RTE website - justified?

Mr Pseudonym

I'm going to make this a short OP. Is it right that RTE has a website (a non-core activity) that competes with newspapers?

Below are two articles which discuss it.

Blog post from Adrian Weckler.

Irish Independent article by Martina Devlin.


Weckler contends that, as RTE.ie is a "commercial spin-off", it should either be incorporated into RTE or have to pay for the content and promotion it gets from the broadcaster.

Martina Devlin's argument is, "(The website's) news service lives off resources created by the licence fee, but competes directly with newspapers, which are struggling to survive. RTE's website offers no unique service and should therefore operate on a commercial footing."

IMO, she fails to see that, were the broadsheets to go behind paywalls, it would be offering a unique service: free online news.


My opinion is that it would be farcical were RTE to not to publish its journalism in as many forms as possible. If I pay a TV License, I feel I ought to be able to access RTE's content on the internet. That said, I would probably agree that the website oughtn't to go beyond covering News, general-interest Business and, maybe, Sport. There may also be a question as to whether RTE.ie should carry advertising.

Any thoughts? Come on, guys - prove to me that this News and Media sub-forum isn't dead!

expectationlost

this is why rte is letting other media orgs use it's footage

monument

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

IMO, she fails to see that, were the broadsheets to go behind paywalls, it would be offering a unique service: free online news.

It would not be -- there's more news sites than the broadsheets and RTE; for example: ie.yahoo.com, thejournal.ie, irishmirror.ie. thestar.ie, radio station sites etc.

Mr Pseudonym

monument wrote: »

It would not be -- there's more news sites than the broadsheets and RTE; for example: ie.yahoo.com, thejournal.ie, irishmirror.ie. thestar.ie, radio station sites etc.

First, it is not guaranteed that all of those would remain free. Second, Yahoo is a news aggregator, The Star and Mirror are tabloids, and the Journal, while decent, is limited. All news coverage is not equal.

monument

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

First, it is not guaranteed that all of those would remain free. Second, Yahoo is a news aggregator, The Star and Mirror are tabloids, and the Journal, while decent, is limited. All news coverage is not equal.

Little in life is guaranteed.

I don't think a lot of people care if Yahoo is a news aggregator or original once it covers the top stories and a little more -- and it has a mix of content that allows for good coverage of Irish news.

The Journal has grown quickly and will likely grow more. It will gain and be in a better position to ramp up coverage if the "broadsheets" went behind paywalls.

The Star and Mirror are indeed tabloids but their content is attractive to many and they do offer free online news -- I missed any mention of "quality" in your first post.

Mr Pseudonym

monument wrote: »

Little in life is guaranteed.

I don't think a lot of people care if Yahoo is a news aggregator or original once it covers the top stories and a little more -- and it has a mix of content that allows for good coverage of Irish news.

The Journal has grown quickly and will likely grow more. It will gain and be in a better position to ramp up coverage if the "broadsheets" went behind paywalls.

The Star and Mirror are indeed tabloids but their content is attractive to many and they do offer free online news -- I missed any mention of "quality" in your first post.

I appreciate that you're posting on this thread, because no one else is interested in doing so!

The relevance of Yahoo being a news aggregator is that it doesn't produce it's own content and is, therefore, dependent on outlets providing free news.

You say "ramp up coverage", but there is little to suggest that the Journal could start offering anything more than opinion and rudimentary journalism. The broadsheets' websites are supported by the output of substantial news-gathering operations.

They tabloids publish free online news, but nothing in life is guaranteed...

Mr Pseudonym

expectationlost wrote: »

this is why rte is letting other media orgs use it's footage

I see what you mean: RTE couldn't be providing License Fee-funded content to only one commercial operator.

monument

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I appreciate that you're posting on this thread, because no one else is interested in doing so!

Just as few are interested in paying for daily news which can mostly be found all over the place for -- including on the radio and TV.

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

The relevance of Yahoo being a news aggregator is that it doesn't produce it's own content and is, therefore, dependent on outlets providing free news.

Yahoo pays for content. It does not depend on free news.

It actually had been looking for an Irish editor/a recently -- but it seems maybe that thejournal.ie may have interrupted the process and pitched for the business?

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

You say "ramp up coverage", but there is little to suggest that the Journal could start offering anything more than opinion and rudimentary journalism.

They already are offering more than just rudimentary journalism, while doing online journalism at least as well if not usually better than most.

And did you not say option was a selling factor of the broadsheets? They have used guest option to great effect, not only getting content but also establishing the site but the talk generated around that option.

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

The broadsheets' websites are supported by the output of substantial news-gathering operations.

I'm less and less sure about that, or more so that it matters much on a daily bases.

The journalists you have is the main definer of content and websites can build on that overtime.

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

They tabloids publish free online news, but nothing in life is guaranteed...

But they are for now and no signs of that changing.

Mr Pseudonym

monument wrote: »

Just as few are interested in paying for daily news which can mostly be found all over the place for -- including on the radio and TV.


Yahoo pays for content. It does not depend on free news.

It actually had been looking for an Irish editor/a recently -- but it seems maybe that thejournal.ie may have interrupted the process and pitched for the business?


They already are offering more than just rudimentary journalism, while doing online journalism at least as well if not usually better than most.

And did you not say option was a selling factor of the broadsheets? They have used guest option to great effect, not only getting content but also establishing the site but the talk generated around that option.


I'm less and less sure about that, or more so that it matters much on a daily bases.

The journalists you have is the main definer of content and websites can build on that overtime.


But they are for now and no signs of that changing.

I disagree with everything in your post

I think more than a few will be willing to pay for news/opinion if there is no alternative. If you don't already think it, I won't be able to convince you. But, I think much of what the Independent, Irish Times, and Examiner offer on their website is available nowhere else for free.

Yahoo does pay royalties. But, it doesn't aggregate articles that are behind a paywall.

I disagree with you about Journal.ie. I admire what they produce, but a lot of it is very light on substance. I'm glad I don't depend on it to stay informed. Also, they rely a lot on traditional outlets for stories to which they then add value.

When I dismissed the J.ie as having Opinion and low-calibre news, I meant in the context of providing a public service. Though quality Opinion can provide that, balanced news is far more important, IMO.

Again, I can't convince you if you don't already think it. This is an out-of-date (though still mostly representative) illustration of the size of the IT's editorial staff. Subordinate to that are free-lancers, reporters, irregular columnists, etc. It is not conceivable in the medium-term that an Irish online outlet could sustain a large enough journalistic team to challenge the broadsheets across all areas.

You say, "No signs of that changing", but there is every possibility (even a likelihood) that those tabloids would implement some sort of metered paywall were most other outlets to also do so.

IRE60

I’ll chime in here..

I think there’s more to news than just aggregators. And where are they getting their information on the first place.

40% of Europe’s population hand over hard currency every morning for a newspaper. However the very same people balk and kick up a fuss at the thoughts of a online subscription!

On the subject of RTE an my pet hate of “no information in an information age” I’ve just been poking around the ABC site for the March ABC’s (attached, by the way, as an aside) and I notice that rte.ie is no longer registered with the ABC who used to audit their web traffic. i.e we have no idea now of their traffic! Madness!

monument

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I think more than a few will be willing to pay for news/opinion if there is no alternative.

But there's no sign of such a thing happening in high enough numbers to keep to funding old daily newspaper type staffing structures.

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

If you don't already think it, I won't be able to convince you. But, I think much of what the Independent, Irish Times, and Examiner offer on their website is available nowhere else for free.

But all too much of it is available elsewhere for free or at least content which is very similar in quality is available elsewhere for free.

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I disagree with you about Journal.ie. I admire what they produce, but a lot of it is very light on substance.

A lot of what all outlets cover is very light on substance and very PR driven (that's not to say that's all a bad thing!).

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I'm glad I don't depend on it to stay informed.

I'm glad I don't depend on any one source to stay informed, but most people don't care enough and it's unlikely that any subscription-only daily news / breaking news site could fund the old media structures that you seem to think are all important.

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Also, they rely a lot on traditional outlets for stories to which they then add value.

That used to be my main bugbearer with the site but they seemed to have eased off to the level that they no more rely on traditional outlets than the traditional outlets rely on each other.

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

When I dismissed the J.ie as having Opinion and low-calibre news, I meant in the context of providing a public service. Though quality Opinion can provide that, balanced news is far more important, IMO.

Everybody has different views on balance but I can't really see how the Journal is much different than the Indo, the Exaimner or even the Times etc.

For every person you get to say those papers are balanced, you'll find another who disagrees strongly.

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Again, I can't convince you if you don't already think it. This is an out-of-date (though still mostly representative) illustration of the size of the IT's editorial staff. Subordinate to that are free-lancers, reporters, irregular columnists, etc. It is not conceivable in the medium-term that an Irish online outlet could sustain a large enough journalistic team to challenge the broadsheets across all areas.

It's not conceivable that in the medium-term editing and management staffing levels at that newspaper will stay anywhere near the same level.

It's not a viable long-term business model.

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

You say, "No signs of that changing", but there is every possibility (even a likelihood) that those tabloids would implement some sort of metered paywall were most other outlets to also do so.

Give so much of their content is international in nature and international outlets are free, good luck to with them with that one anytime soon. But I could be wrong or they could make their product attractive enough.