🚀 go-pugleaf

Wisby) writes:>From: wisby@ultra.net.au (Marjorie N. Wisby)
>Subject: Re: Another Bloody Commercial Channel
>Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 01:29:55 LOCAL

>Ian,

>In article <iw.350.000D6572@emphasys.com.au> iw@emphasys.com.au (Ian 
>Williamson) writes:>In article <wisby.36.0B9D4EBD@ultra.net.au> 
>wisby@ultra.net.au (Marjorie N. Wisby) writes:>>From: wisby@ultra.net.au 
>(Marjorie N. Wisby)>>Subject: Re: Another Bloody Commercial Channel
>>>In article douglas.buckser@acslink.aone.net.au (doug buckser) writes:
>>>>iw@emphasys.com.au (Ian Williamson) wrote:


>>>>>>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.

>>>Good grief! Don't the commercial media have people breathing down their necks? 

>>Yes, but for different reasons.

>Perhaps the commercial media have to stay within a fixed budget, yet produce 
>something which will appeal to it's readers/viewers/listeners?

Are you saying that the ABC does not have to stay within its budget ?

And if they become more vialble the commercial managers get a bigger budget, 
which is not the case with the ABC who then just gets less.

>>>What a frivolous comment.

Touche.

>>I'm sorry if you didn't like its pointedness. :-)

>Sorry, didn't find it pointed - just frivolous.

>>>>>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.

>>>When I pay the salaries of the people involved, I think I have a right, as do 
>>>all the rest of the Oz population, to demand that they represent all of the 
>>>population - not just their own group interests.

>>True to a degree, but the commercial stations cover a great deal of the 
>>rubbish that is needed. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with 
>>rubbish, but do we really need an ABC equivalent of  "The Price is Right",
>>"The Bold and the Beautiful", "Neigbors" or "Wheel of Fortune".

>Are you intentionally being offensive, or is it just male chauvinism? I didn't 
>say or imply that I, for one, would want shows of that type. I suppose you 
>thought I would as I am female? Quite wrong.

No, it is you who is being sexist. You presume that the programs I have 
mentioned have larger female audiences. You presume that I have chosen 
programs on sexist grounds. 

Alias or no alias, Marjorie N. Wisby, I do not care what gender you are, or 
choose to be, your arguments are at best shoddy anyway.

I have watched all the programs that I have mentioned in the last two weeks, 
and I do not care what you think of me for it.  At least it gives me a right 
to comment about them without some gender sensitive moron making accusations 
about the programs I have mentioned.

>Neither, however, do I watch things like "GP", or any of the other soapie type 
>shows - either on ABC or commercial stations.

Watched GP last night too.

> Perhaps shows on why the gun 
>lobby opposes gun controls, or even docu-dramas ("Cyclone Tracy" comes to mind 
>- a commercial production, so you may not have come across it) about the real 
>world. 

>The trouble with your comment is that most of the ABC TV *is* rubbish - 
>take the programme for Tuesday 13th August:
>6:30 Yes, Prime Minister  Rpt

Brilliant. It shows what heartless bastards conservative PMs are. :-)

>7:00 News

Better than any other news. More of it, and better quality. 10 would not give 
you the same level of news, even if it took a commercial filled 2 hours. :-)

>7:30 7:30 Report

Always topical, but with about 50 times more meat to it than ACA.

>8:00 The Bill

Sorry, but I am a Bill fan. I know it can be parochial to inner city London, 
but I love it.

>8:30 GP

Last night's episode about a brain damaged young man, and his half destroyed 
mother was yet another good attempt at broaching a difficult topic. I agree, 
it is not everyone's cup of tea, but what program is ? It was the first 
episode I have ever watched and I enjoyed it.

>9:20 Backchat

I didn't hear any of your complaints about the ABC ?

>9:30 Foreign Correspondent

It was more investigative than normal, and perhaps better than normal because 
of it. In general, I enjoy this program a great deal, and there is certainly 
nothing like it on any of the commercial stations. I know it is more travel 
than hard political but it is informative.

>10:25 News

Um, update.

>10:30 Lateline

Being concerned about the rural community, but having different views about 
the problems they face to the NP. I enjoyed watching this, because it made the 
NP accountable for what their bedfellows are doing to the rural sector.

>11:05 Birds of a Feather

Past my berd time :-)

In other words, I enjoyed my night infront of the telly, watching my ABC. :-)
It is a pity you did not.

>11:35 ATV News
>12:00 Movie (B&W, 1959) Rpt
>1:15 Movie (1949) Rpt
>2:30 Richard Speck The Nurse Killer Rpt
>3:00 - 7:00 Open Learning

>Can you seriously suggest that there is much merit in that?

A resounding yes. Obviously, I would like more local content, but content is 
the operative word, not commercial rubbish.

> Lateline is 
>sometimes watchable, but aside from the News and 7:30 Report (both heavily 
>biased, though not as bad as ABC radios's AM and PM, I admit), what is 
>there worth turning on the TV to watch? 

I must admit, I worry about people who call the ABC News "heavily biased". 
Perhaps you should get a shortwave radio and become a ditto head. Why not don 
a white cape (you see, I am trying to avoid being sexist) ? Or have I got you 
all wrong, and you are really a Marxist.

Alternatively, could you give me one example of the ABC's bias, and we can 
debate the point.

>I admit Birds of a Feather and The 
>Bill can be entertaining, but I seldom waste my time in such trivial shows. 

Yep, thinking about crime and punnishment is trivial, why don't they shoot the 
bastards, hey ?

>Foreign Correspondent is irrelevant,

Yes, I suppose what goes on in the rest of the World is irrelevant to you. It 
is pretty damn relevant to me, and many others, but then you haven't displayed 
much open mindedness in this thread, so why am I wasting my time.

> Backchat also - and I cannot see much 
>future in staying up late to watch repeats of old movies I wouldn't have 
>bothered with the first time around.

That is why they are on late at night.

>In fact, the majority of the shows are repeats, which a quick look at other 
>nights appears to be the norm on the ABC.

Lets take the night you have given us.

From 6:30 to 11:05 (in other words all the prime time viewing), there was half 
an hour of repeat that I am aware of, namely Yes PM, which is one of best all 
time comedies ever done.

Now if Birds of a Feather is a repeat, then the total time that repeats were 
on was slightly over 4 hours out of twelve. Well, I do not call that a 
majority, do you ? Especially when almost all of that was out of reach to 
people who live normal hours.

>I will admit that the commercial stations offered worse/no better - hence the 
>TV being idle all night. Not an uncommon thing in my home. I turn it on if 
>there is something worth watching, and not otherwise.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, hey.

>I would agree that Open Learning is a worthwhile effort - but the times it is 
>on tend to nullify any usefulness, except for the insomniac and the student.

What do think Open Learning is for, non-students ? Should childrens' programs 
be suitable viewing for you too ?

>>Children very seldom pay any taxes, but it is important that the ABC
>>represents them too.

>It does, it does.

If your polical view was as sharp as your wit then there would be no argument 
here.

>>The ABC is also there in my opinion to promote the arts without commercial 
>>favour. I am not interested in many of the things it promotes, but I feel that 
>>it is important that these things are promoted anyway. Commercial viability 
>>often comes from grass roots development anyway.

>What, in the above example, promotes "The Arts"? 

Nothing, just like nothing above promotes sport. The ABC cannot deal with 
every topic every night. May I suggest you watch "Review" or the Sunday 
programmes, not to mention the cameos regularly on 7:30 report.

>>>While I would defend ABC radio's coverage of many things, it is my 
>considered >>opinion that to get a decent coverage of the news it is necessary 
>to >>watch/listen to both the ABC and a commercial one. Between the two, one 
>can >>get a vague idea of what is happening, and determine the bias for 
>oneself.

>>I find a combination of ABC and SBS a far better option.

>I will agree that SBS news is not bad - at least SBS admits there is a world 
>outside Oz. However, for Oz news, the ABC and SBS has little to offer a 
>serious interest in what is actually happening here.

As a migrant, I have found the coverage of my old country good, though better 
on SBS, I suppose you can't please everyone all the time.

>>>When we had regional news here (NQ), the local NQTV news gave a really fair 
>>>and largely unbiased account of the affairs of the day - which we have lost, 
>>>thanks to aggregation. The reason their news was so good was that they did, in 
>>>fact, represent the community - and didn't push one or other barrow.

>>Bias of majority opinion in other words. Really progressive stuff I'm sure. :-)

>Are you deliberatly misunderstanding, or is this just point scoring? Re-read, 
>and see if perhaps you can get a glimmer of what I said.

Perhaps you could give a glimmer of an example.

>>>The difference between their coverage of an event, and the ABC's was 
>>>instructive, to say the least. The ABC was always far more biased, and tended 
>>>to come across as less than honest in many ways.

All just vague opinion, from someone who is vaguely opionated.

>>Sure.

>>>The ABC radio news was far better than it's TV news, and still appears to be.

>>Almost all radio news is better than TV news.

>Well, I cannot comment on most of the commercial radio news - I don't listen 
>to them.

They just get the info from the local papers and TV anyway. Still, they filter 
out some of the garbage.

>>>Perhaps the TV should be closed down, and just the radio kept going. 

>>Perhaps not.

>>>>>>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.

>>>Begging the question - which usually means that no defence is possible.  In 
>>>this case that is exactly the case.

>>No, it does not begging the question,and it is not exactly the case either.

>Why not answer it properly, then?

I have.

>>>True or not is entirely germaine to the argument. How can an ex-ALP staffer, 
>>>or an ex-LPA staffer, be unbiased? 

>>How can anyone be unbiased ?

>One can be honest - or is that too much to expect?

No, not from non-commercial TV, but yes from commercial stations. Will you 
give me just one example of where a so called "ex- ALP staffer" has lied ?

>>>Why are they employed by MY ABC?

>>Because it is MY ABC too.

>Ah, but the majority not left-wing, so it is not representative.

The majority is most certainly left wing of you.

>>>>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.

Still haven't seen any claim as such.

>>How many high-profile presenters ?

>Most of them.

So that is why you could name only two ?

>>>Exactly.

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

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

>>>I *think* he meant QED, Doug, though it's hard to be sure. These uneducated 
>>>people sometimes say the most strange things. Shades of Mrs Malaprop!

>>No, I meant Quid Pro Quo. If you can take your mind back a little, you would 
>>realise that the accusations that have been leveled at Kerry O'. This was a 
>>defence, or a statement if you like. He has got his position on his merits.

>Oh good. I wonder if anyone else was aware of that?

>>>BTW, he's calling you 'uninformed', you know.

>>I'm glad someone explained that one.

>Had trouble with it, did you? Not surprised.

No, I was the one who presented the concept.

>>> I suspect he's a very young person, of limited education and experience.

>>Parent, 30, graduate UCT (University of Cape Town, South Africa), post-grad 
>>qualifications from UNSW, and a string of diplomas from non-university 
>>tertiatry institutes in various diverse fields, first payed job was at 5 years 
>>old, immigrant and so on.

>>All education is "limited".

>Depends, child.

You might need them, but I don't.

>>> As such, he is deserving more of pity than censure.

>>In other words I do not deserve any pity.

>So be it.

Indeed.

>>>>>>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?

>>>Nasty, Doug, nasty. Of course they can understand - understand that, as they 
>>>disagree, they don't want to expose the arguments to the population at large. 

>>Yes, because they might be misconstrued as 'right'.  (Note play on word 
>>'right')

>Golly, I'm glad you pointed that out! Might have mistakenly supposed you did 
>it accidentally, otherwise.

Yep, I thought so.

>So you are admitting that deliberate censorship, of a significant part of the 
>population, is being carried out by the ABC?

No, an insignificant part have not been represented. That is different to 
being censored.

> Thanks. I think that about sums 
>up the ABC position. Glad you had the honesty to admit it.

Are you one of the Alexander Downer groupies ?

>>>After all, *some* people may actually listen, and become more informed.

>>Yes, like you. :-)

>Don't need it, thanks. I prefer to be informed by other, more honest, means.

A man/woman with one eye is king/queen amoung the blind. (Avoiding sexual 
stereotypes, again).

If you could support your claims of dishonesty, you would have. 

>>> Silly, really. So few listen to the ABC that it hardly matters, anyway.

>>Well, the ABC have definitely put the fear of God into the Coaltion, but then 
>>they fear any form of questioning, don't they ?

>How silly.

The what you expect from conservatives.

>>>>>>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. 

>>Or less than $33 per capita, per year.

>What does that have to say to anything? Of the 18 million or so population, 
>how many actually got anything for their money? Of the 18,000,000 not all are 
>taxpayers - children for one - so to say "less than $33 per capita" is quite 
>dishonest.

What, children don't count as human beings ?

>How much per taxpayer, is more to the point.

No, it is not, how much per capita is precisely the point, and precisely what 
I said. You seem to have a problem understanding the concept of honesty. 
Still, thats normal with conservatives. I suppose the picture of Joe still 
hangs in its place of pride in the home.

>>>How much
>>>>more money do they need to receive in order to avoid compromising
>>>>their integrity?

>>>I am shocked and disturbed by this one, Doug. They need as much as they want. 
>>>I thought you'd have understood *this* point. Just over half a billion? Pshaw! 
>>>Chicken feed!

>>Astounding wit.

>Thank you. Didn't think you'd see the humour, I must admit.

Actually, you seem to miss most of mine.

>>>In order to maintain the position they'd like to have, they 
>>>need to be above such petty considerations as money.

>>No, but they need to have others considerations too.

>Such as?

1. Promotion of cultural values.
2. Providing information that is otherwise not readily available.
3. Providing entertainment, (for everyone, not just tax payers).
4. Keeping the rest of the media world honest and fighting for their market 
share.
5. Providing sections of the community without a voice in the commercial media 
with a voice on the ABC, such as the indiginous people of Australia.

>>>Filthy topic. Beneath 
>>>their contempt - especially when it's not *their* money, and they don't have 
>>>to *earn* it.

>>Firstly, they pay taxes too, secondly they do generate some revenue.

>True. They very occasionally sell a programme overseas, and they have ABC 
>shops, and sell tapes, videos and CDs of ABC productions. A comparatively 
>small amount of revenue, beside $5.4 billion.

Just the most bums on seats of ANY live shows in Australia, (but instead of 
trying to make a fortune, they made the shows affordable for everyone).

I didn't expect you to know that, even if you did, in your "objectivity", you 
forgot to mention it.

I thought the ABC was not allowed to make a profit.

>>Lets round things off here to make it simple.

>>Say 5 000  staff.

>>Average salary $35 000 (based on average National salary).

>>The leaves us with  $365 000 000, or a little less than $1 million a day. (do 
>>your own calculations if you  want).

>>Lets split radio and TV 50/50, so they are each on a buget (excluding salaries 
>>only) of $500 000 per day.

>>Not much really, if you have to broadcast to a whole country the size of 
>>Australia (and then some).

>I doubt the figures accurately reflect the ABC's position. 

No, as you have kindly pointed out their position is far worse.

>The radio is not 
>likely to get 50% of the budget for running costs, to start with.

I thought that that is one of the Coalition policy objectives, but you know
better. :-)

> Further, as 
>the orchestras etc are included int he budget, as well as some other things, 
>the picture is not quite as you paint it.

No, sorry, they have even less money than I made out. I would not have brought
that up, if I was you.

>>>>>>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.

>>>Good grief! What a copout! One of the oldest in the book. "If you don't 
>>>understand, then I can't explain it to you". 

>>Its a pity I had explained it to him prior and did so again.

>If you did, I must have missed the post. It certainly wasn't in this one I 
>answered.

You seem to miss a great deal.

>>>An attempt (failed!) to occupy 
>>>the high intellectual ground, and prove the superiority of one's understanding.

>>An attempt (failed!) to try and belittle someone based on selective 
>>extractions, without even having the guts to quote fully, because it would 
>>expose them as being two faced.

>Now, now, I quoted the entire post. No selection at all.  

I'm sorry, should I repost my entire position on every subject in every post ,
or is twice, in two seperate postings enough ? Or would you like to read my postings
exclusively through the poor quotations of another poster. 

You did not go to the source, you went to someone else's selections of the source.

>>>What a shame that it only demonstrates the total insupportability of the 
>>>position one has taken, and/or the total inability of one to explain one's 
>>>positon.

>>What a shame, you did not quote my answer to his requests, which was right 
>>there in front of your eyes, and which explained my position clearly.

>As I said, it wasn't int he post I answered! The above was, however, so I 
>assume you wrote it? Why would you write that, *and* explain what you meant?

If you are not prepared to read the original, then don't criticise the original.

>>>What *does* the ABC have to do with 'democracy' in this country? 

>>As you failed to read what was in front of you once, I will answer that 
>>question, again.

>>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.

>So how does that make the ABC necessary to our democracy? Especially seeing 
>you've already explained that the pro-gun lobby won't get airtime because it 
>may convince some of the audience that the arguments are correct?

You can take that as the explaination if you want, but it is not what I said
nor is it what I meant.

Being democratic does not require you to provide access to people who are 
threatening to behave in a non-democratic way to the National broadcaster .

>>>IMHO, if the 
>>>ABC closed down tomorrow we'd be neither better nor worse off, democratically 
>>>speaking, than we are now.

>>Now that does not surprise me at all.

>You haven't convinced me that I'm wrong, you know. Try again.

Look, I probably never will, but I don't think that is any reflection on me.

>>>In fact, whilst I'd query the meaning of 'democracy' in the context of 
>>>Australia, I would certainly argue quite strongly that *if* the ABC is 
>>>essential to democracy in this country, then it's taking a far too political 
>>>role, and the sooner it's closed down, the better.

>>I suppose filming question time is inappropriate, because it might show your 
>>pollies in a bad light ?

>Question time, or any other parliamentary "debates" is simply the adult 
>version of "Kindergarten of the Air". It always has been, since I can first 
>remember hearing the "debates" on 2BL in Sydney, and little has changed.

>Politicians of bpth sides of the House are badly behaved, and the "debates" 
>are a sham. The whole thing should be shown to everyone, so the populace can 
>see just what sort of people are running the country.

Yep, the coalition. You say it should be shown, well it is, by the good old ABC.

>I hold no brief for politicians, especially when they are in Parliament. The 
>antics are worthy of 5-year-olds, in general, and are a disgrace to the 
>country. There are, and have been, individuals who can rise above the general 
>tenor of the place - but very few, and seldom.

>The broadcasting of this travesty is not, regettably, something most people 
>will listen to/watch, so there is little damage done to the politicians by 
>broadcasting it.

>I still watch the proceedings, sometimes, but have been so disgusted by it in 
>the past that I seldom bother.

Watching it as a new migrant  put me squarely in the Labor camp.

>TTYL,

>Marjorie

Cheers
IW