CBS News

Exit

Just watching it now (yeah I know it's ****, but there's no other news on at the moment) Anyway, apparently the news is now sponsored by Walmart! That's just pathetic that any company can sponsor the news.
Can you imagine Dunnes sponsoring RTE News during the late 90s?

sceptre

I'd rather a sponsored by Walmart tag than a sponsored by a maker of colostomy bags tag (all the adverts on American news seem to be for products for old people with brittle bones, poor bladders and bad breath)

dahamsta

Don't forget haemorrhoids sceptre!

sovtek

Just means that they paid for an add during the news. RTE shows adds during their news IIRC, so that would mean any add showed during that spot would be sponsored by that company.
Difference is here you also pay a license fee.

uaobrien

There's only one thing worse I can imagine than the news being sponsored by a company or organization. That would be having the country pay money every year to sponsor the news, as a tax.

American T.V. channels use sponsors to keep their stations profitable. For instance, CBS will take the money Walmart paid them and invest it in another series of CSI, or share it with it's sister channel HBO for another mini-series like Band of Brothers.

On the other hand, when RTE needs money, it just runs to the govt. and the T.V. licence rate goes up. It then invests its money into The Angelus or the board of directors' pockets.

Yup, those Americans sure are stupid.

:dunno:

Exit

To be fair, you picked the best parts of CBS there, and the worst parts of RTE.

Capt'n Midnight

At least RTE news can be different. Too many times you see the same stories (usually in the same order) on BBC / UTV / SKY - I love it when you see the same interview from different angles, rarely are they looking at the sky camera...

Also a lot of american news is pitched as edutainment. Yes I think the license fee is high - but unbiased news is worth more. Look at what happened in Venezuala when the Irish crew got caught up in the coup. Compare that to what CBS said at the time and what they say now. Look at the UK where apart from TV news about 5 (is it that many) people control 90% of the papers - and double that number to get the number of owners who can veto news in UK / US / Austrialia ..

re RTE - get rid of the FAT - Gerry Ryan for starters
improve the programs - simply find a way around the liable laws so the political satirists can get their teeth in (Evey scetch on Bull Island would have to start with "In Our Opinion" .. )

Faust

Aren't you guys as paranoid as me!! What if walmart then kind of controls the news. They could be like " Oh,i think we'll not sponser you if you air that story about us hiring paedophiles!!!" It's happened before with other companies eg. Disney. OhhHHh the paranoia..

uaobrien

Originally posted by Exit
To be fair, you picked the best parts of CBS there, and the worst parts of RTE.

You're absolutely right, I did. But the point I was making is when you compare the income of a channel such as CBS with a channel such as RTE, we really shouldn't be making an issue of what CBS choose to do with their programming. They are far superior to Irish (and I would go as far as saying UK) channels. If they get a company to sponsor the news and that keeps their money rolling in, fair play to them.

The other point I was making is that we're a showers of eejits in this country (and I include myself too as I pay for a T.V. licence). My wife (who is American) thinks its unbelievable that we pay a tax (which is what the licence is, just in a semantic way) to be entertained by television. And when you consider what we get for our money's worth... it really is pitiful that we allow ourselves to get suckered by successive govts. At the end of the day, we're not helping ourselves out by paying it. If the govt. were to turn around tomorrow and say to RTE "tough luck lads, you're on your own," the licence rate could be halved or even quartered, or dare I say it, abolished (not that the thieving gits would of course).

Maybe, in this case, we should be following the example of the Yanks. It might actually work to our advantage.

uaobrien

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Also a lot of american news is pitched as edutainment. Yes I think the license fee is high - but unbiased news is worth more...

Yeah, but you don't have to affect the nature of the news. I mean one thing (I think - in my opinion ) that we do well is report unbiased news. At least I hope its unbiased hehe... RTE is a semi-state body after all.

This is an actual event that happened to me. I got back from the States in July of this year (for all you who read it before 1 Jan 2004). When I was there, I worked in a company that fills a HUGE amount of U.S. military contracts (although I wasn't directly involved in that area).

When the U.S. were gearing up for war, we had a discussion about the various things (we made fun of the French etc.) and someone brought up the topic that in Iraq there were very few privately owned internet connections. Then another person brought up the fact that all the T.V. channels (I think there were 2) were owned by Saddam. Then, and I'm not making this up, a third person chirped in with "I'm so glad I live in the U.S., I would hate to live in a country where the media tell you what to think."

For a second I was waiting for everyone else to sart bursting out laughing and it was eerie to see everyone was taking the comment seriously. I just kept my mouth shut.

I read the Indo and the Times websites to get my news when I was there, and it was amazing the amount of extreme differences you'd find. Their (American) news (for all their investigative journalism) was completely sanitized. At the very start no one in the place would openly voice dissent for going to war.

So enough babbling from me, I think we get more raw information in our news, but if we changed the licence I don't think we'd have to change the level of bias.

Zombrex

Originally posted by uaobrien
So enough babbling from me, I think we get more raw information in our news, but if we changed the licence I don't think we'd have to change the level of bias.

But if there wasn't a licence fee, then RTE would be forces to fund themselves purely by ads, which forces them to make the news more entertaining so more people watch it, which lowers the quality (which is exactly what has happened in the States).

One of RTE News' advantages is that they can present an honest, if not particularly entertaining, news show, because it doesn't matter if only 5 people in Wexford are watching. They don't have to cater to the lowest common denominator to get good ratings like all the crappy US shows do, and are not concerned about pleasing advertisers (as much).

RTE also do not get enough funding from advertisements to run a modern professional news organisation, so the quality would drop dramatically simply due to lack of funding.

If you don't think we should be taxed to provide a public broadcaster, that’s fine, but just realise that without the licence fee, RTE News would be pretty crap. I personally don't mind paying the money, because availing of the information presented by the News is a public service I like having, and one I use a lot more than calling an ambulance or the fire brigade.

Exit

Originally posted by uaobrien
You're absolutely right, I did. But the point I was making is when you compare the income of a channel such as CBS with a channel such as RTE, we really shouldn't be making an issue of what CBS choose to do with their programming. They are far superior to Irish (and I would go as far as saying UK) channels. If they get a company to sponsor the news and that keeps their money rolling in, fair play to them.

I don't mind that CBS get sponsors for their shows, but I find it bizarre that they should have a sponsor for the news. "20 people die in Baghdad, Hurricane hits Puerto Rico, People starving to death in Africa, this news was brought to you by Walmart - the Super Happy store (or whatever)". It just doesn't sit right with me.

Capt'n Midnight

One example - the mirror pension scandal - anyone remember that pages 2 and 3 of that paper freqently had "interesting articles" about the good side of its propieter..

Here, IMHO, the Press (newspaper) was setup by Dev using donations to the cause from the states , alledegedly.

While I don't agree with a lot of stuff in "The Irish Times" esp. wrt to the infighting/layoffs at the paper I can be resonably certain it doesn't have to toe the line when it comes to reporting on other parts of the media or media moguls.

Remember the Golden Rule - the person with the gold makes the rules.

uaobrien

Originally posted by Exit
I don't mind that CBS get sponsors for their shows, but I find it bizarre that they should have a sponsor for the news. "20 people die in Baghdad, Hurricane hits Puerto Rico, People starving to death in Africa, this news was brought to you by Walmart - the Super Happy store (or whatever)". It just doesn't sit right with me.

Well if you're making an argument for the ethics of having someone sponsor stories of death and carnage, then I agree with you. I never claimed the U.S. were tasteful in any degree.

But I was making an economic statement. From the economic point of view if you save yourself a couple of million a year then that's a good thing, especially in a country like ours where (ideally) those savings could be passed onto the viewer.

uaobrien

Originally posted by Wicknight
But if there wasn't a licence fee, then RTE would be forces to fund themselves purely by ads, which forces them to make the news more entertaining so more people watch it, which lowers the quality (which is exactly what has happened in the States).

Not entirely true. You assume that RTE would sacrifice its news broadcasting to receive sponsorship. The govt. sponsors RTE as a semi-state body and the channel has never been shy about airing views that criticize the govt.

They don't have to cater to the lowest common denominator to get good ratings like all the crappy US shows do, and are not concerned about pleasing advertisers (as much).

True, but look at the lowest common denominator from the U.S. and the lowest common denominator (LCD) from Ireland and (at least in my romantic view of us) we're still a lot higher than they are. Also a lot of LCDs here don't even bother with the news. So its not like RTE would really have to worry about appealing to them.

Personally, the way I envisioned it as I typed was that RTE could use sponsorship for its sports and entertainment and not necessarily its current affairs programming such as the news. It could increment the cost of advertising during certain times (high peak viewing) and cream the profit to subsidize news programs.

Or alternatively, legalize its position with the sponsors, maybe by a clause saying under no circumstances can RTE infringe upon its right to present unbiased news, even if that news presents an unfavourable view of the sponsor. Automatically that will make the "Dunnes" of the country crap themselves and think twice.

RTE also do not get enough funding from advertisements to run a modern professional news organisation, so the quality would drop dramatically simply due to lack of funding.

Well that really is something for RTE to sort out. There are a lot of big corporations in the country that would value advertising under certain incentives and may be willing to pay a little more to receive the additional benefits. And monies spent on advertising is tax deductible as far as I am aware as it is a business expense.

It shouldn't really be the public's responsibility to buoy up a flagging television channel. Especially when they pay the govt.'s salary increases at the same time. Maybe the govt. should cream a little from their next increase to help out a company they are supposed to have a vested interest in.

If you don't think we should be taxed to provide a public broadcaster, that’s fine, but just realise that without the licence fee, RTE News would be pretty crap.

I don't have an issue with the tax, I do have an issue with it fluctuating every time RTE runs into a little financial problem. If they cut loose some of their channels to fend for themselves they may recoup some of the losses. And as for the quality of programming, RTE, IMHO is already crap. I rarely watch it. The only good shows it offers are produced overseas. The only benefite, as you rightly pointed out, is its news.

sovtek

Originally posted by uaobrien
You're absolutely right, I did. But the point I was making is when you compare the income of a channel such as CBS with a channel such as RTE, we really shouldn't be making an issue of what CBS choose to do with their programming. They are far superior to Irish (and I would go as far as saying UK) channels. If they get a company to sponsor the news and that keeps their money rolling in, fair play to them.

It depends on personal taste, of course, but I'd say that CBS is no better than RTE as far as entertainment and definetly has lower journalistic standards than RTE.
As far as the UK goes, the BBC is well above the standards of CBS both journalistically as well as the quality of entertainment.

The other point I was making is that we're a showers of eejits in this country (and I include myself too as I pay for a T.V. licence). My wife (who is American) thinks its unbelievable that we pay a tax (which is what the licence is, just in a semantic way) to be entertained by television. And when you consider what we get for our money's worth... it really is pitiful that we allow ourselves to get suckered by successive govts.

And in America huge corporations lease our publicly owned airways for nothing whilst making huge profits , having relatively low journalistic standards and cowtowing to their advertisers interests (not to mention the Bush regime).
I'd have no complaint about the TV licence if the incompetent administration of RTE hadn't wasted millions and then begged for an increase so as to provide us with endless episodes of year old Friends episodes (and Cabin Fever).