August 21, 2003

ONE-NOTE ERROL

Does Errol Simper ever write about anything besides the ABC? And does he ever have anything which isnít suckworthy to say about it?

Posted by Tim Blair at August 21, 2003 04:57 AM
Comments

Some would argue does T Blair ever write about anything besides the ABC and does he ever have anything which isn't negative to say about it?

Posted by: Trust at August 21, 2003 at 09:06 AM

Proof that Simper writes too much about the ABC is not going to be found in a google search for "errol simper" and abc. Come on Tim, you can do better than that

Posted by: Billy at August 21, 2003 at 10:32 AM

He's hoping for a job there- he even changed his name by deed poll so he would fit in.

Posted by: Habib Bickford at August 21, 2003 at 11:29 AM

just did a similar bit of in-depth research for "tim blair" and abc - exactly the same number of pages as the "errol simper" one.

coincidence? i think not...

Posted by: john at August 21, 2003 at 11:49 AM

A certain scribe puts me to sleep by the third paragraph.

Without fail.

Posted by: ilibcc at August 21, 2003 at 12:13 PM

''Did you know Behind The News, unceremoniously dumped by the ABC on August 4, actually returned more than 25 per cent of its $1.1 million budget to the ABC in copyright fees?''
Wow, a -75% return on the investment. Way to go ABC.

Posted by: slatts at August 21, 2003 at 12:16 PM

Not surprisingly, googling "simple error" and abc returns 557 pages.

Posted by: Stevo at August 21, 2003 at 02:04 PM

Hey Tim, thought exactly the same thing when reading the Oz this morning!

Posted by: Garth Godsman at August 21, 2003 at 04:34 PM

Tim, are you saying Errol is "suckworthy"?

And there was me thinking you were just a right wing buffoon.

It seems you are a pervert too.

Posted by: Analogue Voter at August 22, 2003 at 04:44 AM

Surely newspapers like the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian are bound by law to support the ABC: my understanding is that publically listed companies are required to maximise returns on share-holders investments. That being the case, it would seem obvious that they should be expected to promote those areas of the media which have no advertising: if they promote commercial channels, then more people might watch/listen to those channels, and so advertisers might find those outlets a better use of their advertising buck than the SMH or Oz, and so shareholders returns would drop.

So the Herald's and Australian's promoting of the ABC is simperly good business (get it. ha ha).

Ever noticed that while the Herald constantly rabbits on about how great it is to have an independent broadcaster, not controlled by commercial interests, etc etc blah blah, they never quite get around to the notion of supporting a goverment run NEWSPAPER. Gee, I wonder why not.....

Posted by: GeoffM at August 22, 2003 at 04:56 PM

Conversely, the ABC pointedly refuses to mention brand names or commercial entities on air in any favourable light as if it were akin to swearing in front of a staid old aunt.

Of course, it's an entirely matter when they're slagging off at capitalism in its many guises ranging from individual contractors (i.e. non-unionised labour) through to American multinationals. (Multiculturalism OK, multinational not OK.)

Then again, the ABC is already in the publishing business with a swag of magazine titles carrying paid advertising. I'm sure many at the ABC would love to replace Murdoch's papers with Pravda, but The Age is close enough anyway.

Posted by: ilibcc at August 22, 2003 at 06:16 PM