So the Citizens Assembly recently covered the 50/50 media requirement coming up to a referendum.
The "experts" invited to what imo was a fit up argued we don't need this 50/50 coverage.
In a cut and paste like decsion the BAI have gone with the CA.
"At a briefing today on its guidelines on referendum coverage the BAI said that fairness objectivity and impartiality can be achieved by including interests from both sides of the debate.
There is no obligation to automatically balance each contribution with an opposing contribution as fairness can be achieved in a number of ways including presenter input, the make up of audience, the structure of the programme as well as other means, the BAI said."
Unconstitutional I believe. See the Coughlan Judgement.
""The Supreme Court has upheld a High Court judgement that RTÉ acted unfairly in the allocation of free and unchallenged airtime to the 'Yes' and 'No' sides of the debate in the 1995 Divorce Referendum. The High Court action was taken by Trinity College lecturer Anthony Coughlan. He challenged RTÉ's treatment of the referendum and the decision of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission to dismiss his complaints."
The Coughlan Judgement is central, but so also is the McKenna Judgement in that the public broadcasters and the apparatus of the 'airwaves' are public assets that the Government cannot leverage to sway a vote in a particular direction.
It starts with the 8th amendment referendum.