The BAI has rejected my complaint about the Joe Duffy programme on Life Loans

[SPC100]

I read all of the threads mentioned here.

I admire what Brendan does and think the Irish people/state owe him a debt of gratitude. And I hope you continue to do it Brendan.


It's clear that if nobody complains nothing will change. If more complain something might change. And vast majority think it's better to take action than moan.

I did find some of Brendan's posts directed at leper a bit too disrespectful and a bit too wide e.g. saying all his advice is nonsense (approaching ad hominem). But I understand the bias/rationale as sometimes leper strays from the point and posts nice prose and didn't directly address the question e.g. the CU borrowing thread which I guess comes from emotional investments and life experiences. (Aside: I mostly find them interesting to read).

I also occasionally had the gut sense that Brendan pushes the envelope on respectful replies. Although I don't think I ever reported any of his posts.

I think in this and other threads the response to media training suggestion had been a bit to emotional/reactive/flippant/closed minded. It can be hard to know what we don't know. Or what value there might be there.

I think the key question is can media training make Brendan more effective in improving Irish finance related issues?

Ultimately to be more effective, we have to be better at communicating what needs to change and why. And understand how to better influence the audience, the powers that be and society. I expect there are teachable insights in communication/media theory/behavioural science that could add value. Whether carrs course can provide that is another question. And whether Brendan rates it worth his time is another thinking.

I think the general advice to get training on performing better on a key skill is not nonsense. Although I fear some of the training courses might be.

 

[SPC100]

And judging by the length of my post I could probably benefit

 

[LS400]

Just to tease that out a little, what your also saying effectively is that truths count for very little if you have a well oiled machine trotting out garbage.

 

[SPC100]

I wouldn't go that far. Their is truth, and there is communicating it effectively. Part of that is knowing your audience and presenting it in ways they can understand, relate to and act on.

I didn't listen to the show. So this is no comment on the show.

I see it regularly in life someone has good idea but doesn't communicate it well enough. So nothing changes. Someone else re proposes the idea in a clearer way and people see that they should support/do that.

Generally, All truth and limited communications skill face an uphill battle. It should win in the very long run, but in the long run that truth may be obsolete

 

[LS400]

Granted, but in relation to the topic being discussed, no matter what training class you just left, if your not let correct the mis-information by the presenter and his team, your paddling against the rapids.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

I didn't listen to the show. So this is no comment on the show.

Sure that is no disadvantage at all. Didn't Leper tell you that I made an eejit of myself, so you can pontificate based on that?

So listen back to the show and then see if you would agree with Leper or Gordon

I’d love to know how “media training” prepares one to deal with a stacked deck of biased “guests” and a host whose lack of professionalism is startling.

Brendan

 

[Leper]

Sure that is no disadvantage at all. Didn't Leper tell you that I made an eejit of myself, so you can pontificate based on that?

So listen back to the show and then see if you would agree with Leper or Gordon



Brendan

1. Here we go again at Brendan's semantics. Certainly, he under performed on Joe Duffy's show. He didn't make an "eejit" of himself. But he failed to look good and with a bit of training might have excelled.
2. Brendan's comments and performance on the show lasted only a few seconds though - Has anybody done a transcript of what he said?
3. I don't even know why I continue on the subject in my efforts of trying to do Brendan a favour all I got were his insults.

At the end of the day, the subject is not my monkey and not my "Duffy's" circus.

 

[DeeKie]

Even after the complaint, I am still learning!

I got this email from the BAI yesterday:

Dear Brendan,

Please note that the deadline for the task expires in two days.
Due date: 02-06-2021

Task description: Please be advised that your complaint was recently considered and it was determined that the broadcast in question did not infringe the Code/s. Accordingly, the complaint was rejected. Please find a copy of your complaint decision attached.

For your information, all complaints whether upheld or rejected, including the complainant's name, are made publicly available unless the BAI considers it inappropriate to do so.

Kind regards,
BAI complaints team

I have no idea what this means.
They rejected my complaint.
There is no right of appeal.
That is the end of the story as far as I was concerned.
But the deadline for some "task" expires tomorrow.

So, I emailed them asking what it meant and got the following reply:

I acknowledge receipt of your email.

Please be advised, the below email is a reminder of the due date regarding task number CT0004325 should you wish to respond.

This is the task which your complaint decision is attached to.

Please note that we do not require a response in relation to this task.

I am no better informed. I still do not know what the task is.

So I emailed them again and finally had it explained:

Thank you for your email.

Please note that we provide all complainants with an opportunity to submit a response to their complaint decision. Please be advised that although there is no appeals process in relation to BAI complaint decisions, in some instances, complainants may wish to submit comments to the Executive Complaints Forum or may have a query regarding their decision.

I trust this clarifies the matter for you.

This is bonkers stuff. Why did they not say this in the first place? I had no idea that there was a facility for making submissions.

Brendan

The BAI are aware of the serious legal issue associated with the lack of any further recourse. This is their crappy way of trying to pretend that there is one. Treat it like a judicial review complaint ans submit the procedural issues and substantive issues discussed on the thread. Also mention the lack of appeal or recourse for what is a quasi-judicial role.
As an aside I’m so worried about these people being given the online content jurisdiction.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

2. Brendan's comments and performance on the show lasted only a few seconds though - Has anybody done a transcript of what he said?

Hi Leper

Ah that explains it. You only listened to a small segment of the programme. I was on from about 2.15 to 3 pm.

I was wondering how you came to the conclusion that I underperformed which is the exact opposite conclusion of almost everyone else.

You can see the commentary live here:

Your line is weak but your point is strong: Liveline from 10th January - Page 289

The husband had kidney stones etc before as well...and he is 42...is that not kind of ridiculous?

www.boards.ie

I have done lots of live radio and TV programmes over the years. I am my own biggest critic - sorry , 2nd biggest critic. I am nearly always challenging the populist idea - so I am nearly always in a minority of one. It's much easier to shout and roar "We bailed out the banks so we shouldn't have to repay our loans." or "Cut taxes and increase spending." Or "The state should buy more houses for social housing and make it easier for FTBs to buy a house". It's much easier to make up facts to suit your argument.

It's much harder to try to explain things to look at the evidence and to challenge conventional thinking. Believe me, there is no easy way of doing it. There is no magic wand.

In a live debate, it's very hard to argue with people who tell lies or just make stuff up. Look at the guys who tried to debate with Donald Trump. But I am not going to the Trump school of media training just so that I can look good.

But I took you advice and did a media training course and posted the results here but you were still not happy.

My media training

On a few occasions now, Leper has recommended that I undergo media training so that I don't make a fool of myself like I did on Joe Duffy recently. https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/anyone-going-on-joe-duffy-should-get-media-training-as-they-will-be-devoured-by-media-savvy-joe.222244/page-3...

www.askaboutmoney.com

Anyway I am off now to make a further submission to the BAI and to draft a template for AIB Prevailing Rate customers to complain to the Ombudsman about the way AIB interpreted his ruling.

Brendan

 

[Leper]

Brendan - What you've listed is a commentary from Boards.ie (and only silliness what I'd expect from Boards) - The other link is your own interpretation of how you performed and some lies about what I said.

Can you give a link to the actual show on which you participated?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Here is the submission I made this morning to the BAI on its decision :

Response to the Complaint Decision from Brendan Burgess
2 June 2021

I refer to the decision and wish to express my disappointment in the process.

While I have helped people to complain to a number of regulatory bodies, most of my experience has come from helping people complain to the Financial Services Ombudsman which has a thorough investigation and adjudication process which the BAI could learn from.

• The complainant submits a complaint.
• The Ombudsman reads it and sends the complaint to the respondent and asks them to respond to specific questions asked by the complainant. The Ombudsman often adds in questions of their own.
• The response from the respondent is sent to the Complainant who is given a chance to respond to the Respondent’s response.
• The Ombudsman makes a decision.

I appreciate that this takes time. Although I am often disappointed with his decision I have at least had a fair hearing. (On a side note, I checked the Financial Ombudsman’s database and I have been unable to find any complaint upheld or rejected on Life Loans.)

This was a deliberately biased programme. There were 17 people against the product and just one, me, in favour.

In my complaint to RTE , I asked a very specific question:

Why did the programme not put through callers who had benefited from the product or advisors who thought that the product was useful? It is understandable that there might have been no such callers on the first day.

If there were no such callers, it was the duty of the programme to seek out such callers or experts who would explain the product in advance of the second day.

They refused to answer.



In my complaint to you, I again put the question, assuming that they would answer it. I naively assumed that if they did not answer it, you would put the question to them.

But you put no questions to RTE.

So we still do not know how many callers they had on the line whom they did not put through.

I actually knew part of the answer in advance.

After the first day they had contacted [Mr X – a financial expert] and asked him to participate in the programme. He agreed. He has arranged these products for clients. They called him the next day and kept him on the line for the full duration of the programme, but never went to him for a comment.

Here is the text he sent me after the programme.

The producer of the programme made a deliberate decision to have a biased programme for the entertainment value. It is great radio having 17 people making wild claims, savaging the banks and piling on the one person who is prepared to explain and defend the product. It is not good radio to have a balanced discussion based on the evidence.

It would have been a completely different programme and much more balanced if [Mr X] had been on as well. Even 17:2 makes a huge difference. While one person is speaking the other can think about their response.

Were there other users of the product who were also on the line?

We will never know because you never bothered asking.

Artificial balance and personal experience

The discussion on the programme largely focused on individual stories and personal experiences as a way to explore the broader topic of whether Life Loans are helpful or harmful to people. This approach to a matter of current debate is in keeping with the regular format of this caller-driven programme and is in keeping with audience expectations of the programme.

…

The Forum noted that appropriate implementation of the fairness principle should not be taken to mean that an ‘artificial balance’ is required in order to comply with the Code, nor should it be taken to imply that equal allocation airtime is always necessary to achieve fairness. The Forum was satisfied that callers were facilitated in telling their personal stories and a financial advisor, the complainant, was given ample time to express his views in defence of Life Loans.



Could you imagine if the programme had been about the individual stories and personal experience of people who claimed that they had bad experiences with non-white taxi drivers? If they had 17 people recounting their experience and one spokesman from the Immigrant Council of Ireland, would that be balance?

If you discovered that Liveline had a spokesperson from the Irish Network against Racism on the line but hadn’t put them through, would you have concluded that there had been no need to so as it would have been an “artificial balance” ?

 

[SPC100]

Sure that is no disadvantage at all. Didn't Leper tell you that I made an eejit of myself, so you can pontificate based on that?

So listen back to the show and then see if you would agree with Leper or Gordon



Brendan

I obviously failed in my communication skills if this is what you think from/of my post.

My post was not about judging your show performance. Nor is this one and that show.

I respect you deeply and am grateful for your life's work. But that doesn't take away from the growth mindset framing that you can improve.



It seems you are definite you are running at peak performance/your true maximum potential here and couldn't possibly learn more about how to be more effective in communication your message and influencing for change.

That's fine, and it's obviously your decision.

Please don't stop pushing for change and taking action.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Hi SPC

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It seems you are definite you are running at peak performance/your true maximum potential here and couldn't possibly learn more about how to be more effective in communication your message and influencing for change.

I don't know where you are getting this stuff from?

I am learning new stuff all the time.

Leper's assessment of my performance on Joe Duffy was very much a minority opinion. It appears that he only heard a few seconds of it while I was actually on the line for 45 minutes, although it seemed a lot longer.

But why not go and look for the two podcasts and form your own opinion. Listen to the first day as if you knew nothing about life loans and see what you think about the product. Then listen to the second day. Decide for yourself if I made a contribution or not.

Maybe more media training would help. But it would be much more helpful if a few other people actively campaigned on these issues and were prepared to go into the lions' den.

Brendan

 

[Thirsty]

You misunderstand the expression.

I have no dog in this fight means that I don't have a particular interest or claim in the outcome of the discussion.

So your nose is out of joint.

I think you are projecting here.

Your points re another thread are a) off-topic and b) incomplete and misleading. But this is not the place for that discussion.

 

[LS400]

Brendan's comments and performance on the show lasted only a few seconds though

What were the few seconds you heard, that formed your opinion, that he under-performed and needs to up-skill? Did you actually listen to the programme.

Because what I heard was a guy trying to get a word in, and not being facilitated, and, quite rightly not just plundering his way through irrespective of all the other contributors who were let consistently interrupt him at every opportunity.

There is nothing as annoying when, listening to a discussion, when you have the contributors talking over each other to the extent that you cant hear a flippen thing. Well thats seem to be what you wanted Brendan to do, be rude, obnoxious on the national airwaves. He didn't, he was respective to all the others who wouldn't let him talk, and that included the presenter. And that showed his professionalism.

Maybe, that's what your use to on Cork Fm, but I don't know of any training courses that promote such rude behaviour.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Hi Thirsty

I have no idea why you are talking about dogs and fights. I had to guess.

Likewise I have no idea why you would criticise me for pointing out that some of Leper's posts are rubbish while not criticising Leper for his personalised comments on me?

They are irritating. This morning Leper called me a liar. I laughed. If anyone else on Askaboutmoney had been called a liar, the post would have been instantly deleted and the poster would have got a warning. I know that there is no specific guideline saying "Don't call other posters liars." but it's against the spirit of askaboutmoney.

But I left it there because I think it highlights again the standards of Leper's argument.

But as you consider the Dogs and Fights comments off topic, I have deleted it.

Brendan

 

[Marsupial]

Excellent response to the BCI Brendan. Hopefully they'll have the integrity (and competence) to handle it properly. It's clear that both the producers of the Whineline and the muppets in the BAI who "investigated" your complaint have questions to answer. Sadly, given the BAI Chairman's background, it hard to see him coming down hard on RTE.

 

[Leper]

Hi Thirsty

I have no idea why you are talking about dogs and fights. I had to guess.

Likewise I have no idea why you would criticise me for pointing out that some of Leper's posts are rubbish while not criticising Leper for his personalised comments on me?

They are irritating. This morning Leper called me a liar. I laughed. If anyone else on Askaboutmoney had been called a liar, the post would have been instantly deleted and the poster would have got a warning. I know that there is no specific guideline saying "Don't call other posters liars." but it's against the spirit of askaboutmoney.

But I left it there because I think it highlights again the standards of Leper's argument.

But as you consider the Dogs and Fights comments off topic, I have deleted it.

Brendan

Now Brendan, Please let's keep the ball on the ground. I never called you a liar. You did print some lies regarding some of my posts. This does not make you a Liar.

Respectfully please let me remind you:- (Just One Example) You said that I said that you looked stupid on Joe Duffy's show. I asked you on several occasions to point out where I said this and you could not - merely because I never said you looked stupid.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

I never called you a liar. You did print some lies regarding some of my posts. This does not make you a Liar.

That speaks for itself.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Respectfully please let me remind you:- (Just One Example) You said that I said that you looked stupid on Joe Duffy's show. I asked you on several occasions to point out where I said this and you could not - merely because I never said you looked stupid.

Leper

You go into long winded posts which are often completely off topic.

I am not going to reproduce them in full as they are long enough.

I paraphrased them. If you made concise points, there would be no need for me to do so.

It's a bit like "You tell lies but you are not a liar" .

You need media training "because you came across poorly on Joe Duffy (in the few seconds I heard,at least)"

I think that "you looked stupid" is a fair summary.

Or maybe you think I did brilliantly on Joe Duffy but I need media training anyway so that I can stop Joe interrupting me by going to ads?

Brendan