Dee Forbes banging the RTE TV licence drum again 60m uncollected fee *poll not working - pl ignore*

elperello

Elmo wrote: »

But they are changing this, this is why I said if the future of media commission is only going to come back with a new collection method that decision should be made today not in 9 months time even if you agree with it or disagree.

Today was cap in hand from RTÉ NUJ and the IBI with no commitments attached.

We should expect more from RTÉ and all our broadcasters, not just a 2 hour mid morning radio chat show.

Well if that's all that comes out of it I will be disappointed too.

As we discussed previously I prefer the direct funding from general taxation model.

If they go for a device based model or adding it to LPT the controversy will just go on and on.

I think expecting a decision today is a bit optimistic. They just don't work that way.

I'd have no problem with some emergency funding to keep the ship steady while they make their minds up.

satguy

So they say that 140K homes have no TV,, and want to find a way, or ask the government to find a way, to make them pay up.

This should be fun ..

ligerdub

Taking it from general taxation will just ensure an even greater wastage and even worse programming. They get enough money. Just improve the shows being commissioned, stop relying on using the same agency and production company for the standard awful chat shows, comedy and drama.......and stop wasting so much money on overpaid nothings getting the top front of house jobs.

satguy

ITV and The BBC are just waiting to poach our top talent, we might need to double their pay just to hang on to them.

Please stay Tubbs, we need you,, If anything were to happen to our great RTE, where would we get our repeats of Mrs Browns Boys.

Harry Palmr

They can't be that stretched as they haven't sent me my renewal notice.

elperello

ligerdub wrote: »

Taking it from general taxation will just ensure an even greater wastage and even worse programming. They get enough money. Just improve the shows being commissioned, stop relying on using the same agency and production company for the standard awful chat shows, comedy and drama.......and stop wasting so much money on overpaid nothings getting the top front of house jobs.

Direct funding removes the extra costs associated with collection and enforcement.

What makes you think that changing the funding model will lead to greater wastage and worse programs?

With the proper checks and balances put in place it shouldn't matter how the money is raised, outcomes should be unaffected.

Your idea about improving commissioning should be part of the mix in deciding on the future of Public Broadcasting. Once we decide what we want from the PB Service and set the parameters progress can be made.

Your opinion of the various types of show and the presenters is just that, your opinion, but everybody's opinion needs to be considered.

Shaving a few hundred grand off high earners salaries or contracts is not going to give us the pot of gold.

Brendan Bendar

elperello wrote: »

Direct funding removes the extra costs associated with collection and enforcement.

What makes you think that changing the funding model will lead to greater wastage and worse programs?

With the proper checks and balances put in place it shouldn't matter how the money is raised, outcomes should be unaffected.

Your idea about improving commissioning should be part of the mix in deciding on the future of Public Broadcasting. Once we decide what we want from the PB Service and set the parameters progress can be made.

Your opinion of the various types of show and the presenters is just that, your opinion, but everybody's opinion needs to be considered.

Shaving a few hundred grand off high earners salaries or contracts is not going to give us the pot of gold.

We know that, but it’s absolutely no reason to pay that much.

It’s absolutely pure stupid, when there is no reason at all to do it given the financial situation.

Elmo

elperello wrote: »

Direct funding removes the extra costs associated with collection and enforcement.

What makes you think that changing the funding model will lead to greater wastage and worse programs?

With the proper checks and balances put in place it shouldn't matter how the money is raised, outcomes should be unaffected.

Your idea about improving commissioning should be part of the mix in deciding on the future of Public Broadcasting. Once we decide what we want from the PB Service and set the parameters progress can be made.

Your opinion of the various types of show and the presenters is just that, your opinion, but everybody's opinion needs to be considered.

Shaving a few hundred grand off high earners salaries or contracts is not going to give us the pot of gold.

I feel Direct Funding could put political pressure on a public service broadcaster.

RTÉ have only ever stated that to continue to provide the kind of content and services that it currenlty provides RTÉ require €30m more, the BAI agree with this, RTÉ and BAI have given no committements to improve RTÉ but rather to properly funded it.

BAI are the authority and will remain the authority its CEO has been their for 30 years, those checks and balance will not come from them or if they get their name changed to the Media Authority of Ireland.

I don't think improving commissioning is part of the Future of Media Commission. I also don't think they will report back as to what we want from our public service broadcasters.

Opinion in various presenters and shows is good, it give us a good of idea of what we want and what we don't want. Some is purely anti-RTÉ, much of it reasoned IMO.

No cutting wages isn't but tell RTÉ that,

1. RTÉ cut funding to Children's Content when they said they wouldn't, a key part of their 2020 - 2024 revised strategy.
2. RTÉ were able to cut funding to Independent Drama and Scripted Comedy, in 2019 they spent just €2.2million on this type of programming. Again a core part of their 2020 - 2024 strategy
3. RTÉ have ring fence funding to RTÉ 2fm even though it has had a 50% reduction in ad revenue, and RTÉ has seen its funding drop by 25%
4. RTÉ have ring fenced funding of imported programming, failing to promote them, failing to schedule them properly and failing to have a proper player for them, yet RTÉ has seen a drop in funding of 25%
5. No cuts to corp HQ, surely they could have done some penny pinch there.

We should expect more from them, this is not this past this is their current effort.

ligerdub

elperello wrote: »

Direct funding removes the extra costs associated with collection and enforcement.

What makes you think that changing the funding model will lead to greater wastage and worse programs?

With the proper checks and balances put in place it shouldn't matter how the money is raised, outcomes should be unaffected.

Your idea about improving commissioning should be part of the mix in deciding on the future of Public Broadcasting. Once we decide what we want from the PB Service and set the parameters progress can be made.

Your opinion of the various types of show and the presenters is just that, your opinion, but everybody's opinion needs to be considered.

Shaving a few hundred grand off high earners salaries or contracts is not going to give us the pot of gold.

Changing the funding model removes the parameters from which they would be budgeting from. Bringing this under a direct taxation model would essentially mean they'd tell the government the costs and we pay it. Look at the childrens hospital or pretty much any significant government spending project to see overspend. These departments arent run with any real commercial incentive or as much responsibility as if there were true repercussions for wasting money.

At this least the current method there is a direct line in the sand to see how they are doing financially.

Yes, my opinion, is merely an opinion, but it is also backed up by the stats. I have no interest in watching (for example) Amy Hubermans pet project broadcast to the nation, and funnily enough the nation agrees with me. Theres subjective and then theres the obvious! The likes of Amy can get their show put on and it doesn't make a huge difference if it's popular or not.

Shaving money off the high earners means that they can save money with all the other otherpaid staffers too. It all adds up.

elperello

Elmo wrote: »

I feel Direct Funding could put political pressure on a public service broadcaster.

ligerdub wrote: »

Changing the funding model removes the parameters from which they would be budgeting from. Bringing this under a direct taxation model would essentially mean they'd tell the government the costs and we pay it.

You both point out very valid arguments against funding Public Service Broadcasting from general taxation. Essentially they are that either the Government will take advantage of the broadcaster or vice versa.

My own suggestion outlined in earlier posts was that the funding could be channeled through an independent body at arms length from the politicians.
Perhaps a reconstituted BAI or an offshoot of same.

All of the funding levels would have to be agreed based on the service levels that were expected from the PBS.

I take on board reservations based on previous failures to control spending in public bodies.

Elmo

elperello wrote: »

I take on board reservations based on previous failures to control spending in public bodies.

How about current spending issues are are these to be ignored until such a time as we know what we want from Public Service Media?

elperello

Elmo wrote: »

How about current spending issues are are these to be ignored until such a time as we know what we want from Public Service Media?

No, you can list anything you regard as a spending issue as many have in this thread and others.

The responsibility still lies with management at RTE to run the service and keep in budget.

The J Stands for Jay

elperello wrote: »

Shaving a few hundred grand off high earners salaries or contracts is not going to give us the pot of gold.

Why are you only targeting one person, and who is it? Is it Joe you don't like, or Ray?

The J Stands for Jay

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

We know that, but it’s absolutely no reason to pay that much.

It’s absolutely pure stupid, when there is no reason at all to do it.

FYP

Elmo

elperello wrote: »

No, you can list anything you regard as a spending issue as many have in this thread and others.

The responsibility still lies with management at RTE to run the service and keep in budget.

And if they don't?

elperello

McGaggs wrote: »

Why are you only targeting one person, and who is it? Is it Joe you don't like, or Ray?

I'm not "targeting" anyone.

I'm not sure how you think I am.

elperello

Elmo wrote: »

And if they don't?

Do you have anything in mind yourself?

As long as any action taken doesn't interfere with the viewing/listening experience or render the organisation unable to fulfill it's remit I'm open to persuasion. .

I'm wary of any of the "reduce services, sell things off, close it down" so called solutions put forward here and elsewhere.

I want to see a sustainable Public Broadcasting service that will serve the public interest coming out of all this.

Elmo

elperello wrote: »

I'm wary of any of the "reduce services, sell things off, close it down" so called solutions put forward here and elsewhere.

But that's what they have done, cut children's content, news on RTÉ 2 & 2fm, no TV news before 1pm, reduced independent drama & scripted comedy, massive cuts to any RTÉ2 content outside sport, not replacing that content for similar RTÉ player content (most of which don't come close to a youtube video),.....

The list of their cuts is endless.

The J Stands for Jay

elperello wrote: »

I'm not "targeting" anyone.

I'm not sure how you think I am.

I am being a smartarse and implying that a saving of a few hundred thousand could be made by reducing the salary of just one of their high earners.

elperello

McGaggs wrote: »

I am being a smartarse and implying that a saving of a few hundred thousand could be made by reducing the salary of just one of their high earners.

OK carry on, no harm in a bit of levity.:)

elperello

Elmo wrote: »

But that's what they have done, cut children's content, news on RTÉ 2 & 2fm, no TV news before 1pm, reduced independent drama & scripted comedy, massive cuts to any RTÉ2 content outside sport, not replacing that content for similar RTÉ player content (most of which don't come close to a youtube video),.....

The list of their cuts is endless.

Well I'm not sure about endless and I'm not clear on your point about the player but if you are saying it needs to be sorted I agree.

The cuts you listed have happened in an ad hoc manner without an agreed plan.

I don't want that to happen and neither do you.

What other members of the public think about these changes to RTE services is unclear.

Elmo

RTÉ buy in €25,000,000 in imported content every year. Largely speaking RTÉ have not cut at the amount that it has imported.

I think this is wastefully, it means that RTÉ buy in 10,000 to 12,000 hours of TV per year, around 27 hours per day.

I suspect that much of those 27 hours will consist of first runs for RTÉ, with may 20 - 30% second runs. AFAIK every programming can be repeat every hour for 24 hours without incurring any cost, and that most content gets between 3 - 5 repeat showings as part of the contract.

RTÉ basically has a treasure trove of content from the US, UK and Australia. However... before the large take up of on-demand much of this programming aired in the mid-night hours, now with the advent of increased us of on-demand RTÉ don't provide access to all new programming on their player (I assume due to the contract), then you have the fact that the Player is at time frustrating to use and much of the content isn't promoted, meaning you have a treasure trove of imported content which is available at mid-night hours and may or may not be available on an unworkable player.

To my mind this is unused content, not only that pre-2000 RTÉ would never have bought Ellen or the Dr Phil show, this would have been abhorrent to RTÉ, these are unnecessary programmes to buy in, firstly because they could be bought by Virgin Media and secondly because they are available elsewhere and finally wouldn't RTÉ be better of making an Irish Morning show .... even a 9am, 10am, 11am and Noon news bulletin?

The lets take Children's content. In 2016 after much publicity RTÉ denied that they were cutting children's content, but rather they were moving it to independents. If that were the case RTÉ would have had to increase independent children's content by €7m instead they kept it at €3.5million, but then their 2016 annual report would show that they had already cut funding to "young people's" by 25%, and this would be followed by a 50% reduction in 2017, with a slight increase in 2018. No news agency has ever pointed out how RTÉ lied about cutting children's content.

During the last 10 years news has been cut back massively on TV, starting with RTÉ2 which introduced NewsFeed (that they couldn't even run during the summer months), cutting the late news on the News Channel having moved it there from RTÉ2, cutting morning news on RTÉ ONE and finally cutting news from late night 2fm but retaining nightly Sports bulletins.

Ok you might say that they are taking a digital first approach, trust me I doubt Prime Time Explains or their daily mid-morning news update on their news site will ever return.

This is consistent with RTÉ begging for more money and these cuts taking place in areas that vast majority won't notice.

The Works/The View ... GONE
Oireachtas Report ... GONE
Sign of the Times/Hands ON ... GONE (With access signing limited to late night repeats of the same shows on RTÉ2).

If RTÉ was a member of boards asking for all of this content to go, without a transparent way of show its replacement we would all laugh them out of the room.

garrettod

We can all breath a deep sigh of relief....

It seems that Dee and her cronies are going to make it, and won't be reporting the massive losses that the wanted us to believe that RTE were facing..

https://m.independent.ie/business/media/rtes-finances-are-looking-up-but-the-timing-is-terrible-39746497.html

No justification to defer doing something with RTE, to bring an end up the underlying issues though.

Elmo

garrettod wrote: »

We can all breath a deep sigh of relief....

It seems that Dee and her cronies are going to make it, and won't be reporting the massive losses that the wanted us to believe that RTE were facing..

https://m.independent.ie/business/media/rtes-finances-are-looking-up-but-the-timing-is-terrible-39746497.html

No justification to defer doing something with RTE, to bring an end up the underlying issues though.

TBH I think RTÉ may have made a profit in 2019, hence why the held off providing the report the the Department, they handed it on July 23rd, currently being sent to government.

They got more of the license fee in 2019 and TV ad revenue was up slightly. Not sure how Radio did in 2019.

But TBTH I don't care if they make a profit, breakeven or make a loss, I want to see better content across the board, so when they say the are damn if the do and they are damn if they don't, I think they really don't do anything.

SPDUB

Elmo wrote: »

Oireachtas Report ... GONE

It's on TG4

Elmo

SPDUB wrote: »

It's on TG4

At night TG4 air oireachtas proceedings not sure which day, does it have a presenter? TG4 are not RTÉ.

garrettod

Elmo wrote: »

... TG4 are not RTÉ.

Too right they aren't - TG4 is a far better run organisation.

Muahahaha

Anyone seen Blaithnid ni Chofaigh? I know she is suing RTE but flicked by Nationwide on Monday and there was some new fella presenting it and then realised I havent seen her in a few weeks

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

Anyone seen Blaithnid ni Chofaigh? I know she is suing RTE but flicked by Nationwide on Monday and there was some new fella presenting it and then realised I havent seen her in a few weeks

Why oh why didn’t they keep Mary Kennedy?

bigroad

Deleted User wrote: »

Why oh why didn’t they keep Mary Kennedy?

She had to retire I think.
All the same you would think they could find someone else.
I suppose it depends on who their agent and what size the brown envelope is because there could be no other reason for some of them to be put in the positions they are in.