So if we are broke...

thebman

Why do we still own a TV company?

What is the states logical reason for holding on to an asset that is not of national importance in a time of crisis?

Other than the possibility of exploiting it for propaganda, what are the other reasons, the state might want to own a TV company?

paul71

The usual reason given is that a state controlled broadcaster provides a free to air public service broadcast. These services would viewed as economically unviable by other private service providers. While RTE may not be efficient or even good at meeting these obligations they do at least attempt to.

Another arguement is that they are policically unbiased, least we think that this is not a concern lets consider the posibility of RTE being bought by R. Murdock.

SeanW

paul71 wrote: »

Another arguement is that they are policically unbiased ...

You are joking, right?

Manach

Though to be fair, their internet coverage is good. Everything else ...

thebman

I don't think RTE can claim to be unbiased given recent events.
http://www.independent.ie/unsorted/features/rte-controversy-the-strife-of-bryan-217186.html

And that is just one example really. I don't think Rubert Murdock would buy RTE given his style of media wouldn't be very popular in Ireland. Much better to look at the already existing private political commentary in the country to see what a private RTE would be like.

Looks pretty moderate to me. We don't need to own the TV company to produce unprofitable content. We could quite easily fund it off PSO on private companies who wish to get a license to broadcast in Ireland and the state could fund such programming using the TV license instead of running the whole station.

So we still seem to lack a good reason for the state to own a TV station when it can't fund itself.

Cookie_Monster

thebman wrote: »

So we still seem to lack a good reason for the state to own a TV station when it can't fund itself.

There should be such a service IMO but more limited than it is now. There is no reason to have channels that show US reruns or soaps or reality tv rubbish but there is a place for a state broadcaster that covers Government coverage (Dail etc), news, political debates, national sports coverage, major national events/compititions, international sports and that kind of thing. And while many people may not be interested in some aspects of it I think it's socially important to be able to represent those aspect of Irish (& international) life and culture.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mikemac

Don't forget the RTÉ Symphony Orchestra

Are you going to make them unemployed?

thebman

mikemac wrote: »

Don't forget the RTÉ Symphony Orchestra

Are you going to make them unemployed?

They don't have to be run under the RTE umbrella. Why the hell are they in the first place? We have plenty of other funding for the arts and they could get it from that.

AN Orchestra funded by a state owned TV company seems silly to me.

the groutch

mikemac wrote: »

Don't forget the RTÉ Symphony Orchestra

Are you going to make them unemployed?

Absurdum

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I doubt the revenue figures would be publicly available, but if these shows brought in enough ad revenue then they can legitimately argue that they profit from them. They can then use that money to provide services and programming that may otherwise have cost too much. Not necessarily my point of view, just throwing it out there

Cookie_Monster

Absurdum wrote: »

I doubt the revenue figures would be publicly available, but if these shows brought in enough ad revenue then they can legitimately argue that they profit from them. They can then use that money to provide services and programming that may otherwise have cost too much. Not necessarily my point of view, just throwing it out there

but there shouldn't even be any ads as we are paying a licence fees already...

thebman

Absurdum wrote: »

I doubt the revenue figures would be publicly available, but if these shows brought in enough ad revenue then they can legitimately argue that they profit from them. They can then use that money to provide services and programming that may otherwise have cost too much. Not necessarily my point of view, just throwing it out there

That is anti-competitive when they are a state owned company IMHO.

RTE are worse than Eircom and are still state owned and exploiting their position in the market gained during a time of state sponsored monopoly!!

paul71

SeanW wrote: »

You are joking, right?

No, I am not, but if you beleive I am please tell me which political party you think RTE favour and lets see if we can get a few people to agree with you.

paul71

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

1. They are free to air. They charge no extra premium fees beyond the TV licence for any of their premium programs.

2. The public services I spoke of were not soap opera re-runs and you are fully aware of this. They are weather forecasts with wind speed and barometor readings for the fishing community, afternoon programing for the eldery, religous services for a variety of dominations on Sundays for those unable or too infirm to attend, minority sports coverage such as the ICS Basketball finals, they are numerous and the very fact that you are unaware of them proves that they serve a minority of the population and would not be covered by commercail stations. They are however vital to those segments of the population.

3. Where did I argue that Pop music would not be covered by other stations?

4. 17 stations is excessive but perhaps not for Radio stations as they are cheap to run, however my post was a discussion in favour of Public Service Broadcasting, I did not at any stage say that RTE were the ideal model of Public Service braodcasting.

anymore

I cant get a viewable RTE signal but still have to pay a licence ! Scrap RTE.

Jaysoose

State sponsored + ad revenue and RTE cant even break even..sure yeah just carry on as normal its the irish way.

A company paying joe duffy 350K a year to rub baby oil on his chest while tweaking his nipples listening to 1:15 of misery 5 days a week needs to look long and hard at itself.

argosy2006

We should sell Ireland to US for 1 dollar.
Yea problem solved,:P

RichardAnd

paul71 wrote: »

Another arguement is that they are policically unbiased, least we think that this is not a concern lets consider the posibility of RTE being bought by R. Murdock.

RTE are simply a propaganda machine for the powers that be. The entire organisation is a rotten to the core closed shop and if ever I were in a position to do so, I would take the greatest pleasure in tearing it apart and replacing it with an open broadcasting company that would produce quality programming and not the convoluted nonsense of the aforementioned.

paul71

RichardAnd wrote: »

RTE are simply a propaganda machine for the powers that be. The entire organisation is a rotten to the core closed shop and if ever I were in a position to do so, I would take the greatest pleasure in tearing it apart and replacing it with an open broadcasting company that would produce quality programming and not the convoluted nonsense of the aforementioned.

Which power to be Richard? FF, FG, Labour or SF, in all honesty I don't see which one they favour. It can of course be argued that they don't give airtime to other polictical views but what are those views.

During the European referendum debates Declan Ganley was given plenty of airtime, and I saw guys from the Christian Democrat party interviewed last year.

On your second point I fully agree, RTE is not fit for purpose and probably does need to be closed but we do need a Public Broadcaster.

thebman

paul71 wrote: »

Which power to be Richard? FF, FG, Labour or SF, in all honesty I don't see which one they favour. It can of course be argued that they don't give airtime to other polictical views but what are those views.

During the European referendum debates Declan Ganley was given plenty of airtime, and I saw guys from the Christian Democrat party interviewed last year.

On your second point I fully agree, RTE is not fit for purpose and probably does need to be closed but we do need a Public Broadcaster.

Why do you think we need a public broadcaster? I think we need PSO on private operators and nothing more. Why bother having the state run it? It has shown it is incapable of doing so with RTE.

Our government simply has its finger in too many pies anyway. There was a time when these thing were probably not viable for the private sector to setup in this country but there is enough wealth now to run these and make a profit so why continue to have the state and the taxpayer have the cost of running them?

Oh and as best I can remember (being someone that was irritated by it when I heard about it so it stuck in my memory) there was a a change after Lisbon and the Declan Ganley affair to stop RTE having to give equal time to both sides in debates. I can't find any links to it now. Things like that funnily enough, rarely make it to RTE News despite being quite news worthy as it brings into question the credibility of debates on the main broadcaster. RTE also behave in an anti-competitive manner toward TV3 to try to stop them getting a foot hold in the market. As a state run entity, this should not be happening as they have an advantage over TV3 because they used to be a state owned monopoly and remain state owned and largely funded by the tax payer.

It is hilarious that the government were so concerned about competition in the Electricity market that the regulator forced ESB to put prices artificially higher but there are no such concerns about competition in the television market. It is fine for RTE to ensure it maintains its market share and trys to keep TV3, a fringe, niche entity. Only with the financial crisis and Vincent Browne has TV3 managed to get a popular politics program up and running.

Oh and sometimes they do get caught out badly when they go too far and can't control their bias:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rte-rapped-over-biased-report-on-irish-ferries-111160.html

paul71

thebman wrote: »

Why do you think we need a public broadcaster? I think we need PSO on private operators and nothing more. Why bother having the state run it? It has shown it is incapable of doing so with RTE.

Our government simply has its finger in too many pies anyway. There was a time when these thing were probably not viable for the private sector to setup in this country but there is enough wealth now to run these and make a profit so why continue to have the state and the taxpayer have the cost of running them?

Oh and as best I can remember (being someone that was irritated by it when I heard about it so it stuck in my memory) there was a a change after Lisbon and the Declan Ganley affair to stop RTE having to give equal time to both sides in debates. I can't find any links to it now. Things like that funnily enough, rarely make it to RTE News despite being quite news worthy as it brings into question the credibility of debates on the main broadcaster. RTE also behave in an anti-competitive manner toward TV3 to try to stop them getting a foot hold in the market. As a state run entity, this should not be happening as they have an advantage over TV3 because they used to be a state owned monopoly and remain state owned and largely funded by the tax payer.

It is hilarious that the government were so concerned about competition in the Electricity market that the regulator forced ESB to put prices artificially higher but there are no such concerns about competition in the television market. It is fine for RTE to ensure it maintains its market share and trys to keep TV3, a fringe, niche entity. Only with the financial crisis and Vincent Browne has TV3 managed to get a popular politics program up and running.

Oh and sometimes they do get caught out badly when they go too far and can't control their bias:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rte-rapped-over-biased-report-on-irish-ferries-111160.html

Actually your point on a PSO if I understand your meaning is a very good one, do you mean regulations requiring private stations to have a minimum public service requirement. If it was workable ie. licence would not be renewed in cases of failure to meet minumum standard perhaps it could be a solution.

thebman

paul71 wrote: »

Actually your point on a PSO if I understand your meaning is a very good one, do you mean regulations requiring private stations to have a minimum public service requirement. If it was workable ie. licence would not be renewed in cases of failure to meet minumum standard perhaps it could be a solution.

Yes that is exactly what I'm talking about.

RichardAnd

paul71 wrote: »

Which power to be Richard? FF, FG, Labour or SF, in all honesty I don't see which one they favour. It can of course be argued that they don't give airtime to other polictical views but what are those views.
.

As I said, the powers that be. RTE seem capable of applying their tongues to a variety of boots. Obsequious is too kind a word.

Tora Bora

But what would happen to Jimmy McGee, if RTE were axed.:P

Ste.phen

I've suggested this before, and I'll suggest it again. There's obviously problems with this, but i'm sure smarter people than me could change this into something workable.

* The TV Licence / Tax should go into some sort of 'Public Service Broadcasting Fund'.
* Companies (RTÉ, TV3, TG4, etc) can apply to this fund / tender for shows / whatever to obtain funding for Public Service style shows which wouldn't be commercially viable but which we consider to be important (extended news coverage, educational shows, political discussion, etc)
* This money should also be used for infrastructure projects such as maintaining and offering access to RTÉs existing footage archives (though there's an argument for rolling that into the national library too), ensuring X% (hopefully >95) can receive a signal from the main TV stations, etc
* Apart from that, RTÉ self-funds and slims down/cuts/reduces service as necessary

whoopdedoo

paul71 wrote: »

The usual reason given is that a state controlled broadcaster provides a free to air public service broadcast. These services would viewed as economically unviable by other private service providers. While RTE may not be efficient or even good at meeting these obligations they do at least attempt to.

Another arguement is that they are policically unbiased, least we think that this is not a concern lets consider the posibility of RTE being bought by R. Murdock.

Free is it?

paul71

whoopdedoo wrote: »

Free is it?

Please read the whole thread, free to air beyond the licence fee, unlike the satelite channels, which charge a basic subscription akin to the licence fee and will then charge extra for premium services.

whoopdedoo

paul71 wrote: »

whoopdedoo wrote: »

Free is it?

Please read the whole thread, free to air beyond the licence fee, unlike the satelite channels, which charge a basic subscription akin to the licence fee and will then charge extra for premium services.

oh by free you mean this type of free ;


Who gets money from the TV Licence Fee?
RTÉ is not the recipient of all Licence Fee money. Approximately 7% of licence revenue goes to the BCI Broadcasting Fund.

http://www.rte.ie/about/licence.html#question3

RichardAnd

anymore wrote: »

I cant get a viewable RTE signal but still have to pay a licence ! Scrap RTE.

I'm sure it breaks you heart to be missing out on the enthralling plots and timeless lessons that Fair City has to impart to you. Some of the stuff in there, Leo Tolstoy would have killed for some of that material :rolleyes:


note: Glaring sarcasm was not directed at the quoted poster

anymore

RichardAnd wrote: »

I'm sure it breaks you heart to be missing out on the enthralling plots and timeless lessons that Fair City has to impart to you. Some of the stuff in there, Leo Tolstoy would have killed for some of that material :rolleyes:


note: Glaring sarcasm was not directed at the quoted poster

I started to realise on during the protracted EU bailout discussions that I was more lokely to get a more accurate report from the BBC and people like Jeremy Paxman than was available from RTE radio so I dont bother listening to RTE radio anymore. Put RTE and the Sunday independet together and you have the perfect FF Propoganda unit.

murphaph

RTE should be sold asap to a private broadcaster. The state has no business owning media outlets tbh.

A PSO requirement placed on private sector broadcasters operating in Ireland would suffice.

The state would save an absolute fortune without RTE. The licence fee could be reduced or abolished if we weren't paying Pat Kenny and other mediocre "celebrities" a small fortune to "entertain" us.

jimmycrackcorm

Should the British government also privatize the BBC also or is it just RTE that people have a problem with?

murphaph

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Should the British government also privatize the BBC also or is it just RTE that people have a problem with?

What they do is their own business but I know plenty of brits who also resent the licence fee. Having said that, at least the Beeb actually produce world class TV with their funding.

whoopdedoo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Should the British government also privatize the BBC also or is it just RTE that people have a problem with?

both are worlds apart and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence together!!

nesf

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Should the British government also privatize the BBC also or is it just RTE that people have a problem with?

It's an economy of scale issue. The BBC brings so much in through licence fees that it can put together world beating programming. The RTE can't do this because the country is just too damn small.

RichardAnd

whoopdedoo wrote: »

both are worlds apart and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence together!!

I agree. The BBC has produced wonderful programms over the years and continues to do so.

One series that I fondly recall was Walking With Dinosaurs that was aired in the late 90s. It was educational, very interesting and, for its time, ground-breaking in its use of CGI. Granted, RTE don't have the resources to produce something like that but the research, scripting and effort behind such a series is just something I could never see RTE being able to replicate.

One very fine documentary they did produce was Rebellion. This was aired in 1998 to mark the 200th anniversary of the 1798 rebellion and was, I must admit, a wonderfully made series.

But of course, that was over a decade ago. Perhaps it was the mind rot that set in with the advent of social networking and cheap entertainment. RTE of the present subjects us to nonsense like Frontline and the Late Late show; cheap and easy mental chewing gum for a population in dire need of mental stimulation...

Read a book!

thebman

nesf wrote: »

It's an economy of scale issue. The BBC brings so much in through licence fees that it can put together world beating programming. The RTE can't do this because the country is just too damn small.

RTE also get advertising revenue on top of the license fee though and we are saying they can't produce a few world class TV programs? Seems unlikely especially when you consider a large budget isn't always required to make world class TV. Sure it helps but it doesn't guarantee success either.

It is perfectly possible to set out with a small budget and make a world class program, it has been done by plenty of independents working on a fraction of the budget of RTE.

I would suggest that if they can't do it, it is just evidence they aren't fit for purpose and it is a waste of fee payers money and should be sold off by the state since we are broke and couldn't afford them even if they were making world class programs.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Should the British government also privatize the BBC also or is it just RTE that people have a problem with?

Different funding model and probably have different rules too, also the UK isn't being held up by the IMF at the moment. If we sold off RTE but kept the license fee at current levels, how much would it raise for the state without putting any further burdens on anybody?

nesf

thebman wrote: »

RTE also get advertising revenue on top of the license fee though and we are saying they can't produce a few world class TV programs? Seems unlikely especially when you consider a large budget isn't always required to make world class TV. Sure it helps but it doesn't guarantee success either.

It is perfectly possible to set out with a small budget and make a world class program, it has been done by plenty of independents working on a fraction of the budget of RTE.

I would suggest that if they can't do it, it is just evidence they aren't fit for purpose and it is a waste of fee payers money and should be sold off by the state since we are broke and couldn't afford them even if they were making world class programs.

I don't know the BBC has economies of scale in how big its workforce is too along with a much better pedigree than the colloquial backwater one of RTE. That and RTE has always been very inward focused, versus the BBC's worldwide interests.