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
sails said:
Even if the other media isn't reporting it, the ABC should. They are supposed to represent ALL Australians.
Click to expand...

So why not point to the media in general instead of just one element if you believe that wider coverage should have been given. I'd suggest that the expectation of coverage is the issue in much the same way that people are asking why so much coverage is being given to the girl at the sports game in another thread.

Representing ALL Australians doesn't mean just those who want to see wall to wall coverage on this particular issue.
 

Yes it would be nice to have a news channel. Not just channels that put their own bent on news.

It's a bit like the guy who used to be on spicks and specks, Adam Hills, he's supposed to be a commedian.

The problem is, you know he is going to get political, so it is hard to focus on the comedy. You're waiting for the political presentation to start.
 
sptrawler said:
Yes it would be nice to have a news channel. Not just channels that put their own bent on news.
Click to expand...

Heh.. I really hear you there. I often listen/read/whatever the news and walk away sighing, only to come on places like here where most people are ranting about the left/right/whatever bias on the news and I am left wondering whether we are all consuming the same news or not.

Just keeps me wondering about that old perception chestnut.
 

Yes it's a bit like listening to the early morning news on the radio.
It starts at 6am with hundreds killed in mass pile up.
Then at 7am it is a serious accident that may involve fatalities.
Then at 8am it is a broken down truck on the freeway causing a traffic holdup.
Thankfully it in the majority of cases it turns out to be a non event.

My wife is the ultimate cynic of the 'news' she always storms off ranting "it is garbage".
 
Talk about political, get your head around this.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/in-t...s-tell-true-deficit-story-20130524-2k70m.html
Three things I would say is:
1. It is the responsibility of the encumbered government to adjust tax requirements to reflect budget constraints.
2. After six years, to still say the government hasn't adjusted the tax base and it's the previous governments problem, is dumb.
3. Apparently they don't include the stimulus throw away spending as part of the government debt, I'm sure I read that it is annexed and not included.
 
sptrawler said:
Talk about political, get your head around this.
Click to expand...

Setting aside for the moment whether we agree or not (mixed bag) about the contents, when you indicate that this article is political, are you saying that it is propaganda, biased, or something else? I'm trying to understand the difference between you thinking he is wrong or incompetent, and "political" which seems to have a subtext.
 
The whole thrust of the article, IMO, is to lay the blame for the state of the economy at the feet of Costello and his tax cuts.
It is a governments responsibility, to collect the taxes required to supply the serevices required. If it takes more tax reciepts than it spends it runs a surplus, if there are no obvious infrastructure or social issues that require extra funding.
Then it is the governments responsibilty to to reduce the tax it takes, not just spend it because it can.
If the previous government had continued to just build bigger and bigger surpluses all sectors would be screaming and rightly so.
Therein lies the difference, this government has not changed its attitude to reflect the budgetry situation it continually found itself in. In fact it still hasn't, it is still splashing it round, yet Gittens would have us believe the current team have just had bad luck.
I'm afraid I can't subscribe to that belief and to my way of thinking shows Gittens either has a political adjenda or has a weird reporting style.
 
sptrawler said:
I'm afraid I can't subscribe to that belief and to my way of thinking shows Gittens either has a political adjenda or has a weird reporting style.
Click to expand...

I think this is a very sensible and simple (not in the bad way) dichotomy of ways to represent potential groups for those who disgaree/dislike/<insert whatever> what Ross Gittens wrote.

Using that as a context i.e. I'm not going to argue the validity or not of what he is saying, do you have any suggestions for how we could ascertain which was more likely?
 

It isn't that important, just a personal observation, even Ross can have a bad day. Somewhat like the atrocious spelling in my post.lol I must appologise, this morning wasn't great in my household.

Anyway back to the ABC.
 
Have a look at Lateline Emma Alberici interviewing Conroy about the gambling ads during sport issue

Conroy said "massively reduced" that many times I lost count, he's a complete idiot.

He hasn't changed anything much and just would not shut up repetitive BS it was just pathetic.
 
sptrawler said:
It isn't that important, just a personal observation, even Ross can have a bad day. Somewhat like the atrocious spelling in my post.lol I must appologise, this morning wasn't great in my household.

Anyway back to the ABC.
Click to expand...

No problem, thanks for the exchange
 
With tremors again emanating from the grave of Kevin Rudd's prime-ministerial corpse, I suspect the ABC's Insiders will be more upbeat tomorrow.

This time the epicentre isn't Simon Crean banging the headstone with a shovel hoping for a response from below. This is from deep within in response to the heat from above as the surface burns.
 

Yes, I thought this morning's show was interesting from the Rudd/Gillard perspective. Cassidy had two Ruddites from the SMH and a Gillardite from Guardian Australia. So the show departed from the usual Gillard/Abbott theme.

Cassidy who is a Labor "insider," is confident that Rudd will lead Labor into the election, but for a smooth takeover, Gillard will have to step aside.

In the Party it is now every man for himself and many think Rudd could save their seats. They are all begging him to campaign in their seats, and to be seen with his adoring supporters.
 
Even Christopher Pyne's little slip up over the ABC's 7:30 Kevin Rudd interview didn't rate a mention.

The battle within is obviously more entertaining than the battle across the usual political trenches.
 
Gillard calls for Brough's head over sexist menu
Click to expand...

The ABC has had this front and centre on their web site all day, forget about the abortion diatribe Gillard comes out with forget about the drowned women and children asylum seekers, lets devote the whole web site to a bit of rubbish put together by a non party member.........these bastards need sorting out.
 
From the Andrew Bolt Blog:


Never mind the facts. How the ABC put Tony Abbott on the menu
Andrew Bolt June 14 2013 (7:42am)
Media

Why did the ABC not let the facts get in the way of a good anti-Abbott smear?

Restaurant owner Joe Richards revealed before 7pm on Wednesday that Labor’s claims about the sexist menu “on display” at a Liberal fundraiser held by Mal Brough were false:

There were never any menus distributed on the tables or in the restaurant. I created a mock menu myself as a light-hearted joke. However as I said, I never produced them for public distribution...I can assure you that no such menu was distributed on the night. As you know, no-one at the dinner was privy to such a menu and it is so unfortunate that an in-house joke between myself and my son has caused you great problems and embarrassment.

End of story.

Labor was wrong to say the menu was ”on display” at fundraiser, wrong to say it gave guest of honor Joe Hockey ”belly laughs”, wrong to say Brough admitted he’d ”seen” it. And wrong to suggest any like with Tony Abbott.

This story was dead. It had ceased to be. There was nothing left to it but a rude restaurateur and another example of a desperate prime minister desperately smearing.
But observe how the ABC wouldn’t let the truth stop it from pushing along Gillard’s smear:

While other media outlets chose to report that restaurant owner Joe Richards had mocked-up the menu himself, and that it was seen only by him and his son, the ABC’s Leigh Sales still led her introduction to 7.30 with the “shocking sexist misstep by a prominent Coalition MP”.

This was despite the 7pm bulletin containing a reference to the new confession at the end of its first item as the news broke.

Journalist Chris Uhlmann corrected the record 13 minutes into his pre-recorded 7.30 package with a single line before producers continued with a panel segment involving The Australian columnist Janet Albrechtsen and prominent publisher Mia Freedman discussing the issue as if the new revelations had never been made…

Sales told her guests about it shortly before the [pre-recorded] segment finished filming.

“We’ve just received word . . . that the owner of the restaurant that was involved in the menu issue has put out a statement saying that it was a mock menu that he made and that it wasn’t distributed on the night at the fundraiser and that it was unfortunate that it ended up going public,” she said.

“Janet, does that change things?”

Hours later, Lateline’s Emma Alberici also led the program with the old story.

“An obscene description of the Prime Minister’s body on a menu at a Liberal Party fundraiser has further fuelled the so-called gender wars,” she opened. Halfway through the report, political correspondent Tom Iggulden used the new information to segue back into the pre-set piece about the menu being a Coalition problem…

But it was persistent and misleading tweets from the ABC’s Latika Bourke which contributed to confusion about the timeline.

She initially tweeted on Wednesday “the offensive Liberal menu is real” after talking to Mal Brough but he told The Australian she did not accurately portray what he had told her.

He said he told her he was aware of the existence of the menu because Joe Hockey’s office had phoned him about 9am Wednesday - after news broke online...

The ABC should explain this appalling performance.

And Julia Gillard should explain why she’s still making false claims to appear the victim of Liberal sexism. This is the real story:

LABOR’S two-day gender offensive against Tony Abbott continued to unravel yesterday as supporters of Julia Gillard failed to produce any evidence to back claims a derogatory menu had been distributed at a Liberal National Party fundraiser.

As the man who first alerted the world to the existence of the menu - a disgruntled former worker at Brisbane’s R&R Cafe - admitted he had no firsthand knowledge it ever left the kitchen, the emergence of a second worker who claimed it had been widely seen at the LNP dinner in March appeared to be a hoax.
 
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...