In other words, she really doesn't want to talk about it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
In other words, she really doesn't want to talk about it.
Hmm, that's totally different to what I read, oh well, pay walls work great.
I disagree with him on the whole Snowden issue. Indonesia would have found out eventually, at least with the Snowden leaks the fall out happens publicly. It makes it much harder for the situation to escalate when the facts are on the table. Downer pointing the finger at Snowden is besides the point, the fact is the Australian Government has been caught spying on Indonesia's Prime Minister. There's nothing we can do about Snowden, he's America and Russia's problem. Basically the right is using him as a deflection from the real issue.
Our relationship with Indonesia is coming under increasing strain due to Abbott's total inability to communicate with a grain of tact. He's making Shorten look great, that's for sure.
Too bad The Australian is behind a pay wall so Downer's opinion is basically blocked from the majority of the country. On second thoughts your right, that's probably a good thing.
No it doesn't matter. Us Tories understand that there's no such thing as true impartiality and that every bit of news is going to be coloured by the biases of the people behind the news. Us Tories understand and accept that and therefore think it's revolting that Australian taxpayers are being expropriated against their will to help fund the advocacy of a particular point of view that they may not agree with.
No it doesn't matter. Us Tories understand that there's no such thing as true impartiality and that every bit of news is going to be coloured by the biases of the people behind the news. Us Tories understand and accept that and therefore think it's revolting that Australian taxpayers are being expropriated against their will to help fund the advocacy of a particular point of view that they may not agree with.
That would be an acceptable point if the other privately owned media outlets didn't themselves practice rampant political bias for the sake of populism. As long as someone like Andrew Bolt, someone who is completely unqualified for his positions can get his face on the front of both the Herald Sun and Channel 10, the ABC is absolutely necessary.
Dont worry, theyll be buying the exact same vessels back from Indonesia in a few years.
bobnowhere
Member
Ha! I suspect anyone from the IPA who dares to even entertain the other side's point of view is ostracised pretty quickly.
In what sense? Their decisions seem pretty consistent with Hawke/Keating era Labor.
Box of Bunnies
Banned
Reinstate the licence fee, use the extra revenue to bolster the ABC's budget. Write it into the constitution that they can't be hacked and slashed.
Public broadcasters provide a valuable service.
Public broadcasters provide a valuable service.
So the argument against privatisation seems to me to boil down to; "We need the ABC because it's convenient because they're the only left-wing news source in a predominantly right wing market."
Not a brilliant argument. Especially because the "solution" includes forced expropriation
Not a brilliant argument. Especially because the "solution" includes forced expropriation
Box of Bunnies
Banned
I just think they provide the best locally created content of any of the big broadcasters and should be given more money to continue doing so. The SBS too, for that matter.
Ok ban it from broadcasting news and be done with it. Public funds should not go to political lobbying.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-20/abbott-regrets-indonesias-spy-scandal-embarrassment/5105326
stop da boats
au contraire, arksy, until I can withdraw my tax money from funding shit I don't like as well
stop da boats
au contraire, arksy, until I can withdraw my tax money from funding shit I don't like as well
:/ You need to learn to argue better. Straw men do not fare very well.
Not at all. We use the political process of democracy to allocate funds. What makes the ABC so repugnant is that it's using public money to engage in the political process.
I'm merely fighting fire with fire, or as you like their straw men with ours. No one has managed to explain why we should be forced to commit to a distortion of the political process so as far as I can see it's not my arguing skills that need improving.
shanshan310
Member
Ack, and be stuck watching shitty faux-news on 7 or 9? No thanks. I'd honestly rather hear about what's happening in the world rather than omgnewtunnel-ads-puppies born!-ads-SPORTS!
The ABC and SBS can and largely are broadcasting in an unbiased way.
So should politicians be able to fund ad campaigns about asylum seeker deals then? Or any number of things that are using public funds to engage in the political process? When taxpayer dollars are going to members of parliament of whatever party to go do PR luncheons and carry out official duties, aren't they engaging in the political process?
You call taxpayer funded media a distortion of the political process, but as I see it, there's no way to claim that private interests controlling massively influential media platforms that aren't answerable to anything by the market aren't themselves also a massive distortion of the political process.
Let me be clear. I think the media market in Australia is a joke. I would prefer a more British or American style news market where you have a staggering amount of news sources to choose from. There are some small towns in the US with 100k people that have over three daily periodicals and two weeklies with one or two from the nearest big city. In SA we have The Advertiser which is tripe even by Murdoch's standard and The Australian which is national and also Murdoch.
Despite sometimes aligning with my own views I find this fairly distressing compared to my experiences overseas.
shanshan310
Member
Yeah
Same deal up here in QLD. We can sort of sometimes buy the SMH or the Age but it arrives a day late which is pretty frustrating. But with the age of newspapers waning I don't see any new competition popping up any time soon.Nope. I don't support public money for any of the uses above for the aforementioned reasons.
OK but the difference is that if I don't agree what they stand for I don't have to contribute. It's a voluntary exchange whereas public advocacy isn't.
I'm merely fighting fire with fire, or as you like their straw men with ours. No one has managed to explain why we should be forced to commit to a distortion of the political process so as far as I can see it's not my arguing skills that need improving.
Mate, come on.
a) It's not left wing
b) The reason people want it is not because of it's political views, but for the accountability it has to be neutral.
c) Funding public media is now a distortion of the political process? If that is your position you will need to have the greatest skills of persuasion ever seen. A huge number of countries have public media of various kinds.
A) The ABC is so rabidly pinko it makes the BBC seem like fox news. (lol) In all seriousness this isn't a point of contention as far as I'm concerned. All news sources are biased.
B) What accountability? Who does it answer to?
C) Silly argument.
shanshan310
Member
I don't necessarily think so. I've seen arguments at all ends of the spectrum on various programs. Some stuff I didn't agree with. They were certainly going hard on labor, especially during the election campaign.
You might not have to contribute, but other people sure as hell will - powerful interest groups and individuals with a personal agenda - and they are going to influence the political process regardless. Who speaks for the poor and disenfranchised if not a broadcaster with a public mandate? Because it sure as Fuck won't be the corporations.
I see a libertarian point of view, sure, but imho the benefits outweigh the individual costs, especially in Australia's heavily concentrated media environment
Study finds ABC bias leans towards Coalition http://www.theage.com.au/business/study-finds-abc-bias-leans-towards-coalition-20090902-f8gm.html
Good Lord, Abbott is failing tremendously with Indonesia. Instead of addressing the concerns of Indonesia to the president, he instead addresses the Australian parliament and says what essentially amounts to "Deal with it."
There's a total lack of statecraft and diplomatic skill within the current Liberal party.
This is interesting, as I keep reading that Tony Abbott was pissed at the ABC for perceived bias against the coalition.
There's a total lack of statecraft and diplomatic skill within the current Liberal party.
This is interesting, as I keep reading that Tony Abbott was pissed at the ABC for perceived bias against the coalition.
A) You are a clown if you believe that. The all sources are biased bit does nothing to confirm a particular bias of yours. Labor thinks the ABC is right biased, Libs think it is left biased. Seems about what you would expect from a neutral group to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation#Politics_and_criticism
DAT BIAS
Provide evidence of this bias and you may have a point, until then you asserting that it is not a point of contention just makes you look a bit silly.
B) The public. Politicians.
C) It is not an argument, it is a statement. Many countries have some form of public media, if you think that it inherently distorts the political process you are going to be swimming uphill. Your 7.1 cents a day is not subverting democracy.
Biased source, can't be trusted, too pinko.
sorry but i only get my news and views from the trustworthy catallaxy files, not those cultural marxists at crikey *farts off into the distance*
I guess the "shit happens" fiasco was just as much foreshadowing as it was storm in a teacup.
Sadly I dont think most Australians mind Indonesia bashing >.<
Its kind of stupid. First of all, all countries spy on each other, all of them pretend to be shocked when its discovered that theyre being spied on, and are confuddled and unsure and apologise profusely when their spying is caught >.> Its just part of the game.
Groveling abit to Indonesia over the spying alegations doesnt hurt Australia, and refusing to do so makes us look like asses.
That is the entire game. They get angry and use that anger as a bargaining chip. We let them. That's how it works.
This isn't nuclear war. Refusing to play is not a winning move it just makes their bargaining chip grow bigger.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Arksy mate, what you're saying has spurred me to login and post using a phone that I've never used before whilst in a hospital bed. I'd understand if you just had a blanket opposition to publicly funded media, though it's a view I find misguided and disagree with strongly. But the ABC being rabidly pinko? I hate to trot this one out but I can only attribute this view to "reality has a well known left wing bias."
To be clear, I've little doubt that a majority of ABC journos would lean left of centre, at least in the national/TV section. But let's not forget that there are ABC employees who go on to become Liberal candidates and MPs as well. Individual views are beside the point though, when they're doing their job: what actual egregious instances of bias spring to mind? Here's a few things relevant to this topic that I can remember based on actual viewing of ABC content (long list to kill time, indulge me):
- All their news and current affairs programs have guests from both sides of the spectrum. This is pretty much beyond dispute. The most biased lineup I've seen lately was the Qanda with only business reps. There was an issue with news breakfast not declaring party affiliations a while back but once again, that went for liberals and labor.
- Media watch routinely goes after aunty. If it was up to me this show would have a massively increased budget and be beamed directly into our heads for 5 hours a week.
- The pollie who arguably got the most preferential treatment during the election was Palmer, on account of his bromance with Tony Jones. Exclusive interviews at the drop Of a hat and all that. Yet only a few nights ago the channel ran a piece that was quite critical of his business dealings.
- Abbott's history with and dodging of 7:30 speaks for itself. But Leigh Sales and Kerry weren't tough interviews for him because of ideology, it's because they weren't constantly throwing softballs and actually challenge answers. Asking if abbott had read a report he was making assumptions about, or if he actually understood his broadband policy (2010) isnt bias, its basic accountability. The same treatment is given to labor politicians.
- For an organisation that is supposedly the communist party's propaganda arm, it sure does a good job of ensuring that almost every scrap of economic reporting falls right into line with the neoliberal/neocon orthodoxy. Did you know that to some the very use of emotional language such as deterioration or worsening in relation to federal budgets constitutes bias? Especially when figures with actual human consequences such as unemployment often get the reserved and correct terminology such as rising, falling, declining etc...
- Back to Qanda. Once George brandis was on the show (at least I think it was him) and after receiving a less than enthusiastic response to an answer he gave, remarked that it was typical for an ABC audience. Tony jones pointed out that the audience is polled before the show, and was solidly coalition voters. Brandis retorted that there were a lot if those in the country at the time and was roundly applauded. This ties back to my earlier point about 7:30: the questions weren't difficult because of bias necessarily, but because there were higher expectations in general.
- Still on Qanda because apparently it's all I can think of atm, bob brown was once rebuked by Tony for giving an answer that was too party political in favour of the greens. Brown pointed out that this is exactly what the ABC expects, receives and accepts from members of the two major parties and that he shouldn't be held to a different standard.
- Their comedies like Chaser, Micallef etc give it to both sides. Admittedly probably a bit more to conservatives but that's because there's maybe six right wingers who are actually funny in the entire world. That and conservative views are more easily mocked. It's not labor's fault they don't have someone as insane as Bernardi in their ranks.
Alright, have to put the phone away now, apologies for the rantish nature of post. Typing proper sentences on these things is tricky. ABC is far from perfect, but it's not the rabble of radical lefty hacks some make it out to be. It's "biased" both ways, which to me indicates nothing more than that it strives to be centred and is staffed by fallible humans.
To be clear, I've little doubt that a majority of ABC journos would lean left of centre, at least in the national/TV section. But let's not forget that there are ABC employees who go on to become Liberal candidates and MPs as well. Individual views are beside the point though, when they're doing their job: what actual egregious instances of bias spring to mind? Here's a few things relevant to this topic that I can remember based on actual viewing of ABC content (long list to kill time, indulge me):
- All their news and current affairs programs have guests from both sides of the spectrum. This is pretty much beyond dispute. The most biased lineup I've seen lately was the Qanda with only business reps. There was an issue with news breakfast not declaring party affiliations a while back but once again, that went for liberals and labor.
- Media watch routinely goes after aunty. If it was up to me this show would have a massively increased budget and be beamed directly into our heads for 5 hours a week.
- The pollie who arguably got the most preferential treatment during the election was Palmer, on account of his bromance with Tony Jones. Exclusive interviews at the drop Of a hat and all that. Yet only a few nights ago the channel ran a piece that was quite critical of his business dealings.
- Abbott's history with and dodging of 7:30 speaks for itself. But Leigh Sales and Kerry weren't tough interviews for him because of ideology, it's because they weren't constantly throwing softballs and actually challenge answers. Asking if abbott had read a report he was making assumptions about, or if he actually understood his broadband policy (2010) isnt bias, its basic accountability. The same treatment is given to labor politicians.
- For an organisation that is supposedly the communist party's propaganda arm, it sure does a good job of ensuring that almost every scrap of economic reporting falls right into line with the neoliberal/neocon orthodoxy. Did you know that to some the very use of emotional language such as deterioration or worsening in relation to federal budgets constitutes bias? Especially when figures with actual human consequences such as unemployment often get the reserved and correct terminology such as rising, falling, declining etc...
- Back to Qanda. Once George brandis was on the show (at least I think it was him) and after receiving a less than enthusiastic response to an answer he gave, remarked that it was typical for an ABC audience. Tony jones pointed out that the audience is polled before the show, and was solidly coalition voters. Brandis retorted that there were a lot if those in the country at the time and was roundly applauded. This ties back to my earlier point about 7:30: the questions weren't difficult because of bias necessarily, but because there were higher expectations in general.
- Still on Qanda because apparently it's all I can think of atm, bob brown was once rebuked by Tony for giving an answer that was too party political in favour of the greens. Brown pointed out that this is exactly what the ABC expects, receives and accepts from members of the two major parties and that he shouldn't be held to a different standard.
- Their comedies like Chaser, Micallef etc give it to both sides. Admittedly probably a bit more to conservatives but that's because there's maybe six right wingers who are actually funny in the entire world. That and conservative views are more easily mocked. It's not labor's fault they don't have someone as insane as Bernardi in their ranks.
Alright, have to put the phone away now, apologies for the rantish nature of post. Typing proper sentences on these things is tricky. ABC is far from perfect, but it's not the rabble of radical lefty hacks some make it out to be. It's "biased" both ways, which to me indicates nothing more than that it strives to be centred and is staffed by fallible humans.
It's not voluntary at all. Your power to choose a news source is worthless when media concentration becomes saturated. If 100 thousand people read a paper in one day, whether you read it or not is irrelevant. The narrative of that paper has been read by 100000 people. The problem is that narrative is being repeated over and over by different news sources because all of the papers are owned by the same person and are largely in synch with their perspective. The larger your stake in the media, the larger your ability to set the narrative. Whether the government or murdoch own all of the media, the problems of media concentration are the same. Dissenting narratives are drowned out, and special interests given preference.
The government having a voice via the abc isn't a problem so long as there is plenty of space for other voices. The reality though is the abc isn't a voice for the government. The libs keep reminding us of that when they're in power. It is independent. Considering the abc is rated as our most trusted news source by the vast majority of australian's do you really want to give that up so you can allow corporate fascism to gain even more power?
Elaugaufein
Member
There's a good reason why the only two public broadcasters in the country are also the most trusted. can u figure out why???
The people answering the survey have a left-wing bias ?
AHAHAHAHAHHA. No.
Elaugaufein
Member
Sorry. I had too. It was too tempting an opportunity to pass up.
Hospital bed? Dude get well soon, you can rebuke me later. I'd hate to be responsible for adding stress to your life with my crazy right wing antics lol. That whole rabidly pinko line was mainly a joke (hence the lol) and I do have a blanket opposition to publicly funded news broadcasting. It might be a left wing bias or a right wing bias but the fact of the matter is that the ABC is biased.
I'm sure the ABC execs don't sit there behind a statue of Lenin smoking Cuban cigars gifted by Castro himself while reading the communist manifesto and plotting how to install the proletariat into their proper place of power...
It's far more subtle such as introducing guests. "We are joined by an esteemed academic and a tenured professor who's never said a wrong word in his life, and a hard line controversialist with a chip on his shoulder."
Either way the bias goes whether its left wing or right wing it is wrong. Democracy is about government following the contours of public opinion. Once you have state funded media you run the danger of the government shaping public oppion which is bad.
I can't be the only who thinks that taxing people and then using that money to start an and camapgin saying "Taxes are good" complete with a jazz ensemble playing a jingle and fireworks being set off in the background is a bad thing.
Government shouldn't be lobbying itself for more power. Again its not so much the government paging the ABC going "Hey fuckers we need more power so get to it." Its idiots going "Oh no an unexpected bad thing happened, we called the minister to tell him how much this is his fault and asked him what he was going to do about it!"
roosters93
Member
If you can recall any specific examples of this that would be nice as my personal anecdotal evidence runs contrary to that. (ie I don't remember that ever happening)
You've expressed your general view on publicly-funded broadcasting and that's cool but seeing as neither of these things are happening in our current reality through the ABC, it seems a bit bizarre to reply in such fashion to a post specifically on the ABC.
Well nobody else is going to do it. See: The last election.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Cheers and don't worry, it's nothing too serious, but now that I've exhausted my newspaper supply and finished David Marr's QE on George Pell (good but upsetting read for those interested) I'm stuck to reading forums on a phone.
As I said, I can understand a general opposition to public media, which is why I think you do your argument a disservice by linking it in to the ABC's enormous bias, which is something the evidence is spotty for at best, outside of IPA land
I'd also raise the fact that the broadcaster didn't change much even with what was going on under Howard as evidence of its independence, though obviously you could take it as a sign of the strength if its institutional bias if that's your viewpoint.In defence of the public broadcaster in general, I'd say its important to remember the vital role it plays in things like emergency coverage, especially in rural areas where the free market might not find such a service viable. This extends to general news as well, especially as newspapers continue to be downsized, outsourced and killed off outright. You could argue that it should stick to objective things such as weather and market updates and eschew editorial content, but the reality is that this sort of content is needed to ensure an audience base for the more vital information. It also provides a platform for important cultural works; I can't imagine something like Redfern Now ever showing up on one of the commercial stations.
This isn't worlds apart from the argument that its worthwhile to subsidise domestic car manufacture for self sufficiency reasons, except in this case, the government isn't paying for private companies to make cars no one wants to buy, but for content that millions of Australians find credible, entertaining, informative and at times essential.
Did you read the article? The law is designed to protect fetuses that are beyond a certain period of time and weight, meaning beyond the typical amount of time a clinical abortion can happen. For example, if a drunk driver runs over the mother who is 36 weeks pregnant and the fetus is stillborn as a result, hence Zoe's Law.
1) There's already sufficient legal punishments in place for whenever assault and/or grievous injury results in a miscarriage
2) Abortion still isn't technically lawful in NSW and giving an unborn fetus the status of a living person is going to have huge legal ramifications to the rights women have over their bodies:
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/zoes-law-attacks-reproductive-rights-in-nsw-20130918-2tyvh.html said:
3) Fred Nile introduced the bill to parliament
Cheers and don't worry, it's nothing too serious, but now that I've exhausted my newspaper supply and finished David Marr's QE on George Pell (good but upsetting read for those interested) I'm stuck to reading forums on a phone.
As I said, I can understand a general opposition to public media, which is why I think you do your argument a disservice by linking it in to the ABC's enormous bias, which is something the evidence is spotty for at best, outside of IPA land
In defence of the public broadcaster in general, I'd say its important to remember the vital role it plays in things like emergency coverage, especially in rural areas where the free market might not find such a service viable. This extends to general news as well, especially as newspapers continue to be downsized, outsourced and killed off outright. You could argue that it should stick to objective things such as weather and market updates and eschew editorial content, but the reality is that this sort of content is needed to ensure an audience base for the more vital information. It also provides a platform for important cultural works; I can't imagine something like Redfern Now ever showing up on one of the commercial stations.
This isn't worlds apart from the argument that its worthwhile to subsidise domestic car manufacture for self sufficiency reasons, except in this case, the government isn't paying for private companies to make cars no one wants to buy, but for content that millions of Australians find credible, entertaining, informative and at times essential.
Ah phew. I kind of had an image in my head of someone in a hospital bed yelling "lemmie at 'em! Someone is wrong on the internet." While being restrained by a bunch of nurses and tearing stitches and IV leads.
That's a fairly good defence of the pragmatic reasons for keeping the ABC now that it's there. It would be wrong to say that they don't provide a service people value.
In other news it marks 150 years today since Lincoln uttered the words "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." A perspective I dearly hope is never lost. (Even though the words aren't technically his)
You only needed to say this part to convince me.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
I wouldn't call that particularly inaccurate.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked