The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The ABC: from correcting market failure to causing it > Comments

The ABC: from correcting market failure to causing it : Comments

By Judith Sloan, published 2/8/2011

Whose interest does the ABC really serve these days?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
"How does this square with any definition of impartial and unbiased journalism to which the taxpayer is forced to commit funds?"

Perfectly. Any unbiased and impartial examination of the cases for and against NBN or of Tony Abbot's performance will come to the same view. Impartiality is not the same as not coming to a view. It is a matter of being rational and meticulous in examination of the evidence and arguments on an issue, and in the reasoning used subsequently to form a view.

Intelligent questioning, moreover, requires an understanding of the facts and arguments, and some theories about them. (Think of Darwin and the gravel pit.)
Posted by ozbib, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 9:58:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I happened to watch Nine News on Sunday night. There was not one item on national politics and not one international item of any kind. I also recently saw the interview with Rupert Murdoch in which he said that the reason he entered the UK newspaper market was to 'have influence' (his words). Add to this the scurrilous Fox network in the US, and the recent political moves around Channel Ten, and it clear that Judith Sloan's trust in privately owned media is more to do with her own political leanings than the public interest.

I am in the position of being forced to buy politically biased Murdoch newspapers because there is no alternative. Is this the market at work?

If Australia wants an international news presence which reflects the national interest, the public broadcaster is the only rational choice.
Posted by Godo, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 10:58:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fancy that a far right exe Australian writer attacking the ABC, well blow me down. The ABC has been defunded and centralised, it has reduced the production values of all of it's services. That said I think better funding of the ABC and SBS would be the way to go.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 11:22:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Judith, what is it about ABC journalists expressing an opinion that so offends and unsettles you?
I welcome the opportunity to gain an insight into the thoughts and emotions of all journalists. We have a pretty good idea of Andrew Bolt's beliefs and value system and the views of Piers Akerman, Alan Jones and John Laws are known. They are in the business of asking questions of public figures, so what makes them exempt in your eyes and not employees of the ABC?
I think it is healthy, in a democracy, to know the views, beliefs and opinions of all public figures. Armed with such knowledge we might be able to avoid being sprung by the Reiths, Howards, Gillards and Rudds of this country.
For instance what does George Pell really think of asylum seekers and homosexual love?
How was Marius Kloppers able to serve in the South African military and study at Wits with the riots and misery of Apartheid swirling around him?
I fear you are blind and naive in believing that commercial media has appropriately served this country. Where are they on the use and management of water, the mismanagement of the ADF and the Qantas buble that is about to burst?
I agree with the comments of Ozbib and Godo. Two things lacking in your article Judith, are tolerance and maturity.
Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 11:39:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done, Judith. The Green-Left bias of the ABC is pretty evident. It's OK I think for journalists not funded by the taxpayer to express opinions in favour of one political ideology or another but it annoys me that my taxes pay for Barrie, Fran, Virginia and their fellow-travellers to peddle their Green-Left views.
Posted by Senior Victorian, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 11:43:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So long as the ABC is taxpayer funded it should reflect the views of the overall community and not simply the left wing views of those who work for it. That is just common sense. I also believe that this is reflected in its charter.

If this is somehow not possible, perhaps a second government funded organisation could be established to reflect the views of the rest of us that are not being represented by the current staff at the ABC.
Posted by Sniggid, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 11:55:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Bruce,

That the two things missing in the article are <<tolerance and maturity>>

Ooops!

Did Judith trap the old nerve associated with "pontificating over the top of the ramparts of self righteous indignation syndrome"?

Pompous anyone?
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 12:43:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very valid comments Judith.

We shouldn't spend a billion dollars on something that others could provide from free and which is out of step with the views of the people who pay for it.

ABC = Anti Business Coalition
Posted by DavidL, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 1:25:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's face it people: When you lean to an extreme end of a political spectrum, it's easier to notice 'bias' of anything that doesn't agree with you all the time.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 2:26:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The future involves a redrafted Charter".

Yes, badly needed.

There is no doubt that the ABC has strayed well out of the area that I always understood to be the original reason for its existence; providing what the crass commercial channels do not provide.
And yes, they do provide services that do not rate on the comparison charts with the commercials, areas such as national and international news, but no one in their right mind can say that the commercials do this job better, not for a second. It is, then, an indication that the viewers like their news to be uncomplicated and easy to digest. One could almost say, mindless.

The ABC's strengths lay in the programs that no one attempts to copy; Foreign Correspondent, Catalyst, Four Corners, Media Watch, Gardening, News and the 7.30 Report. Note, they are all Australian-made.

All local programs.

There is nothing that comes even close to this line-up, perhaps anywhere in the world. If that was the only contribution, that would be enough. But to this they used to add (and could do so again) quality British programs such as Dalziell and Pascoe, Wire in the Blood, Murphy’s Law, Rose and Maloney and many others. Now, however, due to budgetary constraints and the feeding of four TV channels, they have paid the price for the demise of good drama in return for those programs that must be seen as being of little value, many of which must be free of any cost, so poor is the quality.

Then we have the repeats and sadly, no one does this better, which when added to the costs of puerile promos, incessant advertising for their retail shops, their magazines and on, the ABC could easily be seen as a commercial network in all other ways.

This is what requires correcting.
Posted by rexw, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 2:53:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued

If one must question anything it should be the need for four TV channels, repeating programs, ad nauseum, with perhaps almost the very worst selection of programs available, all I would guess as a result of the expansion and maintenance of this grand network, fifty percent of which serves little purpose. Who needs 24/7 News. Seen once, it then becomes yet another repeat, all day, all night.

The ABC has become an empire with champagne tastes but a beer budget. And over time, Scott seems to have lost sight of the reason that they are there, one of which is to provide a platform for good Australian programs and drama. As I said, they excel in the documentary and news areas but their record in drama is nothing short of disgraceful.

They gave failed miserably.

The recent attempts of East of Everything, Bed of Roses must have cost the earth to produce but let down badly by the quality of scriptwriting, which since the days of Seachange have not added anything to the national network’s reputation until Rake, seen as acceptable. Now Crownies, so far so good, but history shows that it is unlikely to continue with the same quality. So 50 years has not enabled a publicly-funded network to develop a quality group of artisans to provide local entertainment.

Failed, once again.

This is now the new ABC we seem to have to live with. A Mark Scott created empire with little to recommend it, full of second-rate programs, repeats and incessant advertising, conveniently called promos, legal under the out-of-date ABC charter.

But the time has not yet come for the ABC to become another mediocre player as with the networks of 7, 9, 10 and to a lesser degree, SBS. They are all one step away from emulating the force-fed pap and drivel from the likes of Fox and the US networks which have probably contributed more to the mindless population of the US, values askew, financially and morally bankrupt, than any other single factor.

Without the many quality ABC segments, we could become just as mindless
Posted by rexw, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 2:57:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The usual ideological bias presented as economic theory, market failure is irrelevant.
The ABC and the commercial media are in totally different markets, the commercial media's aim is to keep the viewers/readers entertained between advertisements. There's no profit in accurate reporting.
At its worst, commercial media, with its tendentious 'news' reporting is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for plutocrats.

There might be an argument to trim the ABC's entertainment budget,however, the real target of the right wing ideologues is the Corporation's accurate and balanced political coverage.
Posted by mac, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 4:05:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ABC has deliberately and blatantly taken the stand of accepting anthropogenic global warming (AGW), when there is no compelling scientific evidence to substantiate the AGW hypothesis. Yet the ABC will swear black and blue that it is not biased.

There is little point in maintaining an ABC that refuses to comply with or to appear to comply with the impartiality requirements of its Charter.

IT SHOULD BE PRIVATI5ED AND SUBJECTED TO THE PRESSURES OF THE MARKET PLACE
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 6:19:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom do you mean sell the ABC and constantly have those fasinating and informative adverts interrupted by a "Reality Show". Even Rupert Murdoch would not consider that.....Then again he did bring Adverts into PAID TV!!
Posted by Kipp, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 7:27:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The whole point is the ABC is funded by the taxpayer and has a responsibility to represent the overall views of the community, not just those of its left wing staff. This includes global warming where it simply takes one view and dismisses all others.

There is no need to privatise the ABC but there is a need to make sure that it is staffed by people who come from all viewpoints, left and right.
Posted by Sniggid, Wednesday, 3 August 2011 10:33:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some years ago, before the ABC become quite as biased as it has recently, I was listening to 4QR, as I usually did.

In a time when another prime minister was taking some necessary steps to reduce the flood of boat people, I had just been subjected to a rash of 3 academics all ranting against any measures to stop them, [unbiasedly of course].

Getting sick of this I finally rang & complained. My conversation with the producer was as follows.

Me, "I'm getting a bit sick of this one sided argument you're promoting", in favour of boat people.

Her, "This is the general opinion we're getting".

Me, "Strange, when the last poll found over 80% of the population was in favour of stopping them". "Have you tried looking for someone more aligned with the population"?

Her, "Yes, we have actually, & couldn't find anyone willing to go on air".

Me, "Have you tried anyone other than academics, & the latte set"?

Her slightly annoyed, "We don't use the latte set, but there is a policy about [using] academics for opinion pieces".

There never was any balance added to the subject.

The only way to make the ABC a worthwhile organization would be to move it's entire operation to Longreach, [or similar place]. The latte set, & the would-bees would stay in what they consider to be civilisation, & perhaps some real people would take over.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 3 August 2011 11:33:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What did I tell you people?

The only people that perceive an unacceptable 'bias' are loonies who think the purpose of a TV Channel is to appease every outspoken whinger (who believes that they are one of two viewpoints in the world) and make them feel counted- as opposed to give you a viewpoint (which is actually fairly balanced; although it does apply to most of our other channels too- if for anything they are rather neutral entirely to political issues).

To top it off, we have people so loopy they:
-are afraid of 'academics' (because being informed makes you a 'communist'
-Somehow politicize the debate of whether global warming is real or not, or man-made or not.

I do have a question though- what exactly is the 'alternate' viewpoint to an 'academic'?
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 3 August 2011 2:47:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mac

Market failure is not irrelevant. There is market failure in free-to-air broadcasting because it is a public good – you can’t charge people to watch. Private free-to-air broadcasters make money not by selling programs to audiences, but by selling audiences to advertisers. There is no direct market link between what the audience values and what the broadcaster produces. Hence free-to-air broadcasters aim to maximise audiences and put out lowest common denominator, populist programs. Minority and specialist interests are not catered for, and there is no way for this potential market to express its preference by buying what it wants.

If restaurants were paid according to the number of diners they attracted not the value those diners placed on their meals, most places would serve pizza and burgers. Commercial free-to-air programming is the TV equivalent.

This is why we have government-run broadcasters but not government-run newspapers.

Pay TV weakens the case for government support because in principle it allows people who don’t want to watch the latest soap opera or cooking competition to choose, and pay for, alternatives. I do not think that it is (yet) a complete solution though as, in my experience:

a) programs tend to be bundled so the price signals are diluted
b) pay TV doesn’t commission much programming but mainly buys stuff already created in imperfect markets
c) there may be a cultural argument for support of “quality” programming similar for the argument for public subsidies for art galleries and museums
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 3 August 2011 3:33:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hay Kingy boy, you very quickly dodge the fact that 80% of the population disagreed with the opinion of your sheltered workshop academics. To this Loony it would be reasonable for the public broadcaster, payed for by the public, would reflect, at least to some extent, the opinion of its funder. Obviously beneath the dignity of such an august body.

I do realise that the academic community, & the left fellow travelers believe that the ABC is actually their private vehicle, & should never, at any time, reflect the opinion of that dreadful mass of public that pay your way.

Afraid of academics, well, it is hard to be scared of the totally incompetent. However it is true to say I am a little worried at the excessive influence they have, particularly in view of their lack of ability at anything practical.

Academia was bad enough in the early 60s when I was involved. Since then it has grown exponentially, with the growth in universities, spreading the available talent so thinly, that it is now impossible to find.

Yes, I think disgusted, rather than frightened, would cover my feelings better.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 3 August 2011 10:43:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So you think that if a person gets a university education, they are in fact brainwashed by some kind of 'left wing' propaganda system?

Then how do you explain me, the conservative commentators in the papers whose career is actually a university professor, and most of the Liberal Party? We aren't exactly shining examples of 'left-wingedness', to say the least.

Now, for public opinion- unfortunately until you hold a referendum on policy, you would never know if most of the people support or are against the belief of Global Warming (although the closest we would have are opinion polls setting most Australians against the Gillard lying backflip over the Carbon tax/trading promise).

With that in mind, wouldn't the purpose of the channel be to present information on issues, rather than simply opinions from a bunch of token "left wing" or "right wing" lobbyists to make various minorities feel better?

So far, from the ABC and SBS combined I'm seeing very neutral, balanced programming, with the only massive political biases being from opinion shows and interview shows where a popular issue is raised, and the program interviews the main actors pushing the issue (as one normally would), with a few counter-viewpoint individuals included in the debate.
Beyond that, a few shows casually mentioning people living on low-altitude islands *might* be flooded by rising sea levels, and a couple of programs by advocates taking up a slim space.

Even the pro-refugee show was a worthwhile program in that it actually provides insights to a potentially dubious audience (and I'm not pro-refugee at all).

To put it another way, a better channel presents views other than my own to my understanding- rather than tells me things I like to hear because I'm afraid of different ideas.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 4 August 2011 5:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy