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 is not doing its job > Comments

The ABC is not doing its job : Comments

By John Roskam, published 13/4/2007

The Federal Government's new media laws came into effect last week - and the sky didn't fall in.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
John, what is the benefit to the Australian people of this change?

"It's not the business of government to determine whether a city has one, 10, or 100 local newspapers."

"The ability to determine how the media operates is too great a power to allow a government to exercise."

If the government doesn't regulate how the media operates then it will be left to the corporate executives who's only interest is profit. If you think the media consumers will keep the corporations in-line, you are grossly underestimating the potential profit in deceiving or controlling the opinions of the Australian public. The impact of this is even greater if foreigners gain a controlling stake in key media assets.

"According to our present media laws, if every media outlet in the country was owned by a different proprietor, our media would be "diverse"."

If every media outlet is owned by different proprietor then there is a greater potential for diversity. Conversely, there is no hope of diversity when all media outlets are owned by the same party, particularly if that party has an interest in a publicly debated issue. The greater the diversity in ownership, the less chance that a particular view point is restricted or ignored by all media outlets.

As for the role of the ABC, it is important to ensure alternative opinions are heard and discussed. If the media companies are only publishing one view then it is the ABC's role to fill the gap. Without allowing alternative views to be heard, the national will head down the dangerous path of "group think".

The diversity and open discussion of issues within the media is a critical component required for our democracy to operate. A small increase in corporate profit is not worth the risk to our democracy.
Posted by Desipis, Friday, 13 April 2007 1:54:38 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
Is John in favour of governments ensuring some media diversity or not ?
He seems to be for in the case of the ABC and and against for commercial outlets.

The source of funding is irrelevant to me.
As "consumers" we pay for both the ABC and commercial electronic media (which cost us a lot more).
I simply want more choice from quality local providers.

If the commercial outlets fail in an important area, of course the ABC should fill the gap! It's been doing it since I wore nappies.
Listeners who wanted string quartets on radio in the 1940s could find them nowhere else. (one tiny example)
The question of who decides what is important enough should not be left to governments alone but professionals and listeners should be involved too.

John seems to be saying consumers should decide.
Sounds like G W Bush talking about freedom.
Meaningless without the detail.

I'm a consumer and I want at least fifty more Australian foreign correspondents posted around the world - especially in neglected areas like South America and Eastern Europe.
Where do I go, John ? The Packers ? Canwest ? The internet won't help me - I want Australian perspectives through professional journalists. The ABC seems to be my only hope. It's the only decent local source of news about large areas of the globe now. (e.g. the Pacific Island states). We can afford to pay for it to do more.

The ABC offers a lot for the money it spends. Hugely so in comparison to other Australian radio and TV outlets which usually pale in comparison.
Where is the commercial version of Radio National ? (The right wing version if you feel impelled to say that ? )

Where is commnercial radio/TV rural news now, John ?

Saying that the internet is an alternative is a cop-out.
Posted by Henery, Friday, 13 April 2007 2:27:08 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 Federal Government's new media laws came into effect last week - and the sky didn't fall in. Australians haven't been reduced to having only one newspaper to buy, and one television station to watch"

This is the same crap the Federal Government peddled a mere couple of weeks into the WorkChoices legislation being introduced.

No one is saying all the effects will be immediate. In fact, the real danger lies in the slow, corrosive, potential that the slackening of these regulations allows for.

This is like dropping a jar of Ebola on the ground and immediately exclaiming that there's obviously nothing to worry about!
Posted by StabInTheDark, Friday, 13 April 2007 4:57:34 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
Yes, John Roskam, the sky didn’t fall in the day Howard’s new media ownership rules came into effect. Nor did the sky fall in when computer games hit the market years ago, but TV programming has been forever transformed. Look for the long-term consequences.

Roskam tells us, ‘The idea that politicians should regulate the media to ensure "diversity" is like saying that there should be censorship to encourage free speech.’ Why is these alike? I see no legitimate analogy; besides your trick of changing the verbs (‘’ensure’ and ‘encourage’) is too obvious a debating ploy.

As Roskam advised, I considered the reaction if every bookshop in the country was required by law to ensure that one-quarter of its stock was by an Australian author. What a marvellous idea! Now if only government really seriously interfered in the same way with television and radio, as an Australian consumer, I’d be ecstatic.

The only test of the health of Australia's media sector, says Roskam, is whether providers are free to meet the demands of consumers: ‘What consumers demand is a matter for consumers, not for government.’ So if consumers demand on-screen child porn, that’s OK is it? What if consumers want government to regulate media? OK too?

Roskam asserts that the ability to determine how the media operates is too great a power to give to anyone, let alone a government. ‘The only solution,’ he says, ‘is to allow the consumers of the media themselves to decide what they want to read, watch, and listen to.’ Are not ‘consumers’ ‘anyone'?

Now the Aunt Sally tactic: ‘The claim is that because the commercial media are "conservative" and "right-wing", the national broadcaster should be "radical" and "left-wing".’ But Roskam doesn’t tell us who (if anyone) makes this silly claim.

And out of nowhere, Roskam decides that ‘The point is that the ABC picks and chooses the issues on which it will challenge public opinion.’ Even on the days you free-lance on 774, Mr Roskam?
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 13 April 2007 5:38:38 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
Jees you posters should get out into the real world a bit more. I’ll bet you’re all public servants or living off government funding in one way or another.

“If the government doesn't regulate how the media operates then it will be left to the corporate executives “
No, as even John has explained, it will be the viewers/listeners/ readers. Unlike the bosses at the ABC, media corporate execs. don’t have a guaranteed regular advertising income and so they must always be subservient to whatever the public desires. Perhaps you have notices the Don Imus ruckus in America recently? He got fired at very short notice because his radio network feared he would suddenly be bad for ratings because of his insensitive remarks.
“Without allowing alternative views to be heard, the national will head down the dangerous path of "group think".”
Go back to Economics 101. The nature of business is to create a separate identity from your competitors. News and current affairs shows want to talk about something new or different. They won’t go into some story that specifically offends the values of its clients, but there are enough websites, niche magazines and community radio and TV stations for that anyway.
What publisher is going to explain to his shareholders that he will ignore a gap in the market (capitalism is bad, Americans are imperialist bastards, global warming, the evils of the WTO ) because he thinks the politics of this is just not right.

What really gets me about this diversity argument is that in Australia we have a two party system (due to single member voting rather than proportional representation). So for something as important as elections we generally only have a choice of two viable alternatives (OK four for the less influential upper house) and yet people dare to complain because we have ‘only’ ten TV (with subscription) 15 radio, two or three newspapers, numerous magazines, internet, etc etc
Posted by Edward Carson, Saturday, 14 April 2007 1:17:06 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
Me again

“As "consumers" we pay for both the ABC and commercial electronic media”
If you mean because of ads then just think a minute please. Whenever you buy a Mazda or a Big Mac you are paying the least on offer for a car or sustenance of required value. The supplier doesn’t arbitrarily set the price. It charges whatever it thinks it can get, immaterial of whatever its overheads are. You are not specifically paying for its advertising. If sales were so good that it decided to dispense with advertising the price would remain the same. If ads were kept but sales were bad the price might drop just to move stock. If a minister pays a plumber $1000 to do work on the church gutters and drains and after the job is done the plumber proceeds down to the brothel, would you say the local Baptist congregation is financing boozing and whoring?

“[I want my string quartets on the radio, fifty more Australian correspondents around the world]”
At whose cost?? Why have other Australians got to pay for your wants?

“Where is the commercial version of Radio National ?”
It would probably be there, subject to potential ratings, if, as well as subsidised competition, all government restrictions were removed. Currently you still have to fork out mega bucks to get a radio licence and in fields like TV (not sure on radio) you are actually not allowed to have a 100% reach believe it or not. I think 75% max.

“Are not ‘consumers’ ‘anyone'?”
Actually no. The point John was making was that power like this should not be in the hands of a single or small number of entities as it will, over time, obviously be abused (Lord Acton and all that.).
Consumers are everyone. Seventeen million whatever of them. Seventeen million people sharing power means that no oligarchy has power.
Posted by Edward Carson, Saturday, 14 April 2007 1:34:08 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
The IPA neo barbarians rule OK!

Through their influence and propaganda they have systematically helped to dumb down and degrade every aspect of Oz culture during the Howard years.
Now they want to finish the project by dumbing down the ONLY source of consistently intelligent opinion on OZ radio and TV ---the lowest common denominator will inevitably rule. The bad always drives out the good.
Never mind that with occasional rare exceptions commercial radio and TV is a cultural wasteland---the rare exceptions are drowned out in a sea of banality.
Huxley's titty-tainment rules. Indeed Huxley's Brave New world is exactly where we are at---brought to one and all by the corporate media which has no interest whatsoever in encouraging the exercise of discriminative intelligence about anything. Everyone home alone zombied out in their drug of choice and zombied out in front of the idiot box waiting for the next big thing to get excited about.
All the dreadfully sane normal every ones sitting in front of their insanity machine (TV) which delivers all the degraded and degrading toxic garbage of the world psyche into their "living" rooms.

And we wonder why everything is becoming so one dimensional,gross, banal, and barbarian---why there is so much disrespect on the streets.

This bastardization of everything is what Roskam is advocating.

If you want to see how gross and banal the world has become try watching or listening to Federal Parliament. During the Howard years it has become a growling pit of strutting adolescent egos engaged in petty point scoring---no substance whatsoever.
Posted by Ho Hum, Saturday, 14 April 2007 9:39:14 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 Frank Carson,
I've been an employee and later ran a business. (Businesses also get big benefits from taxpayers.) My neighbour runs a sucessful one too. Prices undercut big advertising competitors by eschewing credit cards, loyalty schemes and other rent seeking intermediaries. Customers benefit by his failure to advertise (Yellow Pages excepted).
His firm has a reputation for quality - plenty of customers. He proudly never charges what he thinks he can get. Prices are fair in relation to costs. Hence the success. Just had a fence built by another who operates identically. Really cheap because costs are minimised. Your micro-economics is commonly used but often unnecessary. My common complaint was inability to get vital information from our supplier firms about products and services we needed because it was unavailable, untimely or sketchy - despite their marketing. Think opportunity cost.
Yes, the congregation is partly financing the plumber's boozing and whoring. Don't you select who you do business with? One of my criteria is a reputation for ethical behaviour. We're members of a community, not mere economic units. Interdependent.
Substituting "cricket" for "string quartets" would not change my example which referred to past market failure. I'd like more correspondents. It was a question. Can you help?
I'll be selfish too, briefly. I pay for the entertainment and news content others use and from which I receive negligible benefit. Quite prepared to fund my minority tastes separately and technology will probably enable it in future but not yet. (Really I'm happy to continue subsidising others.) In the meantime we have broadcasting, most of which is a cost to all of us. While we have it, minority tastes should obviously be catered for. Fifty more correspondents might greatly benefit many who are not asking for them now. How many? Who predicts? John's answer remains unsatisfactory. Commercial TV regularly benefits from ABC experimentation.
Very free access to the publicly owned spectrum has been tried. I remember Bangkok radio in the 1970s. Surely you don't wish anything resembling that on us?
Posted by Henery, Saturday, 14 April 2007 2:40:42 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
Sorry about calling you Frank. Very careless.
Posted by Henery, Saturday, 14 April 2007 2:44:06 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
The ABC does not have a diverse political outlook.Most of the people who work there have gone from the secure environs of home ,to school,to tertiary education and then to dear old aunty,thus to be kept by the tax payer instead of their parents.

The protected environs of being unsackable and unaccountable does not make for unbiased media coverage since many would not survive in the real world of private enterprise,which pays the taxes for their self indulgent childish interludes.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 14 April 2007 5:20:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Frank Carson,
I too have been an employee and for the last five years have run a business. And not in financing, banking or advertising or PR either. In the real world of producing products, services that people really want. I don't know what you have done, please tell us.

I want to hear string quartets but do not want to watch cricket. Experience shows that pure private enterprises do not provide all that most of us want.

As an engineer I find it is interesting to look at the mess John Roskam's beloved Liberal Party made of cable and then digital TV. The loss of opportunities, the lack of channels the sucking up to the interests of the media moguls is sickening. I wish manufacturing industry could get the same level of government protection that they got.
Posted by logic, Saturday, 14 April 2007 10:05:48 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
Hear hear logic, senator Coonan is an absolute disgrace. If we had live footy on the the unused multi channels there would have been dtv in every house in Australia 5 years ago and the analog signal would have been switched off on target.

I live in a town with only one paper (Perth) and it has gone downhill since the daily mail folded decades ago. We just get one eyed political political ramblings, public service bashings and a series of embarrassing photos of tennis stars in unglamorous poses.

Be careful of what you wish for John Roskam.
Posted by gusi, Sunday, 15 April 2007 2:16:06 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
australia's media healthy? yeah, right. australia is a bunch of sheep led by the most blatant right-wing herders. only an ipa snot-nose could write an article like this.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 15 April 2007 7:31:20 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
Dear Henery,
Yes I’m selective (somewhat) with whom I do business. But once I’ve paid someone for something then the money becomes his, the trader, completely. No part of the money in his pocket is mine! Jees, I thought this was a self evident truth. Let me give another example.
For five years every payday you have been paying a visit to a Miss Gilda Goodthighs in a certain establishment downtown. For the err… personal services you get from her you think it is the best $100 you spend every month. By accident you happen to find out something Gilda tries to keep secret, that she actually is the proverbial street lady with the heart of gold. For the past ten years she has been donating 25% of her wages to the local orphanage. Henery, are you going to dare tell me what a great humanitarian you are because for the last five years you have been giving $25 a month to orphans?

The virtue of the market is not that it can supply anything, it’s virtue is that it is honest wherein you only pay for what you want not what others want, and that prices are kept to a minimum and choices a maximum because there’s always some player out there trying to undercut a competitor by lower prices or better services.

Sorry I’m not aware of the Bangkok radio experimentation. I’m not suggesting groups get free access to broadcasting but that the govt auctions off, with no reserve price, as many channels as are needed. You flog off the air wave frequencies to the highest bidder. The established and/or well financed players take the prime channels and the loonies/small players take the cheaper fringe UHF channels at the end of the dial or on the other band where the reception is less than perfect. You make them put down cash deposits against possible future violations such as slander, pornography or incitement to whatever. Everybody ends up with that spot on the dial that matches their political/ social/ sexual/religious/sporting orientation.
Posted by Edward Carson, Monday, 16 April 2007 1:31:04 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 Logic,

I have at stages in my life lived off the teat of the taxpayer, (by straight out dole, by cushy govt jobs and by non-cushy jobs) but in the main I have only worked where the employer, acting for the wage payer, actually wanted me there. Now, with the introspection of somewhat maturity, I would never, never, receive a government grant to provide for the public some intangible ‘cultural’ service unless I was sure that 95% + of the public actually wanted it.

I truly have trouble seeing the difference between a politician handing his mate a sackful of money from the public treasury, and a polly publicly financing a media outlet which he, or his predecessor has stacked with staff of the appropriate political leanings. Is this really that much different from Howard using govt money to finance those pro Work Choices ads last year?
The issue isn’t that the commercial media overall, when all restrictions are removed, gives a balanced view of the world (which I think it actually does) but that even if it doesn’t, that still would not justify politicians taking public money and financing an alleged alternate voice.
For one thing, as John Roskin has stated, Australian Pravda only pushes stories that it wants to push, not what are always the stories of the voiceless. How many ABC docos have we had on re-introducing capital punishment, school vouchers, judges being made more accountable, minimum sentencing, sentencing by juries (NSW Libs idea), America’s successful welfare reform (de-centralising it), New York’s successful get-tough-on-crime policy.
Secondly even if perchance Pravda does represent the voiceless, what it is doing is using tax money to present a view that one segment of the tax paying population is obviously going to find offensive or even be insulted by. How would you feel about paying to be offended?
Posted by Edward Carson, Monday, 16 April 2007 1:47:44 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
Johns views on the ABC are well known - he doesn't like it - I also find his analysis of the impact of the media law changes one week pretty brave - lets measure the impact in 5 or 10 years - if we're allowed or remenber - It is likely we will remember though as the media changes will proably have numbed our brains to the point where Big Brother and the Fattest Batard are seen as genuine Australian drama

I have no idea how he arrives at his conclusion - but I will tell you how I arrive at mine - that they are doing a good job that is -

I consult the TV guide - and ask myself some questions:

Do I watch Compass or do I watch Cheaters or live Highway patrol action?

Do I listen to Counterpoint or even P Adams or Neil Mitchel?

Do I watch Little Britain, re runs of Black Books or Funniest Home Videos.

Do I watch Peter Cundal or one of the infotainment gardening shows

DO I listen to The Law Report, the Media Report et al or watch This Day Tonightor A Current Affair?

When I answer those questions I smugly return to my book and thank god for the ABC.

The idealogues of the IPA and the Sydney Institute and indeed the rest of the ABC bashers seem preoccupied with the 5% ( or probably less ) of the ABC that is news and current affairs and seem to ignore Radio National DIg, the bulk of SBS broadcasts CLassical FM etc etc - I am very tired of it all
Posted by sneekeepete, Monday, 16 April 2007 12:22:09 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
Edward Carson

If you want the ABC to present a bigger range of views, then I agree with you. The question is how that can be done. But it and SBS will still be on a taxpayer subsidy and will be watched by a minority who will not be catered for by the private sector.

You have an exaggerated view of what the private sector will provide, it is generally not able to place risk capital where the possible returns are too small. The higher the risk, the greater the earnings HAVE to be. The private sector cannot take a risk on string quartets. As a result we do need a mixed sector. Neither capitalism nor socialism satisfy our total needs, we need both.
Posted by logic, Monday, 16 April 2007 2:29:43 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. All

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