There has been an awful lot of criticism of RTE lately. From its coverage of the winter solstice at Newgrange to its plans to drop two Network 2 programmes (Later With John Kelly, an arts show, and Later with Finlay and Gallagher, a political chat show), letter after letter to The Irish Times has complained bitterly of ever-decreasing standards on the national stations.
Meanwhile, articles in several newspapers have winced and groaned at everything from programming decisions to managerial attitudes.
Approaching its 40th birthday, is RTE just too old to keep up in an era of rapid change in the television industry? Some say yes, time to put the old horse out to grass. Alternatively, say others, kill off some of its anachronistic ways, from its style of management to what is perceived as its bureaucratic structure. Everyone has an opinion. (A lot of viewers express theirs by just changing the channel.) But why do we feel we have such a stake?
For one thing, RTE is the public broadcasting service. We have a sense of a station which is ours, set up to service us. Also, we are compelled to pay a licence fee for the privilege of having it. Meanwhile, it seems like RTE will have a considerable level of control over digital terrestrial television, a system soon to arrive on our shores, which will have a huge effect on TV viewing by dramatically increasing the number of stations. This control is likely to be granted by the Government in spite of the complaints of some competitors. And competition - long a stranger in the world of Irish broadcasting - among the growing numbers of stations is fierce.
Up until relatively recently, RTE had little or no competition. In some parts of the State the only stations were RTE 1 and Network 2. Now, with the advent of cable and satellite dishes, most viewers have access to as many as 20 stations or even more. Even those antennae-only viewers in what used to be known as "two-channel land" have at least four stations to choose from now that TV3 and TG4 are among us.
Some critics believe RTE is a victim of that same lack of competition it once enjoyed. It suffers a certain, "been here, done that, know what we're talking about" arrogance which keeps it back in an era when things really were different.
More and more of RTE's money must, by law, go away from its headquarters and out to independent producers. However, among independent producers, who rely on RTE as an outlet for new and innovative ideas - as well for financial survival - there is quite a lot of frustration with what is seen as a lack of understanding of what broadcasting has become.
"It is actually a very complex problem," says one independent producer. "When it was set up, RTE was filled with civil servants who were given a certain brief.
"Nowadays it is suffering from that older approach. Management is too top-heavy, with a tendency to seek to maintain a certain status quo, which means the more talented and innovative people are wasted. "The industry is moving very quickly now.
As an organisation RTE is no longer competitive. The industry has changed; competition has meant you need a certain killer instinct, and you have to be at the cutting edge of what's happening." RTE itself tends to see the problem as rather less complex. It's about money, says its director-general, Bob Collins: "In 1998, RTE received . . . a total of £155 million. Contrast this with the £2 billion-plus which funds the BBC - with whom RTE must compete for viewers," he writes in the Sunday Independent.
"Sure we'd like to do more quality drama, more imaginative children's programmes and more quality documentaries," he continues. "But each and everyone of these carries a price tag.
"Are we prepared to pay for what we value?" It's a good question, but it begs another question: do we value RTE? Why are many viewers apparently happy to pay more than the annual £70 licence fee for cable services, and more again for extra stations, yet feel at the very least ambiguous about paying our licence fee? Maybe the problem is more complex. Tania Banotti, director of Film Makers Ireland, says the BBC - with which Collins compares RTE - started letting a lot of staff go eight years ago.
"Traditionally, public-broadcasting services are overstaffed. The same applies with RTE - there are just too many people working in administration and management. It may not have as much money as the BBC, but questions do need to be raised about how it is spending the money it has. "RTE complains about having a legal obligation to spend money on independent programmes, on TG4, and so on," she says. There's less said, Banotti points out, about the sizeable chunk of the annual income that is spent on overheads, at the expense of good programmes.
Has RTE a future then? It does have plans to reduce its workforce by more than 10 per cent, which will save money. It is also looking for an increase in the licence fee, a move supported by the independent film-makers.
According to Bob Collins, RTE looks forward to being an Irish voice in a burgeoning global marketplace. Banotti agrees that this focus on what makes RTE unique will "save its bacon. An emphasis on good quality Irish programming, drama, documentaries and news - that which makes it distinctive - will help the station compete."
