🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3201a572.5420055@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, 02 Aug 1996 07:33:19 GMT

>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.

Are you employed by Kennet ? :-)

There is a great deal that is very shakey about Kennet's envolvement (and the 
Liberal Party), if you choose not to see it, fine. Proof is another issue.

>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. 

In my opinion, buying units under cost price is dirty, so is the employment of 
relatives under the circumstances. From this viewers perspective they have 
proven he is dirty.

> And
>in my opinion, you don't put the story to air until you -can- prove
>something.

Proof of guilt is determined by a court of law and not the ABC (or Sixty 
Minutes :-).  It is however the role of the media to question.

>>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.

Just "modified" to suit the powers that be.

>>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?

Less so with the ABC than the commercial channels.

>>>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.)

Concentration of media is a problem in this country.

>>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?

Because the ABC is not providing Job Search, and the DSS does not provide 
(all) the news each night.

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

Commercial interests compromise integrety on any subject. Always have  and 
always will.

>>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

Doug.

If you fail to see the danger of commercial interests being envolved in  
ABC funding I have to seriously consider whether it is worth a reply.

Cheers
IW