Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Media coverage of political matters (Referendums (McKenna v Taoiseach…
Media coverage of political matters
Referendums
regulation driven by courts - not area of certainty - judicially created
statute
section 39 of the Broadcasting Act 2009
any broadcasting - fair to all interests
case law heavily criticised by politicians and media - fact it comes from a court raises legitimacy question
McKenna v Taoiseach
advertising around referendum, Oireachtas hand over money to government to run campaign around referendum - HC - political decision not for courts to intervene - SC reversed decision - gave number of different judgements
democracy requires equal treatment for yes and no voters
breach of democratic equality if court gave public money to one side
fair procedures - breaching distorts debate
freedom of expression - part of democratic debate - have both sides expressing views
case often misunderstood
emphasised expenditure by oireachtas - not ministers
narrow decision - specifically not allowed use central fund
ministers allowed campaign - phones, cars
Referendum commission
duties
provide arguments for and against historically - now to describe proposal and the consequences
encourage voting
no undue prominance to either side - treat both equally
ensure equal expenditure on both sides by government - even if one side seems to be the much more popular
Crystal
chance to revisit McKenna - reiterated McKenna - clarified ministers can use office - about direct published expenditure
government published booklet - challenged - argued only giving neutral information - court decided not neutral advocacy clearly favouring referendum
contained error - minister knew about error - not fixed on website a few months later
just leaning may be more effective - people may think that it is neutral - court questioned practice to produce booklet
referendum commission job to produce booklet
Jordan
reconfirms point - Ministers can campaign in their own time using resources of their office
Coughlan - complaint about party broadcast - used to be important - parties before election got 5 or 10 minutes for broadcast - all major parties supporting referendum - massive divergence in the amount of time given to yes side and no side
SC - equally applies to party political broadcasts - form of public benefit being given - has to be fair
not necessarily 50-50 split in time - but taken to be 50-50 which has been implemented by most broadcasters
issues raised
when you don't have much of a no campaign - newspapers don't cover it or broadcast it
can be an incentive for a smaller party to go on the other side - get a lot more coverage
Elections and objectivity
Kivihan - green party not allowed in leaders debate - prior cases (Madigan - RTE had to justify policy) - court upheld RTE discretion to make decisions - just have to be fair
RTE normally make decision in advance - deal with percentage of votes
courts don't want to get involved in day to day coverage of elections - more clear cut in referendums (more willing to get involved)
regulation driven by courts not legislation
advertising
Europe
one camp with strict regulation - banned all political advertising
one camp very soft
America - very little regulation - large amounts spent on political advertising
large amounts spent on political advertising - dependent on large donors
some afraid to run due to strong advertising against them
Ireland
prohibition on advertisement for political end or dispute
includes religious advertising ban
pro life group - applies to - still political campaigning (not just applicable to political parties)
doesn't matter who ad comes from - what it's about or who its directed at
some critics about the absolute nature in ban
Murphy
- concern about not being allowed religious advertising, claimed ban lacked proportionality, no absolute nature, wanted to run a radio ad (pastor) - not religious ad - court found - ban not necessarily best way - job to Oireachtas to find different way - absolute ban not unconstitutional
English ban
European court issue with absolute ban - other ways around that weren't absolute
Animal defenders
- animal rights group wanted to run campaign - banned due to political reasoning - SC UK - Strasbourg got it wrong (report included) - Strasbourg backed down over English opposition - ban on free speeches is a problem, but clear lack of European consensus - long report gave it extra support - ban not in breach of article 10
Europe
Swiss case
small group not capable of distorting the debate
advertisement about animal welfare advertising - compare pigs being slaughtered to jews during the holocaust
pensioner party set up in Norway - wanted to run tv ad (Norway absolute ban) - ban interferes with free speech - don't have money or profile - if group like pensioner political party - don't have money or profile - advertising one of the few ways of breaking into political arena
online
social media regulated by companies - Facebook, Google
Reforms
legislation could force to reveal where advertisement originated from
who paid for it
public consultation in November on online advertising
Facebook during 8th amendment - banned foreign advertising
political advertising
third parties financiers subject to regulations if contribute more then 100 euro
limits during calendar year of referendum
200 known person
200 unregistered known company, 2,500 if registered
100 for anonymous person
ban from outside Ireland - unless Irish
no limit on political spending