Scandal Tom Wills - not a good guy?

[Ron The Bear]

And that's all the bloody ABC articles did!

It quotes some vested interests who alleged a "cover-up", then asserts "Fearon's discovery is likely to alter those perceptions" (of Wills as a conciliatory figure).

You're the "activist" that is intent on turning an interesting but highly-flawed historical discovery into a jeremiad against the ABC, which has assumed boogie-man proportions in your mind for reason unclear.

I'm just very very skeptical of the modern penchant for rewriting history. Refer Bruce Pascoe whose fevered imaginings have made it into the education system without being adqeuately questioned. I live in the former electorate of Batman which has been renamed after somebody called Cooper. The Jack Dyer stand is being demolished and replaced by a structure named for this same Cooper, who has two-fifths of * all to do with Richmond FC.

PS I know little of the wreck of the Maria. Happy to read up on it. What should I look out for?

Maybe do it this way. Look for a list of massacres of Aboriginals on the internet, then look for a list of massacres by Aboriginals.

Look, I get that you feel strongly about the ABC given your involvement, so we can forget whatever opinions have been expressed about it. It's a peripheral issue.

What do you think of Flanagan's interpretation?

 

[Tulip]

And that's all the bloody ABC articles did!

I love the ABC, I genuinely do, but the headline with the supposed quote was an error from them and a serious case of slipped standards.

 

[Stabby McGee]

If nothing it starts a discussion that should be left to people that will research it properly. All we have now is journalists looking for a quick headline.
Maybe something could be made of it, maybe nothing, but there is little to excite me that something groundbreaking has happened here, and I speak as someone with a history degree, although mine is a million miles from this field so I wouldn’t dare offer an opinion until I’d read several papers by people who know not to form an opinion before they have solid and researched facts behind them

 

[Aussie in exile]

I'm sure that all the atrocities committed in the past will be whitewashed from Australian history and so will any memorials to Tom Wills will be destroyed or hidden from public view.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

It quotes some vested interests who alleged a "cover-up"

Firstly, I think saying something has been "covered up" is not at all the same as "alleging a cover-up".

And the two "vested interests" saying something has been "covered up"?

Gary Fearon, described by Martin Flanagan in the Nine article as "a highly conscientious and fair-minded researcher whose discoveries about Wills extend way beyond this find"?

Or Gayiri man Yamba Konrad Ross, attempting to get to the bottom of the virtual wiping off the face of the earth of his ancestors?

I'm just very very skeptical of the modern penchant for rewriting history. Refer Bruce Pascoe whose fevered imaginings have made it into the education system without being adqeuately questioned. I live in the former electorate of Batman which has been renamed after somebody called Cooper. The Jack Dyer stand is being demolished and replaced by a structure named for this same Cooper, who has two-fifths of fu** all to do with Richmond FC.

It's not "rewriting history" if fresh evidence comes to light, and if attitudes have changed. As I said the other day, yes, the past was a "different country" as they say, but so is the present. You can't examine events of the past and not expect them to be viewed through the prism of today, in fact it's impossible to not bring a contemporary viewpoint to history. Are you really making an argument to cease all historical enquiry? Because by your definition, all of it is fundamentally flawed.

As to Pascoe, isn't it interesting how Peter Sutton and Keryn Welshe, the two academics who released Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate, are still so respectful of Pascoe and full of praise for him, despite debunking some of his claims? No mention of "fevered imaginings" from them. No, this is how good history is debated. Firmly, with an absolute reliance on evidence, but always with respect.

I have no problems with your Batman electorate being renamed after William Cooper. He was a very impressive man, just the sort of inspirational historical role model Australia needs, and regardless of Batman's positives, Cooper, unlike Batman, didn't kill anybody.

As to the naming of the new Richmond stand, I can't say what that's about. Cooper doesn't appear to have any particular connection with the place.

Perhaps it is simply a goodwill gesture by a football club that may be an attempt to redress some shabby treatment of indigenous players in the past? Most clubs could well afford to do that I think.

Maybe do it this way. Look for a list of massacres of Aboriginals on the internet, then look for a list of massacres by Aboriginals.

Not quite sure of your point, but a fella can't win with types like you.

Massacre committed by whites: "The times were different then!"

Massacre committed by blacks: "See! Blacks killed too!"

Look, I get that you feel strongly about the ABC given your involvement, so we can forget whatever opinions have been expressed about it. It's a peripheral issue.

I have never been an employee of the ABC, I have worked there on and off for the last three decades, always as an outside contractor. I was only mentioning that to point out that I have worked alongside countless ABC employees in that time, and know their professionalism and the way the place operates first-hand. I have no "loyalty" to the place.

What do you think of Flanagan's interpretation?

Interesting that his position seems to have shifted between being quoted for the second ABC article (the headline of which, BTW, I feel is quite wrong in saying that Wills "participated" in mass murder of Indigenous people) and the Nine article, where he seems to be having a crack at the ABC (wrongly, as I have already stated, because he makes all these sweeping accusations about "the left" - whoever they are - wanting to "cancel" - whatever than means - Wills, which are simply not supported by the facts).

(As I said, quite a good article flawed by some quite wrong assumptions. Not unlike the Conversation article in fact.)

 

[Generation X]

The ABC used to be a great Australian icon, sadly what we have now is a shadow of its past glory.

When they come up with articles such as linking miss spelling names with racism it's time to pull the funding.

 

[NoobPie]

Interesting that his position seems to have shifted between being quoted for the second ABC article (the headline of which, BTW, I feel is quite wrong in saying that Wills "participated" in mass murder of Indigenous people) and the Nine article, where he seems to be having a crack at the ABC (wrongly, as I have already stated, because he makes all these sweeping accusations about "the left" - whoever they are - wanting to "cancel" - whatever than means - Wills, which are simply not supported by the facts).

(As I said, quite a good article flawed by some quite wrong assumptions. Not unlike the Conversation article in fact.)

How TF did Martin Flanagan's position "shift"? He was quoted in the ABC article as validating the relevance of the Zingiari coat which he also did in the fairfax article. There was no inconsistency at all.

You comprehension is terrible

 

[Stabby McGee]

The ABC used to be a great Australian icon, sadly what we have now is a shadow of its past glory.

When they come up with articles such as linking miss spelling names with racism it's time to pull the funding.

No. They s**t me to tears sometimes too, but it’s important that they remain funded no matter who is in charge. It never hurts to ask uncomfortable questions of those that decide our fate.
They look left now but I don’t remember them being kind to the Hawke... Rudd... Gillard governments either.
They are the blowtorch that gets applied to the feet of those in power. Lose them and we are left with oligarchs who write editorials or slant stories to further their own interests. And I say that as a right leaning centrist with a cynical distaste of most things left.
Remember just as they brought down Jo’s right wing junta in Qld they also did the same thing to the ALP in NSW.
Integrity is all they have, and I think it’s a massive tick in their box to have whoever is in charge cry out that they (the ABC) is bias.

 

[Generation X]

No. They sh*t me to tears sometimes too, but it’s important that they remain funded no matter who is in charge. It never hurts to ask uncomfortable questions of those that decide our fate.
They look left now but I don’t remember them being kind to the Hawke... Rudd... Gillard governments either.
They are the blowtorch that gets applied to the feet of those in power. Lose them and we are left with oligarchs who write editorials or slant stories to further their own interests. And I say that as a right leaning centrist with a cynical distaste of most things left.
Remember just as they brought down Jo’s right wing junta in Qld they also did the same thing to the ALP in NSW.
Integrity is all they have, and I think it’s a massive tick in their box to have whoever is in charge cry out that they (the ABC) is bias.

I disagree, they've gone too far left now, they're now on the same level as The Guardian imho. They are clearly now just pushing their own agenda every chance they get, stuff the actual news and you can forget about investigative reporting. They'll manipulative the truth, it's pretty blatant now

I've voted for both sides in the past so I'm not emotionally invested into either

 

[deanc]

All media should be held to a high standard. Lies don't become any less damaging to public consciousness if they're propagated by a private company.

I hope you apply that same attitude to politicians and are appalled by their attempts to avoid any scrutiny regarding corruption.

A good robust discussion - though perhaps a timely reminder that MSM's primary objective is to 'entertain', not 'educate'..!
Historically and even more apparent in recent times, MSM undertake this by creating sensational headlines and narratives to promote further discussion, debate and outrage. (as clearly evident in threads such as this)

Moreover, sadly MSM which includes the ABC, has now evolved into the 'social media style' of news and current affairs reporting - whereas once upon a time we would watch the nightly news to learn the 'factual' news of the day, now the same nightly bulletins usually present their 'opinions' of news of the day.
And for some reason 'current affairs' reporting and presentations have generally become a 'PR exercise' for the broadcaster to promote their specific political and/or ideological rhetoric and opinions..?

From my observation all the main publishing groups (be it Fairfax/Murdoch/ABC etc.) have adopted these opinion based strategies predominately and simply to support their traditional media platforms remaining commercially relevant - and to state the obvious 'opinion' has always been more 'entertaining' than facts or education...

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The ABC used to be a great Australian icon, sadly what we have now is a shadow of its past glory.

When they come up with articles such as linking miss spelling names with racism it's time to pull the funding.

Completely erroneous conclusion.

You seriously suggesting we would just destroy one of the most important institutions in Australian life over the last 80 years, simply because it's not as excellent as it used to be? Do you have any idea how precious such things are, how difficult to replicate? The ABC is like old-growth forest.

The answer is twofold. 1. Fund it properly. It costs each one of us bugger all anyway. 2. And stop politically interfering in it. Look at the government's witchhunt against Laura Tingle, a very professional and incisive finance journalist who pulls apart some of the government's more egregious economic claims. (Why wouldn't you want someone like that holding the government to account? It's our money after all.) A sensible government with belief in its own policies would look at their policies and examine what needs adjusting. This government goes on a jihad to destroy her.

Anyway, getting off topic here.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

No. They sh*t me to tears sometimes too, but it’s important that they remain funded no matter who is in charge. It never hurts to ask uncomfortable questions of those that decide our fate.
They look left now but I don’t remember them being kind to the Hawke... Rudd... Gillard governments either.
They are the blowtorch that gets applied to the feet of those in power. Lose them and we are left with oligarchs who write editorials or slant stories to further their own interests. And I say that as a right leaning centrist with a cynical distaste of most things left.
Remember just as they brought down Jo’s right wing junta in Qld they also did the same thing to the ALP in NSW.
Integrity is all they have, and I think it’s a massive tick in their box to have whoever is in charge cry out that they (the ABC) is bias.

Good post.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

A good robust discussion - though perhaps a timely reminder that MSM's primary objective is to 'entertain', not 'educate'..!
Historically and even more apparent in recent times, MSM undertake this by creating sensational headlines and narratives to promote further discussion, debate and outrage. (as clearly evident in threads such as this)

Moreover, sadly MSM which includes the ABC, has now evolved into the 'social media style' of news and current affairs reporting - whereas once upon a time we would watch the nightly news to learn the 'factual' news of the day, now the same nightly bulletins usually present their 'opinions' of news of the day.
And for some reason 'current affairs' reporting and presentations have generally become a 'PR exercise' for the broadcaster to promote their specific political and/or ideological rhetoric and opinions..?

From my observation all the main publishing groups (be it Fairfax/Murdoch/ABC etc.) have adopted these opinion based strategies predominately and simply to support their traditional media platforms remaining commercially relevant - and to state the obvious 'opinion' has always been more 'entertaining' than facts or education...

Also a good post!

 

[Generation X]

Completely erroneous conclusion.

You seriously suggesting we would just destroy one of the most important institutions in Australian life over the last 80 years, simply because it's not as excellent as it used to be? Do you have any idea how precious such things are, how difficult to replicate? The ABC is like old-growth forest.

The answer is twofold. 1. Fund it properly. It costs each one of us bugger all anyway. 2. And stop politically interfering in it. Look at the government's witchhunt against Laura Tingle, a very professional and incisive finance journalist who pulls apart some of the government's more egregious economic claims. (Why wouldn't you want someone like that holding the government to account? It's our money after all.) A sensible government with belief in its own policies would look at their policies and examine what needs adjusting. This government goes on a jihad to destroy her.

Anyway, getting off topic here.

But that's the problem, it's no longer an important institution. It's a group of people who are pushing a set agenda, manipulating stories to present a biased view.

Completely destroying it i agree is going too far. But the woke crap it spews out on a daily basis is evidence that it has lost its way and something drastic needs to happen to the place.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

But that's the problem, it's no longer an important institution. It's a group of people who are pushing a set agenda, manipulating stories to present a biased view.

Completely destroying it i agree is going too far. But the woke crap it spews out on a daily basis is evidence that it has lost its way and something drastic needs to happen to the place.

I'll simply state what I said to RtB earlier - numerous enquiries into the ABC over the years, most of them initiated by the Coalition, have failed to find any significant bias. I suspect they just look leftish to people because we've had mostly conservative governments for years.

Anyway, back to Tom Wills.

 

[Generation X]

I'll simply state what I said to RtB earlier - numerous enquiries into the ABC over the years, most of them initiated by the Coalition, have failed to find any significant bias. I suspect they just look leftish to people because we've had mostly conservative governments for years.

Anyway, back to Tom Wills.

You just need to log onto the abc news website for evidence

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You just need to log onto the abc news website for evidence

Funny how all the enquiries missed that. Given the Coalition commissioned most of them, it obviously wasn't for want of trying.

Anyway, I'm done with this.

 

[SpareTowel]

if the abc included the 'heads on sticks' part this all could have been avoided

 

[Lockyer24]

You just need to log onto the abc news website for evidence

Anyone arguing the ABC isn’t lefty biased has their head so far up their ass it isn’t worth bothering with

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Anyone arguing the ABC isn’t lefty biased has their head so far up their ass it isn’t worth bothering with

Well I don't know about you, but my head is not so far up my arse that I can't comprehend "numerous inquiries into the ABC over the years, most of them initiated by the Coalition, have failed to find any significant bias."

Seriously, look up the history of these inquiries. The Coalition has been setting them up for years, going way back to Howard. The Coalition hates the ABC, and yet every time, the facts have failed to support their claim that there is significant bias at the ABC.

 

[sprockets]

Completely erroneous conclusion.

You seriously suggesting we would just destroy one of the most important institutions in Australian life over the last 80 years, simply because it's not as excellent as it used to be? Do you have any idea how precious such things are, how difficult to replicate? The ABC is like old-growth forest.

The answer is twofold. 1. Fund it properly. It costs each one of us bugger all anyway. 2. And stop politically interfering in it. Look at the government's witchhunt against Laura Tingle, a very professional and incisive finance journalist who pulls apart some of the government's more egregious economic claims. (Why wouldn't you want someone like that holding the government to account? It's our money after all.) A sensible government with belief in its own policies would look at their policies and examine what needs adjusting. This government goes on a jihad to destroy her.

Anyway, getting off topic here.

Being ethical doesn't cost a cent.

 

[btdg]

Anyone arguing the ABC isn’t lefty biased has their head so far up their ass it isn’t worth bothering with

It's only 'lefty bias' is you treat politics as a team sport and have to split everything into simple boxes of right/left. And then put everything you don't like on the side you don't like (left).

The ABC investigating aboriginal issues isn't 'lefty'. Nor is being 'woke'.

That maybe reflects a desire to be progressive and inclusive on social issues but it is hardly aligned with traditional left Labor politics.

In my experience the abc holds both major political parties to fairly equal scrutiny. It's just that one side hates this a lot more than the other...

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Being ethical doesn't cost a cent.

True. And the ABC is highly ethical. Now let’s fund them properly so they can get back to making great Australian productions and holding governments to account on behalf of us. Costs each of us bugger all anyway.

Now, back to Tom Wills.

 

[Kwality]

You do realise the ABC is a major sports broadcaster in Australia?

I've worked on and off at the ABC as an outside contractor, mostly radio but sometimes TV, for 30 some years. Mate you have no idea. Everyone I've worked with there is just a professional, trying to do a professional job.

Talk about reds under the bed. You can't bring yourself to admit that enquiry after enquiry, most of them commissioned by the ABC's sworn enemies in the Coalition, have shown no evidence of significant bias at the ABC.

You've got one of the great resources of this nation at your fingertips, one of the the most loved and trusted institutions in Australia, and all you can do is attribute malicious intent to it.

Seriously jaundiced outlook on life.

Like all news outlets, they spin, & anyone who watches/reads/listens would be very naive if they cant recognise it. Why I take a range of points of view & make up my own mind.
I do agree with sport the ABC was streets ahead in the 70s, but those days are long gone in my opinion.

 

[Kwality]

It's only 'lefty bias' is you treat politics as a team sport and have to split everything into simple boxes of right/left. And then put everything you don't like on the side you don't like (left).

The ABC investigating aboriginal issues isn't 'lefty'. Nor is being 'woke'.

That maybe reflects a desire to be progressive and inclusive on social issues but it is hardly aligned with traditional left Labor politics.

In my experience the abc holds both major political parties to fairly equal scrutiny. It's just that one side hates this a lot more than the other...

Progressive is an interesting tag, particularly on aboriginal issues.

If you look at Q & A, does that represent equal scrutiny on the issues discussed and the panel members