This demonstrates another fundamental misunderstanding of Australia. Quite simply, Australia and regional Australia are two different countries - regional Australia is whiter, older and less educated. Metro Australia is incredibly diverse, well educated and skews younger. Of course regional Australia is going to get higher numbers for Sky. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that those people are still tuning into the ABC 7pm and radio bulletins during the day. It’s like saying the outcome in the Farrer by election will be an indicator for what’s going to happen in Wentworth or Wills. It’s not, they’re fundamentally different places
What happens when there’s major breaking news? Australians turn to the ABC. Which news services does Australians watch on election night? ABC. Which channel is on at airports, doctors surgeries? ABC. It’s bonkers Trumpian post truth nonsense to even suggest that Sky is more popular across the board.
You also continue to apply American viewing habits to Australians - people really don’t watch news channels here in the way they do in the US. The 7pm local bulletin is important. No one is sticking around for ‘prime time’ on a news channel here.
Completely agree the 7pm news is not at the standard it should be. There are multiple places to get national news from ABC News, 7pm should be state local and regional focused. With the amount of local newsrooms and staff ABC News has - I agree the 7pm news is not a strong product. I
You’ve opened with a personal attack rather than addressing the argument, suggesting I have a “fundamental misunderstanding of Australia”. That’s a statement about me, not the data. And your reply also comes across far more emotional than factual. For example: “You can bet your bottom dollar…” isn’t evidence. It’s an assertion “Australians turn to the ABC” isn’t evidence either. Some do. Many do. Many turn to Sky also. But you’re presenting it as if you have access to data showing which 24 hour channel gets more viewers of both channels had the same distribution. You don’t. More Big Macs are sold than whoppers. True. McDonald’s has twice as many locations as hungry jacks. Also true.
You argue that regional and metro Australia are fundamentally different audiences. That’s a fair observation. But if that’s true, then using national audience totals to prove comparative popularity becomes even more problematic, not less.
You also seem to apply two different standards to the same question: On one hand, you argue that regional ratings cannot be used to work out national popularity because regional and metro Australia are different. That’s fair.you then immediately make national popularity claims of your own: Australians turn to the ABC, Australians watch the ABC on election night, Australians choose the ABC during breaking news there for it must be the most popular channel nationally as the metro audienaces suggest so. You’re making the same leap you’re accusing me of making. The difference is that you’re comfortable making them when they support your conclusion.
My point remains quite simple:
ABC News Channel is available to virtually 100% of Australians. Sky News FTA is available to a much smaller regional footprint. That means total audience figures measuring both audience preference and equal distribution are not available. The RegionaltAM figures do not prove Sky would outperform ABC nationally. I never claimed they did. What they do show is that in a market of more than 7 million Australians where both channels are available on comparable FTA terms, Sky significantly outperforms ABC News Channel. Significantly. Does that prove Sky would win nationally? No. Does ABC’s larger total audience prove what would happen if both channels had equal national distribution? Also no. We don’t have side by side comparisons of Sky and ABC on equal footing in metro homes to see what network would be more watched. And we don’t have a national pool of measurement avail to us. (Unless Sky makes it to a multiplex in metro areas which it prob will one day. Somehow)
The honest answer is that neither of us can prove the national outcome from the available data. I’m acknowledging that limitation, whereas you’re presenting assumptions as facts.
Again, you’ve drifted back into making assumptions about me rather than addressing what I actually wrote. I’d suggest re-reading what I said. I never suggested more Australians are watching a 24-hour news channel than a 7pm free-to-air bulletin. What I actually said was “I’m only guessing…” which was me pretty clearly acknowledging the limitations of the data avaliable. My point was that ABC News in 2025 is much bigger than a single 7pm TV bulletin. It’s a website, app, YouTube operation, social channels, streaming, push notifications and a 24-hour news service. I was simply suggesting that more Australians may now be getting their news from those ABC digital platforms combined than from a single linear 7pm broadcast. You may disagree with that. Thats perfectly fine. But it’s not the argument you’ve responded too at all.
What’s interesting about the regional ratings is that ABC News’ are relatively static across the markets with only small variances, whereas Sky’s are a lot more variable; it was (at the time regional shares ended being publically available) significantly stronger in Queensland than the other east-coast markets although there are indicators in the shares that they were steadily building a larger audience across all markets.
It doesn’t change the outcome (Sky outrated ABC in all competing markets) - but I don’t think the two are necessarily comparable. Sky’s strengths vis-à-vis ratings are its “After Dark” offering, which is less news and more commentary, their daytime output doesnt even move the needle. The ABC’s is a consistent offering, with their daytime programming rating reasonably in the past, but their evening programming less so.
Because it is a fact that more Australian’s trust the ABC than Sky News.
And that is backed up, believe it or not, by an independent report (Page 112).
Ratings comparisons between the channels are meaningless when they both clearly target different audiences - Sky targets right win fan base, while the ABC targets those who are after the day’s top stories - that is why Sky News pulls higher ratings in the evening because that is when their target audience tunes in, while the ABC get’s higher ratings during the day because that is when people are tuning in for the day’s top stories, or for press conferences, breaking news, etc.
I can accept that ABC is probably viewed as being more trustworthy by a majority of people, but it’s never been the most popular. Historically that’s gone to the FTA commercial networks affiliated with Seven or Nine.
But does it matter? In some ways they are different product offerings: ABC a bit more serious and impartial; the commercials a bit more editorialising and emotional.
The best part of living in Australia is that we can choose. The multitude of newsrooms in a democracy is important and each has their role to play in holding power to account.
Have we ever seen Sky’s daytime audience numbers alongside ABC News Channel’s daytime audience? I remember seeing Foxtel ratings for First Edition in the 30,000k range, but I don’t recall FTA figures ever published to be able to establish this.
(Not withstanding the fact that ABC’s distribution is 4x greater than Sky’s)
It’s true ABC News Chanel and Sky News have different editorial styles, programming mixes and audience profiles. But they’re still competing in the same broad market: Australians seeking television news and current affairs. Viewers can choose either channel. Both cover major breaking news, politics, elections, pressers and other national stories. They also measured by the same ratings system when those figures are available. Different audiences don’t make comparisons meaningless. If that were the case, you couldn’t compare any TV channels because they all attract different viewers. The real isuse is that we don’t have a single national measurement covering every ABC and Sky viewer across broadcast, streaming and digital platforms on an equal basis. That makes comparisons imperfect, but not meaningless.
If only ABC could roast sky in an opinion show, that would be worth watching. But years ago ABC decided to leave it because sky is a rage baiting network so why bother. Sky is a tool.
Does the ABC contain far right agenda pushing programming - no it does not. They do not have the exact same programming like you keep trying to say they do.
That is why a comparison of any type is meaningless, because they have clear different audience because they are different channels - one focuses on it’s coverage of the day’s top stories, the other has a strong focus on opinion programming.
Also, we have clear evidence that at the end of the day, more people trust the ABC than Sky News because it was in the report that I linked that you deliberately ignored. Therefore, given a choice, more will choose ABC over Sky.
The discussion is about audience measurement, not political ideology. Nobody said ABC News Channel and Sky News have identical programming.
ABC is clearly a trusted news source. However, trust and audience are different measures. saying someone “deliberately ignored” something is an assertion about intent, not evidence.
Claiming “more people trust ABC, therefore more people will choose ABC” doesn’t automatically follow and is an assumption. Audience reach is significantly influenced by distribution, availability and ABC News Channel is available FTA to roughly four times as many Australians as Sky News putting it in a significantly advantaged position.
the question is - if both networks had equal distribution- which would be more popular? We won’t have the data to know.
You literally say that they have identical programming.
But according to you, since they air the same programming, why would people turn to a source that they don’t trust?
Anyway, I’m done with this - I’ve presented the facts and evidence. Take it or leave it. But I’m done with this pointless back and forth since it’s clear we are now just going to go in circles.
I said both networks compete in the same broad space, and there is overlap in what they cover. No one said they have identical programming, that’s not my position. You’ve repeatedly substituted “overlap” with “identical”. They’re not the same thing.
You also presented assumptions, logic leaps, assertions and political rhetoric in what was ultimately a discussion about data and facts. So yes, it’s probably best to leave it there.