As far as I can see, Sky provides a counterfoil to the ABC, which is
necessary in a democracy. Any attempt to restrict access to the ABC would
be as reprehensible as restricting access to Sky. The general grievance
with the ABC is that it's taxpayer-funded, therefore it should have an
obligation to be impartial. The other side was already well-represented by
Fairfax, for example, which the ABC has helped kill off by stealing its
audience with free content. This is a bigger problem in the Australian
media. From my apolitical stance I see a general trend to try to kill off
conservative voices. I would be equally disturbed if there was a trend to
kill off left-wing opinion. Being able to hear and form judgements from
both in an unrestricted way is essential in a healthy democracy. What's
happening in Australia (and overseas) at present is that the left is trying
to shut down information and debate by trying to ban things. Allan's action
(as evidenced by her words spoeken when trying to retreat) is directly in
this vein. I guess that if anyone's personal inclinations are "of the
left", naturally they wouldn't see any problem with that.

Sky isn't two different entities, it simply separates its news and opinion,
which is more than can be said for some other media outlets. Here are a
couple of news items from yesterday that seem to contradict the suggestions
of "bias", or "having it in" for the Andrews government:

https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_5820916413001
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_5821147706001

If their news were biased they would either not run with these stories
(quite common practice overseas, like in the land of the Beeb) or turn them
around to sound better. Allan is either stupid or more likely politically
conniving, meaning her action was simply a petty payback and attempt to
intimidate a media outlet - which in plain language is censorship. I think
that the only thing we need to concern ourselves with on this forum though
is the quality of the journalism and that is unfortunately more often than
not poor regardless of the political leanings of the outlet.

I would still be interested to learn about the transport policies of the
Victorian opposition, even though it looks like they may not win simply
because they seem to be not proactive and fail to take opportunities even
when they're handled to them on a plate. We've seen plenty of that in
Australian politics.

And I don't have any problems with video streaming in railway stations.

Tony P
(in a state where the Liberals have consistently been the party of trams
since the 1950s and Labor the party against them since then, showing that
nothing can be stereotyped in Australian politics)

On Sunday, 12 August 2018 16:47:04 UTC+10, Daniel Bowen wrote:
>

> On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 13:50, Prescott lenkap...@... <javascript:>>

> wrote:

> > Having observed Sky for a few days (and having seen them elsewhere for

> years, e.g. on airlines), I find that they're no better or worse than any

> of the outlets nowadays, that is, like all them, pretty bland and mediocre

> but with no flagrant demonstrations of bias at least through these

> streaming outlets.

>

> Sky News is really two different channels. It's straight news/weather

> during the daytime, and then opinion (overwhelmingly right wing) after

> 6pm.

>

> Whether you consider what you viewed to be biased would heavily depend

> on what time you were viewing (and if it were live to air or

> prepackaged as provided on planes and at railway stations), and your

> own political views of course.

>

> Where Minister Allan was completely misinformed was about the specific

> content aired on the railway station screens, which was confined to

> news and weather, not opinion. The interview with the Nazi was not

> shown in the railway stations.

>

> > There is a huge problem, however, with the idea that she thinks it's OK

> to censor media

>

> Oh please. It's not censorship to get a program removed from a dozen

> TV screens in three properties you (indirectly) administer.

>

> Using the law to remove it off the air completely, preventing anybody

> watching who wants to tune in - *that* would be censorship.

>

> The bigger question is why passengers have to put up with TV screens

> blaring ads and news in stations at all.

>

>

> Daniel

>