Talk:Australian Broadcasting Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Australian Broadcasting Corporation is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article was the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight (25 November - 10 December 2006). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television.
Assessment comments
To-do list for Australian Broadcasting Corporation: edit · history · watch · refresh

Contents

[edit] History section totally removed?

Who failed to provide a summary of the broadcaster's history when moving the text to a daughter article? The text should be re-inserted until this is done. I'd expect two to three paragraphs here. Tony 00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I hived off the history section at the same time as I created a separate article for ABC TV. This was done as part of the ongoing process of refactoring this article in the summary style. A summary of the former section will eventually be provided by myself if the blank section doesn't inspire someone else to write it first. I think the main article link is preferable to re-inserting the excessive history to an already long article.--cj | talk 09:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think a total blank is worse than a long history. Please create a summary SOON. Your action has resulted in damage to the overall article, IMV. Tony 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Whereas, I disagree. --cj | talk 12:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
So what. It goes back until you've written a summary. Like your hide to remove it without going through the process of raising the matter here first. Tony 13:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Come on, If I was from Germany, I would not have a clue about the funding history or anything without clicking the link. Simply, a summary needs to be written below the link, describing the major milestones of the ABC ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 14:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Guys. C'mon I'm sure we find a compromise here. All we need is a couple of paragraphs below the daughter link and that shouldn't be too much of challenge. I can't do it right now but undertake to do that first thing tomorrow if someone doesn't beat me to it. — Moondyne 14:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks to Moondyne for doing what Cyberjunkie undertook to do in the first place. I think it should be at least twice that length, which would still be a fraction of the previous length. But at least it's not an embarrassment now. Tony 03:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The history section seems too short to me. Sorry to butt in, but I thought I'd have a look at the article as it's the current Collaboration. MrsPlum 08:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree: Cyberjunkie has ended up damaging the article by acting unilaterally and without preparation. The current section is too short and fragmentary. I rather think that he should fix it up, as he undertook to. Tony 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Alan McGillivray Solution

This is referred to in the references, but I can't find it on Google or on library catalog searches under Alan McGillivray's books.--Grahamec 13:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current members

I added links to the names of current board members, and found that many had articles already. However, Mark Scott is a disambig page, without any article for him, and this is the link also found in the infobox. It would be better if we redlinked a page for him, and maybe someone during this collab could write about him etc.? Likewise with John Gallagher. SauliH 15:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Government and the ABC, and Politicisation

Found an interesting paper dealing with the history of government appointments to the ABC board at Friends of the ABC submission. I feel that discussing the appointments of the conservative figures to the board, without providing the historical perspactive is leaning towards a political POV. This link provides a large amount of material that could be used to fill this out further. If some has the time or inclination please look at. SauliH 19:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See also thie lectureSauliH 21:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am listing a few things here for reference. Feel free to write them up in prose if you like
Controversial Appointments
Chairman appointments
Sir Henry Bland retired public servant and adviser to Malcolm Fraser during the election campaign, 1976
Donald McDonald, arts administrator and close friend of John Howard, 1996.
Richard Downing, professor of economics, 1973, and Ken Myer, department store executive and chairman, 1983, had publicly endorsed Labor at the 1972 election
David Hill, railway executive, 1986,was close to Neville Wran
Also, commissioner/director appointments
view appendix SauliH 07:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


I think that the claim that the ABC has been criticised by Conservative Governments for being left wing is too narrow. When left wing Governments have been in power they have also been very critical of the ABC

[edit] 'Aunty'

I tried to find a source for the origination of the name 'aunty'. This lecture was the best I could find. SauliH 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the BBC was called Aunty first. It is only in recent years (say 20) that I have noticed the ABC being called Aunty, and I was familiar with it being applied to the BBC long before that.--Grahamec 06:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been listening to the ABC since the late 50s, and I also don't remember it being called Aunty before around the late 1960s. The Ken Inglis speech suggests the name Aunty was used by the late 1950s or early 60s. This is interesting because the ABC itself seems to think otherwise. On page 33 of the July 2007 issue of Limelight (not, I know, published by the ABC but with its direct involvement and, I would assume, its imprimatur about ABC-related matters), there’s a small piece about the origins of "Aunty". It’s about a certain Heather Chapman, who was the radio critic for the Sunday Mirror in 1967. She was writing about Dita Cobb’s disagreement with the ABC’s lack of support for on-air talent (Cobb had a short stint on 2BL). Chapman wrote about Cobb: "She is, in fact, one answer to the ABC’s Old Aunty image". She had toyed with using "mother" instead of aunty, but her own aunts were warm, intelligent and a bit old-fashioned, and " ... it was with them in mind, not the BBC, that I settled for ‘Aunty’", she said. It’s presumably Chapman whom Ken Inglis is referring to when he says "One old journalist believes that she invented the name in the 1960s and that her coinage owed nothing to the BBC’s having been called Aunty". Comments? -- JackofOz 07:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The present article reads,"The ABC is often referred to informally as "Aunty", the origin of this name derives directly from a nickname of the ABC's cousin, the BBC" and gives a reference. But the reference does not show that "Auntie" for the ABC derives from "Auntie" for the BBC - all it shows of relevance is that the BBC is called "Auntie". The thought of a naive reader being misled on this vital point fills me with dread and unless a gentle editor can find a RS showing otherwise I will shortly edit to remove this heathen blasphemy and represent the information given above by JackofOz. (This edit may contain both hyperbole and understatement. Apologies.) SmithBlue (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logo speedy delete

It would be nice to have an explanation on-site. Tony 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The tag states "This image is tagged as being allowed under "fair use" with a generic fair use template and was uploaded after May 4, 2006. However, it has no explanation as to why it is permitted under Wikipedia's rules for fair use. It may be deleted seven days after it was uploaded. Please remove this template if a rationale is provided." hmmm... SauliH 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Does someone know how to do this? Tony 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There is an explanation of the fair use rationale, if you click on the logo. I question the status of the claim that it will be deleted, coming from a red-linked user.--Grahamec 06:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Being "red-linked" shouldn't make a difference. JDtalk 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
All right I withdraw that, but there is something to be said for creating even a very short user page.--Grahamec 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I had a very short user page. I deleted it. JDtalk 09:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed this for better wording...

I removed this paragraph for the time being, as it has a certain level of uncited opnion. I am not sure how it or if it should go back in.

Due to the ABC's almost total reliance on government funding, as well as government recommendations to the Governor General for board appointments, the broadcaster has had a complex relationship with governments. [citation needed] Relations between public broadcasters and the governments that provide all or much of their funding, and establish and maintain their legal status, have typically been through periods of turbulence since the rise of current affairs and documentaries in broadcasting.[citation needed] SauliH 16:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
These statements may not be specific enough to require citations, as long as more detailed information does have them. Tony 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I am ok with the idea behind this paragraph being entered... I guess my point is more - Do we need it? and if so, can we rewrite it? I am inclined to leave it out. SauliH 07:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Board? Commission?

pre 1984 ABCorp - was the administration correctly called a board or commission or board of commissioners? If you know please edit my section to the correct terminology. SauliH 16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Lab

A good site, The Lab provides a gateway into the world of science, including the unique self-service science forum and the best science news from Down Under.

This is completely opinionated. I will correct it by saying "The Lab" is an online service reporting science related news. It features in-depth articles and analysis on current scientific issues, and various pages for children, featuring Karl Kruszelnicki, a popular Australian scientist who made his debut on the ABC.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.187.153.252 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 December 2006.

[edit] Slogans

It makes no sense that the Corporation would have the slogan "there's more to television" when it is active across more markets than TV alone. A visit to the ABC website seems to confirm that "there's more to television" applies only to ABC-TV. Joestella 13:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Address

This looks at first like advertising. The footnote contains trivia. Without the trivia, it's not worth having. If you feel the trivia doesn't belong, there's no place for it in the article, but that's all it is: trivia. Joestella 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Why continually remove this? It is useful content - the 9994 thing is well known in Australia, and its presence here is useful for readers checking the accuracy of the statement, and the section is referenced. -- Chuq 15:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You would have to concede that a section called "Postal address" that simply contains the address and phone number, footnoted, just looks like an ad. I think the current revision addresses everyone's concerns. Joestella 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it would look like that, but I thought it was clear it was mentioned for a specific reason! Anyway, yep, it all looks good now! -- Chuq (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Australian Broadcasting Corporation

"The Australian Broadcasting Corporation" doesnt seem to re-direct to this article, could someone who knows how please fix this. thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.4.74.65 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] What Station?

Pretty trivial question, but I was just wondering what station ABC is officially connected to. I've always associated it with station 2, just as I've always associated SBS with station 28. Though I have no idea why. Can anyone shed any light on this? Thanks. --Dark_Wolf101 02:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ABC TV is colloquially referred to as Channel 2 because it broadcasts from stations with that number in most metropolitan areas. See ABC Television (Australia)#Stations.--cj | talk 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ABC partisan

"A Roy Morgan media credibility survey found that 25 per cent of Australian journalists viewed the ABC as Australia's most partisan media outlet, second only to News Limited.[17]"

The PDF which is provided as citation also contains "Asked which media outlets are the "most credible and accurate," 62% of journalists nominate ABC Radio, 52% nominate ABC TV and 38% The Financial Review."

I think this should be mentioned (at least the ABC figures), to show that despite being thought of as biased it is the most highly regarded of news organisations in Australia. JWPJ 11:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Australian Broadcasting Company

What is the relation between this article and that one?--Filll 04:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence of the very short article says: "In 1932, the Australian Government nationalised the company through the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act (1932) and it became the Australian Broadcasting Commission." That Commission changed its name to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in the 1980s. -- JackofOz 13:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From an archived talk page: ogg file for Majestic Fanfare, plus repeated list problem

Cyvros, how is it going with the audio file?

The list of the 12 original radio stations appears twice: which list should be removed?

Tony 02:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about not posting earlier (as in... a year ago) - I didn't see this. I have the audio file as OGG (as well as the two shorter, on-air versions of the 1988 and currently-used arrangement as OGG). No idea about the whole fair use thing, though. --Aldor 10:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You can upload the OGG file using the 'upload file' option in the side toolbox. With regard to fair-use, just use a normal fair-use rationale that you would use for an image, with the template: {{Non-free audio sample}} for licensing. For more information see: Wikipedia:Music samples. Please reply if you need any help. Stickeylabel 10:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Here we go -(fair use image removed by bot) --Aldor 11:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading the file :). I have now added it to the article: Australian Broadcasting Corporation#Orchestras. Stickeylabel 11:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, but the original version wasn't performed by an Australian orchestra - it was performed by the Queen's Hall Light Orchestra in England in 1935. I do have a copy of the currently-used version that was performed by the SSO, though. --Aldor 11:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If possible, it would be great if you could upload the 'SSO' version, and the 'Queen's Hall Light Orchestra' version can be moved to History of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Stickeylabel 12:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Here we go - Image:ABC Radio News Theme (Williams).ogg. Not sure if it needs to be trimmed. --Aldor 11:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate structure

I added a section into the 'Corporation' section about the ABC's structure based on the PDF found here - would someone else mind looking over it to make sure I haven't completely misinterpreted it? It's a little confusing. timgraham 05:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Charles Williams, 'Majestic Fanfare'.ogg

Image:Charles Williams, 'Majestic Fanfare'.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Charles Williams, 'Majestic Fanfare'.ogg

Image:Charles Williams, 'Majestic Fanfare'.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ABC Radio News Theme (Williams).ogg

Image:ABC Radio News Theme (Williams).ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ABC Radio News Theme (Williams).ogg

Image:ABC Radio News Theme (Williams).ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 ABC Television logo

What should we do with this logo. Currently sitting half way down the page, I wonder if it should be brought up to the top to replace the previous 'Lissajous curves' derived one at the top of the page. The reason is the old curvy logo won't get much of an airing, except on internal paper documents at the ABC.Lester 00:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the article about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and the ABC1 television channel brand is included in its page. The Lissajous curves, as far as I am aware, will remain the brand of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which is what this article is about.  SEO75 [talk] 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on political criticism are misleading

The article says (I've modified the reference styles so they can easily be seen from this talk page):

"The ABC's coverage of news and current affairs has been attacked by both sides of the political spectrum for partisanship in its reporting. [1][2] [3] [4]"

The problem I have with this sentence is that it gives the impression that the ABC somehow sits in the centre of the political spectrum, equally offending both Liberal and Labor. But in fact the the two examples of criticism by Labor (the latter two) are both examples of Labor criticising the ABC for being too far left, not for it favouring the right. So either the sentence should be reworded to say something to the effect of, "Both Liberal and Labor think the ABC is too far to the left"; or counter examples should be found.

(BTW the other 2 examples aren't the best. One is by the Worldwide Socialist Alliance (i.e. far left, not political mainstream) and the other points to the wrong article).

The ABC is by far our best news service, but let's not kid ourselves. The political criticism of its news + current affairs is (nearly) always that it is too far to the left.Peter Ballard (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult.I don't think there are particular swings either way but perhaps the wording should be altered to reflect that. The fact that the board is stacked with staunch right-wingers should probably also be mentioned, although it's a little hard to word that right since one side sees it as an attempt to bend Aunty to the former Government's will, whereas the other views it as a 'correction' against an apparent left-wing conspiracy.
Perhaps it would be good to also place it in context with other broadcasters - the BBC for one is also criticised for being overly politically correct and hyper-representative of minorities. timgraham (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well my change has been reverted for not gaining consensus, but the stubborn facts remain. The cited criticisms are all about left wing bias. Why was my change unacceptable? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Another edit, this time the whole sentence was removed. I rewrote it with a different ref, of general ABC left-wing bias. I assert that allegations of left-wing bias must be mentioned - in fact without those allegations, the section has no context. Allegations of left-wing bias are both verifiable (google throws up lots of reliable sources) and NPOV, so long as we simply state that the allegations exist rather than take a position on them. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing needs to be elaborated on - who criticises it, any why. Perhaps something like this?
Andrew Bolt, Piers Ackerman, Gerard Henderson and other commentators, particularly from nominally right wing News Limited newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun, have criticised the ABC's handling of current affairs on programs such as The 7.30 Report, Four Corners, and Media Watch.
It's a bit difficult - it's hard to quantify whether it's just those particular people (as well as other politicians such as Concetta Fierravanti-Wells), or the general population who hold those views. I tend towards the former - IIRC surverys indicate the ABC is 'highly trusted' (although that doesn' t neccessarily mean balanced. timgraham (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's one of those things which falls along party lines. A lot of people on the right complain of left wing bias - not just the more extreme like Bolt and Akermann, but a number of Liberals complaining of it. Then there have been a lot of spirited defences from the left, and of course from the ABC itself. Given that, I think it'll be pretty hard for this Wikipedia article to take a definite position. I think we just need to report the accusations, as well as the defences, without taking a position. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Having said that, I agree it needs to be elaborated on. My last edit was really just a placeholder until I found time to do more. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm adding some stuff now - perhaps we should push it further back and follow the various disputes chronologically (Hawke and the SBS merger proposal, Whitlam dismissing the whole board/commission, etc). timgraham (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I should also add that although I've added some of the stuff about commentators, it needs references - I haven't added any but they shouldn't be hard to find (they're all pretty high-profile critics). timgraham (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Googling for 'abc left wing bias' (without the quotes) throws up a good selection, for and against. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I recall reading or hearing about investigations in to the alleged bias of ABC reporting by some official agency and were subsequently found to be untrue. How this was judged i'm not sure, but if someone can find a cite for it, it's definately worth a mention. Timeshift (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a government report - I'll see if I can track it down. IIRC there's also a bias supervisor/examiner/censor/something appointed but I can't remember the precise details. timgraham (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've shifted a few things around and added references and one or two statements. I think it's better than before although things still need some work. timgraham (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Backtracking a little on what I said above (at 10:34), I think we need to make clear that reports (more than one I think) cleared it of bias. (While also noting that many on the right are still convinced it exists). As for reorganising: I think the way to do it is make it more or less chonological. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we ever mention abc right wing bias? "The ABC and the Liberal party – quite often you can never tell the two apart," Mr Foley told Parliament. Timeshift (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the addition of material such as that added by Titus Vespasian 03:12, 3 May 2008 as a response to the "Criticism" section or as a separate section. It does need to be fully referenced however. (Thats why I removed it.) SmithBlue (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Titus Vespanian's edits ("The ABC is an unbiased apolitical public media organization open to public accountability") were blatantly POV and you were quite right to remove them. By all means attribute that as an opinion held by many people (if reliable sources can be found, which I'm sure they can be), but no way can Wikipedia present a statement like that as fact. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This bit doesn't make any sense - "The panel upheld a small fraction of the lodged complaints,[37] overall finding no evidence of biased and anti-Coalition coverage. Of the seventeen complaints by the Minister that were upheld, twelve displayed serious bias on the part of the reporters or the program's presenter Linda Mottram." So, it upheld complaints of bias but found overall that there was no bias, but in particular found serious bias against Linda Mottram? Did it find bias or didn't it? We can't have it both ways.70.180.211.82 (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] logo

the logo iso one of the ABC oldest and most interesting section, a full section on this logo should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.130.46 (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] abc.net.au article

A abc.net.au redirect that used to point here has been turned into an article about the web address. I suggest merging or redirecting it back to ABC. Independent notability is not established. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No color until 1975?

Did they really not have color TV in Australia until 1975? Over here in Sweden, we've had color TV since at least 1970. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.113.248 (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)