In recent weeks there has been a lot of debate about the conflict between the expansion of the ABC and other media providers, including subscription television and potential online subscription services.

Illustration: The Australian's Jon Kudelka

Jonathan Holmes in The Drum called it ‘the showdown over Australia’s new media landscape’, and correctly observed that the conflict derives from the foray of the publicly funded Aunty into markets that need to make money in order to survive.

The temptation is to portray this as another public-interest-versus-private-interest argument. But it’s not. Holmes’ article refreshingly didn’t fall into this trap, although he accurately set out the revenue implications for companies like FOXTEL of the ABC’s planned new services. As a businessman, this hurts—as does the long list of anti-competitive and wasteful subsidies and protections given to Seven, Nine and Ten. But it also hurts as someone with a passion for television and someone who believes in the potential of television to be more than just wires and lights in a box—as the Ed Murrow character in the movie Good Night and Good Luck put it.

I want to look at the issue of the ABC’s relentless expansion from another perspective—the one that should always be foremost in our minds: its implications for the quality of Australian television. It’s my belief that the Corporation’s strategy of expanding the breadth of its activities rather than improving the quality of its activities is to the detriment of the intellectual and creative life of our nation.

For decades, the ABC has been a loved and respected Australian institution, and for good reason. In the ‘old days’ the ABC provided a unique outlet a person could turn on to view often challenging programming. It was one of the formative cultural influences for millions of Australians, including me.

The cause of this lies in the very nature of the medium of pre-digital TV itself.

Because television was ‘broadcasted’ rather than ‘narrowcasted’ in the pre-digital age, commercial stations were forced by market logic to compete for the same audience, inevitably converging around similar programming. It’s the same marketing principle that leads political parties to converge on the centre ground to get 51 per cent of the voter share. This is not to say that the commercial broadcasters did not produce some quality shows, of course they did.  But the nature of the medium means they often offered a choice between similar products with different labels.

In other words, the nature of pre-digital television made a serious form of market failure in terms of certain kinds of programming inevitable. Sections of the population went un-catered-for—hence Murrow’s lament that television has failed its true purpose. Only the ABC, free of commercial considerations, was able to offer really different programs—providing some market correction or rather a sense of balance with other perspectives and focus on things often omitted in the mainstream.

There is still a difference between what the commercial channels and the ABC offer, especially in most news and serious current affairs, although the gap in programming areas is narrowing (and certainly in the 90’s was sometimes not there in current affairs at all).

Most noticeable has been the steady decline in the intellectual content of the ABC’s programming. Ironically the ABC shows much less Australian content than the commercial channels, whilst we all recall Sea Change with affection it didn’t represent a distinguished period in the ABC in local output and the ABC has not yet recovered to levels of Australian output it had in the 70’s. It’s difficult to visit a seaside or country town these days without being an unwitting extra in an ABC ‘drama’ from that memorable series. But where is the volume we need of truly high-quality Australian programming? Where are the serious Australian-made documentaries, drama, mini-series and performance art programs on the ABC? You can still find them, but they’re fewer and further between than they should be especially given the current massive increased level of ABC funding.

What viewers want and deserve and should be getting for their ABC taxes is superior, content and a capital A in terms of national programming. There should be more dramatized novels, more serious discussion of books and science, and more edgy ABC-made versions of, The Wire and Mad Men.  This—improving content quality and scope —is where the ABC should be spending the $137 million in extra funding it is getting from the Federal Government.

Instead, it seems determined to spread the ABC’s existing content across wider delivery platforms, and over more and more channels.  Instead of a meaty minestrone, we will all have to subsist on a watery gruel. This is the real tragedy of the ABC’s grab for new territory—and it appears (from the revelations in Karen Kissane’s report in the Age on 13 March) that ABC staff are worried about this too. When the inevitable happens and funding contracts, the gruel will become Cuppa Soup.

And this tragedy will be compounded by the damage to existing quality television caused by Mark Scott’s public and aggressive strategy of targeting and replicating the subscription television sector (including through the ABC’s membership of Freeview, whose mission is obviously to steal customers from subscription providers using publicly subsidized advertising).

By expanding into 24-hour news, public affairs and dedicated children’s channels when these already exist, the ABC will potentially weaken existing television.

The ABC’s value has always rested on being a corrective to the market characteristics I mentioned above. But digital television by its very nature is making this market ‘failure’ redundant. Sport, light entertainment, reruns of classic comedies, lifestyle and reality series and drama will always probably form the bulk of what commercial television will do—and subscription television runs a lot of this programming to meet popular demand from our growing audience (now at over 35 per cent of households and with a larger portion of the population). But FOXTEL with over 200 channels is able to do much more besides, including serious intellectual programming – news, documentaries and a host of other programs. We have built these up at great cost, but this investment is put at risk by the ABC’s current strategy.

The ABC has added an ad-free children’s channel—ABC3.  FOXTEL already had two ad free kids channels —Kids Co and CBeebies, plus six other kids’ channels—and should have been able to compete for contestable funding for new Australian children’s content.

The ABC plans to create a new 24-hour news channel FOXTEL already has several (Sky News and Sky News Local, Sky News Multiview, Sky News Business, A-PAC and the Weather channel) together with Fox News, BBC World News, CNBC, CNN and Bloomberg!).

And all these channels are available at no cost to the public purse.

Why does Mark Scott want to waste the ABC’s once-in-a-lifetime level of public investment duplicating what already exists—when he could and should be leading a 21st-Century renaissance of Australian culture? What core programs is Mr Scott going to have to cut to replicate what non-ABC media players are already doing, and doing well?

It is a scandalous mis-allocation of public funds, nothing more, nothing less

I went into television to run a business, but also because I believe in the potential of television to add to the richness of our lives. That’s why FOXTEL runs far more ballet, opera, symphonies and arts programs than any other network, including the ABC—soon to be aggregated onto a new channel produced by SBS exclusively for FOXTEL and Austar. And it’s why Showtime is making a landmark TV mini-series of Australia’s most loved modern novel —Tim Winton’s Cloudstreet.

We can only do so much. As the public broadcaster, the ABC should be pulling its weight much better. Shelves full of Great Australian Novels, award winning Australian plays, popular Australian history books, important Aussie biographies, Australia’s rich scientific and university community and new ideas for Australian drama are crying out to be put on Australian screens.

But all we will get if the ABC doesn’t change course is more of what we already have—funded by the public purse instead of private enterprise.

As Murrow would say, what a waste of television’s potential to teach, illuminate and inspire.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

60 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acker says:

      05:11am | 25/03/10

      Aussie TV system sucks, I’m a pay TV subscriber, live in a rural area with crappy free to air reception, have missed out 2 years in a row watching my AFL side play live in a Prelim Final, due to anti-syphon law and FOT Station delaying the telecast plus its crappy reception.

    • Gotta be says:

      06:22am | 25/03/10

      Ah, yes. New and original. Let’s see then.

      Diff’rent Strokes
      Baywatch
      Beverly Hillbillies
      Gomer Pyle
      I Dream of Jeannie
      Magnum PI
      MASH
      Monk
      Roseanne
      All unforgettably new and original material there…
      zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    • Eric says:

      06:43am | 25/03/10

      Why are we forced to pay for the ABC anyway? It has outlived its purpose.

      Let’s redirect all ABC funding to something more culturally worthwhile, like cleaning graffiti from public urinals.

    • jk says:

      10:16am | 25/03/10

      Good one Eric! How long did that take to think up?
      Nick Minchin just retired… When will you?

    • The Guardian says:

      11:22am | 25/03/10

      Eric,are you working for Fox as well as the LNP now? Perhaps you can get a gig co-hosting with Sarah Palin. Fox has to be with out a doubt the most evil (yes evil) propaganda machine since the Nazi Party. The undeniable ideological right wing extremists that own and run this organization are not only attempting to use their influence to change the political landscape in the US but are now trying to alter and dictate it here.But guess what Eric? The average Australian is far more savvy than the average American and this so called article is another prime example of how News LTD is using its forums to manipulate the political landscape here. As for Kim Williams I suggest you realize that when you begin something like this agenda there are plenty of us out there that will gladly step up in any forum to take you down both in cyberland and on terra firma.This is Australia and one thing we don’t like is deceptive manipulation by those with their own personal agendas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Eric says:

      12:04pm | 25/03/10

      Guardian ... take a deep breath, have a Bex and a good lie down.

      There, now you feel better.

    • John Ryan says:

      12:30pm | 25/03/10

      Why Eric does the truth bother you or is FAUX NEWs on the same ideological wavelength as you

    • Nick says:

      02:40pm | 25/03/10

      Bitter Much Eric? When did you work for the ABC…and when were you fired?

    • Dave F Rocks (tryhard comic) says:

      06:45am | 25/03/10

      In Aunty’s defence I went to a totally rockin JJJ Raw Comedy (Amateur Standups) National Competition in Brisbane last week, hosted by the screamingly funny Eddie Ifft.  And the show blitzed anything on Foxtel last week Kim! As I understood it this was part of 10 comedy shows in Brisbane in the last 2 months, without counting all the other shows around the country. So what is the blinged up loudmouthed Foxtel doing about fostering new talent in Aus comedy etc Kim? Perhaps Aunty shames you with her low budget kickass content or maybe you need to take some notes? Or just say thankyou as you scoop up the emerging comics that Aunty did the heavy lifting in unearthing for you?

    • Super D says:

      07:00am | 25/03/10

      I occasionally flick over to the ABC2 breakfast show.  It’s like a blend of Sky News and an overtly socialist Kochie without the ads.  Does it provide a service that is not available elsewhere?  There are no other ad free morning news programs so thats novel, and most other news agencies aren’t so overtly left wing - perhaps Fairfax TV would be.  In terms of access to news content it is nothing new.  There are 2 commercial alternatives and half a dozen more on foxtel - there is simply no justification for the use of taxpayers funds on this sort of redundant programming.

    • Nathan says:

      01:01pm | 25/03/10

      “Duplication” of service isnt a good enough reason for the ABC *not* to be involved in certain types of content. The major free-tv stations all have news programs, but do we question the ABC’s provision of such a service?

      The ABC hasnt lived past its use-by date. It is still required to offer a commercial-pressure-free, view of Australian society. There may be other 24 hour news channels operating, all of which are on a subscription service, which not all people have access too, especially the elderly. This is the reason why the ABC should be operating such a service, and something, quite frankly, that the Australian News landscape has needed for a long time.

    • Super D says:

      02:43pm | 25/03/10

      Actually when it comes to scarce taxpayer resources, duplication is an extremely good reason for taxpayer funded entities not to be involved.  When it comes to the news products generated by the ABC programmes such as Stateline do fill a useful role - especially for staying up to date on events in the more provincial areas of our fine nation.  On major international news however their contribution is negligible.  I would rather see an ABC correspondent in Harris Park than Haiti yet the ABC has the most extensive international network of reporters of any Australian media organisation (nice work if you can get it).

      The ABC should focus squarely on under reported domestic news rather than sustaining an army of international jetsetters on the off chance their is some major international new that needs to be “Australianised”.

      Lets not forget that it was after days of incessent badgering by Australian journalists keen to “Australianise” the 9/11 story Al Qaeda eventually relented and made Australia a target.  Not our international correspondants finest hour.

    • Paul says:

      07:58am | 25/03/10

      What edgey investigative journalism or comedy are you working on Foxtel? Please tell, I’m seriously getting bored with your programming and sub fees. Some of us are old enough to remember the golden ABC - the Double-J! The ABC had the monopoly on edgey. If they did that sort of classic ABC cutting edge 80s-90s comedy, old white men like you Kim and 1950ing Howard ABC appointees would have heart attacks. Maybe that could be a good thing for the ABC,  modern cardboard cut out TV ‘culture’ and our undervalued Aussie producers/actors/performers.

    • Eric says:

      08:49am | 25/03/10

      I take it that by “edgey”, you mean “left-wing”. Left-wing journalism and comedy became mainstream 20 years ago. The ABC just rehashes the same old, same old PC tripe.

      “old white men like you Kim” - are you always racist and sexist?

    • Paul says:

      10:00am | 25/03/10

      @ Eric Edgey like exposing corruption in Qld’s police force. When did Foxtel ever match 4 Corners for exposing all manner of stuff? Umm Never Eric?

      Our Creative Industries Sector is One of our largest fastest growing sectors in Australia. Get you head out of the mining hole in the ground mate!

      No, actually,  I’m not always sexist or rascist or timist (1950ing), Foxist, or hung up on left and right type pigeon holes. What about you Eric? Are you still whacking people with your redneck political correctness like you’ve tried on me before? Yes add Redneckist to your -ist list,  Milkshake sipper!.

    • Paul says:

      10:31am | 25/03/10

      @ Eric and it was rude of me to assume that Kim is, in fact, a man. I apologise if that is not the case….

    • iansand says:

      08:30am | 25/03/10

      You can whinge or compete.  Whinging is easier.

      The ABC may have received a funding increase but it was on a severely emasculated base.  My guess is that they would love to do all the great stuff you enumerate if they could afford to.  I suspect that the commercials would also like it.  How many of their reporters and technical staff got their training with Auntie?

    • Eric says:

      08:47am | 25/03/10

      Competition would consist of the ABC actually having to earn its own money, like the other media companies do.

      Relying on coerced funding from taxpayers is anti-competitive.

    • chas_in_aus says:

      08:29am | 25/03/10

      You’re arguing this question: It’s my belief that the Corporation’s strategy of expanding the breadth of its activities rather than improving the quality of its activities is to the detriment of the intellectual and creative life of our nation.

      As evidenced by tonight’s programming, from 6:30 on ABC1 its all Aussie news & documentaries and ABC2 has 3 x USA shows, then an Aussie game show, Aussie doco, followed by 6 x UK sourced drama programmes.

      So the evidence on tonight alone demonstrates that Aunty has done nothing for the creative life of the nation, however it is stimulating the intellectual life of the nation.  In short, the ABC has delivered against less than half of it’s objective - as defined by you - as the Aussie content is virtually restricted to the news & docos (which are less expensive to produce than dramas).  We are getting quantity of programming versus quality in terms of filling ‘on air hours’, but also the ABC is failing to improve the quality of the creative life of our nation by failing to promote/offer/foster Aussie dramatic content.

    • James says:

      08:41am | 25/03/10

      So I as a taxpayer gives the ABC tens of millions of dollars to have hundreds of journalists scattered across the nation and the world to cover the sort of news the commercial sector can’t see commercial value in providing ... to me it’d be a scandal if the ABC didn’t provide a news channel in the digital environment. All those resources for one or two TV bulletins? The news channel is good value for my money. And anyone who thinks Sky News is quality reporting, journalism or a comprehensive news service is bonkers.

    • George says:

      09:22am | 25/03/10

      James,
      I think you are a little harsh on the Sky news people. David Spears is ane xcelent journalist who seems to work constantly.  Sky News is quality. I do agree with your point that if teh ABC is to be a national service it does need to provide news in the digital environment. We must all ask ourselves whetehr we really want it to be the only news service - government sponsored news service- wasn’t that model working in Soviet Russia for a while.

    • Kim says:

      10:24am | 25/03/10

      I agree James.  The worst part of it is, is that a lot of the news is censored to the max.  I have a friend that used to work as a reporter for the ABC and more than 80% of what she reported was either censored or changed to meet the governments requirements so that the *people* didn’t know what was really happenning.  If they’re going to do that sort of thing, they may as well spend their resources on digitalising.

    • Madeleine says:

      11:35am | 25/03/10

      Kim, that’s a very serious allegation. Evidence?

    • Kim says:

      12:13pm | 25/03/10

      Madeleine - Of course there’s no evidence.  All recordings that are censored are destroyed.

    • john Ryan says:

      12:36pm | 25/03/10

      George if Sky News is quality God help us,either that or you should stick to watching FAUX NEWS

    • John Ryan says:

      12:38pm | 25/03/10

      Yes it is Kim by the way how are the fairys at the bottom of the garden

    • Onceajourno says:

      01:09pm | 25/03/10

      Kim, as a former journalist, can I suggest that if 80 per cent of what a journo does is changed, it’s unlikely to be censorship - more like poor journalism.

    • Kim says:

      01:56pm | 25/03/10

      Onceajourno, I’m talking over 25 years ago.  The lady in question was working in a war torn country.  If the videos were too traumatic, they weren’t shown.  Also, bits and pieces were also taken out of the commentary so that they story changed so much that we were only shown one side of the story.  In other words, we only saw and heard what they wanted us to hear and see.  Whether this was done to protect our government or their government, I don’t know.  Or maybe it was just to *support* the western worlds “coming to the aid” of the country in question.  This obviously doesn’t happen as much now due to the internet where people post everything and anything and we get to see it all.

      @ John Ryan, yes the fairies at the bottom of my garden are very pretty and are doing extremely well.  They send their best.  Thanks for asking.

    • Chewy says:

      08:36am | 25/03/10

      Why should the ABC receive any fundung? Its nothing but a pure partisan organization. After just listening to Alison Carabine on 702 lay it into the “no talent libs” really could you imagine anyone on the ABC saying the same about the ALP?

    • Joe says:

      02:43pm | 25/03/10

      Despite all the claims the ABC is biased towards the left (or the Murdoch publications are biased towards the right), the only research done recently,  shows that the Australian media are actually mostly unbiased.  The only favoritism shown by the ABC was actually towards the Liberals and the right, when it came to one particular issue.

      Read it for yourself here: http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/pdf/MediaSlant.pdf

    • Chewy says:

      03:17pm | 25/03/10

      Joe you are aware Andrew Leigh is an ALP advisor. Friends of the ALP giving the ABC a clean bill of health. It would be funny if it were not so serious. Perhaps Maxine would agree? Shame Mike Bailey couldnt win North Sydney.
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1929528.htm
      I had to laugh at Q&A the other week when Tony Jones questioned Peter Dutton about the Liberals “Big new tax” for maternity leave and Dutton replied “why are you using those words to describe our policy, those are Kevin Rudds words”

    • Newswatcher77 says:

      08:50am | 25/03/10

      I find it laughable Kim Williams and Sky still promote “Sky News local” as a valuable addition to their news channel stable.  Try tuning into the Perth channel and see the same 2 Seven News stories from last night repeated over and over.
      It highlights the one point Mr Williams consistently glosses over is the lack of news content Sky News gathers itself - most of its news comes from the Seven and Nine news rooms, repackaged by producers who aren’t on the ground at stories. When did we last see an exclusive report on Sky News or original Sky News content that didn’t come from Canberra?
      There is room in the 24 hour news market for competition, and ABC’s entry provides fantastic opportunity for Sky to meet that challenge.  Perhaps Mr Williams is concerned ABC’s offering will show up just how poorly Sky News resources its news gathering efforts?

    • H of SA says:

      09:15am | 25/03/10

      A quick click on the author’s bio tells you all you need to know about the vested interests behind this article.

      Kim, the majorirty of Australians find some ABC content beneficial in their lives and ridiculously good value for 12 cents per diem.

      Maybe, instead of winging about the ABC providing content which takes audiences away, you could you know ....lift yout game?

    • Simon says:

      09:38am | 25/03/10

      Kim not everyone can afford subscription TV and only 34% of Australians (ozTam 2009 figures) have access to it. To quality I’m one of the lucky ones that can afford your service however I choose to remain with Free to Air.

      I purport if your argument is correct and we don’t need the ABC to provide the remaining 66% of the population with these services, then who rightly will? It seems your saying you’re saying that 66% of the population, many of whom can not afford your service, do not deserve a dedicated news channel or educational content for children?

      Even if we, as the collective, add in internet services to deliver this content, the fact remains that terrestrial TV signals (closely followed by terrestrial radio for that matter) reach more into peoples lives then any other media. I would say then, it’s prudent as the ABC is doing to spend government appropriations to reach the audience that your channels do not.

      Sure the ABC is growing its market share in providing similar traditional TV services like those on Foxtel/FreeTV, and sure they’re experimenting in small ways with next generation services, but really, as a businessman, shouldn’t your company be focused on delivering the next generation, like the services your customers don’t get via traditional terrestrial TV, ABC or not? If not, why does subscription TV exist? Your business model is changing sir.

      Australia is behind the world in many respects in interactive and next generation TV so I say don’t waste your companies money on arguments like this. My challenge to you is to provide Australia with 1) Social TV 2) home network internet connected TV. Now that’s subscription TV services I might consider paying for.

    • John says:

      09:52am | 25/03/10

      Generally agree with Kim Williams, ABC TV risks becoming more a media distributor than a content producer, and I think this is contrary to the public interest.  Whilst there’d be a political imperative to reach the people and use new media, and innovative services like iView are appreciated and popular, the core goals of a national broadcaster in an expanding media landscape need to be re-evaluated.  The ABC still provides ad-free and quality news and current affairs, with investigative stuff that often surpasses that of other TV services, but is this the main key differentiator or value-add, and if so, is this sufficient given the hefty public investment?  It needs to focus more on areas of community value (and not necessarily always highly intellectual) that other media/TV aren’t doing or likely won’t do.  That said, maybe SBS has trumped the ABC in some respects, further clouding the role of the ABC?

    • Coreten says:

      09:53pm | 29/03/10

      iView is hardly innovative.  The idea has been in the US for the past 10 yrs when internet video first started and the ABC’s iView specifically is a rip-off of the BBC’s service.

      In fact, the ABC tries desperately to imitate the BBC, but continues to do so in a half-hearted way.  They just can’t produce dramatic television like the BBC.

    • Zeta says:

      10:22am | 25/03/10

      Wait a second… Isn’t Kim Williams the head of an organisation with annual revenue of $165 million per year, $75 million of which is profit? Where does that money come from? A magical good will tree of money that grows from the tears of Telstra shareholders?

      No. They charge stupid people money to watch commercials they could see on the internet for free. And then they charge stupid advertisers more money to show their ads to stupid people. And then everyone cheers and watches Keeping up with the Kardashans.

      Company Executives have proved this century they are pretty bad souls that will, I hope, either spend millenia in purgatory paying for their sins or else be forbidden from entering Valhalla. But that’s just the punishment reserved for your run of the mill CEOs, the kind that just quietly go to their job each day, exploit loopholes, their staff, make obscene amounts of money, and then retire with a mistress. You know, the good ones. These guys who actively lie to the public, that cry poor with their hands on their hearts and say ‘woe is me, the ABC is making my ability to make millions of dollars slightly more difficult’ the hypocrites who demand the Government regulate them less while also demanding they intervene whenever something doesn’t go quite perfectly for them or they accidently the whole GFC… these guys have a special Hell reserved for them.

      The Hell of Watching Foxtel. In the Chinese mythology, known as The Hell of Peeling Skin. Here is what is on Foxtel right now Mr. Williams. This is what awaits you in the afterlife:

      NCIS - A show where fat Americans idolise the assassination skills of their Israeli overlords and co-brand alternative asthetics for dollars at Hot Topic.
      Entourage - A show where fat Americans can live vicariously through a group of sociopaths as they overcome their inhumanity in the face of Holywood’s crushing social preasures.
      Property Ladders - A show where the promise of home ownership is dangled in front of the proles before cruelly being snatched away.
      Allo Allo - A show where fat Americans can laugh at people with French accents while completely missing the point.

      I can’t go through the rest. I lack the moral fortitude. Suffice to say, you don’t want to miss Sex… With Mom and Dad on MTV, re-runs of Matlock, or Premier League Snooker…

    • H of SA says:

      12:04pm | 25/03/10

      Zeta, your second paragraphs hits some nails on the head. As does the second to last. The fact that people have discovered this way to just reach into people’s pockets (advertisers and viewers) and extract money in return for such product is a case of reality being stranger than fiction.

      It amazes me, with the amount of money people spend on advertising. Very few companies have figured out that spending there advertising money on TV is a poor investment compared to other forms of advertising. Consider, you can pay zillions to put your add on TV where people will mute the volume cuz they are so sick of being screamed at or will simply leave the room. And the many like me, that will for a pittance go down to the DVD store and hire only the shows they want – to watch when it suits them and not the network. Or the even larger number who just watch the show illegally over the net. TV delivers big audiences? Your having a larf.

      Or alternatively you can put your add in a niche magazine where only people interested in beauty products/car specials ect will be reading – for a fraction of the cost of TV. Or your company can hold a promo event and literally put the product in people’s hands to try, or you can do a viral campaign……yet very wealthy companies still throw their cash down the TV hole.

      So commercial TV can’t make content that matches up to what the ABC does for twelve cents a day per customer. As opposed to FOX’s far higher charges depending on what you want to watch. Could it be, just possibly that commercial interest means much more effort is expended on overselling the effectiveness of TV advertising to gullible companies/or overselling the pay subscription to gullible consumers (I think Fox’s “special limited offer” of free instillation has been going for about 7 years now – I bet whoever came up with that idea got a promotion – I know boss we will make up a fictional charge for the right to be our customer, waive said fictional charge, and everyone will love us!), than is expended on delivering quality content. Just look at the 50’sTV reruns to see the truth of this.

      The state of Australian TV is abominable. Without the ABC it would become even worse.

      It amazes me, with the amount of money people spend on advertsing. Very few companies have figured out that spending there advertising money on TV is a poor investment compared to other forms of advertising

    • Clem says:

      03:14pm | 25/03/10

      Nice work Zeta. Exactly what I was thinking. He’s pretending to be worried about the quality of the ABC dwindling, but what he’s really worried about is the fact that digital ABC has branched out into three channels, and what’s more, they’re free. And even more threatening to pay tv, it’s not absolute shite like what the Foxtel base package is. In fact, it’s pretty bloody good. I’d rather pay for that out of money I’d never see anyway than pay out of the after-tax money I would otherwise spend on important things like food, shelter and alcohol.

    • Danny B says:

      03:41pm | 09/11/10

      Zeta,
      I take issues with two of the shows you’ve listed as examples of hell:
      NCIS - these days, with 4 or 5 different flavours of shows such as CSI, it’s refreshing to have a crime drama that at least tries to be original.  However, if you had mentioned NCIS:LA, I would be in complete agreement with you.

      Allo Allo is actually British comedy, and quite good at that.  And if you actually watched it, you’d see that the British completely take the piss out of themselves more so than any other nationalities - British Intelligence is portrayed as incompetent, etc.

    • Adam says:

      11:37am | 25/03/10

      Totally agree Kim. What on earth is the public sector doing in broadcasting full stop? They can’t get the basics - like hospitals - right for christ’s sake.

      Then they have the nerve to inflict the most archaic & restrictive regulatory regime onto sport viewers - the anti-siphoning list.

      God knows why Howard and Coonan didn’t sort this out when they had the chance. Were they asleep??

    • John T says:

      12:03pm | 25/03/10

      Pay-TV has certainly stolen a march on the ABC in its news coverage but this doesn’t mean that the latter shouldn’t go ahead with its plans.

      Some questions:

      1. Why can’t some Pay TV services eg Sky News, APAC, Fox Sport News be shown on FTA TV as is done in the UK Freeview system ? SBS has a couple of un- or underutilised channels which could be made available.

      2, Why can’t the ABC 24/7 News Service be instituted immediately? It could use ABC2 during the day (admittedly this would reaquire removing one of the ABC’s three children’s program streams aired during school hours). At night it could take a leaf out of the BBC’s book and transmit its news programs after 9pm on ABC3 when the kids’ programs stop.

      3. The ABC is removing archived video of some of its news programs after a short time. Stateline appears to have, within the last month or so, changed its archiving policy. Videos are now only available for a short time and transcripts are no longer provided for all items, including significant ones such as this month’s Foley-Griffiths SA election debate (a different version to that now on the Stateline website http://bit.ly/aBcNiV was screened on 5 March).  Why will this item only remain online until 3 June when the transcripts of others going back to 2003 will?

      4. Why does the ABC not telecast Federal Parliament (other than Question Time)?  APAC does (and its telecasts are sometimes worth watching just to see the exodus from the chamber when QT finishes).

      5. If Mr Williams is sincere about the range of news programs available on Pay-TV why doesn’t Foxtel show Al-Jazeera English?

      6. I’m a Foxtel subscriber (basic SD service + sport package). I understand why Pay-TV needs to offer a certain number of programs in its basic subscription package, but why won’t the industry move with the times and extend a micro-payment (iTunes style) system for other programs (not just movies)?  Also why are there so many restrictions on suspending your service eg 1 month minimum once a year, even for longstanding and out-of contract customers?

      7. Why is Foxtel’s feedback & complaints system http://bit.ly/di6F1L so complicated? You can either send an email (but the website says it will not be acknowledged or answered) or you can go through a mandatory 3 stage process to get to the “Customer Advocate”.  Is there really such a person?

      8.Foxtel comes into my home via cable yet its SD picture quality is decidely inferior to FTA SD (I’ve compared transmissions of sporting events which are shown on both)  . I’ve heard other people say the same thing. Is Foxtel proposing to phase out its existing SD services and require its customers to upgrade to other more expensive services?

    • Coreten says:

      09:49pm | 29/03/10

      Re: 5, Al Jazeera is on Foxtel & Austar.

    • Elizabeth E says:

      12:05pm | 25/03/10

      I pay for Foxtel and unbelievably I watch mainly ABC with the exception of the Documentary channels. I just can’t handle the adds on free to air. Even Foxtel is getting to many adds now. How much of our tv time do we actually spend listening to what soap powder ect we should use? must be alot. I find ABC less bias in its reporting. I want to know the facts and I am adult enough to make up my mind on how I feel on issues. I don’t want some reporter telling me how he feels I should think. I was annoyed the other day when a Foxtel reporter kept telling us all who he thought won the debate. He was insistent. I want to decide. Probably childish of me but thats half the fun of it all. Well you have my rant for the day but thanks for airing this issue and giving me a chance to sound off.

    • Clem says:

      12:41pm | 25/03/10

      Nah Elizabeth E, not childish of you. On the contrary, you want to be treated as an adult.

      Why don’t you ditch the pay TV subscription? If you miss anything worthwhile you can always buy it on DVD and still be ahead.

    • stephen says:

      12:31pm | 25/03/10

      Ten years ago, Phillip Adams made the recommendation that Britain’s Channel 4 style programming should be introduced to the ABC.
      Unfortunately, no such thing happened, and now it’s good for Sunday viewing only (finger-food and lisp crowd only).

    • SM says:

      12:38pm | 25/03/10

      Mr Williams argument is a fair one, and similar to that made by the owners of this website in relation to charging consumers for online content - whenever the subject comes up the ABC pipes up and says “don’t worry, we’ll be providing it for free”.  Except that, of course, it’s not free.

    • H of SA says:

      03:07pm | 25/03/10

      Its 12 cents per diem. Thinks News LTD will keep it that low?

    • Ian says:

      12:50pm | 25/03/10

      I think the shift in the News stable, to abandon independent and investigative journalism in favour of reporting the views of owner Rupert Murdoch, has driven many readers/viewers away from its products - I’m not likely to pay to hear his increasingly conservative opinions. And it’s with this powerful and pervasive News empire in mind that public broadcasters (ABC, BBC, etc) need to provide “some market correction or rather a sense of balance”.

      You’ll no doubt brand me a “lefty” and stop listening (like Eric [Abetz?] above), but I’d have to observe that most of the creators of imaginative content in the last century have been left wing and libertarian thinkers. Foxtel could have new, edgy, exciting Australian content if it was prepared to take some risks and widen its horizons. Some programs will fail, but some will triumph.

      As to the CEO of Foxtel alluding to the potential of television to illuminate and inspire… You have the opportunity to make and air such television. Do it and you will succeed, regardless of what the free to airs and ABC are doing.

    • jit lit says:

      12:47pm | 25/03/10

      ABC is currently Labor’s propaganda machine. When ABC is going to hire some talented journalists with some balanced views?

    • Peter says:

      12:52pm | 25/03/10

      Conflict of interest?

      Kim Williams runs Foxtel, partly owned by News Ltd, the same company that owns The Punch. News Ltd is currently running a campaign against publicly funded media. Publicly funded media offers news free to the public. News Ltd wants to put its online news behind a pay wall. If people have access to free news why would they go to a site and pay for it? Hence the virulent campaign by News Ltd against public media corporations like the BBC and now the ABC. This is just another piece of propaganda in that campaign.

    • H of SA says:

      03:16pm | 25/03/10

      Nail, Head, Hammer, hammer Peter. Its surprising the News Ltd genuinely believes we are dumb enought to fall for this. Not much respect for their audience. Given their content (Punch is better than most) its hardly surprising they think so little of their audience.

    • LukeT says:

      01:01pm | 25/03/10

      ABC is the only watchable channel on FTA TV. If they shut it down I’ll have to download ALL my shows from america

    • Mike says:

      12:59pm | 25/03/10

      I believe Australia needs a strong independent and community responsive Public broadcaster. Neither the ABC nor SBS fits into this category. As time has gone by both these broadcasters have become too politically left wing and (openly and without regret) blatantly bias.

      More than 40 percent of Australians are conservative voters and yet 95 percent of views expressed on the ABC and SBS are ALP or Green views. So, if we cannot get a true independent broadcaster in Australia I would suggest that we privatize both the ABC and SBS and let them derive their income from their support base. Any future government funding for either of these two broadcasters essentially become pre paid advertising for the ALP and the Greens on these networks.

    • Michael of BNE says:

      01:49pm | 25/03/10

      So this article was written by the CEO of Foxtel Pty.Ltd. Mr Williams must be scared that what taxes he has not been able to minimize is funding a 24hr hour advertisement free channel. In competition with his organisation.  Since inception of Foxtel TV/Galaxy TV/Optus TV/Austar TV. Australians were promised New programming exciting television less repeats and Advertisement free viewing with Australia’s Pay Subscription Television Service.  But What have Australia really got American News channels and British News channel with half hourly updates. Extensive advertising on every television channel offered except for the adults channels but i never purchased, so I can not verify if there was advertising or not.  Foxtels’ reasoning for allowing and selling advertising was to keep costs down for the end consumer. But I have yet to see Foxtel drop the price of it packages. Therefore as a consumer what i can see is that Foxtel Austar and Optus are charging advertisers and customers for repeats of shows quarterly. So how is who is wasting money with all the revenue that this company is making and the rehashing of programming.  Who is really wasting money !!!!

    • R Control says:

      02:11pm | 25/03/10

      Interesting comments, but it does prompt the question, maybe the ABC’s commercial arm should be allowed to expand? They could provide subscription TV, per view, video on-demand, as many digital chanels as the market demands (even re-cycled american rubbish if theres a demand), also sell advertising and re-invest the profits that Foxtel have so helpfully shown is that can be generated, back into our public broadcaster?

    • R Control says:

      02:40pm | 25/03/10

      Sorry Kim, and while your at it, could you get Senator Conroy to completely switch off that internet thingy. Those pesky people who want to have the freedom of choice to watch what they want when they want have no place in this society. Do they?

    • Michael_S says:

      02:30pm | 25/03/10

      Thanks Mr Williams; you’ve just given me the last reason to cancel my Foxtel subscription!

    • Stephen says:

      03:34pm | 25/03/10

      I only subscribe to Foxtel because they pinched all the international soccer coverage off SBS. Unfortunately I also have to pay for a bunch of useless and trashy channels that I never watch. For quality television, both news and drama,  I still watch the ABC and SBS.

    • barry says:

      05:26pm | 25/03/10

      How about getting an alternative viewpoint from the ABC? Kim Williams’ ‘advice’ for the ABC, no doubt unselfishly offered without the least hint of vested interest or commercial bias, is predictable and unwelcome. The alternative to what the ABC already offers is already plain to see on the commercial networks -endless banality, appalling standards.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

RT @mumbletwits: +1 MT @meadea Adding voice to the boss RT @abcmarkscott: Hereby instruct @Colvinius to make a swift return to good health. (Take care Mark.)

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

Under pressure himself over his crusade against Craig Thomson, Tony Abbott has moved to present a softer…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter