Skip navigation

There is a report by Fiona Gartland in the Irish Times of Oct. 24th  that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitution intend to reconsider the question of balance in broadcast coverage of referendum debates. It is long past time that the privileged status of this communication value was questioned.


It is certainly not the case that balance is without merit but its limitations and the risk of exalting it above other values has become apparent.


When there is a clear choice between two courses of action and where there are sensible arguments on both sides, balance is a treasure. Unfortunately this is seldom the case and balance – crudely understood – becomes a problem.


Very often there are many points of view. Balance implies just two.


Crude attempts to quantify balance by – for example – linking it to the number of TDs supporting an argument makes sense only if one believes that broadcast debate should reflect the existing consensus in society or the most widely held views. Balance can be evaluated quite differently if one believes that broadcast debate should serve the engaged citizen, someone who wants a lively challenge. In this view balance might be between the majority view and a minority view, between opposites, between antagonistic views or between consensus and innovation.


Coverage of the Lisbon Treaty debate showed how balance could be the enemy of truth. Nonsense was repeated day after day to create balance and newsworthy conflict.


Balance is important and worth defending as part of a parcel of communication values which should include at least truth and the promotion of challenging viewpoints.





  1. I wholeheartedly accept the argument that on occasion balance may be deleterious to truth – you made this argument very persuasively in class two weeks ago!

    However, the timing of this review negates merit; it’s politically expedient. Would Sean Ardagh have even considered putting it on the agenda, had Lisbon been passed? I sincerely doubt it.

    So, is the democratic will of the people to be sacrificed for better values in political communication?

  2. The I.T. report is clear: the problem is being expressed as dissatisfaction with the level of coverage given to the various No campaigns when the vast majority in parliament favoured Yes. This misses the point of what was wrong with the debate. The problem with the broadcast Lisbon debate was that bogus claims predominantly from the No side were refuted again and again but still were presented as plausible.

    It always invites accusations of elitism to say that the majority is wrong for whatever reason. However, a majority can’t expect silence from opponents.

    Democratic will depends on citizens making a judgement. Coming to a judgement in any meaningful sense of the word means reflecting on evidence and arguments.

    In Ireland a citizen can lodge a formal complaint about unbalanced coverage. However, a citizen cannot lodge a complaint that something untrue was broadcast and that the broadcaster either knew it was untrue or made no reasonable effort to check it out.

  3. True words, some unadulterated words dude. You made my day!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: