Yeap. I remember reading on the old forums about only Melbourne and Sydney having real sets at the time, with green screens being used for the other cities.
I personally think that the ABC News NSW set of that era was real, but with some chroma key elements for the OTS Graphics and the Weather (Full credit for the video where I took these screenshots from goes to @Zampakid!):
Mind you, the situation with the set mightâve changed later on after Richard Morecroft left and when the studio moved from Gore Hill to Ultimo.
As a side note: I personally think that these ABC News graphics were looking really old fashioned by the time they were replaced, even taking into consideration the minor tweaks that were made in the later years (around 2002 or 2003 I think?) of this look!
4 Likes
I actually think thereâs something timeless about the old pre-2005 look.
2 Likes
Oh puh-lease, youâre just trolling now. I refuted basically every paragraph of his post.
And how can you say it was excellent when you have already said it was misplaced and odd?
It wasnât an âexcellentâ post - it was a post based on the INCORRECT assumption that the ABC had analysed the use by MPs of capital gains tax concessions, and ânegative gearingâ. It was a post, on a MEDIA website discussing ABC News CONTENT, which completely misunderstood the nature of news content and instead was a rant on the substantive issue of housing affordability.
TV-ACT, you say you donât think the citizenship changes should have been covered in preference to the story on MPs owning property because it is the LNPâs story of the week, and you highlight my supposed hypocrisy.
The DIFFERENCE:
One report was about the GOVERNMENT actually making changes to citizenship requirements, changes that further highlight a shift in tone and policy from a Prime Minister many have labelled as being quite âcentre-leftâ. So there is not only policy change, but substantial politics at play, especially within one of the parties. It made international news.
The other report was something the ABC itself looked into, airing superficial statistics that brush over the issue - that people own property. It was not immediately news-worthy; it could have been aired last year, last week or next week.
Now, that just goes to the placement of the story. Let alone my comments on the reportâs inaccurate and racist language.
This site has become bonkers when the ABC is patted on the back for this glaring oversight in story placement.
Because his post changed how I thought about the story, since he argued his viewpoint well and brought up an angle I hadnât previously considered.
I previously said the story was misplaced and couldâve been aired in maybe the second slot rather than the first. I donât really care at this point, it happened last week and we should all just move on (fat chance tho).
I donât see how I was a troll. If you come on here and make arguments about the evils of ABC News, youâve either got to back up your opinion meaningfully, or admit at some stage you were wrong.
I find it hilarious that you accuse this site and everyone else on it of getting the ABC wrong, not you. Are people not allowed to hold opinions contrary to your own?
My point was I understand the editorial decision to go ahead with the property ownership story ahead of the latest piece of dogwhistling to racists, and to disagree with your unreasonable characterisation of the ABCâs decision.
But letâs remember itâs not which story airs, just which airs before the other. Sometimes that can be behind-the-scenes practicalities or problems which arenât seen on-screen (or to avoid them being seen on-screen).
I said the story provided background, showing a conflict of interest, and I tried to address why housing affordability is more important to Australian viewers than international viewers, so that (international coverage) is not necessarily a good measure of what should air first in Australia.
Oh and just because one party is in government doesnât mean that something they announce is necessarily going to pass through parliament (look at previous budgets, which bits did/didnât get through, although unfortunately these changes most likely will).
Oh, youâre just poking and prodding for the sake of it now. I backed up my opinion initially, then in response to you, then in response to TV-ACT, and subsequently in response to TV-ACT. Thatâs 4 times Iâve addressed the issue in detail. So your statement that âI come on here and make arguments about the evils of ABC News without backing it up meaningfullyâ is just trolling nonsense.
As for your statement that âpeople are not allowed to hold opinions contrary to your ownâ, Iâd just like to point you to your statement two seconds earlier that âI must admit I am wrongâ and agree with your viewpoint, lol.
And in regards to your statement about âeveryone getting the ABC right, and not you Firetorchâ, then when this is the âmatureâ summary of an ABC News editorial decision about a major policy change:
then I feel pretty comfy in my viewpoint.
You crazily jump on any criticism of the ABC and itâs so tiring matlock. I know you, and perhaps some other idiots will counter with âoh but Firetorch itâs actually you complaining about the ABC thatâs boring blah blahâ, but the fact is, the ABC airs literally hundreds of reports each week, on multiple platforms, and I highlighted ONE example I had a problem with for analysis (because thatâs what this website is about).
So, unless you view the ABC as some kind of sacred cow that never, in thousands of examples of news reports and editorial decisions, makes a mistake, then just stop it. If you do accept it makes mistakes but think it hasnât in this instance, then donât bloody say you agree they made a mistake and then change your tune a couple posts later when it suits you to go on another trolling rant about me and the ABC.
- Sure there may have been problems which prevented one airing before the other - we donât know that though, and so can only discuss based on what actually went to air.
- It didnât provide background because it wasnât appropriately attached to any other news piece on the issue, and it doesnât show a conflict of interest (it would be akin to saying income tax cuts are a âconflict of interestâ because MPs earn income - seriously low level, dopey stuff).
- The international coverage angle was an additional reason why I said the changes had news impact - not the sole determinant.
- Sure there may be issues with passing any legislation through the Senate - but it is still an actual policy change by the Government.
I love how you construe my posts as crazy. My original post pointed out one small disagreement and agreed with you that Aboriginal representation was correct. As it turns out my source mustâve been outdated, but overall I still stand by my claim that Asian Australians are underrepresented. I agreed with you that the story placement was a bit odd, and offered a potential reason as to why.
I donât think the above was an irrational defence of the ABC.
Look, if you have a problem with my conduct, take it up with staff. I simply post my disagreements with other peopleâs posts, especially if I think theyâre not representing the issue fairly.
1 Like
Okay guys can we take any of the arguments into PM? I am trying to read everyoneâs posts and these little jabs at each other is getting old and tiresome. We all have different view points here, and that will never change, but can save the digs for somewhere else.
11 Likes
They need to be more selective with the images they use in the titles. Blurry JPEGs of brown trees and photos of random streets and other weird shit doesnât communicate anything, they just look ugly.
8 Likes
I represented the issue perfectly well, thank you very much. I donât think there was any doubt, after my lengthy description of what occurred, as to what the issue was. Unfortunately, we had two users then go off on a tangent about housing affordability and posting incorrect information regarding Asian representation in Parliament. Representing issues fairly means posting accurate info, especially when you are attempting to âcorrectâ someone that posted accurately in the first place.
You posted an unreasonable rant against ABC News including claiming they were being racist, some people disagreed, tried to explain why, but youâve decided to be somewhat agressive, label my post as a rant, etc.
Donât mistake lack of further reply on this subject to be any sort of concession to your arguments, but please, letâs just move on now.
Nah man. And you rebutted what I set out as my issue with the report and placement as being because of my âbiasâ.
Iâm not going to take someone trashing my very REASONABLE opinion that the citizenship changes were more newsworthy than a report on how many properties individual MPs own, as being because Iâm âbiasedâ. Especially when that person is showing bias themselves in calling my view unreasonable, because the news on citizenship stories was apparently very âracistâ.
Give me a break.
this topic has been canvassed enough. Move on.
9 Likes
ABC News coverage of Federal Budget - Tuesday 9 May 2017
Based on supplied program guides; more info when available
###ABC TV
7:30pm Budget 2017: The Treasurerâs Speech
Treasurer Scott Morrison delivers his second Budget speech from the House of Representatives.
8:00pm Budget 2017: An ABC NEWS Special
Presented by Leigh Sales & ABC Political Editor Chris Uhlmann, Budget 2017 breaks down Treasurer Scott Morrisonâs budget with unrivalled analysis from ABC political & financial experts plus interviews with key players
10:30pm Lateline: Budget Special
(Repeat of ABC News Channel Broadcast)
Emma Alberici presents a Lateline Budget Special, with political correspondent David Lipson. Includes interviews with Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, Shadow Finance Minister Jim Chalmers & experts including Saul Eslake.
11:10pm The Drum: Budget Special
(Repeat of ABC News Channel Broadcast)
A special second edition of The Drum as a whole new panel of pundits, commentators and experts look at the fallout from Scott Morrisonâs budget, analyse the winners and losers and ask what does it mean for you.
11:50pm The Business: Budget Special
(Repeat of ABC News Channel Broadcast)
Elysse Morgan and The Business team dive deep into the data to analyse and interpret Scott Morrisonâs Budget and how it will affect the Australian Economy.
###ABC News Channel
AEST
6:30pm The Drum: Budget Preview
As Treasurer Scott Morrison prepares to hand down the Turnbull Governmentâs Budget, The Drum assembles a lively panel of experts, commentators and guests to discuss what to expect and preview the Budget.
7:00pm ABC News Evenings
7:30pm Budget 2017: The Treasurerâs Speech
8:00pm Budget 2017: Budget Explained
Presented by Leigh Sales & ABC Political Editor Chris Uhlmann, Budget 2017 breaks down Treasurer Scott Morrisonâs budget with unrivalled analysis from ABC political & financial experts plus interviews with key players.
9:00pm Budget 2017: Budget Analysis
Presented by Leigh Sales & ABC Political Editor Chris Uhlmann, Budget 2017 breaks down Treasurer Scott Morrisonâs budget with unrivalled analysis from ABC political & financial experts plus interviews with key players.
9:30pm Lateline: Budget Special
Emma Alberici presents a Lateline Budget Special, with political correspondent David Lipson. Includes interviews with Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, Shadow Finance Minister Jim Chalmers & experts including Saul Eslake.
10:00pm ABC News
10:05pm The Drum: Budget Special
A special second edition of The Drum as a whole new panel of pundits, commentators and experts look at the fallout from Scott Morrisonâs budget, analyse the winners and losers and ask what does it mean for you.
10:45pm The Business: Budget Panel
Elysse Morgan and The Business team dive deep into the data to analyse and interpret Scott Morrisonâs Budget and how it will affect the Australian Economy.
11:00pm The World
12:00am ABC News
12:30am Budget 2017: The Treasurerâs Speech Repeat
Times like these that I pray for the return of Sarah Ferguson 
I wonder, that press release doesnât mention that Scott Morrison will be being interviewed after the Budget Speech. Giving it a miss this year?