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 > Public purpose - public interest > Comments

Public purpose - public interest : Comments

By Mark Bahnisch, published 23/6/2006

Government doesn't have a right to see its views represented on the board of the ABC.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
who decides on this merit, are you suggesting the government apoint a committee to apoint the board? Then surely the committee would be stacked.

In anyevent, if we further removed elected representatives from running the ABC, what would remain of accountability? surely you are not suggesting we allow a group of un-elected individuals run wild with billions of dollars of tax payers money. That wouldn't very be democratic, would it?

This the great contradiction of independent public corporations, a contradiction that may only be remedied via way of privatisation. Once someone is lawfuly investing their own capital questions of democracy vanish.
Posted by Locke, Friday, 23 June 2006 9:31:22 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
It seemed to have worked fine for all these years (without privatization) until the current 'jobs for the boys', megalomaniacal, sell-off-everything-to-make-our-bottom-line-look-good government got into power.

The problem is this regime sees itself as all-powerful-ruler rather than caretaker. The worst thing Australia ever did was give John Howard a "mandate".
Posted by hadz, Friday, 23 June 2006 10:54:16 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
There is this constant view that the ABC should be the masters of their own destiny and that Governments should in no way interfere with their processes. But the Government should still pay all the bills via our taxes. In other words, give us your money and you don't have any say as to how it is spent.

The ABC is a Government run enterprise and as such, the Governemnt as elected by the people has the right to make what ever decisions it sees fit. If the ABC and their fellow travellers do not like this, then they should lobby the Government to privatise the organization. Then they can raise the funds and travel the path they desire. Quite frankly, there are much better things that we can spend $800 million on.
Posted by Chris Abood, Friday, 23 June 2006 11:15:51 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
Or we could just lobby the Government to keep their grubby fingers off the ABC. Which is, uh, kinda what we were doing anyway...
Posted by whytee, Friday, 23 June 2006 1:07:20 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
If elected representatives don't have a say and the market does not get a say, who stands to account? The question remains unanswered. What would stop a wild band of silent cinema lovers, working their way into management and forcing all programs to mimed to a musical back track accompanied by the intermittent phrase flashing up on screen? In your perfect little utopia the public would ignore the channel and the government would sit idly by pumping money into it. An extreme example, yes, but an evolution of your argument.
Posted by Locke, Friday, 23 June 2006 3:51:16 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
Wow!! A lefty who doesn't want to see the ABC become biased. Whilst I agree that any political bias within the ABC is not desirable it amazes me that the last 30 or more years of the ABC being run and staffed by Marxists & "progressives" hasn't worried Mark tuppence. I think Mark's worry isn't bias so much as the wrong sort of bias, and the fact that a few conservatives on the board might really change the organization into "Our" ABC instead of "His" ABC.
Posted by bozzie, Friday, 23 June 2006 6:07:00 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
With regard to bias, commercial broadcasters aren't subject to any scrutiny.

Maybe this is a little unfair, considering that we also pay to run them as well as the ABC. (At much more than $800 million per year).

There are constant accusations of left-wing bias at the ABC but where is the condemnation of the extremist "shock-jocks" on commercial radio for example?

It's also interesting that the ALP also complains about the ABC when they are in power.

If both sides of politics are complaining then the ABC must be doing it's job correctly.
Posted by wobbles, Saturday, 24 June 2006 2:38:24 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
Just tell the Government to keep their grubby hands off auntie, or "we'll rip your ploody arms off". The concern is not just changing an honourable and independend biass to your right wing pro-Howard biass, is that also the Government directly interfering with the everyday workings of the ABC. The old "gentleman's" agreement between the party was to keep an arms distance, and keep the voice of the people independent. Your conspiracy theory says members of the old board being "Marxist" is just that. A conspiracy theory. They were infact an independent body.

Now we have a Soviet style Pradva media. In English, this means "truth". This problem is, Australians still think that the ABC still has independence without being bullied by the Governement. This is simply a sad lie now. We now don't have auntie, we have "Pravda": the truth. In Russia, the work became so rediculous, no one believed that "Pravda" was the truth. The truth was the way their media allowed their dictator brainwash them into a numb disenguagement to any sense of reality at all.

This does not show strong Government, it shows a weak Government desperate in a war economy to "win the hearts and minds" of it own people. On you black motor bike Auntie Jack, ride and kick their ass. We need the guardian of the independent Australian voice, not appointed by Government.
Posted by saintfletcher, Saturday, 24 June 2006 3:05:55 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
The ABC is a "People's Enterprise"! The Government fulfills its role by providing for the overall people's needs.

The ABC has a responsibility under its charter to present all viewpoints. Whether those viewpoints favour the Government or not is irrelevant, afterall, not all of us have the Government's viewpoint, do we?

All the Government should ever ask is that there is a fair balance of opinion being represented; to that end it is fair to expect that a presenter maintain impartiality, what more could the Government ask?

While the ABC fulfills such obligations, leave it alone!
Posted by brianjn, Saturday, 24 June 2006 1:25:18 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
I think this is a great move. So now on the ABC board we've got Steven Skala representing the CIS, Ron Brunton representing the IPA, Janet Albrechtsen for News Corporation and the IPA, Peter Hurley representing pubs, John Gallagher also representing pubs, Murray Green representing the senior ABC execs, and now Windschuttle nicely balancing the mix, representing Quadrant, New Criterion and the good old CIS. We've ditched the staff rep as well (wouldn't want too many Bolshies on the board). Perfect.

I can't wait to see a united board attacking entrenched left-wing bias at the ABC. After all, most of Australia is left-wing compared to this lot.

Happy viewing to you all.
Posted by Johnj, Saturday, 24 June 2006 2:34:34 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
Once the ABC had guest books and forums where everyone could air their complaints,grievances and sometimes, very funny jokes.
Then aunty sniffed and with a scented tissue held against her dainty nostrils, despatched the said guest books and forums to the Devil.
She substituted "HEALTHY MESSAGE BOARDS" so censored and monitored that they have atrophied through sheer lack of interest.
Possibly the intention in the first place.
I think this was the work of the left leaners....or the right leaners.
Who ever! May they get grit where it hurts.It is against our freedom of speech and it is wrong.
Posted by mickijo, Saturday, 24 June 2006 3:02:36 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
A democracy requires an independant media outlet.

I strongly object to the recent appointments of such neo-lib people like windschuttle.

Windschuttle has his own interpretation on history and it is very biased. He is a controversial figure.

I would like to know what it is that this government wants to achieve by putting people like him and his ilk on the board.

I note that Chris Abood is very clear about his desire to see ABC sold off. (He is honest about this as his articles and affiliations are readily available online.)http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=3822http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4268

Objectivity and independent reporting of the news would then rely on the moral and fiscal whims of the media barons.

Happy days - we will be treated with even greater contempt than we are now.
Posted by Aka, Sunday, 25 June 2006 1:29:34 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
I might be tempted to add to the general sense of leftie hysteria which seems to be pervading these responses that, the current government has been elected in a 4 successive general elections, that said, surely with a history of such success, it would seem pretty obvious, even to blind Pew as well as levery leftie and every other wannabe, that this government is fully capable, competent and appropriately representative to appoint who the tax paying benefactors of ABC see fit.

so aka "A democracy requires an independant media outlet.

I strongly object to the recent appointments of such neo-lib people like windschuttle."

Better Windschuttle than a left wing troll from the Beazley (nee Latham) camp, Windschuttle being a closer fit to overall national sentiment, regardless of how "objectionable" you find his appointment.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 25 June 2006 8:54:02 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
Bosk said:

"I think Mark's worry isn't bias so much as the wrong sort of bias"

Hooray for some clear thinking !

Exactly.

What I find remarkable is that when the 'right' sort of bias is present in the ABC (according to the left) they will triumphally declare:

"THE ABC IS NOT BIASED..POXY MITS OFFFF 'our' ABC"

But when contrary views are creeping in to management or board, or the elected government gets too close for comfort..'THE ABC IS BIASED'

For crying out loud, it will ALWAYS be biased one way or the other.

My biggest concern, is that the bias it receives from the Government will NOT be that which relfects the reasons we elected them, but instead will relfect the 'difficult' aspects of their agenda, which, in the absence of a more preferable alternative, we were stuck with when we elected them.

They may well use the ABC for the promotion of things like 'privatization' of many entities which the electorate that gave them power would find anathema.

Such is the weakness of parliamentary democracy I guess.

Only the politically naive would ever believe that even 'documentaries' or current affairs programs are politically neutral.

So, a documentary might show something of the Snowy Scheme, but do so in a way which sneakily promotes the view of it being privatized. They would carefully select the people interviewed, noting their position on the issue before hand, and stacking it all in a way that suits the desired outcome. Grrrr.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 26 June 2006 5:12:32 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
Re the structure of Telstra, most economists argued the case at the start of the debate in the 1980s for structural separation of infrastructure (probably publicly-owned) and services (with competing private suppliers). It's a bit more difficult now without compensating Telstra's private shareholders.

Re the ABC, see my response to Ari's piece, in which he sees the ABC as a response to market failure. In the modern world of global communications, where is the market failure? How important is it? How can it best be addressed? The answer might very well not be the ABC in its present form. There are more fundamental issues than board-stacking.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 26 June 2006 12:12:20 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
Is this the same Mark Banisch who lectured at the QUT in 2001 who most students walked out of due to extreme arrogance?

While the ABC is managed by the Government, the government of the day will decide who runs the show. When Labor was in power, the left ruled supreme and all we hear now, is the left throwing tantrums from suffering a loss of power mongering.
Posted by Spider, Monday, 26 June 2006 6:29:58 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
I am all for the ABC becoming a little less biased.

Unfortuntely though, judging from many of the far-Right posters on this forum (and John Howard), that for them would mean having the ABC become something similar to FOX News; where we are told nothing but lies and spin and not a word spoken even comes close to resembling the truth.
Posted by Mr Man, Monday, 26 June 2006 7:12:24 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
I think the simplest question to ask here is, "if it's 'our' ABC, why do so few people watch it?"

This seems to get right to the core of the matter. Could it be that the programming, for whatever reason, at the ABC really doesn't interest people out there? It seems incredibly out of step with what Australians like to watch on TV. Yet somehow, it's meant to exist almost because, like brussels sprouts, people need the ABC because it's "good for them", despite not liking the taste of it. Yet if there's a hint of the bogeyman agenda of the far right being pushed on people, it's somehow a direct attack on democracy. Yet isn't democracy meant to be of the masses? If that were the case, wouldn't more CSI, sitcoms and reality TV be the order of the day? Honestly ABC advocates, you're either of the people or you push an elitist, irrelevant agenda (ie. most of what's on the ABC). You can't do or be both.

Personally, I find most of what's on the commercial channels nonsense, so I don't watch such things. Likewise, I find Andrew Bolt, Neil Mitchell, etc. to be buffoons, so I don't pay attention to them. However, this doesn't form the basis for a justification of some opposite agenda simply because it's different. I can turn off both ABC and Channel 10 (indeed, I watch almost no television), but I still pay for the former but not the latter. I think that's what the "left" miss about the privatisation argument: some of us don't want to pay for anyone's agenda.
Posted by shorbe, Sunday, 2 July 2006 1:27:06 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
I enjoy watching the ABC. They have excellent programs for all ages that you will never see on commercial television and what a massive loss it would be to see us lose it.

SBS is not a station I watch much but I do watch it. Their current affairs programs, as well as that made by the ABC, gives us a good alternative. Not unbias, there is NO such thing as an unbias thought.

Who cares if the ABC isn't raking in ratings. They produce many shows of excellence which, when bought by commercial stations, ruin it instantly leaving it to waste for the benefit of money only.
Posted by Spider, Monday, 21 August 2006 11:48:01 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
Spider: My point about the ratings is that whilst most of the populace doesn't watch ABC or SBS, and probably even disagrees with a lot of the programming (for example, foreign language shows with no subtitles), they're still forced to fund it. Likewise, even though I prefer the ABC or SBS to the commercial stations, I don't think someone should have to fund that for me. The ABC and SBS should not be exempted from the constraints of the market simply because they're somehow considered excellent ("by whom?" we may well ask). That's elitist nonsense. If they're really that good, people would fund them anyway (see the radio stations RRR and PBS in Melbourne as good examples of this -- they're both funded entirely privately, yet retain control over programming things you'd never hear on other radio stations), although they'd probably have to drop a lot of the rubbish (eg. dreary British dramas) they show too.
Posted by shorbe, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 9:02:50 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
Ratings are not what it is all about.

Shorbe

Are you seriously suggesting that because not all of Australia watches the ABC, then it should become reliant on public donation? Have you thought through the ramifications at all? For example, there are many government services which are not accessed by ALL Australians. As a taxpayer (no children) my taxes fund public education, using your logic, should public education become reliant on public donation? Surely ALL children are entitled to education and I don’t begrudge any of my tax dollars being spent on this essential service. One begins to wonder if the ‘total-privatisation-brigade’ understand where their ideology is leading them. Perhaps our next election will be our last when we vote for a CEO instead of a P.M.

;0)

BTW I am a regular viewer of the ABC and SBS and also a long time subscriber to RRR (which certainly has a place). However we need a sophisticated alternative to the commercial pap on the private networks and, in spite of reduced funding, the ABC still provides this vital service. While I adore RRR, our nation would be the poorer if the ABC should have to reduce its services and programs if solely reliant on the behest and philanthropy of the general public.
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 10:43:15 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 don't buy that Australians who don't watch the ABC aren't getting value for their money. It's the Australians who find the ABC's content objectionable, elitist, or plain boring as bats**t who have the most to gain from its influence, which regularly extends the commercial stations. Take for instance its current affairs programs which routinely set the agenda for their commercial counterparts (this year's examples include Four Corners' report on child abuse in Aborignial communities and Lateline's revelations the AWB).

It also functions as an outlet for essential but not commercially viable progams (such as Parliamentary question time) and for independant scrutiny of politics and the media at large. It's hard to imagine progams like the 7:30 Report and Media Watch going to air on commercial stations, who as it is can rarely be bothered getting out of bed with the political parties long enough to broadcast retractions even when their errors are pointed out to them.
Posted by rorted, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 11:39:13 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
Scout: Firstly, I'm actually in favour of full privatisation, though I think you and I will get nowhere arguing about that.

Secondly, however, to suggest the ABC is essential is ridiculous. I wasn't aware that I've been leading such a deprived life by not catching up on recent episodes of The Bill or Playschool. While I'm on that topic, just how exactly is The Bill any more vital than Blue Heelers? Ditto for all the other "entertainment" programmes on ABC or SBS when compared to their equivalents on the commercial networks.

Thirdly, to suggest that the social, political or economic life of this country is a dichotomy between the Big Brother corporatism or the Nanny State of socialism is absurd. I happen to prefer neither, in case you hadn't noticed, and I think such a scenario is entirely possible.

Yes, there's some quality viewing on ABC and SBS. However, there's also some on the commerical networks. Yes there's crap on them too, but there's plenty of crap on ABC and SBS. Q: The difference between a soap set in rural England and a soap set in rural Australia is? A: I can turn Home and Away off and I don't have to pay for it.

Frankly, this whole "it's a vital service" argument smacks of the grossest form of paternalism, as if we great unwashed masses don't really know that a bit of left wing journalism or a British period costume drama is really what's good for us. It sounds like precisely the nonsense the left (rightfully) gets up in arms about whenever the right brings religion into the public sphere.

rorted: It's not a matter of whether the ABC is good for us or not. For all I know, the Christian God may be very annoyed with me on his Day of Judgement. It doesn't stop me from getting annoyed when the Christian right claim they know what's best for me and I'm equally annoyed when they get their snouts in the trough of public funding.
Posted by shorbe, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 9:24:04 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
shorbe: It's neither a matter of the ABC being good for us nor of whether a minority cause should have access to public funds. I'll happily surrender control of Aunty to Christian fundamentalists if it ensures her survival as an independant, alternative broadcaster (any alternative will do!), free from the sleazy influence of government, business, or private backers.
Posted by rorted, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 10:14:23 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
Just off the top of my head:

7.30 Report, Andrew Denton, Foreign Correspondent, Lateline, Four Corners - on a lighter note; Time Team, Absolute Power, Dr Who, Spicks & Specks, Glasshouse, Extras, David Attenborough programs, New Inventors, Catalyst, Gardening Australia, Rage, At the Movies, Media Watch, Kath & Kim, the West Wing (saved from CH:7) and the list goes on.

Loss of the ABC would mean loss of innovation, information and alternatives to the pap served up by for-profit TV. All of this info and entertainment which would be lost if the ABC became another ratings obsessed, lowest common denominator, boringly mainstream, commercial channel.

How many times have interesting shows like 6 feet under or the Sopranos been allocated to ridiculous time-slots or axed completely because of commercial channels jumping to the tune of advertisers?

Do we need another channel 9, 7, or 10 ? - emphatically, no! However, if the Shorbe's of this world have their wicked way that is what we'll get.
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 12:56:34 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
Yep, lots of great programs...and you even left out MY two FAVES:

The Einstein Factor &
Chaser's War on Everything :)
Posted by hadz, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 1:51:48 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
Thanks, Hadz

Love 'em also - just thought I'd better stop. Although, I did learn just how much ABC I do watch - I surprised myself.

And I didn't even get started on ABC radio - I alternate between RRR and ABC.

Given the range of programming on ABC, there is definitely something for everybody, if they'd just check it out.

Therefore, I maintain: PUBLIC PURPOSE; PUBLIC INTEREST; PUBLIC OWNERSHIP

May my taxes continue to support diversity in media.
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 2:07:20 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
rorted: If they're independent of public scrutiny via ratings, yet they're getting public funds, then where's the accountability? Also, I seriously doubt the left in this country would be happy to see the ABC get taken over by Christian fundamentalists (Islamic fundamentalists, yes perhaps) just to voice an alternative to whatever is considered the mainstream.

Scout: Again, what you consider quality viewing and what someone else considers quality viewing may be quite different. Has it occurred to you that maybe the overwhelming majority of Australians consider most of what is on the ABC to be complete pap, and maybe what's on the ABC is actually pap? You're sounding more paternalistic by the post.

Finally, nice attempt to paint me as one of the "lowest common denominator" viewers. At no point have I actually said I want another Channel 7, 9 or 10. On the occasions I do watch television, I've said I prefer ABC or SBS. Likewise, although I didn't explicitly state it, when I'm in Melbourne (I currently live in the country), I listen to RRR or PBS. They manage to survive quite fine without access to the public purse. So, given that I don't support the mainstream and I'm actually prepared to pay for the non-mainstream, yet don't expect anyone to pay for my interests, explain to me exactly how it is that I want my "wicked ways" to promote the mainstream?

In this instance, you're showing yourself to be an elitist bigot who thinks the savages need to be civilised and that there's an either/or situation between the gravy train of public funding and the evil corporate world. Given the example of RRR, your cognitive dissonance is quite interesting.
Posted by shorbe, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 4:25:03 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
shorbe: An independent ABC means, by definition, that it wouldn't be self-governing and therfore not directly accountable to the government or any other foreign body. Shock, horror? This is the way many such government bodies are treated including the Commonwealth Ombudsman and NSW's ICAC - I can't see why the ABC should be treated differently. Funding decisions could be based on the findings of a parliamentry committee or similar to ensure transparency. I'm not terribly interested in the details suffice to say that there are many ways to skin the cat.
Posted by rorted, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 5:13:40 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
Shorbe

I did hold hopes of engaging in debate – not point scoring or personal invective.

If you believe that the ABC could (at the very least) maintain the same standards on public donations – then fine, believe what you want, but please provide evidence. The shoe string RRR runs on is hardly sufficient to maintain the ABC at its current level. Therefore, I disagree with you. But then, I believe that we pay our governments taxes for a variety of purposes, such as public broadcasting.

You clearly don’t.

I guess you also believe in privatisation, regardless of outcomes, independence or value to the population. Makes me ponder just what you believe your taxes are for.

Anyway, I have learnt that trying to communicate a POV to someone who isn’t interested in amicable discussion, is just a waste of time – I have no patience for vitriol.

As for RRR – I guess you prove the breadth and depth of that radio station’s supporter base. Ain’t variety grand?
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 24 August 2006 1:27:02 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
Scout: With your elitist talk of lowest common denominator, you started the point scoring and personal invective. This is why many in the left are rightly despised for their hypocrisy -- they openly disdain the average person, yet then claim to be for them. I notice you're happy to benefit from the taxes of the lowest common denominator though.

Your belief that objectively, the ABC is quality viewing and the commercial stations "pap" or "boringly mainstream" is why you're a bigot. Besides, it's absurd to try to argue the objectivity of one's personal tastes, which is why I don't try to argue for or against particular (entertainment) programmes. At a stretch, I might accept the importance of Question Time, or perhaps (at a greater stretch) alternative journalism.

Maybe the ABC would have to do the following: attract more viewers/listeners, charge realistic subscriptions like cable TV (so you pay for what you use), and/or include some form of sponsorship or advertisement (like RRR and PBS do).

I do believe in privatisation, which excludes both the corporate welfare of big business and the ABC. I don't want anyone else paying for my own tastes either, as wonderful as I consider them. The outcome that matters to me is everyone leaving everyone else alone.

Also, what exactly do you consider "independence", and from whom? Surely independence means some level of accountability or response to the public. I have more chance with the democracy (even if I'm in the minority) of ratings than I do with the ABC where I have no say against whatever ideological agenda (left or right) has power.

To be cynical about it, I believe my taxes are for funding the government gravy train, and also for the politicians to use as a tool to divide those who are productive and those who aren't. Governments (of any description) exist to promote and maintain their own power. Their intention is to maintain a docile and dependent class, and then extort money from the productive class as protection money. If anyone else did it, we'd call them the mob and be outraged.
Posted by shorbe, Thursday, 24 August 2006 5:33:53 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. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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