The Murdoch Media

[Peaka]

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.

I think that we can both agree that on the political spectrum there are people on the extreme left and the extreme right and everywhere in between. Given that you consider Phillip Adams to be a moderate can you please enlighten us on who you consider to be of the extreme left??? Just interested.

 

[bullus_hit]

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

So when the ABC uncovered the dirty dealings of the unions they were operating on behalf of Labor were they? It seems that people like to highlight the things that don't accord to their agendas and ignore everything else. Every single government over the past 30 years has had some sort of beef with with the ABC, that indicates that they are doing their job.

 

[Peaka]

So when the ABC uncovered the dirty dealings of the unions they were operating on behalf of Labor were they? It seems that people like to highlight the things that don't accord to their agendas and ignore everything else. Every single government over the past 30 years has had some sort of beef with with the ABC, that indicates that they are doing their job.

No Bulluss they were doing their job. One exception does not prove the rule. We could discuss this topic for ages trading examples back and forth and nothing I would say would convince you so we should just agree to disagree.

I note, however, for example that when Craig Thomson was found guilty of defrauding union members the ABC ran an almost two page article reporting the event. Nowhere in the article did it ever state that when convicted he was an ex ALP federal member of parliament or that the NSW branch of the ALP paid a significant amount of his legal fees. Excuse my cynicism but I suspect that had he been an ex conservative politician the reporting would have been different.

The difference in the reporting of the leaked Spurr emails and the leaked Nova Peris emails is also instructive.

In many cases where there is smoke there is fire and given that a large number of my right of centre friends consider the ABC biased whereas a large number of my left of centre friends do not is also instructive.

I also believe that a number of ABC identities themselves have also admitted that the ABC is left leaning.

I am sure you will disagree though so have a good day.

 

[bullus_hit]

No Bulluss they were doing their job. One exception does not prove the rule. We could discuss this topic for ages trading examples back and forth and nothing I would say would convince you so we should just agree to disagree.

I note, however, for example that when Craig Thomson was found guilty of defrauding union members the ABC ran an almost two page article reporting the event. Nowhere in the article did it ever state that when convicted he was an ex ALP federal member of parliament or that the NSW branch of the ALP paid a significant amount of his legal fees. Excuse my cynicism but I suspect that had he been an ex conservative politician the reporting would have been different.

The difference in the reporting of the leaked Spurr emails and the leaked Nova Peris emails is also instructive.

In many cases where there is smoke there is fire and given that a large number of my right of centre friends consider the ABC biased whereas a large number of my left of centre friends do not is also instructive.

I also believe that a number of ABC identities themselves have also admitted that the ABC is left leaning.

I am sure you will disagree though so have a good day.

Left versus Right, the argument is tiresome to be honest. Those who subscribe to the theory that Labor & Liberal are really that different are living in a fools paradise, both have similar agendas and both have dragged politics down the S-bend and into the sewer. This is obviously the difference bewteen you & I, you sound like a person who would die in the trenches for the LNP, I couldn't care less about either side of politics, they both stink to high heaven and the less I think about them the better I feel.

What I can identify is quality journalism, and it's clear to me that the best investigative journalism comes out of the ABC, the fact that the present government is putting that at risk is a downright shame. We will all be poorer for the experience & will be less informed as a result. The fact that journalists have been threatened with 10 year prison sentences is also highly concerning but if you are happy to live in a police state then good luck to you.

 

[tigersnake]

No Bulluss they were doing their job. One exception does not prove the rule. We could discuss this topic for ages trading examples back and forth and nothing I would say would convince you so we should just agree to disagree.

I note, however, for example that when Craig Thomson was found guilty of defrauding union members the ABC ran an almost two page article reporting the event. Nowhere in the article did it ever state that when convicted he was an ex ALP federal member of parliament or that the NSW branch of the ALP paid a significant amount of his legal fees. Excuse my cynicism but I suspect that had he been an ex conservative politician the reporting would have been different.

The difference in the reporting of the leaked Spurr emails and the leaked Nova Peris emails is also instructive.

In many cases where there is smoke there is fire and given that a large number of my right of centre friends consider the ABC biased whereas a large number of my left of centre friends do not is also instructive.

I also believe that a number of ABC identities themselves have also admitted that the ABC is left leaning.

I am sure you will disagree though so have a good day.

What a pile of *smile*. It never ceases to amaze me this ABC as a nest of commies drivel. For starters, the reference point of what is right and left, both parties are moderate/ right, depending on your point of view. Second, by any analysis, the ALP cop just as much scrutiny and have had a swag of scandals uncovered by the ABC, the Khemlani affair, WA Inc, Ros Kelly, the NSW right, any number of NSW State government scandals and resignations, the ALP links with standover union thugs in NSW, geez thats just off the top of my head. But, keep on believing'

 

[Peaka]

What a pile of sh!t. It never ceases to amaze me this ABC as a nest of commies drivel. For starters, the reference point of what is right and left, both parties are moderate/ right, depending on your point of view. Second, by any analysis, the ALP cop just as much scrutiny and have had a swag of scandals uncovered by the ABC, the Khemlani affair, WA Inc, Ros Kelly, the NSW right, any number of NSW State government scandals and resignations, the ALP links with standover union thugs in NSW, geez thats just off the top of my head. But, keep on believing'

We agree to disagree Tiger, thats cool.

I mean a non politicised ABC wouldn't introduce a Boat watch after a change of government when it was n issue under the last 6 years of the previous government would it. Pure coincidence surely.

BTW you seem to believe that bias only exists if it is 100% one way which quite frankly is ridiculous. Using a football analogy on that analysis an umpire never favours one side unless the other doesn't get a free kick for the game. LOL

As you said mate keep on believing. The ABC clearly has a left wing bias in what it reports (and when) and more importantly on what it chooses not to report.

 

[Giardiasis]

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.

Actually that's a strawman you made made up. Obviously the ABC has it's own agenda, it is left of the ALP, hence it isn't afraid to critise them or the Coalition from time to time. However at the end of the day, they can't go as hard as they would want to because it could hurt their funding. They are heaviliy incentivised during tight budget conditions to hold back from antagonising the government.

In any case the whole concept of unbaised reporting is absurd, every media organisation has a bias towards a certain political slant. You talk of dogma; seems an apt description for the concept of unbiased reporting.

The major problem I have with the ABC is that a group of people are forced to pay for it's operations that don't want to read it and it has an unfair advantage in the market because it isn't constrained by the need to make a profit.

 

[AngryAnt]

Actually that's a strawman you made made up.

Did I? Your meaning below seems clear enough.

Government funded media providing scrutiny of government

:rofl :rofl :hihi :hihi :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :spin

Unbiased reporting? I never mentioned it so will assume you are commenting on other people's comments.

The major problem I have with the ABC is that a group of people are forced to pay for it's operations that don't want to read it and it has an unfair advantage in the market because it isn't constrained by the need to make a profit.

Yes, your ideological position is clear. As a pragmatist, I'd rather have high quality journalism that is relatively independent compared to say, the Murdoch media and I don't particularly care that this quality journalism is funded by government - ie taxpayers and violates some theoretical ideal of libertarians. I'd still rather have it than not.

 

[Giardiasis]

Did I? Your meaning below seems clear enough.

I was laughing at the obvious conflict of interest involved, but I wasn't denying that the ABC has in the past scrutinised government policy.

Unbiased reporting? I never mentioned it so will assume you are commenting on other people's comments.

Correct. I should have worded it differently however to make that a bit more obvious. Apologies.

I'd still rather have it than not.

Yeah screw all those other people that don't want it. They should go to jail if they don't want to subsidise your media consumption.

 

[AngryAnt]

It was a joke that's funny because of the obvious conflict of interest involved, but it wasn't denying undenable truth that the ABC has in the past scrutinised government policy.
Correct.
Yeah screw all those other people that don't want it. They should go to jail if they don't want to subsidise your media consumption.

So we agree that the ABC can and does criticise governments of all colours.

Your last point - the classic libertarian position that modern governments extort taxes from us by force and penalty of jail is true. But this is true of all public institutions - roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, the ABC, the police, the drains, our water infrastructure etc etc etc. I can appreciate the sentiment even though I disagree with it. And getting rid the ABC won't solve that problem for you. You'd also have a modern warfare/welfare state with even less critical scrutiny than before.

 

[Giardiasis]

Your last point - the classic libertarian position that modern governments extort taxes from us by force and penalty of jail is true. But this is true of all public institutions - roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, the ABC, the police, the drains, our water infrastructure etc etc etc. I can appreciate the sentiment even though I disagree with it. And getting rid the ABC won't solve that problem for you. You'd also have a modern warfare/welfare state with even less critical scrutiny than before.

It is more than just sentiment, it is backed up by utilitarianism as much as ethics. It sounds like you disagree with it from a utilitarian persective. Is that correct?

 

[AngryAnt]

It is more than just sentiment, it is backed up by utilitarianism as much as ethics. It sounds like you disagree with it from a utilitarian persective. Is that correct?

Utilitarianism is a failed philosophy too. I think we've already debated that in the politics thread somewhere...

 

[Giardiasis]

Utilitarianism is a failed philosophy too. I think we've already debated that in the politics thread somewhere...

Can't recall. Utilitarianism's adequacy depends on how you look at it.

On what grounds do you disagree with it then?

 

[AngryAnt]

Can't recall. Utilitarianism's adequacy depends on how you look at it.

On what grounds do you disagree with it then?

Probably not the thread for it... happy for you to start a new one if you want.

 

[Giardiasis]

Probably not the thread for it... happy for you to start a new one if you want.

Maybe put it in "Australian Economics". What a bogus title!

 

[tigersnake]

G man what about the ABC scrutinising government policy and business to foster transparency, expose corruption, collusion, etc etc, ie, create the conditions for a more even playing field for business?

Thats what it actually does. Even if you don't watch or listen to the ABC, they make our society better.

The commercial media do it too, just not when it effects the owner's or big advertiser's interests.

 

[Giardiasis]

G man what about the ABC scrutinising government policy and business to foster transparency, expose corruption, collusion, etc etc, ie, create the conditions for a more even playing field for business?

Thats what it actually does. Even if you don't watch or listen to the ABC, they make our society better.

The commercial media do it too, just not when it effects the owner's or big advertiser's interests.

The ABC provides scrutiny to the government from a political position that is left of the ALP. You might appreciate that perspective, but for me it adds no value. I'm not interested in that sort of media. Why should I through threat of imprisonment be forced to pay for it?

 

[tigersnake]

The ABC provides scrutiny to the government from a political position that is left of the ALP. You might appreciate that perspective, but for me it adds no value. I'm not interested in that sort of media. Why should I through threat of imprisonment be forced to pay for it?

the ABC scrutinises government and business from the perspective of broad public interest, the potential of policy or development to affect the environment, the powerless, those with less power than those pushing the policy. That is nowadays equated with the left, but its not, its also inherent in a lot of conservative values, nobless oblige being the most obvious. But, That has no value to you.

You're only interested in scrutiny of government and business by commercial media which often stands to be advantaged or disadvantaged by any given policy. Thats you'r classic case of market failure (again). Its the real world G man, not some strange adolescent market fantasy.

as long as we're clear, Doesn't wash with me.

 

[Giardiasis]

the ABC scrutinises government and business from the perspective of broad public interest, the potential of policy or development to affect the environment, the powerless, those with less power than those pushing the policy. That is nowadays equated with the left, but its not, its also inherent in a lot of conservative values, nobless oblige being the most obvious. But, That has no value to you.

You're only interested in scrutiny of government and business by commercial media which often stands to be advantaged or disadvantaged by any given policy. Thats you'r classic case of market failure (again). Its the real world G man, not some strange adolescent market fantasy.

as long as we're clear, Doesn't wash with me.

The ABC's scrutiny derives from the subjective values of the individuals that work there, not some vague concept of broad public interest. Clearly a lot of people including me do not want to consume what the ABC has to offer. Hence it is unjust that these people are forced into paying for the ABC.

I'm not against private commercial enterprises from producing media for consumption by willing consumers, because it is up to entrepreneurs to choose whether to risk such a venture, and it is up to everyone else to decide if they want to consume it. Under this arrangement, no one is forced to pay for something they don't want. Typically different media outlets cater to different political perspectives, and hence you get a lot of scrutiny amongst the various media outlets. Fairfax and News Corp often scrutinise the work of the other. In any case, the internet has greatly expanded the available media from which people (not just big media companies) provide scrutiny of government, business, the work of media competitors etc., and is much more often than not, free!

Incidentally, I far more often than not choose not to consume the commercial media's product of government scrutiny, as most of them, including Murdoch media, are still heavily statist. Hence most of the scrutiny of government I choose to read comes from blogs and literature.

Now where is the market failure here? Do you believe that without a publicly funded ABC, that the government will no longer be adequately scrutinised according to your subjective values? Look at this from my point of view. None of the current large media companies including the ABC, Fairfax, and News Corp provides an adequate scrutiny of government/business according to my subjective values. Yet I can still find it on the internet via blogs, and through literature. I suggest that without a publicly funded ABC, you'd be able to find it too.

 

[lukeanddad]

The ABC's scrutiny derives from the subjective values of the individuals that work there, not some vague concept of broad public interest. Clearly a lot of people including me do not want to consume what the ABC has to offer. Hence it is unjust that these people are forced into paying for the ABC.

Thanks for tackling the premise G. Seems a bit sanctimonious to impute a value system among ABC apparatchiks that the rest of the media is incapable of...

By the way, I should know this but do any 'western' countries still have state-owned media outlets?