Society/Culture Should we close down the ABC and SBS ?

[Snake_Baker]

It's pretty simple mate. You choose, you pay. In the minds of sane people this is normal behavior.

 

[Venkman]

It's pretty simple mate. You choose, you pay. In the minds of sane people this is normal behavior.

But it's not simple, it's not that binary. If you accept the idea that you can't live in a country where you don't pay taxes then you have to accept that your taxes will be used for things that you personally don't agree with. You and me don't get to choose. If I'm a pacifist I can't say to you that if you want military protection then you have to pay for it.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Not to me, or plenty of others either, but thanks for considering how money taken from me should be spent on my behalf.

AS for the "private ones", I don't pay them a cent, but at least I get to make that choice.

You involuntarily pay them via the advertising levy on virtually every single product or service you buy.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You involuntarily pay them via the advertising levy on virtually every single product or service you buy.

Which I CHOOSE!

No one chooses this on my behalf!

Try to get this simple concept through your thick head.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Which I CHOOSE!

No one chooses this on my behalf!

Try to get this simple concept through your thick head.

Quite correct.

You don't have to CHOOSE to eat and drink if you don't want to.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'm surrounded by morons.

 

[Venkman]

These arguments - never really end do they?
Statist Parasite: We are going to take your tax money and use it to spend on cancer patients.
Sky News watcher: But I didn't choose that.
SP: Yeah, but we think that collectively we can develop an asset that is better for society as a whole
SNW: But I didn't choose that, my personal ideology is individualism. Cancer patients should pay for it if they need to use it.
SP: A lot of people wont be able to afford it and have worse outcomes. Countries with socialised medicine have better outcomes than those without - for everyone.
SNW: But this is costing me money. Plus that word socialism is bad. It killed millions of Chinese people.
SP: Well all western countries have a history socialized assets and yes it is costing you money, it's the price you pay for living in a society with effective public utilities.
SNW: But I believe in an ideology that has come out of the U.S it strongly promotes individualism and small government.
SP: Well that's a pretty extremist position and it's pretty antithetical to the social and institutional traditions of the country that you live in.
SNW: I don't care. It's my money and I want to choose what it's used for.
etc

 

[CD Xbow]

It's pretty simple mate. You choose, you pay. In the minds of sane people this is normal behavior.

The trouble is Snake, 'user pays' helps rich folks, as do tax cuts and are the main reasons the gap between the rich and poor has got so bad. A big part of our fracturing society is related to the blow out of that gap.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The trouble is Snake, 'user pays' helps rich folks, as do tax cuts and are the main reasons the gap between the rich and poor has got so bad. A big part of our fracturing society is related to the blow out of that gap.

On the odd occasion you can surprise me with very absurd comments.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Isnt that mostly the case though? On the news shows and newsbulletins the news reader is usually always too stupid to actually have a political view so gives the story straight without an opinion. Its only on the other shows where we get news opinions.
[/QUO

Probably right too, but I can only emphasise what I am trying to say by looking at the weather news, if its going to be very hot, you don't say but it could snow, if your reporting from Alice Springs? I know that sounds a bit silly but if you get news driven by a hosts opinion, then it should be described as an opinion , not news. So what you say about a 1/2 hour news bulletin being pure news is correct.
I guess you could put that difference in an argument to say that Insiders (ABC) is opinion with some news factors added, and The Bolt Report (SKY) is the same thing, but crikey you can see the two differences.
I find the ABC is nearly always putting oposites down instead of reporting, people find Bolt extreme to the right, but I actually see him as biased on some issues strongly, and on other mostly even minded, and he doesn't shy away from his opinions , only when ABC challenges him, on nearly everything , lots of it hypocritical.
On the other hand the ABC is so blatantly out there with its bias, that the question is about ABC.
And SBS for me is not so much to worry about, they cater for minorities I suppose and migrants which is fine
But ABC is meant to be the representative of the cross section of Australia, and should be a service, not opinionated and definitely a left-leaning operation at the moment with no control over it, even Ita has no say!?
I think they need new legislation for the national broadcaster, because we pay for it, and they do go to the limit of bias, they are meant to be there for all Australians, they are somewhat like GetUp, I subscribed to once who told me they were a cross section of all community opinions, they were so far from that I told them had a couple of emails from them which I returned vigorously, then I got chucked. Because they were false! And a wing of the ALP, probably.

When your national broadcaster starts to feel like that its time for the gov to step in and have a closer look.

 

[JoondalupJ]

The ABC is, realistically, center left but has always been like that as far as I can remember. That's not due to any great mystery but rather because it employs professional journalists and most of them would roll that way as a professional group. There's no real comparison with the commercial press from a journalistic perspective - commercial television isn't really interested in, for example, investigative journalism because it's not of financial benefit. It's also beholden to mandate of its owners. Ultimately this why we still need the ABC because it exists to serve the national interest. Ultimately when something serious serious goes down, like the bush fires, you turn on the grown up channel, rather than watch a Stephanovic or some muppet from better homes telling you what's going on.

Wrong, national broadcaster is for everyone. Being centre left is not an option for a national broadcaster. What you are is an entertainer for TV shows and you are a news giver/bringer, that is all.
A news giver and bringer, if you are a host like Triolo or Sales or Cassidy, now gone, you should state your political bent and meaning and leaning and maybe even voting, then you can talk for yourself. And you also then have to have more than token right-wingers who get hammered, that is propaganda, THE ABC SHOULD NEVER BE INVOLVED IN PROPAGANDA!
You see , when you talk for yourself you are having a political lean! WHEN YOU ARE A DISCUSSER OF THE NEWS, YOU NEED TO BE CLEAR AND OPEN ABOUT YOUR BIAS, THE ABC DOES NO DO THAT.
I remember being annoyed at the inferring that Morrison was to blame for the bush fires, not directly but the ABC made it feel like that, the story should have been about the fires and the work and tragedy, which they seem to love to talk about, not about the pre-arranged holiday, and also the fact , remember this, the fact that we have a bushfire season every year, but Morrison was hounded by that bulldust reporting of how we were told by the ABC that his ratings were s**t, well for me he came back and did the job, but people are like sheep, if a news channel tells you something long enough and many many times over the sheep follow the line.
I actually hate that type of operating, but the ABC is ours, and it is the worst culprit, it is way out of its brief!
For you to say the ABC is there for or should be there for the national interest, is simply not happening , the ABC is there for propaganda at the moment,it is a disgrace. BUT!!!!
Don't shut it down , take it back and set it up without the people who are biased, and very left, mix it up. iF IT WAS BIAS THE OTHER WAY THE SAME APPLIES!!!!
The only way that can be done is for the governments to implement a plan to change the way it is run, entertain the public because we pay for it, and have open acknowledged political leanings announced by each news journo! It is as simple as that, and it is in your face , as to how they operate at the moment!

 

[JoondalupJ]

I feel "News" should be a defined legal term. Where opinion creeps into "News", it should be clear we have shifted from facts to opinion.

Infotainment should not be included within News.



Personally I believe the ABC and SBS should be limited to News or entertainment programs. I don't wish for the government to waste tax payer funds on infotainment especially if it is political.

Further I would hope the ABC become more accountable one day, where the board exert authority over content. Having a broadcaster that isn't even accountable to the board is a joke.

Yes! A board that is accountable to only itself, is not a broadcaster for the people at all. In fact thats a whole different story right there , they just roll on with no one to answer to? And we pay for it!

 

[Power Raid]

Yes! A board that is accountable to only itself, is not a broadcaster for the people at all. In fact thats a whole different story right there , they just roll on with no one to answer to? And we pay for it!

yep

can you imagine the ABC board has no input, control or say over content or conduct of the staff?

what kind of organisation is not accountable to its own board?

 

[Power Raid]

Compare the ABC life saving coverage of the apocalyptic bushfires compared to the Murdoch press. Murdoch's rags continuously ran a line to diminish the bushfires, presumably because of the need to deny climate change. It was pathetic. It was wrong. Then they attacked the job the ABC was doing. Many people affected thanked the ABC for their accurate coverage and some even said it was a life saver. Uncomfortable facts for those who want to knife aunty. Murdoch is not your friend.

but your post raise the issue..............

You claim Murdoch was reducing the significance to distance bush fire from climate change. What News is about isn't about reporting a fire or linking it to or distancing it from climate change, rather simply reporting the facts about a fire.

When and only when a full independent report is completed about the fire should climate change, back burning, the use of carcinogenic chemicals, the explosion of gum trees dominating our landscape and land care management systems be introduced.

However Murdoch (ie the ABC) was not alone by creating and reporting sensationalism.



We shouldn't be calling to keep or close the ABC because of what Murdoch did or didn't do. Rather we should look at the quality of product of the ABC and assess if it is something people value. If people value it, then having an organisation standing on its own two feet is completely reasonable.

 

[JoondalupJ]

but your post raise the issue..............

You claim Murdoch was reducing the significance to distance bush fire from climate change. What News is about isn't about reporting a fire or linking it to or distancing it from climate change, rather simply reporting the facts about a fire.

When and only when a full independent report is completed about the fire should climate change, back burning, the use of carcinogenic chemicals, the explosion of gum trees dominating our landscape and land care management systems be introduced.

However Murdoch (ie the ABC) was not alone by creating and reporting sensationalism.



We shouldn't be calling to keep or close the ABC because of what Murdoch did or didn't do. Rather we should look at the quality of product of the ABC and assess if it is something people value. If people value it, then having an organisation standing on its own two feet is completely reasonable.

Great comment, exactly, no off on a tangent thing to this story, the ABC is the subject, not climate-change or any ones left or right interpretation of news reporting.

Right now we are talking about the ABC, and they do not sometimes behave in a good manner. That in some instances it does not deliver level or fair reporting.

The bushfire propaganda and political point-scoring, especially against the PM was to me a disgrace and a complete deliberate botching of what really went on.

One left wing news operation reported 30,000 people trapped on a beach in Eastern Victoria , well they were trapped but the number was 4,000 and PM Morrison had the RAN get them off, and to safety.
The mischief-making by the left these days has left me wondering what on earth has happened to people who once told the truth and spoke for the people.
And looked after the working people, it is indeed a nasty set up, this ABC is our national broadcaster. It needs more control and someone to answer to!

I am a working class person and I have no representatives at all now. I spent many years as a union rep,
But here's one for the so-called true believers, I trust the PM we have now totally and fully.

I also believe I've been led down the garden path by those I once followed!

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

Sorry, i am sure it is somewhere within the 38 pages of this thread, but how exactly is the ABC bias to the left?
And what is the left?

 

[Number37]

If people value it, then having an organisation standing on its own two feet is completely reasonable.

Can you ask Rupert for the $50m back for showing womens sport?

 

[Caesar]

I must admit, although I love both SBS and the ABC, ever since we shifted to digital I have thought there should be a bit of an overhaul and rationalisation of public television. Currently we have nine different channels - SBS, SBS Viceland, SBS Food, SBS World Movies, NITV, ABC, ABC News, ABC Comedy/Kids and ABC Me. It's very clear that there is nowhere near enough good local content to justify that many.

A huge amount of the content on SBS, SBS Viceland and SBS Food is just recycled crap from America that hardly fits the mission of a multicultural broadcaster. NITV is a great initiative, but again its broadcast schedule is massively padded due to a shortfall of local indigenous content. SBS World Movies is great but whether we really need a 24/7 publically-funded movie channel is highly questionable.

ABC and ABC News are great, but ABC Me seems totally unnecessary when you already have ABC Kids running from 5am to 7:30pm on another channel. I'd also question whether we have enough good local comedy to justify a full night block, every night (particularly when there's also a fair slab of comedy on the main channel).

It seems to me that you could save a hell of a lot of money by cutting back to six channels' worth of content, flogging off leases on the extra licences for some cash, and merging the two entities to pool back office resources for TV, radio and online.

Preferably the savings can then be used to focus on the stuff we actually rely on public broadcasting for - i.e. high-quality news, locally-produced and indigenous content, and multicultural and multilingual programming.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Not to me, or plenty of others either, but thanks for considering how money taken from me should be spent on my behalf.

AS for the "private ones", I don't pay them a cent, but at least I get to make that choice.

Yes you do Uncle Rupert runs the Oz as a tax deductible propaganda arm for the Libs it cost 20 mill a year in lost taxes he deducts from other ventures
Fox got 50 odd mill as a sport grant type nod and a wink for services rendered in the form of Tax payers money for "woman's sports"
Then theres the grant for Mundines show

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Which I CHOOSE!

No one chooses this on my behalf!

Try to get this simple concept through your thick head.

Did you choose for your hard-earned taxes to pay for Australia's military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan? I know I bloody didn't!!!

 

[Snake_Baker]

Kept us "alive and safe" during the bush fires........................

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Kept us "alive and safe" during the bush fires........................

ABC 774 is the emergency broadcaster, very important to rural communities without internet access. Please think before you post next time

 

[AM]

I must admit, although I love both SBS and the ABC, ever since we shifted to digital I have thought there should be a bit of an overhaul and rationalisation of public television. Currently we have nine different channels - SBS, SBS Viceland, SBS Food, SBS World Movies, NITV, ABC, ABC News, ABC Comedy/Kids and ABC Me. It's very clear that there is nowhere near enough good local content to justify that many.

A huge amount of the content on SBS, SBS Viceland and SBS Food is just recycled crap from America that hardly fits the mission of a multicultural broadcaster. NITV is a great initiative, but again its broadcast schedule is massively padded due to a shortfall of local indigenous content. SBS World Movies is great but whether we really need a 24/7 publically-funded movie channel is highly questionable.

ABC and ABC News are great, but ABC Me seems totally unnecessary when you already have ABC Kids running from 5am to 7:30pm on another channel. I'd also question whether we have enough good local comedy to justify a full night block, every night (particularly when there's also a fair slab of comedy on the main channel).

It seems to me that you could save a hell of a lot of money by cutting back to six channels' worth of content, flogging off leases on the extra licences for some cash, and merging the two entities to pool back office resources for TV, radio and online.

Preferably the savings can then be used to focus on the stuff we actually rely on public broadcasting for - i.e. high-quality news, locally-produced and indigenous content, and multicultural and multilingual programming.

If there is to be a rationalisation it should include commercial operations too. It's becoming ludicrous. Television and radio.

 

[Kram]

I can't be the only one that thinks that The Drum is consistently rubbish.

 

[Gethelred]

I can't be the only one that thinks that The Drum is consistently rubbish.

Absolutely s**t house. Smug bastards discussing things that only affect at most 10% of the population. Spare me.