Years ago

Future ABC Coverage: Budget Cuts

While the story above dosnt directly reference the NBL or WNBL its definetly a concern that all their Outside Broadcasting vans are being sold off. Which would mean that they would probably have to hire such equipment if they were going to continue to cover such sports.

Its probably even worse for some of the other sports that dont draw big numbers of viewers or listeners. Im guessing Cricket would be the only protected species and possible AFL.

Topic #35972 | Report this topic

Years ago


Reply #504010 | Report this post

Years ago

^ you may want to direct that at those who set the budget, that is the politicians
the ABC is very well run and respected, imagine what it could be with good funding

Reply #504013 | Report this post

Years ago[tt_news]=5308&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&cHash=5b3dd28d7e

Reply #504027 | Report this post

Years ago

Confirmed on the WNBL website, this year will be the last of the WNBL on the ABC.

Reply #504028 | Report this post

Years ago

where is all of this taking us ?

Reply #504030 | Report this post

Harry Hackrein  
Years ago

"the ABC is very well run and respected, imagine what it could be with good funding"

You can't be serious. The ABC is extremely well funded.
Have a read from a very respected media person and former ABC Manager if you think they are hard done by.
Shame that Abbott lied (again)

Reply #504031 | Report this post

Years ago

Don't worry!

Christopher Pyne will make a petition to keep the WNBL on ABC.

He is a powerful and effective politician!

Reply #504034 | Report this post

Years ago

I think its all pushing towards some sort of synch up then in regards to the WNBL.

Reply #504038 | Report this post

Years ago



Reply #504042 | Report this post

Years ago

I'm a big fan of the ABC for what they've done for WNBL and really hope they find a way to keep one of the world's best competitions in the public eye.

Reply #504052 | Report this post

Years ago

They should be promoting coverage of national competitions rather than things like the Tour de France!

Reply #504085 | Report this post

Years ago

Harry, if you've only just worked out the politicians don't always tell the truth, you're a mile behind the eight ball. One says it wont have a carbon tax, the other says no funding cuts to this and that and yet, when they get into power, it changes because treasury only hands out financial details to government and not the opposition.

I don't like the cuts to ABC however, reality is there must be. they've cut "state to state" and now WNBL and sbs might also lose a-league Friday nights.

Reply #504128 | Report this post

Tiger Watcher  
Years ago

Funny a number of people Graham Richardson including have stated the ABC has plenty of fat to cut in terms of funding/staff that shouldnt effect the product as staff per head vs commercial TV program output is 3:1

Reply #504129 | Report this post

Years ago

With a 5% cut, it seems to me the ABC heads are playing politics, cutting areas that will attract controversy to try and put pressure on the govt to reverse some of the cuts.

The ABC and SBS consolidating a lot of their off-air operations should account for a large amount of the cuts, something the govt should have made sure happened, but this govt is a bit of a basketcase.

Reply #504136 | Report this post

Years ago

Too true Tiger Watcher. Not only do they have higher staffing levels than the commercial networks, they are also paid quite well, especially when they have practically zero pressure to perform in terms of ratings, profit, etc (or even live up to their charter it seems).

Mark Scott is on ~$800K so that would be a good place to start cutting & there is a long list of other potential savings targets:

But no... in the typical public service way, they would rather cut services to the public than make savings in sacrosanct areas like their excessive salaries or bloated bureaucracy.

Reply #504137 | Report this post

Years ago

If the WNBL were to, say, schedule all matches to be played in the ABC Sydney Ultimo studios, then I think they could continue to broadcast the games.

We just need to have a can-do attitude!

Reply #504143 | Report this post

Years ago

ABC TV should be given the axe, it is irrelevant to the Australian public who don't watch it.

Let's face it the ABC is full of overpaid public servants as shown by the leaked document surprise surprise.

They get a 5% operational funding cut and have a massive cry shame on you lazy bastards, you just want more and more from the taxpayer on your free ride. Get rid of the lot. Scumbags.

Reply #504158 | Report this post

Years ago

This is deplorable 0 ratings yet these clowns are on $200-$300K. Royal Commission please!

Reply #504159 | Report this post

Years ago

The figures released in the document are not unreasonable figures for people of their position. Obviously a public broadcaster costs money, it has to compete in a market along with the private networks to pay for quality journalists.

People of high positions get a high wage, that's how it works, including Mark Scott.

Reply #504164 | Report this post

Years ago

Sorry but in the real world you get paid based on performance. The ABC TV does not perform yet they still get paid based on no ratings or KPI figures, so basically the numbers are made up, which they can be when the taxpayer is funding them. Downright pathetic. This isn't a commercial entity or a public broadcaster with strong ratings (like BBC). Let's face it the station is a joke and wasting our time and money.

Reply #504168 | Report this post

Years ago

This is the problem when people put forward views in the area of politics, there are so many adamant views based on stupidly simplistic 'logic', some is just pathetic vitriol, particularly when it comes to public servants.

Myth Bust #1: The Public Sector is Evil

Being part of the public service doesn't make an employee more lazy or inefficient than private employees.

It actually depends on the person and the job.

Oh my god. Mind blown. No way.

For instance, employees of the DPP would be less "lazy", naturally more "efficient" and "effective" than many private or public employees of many other fields. It's a high performance, high demanding job with some of the most talented, educated, effective and generally sharp people in the country. Same applies to those who work at the Treasury, or those who work as Doctors in Public Hospitals, or the scientists working for the CSIRO. You know what? The journalists at ABC are actually incredibly high quality. ABC also produces incredibly high quality journalists which then move on to commercial networks, or even networks around the world like CNN.

These are the people some of you happily brush as lazy, scum etc.

I'm sure there's people here who live in a fantasy world believing they are far more intelligent, useful, effective, blah blah blah and therefore have a right to criticise the "public sector scum". I'd hazard a guess that those making rude posts are most likely far less useful to the Australian economy. (Ie, look in the mirror).

Myth Bust #2: The Public Sector is Inefficient and a waste of taxpayers money

It's fine to have an opinion, sure, but seriously, be grounded in reality. Public and private both can be efficient and inefficient. It depends on the people running the show, the circumstances and a whole other host of factors.

The assumption that the public sector is inherently inefficient, or naturally more inefficient than a private counterpart is a misnomer, only to be proven beyond a joke by the fact that our public health system is one of the most efficient systems ever ran in the world. Period.

We are also one of the most influential countries in the world in terms of soft power (ie, cultural output, tourism etc.), lead by the ABC - which has been the principal institution. Yes, it has actually been incredibly profitable for us - perhaps in too much of an indirect way for people to understand.

This leads me to...

Myth Bust #3 ABC doesn't rate like Commercial networks therefore it has no use and is a waste of money

It's easy to put forward a stupidly simplistic formula that ratings suck = failed network.

A better method of argument is to ask:
1. What's the objective of having ABC?
2. Is it still a relevant objective?
3. Is it succeeding in its objective?

The ABC is not set-up as a competitor to private broadcasters in the sense of "programming should be whatever wins us ratings". Historically its objectives have been based around programming serving the public interest in the sense of providing cultural programming, educational programming, coverage for smaller sports, gender and racial diversity etc. It also provides significant coverage for regional areas, and for the youth.

Very importantly, it provides a significant amount of Australian made programming which has helped develop stars that are now on the big screen and known globally. It cannot be underestimated how important it is to develop actors, producers and other people in the arts. Almost every globally famous actor/producer/musicians worked for ABC TV/Radios/Community TV/Home & Away/Neighbours, all of which are owned by the Government or receive significant public funding.

What it effectively does, is provide Australia with an increase in something that is called Soft Power. Highly underestimated by people, it is the most critical area of development in the last few decades, it has been a feature of heavy focus amongst each of the super powers and is considered as important as 'heavy power' (military power). Soft Power is the cultural influence a country has, and when you are a country which can produce significant cultural influence on others, there is a significant boost to be made to the economy. Don't underestimate the value of essentially free global advertising that has been achieved because of our focus on developing the arts through ABC and other publicly funded programs/institutions. People know Australia, through Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, Baz Luhrmann, through our famous other artists, musicians and journalists. People also know Australia from Australian made programming by the ABC. This actually helps sell us as a country, it increases tourism, it increases business ties, it increases diplomacy. It helps grow our economy. That's the point of development institutions.

Killing off the ABC will take a substantial hit to our economy in many ways that most of you probably do not phathom. The inability to properly appreciate the profitability from investing in soft power is a genuine problem when voters ultimately decide on Governance, but are too simplistic to realise the lengths we are going to accept what is essentially shooting ourselves in the foot multiple times.

Then there's all the other things, like programming for education, social justice etc. Something that is always undervalued in comparison to the supposed 'economic crisis'.

You want to talk economic inefficiency? Kill off the ABC. The only problem is, people in the future suffer, as in children, future generations. But who really cares about that right? We'd rather live in uninformed denial based on "the vibe".

My biggest gripe here is, if you're going to be exercising your right to free speech with tripe, fine, that's your prerogative, but don't go slamming current employees and many of which are now sacked employees with crap like "lazy" or "lazy bastards" or "clowns" or "scumbags". It's insensitive and downright stupid.

This topic is essentially uninformed people, making uninformed comments, supporting a Government who cuts education making sure we get more uninformed people. It's a catch-22 of stupidity.

I don't even work in the public sector, but there's something wrong with our country when people keep spouting idiotic ideological one-liners instead of actually analyzing the situation with some semblance of intelligence and reasonableness.

Reply #504200 | Report this post

Years ago

Obviously the excessive bold is unintentional.

Reply #504201 | Report this post

Years ago

Well done Ket and what a few of the clowns (Hi Rupert) didn't mention is often the ABC out-rates Channel Ten.

I read somewhere recently (TV Tonight maybe?) that the ABC's ratings are at an all-time high.

But yeah Murdoch wants it shut down so he can have total control of the news cycle.

Reply #504203 | Report this post

Years ago

I thought it was law that the ABC had to cover x amount of hours of women's sport. Not sure on that but if that was the case that has obviously changed.

Reply #504261 | Report this post

Years ago

One guy is on like 400-500k for hosting 30mins of the NSW version of 7:30 Report per week.

Try to defend that KET.

Reply #504352 | Report this post

Years ago

That's easy to defend because the highest paid on ABC is Tony Jones who gets, according to the leaked document $355,789 a year. He hosts Lateline as well as Q&A. Reasonable and comparable salary in the market.

7.30 presenter Leigh Sales is paid $280,400 a year. Again, that's a fairly reasonable market rate.

Not even close to 4-500k.

Anon #504352, another poster making up your own facts to fit your own views.

Reply #504508 | Report this post

Years ago

Annoying bold

Reply #504509 | Report this post


Reply to this topic

Random name suggestion for anonymous posters: Green 41

Rules:You must read the Terms of Use. No spam, no offensive material, no sniping at other clubs, no 'who cares?'-type comments, no naming or bashing under 18 players. Learn how to embed YouTube videos or tweets

Please proof-read your post before submitting as you will not be able to edit it afterwards.

Close ads
Punch - insightful time tracking - Custom basketball uniforms
PickStar - The best place to book sports stars

Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.

Recent Posts

Invoicing clients? Stay productive with Punch, the insightful time tracker that earns you more.

Special offer: $30/month Pay $100 for lifetime access. Sign up now!


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 4:49 am, Sat 6 Jun 2020 | Posts: 835,124 | Last 7 days: 607