Rudd and Television

[Guest]

A bit of a weird thread title but I'm mindful of not clogging up OTC with too many political threads as others have complained in the past. I have 2 unrelated posts that I will make in this thread regarding Rudd and TV.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225828494797

Tetchy PM fails to satisfy young audience
Peter van Onselen, Contributing editor From: The Australian February 10, 2010 12:00AM


THE performance of Kevin Rudd on Monday night's ABC TV program Q&A was nothing short of embarrassing.

Listening to him spend 55 minutes struggling to answer questions from an audience aged between 16 and 25 must have left viewers with the distinct impression he is more than a little tetchy about his record of achievements (or lack thereof).

The show's host, Tony Jones, did what he could to liven up proceedings as Rudd insisted on giving what was a decidedly bland and uninspiring performance. But faced with a Prime Minister unable to engage with even the simplest of questions, Jones was forced to use his wit to keep viewers interested.

Take, for example, a question from the audience asking Rudd if he supported the drinking age being raised to 21.

At first, he avoided answering the question (he is a politician after all).

Jones took him to task for that, so he quickly said "of course", before apparently worrying whether his answer might lack the popularity he strives for.

Rudd then said he believed in "something called evidence-based research", after which he called for a show of hands on the subject. Clearly amused, Jones pointed out he hadn't seen the "policy by popularity" approach before. The audience had a good laugh at Rudd's expense.

As Rudd was taken to task by the youngsters for failing to deliver on his election commitments, he became increasingly surly, lecturing them with glib uses of political spin.

The audience was having none of it (neither was Jones).

At one point, Rudd almost lost his temper with a girl all of 16 years of age, who shook her head at his answer on school laptops, telling her with a sharp look and tone in his voice: "You're shaking your head. Can I just say that is a fact, and if you ring up principals from around the country, it's happening."

If the Coalition wants to maximise its electoral prospects, it should make 10 million copies of the Q&A program and post one out to every household.

The unedifying spectacle of Rudd underwhelming Australians when he directly answers their questions (or refuses to) isn't going to end any time soon. He has committed to a weekly segment taking viewer questions on the Seven Network's Sunrise program. At least that will afford him the comfort of a return to infotainment television.

The message from Q&A is that the weight of expectations Rudd set up from opposition has not been matched by what he has delivered in his first two years as Prime Minister.

Early symbolic gestures on issues such as saying sorry to indigenous communities helped prolong his honeymoon, but two years on and the public is starting to wonder if he will ever follow through on some of his more difficult election commitments.

Rudd has done a reasonable job of running the country, but when it comes to managing expectations, he is failing miserably because he set the bar so high


I watched this the other night and was expecting to see an audience stacked with Young Labour members. I was quite surprised that it was not and obviously PM Rudd was to as he became very red faced and indignant at the line of questioning pursued by these young 16 to 25 year olds.

You can watch it at the link below if you want

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2811552.htm

[Guest]

This is an outrage
The Federal government has cut the free to air TV stations licencing fees by $250 million dollars that according to business analysts will go straight onto their bottomline. Thats taxpayer money straight into private companies pockets with no real benefit to the taxpayer. It has to be said that maybe Rudd is trying to buy off influence of the free too air TV stations in an election year.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1225828506347


Kevin Rudd's $250m lifts TV profits

THE $250 million handout from the Rudd government to Australia's television oligarchy will flow almost directly to the profits of the networks' owners because there are no conditions that it be used for local content.

The decision to slash the licence fees paid by the commercial networks to the government, which was made just weeks after a series of meetings between television bosses and the government, including one with Kevin Rudd just before Christmas, yesterday drew fire from critics who questioned the policy of handouts to powerful TV networks in an election year.

The Australian has learned that equity investors, banks and private equity firms with exposure to networks Seven, Nine and Ten are being told the decision to slash the licence fees will "go straight to the bottom line". These networks have since watched their fortunes rise in the market over the past few days.

The government announced that it was slashing the annual fees the commercial TV stations pay the government by 33 per cent this year and 50 per cent next year - equating to about $250m in lost revenue to taxpayers - and explained the decision as a recognition that "the commercial television broadcasters will require some assistance to maintain Australian content production".


"The government intervention suggests that (free-to-air) television has a favoured status within the Australian media complex," Deutsche Bank analysts said. The market value of the Ten Network, which is a pure commercial television company and best reflects the value seen in the government's decision, has risen $130m in two days, a measure of the excitement among stockbrokers and bankers over Canberra's leg-up for the industry.

Two media analysts contacted by The Australian confirmed that Ten had indicated that Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's announcement would not affect its cost base because the deal did not contain any further obligations to produce local content. This meant the additional revenue would boost bottom-line profits. Regional broadcaster Southern Cross Media has indicated the money will go to working capital. A Ten spokeswoman declined to comment.

The financial performance of Nine and Seven has been constrained by the massive debt loads taken on by both networks' owners during private equity deals in 2006. Nine is controlled by private equity firm CVC Asia Pacific, which took on more than $4 billion in debt to buy the company. Seven remains 47 per cent owned by US-based KKR, with the balance held by Kerry Stokes's listed Seven Network and management.

The Free TV industry group argues that the licence fees - calculated at 9 per cent of the big TV networks' annual gross revenues - are out of kilter with other countries such as the US and Canada. It argues that the cost of the switch to digital television has also placed other burdens on the networks.

The chairman of Free TV, former Queensland premier Wayne Goss, defended the deal struck with the government, saying the "fees in Australia were much higher and completely out proportion to what they were in comparable countries", and adding they had not been reviewed for a long time.

The rebates have frustrated other media players who believe that commercial networks already receive assistance in the form of the anti-siphoning sports list - which gives free-to-air networks the first right to bid for sports such as Australian football and cricket - and an undertaking to block a rival fourth commercial television network.

"This appears as just another handout on top of the protections the free-to-air networks already enjoy," Foxtel chief executive Kim Williams said.

"In an act of breathtaking indifference to the announcement, major metropolitan networks are now briefing analysts in the investment community that the full tax handout will drop directly to their bottom line with no deductions, despite the government saying the tax break is needed to protect local Australian production."

Foxtel is 50 per cent owned by News Limited, publisher of The Australian.

Commercial radio stations also pay licence fees to the government. The industry body indicated it might lobby the government for similar treatment to compensate it for the cost of establishing digital radio services. "As digital radio continues to roll out across Australia, the radio industry will be considering its options," said Joan Warner, chief executive of Commercial Radio Australia.

Simon Whipp, national director of the Actors Equity section of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, said the industry was "surprised and disappointed" that the rebates had not come with strings attached. "What is being granted at the moment makes no guarantee there will be more Australian content," he said.

Deutsche Bank said the rebate was "largely a recognition of the challenging conditions faced by the industry and is not tied to any specific spending requirement".

Michael Fraser, director of communications law at the University of Technology, Sydney, questioned what was behind the policy announcement. "The Prime Minister has been saying they do evidence-based policy but it doesn't appear the (television) stations are required to do anything," he said.

A spokeswoman for Senator Conroy would not answer direct questions about why there were no conditions attached to the rebates regarding local content production. "This is an important interim measure to protect Australian content while the media landscape is changing, and as we make the switch to digital television," she said.

Additional reporting: Sally Jackson

[Guest]

The young voters got duped at the last election...hopefully they come to their senses next time there's an election...

[Guest]

"It has to be said that maybe Rudd is trying to buy off influence of the free too air TV stations in an election year."

rcptn reveals his latest paranoid conspiracy theory.

Chook.

[Billy Gunn]

The young voters got duped at the last election...hopefully they come to their senses next time there's an election...

because they were so much better off under workchoices.....

[Pass the Ball]

Tony Jones mauled Penny Wong on lateline the other night...

I felt sorry for her..

[Guest]

Tony Jones mauled Penny Wong on lateline the other night...

I felt sorry for her..

I like Tony Jones, good interviewer.

Chook.

[Guest]

The young voters got duped at the last election...hopefully they come to their senses next time there's an election...

I dont understand why everyone is whinging about Australia's economy and the performance of the Govt. Doesn't the following article sum up why we should all be happy.


Pundits wrong again on massive jobs swing up in January
13:31, Thursday, 11 February 2010

Sydney - Thursday - February 11: (RWE Aust Business News) -
The resilience of the Australian labour market is remarkable,
says Helen Kevans, senior economist with JP Morgan Australia.
The economy added a massive 52,700 jobs in January (J.P. Morgan:
5,000, consensus: 15,000), bucking expectations for a moderation in
employment gains in the wake of the RBA's assertive rate hikes and the
solid gains recorded in months prior.
Between September and December the economy had added an
astonishing 141,000 jobs.
The forward looking indicators of employment signal that such
gains in employment are unsustainable (ANZ job advertisements tanked
8.1%m/m in January), but the unemployment probably already has peaked at
5.8%.
Indeed, if this is correct, it would mean the unemployment rate
topped-out at just 1.9%-points above the 3.9% trough touched in February
2008, a stark contrast to the sharp rises recorded elsewhere across the
globe.
The unemployment rate slipped to just 5.3% in January (from
5.6%), but could meander higher in coming months given that business
confidence and hiring intentions took a hit from recent hikes to the cash
rate.
The spike in employment was driven by a 36,900 jump in part-time
jobs, whereas full-time jobs increased by 15,900.
A shift from part-time to full-time work should, however, occur
during the remainder of the year as firms rebuild reduced hours of
existing staff.
Workers' hours fell 1.0% over the month, marking the largest fall
since August 2008.
Kevans points out the monthly employment gains are at levels
witnessed during the last resource boom.
The concern for the RBA will be how big monthly employment gains
will be when the next boom gets underway, which is not until the latter
half of the year.
The swelling investment pipeline and strengthening demand for
Australia's key commodity exports mean that significant employment gains
will be recorded in the resource rich states in 2H10.
This will lead to further tightening of the labour market and add
upward pressure to inflation, reaffirming our view that the RBA will
continue hiking the cash rate throughout 2010.
In Western Australia, for example, the unemployment rate already
has tumbled from 5.7% in September to just 5.0% as of January this year.
In the near-term, though, there are reasons for the RBA to be
cautious. The RBA's main concern (as signaled last week following the
Board's shock decision to leave the cash rate unchanged) is the
resilience of the consumer in the wake of the 75bp of tightening
delivered in 4Q.
Helen Kevans declared today's employment numbers are remarkable,
but since the RBA's decision last week, the other data has generally
disappointed, with falls seen in retail sales, home loans, and consumer
confidence.
We suspect that the next move in the cash rate will be a 25bp
hike in April.
The RBA's March Boarding meeting is less than three weeks away,
and there is little domestic consumer data between now and then for the
RBA Board to chew on.
By April, though, the RBA will have more information by which to
measure the underlying strength of the Aussie consumer.
ENDS

[Guest]

All the pollies straight out lie anyway so in the next election I will be voting Liberal for the first time for no other reason than Abbot being in shape and a fitness enthusiast.

[Guest]

Rudd bails out the TV networks

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com....public_policy/


Rudd’s rescue package is bad public policy Font Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Mark Day Blog | February 15, 2010 | 20 Comments


IN the depths of last year’s global financial crisis some beleaguered newspaper owners in the US began talking seriously about seeking government support in the form of tax breaks for public journalism trusts.

It wasn’t a good idea and it went nowhere—in the US. But in Australia the idea has morphed into a neat little swizzle perpetrated by the free-to-air networks. They’ve managed to con $250 million out of the Rudd government in rebates on their licence fees.


This means the Australian taxpayer—that’s you—is forking out $1.25 billion annually to support media services. The ABC gets $930m, SBS about $200m and now the commercial free-to-air networks are to divvy up a further $125m a year.

We have long been comfortable with direct support for the national networks, but the spillover of public funds into the commercial networks is a new and murky development.

The government support will be applied as a 33 per cent reduction of licence fees this year and a 50 per cent reduction next year. But you can bet that won’t be the end of it: this reeks of permanent change because if the business environment is tough now, you can bet it will be a lot tougher for the FTAs by 2014 when the digital switchover is complete.

The reasons behind the Rudd government’s generous election-year gift to the old networks are unclear. It has come without public debate, without a policy framework, and with no strings attached. It’s a gift, pure and simple, and we don’t know why.

Officially, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says it is to fund the continued production of Australian drama, but that is a thin excuse. The money transfer is not tied to more drama; it merely “allows” the continuation of current levels of production.

The first casualty here is transparency. In the absence of rational or credible explanations for the gift, speculation is guaranteed. When we learn of secret meetings between Kevin Rudd and network executives just before Christmas; when the Prime Minister accepts the hospitality of Seven network owner Kerry Stokes at his Broome weekender and Conroy goes skiing with him at his chalet in Beaver Creek, Colorado, the speculation about deals and stitch-ups justifiably heightens.

Is the Rudd government buying election-year support? Is it a carefully aimed kick in the face for the pay-TV industry brought about by animosity towards News Limited, part-owner of Foxtel, and publisher of The Australian? Or is there a quid pro quo, such as an easing of anti-siphoning restrictions on pay-TV, in the pipeline?

Without full disclosure, conspiracy theories will thrive. Certainly, prime ministers love to meddle with media matters and Rudd is no exception. He craves media support and, from all accounts, the air turns blue when he doesn’t get it. He has yet to learn that he cannot micro-manage the media and he fails to understand the fierce independence of editors.

I cannot say which factors influenced the PM in his decision to provide the gift—and make no mistake, the green light came from Rudd, not Conroy—but in my view it can best be characterised as a rescue package for the FTA industry, particularly its two biggest players—the Seven and Nine networks.

Both are staggering under huge debt loads created by their foreign private equity owners, KKR and CVC Asia Pacific. Industry talk has been about the inevitability of these players having to take a haircut in the billions because there is little prospect of the kind of revenue or bottom-line growth required to allow them to pay down the debt after meeting their massive interest bills.

This is in part because of the slowdown caused by the global financial crisis, but it also involves the structural changes of the digital age. More services are offering consumers more choice, but at the cost of increased competition which shatters the comfortable old model of three networks annually sharing $3bn-plus in advertising spending.

The licence rebate takes some pressure off the networks’ bottom lines and gives them some breathing space. But it’s still bad public policy. There’s no surprise that the radio industry says it wants a slice of the action because it is, after all, TV without the pictures and is also facing high digital transition costs.

The role of the ABC provides another conflict. The ABC says it is not in competition with the commercial sector. That is true only in the sense that it does not compete for advertising. It certainly competes with the commercial media in the never ending battle to attract ears and eyeballs and it is a vigorous competitor in the online world where its news offerings will remain free even when (or if) most newspaper sites begin charging for content.

The ABC also competes in the commercial marketplace for on-air talent and its commercial arm sells $150m a year in books, DVDs and CDs in competition with bookshops and music retailers.

Next cab off the rank in the ABC’s world of non-competition is its planned 24/7 news channel, which managing director Mark Scott says he can deliver without any extra funds. It will inevitably take viewers away from Foxtel’s Sky News Australia, which is owned equally by BSkyB in Britain (38 per cent owned by News Corporation), Seven and Nine.

You can argue that this competition will add to viewer choice and, as such, is a good thing. But Foxtel and Sky News are also entitled to be aggrieved: they not only have to live in a tough commercial environment, but they have to compete with an organisation with no bottom-line accountability.

The planned news channel is also expected to provide the backbone for the “soft diplomacy” Australia TV channel aimed primarily at the Asia-Pacific region. The ABC is resisting moves to open for tender the $20m three-year grant from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade but it faces a conflict of interest here: how can it simultaneously be an independent news outlet while acting as the government’s diplomatic PR mouthpiece?