Thoughts and links.

[catsidhe]

From Tom Tomorrow:

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 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>

Comments

Re: And I quote

[shorbe.livejournal.com]

I don't care who offends who, or what is more interesting. The commercial stations bore me to tears, and yes they have an agenda I happen to disagree with most of the time, but I don't think that's a mandate for some other agenda.

Why must it be one or the other? It's not a case of my enemy's enemy is my friend.

For me, it's like the separation of church and state. Does organised religion in general, and fundamentalist Islam and Christianity in particular, scare the shit out of me? Yes. Do I think it should be banned if privately organised and funded? No. That's analogous to the commercial stations to me.

Analogous to the ABC is state sponsorship of religion at my expense. That does offend me, but not in the sense of the debate that occurs on the ABC (and some shows on the ABC are infinitely more interesting and informative than those on the commercial stations), but because I am being forced to pay for an agenda being crammed down my own throat. What I'd be much more in favour of would be for there to be no limitations on broadcasting rights. Then, we might actually see this fabled diversity of opinions and programming. Sure, a lot of it might be of the Channel 31 variety, but so what? Let's see the left put its money where its mouth is. If its agenda is so important and so necessary, let's see it be so important and so necessary without having to hide behind such a lack of accountability.

If you say that the ABC could never compete in the market place, then you're admitting one of two things. Either you admit that the ABC really is a load of nonsense, or you admit that the masses are essentially ignorant morons (which I'm not against admitting myself). Obviously, no one in favour of the ABC is going to admit the former. Admitting the latter though, seems to be just as demeaning to the general populace as what the "pitch to the lowest common denominator" commercial stations are accused of. It's all about the average guy being too stupid to run his own life and someone else stepping in to lend a helping hand. Frankly, whether that's Big Brother or Big Mother, it amounts to the same.

I have a very strange love-hate relationship with the middle class in this country. However, for all of our so-called lack of culture and obsessions with renovating, etc. we have, in this country, been far less inclined to political extremism (on either the left or the right) than our so-called culturally superior relatives in Europe.

I think it's a mistake to believe that the battleground is over whether the future will be dominated by big corporations or big, centralised governments. I think it's a mistake to believe that all free market advocates want to see our world and our lives gobbled up by distant, faceless tycoons for their own nefarious ends. I believe that the whole debate over the left vs the right, and who gets to tell us how to run our lives is misguided, a smokescreen to do anything but give us power. Personally, I don't see the institutionalised left as legitimate simply because it opposes the institutionalised right.

Ultimately, it's too easy to blame corporations (if you're on the left) or government (if you're on some parts of the right), although they're certainly part of the problem. Ultimately it comes down to individuals and small, perhaps community based, groups having power to take charge of their own lives and it comes down to such people to exercise that power rather than frittering it away to either the welfare state or some multi-national corporation. It's too easy to pass the buck and it's too easy to start calling people names without actually doing anything to change oneself and one's immediate surroundings.

Re: And I quote

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

If you say that the ABC could never compete in the market place, then you're admitting one of two things. Either you admit that the ABC really is a load of nonsense, or you admit that the masses are essentially ignorant morons (which I'm not against admitting myself).

Not necessarily; option (a) can be reconstructed to mean the non-commercial provision of information is contrary to the interests of commercial media. As for (b) ("the masses are ignorant morons), quite possibly. But they can only be as informed as what is easily available.

Personally, I think the worst thing the ABC could do is try to emulate commercial stations in terms of content and style. It should be an extremely high quality news, education and (maybe - I'm still debating this one) cultural service only. It should be the sort of service that double-checks and triple checks facts, rather than a station that says "Hmmm... This is a sensational rumour, let's air it!".

Sort of a televised version of open university if one likes.

Re: And I quote

[shorbe.livejournal.com]

I should have specified what I meant by "a load of nonsense". I mean it from a pragmatic angle in that if people reject it on mass then why should they have to fund it? What relevance does it have to their lives?

As for them being as informed as what is easily available, I don't buy that for a second in this day and age. The internet is a wonderful thing and a person can look up almost anything, be it fact or opinion. I think it's a cop out. People need to take responsibility for themselves.

I don't think the ABC would necessarily have to emulate the commercial stations. Presumably there are people who don't want that. Okay, sure, the ABC wouldn't get anywhere near as many viewers, but that's just how it is. It's like Hollywood vs arthouse.

Where would Little Britain fit into that? Would that come under education or high quality culture? ;P That show is brilliant.

Re: And I quote

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I disagree with your comments about the Internet.

Yes, it is a wonderful source of information (and falsehood), but that doesn't change the fact that there has to be some investigative reporting done in the first instance, someone who double and triple checks the facts etc.

Not surprisingly, the best source of facts on the Internet are those from publically funded independent organisations (e.g., universities).

It is very inefficient to make this a matter of personal responsibility. Do we really want a situation where each and every individual upon hearing a reported rumour has to test what vested interests the reporting organisation has?

Wouldn't it be simpler to have an organisation that is relatively independent of political directives or commercial influence in the first instance?

Re: And I quote

[shorbe.livejournal.com]

"It is very inefficient to make this a matter of personal responsibility. Do we really want a situation where each and every individual upon hearing a reported rumour has to test what vested interests the reporting organisation has?"

Yes. Once an organisation is shown to be trust worthy then the individual can perhaps fall back to the position of taking what they say at face value, although that's still dangerous.

"Wouldn't it be simpler to have an organisation that is relatively independent of political directives or commercial influence in the first instance?"

Does such an organisation exist? What's to stop it from becoming a law unto itself?

I think there's also the possibility that a privately funded organisation could be fairly independent. This can happen with charities, museums, etc. Why not with the media as well? Are you saying that government values truth more than individuals and is more likely to set up such an organisation?

Re: And I quote

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Yes. Once an organisation is shown to be trust worthy then the individual can perhaps fall back to the position of taking what they say at face value, although that's still dangerous.

In an ideal world, where there were no transaction costs for determing the veracity of a claim I would agree with you.

The practical result of what you're suggesting is that truth will be determined by the organisation that has the greatest economic power.

Does such an organisation exist? What's to stop it from becoming a law unto itself?

I'd say mass input and democratic procedures, something that neither the ABC nor the commercial media have.

I think there's also the possibility that a privately funded organisation could be fairly independent. This can happen with charities, museums, etc. Why not with the media as well?

It can happen, but with severe structural disadvantages. Wikipedia is a fair example.

Are you saying that government values truth more than individuals and is more likely to set up such an organisation?

Of course not. That's quite disingenous if you've been paying attention to this thread.

Re: And I quote

[shorbe.livejournal.com]

"The practical result of what you're suggesting is that truth will be determined by the organisation that has the greatest economic power."

How do they get economic power though? Okay, there's a snowballing effect to some extent, but if people band together and decide not to give power to an organisation, they can dictate who has power.

"I'd say mass input and democratic procedures, something that neither the ABC nor the commercial media have."

I agree. Personally, I think the idea of traditional forms of mass-media is an out-dated one. I think the internet, and to a far lesser degree, less monolithic forms of television, radio, print media and so on, will be the real way of the future. Via forums such as this, it's possible for people of all stripes to chime in, both as contributors and commentators.

"It can happen, but with severe structural disadvantages. Wikipedia is a fair example."

I'm not familiar with Wikipedia, although I think concerted community efforts are still possible. Of course, it's not going to be easy to change the system because obviously, the current organisations that hold power aren't going to want to give up that power, but the think about "the market" is that when they get too top-heavy and unresponsive to people, they ultimately open themselves up for competition.

"Of course not. That's quite disingenous if you've been paying attention to this thread."

My apologies. I was being a bit cheeky there. You got me.

Re: And I quote

[catsidhe.livejournal.com]

If you say that the ABC could never compete in the market place, then you're admitting one of two things.

Or: Three) That the ABC's mandate and model is not one which allows of being exposed to the effects of the market. That butterflys cannot stand submersion in water does not make fish inherently better, not does it mean that butterflys should be re-engineered with armour and gills.

It is not that the masses are stupid, it is that the programmes which can be sold to the greatest number of people at any one time are stupid, and thus the commercial channels, by design and necessity, treat all of their viewers with contempt, without even taking into account trying to keep track of whether or not Firefly is being shown this week, and when it is if it is. That this contempt is what keeps them on the air is not an easy thing to get around, and is probably not fixable without completely changing the broadcasting paradigm. The ABC, being sheltered from the need to provide the greatest audience at any given timeslot, is able to show programmes which are worthy of being shown, but would never be on the commercial channels.

It is not that you are being forced to accept a viewpoint being forced down your throat. You can always change the channel. You can even turn the TV off. Instead, think of it as having a forum where alternative viewpoints can be shown, whether you agree with them or not. That you don't agree with them all the time is not as relevant as that they have a place to be spoken and heard. Without the ABC, those opinions simply wouldn't get out, and one day the dissenting opinion will be one you agree with, and it is your voice being spoken on the ABC.

Re: And I quote

[shorbe.livejournal.com]

"That the ABC's mandate and model is not one which allows of being exposed to the effects of the market. That butterflys cannot stand submersion in water does not make fish inherently better, not does it mean that butterflys should be re-engineered with armour and gills."

Except we're talking about public funding here and my tax dollars. The argument about me using other services provided by the government doesn't hold. I get very little value for money from the government and I could get much, much more from a privatised system.

"It is not that the masses are stupid, it is that the programmes which can be sold to the greatest number of people at any one time are stupid, and thus the commercial channels, by design and necessity, treat all of their viewers with contempt..."

If the programmes attract the greatest number of viewers, then in a sense, they're not stupid, but a very good business plan. Sure, it's Machiavellian, but I don't think it's stupid.

"The ABC, being sheltered from the need to provide the greatest audience at any given timeslot, is able to show programmes which are worthy of being shown, but would never be on the commercial channels."

You mean the ABC is sheltered from the need for any sort of public accountability.

As to which shows are worthy of being shown, that's really, really subjective. Why doesn't the government set up a religious channel to preach the New Testament twenty four hours a day then? There are plenty who could hobble together an argument that such shows would be worthy of being shown. My whole point is that it's not whether "point of view A" is any more or less worthy than "point of view B" or even that "because we have point of view B, we should have point of view A because it's an alternative". My point is that like with religion, government has no legitimate role in this business. Morality cannot be prescribed, especially by government. It seems that leaves it open to government tampering anyway. It sounds like a lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too-- government funding without government interference, independence without accountability.

"It is not that you are being forced to accept a viewpoint being forced down your throat."

No, I'm forced to pay for it instead. At least with the commercial stations, if I don't want to watch some pap (which most of it is), I can turn off the TV and Coca Cola doesn't come around and demand payment. Not true of the ABC. Whether I watch it or ignore it, I still pay for it.

I'm not agruing against free speech. What I'm arguing against is being forced to fund something I don't like or want. I say free up the airwaves so anyone can broadcast out of his or her bedroom (and we might get some interesting programming then and I might actually watch some TV), but don't make me pay for that.

No, my voice is not spoken on the ABC, and nor will it ever be spoken on the ABC. It also won't ever be spoken on one of the three commercial channels either. It might eventually be spoken on a private channel if there were lots of little channels. However, when will libertarian politics ever be the ethos of anyone with influence anywhere? Never. It's not in their interests and it's not in the interests of the sheep like masses. I know I am in a tiny, tiny minority and always will be. So what? Build me a bridge and I'll get over it.

However, so what if the ABC did broadcast my views? Why can't you understand that even if it did, I wouldn't want it to? I don't want anyone forcing other people to pay for my views, and nor do I want to pay for theirs (which is precisely my objection to the whole electoral system). I have no right to force anyone to pay/subscribe to my belief system and no one has the right to force me to pay/subscribe to his or hers. I want each person to fund his or her own. If I wanted a libertarian broadcaster, I'd go out there and start (or support) one myself through private means. I wouldn't bitch and moan that the world owed it to me to fund the broadcasting of my views.

Re: And I quote

[catsidhe.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't bitch and moan that the world owed it to me to fund the broadcasting of my views.
The ABC doesn't broadcast my views, either, you know. But it does do a public service in allowing others to have their voices heard. It provides for more variety than would otherwise exist. It is a common, that once gone is near impossible to restore. Just like national parks and public space.

And if you are that strong a liberaterian, then I'm not going to be able to convince you that commons have any place in human life. I once wasted quite a lot of time arguing with a Strong Liberatarian who declared that because Health Insurance exists, that publically funded Health systems are redundant and obsolete. His response to 'what about the poor?' can be summarised as 'what about them? Is that my problem?'

I was superficially attracted to liberaterianism myself in my youth, before I realised that the desired effect of most declared Liberatarians seems to be 'no-one owes anyone anything by right, and if you fall in the crowd, expect to be trampled unless you can afford to pay for help.' This is not what I consider to be a human response to fellow human suffering, let alone a humanistic one.

Re: And I quote

[shorbe.livejournal.com]

There is a place for all sorts of things used by the public, from national parks to charities. All of these can be organised and funded privately quite successfully. Also, as I keep saying, private does not have to mean we rename all parks "Coca Cola Park" or "McDonald's Reserve". Private can mean community based initiatives, a de-centralisation that empowers people. Think outside the square just for a second.

If you're going to talk about people not caring about others getting hurt though, and the common interest, let's look at the 20th century. Let's compare the damage inflicted by corporations and individuals vs that by governments. Governments killed over one million people in the last century.

The idea that government somehow has a monopoly on morality over the private sector is laughable.

Personally, I don't believe that I am my brother's keeper, but that doesn't stop me from helping people. I'm against anything mandated as it takes free will out of the equation. Morality cannot exist without free will.

From a pragmatic point of view, it's not a good idea to just let the surrounding world go to hell in a hand basket. It's not in anyone's best interests to have neighbours who are starving, whether we're talking aesthetics or crime. Again, it comes back to local community.

Personally, I find your parodying of libertarians a bit silly. Many libertarians are very involved in charity (such as my girlfriend). Many have no desire to see the world as you think they do. What they object to is people telling them how to live their lives in any field, whether we're talking civil liberties or taxation.

How about the following though?

I was superficially attracted to socialism myself in my youth, before I realised that the desired effect of most declared socialists seems to be "if they don't follow the party line, send them to the gulag."

Great, what does that accomplish other than to say, "*chuckle*...*chuckle*...you're so naive and I'm not...*stroke beard*...*puff on pipe*". It's this sort of attitude that really alienates so many people towards the left. It's this sort of attitude that will keep the Labor Party out of power in this country.

Re: And I quote

[catsidhe.livejournal.com]

I agree with your summary of Socialism. I am not a socialist either.

All I meant to say is the Liberatarianism is one of many philosophical viewpoints I have explored, and have almost universally rejected for missing what I thought to be fundamental requirements. It is not alone in my rejection of it for a personal philosophy.

This is one of the things which pisses me off about the whole Left Right thing. It is arbitrary, and largely divorced from any meaningful categorisation which can be don on political/religious/economic viewpoints. Maybe if people could have a number like a colour spec, #7f7f7f being neutral in all things, and #ffffff being a raving lunatic fanatic for whatever.

Re: And I quote

[shorbe.livejournal.com]

Sure, but not all libertarians are the same (and there are issues, abortion being a big one, that divide them right down the middle). Believe it or not, there are libertarians on the one hand who are strongly religious and believe strongly in those beliefs, and there are those who have non-religious beliefs. The connecting principle though is that no one should be able to tell anyone else how to live his or her life, and that includes everything from legalising prostitution, gambling and drug taking to abolishing taxation to being vehemently opposed to any form of identification to the right to self defence (and to bear arms) and much more. Does that mean that a Christian libertarian would want to engage in prostitution, or even see it in society? Of course not. In part it's a practical acknowledgement that prohibiting certain things does not prevent them from happening and that there may be other solutions to the problem. Mostly though, it's based on the idea that another person is his or her own master or mistress.

Many libertarians are fundamentally opposed to the government being involved in any form of wealth re-distribution, yet are very actively involved in charity themselves. My girlfriend is a good example.

I, on the other hand, happen to subscribe to a much harsher world view and might be described as a selfish son-of-a-bitch (although I am generous with people around me, and occasionally strangers) and hard bastard in general (I'm doing my best to overturn two thousand years of this Judeo-Christian ethic that still plagues our culture). I think that's just me though, and I would be, and have been, like that anyway. That having been said, I think there is certainly a place for helping those in genuine need, for a whole lot of reasons, but I just think the true scope of "those in need" is much smaller than a lot of people make out, certainly in Australia at least.

I agree with your comment about the Left-Right thing. In some ways, I'm incredibly left, in others, incredibly right. (Libertarians like to think of things in terms of being pro-individual freedom vs pro-external control.) Have you seen that dual-axis categorisation though? That is a bit of an improvement, although ultimately, any field of social science is limited as there are so many variables involved that it's impossible to categorise people.