🚀 go-pugleaf

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

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

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

>>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?

>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.)

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

>>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.

>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?

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

>>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?

>>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?

>>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?

Doug

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"It's a tough old fuckin' world out there, and if your self-image is based
on how much respect you receive from me, you'd better just stick your 
head in the oven right now."  -- Vinnie Jordan

douglas.buckser@acslink.aone.net.au