Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

ABC is Political

Jump to new
Logique2 said:
The ABC Chair was appointed by a Coalition government. She must have been a good girl in a past life.
Nice bit of retirement superannuation. Easy money, as everyone knows the staff collectorate runs the place.

She came out of private enterprise. From which she'd long have been sacked by now -on performance basis to the ABC Charter.

$1.1Billion p.a -paid by taxpayers to the ABC, just fyi Ita. By taxpayers Ita.

Ita Idle.
"quango
a semi-public administrative body outside the civil service but receiving financial support from the government, which makes senior appointments to it.
Definitions from Oxford Languages"
Click to expand...
And one government organisation that refuses to open there books to any one
 
mullokintyre said:
The ABC is not having a good time of late.
They have had a few problems with some shoddy reporting, but now a slightly bigger problem has been uncovered.
From Veteran Support Forum


By far the biggest problem for the ABC comes from one of the November platoon members who appears in a You tube video
November platoon did not arrive in Afghanistan until mid July, and did not even commence operations until mid August of 2012.
Records show that November Platoon did not commence operations in the province where the murder was supposed to have taken place until November 2012, some two months later.
The really galling part about al of this is that neither the ABC or its reporters contacted any of the November platoon members.
And in what is even more galling, is that the defence department nor veterans affairs had contacted any of the platoons members up to the time the video was made.
I marched against the Vietnam war when at Uni, much to my parents horror.
I was eligible for the Vietnam era conscription, but did not get called up.
Some of my friends did.
The way they were treated when they returned mad me feel ashamed, not for marching against the war, but for the way they were discarded and abandoned and were made scapegoats for a disastrous war when they had little or no choice in the matter.
At least in the next fruitless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there were no conscripts.
It seems that times have not changed much.
Mick
Click to expand...
The ABC has had it in for the ADF for sometime.
Another piece having a crack at them has caused so much fury that thee hierarchy have been forced to make an apology.
In an article about two former ADF soldiers getting awarded the USm edal the Silver Start for their heroics in Vietnam, it finished with the words
that there had finally been ‘recognition of brave deeds performed by two Aussies for their American masters’.
Click to expand...
This peice of "analysis" adds nothingto the story of the mens bravery, and merely highlights the idealogical bastardry that drives the ABC.
Not surprisingly, there was sufficient backlash to force them to remove the offending words from the original article and to issue the apology.

From ABC Correctionsthe
News: On 14 December, ABC News presented a story about two Australian soldiers who had been awarded military honours by the United States for exceptional valour in combat. The story closed with an observation that there had finally been ‘recognition of brave deeds performed by two Aussies for their American masters’. ABC News regrets this choice of words and acknowledges it has caused offence. Australians fought alongside Americans as allies in the Vietnam War.
Click to expand...
By the way, how many people knew there was an ABC corrections page ?
Makes interesting reading.
Mick
 
mullokintyre said:
The ABC has had it in for the ADF for sometime.
Another piece having a crack at them has caused so much fury that thee hierarchy have been forced to make an apology.
In an article about two former ADF soldiers getting awarded the USm edal the Silver Start for their heroics in Vietnam, it finished with the words

This peice of "analysis" adds nothingto the story of the mens bravery, and merely highlights the idealogical bastardry that drives the ABC.
Not surprisingly, there was sufficient backlash to force them to remove the offending words from the original article and to issue the apology.

From ABC Correctionsthe

By the way, how many people knew there was an ABC corrections page ?
Makes interesting reading.
Mick
Click to expand...
IMO, these days the ABC may as well be funded by the South China Post, they certainly project a disparaging and derogatory opinion of Australia, while they rake in their excellent salaries off the back of Australia's taxpayers.
AS with most Australian media they always present Australia with a cup half empty outlook, it is only a matter of time before the Australian media goes the way of the dinosaur, most people I talk to avoid the media opinion pieces like the plague.
Anyone who actively followed Ross Gittins opinion pieces in the SMH, over the last 10 years, would be on suicide watch it is always doom and gloom. ? I have always wondered if he actually invests at all.
 
Interesting headline, it is the Australian so they do have an anti ABC bias, but it does bring up an interesting issue IMO. I've never watched Q&A so it would be interesting to hear what ASF members thought of the episode mentioned. Did Stan Grant do the right thing getting rid of an audience member, was the person in the audience being billigerent, or was Stan stifling debate?

Q+A records worst-ever ratings since it began in 2008​

The ABC’s political chatfest program has tanked in the ratings and comes just one week after host Stan Grant booted a pro-Russian audience member while live on air.
 
sptrawler said:
Interesting headline, it is the Australian so they do have an anti ABC bias, but it does bring up an interesting issue IMO. I've never watched Q&A so it would be interesting to hear what ASF members thought of the episode mentioned. Did Stan Grant do the right thing getting rid of an audience member, was the person in the audience being billigerent, or was Stan stifling debate?

Q+A records worst-ever ratings since it began in 2008​

The ABC’s political chatfest program has tanked in the ratings and comes just one week after host Stan Grant booted a pro-Russian audience member while live on air.
Click to expand...
They should axe it. The only people who would miss it would be the editors of The Australian who are also their most loyal viewers.
 
sptrawler said:
Interesting headline, it is the Australian so they do have an anti ABC bias, but it does bring up an interesting issue IMO. I've never watched Q&A so it would be interesting to hear what ASF members thought of the episode mentioned. Did Stan Grant do the right thing getting rid of an audience member, was the person in the audience being billigerent, or was Stan stifling debate?

Q+A records worst-ever ratings since it began in 2008​

The ABC’s political chatfest program has tanked in the ratings and comes just one week after host Stan Grant booted a pro-Russian audience member while live on air.
Click to expand...
No he did the wrong thing, absolutely.

The program is q&A not Stan's (or the ABC) echo chamber. All views should be able to be debated in a liberal democracy, unless discussing something absolutely unlawful (say promoting pedophilia or something equally henious) or incitement to something unlawful.

Grant was being absolutely self-indulgent and I believe should actually be terminated from hosting the show (not that anyone would notice)
 
Q&A used to be a good show. I still think they have got the time wrong. People are over politics by Thursday and are waiting for the weekend.

I keep forgetting that the show is on.

Sad to say but the topic of Ukraine is irrelevant to most Australians as there is nothing we can do about it.

Concentrating on mainstream issues like health, education etc might bring back the viewers.
 
Anybody who his has participated in a school debate or any debating society know that you are often given a point of view which may be contrary to your own... Yet you are required to argue that point-of-view.

That level of maturity which we require from our schoolchildren, is now absolutely missing in the adult world. Adults are no longer willing to tolerate any of you contrary to their own... and that is absolutely puerile in my opinion.

That's how I see Stan in the example above, absolutely infantile in being unable to accept another point of view to his own.

That is a very bad omen for our society and in my opinion marks its end days.

To be replaced by watch, I do not know, but it cannot be good.
 
wayneL said:
Anybody who his has participated in a school debate or any debating society know that you are often given a point of view which may be contrary to your own... Yet you are required to argue that point-of-view.

That level of maturity which we require from our schoolchildren, is now absolutely missing in the adult world. Adults are no longer willing to tolerate any of you contrary to their own... and that is absolutely puerile in my opinion.

That's how I see Stan in the example above, absolutely infantile in being unable to accept another point of view to his own.

That is a very bad omen for our society and in my opinion marks its end days.

To be replaced by watch, I do not know, but it cannot be good.
Click to expand...

Agreed to a point, but

Do we have to put up with justification of unprovoked invasion of another country and shelling of civilians ?

Maybe some things are just unacceptable even in a 'free' society.
 
SirRumpole said:
Agreed to a point, but

Do we have to put up with justification of unprovoked invasion of another country and shelling of civilians ?

Maybe some things are just unacceptable even in a 'free' society.
Click to expand...
What it gives us the opportunity to do, if they are truly wrong, is two debate strongly against them. Otherwise such views exist and fester underground never having been argued against.

The last we need is little echo chambers of extremists which may grow in strength under the cover of censorship.

Additionally who decides which views are unacceptable and on what basis?
 
wayneL said:
What it gives us the opportunity to do, if they are truly wrong, is two debate strongly against them. Otherwise such views exist and fester underground never having been argued against.

The last we need is little echo chambers of extremists which may grow in strength under the cover of censorship.

Additionally who decides which views are unacceptable and on what basis?
Click to expand...

OK, I'll take that.

I didn't see the show so I don't know if the person was being objectionable, eg shouting over people or being aggressive , but if they just asked a question and listened politely to the answer then that's fair enough.
 
SirRumpole said:
Shouldn't have been thrown out. I think he's wrong but he seemed reasonably polite.
Click to expand...

Without commenting on this incident, I can certainly recall various QA left wing guests advocating violence and they most definitely, were not asked to leave.

In fact, they were allowed to speak at length while the audience applauded

Rather obvious bias by the ABC IMO
 
SirRumpole said:
Shouldn't have been thrown out. I think he's wrong but he seemed reasonably polite.
Click to expand...
As you say, he really did ask a reasonable question, there should have been a short discussion on his claims, as to the veracity.
It is unfair to just say that he is advocating violence, it appeared he was asking a question Stan couldn't answer, so he was ejected.
As you say Rumpy you don't have to agree with his opinion, that was just straight censorship.
 
sptrawler said:
As you say, he really did ask a reasonable question, there should have been a short discussion on his claims, as to the veracity.
It is unfair to just say that he is advocating violence, it appeared he was asking a question Stan couldn't answer, so he was ejected.
As you say Rumpy you don't have to agree with his opinion, that was just straight censorship.
Click to expand...
Sacha condoned the invasion of a sovereign nation when he said "... there are a lot of Russians here and around the world that support what Putin is doing in the Ukraine, myself included".
In making that statement he condoned Putin's undeniable war in Ukraine that has exposed targeting of civilian infrastructure that has led to hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries amongst innocents.
His statement was not a necessary preamble to the question he eventually asked, and which was based on knowingly false numbers.
Here's an example of what Sacha supports:
 
rederob said:
Sacha condoned the invasion of a sovereign nation when he said "... there are a lot of Russians here and around the world that support what Putin is doing in the Ukraine, myself included".
In making that statement he condoned Putin's undeniable war in Ukraine that has exposed targeting of civilian infrastructure that has led to hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries amongst innocents.
His statement was not a necessary preamble to the question he eventually asked, and which was based on knowingly false numbers.
Here's an example of what Sacha supports:
Click to expand...

Oh dear. And we've already covered this arguement above.

If we disagree with the gentleman's opinion then we can make a strong arguement against it, as you have indeed done.

That is still not a reason for actually silencing and ejecting the person from the audience.

Indeed, we in the West have our own history of invading sovereign countries, often for spurious reasons. I don't recall anyone being silenced, or ejected from audiences for having contrary opinions on that.
 
rederob said:
Sacha condoned the invasion of a sovereign nation when he said "... there are a lot of Russians here and around the world that support what Putin is doing in the Ukraine, myself included".
In making that statement he condoned Putin's undeniable war in Ukraine that has exposed targeting of civilian infrastructure that has led to hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries amongst innocents.
His statement was not a necessary preamble to the question he eventually asked, and which was based on knowingly false numbers.
Here's an example of what Sacha supports:
Click to expand...

No one is disputing the fact that Putin and Russia invading the Ukraine is wrong, but enlightening the audience as to some history behind it doesnt seem unreasonable, ejecting the person just seemed clumsy and non inclusive. Also as everyone knows, we are nothing if not inclusive.
It is becoming more and more obvious, we are inclusive as long as you agree with the narrative.
 
wayneL said:
Oh dear. And we've already covered this arguement above.

If we disagree with the gentleman's opinion then we can make a strong arguement against it, as you have indeed done.

That is still not a reason for actually silencing and ejecting the person from the audience.

Indeed, we in the West have our own history of invading sovereign countries, often for spurious reasons. I don't recall anyone being silenced, or ejected from audiences for having contrary opinions on that.
Click to expand...
In these debates there is a determination of equivalence that can be made.
That point was also made by panel members.
Sacha effectively said he supports violence and indiscriminate killing.
The equivalence is him equally supporting the invasion of Poland and killing of Jews.
Or hypothetically the views on Nameless Person who advocates killing babies: that's the logical equivalence in application.
In case you did not know we have laws against advocating violence and Sacha came very close to breaching them on national television.
Sacha had a valid question but an invalid preamble to it which I personally would have cut off before he even got to his question.
Unfortunately Stan was a bit late in what he did as the damage was done.
But the real problem here is that this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with morality, logic and laws.
 
Top