RTE 'revamping' the Angelus slot

Genuine question: does the Catholic Church have to pay for it's free minute of advertising every day?

If not, can I have a minute of free broadcast time to do whatever I like with every day too?

Sleepy wrote: »

Genuine question: does the Catholic Church have to pay for it's free minute of advertising every day?

If not, can I have a minute of free broadcast time to do whatever I like with every day too?

I'm fairly certain that they don't pay for the prime time slot of advertising. Very good point, what we need now is some Imam to look for the same, then jolly old Donnybrokshire will sit up and take notice! I'd also like to know where RTE get their figures in relation to viewer numbers, where do these come from? How do they know how many people tune in for a certain show or not? Who do they ask?

digger58 wrote: »

I'm fairly certain that they don't pay for the prime time slot of advertising. Very good point, what we need now is some Imam to look for the same, then jolly old Donnybrokshire will sit up and take notice! I'd also like to know where RTE get their figures in relation to viewer numbers, where do these come from? How do they know how many people tune in for a certain show or not? Who do they ask?

There's a total Catholic bias on RTE.

Using their news app over the weekend and 3 of the headline stories were chruch dominated.

1) Carrickmines survivors getting to meet pope.
2) Bishop calling for refugee policies
3) Pope cannonising some people.


Never see news about the other churches in their coverage and it really is time for them to change.

I like the Angelus, It gives me a minute to catch the headlines on BBC before switching over to the Headlines on 6.01
What is it that every sniffy self reighteous liberal (with whom I happen to agree when they make this point) would reply when the letter writing whiners would complain to mailbag and points of view about the amount of sex, violence and nuidity on TV?
I believe it was generally, 'if you don't like it, there's your remote control, use it and change the channel'?

Is it so hard to take a little of your own advice? Personally I find Fair City more offensive.

conorhal wrote: »

I like the Angelus, It gives me a minute to catch the headlines on BBC before switching over to the Headlines on 6.01
What is it that every sniffy self reighteous liberal (with whom I happen to agree when they make this point) would reply when the letter writing whiners would complain to mailbag and points of view about the amount of sex, violence and nuidity on TV?
I believe it was generally, 'if you don't like it, there's your remote control, use it and change the channel'?

Is it so hard to take a little of your own advice? Personally I find Fair City more offensive.

It's not a matter of simply "not liking it" as has been pointed out dozens of times on this thread.

Kev W wrote: »

It's not a matter of simply "not liking it" as has been pointed out dozens of times on this thread.

I'm sure that it's been pointed out dozens of times on this thread that your ideoligical opinion bares no more weight then ideological opinion of the audience for it, since viewing is not mandatory nobody's imposing anything on anybody that owns a remote control.

conorhal wrote: »

I'm sure that it's been pointed out dozens of times on this thread that your ideoligical opinion bares no more weight then ideological opinion of the audience for it, since viewing is not mandatory nobody's imposing anything on anybody that owns a remote control.

That's a cop out.

This "you don't have to watch" malarkey annoys me.
If that's they case why don't they have nudity during the day or broadcast porn then?

Those who are offended just don't have to watch.

kylith wrote: »

So it's not actually the Angelus you like, it's having time to see the UK headlines? So if there was a minute of classical music, or whale song, or a live feed from a carpet shop in Ballintubber it'd do the same job as far as you're concerned, right? So why get bent out of shape about the possible removal of something you don't even watch?

Because there's a slippery slope to the whiny letter writers determining what can and can't be shown on TV based on their ideological bias. If there's an audience for something I've no problem with it.

conorhal wrote: »

Because there's a slippery slope to the whiny letter writers determining what can and can't be shown on TV based on their ideological bias. If there's an audience for something I've no problem with it.

So it's ok for the church to do so.

I really don't think there is an audience for the Angelus.

there are audiences for many other things that RTE don't show, so the argument is ridiculous.

Kev W wrote: »

And if the church paid to broadcast the Angelus very few people would have a problem with it.

Well it's not advertising, it's religous programing offered to that particular audience (I'm sure you'll disagree, but that is what it is).
Should every audience a program caters for be obliged to pay for it in any manner other then their licence fee? Should Irish speakers pay an aditional fee for TG4 or the deaf for subtitles?

murpho999 wrote: »

So it's ok for the church to do so.

I really don't think there is an audience for the Angelus.

there are audiences for many other things that RTE don't show, so the argument is ridiculous.

I'e no idea if there's an audience for it or not, but people do seem to get quite excercised at the thought of removing it so I assume some audience cares if it's there are one.

conorhal wrote: »

Because there's a slippery slope to the whiny letter writers determining what can and can't be shown on TV based on their ideological bias. If there's an audience for something I've no problem with it.

But RTE are in breach of their own charter to not benefit one particular church over another. If The RCC paid for this advertising there'd be no problem. If RTE broadcast all religions' calls to prayer there'd be no problem. If RTE played some generic music and it was legitimately a secular moment of reflection there'd be no problem. They could do any of those those things at 12 and 6 and there'd be no problem, and most people wouldn't even notice. It's the unconstitutional promotion of a particular religion that's the problem.

LorMal wrote: »

That's just intolerant and disrespectful and certainly detracts from whatever point you were trying to make.

I have little concern about this issue either way. Its not very important really. I think it's a bit of an anachronism but is hardly offensive and is quaint.

Much like I enjoy hearing the call to prayer when I am in the Middle East - it's very evocative and part of the old culture.

Its just as intolerant and disrespectful of Catholics to expect mine and others tax money who do not believe in religion to go towards any religious programming no matter how short it is

murpho999 wrote: »

That's a cop out.

This "you don't have to watch" malarkey annoys me.
If that's they case why don't they have nudity during the day or broadcast porn then?

Those who are offended just don't have to watch.

Its RTE, they have broadcast nudity several times during the day because they don't really pay attention to the content of movies they are broadcasting

And I would prefer it that way than the bastardised versions of movies you get on ITV where swearing is replaced by random utterances

LorMal wrote: »

That's just intolerant and disrespectful and certainly detracts from whatever point you were trying to make.

I have little concern about this issue either way. Its not very important really. I think it's a bit of an anachronism but is hardly offensive and is quaint.

Much like I enjoy hearing the call to prayer when I am in the Middle East - it's very evocative and part of the old culture.

No-one's trying to stop them ringing their own church bells, just to stop the tax-funded state broadcaster broadcasting it.