🚀 go-pugleaf

G'day Graham,

Sorry for the tardy reply, but installing a new comms package stuffed
up my newsreader and it took a week of banging my head against the
keyboard before someone figured out what the problem was.

>The problem is that you can't have a 'big league' every week. In the past
>year, there have been some interesting shows (Kennett's Casino comes to mind)
>but none that have the far-reaching impact of the expose of corruption in
>Queensland, under Joh, or New South Wales, under Wran.

The casino program is a very good example.  After a big build-up in
the local paper, I watched the program and was very disappointed.
Although there were some attempted linkages of various events (e.g.,
Williams played fast and loose with a small real estate deal,
therefore he's dirty, therefore he must have cheated on the casino
contract), I don't recall a significant revelation in the program.

From my viewer's perspective, it appeared as though the producers
and/or reporters think he's dirty, but they just can't prove it.  And
in my opinion, you don't put the story to air until you -can- prove
something.

>Yet I can't think of many times when the ABC has led the
>>pack, instead of chasing news which was broken by other networks.

>And slicing 12% off the budget will help investigative journalism? 

If you're going just going to run with the pack, I would think that
you can do just as well with 12 percent fewer resources.  Furthermore,
it's my understanding that the news and current affairs budget(s)
won't be reduced.

>Doug, you know as well as I that the net result will be more media releases
>masquerading as news, not less.

Are you suggesting that this does not occur at present?

>>Perhaps the ABC should concentrate on producing children's shows,
>>which is one of the strengths of its American counterpart.
>
>The ABC is _not_ analagous to PBS .. and should never be marginalised into
>that role.

Why not?  (Seriously, I'm not baiting you.)

>But there is little doubt (to me, at least) that the ABC is not being 
>subjected merely to black-hole inspired budget cuts. It is being 'taught a
>lesson' by the Howard government. 

The ABC is a government-funded organisation.  The federal government
is anticipated to cut back quite a bit of funding.  The two logical
questions are:

1. Why should the ABC be treated differently than many other
   organisations, such as the DSS for example?

2. If outside funding would provide the missing funds, why would
   sponsorship or commercials be so bad?

>The appointment of a man who slavers over John Howard as Chairman, and of a
>corporate hatchet-man with no media experience as an overseer .. these are
>not merely 'budget cuts', these are an attempt to remodel the ABC into
>something akin to the old SABC, or most government broadcasters.

C'mon, Graham, it's not that bad.  It's my understanding that the ABC
has a significant amount of duplicated management and above-average
production costs.  Are you sure that you're not gilding the lily a
bit?

Doug

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"If I was ever through with my life, I'd like to go out in style,
taking as many deserving individuals as possible with me.
Maybe I'd join some terrorist organization and volunteer to use
their 'suicide bomb.'   Of course, I'd want to 'say goodbye' to
the whole group just before I left the hideout for the target."
      -- Bob O`Bob

douglas.buckser@acslink.aone.net.au