Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Coughlan judgment has been interpreted by the broadcasters as meaning 50-50 coverage of certain matters, such as referendums. If the overwhelming majority of the people, as demonstrated by their representation among the membership of this House, are in favour of a particular amendment, I agree that it seems difficult to know how the 50% on the other side can be comprised. I have seen legal commentary to the effect that this is a self-imposed limitation on the part of the broadcasters, given that the judgment does not say there should be 50-50 coverage. I suppose that in interpreting it that way, the broadcasters erred on the side of impartiality and wished to be seen to be fair. In one of the legal commentaries I read, I noted Dr. Gavin Barrett's thoughts on Deputy Cowen's point about the circumstances that can be created:

In practice, the '50-50' rule creates a perverse political incentive to oppose Constitutional amendments on European treaties. A politician who supports such an amendment will normally find him- or herself occupying a crowded field of experienced politicians jostling for the maximum of 50% of the airtime guaranteed to the 'yes' side. A politician who opposes the amendment occupies a much less crowded space populated by much less experienced political actors. For the 'no' side, the 50% operates more as a minimum guarantee.

He went on to say that political parties or politicians could engage in grand-standing by opposing a proposed constitutional amendment, regardless of whether they were convinced of the merits of their opposition, in order to avail of the 50% of coverage available to that side.

See this speech in context