Sky News gone from Qantas lounges in favour of ABC

[serfty]

[moderator hat]

Posts/Content in this thread were trending political. These have been removed / edited.

Further such comment may lead to sanction.​

[/moderator hat]

 

[drron]

ABC news readers also only read the news and don't give opinion. Surely you're not seriously trying to compare opinion editorial shows with news reading. At least be honest and compare opinion shows with opinion shows.

No I am comparing the actual readers of the News. David Speers and now Keiran Gilbert are streets ahead of the ABC news readers. In my times in QF lounges I have not seen the opinion shows. But then It is not very often I travel at night.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Enjoy your new programming folks. Yes a change in programming may be warranted, but I can assure you that watching America's Funniest Home Videos or America's Got Talent reruns for the nth time will wear on you too!

Joking aside, and perhaps something I'm missing here: why does QF lounges stick to only showing one channel/program for all their lounges? Would it not make sense for customers to select what channel they want or at least switch the programming every now and then?

-RooFlyer88

 

[Austman]

Who even watches it?

For me it's usually just a bit of lounge background "fluff".

I'm mainly interested in the departures board.

I can watch live news in the lounge at anytime on my device (even for free using the free wifi).

 

[ausfox]

Melbourne International Business lounge this morning had channel 9 showing.

 

[odysseus]

Personally I think the news on Sky is much better than any ABC news program [....] much more news and less opinion than the ABC.

Can you give an example of opinion in the news on the ABC?

 

[sudoer]

Can you give an example of opinion in the news on the ABC?

The Drum, and to a lesser extent some segments of News Breakfast and 7.30. But the general news bulletins are usually delivered strictly as facts and without opinions.

 

[Rabs97]

This was a move long overdue. As much as it can be claimed Sky’s daytime broadcasting is neutral, I don’t know any Sky watchers (and there aren’t that many of them in this country, another reason why it was dropped) who watch it for the daytime news reporting. They watch it for the opinions on Sky After Dark.

Qantas is leading an effort to decrease carbon emissions, so why should they have Andrew Bolt in their lounges calling climate change a “hoax”? Why should Qantas, with it’s commitment to equal rights, allow Rowan Dean to shout about “the gay agenda”? Why should they keep Sky given the amount of venom they’ve sprayed at QF ambassador Adam Goodes?

I don’t want to debate those issues but it’s quite clear where QF stands and Sky After Dark is the polar opposite of QF’s values.

Plus would you say Qantas caters for a target market more likely to be educated? I doubt they want whatever conspiracy theories the Sky “Outsiders” conjured up that evening.

 

[RooFlyer]

The Drum, and to a lesser extent some segments of News Breakfast and 7.30. But the general news bulletins are usually delivered strictly as facts and without opinions.

Tweets and heresay reported as news . And its also about what the ABC doesn't report/tell you. Not say'n they are alone in this, but far from what they should be.

 

[drron]

Can you give an example of opinion in the news on the ABC?

@RooFlyer answered for me. It is what you don't hear on the ABC. Even if the facts back it up you don't here any news that doesn't conform to the ABC's opinion.

And for a personal example many years ago on ABC Newcastle radio was a report of an election debate. It said that the ALP candidate arrived in a holden whilst the Liberal candidate arrived in his Mercedes. Yes it was I who arrived in his 14 year old Mercedes 240D with a million Km on the clock whilst the ALP fellow arrived in his brand new top of the line Holden Statesman.
I actually knew the reporter well and she told me afterwards her producer had insisted on that line being part of the report. And that happened when the ABC was more impartial than today. One of the reasons I read widely including sources such as the ABC and Guardian as well as sources on the right.

 

[SydneySwan]

Yes it was I who arrived in his 14 year old Mercedes 240D with a million Km on the clock

1 million kms in 14 years? That is 71k per year, 195 kms per day. That is an enormous amount of driving. Not passing an opinion - just fact-checking.

 

[Rabs97]

There’s also a lot of criticism of the ABC from left wing sources that it has become too right wing in recent years. With criticism in the other direction too this leads me to believe at the end of the day the ABC is the most centrist in Australian news.

Outside of political junkies most people don’t ascribe a political leaning to their news. That’s why the ABC has consistently been ranked the most trusted Australian news outlet in media surveys.

Now a full service carrier which is going to provide a news service in it’s product should be aiming to cater to the widest audience possible. Now we can argue all day about perceived political bias, this isn’t the forum for it, but undoubtedly the ABC caters for a much wider range of people than Sky. Take rural viewers for example, the ABC is pretty trusted in the bush with a dearth of “inner city latte sippers” there.

So if the network can attract viewership from “inner city latte sippers” to rural types then it must be fairly wide ranging.

Considering QF’s network takes it from rural bush towns to big cities the choice (on the domestic at least) for ABC to be their news provider is a no brainer.

But keeping Sky was never going to be palatable, given Sky’s narrow target audience, quite extremist leanings and their values becoming the polar opposite of QF values.

 

[justinbrett]

The Drum, and to a lesser extent some segments of News Breakfast and 7.30. But the general news bulletins are usually delivered strictly as facts and without opinions.

Same can be said for Sky. Again, the criticisms refer to the editorial content "after dark" (Peta Credlin, Bolt, Paul Murray etc) - but the news content up until 6pm is delivered by different anchors who generally don't give opinions unless its an interview, in which case they'll usually push them for the tough questions (lets remember Sky was absolutely brutal against Gladys).

Strangely for a news channel, Sky stopped showing news bulletins between 6-11pm a few years ago.

At the end of the day people listen to what they want to hear. It's a good practice to get your news from a variety of sources as in truth they are all biased to some degree.

 

[RichardMEL]

I am pretty sure I recall reading that Sky had paid a fair bit to get their content in airport terminals. IIRC Fox(?) did the same in the US.. a bit like how you used to see USA Today everywhere.....

I don't mind if they have ABC News 24 up or whatever... that would be fine.

I still do remember times where certain lounges would put sports on (ADL used to usually have the footy or cricket on depending on season near the bar area, for example) and that was usually a popular choice (for obvious reasons).

Again though these days with wifi, streaming etc.. most people can and do go to their own content... and that's where NR headphones help a great deal

 

[Rabs97]

At the end of the day people listen to what they want to hear. It's a good practice to get your news from a variety of sources as in truth they are all biased to some degree.

Now with ground based streaming and inflight wifi people with strong opinions can choose to consume media straight to their personal device they know will back up their political leanings. For instance I sat on a flight next to someone who streaming YouTube clips of “Tucker Carlson” on Fox News all flight long. No prizes for guessing bias there. On the other hand people can also use inflight wide to choose to watch say “Friendly Jordies” YouTube channel if they want to consume opposite opinion.

For the rest they can have something on in the background to be slightly aware of and maybe show some interest in neutral news of the day, hence the decision to broadcast the ABC in lounges and inflight broadcast news.

 

[justinbrett]

For the rest they can have something on in the background to be slightly aware of and maybe show some interest in neutral news of the day, hence the decision to broadcast the ABC in lounges and inflight broadcast news.

It's your opinion that the ABC is neutral. Michael Rowland is certainly not and I dare say he'll get a fair amount of airtime during the morning rush.

 

[Rabs97]

It's your opinion that the ABC is neutral. Michael Rowland is certainly not and I dare say he'll get a fair amount of airtime during the morning rush.

We can argue all day who is “neutral”, who is “unbiased” and who isn’t, and come up with alternate lists, and for every criticism of the ABC from the right I could find a similar one from the left (aforementioned FJ YT channel has critiqued the ABC from the left).

But that’s not what this forum or thread is about, and I wouldn’t want it to descend into that. Overall the ABC is perceived as trustworthy and therefore watchable by a far greater number of the airline’s viewing audience, the ones they have to cater for, than Sky. And at the end of the day an airline caters for as wide a customer base as possible.

 

[justinbrett]

We can argue all day who is “neutral”, who is “unbiased” and who isn’t, and come up with alternate lists, and for every criticism of the ABC from the right I could find a similar one from the left (aforementioned FJ YT channel has critiqued the ABC from the left).

But that’s not what this forum or thread is about, and I wouldn’t want it to descend into that. Overall the ABC is perceived as trustworthy and therefore watchable by a far greater number of the airline’s viewing audience, the ones they have to cater for, than Sky. And at the end of the day an airline caters for as wide a customer base as possible.

This is all your opinion though, so stop trying to present that as fact.

Also it's completely conjecture this decision was made on ideological grounds. Knowing Qantas, it was probably cost cutting. They also just signed a deal with The Australian - which is pretty much the print version of Sky News, with many of its writers and editors having shows on the channel.

 

[drron]

1 million kms in 14 years? That is 71k per year, 195 kms per day. That is an enormous amount of driving. Not passing an opinion - just fact-checking.

It was back in the day our holidays were road trips.

 

[sudoer]

Overall the ABC is perceived as trustworthy and therefore watchable by a far greater number of the airline’s viewing audience, the ones they have to cater for, than Sky. And at the end of the day an airline caters for as wide a customer base as possible.

This is all your opinion though, so stop trying to present that as fact.

It's not just their opinion though, the ABC does consistently rank as one of the most trusted news sources in Australia (link, p13) - certainly far higher than Sky does.



And it's also far less polarising than Sky News (link, p35)

Also it's completely conjecture this decision was made on ideological grounds. Knowing Qantas, it was probably cost cutting. They also just signed a deal with The Australian - which is pretty much the print version of Sky News, with many of its writers and editors having shows on the channel.

I would agree, it's unlikely this was made on ideological grounds and more likely to be cost cutting. To Qantas' credit, they also signed a deal with AFR.

You may prefer to receive your news from Sky instead of ABC, which is an opinion you are of course entitled to have. But that is different to the majority of the population, who do trust ABC more than Sky.