ABC bias thread.

[Bogan]

With this topic I wish to examine the appalling bias of the ABC by myself and others deconstructing their spin.

ABC news 29/12/19.

After the House (the US equivalent of Australia's House of Representatives) voted to impeach Donald Trump for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress, the expectation was that the documentation outlining the articles, or charges, would be swiftly sent to the Senate, so the trial over whether to remove him from office could take place in January.

Mr Trump's Republican allies in the Senate were preparing to give the charges short shrift, openly stating they didn't need to call a single witness and promising to vote against a White House eviction, regardless of what was (or wasn't) presented as evidence.
.
They'd made up their minds to acquit the President of the impeachment charges, in the hope that would exonerate him of any wrongdoing, without the need to risk any new evidence coming to the surface.

The ABC obviously thinks that the average punter is a mug. Of course the Republicans had "already made up their minds" that President Trump was innocent of any charges, in the same way that the Democrats in the Congress had "already made up their minds" that he must be guilty" of something.

The spin is, that the evil Republicans are doing something insidious while the noble Democrats are doing something noble. Since the Republicans (and just about everybody else) knows that the Trump impeachment is just a political witch hunt dressed up as a search for justice, the Dems are simply looking like the stupid losers they are. But the ABC can never admit that.

ABC

But the Speaker of the Democrat-controlled House had a Joker up her sleeve.

Sure she did. Pelosi got stampeded into an ill advised bit of McCarthyist theatrics by AOC and the rest of the young Democrat loony left, who were even demonstrating outside of Pelosi's office as if she was a republican stooge. Pelosi went along with the AOC and the young radicals because having the youth wing radicals of the Democrats at war with the older members of the Democrat Party is not a good look. Pelosi and the older Democrats are afraid of the young, red rag waving socialist Democrats with their free everything, identity politics, and virtue signalling, which were a Frankenstein that the old Democrats created.

ABC

Nancy Pelosi revealed she was breaking with convention by withholding the impeachment articles, until the House and the Senate could agree on procedures for a "fair trial".

Pelosi is withholding the impeachment articles because she knows that she is going to lose in the Senate. Gilbert and Sullivan could have put this whole farce to music. But if you are an ABC journo, you can always make a political disaster look like a triumph with enough cheek and spin.


ABC

The Democrats are using the delay to leverage their opponents into calling new witnesses and documents, in the hope it would hurt the President ahead of next year's election.

Well gee whiz, aren't those Democrats just so clever? Another way of looking at it (the correct way) is that since the Democrats know that they are going to lose again, by doing nothing, they hope to keep the impeachment in the news long enough to help them in the next election. But if BREXIT was anything to go by, the US public will probably get so sick and tired of it that they will punish the Dems for keeping this ridiculous issue boiling forever in the media.

[Juliar]

The Bogus Bogan is trying to flog the ABC and complaining about the lack of Socialist bias in the ABC these days now that ITA has converted it into the Women's Weekly.

Before ITA the ABC was the Socialist Propaganda Broadcasting Station.

[Bogan]

ABC Bias story number 2. Climate change.

ABC

I'm a climate change hypocrite — but I'm making a New Years resolution to do things differently
By Conal Hanna

Imagine for a second that society had a do-over. That we could hop in Marty McFly's electric DeLorean and go back 40 years to alter how we reacted to climate change. What would we do differently? It would be nice to think that, armed with worsening facts from "the future" (aka our present), politicians and contributing industries would take it upon themselves to behave differently.
But I don't buy that. Because self-interest has always been intrinsic to the climate change story.

Implication? People who oppose the HIGW religion are greedy. People like the author of the ABC article are not greedy. They are noble, virtuous, and altruistic.

ABC
It might have been an oil company's self interest in continuing to generate profits, or a political party's self-interest in telling people what they wanted to hear.

The mercantile business class are greedy, and the majority of voters are greedy because they don't agree with the ABC author.

ABC
As world leaders championed their citizens' interests at global summits, at the other end of the scale sat my individual self-interests: eating steak, plane travel and ambient, air-conditioned temperatures.

This guy is so radical he gets guilty thinking about his aeroplane rides, and he is obviously so worried about HIGW he is thinking about being a vegan. So noble, so ultraistic, so virtuous.

ABC
If we are to neutralise the threat of climate change, we must first neutralise the power of self-interest. But doing so requires a hard look at ourselves.

HIGW opponents are greedy, I am not.

ABC
As climate protests grew louder in 2019, I found myself yearning for a mass movement not of defiance but of sacrifice.

Climate protests "grew louder" because most voters were not stupid enough to buy into yet another "the end is nigh" bullshit propagated by virtue obsessed moral puritans.

ABC
It's hard for opponents to argue in the face of sacrifice.

Actually, it is quite easy. Because virtue signalers like vegans and climate change activists eventually get fed up of being ignored and they start getting in people's faces.

ABC
First up is a war on ignorance: I'm going to commit at least one hour a week to reading about the impact I'm having on the planet.

First up on your war on ignorance is to start reading up on the other side's reasoned arguments before you make an idiot of yourself "sacrificing" to a false God.

[Juliar]

Bogus Bogan really is hooked on the Greeny tactic of divide and conquer where a whole article is broken up into little pieces and then discussed as totally separate items.

This tactic is not very successful as it is boring to follow and the comments added are usually so wacky and personally biased and irrelevant as to be absurd.

The correct response is to consider the article as a whole and discuss it accordingly. But the tiny Greeny mind just cannot cope with the whole article and has no hope of ever understanding it.

It was a master stroke by ScoMo to bring in ITA to break up the ABC Socialist Propaganda Station and to deprive the Socialists of a media outlet.

That ridiculous program Q+A is scheduled for the rubbish tin as it is just embarrassing Socialist rubbish.

Now here is something that will raise Bogus Bogan's hackles.


Columns on the ABC and climate change open the comments floodgates
NICK CATER 11:05PM DECEMBER 31, 2019


Departing Q&A host Tony Jones.

Few things evoke as much pleasure in a reader’s heart as the discovery of a typo. Few can resist the opportunity afforded to cut a columnist down to size with a tart online comment.

Chris was one of many who jumped in to correct an apparent howler in a column on GetUp ­antics in October. “A decidedly good article, Mr Cater,” he wrote, “but I think it should be harebrained, not hairbrained.”

Fortunately, Ilan was on hand to explain what I thought I meant to say. “Nick is referring to the medical condition whereby the hair follicles on the crown of the head grow inward and downward, ultimately disrupting a person’s ability for valid cognition,” he wrote.

One trusts that the compilers of the Macquarie Dictionary have noted this correspondence and will revise the definition ­accordingly.

Readers, let’s face it, are not ­incapable of an occasional typo themselves.

“What a lot of cabbage (sic),” Samuel commented on a column on the federal election result. “I juts (sic) hope the LNP smell their own exhaust fumes … it was only due to the redmecks (sic) in Qld that won the election.”

“Slow down Sam, slow down,” responded Peter with evident concern. “Think of your poor ­keyboard.”

Insofar as the volume of ­online comments is a measure of the heat beneath readers’ collars, the ABC remained top of mind this year. More than one respondent accused The Australian of fomenting it.

“Good to see that The Oz is sticking to its tried and tested themes that are guaranteed to give those who like to post comments value for money,” typed David in response to a column in June. Apparently, we were missing the issues “everyday Australians actually talk about”.

Yet everyday readers of The Australian needed little prompting to pile into the ABC, an institution to which many had once felt close but from which they are now estranged.

“Hand on heart,” wrote Andrew, a self-described media carnivore, “I have not watched ABC TV News or 7.30 Report for eight years, at least. As boring as bird-dirt. Bring back Norman Gunston and Aunty Jack.”

John added: “My wife and I got so sick of the same garbage night after night we pulled up stumps on the ABC news and all their current affairs programs and subscribed to Sky News.”

Defenders of the ABC replied with ad hominem. “Perhaps you could watch a few programs and you might be a bit more ­informed and not as sarcastic,” wrote Lee-Ann.

I couldn’t help feeling that her judgment was a little harsh since I sat through an entire episode of Q&A this year, albeit in the studio as a panel guest where one is ­denied the respite afforded by the off button.

The cost to the nation’s health of the unreformed ABC is a topic worthy of further exploration.

“I don’t listen to or watch anymore because it’s very bad for my heart,” wrote one reader. Anne complained that the “insulting trash” from the ABC’s comedy ­department was “as funny as having a kidney removed”.

Columns about climate policy drew equal ferocity. This time, however, the flak came from both sides.

“The real problem today is the cohort of conservatives, like Cater, that can’t accept well evidenced science because of their ideologically blinked (sic) view,” wrote Guy. “The message that Cater and the other deniers need to understand is that the science is in.”

From the other side many readers were disappointed at my support for the government’s ­affordable emission reduction ­target.

“Mr. Cater, have you lost the plot?” asked Malcolm. “I strongly believe that the Coalition DOES have a mandate to roll back the climate change claptrap, ­resolve the ABC bias problem, and so on. Don’t throw in the towel now, Nick!”

David was one of many Snowy 2.0 sceptics unconvinced by my arguments in favour of pumped hydro. “There are times when Cater speaks sense and there are times when he speaks nonsense. This is one of the latter … Snowy 2 is a ridiculous concept.”

Others felt moved to soothe any hurt feelings. “You’ve summed it up brilliantly,” typed Louise. “Stimulated by an innovative thought-provoking article from Nick Cater. The reason I subscribe to The Australian.”

Robust criticism, for an opinion columnist, is just a sign that you are doing your job. It is praise that keeps you on your toes as a reminder that the editor publishes your work at the readers’ pleasure. You break faith with them at your peril.

A defence of the Melbourne Cup, for example, had a few too many swipes at the tofu-munching, Guardian-reading, finger-wagging greenies for some readers’ liking.

Kat was one of many who, perhaps not entirely unfairly, accused me of stereotyping.

“It is not just vegans or elitists who have a problem with the ­cruelty of the horse racing industry,” she wrote. “The comments show how easily the discussion can be shifted to a right versus left argument … It’s divisive but very effective.”

Jay pleaded: “Not all of us ethically-eating vegetarians/vegans are of the Left persuasion. Please don’t lump all of us in the same boat.”

“I think you are going a bit far here, Nick,” wrote Richard. “Please don’t jump into demeaning everyone with arts degrees, just because most of them are Muppets.”

As a graduate in sociology with a bachelor of arts, I should have known better, but the learning never stops in this game.

Humour can be an effective weapon, but no matter how artfully it is signalled not every ­reader will get the joke.

“A friend raised some serious questions about the cauliflower burger on a hemp and cucumber bun,” wrote Simon. “Can you smoke it?”

At the end of a year in which not every one of my words ­received universal acclaim, I thank readers for posting more than 12,000 comments and sincerely apologise to any I might have offended. Let me assure them that I had no intention of poking fun at vegans or the odd combinations of beans, nuts, indigestible grains and cabbage to which they turn for nourishment.

Nick Cater is executive director of the Menzies Research Centre.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commen ... e8208b7fb9


COMMENTS from the man in the street

Katherine 24 MINUTES AGO
We have had the ABC channel surgically removed from our remote. No danger therefore of accidentally seeing even a millisecond of Q&A as we scroll through the channels.
I think the government should consider a plebiscite to see if we still want to pay for the ABC. It might put the wind up them.

Trevor 28 MINUTES AGO
Can anyone explain why the ABC does not allow comment?

L.B. 12 MINUTES AGO
They would not like the comments made by those who pay their exorbitant salaries and it would add to their minimal work-load by having to moderate comments (viz exclude all they do not agree with)?

Russell 13 MINUTES AGO
pretty obvious actually. it would expose the myth perpetuated by their spin doctors.

Jean 38 SECONDS AGO
They would only publish about 5% of them, so why bother.?

Les R 16 MINUTES AGO
The ABC does not like to receive criticism on any front. I would see many comments, including some of mine, rejected by their moderators.
Happy New Year to all the moderators.

John 1 HOUR AGO
When is the ABC going to open its news sites to readers’ comments?

Brad (the quiet Australian) 1 HOUR AGO
They aren't likely to do that. With less than a 10% share of the audience, you don't think many will be supportive of their plight? I know I wouldn't be.

[Juliar]

Something right down Bogus Bogan's alley.



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.

[Black Orchid]

I think if you sat back and took a deep breath you would realise that Bogan and yourself are technically both on the same side. Do you eat your young too?

[Redneck]

I think if you sat back and took a deep breath you would realise that Bogan and yourself are technically both on the same side. Do you eat your young too?

[Juliar]

Reddy did not attack me!!!

Bogan disagrees with the ABC because it does not agree with his personal views which are...

The ABC used to be horribly Lefty biased with no regard for its Public Charter but it is improving under ITA.

The BIG change is to stop Labor using the ABC Socialist Propaganda Station as its Propaganda media outlet. A coup for ScoMo.

[brian ross]

The ABC is, despite all the bullshit from Tory Party shills the most trusted news/current affairs source in the media in Australia. Over 80% of the population support it as an organisation. Until you fools actually recognise that you're going to be resisted by your own supporters, for the most part, you'll be pushing shit uphill.

[Juliar]

How predictable, a hard core Greeny praises the ABC.