RTÉ report €13m defecit. Time to properly fund Public Service Broadcasting.

Reati

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It was doing better for a number of years. They got people into shake it up a bit and change practices ..but certain people didn't like that ...

Sure but one thing I find in this site is plenty of opinion and no action.

So if a majority of people are feeling RTÉ (don't forget the fada folks..) aren't value for that large amount of change they demand from everyone we should do something.

ILoveYourVibes

Reati wrote: »

Sure but one thing I find in this site is plenty of opinion and no action.

So if a majority of people are feeling RTÉ (don't forget the fada folks..) aren't value for that large amount of change they demand from everyone we should do something.

Public protest that got enough support amongst the young and media headlines.
That would be their worst nightmare. And i mean they would SHAKE.

You would not believe the lengths they go to keep bad press away from RTE.

Also contacting politicians i would not be in favour of.

Politicians would love to get rid of RTE and as much as it has issues it's really our only national level news broadcaster that is not owned by Denis O'Brien. But in saying that to think people in RTE are just sooo much better than Denis O'Brien would be very naive.

amcalester

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I gave up on RTE after the Brendan O'Connor/Rat Darcey debacle. They headhunted Darcey for the afternoon show to get him they sidelined O'Connor Saturday night show and gave it to Darcey. Darcey is s brutal TV talk show host. If you watch he always is fiddling with his hint cards. He cannot extend an interesting guest or reduce s disintresting guest. If you ever watch him he never listens he is waiting to ask the next question. If Ray has 8 questions to ask all 8 have to be asked instead of listening to the guest.

I've said the exact same about Tubridy, the questions on the cue cards get asked no matter what, and at times you can see the guest start talking about something that interests them more than what they are there to promote and Tubridy asks a totally unrelated question. Usually about how much the guest loves Ireland.

Blueshoe

Keep paying it guys. If they are handed enough money they might change their ways.

Never have never will

Mehapoy

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

RTÉ today reported a deficit of €13 million for 2018. We now live in an era of fake news, advertising masquerading as news, and clickbait designed to outrage consumers. I believe it's ever more important to have a publicly funded state broadcaster.


It's the done thing to criticise and berate RTÉ, especially in the cesspools of Facebook, Twitter, and The Journal. However I believe they do a very good job in difficult circumstances. Their current affairs, sports coverage, and documentaries are top class. They manage to balance the wants of the populace by providing stuff like The Voice and Ireland's Fittest Families, with more niche content like the wonderful Doc On One, live classical music from the NCH, Irish language content, Nationwide etc.

People complain about there being dross on RTÉ, but then don't want to pay the licence fee to fund additional content that meets their extremely high-brow tastes. This is having a serious impact on the independent sector who are being forced to produce ever cheaper and more salacious content instead of high-quality work. Yet you head onto the Sky channels and are met with hours of repeats, Dr Pimple Popper, and ads for online casinos.

I think a strong public service broadcaster is a sign of a strong democracy, and am in favour of deducting tax at source to fund it. What say the intellectuals of Boards?

Hi ryan

McMurphy

We pay the license fee in this house, not a decision of mine mind you, but it's paid annually.

Honestly, gets watched a few times a year, toy show, GAA matches and herself watches D Bannon, but that's about it really.

Netflix/YouTube and other sub based entertainment sources have made Montrose basically redundant, and my guess is not just in this house.

Squeeonline

I'd like to see a different model of TV licence - i.e. none. Scrap it entirely, take the budget from a small increase in income tax at the highest levels.

I'm living abroad and use the RTE website for getting the gist of the news back home and that's about all these days.

odyssey06

Squeeonline wrote: »

I'd like to see a different model of TV licence - i.e. none. Scrap it entirely, take the budget from a small increase in income tax at the highest levels.
I'm living abroad and use the RTE website for getting the gist of the news back home and that's about all these days.

The TV licence model is inefficient. The problem with funding it from income tax is that it's not ring-fenced. Give RTE a budget increase and they will gobble up more and more and more. They'll be insatiable. And we'll still get pretty crap TV because they'll have even less incentive to be efficient or produce quality output when they can just give the government a hard luck story.

weldoninhio

super_furry wrote: »

Any increased funding, which I believe should be made available through National Lottery funding, should also come with a salary cap across the board.

I don't think the Canadian Teachers Pensions would be happy to give their profits to RTE.

Plumbthedepths

Simple solution, put RTE behind a pay wall/ subscription only. Those that want it have the opportunity to pay those that don't....self explanatory.

ILoveYourVibes

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Simple solution, put RTE behind a pay wall/ subscription only. Those that want it have the opportunity to pay those that don't....self explanatory.

No one would want it. And it would mean someone like Denis O'Brien would be controlling our news broadcasts.

RTE are ****e but we do need a state broadcaster at least for news and current affairs.

Boxing.Fan

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

If you own a television then you are breaking the law.

No **** paddy, do you think anyone that doesn't pay is bothered about that?

James Brown

RTE has absolutely no business competing with other channels. If a big event is on both BBC and RTE, it's a win for no adverts BBC. If another channel is showing some US sitcom and RTE is too, it's a toss up where the viewer might go.
RTE should play to it's only strengths, Irish news, Irish sport and Irish home produced drama/entertainment. That's a channel full and add one in Irish. Cut the budget. I'm sick of these Montrose family sprogs waltzing into the family business RTE that the tax payer funds.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Boxing.Fan wrote: »

No **** paddy, do you think anyone that doesn't pay is bothered about that?

Yes. It's illegal and immoral.

James Brown

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Yes. It's illegal and immoral.

FG once went 9 years without paying any tax. I think you could miss paying the licence and still hold your head high at Sunday mass.

Boxing.Fan

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Yes. It's illegal and immoral.

It's immoral to not pay a TV licence? You're having a laugh surely.

tayto lover

Boxing.Fan wrote: »

It's immoral to not pay a TV licence? You're having a laugh surely.

I pay it but I dont know why. It’s rubbish. Stopped watching it years ago except for the Gaelic football which is rare now because someone decided to show hurling most of the time.
They should close it down as it’s useless.

c.p.w.g.w

Maybe if stopped paying stupid money to talentless hosts. It might be easier to balance the books

tayto lover

Thread needs a poll =

(A) Close RTÉ or

(B) Raise the license fee or

(C) Make them run it on current money.

oLoonatic

I was about to give an actual response and then realised who the OP was. Well played sir.

Cryptopagan

Elmo wrote: »

25m a year goes to Imports not buttons.

I mean the stuff they put on at ungodly hours.

Cryptopagan

tayto lover wrote: »

I pay it but I dont know why. It’s rubbish. Stopped watching it years ago except for the Gaelic football which is rare now because someone decided to show hurling most of the time.
They should close it down as it’s useless.

RTÉ’s Tony Connelly is one of the best informed journalists in Brussels on Brexit. I have many, many gripes about RTÉ but it’s not completely useless, and when it does something well it does show the value of publicly-funded broadcasting.

LirW

As long as this tripe of an architect Dermot Bannon doesn't get another second of screen time I'm all for it.

weldoninhio

It’s grand. I’ve just read that Lucy Kennedy and Michael Healy-Rae are teaming up for a new TV show. Once we syndicate that across the world RTÉ willl be rich beyond its wildest dreams.

Blueshoe

Cryptopagan wrote: »

RTÉ’s Tony Connelly is one of the best informed journalists in Brussels on Brexit. I have many, many gripes about RTÉ but it’s not completely useless, and when it does something well it does show the value of publicly-funded broadcasting.

Tony is a bollox imo

salmocab

weldoninhio wrote: »

It’s grand. I’ve just read that Lucy Kennedy and Michael Healy-Rae are teaming up for a new TV show. Once we syndicate that across the world RTÉ willl be rich beyond its wildest dreams.

I hope it’s a re do of the celebrity death matches.

Kivaro

Had the opportunity to watch television earlier this morning.
Switched to our National Broadcaster's flagship station RTE1.
What was on? Advertisements.
Guess what came on after the advertisements? Teleshopping.

I then came to the conclusion that Teleshopping (don't forget that we are paying €160 every year for this service) is necessary to pay for the massive salaries of RTE stars.
Monday's Teleshopping paid for one hour of Joe Duffy's weekly wage.
Tuesday's Teleshopping paid for one hour of Ray D'Arcy's weekly wage.

Having Teleshopping on the country's primary television channel is an abomination; much like the arrogance of those running the wasteful quango.

Beechwoodspark

Cryptopagan wrote: »

RTÉ’s Tony Connelly is one of the best informed journalists in Brussels on Brexit. I have many, many gripes about RTÉ but it’s not completely useless, and when it does something well it does show the value of publicly-funded broadcasting.

Very well informed and intelligent guy. His Brexit pieces leave the bbc analysis in their dust

ILoveYourVibes

I saw this today.


https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/foi-request-reveals-rte-spent-over-one-million-euro-on-legal-fees/

In one year RTE spent on million on legal fees.

GarIT

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I saw this today.


https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/foi-request-reveals-rte-spent-over-one-million-euro-on-legal-fees/

In one year RTE spent on million on legal fees.

It would cost more if they didn't.

ILoveYourVibes

GarIT wrote: »

It would cost more if they didn't.

I know.


It's just easy to see where the money goes though without actual improvement on the actual product sometimes.

CrankyHaus

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I saw this today.


https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/foi-request-reveals-rte-spent-over-one-million-euro-on-legal-fees/

In one year RTE spent on million on legal fees.

Is that bad, given the size of the organisation, its very large workforce and significant defamation exposure as Ireland's largest news broadcaster?

I'm not saying nothing to see here, just that without more detail it's hard to know if it's a bargain or daylight robbery or anywhere in between. For instance what about in house legal, or any insurance costs making the real total legal services fee much higher.

ILoveYourVibes

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Is that bad, given the size of the organisation, its very large workforce and significant defamation exposure as Ireland's largest news broadcaster?

I'm not saying nothing to see here, just that without more detail it's hard to know if it's a bargain or daylight robbery or anywhere in between. For instance what about in house legal, or any insurance costs making the real total legal services fee much higher.

Considering they have a legal team inside RTE etc it made me wonder. I don't know though.

Kivaro

RTE's Philip Boucher Hayes deleted 'sponger' tweets when he realised there was an error in the figures. Story here.
I'd say he got his knuckles slapped by the liberal elite in RTE for using the work "sponger", more than anything else.

Mr. Boucher also sent out tweets hitting out at people calling for a cut in the wages of high earners at RTE.
Once again it shows how detached those who work at RTE are from the rest of us. One of his tweets: "good populist fun but poor maths".
So those of us bothered by the unrealistic, unsustainable, undeserving high salaries at RTE are just populists.

Elmo

Kivaro wrote: »

RTE's Philip Boucher Hayes deleted 'sponger' tweets when he realised there was an error in the figures. Story here.
I'd say he got his knuckles slapped by the liberal elite in RTE for using the work "sponger", more than anything else.

Mr. Boucher also sent out tweets hitting out at people calling for a cut in the wages of high earners at RTE.
Once again it shows how detached those who work at RTE are from the rest of us. One of his tweets: "good populist fun but poor maths".
So those of us bothered by the unrealistic, unsustainable, undeserving high salaries at RTE are just populists.

Can someone tell me why this became a "populist" trope? I had always avoided the presenters wages, particularly when they were make some good programming back in the 2000s. But now I look at it and I don't view it as populist at all.

In 2017 RTÉ spent just 1% of their Budget on Children's Content, why not equate this to their star wages after all aren't they just spending 1% of their budget on "stars".

BarryD2

I agree - one decent TV station (TG4 separate) with an emphasis on home produced material. No need for 24 hours news and current affairs, a bit of variety. In relations to sport, bit more variety - they've gone too far towards the lazy GAA option in recent times.

Ditto for radio - one decent talk station.

Big salary cuts or the door to the main presenters.

end of the road

Kivaro wrote: »

RTE's Philip Boucher Hayes deleted 'sponger' tweets when he realised there was an error in the figures. Story here.
I'd say he got his knuckles slapped by the liberal elite in RTE for using the work "sponger", more than anything else.

Mr. Boucher also sent out tweets hitting out at people calling for a cut in the wages of high earners at RTE.
Once again it shows how detached those who work at RTE are from the rest of us. One of his tweets: "good populist fun but poor maths".
So those of us bothered by the unrealistic, unsustainable, undeserving high salaries at RTE are just populists.

ultimately, yes . because we already know why people are paid the wages they are within the service, and that if they didn't bring serious returns, they wouldn't be paid what they are.

Kivaro wrote: »

Had the opportunity to watch television earlier this morning.
Switched to our National Broadcaster's flagship station RTE1.
What was on? Advertisements.
Guess what came on after the advertisements? Teleshopping.

I then came to the conclusion that Teleshopping (don't forget that we are paying €160 every year for this service) is necessary to pay for the massive salaries of RTE stars.
Monday's Teleshopping paid for one hour of Joe Duffy's weekly wage.
Tuesday's Teleshopping paid for one hour of Ray D'Arcy's weekly wage.

Having Teleshopping on the country's primary television channel is an abomination; much like the arrogance of those running the wasteful quango.

more likely it's just rte doing what many channels do in off peak hours. shove on telly shopping to bring in extra income. rather then arrogance.
personally i think all channels should carry original programming instead as there are some people watching late at night early in the morning all be it in small numbers, but it seems the channels don't agree.

jelutong

Who's the we? Speak for yourself.

Kivaro

end of the road wrote: »

ultimately, yes . because we already know why people are paid the wages they are within the service, and that if they didn't bring serious returns, they wouldn't be paid what they are.

This is usually the case for the vast majority of organisations and businesses.
However RTE does not follow normal protocol or business processes because; well because they are funded by the television license tax gravy train and the revenue generated from advertisements.
We are constantly told (by RTE) that the RTE stars will run away to the competition or go overseas if they are not paid the astronomical salaries they currently receive.

I say, let's reduce their salaries and hope that this may occur.
In fact, maybe we could crowdfund their exodus.

Elmo

end of the road wrote: »

ultimately, yes . because we already know why people are paid the wages they are within the service, and that if they didn't bring serious returns, they wouldn't be paid what they are.

more likely it's just rte doing what many channels do in off peak hours. shove on telly shopping to bring in extra income. rather then arrogance.
personally i think all channels should carry original programming instead as there are some people watching late at night early in the morning all be it in small numbers, but it seems the channels don't agree.

Do they bring in serious returns?

RTÉ have always avoided Morning TV, they had a case when the produced strong prime time TV, but now even their break for Today on RTÉ1 arrogant.

end of the road

Kivaro wrote: »

This is usually the case for the vast majority of organisations and businesses.
However RTE does not follow normal protocol or business processes because; well because they are funded by the television license tax gravy train and the revenue generated from advertisements.
We are constantly told (by RTE) that the RTE stars will run away to the competition or go overseas if they are not paid the astronomical salaries they currently receive.

I say, let's reduce their salaries and hope that this may occur.
In fact, maybe we could crowdfund their exodus.

that is fine as long as we aren't forced to potentially pay a higher licence fee to make up any shortfall in advertising lost from the exodus of those stars.
of course rte can't 100% follow normal business practices because if it did then there would be no minority or other commercially non-viable programming. but given it is expected to take in some commercial income, then it has to follow some business practice to a small extent.
essentiallly rte is expected to be all things to everyone by many and it is not possible for it to fulfil that remit. so there needs to be a conversation around what programming it needs to provide and a willingness by government and the people to support rte in making those changes.

Elmo wrote: »

Do they bring in serious returns?

they must at least bring in enough returns to justify whatever they are getting otherwise i can't see them getting what they are getting. perhapse at the moment they may not be serious returns given the country is just coming out of recovery but perhapse if they did bring in such when things were good last time they will again.

Elmo wrote: »

RTÉ have always avoided Morning TV, they had a case when the produced strong prime time TV, but now even their break for Today on RTÉ1 arrogant.

sure and i would disagree with them doing so and believe they should not ignore it.
but to be fair when rte is expected to be both commercial and public service at the same time, then this is probably what is going to happen unfortunately.

Boggles

Do the top earners justify their wages? i.e do they create more money than they cost?

If so it would be monumentally stupid to get rid of them.

There is your line, if they are not making a return, into a cannon with the lot of them.

James Brown

The problem as regards quality and value for money is these people are promoted by RTE as key people. Most of them came from RTE families. Look at Ryan Tubbs. Bred for the LLS. Been on RTE since he was a snot nosed kid. So give him plumb jobs and then say we need him? Sounds like complete bull. Look at Lottie Ryan, muck. In several years she'll be another 'talent' we can't do without. It's complete bull.

GarIT

Boggles wrote: »

Do the top earners justify their wages? i.e do they create more money than they cost?

If so it would be monumentally stupid to get rid of them.

There is your line, if they are not making a return, into a cannon with the lot of them.

Yes but the question is would the late late show suffer huge losses in viewers without Tubardy, would a show where people ring in and complain lose viewers without Joe? Would Tubardy and Joe even leave if they were only paid 100k where they are.

Boggles

GarIT wrote: »

Yes but the question is would the late late show suffer huge losses in viewers without Tubardy, would a show where people ring in and complain lose viewers without Joe? Would Tubardy and Joe even leave if they were only paid 100k where they are.

Sure what difference does it make if the shows are in fact making losses?

Neither are those shows are essential public services.

Get rid of them.

If they are paying their way, keep them. Pay the presenters relative to the value they bring, which could mean increases of course.

James Brown

GarIT wrote: »

Yes but the question is would the late late show suffer huge losses in viewers without Tubardy, would a show where people ring in and complain lose viewers without Joe? Would Tubardy and Joe even leave if they were only paid 100k where they are.

Tubbs has nowhere to go. I'd say they'd both either stay or sign up to some Irish indie. Both easily replaced that's the thing.

GarIT

Boggles wrote: »

Sure what difference does it make if the shows are in fact making losses?

Neither are those shows are essential public services.

Get rid of them.

If they are paying their way, keep them. Pay the presenters relative to the value they bring, which could mean increases of course.

What I meant was a response to your last post. It appears, or it can be claimed that they are paying their way if you look at the shows numbers but the real question is how much of that is the show or the time slot and how much of that is the presenter.

MrMusician18

end of the road wrote: »

that is fine as long as we aren't forced to potentially pay a higher licence fee to make up any shortfall in advertising lost from the exodus of those stars.
of course rte can't 100% follow normal business practices because if it did then there would be no minority or other commercially non-viable programming. but given it is expected to take in some commercial income, then it has to follow some business practice to a small extent.
essentiallly rte is expected to be all things to everyone by many and it is not possible for it to fulfil that remit. so there needs to be a conversation around what programming it needs to provide and a willingness by government and the people to support rte in making those changes.




they must at least bring in enough returns to justify whatever they are getting otherwise i can't see them getting what they are getting. perhapse at the moment they may not be serious returns given the country is just coming out of recovery but perhapse if they did bring in such when things were good last time they will again.



sure and i would disagree with them doing so and believe they should not ignore it.
but to be fair when rte is expected to be both commercial and public service at the same time, then this is probably what is going to happen unfortunately.

The returns the "stars" generate doesn't determine what they're paid, or at least it shouldn't. The market should determine that. And the commercial competition has very limited resources to compete on wages, so wages in Irish broadcasting should be low.

However RTE doesn't believe in the market, but firmly believes in the gravy train.

end of the road

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The returns the "stars" generate doesn't determine what they're paid, or at least it shouldn't. The market should determine that. And the commercial competition has very limited resources to compete on wages, so wages in Irish broadcasting should be low.

However RTE doesn't believe in the market, but firmly believes in the gravy train.

given rte broadcasts to the whole nation, low wages, or wages similar to the average broadcaster on the average for example, music station, are not going to happen.
the market is likely already playing a part in the decision over wages, how much of a part is anyone's guess but i would be surprised if it is not involved any bit. after all how many of us thought pat kenny could be attracted away from rte?

Bass Reeves

end of the road wrote: »

given rte broadcasts to the whole nation, low wages, or wages similar to the average broadcaster on the average for example, music station, are not going to happen.
the market is likely already playing a part in the decision over wages, how much of a part is anyone's guess but i would be surprised if it is not involved any bit. after all how many of us thought pat kenny could be attracted away from rte?

And yet when he left he did not carry a major portion of his audience with him. Its the brand that sell the advertizing compared to the name of the host.