The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Bias at the national broadcaster is as easy as ABC > Comments

Bias at the national broadcaster is as easy as ABC : Comments

By Marc Hendrickx, published 23/2/2011

What is the justification for sites like The Drum when On Line Opinion does it just as well at no cost to the taxpayer?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
Email correspondence with the ABC related to the events above can be viewed here: http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2011/02/abc-bias-yields-no-apology-for-mr.html
Further examples of ABC's botched climate coverage also there, including one error that ultimately resulted in the IPCC correcting part of their latest report (see http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/p/himalayaipcc.html)
Posted by MarcH, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 6:12:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very topical article in the context of the seeming advertising placement boycott of On Line Opinion instituted in late November 2010.

(For those unfamiliar with the circumstances and possible consequences of that advertising placement denial in relation to OLO, Graham Young's article published on 7 February, 'Wanted: new financial backers', is the one to read for background. It can be found here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11583&page=0 )

Towards the end of the article Mark Hendrickx asks these very pertinent questions:

"Why did it take so much effort to remove
the offensive comment? How did Phillips
obtain permission to run such a biased
and unbalanced opinion page at the
taxpayers' expense?

In an era where there are a multitude of
opportunities for ABC staff to express
their opinions by setting up their own
blogs or personal web pages, how does
Mark Scott justify the use of taxpayer
funds to foot this bill?"

Even more topically Hendrickx observes:

"It's not about shutting down the debate,
it's about moving it to an appropriate venue.
One where the taxpayer does not have to wear
the cost, or bear the risks of paying out on
defamation cases brought about by poor moderation."

For those who have observed the attempt to sanitize the attack upon freedom of speech constituted by the orchestrated disruption of OLO's advertising revenue, by making out that the issue was one as to moderation standards, this article provides a timely and instructive read.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 6:31:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Use of tax payers funds to provide free entertainment and information to a demographic that can well afford to pay for it is just another form of middleclass welfare. If ABC continues with its opinion content it should do so under a subscription model.

Online Opinion is the sort of web space ABC staff could be using to voice their views, rather riding on the back of the tax payer. The savings of cutting ABC's opinion pages would not be insignificant and could be used to pay for additional reporters, some of whom may be able to cover some of those missing news items. Alternately this money could be used to support sites like Online Opinion, or used as seed funding for other independent media/opinion outlets thereby helping to counter the media concentration currently dominated by News/Fairfax and the ABC. A million dollars scattered around a few independent sites like this would make a significant impact.

(Funds of course could be directed at other gov priorities or returned to the tax payer)
Posted by MarcH, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 6:53:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Hendrickx does an outstanding job of holding ABC to account at his website abcnewswatch.blogspot.com. Well worth a visit.

The bias of the ABC is obvious and shameful. An example was Q&A last Monday where the ABC underscored Julia Gillards "One Nation" comments about the Opposition during Question time on Monday by putting One Nation representative right next to Barnaby Joyce, and implicitly associating them. That, and Tony Jones' blatant bias on so many issues, particularly climate change, are just more examples of how our taxpayer dollar is being used for partisan purposes.
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 7:01:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In this new era of enlightenment I have taken the liberty to submit your tale of woe to the Ultimate Adjudicator for expert analysis and opinion...The forthcoming judgment from Rupert's Froggy Akerman is positively assured.
Posted by Wakatak, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 7:06:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On Line Opinion is a poor comparison as it lacks transparency and accountability.

Michael.
Posted by MikeyBear, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 7:55:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael,
ABC's charter makes it independent of government. It is exempt from FOI for programming content. It is not accountable for what it does in the same way other government agencies are. Think I'm wrong? Then try sending a complaint about ABC's service to the relevant Minister. Online Opinion is effectively as accountable for what it does as the ABC.
Posted by MarcH, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 8:02:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've had a few doubts about The Drum. It's not a bad forum - just not a good one. It's unstated editorial policy is pretty much namby pamby uncritical leftist rhetoric. There's a place for that and The Drum is probably its home.

I've read some good articles on The Drum - mainly those not dealing with politics but when it comes to the cut and thrust of debate, you can't beat OLO.
Posted by Cheryl, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 8:09:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, the ABC isn’t ready for democracy yet. But a good many of their contributors are always ready for groupthink. We have to remember that the Left never got over losing Red Russia and to them “global warming” is a new faith order. With this comes a culture of censorship and double standards.

I applaud the author for standing up for others and resisting the temptation to appease the Climate Groupthink.
Posted by BPT, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 8:21:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What we are reading here is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a level of incompetence that has crept in to the ABC's management for some years now and it is growing, colouring so many activities on this network, now sporting four expensive TV channels but quite obviously unable to be supported by the budget. This is reflected in poor quality programming and repeats topped off by expensive third class amateur Australian drama and comedy.

As for bias, the Q & A example is as good as one can get with the sycophantic presenter knowing clearly where his bread is buttered which means that the management supports it as well.

The comments on the Drum are also valid. Here, the ABC is monitored every day you would all be disturbed at the comments submitted as a result of our analysis that never sees the light of day. It has the most selective filter system in the Australian media, after Murdoch's The Australian, that is. Such selective pruning is contrary to the original objectives of the organisation.
As for News 24, the less said the better. A totally unnecessary function, an expensive training ground for anyone and everyone, ad nauseum.

The ABC is fast becoming unaccountable, but the current government is the recipient of their bias, so it will continue, no doubt.

Sadly like all things that never receive their due analysis as being of value, or scrutiny as to content, the ABC has lapsed into a level of arrogance allowing them to keep on serving up the same bias, poor quality entertainment, even using content from the BBC which is often seen as totally fabricated by the whole world. This surely indicates a level of complacency built up by working in a non-competitive environment, too comfortable to care about public opinion and often unresponsive to criticism. As well, poor judgements are made as to presenter competence, obviously never assessed from the customers viewpoint.

The ratings tell the story. The quality programs are too few for a publicly owned network.
Posted by Rhys Stanley, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 8:35:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MarcH, no comment about the ABC, simply stating that if anyone's looking for a benchmark, it's not yet OLO. I'd hope everyone wanted the standard set as high as possible.

Michael.
Posted by MikeyBear, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 8:52:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael just what do you think that the standards should be?

OLO is the best that I've seen in terms of the same rules for everyone and a willingness to allow views regardless of how they compare to the moderators own views.

OLO is not perfect but I suspect that your complaints reflect your own attitudes to censorship of unwanted views rather than serious flaws with OLO.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 9:08:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One thing I find interesting about the ABC is it's culture. Women's libbers, lefties & homosexuals are not natural bed follows, but they appear to blend happily at auntie.

The ABC choice of foreign correspondents, if they weren't so damn expensive to the taxpayer would be a joke.

They continues to send members of their army of lady reporters to places where they are always going to be totally irrelevant. All Muslim men "know" that the only place for a woman is bare foot & pregnant, in the kitchen, with the rest of the breeding stock. These men would not demean themselves talking seriously to a woman.

That our ABC's correspondents are treated with contempt in the Muslim world is due to their refusal to apply some sense to the choice of their reporters.

Obviously ideology comes first, in all matters at our ABC.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 9:58:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice work Mark but I fear the groupthink is now very entrenched in parts of the ABC. Not only is it a form of censorship (obfuscation through omission) but also I suspect that some of the staff are exhibiting a lack of due diligence in upholding the ABC Charter, as their prejudiced presumptions about McIntyre testify. It will take someone of the calibre of McIntyre to sue for defamation for this to change.
Posted by Raredog, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 10:00:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael,

You appear to be selective in your calls for transparency, judging by your comments on Jennifer Wilson's blog.

http://noplaceforsheep.com/2011/02/08/meet-gregory-storer-the-man-who-persuaded-anz-and-ibm-to-dump-an-on-line-community/

You're definitely right that there's been too much emphasis on Gregory's actions....

Do you practice what you preach?
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 10:06:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MarcH, <<Online Opinion is the sort of web space ABC staff could be using to voice their views>>

Oh yummy, yes please. Problem is I doubt one single ABC staffer would have the guts. They like soft targets, they like to set the agenda, they like to be in control and they cannot handle criticism.

I would be nice to invite them, we would give them such a nice welcome!
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 10:43:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, I've been addressing the call(s) for On Line Opinion to be a suitable alternative to ABC's The Drum. Your diversion and attempt to discredit me is childish. Perhaps you could address the issue I raised rather than distract the conversation away from it.

R0bert - "OLO is the best that I've seen..." & "OLO is not perfect...". My point precisely. Neither of those comments inspire me to salute OLO as the flagship in transparency and accountability. Nearly good enough is not good enough in my opinion. Strive for perfection, not second best.

Michael.
Posted by MikeyBear, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 10:51:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael "Strive for perfection, not second best."

Strive for perfection but what's perfection? Your attacks on OLO don't look like attempts to bring perfection, rather angst because it's not run the way you think it should be.

Put up a proposal of how you think a forum should operate and lets see the pro's and con's be debated in an open forum.

I think the balance is on OLO pretty good and is far better than second best. Some vile views get to stay up but there was a time when gay rights was more widely considered vile. Thankfully not mainstream in our society any more.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 11:08:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My problem with the Drum is that only a particular clique of people seem to get published there. Its basically a soapbox for people who already have some level of public fames or who are in some way connected to the left wing crowd at the ABC.

In contrast, OLO hosts a variety of opinions and publishes articles from a broad range of people in the Australian community. If it wasn't for OLO we wouldn't have a truly democratic webspace for opinion pieces.

IMHO the Drum, given that it is funded by Australian taxpayers, would do a lot better if it followed OLO's policy of publishing widely. I don't think that there is any justification for the current restrictive editorial policy.
Posted by jjplug, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 11:15:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well clearly the ABC removed the offending comment when the person involved made the complaint directly, demonstrating the comment to be inaccurate. But I agree with you that the comment was attacking the person rather than the argument. A strategy all too common on all sides of a debate.

Climate sceptics do tend to get tarred with the extreme RW brush but no more than climate change believers (AGW) get tarred with the tags of extreme 'leftist', 'greenie', 'radical'.

All sweeping generalisations.

Generally I believe the ABC to be even handed in its dealings with politicians of all stripes however on AGW, the ABC is less even handed.

OLO certainly provides a greater variety of articles on a wide range of subjects.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 11:43:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert, you say "Put up a proposal of how you think a forum should operate and lets see the pro's and con's be debated in an open forum."

Allow me to repeat myself here for the good people who didn't see what I said previously in the other discussion.

A good start for transparency and accountability would be when the site moderator(s) can adhere to their site posting policy in an equitable and fair manner. When a comment posted is perceived to be reasonably distressing and the when the site policy say that comments that are likely to distress will not be tolerated, then the site moderator has an obligation to deal with the offending comment in a mature and professional manner and not show any personal bias.

That's the extent of it. So far OLO has not shown itself to be the best corporate citizen on these grounds.

Michael.
Posted by MikeyBear, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 11:50:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haven't spent much time on The Drum website but will do so after the comments posted here. I have had some experiences of bias in the ABC but many other, more neutral ones as well.

One disappointment with OLO, and I'm not sure how to (or even if you can) address it, is the number of threads that contain personal insult. I expect this, sadly, from our politicians and shock jocks, but was greatly disappointed to see how much was on here. "Attack the statement not the person" is a mantra some people need to consider. The impact it has on me is that I simply skip over comments from certain people, as too often they are vitriolic attacks and decidedly short on facts.

That said, I enjoy OLO and see the need for it to exist. Can OLO do the job as well as something like The Drum? I'll get back to you...
Posted by rational-debate, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 11:50:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mikey Bear, zip it, why don't you?

Anybody who tried to bring down an online community like you did has no credibility.

Rather than stand on your own two feet you run to corporate daddies and ask them to wield a big stick over nasty people who say stuff you don't like.

That's the world you want to live in, is it? A world where corporations decide what we say and don't say?

BTW what exactly have you achieved I wonder? OLO still going strong, everybody still wants to write for it and read it. Churches still allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. Even the comment is still in the forum.

Not a great advertisement for your tactics
Posted by briar rose, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 1:41:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rational-debate, you've got to be kidding when you ask can OLO do things as well as The Drum.

On OLO everyone is published, then some may be removed as abusive, but they were aired. The Drum allow nothing to appear unless it conforms to the UN/BBC line.

It can be hard to be civil to some government funded lackey when they blandly state that arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, or use such a compromised reference as the IPCC. This rubbish will often appear a day or so after the US navy have announced they, with their sub operations have found a 32% increase in arctic ice volume, & a something over 60% increase in third year ice.

Such things happen so often that I start to believe they are responding to a spotting system. They have to say something to anesthetize the brethren, before they can start to believe the truth.

I'll give you a little wager. $50 to the ABC, or OLO that you could not get that US navy ice report up on The Drum, & left there for discussion for 3 days.

You.d have to let me know if you did, I tried it for a few days, but couldn't handle all the peeing in each other's pockets.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 4:42:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, I'd like to see the US Navy information as a thread on the forum. I was unaware of it. I have a special spot for the Arctic as my Dad spent a number of summers sailing around up there on US vessels servicing the Direct Early Warning line in the 60s.

Mikey, I think you'll find that OLO is as transparent as you are going to get. What other publication gives you reasons when comments are deleted? And we do enforce our rules.

And speaking of transparency, our information is that it was an IBM employee who got the IBM advertising pulled, not Gregory Storer.

Have you outed yourself yet as that employee and I've missed it on the threads? I'm interested in your commitment to transparency.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 5:34:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It amazes me that the ABC always attracts complaints about left wing bias, whether political, environmental or what have you.
In a country where the commercial media in general is overwhelmingly conservative on these issues, if not pollyannaish (notably, however, the commercial media has no problem with vulgarity), in line with populism---racist (euphemistically reported as "border protection"), punitive [lock-em-up; three strikes and you're out etc.), protectionist [buy Australian campaigns), quotidian (the dole-bludger staple) elitist (sports mad celebrity culture) and anti-intellectual (inane pet names: "Heals", "Pagey" etc.), has it occurred to the critics that against that kind of puerile relief, whatever editorial line the ABC takes, or content it airs, is bound to look radical?
Moreover, in a context of overwhelming scientific concensus on AGW, it is almost pardonable to infer that denialism is nothing more than rightwing rat-baggery--seems perfectly reasonable to me..
I suspect that if the research challenge were taken up, McIntyre could be legitimately painted in the lurid hues of minimifidianism.
More to the point, why aren't the commercial News outlets (whose content surely constitutes an insult to the minutist intellect?) being held to the same rigorous account as Aunty?
Because they reflect popular consensus of course!
It comes down to the simple fact that left is thoughtfully self-reflective and right is not reactionary.
Where's the right-wing Mark Twain?
The ABC is not biased, it's just not co-opted, but the pressure's mounting
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 7:04:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction: the right "is" reactionary.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 7:07:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Use of tax payers funds to provide free entertainment and information to a demographic that can well afford to pay for it is just another form of middleclass welfare."

How painfully true, I plead guilty because I don't know what I would do without ABC Classic FM. I'm certainly not willing to turn on a radio-station with ads, and I don't have a TV either (much for the same reason).

I suppose it's just another addiction of mine. In a perfect world I would need to live without a radio, but what's true is true and what's just is just!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 7:53:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
turn on a radio-station with ads,
Yuyutsu,
on weekends ABC Radio is just like a commercial station with fewer ads but tripple the promos.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 7:56:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual, are you listening to the same station?

I listen to ABC Classic FM and all it has is classical music and the news on the hour. Well, except that annoying Margaret Throsby in the mornings who does not know how to shut her mouth, and just a few annoying announcements here and there, but there are no ads.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 8:03:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
What part of this particular complaint do you consider "Right Wing"? ABC's environmental editor has exposed herself as someone who has based her views on Steve McIntyre on nothing more than internet gossip. Is this behavior somehow considered acceptable by those on the left?
Posted by MarcH, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 8:47:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual,

"on weekends ABC Radio is just like a commercial station with fewer ads but tripple the promos."

Remove the ABC shop with ads for DVD's CD's, magazines, promos and on, and you could have an acceptable format. It is incredible the amount of time taken up with unnecessary prattle, self-promotion, all of which just skirts the ABC Charter. But it is time for a major change back to what it used to be, years ago, a servant of the people and entertaining as well. No network has as many repeats as the ABC. How can any network with FOUR channels afford decent programming?

It is indeed a long time since we have seen decent TV and radio. Perhaps a change of management might be well regarded.
Posted by Rhys Stanley, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 10:15:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ABC & SBS have become self-serving familiy businesses. Just read the credits at the end of the shows & you see many names the same. As for classis Radio FM well here on Cape York we don't have a choice. Either you like sport or you don't. Night time radio is good but who has the time to stay up when you've got to go to work in the morning.
I had a week off with a flu recently & I made a point of watching as much TV as I could simply to see the content. I tell you it was scary. The ABC & SBS were the top performers whn it comes to utterly non-sensical childrens viewing. If I had my way the ABC & SBS programmers would be sent to a labour camp for a month just to make them get off the drugs they're on & make them wake up. Here on OLO we constantly debate for improving our society whilst government funded outfits such as the ABC & SBS create such utter nonsense. A child in Australia these days has no hope in hell of developing a healthy mentality courtesy ABC & SBS.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 24 February 2011 7:31:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MarcH

There are many in the MSM and blogosphere that woefully report on global warming and the science behind it - you know this.

While your objective is to publicise the errors, omissions, and substandard reports produced by the ABC, you would gain more credence if you had/would demonstrate it goes BOTH ways ... you never do.

It is understandable however, the reason behind your being would make that difficult. This is unfortunate, it is important that 'joe & jane 6-pack' have access to accurate and unbiased reporting, from all sources.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 24 February 2011 7:48:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
individual, two things (off topic I know) but;

1. Can you suggest a few good examples of commercial channels' children shows?

2. Can you defend your statement that ABC and SBS programmers are on on drugs?
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 24 February 2011 8:01:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
March,
no it's not acceptable to base views on internet gossip.
But it's also not fair to lambast the whole ABC as left wing when it's nothing of the kind. Nor does its "demographic" constitute, according to your cliched thinking, "middle class welfare". The ABC's audience (radio and television) covers the entire spectrum and offers the only commercially unpolluted quality-content available. The ABC's self-promotion is a minor irritation that helps to pay for the service, thus saving tax-payers money. Heaven forbid it should ever be privatised and thus made the puppet of corporate interests!
You also imply the ABC "should" be accountable to government; why the hell should it? It should be accountable to journalistic standards, and certainly they need greater governance, but much more so on the commercial stations!
But this is just a witch hunt, like climate gate, pursued by right-wing, free-market blow-holes who celebrate every tacky new commodity private interests spew out.

Individual,
I have young kids and with few exceptions I think the children's programming is excellent, though we need more social-satire for little kids. Start teaching to think critically early I say!
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 24 February 2011 9:30:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
You miss my point. A large number of the population look after themselves when it comes to sourcing their entertainment and information. It's about time heavy users of ABC content fork up for the services currently subsidised heavily by other tax payers. You claim it's so good you should be willing to pay extra. i suggest a subscription system to fund additional content such as The Drum and Environmental blogs that the vast majority of the population never access.

You contend: "But this is just a witch hunt, like climate gate, pursued by right-wing, free-market blow-holes who celebrate every tacky new commodity private interests spew out." This is just more internet gossip, without any evidence to back it up-are you sure you don't work for ABC News, seems you pass their test for journalism. You consider that seeking to hold ABC to account for its failing standards is a witch hunt, what a weird upside down world you live in
Posted by MarcH, Thursday, 24 February 2011 9:45:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham, I'm sorry, but when I went looking for that US navy ice report I could not find it again. I may be looking in the wrong place, but I think it has been "disappeared".
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 24 February 2011 11:24:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
2. Can you defend your statement that ABC and SBS programmers are on on drugs?
Bonmot,
Well, if it's not drugs then what is it that makes them do things that they do ? I believe quite a few of them are just leftie self-serving mutts. Why else won't they produce intelligent childrens programming to help build childrens' level of intelligence ? Wouldn't you be happier if you were smarter ? Be honest now ?
as for your first question I don't think the commercial stations are of any better standard than the taxpayer funded stations. At least the commercial stations aren't wasting my dollars. See, the difference is that 80 % of TV in Australia is as mindless as other countries but at least the commercial stations keep the coin rolling. The ABC & SBS stop the coin rolling once it reaches them.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 24 February 2011 11:44:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some time back it rained a bit. No, not this year, when it rained a hell of a lot, but enough for my area to be cut for a couple of days.

As I had something important to do the next day, & was getting concerned about flooding, I switched on the radio, tuned to ABC 612. This was either late in the evening, or early in the morning. In view of torrential rain falling in the south east of Queensland it seemed to be appropriate to tune in to "my local radio ABC". for information.

After about 15 minutes I got a weather bulletin. I was advised of rain expected to continue in Sydney Harbour, & a damaging thunder storm west of Coffs Harbour. Queensland did not exist, at least in the area of interest of "our ABC". Obviously our ABC is too busy spending our taxes on art, culture & lefty causes to have any money left for a radio station catering to the safety of Queenslanders.

As far as I'm concerned you can stick your ABC, it's of no use at all to most Ozzies, & I think we should all withhold that 8.5 cents a day from our tax, to force a showdown.

The ABC had made itself totally irrelevant by deciding to cater for a totally irrelevant audience of those who consider themselves an elite. It's disappearance would only be helpful to the country.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 24 February 2011 11:47:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lets see:
1- because both anonymous internet postings, and discussions where lobbyists must reveal their identity and angle, both have a place in society.
2- broader accessible circulation of ideas from popular ABC than to whoever has heard of the "Online Opinion Forum"
3- general security and importance of having a national, non-commercial broadcaster.
4- that taxpayers don't exactly pay very much per year to uphold the ABC
5- that the ABC is a far better channel than 7,9,10.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 24 February 2011 11:57:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen sums it up perfectly

'Obviously ideology comes first, in all matters at our ABC.'

Could not be more accurate.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 24 February 2011 12:03:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we are all being a little harsh on the ABC. All we have to do is vote on OLO for the bits we don’t like, and then we can send a petition to Mark Scott asking for the necessary changes.

I would vote for getting rid of the endless stream of documentaries that cover dying polar bears, wind farms, melting glaciers, increasing natural disasters of every type and rising sea levels.

Then we could dispense with the school kids on ABC News 24, who, after every ALP policy announcement, subject us to a sixth form ideological sales pitch to tell us just how good this is for us.

Next would be to retire Tony Jones, Barrie Cassidy et al. Not just because they are rude, but because they reflect poorly upon journalistic professionalism. The added bonus of closing down these programs would be that we don’t have to put up with the guest journalists from the newspapers we chose not to buy.

After this we should cancel the ABC’s entire News and Current Affairs franchise until such time as they can demonstrate their ability to deliver News and Current Affairs instead of “opinion”.

If we removed the adverts from some of their radio programs they would be some value in what’s left.

We should leave the ABC staff just enough money to run one blog and close the rest down, it is an embarrassment to the nation.
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 24 February 2011 12:56:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You miss my point MarcH, the ABC well and truly caters to the whole population and should be held 100% in public hands. Similarly many other formerly public assets should be reacquired. Privatisation has shown itself to be a dismal and unconscionable failure.

Spindoc,
I think ABC content is excellent, in itself but especially in contrast to the commercial bilge on offer.
The only change I'd make to the programming is I'd get rid of counterpoint; it's the only thing the ABC need feel embarrassed about.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 24 February 2011 3:09:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Squeers,

I am also among those who enjoy the ABC, so it is not a question of quality - because I think most Australians do enjoy it, but rather a moral issue where I am as guilty as anyone:

What right have I to tax others for my entertainment?
The only term I can find for such behaviour is robbery!
I too am benefitting from the proceeds of robbery, shame on me!

I hope the ABC remains in public hands, I will be personally very sad if it falls into the hands of commercial companies because the moment they place the first ad, that channel as far as I'm concerned is banned. The best outcome, therefore, is if the ABC turns into stations voluntarily supported by those Australians who enjoy them. Contributions by the public towards its operations will be rewarded with a vote about the contents.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 24 February 2011 3:58:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hope the ABC remains in public hands,
Yuyutsu,
I think just about everyone in the country would agree with you on that one. That's why some of us want it to change back to normal savvy people running it rather than the nepotistic gang that's running it now.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 24 February 2011 4:28:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, since when did anyone contrast a public broadcaster like the ABC against a commercial broadcaster? That's a bit like saying Mubarak was OK really, compared with Gaddafi?

No, that won't wash.
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 24 February 2011 5:07:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
Like you I’m devoutly non-commercial, and feel protective of the ABC.
But there’s no need to feel guilty about your indulgence. My indulgence is mainly Radio National; for my littlies it’s Play School and Sesame Street; for my prepubescent’s its Dr Who and Mr Bean; for my teens its Triple J; for my wife it’s Spicks and Specks, the Cook and the Chef, and Agatha Christies; for my father it’s the News and the 7.30 Report if the troglodytes object to British programming, pay more tax for Australian content!).
The ABC and SBS are as eclectic as they can “afford” to be, and aim at the whole demographic—those who haven’t sold their souls to junk-content providers.
You say, <What right have I to tax others for my entertainment?>
I’m mainly a cyclist and pedestrian but road funding still comes out of consolidated revenue! I don’t use public health much but my tax dollars still maintain it. And so they should! And just as surgical procedures are not vetted by government, neither should the national broadcaster be. It’s an inconvenient fact that ABC personnel are university “educated”, and hopefully awake to the corporatist makeover of reality that’s been under construction lately, and ergo have a more up-to-date, realistic and critical view of our culture than benighted souls like Hasbeen and Spindoc.
I would certainly rather pay subscription fees than lose the ABC, but the ABC is an ecumenical church and “is” taken up by a broad demographic. And if it does go to subscription-only, a) how is that going to fund quality content? And b) what about the poor devils subsisting only on commercial gruel, who might one day see the light?
It shocks me that so many people are so eager to hand their lives (that’s what it amounts, we live these days by proxy) over to commercial opportunism!
It shocks me even more that the ABC is seen as having a leftist bias; to me it’s far too compliant and conservative!
OLO has an ideological bias too, but that’s got nothing to do with public funding.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 24 February 2011 7:12:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
Nice to see the public is funding your entertainment, perhaps you would consider sending some of your tax dollars to the families who prefer Foxtel over the ABC. Unlike the ABC, Public health and transport infrastructure are essential services so this comparison falls flat on its face. You say you ride and cycle but given you shop locally how do you think the goods you buy get to the shop? Via Dr Who's Tardis perhaps. Your hypocrisy is surreal.
In terms of the dollars, given ABC have 20% of the media market, that's 4,400,000 people who could finance the ABC at their current budget for the small consideration of just $227 each per annum. So for a family of 4 that's about $1000 per annum. About the same as Foxtel. Time you got off the public teat, mate. I suggest we adopt a system similar to public broadcasting in the US and start making those who use the service pay for it.
Posted by MarcH, Thursday, 24 February 2011 7:29:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the things that no-one seems to have touched on is that because the ABC is publicly-funded it almost guarantees that it will be the only broadcaster to do serious current affairs.

I've been chuffed at the number of commenters who think that OLO does as good, or better, a job than the Drum. But imagine how many more OLOs there could be if the ABC had to raise money for its own efforts.

The ABC would have to be lean and mean like we are.

That means that in our area, for example, it wouldn't be able to pay for contributions, increasing the pool of potential contributors available to us, and others like Crikey, the Punch and the National Times.

And across the board you'd get much more diversity in serious opinion because it wouldn't go through the ABC sieve, which at a national level does lean to the left.

The reason the commercial broadcaster broadcast pap is that the market for quality is not that large, and the ABC gorilla dominates that space. Without its base being protected by the taxpayer you would get something much more like what you see in print where The Australian, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald are all commercial and all do serious journalism.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 24 February 2011 8:22:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MarcH,

I argued that my whole diverse family uses the public broadcaster and you yourself indicate that the ABC has "20% of the media market, that's 4,400,000 people". I bet the commercials would love those numbers!
I'de say that means the public dollars involved are pretty evenly distributed, no?
The "public teat" in this country is a dry husk, so please don't ask me and the other 4.4 million to develop a conscience over the ABC's intellectual soup kitchen!
I don't s'pose you'd be interested in enlarging on your wider agenda?
What's your vision of the future?
I bet it's really inspiring!
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 24 February 2011 8:25:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeeze,
I use the 20% figure as an example, it is by no means a firm figure and could be alot less. However if close to the mark this would mean that 4 out of 5 Australian's are subsidising the entertainment of the other 1. Hardly a fair and equitable arrangement.
You say "I don't s'pose you'd be interested in enlarging on your wider agenda?"
Will endeavour to do so, perhaps in another article in this wonderful web space!
Posted by MarcH, Thursday, 24 February 2011 9:24:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Squeers,

"what about the poor devils subsisting only on commercial gruel, who might one day see the light?"

As I suggest, the ABC will still be free-to-air, which means that those poor devils will still get a chance to listen. Once they see the light and find how good it is, they will too join the circle of patrons. If they don't, then it is their free choice which I fully respect.

"how is that going to fund quality content?"

By having enough people who care that much that they are willing to pay more to begin with. If there aren't enough people who care, then instead of compromising on quality, the ABC should compromise on broadcasting hours. Who said that a service must run 24x7? Want more hours - pay more.

I'm also a would-be cyclist, had the oppressing helmet-laws not been in place. For the meanwhile I use my car, cheerfully gaining weight and polluting my environment. I certainly don't want anyone who doesn't use roads to be forced to fund my habit: there should indeed be a clause in the tax-return saying "I wish to be exempt from funding roads and I agree not to use any roads in the coming tax-year" (but note that cyclists also use roads to a certain extent). A similar clause for the ABC would also get things right and allay my guilt, while a variety of similar clauses from different areas-of-life should be included as well so that none of us needs to be an accessory to robbery.

No wonder you do not notice the Leftist elements of the ABC because they are so common today that they have become the norm and are taken for granted. I personally noticed their leftist attitudes by the number of my comments which were censored on their website.

Talking about public-health would get us well over the 350-word limit, but suffice it to say that the bicycle-helmet law is a derivative of the leftist nanny-state philosophy by which your responsibility for your own life and health is taken over by the state.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 24 February 2011 11:27:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MarcH,
I bet the ABC caters to vast the majority of Australians.
I look forward to your confession.

Yuyutsu,
I am a leftist and can assure you the ABC is not.
You mistake intellectualism, modest as it is, for leftism, and even it only stands out against popular anti-intellectualism, which fires all the other retrograde “anti”, or minimifidianist, movements.
I also don’t want a nanny state, and that’s why we need an inclusive rather than representative democracy. But we still need government and we still need public assets that we have some collective control over.
You of course think yourself an individual (Thatcher Syndrome), when in fact you are an utterly socialised being. Your every thought and reverie are syntagmatic mosaics derived from birth from a massive and evolving symbolic database that provides your illusion of reality and your centrality within it. Capitalism encourages individuality, but of course it’s not real. You’re an exotic, a supercilious hot-house plant (no offense, we all are). You believe in your individuality but you wouldn’t last a minute outside.
Of course we also each have, or had, ontological-being, a sense of self outside or beyond the syntagmatic meanings that inundate the mind. Except in the modern world it is no longer co-operative, social-symbolic meaning that we’re steeped in, but commodified meaning. Our need for meaning is nurtured and exploited by the market to turn a profit. Not that it actually “provides” meaning, it explicitly does not. It provides products, experiences, diversions, semblances, ersatz meaning, endlessly variegated and recut to appeal to our primal desire born of contemporary emptiness.
And this is what you’re defending in the name of liberalism; a wholly exploited and commodified life; social being, community and mores traded for human farming; the market catering for our every whim, while simultaneously punishing and weeding-out “dysfunctional” units—those unwilling or unable to comply. St!ff sh!t to them!
And you complain about a nanny state!
You want fragmentation, vicious and delusional individuality. I want community, compassion and “real” self-fulfilment.
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 25 February 2011 9:58:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
Based on the rating figures that's a bet you have already lost. But I guess facts are not something someone looking for "real" self fulfilment would be interested in. Get back to us when you find something in that belly button worth sharing, rather than the cliche fluff you have provided thus far.
Posted by MarcH, Friday, 25 February 2011 10:12:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, did you just imply that the ABC exhibits modest “intellectualism”?

My goodness, you really are on planet Squeers. So tell me, What University, anywhere on this planet teaches intelligence?

It is you that is trying to justify your case based upon intelligence, which you imply provokes those who are, dare I say it, less intelligent. You confuse education with intelligence. Yes ABC journalists may have University Educations, so do those who run the planet and drive productivity. That requires common sense, which I might add is also not on the curriculum at Universities.

Yes, you do present as a “leftist” which leaves you with a restricted reference point, if you are on the left that is the one perspective you cannot see. So what has the world dished out to you that has left you with such a jaundiced perspective of your fellow humans? Or was it just University, the same excuse for ABC journalists and staffers?

You are not making much sense.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 25 February 2011 10:41:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You mistake intellectualism, modest as it is, for leftism,
Squeers,
Intellectualism is not modest, intellect however is in rather modest supply. Big words you used in your post, you must be an ABC journo ?
Posted by individual, Friday, 25 February 2011 10:42:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Squeers,

Make no mistake - I am not against community as such, only against communities that force people to take part in their aspirations without first asking them for their consent. There is a worlds differnce between the conscious and voluntary accepting of the harsh and disciplined life of a Zen monastery vs. the forced subjection to nanny laws made by some ignorant and materialistic government of no spiritual credentials, with the sole excuse of you being born somewhere with a human body.

In that regard, the Left is no less guilty of materialism than its corporate "enemy" and so are the ordinary people who look for "meaning" in shop-windows (what a joke since nobody ever found that elusive meaning). Stressing all day that "Oh, why do they have and we don't" sends the wrong message as if what "they" have is so desirable, indeed the holy-grail...

Real self-fulilment cannot be granted from the outside. Even if you for yourself know who and what you are, there is nothing more harmful to another's spiritual development than trying to tell them who and what they are, which you attempted on me in your last post. One can only find the Truth of who and what they are in due course by their own process, and your intervention simply pulls the breaks on their contemplation, satisfying them with words rather than with a direct experience. Whether your ideas are true or not, they are still just that - ideas, and you should not shove them into somebody else's mind more than you would dump your physical garbage in their kitchen.

Of course consumerism is not the answer - but how is one to know that without experimentation? Compassion means that you allow your children to play, to try out things that work and things that don't work, then reach their own conclusions. What merit is there for having all the answers to begin with? What merit is there when having only one choice, only the "right way" while being denied the option of choosing it consciously?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 25 February 2011 11:40:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu
I’ve made no “attempt” on you, but am merely pointing out to you that our sense of self is ambiguous at best, that the opinions we cherish, when analysed closely, can be conceived merely as discursive composites, derived magpie-fashion from the host culture, or indeed from the vast historical and multicultural intertext. Most of the “thinking” on OLO, and elsewhere, comes ready-made; hackneyed phrases strung together to form strains of ideological claptrap (how I would designate my other interlocutors above). I acknowledge these “ideas” are just that, but I make no apology for positing them. They are for you to consider or discard as you see fit. This is an opinion site, Yuyutsu, and by joining in you concede to having your opinions challenged. I’m not dumping in your mind any more than I am in your kitchen.
I don’t know what to make of your last paragraph, I have no dogmatic notions of the “right way” or of imposing anything on anyone. I’m in favour of “real” freedom. I’m confronted by a world that imposes on me and all of us, a kind of materialistic Pascal’s wager that offers freedom of choice (like candy) within a very limited spectrum to those who can afford to buy it. You imply that we are capable of free choice, but this is surely an illusion as we only have negative choices, Bartleby (The Scrivener) choices. Freedom of choice under liberalism is first of all a matter of privilege, of fortune good or bad. At worst it’s a copout, the rationalising of the wealthy, privileged and elitist who want minimal government to hamper their divinely vouchsafed freedom and their precious “individuality” (lol). Meanwhile the underprivileged and disadvantaged are dismissed as wastrels for making bad choices. As if it was a level playing field or either side was uncoerced.
I don’t know you, Yuyutsu (but you seem thoughtful), this is my 350 word assessment of Liberalism.
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 25 February 2011 3:36:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Squeers,

When speaking of freedom of choice, I obviously am not referring to some simplistic freedom to take what you want out of the supermarket.

We are all climbing the ladder, but at the end of the ladder is not a palace full of servants, a fleet of Rolls-Royce, pacific islands, a gorgeous harem, world-rullership, trillions of $$$'s or anything of the like. At the end of the ladder is enlightenment - complete freedom from worldly attachments.

It is silly for those below to envy those above them on that ladder, or to wish for their downfall (my brief assessment of socialism), because everyone will get there eventually, and the last thing you need when you will eventually be near the top is for those below to pull you down. On the contrary, the ones at the top should inspire those who are not yet there, knowing that their turn will come too. In fact, it takes no money to climb, it only takes the willingness to let go. How then can anyone be underprivileged or disadvantaged?

Yes, I am aware of those you mentioned who seek freedom in order to amass wealth. They are mistaken too. Wealth is meant as an aid for attaining freedom and not vice-versa. Wealth can be useful to protect oneself during sensitive parts of the journey from the corrupting influence and cruelty of society. Once you are enlightened of course, nothing can corrupt you, so wealth is no longer necessary.

Freedom of choice is first and foremost a spiritual value. One of its outcomes is responsibility. Also, no compassion is possible without freedom of choice: wealth-distribution yes, but no compassion can be involved so long as the wealth is not freely-given.

Materialism, be it of the Left or of the Right, considers life a 0-sum game: Power is 0-sum, Wealth and resources are 0-sum, Life is not!

Finally, what's wrong with negative choices? Choosing to refrain from drugs, alcohol, bad company and commercial channels, or choosing to forsake anger and not feel like a victim, etc.? are these all trifling matters?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 25 February 2011 5:39:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

I was into Theravada Buddhism for several years, but I don't like your ladder metaphor; the Buddha's idea was renunciation and the goal was more oblivian (escape from Dukkha) that the rather high-sounding "enlightenment" (more an honorific bestowed on the Buddha: "the enlightened one").
With dessicating understatement, the Buddha deemed life "unsatisfactory" (which is why Nietzche condemned Buddhism {and Christianity} for offering no hope in "this" world).
There is no evidence of any legitimate (biological/spiritual) hierarchy among social humans (except perhaps when an elder is appointed by humans), only that the concept has long been used to rationalise, and tyrannise over, inequality.
Liberalism tries to legitimise this relationship, material disparity, as an impartial, fiscal truth (as if our reality were legitimately economic!). Spiritual upward mobility is little different to the capitalist kind; it's "cultural capital" (Bourdieu), and enlightenment is surely seeing beyond that too?
True materialism is rich in philosophy and goes way back. It doesn't turn its back on this world, in favour of mythical heavenly realms that appeal to the ego, but tries to change things for the better (techne). Materialism is thus not a zero sum philosophy, though the current shallow materialism we live under is. Rich and poor is zero sum, though strictly speaking zero sum is an abstraction with no practical equivalent, (except perhaps energy).
Finally, the negative choices you mention are philosophical luxuries (commodities). The negative choices available to the underprivileged include the right to starve in the street, or become an acetic. Like Bartleby, one might "prefer not to" (partake in the vicious, degrading and lop-sided exchange "civilised" life is reduced to), and exercise that choice (as Bartleby does) by dying of obstinacy.
The world could be arranged such that positive choices were available. Having young children, I'm not ready to embrace renunciation just yet.
But I'm way off topic. Thanks for the exchange.
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 26 February 2011 8:09:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Squeers,

Yes, enlightenment goes beyond it all, and in the deepest sense we are indeed all equal, since Atman=Brahman, but so long as we are not yet there, the Hindus recognized that people are not equal and categorized people into castes according to their level of ability to take responsibility: Workers (Shudras), Tradespeople (Vaishyas), Warriors/Leaders (Kshatrias) and God-People (Brahamins).
Yes, they made a mess of it (or perhaps it degenerated into a mess over the ages): they mistakingly believed that castes have rigid boundaries rather than being a continuum, and that they are automatically inherited from parents to children: that of course renders the concept most unpopular - yet it has a true factual basis. People do differ in their ability to take responsibility! It is also statistically true that it USUALLY goes in the family.

It is a scientific fact that people are not equal, never been. That of course should never be used to justify tyrannising. One should exercise compassion towards all sentient beeing, not just humans, and I am sure you wouldn't claim that a cow and a man have an equal capacity to take responsibility, or to seek enlightenment.

People do not starve in the streets, not in Australia. You look at the "poor" "working-"class here and find that, although they have a chronic negative bank-balance, they keep more electronic gadgets than those "who have", drive 4-wheel-drives in the city (the devil knows how they got them), use air-conditioners with their windows open (never considering their next electricity-bill), smoke, drink, gamble, swear, and carry a host of bad habits borne by a host of poor choices.

These are not ascetics either, nor Bartlebys: these are irresponsible people whom the Australian government favours and take pity on (not true compassion), giving them an unlimited line of credit, because this government, instead of Leaders (Kshatriyas) consists of Shudras, irresponsible just as their favourite subjects and contemptful of those who behave responsibly and strive and sacrifice to improve themselves, materially and spiritually. They even have a justification for it, it's called "tall poppy syndrome". So much for democracy...
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 27 February 2011 4:00:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One thing that concerns me with the Drum is that it has been running a series of articles from Essential Media Communications.

That the national broadcaster is giving such free reign to a company of spin doctors who openly boast that 'we drove the Howard Government out of power', and who are openly committed to campaigning for left-wing causes surely raises questions of conflict of interest.

Who is to say that EMC's Drum articles are not part of a paid-for campaign - especially given that they boast about their 'cutting edge digital and online campaigning'?

Questions in the comments sections of EMC's Drum articles, directly asking if they were part of a paid campaign are studiously ignored by the author, except for one that somewhat disingenuously denied having the ALP as a client. When I replied that not only had their best known campaign been paid for by the ACTU and which EMC themselves claim drove out the Howard government, but that EMC had also worked for the (Labor) Victorian government, no further answer was forthcoming.
Posted by Clownfish, Sunday, 27 February 2011 4:05:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

My suspicion is that there are deep mysteries to our existence, possibly meaningful ones, but since there is no reliable evidence (discounting also, indeed especially, subjective credulousness) to support anthropocentricity in general, and since material existence “is” both manifest and “unsatisfactory”, I treat it as our most pressing reality. Spirituality is a leisure activity, ergo a luxury indulged according to means. I am thus a (qualified) materialist: there is no reason to presume that our metaphysical rambles are anything more than that. Certainly religion (broadly speaking) has had no positive historical effect on material reality.
The caste system is itself a rationalisation designed to preserve the status quo. You surely don’t argue that anything so arbitrary as caste divides individuals according to merit? You surely agree that such a system entraps worthy individuals at the bottom while artificially, and without merit, maintaining corrupt and worthless individuals at the top? I can see that in a perfect world, where each sphere is dignified and respected, such a system might work, but in reality they are used to denigrate and impoverish, and to maintain perennial power.
“People do differ in their ability to take responsibility!”Bbut history has surely taught us to be wary of those who step-up? And if certain attributes do run in families, what does that prove but that nothing succeeds like success, or failure? It appeals to the vanity of those who fancy they come from an exalted line, but it’s just old money and all the more decadent for that.
“It is a scientific fact that people are not equal, never been”. “Scientific facts” don’t impress me much; they’re human “facts”, replete with human foibles. Humans may not be equal but there’s little qualitative difference. It’s first about expectation, and the about opportunity. Cows and humans are qualitatively different, humans and humans are not, it’s just privilege and vanity.

cont..
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 27 February 2011 6:38:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
..cont.

“People do not starve in the streets, not in Australia. You look at the "poor" "working-"class here and find that, although they have a chronic negative bank-balance, they keep more electronic gadgets than those "who have", drive 4-wheel-drives in the city (the devil knows how they got them), use air-conditioners with their windows open (never considering their next electricity-bill), smoke, drink, gamble, swear, and carry a host of bad habits borne by a host of poor choices”.
People are the product of their society. Modern western humans have been bred to be selfish consumers and behave according to their lights. They did not generate spontaneously, though they evince spontaneous pathologies, incumbent upon the role our society demands of them. Humans are not by nature vicious; it can be bred into them, but they make sickly hybrids. Ours is a sick society.

“These are not ascetics either, nor Bartlebys: these are irresponsible people whom the Australian government favours and take pity on (not true compassion), giving them an unlimited line of credit, because this government, instead of Leaders (Kshatriyas) consists of Shudras, irresponsible just as their favourite subjects and contemptful of those who behave responsibly and strive and sacrifice to improve themselves, materially and spiritually. They even have a justification for it, it's called "tall poppy syndrome". So much for democracy...”
Our Australian government is not a government, any more than the US and the rest. Modern government is the via-media of capital; it has no policies based on “good government” (name me one?). Government is merely the stoker; it shovels coals in pin-stripes! whatever will burn goes into the furnace that makes capital. It’s a fire sale and everything’s consumable.
“those who behave responsibly and strive and sacrifice to improve themselves, materially and spiritually” are the lowest caste of all, the self-satisfied minions of the system who, if they were truly worthy would be rebelling against it rather than feathering their nests and puffing-up their plumage”.
The supreme merit of the ABC is it is, at its best, self-reflective on our behalf, and critical!
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 27 February 2011 6:39:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Squeers,

I must go back to Pascal's Wager which you mentioned earlier: it is far better to live "as if" there is something beyond matter, because if only matter exists, then you will eventually lose everything no-matter-what. Matter will not last forever, our human body will not last forever, our society and our contributions to it will not last forever, humanity will not last forever. Treating these as a goal unto itself and considering them too important is therefore a mistake, these are only means.

Those who are not interested in spirit may consider it luxury/leisure, but that's only a poor excuse for even a poor person can afford to meditate an hour a day, for example. It is of course a matter of priority: you may prefer to have a family instead, but that's no more than luxury/leisure as well.

Anything can be abused. Religions have been badly abused. The caste system has been badly abused, so much that Gandhi wanted to cancel it completely. Indeed, one can use castes as a pretext for denigrating, impovershing and maintaining perennial power, or they may appeal to one's vanity - that's abuse, but it does not change the underlying facts of life. Castes should only be used to describe human reality as it is anyway, not to exaggerate its trends.

The thought of being a product of society is most depressing, but fortunately we do have the ability to exercise our free choice, step out and shape our life to one degree or another. That degree of independence can be attributed to one's level of consciousness. Just as there are differences between humans and cows, it is irrational to claim that such differences do not exist between humans. You think that those differences in ability are insignificant, counter to my own experience. I do consider consciousness to be the only thing that makes life worthwhile.

It is possible for example to step out and reject society's call to be a selfish consumer. One need not even subscribe to the notion of "modern western humans".

(continued...)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 27 February 2011 9:35:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(...continued)

Puffing-up plumage has nothing to do with consciousness - it is plain silly, but feathering one's nest in this day and age is a sensible thing to do to protect oneself from the hostile western-society in which we live. Rebelling against the system can be done bare-footed if you are a Faqir, but a few $$s in the bank can do a fair bit to help in that process for anyone who is not yet fully enlightened.

"Our Australian government is not a government"

Everyone knows that, but why is it so?
- Because the elected people are of primitive, underdeveloped consciousness, because they are from a low caste, because they are Shudras who are not capable of taking the necessary responsibilities, this is why they blindly serve the interests of unethical capital for example, they are ignorant, they know not better. There is no shame in being there, we all go or went through that stage (sometime between living as a cow and living as a Brahamin), but then we should not be in leadership positions. So much for democracy - the blind leading the blind!
Traditionally, leadership was held by the Warrior/Leader caste (Kshatriyas), who were capable and responsible, who in turn revered and protected the God-people (Brahamins), who in turn bestowed their blessings on society. How different than today's society where Brahamins need to raise money to protect themselves!

I would humbly suggest that you may have a serious issue with responsibility. How else can responsibility be considered a negative trait??

As for the ABC, I accept that it is better than the others and happy to hear that it is self-reflective (something I cannot probably learn just from listening to ABC classic FM). As I wrote earlier, my problem does not lie with its contents, but with the fact that by listening to the ABC I become an accomplice to robbery, taxing people against their will for my entertainment.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 27 February 2011 9:35:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

I think there's no point discussing it further. I find your position elitist and unacceptable, and your idea of taking responsibility, for yourself, a case of "pull the ladder up". The most common way for liberalism to defend itself from such charges is to retreat into religious mysticism in spurious defence. But this is just irrational rationalising.
I stand by everything I've said above, but I don't think you've really considered it.
Nothing new in that..
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 28 February 2011 6:23:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having been bumped off the Drum a few times for what I thought were very innocuos questions I haven't been back since. The ABC should remember its origins occasionally - rural Australia created it!

I started with OLO because it reminded me of how The Bulletin used to be before Laurie Oaks emasculated it. The dear old Bulletin would print 5 or 6 pages of letters to the editor from ministers, shadow ministers on down to the garbage collector (a very admirable occupation I am sure :-). One ended up with some sort of cross section of "factual information" on any particular issue. So too with OLO - keep up the good work Graeme!

BTW - I now won't read any comments by Sqeers or Yuyutsu in the future - don't have enough time in this life to put up with this long winded banter. Thought... it would be nice on blogs to have an optional filter to remove comments from particular handles - jus' dreamin'.
Posted by JacobusZeno, Monday, 28 February 2011 11:01:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JacobusZeno,

It would also be nice to be able to filter-out verbal snatches that contribute nothing to debate.
Twits should stick to twitter.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 3:36:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IMHO The Drum do an OK job. They put up just as much right wing claptrap as left sicle waving; contrarian fact free fodder and alarmist "won't someone think of the children" dribble; and some decent science based arguments as well.

Setting your sights on The Drum and using that as a yardstick for the performance of the ABC as a whole is not a good methodology.

I could cherry pick the statement above about Artic sea ice, point out that submarines are not used by the US navy for ice measurement and yell that the whole of OLO is biased.

Not a good method.
Posted by T.Sett, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 6:31:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
T.Sett, I agree.

However, about the cherry pick - US submarines still conduct operations in the Arctic.

If anyone is interested in what the US Navy is doing, I suggest you look here:

http://tinyurl.com/4tqq2ch

What is staggering (if not unsurprising) is that certain OLO’ers make up their own “facts” then claim when questioned that their source has “disappeared” – Hasbeen's comment on 24th February a typical case in point.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 11:58:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy