Rónán Mullen accuses RTE of secrecy over pay and bias
Rónán Mullen questioned RTE leadership about transparency, pay arrangements and editorial diversity during a parliamentary exchange. He pressed for clarity on whether any of the €725 million allocated to RTE over three years is earmarked for investigative or editorial scrutiny.
Funding and transparency: Mullen challenged the broadcaster over composite pay arrangements that can obscure top earners and asked whether any of the 725 million in funding had been ring-fenced for programming that interrogates RTE's own editorial policy. He repeated his 2023 legislative proposal to cap external and internal pay to the level of the Minister for Communications and to publish all salaries above a TD's pay.
Editorial culture and diversity: The senator criticised a culture he described as lacking self-reflection and diversity of viewpoint, citing examples where controversial debates - including surrogacy - were presented without visible representation of ethical concerns. He referenced recent disclosures in other broadcasters as context for concerns about agenda capture and editorial conformity.
Request for audit: Mullen asked RTE's representative to consider an internal audit to assess whether sufficient diversity of opinion is present across its output. The RTE response was cautious, offering to reflect and return with an answer rather than committing to an immediate audit.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Go raibh maith agat, Cathaoirleach, and welcome to you all. I have to say I am astounded to learn today what I think you've said, which that it remains the case that through a combination of a personal salary and a payment to a company, a person might avoid being mentioned in the top 10. And I actually thought we had moved beyond all that. And listening then to talk of it still being possible, if I understand you correctly, that a person could be put on a personal contract enabling you to exceed the cap, it sounds to me like we're still down an animal farm and that some animals are still more equal than others and the public is still in the dark. Now, I brought forward legislation, Kevin, in 2023 that would have provided that nobody, whether through contract or external contracting or otherwise, would exceed the salary of the Minister for Communications, which was then at about 195,000. And it would also have provided that all salaries in excess of equivalent to that of a TD would be published. And that would get rid of the ducks and drakes that are being played with the public through this cosmetic exercise of the top 10 being published. And it's a case of Lannigan's ball then, where one steps in and the other steps out again, but the public are still being fooled. Maybe not deliberately, but I think it speaks to a complete lack of transparency, a word that you have mentioned several times. Now, the question, the specific issue I want to put to you today, Kevin, is of the 725 million that RTE has received to run operations over the current three-year period, how much of that has been earmarked? And I want you to listen and give me a short answer, please. For on-air programming that specifically investigates challenges and interrogates RTE's editorial policy in the interests of openness and transparency and fulfilling your public remit. We don't earmark funding, but obviously there's a lot of funding that goes into news, current affairs... I'm talking about specifically challenging and investigating and interrogating your editorial policy as a matter of good practice. I think the answer to that is none. And the reason I'm answering... Sorry, can I just be clear? We would not allocate funding to specific topic areas. If we allocate funding to news, current affairs and investigations, they have the editorial choice. Understood. This is an issue of culture, and this is, I think, at the back of all of this, and it is the failure to self-reflect. And it's not just... In your own country, in the BBC, we've seen Rob Burley, 13 years as a senior BBC editor, who, after leaving, has exposed the capture of the organisation by various agendas, progressive agendas, bullying around editorial policies and so on. Now, on a previous occasion, I asked you whether you were open to doing an audit within your organisation to see was there sufficient diversity of viewpoint so as to enable the diversity of views in the public on a range of issues to be served. And you dismissed that on that occasion as being sounding like North Korea, when in fact you missed the point, because in North Korea, what they enforce is conformity. And what I'm trying to do is to find out how interested are you in genuine diversity? Because if you look at the... Like, even a generation ago, we had Mailbag, you know, where Arthur Murphy, I don't know if you know about him, would read out letters, and sometimes it was maybe making a bit of fun of the listeners or the writers, but at least it was some effort at self-reflection or being open to criticism. I put it to you that there's a whole range of issues, and I might differ or agree with people on a whole range of issues. You could talk about free speech, you could talk about trans-related debates, immigration, where many people feel that there is a sameness of viewpoint within RTE, which is affecting the diversity of opinions that are allowed to be expressed. I'll give you one example. On two separate occasions in recent months, on the thorny issue of surrogacy, David McCullough, very good historian from everything I've ever heard, did interviews with people who only represented one point of view, and that was people seeking to implement certain legal changes, and it focused in on personal points of view on one side. There was not one single representation of ethical concerns around international surrogacy, commercialization of children, and so on. Now, whether you agree or disagree with me on that issue, that is shocking, that not once but twice. And in fact, I looked up AI, which for all its faults, sometimes gives you a line on things. And what it had to say was, in relation to David, who I have great respect for in lots of ways, prominent RTE broadcaster, and his coverage on surrogacy primarily acts as a platform for families and advocates urging the government to finalize legislation. Like, even AI was able to put him in there as an advocate. That shows you that there is a neutrality problem in RTE. Or a problem with AI. And I'm going to ask, well, that's possibly the case, but it's interesting. And what I'm asking you is this. Very briefly. Are you willing to commit to considering whether an audit is necessary to make sure that there is sufficient diversity in your coverage of issues? And if you're not willing to commit to that, why? I'm not willing to commit to an audit without going away to think about it and to look at... I agree with you about diversity of opinion. Have until the second round of questions, because it's kind of an obvious question to ask you. Because people would expect that level of interest in diversity. I'm interested in diversity.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
