A chance to scrap the Angelus - Nutella, Croissants and Pineapples.

PopePalpatine

SpaceTime wrote: »

Moving swiftly on ...

Are a RTE still fixated on introducing this new "secular angelus"?

How exactly do the explain the radio version? It's anything but a pause for reflection. The TV version can be watered down by addition of non religious imagery.

It's still an amazing contortion of logic!

Not to mention that it's still called "The Angelus". Maybe one of the Lords of Distortion was involved in devising it.

SpaceTime

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Not to mention that it's still called "The Angelus". Maybe one of the Lords of Distortion was involved in devising it.

I don't know!

Sometimes you feel like Ireland had one foot in 2015 and the other in 1647.

Between state broadcasters in the republic and schools acting like its a theocratic state and nutters up north burning flags and effigies you'd really wonder if it's something in the water or just one of those temporal anomalies that Captain Picard was regularly faced with!

At times you'd just wonder ...

Brian Shanahan

SpaceTime wrote: »

Sometimes you feel like Ireland had one foot in 2015 and the other in 1647.

We'd be so lucky, 1647 Ireland was a lot less officially beholden to the dictates of Rome.

PopePalpatine

Thank you based ultramontanism. /s

oldrnwisr

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not avoiding focusing on the central issue though. If you put a point forward, I think it's fair to consider it may be rebutted. I understand you may not consider many of them to be significant, but if you think they're worth making, why should I not think they're worth discussing?

Except that you are. You see, to paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, this thread is a crucible. In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth, for all time. It seems though that you want to focus on the irrelevancies, dissecting people's posts again and again, creating so many discussion points that all sight of the central topic is lost and any hope of digging down to the truth fades away. It is essentially the shotgun fallacy in action, either the person arguing against you gives up because they cannot respond to dozens of discussion points or they get so bogged down trying to respond to each one of your points that discussion of the central topic is either stalled or derailed completely.

Absolam wrote: »

In fairness argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. Arguing that something has popular appeal and therefore has value is a somewhat different thing; it's an appeal to popularity that is not fallacious. The fact that content is popular is a logically sound reason to broadcast it I think, particularly if you derive revenue from advertising around popular broadcasts.

Well, you see if an argumentum ad populum is not to be considered fallacious then popularity has to be either the sole or dominant factor under consideration. Now if we were talking about a commercial television station then popularity would be the most important factor and would not be fallacious. However, we are talking about a state broadcaster, a broadcaster where over 40% of its funding comes from the public purse. Therefore, popularity is only one factor among many and arguing that the broadcast should stay because it is popular (a questionable assertion in itself) is fallacious.
On a side note, while RTE does derive a significant portion of its revenue from advertising, it does have a commitment to minimise this as far as possible. This weakens the popularity argument even further.

Absolam wrote: »

And yet people watch it. They may watch it because they're devout Catholics, they may watch it because it's a relic of a bygone age, they may watch it because it's relaxing, they may watch it because they're waiting for the news, or they've lost the remote, but they still watch it.
We can certainly use some religious programming time to highlight the actual beliefs and traditions of the people who continue to alight on our shores, and if people watch it, that will also contribute to RTEs religious programming; but that doesn't mean the time necessarily has to come from the 6% of religious programming that the Angelus currently represents.

We should scrap the Angelus when people stop watching it; or at least, when there are insufficient numbers watching it to justify it's timeslot. That is when it will no longer be relevant.

You see, here's the thing about the Angelus' "popularity" as it were. Facts on this issue are quite thin on the ground. Neither TAM nor RTE produce actual viewing figures on a regular basis which would allow us to gauge the actual popularity of the Angelus. We know that it is not listed in the top 20 programmes. We know from articles by Patsy McGarry that it has an "average" audience of 318,000. And that's it. We don't know as has been previously pointed out, whether any of the 318000 are watching the Angelus out of religious belief, or whether they're just one minute early for the news. We don't know what the standard deviation of the viewing figures is either so we don't know how representative the 318000 is on a daily basis. It could be that the baseline viewership is very low but that there are extraordinary peaks coincident with major news stories or holidays. We know very little about the actual popularity of the Angelus on the basis of religious interest (or any interest for that matter) and since RTE don't share their math on their claim that "a clear majority" want to keep the Angelus, any talk of keeping it on the basis of popularity given the other factors to be considered is foolish.

Absolam

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Except that you are. You see, to paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, this thread is a crucible. In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth, for all time. It seems though that you want to focus on the irrelevancies, dissecting people's posts again and again, creating so many discussion points that all sight of the central topic is lost and any hope of digging down to the truth fades away. It is essentially the shotgun fallacy in action, either the person arguing against you gives up because they cannot respond to dozens of discussion points or they get so bogged down trying to respond to each one of your points that discussion of the central topic is either stalled or derailed completely.

That might be a credible argument if I were the one putting forward all the different points, but I'm not, am I? I only answered the points you put forward; if you thought they were irrelevant, why put them forward? Perhaps you were indeed trying to engage in your shotgun fallacy, but personally I don't mind if you put forward dozens of discussion points so long as they're not wildly off topic; I'll respond to the ones I think are worthwhile. And any offered on the central topic too, if they come up.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, you see if an argumentum ad populum is not to be considered fallacious then popularity has to be either the sole or dominant factor under consideration.

Or... it could just not be argumentum ad populum in the first place. As I said, arguing that something has popular appeal and therefore has value is somewhat different from arguing something is true because people believe it is true.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now if we were talking about a commercial television station then popularity would be the most important factor and would not be fallacious. However, we are talking about a state broadcaster, a broadcaster where over 40% of its funding comes from the public purse.

A State broadcaster which derives revenue from advertising and which wholly owns an entire commercial arm; RTÉ Commercial Enterprises Ltd, so it's not exactly not a commercial station, is it? The very fact that RTE frequently releases press releases about which are it's most popular shows and how much audience share as a channel it has demonstrates the significance of popularity to it.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Therefore, popularity is only one factor among many and arguing that the broadcast should stay because it is popular (a questionable assertion in itself) is fallacious.

Well if it's a factor (even among many) for continuing to broadcast a show, it's evidently not fallacious at all. RTE are clearly prepared to cancel shows when they lack popularity, for instance The Movie Show and The Clinic, so popularity would seem a good way not to get cancelled...

oldrnwisr wrote: »

On a side note, while RTE does derive a significant portion of its revenue from advertising, it does have a commitment to minimise this as far as possible. This weakens the popularity argument even further.

But as you say, it does derive a significant portion of its revenue from advertising; and advertisers pay more to advertise around popular shows. RTE doesn't actively discourage advertising revenue, quite the opposite. Which actually strengthens the popularity argument.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You see, here's the thing about the Angelus' "popularity" as it were. Facts on this issue are quite thin on the ground. Neither TAM nor RTE produce actual viewing figures on a regular basis which would allow us to gauge the actual popularity of the Angelus. We know that it is not listed in the top 20 programmes. We know from articles by Patsy McGarry that it has an "average" audience of 318,000. And that's it. <...> since RTE don't share their math on their claim that "a clear majority" want to keep the Angelus, any talk of keeping it on the basis of popularity given the other factors to be considered is foolish.

Hardly foolish; it's foolish to say we should axe the Angelus without access to that proprietary data, maybe. Not terribly foolish to say RTE does have access to that data and haven't decided to cancel the show yet.
Of course we could wander into CT land and speculate that a shadowy cartel of Catholic theocrats are controlling RTE and spreading unfounded disinformation about the Angelus in order to continue hypnotically indoctrinating the population with a message of 'bong'... but that's probably a subject for a different forum.

oldrnwisr

Absolam wrote: »

That might be a credible argument if I were the one putting forward all the different points, but I'm not, am I? I only answered the points you put forward; if you thought they were irrelevant, why put them forward? Perhaps you were indeed trying to engage in your shotgun fallacy, but personally I don't mind if you put forward dozens of discussion points so long as they're not wildly off topic; I'll respond to the ones I think are worthwhile. And any offered on the central topic too, if they come up.

Oh, so I'm the one with the shotgun approach? Really? Well, let's have a look then shall we. At the beginning of our interaction things were going well. For example, in response to my first input into the thread you made post #440 which had three points. I then responded with post #455 which had three replying points. You then replied again with post #461 which had three points. Then things begin to break down. I replied with post #469 which had three points which you then dissected into 8 points in post #474. From then on you split my posts from 1 point into 4, 4 points into 6 and eventually 7 points into 17. At each point I tried to at best engage on the same level, discarding or refining certain points, whereas you tried your best to fragment the discussion as much as possible.

Absolam wrote: »

Or... it could just not be argumentum ad populum in the first place. As I said, arguing that something has popular appeal and therefore has value is somewhat different from arguing something is true because people believe it is true.

A State broadcaster which derives revenue from advertising and which wholly owns an entire commercial arm; RTÉ Commercial Enterprises Ltd, so it's not exactly not a commercial station, is it? The very fact that RTE frequently releases press releases about which are it's most popular shows and how much audience share as a channel it has demonstrates the significance of popularity to it.

Well if it's a factor (even among many) for continuing to broadcast a show, it's evidently not fallacious at all. RTE are clearly prepared to cancel shows when they lack popularity, for instance The Movie Show and The Clinic, so popularity would seem a good way not to get cancelled...
But as you say, it does derive a significant portion of its revenue from advertising; and advertisers pay more to advertise around popular shows. RTE doesn't actively discourage advertising revenue, quite the opposite. Which actually strengthens the popularity argument.

Hardly foolish; it's foolish to say we should axe the Angelus without access to that proprietary data, maybe. Not terribly foolish to say RTE does have access to that data and haven't decided to cancel the show yet.
Of course we could wander into CT land and speculate that a shadowy cartel of Catholic theocrats are controlling RTE and spreading unfounded disinformation about the Angelus in order to continue hypnotically indoctrinating the population with a message of 'bong'... but that's probably a subject for a different forum.

OK, here's how the popularity argument, the Angelus and RTE intersect.

Firstly, the popularity of the Angelus is speculative at best. We have no real survey data on people's motivation for watching the Angelus and we have no actual viewing figures, just an average figure from six years ago (when I might add, the content of the Angelus was quite different). So we can't really determine how popular the Angelus is as a broadcast item.

Secondly, if popularity is to be a motivating factor then, in the context of your commercial argument, it would have to draw viewers in which advertisers wish to target. Firstly, we don't know without survey data, how many viewers, if any, are tuning in because of the Angelus. Secondly, the breakdown of the last census by religion and Age shows that about only about 30% of the nominal catholics fall within RTE Television's key demographic (i.e. 15-34 year olds). So exactly how many 15-34 year olds do you think are tuning in just for the Angelus? Just how many commercially relevant viewers do you think RTE would lose if it were to scrap the Angelus?

Thirdly, one of the key commitments of RTE is to deliver a value for money service to its license payers. In its FAQ on the TV license, RTE refers to advertising as something it needs to do to cover its cost, not something it is interested in growing:

"The majority of RTÉ’s activities are of a public service nature. The cost of providing these services, however, exceeds the amount of licence fee revenue which RTÉ receives. As a result, RTÉ engages in commercial activities to bridge the funding gap."

Furthermore, in its Annual Report, RTE's operating deficit is not something which they commit to tackle through increasing their advertising revenue but rather through cutting costs:

"RTÉ should continue to give priority to eliminating the financial deficit and further cost reductions should be implemented. Indecon are concerned that RTÉ continues to run a large deficit as this impacts on the future viability of RTÉ."

While we're on the subject of RTE's commitments, its commitments actually include the following:

Objective 1C: Promote inclusiveness and diversity

Given that the Angelus is a specifically catholic call to prayer and has limited or no interest even for other christian denominations and also that catholic oriented broadcasting is given a disproportionate amount of the religious programming, how is retaining the Angelus fulfilling RTE's commitment under this objective.


Objective 1D: Retain existing and attract new audiences through the provision of relevant services

Given, as has been previously discussed, the increasing diversity of the Irish population, how is a catholic call to prayer going to be relevant in attracting a new audience. Since it cannot be demonstrated that it's even relevant to the existing audience, there doesn't seem to be a case for keeping the Angelus given this commitment above.


Objective 4: Effectively manage RTÉ’s finances into the future through optimising funding sources and controlling costs.

So, if RTE were to scrap the Angelus, the airtime could be devoted to expanding the religious programming to other religions. This would make a degree of commercial sense since a larger percentage of Muslims, for example, fall within the target demographic than Catholics. Alternatively, if the minute per day were given to advertising, then the station could generate an extra €4m in ad revenue not to mention saving the approximately €96k that the Angelus costs to broadcast per annum.


In summary, your argument for popularity outlined here:

"I'm sticking with the appeal to popularity; the most logically sound reason for a broadcaster to broadcast anything."

doesn't really hold up to scrutiny for several reasons. Firstly, we don't know how popular the Angelus actually is. Secondly, you haven't presented an argument why popularity should be the sole concern of the broadcaster and why other concerns such as its commitments to inclusiveness and diversity ought to be ignored. Finally, you haven't presented any evidence to suggest that removing the Angelus would in any way negatively impact on the commercial revenue of RTE and hence its reason for keeping it.


Sources

RTE Annual Report 2011

RTE Public Service Statement 2010

RTE Annual Statement of Performance Commitments 2014

RTE Public Funding Review 2011

RTE License fee FAQ

Huntergonzo

It's interesting how 'catholic' this country is, I was talking to a few of my mates the other day and I asked one of them did he believe in transubstantiation. Now he's quite a normal fella but he didn't have a clue what it was so I explained it's the catholic church's teaching that the wine and bread literally become the body and blood of christ and that it's not just symbolic, he laughed and said no he didn't believe in it.

So I said to him for the craic "so you're not really catholic then" to which he instantly responded "I fcukin am catholic", I just laughed and said fair enough, who am I to decide for him, but I wonder is he a fair reflection of many so called 'catholics' in Ireland? :-)

Absolam

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Oh, so I'm the one with the shotgun approach? Really? Well, let's have a look then shall we. At the beginning of our interaction things were going well. For example, in response to my first input into the thread you made post #440 which had three points. I then responded with post #455 which had three replying points. You then replied again with post #461 which had three points. Then things begin to break down. I replied with post #469 which had three points which you then dissected into 8 points in post #474. From then on you split my posts from 1 point into 4, 4 points into 6 and eventually 7 points into 17. At each point I tried to at best engage on the same level, discarding or refining certain points, whereas you tried your best to fragment the discussion as much as possible.

So, I separated the points you lumped together, but didn't introduce any new ones myself? It doesn't sound like I'm the one creating so many discussion points that all sight of the central topic is lost then.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, here's how the popularity argument, the Angelus and RTE intersect.
Firstly, the popularity of the Angelus is speculative at best. We have no real survey data on people's motivation for watching the Angelus and we have no actual viewing figures, just an average figure from six years ago (when I might add, the content of the Angelus was quite different). So we can't really determine how popular the Angelus is as a broadcast item.

We can't, but RTE can, can't they? Even if they don't reveal the figures to all and sundry, they're in a position to determine whether or not the Angelus is a sufficiently popular program to continue running. From what they've said, they seem to think it is.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, if popularity is to be a motivating factor then, in the context of your commercial argument, it would have to draw viewers in which advertisers wish to target. Firstly, we don't know without survey data, how many viewers, if any, are tuning in because of the Angelus. Secondly, the breakdown of the last census by religion and Age shows that about only about 30% of the nominal catholics fall within RTE Television's key demographic (i.e. 15-34 year olds). So exactly how many 15-34 year olds do you think are tuning in just for the Angelus? Just how many commercially relevant viewers do you think RTE would lose if it were to scrap the Angelus?

I don't know, but I suspect that RTE don't only programme for their key demographic, what do you think? If their data shows the Angelus draws viewers that advertisers wish to target, regardless of whether it's the key RTE demographic, it has value from a commercial point of view.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Thirdly, one of the key commitments of RTE is to deliver a value for money service to its license payers. In its FAQ on the TV license, RTE refers to advertising as something it needs to do to cover its cost, not something it is interested in growing:
"The majority of RTÉ’s activities are of a public service nature. The cost of providing these services, however, exceeds the amount of licence fee revenue which RTÉ receives. As a result, RTÉ engages in commercial activities to bridge the funding gap."
Furthermore, in its Annual Report, RTE's operating deficit is not something which they commit to tackle through increasing their advertising revenue but rather through cutting costs:
"RTÉ should continue to give priority to eliminating the financial deficit and further cost reductions should be implemented. Indecon are concerned that RTÉ continues to run a large deficit as this impacts on the future viability of RTÉ."

Which would seem to indicate that if the Angelus has a public service value (even if not to the 'population at large') that warrants consideration for inclusion in the schedule. And whilst I doubt RTE fills much of a gap in it's funding from advertising around the Angelus, I don't think they'd willingly forego any revenue they do earn in favour of more cost reductions, do you?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

While we're on the subject of RTE's commitments, its commitments actually include the following:
Objective 1C: Promote inclusiveness and diversity
Given that the Angelus is a specifically catholic call to prayer and has limited or no interest even for other christian denominations and also that catholic oriented broadcasting is given a disproportionate amount of the religious programming, how is retaining the Angelus fulfilling RTE's commitment under this objective.

I'm not convinced that catholic oriented broadcasting is given a disproportionate amount of the religious programming time, but at about 6% of all religious programming the Angelus isn't exactly taking up a huge chunk of the Catholic/Christian portion, is it?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Objective 1D: Retain existing and attract new audiences through the provision of relevant services
Given, as has been previously discussed, the increasing diversity of the Irish population, how is a catholic call to prayer going to be relevant in attracting a new audience. Since it cannot be demonstrated that it's even relevant to the existing audience, there doesn't seem to be a case for keeping the Angelus given this commitment above.

That really just restates my popularity argument; we should scrap the Angelus when people stop watching it (those existing 318,000 consumers), or at least, when there are insufficient numbers watching it to justify it's timeslot (if it doesn't attract sufficient new consumers to keep it's relative popularity).

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Objective 4: Effectively manage RTÉ’s finances into the future through optimising funding sources and controlling costs.
So, if RTE were to scrap the Angelus, the airtime could be devoted to expanding the religious programming to other religions. This would make a degree of commercial sense since a larger percentage of Muslims, for example, fall within the target demographic than Catholics. Alternatively, if the minute per day were given to advertising, then the station could generate an extra €4m in ad revenue not to mention saving the approximately €96k that the Angelus costs to broadcast per annum.

I don't think so; even if you only consider the core demographic (and there's no reason we should) the total number of Muslims falling within the demographic (18,804) is less than 2% of the number of Catholics falling within the demographic (1,073621) according to the CSO. Say we only take the putative 30% of Catholics who are devout massgoers as a yardstick; Muslims are still less than 6% of the potential devout Catholic audience. Reducing your potential audience by 94% is not a strategy that makes much commercial sense to me.
And yes, the argument could be made for any programme that RTE broadcasts that giving it's time over to advertising would generate additional revenue, but then, if there were no programming, advertisers wouldn't advertise because no one would be watching. If we're only looking to generate revenue, inserting an extra ad break in the 9 O Clock News is likely to be more effective than scrapping the Angelus.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

In summary, your argument for popularity outlined here:
"I'm sticking with the appeal to popularity; the most logically sound reason for a broadcaster to broadcast anything."
doesn't really hold up to scrutiny for several reasons. Firstly, we don't know how popular the Angelus actually is. Secondly, you haven't presented an argument why popularity should be the sole concern of the broadcaster and why other concerns such as its commitments to inclusiveness and diversity ought to be ignored. Finally, you haven't presented any evidence to suggest that removing the Angelus would in any way negatively impact on the commercial revenue of RTE and hence its reason for keeping it.

Firstly, we don't, but RTE does. And unlike unpopular programs we know of, it hasn't scrapped the Angelus for being unpopular, which may well give us some indication that it is sufficiently popular.
Secondly, I haven't said popularity should be the sole concern of the broadcaster, and I readily acknowledge it has other concerns and responsibilities. It is however, still a logically sound reason to broadcast any programme, and broadcasting a programme relevant to a particular section of society in no way ignores commitments to inclusiveness and diversity; any programme that is relevant to any cultural segment contributes to honouring that commitment.
Finally, there's no evidence to suggest that removing the Angelus would in any way positively impact on the commercial revenue of RTE to any greater degree than a similarly popular show, hence it's no reason for scrapping it.

oldrnwisr

Absolam wrote: »

We can't, but RTE can, can't they? Even if they don't reveal the figures to all and sundry, they're in a position to determine whether or not the Angelus is a sufficiently popular program to continue running. From what they've said, they seem to think it is.

I'm not convinced that catholic oriented broadcasting is given a disproportionate amount of the religious programming time, but at about 6% of all religious programming the Angelus isn't exactly taking up a huge chunk of the Catholic/Christian portion, is it?

Firstly, we don't, but RTE does. And unlike unpopular programs we know of, it hasn't scrapped the Angelus for being unpopular, which may well give us some indication that it is sufficiently popular.
Secondly, I haven't said popularity should be the sole concern of the broadcaster, and I readily acknowledge it has other concerns and responsibilities. It is however, still a logically sound reason to broadcast any programme, and broadcasting a programme relevant to a particular section of society in no way ignores commitments to inclusiveness and diversity; any programme that is relevant to any cultural segment contributes to honouring that commitment.
Finally, there's no evidence to suggest that removing the Angelus would in any way positively impact on the commercial revenue of RTE to any greater degree than a similarly popular show, hence it's no reason for scrapping it.

OK, this is the final recap because the points you continue to put forward make it clear that there is little utility in continuing this discussion.

Firstly, there is no solid evidence that the Angelus is actually popular. The only available viewing figure is a) six years old and b) not a direct measure of viewership.

Secondly, you keep mentioning that RTE claim that people want to keep the Angelus. However, as I've pointed out, that it an unsubstantiated claim and so can be readily dismissed. We have no way of verifying the veracity of the claim and so no reason to take it seriously. It's just like someone claiming that a god exists. We have no reason to take their word for it without seeking evidence and so I don't see why we should take RTE's word for it. To go back to Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Similarly ordinary claims only need ordinary evidence but RTE haven't even offered that much. I shouldn't really have to explain this on an atheist forum.

Thirdly, however you may be convinced, catholicism does indeed dominate religious programming almost to the point of exclusion. There are masses broadcast every Sunday, Urbi et Orbi and any other feast day is covered on television and anytime the pope farts it gets coverage. By contrast, there is no muslim call to prayer or services broadcast, no Jewish services, no Hindu, Sikh, Jain or any other religions featured in any meaningful way. Sure you had Ramadan diary but these are rare one-offs and not something which could be construed as an ongoing commitment to religious and cultural diversity.

Fourthly, you acknowledge that there are other concerns besides popularity and yet you are still championing the idea that popularity should override these other concerns. Why? It isn't clear that anybody who watches the Angelus is watching because it's the Angelus rather than the Six One News. So in the absence of evidence that the Angelus is actually popular and given RTEs commitments as well as other concerns, why should the Angelus remain?

Finally, to reiterate my position for the last time, the Angelus is an outdated relic which is no longer representative of Ireland in 2015. It is a watered down Catholic call to prayer in a country with an ever decreasing and ever aging faithful Catholic populace. Ireland is now a country with an increasingly diverse faith base and with a rapidly growing population segment who have no religion. Yet current programming reflects none of this reality. It is also a feature of a particular religion which is funded from the public purse.

However, since it seems to me that you are posting to be deliberately contrarian, at this point:

Absolam

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Firstly, there is no solid evidence that the Angelus is actually popular. The only available viewing figure is a) six years old and b) not a direct measure of viewership.

In fairness, you put the figure forward as a measure of viewership.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, you keep mentioning that RTE claim that people want to keep the Angelus. However, as I've pointed out, that it an unsubstantiated claim and so can be readily dismissed. We have no way of verifying the veracity of the claim and so no reason to take it seriously. It's just like someone claiming that a god exists. We have no reason to take their word for it without seeking evidence and so I don't see why we should take RTE's word for it. To go back to Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Similarly ordinary claims only need ordinary evidence but RTE haven't even offered that much. I shouldn't really have to explain this on an atheist forum.

Again, to be fair, my claim that RTE have said this is fully supported by evidence; RTE themselves haven't offered their claim in this debate so I think it's a little disingenuous to expect them to turn up with evidence for it. I imagine if they are involved in a discussion, they will be able to back up their statement, after all, you haven't provided any reason to believe they're lying about it, have you?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Thirdly, however you may be convinced, catholicism does indeed dominate religious programming almost to the point of exclusion. There are masses broadcast every Sunday, Urbi et Orbi and any other feast day is covered on television and anytime the pope farts it gets coverage. By contrast, there is no muslim call to prayer or services broadcast, no Jewish services, no Hindu, Sikh, Jain or any other religions featured in any meaningful way. Sure you had Ramadan diary but these are rare one-offs and not something which could be construed as an ongoing commitment to religious and cultural diversity.

Well, I didn't actually say it doesn't dominate religious broadcasting, I said it isn't given a disproportionate amount of the religious programming time. As well as, a number of times, that I'm entirely in agreement with the notion that all religions should be given a proportionate amount of the religious programming time.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Fourthly, you acknowledge that there are other concerns besides popularity and yet you are still championing the idea that popularity should override these other concerns. Why? It isn't clear that anybody who watches the Angelus is watching because it's the Angelus rather than the Six One News. So in the absence of evidence that the Angelus is actually popular and given RTEs commitments as well as other concerns, why should the Angelus remain?

Actually, no. I didn't champion the idea that popularity should override other concerns. I said (and you quoted me saying) "I'm sticking with the appeal to popularity; the most logically sound reason for a broadcaster to broadcast anything." That statement does not make any claim to overriding other concerns; only that popularity is the most logically sound reason for a broadcaster to broadcast anything.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Finally, to reiterate my position for the last time, the Angelus is an outdated relic which is no longer representative of Ireland in 2015. It is a watered down Catholic call to prayer in a country with an ever decreasing and ever aging faithful Catholic populace. Ireland is now a country with an increasingly diverse faith base and with a rapidly growing population segment who have no religion. Yet current programming reflects none of this reality. It is also a feature of a particular religion which is funded from the public purse.

And my own opinion by and large is that when enough people don't watch it, we should get rid of it. As long as more people want to watch it than want to get rid of it, I think any move to enforce a minority view by scrapping the Angelus is an exercise in small mindedness.
No cool picture, sorry.

robindch

Mod:

Absolam wrote: »

Seems a little petulant to dismiss it once it's apparent it doesn't support your point of view.

I don't see anything petulant about oldrnwisr's comment and I would ask you to refrain from making inaccurate personal comments. Or, better still, from making any personal comments at all.

Absolam

robindch wrote: »

Mod:I don't see anything petulant about oldrnwisr's comment and I would ask you to refrain from making inaccurate personal comments. Or, better still, from making any personal comments at all.

Duly edited; perhaps it only seemed so to me, but either way I agree with the idea of posters not making personal comments.

Cabaal

Gota say this thread is better since I stuck somebody on ignore, took out alot of content that really wasn't adding to the thread/forum.