Personally, I would like to see the BBC idea of TV licencing going to the ABC. That would stop the Government hamstringing them at every turn. It would also give them more money than they have now. A 50/50 funding plan from the Government and Public would I think really work.
Brett
· 3 years ago
I don't believe changing the funding to a licencing system - in part or whole - would stop government interference. You'd still have right-wing zealots acting as self appointed monitors of the spending of public monies demanding that their views be heard as often as the sum total of the moderate centre and any other views.
Just look at the opinion piece in The Age today from Jason Briant - a fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs, which is another group in the mold of the Sydney Institute - who says, "The reforms to editorial policy ... are excellent insofar as they go. But ... more work will still be required." Translation: "We still don't get enough air-time, it doesn't make the ABC cheer for the Liberal govt enough, we must be the dominant force, resistance is useless."
I do wonder if this is an intentionally inflammatory piece, designed to be something supporters of the changes can point to and say, "Look, we're not implementing all that. Just think how worse it could have been!"
There is an excellent article from Michelle Grattan on that same page that echoes my final point - "The sought-after impartiality seems to be the pursuit of a sort of perfect balance. The risk is that this morphs into programs that say nothing much at all." - as well as looking at the government in an overall sense and touching on the govt's reaction to the media feeding frenzy of the past couple of days.
The suggestion that Media Watch be turned into a panel discussion spells the death of that show, which has been the single greatest media watchdog in this country for the past seventeen years. If I was running the show at this point, I'd be opening her up and mowing down as many bad media owners and creators between now and March as possible because there's never going to be another opportunity on govt or commercial media again. And how convenient that Media Watch's death and the gazetting of the new media laws will pretty much coincide.
BB
fourthof5
· 3 years ago
Hmmmm, thats a point. However, It might be said that as long as the ABC in general presents unbiased content, ie if you have a programme which hammers the government, then you might have another programme on at some other time to give a more favorable view of the current leadership.
As to Media watch. Move that puppy to SBS.
Brett
· 3 years ago
The same thing occured to me (on the alternating programs thing) listening to Faine this morning... Just leave him be - or let him off the leash a little - and then bring in Andrew Bolt or John Laws or even Alan Jones - it doesn't matter which right-wing-nut - in the Stubbs slot and the averaged result is balanced. The market (audience) dictates how far they can go and you've got the spread of voices. Problem of balance is solved and there's still media worth watching/listening to.
The ABC stuff is a good opportunity for SBS to bulk up in the news/CA area - it's just a pity that they've just introduced the in-show advertising and are looking for a more lowest-common-denominator (read non-thinking) audience. At this point, I'm almost feeling a litle pity for Monica Attard. I still watch the show but I haven't forgiven her for replacing Liz Jackson or for not being as good as anyone I can remember in the host's chair.
I actually posted my potted response on IndyMedia Melbourne today - I'm feeling the need to become a committed activist in this area... It's actually been one of the main reasons for my involvement at Triple R for all these years and I've seen the media stuff coming for the past 7 years so the station is more important than ever.
BB
fourthof5
· 3 years ago
LOL here is a thought. Given that the new media laws allow multiple channles Why not spread that idea of unbiased shows to different channeles. You could have Governmemt TV (which no one would watch other than the pollies and the nutters) and the rest of us could have a normal ABC. :D
On second thought. I don't like the sound of that at all.
I suspect my lack of Liberal party membership might work against me for that position - have we got someone with the right pre-requisites that can work for our cause?
As for being able to shift anything decent to SBS - and as an example of RWCs acting as self appointed monitors - it looks like they're next:
First it was the ABC, now senator has new target Jason Koutsoukis - The Age - October 22, 2006
KEY Howard loyalists are set to launch a scathing attack on multicultural broadcaster SBS and force it to answer accusations of blatant left-wing bias.
Influential Victorian Liberal Senator Michael Ronaldson will lead the assault on SBS and its executives at a special Senate estimates hearing next week.
He is expected to be joined by Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Senator Alan Eggleston.
Senator Ronaldson, a key player in the Howard Government's long campaign against perceived political bias at the ABC, told The Sunday Age that SBS was "out of control" and needed to be reined in. "I am very concerned about SBS's impartiality and balance."
Just days after the ABC announced new program guidelines enforcing impartiality, Senator Ronaldson said SBS, which receives about $160 million a year from taxpayers, had a lot to learn from Australia's other national broadcaster.
"The network has slipped under the radar and compared to the directions that the ABC now seems to be taking, SBS are out on their own," he said.
Senator Ronaldson said he had compiled a dossier of numerous examples of political bias in both its domestic and international news coverage.
"There are just so many clear examples of inappropriate political bias, which is OK as long as the robustness falls within clear guidelines. The problem is, it doesn't.
"Now, in relation to the ABC, no one is looking for a sanitised national broadcaster. What we wanted was a broadcaster that, when it said its core values were impartiality and balance, actually met those core values."
He singled out SBS's coverage of the recent Hezbollah-Israel conflict as one of the most appalling examples of biased reporting he had ever seen. "Their commentary on international events, particularly the conflict between Lebanon and Israel, just displayed a clear lack of impartiality and completely lacked any balance whatsoever," Senator Ronaldson said. "I have also heard a lot of complaints that they have strayed from their charter as a multilingual, multicultural national broadcaster."
The SBS charter states that the broadcaster must "contribute to extending the range of Australian television and radio services, and reflect the changing nature of Australian society by presenting many points of view and using innovative forms of expression".
Senator Ronaldson is a staunch ally of Treasurer Peter Costello and has been a passionate friend of Israel.
BB
fourthof5
· 3 years ago
Bugger them. The SBS charter is for muticultural broadcasting and world media. Not political bias.
All Comments
Just look at the opinion piece in The Age today from Jason Briant - a fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs, which is another group in the mold of the Sydney Institute - who says, "The reforms to editorial policy ... are excellent insofar as they go. But ... more work will still be required." Translation: "We still don't get enough air-time, it doesn't make the ABC cheer for the Liberal govt enough, we must be the dominant force, resistance is useless."
I do wonder if this is an intentionally inflammatory piece, designed to be something supporters of the changes can point to and say, "Look, we're not implementing all that. Just think how worse it could have been!"
There is an excellent article from Michelle Grattan on that same page that echoes my final point - "The sought-after impartiality seems to be the pursuit of a sort of perfect balance. The risk is that this morphs into programs that say nothing much at all." - as well as looking at the government in an overall sense and touching on the govt's reaction to the media feeding frenzy of the past couple of days.
The suggestion that Media Watch be turned into a panel discussion spells the death of that show, which has been the single greatest media watchdog in this country for the past seventeen years. If I was running the show at this point, I'd be opening her up and mowing down as many bad media owners and creators between now and March as possible because there's never going to be another opportunity on govt or commercial media again. And how convenient that Media Watch's death and the gazetting of the new media laws will pretty much coincide.
BB
As to Media watch. Move that puppy to SBS.
The ABC stuff is a good opportunity for SBS to bulk up in the news/CA area - it's just a pity that they've just introduced the in-show advertising and are looking for a more lowest-common-denominator (read non-thinking) audience. At this point, I'm almost feeling a litle pity for Monica Attard. I still watch the show but I haven't forgiven her for replacing Liz Jackson or for not being as good as anyone I can remember in the host's chair.
I actually posted my potted response on IndyMedia Melbourne today - I'm feeling the need to become a committed activist in this area... It's actually been one of the main reasons for my involvement at Triple R for all these years and I've seen the media stuff coming for the past 7 years so the station is more important than ever.
BB
On second thought. I don't like the sound of that at all.
As for being able to shift anything decent to SBS - and as an example of RWCs acting as self appointed monitors - it looks like they're next:
BB