Defund RTE

tooth*grinder

I'd sooner defund facebook.

Superfoods

The TV license is 160 quid a year. Hardly breaking the bank.

RTE should live on the license and no more. This constantly going to government for top up is not on anymore.

The likes of 2FM which serves zero purpose should be dropped. High pay for presentors is not really working, they said the like of Darcy was brought in for advertisement money yet they had to cancel his show? any dog on the street said he was decent on the radio but after that no good.

The lack of talent in Ireland is the excuse, case in point is the Samantha Barry who went to interview numerous times in RTE, no relative so got no job. Then had no problem getting into other jobs and one of the most high profile in the World. Then RTE put out advertising campaign as if they helped her career. Sorry they did by not hiring her.

Cut it off. No more money. Live on the license fee

ancapailldorcha

That defund the BBC thing looks like a crank campaign run by the least trusted press in Europe. I see no reason to import it to Ireland aside from the usual promoting of crackpots.

GT89

GT89 wrote: »

I see in the UK there is a campaign to defund the BBC why not do the same for RTE. The constant left wing bias annoys the hell out of me and the over paid talentless presenters there has been clear bias on display when it comes to things like Brexit, Trump and Coronavirus no voice from the other side. Turn it into a subscription based service like Sky or Virgin and if it dosen't make money close it down

https://www.defundbbc.uk/tv-press-radio/

In terms of content I'm happy with the channels and their output overall.

But I agree on the left wing bias, whomever runs their website is shamefully biased.

There was a period there where they were posting pro direct provision stories daily featuring personal stories about how amazing the individuals were.

The national broadcaster should stick to the middle and not have someone pushing an agenda.

Invidious

There's no reason why RTE can't become one TV station and one radio station.

RTE 2's offerings for this evening include The Simpsons, The Goldbergs, Shortland Street, Neighbours, Home and Away, Top Gear, White Gold, Grey's Anatomy, and NCIS: New Orleans. A typical RTE evening lineup overwhelmingly dominated by imported British, American and Australian programming. How is this "public broadcasting" in any meaningful way?

RTE's model evolved in bygone days when RTE was the only game in town for TV. Now that we have a zillion choices of what to watch and how to watch it, the government should make the necessary cuts. Take RTE down to the essentials and stop forcing the public to pay for waste.

ancapailldorcha

Invidious wrote: »

There's no reason why RTE can't become one TV station and one radio station.

RTE 2's offerings for this evening include The Simpsons, The Goldbergs, Shortland Street, Neighbours, Home and Away, Top Gear, White Gold, Grey's Anatomy, and NCIS: New Orleans. A typical RTE evening lineup overwhelmingly dominated by imported British, American and Australian programming. How is this "public broadcasting" in any meaningful way?

RTE's model evolved in bygone days when RTE was the only game in town for TV. Now that we have a zillion choices of what to watch and how to watch it, the government should make the necessary cuts. Take RTE down to the essentials and stop forcing the public to pay for waste.

I'm not sure it needs to be showing that sort of thing in this day and age to be honest. Surely room for cuts here while maintaining its Radio, News, Sports & Current Affairs services.

Superfoods

Invidious wrote: »

There's no reason why RTE can't become one TV station and one radio station.

RTE 2's offerings for this evening include The Simpsons, The Goldbergs, Shortland Street, Neighbours, Home and Away, Top Gear, White Gold, Grey's Anatomy, and NCIS: New Orleans. A typical RTE evening lineup overwhelmingly dominated by imported British, American and Australian programming. How is this "public broadcasting" in any meaningful way?

RTE's model evolved in bygone days when RTE was the only game in town for TV. Now that we have a zillion choices of what to watch and how to watch it, the government should make the necessary cuts. Take RTE down to the essentials and stop forcing the public to pay for waste.

If the likes of Shortland Street, Neighbours, H&A costing that much? maybe that is the question. How many viewers do the shows get? theey could actually make perfect sense to keep. If you reduce to one station then it would clash with news.



If RTE 2 just became like Dave or some of those channels in the UK, minimal staff but just playing repeats of old shows etc it might make sense.


Then have RTE 1 for home grown programs etc.



You have to remember not everyone has Netflix etc. The TV licenses is good value for money and been able to watch some US/UK programs can be a bonus.

paw patrol

quokula wrote: »

I think sticking to the facts and not giving a voice to nut jobs from YouTube is exactly why we need a public service broadcaster.

pjohnson wrote: »

I think Lottie Ryan and Ryan Tubridy would have a more useful opinion than any conspiracist crank on "bitchute"

I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic. People demand experts , then professors in said field are produced and you claim they are nutjobs and cranks.


In reality you want experts that tow the line which is EXACTLY the problem with the media (not just RTE) in this country.


In the Uk its' pretty much the same and with a dash of controlled opposition like Piers Morgan.

Superfoods

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not sure it needs to be showing that sort of thing in this day and age to be honest. Surely room for cuts here while maintaining its Radio, News, Sports & Current Affairs services.

Loads of older people only have Saorview. Nothing else. They wont have RTE player etc. You can't just cut off a section of the community because you personally dont watch these shows on RTE.



Maybe they want to watch Grey Anatomy. They have paid 160 euro. If it is value for money why can it? Especially when the fat in RTE is all over the place. People who pay the license should not be the one to suffer to keep some clown of a presentor on 500k a year who cant even hold a TV show together for the full season

ancapailldorcha

paw patrol wrote: »

I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic. People demand experts , then professors in said field are produced and you claim they are nutjobs and cranks.


In reality you want experts that tow the line which is EXACTLY the problem with the media (not just RTE) in this country.


In the Uk its' pretty much the same and with a dash of controlled opposition like Piers Morgan.

People who were going on and on about how left wing Universities allegedly are and loony, biased academics are now telling us we need to know our place when one of them comes out with guff they like. That's what's pathetic.

Invidious

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not sure it needs to be showing that sort of thing in this day and age to be honest. Surely room for cuts here while maintaining its Radio, News, Sports & Current Affairs services.

Agreed.

My suggestion is to consolidate worthwhile content into one radio station and one TV station, and get rid of all the rest. RTE shouldn't be playing at running a media empire for a population of 5 million people.

ancapailldorcha

Invidious wrote: »

Agreed.

My suggestion is to consolidate worthwhile content into one radio station and one TV station, and get rid of all the rest. RTE shouldn't be playing at running a media empire for a population of 5 million people.

I wouldn't have a problem with this. If they need to be running ads to support airtime for the likes of Top Gear and Simpsons reruns then I think that there's a problem there.

tooth*grinder

paw patrol wrote: »

In the Uk its' pretty much the same and with a dash of controlled opposition like Piers Morgan.

the guy who hacked a dead woman's phone? That's the guy you're putting forward as a beacon of journalistic standards?


sweet jesus. Stick to getting your news from Facebook, memes, whatsapp and the like. I'll happily pay for a public service broadcaster that is answerable to the taxpayers and not a board of directors controlled by god knows who.

Superfoods

pjohnson wrote: »

I think Lottie Ryan and Ryan Tubridy would have a more useful opinion than any conspiracist crank on "bitchute"

Have you listened to Lottie Ryan?



Only she is Gerry daughter the poor children would struggle to hold down a job in a coffee shop. She is awful. 2FM have pushed her into anything and everything to try and make the public like her and it has all failed. The Breakfast show was doing ok so she was pushed into that and it fell flat on its face.


The Dacning on Ice show was a pure fix, she was terrible and nearly got voted off a few times. Que RTE to spend weeks sticking her on the front of every magazone possible and she is the winner. Now she will be stuck on huge money because she is a "star". Absolute joke.



If she is so popular, dont renew her contract and see who else picks her up. I think Lottie will be waiting a long time

ampleforth

Overheal wrote: »

Sounds just like other countries want to get in on defund culture to be trendy.

Culture == RTE?

Superfoods

Invidious wrote: »

Agreed.

My suggestion is to consolidate worthwhile content into one radio station and one TV station, and get rid of all the rest. RTE shouldn't be playing at running a media empire for a population of 5 million people.

But then you are hurting the one person who shouldn't be hurt. The viewer. The person paying for a TV license.



How much does a Dave style TV channel actually cost to run? If they strip the staff from RTE 2 and just keep the same shows as they currently have it will save money. They don't need 20 different people to introduce tv programs. They dont need a seperate XYZ.


I bet RTE 2 has its own news department, that is the sort of stupidity you would have in RTE

ancapailldorcha

Superfoods wrote: »

Loads of older people only have Saorview. Nothing else. They wont have RTE player etc. You can't just cut off a section of the community because you personally dont watch these shows on RTE.

Nobody's cutting anyone off. There are other channels on Saorview, no? What about Freeview?

Superfoods wrote: »

Maybe they want to watch Grey Anatomy. They have paid 160 euro. If it is value for money why can it? Especially when the fat in RTE is all over the place. People who pay the license should not be the one to suffer to keep some clown of a presentor on 500k a year who cant even hold a TV show together for the full season

If they want to watch Grey's Anatonmy, why can't they pay for it themselves? If something I want to watch isn't on RTÉ do I have an entitlement to demand it?

It's a public service broadcaster, not a meal ticket to everyone with a sense of entitlement.

Invidious

Superfoods wrote: »

If the likes of Shortland Street, Neighbours, H&A costing that much?

RTE spends over €26 million a year on imported programming so that it can keep two TV stations broadcasting 24/7.

The question is whether a country of 5 million people needs two public-service TV stations broadcasting 24/7, at a time when people can watch or listen to content via any number of alternative platforms.

paw patrol

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

People who were going on and on about how left wing Universities allegedly are and loony, biased academics are now telling us we need to know our place when one of them comes out with guff they like. That's what's pathetic.

you had me in the 1st half, cos I agree they are loons.
But then you went off on a mad one, I'd never silence anybody nor have them exclude from state media - once they were well behaved guests.
Even loony theories are interesting.

tooth*grinder wrote: »

the guy who hacked a dead woman's phone? That's the guy you're putting forward as a beacon of journalistic standards?

.

I never said that , nor did I even get even close to saying that.
You do know that controlled opposition is a dig at somebody?
Generally said when you don't have a high opinion of somebody. In effect you are calling them a stooge.

So did you read what I actually wrote...I mean...did you actually read it....

Superfoods

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nobody's cutting anyone off. There are other channels on Saorview, no? What about Freeview?



If they want to watch Grey's Anatonmy, why can't they pay for it themselves? If something I want to watch isn't on RTÉ do I have an entitlement to demand it?

It's a public service broadcaster, not a meal ticket to everyone with a sense of entitlement.

People in 60/70/80/90's. It is a section of the community and you can't just cut them off because it doesn't suit you. These people pay a TV license so they are just as entitled to watch RTE and have an opinion as you are.



Not just in this age group, people all over Ireland only have Saorview. Freeview? that UK, we don't live in the UK



Do you know how much these programs cost? how much advertisement they bring in etc? what are the viewing numbers? if you do and are willing to share it would be useful.

Invidious

Superfoods wrote: »

But then you are hurting the one person who shouldn't be hurt. The viewer. The person paying for a TV license.

I'm not arguing for "hurting" anyone.

A stripped-down RTE should cost far less to run, and so the public would benefit from a reduced licence fee. People who want to watch commercial content like The Simpsons or Grey's Anatomy can do so via any number of other platforms.

RTE currently employs around 2,000 staff plus numerous independent contractors, many of them on bloated salaries. It is a bloated, inefficient organization kept afloat by what is essentially a regressive tax on the public.

Superfoods

Invidious wrote: »

RTE spends over €26 million a year on imported programming so that it can keep two TV stations broadcasting 24/7.

The question is whether a country of 5 million people needs two public-service TV stations broadcasting 24/7, at a time when people can watch or listen to content via any number of alternative platforms.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/how-much-money-has-rt%C3%A9-got-and-how-does-it-spend-it-1.4027910


This is the breakdown. RTE spent 339.8 mil in 2018.



I think it has bigger issues that a few imported shows

ancapailldorcha

Superfoods wrote: »

People in 60/70/80/90's. It is a section of the community and you can't just cut them off because it doesn't suit you. These people pay a TV license so they are just as entitled to watch RTE and have an opinion as you are.

Not just in this age group, people all over Ireland only have Saorview. Freeview? that UK, we don't live in the UK

Do you know how much these programs cost? how much advertisement they bring in etc? what are the viewing numbers? if you do and are willing to share it would be useful.

You're moving the goalposts. I never said that they shouldn't be able to watch RTÉ.

There are private channels on Saorview, no? VM One and 3e? A lot of people where I'm from have Freeview as well as Saorview.

You're the one defending RTÉ's spending on imports and reruns. You provide the figures and research your own argument. Don't be lazy by expecting me to justify your assertions please.

Superfoods

Invidious wrote: »

I'm not arguing for "hurting" anyone.

A stripped-down RTE should cost far less to run, and so the public would benefit from a reduced licence fee. People who want to watch commercial content like The Simpsons or Grey's Anatomy can do so via any number of other platforms.

RTE currently employs around 2,000 staff plus numerous independent contractors, many of them on bloated salaries. It is a bloated, inefficient organization kept afloat by what is essentially a regressive tax on the public.

Not everyone has other platforms. My parents are in 70's and they wouldn't know Netflix or anything else. If these shows get cut then they are hurt. Loads of other people like that.



As I said, run RTE 2 as a station like Dave. How much would that strip out? dump 2FM, 3.34 of every license goes on that which is a complete waste of money

Annasopra

paw patrol wrote: »

I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic. People demand experts , then professors in said field are produced and you claim they are nutjobs and cranks.


In reality you want experts that tow the line which is EXACTLY the problem with the media (not just RTE) in this country.


In the Uk its' pretty much the same and with a dash of controlled opposition like Piers Morgan.

Dolores Cahills Covid Crank Conspiracies have been extensively debunked.

tooth*grinder

paw patrol wrote: »

So did you read what I actually wrote...I mean...did you actually read it....

you need more elipses - not sure if you're serious enough.

But yes I did read what you posted- I just thought the rest of the crap you wrote wasn't worth commenting on; But hey, here you go:
Just cause someone is a professor or doctor does not automaticlaly qualify them as someone who should be given a platform to spout utter loon crap. If there is 90%+ concesnsus on the science of something you really don't and shouldn't pay any attention to the remaining 10% BEACUSE THEY ARE THE LOON BRIGADE.
The people demand experts: yeah they do, just not the ones whose audience are fringe youtube and further in the gutter platform users.

Envoking PM's name in any discussion of jounralism is just about the equivelent of farting loudly at the dinner table.

Cheerio.

Superfoods

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're moving the goalposts. I never said that they shouldn't be able to watch RTÉ.

There are private channels on Saorview, no? VM One and 3e? A lot of people where I'm from have Freeview as well as Saorview.

You're the one defending RTÉ's spending on imports and reruns. You provide the figures and research your own argument. Don't be lazy by expecting me to justify your assertions please.

Sorry you said to dump them, then have no information on if they generate revenue or not. If you are going to put a statement forward at least have some idea what the cost is etc.


I already provided the breakdown of what RTE costs, what per cent of our TV license is spent on.

Invidious

Superfoods wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/how-much-money-has-rt%C3%A9-got-and-how-does-it-spend-it-1.4027910


This is the breakdown. RTE spent 339.8 mil in 2018.



I think it has bigger issues that a few imported shows

Of course it has bigger issues. Why do we need the public paying for sub-par dross like Fair City or knock-off shows like Dancing with the Stars? We don't need RTE churning out this kind of stuff and never did.

It's time for a radical rethinking of what RTE should be offering and how much money it should be spending.

The very definition of a public-service broadcaster is one that provides content that commercial alternatives don't supply. Not one that aggressively competes with the commercial channels.

paw patrol

tooth*grinder wrote: »

you need more elipses - not sure if you're serious enough.

But yes I did read what you posted- I just thought the rest of the crap you wrote wasn't worth commenting on; But hey, here you go:
Just cause someone is a professor or doctor does not automaticlaly qualify them as someone who should be given a platform to spout utter loon crap. If there is 90%+ concesnsus on the science of something you really don't and shouldn't pay any attention to the remaining 10% BEACUSE THEY ARE THE LOON BRIGADE.
The people demand experts: yeah they do, just not the ones whose audience are fringe youtube and further in the gutter platform users.

Envoking PM's name in any discussion of jounralism is just about the equivelent of farting loudly at the dinner table.

Cheerio.

super input.
Gold Medal in the post

kenmm

GT89 wrote: »

I see in the UK there is a campaign to defund the BBC why not do the same for RTE. The constant left wing bias annoys the hell out of me and the over paid talentless presenters there has been clear bias on display when it comes to things like Brexit, Trump and Coronavirus no voice from the other side. Turn it into a subscription based service like Sky or Virgin and if it dosen't make money close it down

https://www.defundbbc.uk/tv-press-radio/

Has there been "clear bias", or is that another well worn trope (I don't watch RTE, I am just asking. BBC doesn't seem to be biased, certainly not as much as I hear it is).

I'd be interested in knowing what the clear bias is? Also - The BBC has a charter and a governing body, does RTE have similar. If so, why aren't complaints raised there instead of completely removing funding and turning it into a commercial service?

It's almost as if certain powers don't want impartiality, because without impartiality it is easier to push your own agenda.

Out of interest - how many campaigns that serve the public interest are normally started though the formation of a private company? Why would you even need one?