Thoughts and links.
Feb. 9th, 2005 10:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsidheFrom Tom Tomorrow:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
erudito keeps saying (as I understand it) that because the ABC doesn't provide a true representation of the entirety of Australian opinion, that it is therefore biased and should must, therefore, be privatised. Well, I've been thinking about that.
The commercial channels are all largely monolithic in their outlook. So Erudito can see differences between them. BFD. That one might show more sports, and another more American Cop Shows does not change their ethos: Give Me More Money.
What they show is only deemed to be worth what they are paid for. Everything is for sale. They have no commitment to accuracy in anything but the news, and even that is heavily tweaked by management prejudices. The Today Tonight and A Current Affair way of showing balance is alternating weekly between 'All Renters are eeeeeeeevil!' and 'All Landlords are eeeeeeeeevil!'. They all aim for the lowest common denominator, even if they have different ideas of what that is. Programs with merit are either sunk n the graveyard and killed (Star Trek? B5? Dark Angel? Hell, Firefly? Tried to watch that lately? I shudder to think what is going to happen to Battlestar Galactica once the brou-ha-ha is done with) or shredded to fit Eddy McGuire's ego and their advertising schedule, while carefully eliding anything which might offend their sponsors.
The ABC shows programs which offend people. This is a good thing, even for the offended party. If you are not confronted with ideas which challenge you every so often, you go mentally stagnant. Even showing anti-semitic views gives an opportunity to rebut them again. The ABC actually makes an effort to show programs on time, as scheduled. The ABC shows programs which are informative and educational, not just another depiction of what you do to improve your living room with some natty drapes and a ten thousand dollar sound system. The ABC provides a place for debate — meaningful debate. As I said to Erudito in a comment to his LJ, Andrew Bolt has a regular spot on The Insiders on the ABC. Does Jon Faine have a spot on Sunday? No? Phillip Adams? No? Any 'leftie'? Any at all? And saying that Andrew Bolt's spot is unrepresentitive gets a slap over the back of the head for missing the point: This is as well as his extant opinion column, editorial duties and apperances on his mates' shows. Similar for John Laws or Alan Jones. So they don't get enough airtime on the ABC... WTF? Do they not have enough air time as it is without being donated more by their competitor?
The 'right' has three well-funded channels at its disposal, the tabloid press and a good half or more of the opinionistas in the broadsheets (Gerard Henderson, anyone?), not to mention cable. The ABC (and to some small extent SBS as well) has the responsibility of dealing with everything else... all other viewpoints which are not covered by the commercial channels. That is a big demand on a system which is grossly underfunded when compared with its mandated remit. And, mind you, if the ABC takes one tiny step over some arbitrary (and often retrospective) line then the commercials, regulators and the government come down like the Wrath of God, when the commercials can seemingly do whatever and get away with it. The benefits of low expectations, maybe. The commercials can treat their programmes, schedules and viewers with contempt, and that's fine. The ABC has a guest on a radio show who declares that he has a political opinion which is anti-John Howard, and the ABC gets its funding cut in retaliation, there is a commission of inquiry into it, and everyone involved from the presenter who was interviewing said guest to the board of directors has to give a grovelling apology. I mean, really, WTF?
And don't tell me that the commercials are not on The Right. Their only 'ethical' concern is Shareholder Return. Their only worry is profit. They only want their own market share to increase, and would each be overjoyed to be the monopoly. So other Rightists can see trivial differences in ethos between them. Well, those differences are trivial. And largely cosmetic. They are Right-Wing all the way to the core. Not conservative, socially or fiscally, but greedy, amoral, dedicated to The Market, and thoroughly opposed to individual rights, except where they can make a profit from them. That counts as 'Right' to me. No, 'Right' is not a neutral descriptive term to me. Not any more. Socially Conservative is not necessarily 'Right', but the converse is also true: Right is no longer 'Conservative'. The Right is about radical social change away from what we have, and the rights and privelages we have enjoyed for over 60 years, and dedicated to Devil-Take-The-Hindmost Social 'Darwinism'.
Erudito's (amongst others') answer to all this is to remake the ABC into another clone of the commercials. And this will broaden debate how, precisely? I'm waiting for a good explanation on this. Or any explanation beyond 'because it will, trust me, I'm an economist/political scientist/just right, so shut up'.
</rant>
Somewhere recently I saw some idiot rightwinger embarass himself by arguing that Fox News is actually not biased in the least, because they have so many liberals on their various programs.
This should go without saying, but Fox invites liberals on for the same reason that the Harlem Globetrotters used to play the Washington Generals: you look pretty silly out there on the court by yourself.
erudito keeps saying (as I understand it) that because the ABC doesn't provide a true representation of the entirety of Australian opinion, that it is therefore biased and The commercial channels are all largely monolithic in their outlook. So Erudito can see differences between them. BFD. That one might show more sports, and another more American Cop Shows does not change their ethos: Give Me More Money.
What they show is only deemed to be worth what they are paid for. Everything is for sale. They have no commitment to accuracy in anything but the news, and even that is heavily tweaked by management prejudices. The Today Tonight and A Current Affair way of showing balance is alternating weekly between 'All Renters are eeeeeeeevil!' and 'All Landlords are eeeeeeeeevil!'. They all aim for the lowest common denominator, even if they have different ideas of what that is. Programs with merit are either sunk n the graveyard and killed (Star Trek? B5? Dark Angel? Hell, Firefly? Tried to watch that lately? I shudder to think what is going to happen to Battlestar Galactica once the brou-ha-ha is done with) or shredded to fit Eddy McGuire's ego and their advertising schedule, while carefully eliding anything which might offend their sponsors.
The ABC shows programs which offend people. This is a good thing, even for the offended party. If you are not confronted with ideas which challenge you every so often, you go mentally stagnant. Even showing anti-semitic views gives an opportunity to rebut them again. The ABC actually makes an effort to show programs on time, as scheduled. The ABC shows programs which are informative and educational, not just another depiction of what you do to improve your living room with some natty drapes and a ten thousand dollar sound system. The ABC provides a place for debate — meaningful debate. As I said to Erudito in a comment to his LJ, Andrew Bolt has a regular spot on The Insiders on the ABC. Does Jon Faine have a spot on Sunday? No? Phillip Adams? No? Any 'leftie'? Any at all? And saying that Andrew Bolt's spot is unrepresentitive gets a slap over the back of the head for missing the point: This is as well as his extant opinion column, editorial duties and apperances on his mates' shows. Similar for John Laws or Alan Jones. So they don't get enough airtime on the ABC... WTF? Do they not have enough air time as it is without being donated more by their competitor?
The 'right' has three well-funded channels at its disposal, the tabloid press and a good half or more of the opinionistas in the broadsheets (Gerard Henderson, anyone?), not to mention cable. The ABC (and to some small extent SBS as well) has the responsibility of dealing with everything else... all other viewpoints which are not covered by the commercial channels. That is a big demand on a system which is grossly underfunded when compared with its mandated remit. And, mind you, if the ABC takes one tiny step over some arbitrary (and often retrospective) line then the commercials, regulators and the government come down like the Wrath of God, when the commercials can seemingly do whatever and get away with it. The benefits of low expectations, maybe. The commercials can treat their programmes, schedules and viewers with contempt, and that's fine. The ABC has a guest on a radio show who declares that he has a political opinion which is anti-John Howard, and the ABC gets its funding cut in retaliation, there is a commission of inquiry into it, and everyone involved from the presenter who was interviewing said guest to the board of directors has to give a grovelling apology. I mean, really, WTF?
And don't tell me that the commercials are not on The Right. Their only 'ethical' concern is Shareholder Return. Their only worry is profit. They only want their own market share to increase, and would each be overjoyed to be the monopoly. So other Rightists can see trivial differences in ethos between them. Well, those differences are trivial. And largely cosmetic. They are Right-Wing all the way to the core. Not conservative, socially or fiscally, but greedy, amoral, dedicated to The Market, and thoroughly opposed to individual rights, except where they can make a profit from them. That counts as 'Right' to me. No, 'Right' is not a neutral descriptive term to me. Not any more. Socially Conservative is not necessarily 'Right', but the converse is also true: Right is no longer 'Conservative'. The Right is about radical social change away from what we have, and the rights and privelages we have enjoyed for over 60 years, and dedicated to Devil-Take-The-Hindmost Social 'Darwinism'.
Erudito's (amongst others') answer to all this is to remake the ABC into another clone of the commercials. And this will broaden debate how, precisely? I'm waiting for a good explanation on this. Or any explanation beyond 'because it will, trust me, I'm an economist/political scientist/just right, so shut up'.
</rant>
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: An idea..
Date: 2005-02-09 02:06 am (UTC)And it is more a matter of fairness and value for taxpayer funds.
Re: An idea..
Date: 2005-02-09 02:32 am (UTC)Well in terms of value, does the ABC have more or less qualified people on various subjects of discussion than commercial television?
In terms of fairness... We'd better go into a definitional stage. I don't think it means just "balance".
Re: An idea..
Date: 2005-02-09 03:29 am (UTC)Everyone is taxed to supply a service predominantly consumed by those of higher income. So there is an issue of regressiveness.
Secondly, everyone is taxed to supply a service which does not supply equivalent service to people of varying opinions.
As for qualifications, cognitive diversity is actually more important.
Re: An idea..
Date: 2005-02-09 03:25 pm (UTC)So... what? Unless every single person can point to an ABC programme and be able to say "That is representative of my views", the ABC is nothing but a massive scam? Providing the only mass alternative to the commercial channels is meaningless unless it shows in correct proportion the views of the entire community? That if people in Caroline Springs or Pakenham prefer Andrew Bolt and AFL, that I must be denied all access to Wil Anderson and Classical Concerts?
This is really a complete and utter bullshit smokescreen. Everyone is taxed to provide for the Royal Women's Hospital. Strangely, even men are so taxed. Everyone's taxes help pay for the roads, even though some people don't even own cars! Claiming that when some of your money is used for purposes with which you disagree, that gives you the right to demand that the entire system be recast in your own image works just as well for anti-
AmericanWarTraitorsProtestors as it does for you.