Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

ABC is Political

Jump to new
sails said:
Joe, can I suggest the off-topic posts in the last 24 hours or so be removed from this thread? At least twice I posted a poll on the bias of the ABC which got completely swamped in the verbal gunshots. The argument had nothing to do with the ABC - might have started off that way but ended up nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

I will review the thread a little later this evening and tidy it up a little.
 
sails said:
EDIT - Joe, if posts are removed from here and you don't want them deleted, one suggestion is to shift them to the "carbon tax lie" thread" - just a suggestion but these comments don't belong in this thread, imo.
Click to expand...

While I think this is a good idea, and I pondered creating a thread about opinions and facts, can I ask that any thread be given a neutral name? i.e. "Carbon Tax". If someone is complaining about the ABC not including "No" in a survey about work choices, I fail to see how adding yet another loaded thread title helps. It has no bearing on the validity of it being a lie, type of lie, whatever, and that can be discussed accordingly. But I for one would like to see more neutral names in most threads.
 
There was an article in todays Sydney Telegraph about this.

Very interesting.
 
Julia said:
Apart from some of the ABC journalists themselves, I don't think there would be too many people who didn't agree that there is clear Left bias in some ABC programs. Just as there is a clear Right bias in "The Australian".
Why there is so much resentment directed toward the ABC in this respect is probably because it's a taxpayer funded organisation and charged with the responsibility of providing balanced commentary.
Click to expand...

What did you think about the observation that there were more identified with the intention of voting ALP at news limited than the ABC. Given that the assertion that was being made was that voting intention is correlated with left wing bias in the ABC, how would you reconcile that with a greater result in "The Australian"/news limited with a clear right bias?
 
Some Dude said:
What did you think about the observation that there were more identified with the intention of voting ALP at news limited than the ABC. Given that the assertion that was being made was that voting intention is correlated with left wing bias in the ABC, how would you reconcile that with a greater result in "The Australian"/news limited with a clear right bias?
Click to expand...

I think journalists have a good sense of humour and saw that poll as an opportunity.
 
Some Dude said:
What did you think about the observation that there were more identified with the intention of voting ALP at news limited than the ABC. Given that the assertion that was being made was that voting intention is correlated with left wing bias in the ABC, how would you reconcile that with a greater result in "The Australian"/news limited with a clear right bias?
Click to expand...

It's more of a leftist bias than a bias for any political party per se. The ABC institutionally is to the left of the ALP on most social issues (gay marriage, abortion, refugees etc.). They are considerably more balanced when it comes to economic issues.
 
banco said:
It's more of a leftist bias than a bias for any political party per se. The ABC institutionally is to the left of the ALP on most social issues (gay marriage, abortion, refugees etc.). They are considerably more balanced when it comes to economic issues.
Click to expand...

Where on the bias scale would you rate News Ltd with regard to gay marriage and abortion?
 
Some Dude said:
Where on the bias scale would you rate News Ltd with regard to gay marriage and abortion?
Click to expand...

I don't think they take strong stands on either of those issues. The Australian is more concerned with economics. But then they aren't taxpayer funded so it's irrelevant.
 
banco said:
I don't think they take strong stands on either of those issues. The Australian is more concerned with economics. But then they aren't taxpayer funded so it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Your thoughts on the following concept?

"A person with substantially right/left wing bias in their world view will potentially identify centre or neutral positions as right/left wing biased positions without necessarily being aware that they are judging said position relative to their own"
 
Some Dude said:
Your thoughts on the following concept?

"A person with substantially right/left wing bias in their world view will potentially identify centre or neutral positions as right/left wing biased positions without necessarily being aware that they are judging said position relative to their own"
Click to expand...

You've got me. The ABC is actually middle of the road and I can't see it because I'm an Andrew Bolt clone.
 
A hypothetical.

If someone (partly) disagrees with an accepted mindset about the ABC and said bias, and they don't think that those who disagree with them are Andrew Bolt clone's, how would you approach that discussion with the perspective of trying to ascertain how people reach their conclusions about said bias?
 
OK, I have reviewed the thread and don't feel that the exchange that occurred last night was as bad as some people think. I only saw one post that I felt was deserving of being removed. The rest of the conversation was just two groups of people talking past each other who simply couldn't "agree to disagree". Most of the posts that were removed were posted tonight, and the reason they were removed is because they were off topic and getting far too personal.

Trouble starts when people stop debating a topic and start hurling accusations at one another. Tonight someone tried to bring up something that had been posted in another thread some time ago in an attempt to bait someone else. This was removed as it served no purpose other than to provoke. This is the sort of stuff that drags threads off topic and starts slanging matches.

There is a case for moving some posts to a carbon tax thread but there is also a case for leaving them right where they are, as the debate was focused on bias in the media. The only posts that jump out at me as needing to be moved are the ones that deal with moderation here at ASF, and I will find an alternate home for them and move them across to another thread shortly.

Folks, please resist the temptation to make the debate personal. This is where things always begin to go wrong and threads turn nasty. Debate the topic all night long, but do not start attacking each other. If you feel no progress it being made and you can't find any common ground, please consider just walking away from the debate. Sometimes people are just not going to agree, and that is not unusual when it comes to political discussions. State your case, make your rebuttals, and if you find yourself going around in circles again and again just walk away or shift your focus to another thread where the discussion/debate is more constructive.

Now, let's get this thread back on topic. I sincerely hope that the debate can now move forward in a civil and constructive way. Would anyone care to kick things off again?
 
I would like to start with a question.

People often refer to what they believe is obvious ABC bias. How do people determine this?

We will all be able to point to instances and say that is biased but I think the real question is how do we determine whether what we notice is indicative of systemtic bias with an outlet like the ABC, situational and not indicative of a wider bias, whether it is something within ourselves that we are projecting from disagreement, or whether we hold views that are so biased in comparison to the rest of the community that an outlet providing a balanced position appears biased. I believe that everyone is subject to these, the only difference between people is whether they are aware of them and do they seek to mitigate them.

I believe that all outlets have bias and that further, it is inevitable. At best, it can be minimised but no outlet will ever be unbiased. As such, on the whole, I think the ABC does a pretty amazing job. My opinion is developed from available studies, finding myself agreeing and disagreeing with stories, a genuine complaints process, and studies or reports that indicate that the ABC is biased to the ALP, to the Coalition, and relatively neutral. It appears to me that no side has a slam dunk case to say that the ABC is biased one way or the other in a systemic manner.

How do you develop your perspective about whether the ABC is biased or not?
 
You have to give credit to the ABC, they make no attempt to conceal their left wing bias...they openly flaunt it'.


THE ABC has named senior Fairfax journalist Russell Skelton as the editor of its new fact checking unit ... head of current affairs Bruce Belsham (said) "The ABC news division is delighted to attract to this position a journalist with Russell's reputation for accuracy and integrity."*

Is that a fact? Skelton tweets, May 15:

YES there really (i)s a 97 per cent scientific consensus on global warming.

Let's check. William Jasper, The New American, May 21:

THE actual number of studies ... that can be said to endorse the position that human activity is responsible for most of the experienced global warming is - get ready for this (drum roll ) - sixty-five. Yes, 65, or around half a per cent, not 97 per cent! And this minuscule number of strong endorsers is actually less than the number of sceptical scientific papers included in the (John) Cook study.(MY bolds)
Click to expand...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...n-checking-facts/story-fn72xczz-1226648713068
 
Calliope said:
You have to give credit to the ABC, they make no attempt to conceal their left wing bias...they openly flaunt it'.
Click to expand...

Since when has a scientific position, and the analysis of said position regardless of perspective about the veracity of the analysis referred to, been a left or right wing bias issue?
 
 
Funnily enough, all the sources have only inferred they attacker was Muslim, including the ABC. None have expressly identified them as such, probably because they don't know if they were sane. Kind of like the guy in Canada a few years ago who beheaded the guy next to him on a bus because "God" told him to. Obviously he was a lunatic and it had nothing to do with him being Christian.
 
A classic example of this thread today , most other news sites are reporting the arrival of another 3 boats in the last 24hrs carrying 208 asylum seekers. But alas no such reports can be found anywhere on the ABC News website.
Instead they choose to run the stories of how Gillard is intervening in live betting odds and other Labor feelgood stories about ideas they have for Aboriginal referendums.
 
Ijustnewit said:
A classic example of this thread today , most other news sites are reporting the arrival of another 3 boats in the last 24hrs carrying 208 asylum seekers. But alas no such reports can be found anywhere on the ABC News website.
Instead they choose to run the stories of how Gillard is intervening in live betting odds and other Labor feelgood stories about ideas they have for Aboriginal referendums.
Click to expand...

Goto the Australian section of Google news which draws it's news from most news outlets and tell me how many you find.

Hint... 0...
 
Top