Sunday 29th of December 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

the principle of serving self interest .....

the principle of serving self interest .....

from Crikey .....

A quarter-billion dollar rort and the media plays dead. Wonder why?

Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:

FREETV AUSTRALIA, LICENCE FEES, MEDIA

You would think that the Government handing a quarter of a billion dollars over two years to a powerful industry, ostensibly for protectionist purposes of maintaining local production, would garner a bit of attention in the media. And you'd be right. There'd be a decent-sized splash in the press. Free marketeers would emerge to attack the Government. Press Gallery commentators would muse on the electoral politics of the handouts. Economists would count the cost of subsidies.

But the Government's weekend handout to the free-to-air television networks - $100-odd million this year and $150m next - has sunk with barely a trace in the media. What coverage there was was nearly all flat reporting.

It didn't sink without trace in the markets. Ten's share price rose 9%, Seven's 2%. Goldman Sachs substantially lifted its earnings and cash flow forecasts for the networks. And why not? It's a direct transfer of a quarter of a billion dollars from taxpayers to the owners of the free-to-air networks - which as Glenn Dyer pointed out yesterday include most of the senior television executives in the country.

The rationale from the Government for this handout was a one-page press release. One lousy page. 400 words. This Government normally at least does the pro forma thing and conducts a review before handing out hundreds of millions of dollars. In this case, the "review" was a laughable "independent analysis" of overseas licence fees by the networks' lobbying group FreeTV Australia (we await the angry missive from Julie Flynn).

Boiled down, the justification for this staggering generosity is that free-to-air broadcasters are facing a converging media environment and costs associated with digital television.

"Rolling out multiple digital television channels to regions which have previously had limited services is a particular challenge," Stephen Conroy said in his press release. "The Government recognises that the commercial television broadcasters will require some assistance to maintain Australian content production, while investing in a new delivery platform nationally."

The only problem with that is that the free-to-air broadcasters have repeatedly - repeatedly - been compensated previously for the transition to digital television. The entire digital television framework introduced at the start of this decade is based on compensating the free-to-air broadcasters. Here's what they get already:

*         a moratorium on competition, with a ban on a new free-to-air network despite plenty of spectrum for it;

*        7Mhz of spectrum for broadcasting, handed to them for free and without any bidding process, ostensibly so that they could drive digital take-up for digital switchover in 2008;

*        a ban on subscription television buying attractive sports content via the most restrictive anti-siphoning list in the world (most of which the free-to-airs never show);

*       regional broadcasters are getting $260m over an extended period to directly offset their digital transmission costs.

The free-to-airs also get access to a 20% tax rebate for their production costs, under the Producer Offset.

There hasn't been any significant increase in television production costs lately, and the sector is anticipating a big year of advertising revenue growth as the economic growth picks up.

This is an absolutely wretched decision by the Government. It's up there with the very worst policy calls of the Howard Government. It's a disgrace, bordering on outright corruption with an election around the corner. And taxpayers are paying for it.

Which makes the media's silence all the more culpable. Where's The Australian, with its anti-protectionist editorial line and hostility to Labor? If it was some other form of domestic manufacturing, The Oz would have been first in line to deliver a kicking. Silent, except to report that free-to-air share prices rose and the subscription sector is up in arms.

Then again, it has, to use Rupert's phrase, a dog in the fight - News Ltd is still hopeful that Stephen Conroy will reduce the anti-siphoning list as part of his review this year, which will directly benefit Premier Media, which News half-owns, and Foxtel, which it one-quarter owns. News will also be more concerned than ever for the Government to put its international news service up for tender again, so that Sky News (one-third owned by BSkyB) has a chance of snatching it from the ABC. Without the international contract, Sky News faces a difficult future against the new ABC news channel.

Given News Corporation's track record in international broadcasting in the Asia-Pacific, in the form of Star TV and its readiness to comply with the demands of the Chinese communist party, the Government would be mad to hand its international reputation to Rupert, but doubtless it will keep News in suspense until after the election comes and goes.

The failure of the Fairfax papers to go after this disgrace is more confusing. Only Peter Martin had a go, pointing out the broadcasters were being given huge handouts with no requirement for increased production. Perhaps Fairfax holds out some hope that the Government will give it some relief on regional radio news.

Nor has the Federal Opposition gone after it, not even via Senate Estimates to demand how the generous levels of handouts were determined. But they, like the Government, will be acutely aware of the power of the free-to-air networks in an election year.

And while Stephen Conroy's name is on the press release, the author of the decision is Kevin Rudd, doubtless in consultation with his former boss Wayne Goss, head of FreeTV Australia.

This disgusting, cynical decision would be ripped apart by a media or Opposition with a genuine commitment to accountability. Instead, everyone is keeping their heads down and staying quiet while taxpayers gift vast sums to the most cosseted cartel in Australia.


pass the pink batts .....

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has challenged Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to explain how he only objected to moves to cut $250 million from TV network licence fees after meeting News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch.

Senator Conroy said News Ltd, with its 25 per cent stake in subscription TV provider Foxtel, was clearly very unhappy with the government's decision to slash licence fees for the free-to-air networks.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/conroy---to-abbott-please-explain-20100221-on5q.html

The Media elects governments! No?

In his position of "insider information" Bernard Keane would know well that the media elects governments whether they be State or Federal whether they be Australian or US.

His "expose" of "currying favour" by the Politicians (whoever) to the all powerful information controllers must surely be a naive expression of distaste for something that was prevelant perhaps before he was born.

No matter what political definition is in power, in any country, anywhere in the world - they are responsible - or liable for - the information which the media eventually releases to the public.

Is the information of the Town Crier any different to the current bias? Only in that it was a genuine old-fashioned duplicate of the total control.  The only thing that is consistent is change.

With due respect for Bernard, the power of the "free" press has "influenced" dramatically the "opinions" of the reporters [if they want to be employed] or they are old news which has happened to some upstart journalists who dared to cross the line.

I would like to say to Bernard - it is clearly arguable that IMHO - the media does elect governments and, the politicians must realise this and dance to the music of those information Barons.

The people will judge the next election on the "opinion" information of the "powers that be" and God help the major party who upsets their unrestrained power.

I can also say to Bernard that, in my day, [struth I am old] the media was obliged to name the source of their so-called information, expecially if it could be inflamatory.  Now the false impression of "freedom" has again been abused when Murdoch employed journalists are prosecuted for their honesty [Herald Sun?)

What would you do Bernard IF Abbott accused you of corruption - there is no other word for it - so the media calls him "slugger" instead of the "Mad Monk" which name resonates with most Australians.

It should not be the democratic right of a print for profit media to express to the public that "some people say" - it "has been reported" - "experts have stated" and, how about "some people say"?

All are pursuasive and indicate a curruption that Bernard sees in the Politicians who have to toe the line to exist.

Unless we have another Gough Whitlam the Australian people are going to be tested for the wisdom, reasoning and logic that our forefathers relied upon.

God Bless Australia and may the "Australian" newspaper be forced to be "National" or lose its title due to the National Interests. NE OUBLIE.

 

 

murdochracy .....

What is a murdochracy? It is where the fealty and augmentation of Murdoch's editors and managers are undisguised, an inspiration to his choir on seven continents, where even his competitors sing along, and wise politicians heed the Murdochism: "What'll it be? A headline a day or a bucket of shit a day?"

While the veracity of this celebrated remark is sometimes disputed, its spirit is not. Stricken with pneumonia, the former Prime Minister John Howard dragged himself out of bed to pay obeisance to the man to whom he owed many empty buckets. His successor, Kevin Rudd, scurried to an obligatory audience with Murdoch in New York prior to his election. This is standard across the planet.

Before he took power, Tony Blair was flown to an island off Queensland to stand at the blue Newscorp lectern and pledge Thatcherism and media deregulation to the jowled figure nodding in the front row. The next day, the Sun lauded Blair as one who "has vision [and] speaks our language on morality and family life."

http://www.truthout.org/welcome-worlds-first-murdochracy57547

Perhaps F.F.F. Fielding will solve the impass.

I have made my opinion of the Senate and its undemocratic functions as clear as I can.  Years ago I asked for a debate on a website but it was ignored.

There is no doubt in my mind that the intentions of the Founding fathers was to ensure as best as possible that less populated States and Territories have an EQUAL VOTE on legislation that may, in their opinion, disadvantage their constituents.

Of course without argument, their election by their constituents in their State/Territory is to vote INDEPENDENTLY in the Senate debate.  If they disagree with each other (the statutory State five) then the majority rules.  As a case in point, Barnaby Joyce campaigned against the sale of Telstra - but after he was elected he voted for its sale.  Because his National Party said so.  Struth.  They stabbed Caesar didn't they?  Only joking Gus and John.

Surely that is indisputable?  Unless the independent obligation is forcefully applied then you can have what we had in 1975 and are working up to again in 2010.  The Greek and Roman Senates which we may try to copy, were NOT party hacks but, had their lobbyists as we do today.

Our Constitution was dated 1900 (after 10 years of composing) and the oldest political Party in Australia is the Australian Labour Party who contested elections as early as 1891.

My point then, is that when the Australian Constitution Act 1900 (UK) became law, the only established “party” was the ALP.

Without claiming any special privilege for the ALP, it is nevertheless obvious in that era that the UK would NOT encourage a “worker’s party” to use and possibly abuse the functions of the Senate? Let’s get real.

In other words, the British had spent 10 years in developing a Democratic Constitution for the Australians which could not, and did not in my view; give any credence to the existence of organized conflicting PARTY VOTES within each State and each Territory.  The Parties simply didn’t exist.  Fair dinkum.

We must all realize the major problem that, if not after the 1975 ridicule of our democratic process, but now - when the conservatives do not have the power that the Howard “new order” so terribly abused (and Malcolm Fraser did not) - there is a “Murdochrasy” pushing for change even before the Rudd government has had a chance to implement them.

My take on Kevin Rudd is that he is apolitically honest – he tries to really handle the responsibilities of his position and works very hard for – as he sees it – the great majority of Australians.

Watch Question Time and note the “mincing poodle” that spends his time abusing the authority of the Speaker and the intelligence of the viewers.

Harry Jenkins, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has been constantly abused by the “mincing Poodle” and Dutton et al, with such venom that I cannot understand why any Australian would support that behavior.

Sure, he can kick them out of the house but this man tries so hard to be fair and objective, that he leaves himself open to the unnecessary abuses of the “mincing puddle”; Dutton and that horror of the House, Bronwyn Bishop.

As did his father before him I believe, Mr. Speaker is a very patient and tolerant man but, yesterday he felt the Liberal Party insults to his very being – and it was obvious.  Of course the “ning nong” Tuckey continued to dispute Speaker decisions but – surely no one takes this person seriously?

Famously Senator Byrd of the US said – “I weep for my country”.

God Bless Australia and make the NATIONALLY elected Australians - be in charge of our future.  NE OUBLIE.

 

I