ABC bias thread.

Australian Federal, State and Local Politics
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Post Reply
User avatar
The Reboot
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:05 pm

Re: ABC bias thread.

Post by The Reboot » Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:54 pm

brian ross wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:18 pm
The Reboot wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:47 pm
Not sure if anybody has heard/seen this? If it's old news, I apologize. :lol:

~
Waleed Aly apologises for doctored segment attacking PM
24/12/2019|4min

The Project host Waleed Aly has issued a lengthy on-air apology saying he needed to “come clean” about a “mistake” after his program ran a short clip of footage out of context which falsely suggested a volunteer fire fighter was criticising Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

The selectively edited footage showed Rural Fire Service volunteer Jacqui declaring that Mr Morrison was “not my prime minister”.

An unedited version of the exchange later surfaced on social media which showed that Jacqui, a British citizen, was referring to the fact that her prime minister was Boris Johnson.

Mr Aly broadcast an apology on Tuesday night after Network 10 suffered widespread criticism online where the original doctored clip was shared prolifically.

“We need to make a correction in relation to that clip,” Mr Aly said on The Project.

“It turns out that there was a longer exchange between Jacqui and the PM that followed that.

“She explained that she was in fact a UK citizen and that is why ScoMo was not her PM.

“The problem for us is that significant parts of that were inaudible. We couldn't deduce what was in that exchange.”

The excuse for using the footage out of context was not received well online with many users questioning why Network Ten producers were unable to hear the same video that later surfaced online, which was shot by Channel 9 and then shared with other media outlets.

Mr Aly also revealed the volunteer herself wanted it made clear her comment was “light-hearted” and not an attack on Mr Morrison.

“We spoke to the Rural Fire Service today … Jacqui wants to be crystal clear, the comment was meant to be light-hearted, she has no issue with the PM,” he said.

“This was clearly not a deliberate mistake on our part but was a mistake nonetheless. We think it is important own up to your mistakes and to come clean about these sorts of things. So we take full responsibility for it.”

The original bulletin was uploaded to Twitter where it resulted in online activists praising the volunteer for her supposed takedown of the PM with ‘#JacquiForPM’ and ‘#NotMyPrimeMinister’ becoming trending topics across Australia for most of the day.

Source
Mmmm, why are you talking a star of a commercial network's program in a thread supposedly about the ABC's bias? :roll :roll
Eh? I have no idea what you're implying with "talking a star" but I think it's pretty clear that the article is relevant to this thread discussion. Maybe read it again if you're having trouble comprehending.

If you're going for the "HA HA commercial network is biased too OMG" scenario, then I don't really care. It isn't like the article is lies and fake news when there is footage of the Aly apologizing for his mishap, and if you are going for that angle, make a new thread about commercial network bias. Tsk tsk. :roll: :roll: This topic is about the ABC.

Below is the footage of Aly himself confessing his mistake.


Juliar
Posts: 1355
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:56 am

Re: ABC bias thread.

Post by Juliar » Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:34 pm

Aw Gee!! The reBoot lays the boot in!!!!

User avatar
Redneck
Posts: 6275
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:28 pm

Re: ABC bias thread.

Post by Redneck » Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:54 pm

THE MORON STUFFING ANOTHER FORUM !!

:smack

Juliar
Posts: 1355
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:56 am

Re: ABC bias thread.

Post by Juliar » Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:44 pm

Pour Reddy is so flabbergasted by AnAl's inability to do anything he takes his frustration out on ME!!!!!

But I don't mind as I have broad shoulders and have been abused by experts and sweet innocent Reddy has quite a way to go to claim that title.

And the ABC is now in good hands With ITA and ScoMo blocking propaganda from GetUp! and the Greenies and Labor.

Gee, won't Reddy be upset when ITA cans his favorite program Q+A ?

User avatar
The Reboot
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:05 pm

Re: ABC bias thread.

Post by The Reboot » Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:01 pm

Redneck wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:54 pm
THE MORON STUFFING ANOTHER FORUM !!

:smack
Oh, lighten up. He's funny :lol:

Juliar
Posts: 1355
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:56 am

Re: ABC bias thread.

Post by Juliar » Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:55 pm

Now burying bothered and bewildered Reddy Moron and returning to some REAL ABC BIAS.

When is BO going to SPANK this naughty Reddy ?




Academic Agitators Rely On The Public Purse
Bella d'Abrera 20 December 2019 Originally appeared in The Australian

Image
Academic Agitators Rely On The Public Purse

On Sunday the ABC published an article stating that masculinity is the biggest obstacle to climate ­action. The highly offensive piece, which was steeped in misandry and titled “Is fragile masculinity the biggest obstacle to climate action?”, was written by University of Sydney academic Megan Mackenzie. It was published exactly the way you would expect: with a triple barrel of taxpayer funds.

First, Mackenzie is employed at Sydney University, which is a taxpayer-funded institution. According to its annual report last year, the university pocketed a total of $710.3m in Australian government grants, plus an extra $45.5m in NSW government grants. This is hardly an insignificant amount of taxpayer dollars.

Second, Mackenzie’s research work also has been generously funded by the taxpayer. In 2014, she received an Australian Research Council grant worth $434,692 to fund a project entitled Women in Combat: A Comparative Analysis of Removing the Combat Exclusion.

Third, her article has been published by the ABC, which is, of course, another taxpayer-funded institution funded to the tune of more than $1bn a year.

While Mackenzie has completely bought into the notion that white men are the embodiment of evil, she needs to remember that a large number of Australian taxpayers who are funding her research are hardworking white men against whom she rallies.

It is wrong for researchers such as Mackenzie to continue to take benefit from the money of people who they consistently and openly deride in the public forum.


Last year, Sydney University hosted American professor, author and “renowned anti-racism educator” Robin DiAngelo on campus so she could harangue white people about how racist they were. Taxpayer money is being used without the slightest hint of questioning, self-reflection or consideration for the taxpayers themselves. If academics such as Mackenzie were to attempt to make a living from propounding identity politics, radical gender theory and eco-poetics, they would not survive in this world. This is because there is no market among the general populace, who naturally have little desire to pay someone to insult them. The harsh reality for those employed in the humanities is that without funding via other people’s money, they would struggle to earn their keep.

What Sydney University academic Mackenzie has done is to connect two diametrically opposed topics that currently obsess the elite of this country: gender and climate change.

This is something at which the university appears to excel. Readers will now be familiar with its FutureFix program, in particular the Multi­species Justice project, which is described by the univer­sity as “a post human reconceptualisation of justice via a multi­species lens” and that looks at how “justice across the human and natural world (would) look like and entail”. Moreover, a lecturer also proposed that we need to consider seriously the “arguments for the formal inclusion of animal interests in democracies”.

The university even has its own all-encompassing Environment Institute, which covers everything from the Great Barrier Reef to justice and culture. In October, the institute hosted a two-day symposium titled Unsettling Ecological Poetics, during which various participants from universities around Australia gathered to read poems about climate change, sustainability, radical feminism, racism and LGBTQ+ issues.

The move to combine disciplines is part of a growing worldwide trend to create new and exciting interdisciplinary studies. In a recent article for The Conversation, a couple of academics from the University of California stated the case for combining climate change science and the humanities with their article “Why science needs the humanities to solve climate change”.

There is little doubt that Australian universities are in crisis. This is because academics such as Mackenzie have completely rejected the cornerstones of Western civilisation and, in doing, so are cutting themselves and students off from truth, reason and knowledge. The reason student numbers are falling in the ­humanities is because academics appear to be indulging in their own interests without consideration for anything else.

These cloistered academics are completely out of touch with mainstream Australians, but even in the face of resounding defeat they refuse to see it. They belong to the elite who were voted out in May by mainstream Australians and rejected en masse by the British public last week.

Yet the government continues to fund agitators who are filled with the zeal of the righteous, and who not only believe their own propaganda but also insist everyone else must believe it, too. By giving money to institutions such as the university, the ARC and the ABC, the Coalition is funding a progressive ideology that is contrary to tradition, contrary to what people believe and contrary to the truth. The Coalition might keep winning elections, but as long as it keeps funding left-wing institutions that promulgate insidious identity politics it will continue to lose the battle of ideas.

https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/aca ... lic-purse#

User avatar
Neferti
Posts: 18113
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: ABC bias thread.

Post by Neferti » Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:17 pm

Their ABC should be sold off.

Juliar
Posts: 1355
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:56 am

Re: ABC bias thread.

Post by Juliar » Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:31 pm

The Socialist evil enveloping the ABC knows no limits.


The ABC, ‘Independent’ To A Fault
Chris Berg and Sinclair Davidson 19 June 2018 Originally appeared in Quadrant

Image

It is appalling that a sitting government should have to complain that the ABC is repeating Labor lies as facts. The ABC itself should be ashamed to have received such a complaint. Yet that is precisely why the Labor Party supported the establishment of the ABC – to provide a forum for pro-ALP news and opinion. This points to questioning the precise meaning of what is meant by the ABC being “independent”.

The Charter describes the ABC as an “independent national broadcasting service”, and it is that independence which forms many arguments in favour of public broadcasting. But this notion of independence needs deeper examination. The ABC is a state-owned broadcaster, which is dependent on triennial funding arrangements drawn from the Commonwealth budget, which is set by the political discretion of the government of the day.

ABC supporters refer to the ABC’s independence in two senses.
First, it has editorial independence from the government, insofar as it is a statutory agency that is self-managing and separated from the normal chains of political accountability.
Second, it is independent of the interests of advertisers and private sector media moguls, providing the “independent information” that the commercial media might not.


Public broadcasting has always been defined against the evils of private broadcasting, and the theme of an independent bulwark against the commercial media (the moguls and monopolists) has been integral right from the start. In the early years it was claimed that a purely private media market would be simultaneously disorderly and monopolistic. In the debate over the 1932 bill, the Labor member for Kalgoorlie, Albert Green, warned of the “chains of newspapers … obtaining such a stranglehold over the eastern part of the Victoria, and disseminating its propaganda through the stations that it controls”. The private monopolisation of radio – “one of the most revolutionary additions to the pool of human resources” – was constantly invoked by Labor members throughout the early debates. This concern, they felt, was more than just theoretical. The 1931 election loss showed, they felt, that the private media was systematically biased against the Labor Party, and a public broadcaster would be able to right that wrong.

Control of the wireless was the high ground of the political contest. In New South Wales a few years earlier the Lang government had sought to establish a state government radio that would resist what Labor saw as the Nationalist Party-dominated private media. As Albert Green, the most forthright of the Labor members on this point in the 1932 debate, put it:

Some B class stations are controlled by newspaper combines, which use them to broadcast only one political opinion. I had hoped that the air would be free to all, and that at election time every party would be given an opportunity to express its opinions over the air. Unfortunately that has not been our experience. Certain newspaper combines are endeavouring to obtain a monopoly of B class stations, and I sound the note of warning that sooner or later some government will have to tackle the very difficult, but necessary task of dealing with the problem of metropolitan B class stations. Nothing short of a complete national scheme will do.

In this sense, independence was understood by the Labor Party as being pro-Labor – or, at least, not anti-Labor. The 1942 inquiry into wireless reiterated this concern, arguing that public broadcasting was needed “to prevent the service from being used for improper purposes”.


Similar concerns drove the introduction of television. The overwrought claims about the social and psychological power of television only intensified the concerns about the new technology’s political importance. The public position of the Labor Party and the ACTU emphasised the cultural good that public broadcasting television could bring, rather than its role countering political bias. But there is no doubt that politics was front of mind when the labour movement considered the significance of television.

A public disagreement between Arthur Calwell and H.V. Evatt as to whether Labor would nationalise the commercial television stations if they were returned to government pivoted on their different impressions of how sympathetic the ABC was to the Labor Party. Calwell, who had been Minister for Information during the Second World War, had a hostile relationship to the commercial press. He believed that Keith Murdoch, who controlled the Melbourne Herald and several other papers across the country, was “a fifth columnist”, “megalomanic”, and his network of papers “a law unto itself” and “Public Enemy No. 1 of the liberties of the Australian people”. Murdoch’s pernicious influence could not be let onto television. Evatt felt that if the hybrid system was maintained, at least the Labor Party would be able to buy a commercial station to air its views. For its part, the conservative parties were just as aware of the political significance of television, arguing in response to the Chifley government’s proposal to establish a monopoly broadcaster that Labor was “merely another milestone on the socialised road to serfdom”.

The modern ABC’s independence is often declared but in practice is hard to pin down. Unlike the BBC, the ABC was not established under a royal charter, and the 1948 move away from licence fees to funding through budget appropriations brought it more into the political window.

Yet how independent could the ABC be? Compared to private and non-government organisations, the fortune of any state authority is going to be closely tied to the government of the day. Public broadcasters have their budgets set by the same governments which they purport to keep a check on. Commercial broadcasters might be dependent on the goodwill of advertisers, but the fact that there are many potential advertisers is a protection against excessive advertiser influence. A public broadcaster has only one funder, and it is a funder whose interests are driven by political rather than commercial incentives.

Nor are commercial broadcasters required to constantly justify their activities to professional politicians. Public broadcasters are regularly brought in front of parliamentary committees to answer for editorial decisions, from the trivial to the significant. The Senate estimates committee procedure requires statutory agencies to present themselves in front of a committee of Senators three times a year. At her first Senate estimates hearing in May 2016, Michelle Guthrie was interrogated about the cancellation of livestock market reports on ABC regional stations, the ABC Fact Check program, how unionised the ABC’s workforce was, whether the ABC was too Sydney-centric, how many people it sent to the Cannes film festival and how long they were out of the office, and how much the ABC spent on a custom typeface to use across its brands. This sort of scrutiny is, of course, entirely appropriate for a state instrumentality. But the notion that independence is the ABC’s unique value as a media outlet is difficult to sustain.

It is not obvious that independence from a democratically elected government is desirable. The ABC is a state-owned organisation, and like any state-owned organisation it derives its legitimacy from its relationship to the democratic expression of voter preferences. Public broadcasters join a large number of other regulatory and bureaucratic agencies that have been deliberately separated from the normal lines of democratic accountability: rather than being the “arm of the minister”, in the classical Westminster bureaucracy formulation, they are protected from political interference and given independence. In an open market, private media organisations are subordinate to consumers and advertisers. In government, politicians and bureaucracies are subordinate to voters. Independent statutory agencies are, by intention, subordinate to neither. Even at their most benign, they are highly susceptible to capture by their employees and management.

Indeed, staff capture has been a longstanding concern of critics of public broadcasters. As Michael Warby writes, “‘Independence’ from government interference … comes to mean effective independence from whatever tenuous public controls over the ABC exist in practice—it amounts to independence from the direct legal owner”. One of the consequences of staff capture, of course, is political bias. The historical context shows that this political slant is a deliberate feature of public broadcasting, not a bug.

https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/the ... to-a-fault

Juliar
Posts: 1355
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:56 am

Re: ABC bias thread.

Post by Juliar » Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:03 pm

The Lefties' favorite parts of the ABC - Media Watch.



Aunty Complains About A Lack Of Alternative Views? That’s A Bit Rich
Gideon Rozner 5 September 2019

Image

Media Watch is everything that is wrong with the ABC, squeezed into 15 insufferable minutes.

Smug, elitist and, above all, awash with the misguided idea that commercial media outlets are not to be trusted and that the only place where honest news can be found is in Aunty’s warm, state-sponsored embrace.


The program is usually best ignored, but its segment this week on the saga of Peter Ridd is worth calling out for its breathless hypocrisy. For the uninitiated, Ridd is a marine geophysicist who, until recently, was professor of physics at James Cook University in Townsville. Ridd is also an expert on the Great Barrier Reef and disputes the view that it is being killed by climate change.

Earlier this year the Federal Circuit Court found that his dismissal was unlawful.

Fast forward to this week’s Media Watch in which host Paul Barry spent a fair chunk of taxpayer-funded time bemoaning the attention from The Australian and other outlets to Ridd’s perspective on reef science.

The coverage, according to Barry, was “a real free kick” and “a free platform, with no opposing viewpoints”.

That the ABC could complain about a lack of opposing viewpoints is staggering.

When it comes to climate change in particular, the ABC is hopelessly predisposed towards climate alarmism. That may explain why up until Monday night, the ABC has shown less interest in the Ridd affair.

Ridd’s sacking, legal appeal and eventual victory in court attracted such strong public interest that eventually even the federal Attorney-General weighed in when the subject was raised by numerous colleagues in a recent partyroom meeting. But coverage from our “trusted” public broadcaster?

Not much. A search of the ABC’s website returns just a handful of reports on what was the most significant case on academic freedom in many years.

If the ABC had bothered, they would know that Ridd’s beef isn’t just with popular notions of doom and gloom surrounding the Great Barrier Reef but also with the quality of the underlying science.

Much of it, according to Ridd, is not being properly checked, tested or replicated.

As a result, governments are spending billions of dollars and jeopardising whole industries to “save” the reef when it probably doesn’t need saving.

It should be noted as well that throughout the extensive disciplinary process against Ridd, James Cook University never once addressed his complaints about the poor quality of climate science coming out of the univer­sity, a fact highlighted by the judge himself during Ridd’s case.

But far be it for the ABC to let poor science get in the way of a good story. Naturally, the segment included an article from The Guardian citing a handful of scientists who are adamant the Great Barrier Reef is in trouble and that Ridd should be ignored.

Media Watch even repeated hysterical comparisons between Ridd’s research and anti-vaxxer campaigns.

Interestingly, one scientist cited by the ABC was Terry ­Hughes. Like Ridd, Hughes is based at James Cook, and arguably triggered the whole saga when, according to court documents, he lodged a complaint about some relatively mild comments Ridd made in relation to reef science on Sky News. This connection was apparently missed by the Media Watch team.

What the ABC doesn’t understand is that the Ridd saga is about much more than the Great Barrier Reef or even climate science.

It raises serious questions about academic freedom, about the right of a university professor to voice dissenting views without being hounded out of his tenure, as Ridd was by James Cook.

This is why Ridd was supported by a large section of the community. Many of his university colleagues defended him and one resigned in disgust.

He even received support from the National Tertiary Education Union — not exactly a bastion of right-wing views. But of course, on the ABC, all of that complexity is lost, reduced to a tired pantomime about right-wing commentators pushing the views of one scientist to advance their own murky climate agenda.


Now, if the ABC were a private organisation it could take whatever editorial line it wanted — and would be far from the only outlet in Australia to sympathise with climate evangelism. But the ABC receives $1.1 billion of our money each year for news coverage that, by law, must be balanced.

Maybe the ABC should comply with its charter and make way for alternative views rather than taking juvenile pot shots at its rivals.

https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/aun ... a-bit-rich

User avatar
brian ross
Posts: 6059
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:26 pm

Re: ABC bias thread.

Post by brian ross » Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:07 pm

What a shame that Ridd wasn't sacked because of his views on climate change... :rofl
Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. - Eric Blair

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests