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 23/2/2011What is the justification for sites like The Drum when On Line Opinion does it just as well at no cost to the taxpayer?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- ...
- 10
- 11
- 12
-
- All
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 9:58:59 AM
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
|
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.