As big as television in the 1950s – the ABC lays out plans for the next 20 years
The ABC has acknowledged how fast the media is changing with the launch of ‘ABC 2.0’, a set of initiatives to change the way content is served to audiences.
At its inaugural annual public meeting this morning, the national broadcaster’s senior management described how the organisation would focus on evolving into being “fit for the digital challenges of the next 20 years”.
Milne is comparing the shift to ABC’s decision in 1956 to move into television
Quack, quack, blah, blah, blah. [quote] “Our role as Australia’s public broadcaster is now more important than ever.” [unquote]
How? Why is it more important than ever? Perhaps because it is employing you.
Cutting costs, cutting employment, saving on management and travel expenses? what is this? A bean counters convention? A shareholders free lunch? This is the national broadcaster, our beloved old Aunty.
[quote] “By the end of 2018 our savings over the last the five years will have increased to $324m; of which we have handed back 78% to government and put the balance back into content for you, our audiences. [unquote] Apart from the fact that the quoted statement doesn’t make sense ( perhaps the novel and contradictory syntax) who else but we, the audience, would be the beneficiary of all this industry and expense?
The ABC has been doomed for years because a political bias exists, and there has always been carping over the costs. One eighth of the BBC budget? Why compare that to the one third audience numbers, a bigger audience should equal less cost, not more. The budget is woefully insufficient for the ABC to step up to the place where it deserves to be, and overseas productions are swamping, they have always been a threat and they (along with certain politicians) will ultimately drown us.
Two thirds of the speeches had nothing to do with finance. But then that was roughly the proportion that was froth and bubble. So it’s not surprising that the Mumbrella report focused on the financials.
One quote from the textual part of the meeting you might like: “In 1987 the ABC famously cost eight cents a day. Adjusted for inflation and population growth, the ABC today costs each Australian just half that amount.”
It also points out that for the same cost as 22 hours of the US version of House of Cards, the ABC has commissioned 277 hours of Australian TV.
Regarding the future of the ABC, the only thing of note mentioned was that the ABC’s archives are to be entirely digitised (an announcement upstaged by recent stories about the loss of ABC library jobs).
A feature will also be added to iView that has been there for a long time.
Standing behind the bowlers wicket with arms outstretched, the umpire is heard to say “That’s a wide…didn’t even land on the pitch”.
Are you saying the ABC is politically biased or that there is a political bias AGAINST Aunty? If the former, then enquiry after enquiry ad nauseum has found no perceptible bias.
I am saying that there is a general notion that the ABC is left wing, and there is a resistance by governments of either persuasion to support or up the financial support, based upon a political fear and a dissatisfaction with a perceived anti government stance of many ABC interview programs. I am not surprised that enquiry after enquiry has found no political bias.
I am not surprised that enquiry after enquiry has found no political bias. Because there is none.
Imagine a country without an unbiased national broadcaster that has no affiliations with any corporations, free to investigate and write stories about anything of public interest without financial consequences?
I never see a negative article about government policy if the front page of such news organisation has government sponsored advertising about such new policy.
Unlike the media that we all work with in our daily lives here in media land the ABC should have garanteed funding regardless of their content. With certain conditions that they meet the public interest which can be determined by a judge if ever challenged, it’s purpose of giving the nation a balanced coverage will almost guarantee we never get a Trump of a Prime Minister.
Or here’s another thought.. imagine if all journalism was not funded by ads, but funded by something the readers had…..CPU power, mining cryptocurrency for the publisher to pay the journalists whilst the readers are reading or watching….there’s an unbiased future without need for an ABC. It would also provide a massive incentive for publishers to get people gripped into long form investigative pieces rather than traffic hits with a few clicks, as time on site becomes as valuable as numbers.
It’s time for commercial media to do what they should have done a decade ago: a class action against the Commonwealth Government seeking full compensation for losses incurred by the seizure of their property by the Commonwealth. Their commercial property is audience share – as acknowledged in a million different industry contracts. That property is being seized by the Commonwealth’s agency, the ABC, without compensation, which is provided for in the Australian Constitution. Adding insult to injury, they pay company taxes for the ABC to engage in this theft. It’s time to make the ABC commercially accountable, and include individual executives personally in the action.
So you want the government and ultimately the tax-payer to pay profitable, commercial mass-media companies hundreds of millions of dollars, potentially billions of dollars? Why in the hell?! Unless, which is the only reasonable assumption, you’re a shareholder yourself.
The government could then withdraw the media industry’s broadcasting spectrum leases, and access to Commonwealth owned cable right-of-ways.
Next, the citizens of Australia could sue the commercial media industry for theft of mindshare.
Isn’t it time we restored the ABC’s funding? At 4 cents per day no wonder they are totally overstretched. Here’s a suggestion – let’s take the long view and increase their funding by a guaranteed $100M per year for the next decade. These additional funds must be spent on content commissioned from and produced by the independent sector. Without this we simply will not have watchable, authentic Australian drama on our national broadcaster.
This is an example of the (slightly modified) line “You can fool all the journalists all the time”! So many ran with the headline picked up by Linda Klejus that the ABC now runs on only “4 cents a day” when what Louise Higgins ACTUALLY said was “In 1987 dollar terms we now cost each Australian just four cents a day”. She was careful NOT to say what the ABC ACTUALLY costs per capita in 2018, Funny ’bout that. She was obviously confident that the dumb hacks reporting her speech would get it wrong followed by all of their lemming followers on Fakebook et al. Bit sad. Give us the REAL numbers Louise.
Dear Ex-ABC, I agree lets have the real numbers whatever that means, but it doesn’t change my point. Clearly the ABC is being starved of funds – so I suggest gradually increasing funding over a decade with clear obligations to commission from the independent sector.