Media Watch - Paul Barry, Eh?

Who would have possibly guessed the ABC would appoint another lefty sympathiser to the role of host of Media Watch?

I think it’s a given over 50% of the voting public would count themselves as conservative.  Less than 40%, probably count themselves as of the Left.  That figure may be less.

With the recycling of Paul Barry as host of Media Watch, we can surmise ABC management has little or no respect for over 50% of Australians who may – or may not watch ABC television.

Many solid ABC supporters such as myself, have been driven away from the public broadcaster (we are required to sponsor) over the years because of obvious bias to the left, lack of balance, ongoing group-think and an appalling disregard for the views of over 50% of the population.

See Andrew Bolt’s articles here and here.

It is time to give the ABC Board members a good dressing down, I think.

The ABC Board

The duties of the Board are set out in section 8 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (the ABC Act)

The ABC Board is responsible for the ABC’s operations. The duty of the Board is to ensure that the functions of the Corporation are performed efficiently with maximum benefit to the people of Australia, and to maintain the independence and integrity of the Corporation. The Board is also responsible for ensuring that the gathering and presentation of news and information is accurate and impartial, according to recognised standards of journalism, and that the ABC complies with legislative and legal requirements.  (My bold)

The Board members are:  The Hon James Spigelman AC QC

                                           Mr. Steven Scala AO

                                           Mr. Mark Scott AO

                                           Dr. Julianne Schultz AM FAHA

                                           Ms Cheryl Bart AO

                                           Professor Fiona Stanley AC FAAS FASSA

                                           Ms Jane Bennett

                                           Simon Mordant AM

To contact the ABC Board (taken from the webiste)

To Contact the ABC Board:

ABC Secretariat
Board Executive Officer
Box 9994 GPO Sydney NSW 2001

Telephone (02) 8333 5312
Fax (02) 8333 5482

Email board@your.abc.net.au

Media Watch - Bolt Applies For The Job!

Oh – this should be good!

Andrew Bolt’s Application to Mark Scott (ABC Managing Director) to host the ABC’s chronically leftarded Media Watch can be found here:

Mr. Bolt rightly points out:  “Watch devoted to detecting such media sins as bias and group-think, not once has it had a host not of the Left.

How worried you must be that its eighth host will be from the same cookie-cutter that’s given us Stuart Littlemore, Richard Ackland, Paul Barry, David Marr, Liz Jackson, Monica Attard and Holmes”.

And  “As your own Equity and Diversity Annual Report says:

“The ABC Charter requires the broadcasting of programs that ... reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. ABC Editorial Policies support the diversity of perspectives.” “

I cannot wait to find out who the ABC appoints as its new Media Watch host; whether the taxpayer will be respected, provided value for money and whether the ABC is prepared to actually promote and encourage balance.  Should the ABC selected another biased host, then an Abbott Government has to take a stand, regardless of what Opposition Communications Minister, Malcolm Turnbull thinks – or says!  Mr. Turnbull, apparently, seems pretty keen to maintain the status quo with regard to the ABC.  I remain unimpressed with Mr. Turnbull’s attitude.

It’s time.

Media Watch - New ABC Host?

So, if the rumour is true, the sneering, holier-than-thou, leftarded face of Media Watch may change by the end of May this year.  Or it may not.

The publicly funded ABC is on the cusp of seriously proving to taxpayers it takes its Code of Practice very seriously, indeed!   Here’s its chance to actually inject some balance into the organisation by appointing a first ever bi-partisan host of Media Watch.

The Code of Practice can be found here:  http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CodeofPractice2013.pdf

There has to be a caveat applied with regard to the following link.  Crikey seems to have quite a bit of rumour-mongery history and apparent absence of  fact-checkers, but that’s another story!

Crikey understands a replacement for Holmes has been chosen, with the ABC set to make an official announcement on his successor at the end of May. ABC sources say this is likely to be followed by a speedy baton change from Holmes to the mystery new host — the eighth in Media Watch’s history.

Holmes, an ABC current affairs veteran, flagged last August that he was likely to step down in the middle of this season. Although the handover has been carefully planned for months, the identity of the new presenter is a closely-guarded secret within Aunty.

As Andrew Bolt notes:  The ABC now has a perfect chance to prove it really does embrace diversity by appointing its first ever non-Leftist to host Media Watch. So far, every one of the seven presenters in the show’s history has been of the Left - Stuart Littlemore, Richard Ackland, Paul Barry, David Marr, Liz Jackson, Monica Attard and Jonathan Holmes. That monpoly - that monoculture - is astonishing, undeniable and inexcusable.

My bet is we will not see a change.  We will not see the ABC honour its obligation to the Australian taxpayer to exercise diversity; exhibit balance and even make a mild attempt to accurately reflect the mood of the Nation.  Should I be proved correct, then there is even more reason for an incoming Conservative Government to defund this Leftist behemoth of a public broadcaster.

The ball is squarely in your court, Australian Broadcasting Corporation!

What's With The ABC?

Something must have gone radically wrong!  Today, the panel on The Insiders appeared to be completely out of character.  Instead of the the usual panel stack of four leftards up against one lonely conservative,  this morning's show appeared to be balanced - for the first time since I began subjecting myself to this particular hour of ABC Leftist bias on Sunday mornings commencing at 9 am.

What a surprise to find the Australian's Niki Savva and Executive Director of The Sydney Institute, columnist and political commentator, Gerard Henderson sitting there eye-balling Political Editor for the Australian Financial Review, Laura Tingle and of course, Barrie Cassidy,  host and ex-Labor staffer and very best friend of the Prime Minister's boyfriend, Timmy.

I think it must have been a fluke and most unlikely to ever be repeated.  I suspect the reason for this most uncharacteristic event was that the usual stable of Labor stooges were off hunting bunyips or otherwise occupied.

I am quite certain the ABC's Managing Director, Mark Scott had nothing to do with the panel makeup on today's programme nor do I for one minute believe the ABC's Code of Practice was this week, required reading for the programme's producers and/or host.

So.  What's gone awry within the Green/Left public broadcaster?   Enquiring minds need to know because most of us won't swallow any guff about the ABC coming of age.

Perhaps at the eleventh hour, the ABC is finally waking up to the political mood within this country and that pushing a horse with a broken back is not in their overall interests if they wish to continue their long-term dependence on the taxpayer-funded drip-feed!  That's probably wishful thinking on my part because I'm sure normal programming will resume shortly!

ASIC Raids Moylan's Campsite

Meanwhile, over at the ABC's online website - they report on the Australian Securities & Investments Commisiion's involvement today.  However, there seems to be an absence of any mention of the "involvement" of the Greens Senators Rhiannon and Milne's public support of the criminal actions of Jonathan Moylan.  I wonder why that is?  Some facts reported.  Others concealed.  Our ABC - fair, balanced and unbiased reporting yet again!
..................................................................

ASIC raids Whitehaven hoaxer's campsite
Updated 1 hour 15 minutes ago

The man at the centre of the Whitehaven coal hoax says the corporate regulator has raided his camp in northern New South Wales and taken his phone and computer.

Jonathan Moylan, from Frontline Action Coal, issued a fake ANZ media release claiming the bank had pulled a $1.2 billion loan from Whitehaven's Maules Creek project on environmental grounds.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission is considering legal action after $314 million was temporarily wiped from the value of the company.

Many investors lost up to 9 per cent of the value of their shares by selling on media reports based on the fake release, before the share price recovered after Whitehaven and ANZ confirmed the release was a hoax.

Mr Moylan says ASIC raided his camp at the Maules Creek coal project near Boggabri in northern New South Wales.

"ASIC did turn up at the camp and, unfortunately I don't know exactly how much I'm allowed to say about that because there are offences for revealing details of an ASIC investigation, but I can say I've been required to attend questioning and they've seized my phone and computer," he told Radio National Breakfast.

The 24 year old environment activist says he is more concerned about the environmental impact on the local community than his own welfare.

"There may be very, very serious consequences for me that's going to affect only me," he said.

"The real on the ground impact going to be felt by the local community here is much more at the top of my mind.

"These projects are continuing to be approved and generating the biggest crisis that humanity faces."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-09/asic-raids-whitehaven-hoaxers-campsite/4457698

Suspect Global Warming Tales: 2013 - No. 2

Like a bull camel in musk with a gob full of foam and lips-a-flapping, we have the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Programme Manager, Tony Mohr scaring the bejesus out of the chooks at the ABC’s online website, The Drum.

Tony, dear fellow – this is Australia, one of the hottest places on the Planet and not called “a sunburnt country” for nothing.  I thought we were not supposed to confuse weather with climate!  Oh!  Nevermind - I must have my wires crossed again!  We’ve lived through heatwaves before, you know and we are bound to live through them again.  Heatwaves in Australia are not a new phenomena – although I think you would like to assume your readers are a little bit stupid.  You need to do a bit of research on the influences of la Nina and el Nino weather patterns and perhaps take a bit of a look at that bloody big and hot Star we call the Sun and how it influences weather and climate on Earth.  Flares and spots – that sort of stuff.

Here’s Tony liberally spreading his foam in part.  You can click on the link below, if you are fit enough to stomach the diatribe.

Australia is in the midst of a heat wave. In and of itself, that's nothing special, but it is getting hotter. What we do today will dictate how hot we are tomorrow, writes Tony Mohr.

Chances are that as you read this, if you're not in Sydney, you're either sweating uncomfortably or sitting in an air-conditioned office.

It's probably somewhere between 35 and 40 degrees Celsius outside. More if you're in one of Australia's hotter regional areas. You probably had a fitful night's sleep.

We all know the symptoms; Australia is in the midst of a heat wave.

In and of itself, that's nothing special. We have heatwaves all the time. But it is getting hotter. Climate change is making things worse. What Australia - and the world - is seeing is weather on steroids.

No-one can point to any given hot day and say categorically that 'it is hot because of climate change'. No-one is trying to. But we know very well that as the climate heats up, it makes the chances of a day being hot greater, and it makes the likely maximum temperature even hotter.

We can't look at Lance Armstrong's career and say "that stage win on Alpe d'Huez was because of doping". But we can say "doping was absolutely a factor in him winning seven straight Tours de France". Likewise, we know climate change is a factor in the increasing number of hot days and nights we are experiencing in Australia, even if the cause of any given hot day is ambiguous.

According to the National Climate Data Centre, nine of the 10 hottest years on record have been since 2000 (the other is 1998), and of the hottest 20 years on record - that is, since 1880 - the earliest is 1987, which comes in at 20.

Last year in the US, heat records were broken with distressing regularity. In an ordinary year, the ratio of hot-weather records to cold-weather records is roughly equal. In 2012, for every cold-weather record, there were 3.5 record hot days.

The CSIRO has found Australian annual average daily maximum temperatures have steadily increased in the last hundred years, with most of the warming trend occurring since 1970. There has been an increase in the number of hot days and a decrease in the number of cold days. 2012 has been announced the ninth-hottest year on record.

Please take note at paragraph 9 of this foaming essay as it is relevant to my previous post involving the detective work undertaken by Anthony Watts and relating to records and their potential for some creative manipulation.

CSIRO, please note – we are coming out of the Little Ice Age, you know!  I would say a bit of warming is natural and to be expected.  Of course, I am blindly assuming your data is accurate.  

The CSIRO is another body attached to the public teat that requires a good looking into.

Get your umbrellas up and follow the bouncing ball here:-

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4455022.html

ABC Self Policing - The Danger Within (Part 2)

In this article reproduced from The Australian, (I didn't have to sign up for it!) we see just how low the ABC has sunk.  I would go as far as to say the ABC's reputation as a balanced broadcaster is irretrievable.  It's gone.

I do not believe Australian taxpayers should continue to employ Radio National "Science" broadcaster, Robyn Williams.  The man has proved more than once that he cannot produce a balanced programme when it comes to CAGW.
..................................................................................

It's OK to link climate denial to pedophilia, ABC tells ex-chairman Maurice Newman

BY: RICK MORTON From: The Australian December 18, 2012 12:00AM 102

Former ABC chairman Maurice Newman says the national broadcaster suffers from 'groupthink' when it comes to climate change. Picture: Nikki Short Source: The Australian
A COMPLAINT by former ABC chairman Maurice Newman over a radio program that linked scepticism about human-induced climate change to advocacy of pedophilia has been dismissed by the national broadcaster.

Mr Newman, who retired from the ABC's top job in March when his five-year term ended, said the broadcaster had been "captured" by a "small but powerful" group of people when it came to climate change groupthink - a claim rebuffed by the broadcaster.

He said comments by the network's science reporter Robyn Williams in a November 24 broadcast of The Science Show were indicative of a broader failure of the "public interest" test at the taxpayer-funded ABC.

"What if I told you that pedophilia is good for children, or that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, to be encouraged?" Williams said at the top of the show, which was dedicated to discussing attitudes on climate change.


RECOMMENDED COVERAGE

ABC clique in control of climate

"You'd rightly find it outrageous. But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science."

In his written complaint to ABC managing director Mark Scott, Mr Newman raised the issue of personally "offensive and defamatory" material and content that compared climate sceptics to pedophiles "more generally".

The radio segment had also referred to an article that Mr Newman had written in The Australian last month comparing climate change believers to the religious. Mr Williams referred to it as "drivel" and his guest, psychology professor Stephen Lewandosky, said that those who denied climate change were "driven by ideology rather than evidence".

Mr Newman objected to the imputation that he was a flat-earther.

"Speaking up publicly is not the sort of thing you do lightly," he told The Australian yesterday.

"I still have a deep affection for the ABC but at some point someone has got to make a stand. The ABC is not being frank and open about the way global warming is portrayed on its various platforms, although the sense of imbalance is becoming more overt, I feel."

Mr Newman said he was the first person to admit he was not a scientist and described himself as a human-induced climate change "agnostic". "I considered the report to be defamatory because it went on to discuss me personally and an opinion piece I'd written comparing some in the climate change camp to religious believers," he said. "In lumping me in with despicable flat-earthers, they also, through their introduction, likened people like us to pedophiles and drug-pushers."

An ABC spokeswoman said the complaint was dismissed because the editorial context of the segment was reasonable, meaning "harm and offence" was justified.

"ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs have carefully considered the complaint, reviewed the program and assessed it against the ABC's editorial standards for harm and offence which state in part: 7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context," the spokeswoman said.

"ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs have also sought and considered a response from ABC Radio. Audience and Consumer Affairs have concluded that there has been no breach of the ABC's editorial standards for harm and offence." The former chairman said he had not made the complaint to the ABC to air a personal grievance; rather he wished to highlight that the national broadcaster had a duty to all taxpayers to provide more considered and balanced reports.

"In this particular segment, I don't think the issue received fair treatment," Mr Newman said. "It certainly wasn't open-minded and I believe it misrepresented the perspective of people who have considered doubt."

ABC policies also make note, on scientific and other matters, that standards must strike a "balance that follows the weight of the evidence".

"Who does the weighing?" Mr Newman said. "Who re-weights and when? Or, is it set and forget?"

The ABC spokeswoman said the network did broadcast and publish views from dissenting scientists.

"Unlike the BBC, the ABC acknowledges there are climate scientists who question the core thinking about climate science," she said.

"The ABC gives them and their views air time."

In its direct response to Mr Newman, the ABC maintained it did "not equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/broadcast/its-ok-to-link-climate-denial-to-pedophilia-abc-tells-ex-chairman-maurice-newman/story-fna045gd-1226538690358

ABC Self Policing - The Danger Within

Malcolm Colless has an interesting piece in Quadrant Online outlining the roughness of the media playing field as it stands today under the current Labor regime purporting to be running this country.  Into the ground - but that's another story.  There is nothing level about the media playing field when it comes to 'their' ABC.   Not 'our' ABC - although we all pay for the thing.

The socialist bias within the ABC is now no longer something to joke about.  There is not one conservative presenter on radio or television.  Programme presenters such as Jon Faine (Local Radio 774)  Leigh Sales  (7.30) and Tony Jones (Q & A) no longer feel shackled by the ABC's Code of Practice and fly their political preference flags with gay abandon.

Should commerical media fall victim to constrictions and, by definition, censorship if the government of the day gets its way, then the powerful media outlet, the ABC, should be subject to the same regulatory controls.  Why should the ABC be treated differently?  It is in the media business afterall, although taxpayer funded, which is all the more reason the ABC should be accountable.
...........................................................................................

QED
The ABC's indecent advantage
by Malcolm Colless

November 30, 2012

There has been a lot of whinging lately by the free-to-air TV broadcasters about lopsided competition rules. Free TV Australia, the commercial television lobby group, has urged the government to impose tax penalties on the major international online companies to create “a level playing field”. The FTAs should know all about this, as they have enjoyed years of unfair advantage over any competition in their patch.

But the Australian Broadcasting Corporation with the help of its owner, our Federal Government, is well positioned to take advantage of a very uneven playing field in the future digital delivery of news and opinion online.

The reason is quite simple. While traditional commercial media companies, particularly print operators, are finding it increasingly necessary to build pay walls around their digital content, the ABC can, and presumably will, continue to provide its content for free, courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.

On a “share of voices” meter, which measures across-the-board media impact, the ABC leaves the rest of the industry for dead -- and it always has via the sheer number of its taxpayer-funded outlets.

The spectre that this raises is of ABC dominance on the news and current affairs digital platforms already battling for market share and advertising revenue as traditional media outlets attempt to cope with a seismic shift in community reading and viewing habits. The fact that the ABC does not need to worry about establishing pay walls to underwrite the value of its content puts it in a very powerful and potentially monopolistic position. While the Labor Government may see this as a comfortable alternative to a hostile press it raises serious questions about the free flow of information, a basic component of any democracy.

The government has already taken a giant step towards controlling this information with the establishment of the National Broadband Network. It would have us believe the multi-billion dollar NBN is necessary to shore up Australia’s competitiveness in global markets, having argued that this task cannot be successfully carried out by private enterprise. Time will tell if this policy assumption is correct, but the government’s aim in the meantime is to nationalise the information superhighway and be its content gatekeeper.

All of this is pertinent to Labor’s desire to put more shackles on an already heavily regulated press in order to placate left-wing political pressures in its own minority-government camp. The opportunity for government action on this comes from the inquiry it ordered into media regulation (it would prefer it to be known as “reform”) conducted by former judge Ray Finkelstein.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, who has carriage of this issue ( and ministerial control of the ABC and SBS), may well see the traditional press as a soft target. We will see about that. But he has learned that trying to interfere with the flow of internet information can be a dangerous game indeed.

In 2008 Conroy unveiled a scheme to legislate mandatory filtering by internet service providers of Refused Classification-rated material hosted on overseas servers. This brought an immediate and hostile response from internet users, particularly when it was found that the Government’s intended hit list went well beyond child-abuse websites and the like.

Despite deferring a final decision until after the 2010 federal election Conroy maintained his support for the scheme, but yielded to unrelenting opposition earlier this month when he announced the proposed legislation had been abandoned.

So it will be interesting to see how far Cabinet is prepared to go in the face of Finkelstein’s recommendation for all media outlets to be covered by a new “super-media regulatory body” which would be called the News Media Council.

Whether this can be justified in terms other than those of naked politics is another matter. But whatever the merits of that case, the fact remains the ABC has strenuously argued that what may be good for commercial media’s goose is not good for its own, taxpayer-funded gander, meaning that it needs to be left to operate under its own internal complaints system.



Veteran journalist Malcolm Colless believes in freedom of speech -- and a level playing field

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2012/11/the-abc-s-indecent-advantage

Here's How It Works At The ABC

This graphic has been shamelessly pinched from Samuel J's piece over at Catallaxy.

However, we all need to see how our tax dollars are working for all Australians when it comes to funding of "their" ABC - not ours..

Of course, there is no bias at the ABC.  Apparently, Managing Director, Mark Scott made some sort of commitment/ promise thingamy to smooth out or disappear any funny stuff at the ABC as Gerard Henderson has been at pains to point out.  Gerard has also been diligent in keeping tabs on just how many from the Conservative side of politics have been bestowed with important editorial and journalistic roles at Aunty.

What's wrong with the bleeding obvious?

The relevant bits contained in the graphic might be a bit hard to read, but if you click on the link to Catallaxy above, all will be revealed.