The latest round of attacks
on the ABC
The enemy within !
At the February meeting of the ABC Board, Michael Kroger
dropped in an idea that apparently had not been on the agenda - that the
ABC should sell 49 per cent of ABC Online and raise $250 million. We believe
it was raised more than once in the meeting but was not discussed. See
the Chairman's comment on this.
A few days later he wrote a letter to The Australian in
which he said: 'To seriously compete with the commercial networks into
the next century, the ABC will need to have access to additional sources
of funding beyond government handouts.'
The use of language is interesting. Does the Defence
Department exist on handouts? Does public education receive handouts?
After the 'handout' to the private health funds of $1.5 billion annually
I thought we would have heard the last of the argument that the government
couldn't afford the ABC.
Am I naive in thinking that Board members are appointed
to look after the interests of the ABC?
|
[Kroger] thinks that it is
crazy 'to believe the ABC can survive forever on government support'.
Why? Have I missed something here? Has there been a debate or referendum
where the Parliament and the public decided not to support the ABC?
Stewart Fist, The Australian,
23/2/99
|
The real beneficiaries would be the ABC audience.'
So wrote Michael Duffy, a columnist in the Brisbane
Courier Mail 15/2/99. He also posed the question 'Do we really need the
Australian Broadcasting Corporation?'
He trots out all the old arguments, too hoary to be repeated.
But I haven't heard this one before: of news and current affairs 'there
is little doubt that a private company would do a much better job.' There
is also the argument that the ABC provides unfair competition for private
companies which could perform a similar function, that is, entertainment
for the higher socio-economic group. I see - it's the ABC which holds
back the commercials from providing quality broadcasting.
|
'If a thorough review of the matters raised here were
conducted, I suspect it might conclude that most of the ABC could be sold
off, without affecting the future of any of its programs which have an
audience.'
Mr Duffy, I have news for you - in 1996 a Mr Bob Mansfield
conducted a review just like the one you suggest and found entirely the
opposite.
You say that 'the main opponents of such a sell-off,
other than the ABC itself, would be the private radio and television stations.'
No, Mr Duffy, the main opponents would be the 10,600
people who wrote to Mansfield and the hundreds of thousands who love the
ABC but didn't actually write in.
The Letters to the Editor following these outbursts were
gratifying. There were eight letters in The Australian, all against Kroger.
In the Courier Mail three were against Duffy. Not one supporting either
of the writers.
Get real, fellas, and take pride in the fact that Australia
has a public broadcasting service that stands alongside the BBC as one
of the great broadcasters of the world.
|
Friend of the BBC
It seems the Minister for Communication, Senator
Alston, has a new-found enthusiam for the BBC. 'The difference between
the BBC and the ABC is that the BBC is essentially forward-looking
and confident,' he maintains, while the people in the ABC are 'very
nervous and uncertain about the future.'
Gee! I wonder what brought that on? I can suggest
two theories.
-
The BBC thinks it can survive as a program
producer because Tony Blair's Labour Party came to power and
promised renewed support and funding.
-
ABC morale is low because the Government cut
$66 million from its funding, promoted outsourcing of its programs,
and is now engaged in flogging the organisation's main studios
at the Gore Hill site as real estate.
When you don't have enough cash to maintain low
rates of quality program production, it is difficult to get wildly
enthusiastic about spending $162 million you don't have on digital
conversion and a new building at Ultimo.
Stewart Fist, The Australian,
23/2/99
|
|