Catallaxy Files

For many years I subscribed to the Spectator. It presented a idiosyncratic view of Britain – more Whiggish than Tory, it seemed to me – but almost always fun to read. I had in a previous life subscribed to New Statesman which arrived by sea mail 6 or 8 weeks after publication. It showed a different and perhaps more seriously worthy slice of Britain. I would not say it was fun to read but then I was a bit less interested in fun than in discovering the world.

I have recently let my subscription to the Spectator expire. The reason was simply that the 6 pages tacked on the front with what was claimed to be Australian content annoyed the heck out of me. For the first year or so it was edited by Oscar Humphries who lived in London. The content was mostly stuff from expatriates or from Australian writers who we had mostly already read in the daily papers. Not quite the same articles but there was a warmed over feel to it.

I wrote a couple of letters expressing my dissatisfaction. In one I pointed out that the magazine was British – well English really – and I was sure that was why people here bought it. Can you imagine, I asked, New Yorker or Atlantic tacking on a bit of English content and claiming it was a local publication? No reply was received.

Recently Tom Switzer has taken over as editor. At least he lives here and does not need to rely on a few old mates for contributions. But still, why do we need it and what does it do to the distinct character of the magazine?

I don’t know how much the Australian circulation has increased. There seems to be quite a few free copies about, which is the usual way  new magazines are launched. So far as I can see – I did buy off the news stand the Bumper Double Christmas issue – there is no Australian advertising, which must be a disappointment to them all.

My guess is that Spectator Australia will not survive. Will I return? Probably not. I can get as much of Britain that I want from the online publications.

Ash de Silva and I have been arguing all year that the cash splash was a waste of money (as was the rest of the stimulus packages). We have modelled ABS Retail Sales data to prove our point. We sent a paper off to a journal, but they didn’t like it, so we’re in the process of beefing up the empirical analysis to send elsewhere. The referees suggested that Treasury had correctly anticipated the fall-off in economic activity and filled the gap, so our no-real-difference result was due to superior economic forecasting. This despite the Treasury admitting they had not modelled the first cash-splash. Anyway, the ABS has put up new Retail Sales figures today. They have also, very quietly resumed publishing their trend data that they had stopped publishing last year.

What I have done is subtract the trend data from the seasonally adjusted data and then created a moving 12 month summation of the difference. Overall, I expect the moving 12 month summation to approximate zero. I then graph the moving 12 month summation.

Over the last year the 12 month summation has deviated quite substantially from zero. This might lead some to argue that this proves that the stimulus cash splashes have worked. The maximum, however, is a mere $2.9 billion – suggesting that consumers spent that amount more than the trend would have suggested over a 12 month period. But the totality of the cash splash was $23 billion.

The BBC website is excellent. For many purposes, it is where I start when I want current information on the web. The best world news, sport, weather and, even, recipes. And of course through it you can easily listen to Radio 3, Radio 4 and the BBC’s other offerings.

Rupert Murdoch is unhappy about the BBC’s dominance and particularly about its free online news which makes it very difficult for him to charge for news online from The Times and other papers.

Our ABC online is, unfortunately, nowhere near as good. Its management would probably say that it is a matter of money and it needs more from the government to do a better job. The BBC receives the TV licence fee and is expected to live within that. The ABC expects to receive more money as it adds new services, as it did recently with digital TCV channels. So far as I can work out from its Annual Reports the ABC has not received money specifically for online.

The best online sites from broadcasters and publishers – including the BBC, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Financial Times – operate as content providers in their own right. Most started as online versions of the paper or radio station or TV channel but the smarter ones realized they were in a new medium with new rules and new opportunities.

So, where does all this leave our ABC? Its website is poor compared to the BBC. It is not even very useful for current news. The Sydney Morning Herald seems to do a better covering “News Just In”. For my money, SBS online does a marginally better job with news. On TV, SBS News does more than a marginally better job, but that’s a different argument.

The reason for the less-than-great online presence of the ABC might lie in its Charter. It revolves around the idea of a “broadcasting service” defined in the Act in a way that suggests “push” rather than “pull” publication of material. Perhaps for that reason the board and management limits its online activity to stuff that is related or supplementary to its conventional radio and TV broadcasting. This is broadly what it does with ABC Enterprises, now called ABC Commercial.

Or perhaps it is just a matter of money or lack of  belief in the future of the internet? If it’s the latter, it is a dangerous bet. Reading the last couple of annual reports, you don’t get the impression that the ABC believes that the internet is the future of broadcasting.

I must say that to me this result is a pity. I would like to see an online presence much more like the BBC. It would arguably be unfair to commercial broadcasters and others trying to make money online (the Murdoch complaint) but I guess I have grown up with the ABC as part of my life and I would be sorry to see it slip into obsolescence.

Note: I leave out of this any discussion of whether ABC News and Current Affairs are biased (they are) or whether it should be abolished entirely. If you want to argue that, please start your own thread.

It has been reported that Senator Bob Brown wants the Australian taxpayer to provide $1.5 million to replace the anti-whaling ship Ady Gil which was recently sunk in a collision with a Japanese whaling ship.

This would be an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ resources – Australia bears no responsibility for the collision of two ships in territorial waters, unless it was an Australian Navy ship involved in a collision and due to the fault of the Navy.

The Sea Shepherd group is at worst a terrorist organisation, a best a bunch of pirates. It would be inappropriate for Australia to bail out such an organisation which would signal Australia’s acceptance of this irresponsible behaviour by Paul Watson and his group and further damage our relationship with Japan.

Bob Brown stands condemned.