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
Whiskers said:
So to clarify apolitical... are you suggesting that the abc should be not involved or interested in politics to avoid the political bias you fret about?

... or that they should be politically neutral; without political attitudes, content, or bias?
Click to expand...

Perhaps apolitical was a poor word choice, politically neutral would be better. But that does not mean there should be no political content, that's ridiculous and I think you're building a straw man there. Rather, that political news should be reported, giving equal opportunity to fairly represent each party's point of view. The left seems to think it is possible with gender, why not ideology?


I agree bias is inherent, but I think it is ludicrous that journo's cannot set aside most of that bias in their reportage... equally ludicrous and a very long bow the contention that an unbiased opinion is valueless and inadmissable. Proper analysis will always contain the minimum of bias.

So, does it not get back to the notion of playing the ball rather than the person. That under-arm incident, that kiwi batsman's error in paying too much attention to the bowler, than watching the ball and doing what you need to do with the ball.
Click to expand...

? Poor analogy, because your point is nebulous.
 

Just a 50/50 balanced view would be appreciated.
I haven't watched the ABC, due to their obvious political bias, for years.
As Miss Hale says, that shouldn't be the case, we all pay for it through our taxes.
Therefore it should attempt to be unbiased, if it can't, sadly it will lead to its demise.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
My contacts at a high level in Government tell me that the ABC is a dead parrot.


gg
Click to expand...

Whether you are ALP or LNP Coalition, you must agree that the ABC is controlled by fey appartchiks and hairly legged feminists.

These left of ALP muppets are not representitive of the Australian population and need to be retired.

A good example is the refusal of management to grant Leigh Sales the governship of the recent election coverage, rather using a resurrected Whitlam era Red Kerry to lead a biased programme.

Let us have a clean broom through the ABC, our broadcaster, not that of green scratchie ideologues.

gg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GG,I am certain Abbott will be doing lots of ethnic cleansing of the ABC in the next few weeks.

It is most likely to be lower down the list of priorities.
 
wayneL said:
Perhaps apolitical was a poor word choice,
Click to expand...

I thought so too... but...

politically neutral would be better. But that does not mean there should be no political content, that's ridiculous and
Click to expand...

Agree in theory.

I think you're building a straw man there.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong for the same reason you saw 'apolitical' was a poor choice. You have tended to generalise to counter with a superficially similar but strictly different meaning.

Rather, that political news should be reported, giving equal opportunity to fairly represent each party's point of view. The left seems to think it is possible with gender, why not ideology? I agree bias is inherent, but
Click to expand...

Agree in theory, or rather philosophy again... because theoretically it depends how 'equal opportunity' and 'fairly' is applied... because it requires more subjective measures upon inherent biases. Just like poll results, the perception of their bias by a wider sample will change from week to week. How often do you sack people and replace them with another? What criteria do you use to repopulate the abc?

It'll become as slippery as the proverbial butchers d!@k once you start trying to carve it up.

I think it is ludicrous that journo's cannot set aside most of that bias in their reportage...
Click to expand...

This is getting away from the strict (albeit a bit sarcastic) point of my original critique, but again I don't disagree here.

equally ludicrous and a very long bow the contention that an unbiased opinion is valueless and inadmissable.
Click to expand...

Think about this a bit more... doesn't 'únbiased' mean, having no bias... by definition mean not having an opinion. So if your opinion is that you have no 'opinion', by definition is valueless and follows if it has no value it's inadmissible... think in terms of law or scientific research.

Proper analysis will always contain the minimum of bias.
Click to expand...

For the strictly technical and sarcastic point I originally said "I could say I'm a bit bemused at this thread discussion... but I'm not!" a minimum of bias is still not unbiased, non political or apolitical.

? Poor analogy, because your point is nebulous.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, as you partly acknowledged and I emphatically insist, : it was your idea that was unclear, vague, or ill-defined. Just like one is either pregnant or not pregnant, there is no in-between, everyone has inherent bias , no just a little pregnant.

But I think I've established I understand and agree with the sentiment of the thread, but for the purely strict technical argument of my sarcastic point, it demonstrates how our inherent bias allows us to rashly label or perceive things, not necessarily strictly correctly.
 
Just two points, as the rest of your post Ruddesque waffle, unworthy of a response.


No, absolutely not. Evidence the politicized and parlous state of climate science. In journalism there is reportage and opinion pieces. In most media, the difference is somehow delineated; Op-Eds and blogs are expected to contain a bias and are clearly identified by the Author's person. Reportage is different, look at the way the ABC has been reporting the Indonesia diplomacy, clearly designed to damage the government.

It is putrid and wrong on several levels.


So what you are saying here in a convoluted and typically nebulous way, is that you don't believe the ABC is biased?

Haven't you just contradicted yourself?
 

Hey... enough of the playing the person! You've lost sight of the ball. This is the same hypocritical intolerance you are complaining of about the abc.

Didn't you start bowling off line when you claimed I, but it was actually you who, started introducing straw man arguments! You have lost sight or got blurred vision again, introducing another similar but different term, reportage. But reportage, the act or process of reporting news, is also doomed to bias and opinion.

So what you are saying here in a convoluted and typically nebulous way,
Click to expand...

Asked and answered previously!

Move on councillor!

:

is that you don't believe the ABC is biased?
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I agreed it was biased. I've also gone to length to explain that by virtue that it involves human opinion and or judgement it is, and you agreed, it is inherently biased.

Haven't you just contradicted yourself?
Click to expand...

No! As outlined again, your comments attest to your asserting something different to deny the truth.
--------------
Judgement
The abc is, argued and accepted by all parties to be, biased. The Court (of public opinion) agrees.

Orders
Judge: So what the hell do you want the Court to do about it? What do you propose to do with the abc to control the damn [old kiwi saying] slippery as a butchers pr!ck, bias!?

Submissions
Judge: The applicant seems to be advocating more balanced reporting... balanced? Whom is it unbalanced toward?
The applicant: Labor!
The defendant: Labor!
Judge: Who do you want it more biased toward?
Applicant: We want it to be fair... more Big L Liberal!
defendant: Hell I don't know sir! I just play the ball sir (watch the programs I like eg Landline, The Business) and let the wide ones go by to the keeper.
Cries from the gallery: more to the Greens
Cries from the gallery: THE SEX PARTY
Cries from the gallery: The motoring enthusiasts party!
Cries from the gallery: Rupert Murdock!

Judge: ORDER, ORDER!
Judge: How do you propose to measure how much bias the abc should have to everyone?
Applicant: Just let Rupert Murdock run it, he'll gloat that he's a capitalist pig and nobody will be able to complain that he's pretending to not be biased!
Judge: Huh!
Defendant: Don't look at me your honour, I'm not touching that damn (old kiwi saying) thing. :disgust:
Judge: Well if it should represent the public fairly, it should represent each political party equally, in each state broadcast area, right? ... or was that the number of seats they won at last election?... maybe the votes they won?... maybe the national average of the parties?... votes?... or seats won?...

So who is going to nominate a formula that will decide what is fair and unbiased to everyone!?

Thinking, thinking...

Sometimes you just have to be very careful what you wish for. When you look at the individual party or population counts, Labor is often the highest count in it's own right anyway. Could it be that the abc is biased to Labor at least partly because the majority of the population is predisposed to Labor and its close allies philosophically?
 

Attachments

  • 2013 Election results.JPG
    72 KB · Views: 13
  • Senate results 2013.JPG
    46.2 KB · Views: 77
  • Senate seats 2013.JPG
    40.3 KB · Views: 12
Ad hom? Where are these purported straw-man arguments of mine then?

....and try to keep answers succinct, if you recall, the last waffler was voted off the island.
 
wayneL said:
Ad hom? Where are these purported straw-man arguments of mine then?

....and try to keep answers succinct, if you recall, the last waffler was voted off the island.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a threat of prohibition...

“Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.”
― Abraham Lincoln

“Prohibition is the trigger of crime.”
― Ian Fleming

Again you chose a new word to deflect the issue!

Older and wiser heads, even if they are dead, have long had the simple answer to that... and history is the Judge!
 

Sounds like non-sequitur. The observation that the second last of the great wafflers was unceremoniously kicked out of office, contains to inference of any 'prohibition' here.

I remind you that the particular waffler in question was deposed via the democratic process, not via autocratic action, so please desist with the histrionics.

Right, that is out of the way, now could you please answer my question as to my purported straw-man argument, rather than indulging in an amateur attempt at intellectual subterfuge.
 

If you understood that "democratic process" is also a bias, arguably for popularity or at least better representation of the populous opinion, but a bias none the less, you would likely see your straw man.
 
Whiskers said:
If you understood that "democratic process" is also a bias, arguably for popularity or at least better representation of the populous opinion, but a bias none the less, you would likely see your straw man.
Click to expand...

Spucatum tauri! That is as fallacious an argument as I've ever seen and nothing whatever to do with a Straw man argument.

The democratic process is what it is, and not connected to public broadcasting. The Overarching point in this thread is that a public broadcaster should not seek to influence the democratic process, merely equip people with the information needed to make their own decision.

Influence should be left to (oh so transparent) commercial and ideological interests such as News.com, Get up, The Fabian society, et al.
 
This is looking like a couple of people have little else to do on a Saturday afternoon.

Oh well...

Damn, freo got done! Nice clean white looks better than black and yellow!

wayneL said:
Spucatum tauri!
Click to expand...
... helps hold together straw nicely! :


One thing to get ones nickers in a knot from the sideline of the game, but...
Given the Charter of the abc states inter alia to provide:

(i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain,
and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community​
and,
the Corporation shall take account of:
(i) the broadcasting services provided by the commercial and public sectors of the Australian
broadcasting system;​

So, the point I'm curious about is how do you propose to fix this bias?

Change the charter, change the board?
 
So, the point I'm curious about is how do you propose to fix this bias?

Change the charter, change the board?

Ethnic cleansing of the lefties....."sackem".
 
noco said:
So, the point I'm curious about is how do you propose to fix this bias?

Change the charter, change the board?

Ethnic cleansing of the lefties....."sackem".
Click to expand...

It is quite easy.

And it is being implemented as we post.

The ABC is just another QANGO and it will be adjusted as the needs of the nation shift.

The left wing jokers who live the high life off the ABC, as I post are fleeing for gentler pastures.

gg
 

Good news GG. The sooner the better...........the ABC have become more biased than ever in these last couple of years........THE Labor Party have been very cunning in making sure they selected red raggers and left wing socialists.
 
noco said:
Good news GG. The sooner the better...........the ABC have become more biased than ever in these last couple of years........THE Labor Party have been very cunning in making sure they selected red raggers and left wing socialists.
Click to expand...

Next Thursday will be the beginning of the end of a self indulgent elite who run the ABC, I am told.

gg
 
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...