non australian scrolling down all. Please tell me this is australian broadcasting company or something and not american broadcasting company that disney owns???
@HubertManne@sqgl Yes, the linked article is about the Australian ABC, rather than the American one.
The two entities are not connected. The Australian ABC is a government-owned public broadcaster, while the American one is owned by Disney.
It's basically claiming a former Murdoch executive, who was appointed to manage the Australian ABC, is still working to promote his former boss' political and business interests.
PBS is probably the best analogy you've got in America. The UK's BBC or Canada's CBC are better analogies, because they're a full-service media organisation, with TV programming including news, children's content (you might be familiar with the globally-popular show Bluey, which they produce), dramas, etc., as well as radio including news, sports, and music, a website with news reporting, and more. Like the BBC, the ABC has no advertising, though unlike the BBC it gets its funding directly from normal taxation instead of from a weird fee required to watch any television (even online streamed TV from other countries)—with bizarrely mafia-esque enforcement.
our pbs does have its own program. news and childrens being the more frequent along with science. Im actually not sure if they are umbrella over all stuff as we also have npr which is pretty much radio. What makes us wierd is there is some national funding but local stations have to fundraise and have closed up shop do to lack of subscribers. My city also had a station associated with the community colleges but im not sure how that worked. Im pretty sure the local stations then pay a fee for the content they run from the national org so they still depend on the local charity drives. On the one had its bs that our country does not fund this stuff well enough but on the other hand I think it would keep something like this happening as folks would stop giving.
Calling Murdoch "shadow director" is not "alarmist". The reasons for this description of him is based on alarming facts. What would you call him based on these facts?
The example I gave from Insiders is what is alarmist, using lies. As is the example of ABC pretending Albo hijacked the DV rally whereas the full video, which ABC deliberately cropped, shows the truth.
I don't recall such blatantly dishonest reporting from ABC before Murdoch infiltrated.
