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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
A chance to scrap the Angelus - Nutella, Croissants and Pineapples.
Comments
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »My advice to you would be to stay grounded, don't interrupt, and try to remain neutral.
Sage advice when you're interfacing with a live wire!0 -
As Tesla predicted, everything is in flux.
Scrap the cap!
0 -
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »As Tesla predicted, everything is in flux.
I don't really like your posts. Ill be keeping an ion you!0 -
-
tirchonaill86 wrote: »I don't really like your posts. Ill be keeping an ion you!
No need! We have moderators who are fully supplied with inanimate graphite rods.0 -
-
What the hell have i just stepped back into?0
-
-
What the hell have i just stepped back into?
Welcome to nuclear armageddon! Good morning... Your flight will be arriving in approximately twenty minutes. You will be assigned a mission to return in the flux capacitator to time----80,000 years ago. You are to fondicate and cross breed with an african hobbit tribe and remain here for 2 and a half years spreading your good seed of knowledge and wisdom. You will then be assigned a new mission...one that will completely change the course of human history. Go earthling! Your people depend on you.0 -
Advertisement
-
tirchonaill86 wrote: »Welcome to nuclear armageddon! Good morning... Your flight will be arriving in approximately twenty minutes. You will be assigned a mission to return in the flux capacitator to time----80,000 years ago. You are to fondicate and cross breed with an african hobbit tribe and remain here for 2 and a half years spreading your good seed of knowledge and wisdom. You will then be assigned a new mission...one that will completely change the course of human history. Go earthling! Your people depend on you.
Am I to introduce the ridiculous bells that still plague us to this day?0 -
I don't those bells bonging would be a good idea with the sore heads in here today.0
-
Am I to introduce the ridiculous bells that still plague us to this day?
The bells must stay. In fact you are to create a new super duper bell in your next travels...and i mean a super super duper one. One that would haunt a ghost, one that scare a scarecrow and one that would most certainly wake the dead and clear a crowd of unruly teenagers. What we are talking about my friend is the DWBH-3000, a sophisticated, complex super structure with a supreme tech advanced radar system resistant to all attacks and criticisms. This bell will be capable of hypnotising all ears who have the divine pleasure of hearing it, it would convert a stubborn horse, a hungry pig or a far removed human earthling. Hurry!!! The human race is in desperate need of this bell, they are empty, lost sheep who have strayed from their roots, lost connection with their flock and covered their eyes at the crucial part of the movie.
They don't know what they want, they are only using 3 per cent of their brains, they think they have it cracked, refuse to listen and see what is unseen even though its all around them, across the four corners of the spaces beneath their feet. They need a new bell because they despise the simple one given to them, this gift is not enough, they always seek and yearn for more, for proof-evidence, they doubt the truth and hide from it, they dismiss the innocent man in the courtroom and banish him and themselves to the desert, depriving themselves of the seasonal fruits, the wings of eternity, the joys of spring and the fire of mystery. They fail to listen to the answers that lay in nature as clues and riddles waiting to be solved by the discerning eyes, the smart ones who don't need to see, who don't always need proof for truth, who plunge into the deep blue seas delving far beyond the finish line. If its too much for you, ill go myself.0 -
I preferred the electropuns!0
-
-
TheChizler wrote: »This thread isn't a great example of how to conduct debate. The arguments have become static.
Anybody who calls themselves the chizler doesn't have the right to debate.0 -
tirchonaill86 wrote: »Anybody who calls themselves the chizler doesn't have the right to debate.0
-
tirchonaill86 wrote: »Anybody who calls themselves the chizler doesn't have the right to debate.
Mod:
Anyone who frequently ignores discussion etiquette and mods certainly doesn't have the right to debate. Enjoy the permanent holiday.0 -
Moving swiftly on ...
Are a RTE still fixated on introducing this new "secular angelus"?
How exactly do the explain the radio version? It's anything but a pause for reflection. The TV version can be watered down by addition of non religious imagery.
It's still an amazing contortion of logic!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Moving swiftly on ...
Are a RTE still fixated on introducing this new "secular angelus"?
How exactly do the explain the radio version? It's anything but a pause for reflection. The TV version can be watered down by addition of non religious imagery.
It's still an amazing contortion of logic!
Not to mention that it's still called "The Angelus". Maybe one of the Lords of Distortion was involved in devising it.0 -
PopePalpatine wrote: »Not to mention that it's still called "The Angelus". Maybe one of the Lords of Distortion was involved in devising it.
I don't know!
Sometimes you feel like Ireland had one foot in 2015 and the other in 1647.
Between state broadcasters in the republic and schools acting like its a theocratic state and nutters up north burning flags and effigies you'd really wonder if it's something in the water or just one of those temporal anomalies that Captain Picard was regularly faced with!
At times you'd just wonder ...0 -
-
Thank you based ultramontanism. /s0
-
I'm not avoiding focusing on the central issue though. If you put a point forward, I think it's fair to consider it may be rebutted. I understand you may not consider many of them to be significant, but if you think they're worth making, why should I not think they're worth discussing?
Except that you are. You see, to paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, this thread is a crucible. In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth, for all time. It seems though that you want to focus on the irrelevancies, dissecting people's posts again and again, creating so many discussion points that all sight of the central topic is lost and any hope of digging down to the truth fades away. It is essentially the shotgun fallacy in action, either the person arguing against you gives up because they cannot respond to dozens of discussion points or they get so bogged down trying to respond to each one of your points that discussion of the central topic is either stalled or derailed completely.In fairness argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. Arguing that something has popular appeal and therefore has value is a somewhat different thing; it's an appeal to popularity that is not fallacious. The fact that content is popular is a logically sound reason to broadcast it I think, particularly if you derive revenue from advertising around popular broadcasts.
Well, you see if an argumentum ad populum is not to be considered fallacious then popularity has to be either the sole or dominant factor under consideration. Now if we were talking about a commercial television station then popularity would be the most important factor and would not be fallacious. However, we are talking about a state broadcaster, a broadcaster where over 40% of its funding comes from the public purse. Therefore, popularity is only one factor among many and arguing that the broadcast should stay because it is popular (a questionable assertion in itself) is fallacious.
On a side note, while RTE does derive a significant portion of its revenue from advertising, it does have a commitment to minimise this as far as possible. This weakens the popularity argument even further.And yet people watch it. They may watch it because they're devout Catholics, they may watch it because it's a relic of a bygone age, they may watch it because it's relaxing, they may watch it because they're waiting for the news, or they've lost the remote, but they still watch it.
We can certainly use some religious programming time to highlight the actual beliefs and traditions of the people who continue to alight on our shores, and if people watch it, that will also contribute to RTEs religious programming; but that doesn't mean the time necessarily has to come from the 6% of religious programming that the Angelus currently represents.
We should scrap the Angelus when people stop watching it; or at least, when there are insufficient numbers watching it to justify it's timeslot. That is when it will no longer be relevant.
You see, here's the thing about the Angelus' "popularity" as it were. Facts on this issue are quite thin on the ground. Neither TAM nor RTE produce actual viewing figures on a regular basis which would allow us to gauge the actual popularity of the Angelus. We know that it is not listed in the top 20 programmes. We know from articles by Patsy McGarry that it has an "average" audience of 318,000. And that's it. We don't know as has been previously pointed out, whether any of the 318000 are watching the Angelus out of religious belief, or whether they're just one minute early for the news. We don't know what the standard deviation of the viewing figures is either so we don't know how representative the 318000 is on a daily basis. It could be that the baseline viewership is very low but that there are extraordinary peaks coincident with major news stories or holidays. We know very little about the actual popularity of the Angelus on the basis of religious interest (or any interest for that matter) and since RTE don't share their math on their claim that "a clear majority" want to keep the Angelus, any talk of keeping it on the basis of popularity given the other factors to be considered is foolish.0 -
Advertisement
-
Except that you are. You see, to paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, this thread is a crucible. In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth, for all time. It seems though that you want to focus on the irrelevancies, dissecting people's posts again and again, creating so many discussion points that all sight of the central topic is lost and any hope of digging down to the truth fades away. It is essentially the shotgun fallacy in action, either the person arguing against you gives up because they cannot respond to dozens of discussion points or they get so bogged down trying to respond to each one of your points that discussion of the central topic is either stalled or derailed completely.Well, you see if an argumentum ad populum is not to be considered fallacious then popularity has to be either the sole or dominant factor under consideration.Now if we were talking about a commercial television station then popularity would be the most important factor and would not be fallacious. However, we are talking about a state broadcaster, a broadcaster where over 40% of its funding comes from the public purse.Therefore, popularity is only one factor among many and arguing that the broadcast should stay because it is popular (a questionable assertion in itself) is fallacious.On a side note, while RTE does derive a significant portion of its revenue from advertising, it does have a commitment to minimise this as far as possible. This weakens the popularity argument even further.You see, here's the thing about the Angelus' "popularity" as it were. Facts on this issue are quite thin on the ground. Neither TAM nor RTE produce actual viewing figures on a regular basis which would allow us to gauge the actual popularity of the Angelus. We know that it is not listed in the top 20 programmes. We know from articles by Patsy McGarry that it has an "average" audience of 318,000. And that's it. <...> since RTE don't share their math on their claim that "a clear majority" want to keep the Angelus, any talk of keeping it on the basis of popularity given the other factors to be considered is foolish.
Of course we could wander into CT land and speculate that a shadowy cartel of Catholic theocrats are controlling RTE and spreading unfounded disinformation about the Angelus in order to continue hypnotically indoctrinating the population with a message of 'bong'... but that's probably a subject for a different forum.0 -
That might be a credible argument if I were the one putting forward all the different points, but I'm not, am I? I only answered the points you put forward; if you thought they were irrelevant, why put them forward? Perhaps you were indeed trying to engage in your shotgun fallacy, but personally I don't mind if you put forward dozens of discussion points so long as they're not wildly off topic; I'll respond to the ones I think are worthwhile. And any offered on the central topic too, if they come up.
Oh, so I'm the one with the shotgun approach? Really? Well, let's have a look then shall we. At the beginning of our interaction things were going well. For example, in response to my first input into the thread you made post #440 which had three points. I then responded with post #455 which had three replying points. You then replied again with post #461 which had three points. Then things begin to break down. I replied with post #469 which had three points which you then dissected into 8 points in post #474. From then on you split my posts from 1 point into 4, 4 points into 6 and eventually 7 points into 17. At each point I tried to at best engage on the same level, discarding or refining certain points, whereas you tried your best to fragment the discussion as much as possible.Or... it could just not be argumentum ad populum in the first place. As I said, arguing that something has popular appeal and therefore has value is somewhat different from arguing something is true because people believe it is true.
A State broadcaster which derives revenue from advertising and which wholly owns an entire commercial arm; RTÉ Commercial Enterprises Ltd, so it's not exactly not a commercial station, is it? The very fact that RTE frequently releases press releases about which are it's most popular shows and how much audience share as a channel it has demonstrates the significance of popularity to it.
Well if it's a factor (even among many) for continuing to broadcast a show, it's evidently not fallacious at all. RTE are clearly prepared to cancel shows when they lack popularity, for instance The Movie Show and The Clinic, so popularity would seem a good way not to get cancelled...
But as you say, it does derive a significant portion of its revenue from advertising; and advertisers pay more to advertise around popular shows. RTE doesn't actively discourage advertising revenue, quite the opposite. Which actually strengthens the popularity argument.
Hardly foolish; it's foolish to say we should axe the Angelus without access to that proprietary data, maybe. Not terribly foolish to say RTE does have access to that data and haven't decided to cancel the show yet.
Of course we could wander into CT land and speculate that a shadowy cartel of Catholic theocrats are controlling RTE and spreading unfounded disinformation about the Angelus in order to continue hypnotically indoctrinating the population with a message of 'bong'... but that's probably a subject for a different forum.
OK, here's how the popularity argument, the Angelus and RTE intersect.
Firstly, the popularity of the Angelus is speculative at best. We have no real survey data on people's motivation for watching the Angelus and we have no actual viewing figures, just an average figure from six years ago (when I might add, the content of the Angelus was quite different). So we can't really determine how popular the Angelus is as a broadcast item.
Secondly, if popularity is to be a motivating factor then, in the context of your commercial argument, it would have to draw viewers in which advertisers wish to target. Firstly, we don't know without survey data, how many viewers, if any, are tuning in because of the Angelus. Secondly, the breakdown of the last census by religion and Age shows that about only about 30% of the nominal catholics fall within RTE Television's key demographic (i.e. 15-34 year olds). So exactly how many 15-34 year olds do you think are tuning in just for the Angelus? Just how many commercially relevant viewers do you think RTE would lose if it were to scrap the Angelus?
Thirdly, one of the key commitments of RTE is to deliver a value for money service to its license payers. In its FAQ on the TV license, RTE refers to advertising as something it needs to do to cover its cost, not something it is interested in growing:
"The majority of RTÉ’s activities are of a public service nature. The cost of providing these services, however, exceeds the amount of licence fee revenue which RTÉ receives. As a result, RTÉ engages in commercial activities to bridge the funding gap."
Furthermore, in its Annual Report, RTE's operating deficit is not something which they commit to tackle through increasing their advertising revenue but rather through cutting costs:
"RTÉ should continue to give priority to eliminating the financial deficit and further cost reductions should be implemented. Indecon are concerned that RTÉ continues to run a large deficit as this impacts on the future viability of RTÉ."
While we're on the subject of RTE's commitments, its commitments actually include the following:
Objective 1C: Promote inclusiveness and diversity
Given that the Angelus is a specifically catholic call to prayer and has limited or no interest even for other christian denominations and also that catholic oriented broadcasting is given a disproportionate amount of the religious programming, how is retaining the Angelus fulfilling RTE's commitment under this objective.
Objective 1D: Retain existing and attract new audiences through the provision of relevant services
Given, as has been previously discussed, the increasing diversity of the Irish population, how is a catholic call to prayer going to be relevant in attracting a new audience. Since it cannot be demonstrated that it's even relevant to the existing audience, there doesn't seem to be a case for keeping the Angelus given this commitment above.
Objective 4: Effectively manage RTÉ’s finances into the future through optimising funding sources and controlling costs.
So, if RTE were to scrap the Angelus, the airtime could be devoted to expanding the religious programming to other religions. This would make a degree of commercial sense since a larger percentage of Muslims, for example, fall within the target demographic than Catholics. Alternatively, if the minute per day were given to advertising, then the station could generate an extra €4m in ad revenue not to mention saving the approximately €96k that the Angelus costs to broadcast per annum.
In summary, your argument for popularity outlined here:
"I'm sticking with the appeal to popularity; the most logically sound reason for a broadcaster to broadcast anything."
doesn't really hold up to scrutiny for several reasons. Firstly, we don't know how popular the Angelus actually is. Secondly, you haven't presented an argument why popularity should be the sole concern of the broadcaster and why other concerns such as its commitments to inclusiveness and diversity ought to be ignored. Finally, you haven't presented any evidence to suggest that removing the Angelus would in any way negatively impact on the commercial revenue of RTE and hence its reason for keeping it.
Sources
RTE Annual Report 2011
RTE Public Service Statement 2010
RTE Annual Statement of Performance Commitments 2014
RTE Public Funding Review 2011
RTE License fee FAQ0 -
It's interesting how 'catholic' this country is, I was talking to a few of my mates the other day and I asked one of them did he believe in transubstantiation. Now he's quite a normal fella but he didn't have a clue what it was so I explained it's the catholic church's teaching that the wine and bread literally become the body and blood of christ and that it's not just symbolic, he laughed and said no he didn't believe in it.
So I said to him for the craic "so you're not really catholic then" to which he instantly responded "I fcukin am catholic", I just laughed and said fair enough, who am I to decide for him, but I wonder is he a fair reflection of many so called 'catholics' in Ireland? :-)0 -
Oh, so I'm the one with the shotgun approach? Really? Well, let's have a look then shall we. At the beginning of our interaction things were going well. For example, in response to my first input into the thread you made post #440 which had three points. I then responded with post #455 which had three replying points. You then replied again with post #461 which had three points. Then things begin to break down. I replied with post #469 which had three points which you then dissected into 8 points in post #474. From then on you split my posts from 1 point into 4, 4 points into 6 and eventually 7 points into 17. At each point I tried to at best engage on the same level, discarding or refining certain points, whereas you tried your best to fragment the discussion as much as possible.OK, here's how the popularity argument, the Angelus and RTE intersect.
Firstly, the popularity of the Angelus is speculative at best. We have no real survey data on people's motivation for watching the Angelus and we have no actual viewing figures, just an average figure from six years ago (when I might add, the content of the Angelus was quite different). So we can't really determine how popular the Angelus is as a broadcast item.Secondly, if popularity is to be a motivating factor then, in the context of your commercial argument, it would have to draw viewers in which advertisers wish to target. Firstly, we don't know without survey data, how many viewers, if any, are tuning in because of the Angelus. Secondly, the breakdown of the last census by religion and Age shows that about only about 30% of the nominal catholics fall within RTE Television's key demographic (i.e. 15-34 year olds). So exactly how many 15-34 year olds do you think are tuning in just for the Angelus? Just how many commercially relevant viewers do you think RTE would lose if it were to scrap the Angelus?Thirdly, one of the key commitments of RTE is to deliver a value for money service to its license payers. In its FAQ on the TV license, RTE refers to advertising as something it needs to do to cover its cost, not something it is interested in growing:
"The majority of RTÉ’s activities are of a public service nature. The cost of providing these services, however, exceeds the amount of licence fee revenue which RTÉ receives. As a result, RTÉ engages in commercial activities to bridge the funding gap."
Furthermore, in its Annual Report, RTE's operating deficit is not something which they commit to tackle through increasing their advertising revenue but rather through cutting costs:
"RTÉ should continue to give priority to eliminating the financial deficit and further cost reductions should be implemented. Indecon are concerned that RTÉ continues to run a large deficit as this impacts on the future viability of RTÉ."While we're on the subject of RTE's commitments, its commitments actually include the following:
Objective 1C: Promote inclusiveness and diversity
Given that the Angelus is a specifically catholic call to prayer and has limited or no interest even for other christian denominations and also that catholic oriented broadcasting is given a disproportionate amount of the religious programming, how is retaining the Angelus fulfilling RTE's commitment under this objective.Objective 1D: Retain existing and attract new audiences through the provision of relevant services
Given, as has been previously discussed, the increasing diversity of the Irish population, how is a catholic call to prayer going to be relevant in attracting a new audience. Since it cannot be demonstrated that it's even relevant to the existing audience, there doesn't seem to be a case for keeping the Angelus given this commitment above.Objective 4: Effectively manage RTÉ’s finances into the future through optimising funding sources and controlling costs.
So, if RTE were to scrap the Angelus, the airtime could be devoted to expanding the religious programming to other religions. This would make a degree of commercial sense since a larger percentage of Muslims, for example, fall within the target demographic than Catholics. Alternatively, if the minute per day were given to advertising, then the station could generate an extra €4m in ad revenue not to mention saving the approximately €96k that the Angelus costs to broadcast per annum.
And yes, the argument could be made for any programme that RTE broadcasts that giving it's time over to advertising would generate additional revenue, but then, if there were no programming, advertisers wouldn't advertise because no one would be watching. If we're only looking to generate revenue, inserting an extra ad break in the 9 O Clock News is likely to be more effective than scrapping the Angelus.
In summary, your argument for popularity outlined here:
"I'm sticking with the appeal to popularity; the most logically sound reason for a broadcaster to broadcast anything."
doesn't really hold up to scrutiny for several reasons. Firstly, we don't know how popular the Angelus actually is. Secondly, you haven't presented an argument why popularity should be the sole concern of the broadcaster and why other concerns such as its commitments to inclusiveness and diversity ought to be ignored. Finally, you haven't presented any evidence to suggest that removing the Angelus would in any way negatively impact on the commercial revenue of RTE and hence its reason for keeping it.
Secondly, I haven't said popularity should be the sole concern of the broadcaster, and I readily acknowledge it has other concerns and responsibilities. It is however, still a logically sound reason to broadcast any programme, and broadcasting a programme relevant to a particular section of society in no way ignores commitments to inclusiveness and diversity; any programme that is relevant to any cultural segment contributes to honouring that commitment.
Finally, there's no evidence to suggest that removing the Angelus would in any way positively impact on the commercial revenue of RTE to any greater degree than a similarly popular show, hence it's no reason for scrapping it.0 -
We can't, but RTE can, can't they? Even if they don't reveal the figures to all and sundry, they're in a position to determine whether or not the Angelus is a sufficiently popular program to continue running. From what they've said, they seem to think it is.
I'm not convinced that catholic oriented broadcasting is given a disproportionate amount of the religious programming time, but at about 6% of all religious programming the Angelus isn't exactly taking up a huge chunk of the Catholic/Christian portion, is it?
Firstly, we don't, but RTE does. And unlike unpopular programs we know of, it hasn't scrapped the Angelus for being unpopular, which may well give us some indication that it is sufficiently popular.
Secondly, I haven't said popularity should be the sole concern of the broadcaster, and I readily acknowledge it has other concerns and responsibilities. It is however, still a logically sound reason to broadcast any programme, and broadcasting a programme relevant to a particular section of society in no way ignores commitments to inclusiveness and diversity; any programme that is relevant to any cultural segment contributes to honouring that commitment.
Finally, there's no evidence to suggest that removing the Angelus would in any way positively impact on the commercial revenue of RTE to any greater degree than a similarly popular show, hence it's no reason for scrapping it.
OK, this is the final recap because the points you continue to put forward make it clear that there is little utility in continuing this discussion.
Firstly, there is no solid evidence that the Angelus is actually popular. The only available viewing figure is a) six years old and b) not a direct measure of viewership.
Secondly, you keep mentioning that RTE claim that people want to keep the Angelus. However, as I've pointed out, that it an unsubstantiated claim and so can be readily dismissed. We have no way of verifying the veracity of the claim and so no reason to take it seriously. It's just like someone claiming that a god exists. We have no reason to take their word for it without seeking evidence and so I don't see why we should take RTE's word for it. To go back to Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Similarly ordinary claims only need ordinary evidence but RTE haven't even offered that much. I shouldn't really have to explain this on an atheist forum.
Thirdly, however you may be convinced, catholicism does indeed dominate religious programming almost to the point of exclusion. There are masses broadcast every Sunday, Urbi et Orbi and any other feast day is covered on television and anytime the pope farts it gets coverage. By contrast, there is no muslim call to prayer or services broadcast, no Jewish services, no Hindu, Sikh, Jain or any other religions featured in any meaningful way. Sure you had Ramadan diary but these are rare one-offs and not something which could be construed as an ongoing commitment to religious and cultural diversity.
Fourthly, you acknowledge that there are other concerns besides popularity and yet you are still championing the idea that popularity should override these other concerns. Why? It isn't clear that anybody who watches the Angelus is watching because it's the Angelus rather than the Six One News. So in the absence of evidence that the Angelus is actually popular and given RTEs commitments as well as other concerns, why should the Angelus remain?
Finally, to reiterate my position for the last time, the Angelus is an outdated relic which is no longer representative of Ireland in 2015. It is a watered down Catholic call to prayer in a country with an ever decreasing and ever aging faithful Catholic populace. Ireland is now a country with an increasingly diverse faith base and with a rapidly growing population segment who have no religion. Yet current programming reflects none of this reality. It is also a feature of a particular religion which is funded from the public purse.
However, since it seems to me that you are posting to be deliberately contrarian, at this point:
0 -
Advertisement
-
Firstly, there is no solid evidence that the Angelus is actually popular. The only available viewing figure is a) six years old and b) not a direct measure of viewership.Secondly, you keep mentioning that RTE claim that people want to keep the Angelus. However, as I've pointed out, that it an unsubstantiated claim and so can be readily dismissed. We have no way of verifying the veracity of the claim and so no reason to take it seriously. It's just like someone claiming that a god exists. We have no reason to take their word for it without seeking evidence and so I don't see why we should take RTE's word for it. To go back to Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Similarly ordinary claims only need ordinary evidence but RTE haven't even offered that much. I shouldn't really have to explain this on an atheist forum.Thirdly, however you may be convinced, catholicism does indeed dominate religious programming almost to the point of exclusion. There are masses broadcast every Sunday, Urbi et Orbi and any other feast day is covered on television and anytime the pope farts it gets coverage. By contrast, there is no muslim call to prayer or services broadcast, no Jewish services, no Hindu, Sikh, Jain or any other religions featured in any meaningful way. Sure you had Ramadan diary but these are rare one-offs and not something which could be construed as an ongoing commitment to religious and cultural diversity.Fourthly, you acknowledge that there are other concerns besides popularity and yet you are still championing the idea that popularity should override these other concerns. Why? It isn't clear that anybody who watches the Angelus is watching because it's the Angelus rather than the Six One News. So in the absence of evidence that the Angelus is actually popular and given RTEs commitments as well as other concerns, why should the Angelus remain?Finally, to reiterate my position for the last time, the Angelus is an outdated relic which is no longer representative of Ireland in 2015. It is a watered down Catholic call to prayer in a country with an ever decreasing and ever aging faithful Catholic populace. Ireland is now a country with an increasingly diverse faith base and with a rapidly growing population segment who have no religion. Yet current programming reflects none of this reality. It is also a feature of a particular religion which is funded from the public purse.
No cool picture, sorry.0 -
Mod:Seems a little petulant to dismiss it once it's apparent it doesn't support your point of view.0
-
Mod:I don't see anything petulant about oldrnwisr's comment and I would ask you to refrain from making inaccurate personal comments. Or, better still, from making any personal comments at all.0
Advertisement