Jump to content

Talk:Australian Broadcasting Corporation/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

History section totally removed?

Who failed to provide a summary of the broadcaster's history when moving the text to a daughter article? The text should be re-inserted until this is done. I'd expect two to three paragraphs here. Tony 00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I hived off the history section at the same time as I created a separate article for ABC TV. This was done as part of the ongoing process of refactoring this article in the summary style. A summary of the former section will eventually be provided by myself if the blank section doesn't inspire someone else to write it first. I think the main article link is preferable to re-inserting the excessive history to an already long article.--cj | talk 09:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think a total blank is worse than a long history. Please create a summary SOON. Your action has resulted in damage to the overall article, IMV. Tony 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Whereas, I disagree. --cj | talk 12:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
So what. It goes back until you've written a summary. Like your hide to remove it without going through the process of raising the matter here first. Tony 13:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Come on, If I was from Germany, I would not have a clue about the funding history or anything without clicking the link. Simply, a summary needs to be written below the link, describing the major milestones of the ABC ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 14:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Guys. C'mon I'm sure we find a compromise here. All we need is a couple of paragraphs below the daughter link and that shouldn't be too much of challenge. I can't do it right now but undertake to do that first thing tomorrow if someone doesn't beat me to it. — Moondyne 14:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks to Moondyne for doing what Cyberjunkie undertook to do in the first place. I think it should be at least twice that length, which would still be a fraction of the previous length. But at least it's not an embarrassment now. Tony 03:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The history section seems too short to me. Sorry to butt in, but I thought I'd have a look at the article as it's the current Collaboration. MrsPlum 08:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree: Cyberjunkie has ended up damaging the article by acting unilaterally and without preparation. The current section is too short and fragmentary. I rather think that he should fix it up, as he undertook to. Tony 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Alan McGillivray Solution

This is referred to in the references, but I can't find it on Google or on library catalog searches under Alan McGillivray's books.--Grahamec 13:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Current members

I added links to the names of current board members, and found that many had articles already. However, Mark Scott is a disambig page, without any article for him, and this is the link also found in the infobox. It would be better if we redlinked a page for him, and maybe someone during this collab could write about him etc.? Likewise with John Gallagher. SauliH 15:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Government and the ABC, and Politicisation

Found an interesting paper dealing with the history of government appointments to the ABC board at Friends of the ABC submission. I feel that discussing the appointments of the conservative figures to the board, without providing the historical perspactive is leaning towards a political POV. This link provides a large amount of material that could be used to fill this out further. If some has the time or inclination please look at. SauliH 19:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See also thie lectureSauliH 21:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am listing a few things here for reference. Feel free to write them up in prose if you like
Controversial Appointments
Chairman appointments
Sir Henry Bland retired public servant and adviser to Malcolm Fraser during the election campaign, 1976
Donald McDonald, arts administrator and close friend of John Howard, 1996.
Richard Downing, professor of economics, 1973, and Ken Myer, department store executive and chairman, 1983, had publicly endorsed Labor at the 1972 election
David Hill, railway executive, 1986,was close to Neville Wran
Also, commissioner/director appointments
view appendix SauliH 07:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


I think that the claim that the ABC has been criticised by Conservative Governments for being left wing is too narrow. When left wing Governments have been in power they have also been very critical of the ABC

'Aunty'

I tried to find a source for the origination of the name 'aunty'. This lecture was the best I could find. SauliH 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the BBC was called Aunty first. It is only in recent years (say 20) that I have noticed the ABC being called Aunty, and I was familiar with it being applied to the BBC long before that.--Grahamec 06:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been listening to the ABC since the late 50s, and I also don't remember it being called Aunty before around the late 1960s. The Ken Inglis speech suggests the name Aunty was used by the late 1950s or early 60s. This is interesting because the ABC itself seems to think otherwise. On page 33 of the July 2007 issue of Limelight (not, I know, published by the ABC but with its direct involvement and, I would assume, its imprimatur about ABC-related matters), there’s a small piece about the origins of "Aunty". It’s about a certain Heather Chapman, who was the radio critic for the Sunday Mirror in 1967. She was writing about Dita Cobb’s disagreement with the ABC’s lack of support for on-air talent (Cobb had a short stint on 2BL). Chapman wrote about Cobb: "She is, in fact, one answer to the ABC’s Old Aunty image". She had toyed with using "mother" instead of aunty, but her own aunts were warm, intelligent and a bit old-fashioned, and " ... it was with them in mind, not the BBC, that I settled for ‘Aunty’", she said. It’s presumably Chapman whom Ken Inglis is referring to when he says "One old journalist believes that she invented the name in the 1960s and that her coinage owed nothing to the BBC’s having been called Aunty". Comments? -- JackofOz 07:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The present article reads,"The ABC is often referred to informally as "Aunty", the origin of this name derives directly from a nickname of the ABC's cousin, the BBC" and gives a reference. But the reference does not show that "Auntie" for the ABC derives from "Auntie" for the BBC - all it shows of relevance is that the BBC is called "Auntie". The thought of a naive reader being misled on this vital point fills me with dread and unless a gentle editor can find a RS showing otherwise I will shortly edit to remove this heathen blasphemy and represent the information given above by JackofOz. (This edit may contain both hyperbole and understatement. Apologies.) SmithBlue (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Logo speedy delete

It would be nice to have an explanation on-site. Tony 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The tag states "This image is tagged as being allowed under "fair use" with a generic fair use template and was uploaded after May 4, 2006. However, it has no explanation as to why it is permitted under Wikipedia's rules for fair use. It may be deleted seven days after it was uploaded. Please remove this template if a rationale is provided." hmmm... SauliH 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Does someone know how to do this? Tony 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There is an explanation of the fair use rationale, if you click on the logo. I question the status of the claim that it will be deleted, coming from a red-linked user.--Grahamec 06:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Being "red-linked" shouldn't make a difference. JDtalk 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
All right I withdraw that, but there is something to be said for creating even a very short user page.--Grahamec 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I had a very short user page. I deleted it. JDtalk 09:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed this for better wording...

I removed this paragraph for the time being, as it has a certain level of uncited opnion. I am not sure how it or if it should go back in.

Due to the ABC's almost total reliance on government funding, as well as government recommendations to the Governor General for board appointments, the broadcaster has had a complex relationship with governments. [citation needed] Relations between public broadcasters and the governments that provide all or much of their funding, and establish and maintain their legal status, have typically been through periods of turbulence since the rise of current affairs and documentaries in broadcasting.[citation needed] SauliH 16:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
These statements may not be specific enough to require citations, as long as more detailed information does have them. Tony 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I am ok with the idea behind this paragraph being entered... I guess my point is more - Do we need it? and if so, can we rewrite it? I am inclined to leave it out. SauliH 07:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Board? Commission?

pre 1984 ABCorp - was the administration correctly called a board or commission or board of commissioners? If you know please edit my section to the correct terminology. SauliH 16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Lab

A good site, The Lab provides a gateway into the world of science, including the unique self-service science forum and the best science news from Down Under.

This is completely opinionated. I will correct it by saying "The Lab" is an online service reporting science related news. It features in-depth articles and analysis on current scientific issues, and various pages for children, featuring Karl Kruszelnicki, a popular Australian scientist who made his debut on the ABC.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.187.153.252 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 December 2006.

Slogans

It makes no sense that the Corporation would have the slogan "there's more to television" when it is active across more markets than TV alone. A visit to the ABC website seems to confirm that "there's more to television" applies only to ABC-TV. Joestella 13:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Address

This looks at first like advertising. The footnote contains trivia. Without the trivia, it's not worth having. If you feel the trivia doesn't belong, there's no place for it in the article, but that's all it is: trivia. Joestella 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Why continually remove this? It is useful content - the 9994 thing is well known in Australia, and its presence here is useful for readers checking the accuracy of the statement, and the section is referenced. -- Chuq 15:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You would have to concede that a section called "Postal address" that simply contains the address and phone number, footnoted, just looks like an ad. I think the current revision addresses everyone's concerns. Joestella 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it would look like that, but I thought it was clear it was mentioned for a specific reason! Anyway, yep, it all looks good now! -- Chuq (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation

"The Australian Broadcasting Corporation" doesnt seem to re-direct to this article, could someone who knows how please fix this. thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.4.74.65 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

What Station?

Pretty trivial question, but I was just wondering what station ABC is officially connected to. I've always associated it with station 2, just as I've always associated SBS with station 28. Though I have no idea why. Can anyone shed any light on this? Thanks. --Dark_Wolf101 02:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ABC TV is colloquially referred to as Channel 2 because it broadcasts from stations with that number in most metropolitan areas. See ABC Television (Australia)#Stations.--cj | talk 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ABC partisan

"A Roy Morgan media credibility survey found that 25 per cent of Australian journalists viewed the ABC as Australia's most partisan media outlet, second only to News Limited.[17]"

The PDF which is provided as citation also contains "Asked which media outlets are the "most credible and accurate," 62% of journalists nominate ABC Radio, 52% nominate ABC TV and 38% The Financial Review."

I think this should be mentioned (at least the ABC figures), to show that despite being thought of as biased it is the most highly regarded of news organisations in Australia. JWPJ 11:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Australian Broadcasting Company

What is the relation between this article and that one?--Filll 04:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence of the very short article says: "In 1932, the Australian Government nationalised the company through the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act (1932) and it became the Australian Broadcasting Commission." That Commission changed its name to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in the 1980s. -- JackofOz 13:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

From an archived talk page: ogg file for Majestic Fanfare, plus repeated list problem

Cyvros, how is it going with the audio file?

The list of the 12 original radio stations appears twice: which list should be removed?

Tony 02:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about not posting earlier (as in... a year ago) - I didn't see this. I have the audio file as OGG (as well as the two shorter, on-air versions of the 1988 and currently-used arrangement as OGG). No idea about the whole fair use thing, though. --Aldor 10:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You can upload the OGG file using the 'upload file' option in the side toolbox. With regard to fair-use, just use a normal fair-use rationale that you would use for an image, with the template: {{Non-free audio sample}} for licensing. For more information see: Wikipedia:Music samples. Please reply if you need any help. Stickeylabel 10:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Here we go -(fair use image removed by bot) --Aldor 11:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading the file :). I have now added it to the article: Australian Broadcasting Corporation#Orchestras. Stickeylabel 11:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, but the original version wasn't performed by an Australian orchestra - it was performed by the Queen's Hall Light Orchestra in England in 1935. I do have a copy of the currently-used version that was performed by the SSO, though. --Aldor 11:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If possible, it would be great if you could upload the 'SSO' version, and the 'Queen's Hall Light Orchestra' version can be moved to History of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Stickeylabel 12:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Here we go - File:ABC Radio News Theme (Williams).ogg. Not sure if it needs to be trimmed. --Aldor 11:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Corporate structure

I added a section into the 'Corporation' section about the ABC's structure based on the PDF found here - would someone else mind looking over it to make sure I haven't completely misinterpreted it? It's a little confusing. timgraham 05:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Charles Williams, 'Majestic Fanfare'.ogg

Image:Charles Williams, 'Majestic Fanfare'.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Charles Williams, 'Majestic Fanfare'.ogg

Image:Charles Williams, 'Majestic Fanfare'.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ABC Radio News Theme (Williams).ogg

Image:ABC Radio News Theme (Williams).ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ABC Radio News Theme (Williams).ogg

Image:ABC Radio News Theme (Williams).ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What should we do with this logo. Currently sitting half way down the page, I wonder if it should be brought up to the top to replace the previous 'Lissajous curves' derived one at the top of the page. The reason is the old curvy logo won't get much of an airing, except on internal paper documents at the ABC.Lester 00:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the article about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and the ABC1 television channel brand is included in its page. The Lissajous curves, as far as I am aware, will remain the brand of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which is what this article is about.  SEO75 [talk] 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on political criticism are misleading

The article says (I've modified the reference styles so they can easily be seen from this talk page):

"The ABC's coverage of news and current affairs has been attacked by both sides of the political spectrum for partisanship in its reporting. [1][2] [3] [4]"

The problem I have with this sentence is that it gives the impression that the ABC somehow sits in the centre of the political spectrum, equally offending both Liberal and Labor. But in fact the the two examples of criticism by Labor (the latter two) are both examples of Labor criticising the ABC for being too far left, not for it favouring the right. So either the sentence should be reworded to say something to the effect of, "Both Liberal and Labor think the ABC is too far to the left"; or counter examples should be found.

(BTW the other 2 examples aren't the best. One is by the Worldwide Socialist Alliance (i.e. far left, not political mainstream) and the other points to the wrong article).

The ABC is by far our best news service, but let's not kid ourselves. The political criticism of its news + current affairs is (nearly) always that it is too far to the left.Peter Ballard (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult.I don't think there are particular swings either way but perhaps the wording should be altered to reflect that. The fact that the board is stacked with staunch right-wingers should probably also be mentioned, although it's a little hard to word that right since one side sees it as an attempt to bend Aunty to the former Government's will, whereas the other views it as a 'correction' against an apparent left-wing conspiracy.
Perhaps it would be good to also place it in context with other broadcasters - the BBC for one is also criticised for being overly politically correct and hyper-representative of minorities. timgraham (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well my change has been reverted for not gaining consensus, but the stubborn facts remain. The cited criticisms are all about left wing bias. Why was my change unacceptable? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Another edit, this time the whole sentence was removed. I rewrote it with a different ref, of general ABC left-wing bias. I assert that allegations of left-wing bias must be mentioned - in fact without those allegations, the section has no context. Allegations of left-wing bias are both verifiable (google throws up lots of reliable sources) and NPOV, so long as we simply state that the allegations exist rather than take a position on them. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing needs to be elaborated on - who criticises it, any why. Perhaps something like this?
Andrew Bolt, Piers Ackerman, Gerard Henderson and other commentators, particularly from nominally right wing News Limited newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun, have criticised the ABC's handling of current affairs on programs such as The 7.30 Report, Four Corners, and Media Watch.
It's a bit difficult - it's hard to quantify whether it's just those particular people (as well as other politicians such as Concetta Fierravanti-Wells), or the general population who hold those views. I tend towards the former - IIRC surverys indicate the ABC is 'highly trusted' (although that doesn' t neccessarily mean balanced. timgraham (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's one of those things which falls along party lines. A lot of people on the right complain of left wing bias - not just the more extreme like Bolt and Akermann, but a number of Liberals complaining of it. Then there have been a lot of spirited defences from the left, and of course from the ABC itself. Given that, I think it'll be pretty hard for this Wikipedia article to take a definite position. I think we just need to report the accusations, as well as the defences, without taking a position. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Having said that, I agree it needs to be elaborated on. My last edit was really just a placeholder until I found time to do more. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm adding some stuff now - perhaps we should push it further back and follow the various disputes chronologically (Hawke and the SBS merger proposal, Whitlam dismissing the whole board/commission, etc). timgraham (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I should also add that although I've added some of the stuff about commentators, it needs references - I haven't added any but they shouldn't be hard to find (they're all pretty high-profile critics). timgraham (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Googling for 'abc left wing bias' (without the quotes) throws up a good selection, for and against. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I recall reading or hearing about investigations in to the alleged bias of ABC reporting by some official agency and were subsequently found to be untrue. How this was judged i'm not sure, but if someone can find a cite for it, it's definately worth a mention. Timeshift (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a government report - I'll see if I can track it down. IIRC there's also a bias supervisor/examiner/censor/something appointed but I can't remember the precise details. timgraham (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've shifted a few things around and added references and one or two statements. I think it's better than before although things still need some work. timgraham (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Backtracking a little on what I said above (at 10:34), I think we need to make clear that reports (more than one I think) cleared it of bias. (While also noting that many on the right are still convinced it exists). As for reorganising: I think the way to do it is make it more or less chonological. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we ever mention abc right wing bias? "The ABC and the Liberal party – quite often you can never tell the two apart," Mr Foley told Parliament. Timeshift (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the addition of material such as that added by Titus Vespasian 03:12, 3 May 2008 as a response to the "Criticism" section or as a separate section. It does need to be fully referenced however. (Thats why I removed it.) SmithBlue (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Titus Vespanian's edits ("The ABC is an unbiased apolitical public media organization open to public accountability") were blatantly POV and you were quite right to remove them. By all means attribute that as an opinion held by many people (if reliable sources can be found, which I'm sure they can be), but no way can Wikipedia present a statement like that as fact. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This bit doesn't make any sense - "The panel upheld a small fraction of the lodged complaints,[37] overall finding no evidence of biased and anti-Coalition coverage. Of the seventeen complaints by the Minister that were upheld, twelve displayed serious bias on the part of the reporters or the program's presenter Linda Mottram." So, it upheld complaints of bias but found overall that there was no bias, but in particular found serious bias against Linda Mottram? Did it find bias or didn't it? We can't have it both ways.70.180.211.82 (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

the logo iso one of the ABC oldest and most interesting section, a full section on this logo should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.130.46 (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

abc.net.au article

A abc.net.au redirect that used to point here has been turned into an article about the web address. I suggest merging or redirecting it back to ABC. Independent notability is not established. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

````

I've shifted it to ABC Online - that way it can cover the rest of the ABC's online services as well (news, podcasting, iView, etc.). timgraham (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No color until 1975?

Did they really not have color TV in Australia until 1975? Over here in Sweden, we've had color TV since at least 1970. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.113.248 (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes:

  • Write here

68.37.30.49 (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC) change the x by .003

 Fixed — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Logo section - merge duplicate text from "1950s–70s"

The new Logo section duplicates some of the text in the 1950s–70s section. I suggest that that 1950s–70s content be moved into the new section, and only a brief mention of the logo creation be left under 1950s–70s, with an appropriate link to the new section. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Logo name - "Wavelength"?

The article refers (under 1950s–70s and The 'wavelength' logo) to the "wavelength" logo. The cited reference (Aus TV History) uses that term, but I have my doubts as to it its accuracy. "Waveform" would probably be a better description. Does anybody have any other references that either support this name/description, or give an alternative? I've sent a request to the ABC asking if they have an "official" name/description (preferably on a web page that I can cite), but it may take several weeks to get a response. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I received an e-mail response from the ABC's Head [of] Corporate Marketing, which says: "The title given to the ‘worm’ of the ABC logo is the lissajous."
Searching through the ABC's website turns up occasional informal references to the "worm", but most seem to use some variant of "lissajous", eg Lissajous curve logo, Lissajous figure, lissajous wave. So I've updated the article accordingly. Possibly some of those references should go into the article, but I haven't yet thought of a sensible place to insert them. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Digital Rights compliance

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is not compliant with Digital Rights law.

People can not change, add, correct, or alter data that is stored and syndicated forever - which has their ID

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides data for syndication - and will refuse to delete, correct, or append any content at any time, now and in the future - even if the data is false, misleading, or incorrect. Profits from data is used to fund the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or any one of many syndication partners (which may or may not be a direct compeditor of the ID).

Australian Broadcasting Corporation does provide a online message board system, which does comply with Digital Rights law; as in - "you can edit information that relates to your ID, you can also delete your information, or request a correction that will result in a reply from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation online message board administrator, or management". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.240.212 (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you just having a gripe about the ABC? If so, this is not the place for it. Or are you suggesting that we add something to the article? If so, some example text here would help. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

New chairman from April 2012 - James Spigelman

Resolved

James Spigelman will be the new chairman of the ABC, from 1 April 2012. [5] Mitch Ames (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Move 'Aunty' to history section

I find it very odd that the very first sentence of the intro points out that the ABC is nicknamed 'Aunty', as well as explaining the origin of this nickname. Can anyone seriously tell me that this nickname is still widely used? Despite being a generation Y, I was born in Australia and have lived here all my life and have never heard this nickname used even once in conversation. I would be confident in predicting that of under-thirties, even those who regularly watch ABC, the vast majority would not even be aware that this nickname exists. Surely it does have a place in the article, but given its relative absence from usage today, I can't see that its placement in the introduction, let alone the opening sentence, is warranted. Saruman-the-white (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The nickname is still used ("widely" is a matter of opinion); a search on Google for ABC Aunty finds several references, including as recently as this year from non-ABC media [6][7][8]. However I agree that it should be moved out of the first sentence - and have done so. The sentence is now at the end of the lead section, but mostly because I can't see anywhere else to put it, and it doesn't seem to warrant a whole section. (And I don't think it belongs in the History section.) Mitch Ames (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The link to Friends of the ABC currently still works, but:

  • The target page includes the text "We’re sorry, but that page doesn’t exist..."
  • Other links on the page still appear to be OK (except the one that links to itself)
  • A representative from Friends of the ABC advised me in an e-mail that there are problems with the site, they plan to "shift the site to another platform", "much of [the current content] is dated, so we plan to build a new site... I expect it will be four to six weeks before we get a new site going."

I'll monitor the status, and update the link if/when it changes. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Schapelle corby "controversy"

Unreliable source - its a conspiracy theory website alledging that Corby was framed for political reasons, and which has numerous factual inaccuracies. Voting for deletion of statement.Benvenuto (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

/media_broadcasting/abc_and_sbs/abc_and_sbs_board_appointments/the_merit-based_appointment_process

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Increased Biased reporting

Their biased reporting has become worse lately. This should be noted in the article as the quality and reliability of a News service is kind of important!

The story of the terrorist group Hamas Government lead attack on Israel border security and invasion of their country, forgot to mention that is what happened, the video which had a still at the start of this invasion had that attack on Israel part of the video cut out and the story had no mention of this.

They deliberately left out half the story to bias it, this terrible low quality reporting.

--DaraOBrien (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This is definition of Propaganda? not news!--DaraOBrien (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion may or may not be right, but it counts for nothing when we decide what goes in the article. Quotes from independent, reliable sources with claims such as yours would be required. HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I totally agree with DaraOBrien's comments and would support a clean up to bring the article in line with policy.Merphee (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Politics and criticism section POV

The overall quality of the "Politics and criticism" section could be better. It reads more as criticism of the ABC than an article about criticism the ABC has received.

The section is also very long and, for want of a better word, a bit petty. For example, under heading "Opposition to Australia Day", the ABC is criticised for running an opinion piece "suggesting the date should be moved to 1 January". I hardly feel that is noteworthy or representative of the ABC's position on Australia Day. The title of the section "Opposition to Australia Day" also misrepresents the ABC. I find it hard to believe the ABC is opposed to Australia Day. That's clearly POV by the author.

The subsection "ABC journalists in politics" seems narrow and overly-personal. It also "buries the lede" when the final line notes that "10 have joined the Labor Party and nine the Liberal Party." The only hard stats cited here suggest a near 50/50 split. So what is the point of this subsection other than to air personal grievance?

The subsection on Turnbull-Abbott reads like a political essay and frankly a bit paranoid about Turnbull (a "right-wing" Prime Minister). The "hosts of the ABC's political programs spoke in favour of Abbott's demise". Leigh Sales "gave Turnbull an unusually warm first interview". There's even a paragraph devoted to a tough question of Lyle Shelton. It is quite the contortion to take the ABC giving a platform to noted right-wing figure Lyle Shelton as evidence of left-wing bias.

There are always specific instances of tough-or-soft coverage on the ABC that can be pulled out-of-context. However when measured, the coverage of federal politics across ABC radio/tv/web has been found to be neutral or slightly conservative.

The section mentions *four times* that Barrie Cassidy is a former Labor staffer. That level of repetition should ring the alarm bells of any wikipedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.37.109 (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree the section is too long for an article of this nature and is too repetitious. But the overall tone isn't far from the mark in terms of perceptions and evidence of bias, given: firstly that criticisms of bias come almost exclusively from the mainstream (Liberal-National) right (and yes - the far "One Nation" right too); together with the well documented and persistent prominence of Labor figures hosting its masthead political and news programs. Have there been any ABC internal findings of failures of impartiality against left wing figures to match those against conservative figures such as as say with Probyn v Abbott, Faine on AWU, Alberici on tax, Ferguson v Hockey etc etc etc?) What is your source for the statement that "the coverage of federal politics across ABC radio/tv/web has been found to be neutral or slightly conservative"? The internal 2007 report you refer to is old and in any case at odds with the preceding paragraph detailing a sample of Labor politicians with ABC connections as well as the 2017 Sunshine Coast University study finding disproportional numbers of Greens supporters at the ABC. Observoz (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
And that comment "reads more as criticism of the ABC" than being any useful contribution to improving the article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I completely disagree that the section is too long or petty. If anything it needs to reflect what the reliable sources are saying which is that there are widespread and consistent criticisms of the ABC for bias and lack of impartiality.Merphee (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
After reading the lead I propose it is reworded to reflect the content of the article rather its current focus on one or two sections.Merphee (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
We must emphasise that criticism comes from all sides of politics. Recentism may tell you it's just the right that complains about the ABC, but when Labor governments have been in power there have also been strident calls from their members and supporters for it to be reigned in. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. Based on a number of recent articles there are also increasing concerns from the general public as a whole, regardless of political persuasion.Merphee (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not convinced of that. Sources? HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can dig up. Similarly can you please provide some recent reliable sources we can use that support your argument that the ABC is criticised by both major parties and all sides of politics.Merphee (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Where am I going to find recent examples of a Labor federal government criticising the ABC? HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The article is much tighter now, impressed. It still seems low quality to me that more space is devoted to stuff like a single web-based opinion piece by a freelancer about the symbolism of Australia Day than major productions involving the ABC such as Rush the 1970s tv series, Seachange, 4 Corners, etc. And the Abbott-Turnbull and ABC reporters in politics sections are still excessively esoteric. 203.214.42.7 (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Added text direct from the same source to reduce POV. Added the Prime Minister's comments to counter an ABC employee's opinion. Added the word journalist as the source shows it is journalists surveyed, not media professionals. Well open to discussion on these edits. Please don't edit war but rather talk about it HiLo48.Merphee (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

ABC employee's irrelevant comments while giving no comments to external critics!

This section "Conservative commentators such as Andrew Bolt,[89] Tim Blair and Gerard Henderson[89] accuse the ABC of a left-wing bias. In rejecting criticisms of bias, ABC journalist Annabel Crabb said in 2015 that the organisation gives "voices to Australians who otherwise wouldn't be heard, on topics that are too uncommercial or too remote or too hard to be covered by anyone else, broadcasting into areas from which others have long withdrawn resources." seems seriously out of whack. Why are we giving Annabel Crabb a long time ABC journalist 4 lines on a largely irrelevant rant rejecting criticism, but nothing detailed and quotes from the critics external to the ABC. Really interested in how this is justified HiLo48? My suggestion based on policy is if you keep Crabb's comments then you need to add detailed rambling quotes from each of the critics. No quotes from any of them or quotes from all of them.Merphee (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

If only you could edit without blatantly showing your own hatreds. For your own and Wikipedia's sake please go away and work on a few articles where your own prejudices (we all have them) so easily come to the fore. I won't argue with you here. Just suggest you get out more. BTW - this article has been on my Watchlist for many years, so don't accuse me of stalking you or anything like that. It's a shame your edits were so in line with those that got you into trouble elsewhere. To other editors, it may help you to know that Merphee has recently been obsessed with Emma Husar. Looking there you will see his colours fully on display. He didn't get what he wanted there, so he's come here to prove the ABC is biased. (He had already mentioned that in Talk page comments elsewhere.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
To the contrary my dear boy your extreme BIAS and agenda here on Wikipedia is strikingly bright. Seriously my edits were fucking solid. Discuss content and the effort I made or shove your personal attacks up your arse! And as far as directing other editors, perhaps you could direct them to your ONE MONTH BAN for personal attacks you were correctly dished out in the past User:HiLo48 and your hatred for Wikipedia and particularly the hard working administrators as you talk about so abusively on your user page User:HiLo48 just as you are doing here, while completely avoiding my genuine question relating to content above as you do on most articles it appears, to give yourself a cheap laugh at others expense and thinking in some way you're intellectual. The point here is Annabel Crabb's quoted rant in this section is so off the scale irrelevant and imbalanced it is ridiculous. As I said, my suggestion is to include other quotes or just say an ABC employee disagrees that the ABC is biased. If you are not going to discuss it here after I had the courtesy to revert my edit for you...then the edit goes back in. As I said to you, and after you regularly telling other editors to fuck off like you said to me and to those that disagree with your POV editing I will give it back as hard as you dish it out now. So seriously HiLo have you got any actual comment on the above CONTENT discussion or not? You're wasting my time and disrupting the article talk page otherwise.Merphee (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I won't argue with you here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not a matter of arguing. You were the one who came jumping on here and immediately created animosity. By telling other editors to fuck off like you constantly do and belittling other editors creates a disruptive environment. I asked you about these edits I made and took the time to open a discussion here and revert my edits in good faith. But once again instead of talking content all you do is attack and belittle which is why you were banned for a month in the past for personally attacking and belittling other editors. Anyway this discussion is over. I refuse to disrupt an article page by engaging with someone who only wants to belittle and attack contributors with smug, sarcastic attacks thinking you are in some way humorous when you are clearly just abusive.Merphee (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Merged Planet Slayer

2009 study removed

I removed this sentence and source A 2009 study by academics Joshua Gans and Andrew Leigh found the ABC overall "close to the center position" but with its television news "significantly slanted" towards the Coalition.[1] The source was about media generally not the ABC. Merphee (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

After reading this study again, it is clear that the research also showed the ABC as left-wing and came to this conclusion. "Only one of the 27 outlets we study (the ABC Channel 2 television station) is significantly distinguishable from the center position". Why then does the article cherry-pick a couple of quotes from current ABC employees to counter this? I have tried to balance this somewhat to illustrate that the majority of reliable sources state that the ABC is left-wing. We need to reflect what the majority of reliable sources tell us, based strictly on our policy. We cannot cherry pick minority views to distort what the vast majority of sources tell us about the ABC and its poltical bias while adhering at all times to NPOV. I include this quote from our policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight
"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties". Merphee (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Someguy1221 the study you just reverted back into the article does NOT say what I have bolded above. Nowhere in it. I actually read the whole frigging source from beginning to end. Just to make super clear. After you or anyone else actually readas the source and you can find where it says 'A 2009 study by academics Joshua Gans and Andrew Leigh found the ABC overall "close to the center position" but with its television news "significantly slanted" towards the Coalition. I will be happy to have it included. But we cannot be including material in articles from sources when the actual source does not support what is written in that source! Merphee (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Someguy1221You removed another edit and then explained it by talking about climate change consipacies and deniers?>?? Umm I'm not sure what you are talking about dude. Anyway can you explain please why you deleted the comments by the ABC former Chairpereson? Seems like their opinion is as relevant as a current employee journo don't you think. Wikipedia is not censored! https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6028894325001 Merphee (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Content on this article should be informative. It is not informative that a hard-right nutjob thinks a centrist media outlet is biased. As an American, I see conservative commentators insist all day every day that everyone left of Fox News is a godless communist. It's not interesting and no one cares. It doesn't matter that this particular conspiracy theorist used to run ABC - his opinions are not significant, except possibly in a section describing his time as chairperson. Regarding the journal article again, how closely did you read the thing? They concluded that that everything they looked at was in the center. They were also very clear that "significantly slanted" was a reference to statistical significance that might not survive a multiple hypothesis correction. I quote, One possible reason for this is that the ABC faces considerably greater scrutiny than other outlets over its political slant. With a Coalition government in power, this scrutiny may have led to the outlet featuring more of the public intellectuals who were also cited by Coalition parliamentarians. An alternative possibility is that the ABC result is merely because of chance (with 20 outlets, we would expect one to be significant at the 5 per cent level). Someguy1221 (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Someguy1221Hows about you tone it down dude! You OBVIOUSLY hold a VERY strong point of view here which I'm not sure is helpful. Now. Are you accusing the former Chairperson of nthe ABC as a far-right nutjob extremist? I mean seriously are you? And no, the article does not support the quote that I removed. Not in the slightest. It just doesn't. And I think you obviously know that now after reading it. We do have policies here regardless of how strongly your personal point of view on a topic is. Please don't go putting that quote back in. As far as my other question on who the nutjob, extremists is in my country, I'm waiting to get your response? Merphee (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Dude... chill. You demand answers to your questions, and then ignore the answers or insist they don't matter, while accusing others of being hopelessly biased. This is not a productive means of discussion, and I'll not be communicating with you further. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
From Merphee: "Hows about you tone it down dude! You OBVIOUSLY hold a VERY strong point of view here which I'm not sure is helpful." Ha ha ha ha ha. Let's all get a little bit of an objective perspective here please. Self awareness of one's own position by everyone would be helpful here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
If you want objectivity, how about you start with yourself, HiLo? If all editors set an example and talk about the article, and not about each other, here on the article talk page, we might make some progress. Who is the "far right-wing nutjob extremist" being referenced? --Pete (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Maurice Newman. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Well said Pete. All I can add is that HiLo48 and Someguy1221 to please focus on content only and I'm sure we can sort this out in a civil and calm manner. I also completely refute both of your false accusations toward me in an attempt to discredit me. Now Someguy1221 could you please just tell us exactly who you are talking about when you say "hard right nutjob"? Is it the Former ABC chairman Maurice Newman? https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6028894325001 Their opinion as previous Chairperson of the Corporation seems very relevant here. Merphee (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay I difd not see your comment confirming it was indeed Former ABC chairman Maurice Newman?. Thank you for clarifying. Merphee (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what accusations you have refuted. Whatever, don't care. Anyway, I'm not optimistic about resolving anything when you read that source so selectively. Anyway, onto more sources, Accusations of bias at the ABC coming from a fringe minority, A range of figures dispute accusations of skewed coverage by the ABC, and on the people who watch ABC News, the average viewer is dead center. I'm not cherry picking here - that's all I found. The only sources I found saying ABC was anything other than unbiased were more opinion pieces by Newman and fellow conspiracy theorists. On the subject of Newman, I find it simply bizarre you find his opinion so magically relevant. Again, if we were discussing a section on Newman's chairing of ABC, I'd get it. But this is not a man whose feelings are respected outside of some extremely partisan circles. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

He is the previous Chair of the ABC. Regardless of his view on climate change, his comments are relevant here and cannot be censored. I realise you said you are an American but just so you know, our previous Prime Minister of Australia said the same thing. He was very much pro Climate Change by the way. Please see this section in our article. Former Prime Minister of Australia Malcolm Turnbull commented on 3AW radio in 2018 that “some” journalists and programs "contain a left-wing bias." [2] We just need to include the reliable sources representing all such perspectives as per Wikipedia policies and from a neutral point of view. Happy to work through this to seek a resolution. Please keep the "i find it bizarre that you..." type comments out of it though Someguy1221, which are not helpful and can bve seen as offensive, and just focus only on content. Merphee (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The specific problem with citing Maurice is that it is being presented as if he is qualified by virtue of his chairmanship to render an opinion, and quite a severe opinion it is: However former ABC chairman Maurice Newman says, ‘the ABC bias is absolutely palpable and "the ABC is now ‘shameless’ and there is no attempt to bring balance to its programs". But if you Newman's op-eds, it very clear he's whining that his own views are outside the Overton window. If he is going to be cited as if he has a significant opinion on the ABC, it needs to be done from a source that places it in the context of his own politics, rather than pretending he draws that opinion from a neutral standpoint. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Interesting perspective Someguy1221. Are you saying then that any individual's opinion we currently have included in the article like Annabel Crabb for instance and her comment that the ABC is not left-wing in its orientation, similarly (and I quote you here) "needs to be done from a source that places it in the context of his own politics, rather than pretending he draws that opinion from a neutral standpoint"? Crabb is a current employee of the ABC, senior journo and is a feminist and left-wing Greens voter. Biases some would say if you were more conservative or centrist in your political views. Similarly most newspapers and media organisation have some type of political bias to varying degrees. The Guardian you cited is widely known to be left-leaning for example, so do we qualify every source as per their perceived or real biases or is it just Maurice Newman that you demand we do this for? I mean I'm sure he would not be the Chairperson of the entire ABC if he was in fact a "hard right nutjob" as you called him. And how do you propose we qualify him and his stance on climate change and the relevance to him being qualkified to offer an opinion similar to Crabb's opinion who is significantly down the employee ladder to the Chairperson's job? And what part of Wikipedia policy are you basing this criteria for whether we can and how we include a commentator's comments Someguy1221? Merphee (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Newman's opinion presents a problem that is very specific to Newman. Other commentators are talking about whether the ABC's coverage is factual vs. opinionated, balanced vs. one-sided, and whether it gives similar space to air the views of the different parties. When you present a vague quote like Newman saying ABC is biased, without context, without even his own reasoning, that's just unhelpful. First, Newman takes issue with the ABC failing to engage in false balance. His most common complaint has long been that the ABC does not give any space for airing the views of climate change denialists, while simultaneously admitting that experts in government, media and academia are uniformly in opposition to them. He's saying the ABC is biased because they are trusting the experts on what is factual, rather than balancing it with the opinions of a fringe minority. Second, he complains that the ABC is biased for covering alleged crimes committed by Israel and Catholic priests (as well as related issues), as if those two are beyond reproach and should never be called out for doing anything wrong. It's ideologically inconsistent gibberish where fringe ideas he likes need to be elevated, while facts he dislikes need to be diminished. His concept of "unbiased" is an organization that takes no opinions on anything ever, airs fringe viewpoints the same as it airs the mainstream, and also shuts up about things he really hates, like Al Jazeera's infiltration of One Nation, unless the coverage is going to be negative. Anyway, while some people are demonstrably trying to answer that original question honestly, Newman is not. He's all but stating outright that he thinks the ABC is biased because his views aren't well represented. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Someguy1221 for your comments. I sure am not supportive of Newman's view from 2010 on climate change. However you are placing far too much weight on that and nowhere near enough on how much inside knowledge the man necessarily has on the inner workings of the ABC as he was their Chairperson! Just because in 2010 he expressed a view that he seems not to espouse now (as I cannot find any articles on his recent viewpoints) holds very little relevance to us including his comments on the ABC's left-leaning bias which is cited in a number of reliable sources. Many people in 2010 did not believe climate change was real. Many of those persons today do believe it is real. But what has that got to do with this anyway. You haven't answered my question on Annabel Crabb, a feminist, left-wing Green voter and current employee of the ABC? Can we say she is all those factual verifiable things and her opinion may be biased, before we include her personal opinion in the article as we already do? You haven't said what Wikipedia policies we are following here either? How would you want us to frame Maurice Newman's opinion about the organisation he was previously the Head of? Do we say Maurice Newman, Head of the ABC who didn't believe in 2010 that climate change was real believes the ABC to be biased? Or are you against us using his opinion at all? What about the Guardian source you selected. Can we say the left-leaning Guardian does not believe the ABC to be left-leaning? And what about The Prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull believing the ABC is left-leaning. As I said his opinion about climate change being real is very strong (as is mine and most people's in 2019). Do we say the PM of Australia who supports climate change and believes it is real says the ABC has a left-leaning bius? Could you please answer these specific questions as clearly as possible so we may resolve this? Merphee (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Newman is still going on about climate change this year. He writes about it regularly. I'm not making up why I think Newman accuses the ABC of bias - the man lays it out directly. Try looking up the opinion section in The Australian for one place he espouses his views. The point of this is that stating his viewpoint without any qualifications or further information (beyond the fact he used to chair the organization) is misleading. You actually do an excellent job yourself of explaining exactly why, in your reference to how much inside knowledge the man necessarily has on the inner workings of the ABC as he was their Chairperson. You are implying that his opinion is drawn from that inside knowledge, and is significant for this very reason, but that is an assumption on your part. A reader will also see the statement and likely assume the same. But it's also not true. Newman is quite honest about the ideological disagreements he has with ABC staff over the coverage of certain issues that lead to his assertion of bias. The only inside knowledge he brings is the revelation that the abandonment of bothsidesism was willful. I could cite a litany of policies to support my argument, but this really just gets down to basic writing competence. If Newman's opinion is significant, the article should accurately but succinctly explain what he means, rather than leaving the reader to imagine. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm open to compromise. I'm concerned that we are giving way too much weight to current employees of the ABC who have very good reason to say there is no left wing bias such as Annabel Crabb. ABC staff have to say that. It's part of the ABC charter to be impartial. That's why I assume Newman feels free to express his view after being the Chairperson, regardless of his views on climate change. How would we include Newman's comments on the ABC then? Merphee (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Surely it's not our job as editors to guess at reasons as to why each of our sources say what they say, and to base decisions on whether we use them or not on those guesses. HiLo48 (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Exact point I've been making with Newman. We cannot be making assumptions or gueeses about why he says what he has said about the ABC's left wing bias. Is that what you were saying Hilo48 or are you only talking about Annabel Crabb? Merphee (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I assume what HiLo48 is saying is obviously for all of our sources, including ABC employee Annabel Crabb, Maxine Mckew and former Chairperson of the ABC Mauirice Newman. I totally agree it is not our job to "guess at reasons as to why each of our sources say what they say, and to base decisions on whether we use them or not on those guesses" as HiLo48 points out. I will therefore put the reliable source quoting the previous Chairperson of the ABC into the article for balance and as per Wikipedia policy. I will put it in the section where the other two employees have been quoted. Merphee (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand why you insist on planting your head in the ground and pretending we don't know why Newman thinks the ABC is biased, when he takes every opportunity to explain it in detail. So let's look at those others in the list, though. First reference, archived here, where Bolt and Henderson mock specific staff at ABC, and say nothing of institutional bias. In the second reference, still live, Annabel Crab is pushing back against the prime minister on accusations related to a very specific instance, and aside from saying that Coalition viewers were angered by a segment, she neither mentions nor refutes accusations of institutional bias. In the last source, transcript here, Pru Goward's feelings about bias at the ABC are actually much more nuanced than the article presents, and in fact, the quote that is used is from a comment where it's not even clear whether she is speaking about the news being broadcast or the individuals who work there. She later says, Probably. But I have to say I listen to other networks and television stations other than the ABC and what I would say about the ABC, compared with almost any other part of the media, is that its interest in policy is much stronger and in that sense whilst there might be some philosophical distortions, at least it is interested in getting the facts right and understanding the real issues. I mean, when you listen to a commercial news versus an ABC news, I mean, there is just a qualitative difference, and later still agrees with McKew that there may not be any such bias today (or rather, 2007). The same source also mentions the finding of Mark Scott (misnamed as Mike at one point) that of 19 former ABC staffers he was able to identify who had become members of parliament, 10 were labor and nine were conservative. That whole paragraph, half is simply inaccurate to the cited sources, and the other half has simplified things to the point that there is no useful information. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Leigh a rightwing nutjob?

Andrew Leigh is a Labor MHR. So far as I know he is a straight shooter and more or less leftist - as is the ALP as a whole - in his views. --Pete (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The ALP isn't leftist in the slightest these days. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
As I've said a number of times before our personal opinions mean absolutely nothing here. Have you got any quality independent reliable sources that say that HiLo48 apart from employees of the ABC. The vast majority of reliable sources appear to say the complete opposite and we need to be guided only by what they say and our policies. Even the previous Prime Minister Of Australia said that as you would be aware. Merphee (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gans, Joshua S. (9 December 2009). "How Partisan is the Press? Multiple Measures of Media Slant". Retrieved 17 June 2018.
  2. ^ Karp, Paul (22 June 2018). "Malcolm Turnbull on the ABC: 'Some presenters are biased to the left'". the Guardian. Retrieved 1 August 2018.

strictly speaking labor are central right to liberals far right party. using traditional definitons of party policies and where they lay. only the greens are a true leftist party in the original schemes. not that these points matter, ABC has a proven Bias towards greens ideals as has been pointed out in several studies of articles across the years. but like hate towards Trump the supporters keep blinkers on and reject the university studies of the Bias as they disagree with the outcomes. 101.167.226.89 (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

the intro

the introduction has a grammatical error in the first paragraph and is full of claims which it doesn't back up (about journalistic integrity and its views following the government's) and which also seem to not be things usually included in the intro. sorry if im formatting this wrong, i dont usually edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redblueyelllowrainbow (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Cardinal George Pell

@Observoz: you added "A number of ABC presenters and reporters expressed disappointment about the acquittal on social media and in the press". Providing a citation to a Sydney Morning Herald article written by 'former' ABC radio presenter Jon Faine who does not express disappointment.[1] You double up citing Barrie Cassidy when he is already mentioned in the following sentence in the quote from ABC Media Watch's Paul Barry. You cite Louise Milligan and she is later mentioned in a following sentence as well - the correct tweet is[2]. Did all these presenters/reporters show bias before his trial? for example you cited a tweet by Paul McDermott.

You added a quote by The Australian's Greg Sheridan from a 16 April 2020 article in which he refers to comedy and satire "It should understand...comedy and satire programs.". Then he later writes "The ABC featured favourites like Tim Minchin singing Come Home Cardinal Pell, which included the line: "I think you're scum." Does no one in the ABC anywhere have the slightest misgiving about this? Can anyone the ABC hates ever get a fair trial?"[3]. I take it when Sheridan is referring to comedy and satire it is to Tim Minchin? As his song was in relation to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse regarding Pell's attendance and aired on The 7.30 Report on 17 February 2016.[4] The Herald Sun newspaper first broke with the story that Cardinal Pell was being investigated by the police for historic sexual offences on 20 February 2016 three days after The 7.30 Report story aired.[5] I don't understand the relevance of this quote "There is an acknowledgment of this on the programs' websites, but viewers who don't read the websites have not been informed that the slander of Pell was wrong". The ABC reported on the High Court decision on TV, and I presume Radio, and also on their social media platforms.

You added a quote by The Australian's Paul Kelly from a 11 April 2020 article "The job of the ABC was to inform and educate on one of the most contentious trials in the past half-century. Instead, it campaigned against Pell, essentially offering a one-sided condemnatory view in a coverage that was extensive, powerful and influential with the public." [6] You had already added in 2019 in the Coverage of the Catholic Church section a similar quote by Kelly from a 2 March 2019 article that he wrote that "calculated media assaults on Pell" had been "spearheaded by the ABC".[7] This should be incorporated into the Pell subsection as the article did not mention Archbishop Phillip Wilson it was solely on Pell.--Melbguy05 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Observoz and Melbguy05 - see below - I have cut this section considerably per WP:UNDUE, etc. There were a lot of long quotes, with all of the criticisms published from the usual conservative commentators in The Australian. With this kind of controversy, IMO opinion it's impossible to represent all views fully in Wikipedia, and neither is that the function of an encyclopedia. Readers can always go to the sources or use Google. However - we edit by consensus, so happy to discuss and consider all views! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Faine, Jon (7 April 2020). "Pell acquittal puts Victorian courts on trial, and shows they need a reality check". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 22 April 2020.
  2. ^ Louise Milligan [@Milliganreports] (7 April 2020). "Hug your children" (Tweet). Retrieved 22 April 2020 – via Twitter.
  3. ^ Sheridan, Greg (16 April 2020). "ABC's groupthink on George Pell a sin against journalism". The Australian. Retrieved 22 April 2020.
  4. ^ Wordsworth, Matt (17 February 2016). "Australian comedians supercharge an online campaign to help abuse survivors confront Cardinal George". 730 Report. Retrieved 22 April 2020.
  5. ^ Morris-Marr, Lucie (20 February 2016). "Victoria Police investigating Cardinal Pell". Herald Sun. Retrieved 27 July 2017.
  6. ^ Kelly, Paul (11 April 2020). "Travesty of justice: 'trusted' institutions fail Pell, public". The Australian. Retrieved 22 April 2020.
  7. ^ Kelly, Paul (2 March 2019). "Pell's conviction and fall from high public esteem is a question of judgment". The Australian. Retrieved 22 April 2020.

Revamp

I've done a massive reshuffle, including moving some of the historical detail to the History of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation article. It's pointless trying to keep the same level detail in both articles, which will inevitably get out of sync. With regard to the controversy/criticism section, as current issues lose their profile in the media, per WP:RECENTISM, I think it's prudent to prune (and see my comment in the previous section). If anyone doesn't like what I've done, or thinks I've lost something important, please discuss here, and/or edit constructively. I didn't read every source (and don't have access to the Murdoch sources anyway), but tried to paraphrase and/or mention the main critics in a more or less chronological fashion with regard to the Pell case. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"ABC Radio (Australia)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ABC Radio (Australia). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 12#ABC Radio (Australia) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

In the description it states the logo was used for "...44 years and 28..." - 28 what? Days or weeks? It's difficult to determine from the description what two dates this period is between. 2001:8003:1659:BA00:6C85:34F9:54F2:3272 (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Removed as confused and confusing, also unsourced Doug butler (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Lissajous graphic

3:1 Lissajous pattern

There's nothing wrong with the stock picture in use right now, but consider this beauty lashed up by User:Peter Seligman in much the same way Bill Kennard may have done. And it's all-Australian, to illustrate a new article on the historical BWD Electronics. Doug butler (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is so much of the article devoted to a perceived left wing bias that is solely perpetuated by conservatives?

It's a reasonable thing to examine, but does it really need 1500 words devoted to explaining the exact complaints that most reputable news sources receive? Maybe I'm wrong, but it really, really seems like this section is trying to push a narrative when the word "bias" appears 34 times and the "external critics" are all conservatives, which the article somewhat skirts around, while also noting that many previous journalists are now in politics, which hardly seems worthy of inclusion here, as that belongs in biography pages. TTTime05 (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

With some imperfect word counts, the criticism of the ABC for liberal bias makes up about 10% of the article. This feels like a case of WP:UNDUE to me TTTime05 (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The ABC simply can't do red-blooded right-wing — the likes of John Laws, Alan Jones et al. Around ten years ago, Radio National instituted a program called "Counterpoint", hosted by a couple of bland male Conservatives, who mostly found experts to argue that "Global Warming" wasn't happening; but if true, it wasn't our fault. Don't know what happened, but now it's Amanda Vanstone behind the microphone. Technically a Liberal, but unbearably reasonable, ie. left-wing. Why no Ray Hadley or Peta Credlin ? Perhaps they can't afford their payscale. Doug butler (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I have begun to try to address the problem. Please join in as you see fit. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, I thought I was being rather brutal, but there a still a lot of words left there. I shall pause. It's time for others to have a go. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Article in Sydney Morning Herald

This weekend's Sydney Morning Herald carried an article by Legal Affairs Reporter Michaela Whitburn, under the title 'Not high quality journalism: court scolds ABC'. In the article, Whitburn refers to a judgment by the Full Court of the Federal Cout, on an appeal on a defamation action by Peter V'landys. Although the defamation case was unsuccessful, the Court indicated that the ABC and its journalist had treated V'landys "very shabbily", and that the reporting "was not fair or decent treatment of (V'landys). .... It is understandable that V'landys was upset at the report". I think it is significant that this has been reported on by the SMH and it is appropriate that a reference to this be include in the controvery section of this Wikipedia article. What do other Editors think? 147.10.241.239 (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Got a ink to the article? Unfortunately, the SMH is now part of Nine Entertainment, a media conglomerate chaired by Peter Costello, former Liberal Treasurer. It's no longer the independent, centrist journal it was under Fairfax. This article could still be of value, but Id like to read it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that suggestion. Unfortunately, I cannot find an online link to the SMH article, although I've found a link on the Federal Court website: V'landys v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2023] FCAFC 80 (fedcourt.gov.au). This contains the full comments of the Judge, which was agreed to by the other Judges in the case. Incidentally, I've noticed that the OZ carried a similar article some days ago, under the title 'Peter V'landys loses defamation case but judge slams ABC'. I've also noticed that the Parliamentary Library (Federal Parliament) has already referenced the SMH article as a press clipping. Note: they were very quick! 147.10.241.239 (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually, Federal Court website link here: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2023/2023fcafc0080. The Australian Legal Information Network (www.austlii.edu.au) should also have a link to the judgement. 147.10.241.239 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. The matter in question seems to be covered by this wording:
"It is understandable that Mr V’landys was upset by the publication of the report. It treated him very shabbily because, although Ms Meldrum-Hanna had a wealth of evidence, such as the covert footage and the information about the Camden auctions, on which she could have sought his comments or confronted him, she deliberately never put that to him. Instead, the publishers put the program to air with Mr V’landys’ interview spliced between the criticisms of Mr Celotto and Professor McGreevy and the covert footage that conveyed hard hitting criticism of Mr V’landys without giving him the opportunity to respond directly. This was not high quality journalism or fair or decent treatment of him."
I'm not sure what we can do with it. Perhaps an entry could be added to the Specific topics subsection of the Controversies section. However, that whole section is a breach of WP:CRITICISM. That's an essay, rather than rigid policy, but still good advice. Maybe a brief, one sentence entry would be appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation/Archive_2&oldid=1172462834"