# BAI rejects my complaint about RTE's The Great Wealth Divide



## Brendan Burgess (27 Jun 2016)

I have just been notified by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland that they have unanimously rejected my complaint about The Great Wealth Divide. 

It was discussed here: 
*David McWilliams RTE programme on inequality*

I attach my formal complaint. Here is the summary:


Complaint about The Great Wealth Divide

Presenter David McWilliams

Broadcast on RTE 1 on 19 September 2015

Complainant: Brendan Burgess

Date submitted to Broadcasting Authority of Ireland: 4th January 2016

*Introduction *
This programme is in flagrant breach of Rule 19 in the BAI’s code that “Views and facts shall not be misrepresented or presented in such a way as to render them misleading.”

1)  There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the key point of the programme that the rich got richer during the recession and recovery and that the working middle classes are being excluded from the recovery.
The programme ignored the evidence that shows that the wealth gap did not increase during the recession and recovery.

2)  As there was no evidence to support the programme’s claim, the programme presented a totally misleading comparison of the growth in _wealth_ of the Top 100 wealthiest people with the growth in _income _of the rest of us over the past _year. _This is a completely meaningless comparison on five grounds

·  Comparing growth in wealth of one group with the growth in _income_ of another group is meaningless – growth in wealth of one group should be compared with growth in _wealth_ of the other group.

·  The comparison was made over one year, while the programme claimed that the gap has opened up during the recession and recovery which has lasted 7 years

·  Selecting a sample of 100 people is statistically meaningless

·  Selecting the 100 richest people today rather than selecting the 100 richest back in 2008 to see how their wealth has changed

·  The two wealthiest people who account for 58% of the growth in wealth have little or no economic connection with Ireland.

3)  The programme claimed incorrectly that the wealth inequality, whose existence no one denies, and the alleged increase in the wealth gap are the intended result of policy. In fact, government policy measures over the past few years would have tended to reduce the gap.

4)  The programme ignored the real causes of the wealth gap:

a.  Older people are wealthier than younger people

b.  Income inequality. Higher earners build up wealth more quickly than lower earners

c.  In particular, people who set up successful businesses become wealthy

d.  People who save more than other people on the same income become wealthier

e.  People get wealthy due to inheritances and gifts

5)  The programme provided no context for the Irish wealth gap – how it compares with other countries and how it integrates with the inequality in income.

6)  The proposed solution of increasing Corporation Tax on US multinationals is simply irrelevant to the distribution of wealth in Ireland





*Key extracts from the programme *
“ … in the recession, we all thought that we were getting poor together. But in fact a small minority were getting richer, much richer than you can imagine. …. But something is not right. …The working middle classes are being excluded from the recovery – it’s not just a feeling, it’s a reality.

During the bust, Ireland experienced a massive transfer of wealth. We now live in a winner take all economy where those at the top have a chance to make a fortune while those in the middle and the bottom get left behind.

We do have our super-rich and there are probably only 200 or 300 of them who are considered very very rich and they have come through the recession. In some cases they have acquired businesses cheaply. They have got debt write downs on other things. They seem to be able to restructure themselves and hold onto their wealth and now that the economy is recovering again and asset prices are rising again, they certainly appear to  be getting richer. They are restructuring their personal balance sheets and they are coming out stronger than ever.

Whereas the smaller person who is struggling with a mortgage who maybe has had to take one or two wage cuts , they haven’t gotten  anything.

This concentration of wealth is reversing trends of the last century in Ireland [of] upward social mobility and expansion of the middle classes.

The wealth of the Top 100 Rich list increased by €12 bn in just one year. That is twice the increase in income of every single person in Ireland last year. All 4.6m of us.

We have moved from a compassionate, open ended generous type of capitalism to a
hyper-capitalism winner takes all capitalism where the pitch isn’t level but is stacked enormously towards the extremely wealthy.

Actually Ireland does well when it comes to income inequality. Progressive income tax, social welfare and the minimum wage make Ireland one of the fairest countries in Europe.

And there never has been a better time for a tiny proportion of people to make money. There are tax policies to encourage the wealthy to generate more wealth  + we have QE the global policy of printing reams of  brand new money  for the banks to lend out to whoever they see fit.

And finally NAMA.  The Irish government policy which seems to me to have been nothing short of a fire sale of Irish assets

None of this is an accident. This concentration of wealth is not unintended consequence of policy, it is policy.

This wealth gap, this great divide, did not just happen by accident. It is the direct result of policies and political decisions made globally, in Europe and right here at home. And it won’t get fixed by accident. Every country has a choice.  Closing the gap means meeting wealthy individuals and *companies* half way. “


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Jun 2016)

RTE's response to my complaint is very long and confusing. It's also too large to upload. 

I can email a copy to anyone who is interested. PM me your email address. 

I attach my summary of their response and my response to it.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Jun 2016)

Here is the actual decision:


----------



## Dr.Debt (27 Jun 2016)

Hi Brendan

You could conduct a straw pole here on AAM asking 100 contributors, how their wealth % changed during the recession + or -


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Jun 2016)

Hi Dr Debt

It would be as meaningless as McWilliams' sample of the Top 100. 

The published information shows that the percentage share of the wealth of the Top 10% hasn't changed.

Brendan


----------



## Gordon Gekko (27 Jun 2016)

An incredible determination.

No wonder some many people have ridiculous opinions when nonsense such as that can be disseminated unchecked.

Fair play to you Brendan for taking the time to complain.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Jun 2016)

Thanks Gordon 

It's hard to understand. There are loads of examples, but this one in particular: 



Here is a transcript of the opening
"The world isn’t always as it seems. In the boom we all thought we were getting rich.  But in actual fact we were getting poor. And in the recession, we all thought that we were getting poor together.

But In fact a small minority were getting richer, much richer than you can imagine.

The economy is underway. The economy is growing . Unemployment is down. Revenues are up. But something is not right. It doesn’t feel like recovery to many of us. Where is the confidence, the optimism? The reason is simple

The working middle classes are being excluded from the recovery – it’s not just a feeling, it’s a reality."

"in actual fact we were getting poor
...
it's not a feeling, it's a reality."

I have no objection at all to David McWilliams or anyone else expressing their views. But he was not presenting these as views.

He claimed them as facts and they were not facts. 

In the follow up programme, Paul Murphy gave his views. We all knew that they were his views. If he quoted facts, we would have questioned them. I doubt if anyone thought that these "facts" presented by McWilliams were just his views. 

Brendan


----------



## Gordon Gekko (27 Jun 2016)

And in any event those "rich lists" are a nonsense. Maybe it's a cousin of the Richard Nixon approach...two wrongs (dodgy data and erroneous conclusions) might make a right?


----------



## trasneoir (28 Jun 2016)

"the editorial focus was clear from the outset, as was the approach to be taken"
ie. the show's agenda was decided in advance, and then they cherry picked some "evidence" to support it. 
The implied defense seems to be that nobody was expecting actual journalism, so nobody was misled.
RTE Factual.

Fair play Brendan. If we don't demand better, there's no chance we'll get it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Jun 2016)

Stupid decision but I am not surprised.  The argument seems to be that this was an opinion piece by McWilliams and people know his style, thus implicitly accepting that McWilliams spouts populist rants with only tenuous links, if any, to the facts.


----------



## T McGibney (28 Jun 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Stupid decision but I am not surprised.  The argument seems to be that this was an opinion piece by McWilliams and people know his style, thus implicitly accepting that McWilliams spouts populist rants with only tenuous links, if any, to the facts.



Nothing stupid in that argument. I didn't bother watching the programme because I knew it would be rubbish. I believe that people generally see through propaganda in the media. David Cameron is finished as Prime Minister because he thought otherwise.


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2016)

I'm not in the least bit surprised at their decision. 
We are ruled by populism, opinion and "feelings".
Decisions and information based on facts are not even tried.


----------



## elacsaplau (28 Jun 2016)

_Once again_, we have a _typically weird_ but nonetheless, _unusually common_ situation. It is an _open secret_ that the only choice for the BAI was to support RTE in its _clearly confused_ determination. After all, the programme included a range of........._contestable facts_!


----------



## cremeegg (28 Jun 2016)

Well done Brendan for taking the complaint in the first place.


----------



## 44brendan (28 Jun 2016)

Most of these types of programmes are polemic in their nature. I.e. They take a specific point and all content is based on supporting that point. One would normally expect RTE as the National Broadcaster to be more balanced in their approach but I find that virtually all of these programmes tend to lean towards sensationalism rather than balance (eg The Peak Oil presentation) where the purpose of the programme is to create a headline "end of the World is nigh" type of effect rather than give balance to both sides of what may be an issue of concern.


----------



## MrEarl (30 Jun 2016)

Hello Mr. Burgess,

I am sorry to learn about the outcome of the complaint you submitted to the BAI, but in truth I think you know I was expecting as much.

I have absolutely no confidence in the BAI to do the right thing, they seem far to fond of RTE no matter what they claim about being independent.  What is worse, is that there is no right of appeal or mechanism to independently challenge the BAI decision.

Ultimately, I think it's time we all went after the BAI and put things right there, if we are ever to have confidence in the service they are supposed to provide.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Jul 2016)

RTE is broadcasting the programme again tonight with the same promo. 

There isn't even the pretence of a debate afterwards for balance. 

Brendan


----------



## MrEarl (19 Jul 2016)

The current situation is little more than a private members club, acting in their own best interests.

In my view, it's long past time RTE was broken up and downsized ....

significant cash could be released from the sale of non core RTE assets, with that cash used to help fund more important State projects.

Long past time a Minister for Communications grew a pair and grabbed the bull by the horns


----------



## Bronte (20 Jul 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> RTE's response to my complaint is very long and confusing. It's also too large to upload.
> 
> I can email a copy to anyone who is interested. PM me your email address.



No thanks, I imagine it's a standard copy paste from other letters. Probably some of it doesn't even apply to your case.

I neither read nor listen to anything Professor Williams has to offer.  But fair play to you for trying to tackle his nonsense.


----------

