ABC terminates commercial contract with The New Daily

The ABC has ceased its commercial agreements with industry superannuation fund backed The New Daily.

In an announcement, Liberal Senator for New South Wales Andrew Bragg said he was “very pleased” the arrangement had been terminated and that it had been a “reputational nightmare” for the ABC and “never should have been signed”.

“The New Daily is a propaganda arm of big super, financed by workers’ superannuation guarantee contributions. This sort of largesse will be illegal if our proposed Your Future Your Super bill passes the Senate,” he said.

Related News:

“Why anyone at the ABC thought it was a good idea to get into business with superannuation lobbyists is beyond reason. Credit where credit is due and I thank the ABC for ending this dreadful deal.

“Had it not been terminated by the ABC, I would have introduced a private Senators’ bill to amend the ABC Act to prohibit the ABC doing business with lobbyists.

“I thank the Senate for passing a motion in November 2020 which has helped bring about this outcome.”

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, industry sources said The New Daily paid the ABC under $50,000 a year for use of its articles and videos. The agreement would allow The New Daily to access breaking news coverage from around the country and the News in 90 Seconds video content.




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

I'm not sure why union super ever needed to pay the ABC to spread their propaganda in the first place.

So called "journalists" like Stephen Long and Ian Verrender are quite happy to regurgitate union super propaganda on the ABC for free.

To balance the Murdoch propaganda of SkyNews - seems a reasonable deal.

Actually no. It's not the role of the ABC to act in a biased and deceptive manner to "even the score" against those you disagree with. Just as union super funds shouldn't be siphoning off workers' retirement money to use for political purposes against those you disagree with.

We have a parliamentary democracy to resolve political differences in favour of the majority. It may not be perfect, but it's a better system than in most other times and places. It is never justifiable to misuse and corrupt institutions like the public broadcaster or the superannuation system to serve the purposes of those that don't like the outcome of democracy. Those institutions should be apolitical and trustworthy. What will you be justifying next Hedware? Burglaries by those on low incomes? Armed overthrow by those who lose elections?

Murdoch and his toadies want to get rid of the ABC - they don't care too much about democracy. You are naive if you think that financial institutions are not doing the same in using their super members and customers funds for political purposes.

And the more the ABC spreads lies and misinformation, the more ammunition they provide others to shut them down.

You seem to be a strong believer in the "if my enemy does something bad then it's OK for me to do something worse" principle Hedware. While that approach might be viscerally pleasing, it is neither ethical nor ultimately effective.

ABC has a long way to go to get anywhere close to the biases of Fox News.

Red rag waving, socialist comrade Dick Hedware to the rescue yet again :) I would say their white night galloping in on his trusty stead, but we all know given communism (you know, the basis of unions and their ultimate ideology), it would be a bit of tin foil wrapped around his waist on a 38 year old 3 legged mule that can't even canter and won't make it out of the yard...

Run out of chill pills?

Hedware I'm sure you are aware of the fact that through-out your posts here you are actually admitting the ABC is bias. Thanks but we all knew.

The issue is the ABC is funded by the public - the ABC should not be bias. Fox or Fairfax should not influence the view presented by the ABC.

Yes, I did run out of 'chill pills'. Like most of us on here, totally sick of your sycophantic "I love Labor/unions/industry super but want to pretend I am unbiased" utter BS that you post on here.

The minute any article or comment attacks union super or Labor or any hard leaning lefty organisation, like the ABC, you can bet there is a justifying obfuscating comment (or alternatively an attempt of distraction by finger pointing against retail super/banks or LNP) by the Don Quixote of the financial world (i.e. you, in case that subtlety went right by you).

Hedware, could you please give us an example of where super members and customers funds are being used for political purposes?

There are plenty of private sector media organisations that publish propaganda from the other side of the ideological fence. Fairfax, Guardian, and Crikey for example. But the ABC as a public funded broadcaster should never be taking ideological sides. That makes it no better than any of the private sector media outlets, and diminishes its reason to exist.

This is coming from an ex-lobbyist - typical Bragg supporting his rich mates.

Hedware, do you think that it is a good idea for the ABC to contract services to organisations such as the New Daily and/or other organisations?
If so, why?

Do you think that there could be some issues of public perception regarding such affiliations?
If not, why?

Do you believe that the ABC as a broadcaster should be used as a counterweight to political and social opinions proffered by other news and media services?
If so why? Also, if yes, can you explain how this meets the requirements of the ABC Act 1983, specifically section 8.1(b)&(c)?

I don't disagree with any of your points about the ABC. It's just about Bragg, who was a lobbyist for an organisation against the ABC and which wanted it shut down in preference for Murdoch networks. Even though he is now a Senator, he appears to remain a lobbyist for his rich mates to the detriment of everyone else. He is never critical of the largess of Parliamentary pensions but wants to curtail benefits for average employees.

Much of ABC's drama and documentary productions are outsourced today again due to the likes of Bragg wanting a clear field for those Americans called Murdoch. I suppose economics can get political but the Kohler gets considerable support from the ABC viewers.

True, but the difference is 'Murdoch' is public, ABC is government funded. They both lean separate ways politically, but if the ABC is going to remain government funded it should stay out of politics in general or continue to expect such scrutiny.

Add new comment