Pratica di Shadowing: RTÉ DG says reclassification of Derek Mooney's role as a producer "justifiable" | RTÉ News - Impara a parlare inglese con YouTube

Now as you've been hearing,

⏸ In Pausa

Velocità:

357 frasi

Se le frasi sono troppo corte o troppo lunghe, clicca su Edit per modificarle.

Now as you've been hearing,

another pay controversy has emerged for RTE.

The broadcaster has revised its top 10 highest earning presenters for 2024 to include Derek Mooney,

presenter of Mooney Goes Wild,

after it said it reconsidered what constitutes a presenter.

RTE says Derek Mooney was designated by RTE as a producer and not as a presenter from 2020 to 2024.

And then this year, it said it made the decision to consider all personnel holding dual roles

for inclusion in the top 10 presenters list.

That meant that Derek Mooney,

who earned over €200,000 last year, made the list.

Well, to talk about this and some other issues,

we're joined now by RT Director General Kevin Backhurst.

Kevin, you're very welcome.

Morning, Sarah.

Hi.

Anyone in the country, I think,

who's familiar with RT and if they were asked what Derek Mooney's job is,

they'd say he's a presenter.

So can you explain why RT decided in 2020 to classify him as a producer?

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, Derek's been a member of staff for nearly three decades with RTE,

and he's actually been on a radio producer and then an executive producer contract with RTE for a couple of decades now.

And there was a view taken around 2020 that when they considered whether to put him on the top ten,

whether he should be classified as a presenter or a producer.

Now, they took the view that he should be classified as a producer, not a presenter.

You know, that view, and he's classified in our account system as a producer.

But when we came to look at it again,

and we're constantly ratcheting up our efforts to be transparent and as thorough as possible,

when we came to look at it again,

we took your view, which is although the majority of Derek's work is actually producing,

he's best known as presenter,

and therefore we've now decided that people in hybrid roles where they're producing and presenting

if they qualify for top 10 should be included as a presenter.

So are you saying

when this decision was made in 2020 it was made in

the context of a discussion as to who should be included in the top 10 list?

Yes, that's my understanding of it.

Obviously that was made some time ago by people who are not there anymore.

But we actually took independent legal advice

when the issue arose in the last few weeks about the decision that was taken in 2020.

And the legal advice was that it was a perfectly justifiable decision given that Derek's contract is as an executive producer.

But we take a different view.

We think transparency is really important and most people know Derek as a presenter

and I think we'd expect him to be classified as a presenter even though,

as I say, I think the majority of his work is as an executive producer.

Who made the decision?

A decision was made by me and the leadership team.

No, sorry, to reclassify him in 2020.

Oh, well, it would have been made by the then executive team.

And is anybody who made that decision still working in the organisation or on the leadership team?

No, no one was aware of the decision and there's only a couple of people left.

But as has been the case with a few things,

decisions that were made then were not fully discussed at the executive in some cases.

I don't know about this one,

but certainly no one was aware of the decision until we looked into it

when it arose in the last few weeks as part of the process.

So no one on the current leadership team was involved in the decision in 2020 to reclassify Derek Minney?

Okay, you're talking about his role,

the max salary for a producer in 2021 on the RT pay scale was €90,000.

So it looks to me like even if he was being paid the absolute maximum for a producer of €90,000,

the majority of his salary must have still been coming from his presenting role.

Yeah, look, it's, you know,

with someone like Derek Way,

he's had a number of roles,

and I think as you alluded to earlier on the programme,

you know, he was an afternoon presenter five days a week on Radio 1,

for a long time.

His roles changed over the years.

Now when people's roles change quite often their salaries change with them.

I mean certainly during that period where he was on the five days a week on Radio One.

You know I would say the majority of his work was as was presenting and he's on the staff.

He's on the staff contract so you know the salary is agreed at the time

and yes you know but as I say now.

Sorry Kevin I'll just be clear the question can you confirm

that when he was reclassified as a producer the majority of his salary was coming from his presenting role?

No I can't because his salary always covered both those things

and his role changed over the years and changed

when he came off the weekday slot on RT1

and it changes at the moment when he's doing a bit more TV and in the coming days.

But say he was getting paid the maximum of £90,000 for a producer

and we don't know exactly what he was on in 2021

but it would have been close to £200,000 given what it is now.

Then most of his salary,

the presenting role must have taken off most of his salary.

Yeah, but as I say,

that probably was a historic salary from

when most of his role was as a presenter

because his salary would have gone up when he was moved into doing five days a week on Radio 1,

which was a long time ago now.

Let's go back to the why of this because 2020 was the same year that a number of presenters,

including Ryan Turbidey, were asked to take a pay cut.

And we know now that the management at the time did side deals to ensure

that Ryan Turbidey's pay was actually higher than was revealed to the public.

Was this another side deal?

No, I don't think it was.

As I say, we've taken independent legal advice on the facts that we know that were available at the time.

The legal advice is that it was actually a very,

it was a perfectly rational decision to take at the time.

As I say, we take a different view because we want maximum transparency for the audience,

100

for politicians, you know, who pay for RT.

101

We want maximum transparency.

102

We want to do what we think appears correct.

103

And as you'll have seen yesterday when we published details around the top 10 for 2025,

104

First of all, we've done it early because it's emerged.

105

We wanted to get it out into the public domain so that people could say, sorry.

106

It's very important to say that there was...

107

I do want to get back to the timing of all this

108

and what has been published and what might be published in the future.

109

But if I can just stick on why this decision was made,

110

because I think people are really trying to get their heads around that.

111

You're saying it was rational and you're saying it was legal.

112

I still don't really understand why all of a sudden in 2020 it's decided

113

that presenter Derek Mooney should be reclassified as producer Derek Mooney.

114

At the time, RT had promised the government to cut presenter pay by 15%.

115

So, by reclassifying Derek Mooney as a producer in 2020,

116

did that mean he didn't get a presenter pay cut?

117

I don't think he got a pay cut,

118

but he was on a staff salary.

119

He was on an executive producer role already by that stage.

120

So, you know, they had been clarified as a presenter when he was doing more presenter than Radio 1.

121

All I can say is his contract,

122

and I've seen his contract, is as a producer.

123

And, you know, that is,

124

I'm sure that is at the root of it.

125

Okay, I'm just going to try and lay out,

126

because it's very complicated for listeners.

127

Okay, I'm just going to try and lay out the situation as may have happened, right?

128

So we're entering into 2020,

129

and it looks like, and maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong,

130

but it looks like Derek Mooney is going to be in the top 10 presenters' paylist in 2020.

131

Unless he's changed.

132

And suddenly, a decision is made to reclassify him as producer.

133

We're being told that's rational and legal,

134

but we're not being told why the decision was made to reclassify him as producer.

135

I suspect, Sarah.

136

And as a result, sorry, I'll just keep going.

137

As a result of being reclassified as producer,

138

he doesn't get a 15% pay cut.

139

Is that right?

140

No, I don't think that is.

141

I think that's a very unfair gloss to put on it.

142

And people are looking for unfair ways to portray this.

143

And believe me, like, you know,

144

when I've seen things, I've called them out.

145

I think the rationale was he fell out of the top 10 presenters in the few years up to 2020.

146

As I understand it, in 2020 he would have been back in to the top 10

147

and they would have had to take a decision at

148

that stage whether he was working majority of the time as a presenter or as a producer.

149

And clearly they looked at the balance of his work as we have done recently and the majority of it is producing.

150

And you know that was as I say,

151

the advice is that was a rational decision to take.

152

We just have taken a very different decision because we want a higher degree of transparency for the organisation.

153

Okay and just to be very clear then,

154

are you saying that that decision didn't affect either way whether

155

or not Derek Mooney got the 15% pay cut that would have been handed out to other presenters in the top 10.

156

I can't say definitively I wasn't there at the time but I've seen no evidence to show that it did.

157

Okay, in terms of the publication of all of this then,

158

RT chair Terence O'Rourke said last night that this came to light

159

when it was decided to do an extensive check to make

160

sure the people who should be in the top 10 list were actually there.

161

A lot of people scratching their heads this morning,

162

I think Kevin wondering how was this not done three years ago when the first payment scandal hit,

163

how do people in the organisation who are in the organisation now not say do we have this right now?

164

Do we have everyone who should be in the list on the right salary out in the public?

165

Well I think so.

166

I mean I think the first thing to say is the last couple of years the focus has been as you'd expect,

167

on making sure that those presenters who are in the top ten,

168

their salaries are absolutely correctly declared.

169

And, you know, because that was where the issue arose before.

170

You know, as I started to say to you before,

171

we've put a lot more guidelines now

172

and we've released them publicly around what qualifies you to be in the top ten and what is included and what isn't.

173

And as that work was being done,

174

only in the last few weeks,

175

someone raised the question of Derek Mooney,

176

someone in finance, and we said we need to look into it properly to see,

177

you know, how much is he earning,

178

would he be in the top ten,

179

and if so, is he correctly classified,

180

because they said he's classified as a producer.

181

So we looked at that.

182

The answer was he would be in the top ten.

183

Our view was people know him largely as a presenter,

184

even though he does a lot of production work,

185

and we think he should be in the top ten.

186

So what prompted this search to make sure everything was right with someone in finance spotted it a couple of weeks ago.

187

Yeah, well, it was a part of all the work that's been going on for the end of year accounts,

188

you know, and there's a lot of rigorous work going on,

189

not just around the top 10,

190

but also around the accounts generally for the organisation.

191

This is partly in, this is part of the process to prepare for the annual accounts,

192

which are not due to be published until the summer.

193

But as I say, as part of that work,

194

you know, the top, we,

195

you know, we, since I've come in,

196

the top 10 salaries are now included in the accounts

197

and therefore they have to be verified and agreed by our auditors

198

and there's a very rigorous process around it and it was during that process that someone raised that question.

199

Have you spoken to Derek Mooney?

200

I haven't but my colleagues spoke to him yesterday

201

and I think it's important to say Derek played no role in this at all.

202

I mean he's you know we told him this was happening

203

and he agreed that that was our decision

204

but he's played no no role in this at all you know he's just just carrying on with his work really.

205

Can you assure the public that this finally is the right information, all of it?

206

Well as I said previously,

207

it's the very best information that we have available,

208

but you know we're working through a lot of information all the time

209

and I think the really important thing is if we discover something like this,

210

that we're very open and we say we've discovered it,

211

we come out quickly.

212

I mean literally this was discovered in the last three or four weeks,

213

so we put it into public domain yesterday straight after the board meeting.

214

Will revised salary lists for the last five years be published,

215

the correct salary lists?

216

Well they were correct, the previous ones.

217

We've revised last year because it's a comparator to this year which is the regular way of doing things in the accounts.

218

As I say for the previous years you know there was a judgment made at

219

that time which was you know the judgment was justifiable correct at

220

that time but we don't we don't agree with the judgment we think there should be different

221

So we can't go back and rewrite it because we changed the rules.

222

Yeah, I know I understand what you're saying,

223

but if you've changed the judgment as to who should be in the top 10 list,

224

should you not then change the top 10 list if

225

that person was in the top 10 list for the last five years?

226

No, as I say, I mean, we've changed it.

227

We can't go back retrospective every time we change something,

228

go back and rewrite history.

229

You know, it is it is there.

230

We change what's what's the comparator in the last in the last

231

so people can look back to last year for the top 10

232

and that's the way that these things are normally done

233

but it's not like there was a mistake um at the time

234

that we've identified as i say there was a decision we've just taken a different decision

235

because we want to be more transparent i want to move on to a separate issue

236

because it also emerged yesterday that orti continued to pay claire burn

237

and ray darcy after they ceased to work for the organization

238

claire burn stopped presenting on rt at the end of october but she was paid 47 000 euro after that

239

Ray Darcy stopped presenting on October 9th.

240

He was paid €50,000 after that date,

241

so it was nearly €100,000 in total.

242

This is what RTD Chair Terence O'Rourke had to say about all of this on Prime Time last night.

243

Well, their contract said that they were contracted to present until the end of the year,

244

and there were different decisions made about when they would stop presenting.

245

But if we had, for example,

246

if we ceased to pay them,

247

I think we would have had some interesting solicitor's letters and all the rest.

248

So I think it was a wise,

249

right thing for the organisation.

250

You paid two people for a couple of months 100,000 euro and you got nothing out of them?

251

I didn't do that.

252

Management did that and I'm happy to...

253

But the organisation did and you were the chair of the organisation.

254

Yes, I know.

255

And I know the organisation that the management made the decision.

256

We questioned the ceiling and challenged the decision.

257

I'm happy they made the right decision.

258

You're happy that the organisation paid two people 100 grand to do nothing for a couple of months?

259

They weren't doing nothing.

260

They were available.

261

If anything had happened, they would have still been under contract to present.

262

So it wasn't that they were doing nothing.

263

They were available kevin are you happy

264

that management made the right decision oh yeah it was totally the right decision

265

and terence is totally right about um presenters although they paid

266

a lot of money they also have contracts like like anyone who has employment rights in ireland

267

and if they have a contract we need to respect

268

that contract you know

269

so you know obviously we made the decision in both cases

270

um you know they were for different reasons claire was leaving

271

and She stayed on after she told us she was leaving for a period.

272

But we wanted to take her off there to launch the new Radio 1 schedule,

273

so that was our decision.

274

And in the case of Ray,

275

this was effectively his notice period.

276

And I think anyone would appreciate that people have notice periods.

277

So if you had decided to wait to launch the new schedule until January,

278

you'd have been able to get the services from both Claire and Ray, wouldn't you?

279

Well, they were available to work until then,

280

but we took a decision.

281

We wanted to launch the new schedule.

282

It was important.

283

The work had been going on.

284

And Claire had told us she was leaving anyway.

285

So we wanted to get ahead and launch that.

286

And it's launched very successfully.

287

And there's been very positive feedback about it.

288

But people have contractual rights if they've paid a lot of money.

289

I mean, the only thing I would say overall is that,

290

you know, across the Radio 1 schedule,

291

you know, we are now paying less for the total of all the presenters than we were with the old schedule.

292

So, you know, we are constantly trying to drive costs down.

293

Yeah, a lot of people find that a bitter pill to swallow,

294

won't they, looking at 100,000 euro pay to two presenters who weren't working for two months

295

because it was made to launch the schedule?

296

Well, I think they will if you want to dress it up in that way, Sarah.

297

But I think on the other hand,

298

everyone, including you, has employment rights.

299

And, you know, if we decide that we're going to stop someone working for RTE,

300

you can't just chop off their salary that people have notice periods

301

and you have to abide by that and

302

if people are paid a lot of money unfortunately it costs money

303

but you know we have to abide by employment rights and

304

if we hadn't by the way

305

and we got into a legal fight it would cost us a shed load more money than it did.

306

You said the Radio One schedule has been very well received

307

there's plenty of coverage in the papers today about the listenership figures

308

that were released yesterday they show almost every Radio One show has lost listeners since the new schedule was launched.

309

Now I know management have said

310

that they expect a fluctuation in listenership given all the changes but was this level of listenership last expected?

311

You never know what to expect with Gen Lars

312

because the numbers go up and down with each quarter

313

so you know we've had a few very strong quarters you

314

know the recent figures for Radio 1 were less strong

315

but I think you know I think we're right

316

that you know new schedules are not the only factor sometimes it can be the news agenda

317

or or what else is going on in the world.

318

And sometimes, you know, if there's a lot of miserable news,

319

people choose not to listen to a lot of news on radio stations.

320

So there's a lot of different factors.

321

If it continues as a trend,

322

say in August, if listenership figures are down again,

323

will RT consider changing tack?

324

We were very confident in the new schedule.

325

And we think, you know,

326

we certainly know the feedback is very good.

327

We're extremely pleased with how the new presenter lineup is performing on air.

328

So, of course, you know,

329

you always review things over time.

330

But, you know, for now,

331

you know, you need to hold your nerve when you make these kind of changes.

332

And, you know, I and the leadership team and Radio 1 team are very confident in the changes we've made.

333

And as I say, the feedback from listeners,

334

which is really important, has been extremely positive.

335

Can I ask you finally,

336

Ireland won't be taking part in the Eurovision at the final due to air,

337

of course, tomorrow night.

338

And I know you explained

339

that decision last December you said this is on the basis of the massive civilian casualties

340

that had taken place in Gaza and also the 200 journalists that were targeted and killed in Gaza.

341

So if we look at where we are now,

342

there do continue to be significant civilian casualties in Gaza,

343

but of course it's a much smaller number than it was before the ceasefire.

344

Israel has killed more journalists this year,

345

but again, a much smaller number than previously.

346

So does that change your calculation for Ireland's participation next year?

347

We haven't started to think about it next year and there's a long way to go.

348

So, you know, our rationale still holds and civilians are still dying in smaller numbers,

349

but they're still dying in significant numbers,

350

you know, in Gaza and also in Lebanon.

351

And journalists are still being targeted and they still have been up to recently.

352

And, you know, for us as a public service broadcaster who believes in the importance of protecting journalists

353

and believes in human rights,

354

you know, there's no reason at the moment to change our decision,

355

but we'll review it in the coming months.

356

Kevin Backhurst, I appreciate your time this morning.

357

Thank you very much.

TRENDING

Popolari

Cos'è la tecnica dello Shadowing?

Shadowing è una tecnica di apprendimento delle lingue supportata da studi scientifici, originariamente sviluppata per la formazione dei traduttori professionisti e resa popolare dal poliglotta Dr. Alexander Arguelles. Il metodo è semplice ma potente: ascolti un audio in inglese di madrelingua e lo ripeti immediatamente ad alta voce — come un'ombra che segue il parlante con un ritardo di solo 1–2 secondi. A differenza dell'ascolto passivo o degli esercizi di grammatica, lo shadowing costringe il tuo cervello e i muscoli della bocca a elaborare e riprodurre simultaneamente i modelli di discorso reale. La ricerca dimostra che migliora significativamente la precisione della pronuncia, l'intonazione, il ritmo, il discorso connesso, la comprensione dell'ascolto e la fluidità del parlato — rendendolo uno dei metodi più efficaci per la preparazione alla prova di speaking dell'IELTS e per la comunicazione reale in inglese.

☕ Offrici un caffè

ShadowingEnglish rimane gratuito al 100% grazie al tuo supporto. I costi del server e IA sono elevati — il tuo caffè ci aiuta ad andare avanti! 🙏

Dona via PayPal

ShadowingEnglish.com – Pratica di Shadowing in Inglese

Parla inglese fluentemente usando la tecnica dello Shadowing. Ascolta video di YouTube con madrelingua, ripeti frase per frase e costruisci una pronuncia e fluidità reale — usata da studenti IELTS in tutto il mondo.

Pratica di Shadowing: RTÉ DG says reclassification of Derek Mooney's role as a producer "justifiable" | RTÉ News - Impara a parlare inglese con YouTube

Popolari

Informazioni su questa lezione

Vocabolario e frasi chiave

Consigli per la pratica

Cos'è la tecnica dello Shadowing?

Pratica di Shadowing: RTÉ DG says reclassification of Derek Mooney's role as a producer "justifiable" | RTÉ News - Impara a parlare inglese con YouTube

Scarica l'app

Informazioni su questa lezione

Vocabolario e frasi chiave

Consigli per la pratica

Cos'è la tecnica dello Shadowing?