The future of the ABC - Guthrie sacked

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Abbott scores big win Q & A now moved to News Dept. Ministers now allowed on Q & A. Damn just as I was starting to enjoy it again.
Now if he could only put as much effort into the economy, jobs, etc.
"big win"? It basically only changes who they report to, so I wouldn't expect a big change. Stuff like The Drum comes out of News and I haven't noticed any difference in their approach to balance (basically, always make sure the IPA-News Corp line is represented, despite that narrow line of thinking not representing a lot of Liberal voters).

Given all this came about due to the pro-caliphate dude being on the show, I guess there will be less questions on there coming from the 'fringes'. That's a bit of a shame. Checking if the crazies have anything new to say is most of the reason I still come on BF. :)
 
Last edited:
Abbott scores big win Q & A now moved to News Dept. Ministers now allowed on Q & A. Damn just as I was starting to enjoy it again.
Now if he could only put as much effort into the economy, jobs, etc.

Can anyone tell me how this changes the program? All the articles on the Net talk about the move and its history but not how this changes the program. Is it to do with more scrutiny on being unbiased?
 
"big win"? It basically only changes who they report to, so I wouldn't expect a big change. Stuff like The Drum comes out of News and I haven't noticed any difference in their approach to balance (basically, always make sure the IPA-News Corp line is represented, despite that narrow line of thinking not representing a lot of Liberal voters).

Given all this came about due to the pro-caliphate dude being on the show, I guess there will be less questions on there coming from the 'fringes'. That's a bit of a shame. Checking if the crazies have anything new to say is most of the reason I still come on BF. :)
"Big win" - tongue was firmly in cheek.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-07/qanda-tony-abbott-lifts-frontbenchers-ban/6680278
"Give them a bit of a pat on the back for doing the right thing and I don't want to talk about the length of time that management decisions might take."
Now that is out of the way...he can leave his censorship role and get back to being PM.
 
Can anyone tell me how this changes the program? All the articles on the Net talk about the move and its history but not how this changes the program. Is it to do with more scrutiny on being unbiased?
"Big win" - tongue was firmly in cheek.
Gotcha. Not only will the changes be small, but they are to happen 'at latest' in the 2016 broadcast year. But let's keep saying 'big win' so Abbott doesn't think he has to waste more time on 1 hour of live commentary a week.
 
Just finished watching another quality 4 Corners.
If you missed it I really recommend to watch.
Just more reason to be concerned about losing democracy in the name of Naional Security. Expect it from the Libs but shame on Labor.

The program was about CIA torturing prisoners with full permission from Bush (Republican warmonger), who unashamedly denies knowledge of it happening.

I can see similarities between his government and ours.
 
Just finished watching another quality 4 Corners.
If you missed it I really recommend to watch.
Next week's is on Bill Shorten, presumably off the back of the TURC questioning, so I'm sure even the rabid right-wingers or here will declare the ABC's virtues soon enough. ;)
 
Just finished watching another quality 4 Corners.
If you missed it I really recommend to watch.
Just more reason to be concerned about losing democracy in the name of Naional Security. Expect it from the Libs but shame on Labor.

The program was about CIA torturing prisoners with full permission from Bush (Republican warmonger), who unashamedly denies knowledge of it happening.

I can see similarities between his government and ours.

Well you get that from hard right wing nutters with psychoreligious tendancies.

aBORT is already seen as the worst leader in the G20. Bush was the worst US President ever.

Again aBORT wants a nationwide expensive vote on ME, but he alone decides to send young men to fight & suffer in the conflicts 1/2 a world away.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

That's what the plebiscite will tell us beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Fine. And to save money let's have it at the same time as the next election. Everyone's happy, right?
No, because then the issue becomes overly political
Want to have a crack at explaining this position here, Baldy?

It's relevant to the ABC since Media Watch took a shot at the ABC for not representing some of the official traditional marriage lobby groups. And madmug just mentioned it (below):
Again aBORT wants a nationwide expensive vote on ME, but he alone decides to send young men to fight & suffer in the conflicts 1/2 a world away.
 
I tell you what, the bias of Q and A really shone through tonight.

Kelly O'Dwyer, a right wing libertarian news journo and a christian nutter against ME from america were all on the show.

What a lefty lynch mob that lot is.
 
Want to have a crack at explaining this position here, Baldy?

It's relevant to the ABC since Media Watch took a shot at the ABC for not representing some of the official traditional marriage lobby groups.
If you have the plebiscite separate from the General Election, people and politicians can argue or not argue for or against it as they wish.

Put it on with a General Election and then it gets mixed up with other issues like how well is the party that is most for or against Gay Marriage travelling.

I suspect a lot of Libs will run dead on the issue if held separately, but if held at the same time as a General Election, may feel the need to attack the issue because Labor will be going MAD for it and trying to use it as a weapon to get elected.

And madmug just mentioned it (below):
LOL How is his clueless rant remotely relevant?
 
If you have the plebiscite separate from the General Election, people and politicians can argue or not argue for or against it as they wish.

Put it on with a General Election and then it gets mixed up with other issues like how well is the party that is most for or against Gay Marriage travelling.

I suspect a lot of Libs will run dead on the issue if held separately, but if held at the same time as a General Election, may feel the need to attack the issue because Labor will be going MAD for it and trying to use it as a weapon to get elected.
But Libs wouldn't need to attack it because the issue would be neutralised. Labor has said they'll bring it in within 100 days of election, so the Libs would just easily retort that if that's what the people want they'll do the same. Labor no longer has a reason to go MAD for it, because it would just highlight that they aren't prepared to listen to the people on it. And of course if it's not what the people wants, so be it and the conservatives will be happy too.

The whole point of it being a separate question is so you don't have to consider it alongside the call you're making on how parties are traveling. The lobbyists on either side will make it an issue anyway so having it separate isn't going to stop it being an issue, especially as Labor has committed to it. Your logic only works if Labor agrees to also wait for the people to decide post-election.
 
Well you get that from hard right wing nutters with psychoreligious tendancies.

aBORT is already seen as the worst leader in the G20. Bush was the worst US President ever.

Again aBORT wants a nationwide expensive vote on ME, but he alone decides to send young men to fight & suffer in the conflicts 1/2 a world away.
Well he did have Howard as a mentor.
Wonder if they are still looking for WMD's?
 
I tell you what, the bias of Q and A really shone through tonight.

Kelly O'Dwyer, a right wing libertarian news journo and a christian nutter against ME from america were all on the show.

What a lefty lynch mob that lot is.
Was a rather strange show arguing for the rights of the children in gay relationships. No mention of single parents, parents who may divorce or even de facto relationships.
Not sure what their position was except to impose their values on others and accusing pro ME supporters of denying them a voice. LOL
 
But Libs wouldn't need to attack it because the issue would be neutralised. Labor has said they'll bring it in within 100 days of election, so the Libs would just easily retort that if that's what the people want they'll do the same. Labor no longer has a reason to go MAD for it, because it would just highlight that they aren't prepared to listen to the people on it. And of course if it's not what the people wants, so be it and the conservatives will be happy too.

The whole point of it being a separate question is so you don't have to consider it alongside the call you're making on how parties are traveling. The lobbyists on either side will make it an issue anyway so having it separate isn't going to stop it being an issue, especially as Labor has committed to it. Your logic only works if Labor agrees to also wait for the people to decide post-election.

I would point to the vote Howard organised for the Republic, he could have had that happen at a General Election too, but he didn't want that becoming entangled with a range of other issues.
 
I would point to the vote Howard organised for the Republic, he could have had that happen at a General Election too, but he didn't want that becoming entangled with a range of other issues.

I seriously don't think Howard could have given two tosses if the issue was entangled in the quagmire of an election campaign. If anything he never held it at an election because the the republicans had a decent lead in all the pre-polls, nothing to do with the actual issue itself. The last thing he wanted to do was hitch his electoral fortunes to a losing campaign (well what looked like it was a losing campaign at the time).

It's insulting to people to say they should not overextend themselves by thinking too hard at an election and that they can't vote on more than one issue or topic. It is a stupid argument held by people who are desperate to continually put this issue on the never ending backburner, hoping we all just forget about it.

The issue isn't going away, so it's best to have the vote (whether in parliament, a referendum or plebiscite) asap rather than Abort continually promising us a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
 
The issue isn't going away, so it's best to have the vote (whether in parliament, a referendum or plebiscite) asap rather than Abort continually promising us a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
It doesn't need to be done asap, a year after the next election will do fine.
 
I would point to the vote Howard organised for the Republic, he could have had that happen at a General Election too, but he didn't want that becoming entangled with a range of other issues.
You don't think that choosing a new governmental system is slightly more complicated that saying same-sex couples can get married?

Religious celebrants don't even have to marry same-sex couples, so the only change is we won't have ol' big government Johnny Howard insisting his words get read out at every wedding.
 
Should be another great program on ABC tonight, and will interest everyone especially hearing what Martin Ferguson has to say about labor and unions.

Should dispel the thoughts some here have about their left wing bias.:)

Would be great if other commercial free to air channels tackled topics other than diets, shonky salesmen, neighbour disputes etc.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top