I would say their products are still far inferior to those produced and telecasted by either ABC or SBS. But yes there are alternatives (which are community funded largely).

The concern could be that Australian's will miss out of shows that aren't "commercially" viable (how long before a community funded project needs to think commercially to make ends meet?). How many more cooking shows do we need? SBS originally brought us Iron Chef look before the other shows, SBS produced and broadcasted a documentary about West Aussie regional men finding a wife (before 9 commercialised it to "Farmer Wants a Wife") etc. The point is that by being government funded these channels do not necessarily need to replicate shows, but can show original shows (even in foreign languages), or explore social issues without having to turning it into a game. The bottom dollar of SBS/ABC shows are not necessarily ratings (or advertising dollars) but providing a service to the community.

An example, the WAFL last year was picked up by Channel 7, after ABC budget cuts meant they couldn't afford to telecast games. One of the WAFL teams was sponsored by 9, so that team was not shown on Channel 7's telecasts. ABC had no such qualms the season before.

SBS now has 1x EPL game per week, plus a chunk of WC games

Channel 31/44, does it all without fully being on the public purse like SBS

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-24/mark-scott-delivers-national-press-club-address/7195888

Probably the best result that could be achieved between the two. I'd say SBS role as providing news sources from other nations has diminished lately, due to the internet and numerous channels available on cable/streaming services.

Documentary shows are largely confined to ABC and SBS .... so there is definitely a need for them. Even shows such as Q&A are very important to maintain in Australia (commercial channels have tried unsuccessfully to host similar shows) too.

I'd say with the ability to have multiple channels that a merged ABC/SBS would economically make the most sense, and take the best aspects from each.

SBS also have for years provided a great source of foreign films and TV series, that no commercial channel would touch with a ten foot pole. How would we know who Gamera or Inspector Rex was if it wasn't for SBS!

Couple of points in response:

I agree SBS has strayed from its mandate, but that is because of cuts in govt funding. They have to rely more and more on ad revenue, so are under pressure to provide more commercial content.

I think SBS is vitally important in providing and alternative perspective, and a more international outlook on news and culture.

As an example - compare "The Family Law" with that "Here Come the Habibs" on Channel 9.

As far as ABC goes, I do quibble with your point that the "state shouldn't be in the business of television anyway". They aren't really - ABC is independent. They are govt funded, but they are not an arm of the govt.

Again, I think they are crucial, mainly because of how concentrated our media ownership is. This will be even more the case when the media laws get relaxed and the TV stations tie-up with Fairfax and NewsCorp.

The only country with more concentrated media ownership than Australia was Italy under Berlusconi.

I have misrepresented reality far less than you do on a daily basis, my friend.

Oh I daresay if we look hard enough we'll find any number of serial killers, egotistical politicians, CEOs, Wall Street traders, so on and so forth with very high IQs. I do understand peer-review and statistical data, I just prefer to spend my time watching sport or researching stuff that I'm studying formally or which will be beneficial to me (languages, history, philosophy, the odd medical journal, etc). Regardless of anything I say, your assertion will remain wrong and hurtful to many people.

Anyway, I believe it was you who asserted that there is likely a correlation between those who have a high IQ and greater levels of empathy. The burden of proof is on you to prove that is the case. Not me. I don't need to prove a negative.

Schoolboy philosophy, my friend.

So you misrepresented reality


A sample size of one.
This suggests you don't understand peer review &/or statistical data analysis

Until our laws change so that false, misleading & unsubstantiated reporting is punished monetarily & criminally, I believe if anything state owned media should increase, not decrease.
This law change won't happen because Murdoch's right wing empire would be bankrupted.

Very important point.

'Left wing' in the USA is probably considered 'centrist' in Australia, and 'centrist' considered 'right wing'.

Take Medicare, for example. Tony Abbott has often trotted out the 'best friend' line - would a Republican ever dare to say that he/she is a proponent of a heavily socialised health system, let alone actually support it?

What is 'right wing' in Australia? What is the threshold?

Is David Leyonhjelm, for example, 'right wing'? Supports guns, huge proponent of free market economics, but has also promoted the traditionally 'left wing' cause of same-sex marriage, again because he believes in (extremely) small government.

Maybe that makes him a 'libertarian', but I don't think that's universally defined either.

Back to the main topic at hand, I can't see any purpose for SBS these days. Aside from the impression I get that it's strayed from its main purpose and become just another outlet for hipsters, it's 2016, and news and entertainment from non-English speaking countries can be found relatively easily (plus their football coverage is a shadow of what it once was anyway). There's no need for taxpayers to fund this.

I'm willing to cut the ABC a bit more slack, but on balance I'd still say get rid of it. It costs a stupid amount of money to run and the state shouldn't be in the business of television anyway. I might even suggest just giving it to the employees and see how they go trying to fund it themselves (like every other media organisation)...

Hmmm I think you could say the same thing about the comments on any political party's FB page!

I think you missed my point completely.

Fiscal conservatism has nothing to do with abortion. But to be regarded as a conservative in the USA you need to say that you are a fiscal conservative and 'pro-life', hence Donald Trump's backflip on abortion.

Women's choice when it comes to abortion? What about the kid's choice?
Fiscal is in relation to finance, it has nothing to do with a moral stance.

Australia is very much embroiled in identity politics. You only have to look at this forum as evidence.

We all know Murdoch Rags is a troll but people can't help but give him the time of day.

Read the comments on any FB page belonging to the Greens.

So much moral high ground, so little economics :lol:

The other issue is to ask what even qualifies as right wing or left wing. This differs across different countries, and different times.

To make broad generalisations that "right wingers are like this" or "left wingers are like that" doesn't get you anywhere.

I think there is a certain TYPE of right winger, particularly in the USA to whom you could attribute the claims made by Murdoch Rags - 9/11 truther, Obama 'birther', guns rights extremist etc.

Likewise, the type of left winger who preoccupies their time with Tumblr posts about their SJW causes, doesn't want to debate any points, loves being 'triggered', is just as bad.

The problem is when you ascribe right/left wingers with the above descriptions you are actually arguing against a strawman that only exists on a very small level. The vast majority of people live between those extremes.

The thing I really have a problem with is identity politics - but this is much more of an American phenomenon than an Australian one at this stage.

That is, if you identify as a conservative or progressive, there is a laundry list of topics you "have to" have the same opinion on.

Why does (for example) fiscal conservatism mean you have to be against women's choice when it comes to abortion?

I have a very similar view. Left leaning people seem to think money grows on trees. Moral high ground means nothing if you can't pay for it or have to extort someone else to do so.

Obviously the other end of the spectrum righties seem to think in terms of dollars and cents which makes them look heartless.

Didn't take it personally. We cool :) but what you wrote was hypocritical and JP did a pretty good job of outlining why. I do suspect you knew this but wanted to indulge in the hyperbole that is modus operandi in this particular subforum.

I'm acutely aware of how peer-review works, thank you very much, as you'd hope all current and past university students would be.

You're not aware of such research? Oh do forgive me. To be fair to you, you never did claim the existence of such research.

You merely arrived at such a ludicrous opinion without any proof.

Having a look back at what you've written in the past...



As I said back then, verba ipsissima,...

I can't relate to you finding a link between high IQ and higher levels of empathy. I cannot see any correlation between having a high IQ and being more empathetic.

Hermann Goering had an IQ that was off the charts. Even the way he mounted his defence at Nuremberg attests to that.

What does that tell you? Nothing at all.

I actually find it somewhat insulting to suggest that people with a higher IQ tend to be more empathetic.

http://au.fourfourtwo.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=83167&p=36

Not aware of such research.
That said though, you may want to educate yourself on how scientific peer review works.

What like your world view that people whose IQ levels aren't the highest are less likely to be capable of kindness, empathy and compassion than those with higher IQ levels? This all being according to your purportedly peer-reviewed research.

What tripe.

I buy in. Plenty of peer reviewed research suggests it.
Not my problem if people can't handle the message, because it shatters their worldview.

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 26/2/2016 01:43:45 AM

JP

I seriously doubt that u4486662 believes that the right aren't also culpable of labelling their opponents and exploiting ambiguous language.

He just doesn't buy into the "left-wing = honest, more intellectual, more objective vs right-wing = emotional, misleading, aimed at exploiting the stupid" narrative. In other words, he has a bullshit radar.

The sad thing is that some people do actually believe this crap.

If I've misrepresented your views, u4486662, I do apologise.

Speaking for myself, I'm neither left- nor right-wing. And, indeed, I find many things are incorrectly described as left- or right-wing.

When I'm forced to watch Q&A (left-leaning), I find myself cringing when I read many of the tweets at the bottom of the screen. Half these people don't understand the most basic tenets of economics which are (allegedly) taught in tenth grade. However, I'm equally horrified by Thatcherite politics that people like Tony Abbott push forward. I cannot stand the way our country treats its most vulnerable citizens (and those availing themselves of the protections we, lawfully and morally, should be offering).

I'm just fed up with people taking sides, failing to engage with issues, utterly missing the point. People on both sides of the political fence. A political fence which basically oughtn't to exist.

I'd like to see more people like Nick Xenephon in government, it would do our country no end of good.

Edited by quickflick: 26/2/2016 12:59:13 AM

U44, if you want to start talking about ambiguous language as a political tool then you should give up on your fantasy that it's a tactic used solely by the left.

The dog-whistle politics of the right is just as bad (I'd say it's more problematic, but then that's probably because of my political persuasion). Rather than simply stifling debate (as you suggest those left-wing buzzwords do), dog-whistling helps create and legitimise oppressive policies. Substituting racist slurs for "un-Australian" or "queue jumpers;" defending "states' rights" instead of segregation; using "family values" as code for homophobia and anti-abortion stances - those are all obvious examples of the right using misleading language to manipulate discourse and policy formation. If you want to be hyperbolic about it and say that the left's use of language is Orwellian, then it's easy to respond by suggesting that the right's use of divisive and coded language has fascist connotations.

We don't have to agree about which side's use of language is more nefarious, but surely we can agree that both sides are very much guilty of it?

(As an aside, it's pretty hypocritical of you to complain about the left "labeling and attacking the opponent's character" when your automatic response to discussions of racism and - in particular - feminism is to start complaining about "social justice warriors." )

Edited by JP: 25/2/2016 11:08:40 PM

It wasn't meant to be a personal attack on you. I was speaking in generalities and yes I did know who you were talking about.

I was speaking to the whole forum not yourself. Don't take things personally.

I wish I was surprised that a comment I made (in a meaningful but attempted humourous way) regarding the hypocrisy of Cory Bernardi prompted a lengthy response demonstrating the same hypocrisy.

I guess this is something that you've been itching to post since the news came out. Hope you're satisfied...

The left use tactics aimed at suppressing the speech of their opponent by using terms such as racist, homophobe, privilege, transphobe, mansplaining, bigot, cis etc to shut down conversation rather than engage in the debate itself. Its all about labeling and attacking the opponent's character.

They also use narrative over fact. The narrative of an issue is more important that what is actually going on. Recently in the US, a pro-choice organisation tweeted criticism of a light-hearted doritos commercial because it "humanised foetuses."

Think about that for a second. Humanised foetuses.

This is quite Orwellian and results in a subtle form of authoritarianism where people don't even see the suppression.

A perfect example happened a few weeks ago. You may have noticed in the media a shit storm brew over a supposed "pro-rape" advocate coming to these shores to spread his pro-rape message. It turns out his name is Roosh V. I had never heard of the guy before all of this but I smelled a rat instantly. The media would have us believe that this guy was hosting events around the country telling men how to rape women. I read a little more from the man himself and it turns out this all stems from a satirical article he wrote on his website 12 months ago where he effectively criticised the recent trivialisation of rape in the media and how it makes women more likely to be victims or rape and also detracts from the severity of actual incidents of rape. Now I don't necessarily agree with the views of this guy but he is about as controversial as Steve Price would be considered to be and yet he was "banned" from the country. Virtually everything written about him was untrue. It was all a lie.

Again, I don't really care about this guy personally. I'm not an advocate for what he says, but it makes you wonder about all the other bullshit the media sprout and how much it can be trusted especially when it results in censorship.

Do kids even read Orwell at school anymore?

My comment was particularly to take a dig at without a doubt the worst politician in Parliament by using an incident that happened this week. I don't buy into any bullshit :lol:

Oh c'mon. Not all people of right wing persuasion do this.

It just gets ridiculous when people (yourself and ESPECIALLY murdochrags) buy into this bullshit.

No it's to call the opponent a fraud and then accuse them of not willing to engage in debate when they're called a name like "homophobe" :lol:

Ray Martin who hosted A Current Affair for years as well as being a 60 Minutes reporter?
Dear, oh, dear :lol: :lol: