🚀 go-pugleaf

G'day Graham,

gcairns@mtpost.apana.org.au (Graham Cairns) wrote:

>>It's not clear to me why exclusive networks are necessary.  After all,
>>ABC television appears to have both local and national information on
>>the same broadcasting channel.  Why is radio different?

>TV cannot, by its nature, bring you the market reports from Gunnedah, or
>the Trial Days information in Penola, or the expected frosts in Ivanhoe, or
>the Regional news in Kalgoorlie, or the Cane Sugar CCS level in Ingham, 
>or... you get my point.

I accept your point that a national network would have great
difficulty including items of very local interest in its broadcast.

However, there is another possibility.  Instead of including local
information in a national network, why not include national shows in
local networks.

That is, a radio station could have local programs most of the time,
but have designated time set aside for national programs.  For
example, a local station could set aside four or five hours for
national programming and use the rest for local programs.

>But would you, as an urban Melbourne listener, listen to the ABC if you got 
>all that interrupting your traffic reports on the SE Arterial? Or have the
>discussion of largely urban issued fragmented by the sheep prices at Moe?

If I knew that Moe sheep prices were going to be discussed at a given
time, I'd probably listen to another station.  However, since it's
likely that commuters would have similar interests (and we can assume
that sheep prices aren't one of them), such programs can be placed in
a different time slot (if that's the correct term).

>And a similar defence can be made for all the networks: each provides a 
>service that no-one else in Australia does - or is willing to do.

Perhaps this is a point at which our opinions differ.  Personally, I
don't believe that Radio National is a service.  In my opinion, the
programs are largely self-indulgent and have limited audience appeal
(which appears to be confirmed by audience figures posted occasionally
by the Age's Green Guide).

>Even NewsRadio, who pay my salary cheques .. after all, its the only 
>continuous news format in Australia .. and no-one else wants parliamentary
>broadcasts. 

There is another way to look at this example.

I agree with you that commercial radio doesn't have an all-news
equivalent in Melbourne.  However, Foxtel has three all-news stations
(i.e., CNN, BBC, Sky News).  I think that an American cable channel
shows session of Congress (although the name escapes me).

Furthermore, I believe that there are two all-news stations in the
Boston area, which has a much lower population than either Melbourne
or Sydney (reverse order as appropriate).

Therefore, I'm not convinced that an all-news channel is either
restricted to radio or would not be supported by commercial stations.

>>Low ratings.  Bad reviews.  That sort of thing.  If my memory is
>>accurate, I understand that Melbourne's audience for Mercury was so
>>small in some weeks that it barely registered enough viewers to avoid
>>an asterisk.
>
>Interesting. It rated quite well, elsewhere (AFAIK).

Since you have national figures, could you tell us how it rated across
the country for audience share?  Thanks.

>>If $540,000,000 isn't enough money for the ABC to retain its
>>integrity, I struggle to think of how much money -is- enough.  A
>>billion?  Two billion?  The mind boggles.
>
>No, the $540 mil is enough .. and could, perhaps, be trimmed _a bit_ as part 
>of the reshaping that was already in place.

Sure.  You can keep 90 out of the present 100 dollars.  And when the
budget problems are resolved, then maybe the current funding levels
will be restored.

>No-one is asking for more (well, I'm not, anyway) .. all we ask is that the
>ABC not be gutted in what appears to be a blatant 'get-even' schtick.

This is another point of disagreement.  Based on what I've read and
heard so far, the ABC's budget is being cut at an equal rate to ATSIC,
rumours about arts councils, etc.  It's difficult to understand why
the ABC's cuts are "a blatant 'get-even' schtick" since they're
roughly the same as other government programs.

>>This may be our fundamental disagreement on this subject.  I do not
>>agree with your assumption that the ABC is not beholden to its funding
>>body, which is the government in this case.  The correlation of a
>>collective progressive ABC culture and a Labor government is simply
>>too great to be accepted.
>
>Well, other have been arguing that the ABC has been 'leftist' since the 
>Whitlam days.  
>
>If they are right, (given the intervention of the Fraser years) you are 
>wrong. 
>
>If you are right, then they are wrong, and the ABC was 'rightist' from the
>mid 70s to the mid 80s.

I was not living in Australia during the 70s and mid 80s, so I'm
unable to form an opinion on the political leanings of the ABC during
that time.  Having heard Phillip Adams wax lyrical on many occasions
about the good old days, though, I have my suspicions.

As an option which you haven't included above, the ABC may have been
very progressive under Whitlam, drifted right under Fraser (while
remaining left of centre), the drifted left again under Hawke/Keating.

>Personally, I both sides are wrong :-)

I would be disappointed if you thought otherwise 8-).

Doug

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"To its committed members (the Democratic Party) was still the party of
heart, humanity, and justice, but to those removed a few paces it
looked like Captain Hook's crew--ambulance-chasing lawyers, rapacious
public policy grants persons, civil rights gamesmen, ditzy-brained
movie stars, fat-assed civil servant desk squatters, recovering
alcoholics, recovering wife-beaters, recovering child-buggers, and
so forth and so on, a grotesque line-up of ill-mannered, self-pitying,
caterwauling freeloaders banging their tin cups on the pavement demanding
handouts."--columnist Nicholas von Hoffman (The Washington Post, 11/12-94)

douglas.buckser@acslink.aone.net.au