702's McKaiser 'demonstrated intolerance', BCCSA

D

dlk001

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
7,455
Reaction score
715
Location
Best Country in the world!
I'm not surprised, based on my opinion of his behavior. He is such a Diva!!

The Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) has reprimanded radio station 702 for contravening clause 13 of the Broadcasting Code.

The BCCSA was particularly damning of the role played by 702 host Eusebius McKaiser in creating "a hostile environment" on his programme focusing on former President De Klerk, which the commission considered to be a matter of public importance.

During the programme, which discussed "the controversial issue of the role of ex president FW de Klerk in the political discourse on the future of this country", the BCCSA found that McKaiser had broadcast "a clip of a speech by De Klerk in 1993, out of context" and had "demonstrated intolerance towards opposing views and made no reasonable efforts to fairly present opposing points of views."

It also found that McKaiser had granted no right to reply to "De Klerk or his spokesperson by inviting any of them to appear on a programme that was clearly intended to criticise De Klerk.

"The spokesperson’s call was cut off while he was trying to present an opposing point of view."
https://www.enca.com/south-africa/7...le-environment-demonstrated-intolerance-bccsa
Click to expand...
 
Eusebius??? Noooooooo!!!! He never pushes any agendas or "narratives".

Seriously though, he tries to damn hard.
 
Is he suspended, AHEM, I mean on special leave, AHEM, I really meant sick leave now?
 
Conclusion

The appropriate sanction in this instance will be a reprimand. As for the first Complainant’s request that we direct the Broadcaster to broadcast a summary of our finding, we expect that the media will probably take note of this judgment and accord it the publicity which they think necessary. We therefore do not deem it necessary to order the Broadcaster to broadcast a summary of this finding.

In conclusion, we find that the broadcast on 7 May 2017 was in contravention of clauses 13(1) and (2) of the Code of Conduct and the complaints are upheld. The sanction for the contravention is that the Broadcaster is reprimanded.
Click to expand...
.
 
From the judgement:
Mr Steward, the Complainant, then phoned in. He complained that there was lack of balance in the programme in that Mr De Klerk was not given the opportunity to respond. He pointed out that De Klerk was instrumental in the creation of the new democratic system in South Africa and that even Mr Mandela had praised him for this. He stressed the point that all South Africans have the right to discuss the future of the country. The presenter’s response to this was that the Complainant cannot tell Black people that they cannot save themselves and that he (the Complainant) is laughable. As for the lack of balance, the presenter stated that he cannot have all the people whose views are discussed on the show. It would be irresponsible to have De Klerk on the show. During the heated discussion that ensued, there were exclamations of: “Who the hell are you?” and the presenter then cut off the call of the Complainant
Click to expand...

Charming...

Talk about being a snowflake.
 
Sneeky said:
Exactly what it says, reprimand, 'Naughty, Naughty broadcaster, don't do it again'.

That was the medicine.
Click to expand...
My bad. So when will McMuffin be disciplined?

He is doing a pretty good job at dragging Primedia's name through the mud though.

702 should keep him on for as looong as possible.
 
chunk10 said:
I know right but with a name like Mr Steward must be a special snowflake.
Click to expand...

Arguments are only proven to be good when they are tested. McOxford's unwillingness to go up against a contrary opinion on this matter is all the evidence you need to see how fragile they are.
 
konfab said:
Arguments are only proven to be good when they are tested. McOxford's unwillingness to go up against a contrary opinion on this matter is all the evidence you need to see how fragile they are.
Click to expand...

Just over all these hipster terms, makes you look juvenile.
 
Haha, anti-white SJW blow-hard finally gets a judgement against him...

Although it is only a minor slap on the wrist by the looks of things. Anyone heard EWN publicise it yet?
 
dlk001 said:
He should be neutral and let callers voice their opinions on the matter.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be neutral to a topic to realise the value of a contrary opinion. He is perfectly free to hold his viewpoints, however cutting off someone making a point you don't agree with is not intellectually honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X