🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3211a926.4792821@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: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 12:19:05 GMT

>G'day Ian,

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

>>>>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.
>>
>>>In order to support your statement, would you mind identifying those
>>>viewpoints which are not represented by any other media in the
>>>country?
>>
>>Media Watch.

>Would you be kind enough to identify the people whose viewpoints are
>uniquely represented by Media Watch?  Or are you confusing viewpoints
>with television shows?

Sure. Those of us who believe that the Media Code of Ethics is a reasonably 
good document, but the disciplin of those who breach this code is not taken 
seriously enough.

People who are shocked by bad journalism, but who enjoy a dose of humour when 
it is exposed.

People who seed editorial "integrity" (I use the term loosely) beeing linked 
with an editor's ability to devorce himself/herself from commercial links. 
(This is difficult when you really only have a choice between three bosses.

>>Last night, 4 Corners, on the plight of expoited workers in Saudi Arabia who 
>>were promised good money when they were briefed in the Philipines. The 
>>sentiments expressed by the producers of that program (though British), have 
>>not been expressed in the main stream media. 

>Is this your best example of an otherwise-unrepresented viewpoint?

No, but it was topical and was a recent as possible.

>That is, if the ABC wasn't around, exploited workers in Saudi Arabia
>are without a voice? 

No, Australians who would have had/will have dealings with Saudi Arabia, can 
rethink their positions with more information.

> If I was in charge of funding and that was the
>best argument for retaining current levels, I'd have the red pen out
>immediately.

Why should it be the best argument for retaining current levels? You are not 
being objective, are you ?

>>In the US, where CNN sometimes takes things quite far, (though unfortunately 
>>they are commercially driven), the government can pull the pin on them, so 
>>they would be scared to show such programs. 

>How can the government pull the pin on CNN?

Brandishing them traitors to the American people. (Or are you not familiar 
with the story).

>>Just look a Kennet's attack on the AGE. I suppose, being a conservative, you 
>>don't see anything wrong with that.

>What do you object to? 

I object to his lack of objectivity.

> I recall Joan Kirner being quite harsh about
>the Sun during the dying days of her government.

So.

>Doug

Cheers
IW