ABC puts digital TV on the line
NewsMan
recent free-to-air TV initiatives as The Insiders and Business Breakfast if
the federal Government rejects its bid for an extra $250 million over the
next three years....
<SNIP>
...The disappearance of the digital channels ABC Kids and Fly - the only
digital channels on air - would be embarrassing for the Government.......
--
Details:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,5854172%255E27
02,00.html
More news:
http://www.auspaytv.com/news
***
"English is a language where double negatives are a no-no."
--Alfred E. Neuman
Miro
"NewsMan" <coco...@nospam.freemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:ad%V9.100$m47...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> THE ABC is threatening to dump its digital television channels and such
> recent free-to-air TV initiatives as The Insiders and Business Breakfast
if
> the federal Government rejects its bid for an extra $250 million over the
> next three years....
>
> <SNIP>
> ...The disappearance of the digital channels ABC Kids and Fly - the only
> digital channels on air - would be embarrassing for the Government.......
Then there would be even more riots in detention centres.
M
El Ricõ
stance. Surely this development has little impact on their Foxtel
interests - so what gives?
Can someone please enlighten me on this.
Thanks,
El Ricõ
"NewsMan" <coco...@nospam.freemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:ad%V9.100$m47...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Thomas 'bacco007' Baxter
>I still don't understand why News Corp have adopted a seemingly "anti-DTV"
>stance. Surely this development has little impact on their Foxtel
>interests - so what gives?
Afraid of change?
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
- Thomas 'bacco|007' Baxter -
* MSN: thomas_baxter007@hotmail..com *
- aDTVinfo: http://adtvinfo.deeplist.com/ -
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Blade
> stance. Surely this development has little impact on their Foxtel
> interests - so what gives?
>
> Can someone please enlighten me on this.
If 7, 9 and 10 have 6 different channels broadcasting different things then
less people will have reason to buy pay TV because they have it on digital.
7 has said if multi-channeling is allowed C7 will return on the digital
platform. And I assume they'll create other channels as well.
El Ricõ
"Blade" <antho...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
news:3e289b5a$0$27995$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
But, as far as I know, 7, 9 and 10 do not have 6 channels and are prohibited
by law/regulations from doing so. Senator Dick has been reasonably clear on
not allowing commercial multi-channelling much to 7's chargin. So why is
News trying to shoot down the whole system - would they prefer the ATSC
system instead. News Corp seem to be quite strongly promoting that in the
USA.
Blade
prohibited
> by law/regulations from doing so.
Yes they are. News Ltd is opposed to them getting access to those 6 channels
> So why is News trying to shoot down the whole system
Because they know in the near future multi-channeling will be legal
Rod Speed
El Ricõ <ma...@dead.letter.office.org> wrote in message
news:lG0W9.222$m47...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I still don't understand why News Corp have
> adopted a seemingly "anti-DTV" stance.
They havent really. They've been running this sort of mindless
shit about the ABC since long before we even had DTV at all.
> Surely this development has little impact on their Foxtel interests
Dunno, you could claim that PayTV has a much more difficult time
in this country than in most first world countrys, just because the
Free to Air system clearly is sufficient for the vast bulk of viewers.
Corse DTV has had little impact on that at all with bugger all of
the FTA viewers bothering with DTV at all. But it is clear that if
we actually had real DTV with the current commercial channels
being allowed to multichannel properly, that would ensure that
there'd be even worse prospects for PayTV in this country coz
presumably even less would bother with PayTV than currently.
> - so what gives?
> Can someone please enlighten me on this.
Its mostly just that Murdoch's shit rags are just about
completely useless as far as real news is concerned.
Rod Speed
"El Ricõ" <ma...@dead.letter.office.org> wrote in message news:Mj1W9.342$m47....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Blade" <antho...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
> news:3e289b5a$0$27995$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > I still don't understand why News Corp have adopted a seemingly
> "anti-DTV"
> > > stance. Surely this development has little impact on their Foxtel
> > > interests - so what gives?
> > >
> > > Can someone please enlighten me on this.
> >
> > If 7, 9 and 10 have 6 different channels broadcasting different things
> then
> > less people will have reason to buy pay TV because they have it on
> digital.
> > 7 has said if multi-channeling is allowed C7 will return on the digital
> > platform. And I assume they'll create other channels as well.
> But, as far as I know, 7, 9 and 10 do not have 6 channels
> and are prohibited by law/regulations from doing so.
Correct.
> Senator Dick has been reasonably clear on not allowing
> commercial multi-channelling much to 7's chargin.
He hasnt actually and has in fact at times hinted that the
commercials might be allowed to multichannel if they want to.
Its less clear how much of that was just running that up the flag
to see what reaction it would get and how much was serious.
> So why is News trying to shoot down the whole system
They arent. They just want to ensure that the
commercials arent allowed to multichannel.
> - would they prefer the ATSC system instead.
Nope.
> News Corp seem to be quite strongly promoting that in the USA.
Sure, but thats a completely different market for them.
Ruppy managed to get the taxpayer to fund the Foxtel cable rollout,
and would basically like to see Foxtel continue as it does now,
particularly post the ACCC agreeing to the content sharing with Optus.
matt cook
> ...The disappearance of the digital channels ABC Kids and Fly - the only
> digital channels on air - would be embarrassing for the Government.......
This isn't true. There is also the "SBS World News Channel"; and Nine,
Seven & SBS have information services as well (if only in certain
cities). But ABC Kids/Fly is certainly the most watched of these extra
channels.
bort
news:b0aant$nhmj2$1...@ID-69072.news.dfncis.de...
> Dunno, you could claim that PayTV has a much more difficult time
> in this country than in most first world countrys, just because the
> Free to Air system clearly is sufficient for the vast bulk of viewers.
> Corse DTV has had little impact on that at all with bugger all of
> the FTA viewers bothering with DTV at all. But it is clear that if
> we actually had real DTV with the current commercial channels
> being allowed to multichannel properly, that would ensure that
> there'd be even worse prospects for PayTV in this country coz
> presumably even less would bother with PayTV than currently.
Why is it so important to have Pay TV? If the business isn't profitable is
there really any good reason the government should be protecting it? Why
should people why don't want to pay for more channels (which is the vast
majority) be made to suffer a limited choice, simply to protect the business
interests of some very large companies?
Rod Speed
bort <donts...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3e2935b9$0$224$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Dunno, you could claim that PayTV has a much more difficult time
>> in this country than in most first world countrys, just because the
>> Free to Air system clearly is sufficient for the vast bulk of viewers.
>> Corse DTV has had little impact on that at all with bugger all of
>> the FTA viewers bothering with DTV at all. But it is clear that if
>> we actually had real DTV with the current commercial channels
>> being allowed to multichannel properly, that would ensure that
>> there'd be even worse prospects for PayTV in this country coz
>> presumably even less would bother with PayTV than currently.
> Why is it so important to have Pay TV?
It isnt. What was being discussed was what News is interested
in and it should be obvious that since they are involved with Foxtel,
they clearly care about competition from DTV in this country when
they dont actually have any FTA TV involvement themselves.
Tho you can certainly make a case that PayTV has lots more
potential than the limited number of FTA channels currently allowed.
> If the business isn't profitable
It is basically, particulary for Murdoch who takes
his profits from PayTV in the tax free Bahamas.
Mostly as a result of what he charges for content.
> is there really any good reason the government should be protecting it?
That whole area is surprisingly complicated. The govt basically decided
that we should have DTV here and they decided that the only way the
commercials were gunna be prepared to bother with the very substantial
costs involved was to guarantee them that there wouldnt be complete
open slather for the extra channels that DTV would bring.
> Why should people why don't want to pay for more channels (which
> is the vast majority) be made to suffer a limited choice, simply to
> protect the business interests of some very large companies?
Basically because the govt felt that otherwise they wouldnt bother with
DTV. Both potential govts have decided for a long time now that another
commercial channel isnt economically viable, let alone lots more. They're
likely right, 10 is very marginal profit wise and that would get MUCH
worse if the govt was stupid enough to go for lots more DTV channels
with complete open slather for anyone who wanted to broadcast etc.
dewatf
<ma...@dead.letter.office.org> wrote:
>I still don't understand why News Corp have adopted a seemingly "anti-DTV"
>stance. Surely this development has little impact on their Foxtel
>interests - so what gives?
>
>Can someone please enlighten me on this.
News wants a 4th commercial FTA licence and failing that they wanted
to be able to datacast what ever News Ltd content they wanted on DTV,
an FTA licence by the back door as the Democrats called it. Labour
tended to support it because they were backing Murdoch in his
anti-Howard crusade at the time.
Both things were blocked for a long time by the Howard Government when
they designed the DTV setup to protect the interests of the existing
commerical broadcasters, particularly Channel 9 and 10 who were the
most profitable and want the status quo to remain. Channel 7 wanted to
use datacasting and mulitichannelling to compete with 9,10 and Foxtel.
The ABC also picked up the FTA rights to kids programmes shown
on Pay TV. They were bought cheaply because due to the limitations of
FTA they couldn't be shown much or in primetime. The ABC then got the
Democrats and Labour to back an amendment to the DTV legislation
allowing the public broadcasters only to multichannel. The ABC now
runs the programmes continuously on the ABC Kids digital channel which
is free on Optus. That competes directly with Foxtel.
Anything that is seen to benefit FTA, be it commerical or
public broadcasters competes with Foxtel so Murdoch is against it,
until he can get an FTA licence of course.
News Ltd and the ABC have for a long time been involved in
a feud where they continously attack each other thorugh their
news outlets. Media Watch, particularly under Marr a left wing
Fairfax and now ABC staffer, has waged almost continous war
against Murdoch's empire. .
There are fundemental political differences - News is Free Market
the ABC is infavour of state control and anti-capitalist.
Economic differences - they compete.
And personal differences - the ABC considers Murdoch the great
Satan which News considers the ABC staff to be a bunch of talentless
hacks using the public broadcaster as a personal soap box.
dewatf.
![Louis Solomon [SteelBytes]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjVVKNha7a4ohutnm4dRUbCAEVlcEotvHiKJj7Gsn9X85CIIZsJE=s40-c)
Louis Solomon [SteelBytes]
> there really any good reason the government should be protecting it?
Maybe because other countries would look at us as "backwards" if we didnt
have 50(+) channels of crap on cable (payTV).
Therefore it could be considered politicaly smart to keep the payTV industry
in Aus alive.
or maybe I'm just talking out my arse :-)
--
Louis Solomon
www.SteelBytes.com
Louis Solomon [SteelBytes]
guides dont really count as extras channels in the sense that they dont show
anything significant such as actual tv shows/movies/sport/news/etc
--
Louis Solomon
www.SteelBytes.com
"matt cook" <mat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fccbd71e.03011...@posting.google.com...
matt cook
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 23:51:45 GMT, "El Ricõ"
> <ma...@dead.letter.office.org> wrote:
>
> >I still don't understand why News Corp have adopted a seemingly "anti-DTV"
> >stance. Surely this development has little impact on their Foxtel
> >interests - so what gives?
> >
> >Can someone please enlighten me on this.
>
> News wants a 4th commercial FTA licence and failing that they wanted
> to be able to datacast what ever News Ltd content they wanted on DTV,
> an FTA licence by the back door as the Democrats called it. Labour
> tended to support it because they were backing Murdoch in his
> anti-Howard crusade at the time.
I don't see why News Corp couldn't do an RTV (on the 31s) or Canwest
(semi-legally owning Ten) style backdoor if it really wanted to.
Indeed, it could engage in PBL style control of Nine Adelaide and
Perth, WIN, NBN etc.
But I don't think News could really support a full-time station, at
least one with as many viewers as Ten has now. Perhaps it could be
viable if they were starting for scratch I guess. The 31 option is
rather similar to the way FOX works in the US.
> Both things were blocked for a long time by the Howard Government when
> they designed the DTV setup to protect the interests of the existing
> commerical broadcasters, particularly Channel 9 and 10 who were the
> most profitable and want the status quo to remain. Channel 7 wanted to
> use datacasting and mulitichannelling to compete with 9,10 and Foxtel.
Not so much Ten though...
> The ABC also picked up the FTA rights to kids programmes shown
> on Pay TV. They were bought cheaply because due to the limitations of
> FTA they couldn't be shown much or in primetime. The ABC then got the
> Democrats and Labour to back an amendment to the DTV legislation
> allowing the public broadcasters only to multichannel. The ABC now
> runs the programmes continuously on the ABC Kids digital channel which
> is free on Optus. That competes directly with Foxtel.
Nickelodeon Australia in particular. Which News has a limited holding
in via Foxtel and XYZ. New Nick shows are on Ten FTA now.
There's also the matter of Fly TV vs Channel [V] which News has more
of a stake in.
Thomas 'bacco007' Baxter
>Nickelodeon Australia in particular. Which News has a limited holding
>in via Foxtel and XYZ. New Nick shows are on Ten FTA now.
This only changed when the ABC Kids channel was launched as ABC Kids was seen as direct competition to Nick
dewatf
>But I don't think News could really support a full-time station, at
>least one with as many viewers as Ten has now. Perhaps it could be
>viable if they were starting for scratch I guess. The 31 option is
>rather similar to the way FOX works in the US.
Except that Channel 31 is blocked from commercial activities
under the terms of its licence and has already been brought to
task by the commerical broadcasters for violations.
dewatf.
matt cook
I think only C31 Adelaide (ACE) has been severly repremanded, and that
was because it was being controlled by the one person. RTV is still on
in Melbourne and Sydney.
El Ricõ
With both sides having such extreme and frankly old-fashioned views, I'm
sure the truth lays somewhere in the middle. Not that either side will get
to the truth anytime soon - till then more mindless bickering I suppose.
Something to consider:
* The ABC once upon a time sourced all its news from Murdoch owned
companies.
* Media Watch has "attacked" almost all media outlets, including the ABC
itself, especially under Marr.
* If the ABC is so "anti-capitalist" how does that explain its ballsy stance
on it's intelectual property?
Excuse me, I just have to run-off and check under my bed.
It's very dark under there, so I'll just stab at anything in case it's red.
Cheers,
El Ricő
"dewatf" <dew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e2a0193...@news.syd.ihug.com.au...
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 23:51:45 GMT, "El Ricő"
Rod Speed
> Somehow, I suddenly feel I've been transported back to the 1950's.
Somehow, I suddenly feel I've just come across yet another newgroup
eejut that doesnt actually have a clue to its pathetic excuse for a nick.
> With both sides having such extreme and frankly old-fashioned views,
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> I'm sure the truth lays somewhere in the middle.
There aint no 'middle', fool.
> Not that either side will get to the truth anytime
> soon - till then more mindless bickering I suppose.
Even you should be able to manage better
than this pathetic excuse for bullshit.
> Something to consider:
Nope, something to flush where it belongs,
actually, just like all puerile pig ignorant silly shit.
> * The ABC once upon a time sourced all its
> news from Murdoch owned companies.
Pigs arse they ever did.
> * Media Watch has "attacked" almost all media outlets,
> including the ABC itself, especially under Marr.
Sure, but they have mostly put the boot into the Murdoch
press over the most flagrant bias that stands out like dogs
balls, particularly with the VERY selective reporting on the
worst shit that happens with Murdoch's financial catastrophes.
They aint done much of that sort of thing with the other 'media outlets'
> * If the ABC is so "anti-capitalist"
No if about it.
> how does that explain its ballsy stance on it's intelectual property?
Doesnt have a damned thing to do with capitalism, stupid.
> Excuse me, I just have to run-off and check under my bed.
> It's very dark under there, so I'll just stab at anything in case it's red.
Wota silly little pig ignorant wanker.
> "dewatf" <dew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3e2a0193...@news.syd.ihug.com.au...
> > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 23:51:45 GMT, "El Ricõ"
dewatf
wrote:
>Sure, but they have mostly put the boot into the Murdoch
>press over the most flagrant bias that stands out like dogs
>balls, particularly with the VERY selective reporting on the
>worst shit that happens with Murdoch's financial catastrophes.
The Murdoch press reported the financial information fine, it
was just News formalising loses it make two years earlier during the
madness of the tech boom.
Where you see bias is where they toe the company line on
DTV and other political campaigns that Murdoch is running against
the ABC and Fairfax.
It was the ABC that attempted to flog a dead horse by reporting the
Gemstar write downs for weeks years after the shareholders had
already adjust the share price to take them into account.
Didn't they look foolish when News stock rose, instead
of fell the massive fall they were predicted, on the announcment.
dewatf.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Sure, but they have mostly put the boot into the Murdoch
>> press over the most flagrant bias that stands out like dogs
>> balls, particularly with the VERY selective reporting on the
>> worst shit that happens with Murdoch's financial catastrophes.
> The Murdoch press reported the financial information fine,
Bullshit they did.
> it was just News formalising loses it make two
> years earlier during the madness of the tech boom.
There was a hell of a lot more very selective reporting of the
worst of the shit hitting the fan than just that particular episode
that Media Watch put the boot into very comprehensively indeed.
> Where you see bias is where they toe the company
> line on DTV and other political campaigns that
> Murdoch is running against the ABC and Fairfax.
The utterly flagrant bias happens with a hell of a lot more than
just those. In spades with the flagrantly biased presentations
that Media Watch put the boot into that is being discussed.
> It was the ABC that attempted to flog a dead horse by reporting
> the Gemstar write downs for weeks years after the shareholders
> had already adjust the share price to take them into account.
The flagrant bias in News rags involved a hell
of a lot more than just that particular episode.
> Didn't they look foolish when News stock rose, instead of fell
> the massive fall they were predicted, on the announcment.
Completely off with the fucking fairys, as always.
dewatf
wrote:
>> The Murdoch press reported the financial information fine,
>
>Bullshit they did.
They did. They just didn't use a font that David Marr approved of.
Just and Channel 9's brief reporting of Packer's financial fuck up
in their alway brief financial report didn't meet with his approval.
>> it was just News formalising loses it make two
>> years earlier during the madness of the tech boom.
>
>There was a hell of a lot more very selective reporting of the
>worst of the shit hitting the fan than just that particular episode
>that Media Watch put the boot into very comprehensively indeed.
Media watches main attacks were over advertising affection
content - in which in half of the cases Media Watch was outright wrong
and the others were trivial.
Then they may a big deal out of Albrechtsan on selective quoting other
media reports. Like the ABC never selectively quotes other media when
it suits them.
>> Where you see bias is where they toe the company
>> line on DTV and other political campaigns that
>> Murdoch is running against the ABC and Fairfax.
>
>The utterly flagrant bias happens with a hell of a lot more than
>just those. In spades with the flagrantly biased presentations
>that Media Watch put the boot into that is being discussed.
The Australian has had plenty about Gemstar and other debarcles
for News Limited.
News are entitled to report what they damn well want, this country
has free presses. They are quite open about their papers campaigning
for Murdoch's views.
The ABC on the other uses a public body to push the personal political
agendas of its staff, and then denies it.
dewatf.
dotmacrefugee
Post in English - Esperanto gives me a headache
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> The Murdoch press reported the financial information fine,
>> Bullshit they did.
> They did.
Bullshit they did.
> They just didn't use a font that David Marr approved of.
Media Watch put the boot into New's VERY selective reporting
of the worst of the shit hitting the fan with Murdoch's various
ventures with a hell of a lot more than just that particular
example you keep rabbiting on about, and it was more
than just Marr that did it too. Littlemore did plenty too.
> Just and Channel 9's brief reporting of Packer's financial fuck up
> in their alway brief financial report didn't meet with his approval.
Completely and utterly irrelevant to what was being discussed,
the considerable number of examples that have appeared in
MW where News rags have been VERY selective about what
the report as far as what Murdoch has been up to is concerned.
Not just financial stuff either, in spades with his marital fiascos.
Ted Turner hit the nail on the head, 'young enough to be his granddaughter'
Didnt get a mention in any Murdoch outlet for some strange reason.
>>> it was just News formalising loses it make two
>>> years earlier during the madness of the tech boom.
>> There was a hell of a lot more very selective reporting of the
>> worst of the shit hitting the fan than just that particular episode
>> that Media Watch put the boot into very comprehensively indeed.
> Media watches main attacks were over advertising affection content
Bullshit. That was just a part of it.
> - in which in half of the cases Media Watch
> was outright wrong and the others were trivial.
More utterly mindless bullshit.
> Then they may a big deal out of Albrechtsan
> on selective quoting other media reports.
Sure, but that was a trivial part of what they have put
the boot into Murdoch's organs about over the years.
> Like the ABC never selectively quotes
> other media when it suits them.
Sure, and others have exposed plenty of flagrant hypocrisy on
the part of MW itself over the years too. Littlemore in spades.
Got sweet fuck all to do with whether Murdoch's shit rags are
a useful source of info on anything Murdoch is involved in tho.
>>> Where you see bias is where they toe the company
>>> line on DTV and other political campaigns that
>>> Murdoch is running against the ABC and Fairfax.
>> The utterly flagrant bias happens with a hell of a lot more than
>> just those. In spades with the flagrantly biased presentations
>> that Media Watch put the boot into that is being discussed.
> The Australian has had plenty about Gemstar
> and other debarcles for News Limited.
Mostly very selectively presented when its covered at all.
> News are entitled to report what they damn
> well want, this country has free presses.
Corse they are free to do anything they like.
And anyone is welcome to point out how utterly biased they always
are when it involves anything that Murdoch is involved in at all too.
> They are quite open about their papers
> campaigning for Murdoch's views.
They certainly aint 'quite open' about the utter bias thats always
involved in any reporting of anything that Murdoch is involved in.
> The ABC on the other uses a public body to push the
> personal political agendas of its staff, and then denies it.
Sure, and they also run the union arsehole line most of the time,
particularly when it involves anything to do with ABC management too.
Got sweet fuck all to do with whether Murdoch's shit rags are
a useful source of info on anything Murdoch is involved in tho.
dewatf
wrote:
>Not just financial stuff either, in spades with his marital fiascos.
Perhaps they are trying keep their quality broadsheet seperate
from their tabloid rags.
>> Media watches main attacks were over advertising affection content
>
>Bullshit. That was just a part of it.
This season it was their main attack.
>Got sweet fuck all to do with whether Murdoch's shit rags are
>a useful source of info on anything Murdoch is involved in tho.
They are useful. They reported the News Ltd loss when it was
offically announced - they didn't spend a week getting wet speculating
over the exact size of the loss like the ABC.
But I wouldn't trust only the Murdoch press to report on news.
Just as I don't trust only the Fairfax press to report on Fairfax or
only the ABC to report on anything.
dewatf.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed rod_...@yahoo.com wrote
>> Not just financial stuff either, in spades with his marital fiascos.
> Perhaps they are trying keep their quality
> broadsheet seperate from their tabloid rags.
Absolutely certain that they know what their jobs would be worth
if they were stupid enough to comment on Ruppys marital fiascos.
News doesnt even have anything like 'a quality broadsheet'
>>> Media watches main attacks were over advertising affection content
>> Bullshit. That was just a part of it.
> This season it was their main attack.
Bullshit. That was just a part of it.
>> Got sweet fuck all to do with whether Murdoch's shit rags are
>> a useful source of info on anything Murdoch is involved in tho.
> They are useful.
Bullshit.
> They reported the News Ltd loss when it was offically announced
Corse there wasnt even the slightest hint of only
doing what they couldnt avoid doing in that eh ?
> - they didn't spend a week getting wet speculating
> over the exact size of the loss like the ABC.
It wasnt just the ABC pointing out that the shit was hitting the fan, stupid.
> But I wouldn't trust only the Murdoch press to report on news.
> Just as I don't trust only the Fairfax press to report on Fairfax
> or only the ABC to report on anything.
What silly little wanker you have always been.
dewatf
wrote:
>> They reported the News Ltd loss when it was offically announced
>
>Corse there wasnt even the slightest hint of only
>doing what they couldnt avoid doing in that eh ?
Or when it was actually news and not speculation and politicing.
Channel 9 news didn't pay it any more attention, neither did Channel
10 or 7 probably.
It was an accounting adjustment of no interest to anyone but News
shareholders who were well aware need for write downs in the values
of the dud assets because the market wiped billions of the value of
News back in 2000 because of them.
The advertising market was picking up and revenues and profits of the
major News Ltd. companies were actually up and very strong. The ABC
did not report this more important piece of news, deliberately
censoring it to make a partisan attack on News Ltd.
The fact that the ABC ran the paper losses as a lead item for a week,
and didn't not mention the real annual profit figures was revealled
as baloney when the share price when up on the announcement.
The ABC and Marr also had no idea of the importance of the news to the
market or the Australian public (which was roughly about zero).
The ABC did a far worse and more biased job that the Murdoch
press of handling the news.
dewatf.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> They reported the News Ltd loss when it was offically announced
>> Corse there wasnt even the slightest hint of only
>> doing what they couldnt avoid doing in that eh ?
> Or when it was actually news and not speculation and politicing.
Even you cant actually be THAT stupid, stupid.
> Channel 9 news didn't pay it any more attention,
Even you cant actually be THAT stupid, stupid.
> neither did Channel 10 or 7 probably.
Even you cant actually be THAT stupid, stupid.
> It was an accounting adjustment of no
> interest to anyone but News shareholders
Even you cant actually be THAT stupid, stupid.
> who were well aware need for write downs in the values
> of the dud assets because the market wiped billions of
> the value of News back in 2000 because of them.
Even you cant actually be THAT stupid, stupid.
> The advertising market was picking up and revenues and profits of
> the major News Ltd. companies were actually up and very strong.
Even you cant actually be THAT stupid, stupid.
> The ABC did not report this more important piece of news,
> deliberately censoring it to make a partisan attack on News Ltd.
Even you cant actually be THAT stupid, stupid.
> The fact that the ABC ran the paper losses as a lead item for a week,
> and didn't not mention the real annual profit figures was revealled
> as baloney when the share price when up on the announcement.
Even you cant actually be THAT stupid, stupid.
> The ABC and Marr also had no idea of the importance of the news
> to the market or the Australian public (which was roughly about zero).
Even you cant actually be THAT stupid, stupid.
> The ABC did a far worse and more biased job
> that the Murdoch press of handling the news.
Even you cant actually be THAT stupid, stupid.
World War Three 2003
less "public television" infesting our screens with inferior elitist
vapid boring garbage....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"NewsMan" <coco...@nospam.freemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<ad%V9.100$m47...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> THE ABC is threatening to dump its digital television channels and such
> recent free-to-air TV initiatives as The Insiders and Business Breakfast if
> the federal Government rejects its bid for an extra $250 million over the
> next three years....
>
> <SNIP>
> ...The disappearance of the digital channels ABC Kids and Fly - the only
> digital channels on air - would be embarrassing for the Government.......
>
>
>
>
David Bromage
> Good, this leaves more room for new mainstream commercial stations and
> less "public television" infesting our screens with inferior elitist
> vapid boring garbage....
Compared to the cheaply made inferior boring garbage on the commercials?
Cheers
David
dewatf
wrote:
>Even you cant actually be THAT stupid, stupid.
What intelligent comment.
I suppose you subsribe the ABC explanation for why
they got the whole story so wrong - that Murdoch has
manipulted the entire US and Australian stockmarkets
despite the ABC's heroic efforts to broadcast the truth.
dewatf.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Even you cant actually be THAT stupid, stupid.
> What intelligent comment.
All your terminal stupidity warranted.
> I suppose you subsribe the ABC explanation
> for why they got the whole story so wrong -
They didnt.
> that Murdoch has manipulted the entire
> US and Australian stockmarkets despite the
> ABC's heroic efforts to broadcast the truth.
Obvious lie. The ABC never claimed anything like that.