🚀 go-pugleaf

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?

>>What a frivolous comment.

>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.

Neither, however, do I watch things like "GP", or any of the other soapie type 
shows - either on ABC or commercial stations. 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
7:00 News
7:30 7:30 Report
8:00 The Bill
8:30 GP
9:20 Backchat
9:30 Foreign Correspondent
10:25 News
10:30 Lateline
11:05 Birds of a Feather
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? 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 admit Birds of a Feather and The 
Bill can be entertaining, but I seldom waste my time in such trivial shows. 
Foreign Correspondent is irrelevant, 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.

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

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.

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.

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

It does, it does.

>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"? 

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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?

>>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?

>>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.

>>>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.

>How many high-profile presenters ?

Most of them.

>>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.

>> 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.

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

>In other words I do not deserve any pity.

So be it.

>>>>>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.

So you are admitting that deliberate censorship, of a significant part of the 
population, is being carried out by the ABC? Thanks. I think that about sums 
up the ABC position. Glad you had the honesty to admit it.

>>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.

>> 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.

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

>>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.

>>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?

>>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.

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

>>>>>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.

>>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.  

>>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?

>>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?

>>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.

>>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.

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.

TTYL,

Marjorie