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

[blackcat]

I just hope Virginia Trioli gets to host some of it!

hand is working fine, we just need to get her to a specialist to see to the Bell's Palsy

 

[bit_pattern]

LOL, I thought of you when I posted it

 

[moistie]

After they met their stated goals they had spare left over. Should have given it back.

Should be coalition policy to sell of the ABC's TV licences. They are no longer required in the digital age. Plenty of sources of news. According to the ABC there was no climate gate, they are political stooges to the ALP as evidences by their 'presenters' joining the ALP time and again.

God, listen to 'em bleat.

Can't have a centrist news agency, can we?

If it doesn't spout the conservative line then to the right it's a waste of money. It's the conservative modus operandi that it's a bad thing for the general public to have a news source that doesn't spout their own beliefs.

 

[Pie eyed]

Hussah for the ABC.
The only bastion of quality journalism left in Australia.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Absolutely, shame on him for being against government produced news.

We need a Ministry of Information.

Most likely a government newspaper as well to take on the evil empire of Murdoch.

There's a very big difference between government produced news and having a national taxpayer funded news channel. Very big difference.

And yes, far right free market types like you and Murdoch squeal that the ABC and Beeb are biased left. That's because you don't recognise that your ideological mindset is extreme and that what you see as bias is generally reflective of most people's attitude.

That said, if I want to have TV on for breaking news, it'll be Sky. I can speak from experience and tell you that every newsroom in Britain has Sky on, not the Beeb, because Sky have made 'breaking news' their market niche.

This can also cause them hassle. They caused enormous dramas up here about two months ago when they started reporting that Megrahi had died, when he hadn't.

NB - if taxpayers are going to fund stuff like this, it is imperative that there is a balanced and fair and indepndent body to govern the station, and that must include those of the right as well as left and in between.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

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.

Both are ideologies of theoretical purity where any evidence against the position ... the wondrous free market of Somalia ... can be ignored on the grounds 'its not done right there.

This kind of ultra free market crap works like communism on a tiny scale.

Not in an actual real world situation.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Clearly someone doesn't understand the libertarian position of not being allowed to infringe on any others rights or initiate force against another, something that isn't respected in Somalia.

Clearly some people continue to labour under the delusion that anyone except them believes that would ever happen in a real world.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

You think the Greens have something to offer.

These would be the Greens who warned the war in Iraq would be a disaster.

The Greens who've consistently been warning about the social and economic cost of environmental damage.

The Greens who've warned that modern casino capitalism is unsustainable.

Sounds to me like they are pretty bang on.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

See Hong Kong. Rose from a fishing village to one of the richest cities in Asia on that model.

And by selling smack.

 

[bit_pattern]

Clearly some people continue to labour under the delusion that anyone except them believes that would ever happen in a real world.

Exactly what I was trying to say, but much clearer and concise

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Exactly what I was trying to say, but much clearer and concise

I have many long years arguing with libertarians. Nice people most of them, but deluded. Savagely deluded.

 

[placebo]

Clearly some people continue to labour under the delusion that anyone except them believes that would ever happen in a real world.

And clearly someone didn't read the rest of my posts explaining that I'm not arguing for a completely minarchist society to be implemented tomorrow.

 

[placebo]

Both are ideologies of theoretical purity where any evidence against the position ... the wondrous free market of Somalia ... can be ignored on the grounds 'its not done right there.

This kind of ultra free market crap works like communism on a tiny scale.

Not in an actual real world situation.

Or it can be ignored on the grounds that Somalia's anarchy isn't what people like Meds argues for, as much as you want to believe it and continue to say that it is, it isn't.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Or it can be ignored on the grounds that Somalia's anarchy isn't what people like Meds argues for, as much as you want to believe it and continue to say that it is, it isn't.

Stalin's Great Terror wasn't what the vast majority of people who wanted to change the Tsarist system of government wanted either.

But it happened and Somalia, or something rather like it - quite possibly worse - would be the end of result of the application of theories applied by the likes of you and meds.

But the worst bit is the sickening hypocrisy.

Its all 'Oooh, the government is s**t, ooooh the market, the market' but then you still want the government to provide the basic structures so you can play your free market wankathon but don't have the guts to admit the glaring logical contradiction in your own position.

But meh, thankfully the vast majority of people are smart enough to see through this stuff.

 

[placebo]

Stalin's Great Terror wasn't what the vast majority of people who wanted to change the Tsarist system of government wanted either.

But it happened and Somalia, or something rather like it - quite possibly worse - would be the end of result of the application of theories applied by the likes of you and meds.

But the worst bit is the sickening hypocrisy.

Its all 'Oooh, the government is s**t, ooooh the market, the market' but then you still want the government to provide the basic structures so you can play your free market wankathon but don't have the guts to admit the glaring logical contradiction in your own position.

But meh, thankfully the vast majority of people are smart enough to see through this stuff.

Actually, no they wouldn't.
Anarchy =/= Free Markets.
And considering that no true free market system has ever actually existed, it's impossible for you to make that claim.


There is no contradiction. Only unreasoned people think so.
I don't argue for a complete minarchist society to be implemented tomorrow because it's simply not possible to be done that quickly.
Which is again why I argue for more reasonable things at this moment in history that are on the free market side like not forcing people to pay for a tv station they don't watch. Christ, it isn't that hard to understand.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Which is again why I argue for more reasonable things at this moment in history that are on the free market side like not forcing people to pay for a tv station they don't watch. Christ, it isn't that hard to understand.

The ABC is far, far more than a TV station. Leaving aside all the arguments about picking off one element of government spend ... there's huge amounts of government stuff I never use either but recognise can be beneficial ... you miss the far wider picture.

The ABC is an excellent provider of soft power in our region.

In a world increasingly defined by digital communication, it gives us an enormous resource, one that we can and do increasingly use to gain direct benefit.

So there's some elements you don't like. Don't watch/listen to those.

But don't be so moronic to want to shut down an enormously valuable resource just to suit a blinkered ideology, especially when that whole argument is being run by an individual who stands to gain very handsomely if it ever does happen.

 

[placebo]

The ABC is far, far more than a TV station. Leaving aside all the arguments about picking off one element of government spend ... there's huge amounts of government stuff I never use either but recognise can be beneficial ... you miss the far wider picture.

The ABC is an excellent provider of soft power in our region.

In a world increasingly defined by digital communication, it gives us an enormous resource, one that we can and do increasingly use to gain direct benefit.

So there's some elements you don't like. Don't watch/listen to those.

But don't be so moronic to want to shut down an enormously valuable resource just to suit a blinkered ideology, especially when that whole argument is being run by an individual who stands to gain very handsomely if it ever does happen.

You can talk about ABC being enormously valuable all you want (your opinion on how valuable you think the ABC is, is irrelevant) but on this topic we are talking about a 24 hour news channel, which means me calling it a 'tv station' is perfectly viable.

None of what you said makes it right to forcefully make people who gain no value from the ABC pay for it's news channel. s**t, if you want a government run news channel make it so you can opt out of it or don't have it at all.

 

[blackcat]

I thought that Greenspan's vision that the market will be self-regulating and punish those who burnt bridges, was thoroughly eviscerated last year? Anyone like to answer the macro dilemma of systemic risk, which sits above the individual firm going under.

A pure free market might work fine hypothetically, but add the human element, and decisions malleable to fraud and corruption, the whole thing is undermined.

 

[blackcat]

You can talk about ABC being enormously valuable all you want (your opinion on how valuable you think the ABC is, is irrelevant) but on this topic we are talking about a 24 hour news channel, which means me calling it a 'tv station' is perfectly viable.

None of what you said makes it right to forcefully make people who gain no value from the ABC pay for it's news channel. s**t, if you want a government run news channel make it so you can opt out of it or don't have it at all.

$hit, that's a little like the police, or the fire service eh, you can deny the positive externalities all you like, cos your lot like to put aside the negative externalities (global warming, banking failures) if you can't accurately price 'em. Just cos you cant price it, does not make it not valuable.

 

[Clay Davis]

You don't even have to go as far as Somalia to prove that the 'minarchist' mantra is a load of nonsense. The US will do just fine.

Edit: This strand has been moved to a new thread:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=669529

 

[Pie eyed]

You can talk about ABC being enormously valuable all you want (your opinion on how valuable you think the ABC is, is irrelevant) but on this topic we are talking about a 24 hour news channel, which means me calling it a 'tv station' is perfectly viable.

None of what you said makes it right to forcefully make people who gain no value from the ABC pay for it's news channel. s**t, if you want a government run news channel make it so you can opt out of it or don't have it at all.

So long as I can opt out of any Government initiative I don't like, fine.

 

[medusala]

I thought that Greenspan's vision that the market will be self-regulating and punish those who burnt bridges, was thoroughly eviscerated last year?

Not so. Shareholders and bondholders of Lehmans, Bear etc would have lost everything if the market had its way.

Anyone like to answer the macro dilemma of systemic risk, which sits above the individual firm going under.

See Austrian School

A pure free market might work fine hypothetically, but add the human element, and decisions malleable to fraud and corruption, the whole thing is undermined.

It is undermined by government not by individuals.

Increased government in no way means less fraud and corruption.

http://transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009

 

[medusala]

The ABC is an excellent provider of soft power in our region.

In a world increasingly defined by digital communication, it gives us an enormous resource, one that we can and do increasingly use to gain direct benefit.

Interesting point. Used to watch it a bit (and it was poor ex AFL) in HK but did not get it in Singapore though that was a few years ago. Whenever I stay in a hotel in Asia the BBC world service is always on but rarely ABC.

Any idea re viewing numbers os?

 

[Suspense]

But the worst bit is the sickening hypocrisy.

Its all 'Oooh, the government is s**t, ooooh the market, the market' but then you still want the government to provide the basic structures so you can play your free market wankathon but don't have the guts to admit the glaring logical contradiction in your own position.

This is p funny.

"the guts"

Hahahahahehehe

 

[medusala]

But it happened and Somalia, or something rather like it - quite possibly worse - would be the end of result of the application of theories applied by the likes of you and meds.

But the worst bit is the sickening hypocrisy.

Its all 'Oooh, the government is s**t, ooooh the market, the market' but then you still want the government to provide the basic structures so you can play your free market wankathon but don't have the guts to admit the glaring logical contradiction in your own position.

Do you actually understand the difference between anarchy and liberalism?

How can you have property rights without a state?

It is not hypocritical it as a key requirement.

I would post a few Adam Smith quotes but I am sure you are familiiar with them and are simply trying to wind up Placebo. You seemed to have sucked a few non thinkers in.