He started last week off attacking the ABC for its decision to axe its digital multichannels but when it was pointed out that it was made clear to him many times before the Budget that if he failed to give the ABC more funds they would go he looked silly and changed tack

Next he went on to attack the ABC's coverage of the war, even went so far as to say we would "defund the ABC" unless they reacted to his criticisms. The dossier he produces was widely carpeted by the rest of the media, including the editorial in the Herald Sun and opinion pages of the Daily Telgraph ans especially in the Melbourne Age last Saturday. He looked silly and changed tack....

Now he has selectively quoted from a Audit Report that is over a year old to back uo his views. Guess what! the main findings of the report gave the ABC a clean bill of health. What a tosser!

We look forward to the next change of tack from Mr Muddle Senator Alston - surely his staff can stop him digging himself into a deeper hole and advise him to keep his moth shut!!!

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2003

Answers

well you see we the people like you and me own the abc and this website despite carrying the abc logo (is it endorsement ?)is not the abc.though i am sure is valued for your welcome comment.as is said Friends of the ABC, does not warrant that any information provided on its website is accurate, complete or current. to you i can that you or the abc do not run australia, the government does and the abc will reply not someone for them.

At one regional radio abc station there was a budget.. $40 were paid to a casual per interview. At budgets year end there was still unused money in the kitty..."quick.. go out and record 50 more interviews.. we dont want to return unused money to head office" Does this really happen?

but if you work in the abc or know someone who does can you answer a couple of questions..

is it true the money is really good in the abc? i mean can you get $250.000 a year for fronting one 5 minute program.?

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2003

I am not exactly sure what your on about but I think you will find that the example used has already been denied by the presenter as absolute rubbish. It was probably made up by a vindictive Senator using Cowards Castle to dump allegations that would not survive any real test in the the outside world. Senator Santaro (the guilty party) has not even been elected yet - just appointed by the aprty to fill a vacancy - so he just acts for himself.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2003

By the way this is not an ABC site it is a community site just the Freinds of the ABC - so relax none of your tax $ are beubg used here

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2003

Lenard

I would like to make a comment about the audit report you mentioned in your first post. I didn't catch Mr Alston's selective quote from the report but I would like to outline its main findings, for the benefit of readers of this discussion forum.

I presume you mean the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) ABC Audit Report, the results of which were released in April 2002. This thorough analysis of Corporate Governance in the Broadcaster found that 'the procedures and practices observed (by the ABC) were effective in assisting the ABC to deliver news and current affairs programs that reflected the Charter requirements of independence, accuracy and impartiality.'

In other words, in relation to the issues of bias and balance, the ANAO gave the Broadcaster the thumbs up.

You will note that the media commentators and polliticians who criticise the ABC have now developed their rhetoric to speak as though ABC 'bias' is now a proven fact. It is not. No-one is saying the ABC is perfect, and of course a public organisation's workings should be open to scrutiny, but the ANAO's findings have been backed up by independent studies (such as those of Bell and Mansfield), statistics from the ABA, and polls confirming the public's support.

If habitual ABC critics (I think we know who they are) who make continual unsubstantiated accusations of systemic ABC 'bias' had acccess to even just a scintilla of cold hard evidence to prove their arguments, we would never hear the end of it. Imagine their trumpeting if the ANAO had produced the opposite finding! And yet the report is never mentioned in any of their articles, media releases or editorials. What does that tell us about their biases?

Margaret O'Connor

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2003

Margaret

If you have not seen the Alston release I have copied below. You will see what I mean by selective quotes - This guy is a disaster for public broadcasting

Senator Alston Press Reelease - 2/6/03 Audit Office highlights deficiencies in the accountability of ABC news and current affairs

In April 2002 the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) highlighted significant deficiencies in how the ABC measures adherence to its statutory responsibility under the ABC Act 1983 to ensure that its news and current affairs is independent, accurate and impartial.

In its Audit Report No. 40, Corporate Governance in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the ANAO stated that the ABC's quality reviews for radio and TV news do not assess programs for independence, accuracy and impartiality (Para 5.48).

The ANAO recommended that the ABC extend its current system of quality review to include an assessment of the legislative requirements of independence, accuracy and impartiality, and use the data to generate appropriate reports to the Board on whether these requirements were being achieved (Rec. No 8(a)).

In coming to this conclusion, the ANAO made clear that this would position the ABC Board to be able to assure itself, and the Parliament, about its achievement of the Charter requirements of the ABC's news and information programs (Para 5.46).

The ANAO also recommended that a similar extended system of quality review should apply to ABC current affairs and information programs, including information programs produced outside the News and Current Affairs Division (Rec. No 8(b)). The ABC merely agreed "to consider" potential ways of improving its quality review system (Para 5.51 (i)).

Contrary to recent claims that its report somehow gave the ABC a clean bill of health, the ANAO also found that the material presented to the ABC Board does not provide the Board, or Parliament, with sufficient information to assure that the ABC is delivering a news and information service that is independent, accurate and impartial (Para 5.63).

This is because the material on which this analysis is undertaken is based on a self-selected sample; was not statistically significant, and in any case did not collect data in the statutory categories of independence, accuracy and impartiality (Para 5.63).

As a result the ANAO recommended that, to enable the Board to assure itself that the ABC is delivering a news information service that is independent, accurate and impartial, the material regularly presented to the Board on the basis of audience feedback be improved by addressing the issues of independence, accuracy and impartiality which should be supported by appropriate statistical surveys or other analysis (Rec. No 9). Again the ABC only committed to "further examine options".

A copy of the ANAO report is at: www.anao.gov.au

Media contact: Simon Troeth 02 6277 7480 or 0439 425 373 Website: www.richardalston.dcita.gov.au

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2003

> Australians really have to bite the bullet on this issue and keep it > on the burner on cross party lines. > > With cable TV rapidly covering the country , WE DON'T NEED A NATIONAL > BROADCASTER. The whole concept is out of date. > > Shut it down or sell it or put it out to tender, and as a consequence > tax on business profits could be lowered. (significant money I saw 2 > billion in Alston's press release).

You are absolutely correct. The ABC may have once served a useful purpose, but there are now many other broadcasters that can do what the ABC does without their leftist bias and without costing the taxpayers a fortune. Pay TV, satelite dishes, free to air tv - the ABC is a dinasaur. > > In reality the ABC serves about 10% of the electorate. The very same > 10% who make up the voters for parties like the Greens, Democrats and > other self-centred, left-leaning, utopian-seeking, out-of-whack fringe > groups. Unfortunately this 10%, although completely devoid of logic, > are highly vocal (chatterers) and are not about to allow the demise of > their propaganda machine.

Agreed, The ardent supporters of the ABC, often called the "Greens" will come up with lame arguments to keep taxpayers funding their propaganda machine alive, like we pay for free to air tv which is an absolute nonsense. > > The ABC is irrelevant to the other 90% and it's bias and lack of > balance is overwhelming. Some give it a credibility it does not > deserve. > > It has to happen - now. Someone like News Ltd could bid for the > existing ABC network ( it dissapears) as a fouth free to air tv > channel with a ready made network of ABC transmitters. (how to turn > $700 million into a profit - the abc want $250 million more! )

A fourth free to air network would save taxpayers $600M a year, increased broadcast license fee and the sale of the ABC could be used to reduce government debt or improve more vital services such as health care. > > The creatvity will come from a new funded australian programing > foundation to make and sell programs for commercial television.public > television and sbs..... like NZ On Air. > > They could even buy time on commercial tv to air their programs so > that shows seen on the ABC reach a wider and more diverse audience. > > If the ABC was privatised, the current format might still be followed. > 10% of the viewing audience could be really commercial. And it would > save us $760 million dollars a year.

You could have a pay tv channel called "Your ABC" that the 10% could pay to view. > > It would be still good business if the Federal government gave the new > owners $100 million a year to preserve the basic tenants of ABC style > of presentation. > > I am sure that ABC personel would support this concept to the hilt. > AND the friends of the ABC also. > > 10% of the audience australia wide is more than the average audience > to Channel 9 sydney. Very viable indeed. It should bring a good > selling price someone like DMG could pick up JJJ. > > To subsidise the ABC faithful to the tune of $150 per year for every > family of four, is just unfair. > > Australia needs the money to fund medicare, defence and social > securiuty payments.. If I have to choose as to continue to be able to > pay pensioners or give the ABC a billion dollars a year, I'll choose > that beautiful silver haired granny of mine.

I too believe pensioners and health care are more vital than the ABC. > > And another thing, when was the last time or first time the ABC ever > bought a movie to show that wasn't of world war 2 vintage or earlier > in black and white and from the UK? Why no US movies? It is like they > want to keep us in the forties when they were needed... not now.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2003

Hey Keitha, How long did it take you and the usual suspects down at the Institute of Public Affairs to dream up that load of twoddle. Sadly you're a chilling example of what a diet Commercial Television & Radio can do to ones thought processes! P.S. You wouldn't be a close relative of Senator "Muddler" Alston by any chance?

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2003

Andrew

The Independent Complaints Review Panel of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has found the ABC's Littlemore Program to have been biased and to have repeatedly lied in its comments about the Institute of Public Affairs in the program broadcast on 9 April 2001.

But in a bizarre decision, the panel agreed with the ABC that, as a 'program of comment and opinion', it was meant to be somewhat biased and unbalanced.

In other words, the ABC not only accepts bias as a matter of policy, but is untroubled if that bias is itself based on misleading and false claims.

The Panel found that the Littlemore program misled viewers about IPA's sponsorship, its board membership, the activities of its board members, its staff and their relationship to the media, and its stance on various issues.

It found "Littlemore falsely claimed three times that Rupert Murdoch and/or News Ltd is a financial contributor to the IPA" and that "Littlemore falsely claimed that casino owners are well represented" ... on the IPA Board. These false claims, which were central to the program's critique of the Institute, were made despite the program's producer and researchers being repeatedly told otherwise by the staff of the Institute and despite them failing to find any other supporting evidence.

The Panel also found no relationship between much of the other 'evidence' presented on the program and its claims against the IPA.

David Salter---the producer of the program, and a frequent commentator on ethics in journalism---was also found to have misled ABC viewers and the management of the ABC.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2003

SO..................The Independent Complaints Review Panel of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has found the ABC's Littlemore Program to have been biased and to have repeatedly lied in its comments about the Institute of Public Affairs in the program broadcast on 9 April 2001.

But in a bizarre decision, the panel agreed with the ABC that, as a 'program of comment and opinion', it was meant to be somewhat biased and unbalanced.

In other words, the ABC not only accepts bias as a matter of policy, but is untroubled if that bias is itself based on misleading and false claims....................

what sort of a national broadcaster is this?

oh no one killed the aborigines.. why? the abc told me so

get it?

keitha

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2003