Bias and 'our' ABC (1 Viewer)

[banco55]

Another question could arise about the freedom of speech. We've seen reports lately about diversity of opinion in the media. Why has the opinion of ABC been targeted? Why can't other channels offer coverage of gay rights or other human rights issues? Don't they need to re-align their coverage to a less biased level?

Because last time I checked nine, ten etc. don't receive taxpayer money.

 

[dieburndie]

That's exactly what would destroy impartiality. This may sound a bit partisan, but if you hear cries of impartiality for media from the right, they are usually complaining about actual investigative reporters cutting through their rabblerousing.

Perhaps these topics are more profound on our only fair and balanced newscast because they are neglected by commercial media networks.

The libs shouldn't complain about the ribbing they get on the ABC, when they've been making the decisions for Australia for the last decade. The moment they pass the torch, they'll get their dignity back.

So the Libs get a ribbing on the ABC, but it is fair, balanced and impartial?
And having a balance of liberals and conservatives would destroy the supposed impartiality demonstrated by the moderate-left leaning ABC?
What you are saying doesn't make any sense, and you are clearly biased in your idea of what impartial means.
I'm not even conservative, I'm probably similar in my political stance to you.
However, that shouldn't affect the ability to judge the ABC objectively.
No right wing content+ some moderate left wing content +some neutral content ends in the ABC being left leaning.
I find the ABC more appealing because of this, but if the public want it to be balanced that is entirely fair because it is a public broadcaster, funded by tax payers.
As for the commercial channels, they can do whatever they want. It doesn't matter anyway, they are slanted towards stupidity rather than being left or right.

 

[Rafy]

The 7.30 Report: Clarke, Dawe, and ABC editorial policy

 

[Iron]

TT and ACA aren't really biased as such, as in favouring one political party or another, because they don't report news or other-type political occurings.

Their stories are very veery very friendly to Coalition politics.
It's pitched to Howard's battlers, who have done failry well for themselves but live beyond their means. It validates their choice to abandon the broad communitarian ideology of Labor for the liberalism/narrow-minded selfishism of the Howard government.

The majority of stories are framed with this in mind, along with negative/fear themes of interest rates, terrorism, multiculturalism, change.

They dont exactly hide their overt political stances anyway. Mrs Whitlam's recent small talk about Mrs Howard, for example, was framed in the context of Whitlam's refusal to apologies for her rude and offensive remarks; remarks which I thouoght were fairly reasonable, considering that Janett is, what, #3 on the overt power list?

It's crap T.V, but I really believe that it's what the crucial voters go for - The swing voters who care the least, but matter the most.
That's the main charge against the ABC; it's not stupid enough.

 

[Saddam Hussein]

Before anyone mentions 'Freedom fighters' as misleading left-wing terminology, please note that the 'Mujhadeen' were proclaimed as "freedom fighters" and they were the anti-soviet equivalent of the Taliban insurgency. Now that is right-wing bias.

So you're telling me a group of people resisting a regime that has killed 40 million of its own people is not fighting for freedom?

Also the whole "ABC should be left wing because other networks are right wing" argument fails because the other networks aren't funded by the government and don't have it in their job description to be fair and balanced.

 

[wheredanton]

Because last time I checked nine, ten etc. don't receive taxpayer money.

I'm pretty sure they receive some form of government contribution/

 

[_dhj_]

Also the whole "ABC should be left wing because other networks are right wing" argument fails because the other networks aren't funded by the government and don't have it in their job description to be fair and balanced.

How does it? Governments should intervene in the market when the the market outcomes do not equate to social equilibrium. In this case, the monopoly of news corp means that centre and left wing media are in short supply.

 

[Saddam Hussein]

They are in short supply because the population doesn't want such media, and so even if it is available in the form of the ABC they won't watch it because they don't care. Either way, anyone left leaning can still pick up the Sydney Marxist Herald or go to one of the thousands of left wing news websites to get their daily dose of communism.

 

[Born Dancer]

a guy from the abc was on mornings with kerri-ann the other day and tried to argue that the abc were always fair and unbiased in their reporting. he psyched up when another journalist on the show said that the abc were left-of-centre.

i lol'd.

 

[HotShot]

Because last time I checked nine, ten etc. don't receive taxpayer money.

yeh.. i don tthink it makes any difference where they get the money from. for eg take the commerical stations - they must get the money from somewhere and who has the money - the consumers do so essentially we are paying them anyway.

if u buy can of coke, and ch7 puts ads on coke - then we are paying indirectly to ch7.

the fact is as consumers we have all the money.

 

[patbox64]

They are in short supply because the population doesn't want such media, and so even if it is available in the form of the ABC they won't watch it because they don't care. Either way, anyone left leaning can still pick up the Sydney Marxist Herald or go to one of the thousands of left wing news websites to get their daily dose of communism.

I would say they are in short supply because the television market is pretty much owned and controlled by those of the right. Keep in mind that the opinions of the media directly influence the opinions of the poulation. Therefore, a largely right wing media will cause mostly right wing public opinions. We need the media to maintain a diversity of opinion - how will this happen if right-wing political opinions are given coverage over those of the left?

I'm not saying ABC shouldnt slightly re-align itself, but if that happens, the other networks should have to follow suit.

Also, looking for a "daily dose of communism" is not characteristic of "leaning" left.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Where's the evidence that ownership determines the ideas presented on a network? It's the ratings that count.

 

[banco55]

yeh.. i don tthink it makes any difference where they get the money from. for eg take the commerical stations - they must get the money from somewhere and who has the money - the consumers do so essentially we are paying them anyway.

if u buy can of coke, and ch7 puts ads on coke - then we are paying indirectly to ch7.

the fact is as consumers we have all the money.

Of course it does. If you spend $10 000 you earned on cocaine and hookers it would be none of the taxpayers business. If a public servant used $10000 public money to pay for cocaine and hookers it becomes tax payers business.

I can decline to buy a coke. I can't decline to have my taxes spent on the ABC.

 

[HotShot]

Of course it does. If you spend $10 000 you earned on cocaine and hookers it would be none of the taxpayers business. If a public servant used $10000 public money to pay for cocaine and hookers it becomes tax payers business.

I can decline to buy a coke. I can't decline to have my taxes spent on the ABC.

that one thing mentioned coke just one - the money flows are enormous - u might lend some to a friend and he might buy a coke. the money goes all over the place.

the government might use tax payer money to spend on the ABC. the ABC employeees get the money they might pizzas from pizza hut - u might work at pizza hut or u might work for the suppliers for pizza hut or etc .

essentially the money domestically ignoring foreign markets the total domestically remains the same, just shift of money here and there.

its just economics.

 

[_dhj_]

Of course it does. If you spend $10 000 you earned on cocaine and hookers it would be none of the taxpayers business.

There's a reason why governments regulate or illegalise certain substances and commercial activities. Without imposing moral judgements let's just say that they're oversupplied by the market, just as right wing media is oversupplied by the market. Of course, governments will still impose ideology on policies. In your example, libertarian governments may legalise drugs or prostitution. Similarly, right-wing governments will attempt to preserve the right-wing media status quo (or interfere with the public broadcaster which in part balances the bias).

 

[Ishamael]

So the Libs get a ribbing on the ABC, but it is fair, balanced and impartial?

What I meant was, THE GOVERNMENT (ie: The Libs) should get a ribbing, because like I said:

they've been making the decisions for Australia for the last decade. The moment they pass the torch, they'll get their dignity back.

And having a balance of liberals and conservatives would destroy the supposed impartiality demonstrated by the moderate-left leaning ABC?

I was saying that the moment you force the station to become "impartial" and not critical of the right-leaning Government, as well as give incentive to conservative reporters over their own choice, you are destroying the impartiality as it exists. The ABC shouldn't have to hire to any other guidelines than ability. When you start pandering to the right by 'balancing' the ideologies, when there is already an abundance of right-wing and ignorant news coverage free-to-air, the media is no longer fair and balanced.

I agree to most of your statements, except those I've refuted, but the media as a whole loses balance if the one critical newscast left, cannot perform its function because of the political Right's objection to exposure. Australia needs a 'free' ABC. Even if it is Left-leaning. andeven at the taxpayer's cost if need be.

 

[Ishamael]

So you're telling me a group of people resisting a regime that has killed 40 million of its own people is not fighting for freedom?

Look Saddam...

The ABC is ridiculously biased... 'freedom fighters', anyone?

Now that everyone realises their blunder (read: You), reread what I said in response:

Before anyone mentions 'Freedom fighters' as misleading left-wing terminology, please note that the 'Mujhadeen' were proclaimed as "freedom fighters" and they were the anti-soviet equivalent of the Taliban insurgency. Now that is right-wing bias.

I make a point that the political right often spouts this term at any remotely aligned insurgency, but refutes the use against their "enemies" who are in fact little different than their former allies.

the other networks aren't funded by the government and don't have it in their job description to be fair and balanced.

Yes they do. As part of any healthy HSC English Advanced course you should learn that they have a code to ascribe to. Before anyone points out that it's not illegal to ignore the code, I realise this. However, it is, as Saddam says part of the Journalists' "job description".

 

[Ishamael]

Where's the evidence that ownership determines the ideas presented on a network? It's the ratings that count.

Fox Network in America. Nuff said.
Here's a nice example.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418038/

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Fox is more balanced than the ABC.

Outfoxed focuses on the opinion commentary on Fox instead of the news.

 

[onebytwo]

LOL..
thats one of my related texts for Telling the Truth (frontline)
you can watch the whole thing on youtube
its a very good expose