96 replies to this topic

[dJOS]

DrP, on Nov 1 2006, 05:34 PM, said:

TEN wouldn't have the stomach for it and would hack it down to a former shadow of itself.  You wouldn't want to watch the result.

Combine the above with TEN's magical mystery tour scheduling and the show wouldn't last long.

And dont forget what 10 did to Good News Week when they poached it from the ABC!  

[boric]

The Charter (edited):

Quote

(1)The functions of the Corporation are:

(a) to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system consisting of national, commercial and public sectors and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to provide:
     ( i ) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and
(B ) to transmit to countries outside Australia broadcasting programs of news, current affairs, entertainment and cultural enrichment that will:

(i ) encourage awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on world affairs;

(2) In the provision by the Corporation of its broadcasting services within Australia:
(a) the Corporation shall take account of:
(i ) the broadcasting services provided by the commercial and public sectors of the Australian broadcasting system;

Whoops. I didn't mean to post without commenting but had to do something else. Must have hit the wrong button.

The glass house fits with so much of the ABCs charter that I fail to see how they could be justified in axing it.

(2)((i) The Glass House certainly provides an awareness of Ausralian attitudes on world affairs (migration, climate change, war on terror), and that regular Australian views might differ from the Governments!
(2)(a)(i) amuses me. Basically becuase none of the commercial provides give us anything like the glass house the ABC don't think they should either?

One of the very few shows on the ABC I bother to watch, and they decide to kill it just like the commercial stations treat me.

Guess I'll have to actually ring and email the ABC about this one.

[Alfred the Great]

Just finished watching tonight's episode - yet another excellent show and even more annoyed at the axing.
Like Homer says: "It's funny, cos it's true"
no bias, just stating the facts.

[Skid_MacMarx]

aunty, like everything else Howard will dumb -it down and kill it with dull-ness

['ct']

MythN00b, on Nov 1 2006, 12:38 PM, said:

Whats the betting the next announcment is that Monica attard is being replaced on Media Watch by Andrew Bolt or Piers Ackerman....???...

I dispair... could be time to move back to the UK....  

I am betting along with another long term DTV forum member that Paddy McGuiness will get the Media Watch gig if he is still alive, with added weekly comment by Bishop Pell?  

At this rate, it wont be long before the ABC is made to run "God Save The Queen" after Lateline each night prior to crossing into the mid-dawn black and white movies. And the ABC worm bug on the bottom right of screen will soon start to resemble and morph into a 'L' for Liberal logo.

ct

[minchjp]

Harru, on Nov 1 2006, 02:25 PM, said:

Fired this off to the ABC

Dear ABC TV,

I am absolutely outraged at the decision to axe the Glass House. Whichever people have contributed to this need to be sacked immediately because it is completely the wrong decision. I have just lost a large chunk of respect for the ABC who I used to think supported Australian content , particularly comedy, even if said content included jokes regarding figures of power (I know that this has not been given as the reason but it's pretty obvious to everyone). This bias circus needs to be closed down or myself and many others will lose all respect for the ABC.

I dearly hope this message gets through to someone important because I am deeply saddened, angered and disgusted that The Glass House, one of my favourite shows and one of the most entertaining programs ever seen on television, will not return.

Regards


I had the same idea about Ten picking it up. If that is the only option then I suppose I would support it but I would much much rather see it on the ABC.

replace outraged with pissed off and regards with fcuk you and you have my letter

[M'bozo]

I'm waiting to see how long John Clarke and Brian Dawe last with their weekly view at the end of the 7:30 report on Thursdays.

How unbalanced the views they express are as they take the piss out of our dear leaders  

[remi]

djos, on Nov 1 2006, 05:22 PM, said:

And dont forget what 10 did to Good News Week when they poached it from the ABC!  

Yeah that's exactly the problem. Channel 10 killed Good news week, and would likely do the same to the Glass House. These programs work well in an advert free 30minute timeslot.

I think we should expect to see severe changes to Media Watch also at this rate.

I am really surprised the ABC board has gone so weak at the knees, it is losing all of its current respect as a broadcaster.

[...]

Speaking of Media Watch, who else noticed that the announcement about The Glass House came out after the final Media Watch was recorded for the year?

I have an ever decreasing number of regular recordings on my Toppy, with the loss of the Glass House there will now be one less.....

[Austen]

I wonder how many of "Rent-A-Crowd" will be howling with indignation after last nights Glass House "joke" by Akmal Saleh, that the combined solution to the worlds energy crisis and the obesity problem in the U.S.A was to..........

"Burn fat Americans"

I found this incredibly offensive, particularly coming from an Arab at a time when inflammatory middle-eastern / western  remarks are the last thing the world needs right now.

Austen.

[Aloysius]

Austen, on Nov 2 2006, 08:36 AM, said:

I wonder how many of "Rent-A-Crowd" will be howling with indignation after last nights Glass House "joke" by Akmal Saleh, that the combined solution to the worlds energy crisis and the obesity problem in the U.S.A was to..........

"Burn fat Americans"

I found this incredibly offensive, particularly coming from an Arab at a time when inflammatory middle-eastern / western  remarks are the last thing the world needs right now.

Austen.

Uh oh!

The voice of dissent!

Austen how could you?

The remark - regardless of who made it - is offensive, pointlessly offensive.

That this should be seen as humour beggars belief.

That folks want to see and hear more of it .......

[minchjp]

Austen, on Nov 2 2006, 06:36 AM, said:

I wonder how many of "Rent-A-Crowd" will be howling with indignation after last nights Glass House "joke" by Akmal Saleh, that the combined solution to the worlds energy crisis and the obesity problem in the U.S.A was to..........

"Burn fat Americans"

I found this incredibly offensive, particularly coming from an Arab at a time when inflammatory middle-eastern / western  remarks are the last thing the world needs right now.

Austen.

It was in the context of everyone taking the piss out of americans, so i doubt it is overly controversial. Plus, they said they would go out with a bang. Did anyone else notice a large increase in the number of john howard jokes?

[Steve C]

Austen, on Nov 2 2006, 09:36 AM, said:

I wonder how many of "Rent-A-Crowd" will be howling with indignation after last nights Glass House "joke" by Akmal Saleh, that the combined solution to the worlds energy crisis and the obesity problem in the U.S.A was to..........

"Burn fat Americans"

I found this incredibly offensive, particularly coming from an Arab at a time when inflammatory middle-eastern / western  remarks are the last thing the world needs right now.

Austen.

A remark is only inflammatory if it is seen that way.

Many a comedian has noted that sometimes, there are times that the role of comedy is to shock and to sometimes offend.

If we don't like what we see when a mirror is held up to ourselves by someone else, it may be time to hold our own mirror up to ourselves before attempting to take the moral high ground.

The shame is that the moral fibre, integrity and conviction that we'd love to see displayed by our civic and political leaders is so sadly lacking, that they can't even look at themselves and laugh at their own idiosyncracies. It's not so hard to laugh at yourself while knowing that you are all the better for doing so.

The axeing of The Glass House, is just another sign post of how far Australia has gone in not being able to laugh at itself.

[Austen]

minchjp, on Nov 2 2006, 09:59 AM, said:

It was in the context of everyone taking the piss out of americans, so i doubt it is overly controversial. Plus, they said they would go out with a bang. Did anyone else notice a large increase in the number of john howard jokes?

Or maybe it isn't controversial because it's OK to "take the piss out of americans [sic] ".

Do you think there would of been any reaction from Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilaly if Alan Jones was to suggest that the solution to car parking in the Middle East was to turn the whole area into a glass parking lot ?  Or is that somehow different ?

Austen.

[Steve C]

Austen, on Nov 2 2006, 11:44 AM, said:

Or maybe it isn't controversial because it's OK to "take the piss out of americans [sic] ".

Do you think there would of been any reaction from Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilaly if Alan Jones was to suggest that the solution to car parking in the Middle East was to turn the whole area into a glass parking lot ?  Or is that somehow different ?

Austen.

So you can see that it's not particularly attractive for a person - in your case, a person of the Muslim faith to react in a way that indicates their inability to allow any opinion or view other than their own?

Why is it difficult to see that the axeing of The Glass House represents a step towards that same inflexible stance.

There are those who may think that eliminating voices of dissent will make us all stronger, but it just shows how spineless we are if we let ourselves be goaded or bullied into countenancing such censorship.

If we were faced with the choice - no options, just a "do you want to live in the sort of World this doctrine would bring"... yes or no, then there is no hesitation as far as I'm concerned; but, to just accept that being the opposite side of the same coin is good enough, isn't good enough.

[Austen]

Steve C, on Nov 2 2006, 11:07 AM, said:

So you can see that it's not particularly attractive for a person - in your case, a person of the Muslim faith to react in a way that indicates their inability to allow any opinion or view other than their own?

My original point was where is "Rent-A-Crowd" ?  Do you think they would come out in force had (say) Alan Jones suggested burning Muslims ???  It seems "Rent-A-Crowd" are quick to take offense.......When views other than their own are suggested, but strangely quiet at other times.....

Steve C, on Nov 2 2006, 11:07 AM, said:

Why is it difficult to see that the axeing of The Glass House represents a step towards that same inflexible stance.

It isn't, I never said I supported the axing of Glass House or Chasers !!!

Steve C, on Nov 2 2006, 11:07 AM, said:

There are those who may think that eliminating voices of dissent will make us all stronger, but it just shows how spineless we are if we let ourselves be goaded or bullied into countenancing such censorship.

Should both sides of a point of view be allowed to express their views without fear of censorship ? So it's fine with you if Alan Jones says he wants to turn Iran into a glass carpark ? And he should be free to say this without fear of retribution ?

Austen.

[Steve C]

Austen, on Nov 2 2006, 12:56 PM, said:

My original point was where is "Rent-A-Crowd" ?  Do you think they would come out in force had (say) Alan Jones suggested burning Muslims ???  It seems "Rent-A-Crowd" are quick to take offense.......When views other than their own are suggested, but strangely quiet at other times.....
It isn't, I never said I supported the axing of Glass House or Chasers !!!
Should both sides of a point of view be allowed to express their views without fear of censorship ? So it's fine with you if Alan Jones says he wants to turn Iran into a glass carpark ? And he should be free to say this without fear of retribution ?

Austen.

Who cares whether "Rent a Crowd" does or doesn't come out... if you let it get to you, I suppose the antics of brain dead sycophantic followers with as much worth as cattle in the human scheme of things, would matter.

Who's Alan Jones? A self opiniated, egotistical little pip-squeek, who uses so-called tough talk to convince people that he's 2 metres tall, when he'd be lucky to see eye to eye with Tom Cruise. From the occassions I've heard his pompous drivel wafting pathetically from radio speakers in the homes of his largely female audience - I'd suggest that anyone who saw his comments as anything more than a means to keep himself in the limelight is easily deluded.

He sure ain't no comedian - and if he directly incited violence against anyone, he knows that he'd feel the heat as much as anyone else, even though he's the sort of concieted twerp who'd think he's showing off his manliness by trying to stretch the boundary between comment and incitement.

He's been lulled into believing that Australia is an 'old boy network' that will protect him while censuring others... but he has no idea of the price he is obliged to repay by calling on that 'old boy network'. He's the sort of bozzo who pats himself on the back for his achievements, even though they've all come off the back of other peoples effort; and like minded individuals no doubt see him as a role model of success through ripping off the efforts of others, and how to deal with anyone who objects to such appropriation.

Meanwhile: It's often difficult for some people to grasp the concept that lampooning or lambasting something isn't a call to eliminate it. It is rather a call to recognise the reality of something, rather than avoiding elements we might not find so appealing in whatever we believe or live for.

That's one universe away from deliberately inciting any form of violence or repression against those who some people view as beneath contempt.

You know it and I know it. If Alan Jones tells people to go and make anywhere a "glass carpark"... as you describe it; he'd be charged with inciting violence and willfull vilification with the intent to harm. If he cracks what he thinks is a funny about some part of the World becoming a "glass carpark"... and religious loons with a poor grasp of the language and what democracy and freedom of expression obliges them to behave like, take offense... well, that's their bad luck because until Jonesie says something directly inciting action against them or anyone else for that matter, it's up to the rest of us to defend his intellectually crippled butt's right to do so - whether we like it or not.

Damned democracy!! Where's a good benign dictatorship when you need it...

[bighead]

just out of interest, anyone had a reply yet, I am still waiting for mine.

They said that 'anonymous' emails wont be replied, does that mean if I gave my real name it will?...how odd, still no email.

[50MXE20]

Harru, on Nov 1 2006, 02:25 PM, said:

Fired this off to the ABC

I had the same idea about Ten picking it up. If that is the only option then I suppose I would support it but I would much much rather see it on the ABC.

Can I cut and past this and send it as well.

What's a good address?

[Aloysius]

A bit difficult to see why anyone would want to defend a remark that talks about burning people, on the basis of freedom - hello wtf

[50MXE20]

Aloysius, on Nov 2 2006, 01:16 PM, said:

A bit difficult to see why anyone would want to defend a remark that talks about burning people, on the basis of freedom - hello wtf

My read was that Austen agrees with you.

[dJOS]

Aloysius, on Nov 2 2006, 04:16 PM, said:

A bit difficult to see why anyone would want to defend a remark that talks about burning people, on the basis of freedom - hello wtf

Hello, comedy! seriously if you didn't see the show dont bother commenting!