When Peter Costello turns TV critic…
Why did a Nine Board Director take aim at ABC2 for sex-themed programming when Nine is doing the same itself?
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News, Top Stories
Former Federal Treasurer Peter Costello really should have been clearer about being a Director on the Nine Network Board when he took aim at ABC2 this week.
Costello wrote an opinion piece for News Corp questioning the funding of ABC’s multichannels.
While he acknowledged “…critics may say I write for this newspaper and I am a director of a television network, both of which compete with the ABC…” it’s unfortunate he wasn’t more specific. It’s unlikely most readers would be aware of his role at Nine.
Much of the article drew upon his experience as Federal Treasurer, rather than media expertise. Costello asked whether government purses should continue to fund ABC multichannels. In his crosshairs were some of the more colourful titles on ABC2:
A fortnight ago ABC TV programmed a whole week for voyeurs on its ABC 2 channel. There was a program called Australians on Porn and a BBC documentary, Twilight of the Porn Stars. There was Websex: what’s the harm?
There was a three-part, three-night series, Strippers, filmed in various Scottish lap-dancing clubs. To show a bit of cultural diversity, there was an Australian who showed what it was like to work in an Australian brothel and a program on A very British brothel.
Nor is the ABC sexist because there was another program called Male Hookers Uncovered and one on transgender called Ladyboys.
Australians on Porn did indeed unravel Australian interest in porn, asking “who’s really watching it, how often and what is it doing to our relationships.”
But perhaps he missed the recent news that next year Nine will screen Sex Ed, described as “a frank and revealing look at contemporary attitudes to sex in Australia.”
So if it’s ok for the network on which he is a Board member to look at contemporary attitudes to sex, why is it not ok for the public broadcaster on a scintilla of their budget?
A Treasurer would know just how much of the Health Budget is spent on sexual health, some of which could be avoided with better sex education, awareness and discussion.
But Costello took the view, “There may be a great audience for it but couldn’t they look up the internet? It is full of this stuff.”
There’s nothing inherently wrong with questioning either funding or programming of our government broadcasters, but when you sit on the board of a commercial network be prepared to be questioned on your agenda. There was no column space devoted to the merits of ABC2, ABC3 nor indeed the role of ABC News 24 which many Australians would argue is now invaluable.
Nor was there any room to ask why first-run Australian-made titles have diminished on ABC2 (they are almost exclusively commissioned for ABC’s primary channel now) and whether funding should actually be boosted. Is it any wonder we are getting Scottish lap-dancing strippers when governments have cut funding, instead of the alternative, youthful, experimental dramas and comedy the channel launched with?
Ratings suggest ABC2 is still regarded by viewers (newsflash -it even beat Costello’s own GEM and 9Life last week) who will dip in to watch select titles when the spirit moves them. It’s true it is capable of better programming, but under govt funding cuts it’s also a tall order.
This week we also read Nine has done a backroom deal for SBS 2 to show the Cricket into regional Australia if WIN goes dark. So while the Board on which he sits is pushing for more money from its regional affiliate, who will be there to save the network from breaching its obligations with Cricket Australia? A government-funded multichannel!
While Costello is turning his hand at being TV critic, perhaps we could hear his views on Nine’s bright idea to programme so much Renovation this year, or his thoughts on overnight offerings such as Danoz and Global Shop? How about why Nine has screened so much NZ drama for local quota points?
What’s his verdict on The Verdict and the salary forked out for Karl Stefanovic? A few Scottish lap dancers thrown in might actually lift its ratings.
Share
- Tagged with Australians on Porn, Sex Ed, The Verdict
9 Responses
Well said David.
Like anyone gives a toss what Howard’s Puppy thinks about anything. He was a non-entity in public life and now he sits there taking his massive pollie’s superannuation and Nine’s money too (something we mere mortals are barred from doing once we retire), while lecturing others on subjects he knows nothing about.
I’m with you on this one, David. Whether Costello is a non-executive director or not, he is still drawing an income from Nine and so will seek to protect their interests. As for the streaming of BBC3, mickche is spot on. FTA audiences for BBC 3 were good and the move is directly related to the cuts imposed by the Tory government.
ros, what the UK cuts do show is the different funding mechanism between license fees and a blanket funding operation. The BBC is responsible for collecting and enforcing license fees, and with the significant increase in catch-up services (iPlayer for BBC and others for Ch 4/5 and ITV), the need for a licence fee for younger audience diminishes as the programming is available on-line. (future article, David?)
Also, “There may be a great audience for it but couldn’t they look up the internet?” It is full of this stuff.” Surely that is the entire point of the program and the issue of porn. If they go online, they find porn, not discussions on porn or sexual health education. They attempt to mimic what they view in porn as normal behaviour and going online just exacerbates the issue the program is trying show.
“There may be a great audience for it but couldn’t they look up the internet? It is full of this stuff.”
Could also be applied to overseas quality drama, of which his network is sadly lacking.
Costello is right. Devoid of any other ideas ABC2 & SBS2 have been filling their schedules up with cheap foreign soft porn on Thursday and Friday nights. Tax payers funding not one but two copies of that is ridiculous.
ABC2 is two channel kids during the day and a primetime channel. Getting 15 year old boys watching porn related content one week in non-ratings isn’t a great use of public spectrum. Normal GEM out rates both SBS2 and ABC2 combined simply because there are far more >60s watching TV in the days and evenings.
More money won’t solve the problem because the target audience is watching the internet, or TBBT repeats. The BBC with 10 times the budget couldn’t do better and are moving BBC3 to streaming, after much investigation and public consultation.
The Verdict is one show that Nine didn’t get right. Nine was at least trying something different. How many…
I agree mostly about ABC2, however, I don’t think the reference to the BBC3 change was relevant. That change to streaming was to fill an 800m pound change in licence fees, and the BBC Trust’s modelling suggested that such a move would reduce audiences by 85%.
So, I don’t the BBC3 case represents the impact of money well. It’s not such the audiences moving exclusively online, but more a segmented audience, using a mix of TV, online and PVR. Although, I think overall comparing channels is valid,
BBC1 -> Ch 7/9
BBC2 -> ABC1
BBC3 -> ABC2
BBC4 -> SBS1
Well said David.
Personally, I think most TV channels will be running some form of soft porn in years to come, as they race to the bottom of TV ratings and relevancy.
David, I’m a big fan of yours but this article is a bit of a stretch! I know now that “evil Abbott” is gone that there needs to be a way to kick the Liberals somehow, but I’d just like to point out that PC is a non executive director and as explained by wiki; “A non-executive director (abbreviated to non-exec, NED or NXD) or external director is a member of the board of directors of a company or organisation who does not form part of the executive management team. They are not employees of the company or affiliated with it in any other way and are differentiated from inside directors, who are members of the board who also serve or previously served as executive managers of the company (most often as corporate officers). However they do have the same legal duties, responsibilities and potential liabilities as their executive counterparts.”
So it’s not “his Gem” or “his…