Society/Culture ABC to launch 24hr news channel - Murdoch declares warfare!

Remove this Banner Ad

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.
Don't be silly, do you post simply in an attempt to points score?
To what purpose meds?

It is not clutching at straws when I already acknowledge the argument against it, in fact I would agree that removing that part of the ABC's programming line up is perfectly reasonable, though I believe it is a point worth discussing.

Nice mis-characterisation, people have to make a living and the case can be made that artistic value is not purely measurable in direct monetary terms (e.g. direct revenue gained). States have invested in art of various mediums, especially that which is seen as culturally relevant (to that period or people though this has probably been more unavoidable in the past) for a lot longer than the time since television began.

Some of the greatest works of theatre, ballet, architecture, painting and sculpture have been funded by various governments/empires/the public purse;).

Again just a point to consider, I am not sure if this applies to television or ABC programming but it is true none the less.
 
PBN, you don't actually think ALL state funded tv stations around the world are fair and balanced do you?
Where have I said that I did?

The worst examples though IMO, are often biased towards the state, ideological bias is more a bi-product (see Chinese state media). This also usually corresponds with a lack of press freedoms, a corrupt political regime and lack of genuine internal private competition (though this is simply my opinion).

I have not seen them all though (and know of no empirical system of measurement), which allows me to comment/prove either way on an absolute basis.

That does not stop me from contradicting or challenging meds claim.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Where have I said that I did?

The worst examples though IMO, are often biased towards the state, ideological bias is more a bi-product (see Chinese state media). This also usually corresponds with a lack of press freedoms, a corrupt political regime and lack of genuine internal private competition (though this is simply my opinion).

I have not seen them all though (and know of no empirical system of measurement), which allows me to comment/prove either way on an absolute basis.

That does not stop me from contradicting or challenging meds claim.

I wasn't meant to imply that you said it.
It was more in reference to saying 'The ABC is answerable to the public' which I don't think could necessarily always be true.
 
I have provided several logical reasons, the only argument you have is in regards to taxes (personal property).

Several? You have education and that is it.

Anyway what the ABC is supposed to provide is a balanced viewpoint or one with minimal bias.

And it fails miserably.

Don't be silly, do you post simply in an attempt to points score?

It is not being silly. They are rent seeking, just as they do re local content laws.

Are actors are more important than auto workers? Any more important that all the other trade exposed industries in Australia?

It is a very, very big call to say that, however that is in effect what they are arguing.

That they are so vital to Australia they must be protected via a publicly funded broadcaster and restrictions on commercial channels.

Silly?

Absolutely.
 
I wasn't meant to imply that you said it.
It was more in reference to saying 'The ABC is answerable to the public' which I don't think could necessarily always be true.
Ah ok, kewl was not meant to appear hostile.

Also I agree.

They are answerable to the public as much as the public makes an issue out of something, which in turn impacts upon certain politicians/political parties. There is also supposed to be a stringent code of standards and practices.

So whilst it is not so simple, ideally they are.
 
I have never been unemployed. Should I therefore be forced to pay for people on Newstart? I have 2 preschool aged children and have never used childcare should I be forced to subsidise other people to have their children raised by strangers so that they can have a bigger house, newer car and go on a holiday? Should single people be forced to subsidise families?
 
They are answerable to the public as much as the public makes an issue out of something, which in turn impacts upon certain politicians/political parties.

How has that worked with respect to the Melbourne and Sydney transport systems? That effects far more. The ABC may be indirectly held accountable by taxpayers but how many will change their vote due to it? Given their ratings I dont think it is a huge issue for most.
 
Several? You have education and that is it.



And it fails miserably.



It is not being silly. They are rent seeking, just as they do re local content laws.

Are actors are more important than auto workers? Any more important that all the other trade exposed industries in Australia?

It is a very, very big call to say that, however that is in effect what they are arguing.

That they are so vital to Australia they must be protected via a publicly funded broadcaster and restrictions on commercial channels.

Silly?

Absolutely.
lolwut?

I have provided more than just education as a reason, though it is the central point.

Also tone down the hyperbole.

You claimed I was clutching at straws, whilst misrepresenting my position. I called you doing so silly and you continue to do it, though in a slightly less lucid fashion.

Again I do not disagree with your basic premise in the case of this one point, though I will point out that in comparing either autoworkers and actors it is very difficult to define and compare value.

It is almost entirely dependent on the value that you place on their relevant industries and what they currently mean to Australia.

To begin with culture and the ABC's (and televisions) possible impact on ours. Second the belief that culture is not only an organic process but cultivated and also key economic/social circumstances at the time.

In this case, do autoworkers need to be protected, is there any long term gain to Australia as a whole from doing so and will it actually matter/be enough.

As for the other side, has the ABC made or does it make a substantial cultural contribution. Does it help the health of the entertainment industry in Australia by existing.

Personally I cannot answer either way, but again IMO I don't think it is incumbent on taxpayers to support either.
 
How has that worked with respect to the Melbourne and Sydney transport systems? That effects far more. The ABC may be indirectly held accountable by taxpayers but how many will change their vote due to it? Given their ratings I dont think it is a huge issue for most.
Hahahahahaha.

They are two completely different and dare I say it incomparable spheres within the public sector, so a pretty silly argument on your part.

The ABC's industry is one which deals directly with public issues/opinions, therefore it is far more susceptible to them.

It is also far easier to fire an actor or cancel a show (for a recent example Chasers) than fix major issues (e.g. contractors) for entire public transit systems .
 
They are two completely different and dare I say it incomparable sectors, so a pretty silly argument on your part.

It is exactly the same argument.

The ABC's industry is one which deals directly with public issues/opinions, therefore it is far more susceptible to them.

And the public dont deal directly with public transport?
 
I have never been unemployed. Should I therefore be forced to pay for people on Newstart? I have 2 preschool aged children and have never used childcare should I be forced to subsidise other people to have their children raised by strangers so that they can have a bigger house, newer car and go on a holiday? Should single people be forced to subsidise families?

No, you should not be forced to do any of that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Self absorbed blowhards now repeating the same boring shit 24/7.

Your tax dollars at work.

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!
No, a fail is what happens when you use JJJ as a great example of anything.

Go the Hilltips!
 
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!

Meds probably thinks JJJ should be renamed Triple Communist.

His view of the ABC is quite far removed from the reality of the ABC.
 
Free marketeers like Placebo, and Meds when he's at his most bombastic, seem to live in some theoretical fantasy world as far removed from reality as any Marxist dialectic.
 
It's not uncommon in moments of levity for ABC staff themselves to joke about the bias. Pretty sure I've heard The Chaser mention it, but I mean others too, at awards nights say after a couple.

Suppose you could argue they are commenting on the allegation rather than an actual belief, but I don't think so.

Then you've got the Labor recruitment.

You're living in a cave if you think the ABC isn't chock full of lefties.
 
^^ Just as many ABC staff have gone on to work for the Liberal Party - Pru Goward, ROb Messenger, Eoin Cameron, just to name a few.
 
Yup, and according to Hnsard (via Wiki, via google) while 10 ABC staffers have gone on to work for the ALP, 9 have gone on to work for the Liberal Party. So it's hardly the hotbed of ALP staffers that you try to make it out to be.
 
I have never been unemployed. Should I therefore be forced to pay for people on Newstart? I have 2 preschool aged children and have never used childcare should I be forced to subsidise other people to have their children raised by strangers so that they can have a bigger house, newer car and go on a holiday? Should single people be forced to subsidise families?

****en right they should. The individualistic focus of our "aspirationalist" zeitgesist has polluted alot of minds. You would be in the shit without a functioning society, and the maintenance of society is everyone's concern.

You don't pay to help out people in your society who need it, they hit rock bottom and end up robbing you.
See how much you would be complaining then.

Everyman for himself is bullshit and you don't really want to live that way. If I'm wrong, prove it and move to Haiti.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top