The ABC has defended its decision to have Gemaine Greer on Q&A on Monday 16th September despite her recent comments on rape and the #MeToo mob. Wow! The ABC defending itself for giving the nod to freedom of speech not approved of by the Left and feministas on their biased program. Greer banned from the Writers' Festival, but OK for their ABC. The ABC was quick to say that it didn't mean that the agreed with her views.

Whatever next? Cory Bernardi as guest compere interrupting people he disagrees with, as per Tony Jones?

If you don't like the ABC why watch it?
People with a brain have long since realised, it's a complete waste of space.

Not sure if I agree with Germaine Greer on this and I can understand the fears of women. But it's good to have a fresh view on this. I need to read much more to have a proper opinion.

dd,

I didn't start this for a chat on liking or disliking the ABC. It's a big tick for the ABC as far as I'm concerned. Poor old Germaine is not very popular with their side of politics these days. Banned by the Writers' Festival, reviled by the Feminazis and the Left media, she's looking a bit sad.

CM,

I quite like the old bag in her old age, even though I don't think we could talk politics.

Wasn't this old battle axe one of the loudest screamers for left-orientated social change ?
What does she think now of the mess she helped to heap on us ?

Ttbn
...I appreciate you were making a point about an apparent change of direction with the ABC on this topic; but with the stroke of a pen the whole sad bedraggled enterprise could be sold off. What a joyous occasion that would be.

What would Rupert Murdoch do with it? He'd at least make it watchable!
The American version of the ABC is a fully private concern. It is as ranting left wing as our own outfit. There are a cohort in society who will support this crap, and put their money into it. That's how it should be with the Australian version. But as you have often said, "but for our gutless politicians, there go we"..

//The ABC has defended its decision to have Gemaine Greer on Q&A on Monday 16th September despite her recent comments on rape and the #MeToo mob.//

Yeah, they've had her on a number of times before. I'm glad to see they've got her back; she's always good value. A forthright and cantankerous old woman unafraid to speak her mind, regardless of who it upsets... she reminds me a bit of Granny Weatherwax, but mostly of Nanny Ogg. Everytime I see her on the panel, I keep my fingers crossed that she'll suddenly burst into a round of 'A Wizard's Staff Has a Knob on the End' or the infamous hedgehog song.

I think the thing I like most about her is her proven track record of getting up the nose of every Tory on the panel, Tony Jones, and most of the audience within the brief space of an hour. Some may respect her as an icon of feminism; I like her because she upsets almost everyone.

dd,

I wouldn't go as far as to say they are changing direction. I agree that there really is no place for a publicly funded or state-owned broadcasting network outside China or another totalitarian country where the government has to control everything to stay in power. In Australia, it is really stupid. But, not a single politician who could get rid of the ABC has the guts to to do it.

To Toni Lavis through the chair- Are you an existentialist or a nihilist?

To ttbn- Yes- I think Germaine Greer is interesting too. Her book The Whole Woman appeared to correct some of the extremes of feminism in favour of wisdom- based on my limited understanding. But 3rd Gen Interactionism and 4th Gen Rapism walked right over these ideas as the out of date ideas of a "has been"- sad that the feminist movement appears just as ageist as everyone else- despite their claims of enlightenment. There comes a time when you realise that your parents may have been right in many of their views- righteous youth are very smart.

Individual- I feel for your views here. Put it down to the sixties.

Diver Dan- I like where you're going with this.

Good on ya Tony Lavis.

Your obviously entertained by ABC television. Most I know are actually insulted by it.

But you've raised an interesting point. Introducing a failed left wing nut job such as she is, holds lessons for the rest. It's a cynical ploy.

//To Toni Lavis through the chair//

If I may offer a brief correction; my proper title is Toni Lavis through the wardrobe.

//Are you an existentialist or a nihilist?//

No.

Calum Malum

But firstly, why do you consider yourself such a bad dog to be wary of?

Call a dog a bad name and he'll be a bad dog.

If I'm already named "bad" it's somewhat foolish for detractors to say I'm "bad". "Bad dog you are a bad dog"

It's a personal joke on those who would say I'm bad for no other reason than they want to call me bad. Usually because it's in their perceived interest. A joke against baseless opinions. Such as those who label people as racist- and say that racists are synonymous with Satan- usually without understanding their argument.

Sometimes I even laugh at myself- some may try to score cheap points by saying I have a lot to laugh about- good for them.

Socrates and Thrasymachus argued about "might is right" in "The Republic". The argument for me came down to the point that even if "the mighty" have found a way to obtain power- without wisdom they won't be able to use it effectively to create stability. For this reason in a broad sense- Community Education Is The Key. You'd have to read The Republic for more information on what Socrates defined as education. (This has some similarities to the Chinese story of The Monkey King- Sun Wu Kong.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_a_dog_a_bad_name_and_hang_him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Wukong

Anyway Diver Dan - Thanks for your question.

Our new Chinese masters may insist on a name change for you CANEM MALUM, something less culturally antiquated, Maa lau zing the monkey imp springs to mind.

You know, I love a good conspiracy theory. Being the pragmatist I am, I've learned not to question the truth to the rumour. Every rumour has “that” mysterious element of truth.

The ABC Is being kept alive against all logic that dictates towards its elimination on the grounds of treason, as a weapon to be used against the “thinkers” among us, who see a future of Australia, fit only for Chinese.

Being called "bad" may not necessarily be a
bad thing. Affectionately it could mean that
what you did was "naughty." ;-)

Dear diver dan,

You said;

“What would Rupert Murdoch do with it? He'd at least make it watchable!”

Are you serious mate?

This is what a Murdoch network would look like, these are real news rooms in real stations;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI

That would indeed be a “threat to our democracy”.

For you to even contemplate having a foreigner replace the most trusted new source in Australia is shocking and reflects badly on any claim you have ever had of caring for this country.

“Over three times more voters trust the ABC (52%) than trust commercial media (14%)”

“Majority (68%) of respondents think the ABC is more important in an age of social media and fake news, including 64% of LNP and 61% of One Nation voters”

http://www.tai.org.au/content/abc-still-australia-s-most-trusted-news-source

Damn I'm getting bloody fed up with those wanting to get rid of the ABC. This organisation has held both government and big business to account time and time again. They are the last decent television investigative journalistic crew still operating and I value their contribution of taking on the top end of town and looking out for the ordinary Australians immensely.

You should too if you had and bloody sense.

SteelRedux said- "Majority (68%) of respondents think the ABC is more important in an age of social media and fake news, including 64% of LNP and 61% of One Nation voters http://www.tai.org.au/content/abc-still-australia-s-most-trusted-news-source"

Answer-

According to the site- "The Australia Institute is the country’s most influential progressive think tank. We conduct research on a broad range of economic, social and environmental issues in order to inform public debate and bring greater accountability to the democratic process."

I wouldn't be surprised that the progressive think tank The Australia Institute is supporting a progressive media outlet. Sounds like astro-turfing.

I'm not sure you could call them an independent source but could check the way they collect their data.

Lately Murdoch from memory has been one of the few supporting Traditional Australians certainly more than the ABC. Perhaps there is a place for a body similar to the ABC but it needs a broom- they have lost touch with the people- it's not fine for a corporate TV station to act like the ABC- let alone one that receives funding from the taxpayer. I guess the ABC are suffering from the same issues as the government and have lost touch with the Australian people.

The best way to solve the problem is to reduce their funding immediately.

The ABC - Funded by taxpayers and under constant scrutiny and complaint by both sides.

"Free"-to-air and print media - Funded by consumers (at far greater cost than the ABC) but free to say anything in compliance with the requirements of their corporate sponsors or the personal prejudices of their owners.

As for those who constantly complain about the ABC yet seem to watch it for that reason, it's like the Woody Allen joke about the two complaining old ladies in the restaurant -
"The food here is terrible".
"Yes, and in such small portions".

The point so many people miss either deliberately or they just don't get is that it is the Leftist bias of the ABC that gets up most peoples' noses.

Well, my creds are pure on this subject. I have a close inside source working at the ABC, a spy; so my info is accurate.
Secondly, I don't own a TV. neither do I buy newspapers, or read them for that matter.

The reason for that is the anti environmental bias in Murdochs papers.
At the ABC it's left wing bias, in Murdoch press, its right wing bias. It's like a bloody war I don't want to be part of.

As for journalism which I support in principal. I attended the Supreme Court in Sydney two weeks ago to observe the sentencing of an Australia freelance journalist to two years of imprisonment, for exposing members of the NSW judiciary as pedophiles.

These are the same judges that issued a three months jail term to a catholic pedophile priest, who spent the last twenty years buggering little boys.

You probably heard nothing of that event, but, at the same time, were driven to boredom by over the top coverage of an Australian journalist jailed for six years in Cambodia.

Here is a joke... perhaps extreme for some... be warned.

“Did you hear? They took Saragossa”
“Her husband too?”
“No, Saragossa is a city”.
“What, they’re taking whole cities now?!”

//The point so many people miss either deliberately or they just don't get is that it is the Leftist bias of the ABC that gets up most peoples' noses.//

The point so many people miss either deliberately or they just don't get is that most of the ABC's programming is entertainment, and that's what most people watch it for. For example I have most recently been (re)watching Blackadder (it never gets old) and a Catalyst program on probability:

http://iview.abc.net.au/show/blackadder/series/2/video/ZZ1589A006S00
http://iview.abc.net.au/show/catalyst

And I cannot work out for the life me where the 'Leftist bias' is supposed to be. I guess the ABC works a bit like a televisual Rorschach test where what people see on their screens says more about them than it does about the ABC's programming. And if they're seeing left-wing bias in absolutely everything on the ABC, from Red Dwarf to Antiques Roadshow, I think that speaks volumes about them.

It tells me they're completely barking mad, for a start.

Dear Toni,

Talking about intelligence (barking mad?) reminds
me of this "Golden Oldie."

An Englishman wants to marry an Irish girl and is told he
needs to become Irish before he can. It's a very simple
operation where they remove 5% of your brain.

Anyway the Englishman wakes up after the operation and the
doctor comes up to him looking all worried and says -

"I'm terribly sorry, there's been a mistake to be sure,
we accidentally removed 50% of your brain instead of 5%."

The Englishman sits up and simply says,

"She'll be right, mate!"

individual,

Even worse, the Left denies that there is a left-wing bias, completely blind to the fact that they are sucking up everything the ABC broadcasts for the obvious left-wing bias.

The ABC will never go because the Right uses it as much as the Left does. There is no other network that airs the views of politicians as the ABC does. The commercial networks have to earn their own incomes; advertisers are not attracted by idiot politicians being interviewed because neither are two thirds of the public - the ones who don't follow the ABC.

So, LNP politicians are just as eager to appear on the ABC as Green Labor is. No publicity is bad publicity. It doesn't matter to thick-skinned politicians that they are constantly interrupted by an ignorant reporter or host; they get their say, and they are likely to gain support from viewers or listeners because of the pig-ignorant reporter. I only occasionally watch current affairs on the ABC, and each time I become more convinced of my right-wing views . After all, Marxist Leftism is not contagious.

I still think that the ABC is an unnecessary burden on taxpayers, most of whom don't use the service at all. But, when I think about it without anger, I believe that the ABC could be doing as much, if not more, damage to the left as it tries to do to the right.

Accusations of bias against the ABC are useful tools
to undermine confidence and support for the network.
Just as fake news is used by Putin's Russia to
undermine social stability and confidence in institutions
of the West, especially the USA.

Lets take a closer look at the ABC. It devotes time
to issues that are largely ignored by other media - and
in doing so it paints a picture of an Australia that is
at odds with some people's beliefs about Australia -
for whom Australia is white, European, Christian, and male.
In their minds this is bias - but is it bias or a reflection
of the modern reality of Australia?

Then we have the accusations of the ABC being expensive.
According to The Guardian - the ABC now costs each Australian
4 cents a day. Half of what it did 30 years ago.

The ABC is not full of pinkos who want to brain wash our
children in secret hippy communes. On the contrary - chances are
the ABC will be doing - the stories and the reporting
on those hippy communes - bringing
them to our attention.

As for Germaine Greer on Q&A?

Q&A's aim has always been to create a discussion program that
reflected a wide diverse range of views and provide a rare
opportunity to Australians to directly question politicians
and others on the panel and hold them to account on a
national forum. Being included on the panel is not an
endorsement. The ABC could not possibly endorse all the views
expressed on Q&A. Their aim is to include significant
opinions. And that is the job that they do very well. Their
goal is to bring together people who don't agree because they
believe that shutting down arguments does not make them
go away.

And for that we should all be grateful

Dear diver dan,

You claim;

“Well, my creds are pure on this subject. I have a close inside source working at the ABC, a spy; so my info is accurate.”

What info?

All you did was bag out the ABC with not a single assertion of fact. If you would like to try again I am all eyes so to speak.

Shane was sentenced to 18 months not two years, and to call him a journalist would be a crime. He himself states “I only call myself a journalist to stir the other journalists up'.

Dear Canem Malum,

You wrote;

“it's not fine for a corporate TV station to act like the ABC”

Whatever are you getting at?

Well one way they don't act like a corporate station is that they have guidelines in place to prevent it and the fact they do not have to beholden to corporate interests. Why isn't that a good thing?

SteeleRedux

What info?

Inside info....the ABC is the centre of a rampant homosexual workforce and all that goes with it! Some would say left wing.. I say left wink!

Shane?

Dear diver dan,

"I attended the Supreme Court in Sydney two weeks ago to observe the sentencing of an Australia freelance journalist to two years of imprisonment, for exposing members of the NSW judiciary as pedophiles."

Don't you even remember the poor bloke's name? Or perhaps there was another case. Now that would be a turn up for the books wouldn't it.

As to the ABC is your problem with them the assumption there are more homosexuals employed there than other workplaces or that they aren't doing their job of exposing corruption and government mismanagement?

If it is the former then that is idiotic, if the later prove it.

SteeleRedux,

Maybe you should give some information on the man you refer to as Shane. What has your Shane been involved in, (the Shane you described as "not" a journalist).

Now the subject matter of the ABC.
I'd like to do a bit of cross referencing between the staffing of the ABC, and the staffing of Qantas. Qantas is another misfit operation in which I have a spy, (not in the baggage department either).

Qantas is another of those modern day "equality" corporate operations where answers to your pre-employment questioning, will be required to match the lack of morality of it's chief executive, or no job. Just like it is over at the ABC.
In simple language, pro gay rights. Which of course is dead-match to the ethics, or lack of, of the Labor Green alliance.

To deny that the ABC was actually the epicentre of the gay rights campaign, is to deny reality. It's a left wing flying circus. It must go.

Dear diver dan,

Okay so we have ascertained you might be a touch adverse to those who are not hetro enough for you. Your prerogative of course.

What you don't get to do is to call this a left wing issue. Tim Wilson is a former author at the Gina stable of 'independent' writers called the Institute of Public Affairs. The bloke is as right wing as they bloody well come. Yet he was probably the most high profile gay rights advocate through the debate even proposing to his male partner from the floor of the parliament.

Over two thirds of this country voted for same sex marriage, not because they were particularly invested in the issue but because they had the good sense to recognise that it was the FAIR thing to do. That is what makes this country worth championing, what in so many ways defines us, and you want to crap all over it.

We are moving on. You can stay stuck where you are or instead you can put aside whatever baggage your carrying and start valuing this country and its institutions a bit more, and that includes the A, B, bloody C!

As to Shane, who was the so called journo you reckon got banged up for 2 years by the Supreme Court?

After reading your tantrumonious outburst above, I'm reassured of my position. Viz.

To deny that the ABC was actually the epicentre of the gay rights campaign, is to deny reality. It's a left wing flying circus. It must go.

And on subject two, your Shane who is not a journalist, I'm waiting for your tantrum on that one. Please oblige.

Dear diver dan,

Tantrumonious outburst? Hardly.

If employing a small amount of vigor in an otherwise measured post made you feel threatened in anyway then I will endevour to be a touch more circumspect and account for your fragile sensibilities.

Now I will type slowly to see if repeating my question will aid in your comprehension of it;

"Who was the so called journo you reckon got banged up for 2 years by the Supreme Court?"

If you require a more direct version then I am afraid it may be beyond my capacity as I don't think it could be any plainer.

I believe that the ABC could be doing as much, if not more, damage to the left as it tries to do to the right.
ttbn,
People with ½ oz of brain whole-heartedly agree with that assertion.
Irreversible damage to the Nation is another factor but they don't really care as long as the toilets are spacious enough for two.

Bias comes through by the way things are commented upon. It is how the observer believes the scene affects his values. An example: In Western Law a paedophile is imprisoned: in Shariah law the victim is put to death as a violated person if it is brought to law.

Different sets of values is what causes bias. One would say, "the Government should take money from the wealthy and feed the poor and unemployed": the other would say, "let the poor and unemployed work for the wealthy".

The ABC's left wing socialist commentators are biased on commentary on the political events. That is their value leanings. Their faces light up with relish if they can comment on right wing politics. For example their dogged pursuit of Barnaby Joyce while others had left the subject. They have a belief they are not just reporting the news but they are creating the news.

Barnaby Joyce was/is a grub.

There's still another woman out there who's made claims against
him. His own wife describes him as a "prick."
And we've all met a few pricks in our time - but this guy
is a huge cactus.

Should be kicked out of Parliament.

and least you have given up pretending you don't act as judge and jury Foxy. Thank God its not you we have to answer to.

runner,

My judgements are not in question here. It's
Barnaby's actions that are. And by them shall
he be judged.

I wonder what Bill Shorten's first wife thinks of him Foxy? Oh thats right just like the abc its about sides for you.

runner,

Bill Shorten's first wife has never publicly criticised
her ex-husband unlike Barnaby's wife and daughters.
As for taking sides. No. You've got that wrong as well.
Unlike you - I don't do that. I don't need to. The facts
are there for all to see.

ever considered Foxy that it largely who the media target that determines what is publicly declared. Just a thought! Remember your abc spending a week on Abbott punching the air 40 odd years ago. The facts are not out there for all to see unless one searches a little further than fake news.

runner,

That's why the ABC is so important - with programs
like "Media Watch" and "Four Corners," that expose
the fake news to us all. And also programs like
Q&A that give voters the avvbility to hold politicians
to account.

It seems that you are arguing against yourself - if you
truly believe in good media - then you can't possibly
be against the ABC. That's not logical.

There's that old "leftist bias" myth again.

I recall the ABC broadcasting a comedy show portraying Julia Gillard as a bogan PM, having sex in the Prime Miniterial office under the Australian flag.

Then, when The Drum was an open forum, Annabelle Crab published no less that 16 consecutive aricles that were strongly pro-Abbott and in favour of the Liberal Party, much to the annoyance of contributors.
Even the broadcast version now provides a free forum for people like the IPA to put their views.

Keating, Hawke and even Wran had anti-Labor bias issues with the ABC and deliberately avoided speaking to them during their respective terms as leaders.

I could give many more examples but just those few don't seem too "leftist" to me.

The truth is that some people don't want to hear anything that contradicts their own prejudices but also don't want anybody else to hear them either. When you're so far to the Right, everything else has to be "left".

The rest of the media provides more than enough "Rightist bias" for their eager consumption.

I suppose they'll now accuse Murdoch of being "left" now that his role in dumping Turnbull has been publicly stated, not to mention other "lefties" like Alan Jones, Bolt and Hadley who all played their part too.

The ABC may be willing to present Economically Conservative views in an unbiased way but not Socially Conservative views. There are strategies that can be used in panels. Mostly on Q&A for example the audience is often packed with immigrants. Not representative of the Australian population- it biases the debate. If Q&A's audience was representative there would probably be a riot in the auditorium.

Same Sex Marriage is a Socially Progressive Policy even if Tim Wilson is Economically Conservative. The Institute Of Public Affairs appear to represent Free Traders (just like Malcolm Turnbull)- Economically Conservative but generally Socially Progressive/ Agnostic, Globalist.

The Socialist Left Progressives (Economically and Socially Progressive) push identity issues because it suits their power strategy- Trotskyism (Globalist Socialists). Greens are extreme progressives- Labor are also extreme progressives as can be seen in state Labor governments.

There are also people that are Conservative Socially and Economically such as Peter Dutton. And a very few that are Conservative Socially but Economically Progressive.

There is also the Globalist / Localist political continuum.

When the landscape is viewed by those that set the agenda in a narrow Left Right perspective it neglects the "Socially Conservative Localist" viewpoint.

When the landscape is viewed by those that set the agenda in a narrow Left Right perspective it neglects the "Socially Conservative Localist" viewpoint.
Canem Malum,
Yes, this is a hit-the-nail-on-the-head statement.

Not quite accurate. Not by a long shot.

The ABC has always provided various
viewpoints.

Programs like Media Watch - have covered all
aspects and provided a balanced critical view of what is being
offered to the public. They have criticised all inaccurate
reporting based on fact-checks, and evidence.

Also - the audience in Q&A is very representative of the
Australian communities. From people that make up the diversity
of today's Modern Australia - including the younger generation
of students - being able to share panels with politicians
from all the political parties and holding them to account.

The forum's panelists have included people of varying and
opposing viewpoints. This has been a very important feature of
the program. Where diversity of opinions has been key.

It is for that reason that those who don't like opinions that
disagree with their own rigid, stereotypical and narrow
points of view want funding to the ABC cut. Luckily most
Australians don't think that spending 4 cents a day from each
taxpayer - is a bargain for the quality that we get.

Four Corners as well - has even featured people like Steve
Bannon.

So all in all - the ABC has provided us with a steady stream
of programs that cannot be criticised for being "biased,"
and they are - simply because of the balanced nature of their
programming - by people who just don't like the different
viewpoints (from their own) that are being presented.

Much more balanced to watch sky after dark than those nasty men hating feminist that appear nightly on the abc. The inconvenient truth is that they are the true bullies. Sure all thew lesbians and women who love to wear the pants back the billion dollar a year tax payer funded propaganda. I mean how could a lovely feminist ever be the bully?

Sky News was forced to apologise after hosting criminal
Blair Cottrell (Cottrell had previously gained infamy for a
mock beheading outside a mosque). The far right extremist
was the first convicted under racial vilification laws.
Sponsors such as Huggies, Specsavers, Virgin, Amex- all
dropped their sponsorships of Sky News.

Talking about females and bullying - we also have Sky News
having to apologise to Greens Senator - Sarah Hanson-Young
after they broadcast the "appaling comments" made by
Liberal Democrats David Leyonhjelm during a Sunday morning
political commentary program with Sky News hosts -
Rowan Dean and Ross Cameron.

So much for replacing the ABC with Sky News?

' Blair Cottrell (Cottrell had previously gained infamy for a
mock beheading outside a mosque). The far right extremist
was the first convicted under racial vilification laws.
Sponsors such as Huggies, Specsavers, Virgin, Amex- all
dropped their sponsorships of Sky News.'

Yep Foxy the corporate bullies shutting up free speach.Then again when the abc had Blair Cottrell on their was silence. Or is their 2 Blair Cottrell's. Sheer hypocrisy.

At least Blair Cottrell tries to highlight the Social Conservative Position- Foxy and those like her won't admit that Social Conservative voices should be heard. I'm sure that many people on all sides of politics have been charged and convicted of offenses- the extremely toxic nature of diversity policy has meant that many are afraid to express their opinions on issues and feel unable to debate issues. Free debate the basis of democracy- of course socialists (and many free traders) don't believe in democracy.

I understand that people such as Blair Cottrell, Pauline Hanson, others have faults- as do we all.

Blair Cottrell - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3637671/United-Patriots-leader-Blair-Cottrell-details-criminal-history.html

Some of the things documented in the above link are a bit silly. Blair Cottrell was 26 in 2012 when he broke up with his girlfriend and it seems this provoked in him a crises. Some other items quoted were a bit controversial and silly but not illegal. In the past we would have said he was a bit of an idiot and left it at that for the law to deal with anything illegal.

Blair Cottrell- Convicted of Racial Vilification- Laws based on Convention On Civil and Political Rights Hate Laws always contentious not ratified by the US until 1992 under conditions that they don't undermine US Free Speech. My belief the goals of Hate Laws can be achieved through other means less likely to undermine democracy. Blair Cottrell's conviction perhaps more a sign of how far our democracy has degraded under progressive social policy. Muslims in Iran have beheaded US Presidents as part of their protests perhaps the point that Blair COttrell was making.

The toxic nature of the Social Progressive agenda means that only people like Blair Cottrell are willing to risk standing up for a Socially Conservative cause.

Without them Australia will become a territory of India.

Those that have served time need to be able to return and be able to create a functional position within the community.

In the context of the above comments my view is Blair Cottrell is currently doing important and good work

runner,

Wrong again.

When the ABC had Blair Cottrell on its "Hack Live,"
program - it presented a debate on the recent
resurgence of Aussie patriotism - with a variety
of people and opinions to discuss things with
Mr Cottrell. This demostrated that it takes a lot
of preparation and mutual respect presenting diverse
opinions to avoid digressing into quite a mess.
That Sky News presented. Therein lay the difference
between the two programs. Sky News later admitted it was
wrong to air the interview with Blair Cottrell.

Canem Malum,

Your aswsumptions are incorrect about me.
I know who I am and what I believe in.
I am all for people like Pauline Hanson and others of her
ilk, being heard. By all means -
The more she speaks and is questioned,
the better.

“Then again when the abc had Blair Cottrell on their was silence. Or is their 2 Blair Cottrell's. Sheer hypocrisy.”

Bloody hell runner, I swear you continue to plumb bizarre depths. What a stupid, rambling comment. In fact your whole post was just a vomit of negativity on to the page, bereft of any semblance of lucidity, like a mean, spiteful Jack Russell darting out to nip the occasional heel.

By the way why are you so threatened by women?

Dear Canem Malum,

“I might as well have raped @ljayes (Sky News political reporter Laura Jayes) on the air, not only would she have been happier with that but the reaction would’ve been the same.”

Blair Cotrell – Twitter

You and I definitely disagree on what we see as social conservatism.

//Some of the things documented in the above link are a bit silly. Blair Cottrell was 26 in 2012 when he broke up with his girlfriend and it seems this provoked in him a crises.//

'Provoked in him a crises', eh? It's amazing the euphemism people will invent to defend common thuggery. And make no mistake, he is nothing but a common thug.

But do keep trying to polish the turd that is Blair, Yappy Chihuahua. It's amusing for the rest of us.

I hope that you're just as judgemental when young members of your own family do silly things.

//I hope that you're just as judgemental when young members of your own family do silly things.//

I don't have kids, Yappy Chihuahua. I prefer dogs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ-fvr2qLc0

... well, most of the time. Some dogs are just Yappy Chihuahuas.

In my experience the best way to deal with a misbehaving puppy is a sharp rebuke, a smack on the nose and swift ejection to the backyard. If you let it slide as puppyish high-spirits, you end up with a vicious mongrel like Blair.

http://twitter.com/blaircottrell89

What I read was pretty interesting. Thanks for the suggestion SteelRedux.

As for Blair Cottrell his fine was for demonstrating an act currently practised in sections of Islam and sanctioned by the Koran upon unbelievers. Those sympatric to the religion of Islam and its practises find those critics of the faith as extremists. The idea is to let them live peacefully among us without challenge to their Koran or Prophet. Otherwise you will be fined or imprisoned. Yet you can do it as much as you like in art like "piss Christ" or Mardi Gras etc to other religions and their prophets. They can accept persecution and criticism, the religion of peace cannot allow critics. See the Danny Nalliah court case in Melbourne on lectures on exposing Islam which cost him almost half a Million in defence.

Given the falling journalist standards in the ABC in recently producing articles that are purely speculative and several cases factually incorrect, and exclusively biased to the far left.

Given the hijacking of Aunty by the far left, and its lack of journalistic integrity, there are serious questions as to why it should not be privatized.

The ABC -is our national broadcaster and at 4 cents per
person - it costs us less today than it did 30 years ago.
A bargain. The programs it presents are a very wide
mix - giving a wide and varied range of opinions.
Unlike the narrow, strident, voices on the main stream
media which is controlled by vested interests. No wonder
these vested interests want the ABC privatised and controlled.

Foxy,

The ABC has largely become captive to a small and unrepresentative activist group, and can no longer wear the mantel of national broadcaster. The other channels are a far better bargain at $0 plus the huge access fees they pay to the government.

Aunty, needs either to purge itself of unethical idiots like Andrew Probyn or be sent to market.

Shadow Minister,

I disagree with you.

Andrew P. does not get inside the minds of Liberal
MPs. He does not cajole, wheedle, vilify, and
threaten, not just on air, but via back channels.
He does not issue directives, manipulate outcomes inside
conservative party rooms (because that is his business
model).

That's why I will continue to support the ABC.
You of course are totally entitled to support whoever you
like.

I suppose we suffer the ABC for the sake of our country cousins who commercials cannot afford to service. The joke is that most, if not all, country folk are conservatives, socially and politically; they ignore any left-wing nonsense in favour of weather, market reports, Country Hour' and specialist programs pertinent to country living. I am country born and bred, and it's a different world.

I too am country born and bred.

And I am long in the leg, but not thick in the head. :-)

I love and support the ABC!

Yes perhaps the ABC is dead they just haven't realized it yet.

Dear Shadow Minister,

My god. When on earth are you going to think for yourself? You make yourself scarce for a few weeks while the leadership sh*tshow went on an now you are back carrying on like nothing ever happened.

Mate, we have just learned how a foreign media mogul was a huge part of the deposing of a sitting prime minister and yet you are trying to call out the ABC?

How on earth do you even look at yourself in the mirror?

You are an Australian I assume, if so why don't you pull your bloody socks up and start calling out the real threats to our democracy. If you don't you really can be seen as having very little interest in caring for this country.

This is way beyond just supporting the party line now. Time to step up.

The choice is there for people to watch the ABC
or not. It just so happen that so many Australians agree
with the ABC and do enjoy watching it. So, it definitely
is not dead as those who don't agree with it claim.
Those that do watch it are legion. And, they are many.
The ABC is here to stay.

Cinderella has gone to the ball.
Conservative voters are going to have to settle for one
of her ugly sisters (Murdoch's NewsCorp).

It's people like the fox in the henhouse who are given a huge leg-up by tax payers to play out their wank for the ABC.

The viewing figures for the five major metro areas of Australia are abismally small for the ABC by comparison to the combined commercial networks at ninety percent.
The tax payer forks out a billion dollars a year for ten percent of the television viewing audience.
Why are ABC viewing wonks so important?

to be fair to the abc they aren't the only tax payer funded Marxist organisation pushing putried dogmas. The uni's are full of feminist/Marxist who have done really well for themselves at tax payer expense. And lets not forget the HRC who receive huge salaries to make up cases of racism to feed the likes of the abc. The swamp is fairly large as Trump has found out.

Here is a post from another OLO thread, that came to my attention this morning.
Same problem different country.
As in Germany, the pervasive social rot of their country, starts and finishes with the public broadcaster ..ARD.

COPY:
Writing from Germany.

You might ask yourself:

Who is delivering you the mainstream media news?
Could those people be tempted to push their own agenda?

Helmut Markwort is one of the top journalists in Germany, founder of the news magazine FOCUS as well as several radio stations.

Check his statement in the following interview starting at time stamp 10:30:

Journalists have been asked and replied anonymously which party they would vote for. The majority tends to the Green party. (which is a splinter party in Germany with around 11%)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08bCsyuMoio (not translated).

Does the Green party have an agenda? Of course, but nowadays it is not the environment any more but to support Merkel and have unlimited and uncontrolled immigration. Would you think that those green journalists prefer to deliver news that support their agenda? The answer is up to you.

Isn't it funny that the original poster writes:
"95% of Green voters trust the public broadcasting system"

*..Greens and the left have been on the "long march through the institutions" since 1968, and by now have infiltrated everything in Germany, not only the media...*

News that don't support their view are therefore branded "fake news", and in reality the reader or viewer has no way anyway to decide what is fake and what is real.

Hasn't history proven that the news from those in power were fake many times?

If I would publish my opinion (end the open borders) under my real name in Germany I would certainly have to look for a new job. And my wife, too. The left and the green have everything under control, even those people with different opinions because nobody dares to speak out any more. ..

(And Au? Try for a job in the ABC or Qantas without Greens equality and diversity alignment)..

As we have got right off the topic again, here's a comment on the ABC by Jo Nova (one of the smart women not needing quotas): “Foreigners wonder how a rich country with more resources per capita, no land borders, and brilliant weather can screw things up in Oscar Winning Style. Look no further than the billion dollar gift with no strings attached for a neo-marxist collective to masquerade as the nation’s most trusted news source”.

Chris Kenny adds his comments, saying that, “ … had you been stranded on an island for the past few years with nothing to watch, listen to or read from but Australia’s public broadcaster”, you would be under the false impression that:

The Australian Navy tortured asylum seekers, then sent them to be raped on Nauru.

People smuggling was impossible to stop.

Turning back boats would cause conflict with Indonesia.

Climate change was the greatest threat to the world.

A carbon tax would put an end to droughts, floods, hurricanes and save the Great Barrier Reef.

And, our dams are nearly dry.

All this twaddle, while the problems really are the ABC itself, the rest of the rag-tag Left media, and Australian politicians, describe recently by Professor David Flint as Australia's “worst ever”.

ttbn.

In short, our Democratic institutions, such as our governing bodies, through parliamentary processes, and now corporate Australia, have been vassalized by the media.
To some such as yourself, you acknowledge only half the problem. Murdoch is as big a problem as the other end of the spectrum, the ABC. The difference of course is the tax payer funding of the other end, re the ABC. That model should stop.

Skin in the game is what should be demanded from the media. Bad decision making should be punished; especially punished with the negatives of market forces as a reward for bad judgement.

The ABC should in turn, be vassalized and tied to private enterprise, subjecting it to full accountability.

Media ownership in Australia is notoriously
narrow.

Julian Burnside QC - wrote more than a decade ago
on media in Australia. I've adapted some of his
views which I think are appropriate to our discussion
regarding the ABC.

Burnside pointed out that -
mainstream media - offers precious little diversity
and such diversity as there is runs along
predictable lines. This has unhappy results now
that both major political parties seem to have
abandoned their founding principles and are forming
policies by reference of media coverage generally and
to news polls and focus groups in particular.

The
internet offers a vast supply of news - especially
opinion.

Just as mainstream traditional media is full of voices
(mostly strident) telling governments what to do, so
the blogosphere and social media is full of voices
more numerous and diverse and often more strident doing
the same.

Those of us who are torn between the desert of mainstream
media and the jungle of the internet need a place where
rational but diverse views can be found on matters of
enduring importance.

The ABC is such a place.

It would be difficult to agree with every view expressed in
the programs given on the ABC. But it would be equally
difficult to disagree with them all. And it would be impossible
to criticise any of them as irrational or foolish.

The loudest voices in the dominant outlets play a major
part in shaping the views which will be expressed in news
polls.

Founding principles and philosophy have disappeared as
significant forces in policy formation. In these circumstances
it is more important than ever to have an outlet which
is rational and principled, without being biased to any
social or political position.

That is why the ABC does matter and why we should
support it!

SR,

Yes I am Australian, are you?

With my new position I don't have the same amount of time to allocate to OLO which is why you are clearly missing my insight.

As you base your "learning" it is clear why your opinions are as ill informed or fictitious as your source.

Foxy,

Contrary to your claims the ABC is clearly dominated by those from the left and far left. It has almost completely abandoned its mandate and has been pulled up several times for publishing fake news.

We just need a licence fee for the ABC like the Brits have for the BBC. That way all the anti-ABC whingers can opt out of paying the licence fee, as long as they never watch the ABC. That would sort those who like to whine loudly and often because they don't like absolutely everything the ABC has to offer (news flash: nobody likes everything the ABC has to offer. Most of those 'talking head' programs you guys like to watch so that you can complain about them bore me to tears.) from those who really are dead-set against paying for a service they don't use.

And I bet you that if we did that, most of the whingers would still pay their licence fee so they could watch ABC. If they didn't, what would they have to whine about?

Toni,

I would call your bluff, and advocate that the ABC was funded by an optional license fee. The ABC would be gone in a year.

//I would call your bluff, and advocate that the ABC was funded by an optional license fee. The ABC would be gone in a year.//

I'm not sure you understand the nature of the licence fee, SM. It's not something you pay or don't pay depending on whether or not you feel like it; if you want to opt out you need to be able to satisfy the requirement that you don't use any of the services the licence fee pays for.

So no sneaky ticking the 'no licence fee' box because you're a crusty old Tory conditioned by the Murdoch press to hate public broadcasting, and then putting 'Play School' on for the grandkids when they come round, or tuning into Q&A because they've got Germaine on the panel and you want to see the fireworks. In the UK they can, and do, actually police it - the detector vans don't really work, they're just a deterrent to evaders. They just send people round to your house to check up on you.

Is there really nothing at all you tune into the ABC for?

And while we're discussing the unfairness of being forced to pay for services we don't use, what about the commercial channels? They're paid for by ads, and the people paying for those adds pass the cost onto us. My weekly shop - the weekly shop of struggling pensioners - wouldn't cost as much if businesses weren't paying hefty sums of money to prop up commercial networks filled with wall-to-wall crap, in order to have their ads broadcast in the breaks of programs that I don't watch because of their crapness.

And the only way I can avoid paying for that crap is to not buy anything, in which case I will die. Now there's a rort that needs sorting out. We should the ban the commercial channels from advertising so that businesses stop passing those costs onto consumers, then anyone who wants to watch commercial TV can pay a subscription fee, Netflix style. That way it's only user pays for commercial channels.

Shadow Minister,

As stated earlier - it would be difficult to agree with
every view expressed on the programs given on the ABC -
but it would be equally difficult to disagree with them
all. And it would be impossible to criticise any of them
as irrational or biased. The loudest voices in the
dominant outlets play a major part in shaping the views
which are expressed in news polls. Founding principles
and philosophy have disappeared as significant forces in
policy formation.

In these circumstances it is more important than ever to
have an outlet which is rational and principled, without
being biased to any social or political position.
That is why the ABC matters and why we should support it.
It is also why the Coalition government and conservatives
want to see it cut.

Tony,

A subscription with a paywall is easy enough to put in place.

Foxy,

There are many, many clear examples of bias in the ABC, and more than a few of publication of unverified information or outright fabrication.

The ABC is no longer considered the gold standard in journalistic ethics and would struggle to reach the level of Newscorp.

Shadow Minister,

Four Corners, Media Watch, Q&A, just to name a few -
lead by a mile
on anything NewsCorp has to offer.

Dear Shadow minister,

You wrote;

“The ABC is no longer considered the gold standard in journalistic ethics and would struggle to reach the level of Newscorp.”

Funny of course but kind of sad that all you have left is the role of the troll.

This is from Roy Morgan;

“Conducted in May by Roy Morgan, the MEDIA Net Trust Survey reveals that while Facebook – and Social Media generally – is deeply distrusted in Australia, the ABC is by far the nation’s most trusted media organisation.”

If you want to call a blue sky purple that is fine. The options it leaves the rest of us is to assess you as either dishonest or deluded.

I have lamented a few times that I do miss the old Shadow Minister. The one who was not given to such ridiculously partisan tripe. The one who could at least give a reasonable account of their views. Now it is just right to far right blather. Might be time to give it away my friend.

Foxy,

As you are an unreformed lefty, the entrenched bias in the programmes you mentioned must be very soothing to your entrenched bias.

The two journalists that Milne wanted firing was because they deliberately printed falsehoods. That is why the ABC ethics are in the toilet.

SR,

Given that your sole purpose is to troll people, your opinions don't carry much weight either. While the ABC bias has clear-cut for a decade, it is recently that they started printing pure bollocks and supposition.

Shadow Minister,

You had an opportunity to make an impression on us
here in this discussion and this is what you chose?
Let that sink in for a minute.

Foxy,

Pot/kettle etc.

Considering that I was discussing the fact that Aberici and Probyn had published outright falsehoods with a clear pro-labor bias and didn't even get a slap on the wrist as an indictment on the ABC lack of journalistic integrity which would not be tolerated at Newscorp.

Your response was to state your opinion that you liked some left whinge ABC programs over Newscorp. Have you even got a Foxtel subscription?

Let that sink in.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You claim;

"The two journalists that Milne wanted firing was because they deliberately printed falsehoods."

Name just one deliberately printed falsehood from each of the journalists you have flagged need firing.

And perhaps speak to the fact the Chair was also the Chair of MYOB, one of the companies named by Albernici as not paying tax.

This stinks to high heaven and anyone who has the slightest regard for transparent governance and strict adherence to the rules around conflict of interest would see what the issue is. But not it seems your side of politics.

SR

Emma Albernici as the economics editor published an article that was so full of basic errors that she was either lying or lacked first-year economics knowledge and was thus incompetent at her job. That she chose to quote Labor talking points as well indicated that it probably was the former. That she should remain as the economics reporter for the ABC is a joke.

Probyn published an article largely based on a "text" from Murdoch to Stokes that he had no access to, did not confirm in any way, and was subsequently denied by both parties.

https://finance.nine.com.au/2018/04/11/11/42/abc-senate-estimates-emma-alberici-cabinet-files

"Emma Alberici’s news story on corporate tax rates contained nine errors of fact and omissions, however, ABC managing director Michelle Guthrie has told Senators she retains confidence in the reporter."