs are credible, informed and enthusiastic spokespersons who can explain their case in a way that is both locally relevant and personally relevant for a listening audience.
I thank Mr. O'Reilly and I now invite representatives from RTE to make a presentation.
Mr. Cillian de Paor
I will speak on behalf of the delegation. My colleagues include Mr. Michael Good who is the managing editor of radio news. I am the managing editor of television news and our colleague, Carolyn Fisher, is here to support us in our efforts to answer the committee's questions.
I focused in my short notes on the issues arising from the Lisbon treaty debate and the difficulties and issues involved in covering it. Providing appropriate and understandable coverage of the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign proved to be a significant challenge for RTE. Since Ireland's accession to the EEC, RTE has been committed to providing trustworthy, comprehensive and impartial coverage of European affairs and has invested considerable resources to achieve this, including maintaining bureaux in both London and Brussels. In addition, several of our most eminent journalists have worked in Brussels covering the EU and its institutions as well as the wider field of European affairs. In the past, Eamonn Lawlor and Tommie Gorman have worked there and currently two of our most senior correspondents are based there, Seán Whelan as our Europe editor and Tony Connolly as RTE's Europe correspondent.
European stories feature regularly in our television and radio bulletins and programming. In the six months leading up to the referendum, there were more than 50 items on the "Six One News" on that issue. We also produce a monthly television programme based on the sittings of the European Parliament.
From early in 2008, RTE began to cover the emerging debate on Lisbon. "Morning Ireland", "News at One", "Drivetime", "Prime Time", "Questions and Answers", "The Week in Politics" and the six o'clock and nine o'clock news all dealt regularly with the subject even before the campaign commenced. Once the referendum was announced, we covered the individual announcements and controversies of the campaign in news, but RTE also tried to improve the amount of easily digestible information available to the public through a special website, a "Prime Time" special and, in particular, by the use of our Europe editor, Seán Whelan, as an analyst to explain the issues at stake, most notably in a series on "Morning Ireland".
The complexities of the treaty were such that unlike any previous referendum facing Irish voters, it was not based on one single issue nor was there one simple answer to give. In addition, the start of the campaign was overshadowed by the sudden resignation of the previous Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, in early May and the election of Brian Cowen. While party leaders met to join forces to support the treaty on 9 May and the Taoiseach launched the Fianna Fáil campaign for a "Yes" vote on 12 May, impetus had been lost and voters were still unsure about much of its content during the remaining weeks before polling day.
The treaty addressed many issues and it was a difficult document to explain to our audience. The Taoiseach and the European Commissioner, Mr. Charlie McCreevy, both declared that they had not read the treaty document in its entirety. Some of the issues debated hotly did not seem to be part of the treaty. Those campaigning for a "No" vote argued against the treaty from several different and distinct perspectives. This caused RTE some difficulty in structuring debates because there were tensions in the "No" groupings as to which of them should appear on particular programmes. Similarly, the "Yes" campaign, while backed by the majority of the parties represented in Dáil Éireann, was affected by different campaign strategies and tensions between the parties.
The posters for the "Yes" campaign focused very much on individual politicians and parties, while the "No" campaign posters focused on single issues. This made it difficult for voters to follow the reasoning behind the Government's campaign to vote "Yes". In a pre-referendum, interactive and special "Prime Time" broadcast on 10 June questions from viewers were catalogued under five distinct headings — taxation, neutrality, militarisation, solidarity and health. This highlights the complexities of the issues involved considering we were only asked to vote "Yes" or "No".
As polling day approached, RTE news and current affairs programming had multiple reports on the referendum, as well as comprehensive information on its specially created website. However, there were simply too many issues and red herrings on both sides of the campaign to provide clear coverage at times.
On the day of the referendum result RTE provided comprehensive coverage on radio, television, Internet, mobile and Aertel channels. From a news perspective, this story always suffered from over-complexity and from the late start for a debate that often wandered far from the core issues of the treaty. There was perhaps too much reliance from the main political parties on the argument that the European Union was good for Ireland without sufficiently explaining to the public the reasons. The "No" arguments were sharper and easier to communicate. The "Yes" camp seemed to spend much of the campaign explaining, refuting and defending.
I thank the delegations for giving the views of the media on this matter.
Every politician is aware the media are crucial in transmitting information in an election or referendum campaign. Mr. O'Reilly is correct that Ms Margot Wallström, Vice President of the European Commission, was an attractive interviewee in the manner in which she could express an opinion on a variety of issues in succinct and coherent language. Do the media, however, have a responsibility to decipher European jargon? By and large, politicians can decipher complex legislative and financial jargon and are able to do an interview, whether it is at local, national or European level, without using it. The media, on the other hand, seemed not to be willing to engage in the difficult task of interpreting the Lisbon treaty. It is a two-way business. It was a referendum on an important issue. Could more responsibility have been taken by the media to get across the nub of the issue in plain language? In other words, could it have provided information as distinct from carrying interviews reflecting what politicians said?
RTE did not do a good job during the referendum campaign. It is crucial in the media, particularly as it is the public service broadcaster. As director of the Labour Party campaign and spokesperson on European affairs, I found it difficult to get RTE interested in covering anything we did substantially. Any time we tried such a launch automatically coverage was also given to someone from the "No" side, contradicting what we said or stating the opposite. The idea of fair and impartial broadcasting seemed to be taken to an extreme that was not necessary and did not make for a fair presentation of the case.
The issue of workers' rights was the most important in the reasons people voted "No" as identified by Millward Brown. The Labour Party had no opportunity to debate the issue, although it obviously expects to have a particular remit in this regard. I am referring to RTE. We were concerned to ensure it dealt with the matter in a fair and impartial fashion.
Was the breakdown in airtime distribution under the Coughlan judgment fair? Why did Fianna Fáil have double the amount of time Fine Gael received? Why did Sinn Féin have double the amount of time the Labour Party received? Why did Libertas have double the amount of time the Labour Party received? The figure for Sinn Féin in terms of political representation here is 2.5%. Libertas is an organisation established by a private businessman with lots of money specifically to promote the "No" side. Why should Ms Patricia McKenna and Mr. Joe Higgins, for example, together receive 50% more time than the Labour Party? The figure for poor old Roger Cole of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance is only 3%. It seems the distribution of airtime under the terms of the judgment was haphazard.
I would like to know how RTE conducted its business in this regard. Has it undertaken an independent audit of airtime distribution? I would have thought there would be a better presentation by RTE . We should remember that the original case taken by Mr. Coughlan was about political broadcasts and that the Broadcasting Act requires RTE to be fair and impartial, not just to give equal time. We should also remember that it was a referendum, not just a debate with two sides slogging away at each other. There is a public broadcasting and information remit. Programmes that would have been interesting to the public, presented, as Mr. O'Reilly has said, in plain language with a strong visual content, were not broadcast until the very end of the campaign. The only such presentations were made in one or two "Prime Time" programmes. Some work was also done by Mr. Seán Whelan. All in all, it was not RTE's finest hour. As director of elections and spokesperson for the Labour Party, I was invited to participate in a debate on just one of the programmes referred to. I was never invited to debate any of the issues that concerned the Labour Party. I would like a more elaborate and clear statement on how RTE conducted its business during the six-month period in which the referendum took place.
Mr. Willie O’Reilly
I will take up two points mentioned by Deputy Costello. One concerns the Coughlan judgment. I was in this chamber only last week speaking extensively on this issue. The high point, as I said, was that there seemed to be, prima facie, a conflict between the Coughlan judgment and the responsibility of journalists which they take seriously to be fair and impartial.
The template taken in the independent sector is "that what takes place at election time" and the stopwatch had ruled the airwaves. I also said I was very uncomfortable with it. I realise this is a shortcoming — I am coming to it afterwards — but we were not to know the events that were to take place. The majority of political parties were aligned on one side and on the other was a vacuum which was filled by a charismatic person who was feted in the media and whose reverberating and simple sentences and positions gained traction with the public.
I was questioning last week if we are happy with the system as it operated the last time. We have to ask ourselves some questions about it. The kernel of the issue seems to be that in the division of time on a 50:50 basis between the "Yes" and "No" sides, no weight is given to the position of elected representatives. They have gone before the people and have a mandate. They have been elected, scrutinised and audited. On the other side we have people who filled the vacuum in one sense, some of whom had previously been elected. Sinn Féin has elected representatives. In terms of the Lisbon treaty referendum, could there not be better representation of the weight of elected people on each side? This happens in Portugal, where they have taken this factor into account. The chairman of the committee asked last week that information should be brought forward from the BCI as to how it is handled in Portugal.
On the question of whether we could do more to explain, from an independent radio perspective, we could. However, it is incumbent on politicians in their conversation and in public debate to make European affairs come alive. We have to be careful not to be self-regarding all the time. If all our headlines in every news bulletin lead with road accidents, newsworthy local content as it may be, there is an absence of the broader perspective. How often do our news stories lead with European issues? We seem to get more excited about what happens on the New York stock exchange and in America generally than what happens to the nearest neighbours, with whom we have an umbilical link. We probably could do more but we need to engage at a higher level and bring these stories to life.
Mr. Cillian de Paor
Deputy Costello made a series of statements about RTE's coverage. The election steering group, which runs our election coverage at a broad level, did a post-mortem of our coverage after the results came out. Several conclusions were drawn. On the whole we were happy that, within the broad limits we faced, we had done a reasonable job in covering this referendum. We covered it reasonably comprehensively in news. I will deal separately with individual packages and so on. We had taken seriously the role of explaining to the public and had tried several mechanisms to achieve this. I refer to the role of Seán Whelan, whom we brought back from Brussels for a few weeks to use as a studio analyst to explain detail, rather than using him as a reporter where he could add a polished sentence here and there.
Deputy Costello's first point was that it was quite hard to get producers or programme makers interested in the debate at an early stage. That is possibly true. It is often difficult to sell stories to producers, not just European stories. There can be good and bad reasons for that. One of the reasons in this case was that the complexity of the issue made it difficult for the producer thinking of his next programme to translate it into a simple story to tell the public.
One of the ways in which we used Seán Whelan was to talk about the issues to our own people at internal seminars. We had to explain it to ourselves first. We then tried to devise certain programme strategies to get this across.
The "Prime Time" programme was mentioned. There were a number of items done on "Morning Ireland" and on "Six One", which are high audience programmes where we would hope to get the basic information about the treaty to a general audience. We also put a lot of resources into a comprehensive website which, I am happy to say, is up for an award for its coverage of Lisbon. Among other things, we narrated the entire text of the treaty. If you wished to listen to the whole treaty, you could do so on our website, which also allowed for a lot of interaction with the public. At the end of the day, we can only do so much.
Reference has been made to the McKenna and Coughlan judgments. The Coughlan judgment refers specifically to party political broadcasts. The position taken by RTE for some time is that in circumstances where the preponderance of political parties are on one side of an argument, we do not do party political broadcasts. We are not allowed by law to give independent lobby groups party politicals and the overall outcome would be unfair.
The McKenna judgment relates to funding, but the implication is that the Government cannot use public funds to influence a referendum vote. We must fairly present the "Yes" and the "No" side. We cannot fall back on the mandate of the original groups because the mandate is all on one side. Fair coverage would not allow us to give 95% coverage on one side of an argument. We attempt in a broad sense — it is not done with a stopwatch on every item — to give an equal voice to both sides of the argument.
Deputy Costello referred specifically to the workers' rights elements of the treaty, the solidarity clauses. We dealt with them in the course of various broadcasts. One of the problems we had with the complexity of the debate, which was being fought on a number of fronts, some which were in the treaty and some which were not, was the difficulty of maintaining an overall fairness, assigning appropriate spokesmen from either side of the argument to debate with each other in a forum which would be useful to the public, maintaining balance within the two sides of the argument. Political parties all wished to have their share of air time to explain their reasons for supporting or opposing the treaty and a number of groups, notably Libertas, also wished to be involved with the opposing side. It was quite a complicated structure for us.
Bear in mind that this is played out simultaneously across a number of different programmes and media. It was quite difficult to manage. When we went back and looked at the overall figures we were reasonably happy that we had been fair.
I referred to the late start of the campaign proper. A certain number of outings had taken place before that by people who jumped the gun and decided to campaign against Europe before the campaign was formally announced. A little bit of catch up had to take place at the beginning.
One of the lessons we drew from the complexity of dealing with a lot of media outputs at the same time was that we should have an editorial co-ordinator specifically for future referendum campaigns, somebody who would take account of the kinds of arguments made as to who is the appropriate person to appear where, or telling producers that they cannot do an interview with a certain person because that person has been on two other programmes and it would be more appropriate to use a third party. The editorial co-ordinator would try to draw together the many strands of our coverage in a way that makes sense and provides the best service we can to the public.
Reference was made to the Labour Party launch and the fact that a countervailing view was placed in the same news story. That is so.
More than once.
Mr. Cillian de Paor
More than once — that is so. It was not just to the Labour Party this was done. It was not that everything was being equated with everything else.
The same thing was not done with the "No" launches.
Mr. Cillian de Paor
We tried to deal with everyone equally. I am quite sure mistakes were made but the basic policy was that where an argument was heard, at least a reference should be made to the other side of the argument, not necessarily of equal duration or strength. We attempted to have both sides of the argument on every programme. It cannot be assumed people are watching every programme and will get their fairness of coverage out of 15 programmes when they only watch two. There has to be some reasonable balance locally. We tried to control that in so far as we could but I am sure there were better Sundays than others.
The distribution of air time was not haphazard, I hope. We tried to ensure that it would not be so. In the end, we did not equate all programmes with each other such as not equating the value of a late night programme with a position on the six o'clock news. We tried to have a reasonable amount of each kind of value air time allocated to each side of the argument. More or less we achieved this.
Deputy Costello described the information remit as not our finest hour. I disagree with that. A serious effort was made from an early stage to cover the debate separately and inform the public of what was in the Lisbon treaty. That was not an easy job. I referred to the website and using our best expert on the treaty to talk on as many programmes, as often as was possible, about what the treaty actually, as opposed to allegedly, contained. "Prime Time" was an example of a programme trying to bring it together. I am certain we could have done more but within the timescale we did much. It must also be remembered there were other news stories. That is not to say a referendum on a European issue is not important. However, it is not the only news item and we have to fit in others. In that context, we tried to get as much information out to the public as possible.
Deputy Costello referred to the Millward Brown survey after the referendum. If I recall correctly it found the single largest reason people voted "No" was that they did not understand what was in the treaty.
I was referring to specific findings.
Mr. Cillian de Paor
All of us have a responsibility in that. That 40% of people did not know on the day of a vote what was involved does not reflect well on anyone communicating information in Ireland. Within the period available, RTE did its best.
Has RTE an independent audit done on its distribution of air time for parties and groups to show it was fair and impartial?
Mr. Michael Good
RTE's audit was not independent but was done by the RTE election steering group. Deputy Costello said the air time distribution was random and haphazard. It was anything but. The whole process was carefully monitored and taken very seriously. The audit was done afterwards by RTE and was measured, as Mr. de Paor explained, in terms of a contribution on a programme that has a small audience not necessarily having the same impact as one with a major audience.
There are lessons for all of us in this. I disagree with Deputy Costello that it was not one of RTE's finest hours. It was one of our better days. It was a particularly complex issue to cover for many reasons. The run-in to the referendum was rushed. The issues were so complex that even when the Referendum Commission held a press conference to explain issues, people ended up more confused than they were before. RTE did its damnedest to explain the issues. Sean Whelan did a fantastic job but he was only one of several teams and programmes which gave large coverage during the campaign and in the six months leading up to it.
It was not an easy issue to cover partly because it was so diverse. It was not like a normal referendum where there is an agreed form of words, with one side "For" and the other "Against" with both sides getting balanced coverage. It was very hard to find out what the core issue was because there were five or six of them. Different core issues were important to different people. It meant that in some cases the "No" arguments had great clarity because they were simply one argument, whereas the "Yes" arguments were obviously diverse because they were defending a number of different issues at the same time. We tried our damnedest to do this in as many ways as possible. We tried to inform, to give context, to give background to explain the issues. Seán Whelan did it in a serious way on programmes such as "Morning Ireland", and "Prime Time" did it. We tried to do it in a more general way on the website. I do not know how much members have looked at it, but it was a significant achievement during the campaign and it addressed a completely different audience from the one we normally address. We even did a "News Today" item on it for younger viewers — not people who were necessarily voting yet — and this was to try to bring the issue to as wide a selection of people as possible.
That brings me back to why I take this point seriously. Why, at the end of the whole process, did people still say they did not understand it? I am not sure we could have done that much more to explain it, but we have to look at this very seriously if that is what people say at the end of it. It may simply be that it is too complex an issue and that there will always be confusion unless we can bring more clarity to it. That is not entirely our responsibility. We have a responsibility to explain, to be fair and impartial, and to cover as comprehensively as we can the debate which was taking place on so many different levels between so many different people, but we are not players. It is not up to us to set the agenda or say this is not true or that is not true. We try to report on it as fairly as we can.
I have one more question.
There will be an opportunity at the end.
I welcome Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Good, and Mr. de Paor to the committee.
The issue of language was mentioned. In Ireland, English is an international language, so we are naturally lazy. There is no desire or demand to learn other languages, because we have the key language. However, I feel strongly that children should study foreign languages in the early days of primary school when they will absorb it. This is something the education system needs to address. I agree about our lack of understanding of and interest in Europe. It has been disguised for a political generation because we received funding and we never really had to examine what Europe meant to us. We should remember that we are an island nation, that we have no collective memory of the world wars, and that we have a greater historical association with America. All these things come into play, and it is the same in Britain to a degree, although it is not replicated in total. It is only now, since Nice and since the funding has dried up, that we have started to question our role in Europe. That has only commenced in recent years.
I do not expect the media, or RTE, to fight politicians' battles. I do not necessarily agree with what Deputy Costello said but I can certainly empathise with some aspects of it. There is always some frustration among politicians during any campaign. Something that struck me during the campaign was that when there was a launch or feature on the "Yes" side there was always a "No" that popped out somewhere, whether it was down in Merrion Square or somewhere else, and this did not appear to happen when the "No" side was launching something.
Mr. O'Reilly mentioned that Margot Wallström was on "Morning Ireland" with Sinn Féin recently. Sinn Féin participates in this committee. Ms Wallström was in here for several hours and gave a very good contribution. As far as I can recollect, although I am open to correction on this, there was no Sinn Féin representative at the committee to question her or deal with her. Yet Sinn Féin ended up on "Morning Ireland" with her. The representatives may argue that they are trying to facilitate the "Yes" side and the "No" side, but that can lead to frustration among politicians that slave away at other things such as this committee. I would have thought that one of the first questions to the Sinn Féin representative on "Morning Ireland" would be "What questions did you put to Ms Wallström at the committee?" I know Sinn Féin have smaller numbers than the other parties but it is allowed to send a replacement to the committee. I do not see a Sinn Féin representative here today. These are things that prey on politicians' minds when we think about the media.
I realise the representatives are trying to do a fair job, and they can put down a template for the timing. I must acknowledge that the "Prime Time" specials shown by RTE had a major bearing on the campaign. Before these I thought the "No" side would win in a landslide. They were very informative and very good. The broadcast media have a really important role to play in the Irish understanding of European affairs. People are not motivated to read the print media because it is too difficult. If RTE were to run a series of "specials" on Europe and Lisbon, its advertising revenue would probably be down during that period. That is a challenge for RTE.
It is important to acknowledge the "Prime Time" special. During the campaign I saw many broadcasters let inaccuracies go unchallenged. I appreciate that it is difficult to understand the complexities of any treaty. Is it an issue for RTE that when inaccuracy is presented it goes unchallenged by the presenter? If so, how does one overcome it?
My understanding is that Libertas probably got 50% of the time on the "No" side. How did RTE pick Libertas? Why not Joe Bloggs and my good old friend, Roger Cole? What criteria were applied to put Libertas up there? It was not subject to the scrutiny or analysis that it should have been. All it had was a name, but no one knows the motivation behind the organisation, despite Mr. Ganley's presence here yesterday. If someone gets such access to public media, they should be open to scrutiny.
I am not asking RTE to fight our battles but it would be very helpful to do a documentary on the Lisbon treaty, analysing all the contributions. The Tánaiste, on "Saturday View", made a mistake regarding the number of Commissioners and she repeated that mistake at a press conference. We all know that, yet Mr. Ganley made several inaccurate statements. So did Sinn Féin and Patricia McKenna. Every one of the "No" crowd gave factually inaccurate information. So did my good friend Senator Ross in his newspaper article and Bruce Arnold in The Independent. No one has a difficulty with differences of opinion but I have a difficulty with factual information being misrepresented.
Is there reluctance on the part of the media to go after and analyse other media? We have a classic example today, which I hope will be taken up by RTE, with the claim by Sarah Carey that The Sunday Times did not permit any article or pro-treaty column. No other writer in that paper could write one either. This is the influence of the Murdoch press, the British press, in Ireland. Mr. Fitzgibbon, the Irish editor of The Sunday Times, according to Sarah Carey, prevented her and anyone else from writing an article. That is very important because Mr. Fitzgibbon appears on some broadcast media and should be challenged if he is there as an independent commentator or if he has a definitive agenda. When we as politicians appear we are certainly grilled. It is important that the media should be prepared to look at the role of other sections of the media.
Does RTE think that we on the "Yes" side display a certain arrogance or intolerance, that we are a bit condescending and could be a little more humble in our dealings, that we assume our way is right and that everybody should understand it and have an interest? Does that ever come across?
Mr. Willie O’Reilly
There are a couple of strands there. It is always the responsibility of the presenter or host to represent the views of the other side and by and large we do that quite well. The Deputy is probably referring also to issues around conscription, to which Margot Wallström referred. Her view is that clearly the treaty is not a precursor of conscription. The difficulty in any classical interview is to be categorical about anything. It is all reliant on interpretation. There is a responsibility to achieve balance where there is a one on one interview. That classically took place with us in Today FM when we did an extended interview with the Taoiseach on this issue. The views of the "No" side would have been represented during that interview through Matt Cooper, who would have been responsible for articulating them.
As to why Libertas received so much airtime, that is an interesting question. The people concerned were due coverage. The question was how much. They were articulating a view and we had to give them coverage. Probably because of the amount of political representation on the "Yes" side, there was a vacuum on the other side. The people concerned were willing to fill it and had very simple messages. While the airtime they received might have been substantial, more important was the clarity with which they outlined their position. We know that saying "No" is very clear and they created a challenging environment for elected representatives to work in.
Was there arrogance on the "Yes" side? I do not think so. The truth was that the "Yes" side was unprepared for what happened. It was David against Goliath. Goliath had all the troops massed on one side but what happened was unexpected. Truly, people were unprepared for it.
I realise that the sub-committee is looking at Ireland's future in the European Union, not just going through the recent referendum. Language is a key factor. Language is where it all begins. So many Irish people speak such bad French or German. I have two nephews who live in Amsterdam and every time they get off the aeroplane from Holland they switch straight into English, although it is their second language. They walk around Dublin so confidently. Language is at the heart of it. We have missed a big opportunity by not ensuring Irish people have a better competency in European languages.
Mr. Michael Good
Reference was made to the launch of the "Yes" campaign and the inclusion in that coverage of "No" items. Because all the major political parties were on the one side, there were a lot of "Yes" launches and nothing on the "No" side. That was the reason we used that device. There was not a Libertas launch on the same day as the Labour Party launch or any other launches to balance it. It was a device to achieve a balance. As to why Sinn Féin was represented on "Morning Ireland" with Margot Wallström, it was simply to have people from different sides to give meaning to it. I though it was a useful debate. Some argue that there was more sound and fury than light, but it was a more interesting debate than it would have been if we had two people on the same side making the same point.
Libertas did not received 50% of the time allowed for the "No" campaign on RTE. It received less than Sinn Féin, but more than the others. It received the coverage it did partly because it was effective in pushing forward its arguments. Part of our job is to follow the campaign and report on it, and Libertas played an increasingly important role which we had to reflect.
As to whether the "Yes" side displayed arrogance, I do not think that is the right word. We were all surprised by what happened. The posters are a good example. The posters for the "No" side were simple and clear. One could not fail to understand the message. The posters on the "Yes" side tended to have pictures of politicians, sometimes councillors whom very few people recognised, with rather bland slogans.
Research showed that the posters more or less cancelled each other out. I refer again to the Tánaiste's error. Are there any plans to do a documentary to show the factual inaccuracies? That was never highlighted. To say we were to lose half our voting strength was totally untrue. I do not want to refight the battles.
Mr. Michael Good
I am not aware of plans for such a documentary, although I do not think it is the worst idea. The Deputy is very specific in his last contribution, focusing on inaccuracies.
On both sides.
Mr. Michael Good
I would certainly watch a documentary on the referendum, although I do not know if there are plans to make one. I understand what the Deputy is saying about unchallenged inaccuracies. One of the matters that complicated the argument a little was that a number of issues were raised during the course of the campaign and Seán Whelan, or anyone who had read the treaty, could argue the matter was not included in the treaty. However, much of the campaign was about the argument from the "No" side that, if the treaty were passed, there would be a loss of power and that we would be diluting our voice in the European Union. It was alleged that a number of the provisions of the treaty, while they did not deal with a European army and abortion, might open the door for a change from the status quo. That message came across to the public clearly. If someone raised an argument that did not seem to relate to the treaty, there were a number of mechanisms, whereby one could attach it to the treaty by saying the implications of a change in our status in the European Union would be that we no longer have a clear-cut veto on certain issues. That had traction with the public.
I referred to the reason many gave for voting "No", that they did not understand the content. A number of other reasons for voting "No" could be summarised as a feeling that this would reduce our voice in the European Union. Where the level of our representation at the Council is 2%, that is not going to carry us if there is a vote. If the figure is 1.75%, it makes no difference. The view is that if there are votes, Ireland's voice is represented through its influence rather than its voting power, but that argument did not take flight. A future debate might include this issue.
I thank Mr. de Paor. I seek the permission of the sub-committee for Deputy Costello to take the Chair. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Joe Costello took the Chair.
I welcome the delegation and thank its members for their contributions. As public representatives, we accept fully the importance of the media in communicating our message to the electorate. They are equally a vehicle for our opponents to communicate their message. In the recent referendum campaign the "No" side communicated far better. Many of the delegates have alluded to this. The message of the "No" side was far simpler. It gave specific and simple reasons, although misinformed in many cases, people should vote "No". This is in contrast to the message of the "Yes" side which appeared more convoluted. Because of the nature of the argument we tried to make, this was necessary but less effective as a communication tool. The message of the "No" side was more media-friendly and more widely understood. That was a characteristic of the campaign. Our message was more complex and difficult to communicate.
The required information was widely available. RTE carried some excellent programmes during the referendum campaign such as the "Questions and Answers" programme the week before the referendum when the debate between the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, and Mr. Declan Ganley made for excellent viewing. The "Prime Time" specials, the website and the "Morning Ireland" shows were other examples. On the independent broadcasting side, Today FM carried a live show with Matt Cooper and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, and Joe Higgins. One could sense the atmosphere from the live audience. People were clapping and approving or disapproving. The sad reality is that not enough people went to the effort of examining the information from their point of view.
Deputy Timmins raised an interesting point on whether a different standard was applied to those who participated in broadcasts. He gave the example of the mistake made by the Tánaiste about the number of Commissioners. I ask Mr. O'Reilly to comment. He said it is the obligation of the presenter — and I accept that — but is there a fair interrogation of both sides or does a different rule apply to people who represent Government because of their official capacity? Libertas as an organisation did not come under sufficient scrutiny. It is an organisation which came from nowhere and it did not exist until recently. There should have been greater scrutiny of the issue of funding, of whether the commercial interests of their leader influenced the policies of the organisation. RTE in particular should examine this because Libertas is an organisation that came from nowhere and helped to shape the outcome of a referendum result in Ireland which is a very significant milestone and this is worthy of further examination.
I wish to ask questions about the public service remit of RTE and the fact that reports from the European Parliament are broadcast very late at night, similar to "Oireachtas Report" which I watched late last night. It is very good viewing and showed many clips from the committee's session yesterday with Mr. Ganley but I wonder how many people watched it. I acknowledge that these programmes will not attract the number of viewers which help sell TV advertising but given RTE's remit, does it not have an obligation to show those reports at a time when more people will be able to watch them?
Mr. Willie O’Reilly
I am happy to answer those points. In answer to the question as to whether different standards are applied by broadcasters, the answer is "No". Speaking for the independent sector we scrutinise both sides. However, Government carries with it a history and perhaps this is something that comes out in the course of discussion whereas in the referendum campaign the people on the other side had very little trading history. With the exception of Sinn Féin, many people had emerged on the "No" side, and there was very little background to examine. I make it clear that Libertas had to be represented and the question was about the weight of that representation.
Wearing my Today FM hat, there was constant scrutiny of the funding of Mr. Ganley's position and his relationship with North America. I cannot remember the date but it was on the "Last Word" programme and subsequent to the referendum we discovered that he had made a large personal donation and this was broadcast on Today FM. There was continuous scrutiny but the absence of a history for some of the people on the "No" side perhaps gave the impression to the Deputy and to an outsider that they were not subject to the same rigorous scrutiny.
Mr. Cillian de Paor
On the question of the equal scrutiny of the "Yes" and "No" contributions, I agree with one of the points made by Mr. O'Reilly about Libertas's short history. This put us at a bit of a disadvantage, as I am sure it did others. It was a question of who these people were and where did they come from and then we were in the thick of the campaign.
To return to the issue of overall fairness, I refer to a contribution by Senator Alex White in another committee last week about what the Chief Justice said in the Coughlan judgment. He said that RTE was obliged to hold the scales equally between those who supported the referendum and those who opposed it. This was with regard to the divorce referendum but the same judgment applies. Holding the scales equally can be interpreted in many ways. All arguments are not equal, not everyone's mandate is equal but in a referendum those proposing the question and those opposing it are, broadly speaking, entitled to an equal hearing.
Libertas's role is a new phenomenon in Irish politics. Deputy Timmins asked what was Libertas's entitlement to such a chunk of the "No" air time. To some extent Libertas created its own right by campaigning vigorously. It played a role and issued press releases, commented on everything and responded to events so it made its own role. RTE cannot govern that nor should it; Libertas is entitled to a hearing. On the specific issue of whether we should examine its background and membership as a news story, we have done work in this regard and it continues. In itself it is an interesting news story, even leaving aside the issues arising from the referendum.
On the specific point about the public service remit of RTE, I have responsibility for both "Oireachtas Report" and "Euro Report". I regularly have a debate with our schedulers on what a fine programme we make and why can it not be broadcast at an earlier hour when more people like me are awake. I get ruthless answers such as "Desperate Housewives" plays better to the audience getting a 37.3% viewing share compared with 12% for "Oireachtas Report".
As it reflects parliamentary proceedings for the day, "Oireachtas Report" cannot be run at an earlier hour. The alternatives are accepting the relatively late slot and extensive use of a VCR or run it the following day. I prefer to run it on its current schedule. Having it on the following day would allow us all to catch it while awake but it would be older news. The same considerations apply to "Euro Report".
I will occasionally make a case for a better schedule but realistically it would not go on air significantly earlier within a broad schedule addressing many formats such as news, entertainment and sport. These have to be accommodated as RTE remains a generous broadcaster. In the event of having a dedicated political or Oireachtas channel, completely different considerations would apply.
The implication is that RTE's commercial interests come before its public service responsibilities. It is fulfilling its latter responsibility in the dead hours of the night when viewing figures are low. In the prime viewing times, it will show programmes such as "Desperate Housewives", which attract viewers and, in turn, advertising. I understand that from a commercial point of view but RTE has a public service responsibility too.
Mr. Cillian de Paor
I accept that. If "Oireachtas Report" and "Euro Report" were our only news output I could not argue with the Deputy. Unusually for a European, even a world, broadcaster in a democratic state, we have an hour long news programme at six o'clock and a half hour news at nine o'clock. "Prime Time" runs in prime viewing times. Current affairs is being pushed out of this slot in many other stations. On Tuesday, one can watch news and current affairs from 6 p.m. until 7 p.m. and from 9 p.m. until 10.15 p.m. On some nights one could then watch a documentary about a former Taoiseach. RTE has much news and current affairs programmes as well as public service material in prime viewing times, more so than comparable broadcasters. I accept "Oireachtas Report" is run at a late hour. I will continue the campaign to persuade our schedulers that politics is important. However, they will argue they give me much time for politics at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m.
I thank the delegations for their presentations.
During a referendum there is a requirement on, particularly public service, broadcasters to provide equal coverage to both sides, a principle we all support. It is important when an EU treaty is being debated that the public hears both sides of the debate and the coverage is balanced. Considering recent referenda, the political establishment tends to be on the pro-treaty side while civil society groups tend to be on the other side. That raises certain issues about the type of protocols that should apply. There may be a tendency not to be as hard on civil society groups. Political parties have been around for a long time and there is a proportionate division of time between the parties, depending on their size.
There is also the issue of whether there is a proper interrogation of the agendas and backgrounds of many of these civil society groups. People are quite clear on where political parties are coming from, they have a track record and will be around after a referendum campaign. If inaccurate claims are made on one side, particularly on the side of those who do not belong to political parties — let us use Libertas as an example of a group which materialises around the time of a referendum campaign and perhaps makes inaccurate claims — whose responsibility is this? A point was made that it was not the responsibility of the public service broadcaster to establish the verity of claims or statements made by campaigners on either side. How do the delegates feel about the issue of accuracy of claims made in the course of a referendum campaign? How should they be dealt with? The public service broadcaster, in particular, often gives prime-time coverage of the issues. Political parties will be around for a long time and pursued if they make inaccurate claims. Do they think broadcasters, particularly public service broadcasters, should have any responsibility to address the issue of inaccurate claims or statements made on programmes broadcast by them? How might this be done?
I compliment RTE on the good job it did in trying to provide coverage during the Lisbon treaty campaign. The website was a welcome development. Was there any analysis of who used it and to ascertain how many hits there were by the various demographic groups? Is it something that has further potential for development?
We had somebody speak yesterday about the role of the media in EU matters and how difficult it was to provide coverage of EU matters that the public would find interesting. The fact that the programmes are relegated to late-night slots means, as my colleague said, that many have probably gone to bed by the time they are broadcast, particularly those covering proceedings at the European Parliament. Do we just have to accept that stories about what is happening at a political level in the European Union are as boring as watching paint dry? Is that not a challenge for broadcasters — how to make coverage of European affairs which are so relevant to the lives and future of Irish people more interesting? As a member of the National Forum on Europe, I have seen several programmes made by Hector Ó hEochagáin about the European Parliament and so on in which he tries to make it more relevant for young people. I was impressed by the quality of the programming and the different approach taken to try to make the subject matter more interesting. Is there a challenge for broadcasters to move slightly away from the idea that the European Union is always going to be boring, will always attract low ratings and should be kept to a late hour at night, or is there an opportunity for more imaginative design of programmes that may begin to engage the public more?
Mr. Cillian de Paor
I will respond to the Senator's last point about the exiling of political coverage and leave the rest to my colleague. We are talking about specialist political coverage. If there is in either "Oireachtas Report" or "European Parliament Report" what I would call a news story — something new that has happened or something in which a general audience would be interested — it will be included in the main news bulletins. We make a specialist programme for those who are interested in the workings of the Parliament as such which would, the Senator must accept, be a minority audience. This would not normally merit prime-time coverage. I admit I am considering the issue from a news perspective. Where there are news stories, they make the bulletins.
The Senator also asked whether European stories had to be like watching paint dry. Personally, I do not accept that they are. I said in my opening submission that we had two very good journalists covering European issues. That is for a reason: it is a tough brief because one is dealing with complex issues and trying to explain them to a general audience, and they are good at it. What we have been doing a lot more in recent years, what we should have been doing before and could do more of is trying to relate European stories to Irish stories. If there is a housing issue, for example, we will try to send Seán Whelan or Tony Connolly to Poland to look at housing and will do something in Dublin that we can match up with it to relate it to Irish people's lives. The European Union is not remote; we are part of this game. We do not always do this because we do not have the resources, but that is the kind of programming we are trying to include in news coverage. We are trying to personalise it more and bring it home to people.
We all know from statistics how important the European Union is to us in terms of our budget and how our lives and society are organised, yet it is a distant place. What goes on in the Council and Parliament seems remote. We try to bring this home and could probably do more. I emphasise that we try to include from the European Union the news stories of the day or week in our main bulletins at prime time for a general audience, as well as the special programming at, admittedly, a late hour.
Mr. Michael Good
This issue of different standards for the political establishment on one side and civil society groups on the other arose. There should not be different standards. The same standards should apply. I believe matters were not as simple for everybody as they were for some. In other words, some people would say something was wrong and should be challenged, while to others the issue was more complicated and they thought that if the Lisbon treaty was passed, it would create a new situation from which other things might possibly flow. It was not simply a question of inaccuracies. There was another degree to it. However, the main principle is that the political establishment and civil society groups should be treated exactly the same. I would have thought that, broadly, our front-line presenters were very good interrogators and very good at exposing those who were bluffing or making things up.
There was a terrific response to the website. The site and stories received more than 1 million page impressions during the campaign. To date, there have been 555,000 hits on the site and, on results day, Lisbon treaty news stories received 471,383 hits. There is a big audience. It is a different one. This is an area that we will see far more use made of in the future in issues such as this.
Moving to the final point on whether we have to treat European issues as though they are really boring, no, we do not. There is a challenge for broadcasters. It is a difficult one because this is not a subject that lends itself easily to a sound-bite culture, as do news bulletins. It is not easy in that when there are elections to the European Parliament, what do we talk about? I do not mean only the media but all of us. We talk about how Irish politicians are doing because it is actually an Irish election, rather than how the right is doing in Poland or the how the Social Democrats are doing in Scandinavia. It is a difficult issue and a real challenge. The Internet is one way of meeting it, as it provides a new audience.
In terms of trying to find imaginative ways of covering stories, we spoke about coverage of the sub-committee and Commissioner Margot Wallström's appearance on mainstream programmes such as "Morning Ireland". She was also on "The Week in Politics" the other night visiting an "Off the Rails" programme. There is an attempt all the time to try to make European issues more interesting. On radio it is a challenge to see whether there is a way of doing special programmes that are interesting. There is no point in putting on another version of "The Late Debate" at 11 p.m. as that does not really add to the debate, but there must be some way of making the subject more interesting. It is a real challenge.
Mr. Willie O’Reilly
I concur with much of what has been said. Looking forward to where we are going and the challenge for us as a nation, in a broader sense we have gained immensely from our involvement in the European Union and perhaps we have begun to take it a little bit for granted. I said, before Dr. Hayes arrived, that we needed good spokespersons who would articulate the story and bring it to the media's attention. Politicians also need to move the European Union up the agenda and if they do, I believe they will find it will move up the news agenda too.
Before we finish, I would like to use my position in the Chair to raise one point. In the entire debate there was the new phenomenon — Libertas. That was the only new phenomenon. Everybody else had been there before in one form or another. Undoubtedly, the fact that Libertas was such a successful campaigner will result in replication of that situation in any future referendum. One can bet one's bottom dollar that a variety of such groups, probably on both sides, will materialise overnight, especially as Libertas received such wide coverage and was so influential as a result. We are talking about a referendum, that is, the people changing their basic tenets in the Constitution. In this context, the delegation has been engaged in a review. For future referenda would it be appropriate for the media to provide guidelines on how they propose to conduct their business in order that those engaged in the campaign and the public at large would know the bottom line?
Mr. Willie O’Reilly
Guidelines are always useful but history shows how difficult this can be because at the announcement of a referendum the parties are not visible. Their strength, weight, depth and even alignments are not visible. What we had was a unique situation with the majority of political representation on one side and a large vacuum on the other. It would be hard to set guidelines. As broadcasting journalists, we need to go back and look at the Coughlan judgment. We have a responsibility to be fair and impartial and, perhaps, ask ourselves some tough questions. If there is a re-run, we need to be alive to this issue.
Mr. Cillian de Paor
I refer to a meeting that took place after the vote, at which we asked ourselves four questions which I have written down. Did we provide sufficient coverage? Did we get the balance right between the "Yes" and "No" sides? Did we get the balance right within the "Yes" and the "No" sides? The last question probably took up an inordinate amount of time and probably always will. I accept that Libertas was the new phenomenon and as such, probably partly because of this, received a fair amount of coverage. Also, it has to be said, it was well funded and, therefore, able to campaign on a lot of fronts which was reflected in the activity we covered. There was also the Socialist Party, the core of which we have not mentioned and which represented a particular viewpoint, as well as People before Profits and the Peace and Neutrality Alliance. The "No" campaign was conducted by a coalition of groups. Effectively, the "Yes" campaign was also conducted by a coalition of political parties.
All of those groups would have been there in one guise or another——
Mr. Cillian de Paor
True.
——before co-representing other organisations. The Peace and Neutrality Alliance was there before also.
Mr. Cillian de Paor
But not all of them appeared in the campaign at the time. The Acting Chairman asked if Libertas would replicate them and, if so, how would we deal with that phenomenon. The only answer I can give in advance, with a blank sheet, is that in the end there will only be so many "Yes" and "No" groups. If another Libertas, albeit with a slightly different perspective, appears on the same side of the argument the next time, it will have to share with the existing one and the other bodies we have mentioned. We will do our best. The phenomenon of organisations appearing out of nowhere to contest a particular vote is something about which we will have to think to determine how we will handle it. I cannot say we would do things hugely differently if it were to happen tomorrow but I would certainly be conscious of it as an issue. We will learn if there are lessons to be learned from our point of view from the coverage of the Lisbon treaty campaign. We would be more careful from the very beginning to try to achieve a balance between the two sides, bearing in mind we have a duty to the public. Our primary duty is to explain what is going on. We can sometimes fall over ourselves in trying to balance internal issues on either side of an argument. To the public, in the end it is either "Yes" or "No".
I thank Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. de Paor, Mr. Good and Ms Fisher whose contributions were very valuable. We are very appreciative that they have given of their time.
Sitting suspended at 12.55 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.