- Thread starter
- Banned
- #26
ZOMG, I mean I love rn but Alan Saunders is a total knob and Counterpoint is a hotbed of vile denialism, they tout Plimer like nothing else.
Society/Culture ABC to launch 24hr news channel - Murdoch declares warfare!
- Thread starter bit_pattern
- Start date
- Tagged users None
ZOMG, I mean I love rn but Alan Saunders is a total knob and Counterpoint is a hotbed of vile denialism, they tout Plimer like nothing else.
Black Ball
Club Legend
Frankly I find that extremely difficult to believe but be that as it may I can only imagine what a dull misinformed loser you must be.
By the way how much is it costing you per year to fund this 'left wing media network'??
Black Ball
Club Legend
Reckon you've pulled that figure out of your arse.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #29
Sky News (predictably) cracks the sad's
Seems that competition is just too much for the Murdoch mouth piece to bare!
But Mumbrella, as always, nail it
Seems that competition is just too much for the Murdoch mouth piece to bare!
But Mumbrella, as always, nail it
It is hardly commercial opposition.
Well presumably he wants a govt funded national newspaper then
How about a govt owned supermarket chain, bit of a cartel there as well
A petrol station outlet, that is an area Kev is concerned about.
The list is endless: govt should compete everywhere with the private sector
The logic is compelling.
Must have missed all those ex-marines and SAS being paid squillions to run around in Iraq and Afghanistan shooting civilians.
- Banned
- #32
No meds, you are wrong.
The ABC provides an important public service, one of education.
It is more like a public library than a government funded supermarket chain.
Certain regional specific broadcasting (and news content on the web) which may be unprofitable for networks, educational programming and current affairs programs like 4 Corners and Landline, which do not have a genuine parallel in the commercial networks.
The ABC is also answerable to the public. This makes it more accountable than certain commercial stations which often compromise themselves for advertising revenue.
I regularly find the news programs on commercial networks appallingly biased or of low standard.
Simple reason because many have stronger political allegiances, due to the desire to curry favour with certain parties. Whether for advertising revenue from parties, political capital or idealogical stance of stakeholders.
As for the decreasing quality of news, fear, scandal and junk current affairs attract viewers. Most commercial networks and paytv news programs pedal a form of infotainment as opposed to genuine news. At least the BBC and ABC, do not have pressure to compromise content and quality for ratings.
Lastly not all people are computer savvy, there is still a contingent of the older generations who rely on the TV for news and current affair.
It is an educational public service I am happy to contribute tax towards, even for the programming I do not watch.
The ABC provides an important public service, one of education.
It is more like a public library than a government funded supermarket chain.
Certain regional specific broadcasting (and news content on the web) which may be unprofitable for networks, educational programming and current affairs programs like 4 Corners and Landline, which do not have a genuine parallel in the commercial networks.
The ABC is also answerable to the public. This makes it more accountable than certain commercial stations which often compromise themselves for advertising revenue.
I regularly find the news programs on commercial networks appallingly biased or of low standard.
Simple reason because many have stronger political allegiances, due to the desire to curry favour with certain parties. Whether for advertising revenue from parties, political capital or idealogical stance of stakeholders.
As for the decreasing quality of news, fear, scandal and junk current affairs attract viewers. Most commercial networks and paytv news programs pedal a form of infotainment as opposed to genuine news. At least the BBC and ABC, do not have pressure to compromise content and quality for ratings.
Lastly not all people are computer savvy, there is still a contingent of the older generations who rely on the TV for news and current affair.
It is an educational public service I am happy to contribute tax towards, even for the programming I do not watch.
- Banned
- #33
Incorrect.
The ABC acting as a public broadcaster provides relatively unbiased news and educational programming.
Through the mediums of radio, television and the internet it provides a service that would be difficult or is not provided at all by commercial stations.
Much like public libraries we are better for it.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,276
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Hopefully we'll get the local State based ABC news from around the country. Sky now have a menu where you can tune to your local state based news but it's pretty ordinary.
Having lived and worked in most states/territories I love seeing what's going on. I wonder if they'll do those half hour weather forecasts for W.A. lol
Having lived and worked in most states/territories I love seeing what's going on. I wonder if they'll do those half hour weather forecasts for W.A. lol
Nice opinion you have there pal. Really doesn't change the fact that people who do not benefit from ABC news should not be forced to pay for it.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #36
I don't drive a car, should I be forced to pay for roads? I don't go to school, should I have to pay for schools? I don't give a shit if a bunch of Arabs want to blow up some buildings, should I be forced to pay for soldiers to go to countries (that have very little to do with the people responsible) and kill other Arabs? I enjoy using drugs from time to time, should I have to pay for the drug squads employed to stop drug use? I haven't set foot in a library for years, should I have to pay for them too?
Pretty much no for most of them. Look up Minarchism. That's my position on most things. That doesn't mean however that everything can be privatised or paid through voluntary at the drop of a hat bit. Roads for example can't be completely privatised tomorrow, it wouldn't work. Same thing with a lot of things. However a tax payer funded tv station is not something that has been funded by taxpayers for a hundred years like Roads have(something that'd take a gradual process before privatising).
And for future reference, don't bring up the drug example as I'm completely against prohibition and do think it's totally ****ed that you have to pay for drug squads.
The private sector has and will continue to provide private armies, from blackwater to private mercenaries in Africa to the fact that in the 1600-1800s, it did exist for some venture companies to carry their own protection. I find it hard to believe that the private sector, if allowed, would not jump at military companies. It is only disallowed because states don't like competition.
People say there's no choice, only one army, yet there are other national armies, no-one's forcing us to fight, we choose to, yet tax payers have to pay. As much as we could not have a government funded ABC, we could also have a privatsed army, and not fight foreign battles at all.
Very, very debatable.
It is more like a public library than a government funded supermarket chain.
It does not act like it.
ABC is every bit (if not far more) biased. It is the Fairfax of TV.
No ideology from ABC employees then?
Imagine that a service provider giving the public what they want.
ie they can produce rubbish that noone wants to watch and it doesnt matter.
Wasnt Kath and Kim on the ABC?
You must forgive me for having not grasped the educational value of the above program.
- Banned
- #40
No they should.
I don't watch it much, should I then only pay for a small amount under the current scheme?
I don't go to the library anymore, why do I have to pay taxes for that.
Same with schools.
If you can't afford to be educated, you don't deserve it.
Education, public works and health are truly worthy of our tax dollars. Whilst the criteria for measuring these things are not absolute, the most developed nations/those with the highest standards of living, are ones which strike a good balance and have invested in public education.
Within the context of Australia as it is now, I think I have a very solid case. All you have is an ideological position which you confuse with absolute one.
Whilst I am essentially apolitical, there are aspects of libertarianism and anarchism which could appeal to me. Unfortunately in the purest sense neither is a perfect system, where current political and social issues play a big part in concepts that are successfully transferable from either (see deregulation of the banking industry in the US).
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #41
LMFAO!
Yeah, no one wanted to watch Kath and Kim
I guess tht's why the Yanks decided to buy the right to it! While it was populr it was one of the best rating shows on TV! And, yes, it is GREAT that we have a public broadcaster willing to take risks on Australian productions like K+K that the commercial modelled stations wouldn't touch. Like so much of ABC material that eventually gets poached by commercial TV once its made a name for itself. Or JJJ is another great example, you know you are doing something right when a new commercial station (Nova anyone?) comes along and builds a business model on JJJ's successes and poaches artists (Hilltip Hoods?) for their playlists!
God you fail at everything meds!
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #42
HAhaha, you're SUCH a numpty Meds!
Ratings
Channel Seven have since started showing repeats of the show from season one onwards which had previously only aired on the ABC network. The repeats have proved quite successful, rating 1.465 and 1.530 so far, winning in a very competitive timeslot and being amongst the highest rating shows of the week.[6]
No they should.
I don't watch it much, should I then only pay for a small amount under the current scheme?
I don't go to the library anymore, why do I have to pay taxes for that.
Same with schools.
If you can't afford to be educated, you don't deserve it.
Education, public works and health are truly worthy of our tax dollars. Whilst the criteria for measuring these things are not absolute, the most developed nations/highest standards of living are ones which strike a good balance and have invested in public education.
Within the context of Australia as it is now, I think I have a very solid case. All you have is an ideological position which you confuse with absolute one.
Whilst I am essentially apolitical, their are aspects of libertarianism and anarchism which could appeal to me. Unfortunately in the purest sense neither is a perfect system in which current political and social issues play a big part.
I addressed most of that in the previous post to BP. Comparing certain things like roads, education(things that can't be privatised a the drop of a hat but would have to be through a gradual process) are not at all the same as a tax payer funded tv station.
Yeah, no one wanted to watch Kath and Kim
Obviously the point is lost on you
Either the ABC is educational or its not.
Even if one program (and one swallow doesnt make a summer) rates well it does not do so across the board.
Yes it is a great example. What on earth is the govt doing running a station like that?
- Banned
- #46
As for the highlighted you must be joking meds.
Personally I don't buy into your left/right ideological dichotomy.
I respect neither major party and have never voted for candidates from either.
I actually find the ABC quite conservative and very balanced in comparison to the major networks and the paytv news programs I have watched.
Many people have ideologies/agendas, I do not believe this natural tendency is strongly reflected in the ABC's programming. Issues from both spectrums, politicians, policies and parties are regularly scrutinised.
As for giving the public what it wants, yes to a degree this is a valid point. But if the issue is looked at more deeply I would argue that your point stems from the fact that many people enjoy avoiding reality. They want to be entertained. Escapism is a very profitable business in many of it's forms (some of the most profitable). Given many peoples propensity to also be easily manipulated by sensationalism and fear, it is a natural choice for profit driven networks to opt more for entertainment of this form than actual news (genuine news just cannot compete).
I actually think this makes a public broadcaster more necessary, as it somewhat balances the commercial stations and forces them to provide that bit extra info as opposed to entertainment.
It does not matter whether you think the ABC "acts" like it is not answerable to the public, the fact remains it is. A public broadcaster could not weather the scrutiny in which popular news programs, like fox news do. It would be a political disaster.
You also avoid a few crucial points. Educational programming (e.g. children's, Australia specific historical documentaries), serious current affairs programming and regional specific shows (especially for country viewers). Many of which could not survive on a non public broadcaster but have considerable value. Some of these programs not only have value now, but a few will end up in those public libraries we mentioned meds and the ABC archives also have immense value.
Next you ignore the undue influence advertising has on the honesty/integrity of commercial stations.
The case you make is quite hollow and seems mainly based on partisan leanings.
- Banned
- #47
That does not even make sense.
Stating that they have programming which provides entertainment in no way contradicts my point.
Another function of the ABC is that it promotes Australian artists and comedians, this has cultural value and you will find most of our top TV comedians and in a couple of cases shows, began on the ABC.
What I will say is that there is an argument for removing this section of the ABC's content, though I think you would find heavy industry opposition (maybe not from networks but individual actors, presenters and public figures).
Personally though I think in regards to this content your argument is far more solid and I would not dispute it's removal though I believe the Australian entertainment industry would be poorer for it.
The vast majority accept that public broadcasters lean to the left (if not the public service as a whole). That is hardly controversial. See Rudd at Copenhagen and the BBC.
Their is no logical reason for a state owned broadcaster to exist.
If there were an issue re lack of objectivity re news etc then the vacuum would be filled (as per Fox News in the US)
No, more that others can only see bias on one side of the fence.
Regardless of all that I can live with the ABC
SBS on the other hand...
That is really clutching at straws
It is right up there with the argument for public funding of the ballet because Australians are so uncultured and thus won't pay for it.
Of coure actors would be against it. It would take their snouts out of the trough.
- Banned
- #50
Prove it.
I have provided several logical reasons, the only argument you have is in regards to taxes (personal property). And whilst on a superficial level it is often an admirable one, in some cases taxation is necessary and I believe a very compelling case exists in this regard. I also think it would be ridiculous to assume that if the ABC did not exist you would be taxed any less, nor that it would go towards a better use, givin both the current and previous governments ineptitude when it came to spending/investing the publics money.
Anyway what the ABC is supposed to provide is a balanced viewpoint or one with minimal bias. Arguing that having two left/right wing rags equates the same thing is a tad ridiculous.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
