The future of the ABC - Guthrie sacked

[Power Raid]

So where are they? What about the people that are so far out or rural that they can't even get get internet? What better news service is there than a 24 hour news channel?

OK let's work through this together.
- if 1% of people are watching it, it simply is not a valued product especially given the 1% is further diluted by pay tv.
- by buying a digital recorder you can watch the some 10-20 hours of news every week day and god knows how many on weekends when every you want
- for those with the net they can read or watch an service they want when ever they want

so where are they? well that is a personal preference
but I do acknowledge this might be your very favourite and for that all I can say is my thoughts go out to you and hope you can get over the changes. How did you cope all those years growing up without it?

i have an idea, how about you buy a digital recorder and watch replays once its gone.

 

[Maggie5]

That's right

That is why I compared the whole media network of 7, 9 and the ABC which included media, print and digital and also considered market share

LOL, comparing national radio with print. You really need to take a break, try apples for apples. maybe doesn't suit the point you are desperately trying to justify.
As I said not possible to compare.

 

[Power Raid]

You didn't answer any of that.



Some people can't afford them. And why buy a recorder if the news is out of date by the time they watch it? Do you get the concept of 24 hours? It means there's constant new news...

but the stats say people don't watch it!

 

[Maggie5]

You don't need to pay anything. You can choose not to if you want. That's the beauty of letting people decide what services to purchase.

The only channel you and I are forced to pay for is the ABC.

I am forced to pay for roads and maintenance and I don't own a car, so?
What a ridiculous comment.
BTW how can you critique something you don't watch or perhaps you do watch just so you can whinge. I would suggest either way, you are getting your money worth.

 

[Power Raid]

LOL, comparing national radio with print. You really need to take a break, try apples for apples. maybe doesn't suit the point you are desperately trying to justify.
As I said not possible to compare.

I am comparing the whole consolidated suite of 7s operations (including tv, print, radio, digital where appropriate) and the whole consolidated suite of 9s operations (including tv, print, radio, digital where appropriate) to the whole consolidated suite of the ABC's operations (including tv, print, radio, digital where appropriate). It is not perfect but it does provide a holistic view and the differences in products may provide clues to the requirement to adjust the budget and force efficiencies.

 

[Lester Burnham]

What's your point? The ABC exists to provide those services to people in remote areas. That's why it's a publicly funded broadcaster. Commercial networks aren't interested in those small markets or real news or australian political reporting or real journalism because they all cost money to do properly.

Apparently this is not Mark Scott's view of things. He has expanded ABC digital at the expense of traditional regional services. He's using taxpayer money to set up free online services in direct competition with commercial operators who need to charge for access.

 

[Maggie5]

I am comparing the whole consolidated suite of 7s operations (including tv, print, radio, digital where appropriate) and the whole consolidated suite of 9s operations (including tv, print, radio, digital where appropriate) to the whole consolidated suite of the ABC's operations (including tv, print, radio, digital where appropriate). It is not perfect but it does provide a holistic view and the differences in products may provide clues to the requirement to adjust the budget and force efficiencies.

Rubbish, not only is it not perfect not even close. Yet again you cannot see how wrong you are.

 

[pokerspiv]

I am forced to pay for roads and maintenance and I don't own a car, so?
What a ridiculous comment.
BTW how can you critique something you don't watch or perhaps you do watch just so you can whinge. I would suggest either way, you are getting your money worth.

Actually roads and maintenance are paid for by fuel excise, you couldn't have picked a worse example.

 

[Maggie5]

Actually roads and maintenance are paid for by fuel excise, you couldn't have picked a worse example.

Feel sure some of my taxes have paid for toll roads. Tullamarine for example. Still doesn't detract from my point.

 

[AM]

Maybe the need for a public broadcaster wouldn't be so great if the accurate presentation of news and fair presentation of views was the ethical position of the commercial sector. It isn't. In fact nothing could be further from the way many function today.

The Murdoch conglomerate is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the reactionaries with no ethical or moral base whatsoever. Errors of fact, distortions of the truth, and blatant lies is their method of conducting business. Performed as a means of aiding and abetting the plutocracy. Not to mention being beholden to the large scale advertisers.

Then there's the gathering of information by illegal and quite immoral means as Murdoch and his cohorts were found to have done in the UK

The commercial media is in many respects an utter disgrace breeding and cultivating propagandists the likes of Bolt, Hadley, Jones, Price, Smith et al.

And it's garbage for anyone to suggest that a broadcasting licence bestows on an organisation the right to print and/or broadcast whatever they please subject only to some very loose laws.

The need for a public broadcaster is greater than ever in order for those who care about reliable, fair and objective news and views to get it. And for being innovative in other areas too. As distinct from the commercial broadcasters who largely import or copy product.

One positive sign is the advent of online media where the accurate presentation of news and fair presentation of views is taken seriously. News Daily, the Guardian Australia and The Conversation are a few. Sadly they are comparative minnows in comparison to Murdoch's large reach which would be far more extensive if he was able to dismember the ABC as is his aim.

 

[Power Raid]

Maybe the need for a public broadcaster wouldn't be so great if the accurate presentation of news and fair presentation of views was the ethical position of the commercial sector. It isn't. In fact nothing could be further from the way many function today.

The Murdoch conglomerate is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the reactionaries with no ethical or moral base whatsoever. Errors of fact, distortions of the truth, and blatant lies is their method of conducting business. Performed as a means of aiding and abetting the plutocracy. Not to mention being beholden to the large scale advertisers.

Then there's the gathering of information by illegal and quite immoral means as Murdoch and his cohorts were found to have done in the UK

The commercial media is in many respects an utter disgrace breeding and cultivating propagandists the likes of Bolt, Hadley, Jones, Price, Smith et al.

And it's garbage for anyone to suggest that a broadcasting licence bestows on an organisation the right to print and/or broadcast whatever they please subject only to some very loose laws.

The need for a public broadcaster is greater than ever in order for those who care about reliable, fair and objective news and views to get it. And for being innovative in other areas too. As distinct from the commercial broadcasters who largely import or copy product.

One positive sign is the advent of online media where the accurate presentation of news and fair presentation of views is taken seriously. News Daily, the Guardian Australia and The Conversation are a few. Sadly they are comparative minnows in comparison to Murdoch's large reach which would be far more extensive if he was able to dismember the ABC as is his aim.

I agree but do they need $1.2B for that or could they achieve similar by seeking efficiencies?

but I do disagree that there are no other sources for news than the ABC and Murdoch, I think you even concede that in your post.

 

[Gough]

You're all over the shop PR. One minute you say the ABC is undermining democracy, the next you agree they provide an important service to the country. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.

 

[romeoh]

I agree but do they need $1.2B for that or could they achieve similar by seeking efficiencies?

but I do disagree that there are no other sources for news than the ABC and Murdoch

Maybe,maybe not. The HR accountability concepts that seem to now pervade all workforces have done nothing to improve things. This focus on value adding and documenting of how well something is done, insistence on efficiency(no waste, no misuse, everything validated along specific lines)has only served to make the workforce less confident, less adventurous, less interesting, less humane and ultimately less effective.
So I suggest we throw out this obsession with the dollar and efficiency, and just allow art and culture and information to flourish unfettered by such restraints.

 

[smokingjacket]

what is the point? the market suggest a 24 hour service is not required.

buy a digital recorder and watch the regular srvice when ever you want!


1% lol...

Heard of the concept of market failure?

The concept of a negative market outcome?

The government and most Australian's thankfully don't believe that people who live in rural and remote areas should be left with out the level of information necessary to form political views and participate in democracy. Last time I checked there weren't too many farmers who used those services being brainwashed by the ABC to vote for the Labor Party.

 

[smokingjacket]

There would probably be even more other options if it wasn't for the billion dollar a year publically funded behemoth crowding them out.

That's a ludicrous position considering the state of the traditional media at the moment.

Turnbull admitted as much by saying the privatisation wasn't an option because the big networks/media were already struggling to maintain advertising bases. The quality of and quantity of proper journalism has been tumbling for years because of the flight of the advertisers. Extra competition would kill the goose.

Far better to just ruin the ABC too.

 

[Power Raid]

Maybe,maybe not. The HR accountability concepts that seem to now pervade all workforces have done nothing to improve things. This focus on value adding and documenting of how well something is done, insistence on efficiency(no waste, no misuse, everything validated along specific lines)has only served to make the workforce less confident, less adventurous, less interesting, less humane and ultimately less effective.
So I suggest we throw out this obsession with the dollar and efficiency, and just allow art and culture and information to flourish unfettered by such restraints.

I definitely agree with the first half of the post. Government organisations do not need to hire a consultancy firm to validate every decision they make.

but the budget thing is a fact of life and management duty is to ensure their "management burden" of budgets and controls doesn't constrain the creativity of employees. If it does, then management isn't doing their job properly.

 

[Power Raid]

You're all over the shop PR. One minute you say the ABC is undermining democracy, the next you agree they provide an important service to the country. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.

Of course you can have both.

1) they have an important role to play; but
2) ABCs management has admitted it is securing aditional funds whilst promoting the agenda of the past government. This by the way is against their own charter and clearly an abuse of privlidge.

Clean that up and then they are back on track.

 

[smokingjacket]

Apparently this is not Mark Scott's view of things. He has expanded ABC digital at the expense of traditional regional services. He's using taxpayer money to set up free online services in direct competition with commercial operators who need to charge for access.

They need to be doing both to be an effective news organisation and look after the rural areas.

If you ask the ABC to behave like a private company and apply market pressures to it, the ABC will cut the things that get the least bang for buck like rural broadcasting. Cutting the ABC's budget because every other news organistaion has had to cut theirs is not a way to maintain rural programming.

It should be funded properly and generously for the good of all Australian's. If you don't enjoy the politics of some shows then write in and complain, it is a public broadcaster. You don't slash the budget of the one quality Australian news source we have.

 

[flaps]

Apparently this is not Mark Scott's view of things. He has expanded ABC digital at the expense of traditional regional services. He's using taxpayer money to set up free online services in direct competition with commercial operators who need to charge for access.

I don't think it will get to the stage that people will head to the ABC site over HUN or the Age just because there's no paywall. As it is, there's less content on the ABC News site than you'd find on the others because there's less cross media ownership there. Eg, The Mercury, The HUN, Courier Mail, etc can have news rolling through from each other's feeds. Most of ABC News is national unless you head to ABC Local to which there is only about 1 or 2 local reporters at each station. Hardly a comparison.

 

[flaps]

They need to be doing both to be an effective news organisation and look after the rural areas.

If you ask the ABC to behave like a private company and apply market pressures to it, the ABC will cut the things that get the least bang for buck like rural broadcasting. Cutting the ABC's budget because every other news organistaion has had to cut theirs is not a way to maintain rural programming.

It should be funded properly and generously for the good of all Australian's. If you don't enjoy the politics of some shows then write in and complain, it is a public broadcaster. You don't slash the budget of the one quality Australian news source we have.

THIS.

 

[flaps]

but the stats say people don't watch it!

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4134884.htm

Listen to that. Mark Scott said 4 million people PER WEEK watch ABC News 24. I think if anyone would know the stats of who watch it, it would be him. Once again, you're wrong.

 

[Maggie5]

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4134884.htm

Listen to that. Mark Scott said 4 million people PER WEEK watch ABC News 24. I think if anyone would know the stats of who watch it, it would be him. Once again, you're wrong.

PR would never admit he is wrong, he would just research for more links to either confuse or prove himself right.

 

[pokerspiv]

That's a ludicrous position considering the state of the traditional media at the moment.

Turnbull admitted as much by saying the privatisation wasn't an option because the big networks/media were already struggling to maintain advertising bases.

Turnbull as maditted masmuch because it's not politicallly feasible to completely shut down the ABC. Congratulations on being on the side that is immune to democracy.

 

[Maggie5]

For those who complain about the wages of ABC presenters, heard on the radio yesterday that an executive from another commercial TV station laughed when he read about it. Said he pays the weather presenter more than some of the (couldn't remember who he named) ABC on-air presenters. Perhaps that is why commercial TV stations aren't making money. Sometime ago, it was reported that the male presenter Karl Stefanovic was receiving a salary into the millions.

 

[Maggie5]

Turnbull as maditted masmuch because it's not politicallly feasible to completely shut down the ABC. Congratulations on being on the side that is immune to democracy.

How are the toll roads going? Democracy?