🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <320f299a.8992714@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: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:57:00 GMT

>G'day Ian,

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

>>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".

>1. After the Beep
>2. GP
>3. Mercury
>4. TV TV
>5. Birds of a Feather

>And so on.

At least, you made me laugh.

Being serious were you ?

>>>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.
>>
>>Sure.

>Well, that reply certainly convinced me.  Marjorie, you'll have to
>admit that he's got you there.

That Doug, is called sarcasm.

>>>Perhaps the TV should be closed down, and just the radio kept going. 
>>
>>Perhaps not.

>How could I have been so blind?  Of course!  "Perhaps not."  Why
>didn't I think of that counter-argument?  Seven years of college down
>the drain...

What is being countered, a suggestion or an argument ? Oh, you don't know the 
difference do you ?

>>>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 ?

>Because the ABC commercials say that they are (e.g., independent,
>fair).

And you accuse me of not answering the question ? :-)

>>>>>I'm sorry, but not every view can be expressed or reflected by the ABC. 

>In the Age last week, Sir Rupert Hamer said, "The ABC is a national
>institution of immense importance.  It's built up an international
>reputation and it has certain principles which have to be preserved.
>One principle is complete independence and the even-handed treatment
>of issues..."

In other words, if you were an exteme left wing socialist, you would say that 
it was biased to the right, and you say it is biased to the left.

I say leave it alone, which is what your great quote seems to support too.

>How can you reconcile your quoted statement with Sir Rupert's?

See above.

>>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.

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. 

The only commercial programs that have been anywhere close to that sort of 
coverage are the Sunday programs on 9.

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. We are fortunate that the ABC is 
protected from such influences, though the commercial media (if it was the 
only media) would be endangered by policy changes if they broadcasted programs 
that strongly criticised government policy.

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

>Doug

Cheers
IW