TV licencepayers' money and Kevin Bakhurst

[trajan]

In fairness to him, those within journalism would very much consider editor a journalism role. just as they would include photo journalist, newscaster, reported, investigative journalist, copy writer. etc..

I see no basis whatever for this assertion - unless this consideration were being applied simply to minor matters like membership of NUJ.

When last did a photo-journalist get made an editor of anything other than something like a heavily illustrated magazine, e.g. Paris Match ? Are we to expect High Court challenges by copy writers passed over for the position of Editor of the Irish Times despite their 20+ years of sterling service writing puffy house for sale ads ? Newscasters of recent years have been allowed to interview some of the subjects of news stories. But their inexperience - and moreover their lack of natural aptitude - for this task is usually quite evident. It gets them out of the studio for a while - and it gives overworked reporters a rest reading the news - but it's not something that produces worthy reporting or incisive questioning on the part of a newscaster, whose job is principally presenting the news in a suitable way.

I take your point of a need to make a fresh start with an outsider. But such is the scope in the present appointment for a lot of people in RTE to turn this restructuring into an England v Ireland scenario in the minds of other RTE staff that it is an almost impossibly hard job for the new DG. Things might be easier were the new DG be given freedom to select some respected outsiders (Irish as well as EU) to include in his various divisional advisory committees.

 

[Leo]

I see no basis whatever for this assertion - unless this consideration were being applied simply to minor matters like membership of NUJ.

When last did a photo-journalist get made an editor of anything other than something like a heavily illustrated magazine, e.g. Paris Match ?

No, that wasn't my point, might not have been clear but editor is just one career within journalism. It's a very different role to many others within the broader spectrum. There is no pre-requisite to spend any time as an investigative journalist seeking out and creating content. Some editors do start out in such roles, but many start in junior editing or copy writing roles, they are very different skill sets.

Newscasters of recent years have been allowed to interview some of the subjects of news stories. But their inexperience - and moreover their lack of natural aptitude - for this task is usually quite evident.

Natural aptitude....can we agree that the skills required to conduct an effective interview are very different to the skills required to edit the writing of others? Can we also agree that someone with a natural aptitude for conversation and face to face dialog does not necessarily posses similar levels of aptitude for reading and editing copy? A good investigative journalist or a good interviewer would likely hate to become an editor stuck in a the background while someone else does the work they'd rather do.

But such is the scope in the present appointment for a lot of people in RTE to turn this restructuring into an England v Ireland scenario in the minds of other RTE staff that it is an almost impossibly hard job for the new DG.

I'd hope anyone in there who is so immature or racist as to try turn this into an England Vs Ireland thing would be encouraged to find employment elsewhere.

 

[trajan]

I'd hope anyone in there who is so immature or racist as to try turn this into an England Vs Ireland thing would be encouraged to find employment elsewhere.

This isn't really personal, racist or immature by people stirring it up. It's just political in the workplace context, that's all.

A DG pushing through new management systems, new salaries and new criteria for promotion plus new pension and tax status regulations for RTE staff will have anything and everything thrown at him by those opposing the new changes. Likewise with a DG's proposals on programming. Resistors will use any tool at hand. There's been lots of stickie republicans in the RTE staff since the 1970s and lots of people accustomed to the sound of their own voice. If the DG had some personal mannerism that was a bit funny or a limp or even a rosary beads across his rearview mirror, there would be allusions to it over and over again in canteen chatter so as to psychologically undermine him in the minds of other staff.

Social politics is vicious. And workplace politics is worse still. If the RTE Board really want the new DG to succeed then he must have adequate support at the highest level of management beside him and below him. This has to be organized by the Board for the DG - not merely hoped for.

Natural aptitude....can we agree that the skills required to conduct an effective interview are very different to the skills required to edit the writing of others? Can we also agree that someone with a natural aptitude for conversation and face to face dialog does not necessarily posses similar levels of aptitude for reading and editing copy? A good investigative journalist or a good interviewer would likely hate to become an editor stuck in a the background while someone else does the work they'd rather do.

If you mean editing w.r.t. its literal aspects, i.e. restrained expression, facts supported by testimony on the record, concise expression, etc, then yes. But my contention is that editorship at a senior level is so much more than that. Christ, the senior editor decides whether a story is a story, if so how it's going to be treated and nuanced and it falls on an editor to defend it before the management or legal department. A never-did-nothing-but-edit kind of editor is not likely to do any Swedish style driving on behalf of his staff journalists - he'll just take a dive on the story. Result, loss of faith by his better staff and their departure elsewhere together with a rise in the stock of the cynical staff - all leading to a toxic workplace.

Many good reporters do their bit of big stories then gradually move on to editing younger hungrier ones. That's the natural sequence within media that I observer, generally speaking. Woodward didn't stay too long as a reporter. Geraldine Kennedy likewise - eventually - broke the glass ceiling and got the editor's job. It's natural for people whose motivation is to bring out the real stories rather than just find stories and offer them for inclusion or rejection.

 

[Purple]

The media is full of opinion writers who call themselves journalists rather than essayists. Someone giving their opinion on a story without introducing new information is not a journalist. I'd contend that an editor is closer to being a proper journalist than most of the people writing articles for the main newspapers.

 

[Leo]

This isn't really personal, racist or immature by people stirring it up. It's just political in the workplace context, that's all.

What else would you call casting aspersions on someone's character based solely on the country they are from?

If you mean editing w.r.t. its literal aspects, i.e. restrained expression, facts supported by testimony on the record, concise expression, etc, then yes. But my contention is that editorship at a senior level is so much more than that. Christ, the senior editor decides whether a story is a story, if so how it's going to be treated and nuanced and it falls on an editor to defend it before the management or legal department.

I mean editing as in how a journalist would describe the role. In your descriptions of the roles, you are talking about very different skills. Finding sources, getting them to open up, digging out the facts from the noise and putting that together into a compelling story, the skills you hone doing that are of little use to an editor.

Many good reporters do their bit of big stories then gradually move on to editing younger hungrier ones. That's the natural sequence within media that I observer, generally speaking.

Yes, as in most industries people do change roles, and editorships being more senior roles attracting higher pay, they do tend to attract applicants from across the journalism sector. In many industries it's not unusual for someone who's perhaps not a high performer in their role seeking to move into something quite different that perhaps better suits their skills.

 

[trajan]

The media is full of opinion writers who call themselves journalists rather than essayists. Someone giving their opinion on a story without introducing new information is not a journalist. I'd contend that an editor is closer to being a proper journalist than most of the people writing articles for the main newspapers.

Well, you get newspapers of record but they don't sell too well - especially among the socially conscious. Some of them carry things like "statements made in congress" although they never actually were because the congressman/senator was at a funeral or something elsewhere - the statements were just entered onto the official record by an aide.

But most people want news plus analysis plus commentary in their newspaper/TV/radio. I think it's axiomatic that crackpot opinion will not keep a scribe in a job for long. He/she has to be clearer than most on the real issues and call a spade a spade. Sure a lot of them veer off into their own experience for stimulus too often (incidentally whose job is it to stop that sort of thing ? It's the editor's isn't it ?) but that goes with the nature of the beast: no ego, no expression.

New information is not necessarily new facts: it can be implications of those facts that the superficial brouhaha is trying to conceal from Joe Sixpack.

 

[Purple]

Well, you get newspapers of record but they don't sell too well - especially among the socially conscious. Some of them carry things like "statements made in congress" although they never actually were because the congressman/senator was at a funeral or something elsewhere - the statements were just entered onto the official record by an aide.

But most people want news plus analysis plus commentary in their newspaper/TV/radio.

Agreed, but commentary is not journalism.
Paul Kimmage is a sports journalist. Gordon D'Arcy isn't, he's an opinion writer, as essayist.
Sam Smyth is a journalist. Una Mullally isn't, she's an opinion writer, as essayist.

I think it's axiomatic that crackpot opinion will not keep a scribe in a job for long.

I read the Irish Times regularly and offer their opinion writers and "journalists" as a rebuttal of your point.

He/she has to be clearer than most on the real issues and call a spade a spade.

Markedly absent in RTE and most Irish Newspapers.

Sure a lot of them veer off into their own experience for stimulus too often (incidentally whose job is it to stop that sort of thing ? It's the editor's isn't it ?) but that goes with the nature of the beast: no ego, no expression.

Exactly, which removes the vast majority of Irish "Journalists" from the category. If Bakhurst isn't aa proper journalist because he spent most of his career as an editor then neither are opinion writers who think they are journalists.

New information is not necessarily new facts: it can be implications of those facts that the superficial brouhaha is trying to conceal from Joe Sixpack.

What we get is an opinion writers spin on the facts, twisted to suit their own ideology. It's click-bait, not journalism. The Irish Times and RTE are regurgitators of populist hand-wringing emotive clap-trap. Anyone who can break the hubristic myopic culture in RTE is welcomed by me.

 

[trajan]

I think you've gone too far in your condemnation of commentarians and news analysts.

Of course there's no way you could call the sort of stuff that old Kevin Marron did in the TV section of the Sunday World as "journalism". You know the sort of thing - a well-fed Leaving Cert student leaning towards the camera with a few buttons too many open and Marron telling us that she didn't just score high marks in her leaving but she was a high scoring girl in many ways . . . Marron was also editor of that red-top rag, of course.

I find the analysis and commentary in the Irish Times quite good - especially on trials and inquiries.
Also on other topics in national news and sport.
So I beg to differ with you there, old stock.

 

[Purple]

I find the analysis and commentary in the Irish Times quite good - especially on trials and inquiries.

Not bad on legal matters, if a bit lacking in detail and balance, but a the headline writers could do a better job.

Also on other topics in national news and sport.
So I beg to differ with you there, old stock.

On national news and editorialising the topics of the day I find the IT particularly bad, especially on political and economic issues where their strong populist-left wing smoked salmon socialism comes to the fore. They are quite sensationalist and tabloid in their shrillness while being able to maintain an air smug judgmentalism at the same time. That's quite an achievement.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Should we have a national broadcaster?

If not, then there is no need for RTE.

If so, then what do we want given available funding? Who should decide content?

I am, of course, cognisant of the fact that when the public are given a say the result could be Boaty McBoatface.

 

[Purple]

Should we have a national broadcaster?

If not, then there is no need for RTE.

If so, then what do we want given available funding? Who should decide content?

I am, of course, cognisant of the fact that when the public are given a say the result could be Boaty McBoatface.

I'm of the view that the only thing worse that a state owned monopoly is a privately owned monopoly so we do need a national broadcaster but I'd like it to less politically biased, less populist and produce better content. I also think that private TV and Radio stations can and do produce good quality content and State funding should be used to fund that as well.

We outsource plenty of State services to charities in exactly the same way as we used to do with the Catholic Church so why not public interest media and news content. As with the charities and the RC Church before them the issue is oversight and not blindly believing their utterances.

 

[Sophrosyne]

What exactly is State broadcasting?

 

[trajan]

What exactly is State broadcasting?

It is the government setting up a radio/TV station for the purposes of:

* The preservation and promotion of national values, culture and arts

* The clarification of national concerns and goals

* The communication of information deemed important to effective public administration, e.g. news, weather, traffic, civic safety, law enforcement, emergency services, national defence

* The exemplification of good programming for radio/TV in factual, fictional, cultural and leisure domains as well as fair and decent advertising

and no doubt a few more purposes.

In theory, commercial radio/TV could provide such services but, due to the need to make attractive profits for the owners and the necessity for competition in a free market, it would be unlikely that commercial stations, in the absence of a standard-setting lead from a state-owned station, would dedicate as much air-time or investment in the objects listed above.

That's the idea, anyway. In reality the predominant type of people attracted to work in this domain tend to bring other directions to state broadcasting, some not consistent with the spirit of the endeavour. Governments themselves tend to use national stations as a means of getting their own policies and viewpoints across quicker and better than alternative ones. And commercial interests involved in both programme making and advertising tend to shape programme and advertising content to a greater degree than would be desired by the public.

 

[Purple]

Then there’s the risk the the State Broadcasters news and current affairs department could be taken over by splinter group of the official IRA/ Workers Party in the 1970’s and 80’s and that it could still be stuffed heavily influenced by those with far left views.

Oh wait, that’s not a risk, that’s what actually happened.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Thanks for your reply @trajan.

I think the BBC had such ideals when it was created.

It must be difficult to realise those ideals against a background of changing cultural and national concerns. One man’s meat is another man’s poison.

 

[trajan]

@Sophrosyne

The BBC from 1926 onwards had a moralistic as well as national and (from 1932) international-facing objectives.

As I see it, the biggest problem of all is the fact that interpretation of what the national goals are rests on the integrity of the individuals managing the public broadcasting organization. And since most people don't have the time or inclination to think too critically on these issues, the de facto national values, culture and mores default to those spouted out of the public broadcasts. Critically minded people can complain about the misrepresentation of contemporary realities and the usurpation of influence by those managing a broadcaster - but they cannot change it.

If politics and public administration are arenas in which (as Prof Robertson of TCD suggested in his book, The Winner Effect) psychological testing of employees and promotees is highly desirable, I personally think that public broadcasters should also be added to this group owing to the amount of power and influence that they possess.

 

[Purple]

@Sophrosyne

The BBC from 1926 onwards had a moralistic as well as national and (from 1932) international-facing objectives.

As I see it, the biggest problem of all is the fact that interpretation of what the national goals are rests on the integrity of the individuals managing the public broadcasting organization. And since most people don't have the time or inclination to think too critically on these issues, the de facto national values, culture and mores default to those spouted out of the public broadcasts. Critically minded people can complain about the misrepresentation of contemporary realities and the usurpation of influence by those managing a broadcaster - but they cannot change it.

I've a problem with organisations that have a moralistic agenda. They tend to have a very high regard for themselves and so excuse their own bad behaviour and bad practices.

If politics and public administration are arenas in which (as Prof Robertson of TCD suggested in his book, The Winner Effect) psychological testing of employees and promotees is highly desirable, I personally think that public broadcasters should also be added to this group owing to the amount of power and influence that they possess.

That kind of concentrates and transfers the power to the people doing the testing and setting the criteria for the tests.

 

[Sophrosyne]

The principles are set out in the Broadcasting Act and interpreted by broadcasters, including RTE.

The moral agenda mentioned referred to the BBC. Many national broadcasters copied the model, adjusted to their own national concerns.

Nowadays funding of many national broadcasters, including the BBC, is supplemented by commercial activity.

RTE’s commercial funding is a considerable 45%, though public discussion ignores this and centres on licence fees.

Logically, sponsorship must feature in programming decisions.

It will have crunched the numbers on the type of programmes likely to attract the most viewers.

That might be termed “populism” - an often overused and vague term - but without that revenue stream, RTE could not survive.

The understatement of a presenter’s income, currently under investigation, has become conflated with RTE’s programming.

Given its public funding at 55%, and that it does not have the billions enjoyed by other broadcasters, are the expectations from RTE unrealistic?

Is there a form of transference – an expectation of moral authority?

 

[trajan]

Just change mores to ethics (how'd you like it if someone else did this to you ? or how'd it work out if everyone else here carried on like you ?) and I think it should pass the vast majority of folks - if not also you, Purple !

Psychological testing is widely practiced in business corporations and the tests themselves are fairly standardized: the criteria are preset for the nature of the candidate's work (plus some for anticipated future promotions) and it doesn't matter who administers the testing - normally it's an outside consultancy anyway.

But again, the real challenge remains with the people managing the selection of candidates w.r.t. the psy tests. As with the old RTE recruitment policy of having to have a college degree, there will be crucial moments when candidates lacking the necessary quals willl nonetheless be admitted by someone overruling the normal criteria. And this freedom to overrule is something that is a feature of not only RTE's recruitment practices but of personnel recruitment in general: 99% of HR managers across the globe today, however much they may be allowed to "advise" on selection, do not have a veto on recruitment decisions; accordingly, neither do they stand professionally rebuked in the event that a hire is a disaster for the organization. Personally, I think the latter situation plus the administration based training of HR graduates with little psychology study content is the principal cause of poor executive performance and all that falls from it - including group-think, appearance based decision-making and outright corruption.

 

[trajan]

Given its public funding at 55%, and that it does not have the billions enjoyed by other broadcasters, are the expectations from RTE unrealistic?

Is there a form of transference – an expectation of moral authority?

No. And no.

Personally, I accept that any TV channel, be it commercial or public, will have a share of rubbish on it. The masses seem to like their rubbish and commercially speaking they must be fed. The advertising situation also makes this exigent as competing channels will be offering such programming and a state broadcaster will lose out on ad revenue if it doesn't carry the rubbishy stuff.

But the problem RTE has seems to me to be that it reserves time for its national mandate programming but then uses this time badly - sometimes very very badly. In the middle of our prolonged housing disaster our national broadcaster is making (or commissioning to be made) programmes like Room To Improve and Great Irish House Revival - both of these routinely show high-earning couples spending hundred of thousands on stylish residential builds when our ordinary John & Mary Nobodys are struggling to stay in their rented flats. To make matters worse, such programmes are repeated individually on the week premiered and as an entire series during summer. Do RTE's number crunchers believe the public need their fantasy more than inspiration offerable by a down-to-earth series on modest self-builds or housing co-op schemes ? Does RTE believe that ad revenue from building materials suppliers will be higher from a small number of Marie Antoinette houses than from a potential 20,000 a year new smaller builds ? I sure don't.

Similar points could be made around the topic of health & personal fitness programmes on RTE. Ireland's Fittest Families is only en passant about health: it's really about sport, sporting families, competitiveness and slagging.

It's not all doom and gloom though. Duncan Stewart has ploughed a lonely and oft-ridiculed furrow in his efforts to get Irish people to be more environmentally aware without losing money from it.

In relation to the commissioned series, I really question the fairness of selection processes when we end up with the likes of Bannon, Wallace and other petits of their professions. It seems to be a case of who you know rather than what you know when it comes to getting the RTE nod.

RTE's not in any way morally brow-beaten by vague fears of Leinster House censure. (How could the people in Leinster House claim moral authority over anyone ?) They are simply fettered by broadcasters that are individually incompetent and organizationally corrupt, in my view.