Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

ABC is Political

Jump to new
Julia said:
Perhaps, rather than an all-encompassing ABC groupthink, it's actually dependent on the producers/presenters of the various programs what focus is taken?

As someone who finds quality information on radio is much better than that on TV, I have no complaints about, eg, the coverage of current events on "PM" which runs for almost an hour 6 - 7pm weeknights. They have covered the Royal Commissions into Institutional Abuse and the one on the Unions in sequential detail, including direct testimony. I suppose the additional available time helps.

"The World Today", about one hour at lunchtime tends to go more for subtle anti government stuff, nothing really overt but continuous implications and guests who support the Left agenda.
Click to expand...

I don't want to sound too conspiratorial, but could it be that overall they may appear somewhat balanced, but when it comes to audience reach, the most popular shows are far more to the left. So their prime time TV shows like the 7'OClock News, Q&A and Insiders clearly show an anti-government bias, the radio programs, which are probably only listened to by a more discerning audience, show balance. Additionally, though they show balance, is there any ABC program, TV or radio, that has a right wing agenda (like, for instance, the Bolt Report). Left orientated and balanced when taken together is still tending to the left on average.
 
Additionally, though they show balance, is there any ABC program, TV or radio, that has a right wing agenda (like, for instance, the Bolt Report).
Click to expand...

LOL

What do you want, balance or bias ?

Why should any ABC program run an agenda ?
 
bellenuit said:
I don't want to sound too conspiratorial, but could it be that overall they may appear somewhat balanced, but when it comes to audience reach, the most popular shows are far more to the left. So their prime time TV shows like the 7'OClock News, Q&A and Insiders clearly show an anti-government bias, the radio programs, which are probably only listened to by a more discerning audience, show balance. Additionally, though they show balance, is there any ABC program, TV or radio, that has a right wing agenda (like, for instance, the Bolt Report). Left orientated and balanced when taken together is still tending to the left on average.
Click to expand...

Yes, this had occurred to me also. I would assume that the bulk of the ABC's news and current affairs audience would be its prime time slots on ABC1 - and this is a different demographic to that of the daytime and radio audience I would think. I'm assuming that coalition voters outnumber labor/greens in the over 50's age group but the opposite possibly applies for under 30's?

Many busy working people only have time for tv of an evening. It would be nice to be able to rely on at least one news bulletin to be free of any political agenda, and one would expect that the station funded by the people for the people should be that one.
 
SirRumpole said:
LOL

What do you want, balance or bias ?

Why should any ABC program run an agenda ?
Click to expand...

Balance of course. But my point was that if there wasn't an overall left agenda and if any bias was because of purely human factors that are difficult to eliminate, then we should expect to see that bias going both ways. But any bias when shown is to the left, at least 95% of the time.
 
bellenuit said:
Balance of course. But my point was that if there wasn't an overall left agenda and if any bias was because of purely human factors that are difficult to eliminate, then we should expect to see that bias going both ways. But any bias when shown is to the left, at least 95% of the time.
Click to expand...

There is no bias to left as Bolt is to the extreme gloating right I think the ABC are fairly central but get judged as left simply because they canvass social issues the other media outlets don't because there is no profits in it.

Q&A which commercial net work would bother?
 
bellenuit said:
I don't want to sound too conspiratorial, but could it be that overall they may appear somewhat balanced, but when it comes to audience reach, the most popular shows are far more to the left. So their prime time TV shows like the 7'OClock News, Q&A and Insiders clearly show an anti-government bias, the radio programs, which are probably only listened to by a more discerning audience, show balance. Additionally, though they show balance, is there any ABC program, TV or radio, that has a right wing agenda (like, for instance, the Bolt Report).
Click to expand...
No, I cannot think of even one.
"Counterpoint", on Radio National, hosted by Amanda Vanstone is apparently their token conservative contribution. I often hear it and it can only be considered conservative because of the political affiliation of the host. It's on at an obscure early afternoon weekday
Left orientated and balanced when taken together is still tending to the left on average.
Click to expand...
Yes, agree. I do think, though, that Leigh Sales on 7.30 is good. She delivers the hard questions to both sides which is what a host should do. Hope her maternity leave is not much longer.

DocK said:
Yes, this had occurred to me also. I would assume that the bulk of the ABC's news and current affairs audience would be its prime time slots on ABC1 - and this is a different demographic to that of the daytime and radio audience I would think. I'm assuming that coalition voters outnumber labor/greens in the over 50's age group but the opposite possibly applies for under 30's?
Click to expand...
Again, I can only comment on radio, but definitely not on late evening radio on both major networks.
The host only needs to put up any slightly anti government topic and the calls of hate just flood in from older people. If you attempt to phone in with an alternative view, you're smartly told by the producer "thanks for your call. We'll take that as a comment" whereupon he hangs up on you.

Many busy working people only have time for tv of an evening.
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand what you mean here. You have to actually devote time to watching TV. With radio you can be doing other things while listening. I have PM on in the evenings when doing meal preparation etc.
It would be nice to be able to rely on at least one news bulletin to be free of any political agenda, and one would expect that the station funded by the people for the people should be that one.
Click to expand...
The main reason I avoid watching ABC TV news.
 
The ABC's claim that they are not bias is in the same sphere as Wayne Swan's claim of a surplus - just plain BS!
 
noco said:
At long last, the ABC is in for a long awaited shake up with the appointment of Janet Albrechtsens and Neil Brown to the ABC appointment panel......Tony Jones should be the first to go......The Green/Labor bias is about to be cracked.
Click to expand...

Neil Brown: I’d scrap ABC and start over

The problem is that it would be impossible to sell the ABC. What reputable company would want to buy a braodcaster staffed with left wing idealogues. Can you imagine the furore from the Labor/Greens and the Fairfax press if a new owner tried to turf them out. It would be worse that that caused by trying to send illegal immigrants back home.

HE is just one member of an influential four-person panel responsible for appointing future ABC board directors.

But, if it were up to him, former Liberal Party deputy leader Neil Brown QC would sell off what he describes as the overly commercial and unnecessarily expansive ABC and start the process of publicly funding a news organisation from scratch.

In an interview yesterday, Mr Brown, a former communications minister, said there was a significant waste of public money at the ABC and questioned why an organisation designed to deliver news was conducting opinion polls and expanding into magazines.
In the meantime, I think the chance of the ABC being sold or privatised are very remote, so in that context, where it is unlikely, the next question is, Do you want to make it better? And that means you should have good people on the board to make sure it has good management and to make sure it fulfils its functions.

“I think it should be sold,” Mr Brown said. “The best thing to do might be to start again.
Click to expand...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/med...c-and-start-over/story-fna045gd-1226977124062
 
The following are a couple of examples of the Comments following the article in The Australian:
the long and slow migration of the ABC from news organisation to political mouthpiece reminds me of the frog in boiling water analogy. We, the silent majority have not noticed the slow creeping take over until now and its too late.

It's a pity the ABC didn't heed the rising tide of discontent with regard to their biased one-sided reporting and editorials, because it now seems that they may have shot themselves in the foot, and things beyond their control will be put in place to redress their continued unbalanced representations. I would just love to see Q&A with a truly balanced panel where we could hear a range of differing views and arguments. We do ourselves a disservice by pandering to the one-sided argument.
Click to expand...

Malcolm Turnbull was subjected to very aggrieved and aggressive questioning on "AM" on RN this morning over the appointment of these two people (both of whom I welcome). Mr Turnbull was polite but entirely firm, saying it was nothing to do with him that as Minister he has no responsibility for and was not consulted about the appointments.
I can just imagine the collective outrage at the ABC. About time.
 
Julia said:
The following are a couple of examples of the Comments following the article in The Australian:


Malcolm Turnbull was subjected to very aggrieved and aggressive questioning on "AM" on RN this morning over the appointment of these two people (both of whom I welcome). Mr Turnbull was polite but entirely firm, saying it was nothing to do with him that as Minister he has no responsibility for and was not consulted about the appointments.
I can just imagine the collective outrage at the ABC. About time.
Click to expand...

Julia, I have no doubt there will be some ethnic cleansing about to take place......It really is in the Governments hands to gradually weed out the left wing radicals.
 
I have no problem with the Libs putting their stamp on the board and weeding out the left wing as long as they don't try to shut it down.
 
Julia said:
The following are a couple of examples of the Comments following the article in The Australian:


Malcolm Turnbull was subjected to very aggrieved and aggressive questioning on "AM" on RN this morning over the appointment of these two people (both of whom I welcome). Mr Turnbull was polite but entirely firm, saying it was nothing to do with him that as Minister he has no responsibility for and was not consulted about the appointments.
I can just imagine the collective outrage at the ABC. About time.
Click to expand...

Howard tried similar things and they had close to zero impact. They are just pissing into the wind.
 
banco said:
Howard tried similar things and they had close to zero impact. They are just pissing into the wind.
Click to expand...
I think that's right, banco. But since those times the ABC has become significantly more a political mouthpiece and probably the present government is more serious about effecting some change in the Board than John Howard was, or needed to be, at the time.

An example of their attempting to proclaim correct morality is in their coverage the last few days of

(a) the Rolf Harris situation, giving endless air time to people who sob that their childhood was taken away from them because he once groped them when they were 15, and

(b) the boat transfers that may or may not be occurring with the Sri Lankan asylum seekers, where they have interviewed pretty much every Left refugee advocate available (and there's no shortage of them) to demonstrate that Australia must be in contravention of the refugee convention etc. Their outrage is palpable.

The notion that their Board should have perhaps a couple of conservative members is beyond their comprehension apparently.
 
(b) the boat transfers that may or may not be occurring with the Sri Lankan asylum seekers, where they have interviewed pretty much every Left refugee advocate available (and there's no shortage of them) to demonstrate that Australia must be in contravention of the refugee convention etc. Their outrage is palpable.
Click to expand...

If you gave equal time to the government on this, all you would get is 30 minutes of "no comment".

I think it's justifiable for the ABC and other media outlets to get a bit shirty and say to the government in effect "if you don't talk to us, the other side will".

The idea that a few unarmed refugees in a leaky boat is a national security threat is absurd. If the government won't talk, the media will find other ways to get the facts, if they are doing their jobs.
 
In theory, in a democracy, in an open society, a critical role of the media is to hold politicians to account. To question what has been done in our name. To hold a light to practices that some politicians, businesses or unions might like to keep in hiding. To give the public an open, honest and informed understanding on what is happening around them. (Yes it does sound very preachy doesn't it ? )

An alternative view of the media is simply a vast entertainment complex that keeps businesses and advertisers happy. The news is just stories created to press emotional buttons and sell copy. Truth, relevance and accuracy are irrelevant. If it bleeds it leads and rescuing cats from drains finishes the bulletin.

I like the fact that the ABC goes for the first version of a free, informative press. I can understand that the free market prefers the second version - but then the free enterprise system isn't that interested in a robust democracy is it ?

____________________________________________________________________________________

By the way Julia just because the Government says it is obeying international conventions on refugees doesn't mean it actually is. The fact is that international refugee conventions do not allow countries to simply send back asylum seekers to the countries they are fleeing. It would be the equivalent of sending escapes from Soviet Union back home or Jews fleeing the Nazis.

In fact the international laws on the treatment of asylum seekers was developed after WW2 in 1951 to address these issues.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html
 
Regarding the situation with refugees and the Refugee Convention the Government solemnly claims it is following.

This is what the convention clearly, unequivocally states.
The principle of non- refoulement is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom. Finally, the Convention lays down basic minimum standards for the treatment of refugees, without prejudice to States granting more favourable treatment. Such rights include access to the courts, to primary education, to work, and the provision for documentation, including a refugee travel document in passport form.
Click to expand...

Is this what we see happening at the moment ?

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
 
Top