RTE spent 167k on the pope coverage

Defiler Of The Coffin

Grayson wrote: »

Still better spending it on a news event that was happening rather than giving pat kenny a pay rise

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Chavways

It was worth it though.He says a great mass.Realy works the altar.

Bears and Vodka

Chavways wrote: »

It was worth it though.He says a great mass.Realy works the altar.

The Messi of Popes. The Messi-a, almost.

Zaph

Hang on a minute, according to last week's thread it was only €167k. So which is it? I demand answers!

Grayson

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Why does it have to be one or the other?

I didn't say his had to be.

It's better than the holocaust. Worse than spending on the make a wish foundation.

happy?

Grayson

Zaph wrote: »

Hang on a minute, according to last week's thread it was only €167k. So which is it? I demand answers!

Inflation. You live in Zimbabwe.

corktina

how much per viewer is that? 50c? 10c...chicken feed and I'm not even a Catholic.

11,400 for 32 flights for 22 rte staff? Does that mean 22 of them flew over and back 32 times?

That would work out at just over €16 a flight though, which is a great price to fly to Rome.

Professey Chin

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

11,400 for 32 flights for 22 rte staff? Does that mean 22 of them flew over and back 32 times?

That would work out at just over €16 a flight though, which is a great price to fly to Rome.

Either that or 22 went over but only 10 came back

corktina

we can hope...

frozenfrozen

It's expensive to fly equipment to rome. I didn't watch it at all but it's completely justifiable. What's their normal day to day running cost? They're a huge company and 200k isn't as massive for them as it would be for one of us. Having said all that, stealing bbc footage and paying someone to talk ****e over it would have been more economical. Or ecumenical

Defiler Of The Coffin

Grayson wrote: »

I didn't say his had to be.

It's better than the holocaust. Worse than spending on the make a wish foundation.

happy?

So all you're doing is stating the obvious. Yeah I'm happy now.

Peregrine

This is like the third thread about this already..

Like I said before, you look like an idiot. Complete non story.

Skid X

Kinder Bueno wrote: »

Waste of money. I can't even remember the Pope's name.

That says more about your memory than whether RTE spent too much money on the event.

Greentopia

Well that makes me feel so much better about paying this upcoming 'broadcasting charge' :mad:

Tea 1000

Why does this story deserve a breakdown of costs? How much for any other story this year, like the coverage for Enda handing a bowl of shamrock to Obamba? Slow news day me thinks!!
The old Independent fail-safe of "if we find something to criticise RTE about, they'll all love it and buy our papers!".

LizT

Threads merged.

Gorilla Rising

Hold off on your outrage. Some perspective from the previous thread:

Arcsin wrote: »

They did it for 100k less than the previous conclave. What exactly did you find excessive, seeing as they did give some breakdown of the costs?

Or is it the fact that it was a Catholic Church event that is really your problem?

ScumLord wrote: »

What makes you think they overdid it?

Considering transport costs, the cost of equipment, staff and everything €167K doesn't seem outlandish. I would have thought one of their cameras could be in the region of 10s of thousands of euros.

Pace2008 wrote: »

It was a coverage of an event that occurs once in a blue moon, that a reasonable chunk of the population was interested in, and I'd imagine it generated a fair amount of advertising revenue. I'd also say it falls under the label of public-interest programming, unlike, say, the Angelus, which is a endorsement (albeit a minor one) of a particular religion.

Also, possibly inb4 people start bawling their eyes out about Catholic bashing.

ScumLord wrote: »

Possibly, I didn't watch any of it. But when they say they sent 13 reporters I'm guessing some of those reporters could be behind the scenes doing the work of finding information as the reporter that's in front of the camera can't do that work. So I'd guess they're on sliding pay scales and it's not a case of sending 13 "star" journalists.

To put 1 person in front of a camera requires a team of people in the background.

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

Do you know that RTE do have other sources of income apart from the TV licence?

This thread seems to be just another example of some people looking for any excuse to complain.

ScumLord wrote: »

.... sound guy, director, assistants, would be the other obvious people involved but I'm sure there are other technical experts needed to operate and maintain the equipment. You can't compare filming at home to broadcast filming. It's clear no one has a clue what the costs should be, they just see a big number and start complaining out of ignorance.

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

This is exactly why I don't brand myself as "an atheist" anymore. Because people will think I'm another one of you moanbags who live their whole lives to bash the Catholic church even if it means looking like an absolute idiot like you just did now.

Look, you didn't want to see coverage of the conclave, fair enough turn off the ****in telly and think about how smarter than everyone else you are. But clearly, some people wanted to know about it, myself included regardless of my lack of faith in Catholicism. The way every TV channel works is they show things that gets the most viewers and they make money from advertising during these shows. I would say RTE made a huge profit from advertising during the coverage. 167k is actually rather cheap considering they had a whole team in a foreign city for a week, like every channel does during major events.

To put your argument into contrast, say I dislike all sports, I think it's an absolute waste of precious time. Would you support me if I tried to argue that the hundreds of thousands RTE spend on Olympics coverage is outrageous and a complete waste of taxpayer money because I clearly didn't care about it? Even though they made a huge of profit from advertising to people who watched it.

LizT wrote: »

Don't really get the fuss? It's an event that probably won't happen again for at least the next 10 years, more than likely longer. A lot of people had an interest in it, regardless of their religion.

withless

They really were right about the 'Home Rule or Rome Rule' thing back in the day. Who knew we would get the worst of both worlds? Typically Irish.

UCDVet

I don't see what the big deal is....

If you don't like how RTE spends their money - just don't watch/support them. It's not like anyone is forcefully taking your money and giving it to RTE execs to spend on whatever they like.

Red Kev

I think a lot of people regarded the coverage at the time as overkill, sometimes we had several newscasters and radio broadcasters there at the same time and it was mentioned at the time that it seemed a lot. People probably feel aggrieved because it's taxpayers money and as we know people are looking a lot more closely at how public bodies spend taxpayers money.

RTE will come under more scrutiny than others and they are aware of this, the fact that they did this for €100,000 less than 2005 is proof of it. I suppose people are just wondering as if it could have been done for less.

ScumLord wrote: »

What makes you think they overdid it?

Considering transport costs, the cost of equipment, staff and everything €167K doesn't seem outlandish. I would have thought one of their cameras could be in the region of 10s of thousands of euros.

It's not as if they are throwing the cameras away afterwards, some of the equipment was flown over, some rented in Italy, some might have been driven over, especially for the voting for the new Pope.

Arcsin wrote: »

RTE is a business. For one of their key demographics this was a massive event. They got huge viewership figures from that and sold lots of expensive advertising space. They know what their customers want and delivered it.

Most of the advertising slots are sold in blocks well in advance so it's unlikely that it generated any huge amounts of advertising revenue or do you have proof of anything different?

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

Do you know that RTE do have other sources of income apart from the TV licence?

And a good lump sum comes directly out of the taxpayers pocket, as even with the TV licence and advertising they still can't cover their costs. I think this is one of the points that people are making, RTE along with every other public body should take care of how they spend their money.

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

11,400 for 32 flights for 22 rte staff? Does that mean 22 of them flew over and back 32 times?

That would work out at just over €16 a flight though, which is a great price to fly to Rome.

No. 22 people took 32 flights in total. After the initial resignation of benedict there was a lull of a few days before the voting started, a lot of them came back to Ireland and returned for the vote.

UCDVet wrote: »

I don't see what the big deal is....

If you don't like how RTE spends their money - just don't watch/support them. It's not like anyone is forcefully taking your money and giving it to RTE execs to spend on whatever they like.

They are taking tax money straight out of the exchequer because they blow their advertising and licence budget every year, some years they makes losses of tens of millions, all of which must be covered by the taxpayer.

padd b1975

I think it was money well spent.

jimmynokia

Its gone up to 194k now http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rte-spent-194000-covering-change-of-pope-in-vatican-29241425.html

heyjude

UCDVet wrote: »

If you don't like how RTE spends their money - just don't watch/support them. It's not like anyone is forcefully taking your money and giving it to RTE execs to spend on whatever they like.

But paying the TV licence isn't optional(if you have a TV, even if you don't watch RTE) so supporting them financially is compulsory and someone(the state) are taking your money and giving it to RTE execs to spend as they like.

Peregrine

heyjude wrote: »

But paying the TV licence isn't optional(if you have a TV, even if you don't watch RTE) so supporting them financially is compulsory and someone(the state) are taking your money and giving it to RTE execs to spend as they like.

They spent millions on sports coverage rights.

There are many people who doesn't like sport, could they refuse to pay TV license because they're spending it "as they like"? It's called a TV channel, there will be many different stories and programmes over the years, you watch what you like not all of them.

8.5 million of TV license went to Radio Na Gaeilge and over 6 million to support TG4. I don't speak Irish and therefore I refuse to pay the TV license from now on?

Death and Taxes

UCDVet wrote: »

I don't see what the big deal is....

If you don't like how RTE spends their money - just don't watch/support them. It's not like anyone is forcefully taking your money and giving it to RTE execs to spend on whatever they like.

You have actually heard of the Licence fee?

ScumLord

Red Kev wrote: »

It's not as if they are throwing the cameras away afterwards, some of the equipment was flown over, some rented in Italy, some might have been driven over, especially for the voting for the new Pope.

No but there is an ongoing cost. I wouldn't be surprised if one camera cost close to €200,000 and nothing to do with that camera would be cheap. Where I might buy a filter for less than €5, a filter for a pro camera might cost closer to €100, they don't use the same cables normal people would use so each cable costs a fortune. While they're not buying this gear specifically for the event they still have to work the money they spent on these events into their overall costs. That's just equipment, the people needed to operate all this expensive equipment are also very expensive probably earning close to the average weekly wage each hour.

We just cannot comprehend the expense that professional film crews cost. Add to that they're in the eternal city of fleecing people. I'm sure every time they turned around there was a Roman with his hand out at double his usual prices and then doubled again because it's a TV crew.

Capt'n Midnight

Did they provide a public service to a large section of the audiance ?

ToddyDoody

Still Better value than Marian Finucane, in fairness