Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

ABC is Political

Jump to new
rederob said:
The reason we had a Royal Commission into banking was due to the detailed knowledge of insiders breaching their employment contracts to expose corrupt conduct. And of course it was our "free" press which never let go of the bones they were offered by whistleblowers.
Should we need to live in a country where it is ok for our government to act in a manner which actively discourages matters of public interest to be reported?
Maybe you do not want to know that we are possibly hiding war crimes, or that we are going to be "spied on" through means which will never be be publicised. Or that any number of other acts of government agencies affect our liberties but will remain hidden.
What we are seeing is a government keen to shoot the messenger. And somehow the government is claiming it is not sanctioning this!
........ lost for words.
Click to expand...
This is a defense issue. The govt isn't trying to hide sht. Papers were leaked and it needs to be investigated.
 
The allegations are all still up on abc as well. No one has been silenced.
 
moXJO said:
This is a defense issue. The govt isn't trying to hide sht. Papers were leaked and it needs to be investigated.
Click to expand...
Had the information not been leaked we would not have known.
To claim the matter was not hidden flies in the face of the rationale for the initial search. But I appreciate you may not understand that logic.
 
sptrawler said:
I suppose the problem is when public interest, becomes trail by media and when alleged incidents become widely held beliefs.
Click to expand...
I tried unsuccessfully to work that out.
Philosophically, "public interest" tests are trivial.
In other words we do not expect our government to conceal war crimes, nor do we - as Australian citizens - expect that our daily activities can be spied upon without reasonable cause.
Further, there is a difference between "alleged" incidents, and an evidentiary trail outlining events. The issues are now subject to procedures of law enforcement and, if pursued, legal remedy.
The consequence will be that we will have a society where knowledge of unlawful behaviour of governments never comes to light because the government suppresses such "public interest" through imprisonment.
We do not have Whistleblower Legislation in Australia because our governments mostly want to hide other activities that public servants - rather than journalists - might bring to light.
 
rederob said:
Had the information not been leaked we would not have known.
To claim the matter was not hidden flies in the face of the rationale for the initial search. But I appreciate you may not understand that logic.
Click to expand...
I understand you are a little slow on how releasing classified material can have serious consequences. There is an ongoing investigation into Afghanistan. But bleet it up as much as you like.
http://www.defence.gov.au/MJS/igadf-afghanistan-inquiry.asp
 
rederob said:
I tried unsuccessfully to work that out.
Philosophically, "public interest" tests are trivial.
In other words we do not expect our government to conceal war crimes, nor do we - as Australian citizens - expect that our daily activities can be spied upon without reasonable cause.
Click to expand...
That is done every day by our phone companies, with our blessing.

rederob said:
Further, there is a difference between "alleged" incidents, and an evidentiary trail outlining events. The issues are now subject to procedures of law enforcement and, if pursued, legal remedy.
Click to expand...
The trail by media circus has been going on for several years, it is only recently they have been legally challenged and in some cases fined.

rederob said:
The consequence will be that we will have a society where knowledge of unlawful behaviour of governments never comes to light because the government suppresses such "public interest" through imprisonment.
We do not have Whistleblower Legislation in Australia because our governments mostly want to hide other activities that public servants - rather than journalists - might bring to light.
Click to expand...
If criminal behaviour has happened during military engagement, I'm sure there is legal procedures to address it, the second world war showed that.
To have public servants running a personal evidence information line to the press, at their own discretion, probably wouldn't be the best way to carry out an inquiry. Just my opinion.
 
Funny how Cabinet Ministers never get charged for leaking confidential Cabinet discussions.

No one got charged over the leaks that Gillard spoke in Cabinet against a pay rise for pensioners.

I'm sure there are a lot of examples on the other side too.
 
moXJO said:
I understand you are a little slow on how releasing classified material can have serious consequences. There is an ongoing investigation into Afghanistan. But bleet it up as much as you like.
http://www.defence.gov.au/MJS/igadf-afghanistan-inquiry.asp
Click to expand...
If there was nothing wrong with the information then why is it kept as "secret"?
Why is imprisonment a consequence of knowing?
I cannot see how jailing someone is mere "bleeting." But you keep up the good work of defending what is becoming more of a regime headed by ex military, than a democracy.
 
SirRumpole said:
Funny how Cabinet Ministers never get charged for leaking confidential Cabinet discussions.

No one got charged over the leaks that Gillard spoke in Cabinet against a pay rise for pensioners.

I'm sure there are a lot of examples on the other side too.
Click to expand...
I don't think killing people and dismembering them, is part of Cabinet protocol, but they do butcher a lot of policy.lol
 
Heres the problem. We have sensitive papers in the hands of some dumbsht jornos.We don't know how damaging it could be. It could be names, operational procedures, positions.

But it could easily be hacked by other nations.
Disrupt on going investigations with legal proceedings.

Put families at risk as special forces names are usually kept private.

It could divulge operational tactics.

There are a host of factors beyond idiot jornos looking for a headline. If they are caught with classified info they should be charged.
 
On the other hand ... another perspective.
To suggest that journos should be charged if they have classified information effectively criminalizes all investigative journalism into government activities.
Is that what you are suggesting ?

Kerry O'Brien says AFP raids on the ABC and Annika Smethurst 'go to the heart of democracy'

Speaking to Patricia Karvelas on ABC Radio Melbourne's Mornings program, Mr O'Brien said "people have to be really clear about what's at stake here".

"If they care about democracy, this does go to the heart of democracy and the democratic process," he said.

"You are talking about the media going about its job in providing scrutiny to areas of government where scrutiny is not easy.

"You are also talking about the role of whistleblowers, who are mostly well-motivated people who are disturbed about what they are seeing inside the Government in this case."

The AFP raided the ABC's headquarters over a series of 2017 stories known as the Afghan Files, which detailed incidents of troops killing unarmed men and children.

The officers took away two USB drives containing about 100 files.

It came one day after the AFP searched the home of Smethurst, who had reported on secret plans to allow government spying.

"The message being sent is that this will happen to you if you are about to become a whistleblower," Mr O'Brien said.

"The full force of the state will be brought against you if you expose these. This Government would appear to be very sensitive to public opinions."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06...emocracy-is-at-stake-after-afp-raids/11184764
 
Whistle blowers during a time of war, are known as something else, it really is a fine line the one divulging the information walks.
As for journalists, they just keep pushing the boundaries more and more, in the name of "reporting".
Like I said earlier, some are starting to get taken to court and are being fined a lot of money. There is a line, it has been fading more and more over recent years, since censorship was loosened.
The time had to arrive where they are taken to account, for what they say and publish, I think more and more people will take them to task.
I'm amazed it hasn't happened earlier, I'm not only referring to the current issue. Just my opinion, everyone has there own interpretation.
 
sptrawler said:
Like I said earlier, some are starting to get taken to court and are being fined a lot of money.
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between "public interest" and libel/slander.
Moxjo might not like what some journalists do, but the better ones are responsible for countless commissions of inquiry and Royal Commissions. They can literally change the course of history and act in the betterment of society overall. The track record of ABC journalists in this regard is exceptional, especially through Four Corners.
Morrison's government, with Dutton leading the charge, are taking us down the path of totalitarianism under the guise of national security. One does not need to look far back into history to see how badly wrong this can go.
 
rederob said:
There is a big difference between "public interest" and libel/slander.
Moxjo might not like what some journalists do, but the better ones are responsible for countless commissions of inquiry and Royal Commissions. They can literally change the course of history and act in the betterment of society overall. The track record of ABC journalists in this regard is exceptional, especially through Four Corners.
.
Click to expand...
What you are saying is very true, however things do need to be validated, everyone is saying the AFP isn't acting correctly. But who is to say a whistle blower, is acting in the best interest of Australia, just because they are a whistle blower doesn't in itself make them honourable.
It would be irresponsible for the AFP not to check the whole thing thoroughly, the media are the ones blowing it up.
What would the media say, if the AFP didn't check things out and the whole names and addresses of the SAS had been taken in the process, the media would then blame the AFP for being incompetent.
It is all a bit childlike IMO, a bit like wanting the police to protect us, but they aren't allowed to use force because we don't like violence.
Or saying the press can't be raided, because sometimes they get things right and it has a good outcome.
What happened when Australia's investigative journo's, tried to grab those kids overseas and it turned pear shaped, they all nearly ended up in prison.
 
Last edited:
There are principles of redaction of documents to ensure that operational details that could arguably be used against , say, SAS soldiers not be divulged. But there is also a public interest in holding governments to account for behaviours that break laws. These are the principles of a free and open press.

If we don't have a press that is able to publish evidence of malpractice any government can simply classify every document it creates and then point blank deny any accusations of misconduct and say such accusations are lies, slander. They could then get away with anything they want.

Sound fair enough ?:cautious:
 
sptrawler said:
...everyone is saying the AFP isn't acting correctly.
Click to expand...
They are exercising their powers.
This is like the Queensland Police exercising their power to prosecute a Sergeant who released video of innocent people being beaten in a paddy wagon.
The question is "should they do it" because it is within their power?
And if they do, is it self serving, or does it actually satisfy their vision of "Policing for a safer Australia?"
The AFP states: "We value fairness, trust, respect, accountability, integrity, commitment and excellence, in service of the community and for each other." Maybe they just do not value it too highly.
 
rederob said:
They are exercising their powers.
This is like the Queensland Police exercising their power to prosecute a Sergeant who released video of innocent people being beaten in a paddy wagon.
The question is "should they do it" because it is within their power?
And if they do, is it self serving, or does it actually satisfy their vision of "Policing for a safer Australia?"
The AFP states: "We value fairness, trust, respect, accountability, integrity, commitment and excellence, in service of the community and for each other." Maybe they just do not value it too highly.
Click to expand...
As we say everyone has an opinion, what someone finds unacceptable, another person could see as fair and just.
I've seen a police officer get a kick in the head from behind on t.v, he was left in a wheel chair, there is plenty of people who said he deserved it. The case went to court for years.
Nobody values the police, until they need them.
 
Top