Glasshouse- final show tonight - Page 3

TS50 · 03-11-2006, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by max

I know! I just luuuuurvvvv a good discussion too....

me thinks there may be a s**t stirrer amongst us!!!!

Work Horse · 03-11-2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

I seek to persuade no one. It is merely the pursuit of discussion.

And lets not let the facts get in the way of a good discussion

Work Horse · 03-11-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TS50

me thinks there may be a s**t stirrer amongst us!!!!

Thanks for the tip I will keep an eye out

_2:

4.9 EF Futura · 03-11-2006, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

And lets not let the facts get in the way of a good discussion

Haha, well sometimes i think to myself on these threads... let's not let a good discussion get in the way of the facts...

:

Yes TS50... suspected there may be a cat amoungst the pigeons...

max · 03-11-2006, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TS50

me thinks there may be a s**t stirrer amongst us!!!!

No way! Who???

ronwest · 03-11-2006, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Yeah they're appointed by the governor general arent they?

Yes, but on the advice of the Minister for Communications so in fact all ABC Board members are Fed govt appointees.

I find this topic quite interesting and have a little input but I'm about to leave for Kempsey for the weekend.
I'll have a look in on Sunday night to see if it's died a natural death or is still chugging along ;)

Play nice, chaps...

fmc351 · 04-11-2006, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

I'm not the one on the high horse telling others what is "australian" and what is "un australian". Dont try Liberal party tricks with me mate, dont try and turn it around, i can simply go back and look at the posts. YOU TOLD ME WHAT TO, AND NOT TO SAY ABOUT ANZACS after I expressed my view on the thread. You then went into a half page essay like youve done again, HIGHHORSES indeed.

Geez - one of you guys are gonna have to give me a copy of the "how to think like an aussie" textbook because by what you've been telling me, im way off. You seem to be trying to write it, Im just not going to buy it

Re: Corine Grant, i agree that she has the right to hold as many jobs as she likes and hold whatever views she pleases. And yes, she's quite capable in her current roles. However, conflict of interest is a serious matter and i have seen absolutely no attempt to manage the SERIOUS conflict which arises.

Out of one side of their collective mouths, the Glasshouse are claiming that its "all in good fun" and "not to be taken seriously". That's fine. What's not fine is that Corine has a VESTED interest in making the government look bad. And by the looks of it, the same could be said for wil. Or maybe he attends these ALP functions pro bono... out of the kindness of his heart... How many other TV presenters, celebrities have membership to political organisations? Wake up.

Such conflicts needs to be addressed and managed in the context of the public broadcaster. Considering corine's roles outside of the glasshouse, it's possible for these roles to impact on her behaviour on the public broadcaster. A potential conflict of interest needs to be managed - it's right there in the Australian/NZ Standards on governance. These principles are accepted by all facets of government, academics, private industry etc etc Perhaps you know better than all these people? Admittedly, responsibility for managing this probably rested with the ABC or Good News Week, who produce the show.

The ABC, just like the BBC and any other publicly funded station around the world needs to present a balanced view. This is not my opinion - its intrinsic to the concept of a government funded TV station. I cant believe you cant see the obvious point here. The views expressed are about the current events. The standout player is the government, which ever that happens to be, was the GH around when a Labor govt was in the local 'Whitehouse'? Of particular focus will obviously be the governments very public figures as front runners. Im glad the people who make the show arent stupid enough to make the show about Humphrey Bear or High Five. However, Kim Beazley is often a target, and particularly so when he and Latham were at it. One could interpret their current lack of attention as a sign of impotence on their part. I give the aussie viewer a little credence with their judgement, clearly the ABC and fed Govt do not.
Balance is something the Glasshouse could easily have achieved - without any degradation in the standard of their comedy - but decided not to. 0

There is no place on the public broadcaster for a specific political agenda... that's all im saying.

Bias in the eye of the beholder. If the Labor party had a perfect track record (haha) under your theory they would still need to be lampooned for the sake of balance.

To be unbiased, equal time could have been given to a creation by some 'Liberal Party lackies' to use your implied terms, is all im saying. That would also create the Unbias you speak of. Think outside the liberal box.

If the ABC board was not biased, why axe a show that is clearly popular with the consumer, neigh, actual owners of the ABC, when they themselves state that balance is not a requirement of comedy? What is the standard for continuing a show if not its popularity. Hmmmm...

jd dad · 06-11-2006, 01:56 PM

Dont care about all the politics, this decision just plain sucks a big one. As Will stated, they take the P out of the Government and wouldnt hesitate to give the Opposition a good belting too if only they could get into power. One of the best shows on TV IMO and as said earlier if you dont like it dont watch!

4.9 EF Futura · 06-11-2006, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

Bias in the eye of the beholder. If the Labor party had a perfect track record (haha) under your theory they would still need to be lampooned for the sake of balance.

To be unbiased, equal time could have been given to a creation by some 'Liberal Party lackies' to use your implied terms, is all im saying. That would also create the Unbias you speak of. Think outside the liberal box.

If the ABC board was not biased, why axe a show that is clearly popular with the consumer, neigh, actual owners of the ABC, when they themselves state that balance is not a requirement of comedy? What is the standard for continuing a show if not its popularity. Hmmmm...

Cool man.

Like i said in one of my last posts - i think ive made my point pretty clear so im not gonna harp on any longer. You've simply reiterated the same points which i opened up for discussion (with a healthy does of cheap shots, cheers).

It appears ive commited the carnal sin of disagreeing with the popular AFF opinion. You think i would have learnt by now....

fmc351 · 06-11-2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Cool man.

Like i said in one of my last posts - i think ive made my point pretty clear so im not gonna harp on any longer. You've simply reiterated the same points which i opened up for discussion (with a healthy does of cheap shots, cheers).

It appears ive commited the carnal sin of disagreeing with the popular AFF opinion. You think i would have learnt by now....

If a mans guilty of murder, theres no need to discuss issues other than the murder. Facts are facts, and discussions are best kept to those facts. I can only raise the points that are valid, would you rather the discussion moved to shopping centres or hairstyles, or bias in news reporting? Each is equally irrelevant.

You spoke of bias, I directly addressed that, what more were you after? I then mentioned, or reiterated if you like, an alternative reason for the axing supported by evidence based on actions and what would be considered sound TV industry practice.

The initial red text, was defense of myself and my right to express my view on ANZACS and the sidestep you took to avoid that which you started.