Defund RTE

J_M_G

Tony EH wrote: »

The Above may or may not be the case, I don't know. But on the matter of RTE's news reporting, I have been watching that since Don Cockburn was presenting it and it has always been presented in a cold and impartial manner with none of the so called "bias" one keeps hearing about from certain quarters who only want their opinions repeated back at them.

They report on what's happening, not what their opinion is on what's happening. This for some is "proof" of a so called "left wing bias", which is a load of old baloney.

I have already addressed this. Framing, lack of context, subtle language choices to influence the audience one way or the other, thumbnail photo choices, headline choices, choosing what stories to report on, etc is how they exercise partiality. "Manufacturing consent" if you will.

Example:
Extensive main evening tv news reporting of the Chinese lady pushed into the river after lecturing young irish boys on how not to be racist.

Deafening silence on the young white lad in Cork stabbed by a gang of african youths at the height of the BLM riots for putting up a white square on his instagram.

Which was worse? I know which was worse. Much worse.

Selective reporting. It goes on every day. They pick and choose what's important and what isn't. And those choices are evidently biased.


EDIT: I'm referring also to VOLUME of reporting on certain issues. It may have been the case that RTE mentioned the Cork incident briefly, but I know they certainly didn't focus on the racial aspect or bring in experts to opine on it and cover it endlessly on their radio shows, etc. This is how they get away with the illusion of impartiality. They will reluctantly, briefly, cover something if it's so big that to not do so would be too blatant a bias. But HOW they do so is the key.

Tony EH

J_M_G wrote: »

I have already addressed this. Framing, lack of context, subtle language choices to influence the audience one way or the other, thumbnail photo choices, headline choices, choosing what stories to report on, etc is how they exercise partiality. "Manufacturing consent" if you will.

Example:
Extensive main evening tv news reporting of the Chinese lady pushed into the river after lecturing young irish boys on how not to be racist.

Deafening silence on the young white lad in Cork stabbed by a gang of african youths at the height of the BLM riots for putting up a white square on his instagram.

Which was worse? I know which was worse. Much worse.

Selective reporting. It goes on every day. They pick and choose what's important and what isn't. And those choices are evidently biased.

The only thing your showing is your OWN biases.

elperello

Quote -
"Example:
Extensive main evening tv news reporting of the Chinese lady pushed into the river after lecturing young irish boys on how not to be racist."

This is what really happened.

The woman in question was verbally attacked by the gang of youths using racist taunts.

She stood up for herself and challenged their behavior and they pushed her into a canal.

flazio

What is the percentage split between licence fee/Advertising revenue? 70/30? 50/50? 20/80? Because if its in favour of the advertiser, then its logical that they get the bigger say on RTÉ output. If I worked in the marketing department of, lets say Sky, who would regularly advertise their phone/TV/Broadband packages on RTÉ and have taken a very strong Black Lives Matter stance. I'd think twice about advertising on a platform that considers the possibility that the Black Lives Matter movement is a possible oppression movement over the people who were here first and would likely quite publicly pull out from advertising with them.

kenmm

J_M_G wrote: »

You're not convinced you've seen it? Are you serious?

From the first page of results when you type in "immigration":

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2018/0203/938046-the-push-and-pull-factors-behind-migration-to-europe/

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0418/1043389-why-allowing-migrant-spouses-to-work-is-a-win-for-irish-economy/

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2018/1108/1009503-why-undocumented-migrants-should-be-given-a-legal-right-to-stay/

There you go. Three articles that all explicitly push for a pro-migrant agenda. Implicit ones are even more numerous. Are you suggesting that these 3 are not of a liberal and progressive bent? Of course they are. Anyone claiming otherwise is being dishonest.

Now, find me 3 that push for the opposite.

This is a very simple test to determine bias.

I'm not convinced no, the proposal is that there is a wide scale bias all over RTE. Three opinion piece articles on a sub section (brainstorm) does not make the entire organisation biased. Its not finding three "illiberal" articles (or the inability to do so) does not prove (or disprove) bias.

You can't see that?

RWCNT

J_M_G wrote: »

Patriotic Alternative, a new UK nationalist party proved this with a massive survey in England..

National socialist party more-like.

Is it not led by this gentleman, Mark Collett?





I wouldn't put a lot of stock in anything to do with that guy tbh.

Arthur Daley

Tony EH wrote: »

It's wasting money on people like Ryan Tubridy and other grossly overpaid "stars", which is why they go cap in hand looking to raise the licence fee every so often.

It has nothing to do with a so called "bias", as reckoned by those who don't get their opinions about immigrants repeated back at them. :pac:

Frankly, outside of RTE's news reporting, it's programming is very poor in my opinion and certainly doesn't reflect any value for money that's given to them from licence fee receipt.

But as far as actual reporting on current affairs as they happen, they remain very good. Personally, I'd like them to produce more current affairs programs. God be with the days when 'Today Tonight' was on the air, or 'Questions and Answers'.

RTE 'stars' has always been an issue in the press, as it is now in England with the likes of Lineker who is paid an obscene amount for what he does. I remember people begrudging Gay Byrne and Joe Lynch what they were paid back in the 80s. Also, the financial issues at RTE go way beyond the half a million paid to a handful of marquee names Tubridy, Duffy etc.

So it seems the problem is solved, they could spin off RTE news and current affairs, probably run just one channel or one and a half to take in some sport, and it would stand on it's own two feet, and the people who dislike it's news bias can take a hike because they are a 'minority'.

What say we run with this strategy for 5 years and see where we are then.

kenmm

Arthur Daley wrote: »

RTE 'stars' has always been an issue in the press, as it is now in England with the likes of Lineker who is paid an obscene amount for what he does. I remember people begrudging Gay Byrne and Joe Lynch what they were paid back in the 80s. Also, the financial issues at RTE go way beyond the half a million paid to a handful of marquee names Tubridy, Duffy etc.

So it seems the problem is solved, they could spin off RTE news and current affairs, probably run just one channel or one and a half to take in some sport, and it would stand on it's own two feet, and the people who dislike it's news bias can take a hike because they are a 'minority'.

What say we run with this strategy for 5 years and see where we are then.

Public funded tho?

Or do you want it to run as a commercial entity.

I think there is an argument to be made for having independent, public funded (i.e. an alternative to commercially run platforms).

But it should (MUST) be neutral. The fact we are having this discussion is mainly because the UK lobbyists disagree and want to see anything that is not pushing their agenda (i.e. biased towards them) cut.

Draco

J_M_G wrote: »

You're not convinced you've seen it? Are you serious?

From the first page of results when you type in "immigration":

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2018/0203/938046-the-push-and-pull-factors-behind-migration-to-europe/

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0418/1043389-why-allowing-migrant-spouses-to-work-is-a-win-for-irish-economy/

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2018/1108/1009503-why-undocumented-migrants-should-be-given-a-legal-right-to-stay/

There you go. Three articles that all explicitly push for a pro-migrant agenda. Implicit ones are even more numerous. Are you suggesting that these 3 are not of a liberal and progressive bent? Of course they are. Anyone claiming otherwise is being dishonest.

Now, find me 3 that push for the opposite.

This is a very simple test to determine bias.

Biased because they are not broadcasting racism? RTE should get more money so.

Pelezico

Arthur Daley wrote: »

RTE 'stars' has always been an issue in the press, as it is now in England with the likes of Lineker who is paid an obscene amount for what he does. I remember people begrudging Gay Byrne and Joe Lynch what they were paid back in the 80s. Also, the financial issues at RTE go way beyond the half a million paid to a handful of marquee names Tubridy, Duffy etc.

So it seems the problem is solved, they could spin off RTE news and current affairs, probably run just one channel or one and a half to take in some sport, and it would stand on it's own two feet, and the people who dislike it's news bias can take a hike because they are a 'minority'.

What say we run with this strategy for 5 years and see where we are then.

RTE news is poor with newsreaders interviewing insider commentators for their expert opinions.

It is one massive echo chamber.

George Lee as a health correspondent is my pet hate. What can he possibly know about health?

flazio

Pelezico wrote: »

RTE news is poor with newsreaders interviewing insider commentators for their expert opinions.

It is one massive echo chamber.

George Lee as a health correspondent is my pet hate. What can he possibly know about health?

I thought George Lee was environment and Fergal Bowers was health? Unless there's been a reshuffle.

elperello

Pelezico wrote: »

RTE news is poor with newsreaders interviewing insider commentators for their expert opinions.

It is one massive echo chamber.

George Lee as a health correspondent is my pet hate. What can he possibly know about health?

In a country of 5 m there are a limited number of commentators.

Fergal Bowers is Health Correspondent.

George is Science and Environment.

Arthur Daley

kenmm wrote: »

Public funded tho?

Or do you want it to run as a commercial entity.

I think there is an argument to be made for having independent, public funded (i.e. an alternative to commercially run platforms).

But it should (MUST) be neutral. The fact we are having this discussion is mainly because the UK lobbyists disagree and want to see anything that is not pushing their agenda (i.e. biased towards them) cut.

Supposedly the majority of Irish people are satisfied with the diet of news and editorialising that RTE undertake. I really don't think anyone could seriously call this news and current affairs service conservative, but nowadays you never know. Maybe it's conservative to some people's view of the world.

So any public support should be very limited, it is not like the BBC it can advertise and we are told that there is a healthy market for this product.

Tony EH

Arthur Daley wrote: »

RTE 'stars' has always been an issue in the press, as it is now in England with the likes of Lineker who is paid an obscene amount for what he does. I remember people begrudging Gay Byrne and Joe Lynch what they were paid back in the 80s. Also, the financial issues at RTE go way beyond the half a million paid to a handful of marquee names Tubridy, Duffy etc.

So it seems the problem is solved, they could spin off RTE news and current affairs, probably run just one channel or one and a half to take in some sport, and it would stand on it's own two feet, and the people who dislike it's news bias can take a hike because they are a 'minority'.

What say we run with this strategy for 5 years and see where we are then.

I wouldn't be adverse to RTE becoming just RTE NEWS & SPORT and paid for by advertising. Get rid of the licence fee altogether and jettison junk like Tubridy and his overpaid cohort. Or cut the fee in line with the reduced programming.

But, as American "news" channels have shown us, especially in the shape of FOX, is that without a straightforward reportage, you just get propaganda masquerading as news, paid for and supported by political and business interests and used to push those interests to an audience that tunes in specifically to hear them.

Tony EH

Pelezico wrote: »

RTE news is poor with newsreaders interviewing insider commentators for their expert opinions.

It is one massive echo chamber.

George Lee as a health correspondent is my pet hate. What can he possibly know about health?

He doesn't have to know anything about it. He just has to report what other people know.

flazio

Tony EH wrote: »

I wouldn't be adverse to RTE becoming just RTE NEWS & SPORT and paid for by advertising. Get rid of the licence fee altogether and jettison junk like Tubridy and his overpaid cohort. Or cut the fee in line with the reduced programming.

But, as American "news" channels have shown us, especially in the shape of FOX, is that without a straightforward reportage, you just get propaganda masquerading as news, paid for and supported by political and business interests and used to push those interests to an audience that tunes in specifically to hear them.

But, then RTÉ would just fall down that same hole. Have what they want to tell us dictated by all those wonderful advertisers. "Prime Time Investigates (sponsored by Panadol extra) has found no evidence of stomach pains caused by excessive use of paracetamol tablets"

Tony EH

flazio wrote: »

But, then RTÉ would just fall down that same hole. Have what they want to tell us dictated by all those wonderful advertisers. "Prime Time Investigates (sponsored by Panadol extra) has found no evidence of stomach pains caused by excessive use of paracetamol tablets"

Advertising doesn't necessarily mean sponsorship.

Advertising could continue as it does now, where companies pay to have their adverts shown at certain times over a certain number of times.

What you're talking about is something else entirely.

kenmm

flazio wrote: »

But, then RTÉ would just fall down that same hole. Have what they want to tell us dictated by all those wonderful advertisers. "Prime Time Investigates (sponsored by Panadol extra) has found no evidence of stomach pains caused by excessive use of paracetamol tablets"

yep - this is the problem - I have no issue with a public funded, advert free (or minimised) news service, purely because it offers an alternative. Not just from now, but into the future, regardless of whatever party is in power.

end of the road

Arthur Daley wrote: »

It is obviously not very successful at this, given it is losing money hand over fist and even this current government recognise that this can't go on.

If it was giving people what they wanted it would be able to stand on its own two feet, or at least not cost the taxpayer a fortune.

RTE should remember that you are coming to us looking for funds. Not the other way round. The onus is on you to justify your existence. Prove that the above philosophy washes it's face commercially please.

if it was giving people what they really wanted then it would be an absolute cloan of the commercial channels with mostly cheap rubbish and repeats.
now granted they have quite a bit of that as it is but at least they have their public service obligations which take out quite a chunk of airtime from the filler, granted such should be taking most of the air time with the rest filled with programming of cultural, historical and artistic signifficance.
it currently doesn't cost the tax payer a fortune, but actually very little over all, but the cheap filler needs to go completely and it needs to stick to current affairs and other minority programming which won't be commercially viable so therefore wouldn't be able to stand on it's own.

J_M_G wrote: »

You're not convinced you've seen it? Are you serious?

From the first page of results when you type in "immigration":

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2018/0203/938046-the-push-and-pull-factors-behind-migration-to-europe/

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0418/1043389-why-allowing-migrant-spouses-to-work-is-a-win-for-irish-economy/

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2018/1108/1009503-why-undocumented-migrants-should-be-given-a-legal-right-to-stay/

There you go. Three articles that all explicitly push for a pro-migrant agenda. Implicit ones are even more numerous. Are you suggesting that these 3 are not of a liberal and progressive bent? Of course they are. Anyone claiming otherwise is being dishonest.

Now, find me 3 that push for the opposite.

This is a very simple test to determine bias.

whether there are or aren't opposite articles doesn't matter as it doesn't prove bias, because ultimately there aren't individuals out there able to represent the views you hold who can do so without acting in the usual manner. that's not rte's fault.

Arthur Daley

end of the road wrote: »

it currently doesn't cost the tax payer a fortune, but actually very little over all, but the cheap filler needs to go completely and it needs to stick to current affairs and other minority programming which won't be commercially viable so therefore wouldn't be able to stand on it's own.

So the news and current affairs output of RTE is both popular, dare we even use the term *'populist', and commercially unviable at one and the same time.

That is a pickle.

Perhaps this popular content should be a subscription service, so those who don't wish to avail of it can opt out, while still using a TV screen or PC to get our news elsewhere. We can tease this model out eventually.

*Dictionary definition of the adjective 'populist' btw:
'relating to or characteristic of a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups'

J_M_G

end of the road wrote: »

whether there are or aren't opposite articles doesn't matter as it doesn't prove bias, because ultimately there aren't individuals out there able to represent the views you hold who can do so without acting in the usual manner. that's not rte's fault.

None of this is remotely true. A majority of people express what could be called illiberal or at minimum conservative opinions when it comes to major issues such as immigration. I'm still waiting for evidence of those articles on RTE to be provided. Not a single person has done so yet.

And they won't. Because they don't exist, certainly not in anything resembling a balance of opinion.

Articles that present arguments for curbing immigration or disputing the "diversity is a strength" rhetoric that I have proven RTE pushes relentlessly. It's a simple task lads.

RTE have a liberal bias. End of discussion unless evidence showing otherwise is posted.

Kivaro

J_M_G wrote: »

None of this is remotely true. A majority of people express what could be called illiberal or at minimum conservative opinions when it comes to major issues such as immigration. I'm still waiting for evidence of those articles on RTE to be provided. Not a single person has done so yet.

And they won't. Because they don't exist, certainly not in anything resembling a balance of opinion.

Articles that present arguments for curbing immigration or disputing the "diversity is a strength" rhetoric that I have proven RTE pushes relentlessly. It's a simple task lads.

RTE have a liberal bias. End of discussion unless evidence showing otherwise is posted.

rightmove

J_M_G wrote: »

None of this is remotely true. A majority of people express what could be called illiberal or at minimum conservative opinions when it comes to major issues such as immigration. I'm still waiting for evidence of those articles on RTE to be provided. Not a single person has done so yet.

And they won't. Because they don't exist, certainly not in anything resembling a balance of opinion.

Articles that present arguments for curbing immigration or disputing the "diversity is a strength" rhetoric that I have proven RTE pushes relentlessly. It's a simple task lads.

RTE have a liberal bias. End of discussion unless evidence showing otherwise is posted.

I remember the night of the brexit - rte had only anti brexit ppl on (in rte case this usually includes the bias presenter). It lies if ppl say it not just a liberal mouthpiece.

Geuze

J_M_G wrote: »

You're not convinced you've seen it? Are you serious?

From the first page of results when you type in "immigration":

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2018/0203/938046-the-push-and-pull-factors-behind-migration-to-europe/

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0418/1043389-why-allowing-migrant-spouses-to-work-is-a-win-for-irish-economy/

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2018/1108/1009503-why-undocumented-migrants-should-be-given-a-legal-right-to-stay/

There you go. Three articles that all explicitly push for a pro-migrant agenda. Implicit ones are even more numerous. Are you suggesting that these 3 are not of a liberal and progressive bent? Of course they are. Anyone claiming otherwise is being dishonest.

Now, find me 3 that push for the opposite.

This is a very simple test to determine bias.

To be fair to RTE Brainstorm, there is bound to be a bias, as the source articles come from unis and IoTs.

It is well known that unis/IoTs swing quite left-wing, so it's no surprise that Brainstorm has these articles.

Do Brainstorm actively look for articles that espouse conservative views / personal responsibility / the opposite of grievances/victimhood? I don't think so.

Geuze

J_M_G wrote: »

None of this is remotely true. A majority of people express what could be called illiberal or at minimum conservative opinions when it comes to major issues such as immigration. I'm still waiting for evidence of those articles on RTE to be provided. Not a single person has done so yet.

And they won't. Because they don't exist, certainly not in anything resembling a balance of opinion.

Articles that present arguments for curbing immigration or disputing the "diversity is a strength" rhetoric that I have proven RTE pushes relentlessly. It's a simple task lads.

RTE have a liberal bias. End of discussion unless evidence showing otherwise is posted.

This is obviously true.

The general public know that the vast majority of AS are bogus.

The general public know that many on long-term welfare choose that as a lifestyle.

The general public know that poor health and education outcomes and high crime rates among travellers are linked to their own decisions.

Yet RTE always puts the opposite slant on the truth.


Here is an example:

"High UN rate among travellers"

RTE suggest/imply: it's the Govt fault....racism......discrimination....etc.

The truth: tens of thousand of eastern Europeans have come here and managed to get jobs. Travellers choose to leave school early, they choose to not engage with skills/education, by their choices they won't be able to get many jobs.




In 1960 my grandmother knew the value of education, and pushed hard for her children to get a trade / go to college.

Still, in 2020, sixty years later, some people still don't do this.

end of the road

Arthur Daley wrote: »

So the news and current affairs output of RTE is both popular, dare we even use the term *'populist', and commercially unviable at one and the same time.

That is a pickle.

not a pickle at all, some things can be popular but not be able to bring in enough revenue to cover itself, for it to do so would mean having to put people off taking part by charging unsustainable amounts of money.

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Perhaps this popular content should be a subscription service, so those who don't wish to avail of it can opt out, while still using a TV screen or PC to get our news elsewhere. We can tease this model out eventually.

no as it would be unviable and would put undue hardship upon people via having to pay an even higher charge to access necessary news and current affairs output which needs to be free to air for the greater good of security and safety and informing of the people.
there is already subscription tv for those who want it and there are already alternative facts news sources available for those who want them.
rte is not going to be a subscription model, the tv license or some sort of charge to own a device capable of receiving television, isn't going anywhere either.
i don't like paying extra charges either but as it goes this is the least worst one that i have to pay.

end of the road

Geuze wrote: »

To be fair to RTE Brainstorm, there is bound to be a bias, as the source articles come from unis and IoTs.

It is well known that unis/IoTs swing quite left-wing, so it's no surprise that Brainstorm has these articles.

Do Brainstorm actively look for articles that espouse conservative views / personal responsibility / the opposite of grievances/victimhood? I don't think so.

personal responsibility and non-victim hood are effectively within all of their articles that aren't relating to people who are victims of something genuine.
plenty of conservative voices on rte when required, however sometimes certain debates have one side and that is the factually correct side.

Geuze wrote: »

This is obviously true.

The general public know that the vast majority of AS are bogus.

The general public know that many on long-term welfare choose that as a lifestyle.

The general public know that poor health and education outcomes and high crime rates among travellers are linked to their own decisions.

Yet RTE always puts the opposite slant on the truth.


Here is an example:

"High UN rate among travellers"

RTE suggest/imply: it's the Govt fault....racism......discrimination....etc.

The truth: tens of thousand of eastern Europeans have come here and managed to get jobs. Travellers choose to leave school early, they choose to not engage with skills/education, by their choices they won't be able to get many jobs.




In 1960 my grandmother knew the value of education, and pushed hard for her children to get a trade / go to college.

Still, in 2020, sixty years later, some people still don't do this.

the general public don't know that the majority of AS are bogus.
some think they are, some of us believe certainly some will be and the system will route them out, but none of us know for absolute definite because we are not involved in their cases.
the general public certainly know that some who are on long term choose it as a lifestyle, but what we also know is that because this is the case, not a single employer would touch them and it would cost the state to much to implement work for them.
what some of the general public think however, is that all or the majority are such, based on them simply being on wellfare or because of their own personal beliefs against wellfare, which is not proof of anything.
the general public know that yes in some cases, individuals own circumstances whether they be travelers or any other, play a part in certain issues, however they don't know the numbers, and in relation to the traveling community, they know, all be it some refuse to accept, that discrimination against them also plays a part in relation to the issues the community face.
rte puts the correct slant on the truth where it is known, and where there are multiple things they will mention them, but they are not going to put the slant an individual specifically wants them to put because that would not be correct and rightly so.
college isn't going to be for everyone, and going the old route to get a trade isn't quite as available as it once was i believe, which is unfortunate and needs to change.

Kivaro

Draco wrote: »

Biased because they are not broadcasting racism?

There you go folks. That's the reason why only one side of that particular topic is ever broadcast by our main stream media.
If one does not glowingly welcome asylum seekers and non-EU economic migrants into Ireland, then your voice will not be heard on our national broadcaster. And if you dare to utter a question that doesn't go along with the biased liberal GroupThink quango, then you are a racist.

Geuze

end of the road wrote: »

p
the general public don't know that the majority of AS are bogus.
some think they are, some of us believe certainly some will be and the system will route them out, but none of us know for absolute definite because we are not involved in their cases.

Indeed, you are correct, so effective is the bias in RTE and other media, that many people think that AS are genuine.

Whereas the truth is:

(1) all Albanian and Georgian AS are bogus

All this has been reported, to be fair to the IT, they reported how these bogus AS tear up their docs in the aircraft. Also, Varadkar confirmed this.

The good news is the checks were moved to the aircraft to catch these criminals earlier.

Can you believe this - groups representing immigrants here opposed moving the checks from the airport to the aircraft!!

Can you imagine opposing the police using better techniques to catch criminals?

(2) all Asian AS are bogus

Many of these Indians and Pak were involved in sham marriages. Look up Operation Vantage

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/more-than-1-000-marriages-in-republic-confirmed-as-illegal-1.3536635

Again, to be fair to the IT, and the Indo, they did report on the huge scale of the criminality involved.

The IT reported on the ringleader, Mohammed Romi Ramzan being arrested while playing cricket in Dublin:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/lucrative-sham-marriage-scam-brought-to-an-end-at-dublin-cricket-match-1.3504893


The ESRI also reported how 50% of the Asian are fleeing.......from guess where........have a guess, that hotbed of war and persecution............the UK!!



So, to be fair, some media do report the truth, and more truth can be found if you dig.

Yet, many people still think that AS are genuine.

So some other media or something must be more effective at spreading non-truths, or not telling the full stories.

kenmm

Kivaro wrote: »

Cute. But it doesn't help, particularly when only one person has put any effort into finding something that remotely shows the possibility of bias.

There are still no examples of bias in the news or the reporting toward any subject.

It would be good to keep this thread to the topic at hand (defunding RTE, allegedly because if bias) instead of the usual polarised left Vs right arguing.