The future of the ABC - Guthrie sacked

[clogged]

Incorrect. Fairfax, News et al are competing with Google, Gumtree, realestate.com.au

The problem with news outlets is that online advertisers (and the search behemoth especially) are taking their advertising dollar. That's why a government owned ad funded TV station shouldn't exist.

 

[tandino]

Incorrect. Fairfax, News et al are competing with Google, Gumtree, realestate.com.au

The problem with news outlets is that online advertisers (and the search behemoth especially) are taking their advertising dollar. That's why a government owned ad funded TV station shouldn't exist.

And everybody laughed when people said that one day there would be money to be made out of internet advertising.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Is it? To be honest i don't even watch SBS any more apart from Le Tour de Frog. I look up the documentaries section on their SBS on Demand once or twice a week to see if they've got anything interesting up. As for sitting down and watching TV according to the time published in the TV guide, haven't done that for ages with SBS.

I prolly watch more SBS than ABC. Walking Dead, Masters of Sex, Shameless, South Park, foreign movies. The Tour De France by SBS is outstanding.

The ABC can fix its editorial bias against the Libs and pro-Green without major reform. A few changes in personnel will remedy it.

The ABC's online news and opinion service should be curtailed. It is unfair on commercial news providers, who are cutting staff due to reduced revenue, and bloggers, to have to compete with a government funded provider.

 

[kranky al]

The abc is mildly mildly left - so mildly that I would suggest that it is more of a centrist organisation these days


Goes a bit to make up for the rapidness of the the right wing commercial stations

 

[Caesar]

ABC bias is vastly overrated. Q&A is a very partisan program, but that is about it.

 

[Admiral Byng]

The ABC's online news and opinion service should be curtailed. It is unfair on commercial news providers, who are cutting staff due to reduced revenue, and bloggers, to have to compete with a government funded provider.

Commercial news providers can GAGF. There's nothing unfair about having a publicly-funded independent news provider. Someone with no commercial interest in promoting one slant on the news over another. Not being bound by ratings and advertising usually means a broader and less sensationalist approach to reporting the news. There is no public benefit in doing away with that and letting a handful of oligarchs corner the market. It is generally accepted that oligopolies and monopolies are market imperfections and bad for the consumer, we shouldn't be using market doctrine to further advance that imperfection.

 

[telsor]

Incorrect. Fairfax, News et al are competing with Google, Gumtree, realestate.com.au

The problem with news outlets is that online advertisers (and the search behemoth especially) are taking their advertising dollar. That's why a government owned ad funded TV station shouldn't exist.

The advertisers go to the viewers/readers/etc...If news.abc.net.au is taking readers from theage.com.au, then it's taking $s

 

[TP86]

Turnbull knows a "last century work practice" when he sees one. Maybe this was his subtle way of saying ABC supported his NBN? Tom Tilley on Triple J Hack seemed to kiss his ass every time he was on. Felt very boys club/last century whenever he went on the show.

And telsor Fairfax will live and die by real estate in the immediate future. The non-real estate advertising is in decline and classifieds are shot. It's all about who the real estate agents want to go with.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

The ABC can fix its editorial bias against the Libs and pro-Green without major reform. A few changes in personnel will remedy it.

Right wingers are obsessed with this fiction. Sad. And irritating.

 

[mellowyellow]

Can't see the government selling off the ABC or the SBS. The political fallout would be significant, and I can't see who would pay anything substantial for it. Death by a thousand cuts would be more likely, and would minimise the political backlash.

Many inside the organization (ABC) would argue this has been occurring for well over a decade

 

[PottSie2]

Still funny to read that people think it's Murdoch affected by Our Abc.

It's Fairfax. They are both pitching to the same audience.

Sent from my phone to Annoy Noddy

 

[PottSie2]

Right wingers are obsessed with this fiction. Sad. And irritating.

http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/.a/6a0177444b0c2e970d019b0072fa2a970b-pi

Sent from my phone to Annoy Noddy

 

[clogged]

The advertisers go to the viewers/readers/etc...If news.abc.net.au is taking readers from theage.com.au, then it's taking $s

It's not that people are gravitating away from The Age to the ABC. The Age has had to compete with different media sources for over a century (print, TV, radio) and survived.

The Age could have as many readers as for online and print ever and still be dying, as advertising with newspapers is no longer the best way to get your message out.

 

[PottSie2]

ABC bias is vastly overrated. Q&A is a very partisan program, but that is about it.

Insiders.


Sent from my phone to Annoy Noddy

 

[Maggie5]

ABC bias is vastly overrated. Q&A is a very partisan program, but that is about it.

Totally agree, the ABC is where I get most of my information as I know that I will get "news" and not "opinion" that makes it news.
Interviews on 7.30 Report and Lateline ask the hard questions of all politicians not just the Coalition. Insiders is not bias. Wish I could remember the response of the Coalition when the bias of The Hun was discussed.

In so far as losing advertising dollars, don't know how many people respond to them as I find them annoying, flickering on and off. I never read them nor can I even recall any of them. The "traditional" press lost me many years ago.

Interesting comment by Abbott "never watch the ABC" as he prefers Channel 10 (Gina and Bolt). Surprise!

 

[Caesar]

Insiders.

Insiders. Maybe the Drum. Notice the pattern? They're all panel shows.

Australia doesn't have many good right wing talking heads. Journos and academics are the ones with the time and interest in going on these shows, and they are overwhelmingly left wing. It's not really the ABC's fault that most of the time the best they can come up with to balance them are muppets like Piers Ackerman.

The vast majority of the ABC's news and current affairs coverage (i.e. all the important stuff) is fine. The news bulletins are mostly dry and their interviewers are generally both critical and even-handed.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

If Cori Bernardi is campaigning for something then it needs to be seriously looked at and the opposite approach taken.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Still funny to read that people think it's Murdoch affected by Our Abc.

Those numbers roughly hold the five "big channels" in their traditional positions with one exception: a badly damaged Ten has officially ceded third place to the ABC, and is now Australia's fourth most-watched network.​

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/seven-tops-tv-ratings-for-year-20131201-2yjw2.html#ixzz2mSMFc5Ce​

Poor old Rupert's reaching for any excuse as to why Lachlan's incompetence has run 10 into the ground.​

 

[Footy Smarts]

Insiders. Maybe the Drum. Notice the pattern? They're all panel shows.

Australia doesn't have many good right wing talking heads. Journos and academics are the ones with the time and interest in going on these shows, and they are overwhelmingly left wing. It's not really the ABC's fault that most of the time the best they can come up with to balance them are muppets like Piers Ackerman.

The vast majority of the ABC's news and current affairs coverage (i.e. all the important stuff) is fine. The news bulletins are mostly dry and their interviewers are generally both critical and even-handed.

Despite this the ABC goes out of its way to get right wing people on their panel shows. Basically every night there will be someone like Reith or some puppet from the IPA on shows like The Drum. I don't really see what more anybody can expect. Every panel show invariably has somebody who is clearly from the right.

Like you say the only noticeable show that shows "bias" is Q&A but that's not because of the ABC, it's purely because of the people who watch Q&A. Even then the ABC is incredibly careful to have reasonable splits within the audience although the audience will obviously be a subsection of those who watch Q&A rather than a subsection of the nation as a whole.

 

[Caesar]

Despite this the ABC goes out of its way to get right wing people on their panel shows. Basically every night there will be someone like Reith or some puppet from the IPA on shows like The Drum. I don't really see what more anybody can expect. Every panel show invariably has somebody who is clearly from the right.

Let's not pretend that the inclusion of the right wing pundits they do have is a serious attempt at balance. They're there for appearance, and as a pinata for the rest of the panel. Most of the time they are not permitted to put their views properly and are howled down by the rest of the participants. Frankly, balance is impossible with these shows and as a result it's long been abandoned in favour of playing to the audience.

That said, I can't see the point in getting upset about it. People watch panel shows to see their views validated, not to obtain information. Bias is more of an issue in hard news, which the ABC keeps relatively neutral.

 

[noddy]

Still funny to read that people think it's Murdoch affected by Our Abc.

It's Fairfax. They are both pitching to the same audience.

Sent from my phone to Annoy Noddy

You have my permission to stop annoying me now Potts.

 

[swingdog]

In recent weeks the ABC has been criticised, mainly in the Murdoch sections of the press, for working with The Guardian to publish the leaks about spying on Indonesia. Now Malcolm Turnbull has called Mark Scott to criticise the "error of judgement".

On this particular point, ask any editor of any new organisation in Australia whether they would have run this story and the answer would be "yes".

The whingeing is coming from media incompetents who didn't get the story first.

Nothing wrong with this kind of media collaboration. The Guardian did it with the first Wikileaks release, teaming up with the New York Times and Der Spiegel to get a wider audience. Same deal here.

Perhaps they tried approaching Channel 9:

GUARDIAN: "We have these NSA files that show we've been spying on the Indonesian president and his wife."
CHANNEL 9: "So, this is a refugee story, right?"
GUARDIAN: "Not really...."
CHANNEL 9: "About how all these Indonesians are coming and clogging up Western Sydney's roads?"
GUARDIAN: "No, it's about how intelligence agencies are tapping a foreign leader's phone...."
CHANNEL 9: "Is there a dodgy loan shark involved?"
GUARDIAN: "Sorry?"
CHANNEL 9: "You know, someone we can chase down the street."
GUARDIAN: "This is about metadata."
CHANNEL 9: "Mate, speak ******* English."

 

[telsor]

On this particular point, ask any editor of any new organisation in Australia whether they would have run this story and the answer would be "yes".

The whingeing is coming from media incompetents who didn't get the story first.

Nothing wrong with this kind of media collaboration. The Guardian did it with the first Wikileaks release, teaming up with the New York Times and Der Spiegel to get a wider audience. Same deal here.

Perhaps they tried approaching Channel 9:

GUARDIAN: "We have these NSA files that show we've been spying on the Indonesian president and his wife."
CHANNEL 9: "So, this is a refugee story, right?"
GUARDIAN: "Not really...."
CHANNEL 9: "About how all these Indonesians are coming and clogging up Western Sydney's roads?"
GUARDIAN: "No, it's about how intelligence agencies are tapping a foreign leader's phone...."
CHANNEL 9: "Is there a dodgy loan shark involved?"
GUARDIAN: "Sorry?"
CHANNEL 9: "You know, someone we can chase down the street."
GUARDIAN: "This is about metadata."
CHANNEL 9: "Mate, speak ******* English."

So, anyone would have run it...Except Channel 9 (and presumably any other non-left media) because it isn't dumb and lowbrow enough.

How is it that the left can feel so morally superior, inclusive and 'anti-discriminatory' when they instantly demonise anyone who disagrees with them?

 

[swingdog]

Sigh, it's a joke.

The point about other media outlets running this stands. Of course, they would have - if they didn't, they should get out of journalism.

 

[Mofra]

So, anyone would have run it...Except Channel 9 (and presumably any other non-left media) because it isn't dumb and lowbrow enough.

A Current Affair is on channel 9, rendering this statement invalid.

How is it that the left can feel so morally superior, inclusive and 'anti-discriminatory' when they instantly demonise anyone who disagrees with them?

Including simplistic generalisations in a question - yep, this will start intelligent discussion...