topic Our ABC under threat in Community Spirit

Our ABC under threat

boris1gary — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 22:28:49 GMT

Abbott prepares for war on the ABC

Who stands to benefit?

The attacks on the ABC are not solely prompted by the acute embarrassment its news coverage has caused the government. Nor is the budget review simply intended to make the ABC more efficient. The execrable MP Cory Bernadi suggested that the government could “cut the ABC budget and allow the commercial media to compete.”

From 1996 to 2012 the ABC budget actually fell as a proportion of government spending, from .45 to .27 percent. Although inflation has in effect kept its funding unchanged since then, the ABC has somehow managed to introduce new digital and web services and develop its existing operations.

But there’s the rub.

The commercial media bitterly resent the ABC and would dearly love to capture its audiences. They are outraged that its new services have proved very popular, and that ABC kids programs frequently draw the biggest TV ratings in Australia. Media magnate James Murdoch thundered: “There is a land grab, pure and simple, going on, and in the public interest it should be sternly resisted.”

The Murdoch empire’s hatred of the ABC has become obsessive since Sky News, an outfit in which it has a financial interest, was deprived by the Gillard government of an opportunity to take over the ABC’s overseas news service.

And the coalition is backing the privateers. Bronwyn Bishop and Ian MacDonald say the ABC exceeded its charter and is cannibalising legitimate private media business operations.

In contrast, former ABC chairman David Hill has strenuously rejected Abbott’s criticism of the ABC and his vindictive approach to it.

He commented: “It’s an absurd proposition, laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous. This is the first serious suggestion I know of, certainly in the last half century, where a prime minister of the country is suggesting that the Australian public be denied access to the truth, and the first time that a prime minister has seriously intimated that the ABC should censor and withhold information from the Australian public.”

According to a report in The Australian, the overseas broadcasting service, which broadcasts into 46 countries, is likely to be scrapped in the May budget in order to “save money and end the pursuit of ‘soft diplomacy’.”

Other options the government may pursue include reducing the ABC’s budget so it fore goes all but basic news broadcasts, introducing advertising to its broadcasts on the basis of improved economic performance, stripping it of its digital and web services – or even attempting to privatise it, as some coalition MPs would prefer.

The attacks threaten an institution which enjoys nationwide affection and respect and is crucial for the public’s understanding of news and current affairs, as well as its cultural development.

The future of “Aunty”, your ABC, is on the line.

http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2014/1625/05-abcs-future.html

Re: Our ABC under threat

spotweldersfriend — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 22:23:22 GMT

Either change.org or Getup! has a petition going, insisting the government keep their hands off the ABC.Sign up please.

Re: Our ABC under threat

icyfroth — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 22:26:48 GMT

The ABC did very well out of the Rudd/Gillard Governments - as a result you'd hope it was extra careful about bias.

The ABC tells us it was pleased with the extra financial support that the Rudd and Gillard governments gifted to it.

On the other hand, the ABC had contingency plans to deal with widely expected funding cuts should the coalition win government.

The ABC should have been aware of the potential conflict of interest it could be accused of in any perceived reporting that favoured Labor. Where actual complaints of bias were made to the ABC you'd hope the ABC would act swiftly to correct the perception.

And where newsworthy events that reflected poorly on Labor happened,you'd hope the ABC would be assiduous in covering them.

In the context of an extra $190M in ABC funding that the Gillard Government decided on in June this year - smack bang in the middle of the search warrant reports in other media - the absence of any reporting at all on the issue takes on potentially sinister overtones.

ABC Managing Director Mark Scott was equipped with 102 pages of "priority briefing notes" prepared by ABC staffers when he fronted the October 2012 Senate Estimates hearings.

His briefing notes were released under FOI in May this year. Page One of 102 pages recorded how well the ABC had done out of the Rudd years.

The ABC wanted an extra TV network - ABC3 - and it got its way with $67M.

The ABC wanted more money for its local drama producing mates - they're very expensive if you want to see them happy and smiling. $70 million extra for that.

$15.3 was found for ABC Open - along with an extra $13.6 for some capital spending. All in all the ABC was very happy.

In 2013-14, government funding to the ABC will total $1.05 billion.

You can add the Australia Network contract worth $233M over the next decade - gifted to the ABC in perpetuity after Julia Gillard's intervention.

Who gave Ms Gillard the mandate to award this service, which is after all the only one currently under review, to award it to the ABC in perpetuity?

From Here

Re: Our ABC under threat

boris1gary — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 22:44:12 GMT

froth,

So that's who Michael Smith is - had never heard of him

below from Crikey - Independent Media Independent Minds

Michael Smith has rushed to the defence of Coalition frontbencher George Brandis, who has been accused of hypocrisy for claiming taxpayer funds to attend the ex-shock jock’s wedding.

Smith — who has hounded union officials, including Craig Thomson, for allegedly misappropriating members’ funds — says Brandis’ expenses claim was an innocent mistake and there is a grey area when it comes to what politicians can and cannot claim as work-related travel.

Re: Our ABC under threat

spotweldersfriend — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 22:46:28 GMT

Another shock jock.Say no more.

Re: Our ABC under threat

icyfroth — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 22:51:34 GMT

oh yeah, lol.

totally saw that response coming.

Re: Our ABC under threat

boris1gary — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 22:53:28 GMT

FROM TODAY'S GUARDIAN

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull defended the ABC, noting that it’s accountable to its board, not politicians, and has editorial independence by Act of Parliament. He asked whether the alternative was for the Prime Minister to become the ABC’s editor in chief, commenting “ … you can’t tell them what to write”. Nevertheless, it’s Turnbull who will conduct the budget audit.

below is from me

I suppose Ms Gillard forced Turnbull to say this or maybe it was Mr Rudd.

Re: Our ABC under threat

boris1gary — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 22:54:41 GMT

yeah like totally...

Re: Our ABC under threat

icyfroth — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 23:06:22 GMT

@boris1gary wrote:
yeah like totally...

So...my question was...

..." the Australia Network contract worth $233M over the next decade - gifted to the ABC in perpetuity after Julia Gillard's intervention.

Who gave Ms Gillard the mandate to award this service, which is after all the only one currently under review, to award it to the ABC in perpetuity?"

Re: Our ABC under threat

the_hawk* — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 23:13:15 GMT

The ABC is the closest media we have to being unbiased or controlled by the Government either directly or through the Packers who just happen to support the Libs.

and as for the ABC being more popular than commercial TV this can only happen if they provide better or more interesting content to the viewers, so Mr Packer should have a look to see what he is doing wrong and not try to control the ABC via his puppets

Re: Our ABC under threat

freakiness — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 23:22:35 GMT

@boris1gary wrote:
froth,

So that's who Michael Smith is - had never heard of him

below from Crikey - Independent Media Independent Minds

Michael Smith has rushed to the defence of Coalition frontbencher George Brandis, who has been accused of hypocrisy for claiming taxpayer funds to attend the ex-shock jock’s wedding.
Smith — who has hounded union officials, including Craig Thomson, for allegedly misappropriating members’ funds — says Brandis’ expenses claim was an innocent mistake and there is a grey area when it comes to what politicians can and cannot claim as work-related travel.

He's the person who spent much of his time trying to bring down Gillard.

The very same one who invited Brandis and co to his wedding to further develop their scheme against Gillard, if Brandis can be believed.

Re: Our ABC under threat

freakiness — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 23:25:59 GMT

@icyfroth wrote:
@boris1gary wrote:
yeah like totally...
So...my question was...
..." the Australia Network contract worth $233M over the next decade - gifted to the ABC in perpetuity after Julia Gillard's intervention.

Who gave Ms Gillard the mandate to award this service, which is after all the only one currently under review, to award it to the ABC in perpetuity?"

How does he figure it was gifted?

The ABC is the national broadcaster and as such should be expected to provide OS services.

Why do people think the Australia Network should be gifted to their rich old uncle rupes instead of being managed by the ABC?

Re: Our ABC under threat

bluecat*dancing — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 23:35:26 GMT

Some people will believe anything. Gift or funding?

Re: Our ABC under threat

i-need-a-martini — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 23:48:06 GMT

@icyfroth wrote:
@boris1gary wrote:
yeah like totally...
So...my question was...
..." the Australia Network contract worth $233M over the next decade - gifted to the ABC in perpetuity after Julia Gillard's intervention.

Who gave Ms Gillard the mandate to award this service, which is after all the only one currently under review, to award it to the ABC in perpetuity?"

I don't understand the ho-ha with the Australia Network going to the ABC. If you look at it's charter it makes sense that the ABC run this network as it is not commercially viable. If taken on by Murdoch Media (who fought hard to take it away from the ABC) then it's charter would have been devalued. Can you imagine the BBC international network being provided by another carrier? That makes no sense.

Not to mention it would mean that an even larger percentage of our media would be in the hands of one person which we all agree is not acceptable.

It was set up specifically for the ABC to run. Then we made the stupid decision to award it to Channel 7 (i think) who couldn't make money from it. Like how do you make money from a program that teached English?? And if I am correct, it was the Howard government that handed the network back to the ABC after the Channel 7 disaster. Whilst Sky was offering money to take the station, the government made the right call by saying that the charter would not be served by Sky. It's not always about money.

So what on earth is the issue?

Re: Our ABC under threat

freakiness — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 23:52:50 GMT

Good article by Matthew N Donovan

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/tony-abbotts-debts-to-murdoch-the-ipa-and-the-abc,6133

THE SHADOW OF RUPERT MURDOCH and his loss making propaganda machine looms large over the Abbott Government and its far right agenda.

The victim of the agenda this time? The Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

The beloved Australian institution, often affectionately called "Auntie", is under coordinated attack from News Corporation's Australian newspapers.

Tony Abbott recently gave his friends in the media the all clear to enter full attack mode after he said to his mate Ray Hadley at 2GB that

"... the ABC instinctively takes everyone's side but Australia's."

It is clearly an outrageous statement. But why should this surprise anyone? He's prone to making those.

He was obviously irritated by coverage that was damaging to his government in relation to theSnowden leaks and allegations of abuse perpetrated by the Australian Navy against asylum seekers.

Before I go any further, I should probably take you back a few steps.

The ABC has traditionally been in the crosshairs of most conservatives — who want to control the whole media agenda. To them, compared to the one-eyed coverage from Australia's Murdoch-dominated conservative press, the ABC is "left wing biased".

In most reasonable Australian's minds, however, the ABC provides fair, balanced and award winning coverage. Immeasurably better than the frothing right-wing Orwellian "fair and balanced" coverage provided by Murdoch's Fox News at any rate.

Chief among the critics is the far right "think tank", the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) — a lobby group for hire. The IPA is able to act as mouthpiece for its business sponsors without any requirement to disclose who they actually are, whilst pretending in the media to be a venerable independent research institute. In truth, this is nothing more than a scam and a coporate rort — but don't expect the Abbott Government to announce a royal commission into that any time soon.

Many people may not be aware that Rupert Murdoch's father Keith helped establish the IPA — which itself, in turn, helped establish the Liberal Party. Indeed, Rupert was much heralded guest speaker at the IPA's recent 70th anniversary celebration.

cont....

Re: Our ABC under threat

poddster — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 01:15:23 GMT

Creative writing at it's best.

Take this for instance, "From 1996 to 2012 the ABC budget actually fell as a proportion of government spending, from .45 to .27 percent." That little gem highlights the amount of government ~~spendin~~ squandering in that period.

Re: Our ABC under threat

icyfroth — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 01:15:28 GMT

@i-need-a-martini wrote:
@icyfroth wrote:
@boris1gary wrote:
yeah like totally...
So...my question was...
..." the Australia Network contract worth $233M over the next decade - gifted to the ABC in perpetuity after Julia Gillard's intervention.

Who gave Ms Gillard the mandate to award this service, which is after all the only one currently under review, to award it to the ABC in perpetuity?"
I don't understand the ho-ha with the Australia Network going to the ABC.

Frankly, I don't understand the hoo-ha either. The Australia Network is under review, yet the uproar is as if the whole of the ABC is under threat of being shut down.

If you look at it's charter it makes sense that the ABC run this network as it is not commercially viable.

If it's (commercially) viable then how is it "worth $233M over the next decade"?

If taken on by Murdoch Media (who fought hard to take it away from the ABC) then it's charter would have been devalued. Can you imagine the BBC international network being provided by another carrier? That makes no sense.

Not to mention it would mean that an even larger percentage of our media would be in the hands of one person which we all agree is not acceptable.

It was set up specifically for the ABC to run. Then we made the stupid decision to award it to Channel 7 (i think) who couldn't make money from it. Like how do you make money from a program that teached English?? And if I am correct, it was the Howard government that handed the network back to the ABC after the Channel 7 disaster. Whilst Sky was offering money to take the station, the government made the right call by saying that the charter would not be served by Sky. It's not always about money.

So what on earth is the issue?

The issue is, I believe, is, who needs it?

Do we really need to broadcast biased news against the Aus government, such the recent ABC report suggesting the burns to Asylum seekers were caused by the Aus Navy - which the ABC has since admitted was a mistake, to be broadcast to China?
At the Australian taxpayer's expense?

I think not.

Re: Our ABC under threat

boris1gary — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 01:26:53 GMT

froth wrote

Do we really need to broadcast biased news against the Aus government, such the recent ABC report suggesting the burns to Asylum seekers were caused by the Aus Navy - which the ABC has since admitted was a mistake, to be broadcast to China?

At the Australian taxpayer's expense?

below from the Guardian today

When the burnt hands story was first broadcast by Channel Seven (not the ABC) Abbott refused to comment, saying he would not give information that would help a war enemy

But the Navy has not denied it made the male asylum seekers crowd around the hot engine, and it’s likely that those closest to it had to grasp it to steady themselves against the rocking of the boat.

Re: Our ABC under threat

spotweldersfriend — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 01:31:03 GMT

Meddling with ABC.Another nail in Abbotts coffin.Bring on a federal election.

Re: Our ABC under threat

boris1gary — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 01:38:50 GMT

@icyfroth wrote:
@i-need-a-martini wrote:
@icyfroth wrote:
@boris1gary wrote:
yeah like totally...
So...my question was...
..." the Australia Network contract worth $233M over the next decade - gifted to the ABC in perpetuity after Julia Gillard's intervention.

Who gave Ms Gillard the mandate to award this service, which is after all the only one currently under review, to award it to the ABC in perpetuity?"
I don't understand the ho-ha with the Australia Network going to the ABC.

Frankly, I don't understand the hoo-ha either. The Australia Network is under review, yet the uproar is as if the whole of the ABC is under threat of being shut down.

If you look at it's charter it makes sense that the ABC run this network as it is not commercially viable.

If it's (commercially) viable then how is it "worth $233M over the next decade"?

If taken on by Murdoch Media (who fought hard to take it away from the ABC) then it's charter would have been devalued. Can you imagine the BBC international network being provided by another carrier? That makes no sense.

Not to mention it would mean that an even larger percentage of our media would be in the hands of one person which we all agree is not acceptable.

It was set up specifically for the ABC to run. Then we made the stupid decision to award it to Channel 7 (i think) who couldn't make money from it. Like how do you make money from a program that teached English?? And if I am correct, it was the Howard government that handed the network back to the ABC after the Channel 7 disaster. Whilst Sky was offering money to take the station, the government made the right call by saying that the charter would not be served by Sky. It's not always about money.

So what on earth is the issue?

The issue is, I believe, is, who needs it?

Do we really need to broadcast biased news against the Aus government, such the recent ABC report suggesting the burns to Asylum seekers were caused by the Aus Navy - which the ABC has since admitted was a mistake, to be broadcast to China?
At the Australian taxpayer's expense?

I think not.

A publicly-funded national broadcaster can discover, and invest in, new talent in ways that commercial networks cannot. It can also focus on Australian content that might never be able to rate as well as Two and a Half Men but which is quality entertainment that contributes to our national culture and allows our voices to be heard and stories to be told.

The ABC is also an excellent example of how a national broadcaster can cater to niche audiences in unique ways. Children’s television is a particular strength of the ABC. Play School has been almost compulsory pre-school viewing since its debut in 1966. More recently, the children’s channels ABC 4 Kids and ABC 3 have served as dedicated places for children’s viewing free from a juggernaut of advertising.

The question we ought to ask is not whether we should continue to ensure full public funding for the ABC, but whether forcing a hybrid model would destroy all of the unique benefits that a public broadcaster provides. If the ABC is forced to mimic the model of a commercial TV channel, it is possible that it will become largely indistinguishable from them.

my post is reply to froth

the above is from The Conversation - Academic rigour - journalstic flair

below is from me

pretty good value for 10cents a day.