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?"
on - last edited on by
underbat
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
@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.
@icyfroth wrote:
@boris1gary wrote:yeah like totally...
So...my question was......" the Australia Network contract worth $233M over the next decade - gifted to the ABC in perpetuity after Julia Gillard's intervention.
How does he figure it was gifted?
The ABC is the national broadcaster and as such should be expected to provide OS services.
Why do people think the Australia Network should be gifted to their rich old uncle rupes instead of being managed by the ABC?
ogQ!(U~$(KGrHgoOKjYEjlLmS1ctBJ1K-4Uyh!~~_7.JPG?set_id=81 "i-need-a-martini"){kind=avatar}
@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?
@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.
@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.
