🚀 go-pugleaf

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? 
What a frivolous comment.

>>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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

>>>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.

True or not is entirely germaine to the argument. How can an ex-ALP staffer, 
or an ex-LPA staffer, be unbiased? Why are they employed by MY ABC?

>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.

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!

BTW, he's calling you 'uninformed', you know. I suspect he's a very young 
person, of limited education and experience. As such, he is deserving more of 
pity than censure.

>>>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. 
After all, *some* people may actually listen, and become more informed. Silly, 
really. So few listen to the ABC that it hardly matters, anyway.

>>>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.  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!  In order to maintain the position they'd like to have, they 
need to be above such petty considerations as money. Filthy topic. Beneath 
their contempt - especially when it's not *their* money, and they don't have 
to *earn* it.

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

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 *does* the ABC have to do with 'democracy' in this country? IMHO, if the 
ABC closed down tomorrow we'd be neither better nor worse off, democratically 
speaking, than we are now.

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.

TTYL,

Marjorie