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 > Sell ABC TV! > Comments

Sell ABC TV! : Comments

By Ken Lovell, published 24/1/2008

The ABC has become a pointless exercise in self-indulgence.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. All
EC: "I can’t understand the concept of how someone would watch channel A while thinking channel B was better."

Same way people may think restaurant food tastes better, but find themselves eating McDonalds more frequently.
Even though they may watch news on the commercial networks, they still like to know that they have the better quality providers available, especially given the incredibly low cost.

It's not a matter of the big words, and being afraid of being tarred a philistine.

There's also the benefits that accrue to society in general by having superior news network providers who maintain a standard of journalism. Four corners has broken a number of signficant stories during their time, and the interviews on lateline have often caused a ripple effect in terms of revelations imparted.

EC: "It can’t matter from a democratic point of view because at election time, due to ratings figures, the majority won’t be watching it anyway (and thus not enlightened with ‘pravda’) and will just be voting according to whatever their shock jocks suggest."

ABC outdid most of the networks on election night in terms of ratings. I clearly recall one commentator pointing out in the aftermath, that evidently elections are one of the rare occasions when it would appear people do still want the 'boring' figures and analysis instead of the gimmicks that were trawled out by the commercial providers.

EC: "If you believe people want to finance the ABC though their taxes then it obviously follows that they would instead finance directly through subscription. Even those who don’t watch but just want to know it’s there. The majority of adults in Australia are a LOT of subscribers."

In theory, yes, in practice, no. Whether it's inertia or laziness, I don't know. However, a majority of taxpayers wish for it to be kept.

What I do know, is the clear majority of people support the ABC, and it costs next to nothing.

At the end of the day, these two arguments are pretty damn compelling.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 3 February 2008 3:03:52 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
As long as we're picking on EC, I was going to point this out earlier:

"It costs taxpayer funds for the government to manage and regulate all TV broadcasting" That's like a dictator complaining about the cost of the upkeep of all the prisons he uses to lock up his opponents.
…err, have you ever heard of the concept of freedom of the press?

ACMA does not restrict freedom of the press, it regulates it and hears complaints and keeps it honest. I don't really get your point here.

By the way, ABC ratings have always skyrocketed during on election night, but they also increase during emergencies in general.

EC to TRTL: "Wrong as you ultimately are, you certainly put a lot of thought into your arguments. If only you used your considerable talents for good."

to Wisofaus: "Gees, and I thought Vanilla needed an economics lesson!"

You're really very patronising. It's none of my business, but do your really think it's working for you? I read TRTL and find his arguments compelling because he presents them rationally and with integrity, rather than having to put others down to bolster his own position.

Sorry, I know it's rude of me, but it's kind of getting to me.
Posted by Vanilla, Sunday, 3 February 2008 4:19:56 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
No, Wizofaus.

I can’t give an example of “people themselves [organising] a not-for-profit broadcaster capable of providing high-quality content without commercials”. And I also can’t give an example of a community of opera lovers organising a season of performances where none of the members have to pay for admission. I also can’t give an example of beer lovers organising a pub where the beer is free.
Everything comes at a cost. I not only pay for my Foxtel, but I also have to put up with the ads. Is it too much to ask the same from you?

TurnRightThenLeft
# why would anyone go to restaurant A if they thought the same priced food in restaurant B tasted better?
# election night is a bit late for the ABC to propagate its ‘pravda’ to influence elections.
# you can’t say “in theory something is true, but I still disagree”. Many people will always say they support some allegedly noble cause until the crunch time comes to actually support it. Talk is cheap. The fact of non action is PROOF there is no meaningful support. You are like someone who ardently defends some alleged shonky financial adviser. When asked if you would invest with him, you answer in the negative but still insist he is totally scrupulous.
# “…the ABC, and it costs next to nothing.” If it costs next to nothing and the majority of Australians want it, isn’t this even more of a reason that it could be viably financed and controlled by those who care about it without bothering the rest of us.
Posted by Edward Carson, Monday, 4 February 2008 11:47:57 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
Vanilla
“ACMA does not restrict freedom of the press, it regulates it and hears complaints and keeps it honest”
Yeah, right. Below are quotes from the ACMA website. Hyphens added.
“Details of the codes and ACMA program standards can be found under -Content regulation-”
“ACMA administers the –Ownership- and –control- rules for broadcasting services.”
How can you be regulated without loosing freedom? Freedom also means the right to tell porkies (subject to perjury or where you know the fibs might cause series tangible harm). How would you like to be threatened with legal action every time, down at the pub, you embellished an anecdote so as to get a few extra chuckles from the people at your table?
We already have general laws to protect against slander, incitement to commit crimes, pornography, gaining an advantage by false pretences, etc. We don’t need a Minister for Truth and Propaganda.

Here’s the new EC: err, Vanilla, perhaps you could look at the concept of press freedom from a different angle.
The ABC should be controlled because it is a publicly owned body (there is no direct connection between management and ownership)but private corporations are just that: private. They are owned by private citizens. A thousand people standing on soapboxes around the country expressing their freedom of speech do not lose that right when they join together and establish a media conglomerate. They should be allowed to: own as much as they like, or, instead of 1000, be an association of a million people (legislation prevents so called monopolies); broadcast whatever (legislation insists on hosting local news as well as national, plus a % of local drama etc); and wherever they like (legislation limits private channels to 75% reach).
Please don’t respond to the legitimacy of said laws. That is for another column.
My point is that all this regulation does not recognise for the media the same rights that an individual possesses, is obviously not what the media wants, and thus it is a bit rich to claim the govt is doing the media a service by financing said regulation.
Posted by Edward Carson, Monday, 4 February 2008 11:58:13 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
Edward Carson is silent on the fate of his hero, Janet Albrechsen, whose hopelessly biased columns in The Australian (aka under Howard the Government Gazette) are read no more because she no longer serves a purpose in this new political climate.

The Australian today (page 10) now reveals that their opinion editor Tom Switzer has been appointed Opposition leader Brendan Nelson's foreign policy adviser. Looks like someone has ordered a clean-out at the Oz. Nothing to do with damaging circulation problems?

Astute readers of Andrew Bolt will have noticed a mellowness of late too.

Thank goodness for the ABC! Just as critical of the government now as it was before the change.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 4 February 2008 12:45:24 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. All

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