The Forum > Article Comments > Your ABC: proudly brought to you by your sponsors? > Comments
Your ABC: proudly brought to you by your sponsors? : Comments
By Jill Greenwell, published 21/5/2007The prohibition on advertising protects the distinctive qualities of the ABC - credibility and trust.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
jocelynne, may I say that I'm impressed by your staying power. How on earth did you sit through 'Political Bloopers 20-1'? I like the way such shows are advertised as entertainment. I think aperient is the correct word to describe such shows.
Posted by Sage, Monday, 21 May 2007 4:18:05 PM
| |
Nationhood as a "whole" Aussie Tribe is at ODDS with itself.
It appears we are trying to loose the values of "life-quality" to everything commercial. Where do we have something that we the public can call OUR OWN, that is SAFE? It is governments who need to address the value of our nations "social" capital. The ABC supports the business of PEOPLE. Populations doing public thing of diverse community interest. Like many in the BUSH - it is important for us to hear and engage with a media that is not blackmailed by the pressures of ADDS and self-interest of DEALS as a reward for SPONSORSHIP. I say larger Business groups need to take a look at this issue. Our National Community needs your support. I ask you you to consider sponsoring projects that have GOOD COMMUNITY value. Back this value with some COMMUNITY BASED CAPITAL - or we will all be on BURN-OUT before too long. ABC is a Civic Health - Trust and National Wellbeing (two-way) Communication Service, as well as a public broadcast for ALL Australians. I believe the ABC has improved not gone L or R winged. If only our other institutions could make this kind of effort. http://www.miacat.com/ . Posted by miacat, Monday, 21 May 2007 4:41:24 PM
| |
I think that many posters here must be in a different galaxy to me. I have largely given up on the ABC, as there is too much advertising (for the ABC shop, future programs, good causes, etc.), and far too much sport. We used to watch the ABC news while eating dinner, and would mute the sound as soon as the sport came on. It was interesting that the news would lead seamlessly into the sport, and fast action was needed to cut it off within several words. In the end it all became to difficult, so we stopped watching.
I have also grown tired of the ABC culture, where the organisation ALWAYS only has one view on any subject. (When did they last have a speaker pointing the advantages (if any) of capital punishment?). Much the same applies to the Australian media as a whole, which I gave up on decades ago, and which has a consistent herd view on all subjects. I have fled to the internet, for the following advantages: 1. There are ads, but they are much easier to avoid. 2. I can choose the items I wish to see, instead of some invisible program director deciding for me. 3. I can get a much wider range of views on an issue, subject, as always to prejudice, but different prejudice, enabling me to make up my own mind. 4. I learn about a lot of news that is never mentioned on the Australian media. 5. I don't have to pay. I gather that the home grown media is in crisis, with the third round of redundancies at the SMH in three years. I am not surprised. As a result, my only concern about the ABC is how to minimise its effect on the Federal budget, and so I think that full-blown advertising would be great. Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 21 May 2007 8:21:30 PM
| |
I'm afraid the ABC doesn't inspire me at the moment. Most programs attack Christians, support minority groups and non-Christian religions and generally reflect an anti-Howard, anti-Bush agenda. Often news is presented as opinion, not as fact.
I don't think full commercialisation is the answer, but it would surely give the ABC a good shake-up. Ads are one thing, structural change is another. Completely revamping the ABC's programming on radio and TV would bring about some change if it were done effectively. We need conservative voices on the ABC because at the moment there's a grave lack of them - bring on Windschuttle, Pearson, Flint etc to balance up the Satchell's, Adams etc. Posted by Dinners, Monday, 21 May 2007 9:13:33 PM
| |
You mean by your first paragraph that they confront christians with uncomfortable truths and give minority groups a limited voice. Terrible state of affairs!
Posted by Netab, Monday, 21 May 2007 9:26:15 PM
| |
Its not that they confront Christians with uncomfortable truths but they show their ignorance by continueing to push the fundamentalist humanist views which is just old worn out dogma rehashed. If Dawkins, Spong and Adams are the best the ABC can come up with I don't think many Christians are going to be seriously challenged!
Posted by runner, Monday, 21 May 2007 10:55:36 PM
|