Dee Forbes banging the RTE TV licence drum again 60m uncollected fee *poll not working - pl ignore*

Government buildings

No chance of getting rid of Tubs, Darcy and Duffy.

Seeing that Dee is on such huge bucks herself.

The only local community which derives benefit from RTE is around Donnybrook.
If you are from Offaly with 26,750 households assuming 90% compliance with the licence fee then you have nearly 4 million euro a year sucked out off Offaly to support an organisation that doesn't speak to or care even slightly about them.
The multiplier effect of spending that money locally would have a significant effect on the economy of a rural county where incomes are low and wages hard earned but instead it is lost to Donnybrook.

RabbleRouser2k

Government buildings wrote: »

No chance of getting rid of Tubs, Darcy and Duffy.

Seeing that Dee is on such huge bucks herself.

D'arcy hasn't proven his supposed 'worth'... I mean, he's back where he started 30 years ago-on The Den.

Tubridy still gets an audience, but during a pandemic, with nowhere else to go... you'd be failing miserably to not get one. (Case in point, Gordon Ramsey's 'quiz' died a death, I'd say Kathryn Thomas 'shows' were greeted with such negativity on announcement, that people didn't tune in. She was moaning about it for months after).

Duffy's practically a 'shock jock' now-stir up anger, get the audience, then skulk away until the following week when he can stir up emotions again.

20/20

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

So lemme get this straight, an RTE employee (Brendan O'Connor), who's married to the daughter of a former RTE DG, interviewed his boss (Dee Forbes) on radio.

No impartiality there then...

:rolleyes:

Few things you need to get straight. What has Brendan O'Connor to do with the interview. ?

elperello

Deleted User wrote: »

The only local community which derives benefit from RTE is around Donnybrook.
If you are from Offaly with 26,750 households assuming 90% compliance with the licence fee then you have nearly 4 million euro a year sucked out off Offaly to support an organisation that doesn't speak to or care even slightly about them.
The multiplier effect of spending that money locally would have a significant effect on the economy of a rural county where incomes are low and wages hard earned but instead it is lost to Donnybrook.

No disrespect to the people of Offaly where I have spent many happy times but you could extrapolate your theory to any of the other 25 counties where the licence is collected.

That still leaves us with the question- do we want a Public Broadcasting Service and if we do how do we want to pay for it?

elperello

elperello wrote: »

No disrespect to the people of Offaly where I have spent many happy times but you could extrapolate your theory to any of the other 25 counties where the licence is collected.

That still leaves us with the question- do we want a Public Broadcasting Service and if we do how do we want to pay for it?

Sorry, it doesn't take a genius to extrapolate it to any of the other counties in Ireland. I assumed most people here would be able to make that leap.
RTE and its environs are mooching off the rest of the country, parts of the country that can't afforded to be supporting deadweight.

You have been talking about public sector broadcasting over many months but have yet to make a compelling case that it can be provided through RTE. You just constantly stir RTE in to the discussion as the magic Elixir through which said public service broadcasting of questionable value will be consumed.

elperello

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, it doesn't take a genius to extrapolate it to any of the other counties in Ireland. I assumed most people here would be able to make that leap.
RTE and its environs are mooching off the rest of the country, parts of the country that can't afforded to be supporting deadweight.

You have been talking about public sector broadcasting over many months but have yet to make a compelling case that it can be provided through RTE. You just constantly stir RTE in to the discussion as the magic Elixir through which said public service broadcasting of questionable value will be consumed.

That's ok, no offence intended.

No matter what you think of the merits of RTE the licence fee is paid, like motor tax, irrespective of your financial situation or geographical location.

I'd rather see the licence abolished and Public Broadcasting funded from direct taxation.

Do you think there is any possible scenario in which RTE will not have a role in the provision of Public Broadcasting in the medium to long term future?

mgn

elperello wrote: »

No disrespect to the people of Offaly where I have spent many happy times but you could extrapolate your theory to any of the other 25 counties where the licence is collected.

That still leaves us with the question- do we want a Public Broadcasting Service and if we do how do we want to pay for it?

Can I ask you a quick question elperello.
Do you think Dee Forbes is fit to run RTE.

elperello

elperello wrote: »

No matter what you think of the merits of RTE the licence fee is paid, like motor tax, irrespective of your financial situation or geographical location.

Do you think there is any possible scenario in which RTE will not have a role in the provision of Public Broadcasting in the medium to long term future?

We can only hope that RTE are not involved in public sector broadcasting as I consider them a toxic organisation incapable of delivering even-handed, insightful content on any subject.
No one is forced to pay motor tax but if they do they derive some direct measurable utility from the vehicle which is subject to the taxation. RTE have been lobbying for everyone to be forced to pay for their content irrespective of whether it is consume or not.

buried

elperello wrote: »

No disrespect to the people of Offaly where I have spent many happy times but you could extrapolate your theory to any of the other 25 counties where the licence is collected.

That still leaves us with the question- do we want a Public Broadcasting Service and if we do how do we want to pay for it?

We do. But the point is that we, the public, the people paying for it, we should have a real say in how much are we paying for this service and ask what sort of service it is actually producing for that vast money that we are throwing into it. If some people can show it is doing very little of that, or actually show evidence it is producing no service to those people whatsoever, then those people should have the right not to pay into it at all. Let those who are in love with this thing pay the huge amount of millions to keep RTE delivering whatever it is they are delivering.

elperello

mgn wrote: »

Can I ask you a quick question elperello.
Do you think Dee Forbes is fit to run RTE.

Quick and honest reply - I really don't know.

Not sure that it matters what I , an anonymous poster on here, thinks anyway.

I do think she has a tough job.

elperello

Deleted User wrote: »

We can only hope that RTE are not involved in public sector broadcasting as I consider them a toxic organisation incapable of delivering even-handed, insightful content on any subject.
No one is forced to pay motor tax but if they do they derive some direct measurable utility from the vehicle which is subject to the taxation. RTE have been lobbying for everyone to be forced to pay for their content irrespective of whether it is consume or not.

Well fair enough you have clearly nailed your colours to the mast.

If we consider a PBS a public good by definition it will be paid for by people who don't use it.

elperello

buried wrote: »

We do. But the point is that we, the public, the people paying for it, we should have a real say in how much are we paying for this service and ask what sort of service it is actually producing for that vast money that we are throwing into it. If some people can show it is doing very little of that, or actually show evidence it is producing no service to those people whatsoever, then those people should have the right not to pay into it at all. Let those who are in love with this thing pay the huge amount of millions to keep RTE delivering whatever it is they are delivering.

Absolutely, everyone who pays for any public service should be provided with a means of having a voice.

buried

elperello wrote: »

Well fair enough you have clearly nailed your colours to the mast.

If we consider a PBS a public good by definition it will be paid for by people who don't use it.

For me I don't consider it a 'public good' by definition at all, I consider it, in its current format, and direction a actual public disservice. If I can reasonably show that, as a member of said 'public' then why should I or anyone who holds the same reasonable view pay for anybody else who wants to use it? You or I don't pay for anybody else's netflix account if that's what they want to have.

elperello

20/20 wrote: »

Few things you need to get straight. What has Brendan O'Connor to do with the interview. ?

Not to mention who would we expect but an RTE employee conducting an interview on RTE?

elperello

buried wrote: »

For me I don't consider it a 'public good' by definition at all, I consider it, in its current format, and direction a actual public disservice. If I can reasonably show that, as a member of said 'public' then why should I or anyone who holds the same reasonable view pay for anybody else who wants to use it? You or I don't pay for anybody else's netflix account if that's what they want to have.

Point taken, you don't think a PBS is a public good.

Just for the sake of argument try considering it apart from strictly in TV terms.

You will find that the state funds all sorts of things which you have no personal use for.

To illustrate, I personally have no interest in GAA or political parties but I don't mind the government funding them because I know they have a value to society as a whole.

As for Netflix accounts they are just commercial products and I wouldn't expect to pay for yours no more than I would expect to pay for your groceries.

elperello

elperello wrote: »

Well fair enough you have clearly nailed your colours to the mast.

If we consider a PBS a public good by definition it will be paid for by people who don't use it.

Please don't conflate RTE and PBS. If we can constitute a Public Broadcasting Service for Ireland(PBSfI), not a cynical rebranding of RTE to escape a toxic brand for an organisation that is incapable of reformed then I might be interested.
You would like to dismiss the Critics of not having a nuanced practical approach. It should be obvious that the majority see the RTE exactly for what it is.

buried

elperello wrote: »

To illustrate, I personally have no interest in GAA or political parties but I don't mind the government funding them because I know they have a value to society as a whole.

Yeah, point taken there too but I would see those two entities, especially the GAA as having some sort of worthwhile value to society and communities, but TV shows such as Davy Fitzgerald roaring at a bunch of lads to swim quicker through the end of a boghole or where Catherine Thomas is looking down her nose at people wanting to loose weight are in no way a public service to me, or for a lot of people I know, so why should we pay for this mediocre output that seems to cost millions?

buried

elperello wrote: »

As for Netflix accounts they are just commercial products and I wouldn't expect to pay for yours no more than I would expect to pay for your groceries.

But that's exactly what RTE has become due to its own mismanagement of funds. Why should I who has no say in the matter fork up the cost?

elperello

Deleted User wrote: »

Please don't conflate RTE and PBS. If we can constitute a Public Broadcasting Service for Ireland(PBSfI), not a cynical rebranding of RTE to escape a toxic brand for an organisation that is incapable of reformed then I might be interested.
You would like to dismiss the Critics of not having a nuanced practical approach. It should be obvious that the majority see the RTE exactly for what it is.

De facto RTE is the current embodiment of PBS.

The notion of closing down RTE and starting from scratch to create a new entity is interesting but I doubt it will happen.

I'm not sure that it would save any money and further not clear that it is necessary.

Sorry if I appeared dismissive, it wasn't my intention.

While there is a clear anti RTE majority on here I'm not sure that is reflected in the rest of the population.

mgn

elperello wrote: »

Quick and honest reply - I really don't know.

Not sure that it matters what I , an anonymous poster on here, thinks anyway.

I do think she has a tough job.

Not trying to be funny, but I have to wonder why an anonymous poster spends so much time defending RTE, even the die hard RTE fans are getting sick of it by now, same faces on everything regardless of talent, same repeats over and over, even RTE's flagship Late Late Show dropping viewers every week.
As for it being a tough job for Dee, its not. its just that she is not fit to do the job.
The dogs on street know that.

elperello

buried wrote: »

Yeah, point taken there too but I would see those two entities, especially the GAA as having some sort of worthwhile value to society and communities, but TV shows such as Davy Fitzgerald roaring at a bunch of lads to swim quicker through the end of a boghole or where Catherine Thomas is looking down her nose at people wanting to loose weight are in no way a public service to me, or for a lot of people I know, so why should we pay for this mediocre output that seems to cost millions?

buried wrote: »

But that's exactly what RTE has become due to its own mismanagement of funds. Why should I who has no say in the matter fork up the cost?

That's not really how government funding works.

You don't get to micro manage the performance of every recipient of money from the exchequer.

I would envisage set agreed deliverables on time and within budget with strict reporting deadlines.

After that the editorial content and programming would be a matter for management.

buried

elperello wrote: »

That's not really how government funding works.

But, that's my point, it seems at RTE that's EXACTLY how this particular set of 'government funding' does work for itself, and by doing so has shown time and time again how it is continuously taking us, the taxpayer for some sort of eegits that they think were born last week. For instance, time and time again the excuse laid out by Dee Forbes and her predecessor's when they are questioned about totally exorbitant salaries dished out to people like Ryan Tubridy is this - 'we have to pay them this salary or else somebody else will pay them similar or more'.

That there, by the Director General's own admission is where this entity STOPS being a PSB and enters the actual realm of private commercialism. Which is not mine, or yours, or anybody else's remit to fund, especially as they have entered that commercial territory on their own behalf. It shouldn't matter to a PSB what its employees are being paid and how much. That's not their remit of existence or the terms to what they are supposed to achieve.

buried

elperello wrote: »

I would envisage set agreed deliverables on time and within budget with strict reporting deadlines.

Exactly, the people being asked to pay for this should be ones to oversee it also.

elperello

mgn wrote: »

Not trying to be funny, but I have to wonder why an anonymous poster spends so much time defending RTE, even the die hard RTE fans are getting sick of it by now, same faces on everything regardless of talent, same repeats over and over, even RTE's flagship Late Late Show dropping viewers every week.
As for it being a tough job for Dee, its not. its just that she is not fit to do the job.
The dogs on street know that.

I'm not sure where you are getting your insights into what "die hard" RTE fans think. Certainly not on here as far as I can see.

As I have said many times on this and other threads I believe that a Public Broadcasting Service covering both radio and TV, funded from general taxation is the best solution.

We all have programmes we don't like but that is neither here nor there.

mgn

elperello wrote: »

I'm not sure where you are getting your insights into what "die hard" RTE fans think. Certainly not on here as far as I can see.

As I have said many times on this and other threads I believe that a Public Broadcasting Service covering both radio and TV, funded from general taxation is the best solution.

We all have programmes we don't like but that is neither here nor there.

Well my mother is one of them ''die hard' fans and used to love the likes of the LLS and the Afternoon Show but now finishes up changing the channel half way through, so to me, that not good.

Elmo

elperello wrote: »

I'm not sure where you are getting your insights into what "die hard" RTE fans think. Certainly not on here as far as I can see.

As I have said many times on this and other threads I believe that a Public Broadcasting Service covering both radio and TV, funded from general taxation is the best solution.

We all have programmes we don't like but that is neither here nor there.

Elperello I am a die hard fan and a die hard fan of RTÉ, however over the last 10 years it has been anything but PSB.

RTÉ in their submission to the Media commission also agree with you on direct funding...however bizarrely as they off loaded the NSO to the NCH the "independent" report into the NSO and NCO objected that either should be fully funded by the Government as the government of the day may have other priorities.

RTÉ's own example of TG4 getting direct funding failed to mention that from 2011 to 2018 it received a portion of the license fee as the government cut direct funding, only restoring funding in 2019 and in 2020 giving them extra funding... in other words should a government decided that public service broadcasting is a luxury that we can ill afford then the PSB get a cut.

As for Brendan O'Connor interviewing Dee Forbes, he did not interview Dee Forbes, she was interviewed by Richard Curran on The Business just before the BOC show.

As for Brendan O'Connor, his wife's father was a producer in RTÉ (unsurprisingly a sticky) but never DG, he left RTÉ in the 1990s.

As for Richard Curran, he is the brother of Noel Curran, Ms. Forbes predecessor..... make of that what you will.

As I say I don't care if RTÉ make profit or a loss or breakeven as long as they provide a public service, they currently do not. IMO

elperello

buried wrote: »

But, that's my point, it seems at RTE that's EXACTLY how this particular set of 'government funding' does work for itself, and by doing so has shown time and time again how it is continuously taking us, the taxpayer for some sort of eegits that they think were born last week. For instance, time and time again the excuse laid out by Dee Forbes and her predecessor's when they are questioned about totally exorbitant salaries dished out to people like Ryan Tubridy is this - 'we have to pay them this salary or else somebody else will pay them similar or more'.

That there, by the Director General's own admission is where this entity STOPS being a PSB and enters the actual realm of private commercialism. Which is not mine, or yours, or anybody else's remit to fund, especially as they have entered that commercial territory on their own behalf. It shouldn't matter to a PSB what its employees are being paid and how much. That's not their remit of existence or the terms to what they are supposed to achieve.

buried wrote: »

Exactly, the people being asked to pay for this should be ones to oversee it also.

I'm not sure that we should go the road of a PSB without some element of commercial type programming.

Without drama, lifestyle and light entertainment reflecting a uniquely Irish take on life we would be vacating the stage to imported content and turning away the audience that is there.

I would be happy to leave the question of contracts and salaries to management provided the programmes "wash their face" and don't require inordinate subsidy.

Gen.Zhukov

elperello wrote: »

While there is a clear anti RTE majority on here I'm not sure that is reflected in the rest of the population.

^Why?

Would the rest of the population not be fairly well encapsulated in this thread. Y'know, people from all parts of the country, varied age range etc.

I'd say this thread is extremely representative of how RTE is seen around the country.

Do you think Peader and Mary just love having Mrs Brown, Pat Short, Kathryn Thomas, etc, etc, shoved at them every day?


Now, moving on to another massive issue. Noel Kelly Management.
This company has way too much influence in RTE (the Public SB)
Ultimately, everyone that pays their licence is helping put this guys kids through college and is paying for his extremely comfortable lifestyle.

He has all the big earners in there so when Duffy invoices RTE €400k pa, Kelly invoices Duffy -what- €40k?

When Tubs invoices RTE €500k pa, Kelly invoices Tubs €50k?

D'Arcy doesn't show up in Kelly's catalogue but I'd put money on it that Kelly is his agent too. I'd also put a wee bet on that clown Bernard O'Shea being in there too. The amount of plugging for his new sh!t show is unreal

This isn't right. Not enough people know about Mr. Kelly and it's time that changed.

Elmo

Gen.Zhukov wrote: »

D'Arcy doesn't show up in Kelly's catalogue but I'd put money on it that Kelly is his agent too. I'd also put a wee bet on that clown Bernard O'Shea being in there too. The amount of plugging for his new sh!t show is unreal

They are plugging it because RTÉ2 is up ****e creek. They are hoping that they can get an audience for RTÉ2's monday night line up, along with the Prince Andrew interview and the Ireland WC qualifier should bring the audience up significantly for March.