Mr. Declan McLoughlin:

I will make the observation that it is a real challenge and there are probably two poles to that challenge. The first is where one has a broadcaster on a particular issue, or more generally, which is not familiar with the details because it is not in a position to put the resources into familiarising itself with the details and it needs additional support from either experts or from the likes of the Broadcasting Sustainability Network. At the other end is the very informed broadcaster with many resources. If a broadcaster is unsure about something, it will naturally take a more conservative approach to coverage. At the far end of the scale are all of those changes to our fundamental way of living that will be necessary but the way in which they are given practical effect nationally, locally or in a community can be contested and the particular ways in which they are given effect may be potentially incorrect. A role of a broadcaster, therefore, is to challenge. It may not be challenging the particular objective of the action but it may set out the reasons something may not be practical in the way the broadcaster is presenting it. I am not saying that is always the case.

I think we will find that most broadcasters are not objecting to the overall direction of travel. They will either be unsure and take a conservative approach on complex topics, as we have sometimes seen with elections and referendums, or there will be genuine issues which they will reasonably challenge or explore, if nothing else. We see that a lot with cycleways recently. It is a difficult one and very much for the broadcaster, which is editorially independent, to decide what is the best approach. It is a real challenge, however. The role of a network, a media literacy activity or other actions is to empower broadcasters to have the confidence to make the right calls in those decisions and not to fall back on "he said, she said" or two sides of the same coin arguments or of making sure a powerful member of the community who is against a topic is heard versus ensuring another group of people who represent other parts of the community also get heard. That needs to be done in a way that serves the truth on the topic, rather than serving an argument without any purpose other than itself.