Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee. I and my party of Sinn Féin welcome this report.

We would support RTE's view that the audience and participants in shows are entitled to expect fairness and honesty and that integrity is at the basis of everything that it does. We support and expect independence and unbiased broadcasting. We would agree with the statement that the audience expects that RTE will not lose its nerve and will continue to challenge and probe. For a democracy it is important that RTE continue to do that.

However, I shall set the context. There is no doubt that the tweet should not have been broadcast and that there was plenty of opportunity on the night to identify that it was a fake tweet. Sinn Féin people were present on the night and would have provided verification. Ironically, the matter has brought to the surface public interest matters that need to be debated. The electorate made up its own mind when voting and I respect its democratic decision.

My first question is the most obvious. Did no one in RTE have the savvy to know that the programme was a potential minefield? Surely somebody should have. The delegation said that no senior editorial person designated to deal with that aspect of the show. Such a person should have been provided. Can we have the editorial criteria for the selection of topics, panellists and audience members for general shows of "The Frontline"? It is disturbing - I would like to know how common it is - that friends or acquaintances of the production team are invited to join shows such as this. What is the selection criteria used for audience members with regard to political leanings or affiliations, sex, age group and geographical area? There is a view that Dublin 4 is well represented but not the rest of the country. Is the socioeconomic background taken into account when it comes to the selection of audience members?

Mr. Curran stated in his report that this is the first time in the history of RTE that such an editorial report, involving an external independent author, had been commissioned and published. Perhaps that is part of the problem and it should be an ongoing process. Perhaps broadcasters should have outside validation of what they are doing to ensure that it is in accordance with the criteria, guidelines and the standards that they have set themselves.