[Redlom Xof]

http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/state-liberals-propose-privatising-abc-sbs-20130521-2jz5d.html

With one company ( News corp) owning 70 % of Australian print media, I don't see how privatizing government funded media will help democracy in this country.

" arguing both broadcasters ''aggressively compete'' with private media outlets in a ''high-velocity public information environment''.

Is that not the point of public broadcasting ? To add competition and balance to privet media who have to comply with shareholders and their clients who advertise in their media ?

Thoughts ?

[GandalfTheGrey]

Is that not the point of public broadcasting ? To add competition and balance to privet media who have to comply with shareholders and their clients who advertise in their media ?

Thoughts ?

Basically.

For me, public broadcasting is the only option for news that is even remotely fair and balanced. The commercial news is, to put it extremely mildly, a joke. Periodically they have gone through phases of being semi-respectable - Nine had a bit of a reputation in decades gone by, and more recently 10 went through a very brief period of being serious. But then James Packer took over, and he unapologetically turned it back into trash. And thats the problem with commercial news - if they ever decide to be serious, there will always be a commercial motivation to turn them into trash. At least with public broadcasting, there is no commercial drive for that.

[mikema63]

Weird as this might sound news corp reminds me strongly of the news company from the fountainhead.

[Redlom Xof]

To take this to a more international level, James Murdock, chairmen of News Corp, described the British BBC as ‘curbing free speech’ and that ‘state funded journalism was a threat to democracy’.

http://www.australiancollaboration.com. ... asters.pdf

I also remember Romney in the recent American election talking about cutting funds or removing public broadcasting in America.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

The net has killed all that stuff anyway - they just don't know it yet. Sounds like a smart move to get some cash from something that won't be worth a bucket of spit ten years from now.

[GandalfTheGrey]

The net has killed all that stuff anyway - they just don't know it yet. Sounds like a smart move to get some cash from something that won't be worth a bucket of spit ten years from now.

I don't think so. In ten years I'll still be watching ABC news on the TV - the only difference will be it will be streamed from the internet, instead of over the airwaves. I'll probably also have a mobile device that I can watch it on. Same with anyone who watches commercial news.

Weird as this might sound news corp reminds me strongly of the news company from the fountainhead.

err do you mind rearranging the words so it makes a proper sentence and makes sense?

[Cartertonian]

For me, public broadcasting is the only option for news that is even remotely fair and balanced. The commercial news is, to put it extremely mildly, a joke.

QFT.

As soon as you introduce the malign influence of money into the equation, which is central as the name suggests to commercial broadcasting, then the overriding consideration in every single aspect of activity is inescapably making money. Irrelevant tat like accurately reporting the news is pushed a long way down the priority list in favour of sensationalism for the purposes of generating income from viewing figures and advertising.

[Swagman]

As soon as you introduce the malign influence of money into the equation,

God forbid, especially when you've got the abundance of the public trough to carry the cost.

[Cartertonian]

That's what the 'public trough' is for...

Broadcasting should be about broadcasting - NOT making money.

Similarly...

Healthcare should be about delivering healthcare - NOT making money.

Education should be about educating people - NOT making money.

Social care should be about helping people - NOT making money...

...and so on. All anathema to conservatives, libertarians et al.

[Swagman]

You can have social enterprise that is at least part self sustaining.

Why not fund the ABC (in part) with advertising revenues?

Why not fund hospitals / health care with nominal user pays fees?

Taking the tax payer for granted is a socialist thing but socialists always run out of other peoples' money....

[thorax232]

Public broadcasting will always have a bias toward the government itself because that's how it's funded. They will try to offer different opinions hear and there just to keep ratings up but in the end you have to pay for them and they're going to keep running no matter what.

Competing stations would mean many different types of companies with different views who need to appeal to a large audience to keep up and running. Not only that but a station itself would want many types of shows to appeal to that broad audience (to increase profits).

This all seems like public and private broadcasting are the same thing but when done privately is done more efficiently, morally (without theft) and will strive much harder to seek out all groups of people of all opinions rather than just the minimum to keep people listening. (This means more profit.)

[Kman]

That's what the 'public trough' is for...

Broadcasting should be about broadcasting - NOT making money.

Similarly...

Healthcare should be about delivering healthcare - NOT making money.

Education should be about educating people - NOT making money.

Social care should be about helping people - NOT making money...

...and so on. All anathema to conservatives, libertarians et al.

I see someone never payed attention in their Capitalism classes (if you ever had those).

[Cartertonian]

I had all the Capitalism classes I needed, growing to adulthood under the yoke of Thatcherism.

[Kman]

I had all the Capitalism classes I needed, growing to adulthood under the yoke of Thatcherism.

Yeah Thatcher was the reason why Britain was in deep shit back then, it had nothing to do with the perma-striking work shy unions that were running the show back then. Brits blaming the state of britain back then on Thatcher is like a morbidly obese fat guy getting angry at his personal trainer and claiming that the personal trainer made him fat.

[Ahovking]

To take this to a more international level, James Murdock, chairmen of News Corp, described the British BBC as ‘curbing free speech’ and that ‘state funded journalism was a threat to democracy’.

http://www.australiancollaboration.com. ... asters.pdf

I also remember Romney in the recent American election talking about cutting funds or removing public broadcasting in America.

I agree that state funded journalism was (is) a threat to democracy. There has to be a balance between state funded and private funded journalism (preferably more private funded journalism than state funded journalism).

Public broadcasting will always have a bias toward the government itself because that's how it's funded. They will try to offer different opinions hear and there just to keep ratings up but in the end you have to pay for them and they're going to keep running no matter what.

Competing stations would mean many different types of companies with different views who need to appeal to a large audience to keep up and running. Not only that but a station itself would want many types of shows to appeal to that broad audience (to increase profits).

This all seems like public and private broadcasting are the same thing but when done privately is done more efficiently, morally (without theft) and will strive much harder to seek out all groups of people of all opinions rather than just the minimum to keep people listening. (This means more profit.)

Well said, i agree.