Christian Porter

Remove this Banner Ad

Stumpy Pete said:
But that’s not my point Chief. I’m happy with how much the ABC gets in fact I’d be happy for it to get a bit more. My concern is that the ABC makes bad judgement about how to capitalise on the fact it doesn’t the commercial pressures and risk that other media entities do. I think that ABC uses its commercial risk free statement to produce controversial content that other outlets don’t make because they would otherwise face commercial repercussions such as sponsors dropping out.

I would much rather they focus their commercial risk free status by developing Australian drama, giving coverage to less popular sports and restoring local content to regional news bureaus.

in short I think ABC picks too many fights that require it to spend too much on legal advice and representation at the expense of more worthwhile causes.

Regards

S. Pete
Click to expand...

That entire argument is a load of sh*t.

The ABC is bound by a charter. If it doesn't comply with its charter it can be stripped of funding.
Even when it does comply with its charter, it is still being stripped of funding.


Murdoch can print whatever sh*t wants to. Almost his entire stable of higher paid journalists have been sanctioned in court for lies, misrepresentation, defamation.
 
Stumpy Pete said:
Ned,

My point is they make poor choices about content because they undervalue the risk and cost of legal ramifications. I believe these poor choices are due to an under appreciation of their privileged position in terms of a highly certain funding stream.

Regards

S. PETE
Click to expand...

Our journos have a duty to report especially when power tries to corrupt and protect the offenders.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Stumpy Pete said:
I think that ABC uses its commercial risk free statement to produce controversial content that other outlets don’t make because they would otherwise face commercial repercussions such as sponsors dropping out.

I would much rather they focus their commercial risk free status by developing Australian drama, giving coverage to less popular sports and restoring local content to regional news bureaus.
Click to expand...
For that they need more money.

Their charter, I thought, directs them to report news and make shows to serve otherwise under-served parts of our community. To do things commercial TV won’t do.
 
Number37 said:
That entire argument is a load of sh*t.

The ABC is bound by a charter. If it doesn't comply with its charter it can be stripped of funding.
Even when it does comply with its charter, it is still being stripped of funding.


Murdoch can print whatever sh*t wants to. Almost his entire stable of higher paid journalists have been sanctioned in court for lies, misrepresentation, defamation.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Alan Jones made a disgusting joke about the death of Julia Gillard’s father at a private function. Commercial pressure from sponsors quite rightly led to him apologising.
The ABC humiliated Chris Kenny on national television by depicting him having sex with a dog. They didn’t apologise until the matter went to court.

I feel this comparison demonstrates my point.

Regards
S Pete
 
Stumpy Pete said:
I disagree.

Alan Jones made a disgusting joke about the death of Julia Gillard’s father at a private function. Commercial pressure from sponsors quite rightly led to him apologising.
The ABC humiliated Chris Kenny on national television by depicting him having sex with a dog. They didn’t apologise until the matter went to court.

I feel this comparison demonstrates my point.

Regards
S Pete
Click to expand...

It would not be entirely unreasonable to consider Alan Jones satire, but he is not Chaser level satire.

That is quite the false equivalence you have made above :think:

There is also the small issue of the ABC not having "commercial pressure".
 
Chief said:
For that they need more money.

Their charter, I thought, directs them to report news and make shows to serve otherwise under-served parts of our community. To do things commercial TV won’t do.
Click to expand...

I have no problems with their charter. I do have problems with the choices they make in terms of how they choose to meet it.

Personally I think the decision to create ABC 24 was strategically poor and has led to them creating too much content that is opinion rather than news.

And just to reiterate - I don’t hate the ABC.

Regards

S. Pete
 
QuietB said:
It would not be entirely unreasonable to consider Alan Jones satire, but he is not Chaser level satire.

That is quite the false equivalence you have made above :think:

There is also the small issue of the ABC not having "commercial pressure".
Click to expand...

That’s precisely my point. They take it for granted and end up having to spend money on legal advice and representation when it would be better spent on local content.

Regards

S. Pete
 
Stumpy Pete said:
I disagree.

Alan Jones made a disgusting joke about the death of Julia Gillard’s father at a private function. Commercial pressure from sponsors quite rightly led to him apologising.
The ABC humiliated Chris Kenny on national television by depicting him having sex with a dog. They didn’t apologise until the matter went to court.

I feel this comparison demonstrates my point.

Regards
S Pete
Click to expand...

If your point was that Alan Jones is scum and that Chris Kenny has the most brittle glass jaw of all the glass jawed Murdoch arse lickers, sure.
 
andrewmillman said:
If they didn't let Louise "seven - nillgan" post her offending story, they wouldn't have picked such an expensive and tedious battle.
Click to expand...

Changing legal counsel to get the story in question through to publication is the backstory to this. Sure to get a run when 'the malice' in the legal action gets an airing.
 
Stumpy Pete said:
Ned,

My point is they make poor choices about content because they undervalue the risk and cost of legal ramifications. I believe these poor choices are due to an under appreciation of their privileged position in terms of a highly certain funding stream.

Regards

S. PETE
Click to expand...

Accountability for the revenue stream .....
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Stumpy Pete said:
Yes I have concerns about Porter never said I didn’t. I’m just observing that an impartial journalist might also express concern that the ABC is finding its legal case with money forcibly taken from others. When people talk about legal cases like this we often hear complaints about David v Goliath - the way this story gets framed it’s like Porter (with his privately earned salary) is Goliath and the ABC with its $1 Billion a year taxpayer back bankroll is David. It’s a bit perverse don’t you think?
Regards

s. Pete
Click to expand...
It's money the government takes from people, and it's Porter forcing it to spend that money defending it's right to report news powerful people do not want reported.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Stumpy Pete said:
Ned,

My point is they make poor choices about content because they undervalue the risk and cost of legal ramifications. I believe these poor choices are due to an under appreciation of their privileged position in terms of a highly certain funding stream.

Regards

S. PETE
Click to expand...

I'm sure Joe Bjelke Petersen & the Qld 'white shoe brigade' thought the same thing too.

Could you see Sky Channel doing an expose like that on a corrupt old Conservative POS like him?

A Rhetorical Question, as we all know the answer.
 
andrewmillman said:
Its not about protecting anyone, its about reporting news in a manner that isn't defamatory.
Click to expand...
So, if I'm important and powerful and or rich, then any story about me I don't like is defamatory?

Because, at this point unless I am missing something, Porter hasn't won? It's just his opinion that he has been defamed.

And your take is that the ABC shouldn't have written the story that lead to Porter's self interested opinion he was defamed, in order to avoid this lawsuit?

Because if that's valid, we are going to see an awful lot of people that should have stories about them suddenly feeling they are "defamed".

If you have money, a lawsuit for defamation is easy. Writing an article about someone that cannot be used as the basis of a lawsuit is impossible ( a lawsuit, and a lawsuit with a chance of winning not being the same thing).

For instance, I strongly suspect that if you respond to this, I will be left feeling defamed, and a lawsuit would be heading your way (if I could afford a lawyer).

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
jatz14 said:
So, if I'm important and powerful and or rich, then any story about me I don't like is defamatory?

Because, at this point unless I am missing something, Porter hasn't won? It's just his opinion that he has been defamed.

And your take is that the ABC shouldn't have written the story that lead to Porter's self interested opinion he was defamed, in order to avoid this lawsuit?

Because if that's valid, we are going to see an awful lot of people that should have stories about them suddenly feeling they are "defamed".

If you have money, a lawsuit for defamation is easy. Writing an article about someone that cannot be used as the basis of a lawsuit is impossible ( a lawsuit, and a lawsuit with a chance of winning not being the same thing).

For instance, I strongly suspect that if you respond to this, I will be left feeling defamed, and a lawsuit would be heading your way (if I could afford a lawyer).

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
Lets return to this after the courts decide if it is defamatory or not :)
 
andrewmillman said:
Lets return to this after the courts decide if it is defamatory or not :)
Click to expand...
Here is a question we can discuss now.

Can you envisage a report of such consequence to the general public, that the public interest consideration should outway concerns over defamation of individuals?

And if the ABC wrote such an article, then was sued for millions, would this be the right thing do you think?

One of the favoured methods of suppressing reporting of governments in despotic minded countries is defamation law.

So, a minister might be embezzling billions, and if this is reported, it's the reporter in prison. It's the reporter lambasted for breaking the law.

Because it's the embezzlers of billions, and alleged master of the universe rapists that get to write the defamation laws.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Stumpy Pete said:
The ABC humiliated Chris Kenny on national television by depicting him having sex with a dog. They didn’t apologise until the matter went to court.
Click to expand...
Oh. The Chaser.

Chris said he was fine with it, copped it on the chin. Then got upset he didn't get an apology. For something he was fine with.

His "I'm OK with it" act to hide his unhappiness crumbled pretty quickly.

I think that he presents as a tough media entity, but is actually pretty fragile. When he appears on panels he talks over everyone, then whines when he doesn't get enough time.
 
The answer is 'yes. What's The Christian hiding?

TyslDv7.jpg
 
Alleged rapist Christian Porter’s defamation case against the ABC is in crisis as his lawyers try to hide evidence so the public do not know the truth
kangaroocourtofaustralia.com

Alleged rapist Christian Porter’s defamation case against the ABC is in crisis as his lawyers try to hide evidence so the public do not know the truth

A federal court statement to the media says Christian Porter’s lawyers are in negotiations with the ABC lawyers to suppress the ABC’s defence and evidence but the reality is it is almos…
kangaroocourtofaustralia.com kangaroocourtofaustralia.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top