RTE should be Privatised.

AngryLoner

rlogue wrote:

Why shouldn't RTÉ be privatised? I'll give you two reasons -

TV3 and Channel 6.

What he said!

Also, this idea that the "market" holds all the answer. If Murdoch had his way, be BBC would be privatised and dragged down into the mire along with all other telly. It breaks my heart that, with Sky Digital, you have hundreds of channels and NOTHING on. All this, find-a-formula-and flog-it-to-death sh1t. The documentary channels are a joke - how many episodes of American Chopper do they expect you to sit through?

The MOMENT my Sky sybscription reaches the one year get-out date I am getting myself a freeview box and it's BBC4 all the way home.

The market - BAH!!!

AngryLoner

netwhizkid wrote:

RTE has to be one of the worst networks in Europe,

Now that's just silly ; have you ever watched Spanish television? Or Australian, for that matter?

But, I suppose, these countries don't need telly as much as we do, coz they have nicer weather so can do something "less-boring-instead".

Elmo

I'd rather hear peoples reaction to the fact that while most of us here hate soaps, that they so heavily dominate the TV ratings.

They dominate the TV rating because orginally they where good for the era that they came out of i.e. when TV started firsts. They where orginally just like any other series their to be got rid of after 5 years.

And now they are on every night and no TV channel dares to compete againist them, just look at RTE 2's schedule during Emmerdale, Coro St, EastEnders and Fair City. they don't even try to market their shows againist the soaps, they rarely advertise that they are on and the one show that does take on the soaps in just another soap (Ugly Betty) why? because they advertise that its on.

As time when on it gets harder for the CEO's of TV channels to axe them i.e. Coronation Street is a national treasure or some such ****.

They have now become the comfortable pair of slippers that people (women) come home to at night, nothing much ever happens in them it takes them serveral months to actually finish a storyline (perhaps even 2 - 3 years), all storylines are dragged out and the climax gets the Viewers and the newspapers talking.

Why is there a need for them to be on every night of the week? If the people making TV weren't afraid of doing something orginal and letting their soaps go back to 2 night a week, the viewer would have more choice and something more then worrying about Deirdre's Glasses.

They are convayer belt TV, storylines re-hashed, characters replaced by similar characters, sets made over and ham acting served with cheese.

DMC

Elmo wrote:

They have now become the comfortable pair of slippers that people (women) come home to at night, nothing much ever happens in them it takes them serveral months to actually finish a storyline (perhaps even 2 - 3 years), all storylines are dragged out and the climax gets the Viewers and the newspapers talking.

Firstly, roffle at the sexist remark Technically, you are right, but well done for saying it in public

Now, straight face...

I think the nature of soaps have changed over the last 10 years. On the contrary, when Corrie and Emmerdale were on only TWO nights a week in the 70's and 80's, storylines moved at a snails pace. Not now. Storylines move with lightening speed, some don't last a week. Some of the bigger storylines can take a while to work out, but they are still awfully quicker than before.

There are two instances of soap history where if it were real life, the disaster storyline would still be occurring. One is the earthquake in Home and Away; Summer Bay was rebuilt in a week, and Emmerdale when they mimicked the Lockerbie plane crash; All the dead were buried and the cattle were back on the farm, even though the land was contaminated with fuel from the plane.

Elmo wrote:

Why is there a need for them to be on every night of the week? If the people making TV weren't afraid of doing something orginal and letting their soaps go back to 2 night a week, the viewer would have more choice and something more then worrying about Deirdre's Glasses.

They are convayer belt TV, storylines re-hashed, characters replaced by similar characters, sets made over and ham acting served with cheese.

They are safe TV, as you described.
This occurs because like the TV companies, the regulator allowed themselves to go lazy.

This is my first post in this tread, and its for a reason; a lot of sense has been posted here already in defence of RTÉ.
Just because you don't like a programme doesn't mean someone else shouldn't have to. People are different.

watty

AngryLoner wrote:

What he said!

Also, this idea that the "market" holds all the answer. If Murdoch had his way, be BBC would be privatised and dragged down into the mire along with all other telly. It breaks my heart that, with Sky Digital, you have hundreds of channels and NOTHING on. All this, find-a-formula-and flog-it-to-death sh1t. The documentary channels are a joke - how many episodes of American Chopper do they expect you to sit through?

The MOMENT my Sky sybscription reaches the one year get-out date I am getting myself a freeview box and it's BBC4 all the way home.

The market - BAH!!!

Your Sky box will do BBC4 nicely & better, with no sub and its yours already. It can do UK EPG. A Free To Air box has no EPG.

Elmo

This is my first post in this tread, and its for a reason; a lot of sense has been posted here already in defence of RTÉ.
Just because you don't like a programme doesn't mean someone else shouldn't have to. People are different.

Just because I don't like a program does mean that others shouldn't, I amn't arguing with that.

What I am saying is that Fair City or EastEnders shouldn't be what the BBC or RTE rely on to get viewers

Certainly RTE started to panic with the loss of Coro St, hence they bought EastEnders, there was no need for the to go on a soap spending spree. There are now more soap operas on RTE then when they had the rights to Emmers and Coro St.

As PSBs RTE and the BBC should be ashamed of making this muck. BUT I have no problem with these shows going out for a one or two days a week, rather then have them spirla out of control and end up in an ITV situation with Wall to Wall Soap Opera. And it becomes very difficult when you have to drop one of the episodes.

Sorry I amn't suggesting that either RTE or the BBC are privatised. What I am arguing is that TV stations a regulators look at content for both Private and Public broadcasters.

Look at Ros Na Run a far better soap.

SPDUB

Elmo wrote:

What I am saying is that Fair City or EastEnders shouldn't be what the BBC or RTE rely on to get viewers

As PSBs RTE and the BBC should be ashamed of making this muck. BUT I have no problem with these shows going out for a one or two days a week.....

Look at Ros Na Run a far better soap.

If you don't like a soap it is muck ,If you like it ( Ros na Run ) it isn't

Elmo wrote:

Soaps are fine (well!) but their current target audience are people with low attention spans. It alright to have 2 episodes a week but 4 - 7 episodes drags the quality of acting, scripting and direction way down. Your mother and sister need to start looking a quality TV and soap is not quality, no matter how much they protest that the audience isn't on boards.

Also their target audience is people with no imagination..

Can we please have a list of quality tv:rolleyes:

Elmo

I am pointing out that Ros Na Run is a better soap I didn't say it was wonderful. But it is better because it only goes out 2 nights a week over 35 weeks of the year.

Can we please have a list of quality tv

Again that's for you to decide but we shouldn't have tabloid news papers, women's mags and TV channels telling us how wonderful soaps are. There are better quality shows on the TV outside of soap and more creative shows out there.

I have no problem with people who like soaps but they must remember the following:-

I like most TV shows but I don't expect my Favorite shows to go out 7 days a week 52 weeks a year (for eternity), and lets face it that is the way that soap is going.

SPDUB

Elmo wrote:

I am pointing out that Ros Na Run is a better soap I didn't say it was wonderful. But it is better because it only goes out 2 nights a week over 35 weeks of the year.


Again that's for you to decide but we shouldn't have tabloid news papers, women's mags and TV channels telling us how wonderful soaps are. There are better quality shows on the TV outside of soap and more creative shows out there.

I have no problem with people who like soaps but they must remember the following:-

I like most TV shows but I don't expect my Favorite shows to go out 7 days a week 52 weeks a year (for eternity), and lets face it that is the way that soap is going.

Wow,God forbid a tabloid newspaper, women's mags or tv channels saying soaps are wonderful. so by extension we can dismiss their opinion about all other programmes because they got it so wrong about soaps

Elmo wrote:

IBut it is better because it only goes out 2 nights a week over 35 weeks of the year. .

What a load of bollocks.Rubbish plots and unbelievable situations are rubbish plots and unbelievable situations whether they are transmitted once a week ,twice a week for 35 weeks or 365 days a year

DMC

Elmo wrote:

Just because I don't like a program does mean that others shouldn't, I amn't arguing with that.

That was a misdirected "you", that was meant in the plural.

Elmo

What a load of bollocks.Rubbish plots and unbelievable situations are rubbish plots and unbelievable situations whether they are transmitted once a week ,twice a week for 35 weeks or 365 days a year

What I am trying to say but you won't let me.

Soap opera is saturated beyond beleive, the stories and acting would be better if more time was invested into them. Emmerdale is out of control.

I am trying to say that other types of programming should be produced and quality should come before quanity.

American TV drama continues to be strong because they don't rely on the same old tired stories.

I just don't want to have to deal with the rubbish plots and ubbelievable situations every night of the week lets see something new.

SPDUB

Elmo wrote:

What I am trying to say but you won't let me.

Soap opera is saturated beyond beleive, the stories and acting would be better if more time was invested into them. Emmerdale is out of control.

I am trying to say that other types of programming should be produced and quality should come before quanity.

American TV drama continues to be strong because they don't rely on the same old tired stories.

I just don't want to have to deal with the rubbish plots and ubbelievable situations every night of the week lets see something new.

If I'm stopping you saying anything then what is that above ^

Elmo wrote:

I just don't want to have to deal with the rubbish plots and ubbelievable situations every night of the week lets see something new..

But if they are on once or twice then that is acceptable :rolleyes:

BuffyBot

American TV drama continues to be strong because they don't rely on the same old tired stories.

Eh, not quite. Just some of the stuff we see over this side of the pond, and not even all of it is immune.

Plenty of repetitive dross is to be found on US TV, night and night out.

watty

US TV is worse than Itallian..

DMC

Oooooh. I wondered who'd mention the country beginning with "I" first in this thread. Congrats Watty!

Elmo

But if they are on once or twice then that is acceptable

Perhaps you don't understand what I am saying then. Yes it is acceptable that they go out once or twice a week but not every night of the week.

Eh, not quite. Just some of the stuff we see over this side of the pond, and not even all of it is immune.

In the US the do not consider Soap Opera prime time drama.

SPDUB

Elmo wrote:

Perhaps you don't understand what I am saying then. .

Oh I perfectly understand what you are saying

Elmo

Oh I perfectly understand what you are saying

I'm sure

SkepticOne

I would like to see the licence fee scrapped and RTE compete on a level playing field with the other non-subsidised channels.

The argument of mjsmith "No one is forcing anyone to buy a TV. You don't have to watch it. If you do, then you need a licence" doesn't work for me. Obviously, until such time the TV licence is scrapped you are going to have to pay it. This is not justification if the imposition of a licence.

The other argument that is made in favour of the status quo is to list the programmes made by RTE (e.g. Winning Streak or Tubridy Tonight) and point out that these are made by RTE and not TV3. But why should RTE get this licence fee money exclusively. Most of RTE's programming, like TV3 or Ch6 is imported and commercially viable. It is only particular home produced programming that is not viable and this could be handled by an independent commissioning body.

Elmo

The other argument that is made in favour of the status quo is to list the programmes made by RTE (e.g. Winning Streak or Tubridy Tonight) and point out that these are made by RTE and not TV3. But why should RTE get this licence fee money exclusively. Most of RTE's programming, like TV3 or Ch6 is imported and commercially viable. It is only particular home produced programming that is not viable and this could be handled by an independent commissioning body.

One of the major problems we have is that the regulator is not strong, the BCI has allow TV3 use the Licence fee to suggest that it is not on a level playing field with RTE, which is entirely untrue since TV3 get nearly 50,000,000 in advertising revenue.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that RTE shouldn't change it's status quo (those of us who are arguing for the rentention of the licence fee are the first to point out all of the bad TV shows produced by RTE.)

New programming needs to be developed (which goes back to the arguement about Soap Opera being on so much) i.e TV executives across the world are look towards the confy pair of slippers each night after work. This just isn't good enough, espically for PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTERS (PBS) (over realiance on any genre of show isn't good for them or the viewer).

TV3 as I have pointed out on many occassions is a National Broadcaster and is there to compete with RTE it has yet to prove that the TV licence isn't needed for the production of home produced shows.

RTE need better competition from TV3 if Irish TV is to improve, with out competition RTE cann't get better rather remains unorginal.

TV3 cann't complain about the TV Licence, Radio stations across Ireland continue to beat RTE, local radio is a huge success without the help of the Licence Fee. (Again RTE cannot be blamed for any bad business decision that any station makes i.e. Eamon Duphy and Newstalk).

TV3 has 15% of the audience, employees 155 staff (for 6.8 million euro) and receives 50,000,000 in advertising revenue. If it wanted it could increase its audience share by produce more home produced shows. TV3 has no need to increase its audience share because it is making a pretty penny.

DublinWriter

For all you TV3 bashers out there, just remember that it is the only Irish TV station that has a breakfast TV programme.

RTE does not for two main reasons - a) it's scared it might affect the advertising revenues of the "Morning Ireland" advertising cash cow and b) it couldn't be arsed negotiating with the unions.

It's a sad endictment of how our 'national' broadcaster thinks in relation to serving us, the great unwashed licence-payers.

SkepticOne

This has been suggested by others and I agree with it:

1. Privatise RTE. It is mainly a commercial broadcaster anyway.
2. Set up an independent commissioning body to commission programming in the public interest that would not be otherwise viable. Make these programmes available to all broadcasters.
3. Scrap the licence fee and have item 2 above paid for out of general taxation. Why should there be a special fee for the right to operate a piece of equipment. We have done away with the radio licence without catastrophe. I can understand radio transmission requing a licence but not receiving.

rlogue

There's a big hole in your argument on that one - why should a commercial broadcaster be forced to show programming that it hasn't commissioned?

From what you are suggesting you appear to be advocating the model adopted by New Zealand - their state broadcaster lost its licence fee some years ago and an NZ goverment body - NZ on Air - took on the semi-PSB role instead.

The result? NZ has far less home produced programming on its channels than before.

This might be OK in an isolated TV market like NZ, but we are not isolated, and never have been.

It's the home produced programmes that make the difference to Irish TV. Otherwise we might as well pack in indigenous broadcasting and just watch the BBC, ITV, Sky and Channel 4.

rlogue

Incidentally the Television licence fee pays for RTÉ Radio 1 , RnaG and Lyric FM as well as RTÉ One and RTÉ Two. 2FM, Aertel and RTE.ie are self-supporting.

DublinWriter

rlogue wrote:

The result? NZ has far less home produced programming on its channels than before.

True, but look at the way people's patterns of TV watching have changed in the last 10/15 years. TV is not the ever-present box in the corner that it once was. It is not as essential as it once was.

So what if we don't have a lot of home produced quality programming...we don't as it is and Irish society as we know it has not ground to a screaming standstill.

People here argue that if the licence fee was scrapped then the amount of home produced programming would go down. Have a look at RTE's TV schedule for any given day, subtract the news and current-affairs, and its abysmally low for a so called state-broadcaster. Where are the documentaries? Where are the quality dramas?

Why should I pay for programming I do not want in the form of the TV licence? Why should I have to fund the half-million Euro yearly contracts of so-called RTE-celebs who wouldn't even have what it takes to read the weather on a regional UK TV station for a tenth of the salary.

RTE's problem is that it thinks 'civil service' not 'public service'. What it really needs is a Pol-Pot style Year Zero purge. Devise a new charter and personnel structure, sack the lot, and start again from fresh.

Do they even publish their annual accounts anywhere so we can scrutinise the mix of revenue between advertisers and licence payers?

DMC

DublinWriter wrote:

True, but look at the way people's patterns of TV watching have changed in the last 10/15 years. TV is not the ever-present box in the corner that it once was. It is not as essential as it once was.

Lots more electronic wizzardy eats into TV time. Which I will come to later.

DublinWriter wrote:

So what if we don't have a lot of home produced quality programming...we don't as it is and Irish society as we know it has not ground to a screaming standstill.

You'd miss it when it goes. Because we speak the universal language that is English, a lot of people think we don't need home-produced. What? Have the Americans and Brits produce all our TV? What a crock that would be.

It's no fluke that the top rated programmes on Irish TV are all on RTÉ and home-produced.

DublinWriter wrote:

People here argue that if the licence fee was scrapped then the amount of home produced programming would go down. Have a look at RTE's TV schedule for any given day, subtract the news and current-affairs, and its abysmally low for a so called state-broadcaster. Where are the documentaries? Where are the quality dramas?

Your 7-11pm offerings on RTÉ ONE tonight (except Eastenders which we all accept is an anomaly), a regional news magazine, an Irish language current affairs programme, an animal lifestyle programme, a series exploring the lifes of ex-pats, and Questions and Answers, Other than Eastenders, its the only import on RTÉ One in primetime. And that follows for most of the week.

DublinWriter wrote:

Why should I pay for programming I do not want in the form of the TV licence? Why should I have to fund the half-million Euro yearly contracts of so-called RTE-celebs who wouldn't even have what it takes to read the weather on a regional UK TV station for a tenth of the salary.

Envy once again. Someone has to do it, and there will always be people like you to knock anyone who makes it in radio and TV. Sad fact of life.

DublinWriter wrote:

Do they even publish their annual accounts anywhere so we can scrutinise the mix of revenue between advertisers and licence payers?

Income: €370 million (2005) (of which €199.8m or 54% was from commercial activity and advertising), the licence fee here is €155, but not all of it goes to RTÉ anymore (but still the vast chunk)

Interesting, the BBC gets a full Licence fee of €195.47, which equates to an income of €6.292 billion (2006)

Now. Across the water. Look how poorly ITV and Channels 4 and 5 are complaining that the advertising market is dwindling. It most certainly is, as returning to the top point, people are not watching TV in the numbers they are used to. The audience has fragmented to other digital channels, but also to computers and other forms of entertainment. Much of that is down to poor programming selections, but it can't be all down to that.

Result being, the only strong broadcasters are the ones who have income from the viewing public themselves. And that includes Sky, as well as BBC and RTÉ. The model for running a channel on advertising alone is getting flimsy as people find more interests outside of TV. But as a mass-market tool, its still a huge player. Peoples habits are changing, but TV can still get the draw.

And that's why RTÉ is still an important player. We fund it, we want to see Irish programming (as much as you don't want to)

And finally....

DublinWriter wrote:

RTE's problem is that it thinks 'civil service' not 'public service'. What it really needs is a Pol-Pot style Year Zero purge. Devise a new charter and personnel structure, sack the lot, and start again from fresh.

Like your style, might not get past the European Court of Human Rights, though. :rolleyes:

Nuke Montrose. Do any of you stupid whinging bastards not come up with a better solution? Please fuck off.

Elmo

For all you TV3 bashers out there, just remember that it is the only Irish TV station that has a breakfast TV programme.

3 hours of the following does not make for decent TV programming

07:00 Intro
07:00 News and Sport
07:14 Newspaper Headlines
07:20 Ad Break
07:27 Chat with other presenters
07:30 News/Sport
07:34 Ad Break
07:40 An interview with guest
07:44 An Infomerical for a website or product but make it look like their not paying to be featured on the show
07:54 Ad break
08:00 repeat

I watched it this morning I'll stick to Iano in the morning.

Breakfast TV means nothing. TV3 have yet to actually produce anything substantial for Primetime TV.

This is how TV3 works

6.8 MILLION SPENT ON EMPLOYEES = 34,000 EACH ON AVERAGE
20 MILLION IF EVEN ON IMPORTED SHOWS

50 MILLION RECEIVED ON ADVERTISING REVENUE


CH CHINGGGGG.

edit: AFAIK New Zealand On Air doesn't exist any more due to it's failure. RTE will be producing a breakfast news show starting this summer, IMO the biggest waste of money ever.

byte

Yes, the only reason TV3 have a breakfast show, is to help cover their home-produced programming quota.

If it was off the air in the morning, would many notice or care?

Mossy Monk

byte wrote:

If it was off the air in the morning, would many notice or care?

DublinWriter

SkepticOne

rlogue wrote:

There's a big hole in your argument on that one - why should a commercial broadcaster be forced to show programming that it hasn't commissioned?

Who said forced? I said made available.