| All Articles |
| Articles By Author |
| Articles By Magazine |
| Articles By Subject |
| Full Text Search |
| Aubane Historical Society |
| The Heresiarch Website |
| Athol Books Online Sales |
| Athol Books Home Page |
| Archive Of Articles From Church & State |
| Archive Of Editorials From Church & State |
| Archive Of Articles From Irish Political Review |
| Archive Of Editorials From Irish Political Review |
| Belfast Historical & Educational Society |
| Athol Books Secure Online Sales |
| Irish Writer Desmond Fennell |
| The Bevin Society |
| David Morrison's Website |
Subscribe Securely To
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| From: Irish Political Review: Editorials |
| Date: August, 0001 |
| By: Editorial |
RTE: what’s the point? |
| RTE: what’s the point? That’s the first question that arises in the wake of the controversy over hidden payments to RTE. Reports describe a barter account in which revenue from advertisers went in and payments to Ryan Tubridy went out. The payments were not recorded as salary to Tubridy but as general “consultancy feesâ€. As the chairperson of the RTE board Siún Nà Raghallaigh admitted, the structure was designed to deceive. The controversy has revealed a culture at variance with most people’s idea of Public Service Broadcasting. RTE pays its top talent. It then promotes those people so that they can earn even more from the institution. It facilitates them in obtaining sponsorship from commercial entities. It also appears that one agent represents numerous people as well as commercial entities that sponsor the various programmes. The system is set up to maximize the earnings of “the talentâ€. The questioning of the RTE Board and Executives by the Oireachtas Committees was sometimes unfair. For example, is the Financial Controller of RTE obliged to second-guess what his Chief Executive tells him is the reason for expenditure? He is not a policeman. But the fact that our democratic representatives feel they can take pot-shots at the institution in order to play to the gallery suggests that RTE is not very popular. The highest-paid entertainer is not exactly loved. There was a sense of glee that an arrogant institution had its come-uppance. This arrogance might be acceptable if RTE was self-financing. But more than 50% of its revenue comes from the State in the form of the License Fee and other subsidies. Therefore, it does not qualify as a semi-state company and accordingly should be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The justification for the subsidy is that RTE is a public service broadcaster. But what does that mean? One idea is that the broadcaster should be independent of the state; that it should hold the government to account. There is an idea that this is what the BBC does. But nothing could be further from the truth. The BBC is controlled by the British political party system. Conflicts or disputes that are aired by that institution reflect those of the political parties. If there is a consensus among the two main political parties about an issue, the BBC never expresses a dissenting view. That is not the case with RTE. It appears that it is genuinely independent. There were a number of controversies in the late 1960s and early '70s, when the State attempted to assert its authority: but since then it appears that RTE’s independence has been established. Indeed, it boasts about its independence. Following Gay Byrne’s death, his virtues were extolled. Apparently, he modernised Ireland and liberated it from the obscurantism of Church and State! It would be interesting to know if there are any other broadcasting organisations anywhere else in the world that make equivalent claims! It is difficult to know when this started. In the early 1980s, when there were heaves against Charlie Haughey’s Government, some of the pro-Haughey supporters were shocked at the innovative practice of journalists interviewing journalists. Now, no one would bat an eyelid. A contributor to this magazine often remarks that, when he went to Trinity College in the early 1980s, all the student radicals there subsequently turned up in prominent positions in RTE. In the case of one of those, Joe Duffy, he was promoted as a student radical on the Late Late Show long before he joined the organisation. Even though Joe was prominent in student politics it was always difficult to pin down exactly what his politics were. He wasn't affiliated to any of the various left-wing sects that were influential at the time. It is interesting that we now know more about his politics in his capacity as an RTE personality than was revealed in his freewheeling student days. He wrote a book about the child victims of the 1916 Rising. Was the 1916 Rising, the seminal event in the foundation of the State, an atrocity? In a debate about a documentary on “Coolacrease†on his radio show he said the execution of loyalists who fired on the IRA was murder because the lawful authority was not the first Dail but the British Government. Is it conceivable that an American media personality would be allowed claim that the American War of Independence was somehow not legitimate? Indeed, is it conceivable that any American broadcasting network would commission a documentary to make precisely the same point? An egregious example of the power that RTE exercises occurred on a Late Late Show (8.5.2009) hosted by Pat Kenny. Three guests were invited on the panel: Fintan O’Toole, Nell McCafferty and John Crown (a well-known oncologist with political ambitions). Our democratically-elected politicians were consigned to seats in the audience: where they were harangued by the unelected personalities with the active encouragement and participation of Kenny. This remark from British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, concerning the newspapers owned by Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook, seem apposite: “… power without responsibility: the prerogative of the Harlot throughout the agesâ€. It would be interesting to compare the BBC’s coverage of the British economy following its 1976 IMF bailout with RTE’s coverage of our bailout. Following the financial crisis, the general approach of RTE was to abuse the politicians. A contributor to this magazine complained to RTE about its coverage and was told that it was merely reflecting public anger. But the question arises whether they were reflecting public anger or stoking it! It is well known that RTE celebrities were angry, since they had lost a fortune from investments with the property developer Derek Quinlan. If the crisis in this country was at least in part caused by over-spending and mindless speculation, RTE was part of the problem rather than the solution. It is not surprising that the power that RTE arrogates to itself breeds arrogance. The Mission to Prey documentary-makers felt that they could persist with a provable lie. They refused to wait for a DNA test which would prove that the priest at the centre of the documentary was not the father of a child. A remarkable aspect of this controversy is that, when the solicitors representing the priest threatened legal action against the programme-makers, the latter didn’t even bother referring the matter to their own solicitors. Of course, the legal costs and compensation to the plaintiff were ultimately borne by the taxpayer. It must be clear that RTE cannot be trusted. It should never have been accorded the power that it accrued. Structures should be put in place to ensure that there is close democratic political oversight over its content. There is no suggestion that RTE should be an organ of government, but it should act in the interests of the State. Structures of oversight should be exercised by both Government and Opposition parties. The days of unelected 'celebrities' deciding on the political agenda must surely be at an end! |