RTÉ Budget coverage: emotionally manipulative?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ardmacha

RTÉ coverage is a bit over the top, with hardship everywhere and they never seem to meet anyone who says "it's a few Euro less, but fair enough in the circumstances". But then biased claptrap is the norm in debate on these matters, you only have to look at this forum.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Good Lord - why? What's in it for them? That would be like covering a story about a kitten without hitting as many 'cute' buttons as humanly possible.

amused,
Scofflaw

GSF

Its always winter at RTE - no mention that these payments are only triggered elsewhere when the temperature falls below a certain level and not automatically by the calendar

cast_iron

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But shouldn't it be judged against the increased cost of fuel over those years, rather than the economy as a whole?

Surely RTÉ should present unbiased and objective coverage, rather than this emotionally manipulative and guileful claptrap?

They should probably be a bit more balanced alright. However, the poor old lady is exactly the type of person who will be hit by this, not me and you in our warm houses. And it will hit her in ways most people probably don't even realise. In that sense, giving the defenceless (which she is in this context) an airing is probably a public service.

yeraulone

They should borrow a few graphics from sky news when some catastrophe goes down. Flames n' death rays etc.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Of course it doesn't want to go there, the light might be shined again on their own salaries and where the licence fee is going
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0714/1224300713336.html

And after they cut off Vincent Browne asking Cowen some pointed questions last year, there was no doubt left about bias...

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

Of course it doesn't want to go there, the light might be shined again on their own salaries and where the licence fee is going
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0714/1224300713336.html

And after they cut off Vincent Browne asking Cowen some pointed questions last year, there was no doubt left about bias...

Indeed they did - and as Browne is unashamedly left wing cutting him off from asking questions cannot be described as left wing bias - right wing bias perchance ?

irishh_bob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

RTE news at one interviewed a father of eleven :eek: from monaghan who was furious at the cut in child benefit payments , saying that his children are now living from day to day , he sounded like a good father but you really have to question the mentality of someone who thinks the state has an obligation to provide for eleven kids in one family but the biggest issue i had with the broadcast was the fact that eleven kids must be incredibly rare and non representitive of family life in this country

irishh_bob

cast_iron wrote: »

But shouldn't it be judged against the increased cost of fuel over those years, rather than the economy as a whole?


They should probably be a bit more balanced alright. However, the poor old lady is exactly the type of person who will be hit by this, not me and you in our warm houses. And it will hit her in ways most people probably don't even realise. In that sense, giving the defenceless (which she is in this context) an airing is probably a public service.

surely the elderly lady in question could dip into her fixed income of either 218 per week ( non contributory ) or 232 euro ( contributory ) , you would think from listening to the radio that pensioners only recieved allowances , that thier was no hard cash handed out

GSF

Father of 11 may not be able to afford number 12 shocker!

Fromthetrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This post is a bit crazy. First off, RTE are accused of 'bias' all too frequently which is quite irrational, what do you suggest, they present the news in a robotic voice, just put up whats being cut where like teletext. Also, they're just showing a fairly obvious example of who's being hit hardest. Are they going to show Mr. and Mrs. Joe Soap who now can't afford to take the kids skiing this winter, get real. Disability allowance has been slashed from 188 euro to 100 euro for 18 to 21-year-olds and from 188 euro to 144 euro for 22 to 24-year-olds, would it be 'biased' and 'emotionally manipulative' to interview these people struggling to get by in a few months time? Tell me, is your world view anyone who isn't working should be literally on the bread line?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnners2981

GSF wrote: »

Father of 11 may not be able to afford number 12 shocker!

If you're going to have that many children you should have to pay for them yourself, that's just ridiculous

dav3

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

These stories are only getting air time because the budget is spread over two days. Most of the time they get buried during budget reports.

If you worked for RTE how would you report these cuts? I think the reports have been fair and balanced so far.

Don't worry though, these stories will be dropped in a couple of hours when we're told how much extra taxes we're going to have to pay. Then we can all get back to forgetting about the most vulnerable in society and pretending that the stories like the ones reported by RTE are emotionally manipulative so we can sleep easier at night.

Macy0161

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I wish they would, and also focus on the regulatory regime, how prices have gone up since the ESB monopoly was broken, and show how consumers have really benefitted from competition compared to how we got on when it was a monopoly situation.

RTE, and the media in general, always go for the easiest and laziest reportage, rather than going into things in any depth.

NIMAN

OP correct.

I listened to some woman on LiveLine today talking about the winter allowance and how awful it was that it was probably being cut at St Patricks Day now and not lasting til the start of May.

I never knew about this allowance, but was it paid until May the last couple of years when we had great April's? I think it was 2 years ago (or last years can't remember?) we had a fantastic April, cos I got a great colour while off work and doing a bit of painting, gardening etc. Think 3 of the 4 weeks of April were really warm. So the Gov paid it out for that time as well?

If so, it just goes to show that all this bluster and moaning can be OTT at times. Surely Joe could have said to her today, "could the Gov not pay it until St Patricks and then assess the weather after that? If the weather is great in March and April then people surely shouldnt need it".

But of course he wouldn't say that would he, just allows the never ending moan to continue. This country needs to save money. End of, and this for me is a good move.

And yes the media coverage is way OTT. Perhaps if Prime Time said that "its hitting the most vunerable hardest, some may even have to downgrade their Sky package", we might take it a bit easier.

irishh_bob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

the story of the elderly lady shivering with the cold is blatant hearstring pulling , eccentric billionaires could be cold if they refused to buy coal or pay the gas bill , im no nazi but i refuse to believe that any elderly pensioner being cold has got anything whatsoever to do with thier level of entitlements , the cause could be health related or because the individual has a chronic addiction or is perhaps supporting someone with a chronic addiction

RichardAnd

johnners2981 wrote: »

If you're going to have that many children you should have to pay for them yourself, that's just ridiculous

No one should have that many children. Putting aside the financial issues, two parents will be extremely hard pressed to raise 11 children well. My grand aunt had 16 children (yes, 16) and of those, 2 are in prison, 1 is dead, some are on drugs and half of the girls were pregnant before they were 18. My aunt is a good person but no one could keep with with so many children.

Two children, perhaps three, would be a responsible limit. Personally, I'll have none as I'm not willing to take the risk of bringing someone into a world where they may have no place but that's my decision, not my opinion on having kids.

irishh_bob

NIMAN wrote: »

OP correct.

I listened to some woman on LiveLine today talking about the winter allowance and how awful it was that it was probably being cut at St Patricks Day now and not lasting til the start of May.

I never knew about this allowance, but was it paid until May the last couple of years when we had great April's? I think it was 2 years ago (or last years can't remember?) we had a fantastic April, cos I got a great colour while off work and doing a bit of painting, gardening etc. Think 3 of the 4 weeks of April were really warm. So the Gov paid it out for that time as well?

If so, it just goes to show that all this bluster and moaning can be OTT at times. Surely Joe could have said to her today, "could the Gov not pay it until St Patricks and then assess the weather after that? If the weather is great in March and April then people surely shouldnt need it".

But of course he wouldn't say that would he, just allows the never ending moan to continue. This country needs to save money. End of, and this for me is a good move.

And yes the media coverage is way OTT. Perhaps if Prime Time said that "its hitting the most vunerable hardest, some may even have to downgrade their Sky package", we might take it a bit easier.

heard that story too , the first thing that struck me about all this panic about the term end being brought back to the end of march from the begining of may was why not forward the start of term , it starts in september , since when is october all that cold let alone september :rolleyes:

anyway , they could always just use thier cash payments to pay for fuel

and did you hear joe say that this fuel allowance is per house , not per person , FFS , since when was it nesscessery to throw on an extra shovel of coal or a sod of turf on the fire due to thier being more than one person in a house , if anything the more people in a house , the more body heat generated , tell me something , why is my tax euros going towards paying this muppett duffy a high six figure sum

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irishh_bob

RichardAnd wrote: »

No one should have that many children. Putting aside the financial issues, two parents will be extremely hard pressed to raise 11 children well. My grand aunt had 16 children (yes, 16) and of those, 2 are in prison, 1 is dead, some are on drugs and half of the girls were pregnant before they were 18. My aunt is a good person but no one could keep with with so many children.

Two children, perhaps three, would be a responsible limit. Personally, I'll have none as I'm not willing to take the risk of bringing someone into a world where they may have no place but that's my decision, not my opinion on having kids.

personally speaking , i think choosing to have eleven children is quite feckless but i would never judge somone for it and would never use language like you shouldnt be allowed have eleven children , however i draw the line when i hear someone moaning about the state not doing enough for thier soccer team

irishh_bob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

the benchmark for how humanely compassionate a person is in this country is how pious you can sound when discussing officially appointed vulnerable sectors like pensioners , its become a sport at this stage

Riskymove

irishh_bob wrote: »

personally speaking , i think choosing to have eleven children is quite feckless but i would never judge somone for it and would never use language like you shouldnt be allowed have eleven children , however i draw the line when i hear someone moaning about the state not doing enough for thier soccer team

on my calculations, 11 kids would get you around €2000 a month child benefit (and even more if twins or triplets etc involved)

about €24,000 a year

more than some full-time workers would earn

BlaasForRafa

Its not just their news and opinion pieces where they are being sensationalist. On The Week In Politics a couple of weeks ago Sean O'Rourke opened the program by turning to the government representative and said

"You can't seriously be considering cutting child benefit accross the board by €10" in a highly indignant tone.

I was surprised at the venom in his voice, but now on checking his profile apparently he has 6 children. Anyway, whether his outrage is personal or just fake for the cameras he has no right to try and influence viewers opinions by slanting the debate in that way, by giving the impression that its completely outrageous to do anything with child benefit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dodge

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

its not just RTE. Its all media, and they use whatever example they want to potray whatever angle they want. RTE is absolutely guilty of it. As are the Independent group with their use of extreme salaries in the Public Service (that are not representative of the median Public servant).

The example of the man with 11 children is even a more stark example of RTE's need to 'stoke' public opinin, rather than just reporting on facts.

I guess no one wants to hear that not every decision made (either way) is going to have a big effect on the majority of peopel

cast_iron

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Older people tend to live in poorer insulated houses. The overall payment rarely covers the cost of heating the house, so claiming it's of no use in May is not really true. No matter how you look at it, it's a cut to an elderly person on little more than a state pension.

No, but there is no conceivable way that an OAP receiving in excess of €218/week is "literally on the bread line."

"Literally on the bread line makes" no sense. But in any case, I disagree. General old people requirements include: health insurance, house insurance, car insurance, car tax, petrol, electricity/gas, phone, oil heating (€2k per year would not be extraordinary - that's €40pw alone), food....etc. And that's just the basics most would have and need.

Break all those down and you are pretty close to spending an average of €218pw. Add in all the other costs of general living, and you easily go over it.

ednwireland

GSF wrote: »

Father of 11 may not be able to afford number 12 shocker!

more like Father of 11 may not be able to afford number 12 shocker,but wont let that stop him

Fromthetrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's disingenuous to compare Ireland with the UK, the cost of living is lower in the UK. The point is this woman's bottom line is being cut, saying that she doesn't need the money in May doesn't change the fact she's getting less money. There were 2,000 deaths of pensioners in 2010 from cold related illness in Ireland, cutting this allowance will increase this figure, you can't put a price on human lives.

Suryavarman

Fromthetrees wrote: »

It's disingenuous to compare Ireland with the UK, the cost of living is lower in the UK. The point is this woman's bottom line is being cut, saying that she doesn't need the money in May doesn't change the fact she's getting less money. There were 2,000 deaths of pensioners in 2010 from cold related illness in Ireland, cutting this allowance will increase this figure, you can't put a price on human lives.

The cost of living may be lower in the UK but it isn't €100 a week cheaper. It's about time people stopped using the cost of living excuse every time Ireland's sky high welfare rates are compared to the UK's.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tara73

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

that's just tv. not only rte is presenting such polemic or sensational stuff. doesn't matter in which country, you get it everywhere.

and it fulfilled directly the intention, get the viewer upset and talking about it..

advice: don't switch on the tv or change programme.:)

irishh_bob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

no offense to your father ( mine is desceased ) but the older people get , the tighter they get , old people in general are very small spenders

irishh_bob

Fromthetrees wrote: »

It's disingenuous to compare Ireland with the UK, the cost of living is lower in the UK. The point is this woman's bottom line is being cut, saying that she doesn't need the money in May doesn't change the fact she's getting less money. There were 2,000 deaths of pensioners in 2010 from cold related illness in Ireland, cutting this allowance will increase this figure, you can't put a price on human lives.

thier may ( or may not ) have been 2000 deaths among the elderly from cold related ilness in 2010 but i dont believe a single one of them died due to a lack of benefits

Bullseye1

"If you increase tax you get less" - from the horse mouth so what is he going to do.....

Fromthetrees

Suryavarman wrote: »

The cost of living may be lower in the UK but it isn't €100 a week cheaper. It's about time people stopped using the cost of living excuse every time Ireland's sky high welfare rates are compared to the UK's.

You can't be serious, if you want to compare like with like you have to take all factors into account, you can't say well UK welfare recipients get less than Irish welfare recipients and then say the cost of living doesn't matter, the point is it may not be 100 euro of a difference but it does make a difference, to dismiss it as an 'excuse' is very disingenuous.

Riskymove

Fromthetrees wrote: »

You have to take their money as total income which is what it is in reality. Like I said, there were 2,000 deaths of pensioners in 2010 from cold related illness in Ireland, cutting any of their income will increase this figure, you seem happy to ignore that.

If there is a problem with a section of society then it should be tackled directly

giving all SW recipients a 'fuel allowance' for 6 months of the year is simply looked at as income supplement by them at present

Bannasidhe

Riskymove wrote: »

If there is a problem with a section of society then it should be tackled directly

giving all SW recipients a 'fuel allowance' for 6 months of the year is simply looked at as income supplement by them at present

FYI- all SW recipients do not get fuel allowance. But don't let the facts get in the way of your 'us' and 'them' point scoring.

Maura74

Nine pensioners died from cold EVERY HOUR last winter as bill prices soar this is from headlines in a daily paper UK last year. A single pensioners in UK get £200 a year as heating allowance and then if the temperature fall below a certain temperature they can apply for more but very few do as they do not know how to apply.

It would be much better if VAT was taken off fuel and that would be a big savings for everyone. Why is there VAT on heating fuel?
Also it would help if there was some sort of scheme for old house to be insulated.

Shame on wealthy countries that allows poor pensioners die due to cold weather, why not take these payments away from wealthy pensioners which would leave more for the poorer pensioners.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332343/Nine-pensioners-died-cold-hour-winter-prices-soar.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BlaasForRafa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Plus 2010 was the coldest winter in something like 100 years, one can't base an argument on a freak occurance. Like you said, home fuel allowance is not needed in april-may and I'd argue september-october also.

Also...and this may not be the nicest of points but...old people die of all kinds of things. If it wasn't the cold they'd most likely die of something else anyway.

irishh_bob

Maura74 wrote: »

Nine pensioners died from cold EVERY HOUR last winter as bill prices soar this is from headlines in a daily paper UK last year. A single pensioners in UK get £200 a year as heating allowance and then if the temperature fall below a certain temperature they can apply for more but very few do as they do not know how to apply.

It would be much better if VAT was taken off fuel and that would be a big savings for everyone. Why is there VAT on heating fuel?
Also it would help if there was some sort of scheme for old house to be insulated.

Shame on wealthy countries that allows poor pensioners die due to cold weather, why not take these payments away from wealthy pensioners which would leave more for the poorer pensioners.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332343/Nine-pensioners-died-cold-hour-winter-prices-soar.html

goverment tried to take the medical card of wealth pensioners three years ago , the country went nuts and all age groups took to the streets and wouldnt go home untill the likes of a retired guard on a weekly pension of 699 euro was allowed visit his GP for free , theese kind of indulgences cost money and result in cuts to genuinley vulnerable people like those who are disabled

Fromthetrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Money is money, i.e., you get x amount and spend it where you need it, heating allowance doesn't cover all ones heating needs, therefore any cuts to it means you have less money, this is pretty basic stuff. There may be no real rationale for paying it 32 weeks of the year but that is so irrelevant, since you're just playing around with words why not cut it to the 3 months of winter but increase the actual amount an O.A.P. gets in the year? Ireland's not Alaska, it's also not southern Spain. Citing facts and figures is not hyperbole, it's citing facts and figures. If you can't see a link between cutting fuel allowance and increasing the chances of deaths of pensioners from cold related illness than you must be deliberately ignoring the obvious.

cast_iron

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not sure anyone here has argued that, so there's no point in constantly repeating it.
It's €20 per week, or €520 pa - not a huge amount and wouldn't cover heating costs for a year for many of the elderly.

Your argument consists of the timing of the payments, which we can all admit are probably a bit off. Others are focusing on the monetary cut, which is what actually matters.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Maura74 wrote: »

Also it would help if there was some sort of scheme for old house to be insulated.

And this is the problem in a nutshell.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. The Irish government steadfastly refuses to impose building standards on developers which would lessen both public and private expenditures on heating and fuel in the long-term. Then, when people cry about heating costs, the government picks up part of the tab.

Irish homes are unbelievably energy inefficient, and that is not going to change over the next two decades, given that the country is littered in poorly constructed houses that are worth 1/4 of what people paid for them.

In most countries that heavily subsidize its citizens (the Nordic countries for example), there is also strict regulation in areas like housing, construction, licensing, payments to public employees, etc, because at the end of the day, even those states can't afford to pick up the tab for everything. In Ireland, the reverse is true: politically connected private sector actors get away with murder, the public sector is untouchable, and the average citizen (i.e. not too rich and not too poor) is supposed to pick up the tab. At some point, this becomes economically unsustainable, and Ireland hit that point long ago.

Head The Wall

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Although day to day costs are cheaper rent is not.

Myself and the OH were renting a 4 bed house in Athenry for E600. In London at the edge of Zone 3 it's going to cost 6-700 sterling a month just to rent a room in a house. Rent is one of the big outgoings most people have.

Fromthetrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If you can't see a link between cutting fuel allowance and increasing the chances of deaths of pensioners from cold related illness than you must be deliberately ignoring the obvious. Lets go with your 'logic' so, old people use less heating in April/May so they shouldn't get fuel allowance then, old people use more heat during the 3 winter months so they should get more money during this period right? It's a flat rate though so if we are to apply your 'logic' to this O.A.P.s should get more when it's coldest.
You get x per year, you spend y per year, any decrease to x means you have less for y, is that simple enough?

southsiderosie

Fromthetrees wrote: »

If you can't see a link between cutting fuel allowance and increasing the chances of deaths of pensioners from cold related illness than you must be deliberately ignoring the obvious. Lets go with your 'logic' so, old people use less heating in April/May so they shouldn't get fuel allowance then, old people use more heat during the 3 winter months so they should get more money during this period right? It's a flat rate though so if we are to apply your 'logic' to this O.A.P.s should get more when it's coldest.
You get x per year, you spend y per year, any decrease to x means you have less for y, is that simple enough?

So tell us then, how many 'cold related deaths' - ostensibly what this is supposed to hedge against - do you think occurred in April, May, June, July, August, September or October over the last ten years?