Why did the chicken cross the road

Why did the chicken cross the road?  If said chicken was in Ultimo Sydney, it would have to been to get away from the smell of the BS emanating from ABC HQ.

In response to the piddling non-budget cut to the ABC, and in the context of a $600 BILLION government debt, ABC management said that there is “no more fat to cut”.

Just to be clear, the Government in the most recent budget did not actually cut the ABC’s $1 billion plus allocation.  What it did was just not increase it.  But not satisfied in telling tax paying Australians to drop dead, ABC News Director Gavin Morris also said:

“We’re as efficient as we’ve ever been,” he said. “We’re the most minutely scrutinised media organisation in Australia.”

The ABC is the most scrutinised media organisation in Australia because it is the LARGEST media organisation in Australia.  By a mile, actually by 1.6 kilometres.

Mr Morris.  Here is a clue for when some efficiencies might come.  This is an extract from your most recent annual report.  According to it, 25 people shared $9.2 million of remuneration.  You were probably in that 25.  Why don’t you start there looking for efficiencies.

But in an exclusive for Catallaxy readers.  Last night Spartacus went to a used office furniture shop and bought a filing cabinet.  Inside he found some DVDs with secret recordings.  Please don’t tell anyone as Spartacus does not want a visit from the Feds.  But just for Cats, here is a secret video of the ABC’s budget presentation to the government and here is also a secret video of Communications Minister Fifield’s reaction.

This is secret stuff.  Don’t tell anyone.  Shhh.

Follow I Am Spartacus on Twitter at @Ey_am_Spartacus

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Why did the chicken cross the road

  1. a happy little debunker

    Excluding interest it would take 600 years of NO ABC to pay down the debt.

  2. Squirrel

    Why did the chicken cross the road? – (if it was an ABC chicken) to escape from the micro-aggressions of racist, sexist, homophobic, nationalistic, Trump-loving, Brexit-supporters.

    Slightly more seriously, the ABC needs to get over the quaint notion that its charter is something to be taken literally (when it suits). There are plenty of organisations, public and private, which never have and never will have anything like the funds to do all the things which their “charter” (or equivalent) might be claimed to mandate.

    For the generous, and pretty reliable (compared to those that have to compete in something resembling a marketplace for their funds) funds provided to the ABC, it could do a lot of good things – far more than it does now, if it didn’t spread itself quite so thinly into areas which the private sector already covers, and if it spent less time and money on its pet subjects and people.

  3. stackja

    No more fat to cut at the ABC amongst other things
    Posted on 4:32 pm, May 10, 2018 by Steve Kates
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2018/05/10/no-more-fat-to-cut-at-the-abc-amongst-other-things/

  4. Dr Fred Lenin

    It would be the start of fiscal responsibility , the sort of thing Nan would have done when money was tight,its not rocket science. The old saying “you earn $10 spend $9.50 = happiness you earn$10 and spend $11 =misery and ruin “ . Polliemuppets of Australia get you act into gear or face grevious consequences !
    bubbles have a nasty habit of bursting .

  5. Marcus

    “We’re as efficient as we’ve ever been,” he said. “We’re the most minutely scrutinised media organisation in Australia.”

    Does the ABC’s attitude remind anyone else of the Mafia?

    They’re huge, they’re unaccountable to anyone, whenever one of their number gets criticised or “attacked” everyone else in the organisation rallies around to their defence, and they complain when they get scrutinised and insist that they’re just legitimate journalists who are the victims of some kind of prejudice.

  6. Ubique

    Take the eight member board out, and you have just 17 ABC employees guzzling $8.7m between them. That’s over half a million dollars each of taxpayers’ hard-earned.

  7. None

    So ok I’m half asleep at the moment but did they pay over a million dollars in termination benefits only to have a bigger expenditure the following year?

  8. Tim Neilson

    So ok I’m half asleep at the moment but did they pay over a million dollars in termination benefits only to have a bigger expenditure the following year?

    It’s not clear exactly what happened..

    The total is about $1.5m up. They paid about $1m terminations. If that came at the start of the year then yes, they’ve replaced the departed with people costing in total about $0.5m a year more.

    If the terminations were near the end, they had awarded the existing troughers about $0.5m extra taxpayer funded largesse, and yet then found themselves needing to get new people and shell out $1m to the outgoing.

    Either way it looks like incompetence or troughing, or more likely a dismal quinella of both.

  9. JohnA

    ABC News Director Gavin Morris also said: “We’re as efficient as we’ve ever been,” he said.

    Well, there is no need to engage “plausible deniability” for that statement.

    Of course they are as (in)efficient as they were before – there has been no visible effort to improve their efficiency.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *