Public vs. Private Broadcasting (Split from Val Falvey Thread)

brousuka · 12-12-2009 02:54AM #1

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not very good, I think that's totally down to the way it's produced it has elements of greatness in it. It's based on Irish life that's not supposed to be funny but is.

I think it has allot of potential but I just don't think RTE can carry it off.

RTE can't carry any comedy drama off because it all stems back to the Abbey Theatre genre that is still in the minds and direction of all those that produce and direct this sort of show. In other words - lack of realism- Never can match the like of brilliant creative talent and writing of their british counterparts. Take shows like "Minder" back in the 80's which was sold to 23 countries from a simple story albeit with brilliant acting not to mention "only fools and horses" and such like... all very funny but realistic. Oh sorry! forgot to mention this tripe show called Val Falvey is utterly cringeful and is an insult to the Irish viewer, O'Hanlon deserved a better script because he proved it with Fr. Ted.

Elmo · 12-12-2009 02:19PM

I don't like the peep show TBH. I think it is the camera work that annoys me.

What we need is more comedy programming with more writers involved working in teams. All of the comedy produced by RTÉ has some potentional but RTÉ need to be able to take risks (Val Falvey TD) and also need to be able to pull back when necessary (The Byrne Ultimatum).

The US and UK have a long history of sitcom. They produce how many a year? This year RTÉ has produced about 3 studio based comedies, 1 sitcom (Val Falvey) and 1 Sketch show (The Savage Eye). The idea that 5 comedies will hold up your entire comedy portfolio is just far to risky. RTÉ need at least one long running QuizCom/Satire, The Panel springs to mind but RTÉ have just messed too much with it, give The Panel more money and more space, give them a ****ing studio, respect your top rated shows. However unfortunately for The Panel time has run out and RTÉ due to their own stupidity will axe it.

And from that Satire/QuizCom writers should learn their trade and go on to produce other types of comedy.

Wyndman · 12-12-2009 06:37PM

Elmo wrote: »

And from that Satire/QuizCom writers should learn their trade and go on to produce other types of comedy.

Hear, hear! You're one of the few people on these boards who knows what they're talking about.

RTE will never learn though, they hate writers and writing as they see it as an unnessary cost as you can't see it on screen. Better to spend that money on making sure Lucy Kennedy doen't get poached by their imaginary competition.

The current management shower should be transfered to the radio department (RTE staff never get fired or demoted just moved around to departments they know nothing about) and people who have worked with British broadcasters brought over. (Don't worry, they'd actaully be cheaper.)

As for the Panel, I know for a fact that Ardal O'Hanlon had agreed to be the permanent host last year (he's not very funny but he'd make a better, more authoritaive chairman than MCWillaims,) but RTE were so in love with the idea of their talentless staffers guest hosting that they turned him down.

thebman · 12-12-2009 06:42PM

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I think we're all agreed that there is certainly potential for a comedy series based on a TD, it is more the execution that is sooo poor. They
should be bringing the whole stereotyped politician up do date. They should make it more contemporary with issues like kite flying, being forced to vote with the whip, use of use forms of media in politics, deals with independents, politicians writing for newspapers/ selling books, expenses, Europe, electoral campaigns.....

There is so much more scope for satire than the Killinaskully stereotype TD, who takes backhanders and attends every funeral in the locality. What does Val Falvey give us..... Val has forgotten his wedding anniversary and the wife is mad.... come on ffs... I think that script has been done in EVERY sitcom. Are they that devoid of original ideas.

I imagine they had some things like that in mind but it is a state broadcaster. Its just another reason why RTE should not have the actual channels in state ownership. Privatise it.

Privatise it and keep the infrastructure in public ownership and charge the channels to keep it up to date. What purpose to a state owned network have other than to push the states agenda?

JonathanAnon · 12-12-2009 07:49PM

thebman wrote: »

What purpose to a state owned network have other than to push the states agenda?

I'm not sure about that bman. Though I've heard somewhere that they had to make a lot of changes to the program before it was allowed to be aired.

I think that RTE are very harsh on politicians in general. They did Cowen no favours this year with a) the reporting of those stupid paintings of him b) The embarrassing impression of him on The Late Late Show and c) The interview with Tubridy on The Late Late Show. And they are very critical of TDs beyond the point of being objective. When you think of their reporting of the O'Donoghue expenses fiasco, they did him no favours either. And dont talk to me about Marian's interview with Joe Jacob.

thebman · 12-12-2009 08:16PM

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I'm not sure about that bman. Though I've heard somewhere that they had to make a lot of changes to the program before it was allowed to be aired.

I think that RTE are very harsh on politicians in general. They did Cowen no favours this year with a) the reporting of those stupid paintings of him b) The embarrassing impression of him on The Late Late Show and c) The interview with Tubridy on The Late Late Show. And they are very critical of TDs beyond the point of being objective. When you think of their reporting of the O'Donoghue expenses fiasco, they did him no favours either. And dont talk to me about Marian's interview with Joe Jacob.

They are cunning in their bias like giving questions out before interviews so our politicians can look competent when answer what appear like harse questions.

Its just ridiculous TBH. Sometimes they are harsh but most of the time they are playing to their masters. It was especially clear in the O'Donoghue expenses fiasco when Brian Dobsen kept going on about all the good work he did in his community and asking others does this help justify the lavish expenses.

The same Brian Dobsen that gave Bertie his exclusive lets help him out interview on the state broadcaster when he was getting embarrassed by all that negative publicity about his unusual expenditure.

Its times like that it is obvious. If it was a private tv station, they would be going for ratings and trying to get an exclusive career ending blow. our state broadcaster tries to help it all blow over in case we'd have to reform anything.

Elmo · 12-12-2009 08:22PM

Isn't Ardal's Dad a former Ceann Comhairle.

If it was a private tv station, they would be going for ratings and trying to get an exclusive career ending blow

Anyway RTÉ don't need to butter up the government don't they have Ursla Halligan in TV3 to do that for them.

One of those private broadcasters.

JonathanAnon · 12-12-2009 09:07PM

thebman wrote: »

The same Brian Dobsen that gave Bertie his exclusive lets help him out interview on the state broadcaster when he was getting embarrassed by all that negative publicity about his unusual expenditure.

I dont know .. If you are saying that private company would have done a better job, then did you see Ursula Halligans love-in with Bertie last week? She threw him puffballs all night. I had to stop watching after the first fifteen minutes (5 minutes on how he loves Drumcondra, 5 minutes on how he loved his father, 5 minutes on how he loved his mother).. It was awful, awful stuff from a private journalist.

Lemondrop kid · 12-12-2009 10:30PM

thebman wrote: »

I imagine they had some things like that in mind but it is a state broadcaster. Its just another reason why RTE should not have the actual channels in state ownership. Privatise it.

Privatise it and keep the infrastructure in public ownership and charge the channels to keep it up to date. What purpose to a state owned network have other than to push the states agenda?

Careful there Ted.:D
One of the saving graces of any western democracy is state TV. All you have to do is look at TV3 to see what kinda of tv world we'd live in if private stn took over. (Celebrity- dancing- on- ice- survival-x-factor-team fatty-sleezextravaganza-soap opera hell etc, to paraphrase the great Peter Kay)

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I dont know .. If you are saying that private company would have done a better job, then did you see Ursula Halligans love-in with Bertie last week? She threw him puffballs all night. I had to stop watching after the first fifteen minutes (5 minutes on how he loves Drumcondra, 5 minutes on how he loved his father, 5 minutes on how he loved his mother).. It was awful, awful stuff from a private journalist.

Yeah. She's usually ok but WTF was that?

Lemondrop kid · 12-12-2009 10:34PM

Elmo wrote: »

I don't like the peep show TBH. I think it is the camera work that annoys me.

Dude, wash your mouth out with soap opera:D
The Peep Show is one of the greatest comedies EVER!!!

I'm shocked to see a man of your obvious IQ post that, truly.

Camera work? Who cares. The script and delivery were outstanding.
Seriously, though, take a second look at it, really.

Elmo · 12-12-2009 10:36PM

We are kind of getting off topic. In relation to Private V Public ownership. RTÉ on occassion have been willing to expose, but that comes at a price. Beverly Cooper Flynn and the High Court. And other such proceedings against RTÉ. Ray Burkes Iron Fist in the late 1980s and 1990s. Section 31 (which many on here possibly agree with, yet that pushes the governments agenda). Private companies are there to make profit, they wish to be left alone. Look at Thames TV and Margaret Thatcher, and I can't imagine any private company wanting the long action taken by Miss. Flynn. Play it safe and earn money, and have no one bother you = Private TV. TV3 and their Shell to Sea Doc, lacked any investigation into either side of the argument, it just pushed TV3's and Shell's agendas while simply suggesting that the anti-Shell protestors were in the wrong. The programme should have outline the problems that shell would have with An Bord Planela. But investigations into either side takes time and money, easier to throw together Tabloid trash. But as I say this is a different topic for a different thread.

thebman · 13-12-2009 12:42AM

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I dont know .. If you are saying that private company would have done a better job, then did you see Ursula Halligans love-in with Bertie last week? She threw him puffballs all night. I had to stop watching after the first fifteen minutes (5 minutes on how he loves Drumcondra, 5 minutes on how he loved his father, 5 minutes on how he loved his mother).. It was awful, awful stuff from a private journalist.

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

Careful there Ted.:D
One of the saving graces of any western democracy is state TV. All you have to do is look at TV3 to see what kinda of tv world we'd live in if private stn took over. (Celebrity- dancing- on- ice- survival-x-factor-team fatty-sleezextravaganza-soap opera hell etc, to paraphrase the great Peter Kay)

TV3 isn't a valid comparison for a start. TV3 is an Irish version of UTV with little marketshare. The biggest argument for why TV3 can't afford to do more adventerous programming is RTE have a massive advantage with government funding.

We won't know if TV3 had another private station to contend with, what the outcome would be because we have a massive state owned station interfering in the market with basically a monopoly on many political issues as the government will often times only want to turn up on a state owned station where they can dictate the rules of debate.

If we are going to have a state owned broadcaster, it should be factual only and unbiased and leave the entertainment to private stations.

If the government or another political body is telling RTE what they can and can't show is the same as censorship.

Not all private stations are tabloid like and TV3 pretty much have the sh** TV market sewn up here. But Channel 4 makes good programming and has done consistently over the years IMO.

It would be different if RTE wanted to be seen to be free from political influence and it was seen as something they should do but people just seem to accept political interference in the station at this stage and so it should be privatised as there is no saving it as long as people accept the government interfering with its running.

I'm way off topic now so I'm leaving it at that.

Lemondrop kid · 13-12-2009 12:48AM

thebman wrote: »

TV3 isn't a valid comparison for a start. TV3 is an Irish version of UTV with little marketshare. The biggest argument for why TV3 can't afford to do more adventerous programming is RTE have a massive advantage with government funding.

We won't know if TV3 had another private station to contend with, what the outcome would be because we have a massive state owned station interfering in the market with basically a monopoly on many political issues as the government will often times only want to turn up on a state owned station where they can dictate the rules of debate.

If we are going to have a state owned broadcaster, it should be factual only and unbiased and leave the entertainment to private stations.

If the government or another political body is telling RTE what they can and can't show is the same as censorship.

Not all private stations are tabloid like and TV3 pretty much have the sh** TV market sewn up here. But Channel 4 makes good programming and has done consistently over the years IMO.

It would be different if RTE wanted to be seen to be free from political influence and it was seen as something they should do but people just seem to accept political interference in the station at this stage and so it should be privatised as there is no saving it as long as people accept the government interfering with its running.

I'm way off topic now so I'm leaving it at that.

If ifs and butts...:D
Yeah, i wont go off topic either, but can't see ireland being able to support a privately owned quality stn - assuming such things exist (ch4 open to debate, they started out brilliant, then had a lot of up n downs)

Elmo · 13-12-2009 01:23AM

thebman wrote: »

TV3 isn't a valid comparison for a start. TV3 is an Irish version of UTV with little marketshare. The biggest argument for why TV3 can't afford to do more adventerous programming is RTE have a massive advantage with government funding.

TV3 have a 15% audience share, over the last number of years they have collected nearly 60million euro on average each year since 2004.

We won't know if TV3 had another private station to contend with, what the outcome would be because we have a massive state owned station interfering in the market with basically a monopoly on many political issues as the government will often times only want to turn up on a state owned station where they can dictate the rules of debate.

FF aren't fans of RTÉ again I refer back to Mr. Ray Burke in the early 1990s. TV3 has plenty of money and earn plenty for their shareholders, which I have stated on boards on plenty of occasions. There is no reason why TV3 cannot provide Current Affair during prime time viewing, or any other type of programming for that matter. They choose to insure their 30% with Daytime and Late Night TV (Their Late Night being the most politically, but he used to do the same on RTÉ).

If we are going to have a state owned broadcaster, it should be factual only and unbiased and leave the entertainment to private stations.

If the government or another political body is telling RTE what they can and can't show is the same as censorship.

Public service broadcasting is their to Inform, Educate and Entertain. There is no reason why TV3 cannot provide other programme out side their Infotainment set of programmes.

Not all private stations are tabloid like and TV3 pretty much have the sh** TV market sewn up here. But Channel 4 makes good programming and has done consistently over the years IMO.

Channel 4 is whole owned by the British Government.

thebman · 13-12-2009 01:44AM

Elmo wrote: »

TV3 have a 15% audience share, over the last number of years they have collected nearly 60million euro on average each year since 2004.

Point being?

FF aren't fans of RTÉ again I refer back to Mr. Ray Burke in the early 1990s. TV3 has plenty of money and earn plenty for their shareholders, which I have stated on boards on plenty of occasions. There is no reason why TV3 cannot provide Current Affair during prime time viewing, or any other type of programming for that matter. They choose to insure their 30% with Daytime and Late Night TV (Their Late Night being the most politically, but he used to do the same on RTÉ).

TV3 went for that market as it was the only one going. In electricity we tried to encourage competition but for some reason RTE are allowed to continue to have an advantage in the market and we should see it as fine.

One case doesn't make them unbiased. I think they are consistently biased and go easy on politicians and rarely ask hard questions that the public want answered. When they do the politicians have scripted answers.

It is not good enough political coverage. TV3 can't compete with a prime time political show from RTE because the minister will show up on state owned TV as its safer. Its an unfair market and RTE have an unfair advantage. They also already had a massive head start on TV3 so TV3 have to find a way to get the viewers to switch from watching the state owned broadcaster.

Public service broadcasting is their to Inform, Educate and Entertain. There is no reason why TV3 cannot provide other programme out side their Infotainment set of programmes.

Yes there is, see above. If you ignore the problems yes the problems don't exist.

Channel 4 is whole owned by the British Government.

Well they sure as hell don't act like one so what are we doing so wrong that we have the crapfest that is RTE and they have Channel 4 and BBC?

We are obviously doing something very wrong. The not enough people to get good scripts argument doesn't hold up. 4 million people is plenty to get a few programs for 2 channels and there must be a mass of talent in Britain not getting air time if we are using this argument since they have such a massive population. Surely we could attract some of that talent?

It just doesn't make sense, there is an obviously a problem with the way RTE is run/managed/controlled.

Elmo · 13-12-2009 12:44PM

thebman wrote: »

Point being?

RTÉ One has a 23% share and RTÉ Two has a 8% share. That is the point. TV3 are edging ever closer to 20% the only way that they can do it is by making more Irish programming but sure it is easy to make profits on Imports with a 15% share of the audience. And TV3 do make money.

TV3 went for that market as it was the only one going. In electricity we tried to encourage competition but for some reason RTE are allowed to continue to have an advantage in the market and we should see it as fine.

One case doesn't make them unbiased. I think they are consistently biased and go easy on politicians and rarely ask hard questions that the public want answered. When they do the politicians have scripted answers.

The electrical market was the last market to be deregulated????? Look at the Telecoms market you think that Eircom still aren't the major player.

Politicans know that they will get an easy time from all Newsreaders. That is the same on the BBC. RTÉ happen to have more political programming in prime time then TV3, and TV3 can be just as soft so soft that they don't have all that much current affairs on the TV. Do you not think that TV3 has an adgenda? Much more so than RTÉ.

There are several other times when RTÉ have pushed on ministers and other political figures. And they have been brought to the High court on several occasions by different people.

It is not good enough political coverage. TV3 can't compete with a prime time political show from RTE because the minister will show up on state owned TV as its safer. Its an unfair market and RTE have an unfair advantage. They also already had a massive head start on TV3 so TV3 have to find a way to get the viewers to switch from watching the state owned broadcaster.

TV3 could tomorrow put out a prime time current affairs show against RTÉ's. The minister or whomever would turn up. RTÉ do not have an unfair advantage this is just complete **** coming from TV3. Firstly the licence fee doesn't just go towards RTÉ Television or RTÉ for that matter. and the licence fee doesn't stop TV3 producing quality Prime Time Television.

Yes there is, see above. If you ignore the problems yes the problems don't exist.

TV3 are happy to create problems. It suits their agenda. The Licence fee does not just go towards TV and it does not just go towards RTÉ. TV3 have a good turnover and are a very healthy company.

Well they sure as hell don't act like one so what are we doing so wrong that we have the crapfest that is RTE and they have Channel 4 and BBC?

Personally I think that RTÉ can be very critical as can TV3. Both services were pro-Lisbon even TV3 who with VB shouldn't have come across that way. But that suited many people in the country. Again I refer to TV3's Shell to Sea Doc and TV3's "love in with Bertie".

We are obviously doing something very wrong. The not enough people to get good scripts argument doesn't hold up. 4 million people is plenty to get a few programs for 2 channels and there must be a mass of talent in Britain not getting air time if we are using this argument since they have such a massive population. Surely we could attract some of that talent?

I agree with this in terms of Drama, Comedy and Entertainment. But not in terms of political coverage or Documentary making.

Lemondrop kid · 13-12-2009 01:32PM

Elmo wrote: »

Channel 4 is whole owned by the British Government.

And therein ends the state = bias/pandering argument;)

(I thought they were private at one stage, no?)

Elmo · 13-12-2009 01:39PM

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

(I thought they were private at one stage, no?)

There were plans to merge with Channel 5, but I don't know how ownership would have worked. I think the plan is now to allow BBC Worldwide (The BBC commercial arm) and Channel 4 to merge. This would mean that the new company would own all of the Channel 4 Radio and TV channels and 50% of the UKTV channels :eek: plus several publications, websites and foreign TV channels such as BBC America.

C4 was set up as a PSB for minorities and arts, while S4C was the welsh language version. Remit has changed abit since the days of Channel Snore.

Capt'n Midnight · 13-12-2009 11:50PM

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I think that RTE are very harsh on politicians in general.

Politicians have been getting it easy since the end of Scrap Saturday back in 1991.

Bull Island pulled almost all it's punches

Beverly wasn't bankrupted ,

Compare this to the savaging UK politicians have to take, not forgetting that they can't get away with the sort of stuff our ones get away with.

In fairness a lot of this has to do with our liable laws :mad::mad::mad::mad:

TG4 have put out a few light weight comedy shows, and we have a host of talent in this country so it can be done

And if by private you mean TV3 I can't see a home grown comedy show from there anytime soon. TBH I was suprised at SKY having Time Gentlemen Please , because as a general rule good comedy doesn't come smaller private channels.

Elmo · 14-12-2009 09:20AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Politicians have been getting it easy since the end of Scrap Saturday back in 1991. Bull Island pulled almost all it's punches Beverly wasn't bankrupted

I agree but the audience just wasn't willing to listen to Xit Poll/Xit File back in 2002.

And RTÉ should now look for their money returned to them from Bev, utterly too soft in that case, but then look at how the electorate vote for her back into the Dail.

In terms of satire the government and politicians in general have been saved embarrassment. Which brings us back to Val Falvey TD which misses its chance to be scathing about the political establishment. Even in Kinnaskully the writers were aware of the Plamarsary of the FF party and the seemingly gormlessness of the FG party.

leftism · 29-12-2009 06:33AM

thebman wrote: »

What purpose to a state owned network have other than to push the states agenda?

In the case of RTE i would agree 100% with this statement!

Sure didn't RTE say no, when the idea for Fr. Ted was pitched to them in the early 90's. As far as i know they rejected it on the grounds that a sitcom about 3 irish catholic priests was far too risky to be broadcast. Luckily Channel 4 saw the genius behind the show and produced what was eventually voted one of the greatest sitcoms of all time in the UK.

That example may be a reflection of the short sightedness of the RTE directors, or perhaps more a reflection the state agenda of that time which avoided criticism of the the Catholic church at all cost.

I had very high hopes for Val Falvey on the grounds that Irish real life politics is so comical in the first place. How wrong was i!?!?! The idea of doing a sitcom which satirises modern irish backwater politics has such great potential but in the hands of a state broadcaster, it never ever stood a chance of being funny... I would hazard a guess that most of the best material written for the show, the really edgy, gritty jabs at irish politics were cut out of by 'the powers that be'.

With the blatent incompetance of the irish government to deal with corrupt bankers, politicians and developers, the irish public is crying out for a show which pokes fun at the general hopelessness of our current situation. The only show i've seen this year to come close to pulling off a realistic depiction of modern irish society (no holds barred) is Hardy Bucks.

As far as i'm aware RTE recently rejected making this into a proper TV show after they won the Storyland internet competition. It seems the directors in RTE still have not learned their lessons from past mistakes, when it comes to irish comedy...

Bondvillain · 29-12-2009 08:42AM

leftism wrote: »

Sure didn't RTE say no, when the idea for Fr. Ted was pitched to them in the early 90's. As far as i know they rejected it on the grounds that a sitcom about 3 irish catholic priests was far too risky to be broadcast. Luckily Channel 4 saw the genius behind the show and produced what was eventually voted one of the greatest sitcoms of all time in the UK.

That example may be a reflection of the short sightedness of the RTE directors, or perhaps more a reflection the state agenda of that time which avoided criticism of the the Catholic church at all cost.

This is completely untrue.
Rte did not reject Father Ted on religious grounds, financial grounds or grounds of taste. They did not request changes to the script, mull it over, turn it down , take a rain check or get involved in the creative process in any fashion.

The reason they did not do any of these things is that Father Ted was never offered to them, it was created for, and pitched directly to, Channel 4.

By all means have a go at Rté ineptitude, just keep it factual.

Elmo · 29-12-2009 02:53PM

leftism wrote: »

I had very high hopes for Val Falvey on the grounds that Irish real life politics is so comical in the first place. How wrong was i!?!?! The idea of doing a sitcom which satirises modern irish backwater politics has such great potential but in the hands of a state broadcaster, it never ever stood a chance of being funny... I would hazard a guess that most of the best material written for the show, the really edgy, gritty jabs at irish politics were cut out of by 'the powers that be'.

With the blatent incompetance of the irish government to deal with corrupt bankers, politicians and developers, the irish public is crying out for a show which pokes fun at the general hopelessness of our current situation. The only show i've seen this year to come close to pulling off a realistic depiction of modern irish society (no holds barred) is Hardy Bucks.

I think this is a case of many, many people over looking X-it Poll before the 2002 general election, 6 weeks of proper satire unlike Bull Island which was less about the satire and more about the impersonations. And X-it File a number of months after X-it poll. Colin Murphy did probably one of the best jobs of satire on the "brilliant" FF/PD government only to have both parties increase their vote.

What is more annoying about this show is the fact that Ardal O'Hanlon knows about FF and being in a family surrounded by FF and TDs. He should know the ins and outs of politics and political families. His series on How to become the Taoiseach was insightful and funny.

I don't see the relationship between Hardy Bucks and satire TBH. I will have to take another look. Also the shortsightedness comes from the Commissioning Editor of Drama more than RTÉ.

leftism · 29-12-2009 03:52PM

Elmo wrote: »

I don't see the relationship between Hardy Bucks and satire TBH. I will have to take another look. Also the shortsightedness comes from the Commissioning Editor of Drama more than RTÉ.

I didn't mean to suggest that Hardy Bucks was a satire as such, just perhaps a very clever look at modern irish rural society (IMHO)...

As for Fr. Ted not being pitched to RTE, i stand corrected. In any case, i think we can all agree that Channel 4 did a far better job with the show than RTE could ever have done...

Public vs. Private Broadcasting (Split from Val Falvey Thread)

Comments