Giardiasis said:
Glenn Milne was never a an employee of the ABC, just like Andrew Bolt was never an employee. If people want Alan Jones chaff bag insults then they have plenty of options. One thing the ABC does have is journalistic standards.
-
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.
The Murdoch Media
- Thread starter Ian4
- Start date
Glenn Milne was never a an employee of the ABC, just like Andrew Bolt was never an employee. If people want Alan Jones chaff bag insults then they have plenty of options. One thing the ABC does have is journalistic standards.
bullus_hit said:
Just like you? I see no left-wing bias in any of your posts
So you see no potential bias at the ABC, no link to which governement is in power and its funding?
Whilst I am definitely no fan of the murdoch press, never read the HUN and think Abbott and the libs have been in most parts poor the hypocrisy in this thread is pretty funny.
If it was a pointer to wider opinion there would never have been a liberal government. Who's voting for those rednecks?
The basis of the ABC is to be "free from government interference due to the guarantee of editorial independence and is bound to objective and balanced reporting of news by the corporation's journalists."
Japan, Korea, the UK and many western European nations have the same rules around the state owned media. However in Russia, China, North Korea, Laos and Cuba the state owned press acts as a mouth piece for the government.
Independent and objective is where the problem comes from for the Murdoch press. They equate independence with left wing.
The case in point (mentioned above) the phone tapping of the Indonesian President is interesting because it raises the following questions:
Should an independent and objective news organization reported it?
Would it be better for the ABC to be the mouth piece of the government following a model of China or Russia?
Would Australia be better off without a state owned broadcaster?
If you control the flow of news can you control peoples thoughts?
Japan, Korea, the UK and many western European nations have the same rules around the state owned media. However in Russia, China, North Korea, Laos and Cuba the state owned press acts as a mouth piece for the government.
Independent and objective is where the problem comes from for the Murdoch press. They equate independence with left wing.
The case in point (mentioned above) the phone tapping of the Indonesian President is interesting because it raises the following questions:
Should an independent and objective news organization reported it?
Would it be better for the ABC to be the mouth piece of the government following a model of China or Russia?
Would Australia be better off without a state owned broadcaster?
If you control the flow of news can you control peoples thoughts?
Baloo said:
Thanks for the name drop Baloo. I was just wandering through threads and minding my own business. ;D
At least I can stand the heat.
Looks like no-one voted for them. I wonder how they got in? I have said I'm not a big fan of Abbott. But Labor were a complete disaster, even to themselves, they couldn't get their own party in order let alone the country.
So if you want to blame anyone for the Coalition getting in, blame their incompetent predecessors.
But I do agree, the media have their own agenda. Left, right and centre owe their political masters.
But before I'm attacked for having my own opinion, no I don't agree with all their policies or all their decisions. Just like many Labor supporters didn't agree with Labor changing PM's at the drop of a hat.
antman said:
do people recall the herald sun being up in arms when labour tried to bring in their own laws regarding the press? haven't heard boo from them regarding the libs recent legislation.
uhuh uhuh said:
murdoch certainly thinks so.
although as i said, i believe this is changing with social media taking over the agenda setting. case in point is the victorian state election. the herald sun are trying really hard to create a negative perception about daniel andrews, but it they're not making any traction (well not yet anyway).
Giardiasis said:
Your hypothesis was that a government funded media organisation could not be critical of the government. It can be, and is. Frequently. This is fact.
Do conflicts of interest exist? Yes. For both public and private media organisations. The real world is more complex than your dogma suggests.
Me too Willo, I voted coalition ....but before this thread descends into another politics thread I thought it was about the Murdoch media.....willo said:Thanks for the name drop Baloo. I was just wandering through threads and minding my own business. ;D
At least I can stand the heat.
Looks like no-one voted for them. I wonder how they got in? I have said I'm not a big fan of Abbott. But Labor were a complete disaster, even to themselves, they couldn't get their own party in order let alone the country.
So if you want to blame anyone for the Coalition getting in, blame their incompetent predecessors.
But I do agree, the media have their own agenda. Left, right and centre owe their political masters.
But before I'm attacked for having my own opinion, no I don't agree with all their policies or all their decisions. Just like many Labor supporters didn't agree with Labor changing PM's at the drop of a hat.
JAM said:Just like you? I see no left-wing bias in any of your posts
So you see no potential bias at the ABC, no link to which governement is in power and its funding?
Whilst I am definitely no fan of the murdoch press, never read the HUN and think Abbott and the libs have been in most parts poor the hypocrisy in this thread is pretty funny.
If it was a pointer to wider opinion there would never have been a liberal government. Who's voting for those rednecks?
Given that ABC employees earn a fraction of what their commercial counterparts do, their motivations are radically different to those pegged to the whims of advertisers. The BBC does a great job of being impartial, likewise the ABC. The left/right dichotomy is a furphy anyway, both sides of politics have a similar track record of placing commercial interests above the common good. If caring for a sustainable future makes me a latte sipping commie then I'll cop it, the Murdoch press have scant regard for science, constantly attack the man and not the policy, refuse to allow a diversity of opinion, are agenda driven and are unashamedly tied to the hip of the mining multi-nationals.
I ask you this, if the ABC is so left leaning how do people like Gerard Henderson and Andrew Bolt get a voice on a regular basis? Is there any equivalent in The Australian or the HUN? There was a time when guys like Philip Adams had a gig at The Oz but no longer, it really is propaganda, plain and simple. Q&A for example at least attempts to provide some sort of balanced representation, ever seen that on Fox News?
During the Iraq war 97% of editorials perpetuated that myth of WMD and were pro invasion, is that good for a functioning democracy? Homogenised media erodes debate, take out the ABC and we may as well have a state run media, no difference as far as I can see, apart from the fact that only one party seems to get a look in.
rosy23 said:
Far easier to vote for an Independent or informal. That way some people can claim "not their fault the duds got in". :hihi
tigertim said:
Yep, some of us get sucked in. In my case Bloody Baloo. :crazy
Bullus
Using your theory on bias the Herald Sun and Australian mustn't be biased either as Susie OBrien and Phillip Adams get gigs there from time to time as well!!!
Whilst it would clearly be preferable if all media were unbiased this is in the realms of fantasy. Having said that given that media is a form of entertainment/infotainment I have no real problem with commercial media being biased as if their owners want to produce a product that they believe has commercial appeal to their consumers then they should be free to do so. Not my preferred option just a commercial reality.
The ABC , in contrast has a statutory obligation to be unbiased and whilst many will disagree, I personally consider they fail in meeting that obligation. Plenty of examples of where reporting (and non reporting) shows a slant. Most would remember the former "unbiased" host of the 7.30 report during an election coverage saying "that was a swing to the ABC". I also recall a radio presenter saying at one stage that 'we cant say how we would like you to vote in Australia but lets say if we were voting in America we would be supporting the democrats".
The most ironic thing for me about any bias at the ABC is its effectively putting Fairfax (along with some interesting management decisions) out of business. Put simply why would I pay to read left wing reporting in Fairfax when i can get the same slant for free from the ABC.
have a good day people.
peaka
Using your theory on bias the Herald Sun and Australian mustn't be biased either as Susie OBrien and Phillip Adams get gigs there from time to time as well!!!
Whilst it would clearly be preferable if all media were unbiased this is in the realms of fantasy. Having said that given that media is a form of entertainment/infotainment I have no real problem with commercial media being biased as if their owners want to produce a product that they believe has commercial appeal to their consumers then they should be free to do so. Not my preferred option just a commercial reality.
The ABC , in contrast has a statutory obligation to be unbiased and whilst many will disagree, I personally consider they fail in meeting that obligation. Plenty of examples of where reporting (and non reporting) shows a slant. Most would remember the former "unbiased" host of the 7.30 report during an election coverage saying "that was a swing to the ABC". I also recall a radio presenter saying at one stage that 'we cant say how we would like you to vote in Australia but lets say if we were voting in America we would be supporting the democrats".
The most ironic thing for me about any bias at the ABC is its effectively putting Fairfax (along with some interesting management decisions) out of business. Put simply why would I pay to read left wing reporting in Fairfax when i can get the same slant for free from the ABC.
have a good day people.
peaka
tigertim said:
considering our current PM has been known to run policies before Murdoch before his own party, the way Abbott has looked after Murdoch's interests and the way the Murdoch press operates as the lead cheer leaders for the Libs I can understand the tangent this thread has gone on.
Quote from bullus above: "I ask you this, if the ABC is so left leaning how do people like Gerard Henderson and Andrew Bolt get a voice on a regular basis? Is there any equivalent in The Australian or the HUN? There was a time when guys like Philip Adams had a gig at The Oz but no longer, it really is propaganda, plain and simple. Q&A for example at least attempts to provide some sort of balanced representation, ever seen that on Fox News?"
I'm no fan of Murdoch Press, but I read Philip Adams in the "Weekend Australian" magazine, every week. His health is not good, but he is as insightful and straight shooting as ever! Certainly not a mouthpiece for Murdoch
I'm no fan of Murdoch Press, but I read Philip Adams in the "Weekend Australian" magazine, every week. His health is not good, but he is as insightful and straight shooting as ever! Certainly not a mouthpiece for Murdoch
happytige said:
I stand corrected, he's still around, albeit on the weekend and never on the front pages of the electronic format. I thought they had let him go but more to power to him. He'd be the last truly independent voice at the Oz, when he retires there will be no moderate voices remaining.
