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?"
@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.
