Do you consider it acceptable that in Australia there is government owned media organisations, such as the ABC & SBS? Should all media be privately operated only?

Providing they are not propaganda machines for the ruling party.

The ABC are a waste of money. Their bias is excruciating.

Jesus how does this bollocks keep getting sprouted despite Audit after Audit finding that it is completely false.

This :lol:

And this .

The only people claiming the ABC are biased are those clearly representing the bias of the Murdoch empire and those who fear impartiality in the media.

Laughable...if you think they're biased......prove it!

The same lin gets trottes out every couple of months and people actually buy it. And when audits after audit clear the abc and sbs of bias people be like thats a lie . That audit is rigged

All media is bias.

Commerical tv is biased to the right . But nothing is said

Ohhhh can you and your PHD brain just go back to your corner of Canberra and stop being right for once?!

We're trying to bash conservative pawns here :lol:

There's bias and then there's selective reporting and charged wording. It's the same on both sides.

I don't need to buy it, I just read their articles on mining and laugh. Especially the ones our mate Murdochs Rags puts out.

Pertinent. No different in Australia.

[youtube]I8bihhjH3nI[/youtube]

ABC and SBS is left leaning. Commercial TV is largely populist. Channel 10 leans to the left, channel 9 to the right. Sky news is also right leaning.

All media is bias. In other countries they know this and don't hide it. FOX news is right and MSNBC is left.

Same with newspapers of course. They all push agendas.

:lol: some of it is.

Things are said but no one cares what lefties say. They need to shut up and make more coffees ;)

Nothing wrong with government owned stations so long as people are aware of it, which in Australia, they are...

What's more troubling is people rely on things like Sunrise and Today as gospel.

What is the issue with those programs? They're reporting News just like everyone else. Do you see the issue is the selective way they present news? I've seen this argument made.

An audit of the ABC found that it was, if anything, right leaning. That said, because it's more factually based, it's no wonder that it gets labelled left leaning. Evidence & critical thinking is more typical of the left.
Funny statement about Channel 10 being left leaning - heard of the Bolt Report...? :lol:

And this again!

This explains why

[youtube]I8bihhjH3nI[/youtube]

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 2/2/2016 10:32:13 AM

Sorry mate, at work, can't watch youtube clips.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
I'll pay that!

If I click play I count down from 30 until I get an angry email telling me to do some work :lol:

Was waiting for this.

The bolt report has been cancelled and was on once per week on like a Sunday morning.
Conversely the project is on every weeknight on primetime.

Thats all you need to know.

The audits of the ABC concerned their news coverage and current affair programs like lateline and 7:30.

It did not cover other programs like Q and A, or programming in general, or the morning ABC shows. Programming in general on the ABC is left leaning. There is an incentive for the ABC to remain left leaning as left leaning governments are less likely to make cuts to public broadcasting.

Please sir, this is another conservative bashing thread. Please keep your logic out of this thread =p~

So you don't have evidence to support your claim (not that I would I care if it was left leaning - I'd be surprised & in fact disappointed if it wasn't)
But as for incentives, it is a false equivalence to compare the implicit incentive of the free market dollar to government funding. Hence, no wonder that most privately owned media is right wing leaning. Sound bites sell......:idea:

The reality is that the ABC actually airs left wing and right wing opinion. FTA networks air populist (which means sometimes leftwing but often right wing) and outright right wing opinion.

The fact that left wing opinions actually get aired, does not mean the broadcaster "leans left wing".

IF you watched the ABC breakfast show, they do the review of the day's headlines with various people - including people from free market thinktanks. In fact, the guy on this morning was from a libertarian thinktank.

[youtube]watch?v=47Ll5n-3hx0[/youtube]

:roll:

The Australian media networks much like the left-right political spectrum are becoming increasingly indistinguishable. They serve a globalist belief system, as long as that platform isn't threatened the rest is just a theatrical song and dance of finger pointing and petty squabbles in my opinion.

If commercial TV is so "Right" leaning, then why are typical "Right" topics like closed borders, Disagreeing with gay marriage, Traditional patriarchy for example always shed in such a disparaging light.

ABC, SBS and Australia Post are antiquities of a bygone era, sell them off and their loss making ways

Just saw Eric Abetz & Scott Ludlam on Lateline discussing the issue of ABC & SBS
All I can say is, the intellectual capability is pretty stark - it stands out like dog's balls......:lol:

What is the point of sbs now?

To watch the Grand Tours. :d

I appreciated Scott Ludlam's comment last night "3 white males discussing the need for SBS" :cool:

I wonder if there is a need for NITV?

I'm sorry, no gender-fluid Iranian muslim paraplegics were available for comment on short notice :roll:

An audit conducted by a former left leaning presenter. I sure cant wait for ivan milats review of the prison system

Isn't the important issue not which way a station "leans", but that they do real journalism and fact based reporting, rather than just cheerleading for one side or the other.

Say what you want about the ABC, but (Catalyst aside) they do good reporting, regardless of the position they take.

Really?

Some of their reporting on issues like Coal Seam Gas extraction are almost propaganda like in nature :shock:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4411611.htm

http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1201

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/catalyst-host-maryanne-demasi-in-the-business-of-advocacy-not-journalism-20160222-gn0tkd.html

It's a shame because they used to do such good work.

Well, lefties are more evidenced based in their thinking, so of course right wingers are going to label the ABC left leaning. A right winger's idea of an argument is to shout louder :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ray Martin who hosted A Current Affair for years as well as being a 60 Minutes reporter?
Dear, oh, dear :lol: :lol:

No it's to call the opponent a fraud and then accuse them of not willing to engage in debate when they're called a name like "homophobe" :lol:

Oh c'mon. Not all people of right wing persuasion do this.

It just gets ridiculous when people (yourself and ESPECIALLY murdochrags) buy into this bullshit.

My comment was particularly to take a dig at without a doubt the worst politician in Parliament by using an incident that happened this week. I don't buy into any bullshit :lol:

The left use tactics aimed at suppressing the speech of their opponent by using terms such as racist, homophobe, privilege, transphobe, mansplaining, bigot, cis etc to shut down conversation rather than engage in the debate itself. Its all about labeling and attacking the opponent's character.

They also use narrative over fact. The narrative of an issue is more important that what is actually going on. Recently in the US, a pro-choice organisation tweeted criticism of a light-hearted doritos commercial because it "humanised foetuses."

Think about that for a second. Humanised foetuses.

This is quite Orwellian and results in a subtle form of authoritarianism where people don't even see the suppression.

A perfect example happened a few weeks ago. You may have noticed in the media a shit storm brew over a supposed "pro-rape" advocate coming to these shores to spread his pro-rape message. It turns out his name is Roosh V. I had never heard of the guy before all of this but I smelled a rat instantly. The media would have us believe that this guy was hosting events around the country telling men how to rape women. I read a little more from the man himself and it turns out this all stems from a satirical article he wrote on his website 12 months ago where he effectively criticised the recent trivialisation of rape in the media and how it makes women more likely to be victims or rape and also detracts from the severity of actual incidents of rape. Now I don't necessarily agree with the views of this guy but he is about as controversial as Steve Price would be considered to be and yet he was "banned" from the country. Virtually everything written about him was untrue. It was all a lie.

Again, I don't really care about this guy personally. I'm not an advocate for what he says, but it makes you wonder about all the other bullshit the media sprout and how much it can be trusted especially when it results in censorship.

Do kids even read Orwell at school anymore?

I wish I was surprised that a comment I made (in a meaningful but attempted humourous way) regarding the hypocrisy of Cory Bernardi prompted a lengthy response demonstrating the same hypocrisy.

I guess this is something that you've been itching to post since the news came out. Hope you're satisfied...

It wasn't meant to be a personal attack on you. I was speaking in generalities and yes I did know who you were talking about.

I was speaking to the whole forum not yourself. Don't take things personally.

U44, if you want to start talking about ambiguous language as a political tool then you should give up on your fantasy that it's a tactic used solely by the left.

The dog-whistle politics of the right is just as bad (I'd say it's more problematic, but then that's probably because of my political persuasion). Rather than simply stifling debate (as you suggest those left-wing buzzwords do), dog-whistling helps create and legitimise oppressive policies. Substituting racist slurs for "un-Australian" or "queue jumpers;" defending "states' rights" instead of segregation; using "family values" as code for homophobia and anti-abortion stances - those are all obvious examples of the right using misleading language to manipulate discourse and policy formation. If you want to be hyperbolic about it and say that the left's use of language is Orwellian, then it's easy to respond by suggesting that the right's use of divisive and coded language has fascist connotations.

We don't have to agree about which side's use of language is more nefarious, but surely we can agree that both sides are very much guilty of it?

(As an aside, it's pretty hypocritical of you to complain about the left "labeling and attacking the opponent's character" when your automatic response to discussions of racism and - in particular - feminism is to start complaining about "social justice warriors." )

Edited by JP: 25/2/2016 11:08:40 PM

JP

I seriously doubt that u4486662 believes that the right aren't also culpable of labelling their opponents and exploiting ambiguous language.

He just doesn't buy into the "left-wing = honest, more intellectual, more objective vs right-wing = emotional, misleading, aimed at exploiting the stupid" narrative. In other words, he has a bullshit radar.

The sad thing is that some people do actually believe this crap.

If I've misrepresented your views, u4486662, I do apologise.

Speaking for myself, I'm neither left- nor right-wing. And, indeed, I find many things are incorrectly described as left- or right-wing.

When I'm forced to watch Q&A (left-leaning), I find myself cringing when I read many of the tweets at the bottom of the screen. Half these people don't understand the most basic tenets of economics which are (allegedly) taught in tenth grade. However, I'm equally horrified by Thatcherite politics that people like Tony Abbott push forward. I cannot stand the way our country treats its most vulnerable citizens (and those availing themselves of the protections we, lawfully and morally, should be offering).

I'm just fed up with people taking sides, failing to engage with issues, utterly missing the point. People on both sides of the political fence. A political fence which basically oughtn't to exist.

I'd like to see more people like Nick Xenephon in government, it would do our country no end of good.

Edited by quickflick: 26/2/2016 12:59:13 AM

I buy in. Plenty of peer reviewed research suggests it.
Not my problem if people can't handle the message, because it shatters their worldview.

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 26/2/2016 01:43:45 AM

What like your world view that people whose IQ levels aren't the highest are less likely to be capable of kindness, empathy and compassion than those with higher IQ levels? This all being according to your purportedly peer-reviewed research.

What tripe.

Not aware of such research.
That said though, you may want to educate yourself on how scientific peer review works.

I'm acutely aware of how peer-review works, thank you very much, as you'd hope all current and past university students would be.

You're not aware of such research? Oh do forgive me. To be fair to you, you never did claim the existence of such research.

You merely arrived at such a ludicrous opinion without any proof.

Having a look back at what you've written in the past...



As I said back then, verba ipsissima,...

I can't relate to you finding a link between high IQ and higher levels of empathy. I cannot see any correlation between having a high IQ and being more empathetic.

Hermann Goering had an IQ that was off the charts. Even the way he mounted his defence at Nuremberg attests to that.

What does that tell you? Nothing at all.

I actually find it somewhat insulting to suggest that people with a higher IQ tend to be more empathetic.

http://au.fourfourtwo.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=83167&p=36

Didn't take it personally. We cool :) but what you wrote was hypocritical and JP did a pretty good job of outlining why. I do suspect you knew this but wanted to indulge in the hyperbole that is modus operandi in this particular subforum.

I have a very similar view. Left leaning people seem to think money grows on trees. Moral high ground means nothing if you can't pay for it or have to extort someone else to do so.

Obviously the other end of the spectrum righties seem to think in terms of dollars and cents which makes them look heartless.

The other issue is to ask what even qualifies as right wing or left wing. This differs across different countries, and different times.

To make broad generalisations that "right wingers are like this" or "left wingers are like that" doesn't get you anywhere.

I think there is a certain TYPE of right winger, particularly in the USA to whom you could attribute the claims made by Murdoch Rags - 9/11 truther, Obama 'birther', guns rights extremist etc.

Likewise, the type of left winger who preoccupies their time with Tumblr posts about their SJW causes, doesn't want to debate any points, loves being 'triggered', is just as bad.

The problem is when you ascribe right/left wingers with the above descriptions you are actually arguing against a strawman that only exists on a very small level. The vast majority of people live between those extremes.

The thing I really have a problem with is identity politics - but this is much more of an American phenomenon than an Australian one at this stage.

That is, if you identify as a conservative or progressive, there is a laundry list of topics you "have to" have the same opinion on.

Why does (for example) fiscal conservatism mean you have to be against women's choice when it comes to abortion?

Read the comments on any FB page belonging to the Greens.

So much moral high ground, so little economics :lol:

We all know Murdoch Rags is a troll but people can't help but give him the time of day.

Women's choice when it comes to abortion? What about the kid's choice?
Fiscal is in relation to finance, it has nothing to do with a moral stance.

Australia is very much embroiled in identity politics. You only have to look at this forum as evidence.

I think you missed my point completely.

Fiscal conservatism has nothing to do with abortion. But to be regarded as a conservative in the USA you need to say that you are a fiscal conservative and 'pro-life', hence Donald Trump's backflip on abortion.

Hmmm I think you could say the same thing about the comments on any political party's FB page!

Very important point.

'Left wing' in the USA is probably considered 'centrist' in Australia, and 'centrist' considered 'right wing'.

Take Medicare, for example. Tony Abbott has often trotted out the 'best friend' line - would a Republican ever dare to say that he/she is a proponent of a heavily socialised health system, let alone actually support it?

What is 'right wing' in Australia? What is the threshold?

Is David Leyonhjelm, for example, 'right wing'? Supports guns, huge proponent of free market economics, but has also promoted the traditionally 'left wing' cause of same-sex marriage, again because he believes in (extremely) small government.

Maybe that makes him a 'libertarian', but I don't think that's universally defined either.

Back to the main topic at hand, I can't see any purpose for SBS these days. Aside from the impression I get that it's strayed from its main purpose and become just another outlet for hipsters, it's 2016, and news and entertainment from non-English speaking countries can be found relatively easily (plus their football coverage is a shadow of what it once was anyway). There's no need for taxpayers to fund this.

I'm willing to cut the ABC a bit more slack, but on balance I'd still say get rid of it. It costs a stupid amount of money to run and the state shouldn't be in the business of television anyway. I might even suggest just giving it to the employees and see how they go trying to fund it themselves (like every other media organisation)...

Until our laws change so that false, misleading & unsubstantiated reporting is punished monetarily & criminally, I believe if anything state owned media should increase, not decrease.
This law change won't happen because Murdoch's right wing empire would be bankrupted.

So you misrepresented reality


A sample size of one.
This suggests you don't understand peer review &/or statistical data analysis

I have misrepresented reality far less than you do on a daily basis, my friend.

Oh I daresay if we look hard enough we'll find any number of serial killers, egotistical politicians, CEOs, Wall Street traders, so on and so forth with very high IQs. I do understand peer-review and statistical data, I just prefer to spend my time watching sport or researching stuff that I'm studying formally or which will be beneficial to me (languages, history, philosophy, the odd medical journal, etc). Regardless of anything I say, your assertion will remain wrong and hurtful to many people.

Anyway, I believe it was you who asserted that there is likely a correlation between those who have a high IQ and greater levels of empathy. The burden of proof is on you to prove that is the case. Not me. I don't need to prove a negative.

Schoolboy philosophy, my friend.

Couple of points in response:

I agree SBS has strayed from its mandate, but that is because of cuts in govt funding. They have to rely more and more on ad revenue, so are under pressure to provide more commercial content.

I think SBS is vitally important in providing and alternative perspective, and a more international outlook on news and culture.

As an example - compare "The Family Law" with that "Here Come the Habibs" on Channel 9.

As far as ABC goes, I do quibble with your point that the "state shouldn't be in the business of television anyway". They aren't really - ABC is independent. They are govt funded, but they are not an arm of the govt.

Again, I think they are crucial, mainly because of how concentrated our media ownership is. This will be even more the case when the media laws get relaxed and the TV stations tie-up with Fairfax and NewsCorp.

The only country with more concentrated media ownership than Australia was Italy under Berlusconi.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-24/mark-scott-delivers-national-press-club-address/7195888

Probably the best result that could be achieved between the two. I'd say SBS role as providing news sources from other nations has diminished lately, due to the internet and numerous channels available on cable/streaming services.

Documentary shows are largely confined to ABC and SBS .... so there is definitely a need for them. Even shows such as Q&A are very important to maintain in Australia (commercial channels have tried unsuccessfully to host similar shows) too.

I'd say with the ability to have multiple channels that a merged ABC/SBS would economically make the most sense, and take the best aspects from each.

SBS also have for years provided a great source of foreign films and TV series, that no commercial channel would touch with a ten foot pole. How would we know who Gamera or Inspector Rex was if it wasn't for SBS!

Channel 31/44, does it all without fully being on the public purse like SBS

SBS now has 1x EPL game per week, plus a chunk of WC games

I would say their products are still far inferior to those produced and telecasted by either ABC or SBS. But yes there are alternatives (which are community funded largely).

The concern could be that Australian's will miss out of shows that aren't "commercially" viable (how long before a community funded project needs to think commercially to make ends meet?). How many more cooking shows do we need? SBS originally brought us Iron Chef look before the other shows, SBS produced and broadcasted a documentary about West Aussie regional men finding a wife (before 9 commercialised it to "Farmer Wants a Wife") etc. The point is that by being government funded these channels do not necessarily need to replicate shows, but can show original shows (even in foreign languages), or explore social issues without having to turning it into a game. The bottom dollar of SBS/ABC shows are not necessarily ratings (or advertising dollars) but providing a service to the community.

An example, the WAFL last year was picked up by Channel 7, after ABC budget cuts meant they couldn't afford to telecast games. One of the WAFL teams was sponsored by 9, so that team was not shown on Channel 7's telecasts. ABC had no such qualms the season before.