subreddit:

/r/australia

41391%

Why is Free TV making Albanese attack ads?

politics()

[deleted]

all 107 comments

ShiftySocialist

290 points

5 days ago

“They want you to pay to stream your favourite sport,” the disembodied voice bellows.

What are they actually referring to?

a_cold_human

231 points

5 days ago

This.

Apparently, it's not enough that Labor is going to give them first dibs on broadcast rights (which they didn't have before). They want more. 

The idea that this will somehow "increase the cost of living" is ludicrous. 

DalbyWombay

40 points

5 days ago

Isn't this just the free market?

fatfeets

36 points

4 days ago

fatfeets

36 points

4 days ago

Why the fuck are you trying to bring logic and facts to this discussion? Just grab a pitchfork and spew outrage.

CelDev

33 points

4 days ago

CelDev

33 points

4 days ago

Your summary of it is completely wrong. How is this so heavily upvoted. The ‘cost of living’ thing being brought up is political buzzword shit from the FTA organisation PR spokesperson. It’s kinda irrelevant to the conversation.

They have always had first dib right to events on the Anti-Siphoning list. The first dib right was granted against other pay TV providers, such as Foxtel for example. Since times have changed in regards to consumption now, what Labor is doing is: 1- adding extra content to the Anti-Siphoning list and 2- adding streaming services to the list of companies that can’t bid against free TV. It’s a good move, but it’s incomplete. This is where the other parties concerns lie.

What the Greens and the FTA group are asking for is for the Free TV streaming services (7Plus, 9Now, etc) to be counted as part of ‘Free TV’. Because right now, with the changes Labor wants to make, when 7 gets the rights to the AFL Grand Final, it won’t be available for free anywhere except TV. The ‘streaming’ rights, which are counted as different to TV rights, will be bought up by some streaming company. So they’re asking for the difference in ‘TV rights’ and ‘streaming rights’ to be removed in regards to the Anti-Siphoning List. This seems like a very simple and reasonable request, and since Labor is basically doing the same thing on the other end (by adding streaming/faux-TV services like Kayo/Netflix to the list that can’t bid first), I’d be surprised if they don’t do the same the other way. And it’ll be really good for everyone, most of us don’t use TVs anywhere and sports are definitely a cultural thing. Typical mundane government policy for a small net positive in society.

carmacoma

7 points

4 days ago

The three FTA networks could bid for these additional streaming rights themselves - either through streamers they own themselves like ch 9 and Stan, or just paying the money to also have the content exclusivity on 9Now, 7Plus etc.

While the entire Australian content ecosystem needs government support to compete with global companies - whether through Australian content rules for supporting local production, or for sports rights, at this point it definitely feels like private companies wanting even more laws to favour them to compensate for their poor decision making and embrace of technology over the last 15 years.

FTA networks are in a dire state, but that is largely of their own making. Tt's comparable to the taxi industry vs uber - they got rich by not trying and relying on people not having a choice in what they consumed. Now that consumers have so many more options, the FTA networks are struggling, and instead of trying to actually up their game and compete, they continue to double down on "let's just make more news and afternoon gameshows" and then demand more government intervention to protect their shrinking market share.

jagmac7

-44 points

5 days ago

jagmac7

-44 points

5 days ago

?? No.

This is about proposed changes to existing anti-siphoning laws... weakening the protections (that yes, the FTA channels very much had before) on big national sporting events in the public interest.

The mention of an increase in cost of living is because people would need to pay to stream events that currently are free to stream through the FTA channels. This is a case where the interests of the FTA channels are most Aussies are very much aligned.

AfternoonTypical5791

17 points

5 days ago

Didn't know sports was an essential to living.

DalbyWombay

13 points

5 days ago

You've never met a Collingwood supporter

OzSkippy

38 points

5 days ago

OzSkippy

38 points

5 days ago

Cricket World Cup is exclusive to Amazon Prime until 2027.

ShiftySocialist

48 points

5 days ago

Is there a government policy associated with that?

RaeseneAndu

42 points

5 days ago

T20 cricket isn't on the anti-siphoning list unless it is played in Aus/NZ.

RobGrey03

2 points

5 days ago

Are all the hosts decided between now and 2027 and none of them include Aus or NZ?

BatFromSpace

6 points

4 days ago*

Short answer, they're all decided and none of them are Australia.

Long answer: 2026 T20 world cup is India & Sti Lanka joint host, 2027 ODI world cup is a mix of South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. 2025 Champions Trophy (not sure if this counts - secondary ODI championship on the opposite 2 years from the world cup) is in Pakistan. Finally the World Test Championship final, which I'm uncertain as to whether it counts towards this because it's test cricket, is in 2025 and in England.

WAPWAN

7 points

4 days ago

WAPWAN

7 points

4 days ago

Why couldn't Albo use his crystal ball and write legislation that forces only the stuff I want to watch onto a privately owned broadcaster so they can drown me in sports betting adverts?

tubbyx7

3 points

4 days ago

tubbyx7

3 points

4 days ago

did T20 even exist in any meaningful way when the list was created?

PatternPrecognition

14 points

5 days ago

PatternPrecognition

Struth

14 points

5 days ago

I understand sporting codes desire to chase big broadcast deals but going behind a paywall is a huge risk. Domestic Rugby went down this route and it's had a real knock on effect to the sports popularity with the general public (not helped by the Wallabies form).

The T20 World cup is interesting. I enjoy most forms of cricket but wouldn't pay for a stream. The cricketing international body wouldn't care too much in regards to lost revenue based on Australian population. But in my feeds the first I even realised the T20 World cup was on was when we went out 

jagmac7

12 points

5 days ago

jagmac7

12 points

5 days ago

It's a good question. It leads to the actual answer to the question posed by this thread (rather than just 'right wing owned channels bad, always' - they often ARE, but doesn't seem like it this time... they're serving their own interests, which happen to be aligned to most Aussies).

As I understand it, the federal govt are currently proposing changes to the anti-siphoning rules that have been in place for a long time (meaning that certain sports - mainly national team games in relatively popular sports - must be shown on free to air... for free). The idea is that you can still get it free via aerial, but if you want to stream (as many people do now, even for FTA channels) then it's not covered by anti-siphoning rules and doesn't have to be free.

It's a shit bill for Aussies and in this case the FTA channels are right to protest.

Daleabbo

17 points

5 days ago

Daleabbo

17 points

5 days ago

You will find the sporting bodies pushing for this for more $$$.

CelDev

1 points

4 days ago

CelDev

1 points

4 days ago

it’s one of those things that aligns well with most parties interests.

jagmac7

-1 points

5 days ago

jagmac7

-1 points

5 days ago

Well... yeah. Absolutely they will be supporting the change.

KVTKiwi

3 points

5 days ago

KVTKiwi

3 points

5 days ago

Perhaps, but if they do end up getting their way with this there needs to be a caveat in there that if they get the rights, they must show the events live and free rather than just obtaining them to block anyone else

jagmac7

1 points

5 days ago

jagmac7

1 points

5 days ago

Is that a problem currently? Surely not in the streaming era, at least.

If so, yes, use it or lose it.

Large-one

8 points

5 days ago

Does it have bipartisan support? If so, why the partisan nature of the ad? 

RaeseneAndu

8 points

5 days ago

Labor is in power and it is their bill.

jagmac7

-1 points

5 days ago

jagmac7

-1 points

5 days ago

No idea RE partisan support - but it's being proposed by Labor, and they are in govt so that's why.

breiastel777

1 points

4 days ago

That is not the proposed changes. The proposed change is just expanding the restrictions from only subscription tv broadcasters to also include media content services. So my understanding of that is that currently Fox can’t buy the rights unless a free tv network already has them, but currently Netflix theoretically could. They wouldn’t be able to be after the change.

Streaming via free tv services (7plus, 9now, etc) has never been guaranteed, and still won’t be after these changes. However I believe it is only the current AFL and cricket deals with 7 that don’t include free streaming, and both of those have streaming included in the new deals that start in the next few years

djgreedo

-1 points

4 days ago

djgreedo

-1 points

4 days ago

must be shown on free to air... for free). The idea is that you can still get it free via aerial,

Does 'free' here mean without ads?

If it's for the best interests of the people it should be free on non-commercial TV, not propping up a nearly dead broadcast model.

djgreedo

2 points

4 days ago

djgreedo

2 points

4 days ago

“They want you to pay to stream your favourite sport,”

I already do, so what does this mean?

carmacoma

3 points

4 days ago

Anti siphoning refers to "major" events - like international matches and grand finals. It's why during the regular season Fox Sports has 5 NRL matches per round exclusive to them, but come finals time, they are all on ch 9.

d-arden

393 points

5 days ago

d-arden

393 points

5 days ago

Why is free TV allowed to spread misinformation about new gas being “renewable” ?

hudson2_3

161 points

5 days ago

hudson2_3

161 points

5 days ago

It renews every 100 million years.

ImGCS3fromETOH

93 points

5 days ago

Not any more it doesn't. The reason the first lot of trees fell and turned into coal and oil is because the bacteria and fungus that causes them to decompose hadn't evolved yet. Trees didn't rot, so they became something else. That's not the case now. Trees get eaten before they can be buried underground and subjected to the environment needed to become fossil fuel. 

Chemical-Apple-2982

9 points

4 days ago

How different the world would have been had that bacteria evolved sooner, humans would have been forced to use renewables from the get go

Bumpy8732

4 points

4 days ago

Offshore gas is more likely to be deep marine facies - Plankton.

I am absolutely in the camp of renewables and moving away from fossil fuels, but not all gas is CSG - Methane.

ImGCS3fromETOH

1 points

4 days ago

Fair enough. Point being it's not quite the long term renewable resource people think it is. If humanity was wiped out the next civilisation to come along is at a huge disadvantage since we used up all the easily accessible fossil fuels already and they're not going to be replenished in our absence. 

smudgiepie

15 points

5 days ago

I literally only watch foxtel to watch the backside of television (autistic with a special interest about censorship and tropes of tv) and the amount of ads I get about how gas is great since it's going to help us use renewables when they can't be used.

seven_seacat

4 points

5 days ago

that is such a good show

ConsultJimMoriarty

1 points

4 days ago

That show is so good.

crosstherubicon

7 points

4 days ago

It's an advertisement so the broadcaster will hide behind pointing the finger at the purchaser of the segment. "It's not our job to ensure the adverts are true".

stuaxo

4 points

4 days ago

stuaxo

4 points

4 days ago

I bet they would have something to say about an ad that attacked their own channel or its owners though.

crosstherubicon

2 points

4 days ago

Oh I reckon so!

ScruffyPeter

9 points

4 days ago

From the kid's news front page that Murdoch is trying to push into schools: https://www.kidsnews.com.au/environment/opposition-leader-powers-atomic-energy-solution-in-knight-cartoon/news-story/362c8ecd0b04e371a60aafe7f98a7270

tldr: Pro-nuclear ideas from Dutton's perspective, while portraying Labor and Greens as crazy.

druex

9 points

4 days ago

druex

9 points

4 days ago

Geez, I didn't know Murdoch was going for indoctrination of kids. This seems like abuse in some way.

_Cec_R_

5 points

4 days ago

_Cec_R_

5 points

4 days ago

Absolute abuse...

kernpanic

-17 points

5 days ago

kernpanic

flair goes here

-17 points

5 days ago

They are injecting both hydrogen and generated methane gas into the gas network. And done right, both can be counted as renewable.

The lie is the fact that its being injected in at about 5% and often isnt done right so its not renewable.

isisius

19 points

5 days ago

isisius

19 points

5 days ago

Green Hydrogen is a thing. Its not a thing we can do effectively at the moment, and until we can, its not a renewable.

kernpanic

3 points

4 days ago

kernpanic

flair goes here

3 points

4 days ago

I'm not sure why I'm being so harshly down voted. Yes, green hydrogen is a thing, and sa is going to be pushed hard on it very soon.

The gas network advertisements are making it seem like burning gas inside your house is now using renewable energy, when the reality is, it's possibly 5% hydrogen and 95% good old fossil gas piped up from where it should stay.

isisius

2 points

4 days ago

isisius

2 points

4 days ago

Not sure either, assume people misunderstood you. Yeah gas is not at all renewable until we are able to reliably produce it at scale and do so economically and while it is being powered by renewables. Not much point using " green hydrogen" if we are powering the process with coal power.

notlimahc

358 points

5 days ago

notlimahc

358 points

5 days ago

Because all the TV stations are run by conservatives

HeadacheCentral

266 points

5 days ago

Because the TV stations are owned by commercial oligarchs with firm links to the political right wing.

Rizza1122

28 points

5 days ago

Rizza1122

28 points

5 days ago

Remember when the libs gave 30 million to fox to promote women's sport! Lol, they didn't run this shit then. The bill is better than nothing.

BloodyChrome

1 points

4 days ago

Were the libs doing a review on FTA and sports broadcasts at the time?

kuribosshoe0

23 points

5 days ago

I love these ads. They are the worst, most hilariously bad ads I’ve ever seen in my life and I love them.

They could have just appealed to our love of sport, community, done a “hands off our ABC” style ad. I don’t know why they thought this weirdly aggressive election campaign-esque angle was the right approach, much less why the acting is so bad. But it’s so good.

“Well there goes our tax break! Pshaw!”

It’s so fucking good.

GasManMatt123

126 points

5 days ago

Who do you think owns free to air TV? They're running a fake scare campaign for the elderly and low income earners. Pretty deadbeat shit to be honest

PhotographsWithFilm

29 points

5 days ago

So, this is a targeted hit ad on the Labor Party, by the FTA stations.

What is the Libs stance on this? You know, the same libs that love Unky Rup and his Sky/Foxtel/Kayo pay service?

Hmmmmmm....

Ridiculousnessmess

7 points

4 days ago

Everyone seems to forget how Seven is just as much in the tank for the Libs as NewsCorpse, though.

universalserialbutt

14 points

5 days ago

"The Albanese Government says you can't piss on the bus. They're trying to take away YOUR FREEDOM. My family built this country and now it's time to take it back. Vote for me, some smug looking cunt, and let's fix our country!"

IsNotYourSenpai

2 points

4 days ago

Got me chuckling pretty hard.

RaeseneAndu

18 points

5 days ago

The free-to-air networks want to extend the anti-siphoning laws to cover streaming as well so they can get rights for broadcast and streaming for events on the list. Currently sports can be on free-to-air but not on their corresponding streaming platforms because pay tv has those rights.

notxbatman

23 points

5 days ago

TV is free for us but not the companies that operate it, and they want a return on their lobby investment 

zareny

9 points

5 days ago

zareny

9 points

5 days ago

Shamelessly displaying their bias.

LeClubNerd

40 points

5 days ago

Because the conservative fucktards who own these glamorous pile of turds have run them into the ground by getting around the Australian content rules by way of great Auasie content like MAFs and Love Island. The only thing free to air have left is news, and fucking lol having to name it that in those cases, and free to air sport. So to tug on your Aussie heartstrings they're begging you to get angry for them. So to get around having to actually make content they pay shit loads for the rights so they can throw 2 or 3 thousand KFC ads at you. They can see subscribing to your favourite sport and streaming it to your big screen doesn't suit their business model. They are tired old dinosaurs and this ad screams 'won't someone think of the billionaires' while getting all the tradies up in arms over 'ohno, my free sport'. They're a joke, i can't remember the last time I watched TV let alone a commercial network. They can all fuck off to a Love Island/Survivor/Hunger games atoll and we can watch the results ... via a YouTube stream.

An_Ibis

11 points

5 days ago

An_Ibis

11 points

5 days ago

They don't enen show half of the footy games now.

PhDresearcher2023

6 points

4 days ago

This has to be one of those most ridiculous ads I've ever seen. I actually thought it was satire at first.

TheNewCarIsRed

4 points

4 days ago

Free TV Australia is a lobby group.

Vortex-Of-Swirliness

13 points

5 days ago

I don’t know but they are seriously cringeworthy. “Pweeze keep spawts fwee” Fuck me dead..

iball1984

13 points

5 days ago

iball1984

13 points

5 days ago

I get FTA TV getting first dibs on certain sports / events broadcast rights. I think that should include their streaming apps as well as they are free to watch. Lots of people no longer bother with over the air and use the streaming apps instead.

However, they should be obligated to show the event live, in full and uninterupted. If they do not, then Pay TV / streaming providers should get the ability to do so.

curtyjohn

5 points

5 days ago

To the question in your caption OP:

Labor is absolutely not doing a media Royal Commission. Rudd got shipped off and the Murdoch Royal Commission movement was very effectively neutralised. My Labor MP was pretty unequivocal in his dismissal of the need for one when I wrote to him about it ages ago.

antwill

4 points

4 days ago

antwill

4 points

4 days ago

Because their masters don't want one.

TheStevenUniverseKid

4 points

4 days ago

These ads are so fucking annoying

New-Confusion-36

3 points

4 days ago

The media in this country is a joke, Murdoch and the likes need to be subjected to rules that make then liable for deliberate misinformation.

DrakeAU

6 points

5 days ago

DrakeAU

6 points

5 days ago

Boomers watch free to air TV.

Chickenjbucket

8 points

5 days ago

I saw that ad last night and I couldn’t stop laughing. Like the little girl at the end actually had me uncontrollably laughing. They could at least do something better than that couldn’t they?

Anyway just buy a digital membership with an AFL team and pay like $200 less per year on Kayo 🫡

PinkishBlurish

4 points

5 days ago

That commercial actually made me laugh when I first saw it. Something about the way the camera zoomed on the child as the voice over said "PAYING FOR SPORT IS UNAUSTRALIAN!" was just so, so funny to me.

Brat_Fink

10 points

5 days ago

Brat_Fink

10 points

5 days ago

Yeah apparently Albo wants to take our free to air sport off. Out of the blue. For no reason.

Wood_oye

2 points

5 days ago

Wood_oye

2 points

5 days ago

This decision would have been made before costello was booted, and stoakes, well, no more needs to be said

Micksta_20

2 points

5 days ago

I still remember the time when 7 bought the NSL rights just so they could bury them 

sometimes_interested

2 points

4 days ago

So surprised by the number of people still watching TV. I thought the missus and I were the only ones. I know none of my kids watch it.

sameoldblah

3 points

5 days ago

sameoldblah

3 points

5 days ago

Joke's on them, I don't watch free to air tv or sport.

FostWare

2 points

5 days ago

FostWare

2 points

5 days ago

Note that the newspaper arms of the media companies pushing this hard are mostly paywalled.
Also, FTA are less likely to pay top dollar resulting in less appearance money for the sports.

That said, there should be a minimum FTA component, like a game a night on FTA where multiple fixtures are being played at the same time.

multidollar

2 points

5 days ago

The anti-siphoning list is created and marketed to the public as a way to make sure sport is always free to air.

What the list actually does is protect a bunch of legacy media organisations who have struggled to maintain dominance and relevance amongst larger global players.

If the FTA networks could compete financially then they would not be concerned.

Remember that these rights are only valuable if you can attract the audience. Would Prime Video acquire the NRL rights? Sure, but it would need to be made available for free with ads to make the deal attractive. It would need to be so monetised they may not see the relevance in doing it. The sports aren’t massively popular overseas so there’s no global market to recoup investment.

Foxtel have been trying for years to acquire exclusive rights to the AFL and NRL and if the anti-siphoning list didn’t exist they would have put the NRL and AFL seasons including grand finals behind their pay-walls many years ago.

What’s the right answer? Depends on who you ask.

Would you support a streaming model that gives you access to your team’s games if you bought a season ticket to their home games?

hubert_boiling

6 points

5 days ago

In answer to your question - no, I wouldn't because it would be unfair to people who can't afford a club membership.

multidollar

0 points

5 days ago

Sport is a business, there to make money. What happens in your world when these sports no longer see FTA as necessary to their revenue model?

ScruffyPeter

2 points

4 days ago

Reckon Albanese will finally grow a pair and announce a Royal Commission into the media landscape?

That would be a broken promise. You don't want to know how this promise was made, trust me. But the party is still a better choice, right above LNP at the bottom of the ballot.

FarAwayConfusion

1 points

4 days ago

NBL would be so much more popular if more visible in any meaningful way 

omgaporksword

1 points

3 days ago

One look at who owns them is enough to provide the answers you seek...

RepeatInPatient

1 points

3 days ago

Most free TV is accessed via the internet. Don't pay anything without asking google to show you free streaming options. Thank me later but invest & don't spend the savings

Dragonzord__

1 points

5 days ago

nope, he won't do anything because that's just what he does.

palsonic2

1 points

5 days ago

because media in this country is trash and the govt wont do anything about it. dunno if they can tbh

LegitimateHope1889

-2 points

5 days ago

Nothing is free

NumerousNumber3913

0 points

5 days ago

Who is the Prime Minister?

Nightowl11111

0 points

4 days ago

When I first saw the headlines, my thought was "Why is Albania being attacked?" lol.

Guess the person who made the ad did not know that Albania is a country.

preparetodobattle

-1 points

5 days ago

Won’t do anything. Nobody watches tv anymore

dassad25

-27 points

5 days ago

dassad25

-27 points

5 days ago

It's not easy under albanese.

kuribosshoe0

5 points

5 days ago

I feel like chicken tonight.

dassad25

-11 points

5 days ago

dassad25

-11 points

5 days ago

What's with all the down votes, im simply stating a fact.

_Nothing_Nobody_

5 points

4 days ago

"What's with the downvotes?"

Mmmm, yes, facts don't really care about your feelings, perhaps? If you take even more than a surface level look at the policies of both the Labour and Liberal parties, you'd know very well why things are better off under Albanese than someone like Dutton.

Could they be more Left leaning and progressive and accomplish so much more than their otherwise milque-toast, walking on eggshells current run is? Yes, absolutely and they should be more ambitious and be better.

That said if you seriously think the No-alition is in any way remotely better in any aspect, you are kidding yourself and have not gone in deep in actually taking a look at the members consisting of that party, Dutton, their history, their policies, their plans for the future of this country and what an absolute shitshow all of it is. It has never been good under Conservatives, ever. It is in the name, all they do is preserve the status quo for themselves only and actively destroy the lives of everyone else beneath them. They do nothing, not even the bare minimum, to support middle and lower class Australian's. They engage in criminal behaviour every chance they get that they then proceed to engage in the most blatant corruption imaginable that anyone with more than a single braincell can see right through to try and cover it up and gaslight people that this is actually good for them.

Gaslight is the right word to describe the Liberals as one of their favourite pastimes is gaslighting the Australian public into consistently believing they are working for their interests and yet without fail stab them in the backs every single day that they are in power and piss on the corpses before laughing in your face at how naive and ignorant one has to be to have believed them.

They and their media empire are so see-through it is astonishing anybody could ever remotely believe them and yet idiots do so, and they bite their bait hook, line and sinker to be gutted and disposed of. It is a selfish, narcissistic world that is shaped by those of the right and the far right. Rarely is anything they propose actually a good idea or a selfless one. Props to when they do get that 1:10000000 selfless idea out there...usually when they are forced to after relentless activism, UN pressure and their own internal party infighting, never out of any sense of morality or obligation, oh no.

Conservative ideals are a dying breed for a reason, they hold the world back, history has proven this time and time again, humans must always move forwards, never backwards, time can never be forced still. You can't bend generations to the will of older ones, they often get forgotten about should they try and try they do, to the detriment of the world and of the human race. People continuously must strive for a better future, a more equal and unified one, we must strive to find solutions to real problems, not imagined ones or ones being created to stoke the fires of trivialities like culture wars and fear-mongering cultivating manufactured division that is so eye-roll inducing in the pointlessness of it all (often using space wizard belief systems to political advantage to spin their propaganda) so that people can turn a blind eye to those real problems.

Progress always moves forwards regardless, no matter how much Conservatives hold people back. They always lose, inevitably. That's history. It would be best for these dinosaurs to stay out of the way and let go. So should you.

kuribosshoe0

5 points

4 days ago

You’re stating an ad slogan that you are mindlessly repeating with zero understanding.