The Murdoch Media

[Giardiasis]

By the way, I should know this but do any 'western' countries still have state-owned media outlets?

The BBC is probably the best example in the UK.

 

[Rosy]

...

Clearly a lot of people including me do not want to consume what the ABC has to offer. Hence it is unjust that these people are forced into paying for the ABC.
.....

Strange and selfish logic. I am happy to pay for cancer research but I have no want to consume what the results offer. I love the ABC and probably use more than my few bucks worth. Think of your contribution as subsidising a fellow Tiger. Thank you.

 

[bullus_hit]

Thanks for tackling the premise G. Seems a bit sanctimonious to impute a value system among ABC apparatchiks that the rest of the media is incapable of...

By the way, I should know this but do any 'western' countries still have state-owned media outlets?

BBC? A waste of money I suppose, we continually overlook all the contributions both outlets have made to the sciences, the arts, children's programming, broadcasting in remote areas and providing a ear to the ground with natural disasters (particularly bushfires). For a few cents a day the benefits greatly outweigh the negatives, most people trust the ABC as well, the same can't be said of many of the commercial operators. I doubt there would be one person in Australia who hasn't derived some sort of value from the national broadcaster. The fact that it has the independence to challenge both sides of government is admirable & essential to a functioning democracy. Programs such as Foreign Correspondent, Four Corners & The Cutting Edge are also the pinnacle of investigative journalism, there is nothing comparable on the commercial networks. To eliminate this from the landscape would be to strip away another level of accountability. We have a hard enough time keeping the bastards honest as it is. Why anyone would want to give them more scope to rort the system beggars belief.

 

[lukeanddad]

The fact that it has the independence to challenge both sides of government is admirable & essential to a functioning democracy.

But it doesn't really, does it (challenge both sides)?

 

[AngryAnt]

But it doesn't really, does it (challenge both sides)?

We've been through this - even G-man conceded the ABC does challenge whichever side of politics is in power.

 

[Carter]

The reality is most progressive societies need an independent national broadcaster to provide a counterweight to information disseminated via commercial interests.

Is it ideal that the ABC position itself to the left of both major political parties?

I think it tends to drift naturally in direct counter-alignment to the conservative, commercial rhetoric emanating from the majority of media outlets.

As a provider of the information that falls through the gaps of commercial broadcasting, the ABC is critical to an informed and reasoned citizenry.

To think otherwise is to indulge in bleak right-wing fantasies, no more.

 

[Giardiasis]

Strange and selfish logic.

Why is selfish to allow people to choose what media they want to pay for, yet it is unselfish to force people into subsidising the media consumption of others?

I am happy to pay for cancer research but I have no want to consume what the results offer.

Perhaps I should elaborate, "Clearly a lot of people including me do not want to consume what the ABC has to offer, and/or are unhappy with how our money goes towards it. Hence it is unjust that these people are forced into paying for the ABC."

 

[Giardiasis]

We've been through this - even G-man conceded the ABC does challenge whichever side of politics is in power.

Ha, nice use of sophistry. Yes I conceded that the ABC has on occasion provided scrutiny to both the Coalition and the ALP. However they have always done this from a statist perspective. The ABC is independent in so far that there is no direct link between the government and what the ABC produces. However this does not mean that it provides balanced scrutiny of government policy.

 

[tigersnake]

But it doesn't really, does it (challenge both sides)?

yes it does

 

[Giardiasis]

The reality is most progressive societies need an independent national broadcaster to provide a counterweight to information disseminated via commercial interests.

Why? Doesn't the internet provide this?

Is it ideal that the ABC position itself to the left of both major political parties?

I think it tends to drift naturally in direct counter-alignment to the conservative, commercial rhetoric emanating from the majority of media outlets.

So Fairfax is conservative to you?

As a provider of the information that falls through the gaps of commercial broadcasting, the ABC is critical to an informed and reasoned citizenry.

To think otherwise is to indulge in bleak right-wing fantasies, no more.

Don't worry about arguing from logic, just resort to deriding counter opinions. Seems to work a lot around here.

 

[tigersnake]

The ABC's scrutiny derives from the subjective values of the individuals that work there, not some vague concept of broad public interest. Clearly a lot of people including me do not want to consume what the ABC has to offer. Hence it is unjust that these people are forced into paying for the ABC.

I'm not against private commercial enterprises from producing media for consumption by willing consumers, because it is up to entrepreneurs to choose whether to risk such a venture, and it is up to everyone else to decide if they want to consume it. Under this arrangement, no one is forced to pay for something they don't want. Typically different media outlets cater to different political perspectives, and hence you get a lot of scrutiny amongst the various media outlets. Fairfax and News Corp often scrutinise the work of the other. In any case, the internet has greatly expanded the available media from which people (not just big media companies) provide scrutiny of government, business, the work of media competitors etc., and is much more often than not, free!

Incidentally, I far more often than not choose not to consume the commercial media's product of government scrutiny, as most of them, including Murdoch media, are still heavily statist. Hence most of the scrutiny of government I choose to read comes from blogs and literature.

Now where is the market failure here? Do you believe that without a publicly funded ABC, that the government will no longer be adequately scrutinised according to your subjective values? Look at this from my point of view. None of the current large media companies including the ABC, Fairfax, and News Corp provides an adequate scrutiny of government/business according to my subjective values. Yet I can still find it on the internet via blogs, and through literature. I suggest that without a publicly funded ABC, you'd be able to find it too.

We are poing to have to proceed on the basis that the state is here to stay. I respect your view that it shouldn't be, but we can't really have a discussion otherwise.

Subjective values? A furphy, a half truth, I'd call it a fallacy. Its true that values like justice and equity can't be measured by a machine, but they can be consistently assessed against criteria, and they are. They aren't completely OBJECTIVE, but they are nowhere near completely SUBJECTIVE as you imply. Sure there are cases in the legal system where people get off who shouldn't and people go to jail who shouldn't. Its a large complex system, its never going to be perfect. But generally speaking, our legal system works, people get justice. Likewise the value of equity, someone with a chronic illness and unemployed has less means to fight for their rights than a company CEO.

we can't really have a discussion though, this whole notion of each individual as an empowered vessel with perfect info all making decisions in their own interests that don't effect anyone else, its an interesting idea for a little while, but then the pesky real world rears its head...

 

[AngryAnt]

Ha, nice use of sophistry. Yes I conceded that the ABC has on occasion provided scrutiny to both the Coalition and the ALP. However they have always done this from a statist perspective. The ABC is independent in so far that there is no direct link between the government and what the ABC produces. However this does not mean that it provides balanced scrutiny of government policy.

I doubt lukeanddad is too worried about "statist" or "non-statist" critiques of politics

 

[lukeanddad]

I doubt lukeanddad is too worried about "statist" or "non-statist" critiques of politics

You're quite right. G-Man did explain that (he considered that) there is not a conscious left-leaning positioning by the ABC; their stance is more a reflection on the collective group think, which has tended to be more left of centre.

 

[lukeanddad]

So Fairfax is conservative to you?

Perhaps the ABC advocates reckon that Murdoch is soooo conservative that we need Fairfax + ABC to balance the ledger?

 

[Carter]

Perhaps the ABC advocates reckon that Murdoch is soooo conservative that we need Fairfax + ABC to balance the ledger?

Dude, if you put the operating budget of Fairfax / ABC against the leviathan that is mainstream media you wouldn't have any cause to be affronted - not even on principle.

 

[Carter]

Why? Doesn't the internet provide this?

The internet is not how everyone receives their information / news / current affairs analysis. Like it or not television is more pervasive in its transfer of information, simply due to the user's passive acceptance of it.

So Fairfax is conservative to you?

No. But if you can point out a hard copy Fairfax competitor to the Murdoch-owned Courier Mail in Brisbane, a major metropolitan centre of over a million people, then I'd be grateful. I suspect you cannot; The Telegraph went under in 1988.

Fact is Fairfax cannot hope to match it's competitors for sheer exposure.

Don't worry about arguing from logic, just resort to deriding counter opinions. Seems to work a lot around here.

The ABC provides information not readily accessible elsewhere on television and radio. Emergency services. Young, untried talent. Uncommercial subject matter (science, etc.). The list goes on.

You talk about the internet. We pay for internet infrastructure. You like using the cloud? You will pay for the NBN eventually whether you want to or not. Same principle. It's about services for the greater benefit of ALL recipients at minimal cost to the individual.

The problem with libertarianism is that the prioritisation of the individual over the collective is not how prudent governance works. It doesn't mean anything if a vocal majority wanted to bail on funding the ABC. That's not enough to justify its destruction. Just like it wouldn't mean anything if the vast majority of folks wanted to forgo their tax contribution to cancer research.

What matters is the provision of of uncommercial services without fear of market corrosion. An inclusive standard that does more to uphold individual rights than tin pot civil libertarianism ever could. You wanna lower this standard of governance? See exhibit A - the United States of America, now acknowledging an official slide into political and social decay.

 

[billyb#40]

You're quite right. G-Man did explain that (he considered that) there is not a conscious left-leaning positioning by the ABC; their stance is more a reflection on the collective group think, which has tended to be more left of centre.

The centre view is left of centre?
Or the ABC centre view is left of who's centre.
Who decides the real centre
How far is the ABC's centre left of the real centre
What's collective group think
What's a collective group
I think I understand think
How far is more As in more left
And who is the G-Man
No don't bother, it's not important compared to who we draft as the fourth or sixth rookie

 

[Giardiasis]

We are poing to have to proceed on the basis that the state is here to stay. I respect your view that it shouldn't be, but we can't really have a discussion otherwise.

I don't think privitisation of the ABC is akin to a removal of the state, it is but one intervention amongst many.

Subjective values? A furphy, a half truth, I'd call it a fallacy. Its true that values like justice and equity can't be measured by a machine, but they can be consistently assessed against criteria, and they are. They aren't completely OBJECTIVE, but they are nowhere near completely SUBJECTIVE as you imply. Sure there are cases in the legal system where people get off who shouldn't and people go to jail who shouldn't. Its a large complex system, its never going to be perfect. But generally speaking, our legal system works, people get justice. Likewise the value of equity, someone with a chronic illness and unemployed has less means to fight for their rights than a company CEO.

I'm not sure why you've started discussing the legal system, perhaps we keep it on topic of the government's role in media.

It looks like you agree in the subjectiveness of valuation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you think that the people at the ABC have the ability to assess the subjective valuations of individuals to determine values that are commonly shared by Australians. They then produce media content based upon this assessment. Personally I think that such a process is impossible, and rather the people at the ABC just base their media content on their own personal subjective value.

we can't really have a discussion though, this whole notion of each individual as an empowered vessel with perfect info all making decisions in their own interests that don't effect anyone else, its an interesting idea for a little while, but then the pesky real world rears its head...

I'd never suggest that individuals have perfect information, rather that they are in a far better position than other individuals (such as beaurecrats and politicians) to determine how best to satisfy their needs and desires. I accept that a functioning legal system is required to protect individuals from coercion of others, hence people are not permitted to act in a manner that hurts others. I keep seeing the concept of the "real world" being brought up, yet nothing really to substantiate why my opinions are to be rejected based upon this premise (not even the prized empirical evidence of positivism). Stick to logical arguments please, and refrain from sophistry.

 

[Giardiasis]

Dude, if you put the operating budget of Fairfax / ABC against the leviathan that is mainstream media you wouldn't have any cause to be affronted - not even on principle.

Fairfax is the mainstream media. Comparing the budgets of the ABC to other media providers would be interesting, perhaps you have this information at hand?

Given the principle that calls for the privatisation of the ABC is based upon the injustice of how people are forced through threat of imprisonment, the magnitude of any budget difference is irrelevant.

 

[Giardiasis]

The internet is not how everyone receives their information / news / current affairs analysis. Like it or not television is more pervasive in its transfer of information, simply due to the user's passive acceptance of it.

Can you please answer the first question?

No. But if you can point out a hard copy Fairfax competitor to the Murdoch-owned Courier Mail in Brisbane, a major metropolitan centre of over a million people, then I'd be grateful. I suspect you cannot; The Telegraph went under in 1988.

Fact is Fairfax cannot hope to match it's competitors for sheer exposure.

Would Brisbane be in that position if the ABC never existed? A large part of Fairfax's problems stem from the ABC out competing them for the left of centre market. Also you can't ignore the role of the internet's role in providing competition.

The ABC provides information not readily accessible elsewhere on television and radio. Emergency services. Young, untried talent. Uncommercial subject matter (science, etc.). The list goes on.

You talk about the internet. We pay for internet infrastructure. You like using the cloud? You will pay for the NBN eventually whether you want to or not. Same principle. It's about services for the greater benefit of ALL recipients at minimal cost to the individual.

Emergency services broadcasts do not require a $1 billion budget. If the market doesn't provide for "young, untried talent" and "science", then that means people don't want it. Forcing people to pay for things they don't want results in misallocation of capital.

Forced to pay for the NBN, which again will result in market distortions and misallocation of capital. This doesn't provide greater benefit for all at a minimal cost, it results in a lowering of people's standard of living. The government is horrible at entrepreneurship compared to the private sector.

The problem with libertarianism is that the prioritisation of the individual over the collective is not how prudent governance works. It doesn't mean anything if a vocal majority wanted to bail on funding the ABC. That's not enough to justify its destruction. Just like it wouldn't mean anything if the vast majority of folks wanted to forgo their tax contribution to cancer research.

What matters is the provision of of uncommercial services without fear of market corrosion. An inclusive standard that does more to uphold individual rights than tin pot civil libertarianism ever could. You wanna lower this standard of governance? See exhibit A - the United States of America, now acknowledging an official slide into political and social decay.

The concept of the "collective" is a fallacy, there are only individuals, there is no such thing as a collective consciousness. You can choose to rob from one group to redistribute to another group, but this doesn't result in a net positive economic outcome. Any provision of uncommercial services, are uneconomic services. It is absurd to suggest that this would better serve individual rights, as by definition the coercion of individuals is held to be just as long as it is determined by others to be better for the "collective". By what measure do they determine that it is better? Certainly not economically better, as if it was, then the market would meet the demand. If the ends sort by "prudent governance" is an increased material well being of individuals, then you need to provide an economic argument that government interventions into the economic provide this.

The US is not an example of a government that does not intervene in its economy, it is heavily statist and this is what has caused its decay.