This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

ABC is Political

Jump to new
THE ABC last night screened an anti-Abbott Government attack ad during its high-rating and controversial television program Q&A.

The program, subject to boycott from Federal Government frontbenchers last month, aired a new CFMEU advertisement attacking the Royal Commission into trade union corruption and Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Host Tony Jones interrupted Liberal MP Kelly O’Dwyer to show the 30 second commercial.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...ercial-during-qa/story-fni0fit3-1227487674691
 
Tink said:
THE ABC last night screened an anti-Abbott Government attack ad during its high-rating and controversial television program Q&A.
Click to expand...


What's the problem Tink, it's just paid political advertising.
 
Tink said:
Good on Brendan O'Neill, a breath of fresh air on their ABC
Click to expand...

Yeah, he was one foot in each camp and exposed his nads in the process. Of course I liked his anti gay marriage, his anti social engineering stance, anti pandering to hurt feelings, pro common sense approaches.

I wanted to smack the steel blue face from the Labor pollie for being so rude to the woman guest next to him...and I wanted to dig a big hole and bury Kelly and the Greens idiot up to their necks in the BS they produce so prolifically.

I love watching QANDA when people have opposing views. I did like them scooping the union ad so we could get the snapshot of the different factional reactions of the politicians. We are all grown ups who watch that show, so we can navigate through any bias, which I still don't believe exists.

I wonder if VC watched it ... there were two pro gay questioners who felt it their duty to connect the dots between homosexual marriage and their own tortured souls. It was obviously a compelling case to support gay marriage e.g. it is much better than prostitution, drug addiction, neglect so it is therefore equal to a normal intact family environment...makes sense to me ( kinda like saying unroadworthy cars should be allowed on the road because they are better than a busted bicycle, plus they are cars too!)
 
QandA...Plenty of Abbott bashing....plenty of anti RC into union corruption talk and how bad Dyson Heydon is but nothing about the union use of 457 visas to bring in overseas help for the unions.

What a farce this ABC is.
 
I rarely watch Q and A anymore, Tisme, but I did this week because I knew Katy Faust would be on, and with the week we have had, I was curious to see the outcome.

I am glad I did, when I saw Media Watch beforehand, and all the censoring they have done, just disgraceful when we are suppose to live in a free country and we all pay for this public broadcaster.
My first reaction was -- privatise it.
I don't think the majority should be paying for this.

I do agree with you, with what you said about Brendan, I feel he stole the show - good on him for standing up against the trolls that were on the bench from Labor and the Greens.
I don't agree with them viewing the commercial on the ABC, but as Kelly said, they both have their finger in the pie, the Greens and Labor, so of course they would be against it.

If you are against this RC, you are against them all, which Brendan threw at them.

In my view, the best thing Tony Abbott did was stop going on the show to prove that they need to go by their charter, and that we all pay for that public broadcaster.
They talk about fairness but it is not really what they have been producing.

That has been the first time I have watched the show feeling that it was a bit of balance, apart from the commercial. That could also be that Brendan had a very strong personality, and if he wasn't on there, it would have been the same rubbish being thrown out.

Just a platform to push the Lefts agenda that the public pay for.
Many would be happy to come on the show but they don't allow it - only one version of what needs to be said on that show.

Though Brendan said some good things through the show, this stood out -- I think he is a Libertarian from and based in the UK

I have been told by the Liberals here, the reason they stood by marriage was because they took it to the election with a no change, and they were asked by their electorates to stand by what they voted for.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tink said:
Though Brendan said some good things through the show, this stood out -- I think he is a Libertarian from and based in the UK

Click to expand...


He's such a "last century" fella, is Brendan. This is the 21st century having passed through a magic door in Y2K to a land of rainbows, marshmellows, unicorns and toadstool houses. Brendan needs to get with the program.

I see we are about to be bombarded with a plethora of gay promotional films for Christmas....very timely and appropriately in theme with the birth of Jesus to a virgin mother impregnated by a vengeful God who destroys cities that wont stop playing with same sex pinky bits, animals, et al.

Not content controlling the courts, it makes me wonder why the Jews have such a fascination with promoting deviant behaviours through the ages and in the last century through their incestuous monopoly of film and media. I'm wondering if it's to give people a distraction from focusing on them as anti christs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The audience clapped this guy. The Q&A 'balanced audience'.

And predictably, the very next day in the Fairfax SMH, an article carving up panellists Brendan and Katy, the subliminal message to readers, 'this is what happens to heretics'.

Also I agree with the appearance embargo.
 
SirRumpole said:
Are you saying that you think that "Libertarian" and "Liberal" are two very different things ?
Click to expand...
No I am not Sir R! Just having a dig at the program's audience selection. As one-time panellist Christopher Pyne said with heavy irony, 'how did they get in here'.
 
Logique said:
No I am not Sir R! Just having a dig at the program's audience selection. As one-time panellist Christopher Pyne said with heavy irony, 'how did they get in here'.
Click to expand...

Sorry , I'm not quite with you.

You are upset that the audience clapped a man who was complaining that critics of gay marriage are shouted down by the "gay lobby" ? (As I saw it he was offended that there was not a genuine discussion of the issue, but instead a shrill shouting campaign directed at anyone who opposes Gay Marriage.)

If that's not the case I wonder what has offended you by the fact that Brendon O'Neill was applauded, and why you think that the people who applauded him in some way "should not have been allowed in" ?

Or am I missing a tongue in cheek attitude on your behalf ?
 
Logique said:
Yes. I was pleased at the applause for Brendan.
Click to expand...

Well in that case, "who let those people in ?"



I think he was right about "intimidation", although if he took a truly libertarian view, he would say that the government should not be interfering in the private lives of others.

Gay Marriage is obviously a vexed issue for some people.
 
Chris Kenny sums up the lies, the exaggeration and distortion of the facts by the ABC presenters..

The Fabians working at their best to discredit Abbott and his government...What a low lot they are.

Control the media and you control the people with false information and propaganda.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...rrect-falsehoods/story-fn8qlm5e-1227495563589

The role of the host in a television discussion can be pretty fraught (yes, I know, my own efforts are a good training guide). But apart from keeping the conversation going, including all the guests and throwing to the topics and grabs, there is another responsibility.

It is vague, sure, because your guests are there to share their opinions but there is an onus, surely, to the truth, to the facts. When a guest makes a bald statement that is clearly incorrect there is a duty to pull them up, or at least air some dissent.

Now, granted you can’t be expected to pick up on every misstatement. You might have a director barking something in your earpiece at that instant or, more to the point, there are some guests who preach so much tosh you wouldn’t dare be rude enough to keep interrupting (yes, Julian Burnside, I am remembering a chat with you).

A week ago I watched former colleague Rebecca Weisser on ABC News 24 join a discussion with a trade union official about the political news of the day, including the Dyson Heydon controversy. The unionist (apologies — I don’t recall her name) was calling for the trade union royal commissioner to stand aside and said: “He’s gone to a Liberal Party fundraiser, it doesn’t matter whether it was raising any money or not, it was clearly a Liberal event.”

At the time I was staggered the hosts didn’t correct this blatant falsehood. They allowed her to finish and then left it to Weisser to point out that Heydon had done no such thing but, in fact, after initially accepting an invitation, had declined the speaking engagement.

News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt later revealed on his blog how the exchange was repeated on the ABC but in an edited version that excluded Weisser’s correction. That is a most unfortunate turn of events and I look forward to a full explanation on Media Watch tonight.

The Real Paul Barry might also explain why the very next day a similar howler was left unchallenged on Q&A. Greens leader Richard Di Natale was barely into his first breath on the same topic when he said: “You’ve got the fellow who is heading the Royal Commission now attending Liberal Party fundraisers.” Again we waited for the host to intervene. Tony Jones was mute. It was another most unfortunate turn of events.

As the former High Court justice considered the application against him over the weekend, we sincerely hope Heydon wasn’t swayed by the ABC’s falsehoods about his conduct. We should remind him that rather than deliver a prestigious legal lecture which would have done no harm and given no apprehension of bias, he actually declined to attend the said event in a diligent effort to ensure there could be no possible inference or suggestion of any apprehension of bias.

While on the issue of bias, let’s talk some more about the ABC and television hosts. At Sky News Australia, where I have a part-time job hosting Viewpoint twice a week, we put lots of opinion to air. But I think we do a pretty good job corralling it from the news.

Paul Murray, Richo,Kristina Keneally, Peter Van Onselen and I will happily air our views and those of our guests on the issues of the day, and our Canberra political reporters will be all over the issues with interviews and analysis. But in between we throw to regular news updates which aim to be straight and to the point, delivered by a stable of professional and objective newsreaders. Which is why there has been just a little muttering and murmuring over the past year or so as one of the part-time readers, Tracey Spicer, was becoming more and more opinionated in various online gigs and social media posts.

For instance, when Tony Abbott famously winked during a talkback radio call in Melbourne last year, Spicer tweeted a link to the footage with her comment: “Tony Abbott you are a disgusting creep.” And there was a piece for The Hoopla that was pushed on social media under the heading: “Tracey Spicer’s top 10 ways Tony Abbott is (with all due respect) f***ing it up.” The tone of that piece was best summarised in the line, “Pretty much everything you’ve touched is turning to sh*t.”

Now these views, if a little crass, are valid, for sure. But with such strong opinions out there from Spicer, it did seem a little weird once or twice when I finished an editorial giving my firm views on the politics of the day, then threw to Spicer for the “straight” take on the news. So you could imagine my surprise to hear she has left Sky News for another hosting opportunity. Good for her. But there is no prize for guessing where Spicer and her visceral Abbott-hating tweets and opinion pieces have been made to feel welcome, hosting political discussions ... yes, she’s been snapped up by their ABC.

 
noco said:
When a guest makes a bald statement that is clearly incorrect there is a duty to pull them up, or at least air some dissent.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree with that. The show is supposed to be democracy in action, not censorship in action. If any guest wants to make a fool of himself, and let's face there are quite a few, that is their call. The other guests have the opportunity to debunk and then the vultures in the Newscorp media can have a crack in their blogs

Tony and Emma are the umpires and the main rule is open discussion.... not something far right and far left control freaks and their drones are comfortable with.

We are talking about a show for adults here, not a channel 10 gossip panel.
 
Well it has been censorship in action, Tisme, which was reported on MediaWatch, so I disagree with your comments.

Picking and choosing your guests on a stacked panel is not democracy.

Tony Jones is still a biased presenter, and it showed as clear as day the last show I saw.

Yes, Brendon O'Neill said some great things, the Godless Brit, and good on him, but he was quickly debunked, Tony Jones didn't like it.

You are entitled to your opinion, that is mine.
 

I doubt Brendan could be debunked Tink. As much as I agreed with him, I too would argue him just because I like a good tête-à-tête, ... it doesn't mean I disagree just exploring the options with an intellect.

I seriously doubt anyone watching QANDA would be influenced away from their dogma unless there is a seriously good persuasive guest... the show is just too temporal to attract the knuckleheads. And I seriously do not detect bias of any consequence, but I'm on the record as a vocal opponent of the period when the topics were nothing but muslim, green, homosexual, welfare, boat people..... ad nauseam.

No one at the ABC twists the arms of the cult pulling power of Barnaby to come on an make fools of themselves. The media savvy senior pollies aren't that stupid.
 
We will have to agree to disagree on this one, Tisme.

The bias is very obvious, and as I said, I was glad that Tony Abbott stopped people on the show, time to go by their charter.

That girl, Katy Faust, came on that show to give her opinion and she was shouted down as hateful, for standing up for children -- they are just a pack of hypocrites and bullies.

You think children are going to open up and speak with attitudes like that.

Good on Brendan O'Neill, for showing it up, gay marriage, for the con that it is.
 

I think I agree with you on more things of import than politics ... remember I am very ambivalent about political parties, so I don't take offence when any of their own get the rounds of the table for being stupid or cute as a fox.

Rumpole and I are old hacks from the QANDA board and we have a pretty good compass on the bias. The amount of b1tching and moaning about the umpiring was fairly even week to week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...