Defund RTE

ancapailldorcha

Superfoods wrote: »

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.

The Irish Times link doesn't stipulate what, if any revenue the imports make for RTÉ. You're the one defending them. I see no reason for many of them unless they're particularly cheap. Old shows like Only Fools and Horses I have no issue with but spending taxpayers' cash on the latest US Primetime shows in the age of Netflix, Google Play and Amazon Prime seems like a poor use of taxpayer money to me.

Superfoods

Invidious wrote: »

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.

How much does Dacing for the Stars cost and how many viewers? was it not one of the more popular shows last year.


Fair City is the one "soap" RTE has so does it cost that much.



11.5mil on 2FM


This I see as an issue in 2018 and I can only see this going uop

RTɒs personnel-related operating costs were just shy of €183.4 million last year – some €148.5 million of this related to employees and €34.9 million to contractors.

Invidious

Superfoods wrote: »

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.

Plenty of people in their 70s are successfully watching content on Netflix, Sky, and other platforms.

Your image of poor auld Biddy who will be cut off from the world unless everyone in the country keeps handing RTE €160 a year doesn't wash. It's tugging at people's heartstrings in order to keep them forking over the cash, a strategy that RTE itself has perfected over the years.

nigeldaniel

The only thing I dislike about RTE is the fact that the news and current affairs programs are overrun by political sleepers actively working for their own ends. I cant see how anyone can say their News programs are unbiased these days.

VinLieger

GT89 wrote: »

Having people like the Professor Delores Cahill and Marcus De Brun who have different view about the lockdown and masks for example instead of constantly having Luke O'Neill and Sam McConkey on the air would be a good start. Allow us to talk about thing like Hydroxyclorquine aswell

LOL so your argument really is nothing to do with them being a bloated, bureaucratic, overly unionised, money sink and actually about you wanting to hear your preferred conspiracy theorist, alt-right crackpots on the public airwaves.

lawred2

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/

yeah their clear bias towards viral infections is disgusting

Invidious

Superfoods wrote: »

How much does Dacing for the Stars cost and how many viewers? was it not one of the more popular shows last year.

Again, you are missing the point.

Commercial TV stations should aim to produce popular and successful shows that have large numbers of viewers.

Public-service broadcasters should produce content that commercial stations wouldn't produce but is in the public interest anyway — such as current affairs, cultural broadcasting, etc.

RTE often ignores its public-service remit in the interest of making popular programming that pulls in viewers and attracts advertising, despite having no artistic, political, or cultural value.

ancapailldorcha

Superfoods wrote: »

How much does Dacing for the Stars cost and how many viewers? was it not one of the more popular shows last year.


Fair City is the one "soap" RTE has so does it cost that much.



11.5mil on 2FM


This I see as an issue in 2018 and I can only see this going uop

RTɒs personnel-related operating costs were just shy of €183.4 million last year – some €148.5 million of this related to employees and €34.9 million to contractors.

How many people in Ireland only have Saorview? I'd like to see some evidence for this claim.

I'm from the sticks and my folks have far better broadband there than I have in London. I find it quite unlikely that the old days of only a few channels are the normal for anyone outside remote places like the offshore islands.

golfball37

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL so your argument really is nothing to do with them being a bloated, bureaucratic, overly unionised, money sink and actually about you wanting to hear your preferred conspiracy theorist, alt-right crackpots on the public airwaves.

Is is a bad thing to present all sides of an argument? If they are what you say they are they’ll soon be found out. A public service remit should facilitate alternative views. Anything less is censorship

Invidious

golfball37 wrote: »

Is is a bad thing to present all sides of an argument? If they are what you say they are they’ll soon be found out. A public service remit should facilitate alternative views. Anything less is censorship

RTE Radio One is currently hosting a debate on mandatory mask wearing in shops, featuring opinions from all sides. What's your issue?

dotsman

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 talking about "cutting them off". Just asking that they pay for it themselves. It makes no sense, nor is it fair, that I have to pay for other people's entertainment.

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

Exactly, they have paid €160. They should be paying whatever RTE requires them to pay, and not spread the cost to those of us who don't use RTE, and threaten us with prison.

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.

There are plenty of people in their 60's, 70's and even 80's who know how to operate Netflix. It hardly requires a person to be a Rocket scientist.

Superfoods wrote: »

These people pay a TV license so they are just as entitled to watch RTE and have an opinion as you are.

I love how you feel they are "entitled". Am I entitled to force them, with the threat of prison, to pay for my Netflix, video games, porn etc? Why am I forced to subsidise their entertainment, but not the other way around?

Superfoods wrote: »

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

Everyone in Ireland has access to freeview. If people can't be bothered tuning it in, it just goes to show how spoiled for choice they are with their unfairly-funded RTE.


For me, the situation is pretty simple. The only reason we have a TV licence is because we are used to it. It made sense decades ago. It stopped making sense in the 90's and is an absolute disgrace that it still continues to exist.

Imagine if the TV licence had never existed, and some TD, in 2020 suggested bringing it in, they would be a laughing stock. Just the same as if a TD suggested a mobile phone licence to help pay for a new "National mobile phone service" or a shopping licence to help pay for Dunnes Stores, even if a person always shops in Tesco/Aldi/lidl/Supervalu etc

Diceicle

I would be very much in favour of putting RTE on diet and diverting a large portion of licence fee to other stations with a mandate that they provide a level of PSB. Scrap 2fm and RTE2. Let D'arcy, Tubs et al test the market. On that note, it will be interesting to see what the JNLR figures are for some key RTE shows with 2 Big Names gone - Finucane and O'Rourke - have their listenerships held up since their departure?

To give RTE its dues - Prime Time can do good PSB. Their show on the 'irish right' wasn't a hatchet-job. Their discussion on Trans issues didn't cave to moaners and did feature Graham Linehan as a voice of opposition despite said protests. Wasn't a great show but at least they did it.
They also do radio documentaries quite well. Their doc on the the belfast rugby trial was very informative.

RTE TV is limited in its Current Affiars output and therefore limited in how often it can host reasonable alternative opion. By reasonable alternative opinion I don't mean hosting every quack out there - but there is scope - particularly on RTE Radio, to allow EU Critical voices, Controlled immigation opinions, Climate realists / pro-nuclear arguments etc.

All we have at the moment is group-think.

I also see little reason why RTE will end up any different to the BBC in the long-run. An overwhelmingly left-leaning organisation detached from the ordinary person - hiring based on identity rather than talent.

keano_afc

Every time I turn on a panel discussion on RTE I see a representative from People Before Profit, so the "dont give a platform to loons and cranks" is a moot argument really.

BonnieSituation

Bowie wrote: »

Canada has the CBC. No licence too.
We need RTE but it's long overdue a culling.

Canada has CBC and it's ****e outside of HNIC (no longer a CBC production) and The National and the odd cultural touchstone event.

A culling? Like what? Reduced wages for the Incestuous hoardes? Sure, then what?

Like it or not, these things can't be done in a kneejerk fashion or for populist reasons. And doing it on foot of people like the OP because they haven't heard enough conspiratorial nonsense about hydrochloriquine, is lunacy.

Diceicle

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.



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

It seems unclear as to whether what you state is actually the case. Simple way to determine clarify what the actual case is would be for RTE to release the Greys Anatomy figures or their figures for the 6 year old Big Bang Theory re-runs and then a business case can be made to keep them.

BonnieSituation

Invidious wrote: »

Again, you are missing the point.

Commercial TV stations should aim to produce popular and successful shows that have large numbers of viewers.

Public-service broadcasters should produce content that commercial stations wouldn't produce but is in the public interest anyway — such as current affairs, cultural broadcasting, etc.

RTE often ignores its public-service remit in the interest of making popular programming that pulls in viewers and attracts advertising, despite having no artistic, political, or cultural value.

So, you think RTÉ shouldn't have broadcast "Normal People" or "Love/Hate" then?

Bob24

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

There has never been a greater need for a national public service broadcaster. Reform RTE, don't remove it.

Problem is, it has proven impossible to reform in terms of addressing the concerns of the OP (same with the BBC and most Western public broadcasters, the absolutely don't represent the diversity of opinions in their respective countries). Saying that a public broadcaster is needed is all well and right in theory, but shouldn't be used an an excuse to force the public to pay for a public podcaster which is not doing its job.

I'd say a simple solution to force RTE to either align with the interest of the public or to face the consequences is a referendum on cutting public funding to them, but giving RTE a year or two to reform itself before the vote. Simple outcome then: either they align with what the majority of the population sees as a good public broadcaster and people will vote to maintain funding (problem solved), or they don't succeed in doing that and they become what they should be if the public sees them that way: a self-funded private broadcaster.

VinLieger

golfball37 wrote: »

Is is a bad thing to present all sides of an argument? If they are what you say they are they’ll soon be found out. A public service remit should facilitate alternative views. Anything less is censorship

Yes it absolutely is because not all sides of an argument have equal weight or merit. The classic example is climate change where on one side is usually a scientist with verifiable and peer reviewed data and on the other side is generally someone with zero formal scientific background and a twitter account or someone who's research has been completely debunked. Just because there's 2 sides to an argument does not mean both sides have equal merit or should be provided the same platform.

Lets play devils advocate and answer me if RTE were having a discussion about racism being bad should they also have someone on to argue how racism is good and should their side of the argument be presented as having the same weight and merit?

LOL its nothing close to censorship thats just the dog whistle for alt right conspiracists who don't like it when people point out their views are disgusting and hold no merit.

Invidious

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So, you think RTÉ shouldn't have broadcast "Normal People" or "Love/Hate" then?

There's a rationale under a public-service remit for a limited amount of high-quality home produced drama.

My issue is with endless lite entertainment fodder like Dancing with the Stars, Room to Improve, etc., that have no cultural value.

Superfoods

Diceicle wrote: »

It seems unclear as to whether what you state is actually the case. Simple way to determine clarify what the actual case is would be for RTE to release the Greys Anatomy figures or their figures for the 6 year old Big Bang Theory re-runs and then a business case can be made to keep them.

Which is my first point, how much do they cost, what money do they bring in. How many people watch them.

Superfoods

Invidious wrote: »

There's a rationale under a public-service remit for a limited amount of high-quality home produced drama.

My issue is with endless lite entertainment fodder like Dancing with the Stars, Room to Improve, etc., that have no cultural value.

So you want to cut everything you don't like and just keep things you do like?


Shows like Room to Improve are home grown, have an audience etc. Just because it is not to your particular taste doesn't mean it should be shut off.

golfball37

keano_afc wrote: »

Every time I turn on a panel discussion on RTE I see a representative from People Before Profit, so the "dont give a platform to loons and cranks" is a moot argument really.

They tick the woke box so they are allowed.

BonnieSituation

Bob24 wrote: »

Problem is, it has proven impossible to reform in terms of addressing the concerns of the OP (same with the BBC and most Western public broadcasters, the absolutely don't represent the diversity of opinions in their respective countries). Saying that a public broadcaster is needed is all well and right in theory, but shouldn't be used an an excuse to force the public to pay for a public podcaster which is not doing its job.

I'd say a simple solution to force RTE to either align with the interest of the public or to face the consequences is a referendum on cutting public funding to them, but giving RTE a year or two to reform itself before the vote. Simple outcome then: either they align with what the majority of the population sees as a good public broadcaster and people will vote to maintain funding (problem solved), or they don't succeed in doing that and they become what they should be if the public sees them that way: a self-funded private broadcaster.

What public opinons are not being represented?

You do realise we're a very centrist country at heart.

Contrarian opinions for the sake of contrarian opinions should be avoided at all costs.

BonnieSituation

Invidious wrote: »

There's a rationale under a public-service remit for a limited amount of high-quality home produced drama.

My issue is with endless lite entertainment fodder like Dancing with the Stars, Room to Improve, etc., that have no cultural value.

How do you define cultural value?

Popular shows watched by a large indigenous audience surely comes under that banner?

Those shows are made here, by Irish production companies. We stop making these programmes you suddenly have a shít tonne of skilled people unemployed or emigrating, just because you don't watch it.

I never watch that sort of TV, but I see their significance within the overall scheme of a generalised national broadcaster.

Could those who want to dismantle RTÉ tell us the grand plan for afterwards so we can judge it on its merits, because just shouting "Cull Tubridy, Defund RTÉ" are not policies or plans.

BonnieSituation

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes it absolutely is because not all sides of an argument have equal weight or merit. The classic example is climate change where on one side is usually a scientist with verifiable and peer reviewed data and on the other side is generally someone with zero formal scientific background and a twitter account or someone who's research has been completely debunked. Just because there's 2 sides to an argument does not mean both sides have equal merit or should be provided the same platform.

Lets play devils advocate and answer me if RTE were having a discussion about racism being bad should they also have someone on to argue how racism is good and should their side of the argument be presented as having the same weight and merit?

LOL its nothing close to censorship thats just the dog whistle for alt right conspiracists who don't like it when people point out their views are disgusting and hold no merit.

You can literally replace RTÉ with the EU in all of these arguments. This topic is like an Irishman's Brexit.

Invidious

BonnieSituation wrote: »

How do you define cultural value?

Popular shows watched by a large indigenous audience surely comes under that banner?

I'd say that something has cultural value if it enriches us as a nation.

Just because a show has a large indigenous audience doesn't mean it has cultural value. What exactly is the cultural value of Winning Streak, Dancing with the Stars, or Room to Improve?

Those shows are made here, by Irish production companies. We stop making these programmes you suddenly have a shít tonne of skilled people unemployed or emigrating, just because you don't watch it.

I don't buy the rationale that every household must pay a regressive tax of €160 a year to keep Irish-based production companies in business. If these people are as highly skilled as you indicate, surely they can manage to make a living under their own steam?

Mad_maxx

ronivek wrote: »

Defunding is not the same thing as removing.

The linked campaign seems to be about achieving the following:

• Decriminalising the license fee.
• Removing the link between the license fee and non-BBC broadcasters and content; in other words you don't need a TV License to watch channels such as ITV or foreign broadcasts.

Which don't sound like particularly unreasonable demands; especially if you don't actually consume BBC services.

One interesting point to note is that some 75% of the BBC's income comes from the license fee; but only 50% of RTE's income comes from the license fee. So it's not like RTE is riding a license fee gravy train; especially when compared to the BBC.

As to the comments about RTE's bias: the RTE is the state broadcaster and as such reflects the views of most of those in the state. If you're constantly finding yourself gnashing your teeth at their coverage you're likely sitting at one end or the other of the political and/or conspiracy theory spectrum.

RTE is gung ho about ending direct provision , unconditionally accepting the stories of asylum applicants .

on board with the whole " trans " movement thing

subscribes to the notion of " gender pay gap "


thats just three issues where i doubt the majority of the public are on the same page

i stopped paying the licence over a year ago , im prepared to go to prison , i could not in conscience pay to be bludgeoned over the head daily with the progressive agenda

super_furry

Invidious wrote: »

There's a rationale under a public-service remit for a limited amount of high-quality home produced drama.

My issue is with endless lite entertainment fodder like Dancing with the Stars, Room to Improve, etc., that have no cultural value.

So basically, you don't want them to make TV you personally don't like.

kenmm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

RTE is gung ho about ending direct provision , unconditionally accepting the stories of asylum applicants .

on board with the whole " trans " movement thing

subscribes to the notion of " gender pay gap "


thats just three issues where i doubt the majority of the public are on the same page

i stopped paying the licence over a year ago , im prepared to go to prison , i could not in conscience pay to be bludgeoned over the head daily with the progressive agenda

This is a troll post, right?

fly_agaric

super_furry wrote: »

So basically, you don't want them to make TV you personally don't like.

Well, OP wrote:

the constant left wing bias annoys the hell out of me...there has been clear bias on display when it comes to things like Brexit, Trump and Coronavirus

No arguments. Just boils down to not having an Irish tv station to feel up all the right wing crank pleasure centres (Orange man good, Leftys Bad, virus - what virus?, Irexit now!!!).