Hi Alan,

Whilst you are entitled to your perceptions, it is the ABC audience perceptions that count because we are paying customers. If we don’t like it, we don’t support it and are entitled question the business model and its funding.

I asked you the following question;

<< Is your case for the ABC based on a moral/value proposition that the rest of us don’t share?>>

To which you kindly replied <<I no longer believe there is a case for ABC News and Current Affairs to be retained.>>

Pure rhetoric and as such doesn’t answer anything. That’s the problem with rhetoric, it raises more questions than it answers, especially when you’re asked to explain it?

Questions arising:

Why do you no longer believe there is a case for retaining ABC N&C/A?
When did you reach this conclusion?
Is it because it is based upon your moral/value position?
Is it because that position is increasingly rejected by ABC’s own customers?
How do you explain your tactic of changing a moral/value proposition into the metrics of “accuracy and completeness”, which are not “moral value” attributes, they are job description attributes?
Do you see The Guardian Australia, The Global Mail and Fairfax as competitors to the ABC in N&C/A?
If so what do you think the impact will be on these outlets if ABC N&C/A is eliminated?
Should ABC compete with commercial outlets and why?
When you say << I probably do have a moral/value stance others don’t share >>. Who are these “others” to whom you refer?
In retaining Parliamentary broadcasts, do you envisage a real-time CCTV type production or is the ABC political commentary on sessions still required?

I suspect the public is increasingly sensitized to ABC’s rhetoric and is the primary cause of its demise. But at least you have the opportunity to explain your rhetoric.

From Reachtel poll, Canberra Times,

Overall, 32.2 per cent believed the ABC was biased towards the Labor Party, while just 8.2 per cent said it was biased towards the Coalition, 59.6 Neutral.

Pity they didn’t include the Greens?

Turn it off if you do not like it.
My set, radio and TV are fitted with an on/off switch and have a channel selector as well. I thought most did, obviously not.
If I do not like what is on, ABC or Commercial I turn it off or change channel.
I am no intellectual or snob, just an LNP supporter, or was until recently, not too sure what I am since the last election, who watches some ABC and very few commercials.
Take it easy.
SD

How would funding for the ABC and SBS be rated if the public were given the opportunity to list their order of priority, compared against other areas where funding has been declared to be short or unavailable?

It isn't 'Just 10c or whatever a person a day' is it? There are many millions invested in assets that have to be upgraded continually and the millions in running both the ABC and SBS. Why shouldn't the taxpayer be consulted directly and allowed to express a view that takes into account all options and not just be herded into a choice of for or against?

From a check of the TV program alone, public broadcasting - all funded by the taxpayer - has diversified into all sorts of areas where the needs are already being met by private and often free services. Why should ambulances be ramped outside hospital emergency departments waiting for a bed to become available while taxpayers' money is being blown on redundant services? Particularly where the public broadcasters are competing for and serving the same audiences.

Hi again Spindoc,

Yes, all good questions. Happy to respond.

“Why do you no longer believe there’s a case for retaining ABCN&C/A?”

Because the newsroom no longer gathers news. When I was there in the 1980s and early 90s reporters were out and about or working the phones. No-one read newspapers. Fairfax and Murdoch had teams of ‘reporters’ listening to the ABC all day to learn what was happening. Following funding cuts and personnel changes during the Howard years, that reversed. The ABC now reports what the Murdoch papers have already run. Occasionally, the ABC will run something another newspaper has uncovered – such as the spying on Mrs Yudhoyono from The Guardian.

So ABCN&CA no longer offers a unique service.

“When did you reach this conclusion?”

When ABC News started running a continuous stream of stories reporting “The leader of the opposition today criticised the government for …”

That is not news. That is unpaid political advertising. Started in late 2009. Example:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-06/abbott-accuses-govt-of-trying-to-muzzle-free-speech/4179798

“Is it because it is based upon your moral/value position?”

Yes.

“Is it because that position is increasingly rejected by ABC’s own customers?”

Not sure. Hope not.

“How do you explain your tactic of changing a moral/value proposition into the metrics of “accuracy and completeness”, which are not “moral value” attributes, they are job description attributes?”

Can they be both, Spindoc? Hope so.

“Do you see The Guardian Australia, The Global Mail and Fairfax as competitors to the ABC in N&C/A?”

No.

“If so what do you think the impact will be on these if ABCN&CA is eliminated?”

Probably not much if the ABC now just recycles Murdoch’s news.

“Should ABC compete with commercial outlets and why?”

Don’t know. Don’t care. Just want accurate reportage.

“When you say "I probably do have a moral/value stance others don’t share". Who are these “others” to whom you refer?”

Those who disagree with me(!)

“In retaining Parliamentary broadcasts, do you envisage a real-time CCTV type production or is the ABC political commentary on sessions still required?”

No opinion. Have never watched them.

Happy to discuss further, Spindoc.

Cheers,

Hello again,

Everything Squeers says is correct. I could be his evil twin.

@Cohenite:

Yes, the validity of any point is negated if the reference is Andrew Bolt. He has been found by at least three judges and countless other reliable arbiters to be a serial liar. Life is too short, Anthony.

“Are you denying Faine and Cassidy said what they said? Are you denying what Trioli did?”

No, not at all.

“Are you denying that once again Sarah Hansen Young's stupidity and infantile destructiveness didn't happen? Are you saying the ABC has not practised subreption about AGW?”

Just not my area, Anthony. Can’t comment. Sorry.

“Are you saying the ABC has not undermined Australia through its lies and misreporting about the Navy and before that the phone-tapping done by Rudd and Gillard so that Abbott would get the blame?”

Of course it hasn’t. The ABC is one of several outlets which reported what was known. That’s what newsrooms should do.

Yes, there was some misreporting. It should have been made more explicit that Mr Yudhoyono’s outrage was not at the spying – that was old news long since resolved in private diplomatic channels – but that when the illegal espionage became a public scandal in 2013 an appropriate grovel from Australia was required. This came eventually, but far too late to prevent serious damage to the bilateral relationship.

This complex matter is analysed in some detail here:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/indonesia-crisis-entirely-of-tony-abbotts-making,5922

Happy to discuss any aspect of this.

Regarding your suggestion to Squeers, “I pay for your propaganda and you don't pay for mine.”

Really? Are you sure? Who pays Andrew Bolt? The advertisers in the Herald Sun who include Woolies, Coles and Dan Murphy’s. Think it through, Anthony.

Finally, I provided a pretty glaring example of a major news story that could only have been produced by a pro-Coalition media team. And another is included in my response to Spindoc, just above.

Can you produce an example of a news item which demonstrates the ABC News or CA support Labor or the Greens?

Thanks. Anthony,

Cheers,

Alan A

Turn it off if you do not like it.
Shaggy Dog,
I want to but they still keep taking it out of my tax.