ABC again.

dogbox · Guru

ABC again.

dogbox · Guru

bgt wrote:

dogbox Cher sang on the USS Missouri. After seeing it the US Navy banned any future use of Navy property for such events.
Pitty. It was a great performance.

so if something similar has happened before and was deemed inappropriate who should be held accountable ?
if the ABC didn't misreport it (fake news?) we would be none the wiser

Gundog · Guru

Its funny how standards are applied, recently a female teacher pleaded guilty to having sex with a 14 year old boy, she is yet to be sentenced the media barely just reported it and went on to the next story, if the circumstances were reversed and a male teacher had sex with a 14 year old girl, then there would be a big **** storm he would be labled as a pedafile and child molester, along with an expert making comment about the mental harm done to the girl and the potential sentence to be handed down.

Now our ABC can selective edit a dance routine add addition out of context footage and false commentary. Sorry just dosn't cut it, it was politiclal commentary in an attempt to embarrass the government, continuing with its left wing labor supporting manifesto.

yobarr · Guru

Gundog wrote:
Its funny how standards are applied, recently a female teacher pleaded guilty to having sex with a 14 year old boy, she is yet to be sentenced the media barely just reported it and went on to the next story, if the circumstances were reversed and a male teacher had sex with a 14 year old girl, then there would be a big **** storm he would be labled as a pedafile and child molester, along with an expert making comment about the mental harm done to the girl and the potential sentence to be handed down.
Now our ABC can selective edit a dance routine add addition out of context footage and false commentary. Sorry just dosn't cut it, it was politiclal commentary in an attempt to embarrass the government, continuing with its left wing labor supporting manifesto.

Great post Graham,full of facts and logic,things missing from many posts.Cheers

bgt · Guru

dogbox I don't really have an opinion on the girls who danced the best they could. And proudly so. It's up to the organizers to decide if it was appropriate. Yet if the ABC hadn't made an issue of it none of us would be any the wiser. The ABC is guilty. But no more so than any of the news outlets. What sets the ABC aside is their charter and the tax payers who pay for it.

Mike Harding · Guru

Wanda wrote:
You never hear any comments/complaints from all these ABC knockers about the other stations, no only the ABC! or maybe the other stations are not guilty of doing the same?

You fail to understand a basic concept of news media in Australia:

The ABC is funded from public money and has a *legal obligation* to be fair and balanced. Additionally the public *expect* it to be so.

The commercial media are funded by the people and advertisers who buy their product and may put any slant on it they wish - they have zero obligation to be balanced or even truthful, just read The Age to appreciate this. So why would I criticise a newspaper (The Age) which on election day a few years past had banner headlines on its front page proclaiming "For God's Sake Vote Labor!" I fully understand the political bias of this newspaper and am quite comfortable with them taking such a stance and if I don't like it need not buy their product. The ABC, as mentioned, has a quite different responsibility... or it should have.

Mike Harding · Guru

bgt wrote:
dogbox I don't really have an opinion on the girls who danced the best they could.

Of course we do not know the full circumstances:

It is common for these sorts of events (ship naming and such) to be half or whole day events to which families and all sorts are invited and once the official bits are complete the event becomes a party more than anything. If that were the case here then the dance girls would have been appropriate if it was only a formal ceremony then probably not.

Wanda · Guru

Mike Harding wrote:
Wanda wrote:
You never hear any comments/complaints from all these ABC knockers about the other stations, no only the ABC! or maybe the other stations are not guilty of doing the same?
You fail to understand a basic concept of news media in Australia:
The ABC is funded from public money and has a *legal obligation* to be fair and balanced. Additionally the public *expect* it to be so.
The commercial media are funded by the people and advertisers who buy their product and may put any slant on it they wish - they have zero obligation to be balanced or even truthful, just read The Age to appreciate this. So why would I criticise a newspaper (The Age) which on election day a few years past had banner headlines on its front page proclaiming "For God's Sake Vote Labor!" I fully understand the political bias of this newspaper and am quite comfortable with them taking such a stance and if I don't like it need not buy their product. The ABC, as mentioned, has a quite different responsibility... or it should have.

No I do understand the concept of news media in Australia, I think your the one who has blinkers on and can only see your own biased thinking!

As far as the ABC being fair and balanced, again I don't see the problem, I and along with some others probably feel they are, if you don't thats fine!

So does that make you right or what!

Ian

dorian · Guru

If the "news" media had to put a penny in the swear jar every time they got it wrong or were guilty of bias, Murdoch's rags could pay for the ABC.

Here is an interesting perspective:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/is-the-abc-really-biased-20180629-p4zoh5.html

-- Edited by dorian on Friday 23rd of April 2021 01:30:27 PM

Santa · Guru

It's interesting that those on the right see an ABC bias toward the left, and those on the left see a bias toward the right.

I guess it's a human trait, we only see/hear what we want to. biggrin

Plain Truth · Guru

The ABC wouldn't have to many complaints upheld,surely.

https://about.abc.net.au/talk-to-the-abc/editorial-complaints/upheld-complaints/

bgt · Guru

Santa you've hit the nail on the head. We all watch what suits our own opinion. The media reinforces our opinions. Always been the same. All ways will be. The difference is the ABC charter. The ABC strays from its charter. If it wasn't for that charter and the ABC being our money there would be no issues. But they ignore the charter and spend our money. Murdoch, and others, can be as biased as they like. It's their money. And that's the rub. And FWIW I read and watch ABC, News.com, Nine and Skye. So I see the same story written 4 ways.

Mike Harding · Guru

Santa wrote:
It's interesting that those on the right see an ABC bias toward the left, and those on the left see a bias toward the right.
I guess it's a human trait, we only see/hear what we want to.

I consider myself a centrist. When younger I was a little to the Left, over the years I have changed to be a little to the Right but I am still essentially a centrist. In the past 20 years I have voted Liberal, National, Labor, Pauline Hanson, Animal Justice and others I have forgotten - I like to think I have a good brain and am able to be analytical in my thinking and extend that to forming objective opinions. ie. I do not simply believe what I want to and I am sure that applies to most intelligent people.

For some years the ABC has run an insidious agenda of social change; this is usually subtle and covert:

The placing of items in the news broadcast - climate change/social stuff at the fore everything else follows, if there is time.

Emphasis on social items in analysis programmes - the ABC virtually ran a campaign for gay marriage and is doing the same with climate change, aboriginal issues and women's issues.

The above issues may, or may not, be worthy causes but it is *NOT* the remit of the ABC to be a Social Justice Warrior - it is there to objectively gather and report news and it's not doing that.

I have been a huge fan of public radio since about 1960 but as things currently stand I'd probably vote to sell the ABC.

Craig1 · Guru

Mike, your share would be $3.66 on a good year.

bgt · Guru

Mike I don't think selling the ABC is a good idea. Why? Because the ABC is about the only communication in many country areas. The simple answer is to ensure the ABC adheres to its charter. No more no less. The ABC is shutting down country radio stations. Heck here on the Gold Coast the local ABC radio station is more often than not coming out of the cities. Music has gone from 'old farts' music to 'noise' some say is music. The ABC has lost its way. It's run by yuppies in the city. If it was to be sold off a commercial enterprise would strip it and we would all be worse off.

No make them perform like they are meant to perform. If they don't then find new directors. It's our money. The government of the day must take responsibility for the ABC upholding its charter. I thought Ita would kick a#$#. But she has been nobbled.

If those in the ABC don't like it then let them move on to an organization that suits their agenda. Just don't let them do it with our money.

Mike Harding · Guru

Craig1 wrote:
Mike, your share would be $3.66 on a good year.

It's not the money Craig it's about knowing the government broadcaster is fair, balanced and unbiased in its output - and the ABC has lost that position over the past years.

Santa · Guru

Mike Harding wrote:
Santa wrote:
It's interesting that those on the right see an ABC bias toward the left, and those on the left see a bias toward the right.
I guess it's a human trait, we only see/hear what we want to.

For some years the ABC has run an insidious agenda of social change; this is usually subtle and covert:
The placing of items in the news broadcast - climate change/social stuff at the fore everything else follows, if there is time.
Emphasis on social items in analysis programmes - the ABC virtually ran a campaign for gay marriage and is doing the same with climate change, aboriginal issues and women's issues.
The above issues may, or may not, be worthy causes but it is *NOT* the remit of the ABC to be a Social Justice Warrior - it is there to objectively gather and report news and it's not doing that.
I have been a huge fan of public radio since about 1960 but as things currently stand I'd probably vote to sell the ABC.

Certainly seems this way to me Mike.

I no longer watch the 7.30 report, every evening it's another group who feel they've been hard done by, gets a little tedious after a while.

Not sure I would go as far as selling it, however it certainly is due for major reforms.

Where's Ita? confuse

Santa · Guru

This from today's Australian.

The ABCs political talkfest Q+A continues to nosedive, recording its lowest-ever ratings on Thursday night.

Just 224,000 viewers across the five major capital cities tuned in to the show, heightening speculation that the national broadcaster will be forced to dump its Thursday 8.30pm timeslot and shift it to another night perhaps its former 9.30pm Monday slot in the hope it can regain its lost audience.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/the-abcs-political-chatfest-has-plunged-to-disastrous-levels-drawing-just-224000-viewers-on-thursday-night/news-story/3b069ed7985869b3dc8bf973aa1ac1f0

Possum3 · Guru

Q+A has degenerated into a left field free kick to many established and traditional values - pure and simple - no journalism exhibited whatsoever, gutter press at it's worst

yobarr · Guru

Possum3 wrote:
Q+A has degenerated into a left field free kick to many established and traditional values - pure and simple - no journalism exhibited whatsoever, gutter press at it's worst

Great post Possum.Only the most ignorant amongst us would believe the rubbish that the ABC broadcasts.Cheers

Craig1 · Guru

x 2 possum3, or is that now 4

dorian · Guru

Possum3 wrote:
Q+A has degenerated into a left field free kick to many established and traditional values - pure and simple - no journalism exhibited whatsoever, gutter press at it's worst

Why should there be any "press" or "journalism" on Q+A? It's a program where questions from the audience are fielded (and sometimes even answered), by members of the panel of the day, most of whom (if not all) are not journalists. It seems to me that you have created a straw man just so you can have something to bash.

This is the "charter" for Q+A:

https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/about/

As for "gutter" press, can you cite an example?

-- Edited by dorian on Saturday 24th of April 2021 05:54:36 AM

Gundog · Guru

dorian wrote:
Possum3 wrote:
Q+A has degenerated into a left field free kick to many established and traditional values - pure and simple - no journalism exhibited whatsoever, gutter press at it's worst
Why should there be any "press" or "journalism" on Q+A? It's a program where questions from the audience are fielded (and sometimes even answered), by members of the panel of the day, most of whom (if not all) are not journalists. It seems to me that you have created a straw man just so you can have something to bash.
This is the "charter" for Q+A:
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/about/
As for "gutter" press, can you cite an example?

-- Edited by dorian on Saturday 24th of April 2021 05:54:36 AM

But its easy to stack the panel to get the desired result, and that is the leftard slant.

dorian · Guru

Gundog wrote:
dorian wrote:
Possum3 wrote:
Q+A has degenerated into a left field free kick to many established and traditional values - pure and simple - no journalism exhibited whatsoever, gutter press at it's worst
Why should there be any "press" or "journalism" on Q+A? It's a program where questions from the audience are fielded (and sometimes even answered), by members of the panel of the day, most of whom (if not all) are not journalists. It seems to me that you have created a straw man just so you can have something to bash.
This is the "charter" for Q+A:
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/about/
As for "gutter" press, can you cite an example?

-- Edited by dorian on Saturday 24th of April 2021 05:54:36 AM
But its easy to stack the panel to get the desired result, and that is the leftard slant.

Give us an example of a stacked panel, and tell us what the desired result was.

-- Edited by dorian on Saturday 24th of April 2021 07:59:24 AM

JayDee · Guru

We do not watch much "Free to Air" TV.
Due to all of those damn TV Reality Shows.
Our Telstra network gives us heaps of other options.
The network we have has UTUBE and we get to enjoy a lot of tv coverage of various subjects.
Can't recall when we last watched the ABC.
The best thing the Government can do is SELL
However if sold, an overriding clause must be that the Regional Areas of Australia must still have access to the network, otherwise no SALE.
The millions of $$$$ generated can then be used in building more dams coal-fired power stations and the fast train network etc.

Jay&Dee

dorian · Guru

JayDee wrote:
We do not watch much "Free to Air" TV.
Due to all of those damn TV Reality Shows.
Our Telstra network gives us heaps of other options.
The network we have has UTUBE and we get to enjoy a lot of tv coverage of various subjects.
Can't recall when we last watched the ABC.
The best thing the Government can do is SELL
However if sold, an overriding clause must be that the Regional Areas of Australia must still have access to the network, otherwise no SALE.
The millions of $$$$ generated can then be used in building more dams coal-fired power stations and the fast train network etc.

Jay&Dee

If we were to sell the ABC, who would we sell it to? Do you want it to fall under the control of those same commercial operators who serve up the "reality" tripe that you don't like?

It's interesting that you single out regional areas as a special minority that needs to be catered for. In fact the ABC's charter stipulates that it must provide programming for all citizens, which would no doubt include other minorities in urban areas. Who will cater for them if the ABC doesn't?

ISTM that commercial TV has distorted our perception of the norm. There is no commercial value in a minority audience, so commercial TV is almost exclusively targeted at the mainstream. If you're used to this kind of content, then any broadcaster which attempts to be inclusive will naturally appear to be biased. The ABC recently attempted to address this problem by quantifying its programming content in terms of demographics. As I see it, that's probably the only way to objectively assess the ABC's impartiality.

-- Edited by dorian on Saturday 24th of April 2021 09:30:42 AM

PeterInSa · Guru

re (But its easy to stack the panel to get the desired result,)

And to pick the questions from the audience.

bgt · Guru

Not a worry about Q&A. Their ratings have tanked so it may be on life support already. The majority of viewers can see what has happened to Q&A and don't like it.

Possum3 · Guru

dorian wrote:
As for "gutter" press, can you cite an example?

Watch Michael Rowlands any morning.

Flags2 · Veteran Member

Hi All,

The dancing shown on the news was well before the official ceremony. Most ship commissionings (it was not a launch ceremony) have entertainment prior to dignitaries arriving and more traditional entertainment (or not) during the ceremony. The group that normally appears at commissionings in Sydney was not available and this group was vetted, their routine assessed and were deemed appropriate. In addition, the ship has Spanish origins so having a group with Spanish links provided more justification. The performance during the ceremony was very traditional but we did not see ANY of that footage.