super_furry wrote: » Still not convinced this whole thing isn't a spoof.
Billy86 wrote: » Pretty much, if NT or the Indo want to fly their cleaning staff in by helicopter on a daily basis that's their own prerogative; it's not like they'd be looking for the taxpayer to foot the bill for their own private taxis.
leggo wrote: » Newstalk and the Indo are private entities, though, not paid for by tax payers and live and die based on market demands (which are much harsher and typically force companies to be more stringent than the likes of RTE), so we've actually no right to demand this level of accountability from them, whereas we do of RTE.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » More stringent? Yeah, sure - remind me what happened when Anglo was ready to go off and die based on market demands? Who was it that got stuck with the bill? And who was it that got massive write-downs on debt when somebody with a close relationship to Newstalk and the Indo was taking them over?
keith_sixteen wrote: » If it's a spoof, why are RTE giving it so much credibility?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » An interesting alternative perspective - follow the thread;https://twitter.com/c_macge/status/909484614699319297
Billy86 wrote: » The Indo and Newstalk got write downs on debt?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » THis should help cure your confusion.http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/26/a-e140-million-write-off-from-bank-of-ireland-and-aib/https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/siteserv-acquired-by-denis-o-brien-1.483423
steddyeddy wrote: » I knew a camera woman who works there who told me that they hire certain cameras and equipment for big events like Eurovision. She said they refuse to buy them in and save money in the long run. Also like a lot of the Irish public service, nepotisim is rife. Whose vagina you came out of supercedes talent.
Cienciano wrote: » Ah here, Lottie Ryan is a damn good interviewer.
VinLieger wrote: » Has absolutely nothing to do with RTE's mismanagement and the twitter account. Again i find it ironic when people accuse the twitter account of having an agenda based solely on the fact their own agenda isn't being talked about.
Billy86 wrote: » It has, thanks - they didn't. I can't stand either entity nor The Nameless Man but your posts seem to have a strange agenda to them.
leggo wrote: » What has any of this got to do with RTE? Sorry mate, but you sound like someone on social media ranting about how nurses don't earn as much as footballers. You're fundamentally missing the point of the entire discussion.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I didn't bring up the question of Newstalk / INM / Siteserv, others did. I'm simply pointing out that the 'private sector minds its own business' myth is just that.
Billy86 wrote: » No, it was you who brought them in post #115. The only mention of either before was a passing comment about George Hook getting bad publicity recently.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I posted a link to a Twitter thread. The Twitter thread brought them up
optogirl wrote: » Was following when there were circa 9000 followers - then saw the Journal.ie article with RTE statement and went back - circa 17000 followers...
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Eh no, I didn't. I posted a link to a Twitter thread. The Twitter thread brought them up, and others weighed in on the matter, so I added some facts for context.
VinLieger wrote: » LOL, some amazing mental gymnastics in operation here
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You can LOL all you like, that doesn't change the facts of what happened.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I posted a link to the Twitter thread, which raised a number of issues, including a Newstalk perspective. Others commented on the Newstalk angle, and I added some facts for context. Now what's the problem?
Billy86 wrote: » The problem is you bringing something up in this discussion then turning around and saying you never brought it up. Again, nobody here commented on the Newstalk angle - you brought it up before anyone had mentioned Newstalk or the Indo beyond George Hook getting bad publicity lately. Nobody is saying you can't bring it up, but just be honest about it rather than pretending it was being discussed when a quick search through the posts before your linking to it shows that to be completely false.
Patww79 wrote: » This post has been deleted.