The Rules are Different if You’re News Corp…

This week, documents were leaked to Crikey regarding the sales and earnings of News Corporation’s Australian arm, News Corp Australia. It turns out that News Corp’s earnings from papers, like The Australian fell quite a lot – about $27 million –  back in the 2012-13 financial year.

If you remember back in November, News Corp’s papers released the salaries of ABC presenters and staff. The ABC was justifiably annoyed, and it was pointed out that commercial presenters earn at least three times more as their ABC counterparts (You can read my post/rant about it here). So, you’d think that when something similar happened to News Corp this week, they might be justifiably annoyed about private, internal information being broadcast and get on with their lives.

But, no.

Crikey was threatened with legal action by News Corp for releasing the information and, in the end, agreed not to reveal anything else and destroy the documents they had (ABC News story here).

I am in no way condoning the release of private, internal documents relating to the finances of a company, regardless of the “it’s in the public interest” argument, but that isn’t the point of this post. My issue is that News Corp is more than happy to release leaked information about its rivals, but when these rivals do the same to them, they call the lawyers and threaten legal action. It’s massively hypocritical.

When the ABC salary figures were released by News Corp, the ABC’s Managing Director, Mark Scott, heavily criticised the organisation, and had some justifiably annoyed comments to make. News Corp should never have released the figures, which were private, internal documents that breached the privacy of not only the ABC but its employees. The ABC didn’t threaten legal action straight away, and in the end, they never did. Had they decided to call in the lawyers, News Corp would have been even more critical.

It seems different rules apply if you’re News Corp. They’re allowed release leaked, private information about their rivals and get away with it, while everyone else has to leave them alone. They are allowed to complain about and be critical of their rivals, like Fairfax and the ABC, but no one can be critical about them. They can tell the public that the ABC is biased to the left (progressive) side of politics, simply by misconstruing basic facts about the ABC.

There shouldn’t be a double standard in Australian media, dictated by one media outlet that thinks it is above all others. I would understand News Corp crying foul about Crikey’s revelation – had they not done something similar to the ABC last year. It shows that they can dish it out, but can’t take it: a massively hypocritical and incredibly dangerous position that makes it OK for News Corp to do what they want, no matter the cost.

An Open Letter to Joe Hildebrand

https://twitter.com/Joe_Hildebrand/status/488242408912465920

Joe Hildebrand you should be ashamed. It may have been humourous to you, but it wasn’t funny to most people.

You may have attempted an apology too:

https://twitter.com/Joe_Hildebrand/status/488259629655158784

Regardless of whether or not we suspected Ian Thorpe was gay, comments like that really aren’t appropriate. There are people who struggle for years and even decades coming to terms with their sexuality and for you to go around saying “Well duh!” doesn’t help. We never “knew” that Thorpe was gay. At best, we suspected and hypothesised and we could have been so, so wrong. We all live on the same planet, and while most of us may have suspected at one point or another, it’s up to Thorpe to tell us his sexuality, not us to label him. Just as much as it’s up to you to identify the way you wish and not have the general public decide for you.

https://twitter.com/Joe_Hildebrand/status/488276823126441984

You really don’t get it. It has nothing to do with how  “good it was that Thorpey came out”, although it is good that he did. It has to do with the fact that you don’t seem to understand the struggles that some go through coming out, something that only those who have been through that struggle will understand. Admittedly, I’m straight and haven’t been through those struggles, but at least I know they exist, have sympathy for those struggling and can acknowledge that some people never overcome their struggle and tragically end their lives. LGBTQI youth are six times more likely to attempt suicide and to know that someone as prominent as Ian Thorpe has gone through a similar struggle to come to terms with his sexuality will undoubtedly help them.

Comments like the ones you made are part of the problem. The people calling you out are trying to make you realise that, even if they are calling you an idiot, because you should know better.

The D-Day Stuff Up of 2014

I first found out about this on Twitter…

Abbott's office has removed the D-Day media release – page now times out http://t.co/9953caPvVo. Original here: http://t.co/rmAHiUu2aQ

— Bernard Keane (@BernardKeane) June 1, 2014

And yes, you can enjoy the original in spoken form on youtube http://t.co/oJwPFneiyS #worstcoverupever

— Bernard Keane (@BernardKeane) June 1, 2014

and since then, it’s gotten awkward. The New Matilda has a summary of the story, and the PDF of the original speech is here.

Please tell me how a speech about following War Veterans to France for D-Day commemorations links into blatant political messaging about how getting rid of the Carbon Tax and telling the rest of the world that “Australia is open for business” is going to make anyone want to trade or do more business in Australia than they already do.

Somehow, I don’t think Tony Abbott is going to make any headway going around Europe and the Americas, telling people that “Australia is open for business” and that:

We welcome investment and we are making investment more attractive by scrapping the carbon tax and the
mining tax, cutting 50,000 pages of red tape and ending the “analysis paralysis” on major projects.

The “analysis paralysis”? What has this got to do with D-Day Veterans attending the 70th anniversary commemorations in Normandy to remember the beginning of the end of a deadly war?

This has been stirring up social media, and I can understand why – it was meant to be about the Veterans, not a chance to slip in a political message that at the moment is completely irrelevant. It shouldn’t have happened at all.

The video is still on YouTube (as at 10:55pm AEST on June 1)

The ABC Payroll

I prefer to get my news from the ABC. Before you start yelling “latte-sipping leftie”, it has nothing to do with my political persuasion, which is none of your business anyway. I watch it because it isn’t full of sensationalist crap about how people are going to be murdered in their beds – that may be a bit extreme, but bear with me.

You see, somehow the salaries of the ABC got leaked to the Australian – who wrote this. It outlines who is paid the most at the ABC, with the highest-paid journalist being Tony Jones, who hosts Q&A. You can read it yourself and see who is paid what. The comments are pretty awful too, calling for the ABC to be privatised. Most media outlets don’t have to show what each specific employee is paid, except for the executives – which the ABC (a Government Business Enterprise or GBE) does, as well as all of the others.

Mark Scott has previously said that they don’t disclose specific salaries because the ABC is a public broadcaster and can’t match the commercial networks – this is true. Unlike the commercial networks, the ABC does not have advertising, and therefore lives off the $1 billion the government gives it – it may sound like a lot, but it has to pay for both news and entertainment production. It makes some extra off the ABC Shop, but as it says on the website: “All profits from the ABC Shop are reinvested into the ABC for program making”.

Let me put some of this into perspective. When Mark Scott said “Today, most private sector media executives looking down that list will not believe the salary rates of the ABC compared to what’s paid in commercial radio and television-land,” on Melbourne’s ABC Radio 774, he meant it.

https://soundcloud.com/774-abc-melbourne/jon-faine-with-mark-scott-on

Take the nightly news for example, Juanita Phillips, the anchor of ABC News NSW earns around $315,000 a year (2011-12) according to the Australian’s piece, while Chris Bath, who hosts 7 News Sydney, earns about $900,000 – at least that’s what news.com.au said. 

Again, using the Australian and news.com.au, I’ll compare the female co-anchors of the breakfast shows. Virginia Trioli, of ABC News Breakfast is paid about $285,000, on Channel 7, Mel Doyle was reportedly being paid about $700,000 while on Sunrise and Lisa Wilkinson is reportedly being paid about $600,000 – but that is rumoured to go up considering the ratings of the Today Show.

Mark Scott also said on Melbourne radio that he was “concerned that this gives people like David Gyngell a list, a target, and it hurts the ABC’s ability to attract and retain talent“. I’m not surprised that he is concerned – now that they know how much Leigh Sales, Juanita Phillips or Mark Colvin earn yearly, if Channel 7 or 9 wanted to lure them, they could offer them quite a lot and they might decide to go. I hope they don’t and that they like their jobs enough to stay on the ABC.

The Australian also made some comments that, if you knew anything about the ABC, would make complete sense. They’ve started a conspiracy simply by saying, “More than $214m of the $453m national wage bill is spent at Ultimo in inner Sydney“. I hate to break it to the conspiracy theorists, but the ABC is headquartered in Sydney. It is where most national current affairs TV and radio programs are produced and presented, and where many heads of department have their offices.

It annoys me that the Australian has done this because contrary to what it believes, it isn’t in the public interest. It’s not really appropriate to ask someone their wage, and even less so to publish it so everyone else knows. General politeness lectures aside, the Australian shouldn’t have done it, even though they dislike the ABC.

The Taxpayer Money Saga

i like this new notion where making an inappropriate expense claim is just fine, so long as you pay it back when sprung.

— Jonathan Green (@GreenJ) October 7, 2013

so you know, i can steal cars, and if i get away with it fine. if i don’t i just hand the car back and no harm done.

— Jonathan Green (@GreenJ) October 7, 2013

That’s the ABC Online editor and radio presenter Jonathan Green’s take on this taxpayer money claiming scandal thing.

I don’t know what to call it. Scandal? Saga? Thing? Taxpayer-Money-Gate?

But Jonathan Green’s comment, using the stealing of a car, simplifies it into a few simple steps, which I have listed below.

1. Go to a wedding or on an equally dubious “work trip”.
2. Claim taxpayer money on transport, accommodation, food or all the above and pray you get away with it.
3. Once caught, pay it back, saying you were always intending to, because you are an honest person.
4. In interviews, blame the fact that regulations are very vague.

While I don’t think anyone stole cars, and nor should anyone take Jonathan Green’s suggestion seriously, it is a little concerning that this is going on.

First, what are the entitlements for?

Schedule 1 Part 1 of the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 allows certain travel and accommodation to be reimbursed if it is related to ‘parliamentary or electorate business’.

That’s what it says on the Parliament House website. It also tells you the four reasons you can claim for overseas travel (N.B. I have cut out the additional explanations from the site):

1. Travel as a member of a Parliamentary Delegation, within a program approved for each calendar year by the Prime Minister.

2. Travel overseas for the purpose of undertaking studies and investigations of matters related to their duties and responsibilities as a member of parliament.

3. Representational overseas travel for parliamentarians who, with the approval of the Prime Minister, are representing Australia, a Minister, or the Government overseas.

4. Travel overseas on official business for Ministers as approved by the Prime Minister.

So, if you are going to a trade summit or the UN or something along those lines, then the claims for accommodation and travel are completely legitimate. I can totally understand the claiming of tax payer’s money if the politician is doing their job (for some that term is also ambiguous).

Not only are people claiming for weddings, but Tony Abbott has also claimed money for travel to Iron Man competitions, in particular one in the electorate of Port Macquarie, which he said was legitimate because back then the seat was “at the time, marginal”. He also claimed travel for his charity ride called the ‘Pollie Pedal’. He says he isn’t going to pay it back, and if he is travelling in his capacity (as in not on holiday, one hopes) he’ll claim the allowance.

I’m sorry Mr Abbott, but if going to sporting events and charity events, whether they are in a marginal seat or not, are “duties and responsibilities as a member of parliament” then I must be living on another planet. How is being in an Iron Man contest or a triathlon a responsibility as an MP?

I wonder if he’ll answer that question. Probably not.

Oh well, at least he’s paying some of it back. Which, if we are being honest is what Peter Slipper said he’d do about those dodgy CabCharge claims. But that doesn’t seem to be an issue, despite the fact the Mr Slipper is facing the courts over it, while Abbott is just paying some of the money back.

I don’t think we’ve seen the end of this.

A bit of a Rant – Here’s looking at you Channel Ten

I do have to apologise for the long time it has been. I just started university and a new job, so things have been a little hectic.

To start, I’m going to have a bit of a rant, regarding Glee (which I do sometimes watch – if you don’t know what it is and need an overview Google it).

So, today I discovered that Channel Ten, the channel that airs Glee, has not only bumped Glee to its digital multichannel Eleven, but they also cut scenes from the episode ‘I Do’.

It bumped the show to Eleven due to poor ratings. This is probably because it airs alongside My Kitchen Rules, which is currently killing it in the ratings, but also because Channel Ten broadcasts the episodes up to a month after it airs in the US, not counting the break the show takes when the Australian ratings season ends. It is no wonder people download these episodes online. We’re impatient people, who like instant gratification, and for Gleeks, that means they want their Glee, and they want it now. The other question is why Channel Ten thought it was a good idea to air Glee when My Kitchen Rules (MKR, which airs Mon-Thurs on Channel Seven) is on. I distinctly remember Glee airing on Fridays this time last year – when MKR was not on air! So why not air Glee on Friday nights, after the Living Room? And why not move to maximum of a week between the US airing and the Australian broadcast. It isn’t that hard. And what makes it worse is that the ratings are going to slip further for Glee, because I doubt anyone is really aware the show is now on Eleven, let alone that it might be back on air at all.

I still have another bone to pick with Channel Ten, though.

Glee prides itself for its acceptance of all races, genders and sexualities and has characters that are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender on the show. Of course, this upsets the ultra-conservative, and slightly mental, religious corner of the US, but the creators knew that was always going to be an issue. Glee has international fame because of the aforementioned acceptance and  is well-known for encouraging acceptance. If you do a bit of surfing on the net, you’ll also find that Glee’s cast has received messages from viewers thanking them for giving them the confidence to be proud of who they are. So, when Australian viewers, at least the ones aware the Glee is on Eleven now, tuned in to watch the Season 4 episode ‘I Do’, they were probably aware that there was going to be some great scenes between some key characters (Kurt, Blaine, Rachel, Finn, Quinn & Santana), only to discover that some scenes had been cut short or cut completely – the ones involving the homosexual relations between Kurt and Blaine, and Quinn’s experimental relations with Santana.

Now, before I continue, let me explain that I have no issues with homosexuality and support gay marriage.

This has angered Glee’s Australian viewers, especially those who scour the internet for spoilers and information so that they can have something to look forward to when the show finally airs. They knew that Kurt and Blaine were going to make out in the car and might have sex in the episode, and they knew that Quinn and Santana were possibly going to do something too. Viewers were angry and it showed on Twitter, with people criticising Channel Ten, and then the gay media got wind of it.

Channel Ten’s excuse? There were concerns about the show’s content given the time slot of 7:30.

WHY? Well, Glee airs in a PG time slot, meaning it must be rated PG or it has to be aired later in the evening. Apparently that is just too difficult for Ten. What makes it worse is that Channel Ten has done the same thing before, cutting scenes in a Season 3 episode ‘The First Time’, in which key characters took that next step in their relationship. Once again this involves Blaine and Kurt, who in case you haven’t figured out, are a gay couple. That time, Ten cut scenes between them when they were discussing the fact that maybe they might be reaching the point of taking the next step in their relationship. That is completely illogical, and if they really were desperately searching for something ‘inappropriate’ to cut, they should have gone for the part where Blaine drunkenly propositions Kurt outside a gay bar.

Is Channel Ten that bigoted and homophobic that they can’t show homosexuality on their multichannel? For goodness sakes, the ABC is currently showing a series with a gay lead on their multichannel ABC2 (it’s called Please Like Me), it shows a lot more than what Glee does, admittedly at a later time, but they aren’t prude. I doubt that I will be watching Channel Ten soon, unless it’s for Masterchef, or a recording of The Simpsons. I am so disenchanted by their actions and I cannot see what their issue is.

And let me just end by pointing out some major hypocrisy: Channel Ten didn’t cut the scene in which Dean Geyer was naked in Kurt and Rachel’s apartment, which is far more scandalous than that of after sex talk.

Source: http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2013/03/ten-edits-glee-for-pg-timeslot-again.html