Either that, or it gets cut entirely for noodle updates. The gravy train with rolled gold is long gone my friend.
1 Like
You’ve been through this at least 3 times before in this thread and still you don’t seem to get it.
When it comes to legal obligations to their broadcast license(s), they are. That’s all that matters to them.
There is no commercial broadcaster in the country which would consider “community obligations” more important than profits.
9 Likes
There’s not exactly people lining up to get into linear FTA regional TV to buy a license, which is another thing certain people in this thread don’t grasp. It’s not even a case of ‘better the devil you know’, it’s that the devil is the only option.
If your dream happens and they’re stripped of the license - the biggest outrage will be people losing access to the TV shows they usually watch, not some fantasy-land of ‘fighting the man’ revolution of regional news media.
As @Squee mentioned - they meet their obligations. Not some fantasy obligations you have in your head.
10 Likes
… er they have a “broadcasting license” in order to make “profits” … that’s why it’s called a “commercial” broadcasting licence … you’re confusing them with the ABC which has a licence to spend money and not make profits … should they “have their broadcasting license taken off them” too because they don’t do a local television news in every market they service?
2 Likes
… that can’t actually happen because the ability for the regulator to do so was itself “stripped” from the Broadcasting Services Act when it replaced the old Act in 1992 … in the old days it could and in fact TNT Launceston’s licence was suspended for a period for a breach …
The fact is if WIN kept up with the times their news would be profitable and still can be if some effort is put in. They are broadcasting on a public medium which overall is still profitable. They are not meeting the community expectations and as thus they should have their license revoked. They can meet their obligations to the communities and ensure they have a voice and still make a profit by changing the way their news services are structured without cutting bulletins.
Really? It looks like they have trimmed as much fat that can possibly be trimmed. What suggestions do you have that will simultaneously improve the content without costing them a cent more?
7 Likes
And, for the umpteenth time, they don’t have to.
How would you measure “community expectations” other than through a quota which they already meet?
13 Likes
Key difference: Your perception of what the community expects and what the community actually expects.
Matter of fact is, most of WIN’s viewers won’t care and barring any other significant changes it’s unlikely much will change ratings-wise.
6 Likes
Out of curiosity, which regional area do you live in? Does your local MP share similar views? Ever thought of running for parliament to influence government policy which could actually legislate your thoughts into law?
1 Like
I knew TVT6 Hobart had a two hour suspension of its broadcasting licence in 1975 but didn’t know TNT9 did as well.
… the details are extremely foggy (or maybe it’s just my memory 
), but I remember being told about it by John Stephens, then program manager at TNT, and it was longer than two hours, but more than that is somewhat beyond my grasp now …
ACMA can cancel a licence under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. A failure to comply with a remedial direction to broadcast sufficient local content would presumably be grounds to cancel a commercial radio or television licence.
1 Like
… possibly, but given the ACMA’s inability to act on virtually anything related to broadcasting (with the possible exception of community and narrowcasters), the ABC’s “we respectfully disagree” and Warburton’s recent throwing down of the gauntlet on children’s quotas, I don’t think anybody in the real world really takes those clauses seriously …
1 Like
I don’t live in a country area but have in the past. I just strongly believe in media organisations having a responsibility to appropriately represent the community’s interests. For example significant issues occurring in regional areas are not being adequately actioned by government mainly due to the media cutting services. For example the current mouse plague is one such issue.
Conversely there is a finite number of commercial licences. Some regional Australians get lucky and have a network willing to make decent news for them. Others have been screwed.
My view is that if the low profit margins aren’t enough for the regional TV owners, they should sell up and do something else.
Australia’s broadcasting markets were set up intentionally to avoid the capital cities dominating the whole country, but that is exactly what happened.
I really don’t think 15 mins a day of local content is a big ask for markets of 300-odd thousand viewers. Doesn’t have to be news. The regionals could be creative but they don’t have the chops it would seem.
I think the change to statewide bulletins in the various markets is a strategic error by WIN despite the cost savings. The 5.30 pm timeslot is one of the most critical across the day and even more so in regional areas based on viewing numbers. It delivers a lead in to the key 6pm news hour and I think that WIN should have tried harder to fund a more locally based news. Looking at the numbers, Nine’s “local” news numbers took a dive with statewide bulletins (and got even worse when they took a break) while WIN News despite being in the more competitive 6pm timeslot was able to equal or outperform Nine’s local bulletin. Perhaps WIN could have even considered 15 minutes of local news followed by 15 of state news to at least get the hyper local news up at the front of the bulletin. I think this is going to be bad news for the numbers for Nine News at 6pm and that could have a flow on affect across the night.
2 Likes
You’re confusing what they can do with what they would or will do. They clearly have powers to revoke licences, whether they choose to exercise them is an entirely different matter
1 Like
… you have hit the nail on the head … aggregation should never have been introduced, the limit on ownership to two stations should have been retained … but that’s not what happened and the percentage of revenue being screwed out of regional stations by the networks who themselves went broke because the stupid changes to the laws allowed marauders to spend exorbitant hundreds of millions of dollars on buying assets worth much less has now been upped from under 10% at the start to 50% now making it impossible to make even a “low profit margin” … “15 minutes a day of local content” when “local” is defined as, for example Wagga, is a ridiculously big ask - compare that to the “local content” provided by a Sydney station to news originating in Blacktown or Liverpool and you’ll begin to get the drift … aggregation was established on the basis of a market of 1 million being able to sustain three competing services when that wasn’t even true of Adelaide or Perth, a statewide news bulletin is about the most that can be reasonably expected by comparison …
1 Like
… that’s rather like Kerr having the power to sack Whitlam … he did, but would today’s Governor General do the same?