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

drsmith said:
To get them to start reading it, you might need a more politically correct title.

"The Challenge of Objectivity in Social Progressive Perception and Context"
Click to expand...

You guys ain't eating enough Wagyu.

Those two titles are so pre-modern, not even modern, never mind post modern.

The title should be

The Hermeneutics of Teleological Transcendence in Ontological Discourse.

I happen to be preparing a paper for the ABC board, for a fee of course, on just that topic.

gg
 
Some interesting advice for Labor from the outgoing Bob Carr,

"If you want to embrace the Greens/Left/Fairfax/ABC position, you are going to go backwards at the next election."
Click to expand...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...l-abbotts-bluff/story-fnahw9xv-1226741250691#

Fairfax's response,


http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...k-at-how-europe-responded-20131016-2vmta.html

My bolds.
 
That article is behind a pay wall that can't be penetrated by deleting cookies.


Andrew Bolt though has posted some of the detail within the above article,


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...s/were_on_our_own_with_this_crazy_carbon_tax/
 
NSW today has a bushfire emergency, with uncontrolled outbreaks around Sydney and the highlands.

Keeping communities informed during emergencies, it's something that the ABC outlets do really well.

They're not all bad.
 
Logique said:
NSW today has a bushfire emergency, with uncontrolled outbreaks around Sydney and the highlands.

Keeping communities informed during emergencies, it's something that the ABC outlets do really well.

They're not all bad.
Click to expand...

I would agree, that local ABC are very very good.

An ABC reporter from Townsville ABC was the only ABC reporter to ask Rudd a question that he couldn't palm off, during the election. Paula Tapiolis had him stumped.

During Yasi, ABC Local Radio were the very best with information and reassurance.

ABC Local Radio is the very best.

ABC Radio National is full of Green and ALP Hangers On by and large.

The latter should go, the former enlarged and resourced better.

gg
 
Logique said:
NSW today has a bushfire emergency, with uncontrolled outbreaks around Sydney and the highlands.

Keeping communities informed during emergencies, it's something that the ABC outlets do really well.

They're not all bad.
Click to expand...


Same here in WA bush-fires and cyclones the ABC do an excellent job.

Regardless of what others say I find the ABC tend to remain with the facts rather than trying to rev up a client base.
 

?
IT is natural that when Tony Abbott told Asia-Pacific leaders he was going to repeal Australia's carbon tax he found no opposition, and a good deal of support instead. He mentioned it in plenary sessions and bilateral meetings with all the leaders.
In taking this action, Abbott is bringing us into line with Asia-Pacific practice. There is not one significant national carbon tax or emissions trading scheme operating anywhere in the Asia-Pacific.

One of the most disagreeable defects of the Rudd and Gillard governments was the way they so often misrepresented reality, especially international reality. They tried to do this on such a scale that ultimately the public could see through it on many issues, especially boats and climate change.

The politics of climate change the world over is full of rhetoric and devoid of action. If Australians are being asked to pay a tax, even if it's called an emissions trading scheme, they should compare what other countries are actually doing, not what some politician might once have said.

The ABC in particular runs a constant propaganda campaign in favour of the idea that the world is moving to put a price on carbon. But the information is never specific. Any ABC interviewer with a speck of competence or professional standards should always ask the following: Name the specific scheme? Is it actually in operation? How much of the economy does it cover? What is the price of carbon? How much revenue does it raise?

You can impose no real cost on your economy, but still have a scheme to brag about if you have economy-wide coverage but a tiny price, or a big price but a tiny coverage. Either way you have a good headline scheme to fool the ABC with.

But here are some actual facts. The UN Framework Convention on Climate has 195 members. Only 34 of those use anything resembling an emissions trading scheme. Of those, 27 are in the EU scheme. No one in the Asia-Pacific has an effective scheme.

What about these Chinese schemes we hear so much about on the ABC? There are seven designated pilot projects in China. One - that's right, one - has begun operation. That is in Shenzhen. So far all the permits are given away for free. It has had no impact at all on carbon emissions.

The Chinese government has indicated it may look at a national scheme for the five-year plan from 2016. This is at most speculative, and there are a million ways it could be completely ineffective, which is almost certainly the result. China is by far the world's biggest polluter. Its per capita emissions are now comparable with Europe's. It has some plans to reduce carbon intensity, that is, the amount of carbon per unit of production, but no plans to reduce the absolute size of its emissions.

Japan has effectively abandoned plans for an ETS. No economy-wide carbon tax or ETS is operating today. South Korea has a plan, but it will issue all permits for free in the first period and is looking to redesign its scheme partly to avoid the impact on electricity prices, which Australia's scheme had. New Zealand has a notional scheme, but the price is a meaningless $1 per tonne.

The US has no carbon tax or ETS and is unlikely ever to have one. The separate Californian scheme is frequently adduced by pro-tax Australian partisans. But this scheme covers only 37 per cent of emissions, compared with the Australian tax that covered 60 per cent of our emissions. More importantly, in California, 90 per cent of permits for electricity are given for free.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative covers several northern states in the US. But the price is $2.55 per tonne and it covers only electricity.

Canada does not have an ETS or a carbon tax. The Quebec scheme covers a minority of emissions and because the province is so reliant on hydro-electricity the scheme has little impact.

Some of the biggest carbon emitters in Asia - like Indonesia and India - not only do not have national carbon taxes or ETS schemes, they have massive fuel subsidies to make carbon-based fuels accessible to all their people. A fuel subsidy is the opposite of a carbon tax, it is a carbon subsidy.

The European scheme has a price of about $7. Famously, it covers a substantially smaller proportion of its emissions than our carbon tax did. Equally famously, in its first five years it tended to raise about $500 million a year whereas our carbon tax raised $9 billion a year. So all of Europe combined imposed a cost on itself of one-18th of the cost Australia imposed on itself.

Europe also allows, within its scheme, a certain amount of imports of Certified Emission Reduction Units, basically UN-approved carbon credits created in Third World countries. The price for these shonky bits of paper has now fallen below $1 per tonne.

Labor's Mark Butler was yesterday repeating the ALP mantra, much recited, too, by the Greens and the ABC, that not a single reputable climate scientist or economist endorses direct action of the kind Abbott and his minister, Greg Hunt, propose. This is untrue. The vast majority of the governments of the world, certainly the US and Canada, are using direct action mechanisms to address greenhouse gas emissions.

The rise of gas as an energy source has been the key driver of reductions in the US, but tighter automobile emissions standards and many other direct action measures have also been important. Australia would be extremely foolish to move substantially faster or further than most of the world. That is what we did in the biggest way with our hugely destructive carbon tax.

To compare ourselves with the world we must be absolutely accurate about what the world is actually, really doing in its physical manifestation today, not what some EU bureaucrat or NGO activist is willing to say in an always unchallenging ABC interview. Even within Europe's compromised scheme there is a great deal of re-thinking as economic logic trumps climate change piety.

The carbon tax and the ETS are based on a complete misrepresentation of what other countries are doing. Australians have never voted for either an ETS or a carbon tax and, unless the world changes radically, are unlikely to do so in the future.
 
Tonight on the evening news it reported based on the PBO that based on Labor's election figures the budget would be $9 million better. For the Coalition it is $7 billion better. I noticed none of the right learning ABC bashers has reported that yet.
 
boofhead said:
Tonight on the evening news it reported based on the PBO that based on Labor's election figures the budget would be $9 million better. For the Coalition it is $7 billion better. I noticed none of the right learning ABC bashers has reported that yet.
Click to expand...
Perhaps consider how accurate any of the previous government's predictions were.
Remember the surplus that was repeatedly announced, only to end in a hideous deficit?
 
Julia said:
Perhaps consider how accurate any of the previous government's predictions were.
Remember the surplus that was repeatedly announced, only to end in a hideous deficit?
Click to expand...


Yes Julia......500 times by Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan.
 
Julia said:
Perhaps consider how accurate any of the previous government's predictions were.
Remember the surplus that was repeatedly announced, only to end in a hideous deficit?
Click to expand...

He was talking about the ABC and its apparent bias?
 
Indeed, I was talking about the ABC bias. Seems the anti-Labor people are a little consumed by Labor still.
 
boofhead said:
Indeed, I was talking about the ABC bias. Seems the anti-Labor people are a little consumed by Labor still.
Click to expand...
Not consumed, but yes, still fascinated by their self destructiveness.
And nowhere near as consumed as Labor are by themselves, viz just in the last few days,
hot on the heels of the rant from ex-speaker Anna Burke, blasting the factions, the diatribes by Maxine McKew and Nicola Roxon.
Who wouldn't be entertained in a sense of morbid fascination!
 
http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/tony-abbott-privatise-the-abc-2#share

Petitioning Tony Abbott
Tony Abbott: Privatise the ABC

Petition by: Michael O'Donnell
Caringbah South, Australia

"The ABC is blatantly disregarding it's charter for fair and balanced reporting and for a tax payer funded media outlet, this is totally out of line. The ABC has been infiltrated by journalists and commentators with clear political bias and does not reflect the opinion of the majority of the Australian population. For a privately funded media outlet, this is perfectly acceptable as the company lives and dies on it's profits but the ABC uses $1.18 billion of tax payer funds a year and I for one do not want my hard earned going towards funding such propaganda. It's time the ABC was made to stand on it's own to see whether this is the kind of programming that Australians want."
 
Logique said:
Tony Abbott: Privatise the ABC
Click to expand...
I would HATE to see the ABC privatised and it would probably turn me against the Coalition.

We should accept that it's a little biased to the left, take that into consideration when watching their documentaries and news, then sit back and enjoy the programs free of those mind numbing stupid ads.

The only reason I have a TV these days is because of the ABC and to a lesser extent SBS. Privatise the ABC and another perfectly good TV will be going to landfill!
 
Chris45 said:
I would HATE to see the ABC privatised and it would probably turn me against the Coalition.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm in agreement there Chris. The ABC should stay under public control.


I'm also a bit bemused at some of the hysteria about the bias of the ABC. It's as though some people have an extreme intolerance for a bias opposing their bias.

The best way to confront a bias is to reframe the conversation to focus on respect and fair treatment. That is an art some people possess and utilise well to make their point more strongly from a biased format, while those who don't just bitch about it.

Despite the whining of bias to the left, there are a lot of programs biased to the right. Show me a commercial tv station with programs like landline and the rural quarter. There are also many other science and other documentaries etc that probably would not get broadcast on commercial tv.
 

The political Left in the ABC are not just trying to reframe " the conversation " ( an elite new definition for debate ) , they are a propaganda arm for the Left, attempting to extinguish debate.

Nobody is whingeing about good quality programmes, just the incessant cant and bull**** from the cadres in the elites, who deem a top down left/green ethic for the Australian people is preferable to a genuine Australian voice.

gg
 
Logique said:
http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/tony-abbott-privatise-the-abc-2#share The ABC has been infiltrated by journalists and commentators with clear political bias and does not reflect the opinion of the majority of the Australian population.
Click to expand...

What, I'm confused.

So, the ABC is biased towards the left - in fact,a 'propaganda arm' of the left attempting to 'extinguish conversation' according to GG - and the solution is to have it reflect the opinion of the majority of the Australian population - which would be... a right leaning bias, would it not? Would it not then become a propaganda arm of the right?
 
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...