Australian TV - the best and the worst?

[Dusty Plains]

5 minutes ago, Ken said:

Not free-to-air because it's paid for by taxation? You might as well say the commercial channels aren't free-to-air because they're paid for by advertising!

You could say that, however commercial television is free-to-air to consumers, because you and I do not have to pay for it. The advertisers pay for it. I do not pay for it whether I watch it or not. You and I can elect to pay-for-view such as Netflix and Foxtel, but we can opt out at any time. 

In 1957 Radio and TV licenses were introduced to fund the ABC. At least during that period people could opt out of buying Radio and TV licenses, which were eventually quashed in 1974. Since then the ABC pulls its funding from consolidated revenue, namely our taxes. You and I cannot opt out, and therefore we are forced to fund the ABC.    

[Dusty Plains]

A creepy Frank Thring reminding us to get a Radio and Television License. Australian TV ad from the 1960's 

[Ken]

On 05/12/2021 at 13:52, Dusty Plains said:

You could say that, however commercial television is free-to-air to consumers, because you and I do not have to pay for it. The advertisers pay for it. I do not pay for it whether I watch it or not. You and I can elect to pay-for-view such as Netflix and Foxtel, but we can opt out at any time. 

In 1957 Radio and TV licenses were introduced to fund the ABC. At least during that period people could opt out of buying Radio and TV licenses, which were eventually quashed in 1974. Since then the ABC pulls its funding from consolidated revenue, namely our taxes. You and I cannot opt out, and therefore we are forced to fund the ABC.    

You can't opt out of paying for advertising. Any product you buy that is advertised has the cost of that advertising included in the price that you pay and that applies whether you have seen the advert or not. Furthermore if you do watch commercial television the subliminal effect of advertising may lead you to make poor choices which lead you to spend more money than you would have otherwise. The ABC isn't free but it is free-to-air because you've already paid for it whether you wanted to or not.

[Dusty Plains]

On 06/12/2021 at 17:13, Ken said:

You can't opt out of paying for advertising. Any product you buy that is advertised has the cost of that advertising included in the price that you pay and that applies whether you have seen the advert or not. Furthermore if you do watch commercial television the subliminal effect of advertising may lead you to make poor choices which lead you to spend more money than you would have otherwise. The ABC isn't free but it is free-to-air because you've already paid for it whether you wanted to or not.

Of course you can opt out of paying for advertising. It does not matter which way you look at it, there is an opt-out on every point that you have made in relation to commercial interests. Also suggesting that I may be prone to making poor choices due to commercial television.... really? I think you may be scratching for something to win argument, and it is not working for you.

As opposed to commercial TV and advertising, the ABC has NO opt-out provision. You and I and the rest of the population must pay for it whether we watch it or not, and whether we are not in the country but still paying tax to the ATO, we still have have no opt-out.

Hopefully the return of the Liberal Federal Government in Australia will review the opt-out scenario in relation to the ABC. 

[Bulya]

On 26/09/2021 at 15:55, Ken said:

The show's I've been watching recently include Vigil (Foxtel), War of the Worlds (SBS), The Newsreader (ABC), Traces (ABC) and Question Everything (ABC). I'm a fan of both Shaun Micallef's Mad as Hell and the Weekly with Charlie Pickering but they're not on at the moment. Gruen will be back soon though.

Although I've listed it I'm not actually very impressed with the 2nd series of War of the the Worlds - can't make up my mind if the scriptwriters are idiots or they are trying to subtly demonstrate that what we are seeing is a parallel earth - one which is demonstrably more technically advanced because they've develop insulin that doesn't need refrigeration but demonstrably less technically advanced because they still use bottles and syringes to deliver insulin (something I haven't seen in the last quarter of a century).

Gruen good.  

[Parley]

I wish the government would defund the ABC totally. Let them introduce commercials and then see if they can stand on their own 2 feet.

[Peach]

3 minutes ago, Parley said:

I wish the government would defund the ABC totally. Let them introduce commercials and then see if they can stand on their own 2 feet.

Why would anyone want more adverts?  Madness I tell ya.

[Blue Flu]

8 minutes ago, Parley said:

I wish the government would defund the ABC totally. Let them introduce commercials and then see if they can stand on their own 2 feet.

Worst thing that could happen. The ABC doesn't need further dumbing down and has never been a populist form of media. It has been an essential part of remote life in form of information and once the only way environmental hazards like fire could reach people. I expect areas with limited or even no mobile coverage it is still essential;. 

[Blue Flu]

10 hours ago, Dusty Plains said:

Of course you can opt out of paying for advertising. It does not matter which way you look at it, there is an opt-out on every point that you have made in relation to commercial interests. Also suggesting that I may be prone to making poor choices due to commercial television.... really? I think you may be scratching for something to win argument, and it is not working for you.

As opposed to commercial TV and advertising, the ABC has NO opt-out provision. You and I and the rest of the population must pay for it whether we watch it or not, and whether we are not in the country but still paying tax to the ATO, we still have have no opt-out.

Hopefully the return of the Liberal Federal Government in Australia will review the opt-out scenario in relation to the ABC. 

Why so many down on the ABC I don't know. To have a form of media not reliant on commercial interests is a definite positive. Important to have a form of media that maintains a neutrality and airs minority issues regardless of viewing numbers. It has already been brought to heel by successive governments not wanting to be held accountable. 

[Dusty Plains]

On 08/12/2021 at 08:59, Blue Flu said:

Why so many down on the ABC I don't know. To have a form of media not reliant on commercial interests is a definite positive. Important to have a form of media that maintains a neutrality and airs minority issues regardless of viewing numbers. It has already been brought to heel by successive governments not wanting to be held accountable. 

Perhaps there is the opportunity to rethink ABC continuing to be wholly dependent upon taxpayers. Just like Netflix and similar the ABC could operate on subscription service only. If you like the ABC then take up a subscription then I and many others would not have to support the ABC and pay for its legal fees every time the ABC loses a court case.

  

[Paul1Perth]

On 08/12/2021 at 05:59, Blue Flu said:

Why so many down on the ABC I don't know. To have a form of media not reliant on commercial interests is a definite positive. Important to have a form of media that maintains a neutrality and airs minority issues regardless of viewing numbers. It has already been brought to heel by successive governments not wanting to be held accountable. 

If they maintained neutrality it would be a good thing. They seem to have swayed so far to the left, woke, PC, anti men. SBS is about the same.

[Blue Flu]

18 minutes ago, Paul1Perth said:

If they maintained neutrality it would be a good thing. They seem to have swayed so far to the left, woke, PC, anti men. SBS is about the same.

A fairly typical comment, I'm afraid by those wishing to further harm ABC, SBS and BBC. They represent minority interests as p[art of their mandate. You don't expect business driven commercial TV to seriously hold a conservative government to account do you?  What we don't need is further government intervention in controlling the media. 

[Blue Flu]

36 minutes ago, Dusty Plains said:

Perhaps there is the opportunity to rethink ABC continuing to be wholly dependent upon taxpayers. Just like Netflix and similar the ABC could operate on subscription service only. If you like the ABC then take up a subscription then I and many others would not have to support the ABC and pay for its legal fees every time the ABC loses a court case.

  

I suppose it a possibility. But then there is a host of things I don't use or even agree with but still contribute towards. 

[Dusty Plains]

27 minutes ago, Blue Flu said:

You don't expect business driven commercial TV to seriously hold a conservative government to account do you? 

No I don't expect that, but at the same time I also do not expect the ABC to hold a Labor / Green government to account either. Not all of us consume media simply for the purposes of politics. 

[Parley]

42 minutes ago, Blue Flu said:

A fairly typical comment, I'm afraid by those wishing to further harm ABC, SBS and BBC. They represent minority interests as p[art of their mandate. You don't expect business driven commercial TV to seriously hold a conservative government to account do you?  What we don't need is further government intervention in controlling the media. 

Their mandate isn't to only represent left-wing interests. Their mandate is to be balanced. Honestly they are just like The Guardian.

Defunding would be a good outcome. Hardly anyone watches it anyway.

[Dusty Plains]

15 minutes ago, Parley said:

Their mandate isn't to only represent left-wing interests. Their mandate is to be balanced. Honestly they are just like The Guardian.

Defunding would be a good outcome. Hardly anyone watches it anyway.

Generally, ABC and SBS combined, account for about 25% of the free-to-air audience, while the commercial channels combined, account for the remaining 75% of the audience. 25% is hardly a mandate. 

[Parley]

1 minute ago, Dusty Plains said:

Generally, ABC and SBS combined, account for about 25% of the free-to-air audience, while the commercial channels combined, account for the remaining 75% of the audience. 25% is hardly a mandate. 

Mandate is the wrong word. He is referring to their charter which stipulates how they are to conduct themselves.

I haven't read it but i understand the charter requires them to be fair and balanced. 

[Dusty Plains]

3 minutes ago, Parley said:

Mandate is the wrong word. He is referring to their charter which stipulates how they are to conduct themselves.

I haven't read it but i understand the charter requires them to be fair and balanced. 

Agreed, but a "mandate" can also relate to the premise of having general or wide ranging support or influence as a popular entity acknowledged by a major proportion of society (sorry if I sound like a dictionary). In that case the ABC at 25% has no valid claim in terms of a mandate.  

[Skani]

1 hour ago, Dusty Plains said:

Generally, ABC and SBS combined, account for about 25% of the free-to-air audience, while the commercial channels combined, account for the remaining 75% of the audience. 25% is hardly a mandate. 

Television is only one part of the ABC network. 

Radio is more important because, without it, vast areas of rural and regional Australia would have no local radio content as it is not economically attractive for commercial stations to provide it.   (Or  any type of local news content for that matter as large media organisations  continue to shut down local print newspapers).    Commercial TV networks are continually withdrawing services from rural and regional areas for the same reason.  ( At least one of the commercial  TV networks now operates its "local Tasmanian" news from Newcastle.     It's farcical.)

Without the ABC radio network, as Australia's official emergency broadcaster, the government would have to establish a separate network organisation to broadcast - 24/7 - in times of natural disasters.  I appreciate this is unimportant to people in the depths of Sydney or Melbourne but it can make the difference between life and death in areas where  mobile/digital communication can be unreliable  even in normal times and disappear completely in emergencies.  So that would be  another government bureaucracy for your taxes - replacing your 4 cents a day for the ABC.

The other major branch of the ABC is  digital/online content.   It continually ranks highest in monthly surveys of most visited news and media  websites in Australia. 

And the ABC is still the most trusted news brand in Australia in regular surveys (Reuters Institute for the study of Journalism).

[Dusty Plains]

1 minute ago, Skani said:

Television is only one part of the ABC network. 

Radio is more important because, without it, vast areas of rural and regional Australia would have no local radio content as it is not economically attractive for commercial stations to provide it.   (Or  any type of local news content for that matter as large media organisations  continue to shut down local print newspapers).    Commercial TV networks are continually withdrawing services from rural and regional areas for the same reason.  ( At least one of the commercial  TV networks now operates its "local Tasmanian" news from Newcastle.     It's farcical.)

Without the ABC radio network, as Australia's official emergency broadcaster, the government would have to establish a separate network organisation to broadcast - 24/7 - in times of natural disasters.  I appreciate this is unimportant to people in the depths of Sydney or Melbourne but it can make the difference between life and death in areas where  mobile/digital communication can be unreliable  even in normal times and disappear completely in emergencies.  So that would be  another government bureaucracy for your taxes - replacing your 4 cents a day for the ABC.

The other major branch of the ABC is  digital/online content.   It continually ranks highest in monthly surveys of most visited news and media  websites in Australia. 

And the ABC is still the most trusted news brand in Australia in regular surveys (Reuters Institute for the study of Journalism).

The ABC, as you have suggested provides emergency bulletins in times of the usual and perennial flood, fire, and storm impacts to communities across Australia. That particular arrangement however emerged about 15 years ago, and it is still going on, yet it is no longer the primary source of emergency warnings 

I live in one the most historical bush fire prone zones in Australia right here in the Greater Sydney Area. Emergency notifications are now also made with an arrangement between emergency services and Telstra.   If bushfires or similar are effecting me I receive a directive on my mobile phone to either leave the area now or to remain in place ahead of expected bushfire impact or similar. I do not have to sit alongside a radio or television and wait until my locality amongst many others is called up usually in alphabetical order and advice given.

Telstra is a carrier and not an emergency service but it will carry directives from emergency services into specific areas. Initially the arrangement was that Telstra would carry directives from emergency services to mobile phone customers based on their billing address in relation to being within a threatened area.  But that was determined as insufficient given that people who do not live in that area may be passing through or simply engaged in an activity in that area also needed to be notified of emergency impacting on that geographical area.

 Telstra came to the party in this respect and charged governments an absolute arm and a leg to carry real-time emergency warnings to all mobile phones in a particular area.

Yes, an arm and a leg was paid but only if there was an emergency and still far cheaper and far more effective than what we still pay the ABC whether there is an emergency or otherwise.     

 

[Blue Flu]

4 hours ago, Dusty Plains said:

Generally, ABC and SBS combined, account for about 25% of the free-to-air audience, while the commercial channels combined, account for the remaining 75% of the audience. 25% is hardly a mandate. 

It is not populist, never has been nor should be. Lets allow something more than 'reality' shows and cheap American soaps to rule the airways. Enough dumbing down and air heads are more than catered for.  

[Parley]

11 hours ago, Skani said:

Television is only one part of the ABC network. 

Radio is more important because, without it, vast areas of rural and regional Australia would have no local radio content as it is not economically attractive for commercial stations to provide it.   (Or  any type of local news content for that matter as large media organisations  continue to shut down local print newspapers).    Commercial TV networks are continually withdrawing services from rural and regional areas for the same reason.  ( At least one of the commercial  TV networks now operates its "local Tasmanian" news from Newcastle.     It's farcical.)

Without the ABC radio network, as Australia's official emergency broadcaster, the government would have to establish a separate network organisation to broadcast - 24/7 - in times of natural disasters.  I appreciate this is unimportant to people in the depths of Sydney or Melbourne but it can make the difference between life and death in areas where  mobile/digital communication can be unreliable  even in normal times and disappear completely in emergencies.  So that would be  another government bureaucracy for your taxes - replacing your 4 cents a day for the ABC.

The other major branch of the ABC is  digital/online content.   It continually ranks highest in monthly surveys of most visited news and media  websites in Australia. 

And the ABC is still the most trusted news brand in Australia in regular surveys (Reuters Institute for the study of Journalism).

They would still exist, just operate on a commercial basis like virtually every other business in the land.

[Blue Flu]

51 minutes ago, Parley said:

They would still exist, just operate on a commercial basis like virtually every other business in the land.

Enough interference from government as it is. We don't need an ABC existing on commercial grounds and bowing to their interests. May just as well disband it. 

[Blue Flu]

15 hours ago, Dusty Plains said:

Agreed, but a "mandate" can also relate to the premise of having general or wide ranging support or influence as a popular entity acknowledged by a major proportion of society (sorry if I sound like a dictionary). In that case the ABC at 25% has no valid claim in terms of a mandate.  

25% is a considerable minority. 

[Blue Flu]

15 hours ago, Parley said:

Mandate is the wrong word. He is referring to their charter which stipulates how they are to conduct themselves.

I haven't read it but i understand the charter requires them to be fair and balanced. 

I wonder if by fair and balanced means not keeping government to account? It seems who ever is in power pours scorn on the ABC for not endorsing a particular policy. The Conservatives being worse at the blame  game . 

Actually ABC and SBS have been close to being cheer leaders for currant policy of mass immigration and interest rates and housing fiasco if anything. I'd say over time with cutbacks and interference the ABC has become increasingly toothless in critique to a point where it  is rather compliant.