-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Lucky we have Craig Emerson to help people dispel any fears about the Carbon Dioxide Tax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZboCxbTzHk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZboCxbTzHk&feature=player_embedded
You have articulated the group think of the left perfectly with this post. I suppose you'd agree with the editors of the Age that their failure has nothing to do with the content.tigersnake said:
Giardiasis said:
The right thinkers, for want of a better term, generally have to start their own industry-funded think tanks because they struggle with Uni requirements, ie, balance and peer review. They publish their research in non-peer reviewed self published forums. Its got nothing to with conspiracy and everything to do with capacity (There are some brilliant conservative academics in the US, but a minority. Virtually none here. I'm talking right-wing/ conservative here, majority of academics would be centre/ moderate, there are less and less left academics too these days).
Re the Age. Most people don't read or watch in-depth analysis G man. The data says so. Its always been the way. Pre internet the Age bus model worked because people with money read it and bought stuff advertised in it. I personally reckon the Age was far too slow to repond to changes in media.
tigersnake said:
:rofl the ABC have a 'balanced' opinion and Fairfax doesn't as it focuses on good analysis???
That's gold! 8-
Its only "good analysis" because they agree with more of your own personal opinions and beliefs otherwise they would be labelled 'crackpots' and 'deniers' as well....so stop talking *smile* mate
Liverpool said::rofl the ABC have a 'balanced' opinion and Fairfax doesn't as it focuses on good analysis???
That's gold! 8-
Its only "good analysis" because they agree with more of your own personal opinions and beliefs otherwise they would be labelled 'crackpots' and 'deniers' as well....so stop talking sh!t mate
Its all true. I didn't say the Age succeeds all the time. Its going downhill (see mld's 'doctors wives' comment). The ABC comment is correct. I've said it in discussions with you on here 10 times. Howard stacked the board of the ABC (Michael Kroger, Ron Brunton, Janet Albrechstein) and changed the Statute and the ABC Charter. Very effective politics. Its all on the record. Thats why they always have an 'expert' from both sides at every discussion. I know it doesn't seem that way to you because the Conservative 'experts' tend to be second or third rate and tend to get done in said discussions. (see 'peer review' comment above). But that would be because of bias rules or moderators or some other reason right?
The media you like, Bolter, Jones, various Murdoch commentators, play by different rules. They present skewed data, ignore compelling opposition arguments and data, set up easy straw opposition men to knock down. You'd love that sh!t.
Giardiasis said:
All traditional print media is struggling, it has little to do with content and everything to do with the advent of the internet. The Age used to derive it's income from the classifieds, this has slowly been eroded by competition from other online competitors. If anything, they can be accused of being asleep at the wheel, too stubborn to change with the times.
What is group think of the left ? Is there such a thing as group think of the right or are all of them free thinking individualists?Giardiasis said:
In case you are interested.Sintiger said:
MISSION UNACCOMPLISHED – THE ABC AND DIVERSITY UNDER MARK SCOTT – WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO RADIO NATIONAL
According to Media Watch Dog, the term “ABC” really stands for “Anyone But Conservatives” (See MWD Issues 139 & 130). According to Mark Scott, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s managing director and editor-in-chief, the ABC is a “market failure broadcaster” which fills gaps caused by the failure of the private sector media. If this is the case, then the ABC’s role as compensating for deficiencies in the private sector media should entail that it employs at least some political conservatives in key presenter, producer and editorial roles. So far, this has not occurred.
The ABC as a Solution to “Market Failure”
On 16 May 2011, The Guardian ran a profile piece on Mark Scott by Dan Sabbagh. At the time there was a suggestion that Mr Scott might be considered to fill the position of BBC director general. Sabbagh reported on his discussion with Scott as follows:
Scott thinks of the ABC modestly as a “market failure broadcaster”, although its best known description came from a right-wing critic who called its broadcasts “my enemies talking to my friends”. Scott says he thinks “the areas of market failure are getting greater” – the usual argument advanced by public service broadcasters. The ABC’s focus, he argues, is “quality Australian content, particularly Australian drama” (because there is “a flood of cheap US content”) and “quality news and current affairs, because it is very hard to make investment and returns”.
It’s easy for the managing director of the ABC – which receives about $1 billion of taxpayers’ funds each year – to accuse the commercial media of “market failure”. After all, the private sector media has to fund its products by sales or by obtaining advertising in a highly competitive market. According to Mark Scott’s logic, “market success” in the media merely requires that the public broadcaster rock up to Canberra every three years and take away bucket-loads of taxpayers’ funds. Life for the managing director of a public sector broadcaster is not that hard.
The ABC – Tops for Self-Regard
Irish Media proprietor Tony O’Reilly once joked that the Irish were tops for humility. The ABC has a long record of self-praise. However, under Scott’s leadership, it deserves congratulations for the amount of self-congratulation it can get away with.
Interviewed on Sky News’ Australian Agenda on 24 June 2012 – News Limited director Kim Williams referred to the ABC’s capacity for self-praise:
The ABC is obviously a large employer of journalists and produces a lot of journalism; breaks remarkably few stories relative to the amount of money that’s invested in it – if I’m truthful and accurate and objective in assessing it, which is something I think the ABC is often not good at.
The ABC has a remarkable appetite for self-congratulation in the most extravagant way. I am troubled by the fact that in many of its online offerings, the ABC competes without actually having any of the accountability that its commercial counterparts do have, and that’s clearly awkward in an environment where many costs are pressured and where many employment pressures arise from that. At times I think the ABC is misplaced and misconceived in a lot of what it does.
Mark Scott at the Matthew Ricketson Book Launch
Kim Williams’ comments seemed to have been a response to a speech given by Mark Scott at The Centre for Advanced Journalism at Melbourne University on 13 June 2012 when he launched Australian Journalism Today, which is edited by Matthew Ricketson. Contributors to the edited collection include Ricketson himself along with such left-wing commentators as Peter Browne, Dennis Muller, Margaret Simons and Rodney Tiffen. Early in his speech, Scott remarked “that virtually every author of a chapter in this book has been attacked in one way or another in recent weeks by The Australian.” He then proceeded to make a number of critical remarks about News Limited, The Australian, and The Australian’s editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell.
Mum’s-the-Word on Finkelstein’s Let’s-Jail-Journalists Report
Scott’s only reference to Ricketson was to say that the editor of Australian Journalism Today was taller than he was. He made no reference to Professor Ricketson’s role as co-author of Ray Finkelstein QC’s Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation. This was a surprising omission – especially since the Finkelstein Report, if implemented by the Gillard government, could see journalists jailed for failing to abide by the decisions of a News Media Council – whose deliberations would not allow a proper hearing nor provide a right of appeal. It’s strange that the managing director of the ABC, perhaps the largest employer of journalists in Australia, declined to comment on a proposal which, if implemented, could see journalists jailed without due process – especially since he was launching Matthew Ricketson’s book.
Professor Ricketson addressed The Sydney Institute on 28 May 2012 in a policy forum with Fairfax Media’s legal counsel Gail Hambly. At the conclusion of the talk, Ricketson was asked about critics of the Finkelstein Report who had said that “the ultimate sanction would be a term of imprisonment for contempt of court for not abiding by a court order”. Ricketson replied: “Well, that’s where it ends up.” In other words, Ricketson did not deny that the ultimate sanction of the Finkelstein Report’s recommendations would see editors and /or journalists imprisoned. Just imagine if John Howard had set up a media enquiry which recommended a clamp down on freedom of expression in Australia – including the imprisonment of journalists.
Mark Scott on What the ABC Has Achieved Since 2006
During his Melbourne University speech, Mark Scott said nothing about the future of journalism if the Finkelstein/Ricketson recommendations were implemented. However, there was plenty of self-praise for the ABC under his own management:
We are not a single masthead like The Australian. In fact I think the ABC is more like a large chain of newspapers or separate editorial products, though not seeking to deliver for profit or shareholder return, but for the public good. We have clear policies and guidelines, clear expectations about standards and levels of performance, but finally we entrust our journalistic teams to execute. We do not have a point of view or take an editorial stance. More than ever, I think we can demonstrate a wide range of perspectives, forums for vigorous debate and a culture that can deliver for our audiences – from the fastest, most accurate tweet, to the finest and most vigorous investigative reporting.
Not long after I started at the ABC in 2006, in a speech to The Sydney Institute, I set out the direction the ABC would be taking editorially. How, in all our content, we’d deliver balance, diversity and impartiality, the full range of voices and perspectives as set out in our new Editorial Policies. And I think it’s pretty clear to the public that those editorial standards, diversity of opinion and impartiality I set out six years ago, are part of the ABC’s editorial DNA today. It was good to see, as both the Finkelstein and Convergence Report noted, that Australians regard the ABC as Australia’s most trusted media organisation for news and information. By a long stretch. I think our team is doing very well. Not just our big news and current affairs programs, but our teams working in regional and rural Australia putting together countless programs daily, delivering the very best news and information from and to their local communities, the State, the nation and around the world.
Mark Scott’s 2006 Promise Re-Visited
So, Mark Scott is claiming today that he has fulfilled the commitments he made, in his first major speech as ABC managing director, to The Sydney Institute on 16 October 2006.
In this speech Mark Scott made two significant commitments. First, he promised pluralism within the ABC:
As a rule, I am resisting the temptation to second-guess 75 years of ABC corporate history. I have refused to be drawn in numerous interviews as to whether I think there has been or is bias at the ABC. I suspect the truth is that we are by no means as bad as our critics might suggest and not as blameless as our defenders might wish. My focus, however, is on the future and ensuring our performance is better in the future.
I want us to be hard-nosed in assessing the bias question ourselves because there are few more serious allegations that can be made against serious journalists. The ABC cannot afford to be biased, or be seen to be biased. It can take no editorial position in its news. And while there is opportunity for opinion on the ABC under the new editorial policies, there needs to be a plurality of opinion. The last thing any of us would want is an ABC that is stripped of strong opinions. On the contrary the prominence given to Opinion content in the new Editorial Policies is to facilitate strong opinions, but in a way that guarantees a range of viewpoints are heard on any particular contentious issue.
Second, Mark Scott made a specific promise to address problems with the ABC1 Media Watch program:
I think the success of the ABC’s Insiders program has shown the value, however, of ensuring a range of political perspectives on the issue of the day. Every Sunday morning, no matter how you view the world, someone on Barrie Cassidy’s couch is making good sense – and I think that makes for good television and good journalism. Lateline has always encouraged a good range of voices to be heard on issues, using the flexibility in its format to good effect.
But under our new editorial policies, we will be looking for further diversity of voices – ensuring the ABC is the town square where debate can flourish and different voices heard. I have encouraged the Director of Television to work with the Media Watch team to review their format and content next year to ensure there is more opportunity for debate and discussion around contentious and important issues. It is a popular program, has a loyal following and I hope, a long future at the ABC. And next year, Jeff McMullen will host a new televised discussion program for us, A Difference of Opinion [the precursor of Q&A] that will ensure that on contentious issues of the day, there is opportunity for the full range of opinions and perspectives to be heard.
Mark Scott’s comments in October 2006 were unequivocal. He committed the ABC, under his management, to ensuring “a plurality of opinion” and ensuring that “there is opportunity for the full range of questions and perspectives to be heard” on the public broadcaster. It’s now five years since Mr Scott’s commitment was made. But the ABC still does not have a conservative presenter or producer or editor on any of its broadcast or prime products. Not one. Moreover, there is still no opportunity for debate and discussion on the Media Watch program. Rather, presenter Jonathan Holmes declares what is correct and what is incorrect – and there is no on-air right of reply.
In fact, there is more debate and discussion on Fox News’ News Watch program where right-of-centre (American conservatives) and left-of-centre (American liberals) commentators debate journalism. Jonathan Holmes – like every one of the previous Media Watch presenters – is on the left. All Media Watch presenters have had a background at the ABC or at the Sydney Morning Herald.
Despite Mark Scott’s promises in 2006, the ABC is probably less pluralistic today than it was five years ago, since there has been an increase in the number of left-of-centre personnel in important programs. Particularly on Radio National (or RN, as it is increasingly called).
A Full Range of Opinions? – A Radio National Case Study
In 2012, Radio National announced a new line up. In doing so it was heavily into self-congratulation – as the following promo, which went to air on 13 January 2012, indicates:
Hello there, Geraldine Doogue here. In 2012, we’ve energised our line-up here at RN. We’ve reinforced our strengths, and we’re bringing in some great new talent. It’s all to ensure that we continue to bring you the best mix of stimulating debate along with informed and entertaining specialist programming. So rejuvenate your listening from the 23rd of January, find your favourites, and the unexpected, by downloading a 2012 schedule from the RN website.
It’s certainly true that RN introduced some “great new talent” in 2012. It’s just that everyone was either a leftist or social democrat. Clearly, the ABC could not find one talented conservative for any one of its key programs. Not one. Here’s a brief profile of RN’s “great new [left-of-centre] talent” in 2012:
● RN Drive. This new show, which airs from 6pm to 9pm, is presented by Waleed Aly (Mondays to Thursdays) and Julian Morrow (Fridays).
Waleed Aly was formerly an academic at Monash University. Much beloved by the ABC, he is on record as describing the Liberal Party, under Tony Abbott’s leadership, as embracing “a reactionary form of monoculturalism that violates the first principles of the liberal conservative tradition”. In his Quarterly Essay titled “What’s Right: The Future of Conservatism in Australia”, published in March 2010, Aly declared that Tony Abbott’s “divergent message seems merely to express the state of ideological confusion in which the Liberal Party presently finds itself”.
● Julian Morrow is best known as one of “The Chaser Boys”. Much beloved by the ABC, he was formerly the public broadcaster’s Trespasser-in-Chief in that he led The Chaser’s stunts, which often involved trespassing on private property. Mr Morrow’s trespassing activities were approved by Mr Scott and ABC management – despite the fact that the ABC not so long ago erected (at taxpayers’ expense) elaborate security to keep trespassers out of its own offices.
Julian Morrow is very much in the ABC’s leftist tradition – in that he bags both Labor and the Coalition, but invariably from the left. This was evident again when Morrow was MC at the 2012 Mid Winter Ball in Canberra. He mocked both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott – but not, of course, Greens’ leader Christine Milne. A leftist comedian has to draw the political line somewhere.
● Jonathan Green presents Sunday Extra. Much favoured by the ABC, Green enjoyed a traditional learning curve before getting a taxpayer funded teat at the public broadcaster. The invariably sneering Green is on record as comparing the Liberal National Party in Queensland to a right-wing racist/fascist movement and John Howard to Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad (See MWD Issue 125).
Much beloved by the ABC, Green has a familiar background. Before becoming editor of the ABC’s websites The Drum and The Drum Opinion, he worked with the leftist Crikey and before that with the leftist Age – otherwise known as The-Guardian-on-the-Yarra.
● Andrew West has taken up the position of presenter of the Religion and Ethics Report, which airs each Wednesday at 5.30pm. Formerly of the Sydney Morning Herald, Andrew West is a social democrat, rather than a leftist. In relation to religious matters, West tends to favour radical reform of the Christian churches. Once again, the ABC has not been able to find a mainstream conservative, who happens to be a believer, to present the RN religion program.
● Richard Aedy, a long time ABC employee, now presents both the Media Report (on Fridays) and Sunday Profile. Aedy is a professional presenter – it’s just that he seems beholden to all the fashionable leftist attitudes which are prevalent within the ABC studios in Ultimo (Sydney) and Southbank (Melbourne).
● Michael Cathcart is the new presenter of Books and Arts Daily. He has a background as a fashionable leftist historian.
Meanwhile, the key RN programs continue as before. As Phillip Adams recently conceded, they usually involve leftists talking to leftists to the approval of a leftist audience. See MWD Issue 133.
● No one doubts that RN Breakfast presenter Fran Kelly is on the left – with fashionable leftist positions on a range of issues. In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald on 14 March 2012, Fran Kelly declared that she was an activist. (See MWD Issue 129).
RN Breakfast’s commentator on United States politics is E.J. Dionne – he is a liberal (in the American sense of the term) and a strong supporter of the Democratic Party. RN Breakfast cannot find one American conservative to be a regular commentator on US politics.
● Late Night Live presenter Phillip Adams is a self-declared left winger who regards Liberal Party and National Party supporters as outside the range of acceptable political behaviour. When interviewing former Western Australian Labor Premier Geoff Gallop on 14 June 2012, Adams referred to supporters of the Liberal Party as being on “the dark side”. This means that, according to the LNL presenter, around half of Australians occupy a place he described as “the dark side”.
LNL’s regular commentator on United States politics is Bruce Shapiro – he is a leftist who regards the Democratic Party as too centrist. LNL cannot find one American conservative to be a regular commentator on US politics.
Not A Conservative In the ABC House
In other words, ABC Radio National employs leftists, social democrats or relatively politically neutral types as presenters for all its significant programs. But not one conservative presenter. In fact, RN does not even engage one conservative regular guest on any of its programs. In this regard it resembles The Age which does not employ even one conservative weekly columnist. The only conservative in the organisation is Paul Comrie-Thomson who presents Counterpoint. Counterpoint goes to air at 4pm on Mondays and receives virtually no promotion from the ABC. It is a kind of out-house program. For example, Counterpoint was not even mentioned when RN manager Michael Mason announced its 2012 line up on 15 November last year.
Even the title of Paul Comrie-Thomson’s program is instructive. It is named “Counterpoint” in order to send a message that what the program offers is contrary to other programs presented on the ABC.
Conclusion – With More to Come
The RN programming demonstrates that Mark Scott has failed to implement his promise to deliver a “plurality of opinion” within the ABC. Certainly there have been some improvements at the ABC during Mr Scott’s period as managing director. For example, ABC’s News and 7.30 programs are more professional and balanced than has been the case in the past. However, for the most part, Mark Scott has not delivered on his promise to deliver a wider range of views within the public broadcaster – despite all his self-congratulatory hype.
In a future essay, MWD will analyse how editorial standards in recent years have declined in some areas of the ABC.
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/media-watch-dog/
Sydney Institute. Doesn't make the criticism invalid. But it puts it squarely in context. Look this is all subjective G man. Extreme conservatives will see the ABC as left, I understand why. I'm never gunna agree and I think the whole notion is ludicrously ideological.
Moderate lefties like me see it as bang in the middle. I see the Murdoch org as having a far heavier than representative weighting of extreme right commentators. You'd probably see a lot of them as moderate.
Another thing that has to considered for context here is the Howard effect. He successfully dragged us so far to the right suddenly a lot can look left to the untrained eye. The Waleed Ali example is a good'n. His analysis of the Libs (he was one), was well researched and thoughtfully analysed, peer reviewed and published. He's not the only one saying the Libs have drifted right. But he's dared to criticise them, so he's an evil lefty. Haven't you been saying something about lefty groupthink or something whereby lefties reject criticism and opposing views, or something like that?
Moderate lefties like me see it as bang in the middle. I see the Murdoch org as having a far heavier than representative weighting of extreme right commentators. You'd probably see a lot of them as moderate.
Another thing that has to considered for context here is the Howard effect. He successfully dragged us so far to the right suddenly a lot can look left to the untrained eye. The Waleed Ali example is a good'n. His analysis of the Libs (he was one), was well researched and thoughtfully analysed, peer reviewed and published. He's not the only one saying the Libs have drifted right. But he's dared to criticise them, so he's an evil lefty. Haven't you been saying something about lefty groupthink or something whereby lefties reject criticism and opposing views, or something like that?
correct. It's hardly a surprise that a conservative think tank like the sydney Institute would see the ABC as left wing. My :rofl still stands. Lets just concentrate on how issues are treated instead rather than labelling every presenter.tigersnake said:
I agree with Waleed Aly on the Liberal party. I don't see than as a leftie comment at all. I know quite a few life long Libs who believe that the party has been hijacked.
Moderate is a euphemism for left wing. If you think that the ABC being left is a ludicrous notion, then perhaps you could address Henderson's key point, "...the ABC still does not have a conservative presenter or producer or editor on any of its broadcast or prime products".tigersnake said:
I think that has been answered. It is an opinion about people expressed by a conservative working for a conservative think tank. Doesn't make it right.Giardiasis said:
Moderate is not a euphemism for left wing. It may be in your opinion which is just a judgement from where you sit. Opinion is not fact.
interesting the 'global warming' debate on here has become a right v left debate.
in australia both sides of politics have policies to address global warming. both sides have the same stated goal of emissions reduction.
the 2 sides differ as to how they will do it.
the present policy is one of polluters pay.
the oppositions policy is to pay polluters.
environmentalists are in favour of the polluters pay policy.
economists are in favour of the polluters pay policy.
as far as i can tell only polluters and some of the coalition are in favour of the pay polluters policy.
in australia both sides of politics have policies to address global warming. both sides have the same stated goal of emissions reduction.
the 2 sides differ as to how they will do it.
the present policy is one of polluters pay.
the oppositions policy is to pay polluters.
environmentalists are in favour of the polluters pay policy.
economists are in favour of the polluters pay policy.
as far as i can tell only polluters and some of the coalition are in favour of the pay polluters policy.
