RTE Cutbacks The Plan

Plumbthedepths

Boggles wrote: »

There is no one forcing you to pay for RTE and if they are I suggest going to the guards.

My licence fee that i'm legally required to have forces me to pay for RTE. The little tag I hear on the radio supported by 'your licence fee' also suggests I am forced to pay for RTE.
Personally if RTE believes it's product is so good it should takes its chances as a purely commercial undertaking.

boring accountant

Boggles wrote: »

There is no one forcing you to pay for RTE and if they are I suggest going to the guards.

This post boggles the mind. People have been sent to prison for not paying their licence fee.

Elmo

boring accountant wrote: »

This post boggles the mind. People have been sent to prison for not paying their licence fee.

I assume they mean: there is a legal way out of not paying via avoidance by not having a TV.

Zird

Noemi Shapely Weakling wrote: »

I quoted Pat Rabbitte above stating that RTE's coverage of the water charges issue was biased because it devoted far more time to the protests against the charges than the rationale for the charges. Given his affiliations with the Workers Party, Democratic Left, and the Labour Party, Rabbitte can hardly be termed a foaming-at-the-mouth right-winger.

As someone who has lived in the US, I agree with Varadkar's assessment that RTE's coverage of US politics tends to fall into a simplistic "Democrats good, Republicans bad" model. There is zero pretense to objectivity. Whenever US elections take place, RTE can be guaranteed to rally behind whomever the Democratic candidate is and demonize the Republican. This has nothing to do with Trump specifically—it's been going on for decades.

If Rabbite was in opposition at the time, he too would have been on the water charges protests. Politics in this country is a pantomime.

boring accountant

Elmo wrote: »

I assume they mean: there is a legal way out of not paying via avoidance by not having a TV.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to have a TV in my own home?

I can own a car and not tax it as long as I don't use public roads, but having a TV in my living room can get me sent to prison.

Elmo

Zird wrote: »

If Rabbite was in opposition at the time, he too would have been on the water charges protests. Politics in this country is a pantomime.

I would quote Rabbitte, he did little for RTÉ. He might say that the Water Protests stop him from increasing the licence fee or changing it, load of bx.

But he can't defend that when RTÉ asked him to move RTÉjr programming of RTÉ2 he sat on it for more than a year, only to have RTÉ withdraw the plan. Rather than make a decision he wait for RTÉ to take their proposal back.

elperello

Just to clarify, you cannot be committed to prison for not licencing your TV.

You may be prosecuted and fined for not licencing your TV.

If you fail to pay the fine then you may be committed to prison.

It's an important distinction.

Varta

McGaggs wrote: »

You mean "most people aged under 40".

Make that 60 and count me in.

SPDUB

Noemi Shapely Weakling wrote: »

I quoted Pat Rabbitte above stating that RTE's coverage of the water charges issue was biased because it devoted far more time to the protests against the charges than the rationale for the charges. Given his affiliations with the Workers Party, Democratic Left, and the Labour Party, Rabbitte can hardly be termed a foaming-at-the-mouth right-winger.

The same rationale that left a leak ongoing for 18 months on a road I traveled along everyday .

facehugger99

KildareP wrote: »

When I can watch Netflix 4K, Amazon Prime 4K, Now TV in HD flawlessly, without so much as a blip, but any attempt to watch RTÉ is met with ads, crashes, stalling, more ads, buffering, pixellation, yet more ads, etc. then there's only so many times I'll try before I just give up on them altogether.

Watching RTE attempt to provide a stable streaming service over the last decade has been like watching your granny learn to water-ski - without the laughs.

It's the perfect illustration of how out-of-step with modern practices RTE has become.

boring accountant

elperello wrote: »

Just to clarify, you cannot be committed to prison for not licencing your TV.

You may be prosecuted and fined for not licencing your TV.

If you fail to pay the fine then you may be committed to prison.

It's an important distinction.

Saying that there's a step in between refusal to pay and being imprisoned doesn't change the fact that the licence fee is ultimately backed by the threat of prison. So yes, you can be sent to prison for not paying your TV licence.

odyssey06

Elmo wrote: »

I would quote Rabbitte, he did little for RTÉ. He might say that the Water Protests stop him from increasing the licence fee or changing it, load of bx.

It's also worth pointing out that the licence fee wasn't reduced during the crash.

Even when almost everything else was being cut in terms of government spending and entitlements and the private sector was going through pay cuts and redundancies. Everyone else - ok except the lawyers - had to don the hairshirt during that period.

SPDUB

odyssey06 wrote: »

It's also worth pointing out that the licence fee wasn't reduced during the crash.

Even when almost everything else was being cut in terms of government spending and entitlements and the private sector was going through pay cuts and redundancies. Everyone else - ok except the lawyers - had to don the hairshirt during that period.

The price of nothing was reduced during the crash whether it was Government charging for some service or the Private sector charging for it's products .

In fact if they they could get away with it charges were increased for products or services

Damien360

SPDUB wrote: »

The price of nothing was reduced during the crash whether it was Government charging for some service or the Private sector charging for it's products .

In fact if they they could get away with it charges were increased for products or services

Housing was ! Just saying

Boggles

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

My licence fee that i'm legally required to have forces me to pay for RTE.

Here

http://www.anpost.ie/AnPost/Downloads/TVLicence/StatutoryDeclaration.pdf

Get rid of the telly and no one can force you to do anything.

boring accountant wrote: »

Why shouldn't I be allowed to have a TV in my own home?

I can own a car and not tax it as long as I don't use public roads, but having a TV in my living room can get me sent to prison.

Quite simply it's not against the law to own and store a car on private property.

Plumbthedepths

Boggles wrote: »

Here

http://www.anpost.ie/AnPost/Downloads/TVLicence/StatutoryDeclaration.pdf

Get rid of the telly and no one can force you to do anything.



Quite simply it's not against the law to own and store a car on private property.

The point I made which you fail to acknowledge is even though I don't watch RTE by virtue of having a TV to actually watch stations I actually enjoy I still have it pay for RTE.

Boggles

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Can you see mannequin come to life, (like the film, but less entertaining) Tubbs or 'with me forty coats and fifty pockets' Duffy getting a tea boy job anywhere outside of Ireland?

I could see Tubbs getting a gig on one of the British radio stations.

As for Poor Joe, no.

elperello

boring accountant wrote: »

Saying that there's a step in between refusal to pay and being imprisoned doesn't change the fact that the licence fee is ultimately backed by the threat of prison. So yes, you can be sent to prison for not paying your TV licence.

It's not a step it's all covered in legislation.

You may end up in prison but it will be for refusing to pay a fine imposed by a court.

A judge will have considered your case and taken into account the evidence, your circumstances etc.

To claim that anyone can be jailed simply for not having a licence for a TV is bordering on hyperbole.

Boggles

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The point I made which you fail to acknowledge is even though I don't watch RTE

We both know that isn't true, don't we?

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

by virtue of having a TV to actually watch stations I actually enjoy I still have it pay for RTE.

Not at all. It's 2019 a television is not required to receive any channels.

odyssey06

elperello wrote: »

It's not a step it's all covered in legislation.
You may end up in prison but it will be for refusing to pay a fine imposed by a court.
A judge will have considered your case and taken into account the evidence, your circumstances etc.
To claim that anyone can be jailed simply for not having a licence for a TV is bordering on hyperbole.

Someone can be jailed for not having a licence for a TV.
It's not a claim. It's reality.
When someone says you can be jailed for murder, it's implicit they mean via the intervening court process. It's not hyperbole.

Plumbthedepths

Boggles wrote: »

We both know that isn't true, don't we?



Not at all. It's 2019 a television is not required to receive any channels.

Are you suggesting that if someone says they don't watch RTE they are a liar?

elperello

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The point I made which you fail to acknowledge is even though I don't watch RTE by virtue of having a TV to actually watch stations I actually enjoy I still have it pay for RTE.

It's just the way the contribution you make is structured that makes the TV licence different to other public services you pay for but never use.

For instance I don't go to the National Gallery but I don't mind a portion of my taxes being used to fund it.

This is partly why I believe that Public Service Broadcasting should be funded out of general taxation.

I think PSB is important for a number of reasons and funding it in a way that everyone pays a bit makes sense.

elperello

odyssey06 wrote: »

Someone can be jailed for not having a licence for a TV.
It's not a claim. It's reality.
When someone says you can be jailed for murder, it's implicit they mean via the intervening court process. It's not hyperbole.

You have gone straight to an extreme example.
Murder is a crime against the person ie. taking someones life.
Not having a TV licence doesn't come close.

It is legislated that you will go to jail for murder once found guilty.
The penalty for not having TV does not involve jail.
Pay the fine, buy a licence and you can sit at home by the fire watching TV.

Sorry, I can't make it any more clear

Boggles

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Are you suggesting that if someone says they don't watch RTE they are a liar?

Absolutely not.

But what I know from experience is when someone on here claims they never watch RTE the briefest of glances at their posting history suggests otherwise.

But hey if you say you never watch RTE I believe you.

Plumbthedepths

Boggles wrote: »

Absolutely not.

But what I know from experience is when someone on here claims they never watch RTE the briefest of glances at their posting history suggests otherwise.

But hey if you say you never watch RTE I believe you.

I don't watch RTE as in the present, I have not stated I never watched RTE. If you wish to check someone's posting history to try and score a point you're even more pathetic than I give you credit for being.
I pay a TV licence for a service I don't want. I would more than willing fit a device on my TV that would block RTE.

James Brown

For many years I've watched only the news highlights, sometimes the whole news, if I've not seen/read it elsewhere.

Boggles

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I don't watch RTE as in the present, I have not stated I never watched RTE. If you wish to check someone's posting history to try and score a point you're even more pathetic than I give you credit for being.

So you sometimes watch RTE?

Cool.

Plumbthedepths

Boggles wrote: »

So you sometimes watch RTE?

Cool.

No i said I don't now and haven't done so for months. If I go to the pub or someone else's home I can't control what's on their TV. I resent the fact I have to pay for RTE when I don't watch it in my own home.
It should be a subscription, you and people like you that think it's great pay for it if you wish those of that don't want it shouldn't be forced to pay it. Its no different than forcing someone to pay for Sky TV.

end of the road

Noemi Shapely Weakling wrote: »

RTE has been savaged on social media over this latest round of moaning and guilt-tripping. People are annoyed at:

-- The outlandish salaries paid to top presenters

-- RTE's failure to live in the real world: It still operates with a state monopoly "gravy train" mentality even as the media landscape has changed utterly around it

-- Its failure to deliver a usable streaming app in 2019

-- The overall poor quality of its programming: Too few good shows, and too much fluff, repeats, and imported shows

-- Dee Forbes' approach to addressing RTE's financial position. Rather than innovating and restructuring, she has spent the first three years of her tenure trying to convince the government to extract €160/year from people who do not watch and do not want to watch RTE

-- RTE's lack of objectivity. Many see that RTE's programming is biased toward the left-wing agenda, with disproportionate coverage given to perennial socialist malcontents such as Paul Murphy and Richard Boyd Barrett. Even Pat Rabbitte formerly questioned why RTE, while giving extensive coverage to the campaign against water charges, hadn't produced any programmes "explaining why the public water system is on a knife edge; why our rivers are being polluted; why public health is threatened and our capacity to attract industry undermined and the options available to source the enormous investment needed to make it fit for purpose." We see similar bias in RTE's coverage of asylum seekers, immigration, Travellers, social welfare, and other issues. Leo Varadkar once noted that RTE's coverage of American politics amounted to a simplistic stance of "Republicans are bad and Democrats are good."

Unless RTE can address all of these issues, it's unlikely to be able to convince the public that it can function as a high-quality, cost-effective public broadcaster whose programming is objective and balanced.

rte isn't biassed against left or right wing generally, it's simply that some just want to be told what they want to hear, or what confirms their already pre-existing viewpoints.
it's not the job of a broadcaster funded by us to do that. if people want that then go to youtube channels and facebook for news, where there will be plenty who will tell them whatever they want rather then what is actually the case.

Noemi Shapely Weakling wrote: »

Nobody expects overnight change, but Forbes has been in the job for three and a half years.

In his first three years as CEO of Microsoft, Satya Nadella entirely transformed the company's culture. He removed redundant middle management, reoriented employees toward innovation, listened to customers' needs, and ultimately led Microsoft to the financial milestone of a $1 trillion market cap.

In her 3+ year tenure at RTE to date, Forbes has done little other than make some cosmetic cuts and whinge to politicians about the TV licence.

Nadella has 145,000 employees under him and managed to change the entire culture in short order; Forbes has about 1,850 under her and hasn't managed to change a thing.

accept she has.
she is implementing large cuts and has probably implemented cuts less obvious since she arrived.

zeebre12 wrote: »

Even in the Limerick studios for Lyric FM shown on the news yesterday. 10/12 in the office. What could they be all doing? It's a radio station that plays a few classical tunes with a presenter. What is there to it?

running a radio station required to meet a public service isn't simply playing tunes.
even running a regulated commercial radio station isn't simply playing a few tunes.

end of the road

Varta wrote: »

A public service broadcaster the the public doesn't want. Close it.

a public service broadcaster some of the public don't want but more of it do, not close it.

carq wrote: »

Some RTE head on the radio actually pointing to Doireann garrihy as exciting new talent worthy of our licence fee.
He completely swerved the question on RTE played not being fit for purpose.
The thing is a sham with the played freezing on ad break or else ads repeating 10x times .

How can Virgin media survive without a 200m per annum injection?

Joke shop organisation

not jokeshop organisation, simply organisation with issues that can and will be solved.
virgin media can survive on what it survives on as it's a small broadcaster, produces very little if any of it's own content and just has staff to simply do the running of things across their 3 channels.
rte on the other hand has multiple channels across radio and tv with a number of different types of output and an expectation of higher standards of broadcasting and output at least in terms of it's current affairs output.
if you want rte virgin media style then bye bye everything and replaced with fluff from ITV.

TallGlass2 wrote: »

As quoted in the link I gave, she said she was returning to Ireland. My point was, she wasn't in any way shape or form, head hunted as you put it.

Whats wrong with it? It's not a long term solution.

The culture in RTE needs to change, RTE is trying to compete against, Netflix, Amazon, Sky and a whole host of other media. The gravy train is over. RTE don't want to give itup, and I certainly don't want to fund it either. The DG is in charge, and needs to take the lead and start really making changes that will help RTE, IE scaling it back and making it a profitable PSB.

it's not it's job to be a profitable psb.
public services are not supposed to make a profit.
the fact it is expected to be commercial and psb and be profitible is exactly the reason why it finds it hard to serve as many as it could actually serve.
it can't be all things to all people, but it can certainly provide programming to meet a wide variety of tastes within reason.