The future of the ABC - Guthrie sacked

[pokerspiv]

How is it an anachronism? If they were working using in a outdated print orientated business model for example that's costing millions, I would argue that is anachronistic. But the ABC have moved with the times well and it's digital and online content is usually excellent.

It's an anachronism because the original justification for public television was that there were no private television networks. Now there are hundreds of private television networks. It's hard to see why the public ones are still necessary. The same reason that publicly owned telephony providers are an anachronism.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

How is it an anachronism? If they were working using in a outdated print orientated business model for example that's costing millions, I would argue that is anachronistic. But the ABC have moved with the times well and it's digital and online content is usually excellent.

Gough,

The points you make about digital and online content could be equally used to argue why some aspcts of the ABC are no longer necessary. Modern technology makes a broad range of news, analysis and opinion more available to a greater proportion of the population. Arguably the "hole" to be filled by the ABC is far smaller than it once was.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Mofra]

Yeah, but you then mentioned a bunch of things your taxes don't in fact pay for as an example. Of course your taxes pay for things you don't use. My point is that those things should be as limited as possible. It's hard to make a user pays system for roads without making toll roads (which everyone hates). Not so hard for a TV station. In fact it's by far the most common method of paying for TV stations. Publicly funded TV is an increasingly rare anachronism.

Incorrect: we still have publically funded television, and niche public broadcasters (e.g. C31) have secured new funding.
There's an ACMA-commissioned economic report floating around somewhere with the details.

(Ignoring of course your on-going refusal to acknowledge general revenue distribution from federal to state governments in some of the measures I used as an example).

You mean the diesel fuel rebate?

Yeah, that's afforded to many businesses that don't use their vehicles on public roads (because the excise is supposedly used for paying for roads).

What I don't understand is how you think you are paying for something which is in effect a zero-sum effect. (No road spending, therefore no tax collected.)

One of the most obvious and continual intellectual fail of the left is that the fuel rebate is somehow a subsidy. It's not. The fuel excise was never intended to be applied to vehicles that do not use public roads.

Like I said, I hoped for your sake that you were talking about something else. Turns out you are indeed as ignorant as I had feared.

Again, getting upset and using personal insults doesn't help your cause.

Foregone revenue has the same net effect as expenditure on general revenue: I haven't described it as a subsidy so now you're just inventing arguments.

As an aside the diesel fuel excise is not just for private road use: it also applies to diesel used for private operations which some have argued reduces the scope for private companies to use alternate sources of energy e.g. solar or Lihir using Geo-thermal energy

 

[pokerspiv]

"Ignorant" isn't a personal insult. It means you don't know something. And you clearly do not know much about the diesel fuel rebate if you think it costs you money.

ig·no·rant
ˈignərənt/

lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.

 

[pokerspiv]

Foregone revenue has the same net effect as expenditure on general revenue: I haven't described it as a subsidy so now you're just inventing arguments.

You are basically saying that non-existence of a tax is the same thing as you paying money out of your own pocket.

Completely ridiculous.

 

[Mofra]

You are basically saying that non-existence of a tax is the same thing as you paying money out of your own pocket.

Completely ridiculous.

No, I didn't.
I'll make it simple.

I am saying that not collecting $10 has the same net balance as collecting $10 then paying it back.
10-10 = 0

The effect is the same. Foregone revenue collection has the same effect on general revenue as expenditure.

 

[Long Live HFC]

It's an anachronism because the original justification for public television was that there were no private television networks. Now there are hundreds of private television networks. It's hard to see why the public ones are still necessary.

huh? how does that conclusion remotely follow your premise? if anything, the hundreds of private television network proves how much we need a quality alternative (insofar as we're talking news/current affaird/investigative journalism). despite these "hundreds" of networks, none of them produce the types of quality programming such as PBS' frontline or the ABC's 4 corners.

 

[pokerspiv]

huh? how does that conclusion remotely follow your premise? if anything, the hundreds of private television network proves how much we need a quality alternative (insofar as we're talking news/current affaird/investigative journalism). despite these "hundreds" of networks, none of them produce the types of quality programming such as PBS' frontline or the ABC's 4 corners.

That's a personal opinion. I personally think Sky News is a pretty good station for news and current affairs.

It also ignores the "crowding out" effect of the ABC. Why would a private company start a direct competitor in the ABC's niche?

If the ABC wasn't there, somebody probably would. They have in every other country in the world. Even the US has numerous left-leaning private news services (CBS, MSNBC etc).

 

[Mofra]

despite these "hundreds" of networks, none of them produce the types of quality programming such as PBS' frontline or the ABC's 4 corners.

That is part of the point of the ABC - as traditional print and broadcast media decline in Australia (and there are well established trends of falling advertising revenue in all media with the exception of online media which is growing) the need for a broadcaster to create non-commercially viable but quality programming is more important, not less.

In particular, regional and rural areas are only protected by local content obligations and largely projects such as "ABC Open" are virtually the only forms of media that facilitate non-metropolitan voices to be heard.

 

[pokerspiv]

No, I didn't.
I'll make it simple.

Yeah, you did.

...which has nothing to do with the discussion on ABC bias, the issue we are discussing.

If we do want to use the "my tax dollars" arguments: I don't use hospitals, primary or secondary schools, roads outside of Victoria, diesel used to generate electricity to facilitate the export of minerals to China nor have I ever been given a lift in a politician's car. I pay for those with my taxes too.

 

[Mofra]

What part of foregone revenue confuses you?

PS: This is fun

 

[pokerspiv]

That is part of the point of the ABC - as traditional print and broadcast media decline in Australia (and there are well established trends of falling advertising revenue in all media with the exception of online media which is growing) the need for a broadcaster to create non-commercially viable but quality programming is more important, not less.

Advertising is not the only way of funding media. Subscription model is far more popular everywhere in the world. The ABC could easily continue under that model.

 

[Mofra]

The ABC could easily continue under that model.

Do you have any evidence to back that assertion?

 

[pokerspiv]

What part of foregone revenue confuses you?

PS: This is fun

I'll just make it even more obvious then.

diesel used to generate electricity to facilitate the export of minerals to China nor have I ever been given a lift in a politician's car. I pay for those with my taxes too.

This is the part where you should stop digging.

 

[pokerspiv]

Do you have any evidence to back that assertion?

Yes. The existence of hundreds of similar networks that operate under subscription business models everywhere around the world.

 

[Mofra]

Yes. The existence of hundreds of similar networks that operate under subscription business models everywhere around the world.

That is nowhere near comparable, especially considering few (if any, I don't know of any) commercial businesses operate under the strict conditions and myriad of regulations in remote LGAs that the ABC do.

Do you know of any they are subject to such strict conditions?

 

[Mofra]

This is the part where you should stop digging.

Why? it is effectively the same thing - it is more than reasonable to assume that someone who doesn't know what austerity is needs to have the language kept as simplistic as possible. Tell me why you think foregone revenue is not the same as expenditure as far as general revenue is concerned?

 

[Long Live HFC]

That's a personal opinion. I personally think Sky News is a pretty good station for news and current affairs.

It also ignores the "crowding out" effect of the ABC. Why would a private company start a direct competitor in the ABC's niche?

If the ABC wasn't there, somebody probably would. They have in every other country in the world. Even the US has numerous left-leaning private news services (CBS, MSNBC etc).

fact is that they haven't, and wouldn't. the last quality free to air show australia had was sunday. and it got axed coz it wasn't profitable enough. the quality of CBS or MSNBC compared to PBS is a ******* joke.

im not calling for "left-leaning" anything. i want quality, objective journalism and news distribution.

 

[pokerspiv]

That is nowhere near comparable, especially considering few (if any, I don't know of any) commercial businesses operate under the strict conditions and myriad of regulations in remote LGAs that the ABC do.

Do you know of any they are subject to such strict conditions?

You are conflating 2 separate things here, the ABC TV network and the provision of signals to remote locations. I would prefer to discuss the 2 separately as I think there is probably still justification for the 2nd. There is no need for it to broadcast a feed from a wholly publicly owned network though. You've already got services like Imparja and GWN/WIN that fulfill a similar role in regional areas using content from private creators.

 

[pokerspiv]

Why? it is effectively the same thing - it is more than reasonable to assume that someone who doesn't know what austerity is needs to have the language kept as simplistic as possible. Tell me why you think foregone revenue is not the same as expenditure as far as general revenue is concerned?

You didn't claim it was the same thing in a financial record-keeping sense. You claimed it was the same as a tax. Those are 2 wildly different claims.

Obviously $10 minus $10 is $0, that's obvious. But that doesn't mean that losing $10 is always a tax.

 

[pokerspiv]

fact is that they haven't, and wouldn't. the last quality free to air show australia had was sunday. and it got axed coz it wasn't profitable enough. the quality of CBS or MSNBC compared to PBS is a ******* joke.

im not calling for "left-leaning" anything. i want quality, objective journalism and news distribution.

I'm not talking about free-to-air, I am talking about subscription. There are plenty of good news and current affairs shows on pay TV.

e.g.: http://www.skynews.com.au/programs.html

 

[Mofra]

You are conflating 2 separate things here, the ABC TV network and the provision of signals to remote locations. I would prefer to discuss the 2 separately as I think there is probably still justification for the 2nd. There is no need for it to broadcast a feed from a wholly publicly owned network though. You've already got services like Imparja and GWN/WIN that fulfill a similar role in regional areas using content from private creators.

wait - you're using Imparja as a an argument against public funding?
Imparja are predominately public funded via grants. I don't think that as an example supports your argument.

GWN/WIN (amongst others) only operate in remote locations due to legislative obligation: Xenophon was complaining to Conroy about this ~18 months ago and a 6 month report was commission by Conroy (largely to shut him up about it).

GWN/WIN/Prime etc are borderline profitable and their ROI is lower than the risk-free return rate available in Australia. No company would willingly start an operation in a high-risk, low return business in an environment on declining revenue returns year on year.

 

[pokerspiv]

wait - you're using Imparja as a an argument against public funding?

You obviously didn't read my post at all.

The broadcast of Imparja is publicly funded, but it primarily rebroadcasts content from Channel 9. My argument is that is a better model than publicly funding both the broadcast and the content.

 

[Mofra]

You didn't claim it was the same thing in a financial record-keeping sense. You claimed it was the same as a tax. Those are 2 wildly different claims.

We're going around in circles now

 

[Long Live HFC]

I'm not talking about free-to-air, I am talking about subscription. There are plenty of good news and current affairs shows on pay TV.

"plenty" is a stretch. i agree that sky has some quality content though.