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

Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,798
I complained informally to RTE and they didn't respond.
I made a formal complaint to RTE and they did respond, rejecting it.
I then complained to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.
RTE chose not to respond to the BAI.
The BAI put no questions to RTE
They made their decision which is attached.
 

Attachments

  • BAI decision.pdf
    87.7 KB · Views: 446
Some interesting points.

1) The complain under Section 21 does not apply as it's not a news programme.

21. A news presenter and/or a reporter in a news programme may not express his
or her own view on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject
of current public debate.

So Joe Duffy or anyone else is free to express their own views.

2) "No requirement for artificial balance"
The Forum considered the complainant’s view that the programme did not meet the requirements of
fairness in the Code by having just one person out of all the callers speak in defence of Life Loans. 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.

So having 17 callers attack a product and only one explaining it is balance. Putting through a caller who had a positive experience of the product would be "artificial balance."

3) "Joe Duffy is known for this and the listeners expect it."

The Forum noted the complainants claims that the programme presenter’s views on Life Loans were
clear and his comments and tone, overall, were prejudiced and biased. The Code recognises that some
current affairs programmes are synonymous with personalities, where the manner in which the presenter
presents or interviews contributors can be keenly anticipated by audiences. Often the nature and style
of the presenter is a key factor in what engages audiences and draws them into consideration and debate
on matters of public controversy and current public debate. The Code seeks to prevent a partisan
position being advocated by the presenter and to guard against a presenter using the programme to
pursue an agenda. The Forum noted that this presenter’s style is well known and is often sympathetic
to callers to elicit their stories. The presenter did, at times, repeat some of the claims made by callers,
but also made comments in defence of some aspects of Life Loans and facilitated one caller in giving
their views in defence of Life Loans.

This point had also been made by RTE in their response to my complaint. So it seems that it's ok, sure "You know Joe!"
 
Last edited:
The bit that I am most disappointed in is that I specifically asked RTE if they had any callers who had positive experience of the products who wanted to speak about it, and they ignored the question.

I asked what efforts they made to get a financial advisor to talk about the product in a balanced way, and they ignored the question.

The BAI did not put those questions to RTE.

Presumably because having more than one person challenging the rubbish spoken by the callers would be "artificial balance."

Brendan
 
Last edited:
What would it have taken do you think, for the complaint to be taken seriously, given that, when I listened back to it, you were,

1) Allowed by the host to be interrupted, at every moment you expressed a fact.
2) The host sniggered at you and encouraged the callers to snigger also, by making out you were delusional for expressing such facts ( i mean your views)

To make out that, look, its Joe Duffy, and that's the way he operates, is a lame view, and a lame response..
 
I have to say that I am in no way surprised that your complaint was rejected - indeed, I would have been shocked otherwise. It is expressly a programme for listeners to air their views, not a programme for "experts", although they may have some on from time to time. It makes no claim to be a consumer advice show. The show asks listeners to "tell their stories". It is not about experts commenting on the stories. A requirement to have "balance" on such a show would, indeed, be artificial. (Say a listener calls to speak about an abuse experience and others call in, should there also be a requirement for balance, or what would that even mean?). All of this presupposes the laws of libel are observed.

In saying this, I am personally no great fan of the show and I would be broadly in line with your own view of the specific product under discussion. But there is a value in a show like this and I would not like to see it being strangulated by "balance".
 
I have zero respect for the BAI, having been through the complaints process with them twice.

My own view is that the BAI should be completely overhauled, with new people brought in from outside of Ireland, to guarantee independence.
 
Last edited:
No surprise at all. When you hear a crazily paid presenter on RTE 1 saying he's totally spent and exhausted, needs a break after a 7 and a 1/2 hour week, then you know where you stand.
 
From the BAI:
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.
Click to expand...

Listeners don't take it literally so the BAI doesn't expect them to either.

All very tautological.
 
This complaint was never going to be upheld. I said this weeks ago and perhaps it was better for everybody (including the complainant) that it failed? The radio show in question is an entertainment programme at best and not a serious financial advice show. How anybody thought it was anything else beats me.

Let's say the complaint was upheld - What then? A fast spoken apology while everybody is switching off as they usually do at 3.00pm. Then a written apology on the RTE Guide (page 27) squeezed in between two un-eyecatching small ads at the bottom of the page.

I suggest the complainant put the exercise down to experience and forget about it and perhaps listen to wounded lepers occasionally who endured much that life throws at them and of course move on asap.
 
Last edited:
Leper

You are right of course. And I should not have wasted time on the AIB Prevailing Rate campaign or the mortgage campaign either. They were all doomed to failure before hand.

It's much better being an anonymous hurler on the ditch rather than actually calling out wrong behaviour.

Brendan
 
Brendan, I am an inoffensive person and I try to give good advice from time to time, as I did weeks ago when I suggested that you quit on this subject while you were behind. I am sorry you didn't and whatever you did or didn't do on the AIB Prevailing Rate campaign has nothing whatsoever to do with your wanting performance on Joe Duffy's show or indeed your complaint being rejected.

Respectfully, I suggest you take your defeat on the chin and move on.
 
Leper said:
I try to give good advice from time to time,
Click to expand...
You need to try harder

Your advice has been atrocious.

You told me that based on your trade union experience I should get media training before challenging Joe Duffy.

As if attending some course, would give me some magical skills to persuade 17 people that they were wrong and that I was right.

If something is wrong, I will try and fix it. I will put my head above the parapet and have it shot off.

You call that failure or defeat. I don't.

Thanks, but I won't be listening to any of your nonsense advice.

Brendan
 
Hi Brendan,

My advice was not atrocious and neither was it nonsense. I had your best interests at heart when I gave you the advice. I believe you need Media Training as does anybody appearing on media as often as you do and you could make it work more in your favour. Media Training is not to be under estimated and I've seen many good willed people "die on air " when confronted with somebody experienced in media presentation. I don't know how you think that you will get some "magical skills" by such training, but certainly it will help you to get your points across to those viewing or listening. Media is a good tool if used properly. Learn if you put your head above the parapet, not to have it shot off.

If you think your performance on that Joe Duffy show was not defeat, then you have my sympathy. Let me suggest that you take defeat on the chin because if you don't, it can come across (even on your own forum) as a kind of whinge. I don't wish to offend you. I think you have learnt much in the past few weeks and perhaps you can make this work in your favour too? Your AAM forum is good although your form is not great at the moment, but please bear in mind I'm only trying to help and I don't wish to offend.
 
Last edited:
As I told you, your advice is rubbish.

You are welcome to continue spouting it though.

It's offensive rubbish which is the bit I object to.

Look at the Credit Union discussion. The poster was required to borrow his own money and pointed this out. You bizarrely denied it and then when I corrected you, you took the thread completely off topic with the CU propaganda and described my correction of you as "semantics".

Joe Duffy ran a hatchet job on an excellent financial product. I defended it. It was a tough gig. Most people said to me "Fair play to you". You starting harping on about the fact that I was destroyed by Joe and that I needed media training. I don't need media training. What is needed is a few more people to go on shows like that and challenge the nonsense.

I made a complaint to the BAI and it was rejected. You said "I told you so" and told me to "take my defeat on the chin". You are delighted. You see me as "defeated". But rest assured that it's much better to try and take on these guys than sit there anonymously carping and taking threads off topic in the manner that you enjoy doing.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I don't need media training
Click to expand...
Brendan you may be correct, but not in the way you think. I don't know if you'd be ready to learn from such training. I think you're a bit like yer man in the jungle, fighting the war long since over. Our best lessons come from our hardest knocks, presuming we're willing to learn from them.
 
Albert Einstein said that "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." We must continue to challenge what we think are the wrongs in life or just curl up and die complying. Someone else said that only unreasonable people affect change because they take the contrarian view. Well done on all counts @Brendan Burgess and on your magnificent achievements.
 
Powderfinger said:
I think you're a bit like yer man in the jungle, fighting the war long since over.
Click to expand...

I am fighting many wars - they are still ongoing.

Mortgage rates
AIB refusal to pay compound interest on trackers
The scandal of the Mortgage to Rent Scheme

The Joe Duffy complaint is over.

I learned from it.
It's not a news programme - so doesn't have to be unbiased.
The RTE Code of Practice for Journalists has no relevance to complaints
The BAI does not ask RTE any questions.

The last one was the most shocking for me. The BAI did not bother to ask RTE if they had any callers on the line who had benefited from the product. I wanted to see RTE's response to this question as I know that they had. If I knew that the BAI would not oblige RTE to answer that, I would have put that forward in evidence.

But be absolutely sure. If RTE covers another financial or economic topic unfairly and I feel strongly about it, I will again complain to them in the first instance and to the BAI if RTE rejects my complaint.

The fact that the BAI does not do a proper investigation does not mean it's not worth complaining.

Brendan
 
mathepac said:
Albert Einstein said that "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." We must continue to challenge what we think are the wrongs in life or just curl up and die complying.
Click to expand...

I cannot speak for him but I suspect that Joe duffy would see this as an endorsement of his show because gives the ordinary Joe and Josephine the opportunity to give their opinions and perspectives and preferably, personal experiences. It is their platform to challenge authority and "what we think are the wrongs in life". It is not a business show, it is not a consumer show, it is not a politics show, and it is not a show for "experts". The audience for the show know this perfectly well and I would think that few rely on it for expert advice. Much of the stuff leads nowhere but some of the personal stories end up striking a chord with many ordinary listeners. And many of the people who call in would probably not do so in the first place if they thought they were liable to be challenged and fact-checked by "experts".

The thing is there are plenty of shows for "experts" in various fields and the Joe Duffy audience are not tuning in to hear more experts - and would switch off if that is what it turned into. The BAI are perfectly right to evaluate any complaint relative to the type of programme against which the complaint is lodged. Other wise there would be complaints about jokes on comedy shows because they are not "factual" or "balanced", etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top