The Annual Report of this Board incorporates those of the Broadcasting, Internet and Literature Committees.
Central Communications Board |
|
|
Most Rev RL Clarke, Bishop of Meath and Kildare (Chairman) |
|
|
Rev AF Abernethy (resigned April 2000) |
Ven RG Hoey |
|
Rev Canon Professor J Bartlett |
Rev Dr AW McCormack |
|
Mr G Bradley |
Rev Canon JW McKegney |
|
Rev P Comerford |
Dr R Refaussé |
|
Mr AD Fleck |
Mr RH
Sherwood |
|
Rev M Graham |
|
Broadcasting Committee |
|
|
Dr K Milne (Chairman) |
|
|
Ms R Buchanan |
Rev TW Gordon |
|
Rt Rev WP Colton, Bishop of Cork |
Dr V Jones |
|
Mr AD Fleck |
Rev Dr AW McCormack (Honorary Secretary) |
|
Rev AJ Forster |
Rev FJ McDowell (Honorary Treasurer) |
Literature Committee |
|
|
Rt Rev MHG Mayes, Bishop of Limerick (Chairman) |
|
|
Very Rev Dr MGStA Jackson |
Mr S O’Boyle |
|
Rev Canon MC Kennedy |
Dr R Refaussé (Honorary Secretary) |
|
Rev Canon JAB Mayne |
Rev B Treacy, OP |
|
Dr K Milne |
Very Rev Dr SR White |
Internet Committee |
|
|
Ven RG Hoey (Chairman) |
|
|
Mr M Larmour |
Rev M Graham (Co-ordinator) |
|
Mr RH Sherwood |
|
A review group appointed by the Central Communications Board recommended the creation of a new communications unit. The group had consulted widely before reporting back to the Representative Body and the Standing Committee which agreed that a Director of Communications (based in Dublin) and a Media Officer (based in Belfast) should be appointed to form the unit with a brief to cover media relations, media training, internal and external communications, co-ordination of publishing, public relations, the fuller development of the Diocesan Information Officer network and the Internet.
No appointments have yet been made under these new arrangements. Brian Parker was subsequently appointed on a contract for services basis to the role of Press Officer.
Brian Parker was appointed as acting Press Officer on a contract basis following the retirement of Liz Gibson-Harries. He is based in Belfast but maintains close working relations with Church House in Dublin. Jenny Compston continues as assistant to the Press Officer.
The Press Office continues to develop the use of the Internet in association with the Rev Michael Graham, not least in achieving effective distribution of news releases.
The Millennium Service in the Waterfront Hall involved a wide cross section of interests in the churches and in the community.
The General Synod in Belfast attracted sustained media interest over the three days with a variety of photo opportunities supplementing news coverage. On site press facilities and press services were well used by journalists. The structure of the Synod Reports publication was confusing in relation to the business agenda. A measure of synchronisation would be welcome.
Diocesan Synods received rather piecemeal coverage with some
achieving substantial recognition in local newspapers. However the scheduling of synods remains
“cluttered” with Bishops’ speeches cascading on to the news desks, one on top
of the other. Consideration needs to be given to this schedule and some attempt made
to space the events.
Other media events included:
· the enthronement of Bishop Michael Mayes as Bishop of Limerick;
· the “Profiles of Faith” video launch in Dublin and Belfast;
· the new Hymnal launch in Dublin with Pam Rhodes, BBC;
· the Mothers’ Union General Meeting, held in the Waterfront Hall Belfast, which attracted positive media coverage with Lady Eames, World President, featuring in broadcast and print media.
The Church of Ireland response drew sustained interest from the national and local media. There was also press interest in the Inter-Church Meeting held in Dundalk to discuss the issue.
Intense media demands around this issue with Archbishop Eames fielding requests for interviews. Press releases, briefings and by-line articles are also used where appropriate.
The Press Officer continues to support Diocesan and Cathedral initiatives. A quarterly meeting of Diocesan Communications Officers, “News Breaks”, is now in place. The meetings include the opportunity to discuss issues with media professionals.
The Press Office was drawn into various topical stories throughout the year, for example the EC debate on religious ethos in schools, political developments, visit of the Dalai Lama, lobby group issues, “Black Santa” and support for schools projects with a religious slant.
The Press Office staff are grateful to all those in the Church of Ireland who respond to the many demands for information and interviews that come from the media. In its work the Press Office depends on ready access to key sources of information and in the past year it has been encouraged by the helpful response from members of the Church of Ireland, clerical and lay, in building up effective press relations.
The year has proved a
rather busy one for the Committee and, through its course, the Committee has
met in discharge of its obligations in Dublin and Limerick as well as in
Belfast.
The phenomenon of
digitalisation, outlined by the Committee at the General Synod of 1998 in its
document Digital Broadcasting, is now well and truly under way in the United
Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland.
Many of the areas highlighted for discussion by the Committee document
are now live in public discourse - issues primarily of regulation and qualitative
value in programming.
Last year’s report to
the General Synod highlighted the Committee’s response to the Broadcasting Bill
(1999) produced in the Republic of Ireland by the Minister for Arts, Culture,
the Gaeltacht and the Islands. The
thinking displayed in this response has been continued and amplified in the
current cycle in the Committee’s response to the Communications White Paper
produced in late 2000 by the United Kingdom Government and presented by the
Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Culture, Media and Sport. The response is appended to this report.
Much work and reflection
has gone into the Committee’s responses – the Honorary Secretary attended a
conference sponsored by the Voice of the Viewer and Listener on ‘Public Service
Broadcasting’ in May 2000, while both the Honorary Secretary and the Chairman
attended a Symposium on the germane issues in Westminster in January 2001 at
the invitation of the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England. The Committee expects the issues of the
continuing understanding of broadcasting on the model of public service (and
the related issues of technological convergence) to occupy it in any
conceivable future in both jurisdictions.
The preparation of
clergy and laity to participate in the many opportunities still presented by
the contemporary broadcast culture has continued to exercise the
Committee. The Rev Tom Gordon is administering a scheme of graded training which is
open to both clergy and laity and designed to enable their fuller
participation in the current broadcast climate. The Committee encourages everyone interested to avail themselves
of this training.
The Committee continues
to appreciate the work of members of the Church of Ireland involved in local broadcasting. The Committee continues to contribute to the
3R syndication service which
provides religious interest material for use by local stations. The Committee has also monitored
developments in the Dublin area regarding the possible launch of a new
religious station and is active in exploring creative religious programme
options with existing local broadcasters.
At a national level in the United Kingdom context, Dr Valerie Jones
attended the summer meeting of the Churches Advisory Council on Local
Broadcasting (CACLB) as an aid to monitoring developments in the United
Kingdom.
The Committee received
the news of the departure of the Rev Ernest Rea from his central role in
Religion and Ethics in the BBC. A
letter was sent to him thanking him for his indefatigable work in British
religious broadcasting over the past few decades and wishing him well in the
future.
The Committee continues
to appreciate the standard and regularity of broadcast Church services on RTE
and records its thanks to the parishes of the Church of Ireland for their
continued willingness to broadcast radio and television liturgies.
During the course of the
year the Committee visited RTE Lyric fm in Limerick. This was in response to the invitation of Seamus Crimmins, Head,
Lyric fm. The Committee was delighted
to meet with a large group of, typically young, producers who were deeply
interested in developing synergies between classical music and arts programming
and the cultural phrasing of the religious.
The Honorary Secretary has explored these synergies in practical
programme making for Lyric in the past year.
Dr Colum Kenny and Breda
O’Brien attended a Committee meeting in the course of the year to help guide
the thinking of the Committee on the more theoretical aspects of broadcasting
policy formation. It is hoped that the
Committee may work with Dr Kenny in particular to develop a day long symposium
in conjunction perhaps with DCU School of Media to profile important issues in
religious broadcasting.
Through the course of
the year, the Committee has developed some rudimentary proposals for the
provision, in partnership with a national broadcaster, of a Programme-makers
Fellowship. This might be a three month
bursary which would enable a proven talent to develop a programme ready script
on a religious/human interest topic.
Discussions are still very much at an elementary stage, three
broadcasters have been simultaneously approached to test possible interest,
BBC, UTV and RTE.
The Internet Committee advises the Central Communications
Board on the use of the Internet in the Church of Ireland. Its
membership comprises the Ven Raymond Hoey (Chairman), Robert Sherwood (Chief
Officer), Mark Larmour, Ken Cinnamond and Michelle
Carter (IT department, RCB) and the Rev Michael Graham (Internet Co-ordinator).
The Internet Committee works in three main areas:
· maintaining and developing the Church of Ireland websites
· encouraging the use of the Internet among Church members
· supporting Internet users in the Church of Ireland
The Church of Ireland website (http://ireland.anglican.org) continues to attract thousands of visitors each year. In 2000 over 50,000 sessions were served by the web site – each session representing one visit to the site by a web user (for 1999 the site handled 21,500 visitors). This represents an increase of over 130% in visitors and indicates the spread of use of the Internet throughout the world. Our visitors came from places as far afield as Egypt, the United States, Canada, Argentina, Trinidad, Panama, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Turkey, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan and Vietnam.
The Internet Committee also established a General Synod website (http://synod.ireland.anglican.org) for Synod 2000 held in the Waterfront Hall, Belfast. As well as providing general information to Synod members, the site carried copies of Synod Reports, some copies of speeches made by delegates as well as press releases and reports of the debates and decisions of Synod.
A novel addition this year was the live audio broadcast of Synod business via the Internet, allowing church members who were not present to hear fully what was being reported and discussed. The President’s Address and the Report of the Standing Committee were recorded and remain available on the web site.
During Synod the site had over 2000 visitors who followed proceedings both during and after the event. The website is still active and is an excellent resource for those looking for information on the debates and reports presented at Synod 2000.
One of the most exciting developments of last year was the establishment of the Church of Ireland’s Internet service through the setting up of the church’s own web servers. This has allowed the Internet Committee to increase greatly the services which can be offered to church members, while at the same time curtailing costs paid to an outside Internet Service Provider (ISP).
The Church of Ireland can now offer full Internet Services to all members who are already on-line including official email addresses and web site hosting. Currently the Internet Committee host 77 domains on its servers ranging from dioceses and parishes to APCK (http://apck.ireland.anglican.org), the Mothers’ Union (http://motherunion.ie) and the Church of Ireland Gazette (http://gazette.ireland.anglican.org).
These services are currently available free of charge to
Church of Ireland organisations. Contact the Internet Co-ordinator
(hostmaster@ireland.anglican.org) if you have any queries.
The Internet Co-ordinator also maintains the Church of Ireland Email and Resource Directories. The Email directory alone contains over 500 entries (an increase of 20% over last year) and has become too large to distribute individually. Consequently on-line directories are maintained (http://churchofireland.net/directories) and are generally accessible to Directory members.
To date 72 parishes have web sites (an increase of 80% over last year): other parishes and dioceses have web sites in preparation.
Presentations on the Internet continued to be made to various bodies in the Church of Ireland. An Internet Café was provided at General Synod and an Internet Stall was included in the Connor Diocese “Building for Generations” launch in Coleraine.
In addition, other bodies in the Church continue to explore the potential of the Internet. The Internet Committee is happy to provide support and advice to all who may be considering using this exciting new communications medium to spread their message.
Throughout 2000 the Internet Co-ordinator continued to provide ongoing telephone and on-site support for Internet users throughout the Church of Ireland. This included written recommendations for equipment upgrades in several central and diocesan offices, installation and reconfiguration of systems for users, and the handling of general queries on email and web sites.
An increasing area of concern as more people go on-line is the spread of computer viruses. In 2000 the Internet Co-ordinator provided advance warning of potential virus threats, advised on anti-virus measures which users should be adopting to protect themselves and others, and helped clear many systems which had become infected by viruses.
During its September 1999 meeting in Scotland, the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates of the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Consultative Council passed a resolution endorsing the establishment of an International Advisory Council on Telecommunications for the Anglican Communion (IACTAC). Its role was to review an assessment of the electronic communication capacity and needs of the Provinces and their Dioceses and to examine and recommend ways that emerging technologies in electronic communication can best serve the Anglican Church on all levels.
The Internet Co-ordinator represented the Church of Ireland at the initial meeting of the Council in April 2000.
A report was presented by the Council and the following three areas identified for follow-up work:
1) Supporting the functions of the Council as the proposal for establishing a TELECOMMUNICATIONS STANDING COMMITTEE of the Anglican Communion is considered.
2) Examining the best way to establish an ANGLICAN COMMUNION “PORTAL” and undertaking to negotiate the way information is collected and fed to this “portal”.
3) As a first
step in developing an ANGLICAN COMMUNION TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK, selecting one Province in Africa as a model
to establish a full telecommunications capacity both internally and with
outside partners.
The Church of Ireland continues to be actively involved in these areas.
The Internet continues to develop at a pace which astonishes observers. Easier access through the use of, for example, interactive Web TV has brought the world wide web into the homes of many families who would never have considered purchasing or using a personal computer. On-line shopping, banking, arranging travel and holidays have all become familiar activities to millions of people throughout the world. We are truly witnessing an ‘e-revolution’, but we must be aware of the dangers of causing an ‘e-divide’ between those who are able to grasp the opportunities presented by this new communications medium and those who are excluded.
The Archbishop of Canterbury at the IACTAC Conference in April 2000 said:
“It is not necessary for me to remind you that the church owes its very existence - humanly speaking - to it being able to embrace new developments in communication and commerce in its infancy and over the centuries. At the heart of our faith is the idea of Jesus, the word of God, and that is compelling us to be faithful to Christ and to communicate his message effectively to the world. Thus, when we look at the infant church we see the way that it was able to take advantage of the Roman roads that criss-crossed the Empire and the ‘lingua franca’ that was ‘koine Greek’. These were the two ‘super highways’ in those days that God used to promote the faith of Christ .... And Christ lies at the heart of any thinking about the use of communication media within the Church. We turn our minds to the example of Christ himself as a wonderful communicator, always innovative, challenging and sometimes indeed defamiliarising. But always drawing people together into communities, local, national and international.”
The Internet Committee wishes to acknowledge the very significant input and vision of the Rev Michael Graham as Co-ordinator, technical supervisor and all round enthusiast without whom much of the advances in the use of the Internet in the Church of Ireland would not have taken place at this stage.
The membership of the
Committee was brought up to full strength by the election of three new members:
the Very Rev Dr Michael Jackson, the Very Rev Dr Stephen White, and Dr Kenneth
Milne.
The Committee met in
Dublin on four occasions.
In the continued absence
of a Director of Communications, who might direct publishing policy, the
Committee has been considering some of the printed resources which the Church
of Ireland ought to have constantly available.
Among these might be up to date editions of the Church of Ireland
Handbook and the Irish Churchwardens’ Handbook, a guide to ordination and a
guide to lay reading. In addition, the
Committee has been considering whether some of the materials which have been
printed in the Journal of the General Synod might be made more generally
available in a more attractive format.
The Committee is
conscious that, whilst it is desirable to continue to have such resources
available in printed form, some of them might also be appropriately issued on
the Church of Ireland website.
The
Committee noted that the guidelines for grants from the General Synod Royalties
Fund had been amended by the Standing
Committee by the addition of liturgy to education and communication as the areas of the Church’s life which the fund should
specifically support.
Grants to the Liturgical
Advisory Committee were recommended for the following purposes:
(i) To
purchase a notebook computer for the Honorary Secretary of the Liturgical
Advisory Committee.
(ii) To provide funds for the purchase of works of
reference for the Liturgical Advisory Committee. The Committee appended a proviso that the Liturgical Advisory
Committee should also supply the Representative Church Body Library with a copy
of each of the books which it purchases.
The Church of Ireland is an Anglican-episcopal
Church which exercises a ministry both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic
of Ireland. The Broadcasting Committee
of its General Synod is therefore obliged to speak on relevant matters in both
jurisdictions. The following submission
is made on behalf of this Committee.
We welcome the white paper A
New Future for Communications as a serious and timely intervention in an increasingly
complex audiovisual environment. We
agree that “the communications revolution is creating a new economic and
democratic landscape” (1.1.1) and that this necessitates a rethinking of both
policy objectives and the supportive regulatory frameworks which might enable
their achievement.
We believe
that a “dynamic and competitive market” is a worthy aspiration and that it
cannot be allowed to develop in an
unguarded or unregulated way. We
therefore welcome the notion of a coherent
framework of regulation monitored or enforced by a single regulatory body, OFCOM (1.3ff., 8.1ff.). The tiered approach to regulation which
recognises a difference in type of broadcaster (5.6- 5.8) is something
which we would generally welcome.
We welcome
also the white paper’s continuing commitment to the notion of Public Service Broadcasting as a vital component in the
democratic project (1.2.2; 4.0; 5.3.10; 11 et passim). We regard PSB as something worth
defending. We also welcome the proposed
development of a regionalism in the broadcasting environment (4.4ff.). The proposals for ‘Access Radio’ are also welcomed by us (4.5ff). We refrain from comment in the intricate
area of cross media ownership rules, but note that it would not be our position
to support any amendment of channel ownership disqualifications of the sort
mentioned at 4.9.2.
The role of the regulatory body in developing
media literacy is an exciting and valuable proposal (6.7ff.) and we applaud the
retention of current controls on the content of religious advertising and
programmes (6.9).
We believe that the aspiration
towards a dynamic and competitive market is a necessary response to the
communications revolution. We sense a
certain tension in the white paper between 4.2.6, “a competitive market is
likely to be one with many voices...” and 4.2.4, “Left to itself the market may
tend to focus investment only on more popular types of content...”. We therefore agree that regulation is
entirely necessary.
We see sense
in the mirroring of technological convergence in the proposed convergence of many
regulatory bodies in a single regulatory authority, OFCOM, but we wonder why
‘lighter touch’ regulation is felt to be an adequate aim in the new
configuration. The centring of the
structures of regulation around the Competition Act may need to be compensated
for precisely by a heavier, and not a lighter, hand. We do not suppose that the liberalisation of the market is of
greater importance than the preservation of value within it.
The three tiered
structure of OFCOM monitored regulation which is proposed valuably recognises a distinction in type of broadcaster,
and it seems fair that PSB expectations should be graded and
type-specific. We would be cautious,
however, of expecting too much to result from self-regulation. The history of the form in related
industries has proved patchy and has not always secured the confidence of the
public. The simplification of the
regulatory framework should not become a practical reason for poor or
inadequate regulation of services. We
also suggest that further thought might be given to the issue of
quantifiability which forms the basis of the distinction between tiers two and three.
We hold to the Reithian trinity of the informing, educating and
entertaining roles of broadcast communication.
We regard PSB to be a vital part of the democracy in which we live and
furthermore feel that every broadcast channel sustains to some extent public service
obligations - notwithstanding the distinction in type previously
mentioned. We believe that the
regulatory authority would be better to err on the side of strong regulation in
defence of PSB. Competition is, as the
white paper itself realises, not a blessing entirely removed from the
possibility of curse.
In a multi-channel environment such as already exists in the UK (and is
daily becoming more commonplace) we warmly welcome the notion that EPGs would
be strictly regulated to enforce the profile and presence of important ‘must
carry’ broadcasters, cf 2.6.3. The
fragmentation of audience which is a necessary corollary of a multi-channel
environment (see p.50, Davies Report summary) should be compensated for in
every possible way. In the past the
relative scarcity of TV channels has made possible significant communal
experiences in viewing, and the loss of this sense of virtual community will,
we consider, be a source of some regret.
We agree that continuing
access to free-to-air PSB services is “essential to full social and economic
inclusion”, 3.1, and applaud the resolve of the white paper to ensure
this. Relatedly we applaud the
aspiration with regard to universal internet access by 2005.
The encouragement of a regionalism in PSB (4.4.11) is also welcomed by
us. We would support the development of
programming in Northern Ireland which would reflect the linguistic diversity of
the locale. This would of course
include Irish language programming, Ulster-Scots programming and ethnic
minority language programming.
In
line with the Belfast Agreement we would also support the availability of TG4
in Northern Ireland. However, we reckon that there is a danger of
limiting the perception of cultural identity
by developing programming in languages spoken only by appreciable minorities in
Northern Ireland. We suggest that there is a considerably greater advantage to be
gained by the sharing of English
language programming throughout the island – programming from the Republic of Ireland should be easily available in
Northern Ireland and it is most important that reciprocal arrangements are developed in this regard. The fostering of mutual understanding
we consider will be more effectively served
by this than by any ideological attempt to produce minority language programming which, by the medium
of its construction, is not accessible to a majority of the population
in either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.
The development of
‘Access radio’ through a start-up fund (4.5.3) is warmly welcomed by us. We believe that the initiative is entirely
consistent with the white paper’s connection of communications with democratic
access issues and with the development of media literacy in the general
population.
We approve of the proposed correction of the current anomaly regarding
the ownership of radio licences by religious bodies (4.9.1). However, we resist in the strongest possible
terms any relaxation in the ownership prohibition of the sort proposed in
4.9.2. It is our opinion that the
interests of religious broadcasting are best served by a strengthening of PSB
requirements and that an authority such as OFCOM should act to encourage and
ensure the presence of religious stranding on all PSB channels- a “mixed
ecology” (5.2.12) of programming is a surer defence for the witness of the
religions than a niche which is in reality a ghetto. Furthermore we believe that religious stranding in PSB channels
should be fairly placed in schedules and not relegated to slack periods.
We consider that TV channels owned by religious organisations may pose a
potential danger to the balance between the celebration of one religious
tradition’s identity and the discommoding or discomforting of another. We suggest that there is a difference in
kind between the predictable aspirations of religious organisations involved in
broadcast production and supply and their commercial correlates which would
require much further study and reflection.
There are sufficient examples in the transatlantic context of the
unseemly scramble of religious identities into channel ownership to mandate
further reflection before any change in policy is effected.
If the outcome of the
white paper response process is in fact to permit a relaxation in the
conventional ownership prohibitions, then we suggest strongly that this must
have no bearing whatsoever on the continuing provision of religious programmes
in the ecology of PSB services.
This
is an entirely positive initiative which should be pursued with all possible
vigour and urgency. We hold it to be
particularly important in an era of convergent media technologies.
We welcome the white paper as a serious and considered contribution to
the challenges of the contemporary communications environment. We have outlined certain areas about which
we harbour certain reservations though this in no way detracts from our
appreciation of the effort itself.
We are available for further consultation where this is necessary.
Revd
Dr Alan McCormack
Honorary Secretary, for and on behalf of the Broadcasting Committee.