Defund the ABC

[facthunter]

Truth goes out the window when anything is politicised. Why not praise some GOOD  actions. There are quite a few believe it or not. For what they have to put up with, politicians are poorly paid.

  By the way  Political Parties get about $4 for each first preference vote they get. Nothing to do with getting in. Hanson finances her Higher ups that way and always has. People desert her party regularly over the way it is run. T A Bot had her charged one time, and she did time but now suck up to her because they usually get her preferences. THEY also went to the NRA in the US for money for funding to push for more Guns here.  Nev

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

subtle jibes directed at any public figure with differing views to the major parties' bipartisan policies.

Thats a point (to me).

 Nobody's media seem to highlight policies or legislation that has bipattisan support.

 

Sure, there is a fair bit of it. But media focus is on radical division and trouble making, so we don't hear much about the stuff that is supported by all parties.

[facthunter]

Most of the  Bi-partisan support is  about processing" normal uncontentious' Bills. There's NO conspiratorial aspect to that. Dutton has played the abominable NO-man constantly to make out he's ONE tough Hombre and to reduce what they pass in the lower house to frustrate Labor. Too bad when it also hurts the Ordinary people who Dutton reckons shouldn't get wage parity related to inflation. Ie Growth is predicated on paying workers Lower wages , consistent with the Mean spirited budgets of the Morrisson and Hockey days and Pushed by the IPA supported by the Likes of Australia's RICHEST person Gina Rinehart. ALL TAX Deductible.    Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

One of the real issues with the media today, and I include the ABC in this on certain issues (see some of their Question Times, where the panels are stacked on one side of the issue), is the lack of providing a balanced viewpoints against the facts. They tend to run a story or show where the facts are presented in the context of one partisan viewpoint, with scant, if any coverage of the other side (whether it is politics or some other issue). Fro some media organisations, this is expected, but how good would it be to have two authorative or knowledgable people presenting their take on an issue in an objective context.

 

Although this has been the case for a long time, thee was a modicum of differing views in the MSM, until I guess social media made them realise click bait and echo chambers bring in more eyeballs.. I guess.

[nomadpete]

Following on from that thought, Jerry, I lament the demise of availabe knowledgable participants capable of eloquent debate. Both sides of an issue should be fairly presented by media so us punters can consider the merits of what is going on. This is what we need, to provide factual balanced discussion - when the media start stirring up 'hysteria".

 

In the past media have feebly attempted to 'balance' their news by granting equal time to verbose conspiracy theorists as to ineffective rational respondants.

 

The nutters win!

[Jerry_Atrick]

The media, or their owners, hide behind the veil of free speech. It is accepted the media hols great influence over the people, and are granted access to information and events that mere plebs aren't. With this, they are effetively the 4th arm of government, but with no, or little accountability. In a privileged position in society, whose purpose is to hold the government and others to account to the population, they should not be afforded free speech in the way free speech is meant which is to air one's own views - at least without making very clear that it is a view and ensuring the facts they used to back it up do not intentionally mislead.

 

Sadly, the press hide behind this free speech shield to disingenuously push their agenda. It is conflated with fearless and free reporting.

Edited January 7 by Jerry_Atrick

[Marty_d]

The "both sides of an issue" thing is difficult.

If there is a contested viewpoint then yes, of course both/all sides should be discussed by respective experts.

The problem lies in issues that are no longer widely contested. For example you wouldn't have a segment on whether the Earth was flat and give equal time to a flat-earther.

There's obviously a spectrum of where issues fall in terms of science and politics - many in conflict between those two - and I'd lay money on the fact that the reason the ABC often gets accused of partisan politics by those on the conservative side, is because conservative policy is often at odds with science.

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Marty_d said:

the reason the ABC often gets accused of partisan politics by those on the conservative side, is because conservative policy is often at odds with science.

I wonder how the increasing exposure of the activities of the rich and powerful which appear to be contrary to the benefit of the rest of the community is driving the search for truth in journalism. I think that there is a growing distrust of the corporate and political worlds, and a growing desire to rein in those bodies when their activities do not benefit the majority of the population.

[facthunter]

There's no money in helping POOR people. The RICH can show their gratitude better. Called the "spoils of Office". Nev

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

2 hours ago, Marty_d said:

and I'd lay money on the fact that the reason the ABC often gets accused of partisan politics by those on the conservative side, is because conservative policy is often at odds with science.

I don't see a need for the ABC to get involved in politics, be it socialist left, or conservative right.

Howabout they just state the facts without political opinion, or anything that remotely sounds or looks like political opinion?

 

This of course doesn't include talk shows where members of the public are invited to express their views about political issues, as long as the ABC representatives conducting the talkfests don't hint as to what their own views are by changing the subject or with a disapproving facial frown.

 

I'm not in favor of defunding the ABC, but I'd like see them get a good talking to, to remove all political judgement from it's broadcasting - including the ideology of "Progressive Humanism", which usually leans more towards minorities, refugees, and new immigrants.

 

However, I do enjoy watching Back Roads, an effort by the ABC to show more of Australia, it steps away from the ridiculous wickedness of the big cities which is what we are subjected to most of the time. Living in a rural location, I really appreciate that show. LandLine as well, top show that.

[red750]

I don't have a radio in the house and the one in the car doesn't work. I don't listen to any radio. I have an indoor TV antenna which usually drops out on Channel 2. Most of my TV comes through Foxtel. The few programs I watch on ABC are streamed on iView on my laptop. Mostly UK programs you guys wouldn't watch.

[facthunter]

You should have a battery powered radio to monitor emergency things when the power is not available. Getting most of your information from Foxtel is a bit dangerous.   Nev

[spacesailor]

Don't 'defund ' any TV/ Radio .they will  bring back the " broadcast licence " .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Dutton will give it to Murdoch.  (for services rendered and sucking up). Nev

[Marty_d]

5 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

I don't see a need for the ABC to get involved in politics, be it socialist left, or conservative right.

Howabout they just state the facts without political opinion, or anything that remotely sounds or looks like political opinion?

 

That's the rub, isn't it.  If Angus Taylor or Dutton himself comes on ABC Breakfast and pushes an idea paid for by the fossil fuel companies, and they get questioned on it by the presenter because it IS at odds with scientific fact, then you get complaints about bias.

If politicians stuck to facts, I'd agree with you 100%.  My thesis is that the LNP sticks to facts less often than the ALP, and that's where the perceived bias comes in.

I'm not saying that the ALP are perfect.  I'm disgusted with a lot of things they do including the total failure to implement a complete ban of gambling advertising.  This despite one of their own members having led the review which recommended it.

 

I WANT the ABC to hold all politicians to account.  I want the reporters, editors and presenters to be highly intelligent and knowledgeable people, which for the most part, they are - and I want them to ask the hard questions and not back off whether it be the PM or the leader of the opposition.  If they do that then they're doing a public service and worth every dollar we all pay for their existence.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

I've never voted for the major parties, I'm above all their self interest partisan shenanigans. Many times I've just paid the fine because there's no on-line voting for anyone other than the disabled.

I'd like to see the ABC do a feature about the difficulties of voting in isolated rural locations. They could state some facts about the time spent traveling to the nearest polling booth, and to the nearest PO mailing box for postal voting, quite some distance in many cases, and time consuming.

 

I couldn't give a hoot about Angus Taylor, Dutton, Albanese, or any of those other idiots, it's only mob rule - when will it end, that's the question, how much longer will it go on for?

[nomadpete]

6 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

I couldn't give a hoot about Angus Taylor, Dutton, Albanese, or any of those other idiots, it's only mob rule - when will it end, that's the question, how much longer will it go on for?

And that's why most of us are grumpy, too!

[Jerry_Atrick]

18 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

I don't see a need for the ABC to get involved in politics, be it socialist left, or conservative right.

I don't see how any news organisation can't get involved in reporting politics, and the ABC are not perfect, but on balance, are more objective (or less biased) than others.

 

Despite the BBC copping a lot of flack by the same players, and yes, some very public faux pars in terms of bias, they are also the least biased of the lot.. And they certainly don't play their piper's tune.. Well partly because in the UK there is a TV license fee payable separate to general revenue which goes straight to them. Of course governments can change that, and the conservatives have very subtly over the years to significantly reduce funding in real terms, but the separation of revenue from general taxation does give the BBC an air of independence that maybe someone like TASS doesn't get. 

 

Of any news organisation in Australia, which do you trust the most, or distrust the least? (that is a general question and not targeted specifically to @Grumpy Old Nasho

 

 

Edited January 8 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

27 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Of any news organisation in Australia, which do you trust the most, or distrust the least?

I find that the evening news is frequently infotainment. Not that providing infotainment is a very bad thing. It is what the populou has come to expect. IN reality, most of those broadcasts are re-readings of the headlines with little diving to the depths of the story. Current affairs shows on commercial TV are also infotainment. At least the ABC's current affairs programs often lift the covers off what some want to remain covered.

 

[Marty_d]

ABC news radio for me.

[facthunter]

People have given up their lives so their kids CAN have a free Vote GON . Don't WASTE your precious vote,. It's the most valuable thing a working democracy HAS. ,Coming a close 2nd  is a PRESS that doesn't DELIBERATELY and OPENLY Tell LIES.  Nev

[spacesailor]

Then let those " oldies " who have any 'problem' voting. be exempt. 

An age limit to the ' compulsory ' bit should help some .

Then again there's the social gathering  . That gets some. out of the house .

Happy spacesailor

PS. : borrowed the neighbours children to enlighten our day.

 

[facthunter]

There's a reason that voting was originally made compulsory. It was to stop the bosses working/ rostering you so you COULDN'T vote.  Whether one likes it or not, IT WORKS.  and the LIBS don't like it as they rely on APATHY and laziness. It's NOT Liberal anyhow. Democrat is LIBERAL. The details of the ARRANGEMENT between Libs and Nationals (other than in Qld WHERE it exists as ONE party) is kept a SECRET. Is t5han not a bit strange?   Nev

[facthunter]

I    move the TITLE REPLACE  "u: WITH "e"  IN defUnd" any seconders? Nev

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

6 hours ago, nomadpete said:

And that's why most of us are grumpy, too!

LoL, but I hasten to say I am grumpier than most, which prompts me to ask pertinent questions about Australia's future in a non-partisan way. Should we leave our future in the lap of the Gods?

 

So far I've only heard about nuclear submarines and emission targets eventuating in 2030s - 2040s ... is that it, is that all we can come up with?