ABC bias thread.

[The Reboot]

Moving on... an ABC "opinion" piece, with Nazi Invasion Day coming up.

Here, the writer proceeds to instruct us on how to "acknowledge country":

Why an Acknowledgement of Country is important (and advice on how to give one)


Over the years, Welcomes to and Acknowledgements of Country have become a lot more known in Australia. As a First Nation person myself, this has given me hope to us as people getting the recognition we deserve.

Welcomes and Acknowledgements bring awareness to First Nation people being the custodians of the land.

So how do you do an Acknowledgement of Country? And how can you do it well?

Firstly, let's explain the difference between an Acknowledgment and a Welcome to Country, because they're not the same thing.
Welcome to Country

A Welcome to Country is a traditional ceremony given by Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander elders. Welcomes are also performed by Traditional owners that elders have given permission to.

This is a tradition that has been practiced in Aboriginal culture for thousands of years.

Australia is made up of many different tribes with different land areas. In the old days, tribes that wanted to pass through another tribe's country needed permission to do so and had to be welcomed through. Usually a welcome involves dancing and singing.

Acknowledgement of Country

An Acknowledgment can be given by an Indigenous or non-Indigenous person. It's an opportunity to introduce yourself and to show the respect you have for the country, the people and water you're on.

Unlike a Welcome to Country, an Acknowledgment usually involves a speech.

Scott Kneebone, a Bangerang man based in Canberra, has found an easy way to explain the difference between the two.

Scott Kneebone often explains the difference between a Welcome and an Acknowledgement to kids.(Supplied: Scott Kneebone)

He uses this simple explanation with kids:

"A Welcome to Country is like if you're hosting a birthday: you do a welcome and say thank you for coming to my birthday.

"And an Acknowledge of Country is like if you're a guest at the birthday: you would say thank you for having me."

Scott has been a presenter with Ask Me Anything, a community organisation that promotes understanding and inclusion through conversation.

He tells me a Welcome is more of an obligation — it's to protect your guest physically and in a spiritual sense as well. An Acknowledgments is an obligation to respect the people's land and water you are on.
Why giving an Acknowledgement is important

"It's about showing respect!" says Cissy Gore-Birch. She works for Bush Heritage, a not-for-profit organisation that conserves lands and partners with Aboriginal people.

Cissy is a part of the Balanggarra/Jaru/Gija nation in the East Kimberley.

While you might be used to giving or hearing an Acknowledgement at the beginning of a meeting, event or something formal, Cissy sees it as an important part of her personal life as well.

"I'll introduce to my kids the importance of acknowledging whose land we are visiting to show respect and understand the First Nation people," she says.

First Nation people have been experiencing exclusion, discrimination and oppression for so long. Aboriginal people weren't even classed as human beings not so long ago, so being recognised as the true custodians of the land with an Acknowledgement shows we've come a long way.

"It's a sign of respect that things are changing," says David Kurnoth, from the Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation, which represents the Larrakia people in the Northern Territory by protecting the land, people, country, language, law and culture.

"The government acknowledges that there is a connection between the Traditional owners and the land itself, which allows the Traditional Owners to have a place at the table and to make decisions about their country."

How to give one with meaning

"It's very much up to the discretion of the person doing it," says Scott about when to do an Acknowledgement of Country.

"It needs to be earnest, more than anything else."

As well as spoken Acknowledgements of Country at events or gatherings, they can also be written and be part of email signatures, featured on websites and signs at the entrances of businesses and homes.

So, how can you write a good Acknowledgment of Country?

After talking to Cissy and Scott I've jotted down a few steps to help you write one.

1.Find out whose land you're on. Do your research and be specific.
2.Show respect. Be earnest and genuine.
3.Adapt to suit your context. It's easy to download an already scripted acknowledgment, try to write one in your voice.
4.Be confident. Speak with purpose.
5.Avoid using past tense. We are still here.
6.Use correct terminology. Don't use 'Aborigines'. It is a derogatory word.
7.Breathe. Take your time.

Source

'Aborigines' is now another naughty word? That's new to me. May as well just keeping calling them coons, then.

[Nom De Plume]

Do you often seek validation from the "elite" to determine what is and what isn't? I'm sorry, but this logic is weak.

Strawman! I said nothing about seeking 'validation from the 'elite''.

Says the Strawman. "ABC bias must be fake news cause Murdoch hasn't said anything". Think about it, Nom.

Wow! You are really bad at reasoned debate, yet really good at pettiness and drivel.

If the ABC was bias, then all broadcasters, who are peers of the ABC, would complain to the Govt. about said bias and its impact upon their respective broadcasting companies. That hasn't happened, because their is no bias that is noteworthy!

Tsk tsk. Dearie dearie me, Nom, your true nature is on show. It didn't take you long to fall from the "moral high ground" that you previously claimed you stand upon.

Loving that hypocrisy though. Did you take pointers from Brian?

Pettiness and drivel = your argument. It's still a weak-as-piss red herring. First you refer to Murdoch himself and now you've extended it to apply to "other broadcasters".

Shifting the parameters when backed into a corner, another tactic often used by Brian.

Tsk tsk!

Really? Let's review that shall we?

I asked Are their any other broadcasters complaining about ABC bias?

Receiving no reply, I then claimed, You see, I don't hear anything from other broadcasters complaining about ABC bias.

And that's when you jumped in and said... Sky News ripped them a new hole over the Waleed Aly doctored footage.

Now... I ask about Broadcasters and you respond by referencing a News Presenter. Are Broadcasters and News Presenters the same thing? Not usually and definitely not the case in the example you provided.

But you just didn't get it... and to your credit admitted as much by saying... I'm failing to see the point here.

So I responded saying that... Because he is a powerful news broadcaster who can and would complain if the ABC bias was real. But he hasn't complained... Nor have any news broadcasters complained about the ABC... that I am aware of.

Therefore, the idea of ABC bias is fake news!

There it was... the argument fully expressed.

Assumed premise; There are mechanisms in place for complaints against broadcasters to be heard and investigated.
P1 TV Broadcasting companies are powerful entities, capable of lodging complaints, where required.
P2 Nobody on this forum is aware of any official complaints against the ABC.
P3 There is no evidence that the ABC is bias.

Not content, you respond... Do you often seek validation from the "elite" to determine what is and what isn't? I'm sorry, but this logic is weak

And I'm like What does elitism have to do with anything I had discussed?

And then this...

Tsk tsk. Dearie dearie me, Nom, your true nature is on show. It didn't take you long to fall from the "moral high ground" that you previously claimed you stand upon.

Loving that hypocrisy though. Did you take pointers from Brian?

Pettiness and drivel = your argument. It's still a weak-as-piss red herring. First you refer to Murdoch himself and now you've extended it to apply to "other broadcasters".

Shifting the parameters when backed into a corner, another tactic often used by Brian.

And again is wrong with you?

My whole discussion was about broadcasters! It was you who introduced Murdoch by referencing Sky News... not me!
It is you who doesn't know the difference between a news presenter and a News broadcaster... not me!
It was you who shifted the parameters... Not me!

An uneducated fucking idiot is what you are

[Bogan]

NDP wrote

If the ABC was bias, then all broadcasters, who are peers of the ABC, would complain to the Govt. about said bias and its impact upon their respective broadcasting companies. That hasn't happened, because their is no bias that is noteworthy!

If the ABC was not biased, then those who defend the ABC would not use the argument that the ABC's bias is simply balancing out the right wing bias of the mainstream media. Which is kind of funny anyway. Until FOX came along there was little diversity in the mainstream media anyway. The fact that most of the public is fed up of left wing propaganda being presented as news can be seen by what happened to the previously very left wing Sydney Morning Herald. It's circulation nose dived against Murdoch's Daily Telegraph because it's readers got fed up of being preached to and insulted by the SMH's reporters. Finally, somebody in management made the decision to stop the appalling left wing bias, and they began hiring right wing journos like Miranda Devine to give a more balanced view. Their sales recovered.

If you had bothered to lick on the link I provided, you would have seen Sebastian Gorka sticking it to the fake news CNN by reminding them that CNN has slipped from number 1 to now number 13 in ratings, all because CNN, like the ABC, just can not rid itself of it's appalling bias. CNN's rating are not going to improve until they do, because most of the American public know when somebody is pissing on their leg and telling them it is raining.

[brian ross]

Mmmm, it appears that we have no complaints from the right wing broadcasters of the ABC supposed bias. We have had mention of a commercial broadcaster (Waleed Aly) being biased supposedly. We have had mention that "until Fox, there was little difference in the broadcast of news." That rather suggest you, Bogan have a strange idea of what is Right and what is Left and you'd prefer extreme-Right broadcasters of centrist broadcasters, right?

[The Reboot]

Strawman! I said nothing about seeking 'validation from the 'elite''.

Says the Strawman. "ABC bias must be fake news cause Murdoch hasn't said anything". Think about it, Nom.

Wow! You are really bad at reasoned debate, yet really good at pettiness and drivel.

If the ABC was bias, then all broadcasters, who are peers of the ABC, would complain to the Govt. about said bias and its impact upon their respective broadcasting companies. That hasn't happened, because their is no bias that is noteworthy!

Tsk tsk. Dearie dearie me, Nom, your true nature is on show. It didn't take you long to fall from the "moral high ground" that you previously claimed you stand upon.

Loving that hypocrisy though. Did you take pointers from Brian?

Pettiness and drivel = your argument. It's still a weak-as-piss red herring. First you refer to Murdoch himself and now you've extended it to apply to "other broadcasters".

Shifting the parameters when backed into a corner, another tactic often used by Brian.

Tsk tsk!

Really? Let's review that shall we?

I asked Are their any other broadcasters complaining about ABC bias?

Receiving no reply, I then claimed, You see, I don't hear anything from other broadcasters complaining about ABC bias.

And that's when you jumped in and said... Sky News ripped them a new hole over the Waleed Aly doctored footage.

Now... I ask about Broadcasters and you respond by referencing a News Presenter. Are Broadcasters and News Presenters the same thing? Not usually and definitely not the case in the example you provided.

But you just didn't get it... and to your credit admitted as much by saying... I'm failing to see the point here.

So I responded saying that... Because he is a powerful news broadcaster who can and would complain if the ABC bias was real. But he hasn't complained... Nor have any news broadcasters complained about the ABC... that I am aware of.

Therefore, the idea of ABC bias is fake news!

There it was... the argument fully expressed.

Assumed premise; There are mechanisms in place for complaints against broadcasters to be heard and investigated.
P1 TV Broadcasting companies are powerful entities, capable of lodging complaints, where required.
P2 Nobody on this forum is aware of any official complaints against the ABC.
P3 There is no evidence that the ABC is bias.

Not content, you respond... Do you often seek validation from the "elite" to determine what is and what isn't? I'm sorry, but this logic is weak

And I'm like What does elitism have to do with anything I had discussed?

And then this...

Tsk tsk. Dearie dearie me, Nom, your true nature is on show. It didn't take you long to fall from the "moral high ground" that you previously claimed you stand upon.

Loving that hypocrisy though. Did you take pointers from Brian?

Pettiness and drivel = your argument. It's still a weak-as-piss red herring. First you refer to Murdoch himself and now you've extended it to apply to "other broadcasters".

Shifting the parameters when backed into a corner, another tactic often used by Brian.

And again is wrong with you?

My whole discussion was about broadcasters! It was you who introduced Murdoch by referencing Sky News... not me!
It is you who doesn't know the difference between a news presenter and a News broadcaster... not me!
It was you who shifted the parameters... Not me!

An uneducated fucking idiot is what you are

Or rather, the "difference between a news presenter and a news broadcaster" is irrelevant to the argument about ABC bias.

I mentioned Sky News because it was there I read about and viewed footage about Waleed Aly. I simply answered your question, which you introduced into the debate as a red herring.

Whether other broadcasters "make a complaint" is irrelevant. Again. I certainly don't need the validation of a "complaint mechanism" to prove that the ABC is biased. It sticks out like dog balls. If you want supporting evidence of this, read through the fucking thread. I've provided examples, as have many others.

Now, off you go. Better change that tampon. Tsk tsk.

[Juliar]

Greeny BRossy gets his hands mixed up. Reboot's crudeness is offensive.

The Lefties and Greenies and GetUp! now complain about the lack of warped minority group rubbish from the the ABC because ITA is steering it towards its Public Charter so there is now an emphasis on FACT and TRUTH which is anathema to the Lefties and Greenies and GetUp!.

The ABC is becoming what it should be.

What will become very apparent as the election draws closer is the absence of Lefty and Greeny and GetUp! lying propaganda on the ABC.

[Juliar]

During the atrocious Gillard's time the ABC drifted so far away from its Public Charter it was not even a memory as it turned into the ABC Socialist Propaganda Station pumping out Greeny and Labor and GetUp! lying propaganda like vomit.

But ScoMo's pick ITA is turning the wayward behemoth around and is closing the door on the evil Socialists.




ABC: SELECTIVE JOURNALISM AT ITS FINEST
December 10, 2019

The ABC has become synonymous with “fake news” to the extent that The Australian is reporting on how the ABC… Isn’t reporting.

Yes, you read that right.

According to The Australian, here’s a sample of things the ABC refuses to acknowledge:

China is building coal-fired power stations like there is no tomorrow – adding a whopping 148 gigawatts of pure coal annually. The Chinese are getting abundant, cheap and reliable electricity while Aussies get intermittent, expensive and unreliable renewables.
There are massive problems with the reliability and storage of renewable energy.
Australia has one of the highest penetrations of renewable energy in the world.
Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says weather events – including bushfires – can’t be sheeted back to climate change.
Australia is unable to take any action whatsoever that would reduce atmospheric CO2 effects on fires or the Great Barrier Reef.
Late last month PM Morrison stated that with only 1.3 per cent of global emissions, no action Australia takes can affect the climate.

But, chucking its charter out the window, the ABC can’t even summon the pretence of knowing the facts.

While China is going like the clappers building coal-fired power, the ABC keeps referring to our coal-fired power stations as “stranded assets”.

And they never ever report on the cost “climate action” has chalked up for mainstream Australia.

Watching the ABC, Australians were clueless that this year’s yellow vest protests in Paris were motivated by a climate change inspired hike in fuel tax.

Everyday Frenchmen don’t want to pay the bill for the rich’s climate obsession – they simply can’t afford it.

With 30% of Australia’s C02 emissions coming from food production, it’s no wonder the militant vegan activists have joined forces with the climate crusaders.

But the ever-wise former deputy prime minister, John Anderson, reckons there’s a better way for people to signal their climate virtue.

With 40 percent of our food wasted, Anderson says we ought to divert our efforts to saving food, instead of throwing it away.

We can add that to the list of ideas we’ll never hear on “our” $1 billion a year ABC.

While it would be far more effective, it’s far less sensational than gluing oneself to the road.

https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/abc ... its_finest

[Juliar]

How many of Gillard's Lefty Plants will ITA have to purge from the ABC before it comes within cooee of its Public Charter ?

On the midday news today in an item bemoaning pollution and its risks to health (rightly so), ABC couldn't resist showing the cooling towers at a conventional power station billowing clouds of water vapour inferring pollution. Mind you, I detect a faint glimmer here and there of possibly Chairman Ita's ( no gender inferred (a tigress is, afterall, a tiger)) recent efforts to pull to the right.

At last count, Australia produces 1.3% of all man made C02 which is only 3% of all C02 generated on earth.

If China is increasing it’s out put as described, then our % is falling in relative terms.

Add in the fact that Australian forestry removes 3.8% (when it’s not in fire due to poor management practices & fire bugs) of all man made C02, then Australia cancels itself out by at least a factor of three.

Also, wind turbines are not lasting as long as prescribed (moving parts, not surprising) some only 15yrs verses the 25yrs claimed.

Who pays for that short fall? Add in carbon fibre blades cannot be recycled, but buried at great expense to the wallet & environment, one can ask what the heck is going on?

Does the ABC ask anyone about these truths & issues? Also, some of the most beautiful corals grow on reefs at the equator, warmer waters than our Great Barrier Reef? Why? People are being very selective in what they push. Interestingly & sadly it always seems to swings back to ideology, power etc.




ABC reporters the real climate deniers
CHRIS MITCHELL 12:00AM DECEMBER 2, 2019


Media Watch, hosted by Paul Barry, favours a kind of fevered reporting that plays into public fear.

The ABC’s board should insist editorial managers address their reporters’ particular brand of “climate denialism”.

This real journalistic failing is not the sort of climate reporting that seems to exercise the Media Watch program each Monday night. ABC journalists are regularly guilty of:

● Failing to report any inconvenient truths about countries ­increasing their use of coal, such as a November 20 Bloomberg report China is adding 148 gigawatts ­annually in coal-fired power, an increase greater than the size of the entire European system. Yet on the ABC coal is a “stranded asset”, as Hamish McDonald said on RN Mornings again last week.

● Not accurately reporting Australia now has among the highest penetrations of renewable energy usage anywhere or that our total emissions are rising mainly because of increased LNG exports that are offsetting emissions-­intensive fuels in China and Japan.

● Refusing to acknowledge the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made clear for more than a decade that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. Even bushfires. Nor does the ABC acknowledge the IPCC has regularly revised down forecasts for temperature and sea level rise.

● Failing to report problems with energy storage and renewables. Energy regulators say Australia needs to pause its renewables rollout until technology gives the nation access to viable dispatchable power. And why give an open platform to renewables investors John Hewson and Simon Holmes a Court without acknowledging their financial interest? Why no reports of last year’s slowing in wind and solar in China and the developing world?

● Deliberately misreporting the ability of Australia to take any action whatsoever that would reduce atmospheric CO2 effects on fires or the Great Barrier Reef.

ABC managers should be worried about staff’s social media posts after Scott Morrison’s statement on November 21 of the self-evident truth: Australia alone cannot affect the temperature of the planet. Even Guardian editor Lenore Taylor, a long-time climate campaigner, had to admit on Insiders last Sunday week that Morrison was correct: with only 1.3 per cent of global emissions, no action Australia takes can affect the climate.


ABC’s board should insist editorial managers address their reporters’ particular brand of “climate denialism”.

Said Taylor: “ So in the narrowest possible way, yes, he is right … but to look at it that way risks really missing the point. Looking at it that way … weakens our ability to argue for tougher action on the global stage.” So, in effect, we should lead the way even if it will make no difference because then the big global CO2 emitters might listen to us. Really?

Yet this is The Guardian’s position. Check its podcast with Taylor and Katharine Murphy interviewing former PM Malcolm Turnbull on November 23. All agree Australia can’t do anything to change the climate, but then argue we should behave as if we can to shame the biggest nations into doing more.

Editors should insist ABC reporters query such thinking to see if there is any evidence that moving ahead of our Paris climate commitments would shame any nation into anything. Editors should ask staff to examine whether shutting down our most valuable export industry — coal — would do anything but make Australians poorer, encourage substitution with dirtier coal sourced elsewhere and send electricity-­intensive industries offshore to countries with lower environmental standards.

Media Watch does not care such a serious approach to a complex problem is not attempted by warmist media. It hides behind claims climate reporting cannot be balanced because that would imply equating the views of climate scientists with those of non-scientist sceptics. It ignores left media failure to scrutinise policy responses, the economics of such responses, the role of innovation other than renewables and examination of false claims, such as the many by non-climate scientist Tim Flannery a decade ago.


Australia now has among the highest penetrations of renewable energy usage anywhere. Picture: David Anthony

Media Watch favours a kind of fevered reporting that plays into public fear. Witness its disgraceful smearing of SkyNews’ Peta Credlin in June this year for her interview with Adani CEO Gautam Adani. Pointing out hundreds of millions of Indians have no access to electricity and their health is affected by the burning of wood and dung for cooking and light in unventilated homes was the sort of public interest reporting the corporation usually loves.

Last Monday Media Watch used Rupert Murdoch’s statement at News Corp’s AGM in New York that there were no climate deniers at News to ridicule commentary from several writers. ABC journalists appear incapable of engaging with the thoughts of non-left journalists. For instance, this newspaper was regularly criticised by the ABC for its position on climate even though it supported John Howard’s ETS in 2007. Its position was based on the correct idea that Australia should never get ahead of the rest of the world on climate action lest it export jobs and industry to countries with lower standards for no net benefit to the planet. The Oz was adamant, again correctly, that governments should only support least-cost abatement. Media Watch for years attacked this as denialism.

Andrew Bolt told his viewers on Tuesday night that he had again complained to the ABC about the latest Media Watch segment. If you follow Bolt’s many writings about climate it is obvious he does accept the temperature is rising. It has risen one degree since the start of the 20th century.


The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

But Bolt also reports scientists from other disciplines who question parts of the science. Many say climate models are not yet sophisticated enough to account for the effective regulation of atmospheric CO2 by the deep oceans, forests and soils. Bolt and others criticised by Media Watch often point to effects from solar activity. Many writers, like many climate scientists, say CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas, pointing to water vapour and methane. These are all facts.

Media Watch host Paul Barry last week thought News Corp’s columnists should have given more credence to the views of firefighters on climate change, which seems at odds with his program’s view that only scientists should speak on the issue. Neither the fire chiefs Barry quoted nor the program’s script acknowledged Scott Morrison’s point that Australia cannot change the world’s temperature.

But there are lessons for journalists from the fires. My wife and I own properties in the NSW fire zone between Port Macquarie and Crowdy Head. Many Greens-voting Landcare volunteers in the area say the local council and the state government need to clear dead trees from forest floors.

We also need more and better firefighting equipment. We need to learn from the royal commission into the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria a decade ago in which 173 people died and 2133 houses were destroyed. It recommended “bushfire risk be accounted for in the application of controls on clearing native vegetation … and houses be restricted on high-risk blocks too small to allow a ­defendable space to be created …”

It might also help if the media sometimes did what ABC critic Chris Kenny did: look at records over the past two centuries showing fires much worse than those of the past month.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busine ... 182c54c8db