The future of the ABC - Guthrie sacked

[Footy Smarts]

Isn't it amazing how the ABC's 'fair and balanced' review of the media seems to find fault in some more than others. I'm flabbergasted by this amazing coincidence.

I agree. The ABC should be forced to be equally critical of everybody regardless of how much fault they can actually find in their reporting. In the same spirit of being 'fair and balanced' I propose:

• Courts take every person in Australia to trial for every crime rather than relying on that joke they call 'evidence'. How dare they continually find fault in some more than others.
• The fire brigade attends every premises equally rather than concentrating on those on fire in the interests of being 'fair and balanced'.
• Doctors treat everyone in the same way. I mean why do they concentrate on giving heart surgery to my dad and not to me? How is that 'fair and balanced'?

 

[Docker Clint]

Isn't it amazing how the ABC's 'fair and balanced' review of the media seems to find fault in some more than others. I'm flabbergasted by this amazing coincidence.

Perhaps there's a genuine reason for that and not a coincidence.

Media Watch has called out the network they're on, imagine Murdoch doing that. Apologies for falsehoods get buried.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The ABCs favourite economist.

Allan Kohler?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Isn't it amazing how the ABC's 'fair and balanced' review of the media seems to find fault in some more than others. I'm flabbergasted by this amazing coincidence.

That's because Murdoch's vile is in more place than others, and its egregiously bad.

 

[ralphmalph]

Common sense ... Why do you think Fairfax is going broke? Their main competitor for the left viewpoint is free AND has a massively bigger budget.

So you're saying I can listen to the wireless rather than buying the paper? When did this happen?

 

[Grin]

The difference with the ABC is that their charter says they need to be balanced, so it has no right to be so one sided.

They are balanced
To you that would seem one sided.

 

[evo]

It seems that to the right, quality journalism = left wing journalism.
There's plenty of blatantly biased right wing "journalism". Yet there seems to be a fear from the right that if there is any independent, quality journalism at all in this country, the right wing cause is harmed. Hence Gina's desperation to wreck Fairfax journalist independence.

I guess the right survives and thrives on ignorance. In order to gain government whilst representing the interests of a very small minority, you have to trick people into voting against their own interests.
Difficult to do if they're listening to the ABC

you dont think perhaps you may be a little bit biased there mate?

 

[Grin]

you dont think perhaps you may be a little bit biased there mate?

Over the years there's been constant mention of Fairfax bias.
When I read fairfax, I read articles, both journalistic and opinion, critical of both major parties. Not so in the Murdock press, which blatantly positive spins news about the Liberal party and negatively spins news about the Labor party. Despite this, the right is so concerned about Faifax, that Gina is trying to buy it, not for profit, not because it's good business, but simply to destroy it's editorial independence, so that it, like news limited, can become a propaganda rag for vested interests.

Again with the ABC. We've seen the right harp on and on and on for years about its supposed left wing bias, to the point that there have been inquiries and establishment of openly right wing programs to appease those the right. Of course this has not appeased them because, despite that it has been tweaked to be slightly right wing biased now, it still employs quality journalists who practice quality journalism.
Kryptonite for a party which needs to convince a majority of people to vote against their own interests to win government and represent the interests of the wealthiest few percent and foreign owned multinationals against the interests of the vast majority of Australians.

 

[medusala]

They are balanced
To you that would seem one sided.

Sure they are Grin. See latest effort re boat people just sent back. 37 of 41 were Sinhalese. Egg all over the ABC face once again. That coming hot on the heels of their allegations re the navy and repeated BS on the subject.

#yourABC

"it still employs quality journalists who practice quality journalism."

If I ate cornflakes they would be spluttered over the desk right now.

This from comments section of bus speccie

The ABC has 4 free to air TV channels, with ABC4 running around 18 hours of news, current affairs and political coverage per day - ABC 1 around 6 hours. These of course include the News itself, 7.30, The Drum, Q&A and Lateline. In addition the has ABC iView, online blogs, together with a massive radio network. Why do we listen? Because its free - and although its biased informs us generally of the latest political issue and or argument - albeit with left bias. On the good days one can adjust for the bias - but on the bad days it hurts when you know it's a beat up or worse.
And on free to air we watch and or listen to Tony Jones (blatant left bias), Juanita Phillips (partner of Greg Combet), Chris Uhlmann (who I respect, but whose partner is Gai Brodtmann, PR consultant, former ministerial adviser to Bob McMullan and long-time Labor Party member now Federal member House of Reps), Fran Kelly (self described activist - blatant left bias) (and her fill-in Phillip Clark who formerly worked for Labor Senator John Button), Barrie Cassidy (who during one episode of Insiders mistakenly referred to the Labor Party as "WE"), Virginia Trioli, (caught on camera in another studio rudely pulling her face and twirling a finger around her temple at Joyce’s remarks and her protest against the Howard government’s recently introduced sedition laws) Annabel Crabb (a cute persona who get a way with peddling nonsense) Paul Barry (who claims to have voted Liberal at some stage - but who seems to spend an inordinate amount of time picking on tall poppies and conservatives), Jonathon Holmes (blatant left bias) Emma Alberici (subtle – but whose questions are loaded with incorrect assumptions – both sides – but with focus in support of the ABC view and clearly with disdain for Tony Abbott), and not to mention all overseen by the ever determined left wing bias of Mark Scott.

 

[Floor Pie]

Sure they are Grin. See latest effort re boat people just sent back. 37 of 41 were Sinhalese. Egg all over the ABC face once again. That coming hot on the heels of their allegations re the navy and repeated BS on the subject.

#yourABC

"it still employs quality journalists who practice quality journalism."

If I ate cornflakes they would be spluttered over the desk right now.

This from comments section of bus speccie

The ABC has 4 free to air TV channels, with ABC4 running around 18 hours of news, current affairs and political coverage per day - ABC 1 around 6 hours. These of course include the News itself, 7.30, The Drum, Q&A and Lateline. In addition the has ABC iView, online blogs, together with a massive radio network. Why do we listen? Because its free - and although its biased informs us generally of the latest political issue and or argument - albeit with left bias. On the good days one can adjust for the bias - but on the bad days it hurts when you know it's a beat up or worse.
And on free to air we watch and or listen to Tony Jones (blatant left bias), Juanita Phillips (partner of Greg Combet), Chris Uhlmann (who I respect, but whose partner is Gai Brodtmann, PR consultant, former ministerial adviser to Bob McMullan and long-time Labor Party member now Federal member House of Reps), Fran Kelly (self described activist - blatant left bias) (and her fill-in Phillip Clark who formerly worked for Labor Senator John Button), Barrie Cassidy (who during one episode of Insiders mistakenly referred to the Labor Party as "WE"), Virginia Trioli, (caught on camera in another studio rudely pulling her face and twirling a finger around her temple at Joyce’s remarks and her protest against the Howard government’s recently introduced sedition laws) Annabel Crabb (a cute persona who get a way with peddling nonsense) Paul Barry (who claims to have voted Liberal at some stage - but who seems to spend an inordinate amount of time picking on tall poppies and conservatives), Jonathon Holmes (blatant left bias) Emma Alberici (subtle – but whose questions are loaded with incorrect assumptions – both sides – but with focus in support of the ABC view and clearly with disdain for Tony Abbott), and not to mention all overseen by the ever determined left wing bias of Mark Scott.

Sorry, what facts did you present?

 

[ralphmalph]

Sure they are Grin. See latest effort re boat people just sent back. 37 of 41 were Sinhalese. Egg all over the ABC face once again. That coming hot on the heels of their allegations re the navy and repeated BS on the subject.

#yourABC

"it still employs quality journalists who practice quality journalism."

If I ate cornflakes they would be spluttered over the desk right now.

This from comments section of bus speccie

The ABC has 4 free to air TV channels, with ABC4 running around 18 hours of news, current affairs and political coverage per day - ABC 1 around 6 hours. These of course include the News itself, 7.30, The Drum, Q&A and Lateline. In addition the has ABC iView, online blogs, together with a massive radio network. Why do we listen? Because its free - and although its biased informs us generally of the latest political issue and or argument - albeit with left bias. On the good days one can adjust for the bias - but on the bad days it hurts when you know it's a beat up or worse.
And on free to air we watch and or listen to Tony Jones (blatant left bias), Juanita Phillips (partner of Greg Combet), Chris Uhlmann (who I respect, but whose partner is Gai Brodtmann, PR consultant, former ministerial adviser to Bob McMullan and long-time Labor Party member now Federal member House of Reps), Fran Kelly (self described activist - blatant left bias) (and her fill-in Phillip Clark who formerly worked for Labor Senator John Button), Barrie Cassidy (who during one episode of Insiders mistakenly referred to the Labor Party as "WE"), Virginia Trioli, (caught on camera in another studio rudely pulling her face and twirling a finger around her temple at Joyce’s remarks and her protest against the Howard government’s recently introduced sedition laws) Annabel Crabb (a cute persona who get a way with peddling nonsense) Paul Barry (who claims to have voted Liberal at some stage - but who seems to spend an inordinate amount of time picking on tall poppies and conservatives), Jonathon Holmes (blatant left bias) Emma Alberici (subtle – but whose questions are loaded with incorrect assumptions – both sides – but with focus in support of the ABC view and clearly with disdain for Tony Abbott), and not to mention all overseen by the ever determined left wing bias of Mark Scott.

Can you do better than that Meds? You've provided an example of Trioli ridiculing Barnaby Joyce on one occasion and then opposing the sedition laws - something I'd imagine many libertarians would also oppose. The rest is guilt by association. Anyone who thinks Uhlmann leans left hasn't listened to him.

What troubles me is why there aren't so many more examples in the volume of news provided. For all that news, and such a supposedly obvious bias, shouldn't there be daily examples?

Who would you consider neutral? Or is the idea of 'balance' only addressed by having Bolt or Jones, Roskam or some other outright conservative on every show?.

By the way, Juanita what's her name merely reads the news. What's her crime?

 

[telsor]

OK, there are a couple of ABC News/current affairs people who are clearly of the left. We can argue about the who/how many/how far, but even if it's just a few mildly left wing viewpoints.

Where are the right wing ABC presenters who balance them out?

 

[medusala]

What troubles me is why there aren't so many more examples in the volume of news provided. For all that news, and such a supposedly obvious bias, shouldn't there be daily examples?

There are daily examples. Look at the items they cover ie refugees, gay marriage, global warming etc.
Any suggestion of a cut to government spending is met with tales of impending doom. Their efforts re economics are nothing short of a Keynesian joke.

Bias is not just in how they spin stories it is what they cover (or don't bother with in the case of certain fraud allegations)
As for neutral, there is no such thing. You cant eliminate bias. Anyone who says you can is full of it.

 

[ralphmalph]

There are daily examples. Look at the items they cover ie refugees, gay marriage, global warming etc.
Any suggestion of a cut to government spending is met with tales of impending doom. Their efforts re economics are nothing short of a Keynesian joke.

Bias is not just in how they spin stories it is what they cover (or don't bother with in the case of certain fraud allegations)
As for neutral, there is no such thing. You cant eliminate bias. Anyone who says you can is full of it.

So no examples from those presenters you identified?

What are they not covering that they should?

I accept your comment re no neutrality but not every issue splits into left v right. You will disagree but I think it is absurd to characterize climate science as left/right. The policy response, maybe, but not the science.

 

[ralphmalph]

Bias is not just in how they spin stories it is what they cover (or don't bother with in the case of certain fraud allegations)
As for neutral, there is no such thing. You cant eliminate bias. Anyone who says you can is full of it.

We've been through that. They covered plenty on 7.30, Lateline AM and PM. What did they miss?

 

[medusala]

We've been through that. They covered plenty on 7.30, Lateline AM and PM. What did they miss?

They were very late to the party. Was not someone from the ABC quoted as saying it wasn't news worthy?

You will disagree but I think it is absurd to characterize climate science as left/right. The policy response, maybe, but not the science.?

The ABC will get all sorts of nutters on tv claiming bush fires were due to global warming and other such efforts.

Swings to Bolt's roundabout.

 

[Grin]

Bla Bla Bla

Usual baseless rubbish from you.
Just a mindless regurgitation of the usual myths with no evidence.

But your post does demonstrate how those who have fallen for propaganda, aimed at tricking the not so capable of critical thinking into voting against their own interests, hate quality journalism.

I'm just surprised you didn't launch into a further rant about socialist elites. Those evil social workers, teachers etc who sit around drinking lattes, plotting against ordinary Australians like poor Gina Rinehart.

One of the first things autocratic governments generally try to do is get rid of, or marginalise decent journalism and the highly educated 'elites' who are in anyway critical. Not surprising that a party who wants to govern to the few percent of the wealthiest Australians and foreign owned multinationals also has these goals.

Don't be a mindless drone Meds. Think for yourself. You've got an education, use it. Or didn't they teach you critical thinking in religious studies.

 

[Footy Smarts]

The ABC will get all sorts of nutters on tv claiming bush fires were due to global warming and other such efforts.

Swings to Bolt's roundabout.

No meds. A person reasonably accurately describing the science of climate change and it's known impact on the regularity of extreme fire conditions in Australia is not simply a swing to Bolt's projections of uneducated, anti-science bile. Perhaps every time one of their programs talks about the science of gravity the could also have on an 'expert' on intelligent falling. I also assume you want a fair hearing for those who promote the idea of a flat earth to balance those 'nutters' claiming the earth is close to spherical.

 

[swingdog]

The thing I don't get, meds, is why, living in London, you care about what's on the ABC. I never got those ex-pats when I lived there, half-living back in Australia.

 

[Xsess]

The AlpBC is biased beyond belief. They jumped all over a four-part interview of Paul Keating by admirer and former Labor press secretary Kerry O’Brien. But then have the absolute afront to outright refuse an interview with a far more successful Liberal prime minister, by one of Australias leading journo's? WHY?

THE ABC has rejected a major television interview series with former prime minister John Howard, just six months after airing a four-part program with Paul Keating. The series, working title John Howard Defined, will be conducted by The Australian columnist and former ABC board member Janet Albrechtsen and has been snapped up by the Seven Network.

 

[Gough]

In what way was Howard a more successful PM than Keating? Just out of interest. I would think that Albrectsen genuflecting in front of the Rodent would get tiresome after about ten minutes anyway.

 

[tandino]

The AlpBC is biased beyond belief. They jumped all over a four-part interview of Paul Keating by admirer and former Labor press secretary Kerry O’Brien. But then have the absolute afront to outright refuse an interview with a far more successful Liberal prime minister, by one of Australias leading journo's? WHY?

THE ABC has rejected a major television interview series with former prime minister John Howard, just six months after airing a four-part program with Paul Keating. The series, working title John Howard Defined, will be conducted by The Australian columnist and former ABC board member Janet Albrechtsen and has been snapped up by the Seven Network.

You have a point there. What was their justification?

You'd think the ABC exists to tell those types of stories.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

The thing I don't get, meds, is why, living in London, you care about what's on the ABC. I never got those ex-pats when I lived there, half-living back in Australia.

Maybe Meds is one of the Murdochs and is taking after the old man.

 

[tandino]

Maybe Meds is one of the Murdochs and is taking after the old man.

It's probably pent up frustration for having to pay television licensing fees for the BBC.

 

[Maggie5]

The AlpBC is biased beyond belief. They jumped all over a four-part interview of Paul Keating by admirer and former Labor press secretary Kerry O’Brien. But then have the absolute afront to outright refuse an interview with a far more successful Liberal prime minister, by one of Australias leading journo's? WHY?

THE ABC has rejected a major television interview series with former prime minister John Howard, just six months after airing a four-part program with Paul Keating. The series, working title John Howard Defined, will be conducted by The Australian columnist and former ABC board member Janet Albrechtsen and has been snapped up by the Seven Network.

This is from The Australian right? Should be riveting viewing. Wonder whether they will ask him about:
Children Overboard
WMD