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:
@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.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.
Gary - I still don't understand how not renewing the Australia News Service threatens the ABC's integrity as a national broadcaster.
froth, maybe you should read the article in op. here is the rest of it
below is taken from The Guardian - The Worker's Weekly - issue number 1625 - dated today's date.
The ABC’s “crimes”
Use of the Snowden material was entirely justified. The ABC is obliged by its charter to find news and broadcast it. However, the ABC’s obligation to reveal the significance of the news is not acknowledged by Abbott, who stated he wanted the ABC to be a “straight news gathering and news reporting organisation.” That appears to exclude broadcasting open discussion and interpretation of current events.
Abbott added: “You would like the national broadcaster to have a rigorous commitment to truth and at least some basic affection for the home team …” Yet a commitment to the truth must be impartial, and must exclude the prejudice of “affection for the home team”.
Abbott also resents bitterly the ABC’s new fact-checking unit, because it casts a critical eye over concepts and statements used by politicians and the entire media spectrum, not just the ABC.
As the government has pointed out, the work of defence personnel is often very hard and dangerous, and when they do good work it is often under-appreciated. But forcing the Navy to tow asylum seekers back to Indonesia, in violation of the UN Refugee Convention and international law, is certainly not good work.
Moreover, it’s entirely possible that the burns were, in fact, inflicted because of the Navy’s actions.
Last week one asylum seeker said he had been temporarily blinded after being sprayed in the eyes by a Navy officer, and had accidentally grasped a hot engine pipe. Immigration Minister Scott Morrison was forced to admit grudgingly that the Navy does use anti-personnel gas to subdue asylum seekers, but still denied it made anyone grasp the pipes.
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.
Abbott dismissed with outrage the idea that someone had forced them to do so. But why? Any organisation, military or civilian, can include people who are sadistic. After all, the Navy has recently had to deal with many cases of sexual abuse within its ranks.
Recruits are trained to do things prohibited under civil law, and must be constantly vigilant they don’t cross that line in peacetime. Yet the dividing line between war and peace has become blurred by the government’s demonisation of asylum seekers and its strident militaristic approach.
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
