🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <32071f3b.7383855@news.mel.aone.net.au> douglas.buckser@acslink.aone.net.au (doug buckser) writes:
>From: douglas.buckser@acslink.aone.net.au (doug buckser)
>Subject: Re: Another Bloody Commercial Channel
>Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 10:58:09 GMT

>G'day Ian,

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

>>>The newspapers in Melbourne have used the figure of $540,000,000 per
>>>year.  In these difficult financial times, perhaps some of the ABC's
>>>out-of-scope activities should be merged.
>>
>>Such as what ?

>1. merge or eliminate one or more of the orchestras

Get rid of numerous jobs, and take away many peoples' chance to see live 
orchestral music. Stop income from royalties of these orchestras and the 
production of many acclaimed CDs.

Make the country culturally poorer and damage the music industry. 

>2. merge Radio National and the regional network (e.g., 3LO)

That make real economic sense. :-) Let listners in Perth know what is 
happening on the local Port Maquarie scene, or have 200 news readers where one 
will do.

The reason for both National and regional radio is because people have both 
national and regional interests.

>3. put drama production out to contract (particularly because the
>   ABC dramas have been so poorly received in recent years)

That depends what you call poorly received. 

>>>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.

>Really?  It's my understanding that there are separate management
>structures for radio and television?  Why not merge these structures,
>so management positions are responsible for both television and radio?

Because radio and television are two different industries. It is normal 
business practice to have different managers for different types of business, 
this is not exceptional to the ABC. The knowledge base needed for radio is 
different to that needed for TV.

>>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.

>I'll name four progressive (IMHO) radio presenters who are broadcast
>here in Melbourne.  Would you mind identifying five of their
>conservative counterparts?  (I would assume that you'd support balance
>between progressive and conservative presentation.)

Not if the population of Australia is not in that balance no.

>1. Phillip Adams (RN)
>2. Terry Laidler (3LO)
>3. Geraldine Doogue (RN)
>4. Jon Faine (3LO)

All left wing pogressives, hey. :-)

>>>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.

>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.

Places of education tend to be more left wing. Does that tell you something ?

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

>Groovy, man.  In order to get into the mood to write such right-on
>statements, do you put on flares and tie-dye shirts before sitting
>down before the keyboard?  Is there incense burning on the desk, a
>multi-coloured globe in the lamp, Jimmy Hendrix on the stereo and a
>Che Guevara poster on the wall?

No. I listen to classical music, almost exclusively, I would say that I dress 
casually but conservatively, and I have no posters of anyone at all. Anything 
I have on Che Guevara would be contained in books by Jillian Becker.

You seem to have a naive perception of left wing, just like you seem to have a 
naive perception of the ABC. :-)

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

One thing in return for another.

>>>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?

No, I do not think the ABC is there to reflect the views of men who need to 
flash their genetalia, nor do I think the ABC is there to reflect the opinions 
of those tho do Nazi imperonations of the PM. Call me conservative if you 
like. :-)

>>>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?

However much it takes so that they do not rely on any commercial sources. I 
all honesty, I agree, there are two sides to this matter. One is money wasted, 
and the other is money needed. I you think that the ABC is a waste, or its 
waste is excessive, I am sure you will be able to find examples. At the same 
time, I am sure that I could find waste in any organisation, private of public.

I am prepared to put up with a bit of waste, because I believe there are more 
important issues here. You do not seem to be prepared to tollerate any waste 
at all.

Personally, I like to let the oil drip from the cogs, rather than wear the 
cogs down, because they are dry, because the machine is more valuable than a 
bit of wasted oil.

>>>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.

>I'm sorry -- I didn't realise that aus.general is a moderated
>conference and that you're in charge of deciding who should and
>shouldn't participate in various discussions.  How long have you been
>filling this position?

You are entitiled to post what you like, and I have made no request for you to 
do otherwise. To expect me to answer you in all seriousness, when it comes 
to commercial interests and media, is a tall order, when you fail to 
understand basic princilples.

The ABC is essential to Australian democracy because it expresses opinion that 
is not controlled by big business, or politicians in power. If you take the 
ABC away, then you have a whole host of corporate voices, not private ones.

>Doug

Cheers
IW