ABC bias thread.

[Black Orchid]

"Assume" anything you like Brian.

[brian ross]

"Assume" anything you like Brian.

IS there something wrong with my assumption, Black Orchid? If so, what is it? What is it that you and all the other right wingers here want? An end to the independence of the ABC? Or just a change to it's editorial policy so that we have two stories about the same event - a left wing viewpoint and a right-wing viewpoint? Mmmm? Isn't that we already have - the commercial tv/radio stations viewpoint and the ABC's viewpoint?

[Outlaw Yogi]

I just saw a bit of ABC bias .. maybe misrepresentation .. maybe even outright bullshit trying to counter criticism over partisan agenda selective reporting ... you decide.

Coming online the browser went through MSN .. 1st page, 3rd story was ABC's 'The real cause of the bushfires'.
Expecting a sermon on climate change but got one about how 'arsonists are largely/mostly not to blame' for the major fires.

Gee well I dunno.

It was probably 4-6 weeks ago my father (on phone in Sydney) told me some monster blasé on NSW Mid North Coast (Port Macquarie sort of region) according to tenants on a rural property of his was started on his property by some characters dumping a motor bike.
Joining dots I assume the bike was stolen and the thieves torched it to destroy finger prints.

Maybe not the deliberate lighting of a bushfire per se, but still an act of "arson".

Anyway, it sempt to me the ABC was trying too hard to prove a point which didn't ring true.

[Black Orchid]

More about the ABC and for those to don't like Andrew Bolt prove him wrong ...

The ABC is booting male television and radio hosts off air again today for International Women’s Day despite last year’s criticism the move was tokenistic.

High-profile presenters of ABC’s radio services — including the host of Mornings on ABC Radio Melbourne, Jon Faine, ABC Radio Sydney Drive broadcaster Richard Glover, and ABC Radio Sydney Breakfast anchor Robbie Buck — will be replaced by female guest presenters, with the content centred on specialist programming.

On the ABC’s television channels, News Breakfast host Michael Rowland, Matter Of Fact presenter Stan Grant and ABC Late News anchor Jeremy Fernandez will all be off air.

Will the female fill-ins get equal pay for doing the work of the male stars, or does tokenism only go so far? And how much does all this tokenism cost the poor taxpayers, given the men are still drawing pay?

What a mad exercise in victimology, with the ABC interviewing a string of women complaining about the unfairness of judging people by gender while meanwhile booting out presenters for being male.

Even crazier is that that ABC is railing against the oppression of women, presumably at the ABC, while led by a woman and employing a majority of women:

The latest report showed 56.2 per cent of employees classified as "content makers" were women, up from 51.3 per cent in 2014-15.

Women made up 72.6 per cent of staff in the administrative and professional category.

Five of the eight people on the board are women, too.

Exactly when will the ABC admit "equality" is achieved - at least in the crude metric of gender - and give up this ludicrous and debilitating preaching that women are the eternal victims and need this kind of patronising?

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andr ... bb92527252

Then there's this ...

[sprintcyclist]

More about the ABC and for those to don't like Andrew Bolt prove him wrong ...

The ABC is booting male television and radio hosts off air again today for International Women’s Day despite last year’s criticism the move was tokenistic.

High-profile presenters of ABC’s radio services — including the host of Mornings on ABC Radio Melbourne, Jon Faine, ABC Radio Sydney Drive broadcaster Richard Glover, and ABC Radio Sydney Breakfast anchor Robbie Buck — will be replaced by female guest presenters, with the content centred on specialist programming.

On the ABC’s television channels, News Breakfast host Michael Rowland, Matter Of Fact presenter Stan Grant and ABC Late News anchor Jeremy Fernandez will all be off air.

Will the female fill-ins get equal pay for doing the work of the male stars, or does tokenism only go so far? And how much does all this tokenism cost the poor taxpayers, given the men are still drawing pay?

What a mad exercise in victimology, with the ABC interviewing a string of women complaining about the unfairness of judging people by gender while meanwhile booting out presenters for being male.

Even crazier is that that ABC is railing against the oppression of women, presumably at the ABC, while led by a woman and employing a majority of women:

The latest report showed 56.2 per cent of employees classified as "content makers" were women, up from 51.3 per cent in 2014-15.

Women made up 72.6 per cent of staff in the administrative and professional category.

Five of the eight people on the board are women, too.

Exactly when will the ABC admit "equality" is achieved - at least in the crude metric of gender - and give up this ludicrous and debilitating preaching that women are the eternal victims and need this kind of patronising?

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andr ... bb92527252

Then there's this ...

that is sexist.

[Bogan]

Briney wrote

And your evidence for that claim is based on, what, exactly, Black Orchid? Your fevid Islamophobic imagination, perhaps?

I like reading first hand accounts of the fighting in military actions all over the world. In my books on the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are constant references to Muslims storing arms and explosives in mosques. Hardly surprising given the religious nature of Islamic aggression.

Briney wrote

I assume from your attacks on the ABC that you'd prefer that they only told the right-wing viewpoint?

Your assumption would be wrong. The ABC's charter is to be a publically funded news service presenting unbiased news coverage. The above stories presented by myself and The Reboot clearly display that the ABC has instead become a publically funded left wing advocacy organisation presenting news highly biased towards the left wing worldview, exactly what it's own charter forbids. If the ABC refuses to honour it's founding charter, it's reason for existence is no longer valid, and it should be sold off to private industry.

Briney wrote

That they should all just come on the same team as you? Really? I suppose they could become like the BBC or the South African Broadcasting Corporation did during the days of Apartheid and only report what the Government told them to report, the way the Government liked it.

If they did, you and your lefty mates would be screaming "blue murder!", and justifiably so. And us right wingers who are real liberals and real social progressives would agree with you. What we right wing social progressives want is unbiased reportage, not propaganda from either side. It is accepted that completely unbiased reportage is difficult to obtain and it will always creep in to some extent. But if the ABC will not even try to be even handed, then it's reason for existence at taxpayer expense is null and void.

Briney wrote

The ABC is an independent organisation. That means it is sometimes critical and rightly so, of the reckless behaviour of both sides of politics. You appear only too willing to sacrifice that independence 'cause you're feeling hard done by. Oh, poor little kiddies.

The ABC is an independent organisation who's founding charter by it's paymasters, the government of the people of Australia, is to engage in unbiased reportage. If it will not even pretend that it is doing just that then it's paymasters, the taxpayers of Australia, can advise our elected government to sell of this "independent" organisation on the grounds that it will not do what it was created to do.

[The Reboot]

"Assume" anything you like Brian.

IS there something wrong with my assumption, Black Orchid? If so, what is it? What is it that you and all the other right wingers here want? An end to the independence of the ABC? Or just a change to it's editorial policy so that we have two stories about the same event - a left wing viewpoint and a right-wing viewpoint? Mmmm? Isn't that we already have - the commercial tv/radio stations viewpoint and the ABC's viewpoint?

What most 'normal' people (and by 'normal', I mean people with common sense that aren't mired in ideological fanaticism) is a news source they can trust and is unbiased.

Hell, when I was in school journalism among other topics were covered in English and one of the major aspects of that teaching was that a journalist must present facts without bias.

The ABC may have started out as an independent news unbiased news source but it isn't now. And just because it states that it is, it doesn't make it so.

If it still claims that it is, then its Orwellian doublespeak. Such as..

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”

[Nom De Plume]

I think the worst news broadcaster, in terms of bias and fake news is Fox News.

[brian ross]

I think the worst news broadcaster, in terms of bias and fake news is Fox News.

You'll be put on the Lovecraftian Horror's watch list with a comment like that, Nom!

[Juliar]

In a stroke of utter brilliance ScoMo moved ITA into the former ABC Socialist Propaganda Station to stop Labor and the Greenies and GetUp! using it as a media outlet for their lying propaganda.

The ABC is slowly moving back towards its Public Charter.

And ITA has already announced the closure of BRossy's favorite program - the sickly Q+A mess.