Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A compulsory 'Broadcast tax' next on the list for homes in Ireland

Options
1…1415171920…31

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mikom wrote: »
    Nope, just regular joes looking to be informed and entertained.

    Like most TV viewers in Ireland opt to be, by the aforementioned RTE?


  • Options
    #483
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    alastair wrote: »
    So - no substance to your allegations then?

    RTE impartiality? One example, Ask Mr Gallagher if he thinks RTE is impartial.....

    Poor quality programming ....... at the cost of propping up RTE servicing its debt so the viewer still pays, but for less quality.


  • Options
    #484
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    alastair wrote: »
    It must be quite the disappointment that you can't claim Pat the Plank is overpaid any more - given that he jumped to a higher salary in the commercial sector. Maybe Marion is value for money?

    Commercial.
    If he is **** at his job he is out of it.

    Maybe Marions researchers are value for money.
    The ones that are paid in addition to Marions salary.


  • Options
    #485
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    alastair wrote: »
    Like most TV viewers in Ireland opt to be, by the aforementioned RTE?

    Must be why pay tv is doing so well...........


  • Options
    #486
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    RTE impartiality? One example, Ask Mr Gallagher if he thinks RTE is impartial.....

    Has Mr Gallagher shown evidence of bias in that debate? An accusation isn't really the same as evidence - let's see how he gets on in court.
    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Poor quality programming ....... at the cost of propping up RTE servicing its debt so the viewer still pays, but for less quality.

    Poorer quality programming in a scenario of reduced funding - seems like the kind of thing the BAI can't really do anything about, doesn't it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mikom wrote: »
    Must be why pay tv is doing so well...........

    No-where near as well as RTE figures though. Strange that.


  • Options
    #488
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mikom wrote: »

    Commercial.
    If he is **** at his job he is out of it.
    Didn't Newstalk court Pat though - clearly they like what they hear.

    mikom wrote: »
    Maybe Marions researchers are value for money.
    The ones that are paid in addition to Marions salary.
    Ah, so you have a theory about the real talent being behind the scenes?
    Whatever - it seems to work for them.


  • Options
    #489
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    But public service broadcasting isn't only for savvy people while the grazing across sites and sources is only for those with an internet connection.

    Consider 2 options

    (1) Provide everyone in the country with a fast broadband connection at a price per year equivalent to the licence fee

    (2) Provide everyone in the country with public service broadcasting through RTE for the licence fee.

    (1) would cost much more money to the State than (2).

    What I said was that the elephant in the room was being ignored as part of a future proof policy. The dominance of the internet will only rise as generations grow older.
    I don't know what the solution is, all I know is it wasn't discussed.
    Godge wrote: »
    And your evidence that it is?
    Of course it is gov controlled, who appoints the board and Director general? I made no accusations of mis-use of that control, but it is government controlled, make your own mind up by assessing the output.


  • Options
    #490
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    alastair wrote: »
    Has Mr Gallagher shown evidence of bias in that debate? An accusation isn't really the same as evidence - let's see how he gets on in court.



    Poorer quality programming in a scenario of reduced funding - seems like the kind of thing the BAI can't really do anything about, doesn't it?

    What is the point of it then, if it points to this ie quality programming promotion as one of its aims?

    The Act aims to increase transparency in the governance of broadcasting in Ireland, thereby promoting legitimacy, accountability and fair procedures in the provision of high-quality, diverse and innovative programming. Particular functions under the Act relate to the BAI’s oversight of public service broadcasters and the allocation of public funding.

    This was my other issue. Could one accuse RTE of being transparent in these areas? Has the BAI achieved much?


  • Options
    #491
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Of course it is gov controlled, who appoints the board and Director general?

    The RTE Board term straddles governments, and is only partially appointed by the Minister of the day. The DG isn't appointed by the Minister. None of which implies any degree of government-control.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    alastair wrote: »
    No-where near as well as RTE figures though. Strange that.

    Not amongst my peers.
    This is my truth.
    alastair wrote: »
    Didn't Newstalk court Pat though - clearly they like what they hear.

    They can court who they like with their private money.
    They can play Gary glitter morning, noon, and night if they want..
    I can simply turn off my radio and be done with it if I wish.


    alastair wrote: »
    Ah, so you have a theory about the real talent being behind the scenes?
    Whatever - it seems to work for them.

    Indeed.
    Looking out for No. 1.


  • Options
    #493
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    What is the point of it then, if it points to this ie quality programming promotion as one of its aims?
    Maybe the reality of real-world constraints might enter into the equation?
    If there's less of a budget for a broadcaster, outcomes are impacted - regardless of the best supervisory aims.

    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    This was my other issue. Could one accuse RTE of being transparent in these areas? Has the BAI achieved much?
    I thought you had some evidence that they had not?


  • Options
    #494
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mikom wrote: »
    Not amongst my peers.
    This is my truth.
    Clearly there's a bigger picture than your peers.

    mikom wrote: »
    They can court who they like with their private money.
    I can simply turn off my radio and be done with it if I wish.
    Well done you. It's indicative of their market value all the same.

    mikom wrote: »
    Indeed.
    Looking out for No. 1.
    As in garnering a large audience? Terrible, isn't it?


  • Options
    #495
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    alastair wrote: »
    Clearly there's a bigger picture than your peers.

    Yep, it's showing "The Hit" on a loop.



    alastair wrote: »



    Well done you. It's indicative of their (free) market value all the same.

    .


  • Options
    #496
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mikom wrote: »
    It's indicative of their (free) market value all the same.

    No argument there.


  • Options
    #497
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    What I said was that the elephant in the room was being ignored as part of a future proof policy. The dominance of the internet will only rise as generations grow older.
    I don't know what the solution is, all I know is it wasn't discussed..


    Radio was to disappear as well but it hasn't.

    If you want to give everyone access in the cheapest way possible to news, sport, drama, music, film etc., the cheapest way is through public service broadcasting.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Of course it is gov controlled, who appoints the board and Director general? I made no accusations of mis-use of that control, but it is government controlled, make your own mind up by assessing the output.


    I have repeatedly pointed out the difference between ownership and control.

    To give an example from the commercial world, lots of people owned Apple, but Steve Jobs controlled it.


  • Options
    #498
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    The RTE Board term straddles governments, and is only partially appointed by the Minister of the day. The DG isn't appointed by the Minister. None of which implies any degree of government-control.

    The gov appoints the board and the board appoints the DG.


  • Options
    #499
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    Radio was to disappear as well but it hasn't.

    If you want to give everyone access in the cheapest way possible to news, sport, drama, music, film etc., the cheapest way is through public service broadcasting.

    Maybe, but my point was that the whole implications where not looked at or addressed and the current proposal is designed to maintain the status quo as best it can. It's called 'kicking the can down the road'.




    I have repeatedly pointed out the difference between ownership and control.

    To give an example from the commercial world, lots of people owned Apple, but Steve Jobs controlled it.[/QUOTE]

    Have a look at Section 31 and then tell me that the State doesn't interevene when they want. Now, what are the more subtle pressures and influences various governments bring to bear? That is what you have to assess yourself. I know I have, as have many others.


  • Options
    #500
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Maybe, but my point was that the whole implications where not looked at or addressed and the current proposal is designed to maintain the status quo as best it can. It's called 'kicking the can down the road'.


    Not necessarily. From your viewpoint, a technically adequate savvy internet user, there is a certain future.

    But it is not that clear yet.

    The review was looking at five years not ten.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Have a look at Section 31 and then tell me that the State doesn't interevene when they want. Now, what are the more subtle pressures and influences various governments bring to bear? That is what you have to assess yourself. I know I have, as have many others.


    Section 31 of what? Are you talking ancient history when the security of the state was threatened by a terrorist organisation?


  • Options
    #501
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »

    The review was looking at five years not ten.

    Exactly, it was deficient and will be inadequate very quickly. We will be charged more and more to keep an ever failing institution afloat.




    Section 31 of what? Are you talking ancient history when the security of the state was threatened by a terrorist organisation?
    It is very recent history in the scheme of things actually. And the power is still there.
    The important point is the one you ignore, 'the subtle pressures that result in overt and self censorship within a state controlled broadcaster.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    It is very recent history in the scheme of things actually. And the power is still there.
    The important point is the one you ignore, 'the subtle pressures that result in overt and self censorship within a state controlled broadcaster.

    It's not a state-controlled broadcaster. The insinuation that they self-censor under 'subtle pressure' is a personal opinion, no more. And the reason they clung to the letter of section 31, was because their news and current affairs team had an antipathy to the Shinners, based on their Stickie leanings at the time. It was this internal bias, rather than any government-control that allowed it to continue so long.


  • Options
    #503
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Godge wrote: »
    Not necessarily. From your viewpoint, a technically adequate savvy internet user, there is a certain future.

    But it is not that clear yet.

    The review was looking at five years not ten.

    In any case - RTE have been on the internet for quite some time now. The most used news media app in Ireland? RTE's. Lots of scope for savvy media browsers to benefit from public service broadcasting.


  • Options
    #504
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The gov appoints the board and the board appoints the DG.

    Nope - the minister (and keep in mind it could well be be the previous government's minister) appoints some of the board.


  • Options
    #505
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    It's not a state-controlled broadcaster. The insinuation that they self-censor under 'subtle pressure' is a personal opinion, no more. And the reason they clung to the letter of section 31, was because their news and current affairs team had an antipathy to the Shinners, based on their Stickie leanings at the time. It was this internal bias, rather than any government-control that allowed it to continue so long.

    Who sacked the entire Authority and tried and imprisoned at least 3 journalists? The Stickies?
    You've obviously swallowed the guff presented in RTE's own documentary on the time.
    It was Gerry Collins wh sacked the Authority btw and it was Conor Cruise O'Brien who strenghtened the legislation.


  • Options
    #506
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Who sacked the entire Authority and tried and imprisoned at least 3 journalists? The Stickies?
    You've obviously swallowed the guff presented in RTE's own documentary on the time.
    It was Gerry Collins wh sacked the Authority btw and it was Conor Cruise O'Brien who strenghtened the legislation.

    You're ignoring the reality of the SFWP in the news dept at the time, and the fact that they (RTE) imposed censorship above and beyond that called for by Section 31? Kinda handy, if rather blinkered.


  • Options
    #507
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    You're ignoring the reality of the SFWP in the news dept at the time, and the fact that they (RTE) imposed censorship above and beyond that called for by Section 31? Kinda handy, if rather blinkered.

    No I am not ignoring anything, there is no doubt the Stickies had their own agenda, but they took advantage of Section 31. It was a 'government directive' and was strengthened when they thought that RTE where not implementing it strongly enough.
    It was 'the government' who where taken to court and where ruled against, NOT the stickies.

    alastair wrote: »
    Nope - the minister (and keep in mind it could well be be the previous government's minister) appoints some of the board.




    The Board (formerly The Authority) consists of 12 members - six nominated by the Minister, four nominated by the Minister on the advice of the Houses of the Oireachtas Joint Committee with responsibility for broadcasting, one worker director and the Director-General. (who must be ratified by the Minister)

    That'd be the 'government' then....no?


  • Options
    #508
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    No I am not ignoring anything, there is no doubt the Stickies had their own agenda, but they took advantage of Section 31. It was a 'government directive' and was strengthened when they thought that RTE where not implementing it strongly enough.
    It was 'the government' who where taken to court and where ruled against, NOT the stickies.
    Actually the court ruled against RTE - not the government. They found that it was an RTE initiative, and beyond the scope of section 31.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The Board (formerly The Authority) consists of 12 members - six nominated by the Minister, four nominated by the Minister on the advice of the Houses of the Oireachtas Joint Committee with responsibility for broadcasting, one worker director and the Director-General. (who must be ratified by the Minister)

    That'd be the 'government' then....no?

    No. The Oireachtas committee is cross-party, not government. The minister (and again - it could well be the previous minister - in a different government) only appoints six of the board.


  • Options
    #509
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Actually the court ruled against RTE - not the government. They found that it was an RTE initiative, and beyond the scope of section 31.

    That is correct, apologies. But they found that the their censorship of Larry O Toole was beyond the scope of Section 31 iirc.
    But the fact remains that Section 31 was a government directive and successive Ministers intervened directly in the running of the National Broadcaster. Independence from government is an illusion.


    No. The Oireachtas committee is cross-party, not goverment. The minister (and again - it could well be the previous minister - in a different government) only appoints six of the board.

    I think you need to look up what the 'Houses Of The Oireachtas' are.


  • Options
    #510
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    That is correct, apologies. But they found that the their censorship of Larry O Toole was beyond the scope of Section 31 iirc.
    But the fact remains that Section 31 was a government directive and successive Ministers intervened directly in the running of the National Broadcaster. Independence from government is an illusion. .

    As demonstrated by them applying their own criteria for censorship, independent of government?

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I think you need to look up what the 'Houses Of The Oireachtas' are.

    Actually, I think you need to acquaint yourself with what the Joint Committees of the Oireachtas are. Here's the make-up of the current relevant one: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/J-CommunicationsENR/Membership/document1.htm/

    Notice anything there?

    edit - wrong url.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    As demonstrated by them applying their own criteria for censorship, independent of government?
    In the case of Larry O'Toole, yes they did.
    It was however Gerry Collins, a member of Government who enshrined the law. It was successive ministers who intervened directly in the stations affairs. C.C. O'Brien and Ray Burke.



    Actually, I think you need to acquaint yourself with the Joint Committees of the Oireachtas are. Here's the make-up of the current relevant one: http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/agenda/committees_list/transportandcommunications/members/

    The Joint Committees 'propose' members of the Board. 'Propose', the minister can refuse to appoint if he doesn't deem them fit.


Advertisement