The site is owned by property developer Finbar but the question is, what should be done with it? That gentleman Ken McKay and I have put together a concept for Finbar’s consideration. Along the way we’ve had input and advice from a number of Perth’s most experienced media people. You know who you are.

2. Who should succeed you in the job and why? … reply

3. If there was a Phillip Adams Chair at a university, what would you like it to be for? … reply

Let me ask you these questions and please feel free to say something in parenthesis.

4. If you could create a new media network, how would it be different to the existing ones? … reply

5. What is missing in the Australian psyche? … reply

6. How should we decide when to listen to experts? And how do we decide which expert(s)? … reply

7. What is the role of a normal member of society? … reply

8. Can you describe your own spirituality? If you must say ‘numinous’ that’s perfectly okay. … reply

9. What comes after the materialistic society? … reply

10. How do you translate the silent head-nodding of listeners into policy change? … reply

11. How can we better facilitate agreement? … reply

12. Other than family, one person you’d like to thank and one person you’d like to apologise to … reply

13. Is the difference between left and right the best way to separate political ideals? If not, how in future do we organise and present ideas for change? … reply

14. Do you sometimes get sick of clever people? Do you ever want to tell them to shutup and go sit in the corner? … reply

15. Is our current political system something we should stick with? Do you favour experimentation with different political models? … reply

16. What new institutions do we need? … reply

17. Apart from money, should there be another currency? … reply

18. What’s with Bea Campbell’s voice? Does it explain how we feel about the English? … reply

19. If there is no deity with a ‘grand plan’, we each get to make one up. What’s yours? … reply

Thanks Phillip; we could talk about this all night but unfortunately we’re going to have to wrap it. I commend your contributions to the listener and I ask you, Gladys, to be upstanding. A round of applause and a big koala stamp for Australia’s greatest living intellectual, the Unspeakable Phillip Adams.

Commenters are welcome to step in on Phillip’s behalf.

The ABC Media Release describes the shelving of eight programs. The justification given is the need for more digital broadcasting resources following the success of RN podcasting. 1.7 million downloads a month, 50% of all the ABC’s downloads and 125% higher than the previous year.

*Scratches head*

Why has podcasting been so successful for RN? Do you think it might have something to do with the PROGRAMMING? It is of course good practice to review programming but what confuses me is the removal of highly distinctive shows. For example:

There is no other program in the electronic media that addresses sport the way that The Sports Factor does. It deals with the culture of sport; from a spectator’s, administrator’s, coach’s and player’s viewpoint. It is moving and insightful. Are they words you associate with any other sports show? A great loss to the media. Its replacement is the show that reviews movies. Actually, movie review shows work better when you can SEE a snippet of the movie being reviewed and what do you know? There are ALREADY two TV shows on the public broadcasting network dealing with this!

Radio Eye is challenging, sometimes hypnotic radio. Meandering, poetic documentaries using powerful sound landscapes. Non-linear documentaries. A style of radio not heard elsewhere and not possible on screen media.

The Media Report: analysing the media during a time of critical change in a way that commercial broadcasting has not been able or willing to do. If anything, a program limited by its half hour format, needing longer to properly deal with complex social and political issues.

And the Religion Report. Mark, as you know, I’ve been a liberal atheist all my adult life. So when I listen to someone like Robert Silico, a right wing, conservative thinker, and he argues a case for Christianity as the foundation of liberal values (and he argues the case well) I am learning something. I am being challenged. That sort of radio flicks my switches.

Again, there is no program in Australia that covers this territory; the contest for influence within each religion, discussion of the role of religion, explanations of religious viewpoints… In the broadest possible sense it is a call for religious tolerance.

The Media Release also says that podcasts are attracting a younger listenership. So what? Radio National’s market segment is not an age bracket; it is people who like intelligent discussion. You already have a youth network. The reason for the lower average age of a podcasting listener is simply that they are more comfortable with the technology. The success of podcasting is not a reason to alter your programming mix; it is a result of your programming mix.

These decisions are difficult, but you need to preserve the programs that cover important themes and the programs that are distinctive. The Media Report and the Religion Report fit both categories. Radio Eye and The Sports Factor are distinctive. Please reconsider the decision.

Footnote: Stephen Crittenden, presenter of the Religion Report, was critical on air of the ‘decommissioning’ and has been stood aside pending an inquiry. Management don’t like staff questioning their decisions but because of the importance of these programs in the public eye, you should cut a little slack. The debate as to what is aired should be public. I can even imagine it becoming a Radio National show. Call it ‘The Media Report’.

Reminds me of the Jewish couple leaving the restaurant. ‘That was the worst food I’ve ever eaten’. ‘Yes, and such small portions!’

The ABC are advertising their Local Radio stations on the teev. Fair enough. The ad features snatches of audio from a range of different programs and a fairly static visual background. It’s dreadfully unappealing.

When you watch television, and this will come as a shock to most of you, your brain is expecting visual stimulation. Colour and movement. And for the most part, it expects the visual to match the audio. If the lip sync is wrong, the brain doesn’t like it.

With television your visual centres demand movement. So certain kinds of static or slow moving programming don’t work that well. Parkinson for example. Television requires rapid cuts. Even the News now hardly shows ‘head of newsreader’. It cuts away to story and graphic over and over. Constantly capturing our attention with the next flicker of change. It’s packetised: eye grabs. We don’t really have programs any more, just non-stop cut-through.

When you listen to radio, your visual attention is not called for so you can move freely in space. Because you’re less constrained your imagination paints a picture that fills in the gaps. As a result, a well told story can be more powerful on radio than on television. When you watch television, the brain is largely occupied interpreting visual stimulus. When you listen to radio, the brain is more free to imagine.

So, given that radio is a different experience, how do you convey that? The current TV ad presents radio as an inferior version of TV. All the audio but nothing to look at. Playing radio sound grabs on television is like promoting a newspaper on television by showing photographs of news articles.

Three ideas:

1. Film people talking. Just because the audience can’t see the DJ while listening doesn’t mean you can’t show them the DJ talking to someone in a studio. It’s TV advertising. Give them a TV experience.

2. Black the screen while you run the audio. This will make people listen differently. Use a full 60 seconds telling a story. Or longer.

3. Interview people about what they’ve heard on radio. Talk about content. Radio programming is far more diverse than TV; that’s one of its strengths. ‘Did you hear that interview with the Jewish journalist who went around interviewing terrorist leaders?’ ‘Did you hear about the Canadian Government giving Australia the oldest document ever printed in Australia?’ ‘Did you hear about the garden of blue sticks?’ ‘Did you hear that program about the blogger who can’t stop criticising the ABC?’ No wait, that last one was the Internets.

No. One of the main reasons for the growth of the Internet is its phenomenal diversity compared to alternative media. Imposing content restrictions would reduce diversity instead of furthering the internationalisation of the Australian media. If we are to review regulatory policy, we should aim to participate on the world stage rather than “protect the Australian culture”, as he puts it. Is he worried we might not get another series of Big Brother? There is no reference I can see in the ABC’s charter to “protecting the Australian culture”.

He speaks of the “risk of our culture being lost under a tide of cheap-to-access overseas programming”. Culture is dynamic, it’s something that evolves. Not something you put in a box and protect. Don’t panic: we’re not going to lose it. The focus should be on helping Australians export ‘cheap-to-access overseas programming’ not on protecting us from it.

The Internet is awash with foreign culture and that’s the good news. Let’s not devote too much energy to reinforcing our differences.

And you don’t get ‘better culture’ by paying more money. Dalton is confusing culture with production values.

I’m thinking by the way that he should be acknowledged for one of the year’s best understatements: “Although Mr Dalton admits regulating the online industry is problematic…”.

Enforcing Australian content restrictions on television stations was understandable in the days of three commercial television stations and one public network. Limited bandwidth. But it is an anachronism in a market with unlimited channels and unlimited choices. The people are voting for choice. Get your outdated bureaucratic hands off our internet.

The ABC has always been Amateur Hour on grooming. Its station promotions are the other weakness; sickly imitations of the commercial networks’ urgent demands for attention. I’m not suggesting they get better at copying commercial style promotions. Quite the reverse. The problem is an unwillingness to experiment with alternative advertising formats – testimonials, mash-ups, pointers, cross-promotion and snatches. Spare us the insult of needless repetition.

Although their programs treat the audience with great respect, (it’s so nice not to be talked down to) the advertisements they use to promote those programs remain formulaic in scheduling and format. Perhaps there remains some distaste for the notion of advertising, even if it is advertising one’s own excellent content.

ABC Radio National has had tremendous success with Podcasting. But they continue to promote only the forthcoming week’s programs. They could now promote all the content that exists on their web site as well (usually four weeks’ worth of history). Some more creativity in promotion would be welcome. The bad hair we can live with.