Federal Coalition Government 2013-?

[fatprop]

I do wonder why the ABC continues to cut production instead of the importation of content and channels.

Someone, somewhere, highlighted the question of why import and pay for say "Peppa Pig", a commercial production with commercial marketing tie ins etc etc. while cutting children's TV production

Why in a tight business/budget world did it seem like a good idea to create more TV channels

I have less interest in their obvious bias (a perfect opportunity for someone to post some academic report on fair and reasonable their reporting always is ) I have no real problem with obvious bias, just how they spend "my" money

How many radio stations, how many TV channels, should a public broadcaster really provide?

 

[formerflanker]

How many radio stations, how many TV channels, should a public broadcaster really provide?

Currently, the ABC saturates the market in a way that is illegal for commercial broadcasters. The ABC has four TV stations and five radio stations in every city, as well as an online newspaper, bookshops and a publishing house.
SBS has two TV stations (three, including the indigenous one) and four radio stations.

I have less interest in their obvious bias (a perfect opportunity for someone to post some academic report on fair and reasonable their reporting always is ) I have no real problem with obvious bias, just how they spend "my" money

But why should all taxpayers fund a party-political broadcaster? Although your argument does have merit - if the Government removed Scott and installed a pro-conservative who swept all left-leaning presenters away, and replaced them with leaders of right wing thinking, then all would be OK!

Imagine and ABC full of 2GB broadcasters, journalists from the Tele and The Oz, and presenters from Fox. Not one progressive with their own show. I am sure that imbalance will set the town on fire - but the current left-wing bias is acceptable isn't it.

 

[Braveheart81]

Currently, the ABC saturates the market in a way that is illegal for commercial broadcasters. The ABC has four TV stations and five radio stations in every city, as well as an online newspaper, bookshops and a publishing house.
SBS has two TV stations (three, including the indigenous one) and four radio stations.


But why should all taxpayers fund a party-political broadcaster? Although your argument does have merit - if the Government removed Scott and installed a pro-conservative who swept all left-leaning presenters away, and replaced them with leaders of right wing thinking, then all would be OK!

Imagine and ABC full of 2GB broadcasters, journalists from the Tele and The Oz, and presenters from Fox. Not one progressive with their own show. I am sure that imbalance will set the town on fire - but the current left-wing bias is acceptable isn't it.

Let's not forget that Mark Scott was put there by the Howard Government. Paint him all you like as being a left wing loony but it simply isn't true.

You find me all the right wing conservatives in the media who are willing to take a pay cut and reduce the amount of editorialising they're able to do to work at the ABC.

Look at any section of the public service and it is more likely to contain people with progressive political leanings. They are more likely to be altruistic thinking they're doing something for the public good rather than make the most money they possibly can.

It's like people complaining that Triple J is too left wing. Well, go out and find me all the under 25 conservatives who are desperate for a low paying job in the arts.

 

[Bowside]

I do wonder why the ABC continues to cut production instead of the importation of content and channels.

Someone, somewhere, highlighted the question of why import and pay for say "Peppa Pig", a commercial production with commercial marketing tie ins etc etc. while cutting children's TV production

Why in a tight business/budget world did it seem like a good idea to create more TV channels

I have less interest in their obvious bias (a perfect opportunity for someone to post some academic report on fair and reasonable their reporting always is ) I have no real problem with obvious bias, just how they spend "my" money

How many radio stations, how many TV channels, should a public broadcaster really provide?

ABC is just following the BBC model really.

But lets look at what the ABC has added over the last few years:

1. ABC Kids - I reckon its a pretty worthy addition. Important for kids to be able to watch TV without advertising.

2. Triple J Unearthed - Pretty much every half decent musician coming into the popular culture nowadays comes through this radio station. It's on digital radio so it costs fuck all. Fairly worthy.

3. Double J - Again on digitial, this station wasn't started from scratch but rather a rejig of a dying station (DIG). It carters to the older audience who don't want to listen to triple J anymore. The documentaries have proven very popular, and the station is getting some surprisingly big names on board. Iggy Pop just spent a month as resident DJ.


It's all well and good to argue the ABC is a waste of money. But no one else in the market does what they do. The commercial stations don't support up and coming musicians. They don't even support up and coming journalists - all the major news anchors on 7, 9 etc all came through the ABC and were then poached.

If you want to talk about a waste of money, there are 100 better targets than the ABC. How about negative gearing, how about direct action industry subsidisation. How about all the money every level of government wastes trying to fight a war on drugs that was lost years ago.

 

[fatprop]

If you want to talk about a waste of money, there are 100 better targets than the ABC. How about negative gearing, how about direct action industry subsidisation. How about all the money every level of government wastes trying to fight a war on drugs that was lost years ago.

Not really my point, I like a lot of their stuff as well, it is just in a budget challenged environment (and there always will be budgetary pressure on the ABC), providing more services and filling them with commercially produced international products doesn't seem the best way to spend their money.

How about less services and more Australian content for a radical idea

 

[Runner]

ABC is just following the BBC model really.

But lets look at what the ABC has added over the last few years:

1. ABC Kids - I reckon its a pretty worthy addition. Important for kids to be able to watch TV without advertising.

2. Triple J Unearthed - Pretty much every half decent musician coming into the popular culture nowadays comes through this radio station. It's on digital radio so it costs fuck all. Fairly worthy.

3. Double J - Again on digitial, this station wasn't started from scratch but rather a rejig of a dying station (DIG). It carters to the older audience who don't want to listen to triple J anymore. The documentaries have proven very popular, and the station is getting some surprisingly big names on board. Iggy Pop just spent a month as resident DJ.


It's all well and good to argue the ABC is a waste of money. But no one else in the market does what they do. The commercial stations don't support up and coming musicians. They don't even support up and coming journalists - all the major news anchors on 7, 9 etc all came through the ABC and were then poached.

If you want to talk about a waste of money, there are 100 better targets than the ABC. How about negative gearing, how about direct action industry subsidisation. How about all the money every level of government wastes trying to fight a war on drugs that was lost years ago.

My criticisms have been about the current affairs on the ABC and it's bias.

I can see a place for 7.30 and Four Corners.

But why the multiples of shows that all cover the same stories.

Do we need Q&A, The Drum, Lateline, Insiders ? All this for 13% of the audience.

Perhaps that says a lot. They have stopped watching in protest over the years when in the past they were considered the very best.

How does SBS achieve their coverage without the same criticism of bias. They have controversial shows like Insight and Dateline but present evenhandedly thats how!

Why can't the ABC?

 

[fatprop]

My criticisms have been about the current affairs on the ABC and it's bias.

I can see a place for 7.30 and Four Corners.

But why the multiples of shows that all cover the same stories.

Do we need Q&A, The Drum, Lateline, Insiders ? All this for 13% of the audience.

Perhaps that says a lot. They have stopped watching in protest over the years when in the past they were considered the very best.

How does SBS achieve their coverage without the same criticism of bias. They have controversial shows like Insight and Dateline but present evenhandedly thats how!

Why can't the ABC?

i have little concerns about "Q&A, The Drum, Lateline, Insiders" obvious bias doesn't worry me

I would prefer to more Aus produced shows than spending money on Eggheads, The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Inside Amy Schumer & The High Fructose Adventures of Annoying Orange

I fail to see how that is meeting their charter

 

[Runner]

i have little concerns about "Q&A, The Drum, Lateline, Insiders" obvious bias doesn't worry me

I would prefer to more Aus produced shows than spending money on Eggheads, The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Inside Amy Schumer & The High Fructose Adventures of Annoying Orange

I fail to see how that is meeting their charter

Happy to support that by axing those other shows and spending more on drama etc as you suggest.

 

[formerflanker]

obvious bias doesn't worry me

Good grief. The bias is so endemic that many people don't even see it anymore. Q&A always has more progressives than conservatives but that is now established, non-remarkable practice.
If all the bias was slanted to the Right, howls of outrage would emerge.
The Charter is breached on a persistent basis. The ABC is not balanced and should be either brought into line or disposed of.

 

[Ruggo]

Bias my arse. The ABC covers the whole diverse fabric of Australian society. It represents the diversity of Australian society rather well from the conservative man on the land or the latte sipping inner city green and all in between. The bias lies in peoples political ontology's, not the ABC.

 

[Runner]

The broad entity of the ABC may do that very well Ruggo, but current affairs is the point of discussion as to where the bias lies.

Playschool is not in question here

 

[Ruggo]

Same applies in regards to my comments about the ABC's news and current affairs.

 

[Ruggo]

Maybe conservatives are crying foul because the ABC represents Australia and not specifically TEAM AUSTRALIA.

 

[formerflanker]

Maybe conservatives are crying foul because the ABC represents Australia and not specifically TEAM AUSTRALIA.

ABC's "Media Watch" has been going since 1989. I challenge you to name one conservative presenter of MW in the intervening quarter of a century.
You won't be able to. The ABC only represents left-of-centre political thinking.

 

[matty_k]

As said by Malcolm Turnbull on QandA and I'm paraphrasing
"Every second email is saying that the ABC is biased against the right. Then every other is saying that it is biased against the left."

Make of that what you will.

 

[formerflanker]

As said by Malcolm Turnbull on QandA and I'm paraphrasing
"Every second email is saying that the ABC is biased against the right. Then every other is saying that it is biased against the left."

Make of that what you will.

But Malcolm is the ABC's champion! No way would he criticise it.
PS - what was the conservative/left ratio tonight on Q&A? 4/2! The imbalance always happens.

 

[matty_k]

But Malcolm is the ABC's champion! No way would he criticise it.
PS - what was the conservative/left ratio tonight on Q&A? 4/2! The imbalance always happens.

Tonight: In the #QandA audience tonight: COALITION 42%, ALP 38%, GREENS 11%.

Last week: In the #QandA audience tonight: COALITION 39%, ALP 35%, GREENS 14%.

Last Fortnight: In the #QandA audience tonight: COALITION 40%, ALP 32%, GREENS 11%.

Four weeks ago: In the #QandA audience tonight: COALITION 40%, ALP 37%, GREENS 13%.

So the answer to your PS is no.

 

[formerflanker]

Tonight: In the #QandA audience tonight: COALITION 42%, ALP 38%, GREENS 11%.

Last week: In the #QandA audience tonight: COALITION 39%, ALP 35%, GREENS 14%.

Last Fortnight: In the #QandA audience tonight: COALITION 40%, ALP 32%, GREENS 11%.

Four weeks ago: In the #QandA audience tonight: COALITION 40%, ALP 37%, GREENS 13%.

So the answer to your PS is no.

Let's move past the false statistics that audience members "self disclose" on entry to the Q&A set with the following facts:
The panel was stacked with left-of-centre personalities.
Malcolm Turnbull - from the Liberal Left

Tanya Plibersek - Labor

Ben Elton - far Left “comedian” and warmist

Jonathan Holmes - Leftist and warmist
Sarrah Le Marquand - Daily Telegraph columnist, who last night praised Julia Gillard’s misogyny speech.
Q&A claimed 42 per cent of the studio audience were Coalition voters. Yet 100 per cent of the horselaughs, 95 per cent of the applause and 90 per cent of the criticism was directed at the Abbott Government. Abbott’s strongest defender on the show was his great rival, Turnbull.
So let's not get blinded by the lies people tell to get on the set of Q&A. It is biased. Tony Jones is biased. His interruptions of conservatives are now matter of legend. His language is anti-conservative. And next week the stacked panel continues with 5 left-of-centre types and one Conservative (and Vanstone is of the Liberals left!!!)

 

[fatprop]

Bias my arse. The ABC covers the whole diverse fabric of Australian society. It represents the diversity of Australian society rather well from the conservative man on the land or the latte sipping inner city green and all in between. The bias lies in peoples political ontology's, not the ABC.

Well we get to disagree there, prime example is the ABC's Q&A on our muslim troubles.

Who was the muslim representatives? Any fire brand supporters of ISIS, any principles of the Muslim schools who are now being de-registered for not teaching their girls the curriculum, nah, a dozen Muslim women and academics explaining how they are being wronged. Now they may be the collateral damage, but they weren't the problem.

As for their audience, it is the latte sipping inner city green (ie the educated arts graduate living in an inner city suburb), have a look at their viewer demographics if you disagree.

 

[Braveheart81]

Let's move past the false statistics that audience members "self disclose" on entry to the Q&A set with the following facts:
The panel was stacked with left-of-centre personalities.
Malcolm Turnbull - from the Liberal Left

Tanya Plibersek - Labor

Ben Elton - far Left “comedian” and warmist

Jonathan Holmes - Leftist and warmist
Sarrah Le Marquand - Daily Telegraph columnist, who last night praised Julia Gillard’s misogyny speech.
Q&A claimed 42 per cent of the studio audience were Coalition voters. Yet 100 per cent of the horselaughs, 95 per cent of the applause and 90 per cent of the criticism was directed at the Abbott Government. Abbott’s strongest defender on the show was his great rival, Turnbull.
So let's not get blinded by the lies people tell to get on the set of Q&A. It is biased. Tony Jones is biased. His interruptions of conservatives are now matter of legend. His language is anti-conservative. And next week the stacked panel continues with 5 left-of-centre types and one Conservative (and Vanstone is of the Liberals left!!!)

If your political radar is telling you that Turnbull is towards the left and that a female Daily Telegraph journalist is of the left because they praised Julia Gillard's misogyny speech, then you're going to consider just about everything left biased.

Supporters of some of the conservative commentators like Bolt and Jones claim everything is left biased. They fail to see that it is because they have positioned themselves so far to the right that almost everyone is more left leaning than they are.