Advertisement
Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Eddie Hobbs - Politically Biased?

13

Comments



  • Illkillya wrote:
    I think that Hobbs could show that it is in fact a rip off. It is a taboo subject because the program is being aired on RTE and they would not be too happy to show that.

    I honestly don't think he could prove the licence fee is a ripp off. See my above post? I wonder is there a source where we could do the math or a balalnce sheet?

    Serioulsy, how much do RTE spend on quality programming both self made and bought in? I know we like to say if its done here its done by cowboys but RTE also supports radio stations. If someone can show from a reliable source RTE are ripping us off, i'll eat my words on this board




  • Cork Boy wrote:
    I'd like to see TV3 afford Kevin Myers, Charlie Bird, George Lee and make informative programs like Prime Time.

    Maybe they could afford Eddie Hobbs too!

    That depends on what you think is informative and who you think is a good presenter.

    Thousands of TV stations throughout the world do without a TV licence. The third arguement you missed is, why not give us the choice to pay for the licence. I'd glady drop RTE1 if I didn't have to pay the fee. I don't think it's worth it. But I don't have a choice.




  • I've heard that Eddie Hobbs is paid by the Communist Party. Anyone else hear this? Anyone from the Communist Party care to comment?




  • Macy wrote:
    It's tabloid economics, but he's the first one to make the general public sit up and take notice. The only one's put out by this are the Government Parties who have had the power, the purse and the time to change things.

    If his shows make people look beyond their nett pay at the bottom of their pay slip and see how much tax they're really paying then it can only be a good thing for this country. Only FF and PD activists could possible disagree that this would be a good thing.

    Do you honestly believe that every poster in this thread who has criticsed Hobbs is either in the govt. or a supporter of FF or the PD's? Gimme a break.

    I am "put out" by Hobbs for all the reasons, and more, that I set out in earlier posts. I disagree with him, because a lot what he says is utter bollocks, misleading, or economically naive. Don't denegrate my opinion, and that of others, to that of some party hack.




  • landser wrote:
    Do you honestly believe that every poster in this thread who has criticsed Hobbs is either in the govt. or a supporter of FF or the PD's? Gimme a break.

    I am "put out" by Hobbs for all the reasons, and more, that I set out in earlier posts. I disagree with him, because a lot what he says is utter bollocks, misleading, or economically naive. Don't denegrate my opinion, and that of others, to that of some party hack.

    hear hear!


  • Advertisement


  • Tazz T wrote:
    Maybe they could afford Eddie Hobbs too!

    That depends on what you think is informative and who you think is a good presenter.

    Thousands of TV stations throughout the world do without a TV licence. The third arguement you missed is, why not give us the choice to pay for the licence. I'd glady drop RTE1 if I didn't have to pay the fee. I don't think it's worth it. But I don't have a choice.

    I plan on having health care but I'll still have to pay my PRSI. TV licence is a Tax, just with a prettier name.
    Plenty of stations that do well with no govt revenue don't have such a small audience base as RTE does




  • Cork Boy wrote:
    I plan on having health care but I'll still have to pay my PRSI. TV licence is a Tax, just with a prettier name.
    Plenty of stations that do well with no govt revenue don't have such a small audience base as RTE does

    PRSI & Health Insurance are 2 very different things aren't they ?

    i.e PRSI entitles you to social welfare etc..




  • PRSI is for pensions, public health services, social welfare etc.

    So what i should've said is saying i'd rather have no rte than pay a licence fee and just pay for sky is like saying i'd rather not have to pay PRSI and just pay my insurance/pension scheme etc.

    It defeats the purpose of taxes (ie, to try to distribute wealth fairly).

    I know the wealth is never distributed fairly but in all fairness, if you're poor enough, you don't have to pay PRSI and still get treatment. You're TV licence is paid for or waived or subsidised.

    If we didn't have PRSI we'd be like the US where when you ring an ambulance, they'll ask your insurance number first. If you don't have insurance, they'll ask your credit card number. If you've no credit card, they'll hang up.

    So we can't pick and choose which taxes we want to pay, like the TV licence




  • This post has been deleted.




  • FinoBlad wrote:
    there is an element of truth in this, he does take the pi$$ out of the politicians and is far too personal in his attacks. it would be a lot better to have a balanced documentary and discussion with factually correct information and less pi$$ taking as this is a serious subject.

    The problem with an unbiased factually correct show would mean the majority of people would ignore it, every point Hobbs makes has already been made before by analysts, opposition parties and even the odd journalist, but no one took any notice. There is no denying that his tabloid sensationalism is an insult to anyone who has been keeping up with current affairs over this and the previous term of the government. However most people in this country over the past few barely have the time to scratch their own ass yet alone follow the often tedious to watch q & a, prime time or worse still listen to Matt Cooper! Being realistic trying to keep up with rising prices, is very tiring all i want to see or read when i'm not working is nice and simple tabloid sensationalism. My biggest problem with the show is not the political bias but the fact that another alternative is not being suggested. Now while most people believe that tax revenue is being badly allocated and badly spent, i think it is safe to say that tax revenue is needed, he gives out about stealth taxes, but the money must come in somehow he has yet to suggest how a) to generate revenue elswhere or B) suggest a more efficient use of the lowered tax revenue.


  • Advertisement


  • Cork Boy wrote:
    I honestly don't think he could prove the licence fee is a ripp off. See my above post? I wonder is there a source where we could do the math or a balalnce sheet?

    Serioulsy, how much do RTE spend on quality programming both self made and bought in? I know we like to say if its done here its done by cowboys but RTE also supports radio stations. If someone can show from a reliable source RTE are ripping us off, i'll eat my words on this board

    I mentioned the TV licnece fee originally as it is another one of the so-called stealth taxes that is regularly moaned about (be it right or be it wrong). It would be a nice populist issue as well but the fact that Hobbs ignores it shows that only certain populist targets are acceptable and not the ones that might reflect on his employers...




  • Dimitri wrote:
    There is no denying that his tabloid sensationalism is an insult to anyone who has been keeping up with current affairs over this and the previous term of the government. .

    you are right, but at the same time missing the point. the style of the show is not the main concern, but rather the content. it is quite easy to be correct and at the same time, entertaining. take the BBC's Watchdog... awful show imo, poorly presented by Thickie Campbell and some bit of eye candy... but, for consmer affairs it works, it is factual and is not just 30 minutes of rant. Rip Off Republic is comment dressed as fact, we are getting Hobb's opinions, not an assesment of the state of the nation. I agree that not everyone can follow in depth economic analysis, but that does not mean that they should be fed this diet of tripe either.




  • I would rather be fed this ****e than the total and utter crap that our government feeds us every day. Waje up and smell the coffee. No amtter what is said on this forum about Eddie hobbs or Joe Bloggs we all know one thing for a fact!!!! WE ARE BEING RIPPED OFF EVERYDAY and no matter what way you look at it or no matter who you support we are the people that sit and moan about and never do anything. LAzy Ireland ...we get what we deserve and as long as we accept it we may shut up or get out there and do something about it!!




  • Mary Harney has cunningly disguised herself as Siobhan.Harding! :D




  • LAzy Ireland ...we get what we deserve and as long as we accept it we may shut up or get out there and do something about it!!

    Is watching telly Monday night the new 'getting out there and doing something'? ;)




  • landser wrote:
    Do you honestly believe that every poster in this thread who has criticsed Hobbs is either in the govt. or a supporter of FF or the PD's? Gimme a break.

    I am "put out" by Hobbs for all the reasons, and more, that I set out in earlier posts. I disagree with him, because a lot what he says is utter bollocks, misleading, or economically naive. Don't denegrate my opinion, and that of others, to that of some party hack.
    I suppose it depends if you're expecting it to be a Prime Time style programme or a populist programme aimed at people that wouldn't normally watch current affairs. Personally, I'm happy enough even if it is full of errors and it politicises the large swaths of the population that couldn't care less at the moment. A show like this may mean they watch more serious and factual programmes, and there's going to be a lot of them given his success. That is a good thing imo.




  • Macy wrote:
    . Personally, I'm happy enough even if it is full of errors .


    i think that sums up the argument against the programme.




  • daveirl wrote:
    This post has been deleted.

    Is there a chance someone could post the text from that page (here)? I can't access the page from work...




  • landser wrote:
    i think that sums up the argument against the programme.
    Nice selective editing - if it politicises people who wouldn't normally be. They'll soon discover the true facts, and they still won't make pleasant reading. If it's so riddled with inaccuracies a simple press release comparing and contrasting with the real situation would clear it up - I mean what have the Government got to lose if Hobbs is that bad?




  • Macy wrote:
    people still won't read. it's so riddled with inaccuracies a simple press release comparing and contrasting with the real situation would clear it up - Hobbs is that bad

    this is selective editing. what i did was to quote your salient point!


  • Advertisement


  • This post has been deleted.




  • Illkillya wrote:
    I think that Hobbs could show that it is in fact a rip off. It is a taboo subject because the program is being aired on RTE and they would not be too happy to show that.

    I wouldn't agree there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it is a rip off. Most nations support broadcasting by means of a public subscription such as a TV licence. As I said, broadcasting is an important form of cultural expression that the entire community should pay for. It seems to be a fair contribution and therefore can not be called a "rip-off". Now, there's a satellite delivery platform ...




  • daveirl wrote:
    This post has been deleted.


    Thing is if you go away on a holiday and come back to ireland, do you get the feeling of being ripped off??


    Answer for most is yes




  • you go on holiday and then whenyou come back you feel you are being ripped off.

    True but would you like to earn the lower take home pay that the people in those countries earn??

    Prices are high because wages are high, wages are high because prices are high.




  • you go on holiday and then whenyou come back you feel you are being ripped off.

    True but would you like to earn the lower take home pay that the people in those countries earn??

    Prices are high because wages are high, wages are high because prices are high.

    Exactly. I have probably said this already on this thread, but Spain also have a ban on below cost selling. One big difference between Spain and Ireland is that their minimum wage is about 3 or 4 euros cheaper per hour.

    Prices over here may have risen in the last few years, but so have our wages.

    I know people are talking about the cost of houses etc, but how many people have heard their parents say it was easy for them to get on the property ladder when they were our age? I know I haven't heard that.

    And people back then almost never bought on their own - even still they were living in unfurnished houses for months on end before they could afford a stick of furniture.

    The fact remains that our prices may be high - but we are still well off. We can still afford many luxuries that our parents couldn't.




  • It may be true for Spain and eastern europe.

    But what about, Germany, France, England, USA, Italy.

    These are all places where wages are about the same if not higher then here.
    Yet things are soooo much cheaper over there than here.

    How do you explain that becasue the higher wages malarky wont cut it here.

    BY the way ive been to all the above destinations (but Italy) and its sicking how much basic things like clothes are so much cheaper there




  • I see the RTE/Eddie Hobbs PR machine had a disappointing day yesterday.

    First news story at 9 o'clock last night, 1,000 killed in Baghdad.

    Second new story, hundreds dead in Louisiana.

    Third up was the Government resuming business after the summer recess to discuss the Colombia Three.

    And fourth was about the same meeting failing to address the Eddie Hobbs issue, as RTE had anticipated they would. Imagine, failure to discuss Eddie Hobbs is now considered worthy news by the people who employ him.

    All very Wag the Dog/William Randolph Hearst-ish.




  • jank wrote:
    It may be true for Spain and eastern europe.

    But what about, Germany, France, England, USA, Italy.

    These are all places where wages are about the same if not higher then here.
    Yet things are soooo much cheaper over there than here.

    How do you explain that becasue the higher wages malarky wont cut it here.

    BY the way ive been to all the above destinations (but Italy) and its sicking how much basic things like clothes are so much cheaper there

    Germany and Frances economy is quite weak at the moment. The UK has a far bigger population base, so economies of scale enable them to be cheaper. London is very expensive, whereas other cities may be cheaper. Much like Ireland. I have been to Italy twice, and the prices (apart from most restaurants) did not seem much cheaper.

    Some Americans earn higher wages, but I would bet that their percentage of people living in poverty is much higher than ours.

    The higher wages "malarky" does cut it. We have more money to spend, so prices go up. It's simple economics.




  • there's a good article in the IT today re Hobbs by Mary Raftery. It focuses on Hobbs' bias and the lack of balance in the show. Anyone still defending him should read it. I'd post a link, but I don't subscribe to Ireland.com... it's a rip-off


  • Advertisement


  • Personally, and this is just opinion here:


    Eddie Hobbs is financial advice for the masses. The show will never appeal to people who like their financial discussion serious because it's not aimed at them. It's pointless to cry out for a more serious treatment of our economy. That will not be shown. Do you honestly think your average person would watch it?


    Now, there are issues with some of his "facts and figures". I don't find this suprising tbh, since he is more "sketching out a big picture with nice clear primary colours for the masses" than writing an article for the Economist. It doesn't make them any more accurate or true but they have to be taken in context to an extent.


    I would be slow to call him unintelligent or unaware of economics. I've a feeling he knows exactly what he is doing and is going for maximum impact here. Remember, he's talking to people with no background in economics. He is not lecturing them because they would just switch off. I think Pratchett's term "lies to children" is apt here. It's not that your average person couldn't understand more precise economics, it's a matter of them not wanting to. If people were inclined to take an interest in economics and such, then this show wouldn't be necessary now would it?


    Comparisons with the 80s are unfair I agree, but in some instances it is very valid. House prices in relation to average wage for that time is extremely valid and something that needs to be in the public mind. We have an extreme housing market atm which has turned mortgages from annoyances to milestones around people's necks. But then, I'm one of those "there is a housing bubble" types so I'm biased in this regard by my own opinion/knowledge (depending on the way you look at it).


    In all, this is, imho, a case of people taking tabloid tv too seriously. If you have a decent grasp of economics and markets, or even if you've made the effort to try, you don't need to watch this show. You should already be aware of some of the problems this country does have. It's not as bad as the Hobbs makes out, but it's not as good as the politicians would make out either.


Advertisement