The future of the ABC - Guthrie sacked

[Footy Smarts]

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.

Really? That's just silly. The right wing members of panels get the same rights to express views as other members of the panels. And of course their views are howled down by those that disagree with them, that's the (unfortunate) point of combative panel shows. It's no different to what happens to left wing panel members being shouted down by those on the panel who disagree with them.

In all honesty I don't understand why people would bother watching panel shows. Most of the time it's hacks from either side spouting their side's talking points with nothing of interest to add or journalists spouting both sides talking points with no real in depth analysis. The rare times they get somebody of interest on they feel the need to match them with somebody even more ignorant and arrogant than normal to balance them out. It's enough to do your head in. It's really sad that a concept like Q&A, which could've made a significant contribution to informed democracy has instead transformed into just another way for the major parties to bicker between themselves while further increasing their overinflated sense of self worth.

 

[mellowyellow]

Those criticizing the quality of the ABC's programs need to realize that it has effectively had $150 mill slashed from it's budget in the last decade and yet the demand for services and programs via traditional and new technologies has increased markedly So of course the content and quality have been affected.
Neither party really give a rats about the long term interest of the organization and are effectively killing it off, probably to be carved up for private interests

 

[Caesar]

Really? That's just silly. The right wing members of panels get the same rights to express views as other members of the panels.

In practice this results in the rest of the panel tag-teaming the right wing representative. It's a bit hard to put your views across when the opposing side of the argument is effectively getting two or three times as much opportunity to expound and rebut as you are.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Yeah, the days of a foreign language TV show like Inspector Rex being on in prime time are long gone. Aside from news and current affairs, it's basically US or UK content between 6-9pm.

They still do it, like with the Scandinavian programs, and plenty of foreign films, but the chase for ratings with the British and skip programming has made it similar to the ABC. I think SBS still has huge worth, especially while xenophobia remains a substantial part of Australian life and white faces dominate every other channel. It also provides non-ratings based competition for the ABC. In a sense it is like giving a chunk of money to community programming so professional-level product can be made. The amount of talent that ends up in the commercial sector after being training at ABC/SBS is significant.

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.

Or the conservatives have so abandoned intelligent thought for their identity politics that it has rendered anyone with any interest in actual facts and research 'left wing' to you and Pottsie.

Why don't you offer to go on the shows, Caesar, if you think you can offer the "right wing" side better than the News Corp/IPA brigade?

 

[Footy Smarts]

In practice this results in the rest of the panel tag-teaming the right wing representative. It's a bit hard to put your views across when the opposing side of the argument is effectively getting two or three times as much opportunity to expound and rebut as you are.

That's only with radically right wing views (the IPA for instance) where the majority of the panel disagree, much like the vast majority of the electorate would disagree. It's also the same when you get wildly left wing views that are likewise shouted down by the rest of the panel. The idea that this is an example of bias is silly. In the instances where right wing (or left wing) people express more moderate positions they're not shouted down since they're not disagreed with by as vehemently.

 

[clogged]

They still do it, like with the Scandinavian programs, and plenty of foreign films, but the chase for ratings with the British and skip programming has made it similar to the ABC. I think SBS still has huge worth, especially while xenophobia remains a substantial part of Australian life and white faces dominate every other channel. It also provides non-ratings based competition for the ABC. In a sense it is like giving a chunk of money to community programming so professional-level product can be made. The amount of talent that ends up in the commercial sector after being training at ABC/SBS is significant.

I don't see why any of this necessitates a second network. It would be better if SBS was privatised and its charter given to the ABC to run on one of their channels.

 

[Caesar]

That's only with radically right wing views (the IPA for instance) where the majority of the panel disagree, much like the vast majority of the electorate would disagree. It's also the same when you get wildly left wing views that are likewise shouted down by the rest of the panel. The idea that this is an example of bias is silly. In the instances where right wing (or left wing) people express more moderate positions they're not shouted down since they're not disagreed with by as vehemently.

That's not really true. For example, often you will see the right wing member of the panel become a lightening rod for the rest of the panel's dissatisfaction with Coalition policy (which is not disagreed with by the "vast majority" of the electorate). Witness Mirabella's treatment last time she was on Q&A, where she barely got a word in edgeways for all the haranguing directed at her.

The bottom line is that when you are trying to rebut 2-4 people at once, in 10-30 second bursts, it makes it difficult to put forth an alternative position in a coherent or complete way. And that is what ends up happening most times that there is a right wing person on an ABC panel.

 

[Footy Smarts]

That's not really true. For example, often you will see the right wing member of the panel become a lightening rod for the rest of the panel's dissatisfaction with Coalition policy (which is not disagreed with by the "vast majority" of the electorate). Witness Mirabella's treatment last time she was on Q&A.

When you are trying to rebut 2-4 people at once, in 10-30 second bursts, it makes it difficult to put forth an alternative position in a coherent or complete way.

I think you're both massively exaggerating the regularity with which this occurs and also not recognising that it occurs in the other direction as well. Plenty on times in the last parliament, government members or apologists were used as the "lightening rod" in a very similar way.

 

[Caesar]

I'd be very keen to see you identify a time when any Labor politician has been steamrolled by the rest of the panel in the way that Mirabella was.

I think you're viewing the situation through rose-tinted spectacles because you are the target demographic of those programs. The idea of 'moderate' as espoused on those shows doesn't really fit with the broader electorate.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I'd be very keen to see you identify a time when any Labor politician has been steamrolled by the rest of the panel in the way that Mirabella was.

I think you're viewing the situation through rose-tinted spectacles because you are the target demographic of those programs. The idea of 'moderate' as espoused on those shows doesn't really fit with the broader electorate.

Except Mirabella wasn't.

Or are you referring to this loony theory?

Bloody facts - always getting in the road of a good political narative!

 

[Caesar]

Ahh, thanks for linking me back to that post. T'was a good chuckle.

 

[benchwarmer5]

I love the ABC and is the only thing I watch on TV

 

[Lester Burnham]

Except Mirabella wasn't.

Or are you referring to this loony theory?

Bloody facts - always getting in the road of a good political narative!

Talking of bloody facts getting in the way, look at the number of times in this show Sophie Mirabella was interrupted. And the amount of time Tony Jones let Plibersek crap on.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3780235.htm

 

[Power Raid]

It is a pretty ordinary program at best..............designed for fringe dwellers

 

[pazza]

It is a pretty ordinary program at best..............designed for fringe dwellers

And yet neither Foxtel or the commercial networks have come up with anything better. At least it engages the average voter.

I think the ABC is far from biased actually.

I look at the story of the day today - Nelson Mandela's passing.

ABC24 has covered it extremely well, crossing live to the world leaders passing on their condolences, into 2 interviews with Fraser and Evans - therefore giving both sides an equal say.

 

[benchwarmer5]

The little people on the right are paranoid and say it is extreme left wing but in the same sentence can call faux news or the bolt report unbiased

 

[Contra Mundum]

I love the ABC and is the only thing I watch on TV

The ridiculous thing is you reckon someone like Andrew Bolt listens or watches anything but ABC - who would broadcast classical music, design programs, documentaries, opera, the philosopher's zone? Intelligent broadcasting would be lost to free to air - I suppose that is what an idiot like Corey Bernardi wants

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Talking of bloody facts getting in the way, look at the number of times in this show Sophie Mirabella was interrupted. And the amount of time Tony Jones let Plibersek crap on.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3780235.htm

Seeing as I linked to a discussion about that show, it seems you haven't even bothered to read closely (or in an unbiased way) what I posted. Which makes sense, since you clearly didn't read the transcript closely (or in an unbiased way) either.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Seeing as I linked to a discussion about that show, it seems you haven't even bothered to read closely (or in an unbiased way) what I posted. Which makes sense, since you clearly didn't read the transcript closely (or in an unbiased way) either.

I read your post. You said 'She had many chances to speak uninterrupted'. She was interrupted 32 times. Her longest uninterrupted speech was 177 words. Plibersek’s was 224, Neil Lawrence’s 240 and Sue Cato’s 328.

 

[yibbida]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-06/macfarlane-wants-holden-closure-source-revealed/5139844

He is now asking the ABC to reveal which of his colleagues spoke out.

"I'd only say to the ABC if they have senior government ministers speaking to them they should name them so that we all know who they are," Mr Macfarlane said.

And the conservative defenders of free speech and journalistic integrity will be attacking Macfarlane in ......

 

[AM]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-06/macfarlane-wants-holden-closure-source-revealed/5139844



And the conservative defenders of free speech and journalistic integrity will be attacking Macfarlane in ......

The ultra conservatives - read red necks - take on free speech is allowing them to have carte blanche while doing all they can to drown out opposing views. And they're quite adept at it.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I read your post. You said 'She had many chances to speak uninterrupted'. She was interrupted 32 times. Her longest uninterrupted speech was 177 words. Plibersek’s was 224, Neil Lawrence’s 240 and Sue Cato’s 328.

Kudos to you for bothering to check (most on BF don't seem to like doing actual research - it hurts their pre-existing opinions). It might be a typo, but that spiel was actually 244 words long. However taking a single outlier is generally a bad way to do stats. Maybe you had to do that to try and justify Caesar's and GJ's claim that Mirabella was badly treated?

Anyone can read the transcript and see that Mirabella interrupted people and was interrupted herself, but if we must go back to the numbers (luckily I have the file saved from the first time I checked), you can see Plibersek spoke on average 32.19 words at a time and Mirabella 32.46. Both spoke over 80 words on 8 occassions. Over 70 words? TP: 10 times SM: 12 times. Over 100 words? TP: 6 SM: 5.

You'd probably be hard-pressed to find a more even show if you tried (and I think even Liberal supporters would admit that explaining government isn't as simple as complaining about government).

Maybe that isn't too surprising given the ABC literally counts the seconds each side gets in election periods. The election hadn't been announced at that point, but that practice probably becomes a bit ingrained when you're on a political show that is so often described as biased. And let's not forget it's called biased so that Liberal supporters can say Murdoch's bias towards the Coalition is 'fair'. ...Because you can't argue it's 'fair' in any realistic way otherwise.

Not to mention that the complaints about the Liberals' approach to offering themselves as an alternative government (which caused a lot of interruptions back then), so far seem to have been very well-founded. Turning back the boats was never explained. Direct Action seemed a BS fig leaf for as little action as possible. "Cut the waste" is a motherhood statement all oppositions make. Their NBN alternative is poor economics and poor planning. Etc.

ABC bias is mostly in the Liberal-supporters' heads. Just as far "lefties" think the ABC is too rightwing or that everyone cheering Coalition statements on Q&A is a stooge. There are plenty of biased people in the crowd, as there are IRL, but the stats at the start of the show seem to try and reflect the latest polls. The high vote for the Greens means they get someone on the show pretty ofen, and non-political panellists might look a bit pro-Labor if they come from NGOs or they're cultural icons, but given the show started shortly after Rudd got power, and existed mostly when the Coalition was infighting or had Tony Abbott was in charge, it's hardly surprising that it's hard to find a lot of articulate people to support him.

The Business special this year after Abbott's win didn't have a lot of love for him, when some might've expected it would. Abbott himself hasn't been on for ages, has he? As you lot have found on BF, it's a hard job to excuse the Liberals' policy positions. It was far easier instead to say Labor isn't doing things well or is in-fighting too much.

 

[catman 71]

This is what I would do with the ABC.

It can't be banned completely, as that would look like bias. But they must be punished for putting nation security on the line just to embarrass Abbott.

If I were Abbott, my revenge would be sweet. I would allow the ABC to remain on air, but they would no longer get one cent of taxpayer's money. That's right, no more "eight cents a day". They can find other areas of revenue, such as advertising (a fate worse than death for the ABC).

So, in order to survive, I would make it that the ABC would have to become a commercial station, like Seven, Nine, Ten and the digital channels. Unless ABC presenters want to donate large sums of their outrageous pay packets to keep it on air, the ABC would have to become like every other station.

So, the ABC would be forced to either "sell out" or fade away. HA! HA!

 

[catman 71]

Really? That's just silly. The right wing members of panels get the same rights to express views as other members of the panels. And of course their views are howled down by those that disagree with them, that's the (unfortunate) point of combative panel shows. It's no different to what happens to left wing panel members being shouted down by those on the panel who disagree with them.

In all honesty I don't understand why people would bother watching panel shows. Most of the time it's hacks from either side spouting their side's talking points with nothing of interest to add or journalists spouting both sides talking points with no real in depth analysis. The rare times they get somebody of interest on they feel the need to match them with somebody even more ignorant and arrogant than normal to balance them out. It's enough to do your head in. It's really sad that a concept like Q&A, which could've made a significant contribution to informed democracy has instead transformed into just another way for the major parties to bicker between themselves while further increasing their overinflated sense of self worth.

Maybe they should stop inviting politicians all the time, and cover other newsworthy areas instead.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

If I were Abbott, my revenge would be sweet. I would allow the ABC to remain on air, but they would no longer get one cent of taxpayer's money. That's right, no more "eight cents a day". They can find other areas of revenue, such as advertising (a fate worse than death for the ABC).

So, in order to survive, I would make it that the ABC would have to become a commercial station, like Seven, Nine, Ten and the digital channels. Unless ABC presenters want to donate large sums of their outrageous pay packets to keep it on air, the ABC would have to become like every other station.

So, the ABC would be forced to either "sell out" or fade away. HA! HA!

The commercial stations actually don't like that idea, as it would create competition for the advertising dollar and the advertising dollar is already heavily diluted due to TV's dropping viewership and companies spending more on online marketing. The ABC beat Channel 10 in the ratings this year (and I imagine there would be a lot of "AB" viewers on the ABC that luxury brands would love to sell to) so Gina Rinehart and Lachlan Murdoch's investment would more likely 'fade away' than the ABC's. I'm sure the ABC would love to get 10's drama slate too.

BTW, ABC presenters are paid less than commercial networks, so this would not theoretically increase their "outrageous pay packets".

Maybe they should stop inviting politicians all the time, and cover other newsworthy areas instead.

The ABC should definitely cover politics to hold politicians to account, and so citizens are well aware of political influence in society. The problem currently seems to be that there aren't enough people covering politics which makes media commentators reliant on politicians to leak stories to them. Investigative journalism would be superior, but it requires a lot more time and $.