On 24 Jun 2003 01:46:51 -0700, dav259@no-spam (Ian D) wrote:
>Radio and Television frequencies are finite and MUST be regulated -
>otherwise there'd be chaos. But - in a democracy - anyone can start
>up a newspaper.
TV is finite, but it is a large finite amount these days.
Digital will allow hundreds of stations to be carried over satelitte,
cable and terrestrial broadcast.
The terrestrial digital spectrum being used for the triplecast system
could carry 20+ SD or ED stations easily, far more than would be
economically viable. So spectrum is no longer much of a limiting
factor, advertising revenue is.
With digital radio and streaming over the net radio is now almost
infinite. There is even room in the analogue spectrum for more stations.
There will be a new commercial station in Syd, Mel, Bris, Adel next
year, as well as new community stations.
>Keating had the right approach introducing the cross-media ownership
>laws. It was basic enough. Either you could be a Baron of Radio, or
>TV, or Prince of Print. The two station ownership of radio stations
>rule has its plusses and minuses. My view is that it's generally a
>minus in capital cities as otherwise we'd have more diverse ownership
>- but it has enabled some regional cities to get a second alternative
>station that otherwise they mightn't have got. And capital city
>owners would argue similar economies of scale.
Except the foreign ownership provision is stupid and unessary, and it
restricts diversity by allowing Packer an advantage for being rich and
"Australian". Australian media barons are more dangerous than foreign
ones because they have more local power and motive to meddle in local
affairs for their business interests.
>But I agree with you. There should be no loosening of the current
>rules any further. It would only reduce Australian ownership and
>bring in new players (like Clear Channel - run by beancounters not
>even worried about ratings as much as profit). Maybe the foreign
>ownership laws with radio should be looked at - as I'm sure there are
>many caring radio Aussies who would LOVE to own a radio station.
All commercial media only care about profit. Ratings are just a way of
measuring audience so you can flog your advertising space. Higher
ratings in demographics that advertisers want equals profit.
>Murdoch's "control" of the press is extremely unfortunate. All of his
>papers in Oz have the same hands on editorial bent. Whereas the
>Fairfax papers are free to disagree editorially - and they do. This
>is the way it should be - but you can't do it with legislation.
Murdoch's ownership of press is simply freedom of the press. Anybody can
start up a paper and print what they want (within the draconian NSW
defamation laws).
The problem is not with Murodoch, the problem is that out side of Sydney
and Melbourne we have only one paper towns and no one competing against
him.
>Going off at a tangent ... I was interested watching the 2000 US
>Presidential election on CNN, Fox, BBC World, and Sky News. It was
>amazing that in a country of 270 million people the four major
>Networks all took their polling from the one survey provider. And
>they all got it wrong! Gore actually won. But the US Supreme Court
>stacked with Republic appointees gave it to Bush and stopped the
>counting of the Florida vote. Television really played its part. And
>the world is much more dangerous place as a result.
>We MUST protect diversity! ... where we can ...
Those old furphies, where the left is still dening the truth.
Firstly the recount launched by the Democratic stacked State Court that
the Republican US Supreme Court stopped would have also resulted in a
Republican victory too, so that action had no real effect. The major
flaws were in electoral processes and to fix them you really needed
another election with correct electoral rolls, which was impossible.
[there were other types of recounts the Democrats could have tried to
get that would have resulted in a Democrat victory but they didn't try
for them because the Democrats falsly believed that that recount would
give them the best chance of winning Florida by overturning a couple of
key counties]. [1]
The networks did not take their polling from one provider. The networks
joined together and formed syndicate to do the exit polling. There is
nothing wrong with that, it is not a lack of diversity in media, it is
not a threat to democracy, it's just that they screwed up the IT and
made a total hash of it. Buggered up their electoral coverage and made
the look like jackasses, but apart from that it is trivial.
dewatf.
1.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A12623-2001Nov11¬Found=true
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:42:35 GMT, dewatf wrote:
> A decision by the Australian Broadcasting Authority yesterday to auction
> four more FM radio licences has increased the commercial pressures on
> existing operators, with UK-owned broadcaster DMG Radio likely to bid
> for all four licences and Rural Press also expected to enter the market.
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/23/1056220546085.html
Heh... the article uses the oxymoron "Nova youth network". Who are writing
these articles, 70 year olds?
Sarch
"dewatf" <dewatf@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efa4e9e.1581636@no-spam
> >What about the moratorium on new commercial entrants?
>
> What moratorium?
Sorry I misread your earlier reference as TV stations, not radio.