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

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Getting past the quibbling? Yes it was.

Hey, it was you Alastair that said that no such proof existed. Thankfully Godge helped you out.

So far we've had you claiming the board was entirely government appointed, that the joint committees were part of the government, that the minister could have vetoed a JC nominee without a massive PR disaster, and that a board appointed under a previous government would be 'subtly' influenced by a subsequent government.

By having a veto, effectively they control who is on the board. Because they control the board they effectively have control of who the DG is.
Would I think that the Joint Committee would appoint anybody who might displease FG or FF or Lab, no I don't for obvious reasons, i.e. the make up of the committee.

Meanwhile you continue to deny that RTE operates independently of the government.

Whenever you feel ready and able to comment on the links posted that show 'actual' interference in RTE's affairs and the implications in them, give me a shout.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

That was 30 years ago!!!!! We were winning Eurovision and still had our own currency then!!!! We barely had RTE2!!!!

You seem to be living in another era.

The Minister and Government still have those powers if you can't see how that power of veto would filter down through the board, the DG to the editorial & journalist staff and the inherent dangers in that, then we are done here. As I have said the precedents of repeated interference are all out there if you care to take on board what they are telling you.
BTW you won't find analysis of them on RTE.ie.;)

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Hey, it was you Alastair that said that no such proof existed. Thankfully Godge helped you out.

I never said any such thing. Here's what I did say:

Sources for what? Ministerial vetoes that didn't happen?

Happyman42 wrote: »

By having a veto, effectively they control who is on the board. Because they control the board they effectively have control of who the DG is.
Would I think that the Joint Committee would appoint anybody who might displease FG or FF or Lab, no I don't for obvious reasons, i.e. the make up of the committee.

Ah - that's handy. So - the 'subtle control' extends out beyond the government and into the broader political system. Tinfoil territory tbh.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Whenever you feel ready and able to comment on the links posted that show 'actual' interference in RTE's affairs and the implications in them, give me a shout.

The implications of a press officer lobbying to get a piece of news into the evening news twenty years ago? Not very compelling stuff, if I'm honest.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Minister and Government still have those powers

What powers? Haughey's press officer didn't apply any powers (other than pestering) - nor did he go anywhere near the minister responsible.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I never said any such thing. Here's what I did say:

Here again was what you where asked for sources,

but there's never been a joint committee nominee rejected by the minister, same as there's never been a union appointee rejected.

you wouldn't provide them claiming they didn't exist, when in fact they did, as Godge proved.

Ah - that's handy. So - the 'subtle control' extends out beyond the government and into the broader political system. Tinfoil territory tbh.

When you have the power of veto and appointment then yes, of course you have tremendous influence.

The implications of a press officer lobbying to get a piece of news into the evening news twenty years ago? Not very compelling stuff, if I'm honest.

That seriously the best you can come up with? You disappoint me.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Here again was what you where asked for sources,



you wouldn't provide them claiming they didn't exist,

Ehh, no I did not. Care to quote me on that?

Happyman42 wrote: »

When you have the power of veto and appointment then yes, of course you have tremendous influence.

Powers never exercised, and a board that lives on beyond it's nominating minister - I don't think so.

Happyman42 wrote: »

That seriously the best you can come up with? You disappoint me.

Not as disappointed as I was with this as evidence of subtle political control.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Minister and Government still have those powers if you can't see how that power of veto would filter down through the board, the DG to the editorial & journalist staff and the inherent dangers in that, then we are done here. As I have said the precedents of repeated interference are all out there if you care to take on board what they are telling you.
BTW you won't find analysis of them on RTE.ie.;)

Can you point me to the relevant legislative provision?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Ehh, no I did not. Care to quote me on that?

Apologies, you said that 'they didn't happen'
Did you provide the source for a contention that you made? No, you didn't.
All you had to do was a bit of research, like Godge did.
I asked you to provide a source because you have a record here on this thread of slightly slanting answers to meet your agenda. Such as when you ignored the fact that the Supreme Court was dealing with a specific incident(Larry O'Toole) in relation to Section 31 and tried to make it seem that Section 31 was all RTE (and it's Stickie bias) at fault.
For a while you also tried to infer that the Joint Committee 'select' the extra members when in fact they 'propose' them. Which is an entirely different thing.

Powers never exercised, and a board that lives on beyond it's nominating minister - I don't think so.

In the instance of the Joint Committee's (which should be called the Select Committee, because it very selective indeed) one and only proposed membership list, yes they haven't excercised the veto, but the veto exists nonetheless which you think is unimportant, despite the fact that previous ministers have invoked their power to interfere.
Tell me, did John Sorohan, the official publically nominated choice of the Authority ever make it to be DG?

Not as disappointed as I was with this as evidence of subtle political control.

It was the press officer what did it! :rolleyes:

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Can you point me to the relevant legislative provision?

Page 6, Section 26 (I posted it earlier when Alastair was trenchantly claiming that the Joint Committee 'selected' the members of the Board. They clearly don't, they 'propose' them and the Minister has the power to veto those proposals if he/she sees fit.
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2008/2908/B29b08s-da.pdf

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Apologies, you said that 'they didn't happen'
Did you provide the source for a contention that you made? No, you didn't.
All you had to do was a bit of research, like Godge did.: I asked you to provide a source because you have a record here on this thread of slightly slanting answers to meet your agenda.

...and then put words in my mouth - despite me telling you that you were wrong.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Such as when you ignored the fact that the Supreme Court was dealing with a specific incident(Larry O'Toole) in relation to Section 31 and tried to make it seem that Section 31 was all RTE (and it's Stickie bias) at fault.

Which it was.

Happyman42 wrote: »

For a while you also tried to infer that the Joint Committee 'select' the extra members when in fact they 'propose' them. Which is an entirely different thing.

They do select them, and then propose them - it's pretty simple - they decide who would be suited, give the selected list to the minister, and he rubber stamps them.

Happyman42 wrote: »

In the instance of the Joint Committee's (which should be called the Select Committee, because it very selective indeed) one and only proposed membership list, yes they haven't excercised the veto, but the veto exists nonetheless which you think is unimportant, despite the fact that previous ministers have invoked their power to interfere.
Tell me, did John Sorohan, the official publically nominated choice of the Authority ever make it to be DG?

No he didn't - just Chairman.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Page 6, Section 26 (I posted it earlier when Alastair was trenchantly claiming that the Joint Committee 'selected' the members of the Board. They clearly don't, they 'propose' them and the Minister has the power to veto those proposals if he/she sees fit.
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2008/2908/B29b08s-da.pdf

They do select them - and then propose them.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

...and then put words in my mouth - despite me telling you that you were wrong.

Alastair, I never said that a Minister vetoed a proposal from the Joint Committee, only that he had the power to do so if he wished. What was wrong about that?

Which it was.

The government through Minister Gerry Collins instituted Section 31, and C.C. O'Brien later strenghtened it's powers while later distancing himself from it and, like you, tried to lay the blame at RTE's door.
RTE, at the time had only two producers who where known members of OFficial Sinn Fein (the Stickies) and they used section 31 for their own agendas and where quite happy with it in broadcasting terms even though their party colleagues in the Dail where among the few voices against it). They where NOT responsible for Section 31.
The court case had to do with one instance of bias against Larry O'Toole aand had nothing to do with Section 31 itself.

They do select them, and then propose them - it's pretty simple - they decide who would be suited, give the selected list to the minister, and he rubber stamps them.

Why can't you bring yourself to say that the government 'appoints' them, because it is the government who ultimately appoints them.

alastair wrote: »

They do select them - and then propose them.

Alastair subtly shifts position again. :rolleyes: You were not so clear earlier.

alastair wrote: »

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.

alastair wrote: »

They're Board members selected by the committee - not the government - as I said.

alastair wrote: »

Selected by a non government committee.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Page 6, Section 26 (I posted it earlier when Alastair was trenchantly claiming that the Joint Committee 'selected' the members of the Board. They clearly don't, they 'propose' them and the Minister has the power to veto those proposals if he/she sees fit.
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2008/2908/B29b08s-da.pdf

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Minister and Government still have those powers if you can't see how that power of veto would filter down through the board, the DG to the editorial & journalist staff and the inherent dangers in that, then we are done here. As I have said the precedents of repeated interference are all out there if you care to take on board what they are telling you.
BTW you won't find analysis of them on RTE.ie.;)

What you are essentially saying is that the Minister has a power of veto never before exercised by any Minister over the nominations of an Oireachtas committee following an independent selection process and that the possible future theoretical invocation of that veto means that RTE jump to the Minister's wishes. Have I got it now?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

What you are essentially saying is that the Minister has a power of veto never before exercised by any Minister over the nominations of an Oireachtas committee following an independent selection process and that the possible future theoretical invocation of that veto means that RTE jump to the Minister's wishes. Have I got it now?

Away back before Alastair got his underpants in a twist over several things since proved as fact, I said the following;

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.


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.

previous interventions (the ones I linked to and others) have left a legacy in RTE, which have resulted in it not fullfilling it's remit as a Public Broadcaster.
A proper review was needed to save Public Broadcasting, what we got was a mechanism (which the Broadcast charge is part of) to save RTE. That is wrong and it will cost us the taxpayer in the long run

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

previous interventions (the ones I linked to and others) have left a legacy in RTE, which have resulted in it not fullfilling it's remit as a Public Broadcaster.
A proper review was needed to save Public Broadcasting, what we got was a mechanism (which the Broadcast charge is part of) to save RTE. That is wrong and it will cost us the taxpayer in the long run

I've never heard such a stream of guff. :eek:

Public broadcasting needed saving? RTE isn't fulfilling it's remit?

Public broadcasting is very healthy in Ireland. The dominance of public service tv and radio are obvious in any media tallying figures, they have a very healthy online user base, and no-one except yourself seems to think there's a problem with government interference. The broadcast charge doesn't bring any more funding to RTE - they've got to clear their debts on the same (reduced) level of funding they've got from the TV licence for the past number of years. You're not being asked for any more money. Public broadcasting doesn't need saving. All advertising-led media have been bearing the brunt of the recession - RTE the same as the rest, but it's no consequence of their being a public service broadcaster

View

Happyman42 wrote: »

a legacy in RTE, which have resulted in it not fullfilling it's remit as a Public Broadcaster.

Who exactly has ruled that that is the case NOW?

Or, is it a case you just don't like how they go about their "Publc Broadcaster" remit?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I've never heard such a stream of guff. :eek:

Public broadcasting needed saving? RTE isn't fulfilling it's remit?

Public broadcasting is very healthy in Ireland.

Is this the Public Service Broadcaster that still hasn't dealt with The Broadcast Charge and many other national and important issues on it's main medium (The Telly) because it doesn't think summer and current affairs go together and never has? Maybe all those committed and tired broadcasters need the sun?
The Public Service Broadcaster whose website is just a tabloid style news bulletin and further revenue stream that I could put together by copying and pasting from any one of hundreds of other sites and news agencies?
There isn't a shred of intelligent comment, analysis or original thought on it. I use it for the TV and Radio listings and news headlines, which I daresay most others do too, and that is probably why it is so high in the rankings. The Irish Times' site, Ireland.com used to be the most popular site until they asked people to pay for it, suddenly people found other sources for their news and the Times eventually sold the address.

The dominance of public service tv and radio are obvious in any media tallying figures, they have a very healthy online user base, and no-one except yourself seems to think there's a problem with government interference.

You are in denial that there is the possibility of interference and has been on numerous ocaisions.
The government keeps control of RTE by dint of legislation and you maintain that has had no effect on the National Broadcaster. Yet, anybody with eyes in their head can see the effect the Church had on the media without the force of legislation behind them.

The broadcast charge doesn't bring any more funding to RTE -

Who said that it did?

Public broadcasting doesn't need saving.

That is just your opinion, and funnily enough Pat Rabbitte's, who is happy with the staus quo, one wonders why?
Over the last 20 years we have eventually got to hear what was actually going on in this country and still have a lot to find out. A proper Public Service Broadcaster would not have ignored what even the dogs in the street knew.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is this the Public Service Broadcaster that still hasn't dealt with The Broadcast Charge and many other national and important issues on it's main medium (The Telly) because it doesn't think summer and current affairs go together and never has? Maybe all those committed and tired broadcasters need the sun?
The Public Service Broadcaster whose website is just a tabloid style news bulletin and further revenue stream that I could put together by copying and pasting from any one of hundreds of other sites and news agencies?
There isn't a shred of intelligent comment, analysis or original thought on it. I use it for the TV and Radio listings and news headlines, which I daresay most others do too, and that is probably why it is so high in the rankings. The Irish Times' site, Ireland.com used to be the most popular site until they asked people to pay for it, suddenly people found other sources for their news and the Times eventually sold the address.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0827/470476-public-broadcasting-charge/
http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2013/0827/20427620-consultation-launched-on-proposed-public-service-broadcasting-charge/

Come back when you've an ounce of argument. RTE.ie - most popular media site in the country. RTE app - most popular media app in the country. Clearly you're in a minority with these opinions, and have never ventured beyond the homepage of their site. Not very savvy! :rolleyes:

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0827/470476-public-broadcasting-charge/
http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2013/0827/20427620-consultation-launched-on-proposed-public-service-broadcasting-charge/

Come back when you've an ounce of argument. RTE.ie - most popular media site in the country.

Well, if you are just going to ignore the arguments put forward, what can I do?
Again. In the context of your claim that Public Broadcasting idoes not need saving, can you explain why RTE don't programme any current affairs content on television during the summer months?
Those links you posted are just some sub editor re-hashing a press release and a recording of a radio interview. Can you point us to any extra substantial analysis or insightful comment on the RTE.ie site, such as you can find on the Irish Times site? Have you any comment on why this is the case?

Because my answers to those questions above are part of my argument,
that PB in Ireland is indeed in trouble and needs review and overhaul.
RTE because of it's subsidised and protected position has become;
1. Fearful
2. Complacent
3. Lazy.
4. Inefficient and woeful value for money.

Choose any of 1-4 above to answer my two questions.

RTE app - most popular media app in the country. Clearly you're in a minority with these opinions, and have never ventured beyond the homepage of their site. Not very savvy! :rolleyes:

Use of a website or an app is not indicative of quality or effectiveness in public broadcasting, people use sites in different ways and for different reasons.


Don't know where you are getting your info from (it's never off RTE is it? ) but on Alexa it is number 15, behind a number of sites used for accessing media including the BBC and Irish Independent
http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/IE

Can you post your sources for your contentions please?

Banjo String

Boards.ie ranks higher than RTE in the top 100 sites irish folk visit.

Boards tax?

Mr.Micro

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well, if you are just going to ignore the arguments put forward, what can I do?
Again. In the context of your claim that Public Broadcasting idoes not need saving, can you explain why RTE don't programme any current affairs content on television during the summer months?
Those links you posted are just some sub editor re-hashing a press release and a recording of a radio interview. Can you point us to any extra substantial analysis or insightful comment on the RTE.ie site, such as you can find on the Irish Times site? Have you any comment on why this is the case?

Because my answers to those questions above are part of my argument,
that PB in Ireland is indeed in trouble and needs review and overhaul.
RTE because of it's subsidised and protected position has become;
1. Fearful
2. Complacent
3. Lazy.
4. Inefficient and woeful value for money.

Choose any of 1-4 above to answer my two questions.






Use of a website or an app is not indicative of quality or effectiveness in public broadcasting, people use sites in different ways and for different reasons.


Don't know where you are getting your info from (it's never off RTE is it? ) but on Alexa it is number 15, behind a number of sites used for accessing media including the BBC and Irish Independent
http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/IE

Can you post your sources for your contentions please?

Exposing double standards at RTE

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/shane-ross/exposing-double-standards-at-rte-29313763.html

RTE, self serving and non transparent, papering over the cracks, and its self indulgence.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Away back before Alastair got his underpants in a twist over several things since proved as fact, I said the following;




previous interventions (the ones I linked to and others) have left a legacy in RTE, which have resulted in it not fullfilling it's remit as a Public Broadcaster.
A proper review was needed to save Public Broadcasting, what we got was a mechanism (which the Broadcast charge is part of) to save RTE. That is wrong and it will cost us the taxpayer in the long run

Yes, you asked people to make their own mind up and we did, we see no bias or evidence of government control.

You are then asked for evidence and you go on about ancient history relating to Section 31.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Yes, you asked people to make their own mind up and we did, we see no bias or evidence of government control.

You are then asked for evidence and you go on about ancient history relating to Section 31.

You are not preturbed by journalists going to jail or an entire Authority being sacked because they wouldn't do what the government dictated, nor further perturbed by the government dictating what you and I can hear and see (on a so called Public Service Braodcasting channel), or a Minister interfering directly in the appointment of a DG, or a Minister personally interfering in the content of a newscast. Fair enough, ignore the above if you wish, but, what intriques me is that despite being totally unconcerned that the powers that allow all the above are still in exstence you still call it Public Service Broadcasting????? How can it be?

Why are you on this thread at all if it's all hunky dory in PSB land?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are not preturbed by journalists going to jail or an entire Authority being sacked because they wouldn't do what the government dictated, nor further perturbed by the government dictating what you and I can hear and see (on a so called Public Service Braodcasting channel), or a Minister interfering directly in the appointment of a DG, or a Minister personally interfering in the content of a newscast. Fair enough, ignore the above if you wish, but, what intriques me is that despite being totally unconcerned that the powers that allow all the above are still in exstence you still call it Public Service Broadcasting????? How can it be?

Why are you on this thread at all if it's all hunky dory in PSB land?

Happyman, those things are all in the past, in the era before the internet, before satellite broadcasting, before TV3, etc. at a time when the existence of the State was under real threat from a terrorist organisation.

The landscape has changed utterly, both in political terms and in broadcasting terms and any such interference now would not be possible.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Happyman, those things are all in the past, in the era before the internet, before satellite broadcasting, before TV3, etc. at a time when the existence of the State was under real threat from a terrorist organisation.The landscape has changed utterly, both in political terms and in broadcasting terms and any such interference now would not be possible.

Ah right, it was all in the past,(so was clerical and institutional abuse, but we felt the need to do something about that) sure we needn't do anything so, it will never happen again, the internet will save us all. :rolleyes::D:D I have shown you numerous links about interference on the fecking internet and you are blithely ignoring them!!

Banjo String

Godge wrote: »

The landscape has changed utterly, both in political terms and in broadcasting terms and any such interference now would not be possible.

There Are None So blind.

As Those Who Will Not See.

Mr.Micro

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ah right, it was all in the past,(so was clerical and institutional abuse, but we felt the need to do something about that) sure we needn't do anything so, it will never happen again, the internet will save us all. :rolleyes::D:D I have shown you numerous links about interference on the fecking internet and you are blithely ignoring them!!

Ah sure, didn't RTE shaft poor old Sean Gallagher's campaign, by accident of course.

Happyman42

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Ah sure, didn't RTE shaft poor old Sean Gallagher's campaign, by accident of course.

Do me a favour and watch the News at 9 this evening, it's generally a re-showing of the same news as the 6 o'clock bulletin anyway:rolleyes: But something interesting happened, there was a report about the launch of a Pro-Senate campaign, which is fair enough. It was about the event and not a report or discussion on the issues per se, so there was no requirement for balance. They had Susan Tuffy from Labour there if they needed balance anyway. But what I found odd about it was that Richard Bruton was allowed to rebutt at the end.
Maybe I'm over sensitive as a result of this thread and thinking about it.
I thought it very strange to go to him for a comment when he wasn't even at the event.
Would be interested in other peoples view of it.

alastair

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Ah sure, didn't RTE shaft poor old Sean Gallagher's campaign, by accident of course.

Sean Gallagher shafted his own campaign. Even if the tweet were a conspiracy between the shinners and RTE (which the courts will establish was not the case), it was Gallaghers' answer that damned his campaign. No-one could have made that mess for him.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

(which the courts will establish was not the case),

Is that case dissmissed then? Better let the judge know.