ABC is Political

[basilio]

Interesting to see another view on the "huge" salaries paid to ABC presenters.

This is how many ABC journalists you can buy for one Kyle Sandilands.
Friday 22 November 2013 7:02am


Have your ever been watching TV or listening to the radio and found yourself wondering “how much do you reckon she/he gets paid?” Well, it’s your lucky day because the salaries of the ABC’s most high profile radio and TV presenters have been leaked.

Leigh Sales, Tony Jones, Richard Glover, Annabel Crabb, Jon Faine, Juanita Philips… the top eight presenters earning in excess of $250,000 have been named and it’s been an incredibly awkward 24hrs for them as details of their salary packages have been broadcast across the media.

That sound you can hear is every journalist in Australia falling over themselves to compare the leaked numbers with their own pay packets. Ouch.

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/abc-salaries/

View attachment FACT.docx

 

[wayneL]

I guess if I owned a media outlet, I'd pay a hellava lot more for someone people like to listen to than a petty, transparent propagandist.

 

[drsmith]

That's digraceful.

The left really has become a foul and cancerous malady in western society, a hideous counterfeit of what it claims to represent, apt to spew forth mendacious misrepresentations and gross perversions of the truth in an attempt to further its poisonous, misanthropic agenda.

The ABC's latest effort in relation to Julia Gillard's comments on Spying.

1) Headline on the ABC's front web page;

'Promise not to do it again'
ABC NEWS

Next to that is the image below.

2) Story headline;

Tony Abbott should promise not to tap Indonesian president's phone in future, Julia Gillard says

3) First paragraph in bold font;

Former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard says Tony Abbott should promise not to tap the phone of the Indonesian president in the future.

That in the absence of reading further very much leaves the impression it was Tony Abbott that did it in the first place.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...an-accuses-abbott-of-mishandling-spyi/5109632

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

It is fairly simple.

Snowden is a traitor to the West.

The ABC has decided to adopt a traitorous attitude to Australia, due to a pervasive culture of political commitment to the Left.

The kindest things one could say about the ABC is that they are stupid, not seeing the wood for the trees and that it has been a programmed attack on the Abbott Government .

At it's very worst, the consequences of the ABC's actions may lead to injury or death to members of our armed forces, diplomats or citizens.

The ABC should be held to account.

gg

 

[Julia]

It is fairly simple.

Snowden is a traitor to the West.

The ABC has decided to adopt a traitorous attitude to Australia, due to a pervasive culture of political commitment to the Left.

The kindest things one could say about the ABC is that they are stupid, not seeing the wood for the trees and that it has been a programmed attack on the Abbott Government .

At it's very worst, the consequences of the ABC's actions may lead to injury or death to members of our armed forces, diplomats or citizens.

The ABC should be held to account.

gg

100% agree. Edward Snowden is not a whistleblower, as the ABC like to refer to him. He's a criminal, and they are abetting his actions. The damage done will be difficult to repair.

 

[Whiskers]

That's digraceful.

The left really has become a foul and cancerous malady in western society, a hideous counterfeit of what it claims to represent, apt to spew forth mendacious misrepresentations and gross perversions of the truth in an attempt to further its poisonous, misanthropic agenda.

Prime example is basilios appalling and petulant little rant above and the copious cesspool of verbal diarrhea from Whiskers, inter alia.

Hmmm, I like freedom of speech. It allows people to incriminate... themselves!

It is fairly simple.

Snowden is a traitor to the West.

The ABC has decided to adopt a traitorous attitude to Australia, due to a pervasive culture of political commitment to the Left.

The kindest things one could say about the ABC is that they are stupid, not seeing the wood for the trees and that it has been a programmed attack on the Abbott Government .

At it's very worst, the consequences of the ABC's actions may lead to injury or death to members of our armed forces, diplomats or citizens.

The ABC should be held to account.

gg

That would be assuming that (the rest of the true story) which is sooo secret did not lead to injury or death to members of our armed forces, diplomats or citizens... already!

Think about the prejudice, fear and hysteria that led to the likes of the Vietnam war or the Iraq war... and others.

What if truth had prevailed?

On the anniversary of the death of JFK... what if he'd listened to all his advisors and their 'secret' intelligence and launched a pre-emptive strike against Russia/Cuba?

Secrets just make you more paranoid!

But in any case, once someone decides to 'leak' information... why shoot the messenger, the abc or other? Do you shoot your postman when he brings a certified letter from, say someone you punched up because you didn't like what he said and is now suing you?

 

[IFocus]

Objective comments...........ABC reports the news ......its a commie extreme left wing anti Abbott plot, disgusting subversive propaganda.


Suggest changing your medication comments here are beyond the pail and some.

 

[wayneL]

I don't need the data, because wayneL's law has already entered scientific canon, but its just interesting witnessing it ivindicated over and over.

 

[Julia]

Objective comments...........ABC reports the news ......its a commie extreme left wing anti Abbott plot, disgusting subversive propaganda.

Are you actually suggesting the ABC and the Guardian have no responsibility in this matter?

 

[IFocus]

Are you actually suggesting the ABC and the Guardian have no responsibility in this matter?

Are you actually suggesting they shouldn't report the news based on a political outcome?

 

[MrBurns]

Are you actually suggesting they shouldn't report the news based on a political outcome?

Are you actually suggesting that statement makes any sense ?

 

[drsmith]

Origin of the ABC's salary details leak identified.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-22/abc-salary-details-inadvertently-sent-to-mp/5111842

 

[drsmith]

A couple of interesting pieces on the ABC from Michael Smith and Andrew Bolt about the ABC's $233M contract to operate the Australia Network.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...take-the-money-then-dish-the-dirt-isnt-i.html

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...c-for-the-australia-network-per-annum-wi.html

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._jakarta_show_the_abc_breached_its_agreement/

The link to the AFR article referred to in Andrew Bolt's blog post is below.

The ABC revealed that the Australian Signals Directorate had tapped into the mobile phone communications of Indonesia’s President, his wife, who is an influential political actor, and members of cabinet, among others.

The ABC also published six “top secret” directorate slides, “top secret” being the most sensitive defence classification, that disclosed the names of 10 different ASD intelligence targets inside the Indonesian government, the types of mobile handsets they used, that a voice conversation between Indonesia’s President and a Thai caller had been intercepted, and that ASD was able to map the president’s calls to various persons over a 15-day period.

Under the Officials Secrets section 79 of the Crimes Act a person can be imprisoned for up to seven years for communicating or retaining secret government information, particularly if it prejudices the Commonwealth’s security or defence, when they know it has been illegally supplied to them, when they have no right to retain it, and/or if they fail to take reasonable care to ensure that it is not publicly shared.

The Financial Review has previously published details of classified intelligence, although only once a public interest test has been satisfied and it has been determined that these revelations do not compromise the security of the country. The ABC failed to meet these conditions.

http://www.afr.com/p/blogs/christop...omised_public_interest_mTS4P4NusdEYYHrWX9GN8H

 

[Julia]

Are you actually suggesting they shouldn't report the news based on a political outcome?

I suppose it's futile to expect you to actually treat the question seriously.
The material was stolen. The ABC should have considered all the obvious fall out before succumbing to sensationalism and making it public.

Simply being in possession of someone's private information does not confer the right to make it public.
Say I came into possession of some damaging information about you, (and obviously I'm not suggesting that that would happen) does that give me the right to post it here for all your co-members to see and to hugely embarrass you? No, of course not.

Origin of the ABC's salary details leak identified.

Hah, that's so funny.
The self righteous ABC shot themselves in the foot.

 

[Whiskers]

I suppose it's futile to expect you to actually treat the question seriously.
The material was stolen.

Isn't the overriding point that the information in Snowdens file was originally stolen, obtained illegally, via spying? No government can win the ethical argument, claiming that someone who passed that information on further 'stole' the information, that the gov had previously stolen from someone else.

Just because every country spies on each other does not make it 'legal'... it's just a gentleman's agreement not be put the info in the public domain in the first instance, to have 'diplomatic' officials bargain off against each other.

Then what about the prosecution for 'treason' argument?

Well, that too is a double edged sword for the government... apparently the gov (or at least some officials) could/should be tried for treason on their own people.

The ABC should have considered all the obvious fall out before succumbing to sensationalism and making it public.

Didn't Snowden start leaking to The Guardian and The Washington Post while still employed by NSA, before it got too hot for him being exposed, and fled with the files?

In all the circumstances, the ABC didn't 'make it public'. They just reported what is otherwise available on other news services?

Simply being in possession of someone's private information does not confer the right to make it public.
Say I came into possession of some damaging information about you, (and obviously I'm not suggesting that that would happen) does that give me the right to post it here for all your co-members to see and to hugely embarrass you? No, of course not.

That's true, BUT it was not the information about the person, the original data gathered about people that was the motive for Snowden releasing it, BUT rather the fact that US officials (and others) had such a massive surveillance operation collecting masses of information on anyone they chose in the guise of 'National Security'... WITHOUT reasonable accountability.

If Snowden could so easily leak the information to the media, what if corporations or even other governments have leaks from the NSA, that are just quietly exploiting the info for commercial profit?

Think about the irony from the Murdock News of The World phone tapping of innocent people for sensationalist breaking news stories... money, extra profit for News Corp.

Why are we seeing so much blame fired at the ABC for printing a story that was available elsewhere?

Maybe it has something to do with most of the other media is owned by Murdock's News Ltd and not able to afford being a hypocrite by breaking the news, in the still unfolding legacy of their own inexcusable phone tapping scandal.

 

[Julia]

The specifics of whose phone was tapped and when may be new to Indonesia but the fact that Australia monitored its close friend’s activities will not be a surprise. Governments have been watching each other since before the telegraph. And they will continue to do so, because intelligence-gathering is fundamental to the maintenance of the modern state.

But is it legal for nations to spy on each other? And what protections are in place to ensure citizens, non-government organisations and corporations aren’t caught up in this web?

We should be wary of outrage over the reported activity of the Australian Signals Directorate and other agencies. Their collection of information about Indonesia’s leaders is legal. It may be diplomatically counter-productive or ethically problematical but it is lawful.

https://theconversation.com/i-spy-you-spy-we-all-spy-but-is-it-legal-20540
Then, from the Financial Review:

Christopher Joye in the Financial Review:
Under the Officials Secrets section 79 of the Crimes Act a person can be imprisoned for up to seven years for communicating or retaining secret government information, particularly if it prejudices the Commonwealth’s security or defence, when they know it has been illegally supplied to them, when they have no right to retain it, and/or if they fail to take reasonable care to ensure that it is not publicly shared.

 

[Whiskers]

https://theconversation.com/i-spy-you-spy-we-all-spy-but-is-it-legal-20540
Then, from the Financial Review:

Just a few legal fine points to make.

The general collection of information and intelligence gathering is quite legal... BUT with caveats.

We have the right to collect information and intelligence... BUT we don't have the right to break other countries laws, or break our own laws such as to invade the privacy of our own citizens, to get it.

Say for example the Indo presidents, wife etc were taped from within Indonesia. That would be a crime by some Aus or US official working within our agency against Indonesian Law. That is why the collection of spying intelligence is quite often illegal.

Further, in Law the 'intent' of the person (or government agency) is determinative of what if any crime has been committed.

A Crime for the disclosure of 'Official Secrets' under the Crimes Act Sec 79 is dependent on proving the intention of prejudicing the security or defence of the Commonwealth.

There are also exceptions and defences to 'leaking' government secrets under The Crimes Act, Officials Secrets, subsections 79(2) and (3), such as where there is a duty in the greater public interest to communicate the information to someone else such as the media. The government is constitutionally required to act in the public interest, not some private or political interest.

In Commonwealth v Fairfax [(1980) 147 CLR], the Court considered that the degree of embarrassment to Australia’s foreign relations that would flow from disclosure was not enough to justify protection of the information ​

The public interest test set out in Commonwealth v Fairfax places the burden on governments to justify the maintenance of the confidentiality of the information. The reason for this is the importance of freedom of communication and public discussion. As McHugh J explained in Attorney‑General (UK) v Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd:
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications...onfidentiality-and-loyalty-and-fidelity?print​

So, why have the government not got an injunction to silence the ABC et all... because they know they can not get one under the law... the same laws they are bound by in terms of what they can collect in the name of national security.

 

[basilio]

Nice set of legal arguments arguments there Whiskers.

Trouble is I don't think we live in world where the Rule of law is now taken seriously. When people throw the word treason around to describe the exposure of a vast international illegal surveillance network we have big trouble understanding why there are laws in the first place.

They are there to give us some independent protection against a capricious government. Constitutional rights, 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Laws on Privacy.

But it appears as if in 2013 a government just has to mouth the word national Security and all of this swept away.

 

[Calliope]

But it appears as if in 2013 a government just has to mouth the word national Security and all of this swept away.

Any government would be very remiss in not giving national security a high priority. However in your case, along with the Greens, The ABC, and The Guardian and fuelled by Edward Snowden and Vladimir Putin, anything that can damage our security is fair game as long as it is directed at wrecking Tony Abbott's boats policies.

 

[MrBurns]

One of the lead stories on the ABC web site...

Tony Abbott mishandling Indonesia spying fallout, says Plibersek

Labor deputy Tanya Plibersek has criticised the Prime Minister's handling of relations with Indonesia after the fallout from revelations of Australian spying.

Speaking to the ABC's Insiders program

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-24/abbott-mishandling-indonesia-crisis-plibersek/5113312

Insiders...... the Labor parties personal promotion programme sponsored by taxpayers dollars.