Poor Quality Journalism RE: Transit Projects

XPS_Zero

I just saw this: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/three-more-dublin-bus-routes-to-be-privatised-from-sunday-1.3836667


...and it's starting to get on my nerves. Their constant cribbing, p1ssing, moaning and whinging about transport projects.
Casting everything in a negative tone, everything's bad, nothings good, ever.


I notice the Guardian etc doing the same with the HS2 project. Now I am not familiar with the details of that project I will admit, the way I am with Irish projects, but I could see from checking it out after that the author had gotten several key aspects flat wrong, stuff she could have verified by looking at the projects wikipedia entry ffsake.


The themes are always the same:


1. Transport Minister/Civil Engineer/Transport Planner etc says it's a vast strategic improvement - but Mary who is the one blind passenger out of 250,000 says it will hurt all the blind passengers, so we'd best scrap the project instead of looking for ways to integrate disabled passengers needs into the plan



2. We interview Tom who says it does not go through his estate anymore it's evil


3. It's a white elephant...it's always a white elephant


4. NIMBY'ism....we interviewed Brock who works in Hedge Funds and lives in a house you can see from orbit..."oh no I have to loose 1/3 of my ENORMOUS f---g garden and I'll be handsomely compensated at market rates...I don't want a metro because I have a sports car...f--k all the people who can't afford sports cars and don't live within spitting distance of work, they're the little people...even though some of them will be my kids as they work their way up in the world"


They always highlight the opinion of the most unqualified, NIMBY'ish professional whingers...the very same people who would ridicule RBB and Paul Murphy one day are quoting them the next when they say x estate being removed from the route is unthinkable.




What I find bizarre about this is in politics early on someone told me journos in Ireland are lazy, second only in how lazy and cozy with power as those in the US, and if you send our a press release they will literally change the header and publish it as a story with minor alterations, this has sadly proved true with very few exceptions, which is why panderers sadly even in my own party (Troy, and my favorite pandering Dun laoghaire councilor)...but for some reason with Transport projects they are massive rabble rousers in the most irrational way.


Now, ever since the Luas, they have gone on describing competition within strict state controls, where the state still owns the infrastructure and sets the fares as "privatization"...do they not know the meaning of this term? Look at the bus routes outside London post Thatcher or the rail system in the UK if you wanna see what it really means (where even the infrastructure, for a while, was in private hands). You can oppose this as a model, of course, but if the stuffs not being sold off it's not being privatized, at worst it's a hyrbid model or public-private partnership...but they keep doing this.


You can oppose a policy model but you don't get to have your own definition of words.



Some even describe the Luas as "private" despite it being owned by the state. Private companies provide a huge number of day to day services to the public sector, but if that role includes management it's "privatized?" even if their managers bosses are appointed and elected public reps and everything is still owned by the state?
My complaint is about the press not ordinary people doing this, but that's just it, journos should be more aware of what they are talking about than political actors with an axe to grind who have an interest in recasting things so they look a certain way opposing it.



I suppose it's a case of bad news sells more papers, having a big spread about the merits of a plan and making the case why something is an improvement, mixed by a kind of whinger 'see the cloud in the silver lining mentality' in Irish culture. It's way more likley to generate clicks and sales if you say it's the end of the world.


This has to stop, politicos need to stop pandering relentlessly to uninformed busy bodies and point out that if something is better overall for the population but means you have to walk 5 more minutes that's still good...there are other people in the world besides you!...our slow motion planning process needs to change, those of us who were teenagers when Metro was announced are going to be picking up our pensions by the time the first metro car runs at this rate, and that's literal, all this whinging and moaning and throwing a spanner in the works of planning, and politicos pandering to it, sacrificing a project that will help people in 20 years for the sake of their next election 2-5 years away it has to stop...and the media needs to stop encouraging it.

sharper

Aside from the usual problems with modern journalism prioritising outrage and clickbait over informative reporting it's hard to get past the problem of the average Irish Times writer not having much use for public transport.

Conor Pope is writing for the Irish Times, at times about public transport and even Bus Connects but also campaigning against it on twitter

https://twitter.com/conor_pope/status/1109541286074290176


Tony O'Brien formerly environment correspondent with the Irish Independent

https://twitter.com/wexfordobrien/status/1109871827675959298

Rulmeq

Irish Times at it yet again today: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/d4-homes-and-embassy-to-forfeit-garden-land-over-busconnects-1.3837068

London Correspondent

I can forgive uninformed twaddle online but when it seeps into journalism I really get mad. Sadly the Irish Media as a whole tend to amplify NIMBY concerns about public transport and amplify the opinions of so-called "experts" if they come out with a load of anti public transport bollox.

When the DART was being built, the Indo and RTE presented it as an expensive white elephant. After the DART opened - to great success - no one criticized it.

When the LUAS was being built we never heard the last of all the poor Smithfield residents suffering because of the works and Noelle Campbell Sharpe whining about the disruption on Harcourt Street. After the LUAS opened - to great success - no one criticized the numbers using it.

I happen to think that several major mistakes have been made by the NTA regarding the Metrolink not least the refusal to consider a Heavy Rail route to the airport in addition to Metrolink and not routing the southern portion of Metrolink via Harolds Cross, Terenure and Knocklyon, however as usual in the Irish media the points made by the OP are spot on.

Sadly its the voices of the cranks that always get heard loudest in Ireland especially when it comes to Public Transport. I can't think of any country that would tolerate the utter bollox being presented as alternatives to proper public transport. That's why we cant have the proverbial nice things...

crushproof

Rulmeq wrote: »

Irish Times at it yet again today: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/d4-homes-and-embassy-to-forfeit-garden-land-over-busconnects-1.3837068

Did you watch that video??? My blood is boiling after seeing it. Each house they were outside had two cars in the driveway and then the old chap is complaining about a 6 lane motorway. Such nonsense!
"Oh and it will be so difficult coming out of the driveway and having to cross a cycle lane because you know cyclists don't normally observe the rules of the road" What? You are coming onto the carriageway, it's up to you to see if its safe to enter the road.

Jesus christ I am sick and tired of the rubbish spouted by these idiots. It's infuriating because these are the folk that are rich enough to hire lawyers and fight their case while the rest of us plebs suffer so that they can keep their 5 car driveways and on road parking. :mad::mad::mad:

johnp001

This guy has a theory about media bias related to public transport.
Here's How 82 – RTÉ and the AA

L1011

That's a bit more of a conpiracy theory than anything else. AA offer the same contra deal to any broadcaster and most have taken it. The worst media coverage of PT far and away comes from the newspapers

That podcast has a dodgy history of amplifying lunatics from time to time also.

magicbastarder

the irish times make a lot of money (well, they try to) from property features of houses in leafy suburbs, the sort of reader who might be horrified about their sylvan paradise being ruined by accessible public transport.

it's a pity, their most visible commentator, FO'T, seems to be an inveterate bus user (he wrote an article a few years back, which kinda hinged on him not being able to drive).

CatInABox

johnp001 wrote: »

This guy has a theory about media bias related to public transport.
Here's How 82 – RTÉ and the AA

In fariness to the AA, they've been pretty big supporters of both Metrolink and BusConnects. Even they know that there's no room for more cars in the city centre, they've said so themselves.

AndrewJRenko

L1011 wrote: »

That's a bit more of a conpiracy theory than anything else. AA offer the same contra deal to any broadcaster and most have taken it.

That's not how public services are supposed to work - open tendering, published criteria, fair competition and more

L1011

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's not how public services are supposed to work - open tendering, published criteria, fair competition and more

No advertising on any public broadcaster is sold like that

AndrewJRenko

L1011 wrote: »

No advertising on any public broadcaster is sold like that

It's not advertising. It is programme content.

L1011

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's not advertising. It is programme content.

It is provided as advertising, though. That's how it works.

magicbastarder

do they pay for it?

L1011

magicbastarder wrote: »

do they pay for it?

RTE take a service they want, receive an invoice for it; the AA buy advertising and the two knock each other out.

It's how radio stations across the globe get branded vehicles, have their name applied to gigs etc. It's not some special little Irish corruption 'discovered' by a looper on a podcast

The UK has a provider called GTN who do the same thing, except you give them blank ad time during the update which they sell themselves.

In the past, local stations here used to get news services in return for the adbreak between news and sports (the most valuable of the day)

magicbastarder

it's quite an interesting topic, but that podcast is frustrating. replaying the phone conversation in full is deathly dull, it basically just allows him to repeat his points which he's already gone through anyway; and makes him come across as a bit of a crank.
you would expect someone who calls themselves a journalist to understand the concept of good editing.

blackwhite

johnp001 wrote: »

This guy has a theory about media bias related to public transport.
Here's How 82 – RTÉ and the AA

I'm not sure how much credibility I'd ascribe to someone who calls Knocklyon and Carrickmines the "posh areas of South Dublin"


Or someone who is indirectly advocating looking at smartphones whilst driving.

AndrewJRenko

L1011 wrote: »

RTE take a service they want, receive an invoice for it; the AA buy advertising and the two knock each other out.

It's how radio stations across the globe get branded vehicles, have their name applied to gigs etc.

RTE is a public body in Ireland. Here's how public bodies across Ireland take services - they publish a tender outlining the services they need. Anyone who meets the qualifying criteria can bid, and they get service they need for the best value.

Programme commissioning is slightly different but the same principles apply - open to all qualified parties.

No sweet deals with their college buddies sealed over a few lines of coke.

L1011

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

RTE is a public body in Ireland. Here's how public bodies across Ireland take services - they publish a tender outlining the services they need. Anyone who meets the qualifying criteria can bid, and they get service they need for the best value.

Programme commissioning is slightly different but the same principles apply - open to all qualified parties.

No sweet deals with their college buddies sealed over a few lines of coke.

And what other qualified parties are there exactly?

You do not appear to have any knowledge of the sector, from what you've posted at least.

LionelNashe

XPS_Zero wrote: »

I just saw this: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/three-more-dublin-bus-routes-to-be-privatised-from-sunday-1.3836667


...and it's starting to get on my nerves. Their constant cribbing, p1ssing, moaning and whinging about transport projects.
Casting everything in a negative tone, everything's bad, nothings good, ever.
.....

I don't see anything negative in the article you linked - It's just a few straight-forward paragraphs about 3 routes being privatised - Did they change it since you posted it?

AndrewJRenko

L1011 wrote: »

And what other qualified parties are there exactly?

You do not appear to have any knowledge of the sector, from what you've posted at least.

I've extensive knowledge of the public sector thanks.

It's not rocket surgery - what's the requirements? Gathering info from Gardai and Council Twitter feeds and encouraging drivers to text in tips while they're driving.

L1011

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've extensive knowledge of the public sector thanks.

It's not rocket surgery - what's the requirements? Gathering info from Gardai and Council Twitter feeds and encouraging drivers to text in tips while they're driving.

You don't seem to understand how advertising contra deals work, though.

So who else precisely is doing that then?

AndrewJRenko

L1011 wrote: »

You don't seem to understand how advertising contra deals work, though.

So who else precisely is doing that then?

A desire to do certain deals does not override public sector procurement regulations.

The procurement question isn't "who precisely is doing that". The question is "who precisely COULD do that".

L1011

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A desire to do certain deals does not override public sector procurement regulations.

The procurement question isn't "who precisely is doing that". The question is "who precisely COULD do that".

If it's against public sector procurement rules do you not think it would have become apparent a long time before a conspiracy theory fermenting podcast noticed it?

You're dodging the question of who else there is to do it.

cdaly_

LionelNashe wrote: »

I don't see anything negative in the article you linked - It's just a few straight-forward paragraphs about 3 routes being privatised - Did they change it since you posted it?

They have not been privatised. The routes are being operated under contract to a state body by a private contractor.

AndrewJRenko

L1011 wrote: »

If it's against public sector procurement rules do you not think it would have become apparent a long time before a conspiracy theory fermenting podcast noticed it?

Possibly not, if most people just go 'Ah sure that's how we do things around here "

L1011 wrote: »

You're dodging the question of who else there is to do it

Until you set out the requirements in a tender, no one can really answer that question. Maybe the independent radio news folks could do it. Maybe the Journal or Joe.ie could do it. Maybe whoever does it in Belfast or Manchester could add Dublin to their portfolio. What makes you think that it's so complicated?

L1011

INN (the news people you are refering to) went bust a decade ago.

You would not be able to do it without getting basically every station in the country due to the costs involved of studios and staff. It is a natural monopoly.

INN went bust due to competition and now it's back to a single, different operator - not INN and not the company that thought it could do it cheaper (UTV) either - it's another natural monopoly in a market this small.

Kermit.de.frog

At least Pat Kenny brought up the issue this morning of anti social behaviour on public transport. It is rife in this city. It understandably puts a lot of people off public transport who don't want the agro.

Hopefully we are on our way to seeing a dedicated Transport Police.

AndrewJRenko

L1011 wrote: »

INN (the news people you are refering to) went bust a decade ago.

You would not be able to do it without getting basically every station in the country due to the costs involved of studios and staff. It is a natural monopoly.

INN went bust due to competition and now it's back to a single, different operator - not INN and not the company that thought it could do it cheaper (UTV) either - it's another natural monopoly in a market this small.

There were lots of natural monopolies that disappeared when a competitor or two came along. I was referring to independent radio news in the generic sense, not any particular company. Somebody has people sitting in a studio, collating news and broadcasting each day. It's not a huge reach to cover traffic news too.

L1011

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There were lots of natural monopolies that disappeared when a competitor or two came along. I was referring to independent radio news in the generic sense, not any particular company. Somebody has people sitting in a studio, collating news and broadcasting each day. It's not a huge reach to cover traffic news too.

You don't have any idea of the industry. Particularly how small it is.

A second operator would kill both sharpish. The costs are nowhere near as low as you seem to think they are and there is not the market to support two sets of people doing it. You need multiple live readers and can't reuse existing ones either for multiple reasons - them actually being on air at the time being the main one. You would have to build a content distribution network or increase capacity on your existing one if you already have one for some reason. You'd have to significant undercut the incumbent to get anyone to consider the risk of switching, leaving you with a tiny income stream indefinitely.

Newstalk are the only network news operator - and they use AA Roadwatch!

AndrewJRenko

L1011 wrote: »

You don't have any idea of the industry. Particularly how small it is.

A second operator would kill both sharpish. The costs are nowhere near as low as you seem to think they are and there is not the market to support two sets of people doing it. You need multiple live readers and can't reuse existing ones either for multiple reasons - them actually being on air at the time being the main one. You would have to build a content distribution network or increase capacity on your existing one if you already have one for some reason. You'd have to significant undercut the incumbent to get anyone to consider the risk of switching, leaving you with a tiny income stream indefinitely.

Newstalk are the only network news operator - and they use AA Roadwatch!

Who says it has to be a live reader? Who says it has to be a reader at all? Would the listener get the same value from a text based service read out by the announcer or dj?

That’s what happens when you start writing down requirements instead of just doing the same thing we did last year.

L1011

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Who says it has to be a live reader? Who says it has to be a reader at all? Would the listener get the same value from a text based service read out by the announcer or dj?

That’s what happens when you start writing down requirements instead of just doing the same thing we did last year.

Because nobody would pay enough for bare text content. Shows that have traffic reports may be voicetracked or may be presented by someone who's voice simply doesn't work for that kind of content (imagine Dave Fanning trying to read the news, basically); the news may already be a Newstalk live read so there is nobody there to read it.

Please go take a look at how small and perilously broke the Irish radio market is before trying to imagine that there could be a second operator there. Its a natural monopoly, a second operator would kill both. And supplying traffic news does not give influence over other content on a broadcaster despite what a conspiracy theorist might think.

PodcasterHere

Podcaster here. Thanks everyone for your input.

L1011 wrote: »

It is provided as advertising, though. That's how it works.

I agree with you that it is blindingly obviously advertising (or more correctly sponsorship, which is slightly different but it's all commercial communications as the BAI code refers to it). It clearly meets that definition.

RTÉ assert that it isn't sponsorship, for the simple reason that the AA are prohibited from sponsoring programmes, as are all other campaign groups.
Despite giving a firm commitment to do so, RTÉ have refused to confirm what AA Roadwatch actually is.

L1011 wrote: »

And what other qualified parties are there exactly?

You do not appear to have any knowledge of the sector, from what you've posted at least.

There is no evidence of the AA having any qualifications in this area. All of the staff involved have qualifications in PR and marketing, none have qualifications in transport economics or any area related to what they broadcast about. This tends to confirm the notion that AA Roadwatch is intended to promote the AA's image, and in particular give them credibility as campaigners in the transport sector, rather than offer any valuable service to the public.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's not how public services are supposed to work - open tendering, published criteria, fair competition and more

Indeed. This was a sweetheart deal, with no transparency, from the start. It was never put out to tender.

L1011 wrote: »

If it's against public sector procurement rules do you not think it would have become apparent a long time before a conspiracy theory fermenting podcast noticed it?

You're dodging the question of who else there is to do it.

Do exactly what? AA Roadwatch promotes the image and credibility of the AA. I'm sceptical of its usefulness to anyone except to the AA. When was the last time you adjusted your journey plans based on what you heard?

And, as to 'conspiracy theory fermenting' can you point to a single fact-claim in the podcast that is not verified?

CatInABox wrote: »

In fariness to the AA, they've been pretty big supporters of both Metrolink and BusConnects. Even they know that there's no room for more cars in the city centre, they've said so themselves.

That's up to themselves, but the point is that AA Roadwatch gives the AA the opportunity to promote causes they support. It doesn't matter what causes they are, or even whether they avail of the opportunity; the fact that RTÉ give them the opportunity is what makes it a clear breach of BAI rules.

Anteayer

L1011 wrote: »

And what other qualified parties are there exactly?

You do not appear to have any knowledge of the sector, from what you've posted at least.

Considering that RTE regularly put the weather contract or to tender, I'd assume the same happens to traffic reporting. I don't think there's anyone else providing equivalent service to AA though.

Although to be quite honest I think that weather tender is nuts given Met Eireann is a public service operated by the state and RTE is the public service broadcaster.

PodcasterHere

Anteayer wrote: »

Considering that RTE regularly put the weather contract or to tender, I'd assume the same happens to traffic.
Although to be quite honest I think that weather tender is nuts given Met Eireann is a public service.

Nope.

RTÉ have confirmed that this 'commercial arrangement' with the AA (as they put it) has never been put out to tender.

Anteayer

PodcasterHere wrote: »

Nope.

RTÉ have confirmed that this 'commercial arrangement' with the AA (as they put it) has never been put out to tender.

Yet they put the Met Eireann presenters through chaos every few years!?

I find RTE's approach to a lot of things inconsistent. One minute they’re behaving like a commercial music station the next like the civil service or often both at the same time.

L1011

PodcasterHere wrote: »

and in particular give them credibility as campaigners in the transport sector, rather than offer any valuable service to the public.

The AA is an insurance broker, owned by an international insurance broker. Its former parent firms campaigning division was transferred to the Institute of Advanced Motoring many years ago. The days of being a mutalised motorists group are long since gone.

They are not a campaign organisation anymore and haven't been for quite some time. Referencing things from when they were - a decade and a half ago - is ridiculous

PodcasterHere wrote: »

And, as to 'conspiracy theory fermenting' can you point to a single fact-claim in the podcast that is not verified?

The podcast series has given repeated exposure to Gemma O'Doherty and effectively stripped itself of any claim to credibility in the process.

In this case, it is banging a drum based on the idea that the AA is a campaigning organisation (when it isn't) and that they're anti public transport (which compared to many other organisations and politicians RTE do give free coverage to, they aren't)

As for the idea that simply mentioning Luas works causes people to be against the Luas - that's off the scale of paranoia.

PodcasterHere

L1011 wrote: »

The AA is an insurance broker, owned by an international insurance broker. Its former parent firms campaigning division was transferred to the Institute of Advanced Motoring many years ago. The days of being a mutalised motorists group are long since gone.

They are not a campaign organisation anymore and haven't been for quite some time. Referencing things from when they were - a decade and a half ago - is ridiculous

To be clear, both RTÉ and the AA accept that the AA is a campaigning organisation that is not permitted to sponsor programmes; the point in dispute is whether AA Roadwatch is or is not a sponsored programme.

PodcasterHere

L1011 wrote: »

The podcast series has given repeated exposure to Gemma O'Doherty and effectively stripped itself of any claim to credibility in the process.

Gemma O'Doherty was interviewed in the light of her failed presidential bid. She was challenged with plainly false conspiratorial claims that she had made. If that, for you, is promoting conspiracists, then our definitions differ.

Anteayer

L1011

AA Ireland hasn't had anything to do with AA UK since 2016. It was sold to The Carlyle Group. That's why the logos and branding have diverged.

It's not exclusively an insurance broker. That's one of its businesses. Their most visible business in Ireland is roadside assistance and automotive services.

They're also a travel guide / hotel reviews publisher and you've AA Roadwatch which is a news and information service.

They also do engage in lobbying for various automotive topics, primarily road safety and are members of European Campaign for Safe Road Design, for example and regularly seem provide commentary on issues to do with motoring via on air spokespersons.

It's just not accurate to describe them as a simple insurance broker. They're far more complex than that.

The only way you could describe them is an automotive service and travel information provider.

Anteayer

To get back to the original topic though; I'd agree that the quality of journalism around transit issues is poor, but the same applies to most technical or specialised subjects. Ireland's media market is very small and the majority of journalism isn't specialised here and the same people are covering every topic.

You've some specialisation in political journalism, sometimes business and definitely in sport but beyond that, it's all generalists and in smaller outlets there often isn't any scope to specialise at all. You could be covering crime, fashion, politics and planning all in the same shift.

It's not surprising that you get weak reporting on transport issues when nobody has any time to develop specialisation. RTE and some of the bigger papers have a bit more specialised reporting but it's patchy and tends to be focused on areas like legal affairs, health, education, business/employment, social affairs etc where you get regular stories and a need to follow stories developing.

It's not even unique to small media markets anymore; most media companies expect jacks of all trade and working across online, print, video, podcasts, promoting your own stuff on social media etc.

That's why you've people changing the top line on a press release when it comes to a something they see as non controversial like a story about a road or rail project.

Short of a complete change in public willingness to pay for specialist newsgathering and reporting, it's going to get worse. There's an expectation that news can be done at no cost and there are vast amounts of content of all quality and sources genuine and dubious online and being fed through social media. That's what traditional media is up against and unfortunately, the general media consuming public seem not to value journalism.

Typically you are paid buttons to write a report by most outlets here. Even the bigger papers don't pay much. It's become rather difficult to make any kind of decent living from journalism beyond a few very senior posts.
That's resulting in people becoming commercial writers and dipping into PR and the lines are being blurred.

Even when you look at print media the % that is undeclared paid content from PR or where commercial advertising is being booked to ensure editorial content is becoming very significant. The reason for this is lack of cash flow, dwindling advertising revenue as ads move to social media and so on.

So unfortunately, I would suggest not holding your breath waiting for in-depth analysis of transit systems here. Journalism is dying.

AndrewJRenko

L1011 wrote: »

The AA is an insurance broker, owned by an international insurance broker. Its former parent firms campaigning division was transferred to the Institute of Advanced Motoring many years ago. The days of being a mutalised motorists group are long since gone.

They are not a campaign organisation anymore and haven't been for quite some time. Referencing things from when they were - a decade and a half ago - is ridiculous

You're absolutely right - but someone needs to tell that to the AA and the media producers for whom Faughnan is the default option for any transport related topics.

AA still position themselves as the voice of the motorist, with their surveys and motoring advice.

AndrewJRenko

L1011 wrote: »

Because nobody would pay enough for bare text content. Shows that have traffic reports may be voicetracked or may be presented by someone who's voice simply doesn't work for that kind of content (imagine Dave Fanning trying to read the news, basically); the news may already be a Newstalk live read so there is nobody there to read it.

So the person who reads the weather forecast couldn't also be the person who reads the traffic news? Why would the broadcaster be prepared to pay a higher price for voice content but not a lower price for text content?

Anteayer

To be fair them, I think AA's information is generally fairly neutral and they seem to still keep abreast of transport developments and would be aware of a lot of roads issues due to the traffic reporting aspects of AA Roadwatch.

They obviously have an interest in remaining viable which is why they do so much media and try to be a source of solid information.

You do hear that guy from TII on quite a bit too on road infrastructure projects and safety topics. He's generally fairly informative too.

We are missing a road users' body though but I can't see it being easy to organise as it's such a broad area. It was a lot easier back in the early days of motoring when the original AA emerged.

AndrewJRenko

Anteayer wrote: »

To be fair them, I think AA's information is generally fairly neutral and they seem to still keep abreast of transport developments and would be aware of a lot of roads issues due to the traffic reporting aspects of AA Roadwatch.

They were far from neutral on the reduced speed limits for Dublin - a slightly bizarre position for an insurance company tbh.

Anteayer

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They were far from neutral on the reduced speed limits for Dublin - a slightly bizarre position for an insurance company tbh.

I did prefix that with generally

PodcasterHere

Anteayer wrote: »

To be fair them, I think AA's information is generally fairly neutral and they seem to still keep abreast of transport developments and would be aware of a lot of roads issues due to the traffic reporting aspects of AA Roadwatch.

They obviously have an interest in remaining viable which is why they do so much media and try to be a source of solid information.

You do hear that guy from TII on quite a bit too on road infrastructure projects and safety topics. He's generally fairly informative too.

We are missing a road users' body though but I can't see it being easy to organise as it's such a broad area. It was a lot easier back in the early days of motoring when the original AA emerged.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They were far from neutral on the reduced speed limits for Dublin - a slightly bizarre position for an insurance company tbh.

The issue here is not whether the AA remain neutral in their presentation of AA Roadwatch. In law, the issue is whether RTÉ are affording them the opportunity to promote their campaigns. Whether they avail of that opportunity is moot.

By analogy, would it be acceptable for RTÉ to farm out coverage of the Oireachtas to Fianna Fáil? Maybe they would say, "We can't afford a Dáil studio any more, but FF have offered to provide us with this content for free". In law, and by BAI rules, it doesn't matter whether they make use of the chance to be biased or not; what is forbidden is for RTÉ to give them the chance in the first place.

Anteayer

To be honest I don't find AA's radio reports that great anyway. They're usually telling you exactly what you already know a list of places that are always blocked / busy at peak times.

Rulmeq

No longer just satire, now they are reporting the actual news:

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2019/03/27/metrolink-plans-cancelled-in-favour-of-tds-reelection/

whisky_galore

Anteayer wrote: »

To be honest I don't find AA's radio reports that great anyway. They're usually telling you exactly what you already know a list of places that are always blocked / busy at peak times.

Glorified product placement.

AndrewJRenko

whisky_galore wrote: »

Glorified product placement.

Which brings us back nicely to the need to put it out to tender to get it on a sound basis.

Podcast guy - do we know anything about the commercial arrangement between RTE and AA? Does money change hands? Are they continuing to use the AA studios for non AA interviews?