Establishment

Rattlesnakes are rattling

Always fun to see how politicians on the same side eviscerate each other on policy and character.

It was no different with the GOP when Trump was hammering “low energy Jeb” and “Little Marco.” In 2016. Ted Cruz even challenged Trump to a “Mano a Mano” debate such was the divide.

The problem for the Democrats is if the DNC stiffs Bernie Sanders again, his supporters will stay away in November and one has to question whether he will rush to endorse Bloomberg as he reluctantly did with Hillary Clinton.

The funny thing is that in today’s world financial market players rely on over regulation to squeeze the smaller guys out. Get politicians to make the costs of onerous compliance so high that the larger firms gain the spoils.

So Bernie would be doing the financial firms as big a favor as Bloomberg and his “crooked mates” on Wall St by putting more red tape in place. So much for helping out the poor and oppressed.

BBC to move to a subscription model?

It seems there is a push to scrap the mandatory BBC license and replace it with a subscription model like many in the private sector.

We last wrote about the BBC back in March 2018 when comparing it to our own ABC. We said,

On a global basis, the BBC generates GBP 4.954bn and employs 21,431 staff. 22.7% of those revenues are spent on salaries. Average salaries have grown 17% since 2007/8. The average income per employee at the BBC is now GBP236,852 (A$428,000) thanks to the generous mandatory licensing fees. Average salaries at the Beeb are now GBP 55,651 ($A100,728).

Since then the BBC notes the following in its annual report for 2018/19.

Revenue has tailed off to £4.89bn with staff numbers swelling to 22,401.

21.4 m pay the full license fee of £150.50, down 203,000 on the previous year.

Vy way of comparison, Netflix in the UK charges £8.99/mth (£107.88) for the standard package to £11.99/mth (£143.88) for the full Ultra HD experience. There are a whole host of other services from Sky, Virgin, Vodafone etc who are bundling mobile phone and home internet with TV.

An interesting tidbit reveals that one can sign up to a ‘monochrome’ BBC service for 1/3rd the current £150.50 subscription fee. 5,000 currently do. 4.6m over 75s pay nothing.

As ever, the BBC pushes supreme confidence in its delivery of media content. 91% of adult Brits consume it in TV, radio or written form according to Ipsos polling.

Sadly, 52% of UK adults think the BBC is effective at providing news and current affairs that is impartial. Half. 10 years ago, it was 57%.

Only 61% of parents think the Beeb is good for assisting children and teenagers with learning. It scored 65% for adults in this category. Both down on the year.

In terms of platform, BBC TV scored more or less flat on the previous year in terms of quality (72% -> 72%) and distinctiveness (68% -> 69%) but fell sharply for BBC Radio (81% -> 75%) & (77% -> 73%) and BBC Online (74% -> 69%) & (70% -> 64%) respectively.

The length of time Brits spend watching BBC TV fell from 8hrs and 16secs to 7:36 per week. People listening to BBC Radio fell from 10:03 to 9:33 per week. Usage of BBC Online by adults increased from 75% to 77% per week.

In a nutshell, people are watching and listening less to the BBC, view it increasingly as biased, question its offering and seemingly don’t want to pay for it.

Living off a never-ending taxpayer teat breeds complacency. A move to a subscription model would soon reveal how ‘in demand’ the ‘high-quality’ content services actually are. If the BBC truly possesses such a huge belief in its abilities to deliver, it should have absolutely no concerns to let the private market pay for its services.

Just like the ABC in Australia, BBC ratings keep falling and audience trust continues to wane. Ita Buttrose must be watching developments in the UK with a keen eye. Time for the ABC to be forced down a similar road of self-funding, driven by “true” market demand for services instead of junk like Q+A, ABC Kids programmes preaching white privilege or indigenous programs that play-act defecating on white people.

Put simply, the world has changed. There is no need to pay $1bn to the ABC and $400m to the SBS for services that almost anyone with a phone and an internet connection can consume from the source. That is right. We can stream German radio to our hotel room on our American business trip should we wish. We don’t need the government to divert tax dollars to provide services that exist at source in abundance. There is almost nothing at the ABC that can’t be consumed at The Guardian or Channel 10.

Bloomberg-Clinton ticket?

The Drudge Report is suggesting Mike Bloomberg wants Hillary Clinton as a running mate as polling suggests the duo would be a “formidable force.”

We’re not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Don’t forget that Michael Bloomberg endorsed Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 election. Recall he was intending to run as a Republican back then. When his bid failed he threw his support behind Trump’s opponent.

Perhaps a formidable force in rallying Trump deplorables to the ballot box to rub her nose in it?

Clinton continues to show herself to be bitter since losing the election in 2016. Of course absolutely none of it was her fault. How nice it was of her to throw Bernie under the bus late last year when she said that he destroyed her campaign by not endorsing her after the rigged nomination.

Still, thankfully friends like Michelle Obama justified Hillary’s loss when she said, “Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice!” Who knew?

Would such a combo be a plan to have the DNC unseat Bernie Sanders from the front of the queue? Does the DNC think Bernie voters hate Trump more than them post 2016? It sort of has that stench about it.

What a gift for Trump. At the very least HRC could get one step closer to being the first female head of state, especially if she adopted Nancy Pelosi’s prayer guide for the president.

Bernie Sanders should be a Republican if he studied the facts

Bernie Sanders posted the following to his social media platform today:

Today, the 3 wealthiest Americans own more wealth than the bottom half of our people, and income and wealth inequality is worse now than at any time since the 1920s. This is a moral outrage and bad economics. Unacceptable.

Despite Bernie Sanders’ net worth of $2.5mn, there is an irony for him to act like hr speaks for the poor and oppressed.

The funny thing is that many Americans aspire to be as successful as Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. Undoubtedly the Bottom 50% use/have used Windows, have ordered something on Amazon or used products that sit in the portfolio of Berkshire Hathaway. Bezos, Gates and Buffett all came from relatively humble beginnings. So it isn’t a system that has gifted their success.

What Sanders is forgetting is that the net worth of the Bottom 50% has improved substantially since Trump took office. What is often overlooked by politicians is the simple fact of “lived experience.” Sanders can cry about the”gap” all he wants but if a growing number of people feel less under a rock, they’ll gladly overlook the bluster of Trump and his loose Twitter fingers if he keeps delivering for them. It works the other way too. Telling voters how great they have it when they don’t has the opposite effect.

Since the series began, the St Louis Fed shows the Bottom 50%’s aggregate wealth peaked in 2Q 1991 at $4.3 trillion. In Q1 2009, that net wealth plummetted 61% to $1.7 trillion. It sunk to a rock bottom of $300 billion in 2Q 2011, 93% down.

Under Obama, net worth for the Bottom 50% declined from $1.7 trillion in 1Q 2009 to $1.1 trillion, down 35% over his two terms. This might do some explaining as to why the “forgotten” wanted large scale change.

Under Trump, the latest net worth is back to $1.6 trillion. Still well off the highs of 3-decades ago, but one imagines if things keep improving out to November, then these people won’t want to risk their fortunes reversing again.

Of course, many will ponder the unfair wealth gap of the Top 1% at $34.5 trillion in the latest figures.

Sanders should be outraged that the ultra-wealthy have done much better under Obama with a 100% gain in net worth under his term vs the paltry 15.3% so far under Trump.

Best he become a Republican instead!

Now I know my ABC

FNF Media has finally got around to updating the state of our ABC as compiled in the 2018/19 annual report.

The national broadcaster still believes we should fork over even more taxpayer dollars to keep this icon producing more of what the citizens supposedly demand, even though more of the audience believes that “efficiency/management quality” is headed south (p.158) and overall ratings continue to slide.

Despite over $1bn per annum, why do ratings in the metro and regional areas keep falling? We wrote about this last year:

Comparing 2016/17 and 2015/16 the TV audience reach for metro fell from 55.2% to 52.5% and regional slumped from 60.3% to 57.3%. If we go back to 2007/8 the figures were 60.1% and 62.4% respectively. For the 2017/18 period, the ABC targets a 50% reach. Hardly a stretch.

In 2018/19 it fell into the mid-40s. So inside of 13 years, ABC audiences have shrunk by 10-15%. That is appalling.

We have argued for a long time that the ABC needs a complete overhaul.

In the 2018 annual report, the ABC staff survey revealed engagement was at 46%, 6% below the previous survey. This put the broadcaster in the bottom quartile of all ANZ businesses. Reform was and still is desperately needed.

ABC staff complained that management didn’t do enough to get rid of underperformers. Another clear signal that state-sponsored mediocrity was tolerated and staff didn’t like it.

In the 2018/19 annual report, Chair Ita Buttrose AC made the following comments,

Staff morale was badly shaken, and my priority has been to reinvigorate it by restoring order and enhancing good governance with the help of Managing Director, David Anderson, and his management team. Our employees, in content areas and vital support functions, need a strong sense of direction and a feeling that management has their backs. I feel we are now providing it.

Tucked away in the back pages (p.216) is an interesting subsection on the Code of Practice. There is some eye-opening content with respect to the way it conducts its business.

Take this gem to start with on complaints as to whether it constitutes a potential breach of the charter:

A complainant is entitled under section 150 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) (“the BSA”) to take their complaint to the ACMA if, after 60 days, the ABC fails to respond to the complainant or the complainant considers the ABC’s response is inadequate.

The ACMA has a discretionary power to investigate a complaint alleging the ABC has,
in providing a national broadcasting service, breached its Code of Practice. Section 151 of the BSA provides that the ACMA may investigate the complaint if it thinks that it is desirable to do so.

The ACMA’s jurisdiction under sections 150-151 does not encompass the ABC’s print content or content disseminated by the ABC over the internet or through mobile devices.

Print and internet-based content fall out of the remit for complaints. So technically ABC can say what it pleases. ACMA is hardly wielding a big stick when it comes to the ABC.

Accuracy is a fun area which would seemingly fall foul of rarely being presented in context:

2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

Why did the ABC report that less than 1% of burnt area in the recent bushfires had been started by arsonists? Given that most fires couldn’t be attributed to anything at the time, the ABC forgot to mention the “unknown” category so it could slice the data so it could list the smallest possible percentage. 12,000 fires had been reported since August 2019. 1,700 had been investigated with 42% reported by the NSW Police as deliberately lit.

Impartiality

…The ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:
• a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
• fair treatment;
• open-mindedness; and
• opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

Why did it allow a bunch of radical feminists to openly call for the murder of men, providing a platform to a convicted terrorist or happily release a tweet that said former PM Abbott liked anal sex? Or calling conservative politicians “c@nts“? Guess we’re just not open minded enough.

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.
4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.
4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic
principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.
4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.
4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

Why does the ABC constantly run a climate alarmist narrative? Why does Q&A attack conservatives on the panel almost every episode?

Secret recording and other types of deception

“5.8 Secret recording, misrepresentation or other types of deception must not be used by the ABC or its co-production partners to obtain or seek information, audio, pictures or an
agreement to participate except where:

(a) justified in the public interest and the material cannot reasonably be obtained
by any other means; or
(b) consent is obtained from the subject or identities are effectively obscured; or
(c) the deception is integral to an artistic work.

In cases, the potential for harm must be taken into consideration.”

Why did the ABC insert ­itself into the election campaign with a program timed to derail the election prospects of the Left’s hate ­figure, Pauline Hanson and One Nation? An Al ­Jazeera expose, How to Sell a Massacre, was a sting three years in the making, employing hidden cam­eras to ­record One Nation’s ­unsuccessful attempts to solicit foreign funding with the aid of the National Rifle Association. Why was the ABC consorting with the national broadcaster of a foreign power which has highly exceptional human rights standards which flies in the face of all the woke agenda pushed by the ABC? Double standards much?

Privacy

Privacy is necessary to human dignity and every person reasonably expects that their privacy will be respected. But privacy is not absolute. The ABC seeks to balance the public interest in respect for privacy with the public interest in disclosure of information and freedom of expression.

That is a whole can of worms. Can we trust the ABC to execute fairly in this regard?

Harm & Offence

“7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.
7.2 Where content is likely to cause harm or offence, having regard to the context, make
reasonable efforts to provide information about the nature of the content through the use of classification labels or other warnings or advice.”
7.6 Where there is editorial justification for content which may lead to dangerous imitation or exacerbate serious threats to individual or public health, safety or welfare, take appropriate steps to mitigate those risks, particularly by taking care with how content is expressed or presented.
7.7 Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.”

Again, what purpose was there to get a panel of radical feminists outright calling for the murder of men? Or just use taxpayer funds on an article on how to give blow jobs?

Kids Programs

Take due care over the dignity and physical and emotional welfare of children and young people who are involved in making, participating in and presenting content produced or commissioned by the ABC…Take particular care to minimise risks
of exposure to unsuitable content…

Why did the ABC run a kids program attacking white privilege?

We have long supported a shift to the TVNZ model, where the kiwi national broadcaster is forced to raise most of its own revenue by appealing to the demands of the market.

TVNZ gets $310m of its $318m purse from advertising. It’s staff costs excluding capitalizing into programs is $72m which converts to 23% staff cost/revenues. They do with 642 FT employees. Revenue/employee is $495,000 vs half that at the ABC. It paid a dividend back to the government of $3.7m. i.e. it is a revenue generating asset.

In 2007, TVNZ had $339m in revenue. It employed 1,023 people. Therefore revenue per employee was $331,380. So in a decade, TVNZ efficiency improved almost 50%. A 6% cut to revenue on 63% reduction in staff. TVNZ ratings are up too.

So instead of Ita Buttrose impersonating Oliver Twist she should be channeling Jerry Maguire and asking advertisers to “show her the money!”

The ABC needs to live in the real world of media because it provides no distinct differentiation from what is already available in the marketplace. You see our ABC should be confident that it has a sustainable audience for its type of journalism. It shouldn’t be one to fear but one to embrace.

For the ABC, it’s best not risk it. Easier to suck on the teat of the taxpayer and ask for even more money so it can try to arrest the decline in so much content that is totally unsalvageable.

Bernie voters by age group in New Hampshire

Yet more old people who clearly must not get it.

Another example highlighting how the current generation believe that they’re smarter than the previous one as well as the one that will follow them.

Hollywoke. Oscars audience plunges to lowest ever

When Joaquin Phoenix lamented, “We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow and steal her baby, even though her cries of anguish are unmistakable. Then we take her milk that’s intended for her calf and we put it in our coffee and our cereal,” Hollywood hit peak woke. At the Golden Globes, he thought telling us he would be wearing only one tuxedo for the entire awards season while eating vegan would be a hit with mainstream Americans to highlight doing his bit for the planet. At the BAFTAs, Phoenix ran the “systemic racism” line. Yet he didn’t hand his gong to a person of colour that he believed was deserving of the award.

Hypocrisy sadly doesn’t resonate very well with mainstream Americans.

Essentially the Oscars has become a light-hearted entertainment version of the Democratic primary debates. The policy platform was all in there – speeches about feminism, gender equality, LGBTQI, climate change, healthcare and living with less. Basically, every “woke” politically correct subject got a mention, delivered by the very people who have zero place lecturing the rest of the world, as Ricky Gervais told them.

Celebrities, coming off the highs of the second-lowest audience total ever recorded in 2019 (after a 12% bump on 2018 which was 40% down on the prior 5 years), must have hoped that the 2020 Oscars ceremony would recover with more of the same social justice. Sadly 2020 was watched by the smallest audience ever.

23.6 million viewers watched (-20% or 6 million down). Among the 18-49 demographic, the audience plunged 31% vs 2019.

Joaquin Phoenix closed his speech by saying,

I have been a scoundrel all my life, I’ve been selfish. I’ve been cruel at times, hard to work with, and I’m grateful that so many of you in this room have given me a second chance.

FNF Media would prefer Hollywood gave Phoenix a third chance to revert to type. Because this act isn’t fooling anyone.