The Glass House has been axed... (2 Viewers)

[cute.asa.button]

How this ended up revolving around voting practices i don't know...
But anyways.

The whole thing is just stupid. I think it is because of the bias issue and I think that the new ABC board has just proved how useless it is if it can't even recognise a little bit of critical comedy (comedy being the key word here) when it sees it.
The idea of a democracy is that the leaders are always being critically scrutinised (this is one of the key roles of Parliament) and so thats what the glass house does. Like wil said on the show a few weeks ago - if they want us to bag the other guys, vote them in.

Anyone who wants to leave a supportive comment or angry comment (as the case has been over the last 10 days or so) on the Glass House Website, visit:
http://www.abc.net.au/glasshouse/

Enjoy.

 

[withoutaface]

Comedy would be the key word if the glasshouse was still funny.

EDIT: Scratch that, I did get a good laugh from the guestbook:

Name karen
Subject glasshouse axing
Visit Time 3/11/2006 1:01 PM
Remark cannot believe the only truly funny show on TV is going - tossed overboard by the government's new IR policy?

 

[withoutaface]

From the Australian yesterday:

WAS the ABC's news review program The Glass House axed this week due to political pressure over its irreverence towards the Howard Government?

No. The decision was made at least three months ago by an ABC management that judged the format and writing team tired; it was essentially the same format and core writing team that began on Good News Week in 1996.



There we go my dears. It failed because it wasn't funny.

 

[Kyroth***]

Me to the abc:

Axing the Glasshouse? WHY?

You see, the thing I don't get, is that if you are un-biased you air anything and everything. You don't give special treatment to something that expresses one opinion and not another. But axing the Glasshouse because you get complaints about the content IS bias! It's bias against opinions against the government, and when you start censoring (because that's what it is) things like that, you're several steps closer to totalitariamism. Yeah, maybe the annalagy is a little extreme, but you axe one thing based on opinion, it's easier to axe another. And another and another. And you start doing that, the only people who will watch the abc are the over 70's or the bogan audiences of today tonight and a current affair. No one with intelligence or brains will be able to stomach the blantant CENSORSHIP, the BIAS.
The Glasshouse is (usually) intelligent comedy. Something to think about. And hey, guess what? The announcement of the axing got them angry. Wil promised to go out guns blazing. And that's going to be worse.
As they said, if Latham was in power that's take on him. If the people who make the complaints actually watched the show, they'd see they target everyone. The government is just more prominant because they do things. The oppisition don't - there's only so many jokes you can make about people who do nothing!!!
Bias is only showing programs of a certain point of view. Non-bias is showing everything, no matter what it's got to say. What should the abc be doing? What has it been saying it's trying to do?
I want an unbiased abc. One that isn't affraid to show any point of view, from te very pro-government to the very anti-government.

I think though, with the way MY ABC is going, I'm dreaming.

 

[withoutaface]

Me to the abc:

Axing the Glasshouse? WHY?

You see, the thing I don't get, is that if you are un-biased you air anything and everything. You don't give special treatment to something that expresses one opinion and not another. But axing the Glasshouse because you get complaints about the content IS bias! It's bias against opinions against the government, and when you start censoring (because that's what it is) things like that, you're several steps closer to totalitariamism. Yeah, maybe the annalagy is a little extreme, but you axe one thing based on opinion, it's easier to axe another. And another and another. And you start doing that, the only people who will watch the abc are the over 70's or the bogan audiences of today tonight and a current affair. No one with intelligence or brains will be able to stomach the blantant CENSORSHIP, the BIAS.
The Glasshouse is (usually) intelligent comedy. Something to think about. And hey, guess what? The announcement of the axing got them angry. Wil promised to go out guns blazing. And that's going to be worse.
As they said, if Latham was in power that's take on him. If the people who make the complaints actually watched the show, they'd see they target everyone. The government is just more prominant because they do things. The oppisition don't - there's only so many jokes you can make about people who do nothing!!!
Bias is only showing programs of a certain point of view. Non-bias is showing everything, no matter what it's got to say. What should the abc be doing? What has it been saying it's trying to do?
I want an unbiased abc. One that isn't affraid to show any point of view, from te very pro-government to the very anti-government.

I think though, with the way MY ABC is going, I'm dreaming.

Learn to read, fucktard.

From the Australian yesterday:

WAS the ABC's news review program The Glass House axed this week due to political pressure over its irreverence towards the Howard Government?

No. The decision was made at least three months ago by an ABC management that judged the format and writing team tired; it was essentially the same format and core writing team that began on Good News Week in 1996.



There we go my dears. It failed because it wasn't funny.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Yes...if they got rid of the Chaser...that would be worse...I must admit I think Wil is extremely 'unfunny'

 

[lengy]

I like the show more than Chaser to be honest.

 

[cute.asa.button]

withoutaface, i think you are being a tad naive in this - of course they aren't going to say 'yeah we axed it because its biased against our favourite Prime Minister. Long live Howard!'. THey are going to pretend it is for any other reason.
in what you quoted, they said they were getting rid of if because it was boring. In what I heard on ABC radio they said it was going because of a lack of funding for the show - so i ask, if they were telling the truth, how many different truths do they need to tell before people realise that every version is different because NONE are the truth.

Also, if they agreed to cut it months ago - they would have told the people doing, that would be the wise thing to do so wil, corine and dave can find extra work for when it finishes - they would have known the whole bias thing was coming and would have made it public before it came to prove that it was not because of this.

I understand why the ABC has to do these things and i sympathise with them, thought it doesn't make me any less angry. THey recieve their funding from the Government. Already they don't have enough money - if they keep running shows that Howard doesn't like, they are going to get even less until they have to start running adds like SBS has. For those of us who enjoy ABC because it has no adds, that would be terrible. However, i am still very angry that they are trying to pretend that it is for other reasons and that they couldn't just have a little word to the Glass House people so that the bias could be eliminated from the show, instead of cutting it entirely.

 

[helmut]

Thank God the Chaser team is excluded in the new ABC reforms.

true
but i agree with lengy.
no matter how "structured" the glass house becomes it still has its moments, and the three of them can usually play of each other pretty damn well, especially when their guests try to take over/don't say anything.
maybe chaser just aims to be too smart for me...
i suppose its just quick wit vs sexual innuendo[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[withoutaface]

withoutaface, i think you are being a tad naive in this - of course they aren't going to say 'yeah we axed it because its biased against our favourite Prime Minister. Long live Howard!'. THey are going to pretend it is for any other reason.
in what you quoted, they said they were getting rid of if because it was boring. In what I heard on ABC radio they said it was going because of a lack of funding for the show - so i ask, if they were telling the truth, how many different truths do they need to tell before people realise that every version is different because NONE are the truth.

Also, if they agreed to cut it months ago - they would have told the people doing, that would be the wise thing to do so wil, corine and dave can find extra work for when it finishes - they would have known the whole bias thing was coming and would have made it public before it came to prove that it was not because of this.

I understand why the ABC has to do these things and i sympathise with them, thought it doesn't make me any less angry. THey recieve their funding from the Government. Already they don't have enough money - if they keep running shows that Howard doesn't like, they are going to get even less until they have to start running adds like SBS has. For those of us who enjoy ABC because it has no adds, that would be terrible. However, i am still very angry that they are trying to pretend that it is for other reasons and that they couldn't just have a little word to the Glass House people so that the bias could be eliminated from the show, instead of cutting it entirely.

Maybe they decided they'd like to cut it a few months ago and were looking for a suitable replacement show before it became official? Maybe they wanted to avoid one of the host spitting the dummy and refusing to see out their contract? Or maybe they cut programs all the time and program cuts tend to be revealed along with the new schedule.

I've given information from a reliable source (in this case one of the biggest newspapers in Australia) which says that bias had nothing to do with it. If you're going to make claims to the contrary, I'd like to see a reliable source that supports your allegations, because at the moment you've got nothing but conjecture and extremely vague hearsay.

What's wrong with having a few ads? Honestly I don't find SBS's ads that intrusive when I do watch the channel, I don't see why a few mins of ads in between programs would be a huge problem, unless they started to affect the independence of its news reporting, which, while I don't agree with the ABC's existence in the first place, if it is to exist it should at least be impartial. It should not act to balance out the "problems" with other networks by being overtly left wing, and its overall aim should be to provide programs which provide a supposed "benefit to the community", not just ones which rate well.

 

[cute.asa.button]

i'm not going to fight with you over it - i know we both have completely different opinions, but personally i would be a bit cautious saying that one of Australian's biggest newspapers is a reliable source. Many of our biggest newspapers are owned by media moguls (big guns in the media industry such as packer, fairfax and murdoch) and many of them are close to the liberal government for some reason or another. Murdoch for example, prints what Howard wants to read because howard lets him own more media in Australia than the law technically allows because Murdoch is a foreigner (American Citizen since the late 80's or around then - you can't have dual citizenship in America, so he forfeigted his Australian citizenship) and foreigners are only supposed to own 15% of the media in one capital city and he owns more than that.
Murdoch owns the Herald Sun, along with other newspapers printed by the Herald and Weekly Times, so his influence reaches many people across Australia. If it was him printing something about this, he wouldn't want to make it look like Howards fault.

Anways, i have made my point as far as i wish to. Naturally whether you believe me or not is entirely up to you, but that is my interpretation of the situation.

 

[withoutaface]

Murdoch doesn't own the Herald, Fairfax does.

 

[cute.asa.button]

Incorrect...

Murdoch owns News Corporation, News Corporation owns Herald and Weekly Times, Herald and Weekly Times prints Herald Sun amoung other newspapers.

Its written everywhere, my Media textbook - which im pretty sure is checked for accuracy before printed and of which the writing team is directed by John Schwartz, Senior Lecturer in Media and Communications at the tertiary School of Social and Behavioural Sciences - not to mention all over the internet.

Fairfax owns The Age.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[withoutaface]

Both Herald newspapers in Sydney are owned by Fairfax.
http://www.smh.com.au/

 

[cute.asa.button]

Is the Herald Sun's own website a legitimate source for you?

Try here:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/aboutus

I particularly like the bit:

"Since 1987, HWT has been a division of News Limited, which in turn is part of The News Corporation Limited, controlled by Mr Rupert Murdoch. "

 

[cute.asa.button]

The Sydney Morning Herald is a Sydney newspaper and is different to the Herald Sun newspaper which is a national daily newspaper.

 

[withoutaface]

Herald Sun is not national, it's a Melbourne newspaper.

 

[cute.asa.button]

maybe, but Australia's Largest Selling NEwspaper - thought that is according to them so it probably isn't true.
In case your interested, murdoch also owns The Australian, the Daily Telegraph, the Weekly Times and the Courier Mail.
I'm going now

 

[*Minka*]

So now JOHNNY BOY just removes shows from TV that he doesn't like. What a FREE country we live in....

 

[Valeu]

Gleichschaltung all over again