John Linton
absolutely nothing has been done, every election 'promise' ignored or broken, the years of fiscal responsibility consigned to huge debt in record time, and the populace more obviously embracing "the world owes me a living/panem et circenses" attitudes to the nanny State........or am I the only person reading this incorrectly:
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/28518/53/
Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that the ABC isn't a commercial entity at all but exists on huge, and ever increasing, amounts of taxpayer money (currently in excess of $A1 billion a year)? So what is this tosser doing declaiming that because there is no cost to him personally, his Labor voting mates who comprise the preponderance of ABC 'employees' or the ABC generally of producing TV and radio programs (courtesy of this publicly funded sinecure) people who use their own and their shareholder's money to actually produce newspapers and TV and radio programs (Rupert Murdoch's media as one of the examples he used) should simply give away their programs - just what does he think is used to produce movies, TV shows, radio broadcasts outside his 'sheltered workshop' which has no responsibility and no accountability and certainly no ability to make the money it needs to provide so many inadequate people with over paid jobs? His stupid statement:
"But the old days are gone, he said, and traditional business models with it."
(and by the way - what does this Johnny come lately hack know about the old days anyway) ignores the fact that if content is 'given away' then there is no money for a commercial entity to remain producing it.....unlike the ABC that simply adds up a wish list of expenditure and get the tax payer's money to fund it. In this overt hand out Australia put in place by the swinishly lying Krudd and his controllers in the run down end of the Sussex Street.A far more sensible opinion about "free" news is contained in this article from the UK Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article6870224.ece
It is all part of the the Labor influences now seen everywhere in the media with the most obvious example being the 15 year old children of, presumably Labor voters, who post on our own and other on line fora about how they should be allowed to steal whatever they want to because firstly they can and secondly because the horrible US movie, CD, DVD and TV production companies make huge profits. It simply confirms that as well as having no morals/ethics they also have an IQ so low and they exist in some sort of cargo cult household where their parents provide all of the housing, food and clothing and 'pocket money' that they fail to understand that it costs huge amounts of money (in the case of the mindless block buster movies they favour up to $US200 million or more) to produce the article they then think it is their right to steal. How do they think such things are 'manufactured' that they can get them without paying the asking price?
The utter IQ of zero crass stupidity of this statement:
"The public pays for the ABC to deliver distinctive, quality content to
them – and if it is content we are creating and packaging for them now,
they are entitled to view that content free of charge."
(who the f*** does he think he's talking to to need this said)....but what possible relationship does it have to an organisation that isn't endlessly funded by taxpayers????? But there's more to this sinecured 'public servants' pig ignorance of any aspect of normal commercial life:
"The latest example is the push by newspaper proprietors, led by
Murdoch, to get people to pay for their content online. After nearly 15
years where the vast majority of online news and information has been
free."
This idiot is so terminally stupid (and the statement is actually quite incorrect), something widespread across the ABC employees I have been exposed to via the radio and ABC TV, that he doesn't grasp the Marketing 101 principle of using the money from profitable income streams to pay the start up costs of investing in future income streams. How on Earth does this moron think the 'free' on line news papers were being funded? They were being funded by the PAID for print media they duplicated on the basis, at the start, that very few people looked at the on line versions and therefore the loss of revenue from people who ONLY used the on line versions was miniscule. As that changed over time some income was picked up from on line advertising but not enough to pay the cost of the on line media production and display and more people stopped buying the print versions. I was one of them - I used the on line version of the WSJ for many years but now it has to be paid for I am happy to pay for it. I use the UK on line Times which is still free but if it became chargeable I would be happy to do pay for it - because I value the information those two on line news papers provide and I obviously can't buy a print version of them in Sydney - not to mention the convenience of on line news papers.
After two years of Krudd's spiralling out of control giveaways doubtless the author of this arrant nonsense is simply conforming to the Labor voting profile of "why should I pay for anything - the "gummant" can get the rich Liberal voting tax payers to endlessly fund my employment and every other aspect of my life" - no-one really needs to get paid 'outside' money to produce goods and services.