🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <320f2241.7111631@news.mel.aone.net.au> douglas.buckser@acslink.aone.net.au (doug buckser) writes:
>wisby@ultra.net.au (Marjorie N. Wisby) wrote:

>>While I would defend ABC radio's coverage of many things, it is my considered 
>>opinion that to get a decent coverage of the news it is necessary to 
>>watch/listen to both the ABC and a commercial one. Between the two, one can 
>>get a vague idea of what is happening, and determine the bias for oneself.

>Personally, I find ABC's bias most apparent in the news which it
>-doesn't- cover.

Well, that is part of it. However, most stories can be biased - and usually 
are.

>>The ABC radio news was far better than it's TV news, and still appears to be.
>>
>>Perhaps the TV should be closed down, and just the radio kept going. 

>Personally, I think that some of the ABC radio networks are quite
>good, albeit heavily balanced toward progressive politics.  For
>example, here in Melbourne, 3LO is interesting.  However, the local
>ABC television station's most popular shows are British imports (e.g.,
>Absolutely Fabulous, The Bill, Pride and Prejudice).  I struggle to
>think of a contribution made by the Melbourne staff.

Well, I think we have much the same ABC TV as the rest of the country - with 
perhaps an exception being the 7:30 Report, and some of the news items. I'm 
guessing, to a certain extent, but I do know the Brisbane 7:30 Report 
presenter (name forgotten) of some years ago was promoted to the Sydney 
station, and we got a new one. Also, we seem to have a predominace of Qld 
news, which leads me to suppose that there is at least some difference in the 
news between the states.

>>Nasty, Doug, nasty. Of course they can understand - understand that, as they 
>>disagree, they don't want to expose the arguments to the population at large. 
>>After all, *some* people may actually listen, and become more informed. Silly, 
>>really. So few listen to the ABC that it hardly matters, anyway.

>Don't look at the price, feel the quality.  It is indeed a terrible
>day when the ABC is reduced to the sales tactics of those rug stores
>with a permanent clearance sale sign in the front window.

Aha! You now see how the advertisers get to compromise the integrity of the 
station! Imagine a story about the corruption in rug manufacturers, where 
designs are stolen etc, on a commercial news broadcast! It just couldn't 
happen! They'd have to ignore it completely, and the viewers would be the 
poorer for not realising the industrial espionage inherent and rampant in the 
carpet and rug making industry!

>>In fact, whilst I'd query the meaning of 'democracy' in the context of 
>>Australia, I would certainly argue quite strongly that *if* the ABC is 
>>essential to democracy in this country, then it's taking a far too political 
>>role, and the sooner it's closed down, the better.

>This is a very interesting point.  Are government-sponsored television
>and radio networks necessary for democracy to continue?  Is democracy
>such a fragile concept that direct government sponsorship of a news
>organisation necessary for it to flourish?

It is, if the left needs a voice to promote itself, regardless of the 
political climate of the country.

>BTW, did you notice that Pravda finally shut down recently?  Communism
>is gone, government sponsorship of the newspapers goes with it, yet
>democracy continues.

Not *true* democracy, though. I understand that the elections now have _more 
than one candidate per electorate_, and other dreadful undemocratic things. 
No, it's not easy to find democracy in the countries that were behind the Iron 
Curtain - not like it was in the good old days.

Still, it flourishes in Cuba and China - so there is some comfort in the world.

TTYL,

Marjorie