Broadcasting Complaints Commission

Complaint made by: Mr. Brother David Gibson, Ref. No. 96/03 Station: Programme: Date: RT? TV 1?States of Fear?29th July, 2003 Summary of Complaint: Brother Gibson's complaint under Section 24 (2)(a), impartiality, of the Broadcasting Act, 2001, relates to the repeat showing of the programme 'States of Fear' with particular reference to part one of this three part series. He claims the repetition in itself is an infringement of impartiality. He also states that the producers, although aware of various inaccuracies in the first broadcast, failed to revert to the Christian Brothers. The result was that the repeat showing was broadcast un-amended and unedited to take cognisance of these inaccuracies. Furthermore, there was no introduction or voice-over highlighting subsequent new knowledge and information. Brother Gibson claims the presentation of information and anecdote was almost wholly negative. Positive stories and memories, given in a lengthy interview to the programme makers, were not included. Brother Gibson gives various instances of what he claims were allegations which were subsequently proven to be untrue. However, the original version of these stories remained in the repeat broadcast. This, he states, shows a clear lack of impartiality mixed with erroneous information. He also states that impartiality is infringed when there is no effort made to establish balance in a presentation. Lack of balance mixed with erroneous information and impressions shows a clear case of infringement. Brother Gibson claims when broadcasters deal with matters of grave complaints and accusations against human beings and institutions, the obligation to offer correction and caution is imperative.

Station?s Response: RT? in their response state that 'States of Fear', when first broadcast, was praised as an example of first class investigative journalism. The series had already become part of the history of broadcasting in Ireland. In these circumstances, RT? believes it was correct to re-broadcast the series. Although consideration was given to re-editing the series to take account of developments in the years since it was first broadcast, ultimately, it was decided that the audience was entitled to see the original series. However, careful examination of the contents of each episode convinced RT? that nothing would be broadcast in the repeats which would be inaccurate or unfair. - 2 - The producer of the programme, Mary Raftery, also replied to Brother Gibson's complaint. She states that this series produced enormous public reaction and culminated in an historic apology to the victims of child abuse, issued on behalf of the State, just hours before the broadcast of the final programme in the series. She further states that RT?'s decision to repeat the series was made to allow the public to view the programmes, which have been credited with starting a process that still remains in the public domain today. It was important, in this context, to screen the programmes as originally broadcast. Ms. Raftery also points out that voice-over and on-screen text announcements were carried both directly before and after each repeated programme, indicating the date of first transmission and the major changes which occurred as a result of the initial broadcast. RT? does not accept that there was any infringement of impartiality connected with the repeat broadcast of 'States of Fear'. The station further rejects any suggestion that factual correction was either offered or ignored, or that there was lack of balance connected with the re-transmission of this series.

Decision of the Commission: The Broadcasting Complaints Commission rejected the complaint made by Brother Gibson. The Commission was of the view that RT? did not infringe Section 24(2)(a) of the Broadcasting Act, 2001. The station informed viewers that the programme was a repeat broadcast and the period in which the programme was made was put into context. On this basis, the Commission found the programme to be fair and impartial. The complaint was rejected.