The BAI has rejected my complaint about the Joe Duffy programme on Life Loans

Leper, no amount of media training could prepare someone for the nonsense that we heard on that Joe Duffy Show. Brendan puts his head above the parapet without the protective veil of anonymity, and for that alone he deserves credit.

The BAI have shown themselves to be akin to Sir Alex Ferguson running the VAR process at Manchester United games.

What’s actually required is for the likes of Seniors Money or Bank of Ireland to seek damages from RTE for the unsubstantiated mud that was hurled at their respective businesses.
 
Early Riser said:
The audience for the show know this perfectly well and I would think that few rely on it for expert advice.
Click to expand...
Hi Early Riser

I spoke to a few people who heard the first show and thought it was terrible the way the banks were forcing these products on people without explaining it to them and then taking their houses from them.

Most people rely on these stories for their personal financial advice. One advisor told me that the programme spooked one of their clients for whom the Seniors Money product was perfect.

So I would not underestimate the impact of the programme.

If I thought that people just took it as a joke, I would not have bothered intervening.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
If I thought that people just took it as a joke, I would not have bothered intervening.
Click to expand...

Possibly it was poorly expressed, but I never meant to suggest that people "just took it as as a joke". But I do think people realise that it is just the personal opinions of a small selection of ordinary Jack and Mary's. This is what they tune in to this show to hear, not "experts". Will it influence some people? Almost certainly. But I think this reflects a reality that many people have a degree of scepticism of advice from experts. That is not to say that they dismiss all expert advise without evaluating it, although some do, unfortunately. And many Jack and Mary's have been burned by financial experts also.

As regards your performance on the show and subsequent complaint. I'll try another analogy. Say a skilled, high-performance rugby player finds himself playing a game of soccer and, failing to adjust his game, finds himself constantly whistled by the ref and soon sent off. He is aggrieved that his skills have not been able to influence the game in the way he had hoped and anticipated. However, it results from a mismatch from his expectations and understanding of the game, not the performance of the Ref. I suspect a complaint to the FAI (or even the IRFU) would get nowhere in these circumstances.

The Joe Duffy show is not "Morning Ireland", "Drivetime", "The Consumer Show" or "Today with Pat Kenny", (or an AGM for that matter). A complaint to the BAI about content on these programmes would be evaluated according to different standards - whether the complaint would be upheld or not is another matter.

Anyway, I hope you are togged out again soon and showing them what you've got!
 
Early Riser said:
Anyway, I hope you are togged out again soon and showing them what you've got!
Click to expand...

Brendan - Do you think that this complaint may limit your access to RTE Shows in the future, or are these things brushed off as part of the business?
 
Reboot said:
Do you think that this complaint may limit your access to RTE Shows in the future
Click to expand...

Hi Reboot

If RTE does wrong, I try to correct it. I don't crawl under my rock in case it upsets them.

I don't expect it will have any impact but it wouldn't have changed my behaviour in any way.

There are very few people prepared to speak on consumer finance issues, so I would imagine that they will ask me again.

On Prime Time a few years ago, I was asked to do an interview after a broadcast piece on tracker mortgages. I agreed but asked to see it beforehand so I would know what was to be said. They said that they would be editing it until the last minute, so I could watch it with Miriam while it was being broadcast.

I was astonished at it. The broadcast piece was completely wrong. They showed a customer with a mortgage contract saying that they would get a mortgage at ECB + 0.65%. They showed the contract. Then they showed the letter putting him on the prevailing rate.

I was in a dilemma. I was there to advocate on behalf of consumers but I was not going to do it under false pretences.

Miriam: "Brendan - wasn't that a disgrace - how can they justify that?"
Me: "It would be if it were true, but that did not happen. Your report is wrong. If someone had a contract as clear as that and ptsb tried that, then the Ombudsman or Central Bank would sort it out."

Miriam was raging as I was not performing according to expectations.

Miriam"No matter what way you dress this up..."
Me: "I am not dressing this up. Your report is factually wrong..."

I don't think I have been asked back on Prime Time since. But I am not going to go along with a false report to curry favour with the national broadcaster.

I heard that they did an investigation afterwards to find out how they got it so wrong. The borrower had two mortgages. They showed the contract from one and the letter about his rate options from another.

Brendan
 
Hi Early Riser


Are you saying that if I hear complete lies being broadcast about a good financial product on Joe Duffy, that I should not call in?

So if Joe Duffy does a programme saying that Irish banks are great lenders and have very low mortgage rates, I should just say "Ah sure that is Joe Duffy" and ignore it?

That it would be a better use of my time to go on a Carr Communications course so that I can perform better on Morning Ireland?

I don't agree.

Brendan
 
Early Riser said:
The Joe Duffy show is not "Morning Ireland", "Drivetime", "The Consumer Show" or "Today with Pat Kenny"
Click to expand...

Well its a very serious Consumer Topic, and that being the case, should not have had such an ill-informed presenter discussing it.
 
Even after the complaint, I am still learning!

I got this email from the BAI yesterday:

Dear Brendan,

Please note that the deadline for the task expires in two days.
Due date: 02-06-2021

Task description: Please be advised that your complaint was recently considered and it was determined that the broadcast in question did not infringe the Code/s. Accordingly, the complaint was rejected. Please find a copy of your complaint decision attached.

For your information, all complaints whether upheld or rejected, including the complainant's name, are made publicly available unless the BAI considers it inappropriate to do so.

Kind regards,
BAI complaints team

I have no idea what this means.
They rejected my complaint.
There is no right of appeal.
That is the end of the story as far as I was concerned.
But the deadline for some "task" expires tomorrow.

So, I emailed them asking what it meant and got the following reply:

I acknowledge receipt of your email.

Please be advised, the below email is a reminder of the due date regarding task number CT0004325 should you wish to respond.

This is the task which your complaint decision is attached to.

Please note that we do not require a response in relation to this task.

I am no better informed. I still do not know what the task is.

So I emailed them again and finally had it explained:

Thank you for your email.

Please note that we provide all complainants with an opportunity to submit a response to their complaint decision. Please be advised that although there is no appeals process in relation to BAI complaint decisions, in some instances, complainants may wish to submit comments to the Executive Complaints Forum or may have a query regarding their decision.

I trust this clarifies the matter for you.

This is bonkers stuff. Why did they not say this in the first place? I had no idea that there was a facility for making submissions.

Brendan
 
LS400 said:
Well its a very serious Consumer Topic, and that being the case, should not have had such an ill-informed presenter discussing it.
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of the show and never tune in by choice. However, I sometimes hear parts of it when in company. So I am not on a crusade to defend it. However, I think there should be space for a show of this nature where the ordinary punter gives their perspective or story about whatever. I don't think the presenter has to be an expert on each and every topic Joe or Josephine is exercised about.

I didn't hear it but I believe there was a recent flurry of calls relating to the menopause. I doubt that Joe Duffy is either an expert or has the benefit of first hand experience. Do you reckon Joe should not, therefore, have taken calls on the topic? And should the callers have had their stories, perspectives, opinions, etc. fact-checked by an "expert"?
 
Last edited:
I've just read through this thread again and note that Brendan Burgess informed me my contributions are atrocious, nonsense and rubbish. This is unprofessional bad manners from a professional and I thought he was above that kind of silly name calling. All I suggested several weeks ago is that I think Media Training is required by him. I pointed this out in a matter-of-fact way and thought it would be of benefit to him in his dealings with the media (including his AAM forum). I am sorry I offered such advice as he has let no opportunity slip to hurl this undeserved venom at me since. I don't think I deserved such for expressing a point-of-view, especially of what would be beneficial to him.

On previous threads started by him on Media Training he said that I suggested he looked stupid on Joe Duffy's show. I never suggested anything like that and through several posts where I asked him to produce evidence of what I said he still maintained his stance. For a quiet life I just gave up and saw no point in further discussion.

I have always enjoyed this forum and I find it informative, useful, helpful, educational and profitable to be involved. Would somebody please inform Mr Burgess?
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi Early Riser


Are you saying that if I hear complete lies being broadcast about a good financial product on Joe Duffy, that I should not call in?

So if Joe Duffy does a programme saying that Irish banks are great lenders and have very low mortgage rates, I should just say "Ah sure that is Joe Duffy" and ignore it?

That it would be a better use of my time to go on a Carr Communications course so that I can perform better on Morning Ireland?

I don't agree.

Brendan
Click to expand...
What I believe I said was that, given the nature of the programme, I fully expected that the complaint would be rejected - that I would be shocked otherwise. I also said that I expected a different standard would be applied to this programme than to, say, a news or consumer advice show.

I did not say, or suggest, any of the things attributed to me in the above post (although I would not construe them as "complete lies"). I don't know of any independent body to whom I can complain about this and I fully expect than such a complaint would be rejected in any case. I don't think I will bother.:)
 
Last edited:
Gordon Gekko said:
Leper, no amount of media training could prepare someone for the nonsense that we heard on that Joe Duffy Show. Brendan puts his head above the parapet without the protective veil of anonymity, and for that alone he deserves credit.
Click to expand...
Hi Gordon,

1. The scenario you have described above is exactly why Media Training is required.
2. And if Media Training suggests "Don't Talk to Joe." - I wouldn't.
3. Bank of Ireland or the likes of it will never issue legal proceedings against such radio programmes. Why would they?
 
Early Riser said:
Do you reckon Joe should not, therefore, have taken calls on the topic?
Click to expand...


I think you'll agree, that on the said topic you mentioned, The Presenter, unlike with Brendan, didn't try to make a mug out of any callers who phoned in, or proclame the callers should have been on one of his funny friday shows. Its a ridiculous comparison. To defend what you listened to is as surprising as the BAI ruling.

A presenter, when allowing a discussion, basically is there to be the referee, and keep the topic balanced. He does this by giving both sided a fair and equal chance to put their side of view across. This Ref took the ball and ran off to his loudest cheering side and flung it in the goal.

The gas thing is, most on here agreed that what Brendan said was correct, that he was pretty brave to take on a seasoned presenter who didn't hold back on trying to ridicule a contributor to his show, any yet all you get is, you should train up and get experience if you want to right a wrong, or, well you should have known better than to correct a mis-informed radio show. Well If brendan hadnt, because he didn't attend one of the suggested training programmes, who else would do it, well who?? Who else tried to correct the misinformation being sounded out to his hundreds of thousand listeners. Not a single one.


What training class did he take to correct the tracker debacle for example?

Where does that leave us now, why would he bother to see a wrong being righted. Hes a much braver man that me I can tell you, I wouldn't have called the show, he would have made mince meat out of me.

We all hide behind our user name, and tell him what he did wrong, yet you know he was right.
 
LS400 said:
is that just the Joe Show?

If Miriam on Prime time was to behave like that, should he also avoid that programme?
Click to expand...
I believe that if anybody feels uncomfortable going onto a television or radio show, they are entitled to refuse to participate. I don't care if it is Joe Duffy, Miriam O'Callaghan or Donald Duck's Cartoon Hour.

Let's all sit back for a few minutes and take time easy. Has it dawned on anybody that:-
1. Joe Duffy has a huge back-up team who advise him continuously of whatever and keep prompting him. You ring in or participate please be aware you are a minority of one. They are loyal, prudent and want to make their presenter look good no matter what. They do their job well.
2. The likes of Joe Duffy are experienced and consummate professionals. They know their job. They have interruptions, advertising etc to use to their benefit. They control every conversation know full well how to make themselves look like the good guys. A mere mortal like me would be eaten without salt by even the most mediocre media presenters. Hence the need for most to take Media Training seriously if you participate often.
 
Leper said:
I believe that if anybody feels uncomfortable going onto a television or radio show,
Click to expand...

Lep, as seems to be the norm, your inventing scenarios to suit your view.

Brendan wasn't uncomfortable going on the radio to discuss a consumer topic.

He was treated poorly on a show, be that by the presenter, his back up people who you say want him to look good, or anyone else who had a say in the running of the discussion.

If you feel that's acceptable in your eyes, well, you should just nail your colours to the mast instead of pontificating and making excuses about what was in all honesty a disgraceful episode on our National Broadcasting Station.
 
Leper said:
This is unprofessional bad manners from a professional and I thought he was above that kind of silly name calling.
Click to expand...
But Brendan isn't name-calling, he is giving his opinion on the content of your posts, the correct way to conduct a debate. It's a shame when experienced posters cannot tell the difference between the ad hominem attacks and commentary on content.
 
Last edited:
Thirsty said:
@mathepac

I have no dog in this fight.

But suggesting that using words such as "atrocious, nonsense and rubbish" is the "correct way to conduct a debate" wouldn't fly even in Australian parliamentary circles.
Click to expand...
Thank you Thirsty. Well said! I won't even comment on Mathepac's post.
 
I’d love to know how “media training” prepares one to deal with a stacked deck of biased “guests” and a host whose lack of professionalism is startling.

Analagous to suggesting a Christian attend debating classes before his date in the Colosseum. The issue isn’t the Christian’s debating nous; it’s the number of lions and blade-wielding soldiers he has to face that are the problem, the “stacked deck” if you will.

The praise of Joe Duffy is particularly odious though. He’s more Panto than Paxman. The offending show was an affront to commonsense and a disgrace.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top