RTE and the Licence FEE

Freddie59 · 12-11-2011 06:59PM

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

If young and angry people feel like this, it is their prerogative. However, those of us of a more mature generation, with a lifetime of paying tax and of working to ensure that we have cultural public services of the very highest quality, have a legitimately different perspective. And when the young and furious are more mature, they too will welcome Ryan and Pat and Marian and Miriam and the host of others. I always find it amusing that those whose cultural life once extended no farther than the conveniences in ‘Break for the Border’ become in their middle years avid viewers of output like Reeling in the Years. And that is just the first step.

We must not be dictated to by loud, choleric outbursts by juvenile opinion, but we should respect the taste, discrimination and appreciation of the more mature and reflective audience. (And the figures for last night’s particularly fine edition of the Late Show will bear my argument out.)

To paraphrase Muriel Spark, “for those who like that kind of thing, that is the kind of thing they like’.

Hugo, I'm fully convinced you're a WUM. I'm 52 by the way.:rolleyes:

Freddie59 · 12-11-2011 07:01PM

Minstrel27 wrote: »

And BBC NI takes absolutely nothing from England, Scotland or Wales? The licence fee in Northern Ireland doesn't go exclusively to the BBC in NI.

Did you know that the Irish licence doesn't go exclusively to RTÉ?

Enlighten me then. Did YOU know that BBC Wales, which operates a similar amount of services to RTE, had, at it's peak, 800 employed. I think RTE at one stage had some 3,000.

Dudess · 12-11-2011 07:12PM

Jeez Hugo you're gas! And clearly employed by RTE - your appraisal of John Bowman's book like!
To think this is a troll thread and that it's really "dissenting" to criticise RTE - how deluded is that?!
The high earnings are a joke - as are most of the earners. Derek Mooney and Marian Finucane - **** me! :eek:
Some of RTE's output is good - but lots is made by independent production companies, not RTE itself.
I don't think it could survive without the dual revenue sources, but those salaries/fees need to be cut substantially. They are simply not justified.

Freddie59 · 12-11-2011 07:34PM

Dudess wrote: »

Jeez Hugo you're gas! And clearly employed by RTE - your appraisal of John Bowman's book like!
To think this is a troll thread and that it's really "dissenting" to criticise RTE - how deluded is that?!
The high earnings are a joke - as are most of the earners. Derek Mooney and Marian Finucane - **** me! :eek:
Some of RTE's output is good - but lots is made by independent production companies, not RTE itself.
I don't think it could survive without the dual revenue sources, but those salaries/fees need to be cut substantially. They are simply not justified.

Indeed. Also, RTEs main expenditure is the importing of American TV Series like grey's anatomy, in order to 'compete' with Sky. In 2008, RTE2 spend a total of €88,673,000 in 2008, with a spend of €53,820,000 on SPORT :eek: and €14,935,000 on YOUNG PEOPLE'S programming. WTF???

There is something seriously amiss at that station. They would have to learn to survive D. They are not operating under real world constraints as it is.

eco2live · 12-11-2011 07:58PM

I think it should not be allowed to advertise at all on the TV or radio channels and should make do with licence fees. I might actually watch it then and RTE could just pay what they could afford. And before people start saying that we are a smaller population and don't have the resources of the BBC well then look up what they get in RTE. 183 million!!

I will take my chances on the world media swooping in and stealing our talent. Kenny and George Lee will be on prime time US tv before we know it. Marian Finucane will be presenting the Oscars and your new leading man in the movies will be Jooooooooooooooooe Duffy. Give me a break

Freddie59 · 12-11-2011 08:04PM

eco2live wrote: »

I think it should not be allowed to advertise at all on the TV or radio channels and should make do with licence fees. I might actually watch it then and RTE could just pay what they could afford. And before people start saying that we are a smaller population and don't have the resources of the BBC well then look up what they get in RTE. 183 million!!

I will take my chances on the world media swooping in and stealing our talent. Kenny and George Lee will be on prime time US tv before we know it. Marian Finucane will be presenting the Oscars and your new leading man in the movies will be Jooooooooooooooooe Duffy. Give me a break

Agreed. People thought that Richard Keyes and Andy Grey were bigger than Sky Sports. Life went on. RTE wouldn't be any different.

HugoBradyBrown · 12-11-2011 08:08PM

120_Minutes wrote: »

So basically, because what I'm saying isn't what you want to hear, you're calling me a liar.

You may be assured that I neither called nor implied that you were a liar, nor would I make such an accusation against anyone without full evidence and, indeed, never on a public forum for pragmatic reasons of forestalling the instigation of actions for defamation.

My point is that it is not possible to ground an argument on a personal assessment of fragmentary facts, particularly when these are 'anonymized' and where they derive from undisclosed third-party sources. If an undergraduate were to present me with a mere weekly essay based on such indirect and secondhand foundations, I would send her or him back to the library to gather some reliable data, before awarding a 40% mark.

I am also aware - as, indeed, a simple consideration of the fact that RTE is a public sector organisation, held to the very highest ethical standards, would suggest to anyone else - that recruitment and promotion in RTE is conducted with the utmost probity, involving external assessment of candidates, and based on objective, quantifiable criteria where these are appropriate.

With RTE, the best get in and the very best of the best rise to the top. The fact that private sector and illegal sector broadcasters spend their waking hours trying to get onto the air on national radio and TV is evidence enough that it is a meritocracy at the pinnacle of the Irish broadcasting pyramid. The fact that many of them fail in this ambition is evidence that stringent quality and ethical standards are applied.

eco2live · 12-11-2011 08:11PM

Adds on commercial channels are ruining TV. I cant stick it. Some of the stations on sky are nothing but adds and you cannot switch over because they are all on at the same time. That's why I think they should keep the licence fee.

Now if they are going to continue to take advertising then the licence fee should be scraped and let them take their chances like everyone else and they can pay what they want to their ahem stars.

Most of the adds are for state company's like the VHI, Board Gais and the ESB. More money from the Joe and Joanne Soap to pay for that beyond the licence fee,

:mad::mad::mad:

HugoBradyBrown · 12-11-2011 08:13PM

goose2005 wrote: »

It's not progressive, it's regressive because people pay the same fee no matter what their income (unless they are very poor, in which case the Dept of Social Protection pays for Tubridy's caviar).

It is progressive.

Because it is a tiny amount, annualised, its progressive characteristic is confined to a two-step progression, with an income bar below which it is not levied. It is not paid by large swathes of the population (in addition to those non-civically-minded illegal non-payers) on grounds of insufficient income. It is also discounted for people over a certain age.

When dealing with a matter of just 165 euro per household (and not per individual, let it be noted), this is progressive taxation levied at an almost imperceptible rate. Think of all that flows from such incidental transfer.

For those who require it, payment options that remove all concern have been devised by An Post.

Do pay your tax! For the greater good.

the groutch · 12-11-2011 08:15PM

15% voted NO on the poll, about the same as Fianna Fail's support

Freddie59 · 12-11-2011 08:18PM

eco2live wrote: »

Adds on commercial channels are ruining TV. I cant stick it. Some of the stations on sky are nothing but adds and you cannot switch over because they are all on at the same time. That's why I think they should keep the licence fee.

Now if they are going to continue to take advertising then the licence fee should be scraped and let them take their chances like everyone else and they can pay what they want to their ahem stars.

Most of the adds are for state company's like the VHI, Board Gais and the ESB. More money from the Joe and Joanne Soap to pay for that beyond the licence fee,

:mad::mad::mad:

Got it in one my friend. The cosy merry-go-round goes on and on and on. And I fully agree with you about the ads. Imagine telling people years ago you would be paying to watch TV - and there would be ads!!! Oh wait.....isn't that RTE...........:rolleyes:

HugoBradyBrown · 12-11-2011 08:19PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Enlighten me then. Did YOU know that BBC Wales, which operates a similar amount of services to RTE, had, at it's peak, 800 employed. I think RTE at one stage had some 3,000.

You cannot compare a regional service with a national one.

BBC Wales draws on network resources for programme making, and used full direct network feed for its programming. It is not required to make the full range of programmes required here. Nor does it maintain the musical establishment that is in Montrose and in the Hall (and in the provinces, with the Vanbrugh, for example).

There are also fixed costs and administrative and support levels of staff that are an essential foundation, which in the BBC are borne by London, but which have to be provided here. Wales is a free rider in some senses on its larger network.

A stark comparison of staffing levels is misleading in the extreme.

A country with a much larger surface area, with input points to the network requires a considerably larger number of staff. Similarly, as a sovereign state, Ireland requires external input units, befitting the role of the broadcaster as the voice of Ireland talking to itself. BBC Wales has no obligation to maintain bureaux in Brussels and Washington, for example.

It all adds up, but quality is the deciding factor.

Freddie59 · 12-11-2011 08:21PM

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

You cannot compare a regional service with a national one.

BBC Wales draws on network resources for programme making, and used full direct network feed for its programming. It is not required to make the full range of programmes required here. Nor does it maintain the musical establishment that is in Montrose and in the Hall (and in the provinces, with the Vanbrugh, for example).

There are also fixed costs and administrative and support levels of staff that are an essential foundation, which in the BBC are borne by London, but which have to be provided here. Wales is a free rider in some senses on its larger network.

A stark comparison of staffing levels is misleading in the extreme.

A country with a much larger surface area, with input points to the network requires a considerably larger number of staff. Similarly, as a sovereign state, Ireland requires external input units, befitting the role of the broadcaster as the voice of Ireland talking to itself. BBC Wales has no obligation to maintain bureaux in Brussels and Washington, for example.

It all adds up, but quality is the deciding factor.

When it should be economics. But, like many others, RTE is continuing in its ongoing delusions of itself. Supported by people like you.:rolleyes: And why should we maintain bureaux in Washington etc? Can someone not just do a voiceover from here? It's ludicrous.

HugoBradyBrown · 12-11-2011 08:24PM

rubadub wrote: »

I am not sure what to vote for. I would like no licence fee at all, if I am legally obliged to pay the fee then I certainly want adverts otherwise the fee would have to be higher.

If they are so envious you would think these broadcasters would poach more of them. I doubt many of them would be paid the same if RTE did not exist.

I have used the analogy before of having a cooker licence, I expect 99% of homes have a cooker too. The government could issue households with recipes and/or food for the bargain €160 per year. If you do not like the recipes/food then STFU, just bin it, let it go to waste, like unwatched TV, someone out there might enjoy the food, nobody is forcing you to eat it, just forcing you to pay for it. We could get some unknown chef and in 10 years time he might be on a million euro, but sure he's worth it.

People are watching these programs, maybe they do not have much choice of channels. If there were allowed spend that €160 on other subscription channels or had the money to buy dvds they might not be watching fair city.

But it is presumed they do like it. I expect if they forced people to have the cooker licence people might eat food they do not particularly like just to not let it go to waste, and since they already paid for it and cannot afford an alternative. This must be kept in mind when analysing viewing figures.

Since it has been around for most peoples lives they just accept it, there are no TV licences in many countries.

I still pay my licence as not doing so is no different from stealing from my friends & family, non fee payers are theiving worthless scumbags. Its odd that some of these robbing cunts even have the nerve to brag about it.

What has happened is that the Oireachtas, in its wisdom, has decided that ti is a desirable public good to allow Ireland's distinctive culture to be supported and reflected back to the population by a public service model of broadcaster. Rather than depend on the lowest common denominator, which is what the market would provide, RTE endeavours to provide the highest possible quality broadcasting, broadcasting of an ennobling character, for the people, thereby elevating our taste and increasing our level of cultural attainment.

If the Oireachtas wanted a monolingual, popcorn swallowing, mud-wrestling-watching, beer-swilling channel of vapid mediocrity, I am sure that it would have, in its wisdom, created the necessary legislative framework.

As it is now, we work with what we have; the best radio and television that money can buy at the price we are prepared to pay.

eco2live · 12-11-2011 08:24PM

In fairness look at the performance from our top earner. The cream that has risen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWdSLWQ-KrQ

Is that you Kenny?? :rolleyes:

kumate_champ07 · 12-11-2011 08:25PM

I believe the late late show host should be voted in by the paying audience, perhaps every 2 years. as it stands people will watch it anyway because its the late late, even tho the host might not be so great.

HugoBradyBrown · 12-11-2011 08:25PM

mikom wrote: »

Licence money being wasted on shills.
Tesco-valuepack Stephen Fry shills at that.
RTE should be ashamed of themselves.

I cannot deal with this post, as it is undeserving of comment, unfortunately, in terms of tone and content (or lack thereof).

HugoBradyBrown · 12-11-2011 08:31PM

psychward wrote: »

Being very poor isn't taken as an excuse for not having a TV license. As far as I know , only pensioners and those on disability get it waivered. The former do not tend to be poor. The latter could be richer than the long term unemployed depending on who you talk to.

Delusional shill. Shove your unfair tax where the sun don't shine. Whats this blatant lie about ''sufficient income'' doing on the thread ?
You have to pay the TV license even if you have a TV but zero income. Even bankrupts have to pay it.
I watch Satellite TV from companies I pay for directly and watch zero RTE which doesnt bother to put itself on satellite due to jealously guarding its Eastenders viewer patch, and why would I watch RTE anyway when they were running soviet politburo style ''patriotic'' documentaries about Irish peasants toiling in the potato fields while the IMF were entering the country ignored so take your cultural fascist tax and shove it up your hole.

Measures have been taken to alleviate any financial discomfort experienced by people who find a couple of euros per week an excessive exaction. (THe equivalent of a shilling a week in the 1960's, I might point out.)

I dispute the use of the term 'shill'. It is not dishonourable to mount a defense in the face of a torrent of ill-informed and misguided criticism.

The Oireachtas has charged RTE with the public service duties of reflecting the nation back to itself, across space and time. Because some citizens have less elevated tastes does not obviate the obligation on RTE to strive through clever scheduling to dislodge them from their comfortable slough, and to give them the potential to aspire to something higher.

Freddie59 · 12-11-2011 08:32PM

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Rather than depend on the lowest common denominator, which is what the market would provide, RTE endeavours to provide the highest possible quality broadcasting, broadcasting of an ennobling character, for the people, thereby elevating our taste and increasing our level of cultural attainment.

Complete and utter rubbish. Why then are millions being spent on imports such as Grey's Anatomy, Eastenders, Neighbours, Home and Away, The Big Bang Theory, etc???

HugoBradyBrown · 12-11-2011 08:34PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Hugo, I'm fully convinced you're a WUM. I'm 52 by the way.:rolleyes:

I had cause some time ago to inform myself of what the acronym WUM meant. I assure readers that I am not such. However, it is indicative of the general tenor of debate that anything that diverges from the rather extreme anti-RTE line here is denounced as shilling, as WUM or as trolling.

Sad, to say the least, and hardly the sign of an alert and open mind.

HugoBradyBrown · 12-11-2011 08:35PM

Dudess wrote: »

Jeez Hugo you're gas! And clearly employed by RTE - your appraisal of John Bowman's book like!
To think this is a troll thread and that it's really "dissenting" to criticise RTE - how deluded is that?!
The high earnings are a joke - as are most of the earners. Derek Mooney and Marian Finucane - **** me! :eek:
Some of RTE's output is good - but lots is made by independent production companies, not RTE itself.
I don't think it could survive without the dual revenue sources, but those salaries/fees need to be cut substantially. They are simply not justified.

I find it hard to get a purchase on this post, but suffice it to say that if it agrees with my line, I am content with it and if it disagrees, I am sure I could answer it easily if I grasped the point.

HugoBradyBrown · 12-11-2011 08:36PM

the groutch wrote: »

15% voted NO on the poll, about the same as Fianna Fail's support

Yes, but the electoral register is open to all. This thread seems to be populated by a vocal minority opposed to RTE and all its works!

HugoBradyBrown · 12-11-2011 08:40PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

When it should be economics. But, like many others, RTE is continuing in its ongoing delusions of itself. Supported by people like you.:rolleyes: And why should we maintain bureaux in Washington etc? Can someone not just do a voiceover from here? It's ludicrous.

I do not think it should ever be economics in the cultural domain, in fact.

And, for Washington, think Carol, think Mark, think Charlie; this is what you cannot get from agency reports, the distinctive Irish interpretation, the careful selection of the issues that will resonate with our viewers.

RTE is not deluded in any sense, and, indeed, with consultant and facilitator support, conducts extensive and ongoing self-examinations. Nobody is more self-critical as an organisation than RTE, let me assure you.

mikom · 12-11-2011 08:43PM

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

I cannot deal with this post, as it is undeserving of comment, unfortunately, in terms of tone and content (or lack thereof).

RTE reign you in did they?

eco2live · 12-11-2011 08:45PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Complete and utter rubbish. Why then are millions being spent on imports such as Grey's Anatomy, Eastenders, Neighbours, Home and Away, The Big Bang Theory, etc???

Exactly and why? for add revenue. We can already watch all that ****e if we want to on the other channels for free. Stick to the home grown productions and they might get good at it at some stage.

More Charley Bird in the antarctic please or celeb sink the boat or that upwardly mobile the sitcom. :rolleyes:

Zombrex · 12-11-2011 08:49PM

The thought of only having rubbish stations like TV3 in Ireland sends a shiver down my spine, I'll happily pay a license fee to prevent that happening.

RTE might not be the BBC (you pay the same level of license fee in the UK btw it is just a much bigger population results in much more money for the BBC), but by god things could be a lot lot worse if all TV stations in the country were private.

BrokenArrows · 12-11-2011 08:52PM

The licence should still exist but should not be mandatory and the rte channels should be an opt-in feature of your existing tv package.

hollypink · 12-11-2011 08:52PM

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

the careful selection of the issues that will resonate with our viewers.

"our viewers"? So you do work in RTE?

HugoBradyBrown · 12-11-2011 08:55PM

mikom wrote: »

RTE reign you in did they?

"Rein", as it happens.

HugoBradyBrown · 12-11-2011 08:56PM

eco2live wrote: »

Exactly and why? for add revenue. We can already watch all that ****e if we want to on the other channels for free. Stick to the home grown productions and they might get good at it at some stage.

More Charley Bird in the antarctic please or celeb sink the boat or that upwardly mobile the sitcom. :rolleyes:

Exactly! Some sense is appearing. And these shows both from Light Entertainment and from Features are very good revenue gatherers from ad sales.

RTE and the Licence FEE

Comments