The Legacy of Daniel Andrews: Recognising the Good…

Today the impending retirement of Daniel Andrews – Labor Premier of Victoria…

Study reveals most common forms of coercive control…

Media Release A new study by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and…

Great Expectations from the Summit of the G-77…

By Denis Bright The prospects for commitment to UN General Assembly’s sustainment development…

Imperial Footprints in Africa: The Dismal Role of…

No power in history has exercised such global reach. With brutal immediacy,…

Fascism is unlikely: idiocy is the real threat

The fight against domestic fascism is as American as apple pie. Even…

Murdoch: King Lear or Citizen Kane?

By guest columnist Tess Lawrence It may be premature to write Emeritus Chairman…

"This Is All A Giant Push By (INSERT…

"Beer?" "Thanks" "So what you been up to this week?" "I went on a march…

Dutton reminds us of Abbott, but not in…

Reading Nikki Savva’s The Road to Ruin is a depressing read, because it validates…


The voiceless and faceless public

I was listening to Radio National news this morning and it suddenly struck me – mainstream news media, including everyone from the ABC to Murdoch, are incapable of providing the general public with a voice or a face. Two news items were perfect examples of this problem. One was about opposition to marine parks, where a lobster fishing industry spokesperson was invited to comment. And low-and-behold this industry spokesman was totally against marine parks. Another news item was about the South Australian government’s city car park tax which will be used to improve public transport. And you guessed it – a city business lobby group was invited to comment. And surprise surprise they were totally against the Labor government’s car park tax.

I often find myself muttering or shouting at the radio/TV/newspaper ‘well he would say that, wouldn’t he’. Because it’s fairly predictable that industry is going to be against anything that negatively impacts on them. Think mining industry and the mining tax. But what the media need to realise is that just talking to the person who is against a progressive policy doesn’t make that policy a bad policy. There’s another group who needs to be given a voice or a face in these conversations. And that is the public. Where is the commentary about the public good?

For instance, when we’re talking about marine parks, clearly there’s a valid reason why marine parks exist. It’s not just so that over-fishing doesn’t destroy our natural environment (although this on its own would be justification). It’s also to improve the long term sustainability of fish stocks. Which is important for the public good in the long term, even if it effects the lives of recreational fishers and the fishing industry profits in the short term. So speaking to someone who is whining about their recreation or profits tomorrow doesn’t really give the public a valid argument for why the policy shouldn’t be implemented for the public’s future benefit.

Or in the case of a car park tax, just because the Liberal Opposition is whinging about the cost imposition on those who can afford to park their cars in the city, and just because businesses in the city are convinced that the car park tax will negatively impact their profits, doesn’t mean that the public good argument isn’t just as valid. Why doesn’t the ABC news ever interview a low income family who can’t afford to park in the city but needs better public transport to get to work? Why doesn’t a government representative have a chance to explain that the revenue from the tax will be used to improve public transport, with the aim of bringing more shoppers and workers into the city in the long term, which would improve business activity and profits for the whinging business owners too?

Is it because it’s just easier to get a sound bite from someone opposed to progressive policy that we only hear from the vested interests of the very rich and the lobbyists who are paid to represent them? Is it really just laziness on the part of journalists which stops the public hearing the other side of the argument – the one that gives them a voice and a face? Or is there a deeper problem?

I think too many journalists automatically equate the ‘business good’ with the ‘public good’ and aren’t skilled enough at critiquing a policy from any perspective other than the press release from the well paid lobby group. When I hear myself saying ‘well he would say that wouldn’t he’, I always wonder why the journalist hasn’t thought of this as well. Of course the mining industry is going to threaten to pull their investment out of Australia and reduce jobs in mining if they’re told they’re going to have to pay their fair share of the profits they make mining land that all Australians own. But this doesn’t mean this threat is real. Can a journalist not make the connection between a vested interest argument and a truthful statement? A super-profit tax, by very definition, doesn’t hurt investment or jobs. But how often did we get to hear from someone in the media who made this point? How often did anyone get to speak about the benefits of the mining tax for the public good – increased superannuation being just one of the benefits that the public has lost and now seem, way overdue, to be coming to terms with? It’s all too late now because the mining tax has already been repealed.

Every time the media fails to provide the public good with a face and a voice, they are letting the public down. I can understand why the Murdoch media behave in this way. They are run by the very vested interests I am talking about. But why the ABC? Why do they fall for this lame, lazy, unthinking journalistic style which makes it impossible for a progressive government to argue their case for change? I know I’ll never get answers to these questions, but I still can’t help but ask.

What surprises me most is that the Abbott government, who were enabled to come to power by this type of lazy journalism, are the ones who most need to be scrutinised. The Abbott government are the champion of vested interests and are seemingly against the public good. But it’s also worth remembering that the Abbott government are hell bent of destroying the ABC. Is this why the ABC are scared to speak truth to power?

It’s sad really. Just when we need the ABC to be the public broadcaster, champion of the public good, they are giving a voice only to the very people who plan to destroy them. And the saddest part – why should we have an ABC if they’re just going to take Murdoch’s side anyway? Why fight for them if they won’t fight for us, the public?


Login here Register here
  1. Graham Perham

    You are expecting these people to believe that we live in a society. Reagan, Thatcher, Howard, and now we have the mad monk who all follow Ayn Rand’s philosophy of no such thing as society. Individuals are meant to get rich and it trickles down to the poor.
    And you are also expecting journalists to be journalists. It’s so much easier to follow the mainstream crap.

    It will take several generations to repair the damage done by this neo-con jesuit government, that’s assuming it can ever be repaired. I despair for all our grand-kids.

  2. mars08

    Every time the media fails to provide the public good with a face and a voice, they are letting the public down…

    Maybe if more of the public DEMANDED serious, mature, researched, unbiased news… and rejected the current putrid rubbish… things would change. As long as they remain uncritical consumers of this pigswill… that’s what they’ll get!

  3. Billypot

    Hey people ,The ABC attacks come from another Newman , Not the Qld one !! Maurice ,He chaired the audit commission ! He chaired the ABC Board also . He has an axe to grind !! He is a weasel , So infatuated with himself , self serving ,lowlife ,trying to destroy us !

  4. mars08

    Oh wait… we do have a critical voice of the people!

    Someone who scrutinises the government… champions the public good… and speaks truth to power. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: Clive Frederick Palmer!

    Yay, hurrah etc….

  5. kobymac

    In public good you just mean someone who agrees with you don’t you. I don’t know if you’ve ever watched the socialist love fest called Q&A – but if you watched last week they invited some Asian university student who couldn’t string a sentence together…answering questions from audience members who couldn’t string a sentence together – about science, where you need to be able to string a sentence together to hold an audience. People like intelligent and compelling discussion – its not industries fault that they are the go to people when this is required.

  6. Annie Byam

    Cynicism …. perhaps understandably …. by commenters here.

    Yes, I have noticed ( who wouldn’t ) the lack of of probing investigative journalism, produced in recent months by the ABC.

    They are literally fighting for their lives …. and wouldn’t YOU do anything to achieve continuation of YOUR life ? Of course you would.

    I do NOT think for one moment they are in Abbott’s or Murdoch’s pocket, in any way ( not that anyone has said so here ) …. and as for Maurice Newman, he is no longer chairman of the ABC board – – – – left that post in March or April 2012. His grand-standing probably has as much impact as a small puff of smoke, now.

    As for the Clive bloke ……. who the ‘eff’ knows where he is going, or what he might do. …. I seriously doubt he knows his own direction, himself. ….. But perhaps it will always be to whatever benefits him the most ….. no one in Parliament ( both sides – all sides ) should trust him.

    hmmmm !!!

  7. dafid1

    I am still waiting, since election night 2013 for an ABC News Bulletin, any ABC News Bulletin, be it RN, State, regional, local radio. ABC TV of any persuasion to start a bulletin with…The Opposition Leader says.
    I rest my case

  8. All's Not Lost

    Lefties can’t lobby for shit. How is that the commercial media’s problem?

  9. John FRaser


    After all the fear and terrorism i'm starting to long for the good old days of debt, non taxes, boats and "open for business".

    Its just so tiring to think that people gobble up the Abbott lies, time after time.

  10. John FRaser


    @All's Not Lost

    And you think that's a bad thing.

    Pretty sure when a mining company comes along and tells you they want your farm you will be wondering where the lobbyists get off.

  11. All's Not Lost

    Lobbying is important in a democracy. Lefties suck at it. They’ve yet to understand that.

  12. Phi

    You are absolutely correct Victoria – I stopped listening to radio when Howard was elected and have not turned it on since – I don’t miss it at all. I have at times felt a tad guilty as I think of the effort put in by the good journos and presenters but like you, I could not take the obsequiousness of so many interviewers with their passivity to the voices of vested interests – to the point I started yelling at the radio. No more. The TV has gone the same way.

    Independent media via internet now serves up a far broader and more intelligent range of views, information and opinion on global and local issues so I’m finished with the MSM in all its forms – print, TV and radio.

    There is no doubt whatsoever that the ABC is going to be destroyed by the arch anti-intellectual Tony Abbott, so what have the journalists got to fear? The die is cast so now is the last chance they will ever have to speak truth to this pathological regime hell bent on destroying progressive Australia.

  13. All's Not Lost

    “Every time the media fails to provide the public good with a face and a voice, they are letting the public down.”

    Who decides what “public good” means”?

  14. billy moir

    it is in the modern way, government says A the media balances with anti A. Unfortunately, in the past, the media not the government would interpret A then look for balance. Worse is the opposition interprets A and sets the agenda. the rabbott loved that game but little billy is still reading the book.

  15. Ricardo29

    Allsnotlost, you are stupid and facile and clearly Victoria’s message has gone completely over your head. The common good is served whenever the voice of a vested interest is matched by a countervailing view, no matter who it comes from but as long as there is a contrary view. That way at least an informed opinion can be reached. Like other commentators on this site I am appalled at the weakness of interrogation of so much of what passes for news. And please, spare me the double-barrelled questions, Leigh Sales (and others).

  16. roger

    “But why the ABC? Why do they fall for this lame, lazy, unthinking journalistic style which makes it impossible for a progressive government to argue their case for change? I know I’ll never get answers to these questions, but I still can’t help but ask.”
    Simple – 1. take a look at the composition of the ABC’s board. 2. Who’s in power and who hates the ABC?

  17. mars08

    Who decides what “public good” means?

    These days, more often than not, it’s some group with a truckload of money.

    THAT’S how you get to be good at lobbying!

    Ah… er but wait!!! Who decides what “a truckload of money” is? It’s back to you All Snot…!

  18. mars08

    But credit where credit is due…

    The right wing parties ARE the experts when it comes to lobbying. Just look at the glorious stuff being revealed in NSW by ICAC!! A whole bunch of LNP and ALP pollies being very industrious and making sure that everyone has a fair share of influence… as long as they have MORE than their fair share of money.

    Yes, All Snot… “lobbying is important in a democracy”… but not necessarily in a good way!

  19. whatismore

    Why is the government cutting funds to the ABC, its 24 hour propaganda machine? Nothing is surer after its reporting on the raids of Muslim communities. There has been nothing BUT this story on most ABC platforms today. I work with migrants, some of them Muslims, and I see them as just wanting to get on and find a job. Now they are probably worried about their chances if phobia has been whipped up in the community by this government.

  20. Annie Byam

    Well … for heaven’s sake, please let Bill Shorten get to the END of the book. I would suggest that in the unlikely scenario, that both leaders were given an essay to write on ANY book …….. Shorten would romp it home. …. He has common sense, and intelligence, not the high falutin ideas that this current PM has.

    Don’t be fooled by a Rhodes Scholarship. It often means little when it comes to difficulties and how to solve them. It is often philosophical and abstract in content. It is studied by an intellectual, an academic, but does not always produce someone who has intelligence.

  21. Jane Plane

    I so relate to you Victoria on this issue. It’s dishearting. You can’t stack the ABC’s management board with LNP appointments over the last decade or so and not expect a cultural shift.

  22. June M Bullivant OAM

    Hi Victoria, You have brought to the forefront an issue that is been happening for quite some time, I call it unbiased reporting, the mainstream media do not do it. You only get reporting for the public good on social media, that is why it is so important that we share information like yours so that it gets to the people on the ground that these issues are affecting. AIMN is doing a wonderful job providing a medium where we put the social side forward. It would be good if we had a media baron who would support AIMN, but in the meantime share their stories on Facebook and Twitter, only then will our voices be heard.

  23. nedkel

    The ABC rolled over for theAbbott government months ago and is no longer in any independent view of what are the big issues for the public. The ABC is now simply another Abbott parrot running constant repeats. As as I am now concerned the ABC should now be simply mothballed until there is a major change in senior management under a government that is prepared to be responsible, prepared to be accountable and prepared tosuffer the consequences of its actions. The ABC has walked away from its responsibilities to the Australian proplr under the threats of the Abbott government.

  24. Josh Hawcroft

    I believe many people (media personalities included) actually think that holding a conservative point of view or only considering their own narrow interests is actually useful, and not only useful, but that they have some innate right to have and voice such views, as if they were worth hearing. Without realising that there is no inherent right to stupidity (nor creativity) and that contemporary conservative perspectives have a tendency to undermine their own history. Which if you ask me makes them decidedly nonsensical.

    But yes, the number of times I have wanted to have a journalist ask the obvious, only to have them stick to a series of benign questions or worse not say anything at all – personally it’s incredibly frustrating.

  25. Ryan

    The ABC and SBS have been forced down the eyewitness news path by shortage of funding. John Howard spent twice as much on the war in Afghanistan ($1.6 billion in 2007-8) as on the ABC; no wonder the ABC has a very commercial network stance

  26. Margaret McMillan

    I was horrified yesterday on going to the ABC website, to find this article:

    “The tough Scott Morrison is just the politician to respond to the terrorism threat,” writes Barrie Cassidy.

    Not only are they giving us uncritical reporting about why we are going to war, the ABC is aiding and abetting the warlike language and holding at least one politician up as a knight in shining armour. Crusades anyone?

  27. Wayne Turner

    Sadly the ABC went down hill years ago,when Howard stacked the board,an old Liberal staffer is the GM,and so many right wing hacks have jobs at the ABC from the over representation by the IPA to the likes of Peter Reith,Chris Ulhmann and Tony Jones.Sadly GUTLESS Labor should have changed all that when they were previously in government.

    The Libs ABC ONLY believes in “balance” when any sort of view is expressed that is anywhere near the left,and then the right has equal or more of a say to count the previously stated left view.

    While when a view to the right is expressed,most often their is no left view expressed – The examples in this article are an example of this.Just is the having ONLY a view from BIASED & SELF SERVING industry.

    Also,the Libs ABC loves to use “false blalance’ that favors the right too eg: Giving non-expert climate change deniers equal time to believers.When 98% of EXPERTS have found climate change to be man made,and ONLY 2% haven’t.Putting these two on equal footing is stupid,because the non-believers ONLY deserve 2% coverage,while the believers should be given 98% coverage.This idiotic show was an example of this:-

    ABC = Also Biased Crap.

    Plus of course the rest of our MSM is BIASED UNDEMOCRATIC SHAM cheer squad for these Libs and anti- Labor and anti-Greens.

    The MSM has ruined our democracy 🙁

  28. Lee

    “And the saddest part – why should we have an ABC if they’re just going to take Murdoch’s side anyway? Why fight for them if they won’t fight for us, the public?”

    Good point. So long as the ABC remains biased towards the right, they won’t be under threat from the LNP though, so it really doesn’t matter if we don’t fight for them.

    It’s also not surprising that the public generally isn’t demanding better quality news services. People much prefer to obliterate their brain cells through a steady diet of Big Brother, Farmer Wants a Wife, My Kitchen Rules, Biggest Loser and all the other mindless reality tv shows out there. Thinking has become overrated.

  29. Anomander

    The ABC are almost forced to entertain the opinions of business as a way to assuage the complaints of balance.

    Every time the ABC invites a notable scientist or community representative on to discuss an issue they are constantly accused of left-wing bias.

    So, they seek to redress this supposed imbalance by inviting business people or right-wing lobbyists and commentators on to allegedly enable an alternative viewpoint.

    However, this is in fact a false representation of balance. The commercial press (Murdoch in particular) never invites left-wing opinion or expertise to participate in any discussion – because they don’t care whether someone calls them biased. They know they are and they are not accountable to the public for holding a bias.

    But thanks to public funding (and now thanks to a biased government agenda), it appears only the ABC is accountable for maintaining a balanced approach to reporting, when in truth it is utterly imbalanced.

    Business and lobbyists get a free run in the commercial media and then get to score a second guernsey on the ABC, all because of a distorted view of a supposed need to maintain balance.

    I too am sick of listening to the ABC and hearing a disproportionate number of right-wing viewpoints expressed constantly. These groups and individual already have a vehicle in which their voice goes unchallenged, or more often is completely supported – the commercial media. We don’t need our ABC infected by this distorted, uncritical thinking too.

  30. stephentardrew

    I feel the only solution to this media bias is a truly progressive media outlet like The Real News, Democracy Now, Bill Moyers and many other independent outlets in the US who are politically independent and, in most cases, do not accept corporate contributions. Our problem is an economy of scale. Critically these media outlets are not beholden to any political party and provide reasoned and well research critiques form a progressive social justice perspective. They keep both right and left neo-conservative acolytes to account and that is just what is needed. How to do that in Australia is a vital question that progressives need to confront.

  31. Marg1

    Well said Victoria, it is so disheartening. Also re: ABC – I’ve turned off from any of the news/current affairs shows too as I get annoyed at the one eyed coverage.

  32. stephentardrew

    I might add that I think it is too late to recover the ABC and SBS from the encroachment of media bias.
    The 1% percent are winning and we cannot challenge them financially from within the entrenched machinery of corporate ownership and control. The cat is out of the bag and all we can do is attempt to drag it back towards the center which will inevitably cost us dearly emotionally and financially.

  33. Jennifer Meyer-Smith

    Thankyou Victoria, for your article that gets to the heart of the matter. No voice for the grassroots people. Except for a brave few politicians of any persuasion, I don’t bother expecting their representation of me anymore. Sad fact.

    Change has to come from grassroots people, so we need journalists to speak out and that’s where we have a problem, if they’re too scared to lose their jobs, or as you say, ill-equipped to access the true voices of community members, who want to be heard.

    My disenchantment that no policy maker or journalist wants to hear my views pushes me more and more to social media.

  34. Kaye Makovec

    The public rarely spoke up in the past 30 years because they had no voice.
    1. Nobody asked for their opinion as they were not considered smart enough to understand.
    2. It was still considered the journalist’s job to give us both sides of the story and let us decide.
    Presently people rarely speak up via the MSM because if they disagree on call back radio they are abused and cut off air, their editorials are not printed and journalists don’t respond to tip offs and they are too busy copying and pasting overseas people’s work.
    TV reporters have been following the script for so long they have forgotten how to think ahead to ask the next questions. In fact most interviewers send off the script to the interviewee for approval so they can have the answers down pat.
    I thought for a little while we were getting a new breed of Parkinson and Frost in the likes of Tony Jones, Ross Coulthart etc but they fizzled out to become what I call SLOTH (slip over the hard) questions interviewers.
    So, due to reporter’s and journalist’s laziness in only giving us theirs and/or the bosses opinions for the last 3 decades or more, we have rebelled by not buying their newspapers and discovered we do have a voice in alternative media’s commentary boxes and Facebook etc.
    Whether they will continue to pay people to read what we say and ever pass it on remains to be seen. I doubt it will happen for a little while yet though until more of the non-thinkers start being hit in their own back pockets and start asking questions of their MPs.
    I think some politicians are starting to get the message of ‘we the general public won’t take it anymore’ but have no idea what to do about it as they too have been playing follow the leader and collect on pay day for so long they can’t Think either.

    And in the meantime, more stuff like this is happening behind closed doors and if it wasn’t for the alternative media we would never know.
    “Privatising big data: Will the ASIC treasure trove be sold off or sold out?” – See more at:

  35. John East Gippsland

    It has been reported that Gina Reinhart is planning to take over Fairfax entirely, giving her “a voice” through the Channel Ten network, and the Fairfax metropolitan and regional press, and their associated radio stations like 3AW and 2UE. Add to that Murdoch and the cowed ABC/SBS and we will have even less access to alternative views. What’s left? Social media…and ironically, Rupert Murdoch himself uses that to get his views and comments out to the broader community!

  36. corvus boreus

    John East Gippsland,
    I am not privy to Ms Rheinhart’s intentions, but the last news I read on the subject had her share in Farfax at around 30%, with her pushing(against principled resistance) for a greater share and editorial input/control.
    As for the ABC(and SBS),I believe they are beyond cowed, they are beseiged, with dismantling and privatisation in line after the legislature ‘amendments’ allowing their acquisition by Rupert(the master of lying hackers) have been enacted.
    Combine all this with with the hobbling of the internet, and the choice becomes; ignorant or misinformed.

  37. Amar

    I think that’s just a shitty op-ed article, with very little substance. tl;dr voice of the people = biased propaganda and pandering to the masses i.e Murdoch empire that you despise so much.

    One of the examples you talked about is the marine park/lobster fishing news story. The story is being reported on because the “The Rock Lobster Advisory Council has commissioned an independent scientific report on the likely economic impact of restricted zones….independent report estimated up to double the impact forecast in the government report”…/rock-lobster-report…/4182978

    Of course you’ll have someone from the industry commenting because they commissioned the report. The estimates on which the decision was made (the report by SARDI) is being called into question pretty much directly by the lobster industry. You are completely off in your comments about this issue (imo anyway), if the impact is too great than the industry will collapse and it will result in no future fishing. Your lazy assessment, summed up as “more fish = more industry”. Are you seriously proclaiming to know the complex dynamics of not only a whole industry but also of the marine wildlife? Something I do know is that certain environments are only capable of sustaining certain numbers of specific organisms and fishing of specific species can have very little impact or extremely damaging to the overall environment. With that in mind the marine parks could potentially have no effect on the numbers of lobsters as they are being kept in check constantly by predators and their stocks constantly are being replenished if they are fished. That’s one view point you never considerd.

    You later on goes to say journalists “aren’t skilled enough at critiquing a policy from any perspective other than the press release from the well paid lobby group.” Riiiiight, but you’re exempt from unbiased uneducated view points? Calling ABC out on ” lame, lazy, unthinking journalistic style” yet you yourself appear to subscribe to the same criticism you easily dish out. Well I guess that’s why it’s an op-ed article.

    But I’m spouting shit here that’s not really the central point of the article which is ABC needs to be the voice of the people. Not long ago a lot of journalists were told clearly to stop inviting crackpots to discuss global warming and pitting them against scientists. So why the hell would ABC ” interview a low income family who can’t afford… to park in the city”? That’s called false balance (as per above example). Why doesn’t ABC invite the government spokesmen to discuss the levy? Probably because the government is getting lampooned left right and center about the tax. I’m willing to bet they probably asked to have someone on the show from the government but they refused.

    The ABC constantly rips the government a new asshole. It is amazing seeing Joe Hockey get asked ‘Is it liberating for a politician to decide election promises don’t matter?’ right of the bat as the interview gets started, it was his first interview after the Liberals won the last election! They are not scared of the Abbot government, what a silly proposition. I can go on more about this but I will sum it up.

    I do not want a “voice of the people”. I want an impartial news reporting agency that will criticise whatever government is in power, hold them accountable and provide a platform for educating people about the current affairs. If you’re going to criticise every single journalist at the ABC, then at least attempt to do it properly without employing a slew of logical fallacies. The people do not need to be represented, they need to represent, lame ass catch phrase I know. And where are the hell are your references?!!? At least the journalists reference.

  38. Anne Byam

    May I make a suggestion ? For as many years as I can recall, the ABC has been a bastion of the people. …….. allegedly.

    Its possible that it has almost become an urban legend in it’s own time.

    The “Australian” Broadcasting Corporation …. has been seen to BELONG to the people. That’s what we have believed. It used to be known as the Australian Broadcasting Commission, but it changed to ‘corporation’ – in 1983. It has pushed on through many Governments and Government changes as to the way it is run, new stipulations, rules and regs, appointments and how they are made etc.. etc..

    It is run along the same lines as any corporation or ‘company’ ( it was called a ‘company’ until 1932 ); has a CEO, and various Directors in charge of departments, and thereon down on the ‘structure chart’.

    While it does not rely on commercial advertising for revenue, and is dependent to the largest degree on the Australian Government (s) … where funding will go now, is anyone’s guess. It has supplemented it’s income by opening ABC shops across the nation.

    The thing is ….. the ABC has been subject to ridicule, scorn on occasions, and accusations of ‘bias’ throughout it’s entire long term. No matter WHO has been in Government.

    Abused and accused of left wing bias by the LNP and followers, and of right wing bias by Labor and followers – with a few unsavoury comments thrown about by others on the Parliamentary stage.

    From the 1950’s > 1970’s it was under the control almost exclusively, of the Liberal Party. Except for one small sidestep in 1967 when John McEwan of the Country party held the leadership for about a year.

    HOWEVER, during that time, the ABC was STATE controlled, so …. ABC NSW was ABN2, Victoria ABV2, Queensland ABQ2 … and so on.

    ABC Budget cuts are not new. One lot began in 1976 > 1985 … which saw it go through first Liberal and then Labor. Both parties cut resources to the ABC during those years. Many changes have been made over many years, to the ABC. It’s been beaten up, chewed up and spat out, and still it tries to please all of the people all of the time. And still it re-invents itself …. to bring a cross section of all forms of entertainment, political investigations, topical subjects under review, topical subjects discussed and questioned, documentaries, not to mention the many many other avenues of endeavour.

    IT’S SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE. ……….. “Ya can’t please all of the people all of the time”.

    This link – IF you are interested, lists most of what the ABC offers. ……

    There is the ‘threat’ of a couple of those services being cut out altogether …. one is — Disability – “Ramp Up” — and I cannot recall the other.

    The ABC have been going through this type of thing for decades. It is owned by the Australian Government ( whoever is ‘in’ ) …. and is subject to any Governments’ whim and fancy.

    Such is the chequered history of the ABC.

    Plod on “Aunty” …. and keep doing your ‘thing’ … whatever that might be to try and remain stabilised and still ‘on air’.

  39. Jennifer Meyer-Smith

    Hear, hear Anne. Plod on Aunty.

    Your perseverance and durability is what I want to cherish about the ABC.

    However, a little bit of scrutiny on Aunty will go a long way by those of us, who want to preserve what we like about her.

    Watch the decisions made about programming, and watch the questions asked on the face-to-face news programs, discussion forums, such as Q&A, 7.30 and Insiders.

    I love Insiders and loved 7.30 with Sarah Fergusson. I want punchy in your face questions that force direct answers from the politicians on behalf of the thinking public.

  40. corvus boreus

    I like Q&A on our ABC. The pollies(with notable exceptions) and apparatchiks(+ a few smart people[and a few windbags]) front the public and(sort of) answer questions.
    Not as good as it could be, but it is good that it is(specific and general summation).

  41. George Carlin (deceased)

    It doesn`t matter if you vote left or right, the game is rigged folks.

    No one will care, as long as your footy or rugby is on the tv, everything will be fine, and when the race and religion cards are played (as they are in every country at the moment) it will be the same outcome as always. The people will still be slaves to a Government regime run by shadows in the background.

    The police will gain new sweeping powers they can abuse, and the whole system will be militarized.

    The ABC is indeed fighting for its life, but remember in past decades, it has spewed the propaganda of Government and lobbyists alike.
    Now all of main stream media ( Presstitutes) are doing nothing they havn`t been doing for the last 30 years.

    And the T.P.P. isn`t even here till October. That’s when SHTF big time. The only difference is (people are starting to notice the Bullshit)

    But its all too late folks, as the pieces of the Global puzzle come together, and you realize that our leaders sold you out 50 years ago.

    Its ok folks, just drink the fluoride and it will all be just fine and dandy. Your Government would never lie to you right?

    Its kind of like the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it…

  42. Jaia Brunt

    The March against Climate Change was certainly a show of public sentiment. I’ve been to more Street Marches this year than in the past 10 years. Just need more of us to get off the couch and into the streets…mind you here in Queensland the Bike legislation could make it tricky for more than three of us to get together should the powers-that-be decide agin’ ya. Recommend we get a head start by studying Dr Gene Sharpe’s books such as ‘From Dictatorship to Democracy’.(avail on download) We going to need it the way its going.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: