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.

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.

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?

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

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.