Has Ray Martin resigned yet from this farcical ABC "inquiry"

[Andrew Bolt]

Ray Martin, asked by the ABC to review Q&A’s bias, has a bias towards forgiving what he’s yet to check:

We’re looking back at the last 22 programmes. I would like to see what happened last year, as well – the year before, rather, when there was a Labor Government. I suspect Tony Jones was just as tough on the Labor Government as he has been on the Coalition right now.

Reader Peter of Bellevue Hill:

Martin might find the 1 July 2013 episode of Q&A;instructive: not sure if five Leftists - including Jones - ganging up on one conservative following Rudd’s resurrection qualifies as being particularly ‘tough on Labor’.

Liberal Senator James McGrath is right, of course:

McGrath has accused veteran reporter Ray Martin of bias in favour of the ABC and called on him to quit his role investigating Q&A…

His comments came after Martin described a boycott of Q&A by ministers as “silly” and suggested the Government was attacking the program as part of a focus on terrorism.

Senator McGrath said Martin was “clearly biased” and called on him to “stand aside from the review”.

“He is supposed to be conducting an independent review into the last 22 episodes of Q&A. Well, following his comments today, he is anything but independent. He is an apologist for Q&A, rather than a reviewer of Q&A.”

What a joke:

An ABC spokesman said Martin was chosen to conduct the audit because “he is independent and the public perceive him to be”.

[Rorschach]

http://www.ozpolitic.com/polanimal/view ... =2&t=13310" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm guessing Andrew Bolt is one of the dumb bunnies from Ozpol who keep putting up duplicate topics there? just what we need.

[Neferti]

Somebody, around here, did ask for NEW MEMBERS to join up so that we have "new" people to talk to and discuss things with. Right?

So, let's agree that this new Member is genuine and just doesn't want to be identified by the ID they use at OZ Pol. Mmmm?

Play along, no harm done.

Nice to see you here BoltA.

[S m i t h ' s J o h n]

I'm guessing Rorschach is the fuckwit dummy who cant follow politics and thinks that a genertal thread covers all and sundry.
Naaaa he is just a fuckwit dummy

Can someone tell the fuckwit dummy that this thread is far more iinclusive of the issues and as such is a different thread to his amateur thread

[Neferti]

I'm guessing Rorschach is the fuckwit dummy who cant follow politics and thinks that a genertal thread covers all and sundry.
Naaaa he is just a fuckwit dummy

Can someone tell the fuckwit dummy that this thread is far more iinclusive of the issues and as such is a different thread to his amateur thread

YOU completely missed the point. Well Done!

"New Members" who use a different ID at OzPol are fine and welcome here.

[S m i t h ' s J o h n]

I'm guessing Rorschach is the fuckwit dummy who cant follow politics and thinks that a genertal thread covers all and sundry.
Naaaa he is just a fuckwit dummy

Can someone tell the fuckwit dummy that this thread is far more iinclusive of the issues and as such is a different thread to his amateur thread

YOU completely missed the point. Well Done!

"New Members" who use a different ID at OzPol are fine and welcome here.

Yes YOU completely missed teh point - well done


Are you fuckwit dummys squeeze?

[Andrew Bolt]

SOME Liberal MPs are moaning about Tony Abbott’s boycott of the ABC’s Q&A program, showing how little they understand what’s at stake.

Take the “bemused Coalition source” who complained to Fairfax journalists: “Why on earth are we prioritising this?”

Well, the Prime Minister isn’t “prioritising” this fight.

He’s just exploiting a massive overreach by the ABC to force it to at least pretend to obey the law that says the ABC must be impartial and not this soapbox of the Left.

The folly was Q&A’s smart-arse decision to ambush Liberal frontbencher Steven Ciobo with a question by Islamist extremist Zaky Mallah, who had been jailed for threatening to kill ASIO officers.

That folly was then compounded by the ABC board’s snow job — announcing an inquiry into Q&A’s bias by two of the usual suspects, former SBS head Shaun Brown and journalist Ray Martin, who immediately declared the Liberals were just playing politics and Q&A was just as hard on Labor.

The fix was in, and normally Liberals just take it like wimps.

[Andrew Bolt]

In Australia, the Abbott Government merely refuses to go on Q&A.

In Britain, the Cameron Government is showing how to cut a bloated, Left-captured state broadcaster down to a healthy size:

.... the BBC will face major cuts as part of the Government’s renewal of the Royal Charter and will be told to abandon commercial programmes like Sherlock and Strictly Come Dancing.

John Whittingdale, the Culture Secretary, will on Thursday publish a green paper setting out potential reforms to the BBC to take place during the process of charter renewal.

It is expected to question whether the BBC should stop chasing viewers and instead provide more public service programmes.

It could open the door to replacing the TV licence with a household tax…

The BBC’s website, which has been described as “imperialist” by George Osborne, the Chancellor, could also be dramatically scaled back amid fears it is destroying local and regional newspapers.

How can you sensibly quarrel with this?

Here we must ask why taxpayers should subsidise ABC services directly competing with commercial rivals. Why subsidise the ABC’s on-line newspaper, for instance? Why subsidise ABC24 when Sky News provides a better service at no cost to taxpayers?

Why subsidise four TV stations for the ABC? Why not just one?

Why subsidise five radio stations? Why not just two - a local and a national broadcaster in each region?

Why subsidise Triple J, when local content rules could produce the same effect at no cost to taxpayers?

And why, oh why, subsidise a massive media outfit that is breaking the law in plain sight - the law requiring it to be impartial?