Summary: <br> Dr <a href="https://ie.linkedin.com/in/michael-foley-0854541a" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer">Michael Foley</a> is professor emeritus at the school of media at TU Dublin – formerly DIT – also a member of the NUJ’s Ethics Council, and has been invited by the International federation of Journalists and UNESCO to write a syllabus on journalism safety and ethics. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> *****<br> <br> <br> <br> Because of the detailed nature of the podcast, I sent a rough cut of the show to Neil O’Gorman of RTÉ in advance for his comments a couple of days before publication, and invited his comments. Below is Neil’s response, with interjections in italics from myself.<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> Thank you for sending in advance. I have three comments/asks:<br> <br> <br> <br> Given that your podcast is themed around bias and journalistic ethics, it is both misleading and unethical to not disclose upfront that the conversation with me was recorded without my knowledge. It is essential that you highlight this at the front of the piece in the interests of full disclosure and potential impact on my professional reputation.<br> <br> <br> <br> On this same point, was Michael Foley informed that the conversation he has just heard was recorded without my knowledge, particularly as he is presented as an expert in ethics in journalism?<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> In the podcast it’s clear from my comments and the audio that I didn’t tell Neil in advance that I would record the call. <a href="https://www.rte.ie/documents/about/rte-journalism-guidelines-april3-2012.pdf" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer">RTÉ’s guidelines for its own journalists</a> say secret recording is justified where there is “evidence of behaviour, or intention to carry out behaviour, that it is in the public interest to reveal”.<br> <br> <br> <br> I emailed Neil at length and made it clear to him that I believe RTÉ, a public body in receipt of hundreds of millions of euro in public funds, have a duty to respond to valid queries. Despite repeated clarifications, Neil refused to respond meaningfully to a several questions regarding RTÉ’s compliance with its own rules. In particular I asked Neil to give a narrative explanation of how RTÉ arrive at conclusions which seem to fly in the face of known facts. Neil declined.<br> <br> <br> <br> I feel it is fully justified to use the recording of Neil to illustrate that fact.<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> Given that your podcast is themed around bias and ethics in journalism; dismissing responses – fully approved official RTÉ responses – as ‘PR guff’ without sharing those responses is disingenuous and also misleading. In particular, we have stated clearly that this is not a sponsorship. RTÉ is clear on that. Why not let your listeners decide?<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> I asked Neil to give an example of any RTÉ response to a question from me that I had not included in the podcast. He was unable to do so. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> Significantly, you present a conversation with me – recorded against my knowledge – as definitive comment from RTÉ. It is not. Rather the conversation raised new issues which I asked you to put in writing and was the beginning of a number of exchanges in which RTÉ – not me personally – responded to a series of questions. These responses do not appear and suggest bias on your part.<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> RTÉ declined to answer the key questions that I asked. I fully stand over describing long, non-responsive texts which were sent in the place of answers to my questions as ‘PR guff’. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> I would ask that you take these comments into full consideration before publishing the final version of your podcast.<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> *****<br> <br> <br> <br> Our national broadcaster, RTÉ has pretty strict rules on balance and fairness in what they broadcast.
