Whacking Permalink Archive
13 August 2003
What is a dog? A loud, stupid shitting machine. Nobody needs that.
There was a classic episode of South Park, where a Johnny Cochranesque lawyer, faced with the impossible task of defending his client, mounts the 'Chewbacca defence', which took the form of....
are the facts of the case"
Niall Cook's grumbling defences of the ABC (over the space of three painfully laboured posts) has taken the Chewbacca road. When confronted with a viewpoint asking why someone should be compelled to pay for a broadcasting service they don't watch, Niall rants about every issue other than this. Among them...
commercial broadcasters are crap
All of which of course (apart from being wrong) completely avoid the issue.
Well it seems he realises he's run out of room to argue, so finally (after even more waffle), Niall mounts his justification for using taxpayer money for the ABC, and it's every bit as shallow as I expected:
And in three posts, you still haven't shown how public broadcasters can be vulnerable to ratings when they are already getting the tax dollars of people who are not watching them.
Which doesn't change the fact that they are unpopular.
You've already provided it. In your bizarre attempt to show SBS's popularity, your link actually showed that outside of the World Cup coverage, it could only grab a 5.5% audience. Naturally, Niall blusters that 5.5% is one hell of an impressive audience, because - you know - it's higher than nothing.
They prove a point all right, but it wasn't the one you were thinking of.
And it's still a small minority, and that the remaining 16 million is a lot bigger...a vast majority in fact. I couldn't find the Fairfax article with the 16% 2001 figure, but I just found another which paints an even worse picture for your beloved ABC: that the 15% audience share in 2002 was it's best ever performance. That's some popular network you got there.
Except it gets public money, regardless of bad ratings, which the commercial entities do not. The ABC gets Joe Bloggs' tax money, whether or not Joe Bloggs is watching it. It is not reliant on revenue derived from the market. Commercial broadcasters rely on revenue from advertisers hoping to sell products to their audience, and this is influenced by ratings. Which part of this don't you understand?
Highways should be privatised, the Collins submarines are already universally regarded as lemons, and politicians should be paid a higher salary but have their superannuation and retirement perks slashed. By the way Niall, I noticed you're changing the subject again.
Well, here's the point in table form:
Niall - clearly not living in the real world with the rest of us - thinks 16% and 5.5% are healthy figures next to 100%.
Anyway, after obfuscating and talking about every issue other than why my money should be used to fund the ABC, he finally presents his big point:
Ye gods, he actually wrote that. You'll notice he's now ditched the argument that the ABC exists because we all love it, or that it serves some grand purpose. Now it's because we are morally obligated to fund this wonderful institution. And why? He seems to have two reasons: 1) because we are funding it already, 2) So a minority of Australians can enjoy their own entertainment preferences without having to pay the real cost of them. Wonderful.
In other words: you should fund the ABC because I like it and it's better than the crap you like. My tastes are better than yours. So what if I can't justify spending your money on it? You are going to have to pay for it whether you like it or not. How dare you complain about the way your money is being spent. Go move somewhere else if you don't like it!
the pretensions to cultural nobility fade away. In the end, you're left
with some good old fashioned bludging.
Capitalism gives us choices. Ross Gittens thinks this is really, really scary.
I particularly liked this stunning observation:
My god, businesses exist for their own benefit?????
Attention stupid people: if consumer choice confuses or scares you, then don't choose. Don't shop. Move to Cuba. You'll lose nothing. Nobody is forcing you to engage in this frightening practice known as shopping.
Then, we have my vote for The Most Stupid Thing Anyone Has Written in 2003:
Yikes!! Who has ever been able to cope with the trauma of picking between an apple and an orange?
What the fuck?
This explains why Apple have a 50% share of the home computer market. Except they don't.
In other words: companies like to sell goods and services to customers. We can see why Gittens' economic skills are held in such high regards at the Fairfax empire. But wait, Ross reveals another shocking secret of the capitalist cabal:
Maximising the price of an asset they are trying to sell? Is there no end to the horror?
Most people who buy mobile phones seem to manage it just fine, fatso.
Amazing guy, he's figured out people can't afford everything they'd like.
Has Gittens been reading a bunch of Hugh Mackay and Richard Neville articles recently? He certainly shares their solipsistic pathetic insecurities and predictions of spiritual doom: I'm old and miserable, so the world is going to hell...... The existential ennui is crushing my spirit...... I see Pepsi where there should be Panda Bears, mobile phones where there should be leather-bound books...... Oh cruel world! If only we were more like North Korea, Sudan and Cuba, we wouldn't have all this horrible choice destroying the authenticity of our humanity.
And this arseclown
is one of Australia's most respected economic commentators.
Tim is all excited about the Mini-Cooper he just grabbed, presumably to collect some fruit baskets or something.
If makers of alternative energy-source cars want to be taken seriously, why do they make their cars so hideously UGLY?
Sweet jesus, if you're smart enough to come up with a clean engine technology that actually works, can designing even an average-looking body be so difficult?
Excuse me while I attract some google searches.......
you for your time.
Support Brave Multinationals!!!