The Murdoch Media

[Carter]

Can you please answer the first question?

I did, but will answer again. The primary difference between the internet and television are active and passive modes of information acquisition. Both modes have considerable benefits to those seeking information. Assuming that the internet can comprehensively replace television, radio and other forms of media is erroneous.

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 do not and should not be competing with Fairfax or any other commercial organisation for it's share of the "market".

My point, which you've ignored, is that the media market in Brisbane simply underlines the value of non-commercial broadcasting in Queensland.

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.

Wow. You would have the government run a dedicated emergency broadcast service, inclusive of all the associated infrastructure and overheads, and not utilise the space for other programming in periods of non-emergency?

That's woefully inefficient, especially for a free market advocate :hihi

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.

Again, wow.

No one ever said anything about collective consciousness. There is, however, a long established and widely acknowledged concept of the collective good.

Let's turn your argument around. I do not need private health care, but I recognize its function and am glad it's available for people to utilise when they require it.

I love the free market economy. I love the fact that I am free to accumulate personal wealth and spend it where and how I see fit.

The free market economy is a beautiful concept when it is optimized. It can only be optimized within a framework of regulation.

Regulation that upholds the fundamental rights of those particularly non-commercial, difficult-to-price commodities - people.

People with a basic right to diverse information, health, education.

The media model you pine for is a thing of abstract fantasy. The "coercion" you rail against is an illusion. Without non-commercial media the level of coercion exerted by commercial media would be crushing in comparison.

No, not everyone is as active or discerning in their media consumption as you. Believe it or not many people do not have the inclination or even the capacity to seek out the dubious "blogs" and murky newsfeeds you refer to.

The ABC is readily available, non-commercial information. You may never use it but it completes the information spectrum and is thus a cornerstone of an informed society.

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.

???

In relation to non-commercial media, the US is about as free enterprise as it gets. To what state-owned media do you refer?

No, the US has let the market economy run rampant and are only now starting to question why there are enclaves of the very rich and vast ghettos of the very poor.

Why is this? A significant problem stems from the fact that the only readily available media US citizens can access, without having to go search for it on the internet, is commercial.

How can you criticise when you don't have the vocabulary or the perspective? Combine this with a prohibitively exclusive higher education system and you have a woefully ill-informed citizenry.

If only they had a non-commercial, national broadcast service ...

 

[Carter]

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

Enough with the "threat of imprisonment" diatribe.

How much are we expected to contribute to defence? To politician's wages and superannuation packages?

The subsidisation of the ABC is trifling in comparison. Clearly, readily available and diverse information is valued by many and is likely to continue to be provided by the ABC.

Criticism based on contextually minor theoretical inequities are, to be frank, a waste of your time.

 

[AngryAnt]

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.

You've got a pretty low opinion of professionalism and ethics then, which makes sense given that a libertarian view is that it's difficult for people to act outside their own personal subjective values.

Which is interesting from the utilitarian perspective - sorry to bring it up again - because utilitarianism is the maximisation of happiness for the many - which absolutely requires that I must make a decision against my own personal interests to benefit the greater good of the many.

This is one of the major critiques of utilitarianism by the way.

 

[uhuh uhuh]

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.

Wasn't Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and all number of other financial institutions involved in the "decay"

Didn't the deregulation of the financial sector in the US, which was effetely the Government moving away from intervention, also play a part in the "decay"?

 

[uhuh uhuh]

No, the US has let the market economy run rampant and are only now starting to question why there are enclaves of the very rich and vast ghettos of the very poor.

Come on Carter - there are vast ghettos of the very poor because the very poor are lazy and don't work hard enough. If they did they would find themselves joining the rich

 

[tigersnake]

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

I am. You can't see it from your dogmatic framework.

My point re you anti-statism was purely about the discussion. To have a sensible discussion you need some ground rules, ie, we agree the state will be around for a while yet. Again I respect your anti-statist view %100, but to bring it up here renders the discussion pointless. It would require another thread, and too much typing.

I brought up the legal system because it is a core manifestation of societal values, I was linking the concepts being discussed to the real world, if you can't see that, and how it generally assists in theoretical discussions, again...there's not much point.

"I think such a process is impossible"....no it isn't. The ABC know what the concerns of many Australians are, sometimes the vast majority, sometimes a significant minority (it ain't law of the jungle), and they scrutinise and analyse on that basis. It is very basic stuff, its in the charter. Most Australians know and accept this, even if they don't like the ABC.

ah well

 

[Brodders17]

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.

actually i think the topic was the media's role in government. (or at least the role of one powerful person in the media).

 

[TigerForce]

Don't want to be an American Australian idiot..... ;D

 

[scottyturnerscurse]

Has its own issues, for sure, but props to the Murdoch Australian for not going down the click-bait path. The Smage can hardly call itself a quality these days.

 

[Giardiasis]

I did, but will answer again. The primary difference between the internet and television are active and passive modes of information acquisition. Both modes have considerable benefits to those seeking information. Assuming that the internet can comprehensively replace television, radio and other forms of media is erroneous.

No that’s the answer to the second question. The first question was “Why?”, applying to this statement of yours:
“The reality is most progressive societies need an independent national broadcaster to provide a counterweight to information disseminated via commercial interests.”

The ABC do not and should not be competing with Fairfax or any other commercial organisation for it's share of the "market".

My point, which you've ignored, is that the media market in Brisbane simply underlines the value of non-commercial broadcasting in Queensland.

Eh, absolutely they compete with Fairfax. They might not actively target market share, but they certainly provide competition to commercial media, especially media of similar political persuasion, such as Fairfax. Why would you pay for the Age online, when you can just read the ABC website?

I didn’t ignore your point; I pointed out the fact that the ABC existence means it is far more difficult for a commercial counterpoint to News Corp to survive. Without the ABC it would be far more likely for a leftist slanted newspaper to be available.

Wow. You would have the government run a dedicated emergency broadcast service, inclusive of all the associated infrastructure and overheads, and not utilise the space for other programming in periods of non-emergency?
That's woefully inefficient, especially for a free market advocate :hihi

No, I would have them buy airspace on commercial networks to broadcast emergency service news.

Again, wow.

No one ever said anything about collective consciousness. There is, however, a long established and widely acknowledged concept of the collective good.

Let's turn your argument around. I do not need private health care, but I recognize its function and am glad it's available for people to utilise when they require it.

I love the free market economy. I love the fact that I am free to accumulate personal wealth and spend it where and how I see fit.

The free market economy is a beautiful concept when it is optimized. It can only be optimized within a framework of regulation.

Regulation that upholds the fundamental rights of those particularly non-commercial, difficult-to-price commodities - people.

People with a basic right to diverse information, health, education.

The media model you pine for is a thing of abstract fantasy. The "coercion" you rail against is an illusion. Without non-commercial media the level of coercion exerted by commercial media would be crushing in comparison.

No, not everyone is as active or discerning in their media consumption as you. Believe it or not many people do not have the inclination or even the capacity to seek out the dubious "blogs" and murky newsfeeds you refer to.

The ABC is readily available, non-commercial information. You may never use it but it completes the information spectrum and is thus a cornerstone of an informed society.

There is nothing incompatible between individualism and the common good.
I agree that the market process can not work on its own. Without a system for protecting individuals from coercion, people would be vulnerable to extortion (and worse) from others. Outside of this restriction of conduct, any other government intervention into the market process invalidates the title “free market”.
Where do you derive this basic right to diverse information, health, and education? Do you claim them to be natural rights?
The idea of having no state owned media is not an abstract fantasy; it exists in many places around the world. The coercion I highlight is not something up for debate; it is a clear hard fact. If you don’t pay your taxes, you go to jail.
I don’t understand what coercion you highlight would exist without state media? Can you please elaborate? In what way would individuals be forced to do something against their will without state media?
Trying to discredit the media I consume is fine if you can argue the point logically, but just using slanderous words to describe it (especially when you don’t even know what it is) is pathetic.
Making up abstract concepts such as the “information spectrum” is meaningless.

???

In relation to non-commercial media, the US is about as free enterprise as it gets. To what state-owned media do you refer?

No, the US has let the market economy run rampant and are only now starting to question why there are enclaves of the very rich and vast ghettos of the very poor.

Why is this? A significant problem stems from the fact that the only readily available media US citizens can access, without having to go search for it on the internet, is commercial.

How can you criticise when you don't have the vocabulary or the perspective? Combine this with a prohibitively exclusive higher education system and you have a woefully ill-informed citizenry.

If only they had a non-commercial, national broadcast service ...

Your rant regarding the pitfalls of libertarianism was framed around the provision of non-commercial (i.e. uneconomic) goods. It wasn’t limited to state owned media.
It is a myth that the US economy is a free market; look no further than the most pervasive intervention of them all, monetarism (i.e. the Federal Reserve’s manipulation of interest rates). It has allowed the US government to embark on an outrageous program of inflation, which was vastly intensified with the establishment of our current fiat monetary system when the US removed convertibility of the dollar to gold in 1971. This has resulted in several crack-up booms, the last of which came to head in 2008.
So your contention is that the absence of state owned media in the US is the major cause of large income differences between individuals. Now it’s my turn.... “WOW!”

 

[Giardiasis]

Enough with the "threat of imprisonment" diatribe.

How much are we expected to contribute to defence? To politician's wages and superannuation packages?

The subsidisation of the ABC is trifling in comparison. Clearly, readily available and diverse information is valued by many and is likely to continue to be provided by the ABC.

Criticism based on contextually minor theoretical inequities are, to be frank, a waste of your time.

Enough? Don't want to deal with hard cold reality?

The criticism of the ABC is hardly restricted to this one core tenant, it is also based on:
- the ABC's collectivist (leftist version) agenda being counter to its supposed goal of balanced reporting;
- the conflict of interest that exists between the ABC and its source of funding;
- the unfair advantage of the absence of the requirement to make a profit, which hurts private enterprises from doing business;
- the opportunity cost of private individuals losing $1 billion dollars, which would otherwise go to productive uses.

 

[Giardiasis]

You've got a pretty low opinion of professionalism and ethics then, which makes sense given that a libertarian view is that it's difficult for people to act outside their own personal subjective values.

Which is interesting from the utilitarian perspective - sorry to bring it up again - because utilitarianism is the maximisation of happiness for the many - which absolutely requires that I must make a decision against my own personal interests to benefit the greater good of the many.

This is one of the major critiques of utilitarianism by the way.

It is not a question of professionalism and ethics, it is an impossibility to assess subjective value to the point of ascertaning an overall opinion of the collective. Feel free to describe how this process works if you believe otherwise?

It is not a question of difficulty, ALL people act within their own personal subjective value, for only they have the capacity to think as they do as an individual. This is not the same thing as saying that people might not act in a way that helps others, even to the detriment of an individuals well being (e.g. sacrificing one's life to save another). In that situation the individual values the life of the other person above their own.

 

[Giardiasis]

Wasn't Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and all number of other financial institutions involved in the "decay"

Didn't the deregulation of the financial sector in the US, which was effetely the Government moving away from intervention, also play a part in the "decay"?

Involved yes, the root cause, no.

No.

If interested:
http://mises.org/daily/3263

 

[Giardiasis]

I am. You can't see it from your dogmatic framework.

My point re you anti-statism was purely about the discussion. To have a sensible discussion you need some ground rules, ie, we agree the state will be around for a while yet. Again I respect your anti-statist view %100, but to bring it up here renders the discussion pointless. It would require another thread, and too much typing.

I brought up the legal system because it is a core manifestation of societal values, I was linking the concepts being discussed to the real world, if you can't see that, and how it generally assists in theoretical discussions, again...there's not much point.

"I think such a process is impossible"....no it isn't. The ABC know what the concerns of many Australians are, sometimes the vast majority, sometimes a significant minority (it ain't law of the jungle), and they scrutinise and analyse on that basis. It is very basic stuff, its in the charter. Most Australians know and accept this, even if they don't like the ABC.

ah well

Your discussion of the legal system did not provide an argument against the notion of subjective value. Hence by claiming that individualism is counter to the "real world" is sophistry.

Can you please describe the process that the ABC goes through in order to determine the concern of Australian's, and how it tailors its media content around it?

 

[Giardiasis]

A key problem with the state of our polity and the discussion around it is the illusion that we have two major political parties that provide counter philosophies to governance. It is common thought that the extreme left constitutes socialism/communism and the extreme right consitutes fascism/nazism. A combination of these philosophies (so that neither extreme dominates) is considered the "centre". In Australia, the ALP is considered a centre left party, and the Coalition the centre-right party.

The idea that the extreme left and right are philosophically opposed is categorically wrong. Both fascists and communists fundamentally believe in the philosophy of collectivism, and neither in the philosohpy of individualism. What we currently have in Australia are two political parties that are firmly entrenched in the philosophy of collectivism, as both believe in re-distribution, both believe in expansive foreign policy, both believe in central planning/regulations/labour market interventionalism, and both believe in state control over interest rates.

The political counter to collectivism is individualism, which was the philisophy of governance that dominated Western civilisation in the 18th and 19th centuries, but has since been usurped by collectivism around the end of the 19th century.

People in this thread have been pointing out that the ABC is the solution to ensure that Australian's have a balanced source of media that provides scrutiny of business and government. What I feel is not realised is at the end of the day, the ABC, just like all the commercial media companies, are all in fervent agreement with this underlying philiosophy of governance (i.e. collectivism). If you all cherish such a balanced approach, do you find it outrageous that there is an absence of major media that provides scrutiny to business/government from the perspective of individualism?

Here is a simple illustration to explain the differences between the ALP, the Coalition, and the non-existent political party which supports individualism (Libertarianism)

 

[Carter]

No that’s the answer to the second question. The first question was “Why?”, applying to this statement of yours:
“The reality is most progressive societies need an independent national broadcaster to provide a counterweight to information disseminated via commercial interests.”

Ok, thanks.

Your answer is simple. My argument is not based on politics but on non-commercial information. It makes perfect sense to me that a government-run broadcaster would supply such information that is not deemed profitable by the commercial networks.

Do you agree that a progressive, forward-looking society is also an informed society?

If you do not agree, then this is where our debate terminates with polite disagreement.

If you do agree, then I will contend that the ABC is critical in providing the information commercial broadcasters do not. Political bias or no, the ABC, in conjunction with commercial media, represents comprehensiveness of information supply.

Eh, absolutely they compete with Fairfax. They might not actively target market share, but they certainly provide competition to commercial media, especially media of similar political persuasion, such as Fairfax. Why would you pay for the Age online, when you can just read the ABC website?

Because as a commercial interest The Age is able to attract top shelf columnists and articulate editorial position. The Age competes with the Herald Sun. The ABC merely provides an online news service free of commercial bias.

I didn’t ignore your point; I pointed out the fact that the ABC existence means it is far more difficult for a commercial counterpoint to News Corp to survive. Without the ABC it would be far more likely for a leftist slanted newspaper to be available.

As I said earlier, Brisbane's Telegraph went under in 1988. The ABC would have just been television and radio back then - its online content had not been deployed.

No the failure of commercial media to provide diverse information to the populace of Brisbane cannot be attributed to the ABC. That is incongruous at best. Brisbane represents free market failure.

Under your preferred model Brisbane's mainstream news would be delivered by the Courier Mail alone. No ABC Online to fill non-commercial gaps and no Fairfax to provide a political counterpoint. Surely that is in no one's best interests?

No, I would have them buy airspace on commercial networks to broadcast emergency service news.

An interesting proposition. I wonder how that works for the Americans?

On second thought, judging from the response and aftermath to Hurricane Katrina, no thanks, I don't want my emergency broadcasts delivered by commercial media.

Emergency response needs to be centrally cohesive, mobile, adaptable and efficient. I do not believe for a moment that commercial interests can perform this function effectively.

There is nothing incompatible between individualism and the common good.

An incorrect statement on many levels but I'll simply point to your objection to the ABC as a prime example of this.

I don’t understand what coercion you highlight would exist without state media? Can you please elaborate? In what way would individuals be forced to do something against their will without state media?

Without state media to fill non-commercial gaps the citizenry would be ill-informed and ill-equipped to effectively articulate dissent / support on all the matters that affect their lives directly and indirectly.

Without state media you are effectively coerced into consuming commercial media and all the vested interests that entails. Your response is to go and dig for the information you require on the net. Most people do not do this - that is the reality you must accept. Not everyone is as discerning and capable in their information absorption as you are.

Trying to discredit the media I consume is fine if you can argue the point logically, but just using slanderous words to describe it (especially when you don’t even know what it is) is pathetic.

Apologies for the colourful language, you are quite right. The original point stands though.

Your rant regarding the pitfalls of libertarianism was framed around the provision of non-commercial (i.e. uneconomic) goods. It wasn’t limited to state owned media.
It is a myth that the US economy is a free market; look no further than the most pervasive intervention of them all, monetarism (i.e. the Federal Reserve’s manipulation of interest rates). It has allowed the US government to embark on an outrageous program of inflation, which was vastly intensified with the establishment of our current fiat monetary system when the US removed convertibility of the dollar to gold in 1971. This has resulted in several crack-up booms, the last of which came to head in 2008.
So your contention is that the absence of state owned media in the US is the major cause of large income differences between individuals. Now it’s my turn.... “WOW!”

You seem to be clutching at straws here.

I never said that the absence of state-owned media was the major cause of income differences, despite your attempt at emphatic drama.

I said that the absence of state-owned media strips the citizenry of the ability to articulate concerns over these trends.

Do you disagree?

If you do, where do US citizens who do not have the funds for higher education nor recourse to readily available non-commercial media get a balanced diet of information?

Commercial media and internet search engines is your predictable response.

What if they don't know what to look for?

Ah, I know! If only they had a state-owned media provider that does not fill its programming with back-to-back reality and game shows.

 

[tigersnake]

Your discussion of the legal system did not provide an argument against the notion of subjective value. Hence by claiming that individualism is counter to the "real world" is sophistry.

Can you please describe the process that the ABC goes through in order to determine the concern of Australian's, and how it tailors its media content around it?

first point, nah, you're just setting the epistemological boundaries of the debate based on your own framework, which seems to me to be anything that is inconvenient or tricky to refute you reject as being outside it. Shifting the goal posts in other words. My use of the legal system provided a real-world example of how the subjective values of justice and egalitarianism or equality manifest, pretty simple.

Second point, very basic stuff, research, media content of the day, those type of whacky indicators of what is important to people. Pretty crazy I know.

 

[lukeanddad]

Second point, very basic stuff, research, media content of the day, those type of whacky indicators of what is important to people. Pretty crazy I know.

In that case, they need to change their analysts and researchers - or perhaps they only research Carlton and fitzroy residents who are uni lecturers.

 

[Brodders17]

Here is a simple illustration to explain the differences between the ALP, the Coalition, and the non-existent political party which supports individualism (Libertarianism)

i assume a libertarian wouldnt believe in private property as that would require a state to legislate around what would constitute it, how it could be acquired etc, and to do this the state would be required to force people to fund it?

 

[Giardiasis]

i assume a libertarian wouldnt believe in private property as that would require a state to legislate around what would constitute it, how it could be acquired etc, and to do this the state would be required to force people to fund it?

Private property is the cornerstone of Libertarianism. It is collectivism that seeks to destroy it.

Most Libertarian's recognise that government is required to provide for a legal system to protect private property rights. I haven't fully investigated the anarcho-capitalist model which claims that the free market can provide this function. No libertarian would suggest that social cooperation is possible without a means to protect private property rights.

Such a limited scope of government wouldn't require taxation for funding, voluntary sources of funding would suffice.