🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <wisby.36.0B9D4EBD@ultra.net.au> wisby@ultra.net.au (Marjorie N. Wisby) writes:
>From: wisby@ultra.net.au (Marjorie N. Wisby)
>Subject: Re: Another Bloody Commercial Channel
>Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 23:39:23 LOCAL

>Good morrow Doug,

>May I have my 2c (the ABC gets my 8c/day, after all)?

>In article douglas.buckser@acslink.aone.net.au (doug buckser) writes:

>>iw@emphasys.com.au (Ian Williamson) wrote:


>>>>And the management structure appears to contain quite a
>>>>bit of duplication.
>>>
>>>Well, with people breathing down their necks about accountability, they have 
>>>to be careful.

>Good grief! Don't the commercial media have people breathing down their necks? 

Yes, but for different reasons.

>What a frivolous comment.

I'm sorry if you didn't like its pointedness. :-)

>>>It is human nature to have some bias and sure it happens at the ABC, but 
>>>there is no doubt that the ABC has less to worry about in terms of 
>>>commentary than any of the commercial stations.

>When I pay the salaries of the people involved, I think I have a right, as do 
>all the rest of the Oz population, to demand that they represent all of the 
>population - not just their own group interests.

True to a degree, but the commercial stations cover a great deal of the 
rubbish that is needed. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with 
rubbish, but do we really need an ABC equivalent of  "The Price is Right",
"The Bold and the Beautiful", "Neigbors" or "Wheel of Fortune".

Children very seldom pay any taxes, but it is important that the ABC 
represents them too.

The ABC is also there in my opinion to promote the arts without commercial 
favour. I am not interested in many of the things it promotes, but I feel that 
it is important that these things are promoted anyway. Commercial viability 
often comes from grass roots development anyway.

>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.

I find a combination of ABC and SBS a far better option.

>When we had regional news here (NQ), the local NQTV news gave a really fair 
>and largely unbiased account of the affairs of the day - which we have lost, 
>thanks to aggregation. The reason their news was so good was that they did, in 
>fact, represent the community - and didn't push one or other barrow.

Bias of majority opinion in other words. Really progressive stuff I'm sure. :-)

>The difference between their coverage of an event, and the ABC's was 
>instructive, to say the least. The ABC was always far more biased, and tended 
>to come across as less than honest in many ways.

Sure.

>The ABC radio news was far better than it's TV news, and still appears to be.

Almost all radio news is better than TV news.

>Perhaps the TV should be closed down, and just the radio kept going. 

Perhaps not.

>>>>Another interesting aspect is that many of the ABC presenters used to
>>>>be on the staff of Labor politicians.  For example, it's my
>>>>understanding that Kerry O'Brien used to work for Whitlam and the
>>>>chief national political reporter used to work for Hawke.  Do you know
>>>>if this is true?
>>>
>>>True or not true is besides the point, it is only for AEC jobs that you have 
>>>to have non-political credentials.

>Begging the question - which usually means that no defence is possible.  In 
>this case that is exactly the case.

No, it does not begging the question,and it is not exactly the case either.

>True or not is entirely germaine to the argument. How can an ex-ALP staffer, 
>or an ex-LPA staffer, be unbiased? 

How can anyone be unbiased ?

>Why are they employed by MY ABC?

Because it is MY ABC too.

>>You can't have it both ways, Ian.  It's difficult to support a claim
>>that the ABC is unbiased if so many high-profile presenters were so
>>closely aligned with one political party.

How many high-profile presenters ?

>Exactly.

>>>In my opinion, good journalists have to be informed people, informed people 
>>>are not conservative. Quid Pro Quo.

>>Just to be sure that I understand what you're trying to say, what do
>>you think "quid pro quo" means?

>I *think* he meant QED, Doug, though it's hard to be sure. These uneducated 
>people sometimes say the most strange things. Shades of Mrs Malaprop!

No, I meant Quid Pro Quo. If you can take your mind back a little, you would 
realise that the accusations that have been leveled at Kerry O'. This was a 
defence, or a statement if you like. He has got his position on his merits.

>BTW, he's calling you 'uninformed', you know.

I'm glad someone explained that one.

> I suspect he's a very young person, of limited education and experience.

Parent, 30, graduate UCT (University of Cape Town, South Africa), post-grad 
qualifications from UNSW, and a string of diplomas from non-university 
tertiatry institutes in various diverse fields, first payed job was at 5 years 
old, immigrant and so on.

All education is "limited".

> As such, he is deserving more of pity than censure.

In other words I do not deserve any pity.

>>>>2. Sympathetic coverage of pro-gun or anti-immigration views (to
>>>>   balance the sympathetic coverage of their opponents).
>>>
>>>I'm sorry, but not every view can be expressed or reflected by the ABC. 

>>Why not?  Aren't ABC staffers capable of understanding them?  Or is
>>the ABC not -their- ABC?

>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. 

Yes, because they might be misconstrued as 'right'.  (Note play on word 
'right')

>After all, *some* people may actually listen, and become more informed.

Yes, like you. :-)

> Silly, really. So few listen to the ABC that it hardly matters, anyway.

Well, the ABC have definitely put the fear of God into the Coaltion, but then 
they fear any form of questioning, don't they ?

>>>>4. Commercial sponsorship of ABC programs (which I understand which
>>>>   was broken by the Sunday program)
>>>
>>>This is a tricky one, all I can say is that they are obviously straving for 
>>>funds.

>>Ian, I understand that they received $540,000,000 last year. 

Or less than $33 per capita, per year.

>How much
>>more money do they need to receive in order to avoid compromising
>>their integrity?

>I am shocked and disturbed by this one, Doug. They need as much as they want. 
>I thought you'd have understood *this* point. Just over half a billion? Pshaw! 
>Chicken feed!

Astounding wit.

>In order to maintain the position they'd like to have, they 
>need to be above such petty considerations as money.

No, but they need to have others considerations too.

>Filthy topic. Beneath 
>their contempt - especially when it's not *their* money, and they don't have 
>to *earn* it.

Firstly, they pay taxes too, secondly they do generate some revenue.



Lets round things off here to make it simple.

Say 5 000  staff.

Average salary $35 000 (based on average National salary).

The leaves us with  $365 000 000, or a little less than $1 million a day. (do 
your own calculations if you  want).

Lets split radio and TV 50/50, so they are each on a buget (excluding salaries 
only) of $500 000 per day.

Not much really, if you have to broadcast to a whole country the size of 
Australia (and then some).

>>>>Would you mind expanding on this view?  How is the ABC vital to
>>>>democracy?  If we take the extreme case and eliminate the ABC, how
>>>>would democracy be affected?
>>>
>>>If you cannot answer that one yourself then you should not be participating in 
>>>this conversation.

>Good grief! What a copout! One of the oldest in the book. "If you don't 
>understand, then I can't explain it to you". 

Its a pity I had explained it to him prior and did so again.

>An attempt (failed!) to occupy 
>the high intellectual ground, and prove the superiority of one's understanding.

An attempt (failed!) to try and belittle someone based on selective 
extractions, without even having the guts to quote fully, because it would 
expose them as being two faced.

>What a shame that it only demonstrates the total insupportability of the 
>position one has taken, and/or the total inability of one to explain one's 
>positon.

What a shame, you did not quote my answer to his requests, which was right 
there in front of your eyes, and which explained my position clearly.

>What *does* the ABC have to do with 'democracy' in this country? 

As you failed to read what was in front of you once, I will answer that 
question, again.

The ABC gives a voice to people who's viewpoints are not represented by large 
corporation commercial interests. These viewpoints are not supported by any 
other media in this country.

>IMHO, if the 
>ABC closed down tomorrow we'd be neither better nor worse off, democratically 
>speaking, than we are now.

Now that does not surprise me at all.

>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.

I suppose filming question time is inappropriate, because it might show your 
pollies in a bad light ?

>TTYL,

>Marjorie

Cheers
IW