What to do with the public broadcasters? ABC BBC CBC (Can anyone explain public media in NZ?)
Big-government fans forcibly take funds from all citizens to support big-government propaganda by journalists who predominantly vote left or very-left (see here or here). The question is not whether or not they should do this but whether to privatize the public broadcasters, or to split them in two. I say, let’s forget the submissive plea to get one conservative commentator among a monoculture of “progressives”. Chop the current one in half and call it what it is: pro big-government. Then set up a new counter half to match — the pro-small-government broadcaster with the same funds but new staff. (Game on — let the best team win that ratings war.) Abbott could keep ABC funding promises. ABC-L plus ABC-R equals current ABC-LL+ funding.
Obviously, true free-market libertarians want public broadcasters 100% sold — their incentives are always going to run counter to unbiased reporting and the hunt for the truth. On the other hand, among the populace, the ground is not remotely laid for a big-sell. Many voters remain blind to the bias, and have no idea how filtered the half-truths are: in 2013 73% said they “trust” the ABC. Though 4% more viewers turned off the boring indoctrination last year, there is a long way to go.
Is a split more realistic, or is it a short term solution but a long term fail? Would a split ABC (or BBC or CBC) finally achieve real public debate to help our civilization achieve the best balance between “Big-Gov and Small-Gov”? I think the independent-minded Small-Gov-half would romp in the ratings as people tuned in to see real debate, real conflict and the funniest smartest shows. Big-G TV can keep the ever-predictable Shaun Micallef, and the group-thinky gags of Clark & Dawes. Edgy comedy is a step ahead of the crowd, it mocks the ruling paradigms rather than repeats them. The most popular BBC show is (or was) Top Gear. Need I say more? Political correctness is just not that funny.
A dark side of a split would be that polarized audiences may end up watching self-reinforcing TV, everyone in their preferred silo. I’m optimistic; I think the competitive side of libertarian-conservative minds would mean the Small-G-TV would be where the real debate happened. The Big-G team currently work by silencing debate, but the independent minds crave it. Perhaps the “progressives” would have to debate their ideas once more? But there is also the danger that, if it wasn’t done well, the big-government lovin’ journalists and their attendant bureaucracy would capture both broadcasters.
So here are two points for today’s blog episode of “sell or split”. One: The Victorian State Liberal Party (now in opposition) formally recognizes the Australian ABC as the enemy, and sends a message to the Abbott government that the ABC should be privatized. Two: Rupert Wyndham eviscerates the BBC for it’s pretentious but vapor thin grip on “ethics”. His letter is a work of art.
Victorian Libs recognise the enemy
The accompanying statement to the motion [passed by the Victorian Liberals], drafted by Bernie Gaynor:
The ABC and the SBS are clear enemies of our party. They wish us ill, do us great harm – while we foolishly maintain them with our taxes. They are not mere political reporters and commentators – they are aggressive political participants. Relentless in their pursuit of left ideological policies and objectives, they have nothing but contempt for our liberal, conservative values.
It is not the role of government to run a huge media empire. The time for public funding of this disgraceful political bastion of the left is over. They must be sold. Let the left pay for them out of their own pockets, and let the tax payers of Australia be saved $1.2 billion per year by their liquidation.
Rupert Wyndham explains what ethics are to the BBC
Wyndham writes to point out real ethical issues the BBC ought to discuss. A few razor sharp points first below, and his full letter with all 32 examples after that. (H/t to Ross, thanks).
“…what are the ethical issues that should, but plainly don’t, exercise … the state broadcaster? Here are a few suggestions.”
So when the BBC:
- Routinely ignores its own Editorial Standards (as it happens, legal requirements), that is an ethical issue;
- Subverts the accepted meaning of language in order to generate a spurious justification for institutional bias, that is an ethical issue;
- Claims that its much vaunted impartiality has been ‘calibrated’ on the advice of a specially convened assembly of experts, that is an ethical issue;
- Subsequently spends large quantities of licence fee payers’ money seeking to avoid disclosing the composition of that convocation, that is an ethical issue;
- Has, as it later transpires, lied repeatedly about the accreditation of attendees, that is an ethical issue;
- Is in possession of information indicating gross malfeasance within the climate change community, which for weeks it deliberately suppresses, that is an ethical issue;
- When scientists, or those claiming to be, concoct evidence, that is an ethical issue.
- When they refuse to engage in debate with their peers, that is an ethical issue.
- When they defame and willfully denigrate the motives of any who have the temerity to question their fraudulent orthodoxy, that is an ethical issue.
- When they monopolise finite resources at the expense of vastly more important areas of scientific investigation, that is an ethical issue.
Read Rupert’s whole letter below.
Lord Hall 26 March 2015
Director General
BBC White City Media Centre
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TQ.
Dear Lord Hall
Last week the BBC aired an interview with a recent graduate from the University of Oxford, by chance my own alma mater. This young man, it transpired, represented a covey of similarly minded contemporaries. They were driven by a desire to pressurize the trustees of the university finances to divest its portfolio of shares in fossil fuel extractors across the spectrum. With evident, and rather obnoxiously self-preening, satisfaction, he declared this to be ‘an ethical issue’. Given the BBC’s fastidious standards in this regard, no doubt it collectively, as well as you personally, would agree. So, indeed, would I, albeit not be for reasons that would appeal either to your interviewee or to the Corporation.
Let me begin with a simple, and surely an incontrovertible, proposition. It is that the abundant availability of fossil fuels, combined with the wit that has allowed human beings to exploit them, is the greatest blessing ever to have been visited upon the species. After all, without them no BBC at all and no University of Oxford – well, at least not as to be recognisable today. So then, what are the ethical issues that should, but plainly don’t, exercise either this callow youth or the state broadcaster? Here are a few suggestions. In the interests of reasonable comprehensiveness, this may occupy space. On the other hand, the issues are important (the defining challenge of the times, according to the BBC and its mentors), so we should not be niggardly.
So when the BBC:
- Routinely ignores its own Editorial Standards (as it happens, legal requirements), that is an ethical issue;
- Proceeds in the comforting knowledge that its political masters will not hold it to account, that is an ethical issue;
- Subverts the accepted meaning of language in order to generate a spurious justification for institutional bias, that is an ethical issue;
- Claims that its much vaunted impartiality has been ‘calibrated’ on the advice of a specially convened assembly of experts, that is an ethical issue;
- Subsequently spends large quantities of licence fee payers’ money seeking to avoid disclosing the composition of that convocation, that is an ethical issue;
- Has, as it later transpires, lied repeatedly about the accreditation of attendees, that is an ethical issue;
- Is in possession of information indicating gross malfeasance within the climate change community, which for weeks it deliberately suppresses, that is an ethical issue;
- Rejects the findings of an independent committee, set up by itself, to rule on its own impartiality, that is an ethical issue;
- Later, in order to justify its propagandist line, accepts on demonstrably spurious grounds the opposing verdict of a paid lapdog scientist, that is an ethical issue;
- Subsequently, and for years, deliberately and willfully ignores rivers of evidence and reports from unimpeachable sources which run counter to its prevailing orthodoxy, that is an ethical issue;
- Continues to give currency to demonstrable misinformation generated by vested interests, that is an ethical issue;
- By silent acquiescence lends its authority to false and defamatory slurs aimed at eminent scientists who question its prevailing orthodoxy, that is an ethical issue;
- Establishes a complaints procedure which, on artificial and synthetic grounds, is carefully designed to reject all objections to its prevailing orthodoxy, however well attested, that is an ethical issue.
The list is long. It could be longer.
But let us expand this young man’s horizons a little beyond merely the shortcomings of the BBC. He – and, indeed, the BBC – might, for example, consider some/all of the following:
- When scientists, or those claiming to be, concoct evidence, that is an ethical issue.
- When they ‘homogenise’ data, that is an ethical issue.
- When they refuse to expose their data to verification by the wider scientific community, that is an ethical issue.
- When they refuse to make available details of their methodology to the wider scientific community, that is an ethical issue.
- When they refuse to engage in debate with their peers, that is an ethical issue.
- When they willfully skirt contra-indications to an improbable hypothesis, that is an ethical issue.
- When they actively collude to conceal inconsistencies in their own findings, that is an ethical issue.
- When they collude to misrepresent evidence, that is an ethical issue.
- When they invoke the authority of ‘peer review’ but only allow their work to be assessed by those of like mind, that is an ethical issue.
- When they are in a position to select their own ‘peer reviewers’, that is an ethical issue.
- When they invoke the supposed authority of ‘consensus’ in preference to evidence, that is an ethical issue.
- When they deliberately exaggerate and misrepresent the scale of that alleged consensus, that is an ethical issue.
- When they deliberately exaggerate the scale or frequency of observed natural/climatic phenomena, that is an ethical issue.
- When they defame and willfully denigrate the motives of any who have the temerity to question their fraudulent orthodoxy, that is an ethical issue.
- When they threaten the careers and livelihoods of unpersuaded scientific practitioners, that is an ethical issue.
- When they monopolise finite resources at the expense of vastly more important areas of scientific investigation, that is an ethical issue.
- When they subvert the integrity not only of scientific method but of intellectual rectitude itself, that is an ethical issue.
- When the supposed repository of the UN’s collective wisdom on climate change, namely the IPCC, is exposed as a practised and persistent liar, that is an ethical issue.
- When its Summaries for Policy Makers persistently conflict with their underlying scientific Working Group I conclusions, that is an ethical issue.
Again a long, representative but by no means comprehensive list.
Finally, let me revert to the commencement of this letter. When, on the flimsiest of grounds (indeed, no grounds at all), it seeks to deny to the poor and destitute of the earth access to the one essential requirement for their betterment – namely affordable, readily available energy – then most surely
THAT IS AN ETHICAL ISSUE.
Yours sincerely
R.C.E. Wyndham
Cc: Prime Minister Mr. E. Miliband MP Archbishop of Canterbury Archbishop of York
Cardinal Vincent Nichols Vice-Chancellor, University of Oxford As the spirit moves
I note that a lot of these very definitely apply to the recent mann / rahmstorf paper.
171
Ditch the man-boy comedians, smug moderators and tut-tut convent girl presenters. Bring back Warren Ryan for Rugby League commentary.
And still sell the bloody thing.
170
Eddie Waring, please, for Rugby League! (RIP Eddie)
Great letter. But it will have no effect – they are secure in their sanctimony.
230
By chance, I was reading the BBC Rugby League site today when they asked me for my opinion of the page in an on-line survey. I said the page was generally OKish.
When they asked how the (Rugby League) page could be improved I wrote
Of course I don’t believe for a second that 10,000 such responses would make any difference, but it made me feel better for about seven seconds.
I suspect the BBC’s fate will be a slow decline into irrelevance as more and more people refuse to pay the licence fee and turn elsewhere. I think governments will still be persuaded for a while that it helps project the “British image” abroad.
And MI5 is bound to have more than a few BBC-embedded agents that they still find useful.
110
I wish they would bring back Warren Ryan, And David Morrow. When I see that sanctimonious pair Leach & Holmes on Offsiders I switch it off. After the hatchet job they did on Ryan & Morrow.
I have a recurring dream of Leach trying to hide peeking at his notes & pretending to be speaking off the cuff. Lightweight. How dare he treat Ryan like that.
10
My vote is for sell.
200
I agree,
I would like to see the argument for why we need a public broadcaster.
100
If ABC cannibalises their two best journalists the only remains will be the pyjamas.
340
I wonder how Tony Jones would go being ustaged by B1 & B2?
Could be awkward when your news anchor is a bloke in a banana costume….
Still, Keating did warn us of a banana republic…
HAR HAR!!!!
140
This debate will get to a point very soon that the predictions that continue to prove false will by themselves show how one sided this debate is. We may not get the air time but with a growing numbers of skeptics it is getting more difficult to hide behind the lies. I am looking forward to the day we start to count the number of back peddling politician and investigative journalist.
301
I worry yet. The volume of the lies has increased greatly in Australia over the last couple of years. As the evidence against them mounts, they increase the efforts to hide that. So far they are not losing the fight in the public eye.
450
Ah, yes. It’s double or nothing, and they are “doubling down”. But that’s a sign they know they are losing ground. It also means they are overplaying their hand.
Hold your ground. Don’t be dissuaded, keep sending letters to newspapers, and elected reps. Keep sharing good information with friends.
631
Hi Jo,
It also means they are dangerous too – thier modus operandi so far seems to be when exposed is to come out snapping & snarling and going for everyones jugular within reach….
What you suggest is a good idea, we also need to be uber vigilant on our guard as well.
A cornered animal is a dangerous animal…look at what ahppened to Willie Soon….
191
I had a “discussion”with two “Friends of the ABC” at our local markets(all markets are dominated by left-wingers) they,unfortunately got very upset when I suggested that many ural/regional people,who by the way have far more common-sense than people,say,from Balmain, were rather turned of by ABC bias.The woman retorted that their surveys indicate a certain bias AGAINST the left! I then mentioned the good news about the NSW state election which brought on an episode of psychosis in the individual.The ABC is run by snarky rotters.
150
Yes, I had a similar conversation with a leftie who assured me that as it was her belief that the ABC was biassed to the right and I to the left that they must be balanced as they offended both sides.
110
Dear, Dear Dear me Glen! The Gaia worshippers at the Balmain Basket Weaving Eco-Collective will take great exception to your comments. I can hear the spluttering of the soy lattes as I pen this response.
70
Jo, it is also an issue when the “conservative” government refuses to challenge their political enemies.
Tony Abbot has had numerous opportunities to call out the ABC, and their transgressions would provide him with ample justification to put them up for privatization. certaily there are grounds for firing both the board and the CEO.
But, instead, we hear crickets.
So while the conservative side of politics is too spineless to fight, the left will continue to dominate both social and political issues.
Oh, if only the conservative side of politics had some people with a spine.
150
When I wrote to the Prime Minister complaining about the ABC bias my letter was forwarded to Turnbulls office which said they couldn’t interfere as the ABC was non partisan. I choked on my breakfast at that.
121
problem tor Tony Abbot is that The ABC is staffed by Turnbull’s Stormtroopers, his crack legions, if you will.. They totally support Turnbull, [for now] and are totally against anything TA stands for, you know, decency, truth etc etc.
102
But that is simply smart political gaming. If it wasn’t Turnbull, the ABC would find someone else to “love” in the Coalition, as long as they are a/ not the leader, or b/ a labor-lite version.
121
very true Jo. Spot on.
That’s the real politic in this.
The ABC are now so institutionally powerful that neither the Liberals nor Labor can touch it.
Labor’s strategy is to try and buy it with other peoples’ money and infiltrate it with its useful idiots.
The Liberal’s is to stick their collective (sorry bad collective noun for a free enterprise party :-)) head in the sand.
00
William. Your observation seems to be true around the globe with but a few exception. RINOs in America are Republicans who roll over for the Democrats (radical lefties) or most often vote and work with the Democrats. Some Republicans talk big, but when they get elected seem to forget their campaign promises. Same with Chief Justice of the US, promised to follow the Constitution, be fair, stick to the law etc. during congressional hearings, then when appointed run to the lefties side and give us such things as Obamacare and stronger EPS regulation of the poisonous CO2. Sad.
51
And Ted when you have leftist controlled local councils forcing the global warming ideology on ratepayers.
It becomes ever increasingly difficult to stop them.
The link is about removing CO/2 and methane from the local tip.
By forcing and charging ratepayers to seperate organic kitchen waste for an extra collection.
To be processed at a purpose built facility a couple of kilometres up the road!
Read the story and despair at how one woman has been convinced, that global warming has been mitigated by her putting her dog poo in the bin.
I’m in the comments but I seem to be the only one calling out “the elephant in the room”.
Where do the “global warming” gases go that this new facility creates?
http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/2980824/3-bin-system-has-its-friends-critics/
212
It’s mandated to local Councils, they have to follow whatever political party is in power. Many of the CO2 things implemented are by law, and Council does back summersaults to comply with the law. The CEO will absolutely not fight anything written into law.
Also; Councils rely heavily on State Government money for construction projects. So they are careful not to upset whoever is in government. Political disagreements do make a difference in funding.
121
It still doesn’t answer my question Greg.
Where do the “new” gases they create at the new facility go?
I am really not aware of any state or local laws that have to be adhered to here.
As far as I was concerned your CO/2 thingy went out the window when Abbott was elected.
The council lowered it’s tipping fees by over 25% almost immediately after Abbott scratched the tax.
Now this council has affectively introduced their own CO/2 tax by stealth.
Our yearly collection fees have risen this year by over 20% to pay for this “fruit” inflicted on ratepayers.
Simply to satisfy the ego’s of the few who support this “fruitulent” ideolygy.
I’ve been “bleating” in the wind since they sought comment a couple of years ago on how they were going to introduce it.
Not wether or not they would.
It was a done deal with the collection mob before ratepayers ever got wind of it.
(Excuse the pun)
121
Methane capture for use as vehicle fuel or boilers, cooking etc is mature technology but simply isn’t done; in fact those who advocate responsible use of this resource are attacked for it. The green-freaks have much to answer for.
51
Our local Council put out a statement that its tax on their two rubbish tips would be $2million the first year of implementation. Thus tip fees went up to cover this cost for zero benefit placed upon the local Council.
As far as I’m aware, the CO2 tax still exists. If it was lifted, I missed the anouncement.
21
I know of a few people who regularly put pretty much any type of waste in the “recycling” bins as it all is hand sorted apaprently.
That and the fact that “recycling” has limited impact apart from a nice little stream of public waste being delivered to private companies for private profit….but its good for the planet…allegedly….
In short, its a pile of hooey….
31
We did a tour of our local recycling facility when it was first created. Anything that is not pristine and obvious as recyclable gets pushed into the rubbish pile.
They can use magnetic means to get the metals out. The paper and plastic goes on a conveyor belt that moves rather fast. Two peeps on minimum wages stand there throwing stuff off the conveyor belt franticly (or unthinkingly).
Put simply; if it’s not immediately obvious that it’s recyclable. It’s junk.
20
Greg, how true. The ABC is just a mouth piece for whoever pays the bills and we all suffer because of this. I may be a lot older then you but I do remember a time when a journalist worth his soul would investigate an issue and report the truth of it. This would then be a headline or a news story worth watching like those idiots running down the streets trying to avoid questions. Soon we will be seeing politicians, journalists and climate change nobs running for cover.
31
Not sure about that Ron.
I think that The ABC is happy to bite the mouth that feeds it (in this case the elected Government))
They are a law unto themselves.
20
The Victorian Liberals deserve to be applauded for their position even though their motives are clearly self-serving. The termination of the ABC and SBS propagandists with a resulting saving to tax payers of $1.2B per anum would do more for democracy in one fell swoop than any other single act I can think of.
If only it was a plausible outcome. Your idea of a split is clever although I do wonder whether the libertarians running the small-Gov channel would eventually be deposed by pro-big-gov liberals.
The other point I would make is that in some ways the propagandist ABC and SBS are actually doing libertarianism a big favour by making it increasingly obvious how far down the Orwellian road we have been taken. It may take time, but with each passing year I sense the veil will drop from more and more people’s eyes.
190
Abc or Another Bullcrap Commie station is incapable of balance like most people, so I propose to devide news program into 2 parts one for the lefties and the other for the normal people like JO or Bolty. Let people make their choice in what they want to watch. The producers don,t have to mix. They can be in different buldings so there no pie fights. 1.1billion $ is enough to split this down the middle.
Otherwise get right of that stinking carcass that we all have to pay. Enough is enough.
90
Which politician would risk the fury (and votes) of those rusted-on followers of the ABC? Like the older, less observant ones that still think it’s the same ABC of years past and missed its conversion to the left. And the younger lefties who see it echoing their political beliefs? Millions of voters.
The ‘Lift and Separate’ scheme is a nice theoretical, but not really possible, unfortunately.
50
Abbott could promise extra funds to the ABC — and restructure the network — dividing up channels between two separate managements. The Coalition keep their promise, increasing funding to The Public Broadcaster. Mark Scott keeps his job, but loses control of half the sites and channels the ABC operate. The ABC charter says it should represent Australians, and the ABC pretends to pay lip service to that. What could they complain about? All their right leaning biased shows will just sort to one spot and be openly badged “right leaning” likewise for their left leaning biased shows? In a balanced ABC, there’s hardly any change… 😉 Indeed, now they don’t have to “pretend” to hide their voting intentions. Many journalists would find that appealing.
202
Dariusz/Tim/Jo,
Complicating issues with extra funding to decentralise political bias for people to have a more representative choice in the ABC is just feeding the empire – people already make a choice ABC or not ABC.
At a broader perspective the problem isn’t the lack of balance of the ABC, but the lack of balance elsewhere.
The more alternative commentators are supported alongside: Jonova, Marohasy, Bolt, Blair, Devine, Akerman, Smith, and Pickering – the better the balance.
It’s not always about division.
71
I think part of the problem is the 20 somethings – they have been raised in a Leftie dominated education system, to be then “educated” by a leftie dominated media.
I think we need to start teaching 20 somethings about left and right politics and the root of many schemes promulgated by the media ( e.g CAGW ) and about Stalin, Mao et al….
40
The easiest way to split up the ABC would be to require the owner of the ABC to follow the same ownership rules as all other media companies in Australia.
60
The ABC radio stations, and to a lesser degree the TV stations, do offer more to those who live outside the inner cities, with disaster warnings etc. They usually provide the best signal too, although technology is fixing that. Thus the National Party is somewhat in favour of keeping the whole thing going. I have been surprised too by the number of workshops that have the ABC broadcast of Parliament going.
Splitting it would be a good idea IF you can maintain the difference. How you do that over the years I do not know. I recalled the other day a bit in They’re a Weird Mob published in the 1950’s about ABC people being different to the ordinary person. They always lived in their own little world, the only difference these days is that it is another planet.
There is a gap between what the ABC (& SBS) supplies and the commercial stations which aim for the lowest common denominator, although I understand that the commercials are now doing much better with the children’s shows. This would require the ABC-R to provide something more than the commercials do now. BBC reruns could be split, Stephen Fry has some followers and should be on the ABC-L, Antiques Roadshow to the ABC-R. After that the emphasis for the ABC-R would have to be on quality. Then they will get the ratings.
What I haven’t seen is a suggestion that the total subsidy be split according to the respective ratings.
20
Graeme, yes the ABC country zone is different to the inner city where the ABC is more partisan and also less necessary. How many ABC stations do country folk have access too?
I think the argument that there is no need for an innercity ABC radio is credible, but it would also be reasonable to have a dedicated ABC-L as well as ABC-R in the inner city. It is harder to justify duplicate ABC in remote rural areas.
A lot of ABC problems would be solved by running the ABC from Wagga or Bathurst instead of Ultimo. Even shifting it to Liverpool would help to ensure that ABC presenters met a more representative slice of Australia than what they are surrounded by in inner Sydney.
71
Liverpool? A bit nasty for them as they’ve led sheltered lives, and besides there are a lot of people out that way who are paid, one way or another, by the government.
Wagga would be good but I’m sure TonyfromOz would object to his friends there being lumbered with the green plague.
No, we should not be nasty so I suggest Adelaide for the ABC-L. There is a large, now disused, broadcasting centre near the CBD, lots of twee coffee shops (although possibly not within walking distance), lots of manicured parklands (which will provide their version of the countryside), a stagnant or declining local economy and above all, lots of fourth rate incompetent politicians sprouting nonsense about wind farms. The green plague will feel right at home there, and protected by the high fence just like the native animals in the Cleland Wildlife Park. We could organise tours for overseas visitors, so long as they didn’t try to feed the inmates. Should the inmates fail to breed we can move them into the nearby zoo alongside the pandas.
31
The real split is between “public sector” and “private sector”. The public sector is overwhelmingly in favour of the campaign against industry through the proxy of CO2.
So, even if you created another public-sector broadcaster, it would still have very much the same idea about the public sector=good private sector=bad.
So here are a few ideas:
1. Just privatise it. The private sector would soon be providing pretty much the same program content for most people. The only ones who would notice are the politicians and the public-sector “chatterarti” who get far more than their share of air time.
2. Privatise everything except one channel to cover mainly news and government interest subjects. In this model, no attempt is change the “impartiality”, but the public sector broadcaster is now perhaps 25% of its current size and as a result, the new private sector broadcasting which can now make a profit in areas hiterto only serviced by the public sector broadcaster will highlight the bias of the public sector broadcaster.
3. Change to “citizen ownership”. Now, instead of being controlled and run by the government, the organisation is controlled and run by the viewers. So, now we have regular elections and vote for the governing body OR we could just randomly select viewers like we do for juries and pay volunteers to run it.
4. Change so that it is only a commissioning body. All program content – perhaps with the ONE exception of the news – would be produced by independent organisations. The commissioning process would be free, fair, transparent with rules against nepotism.
81
Perhaps voters could tick a box at the elections to send their $100pa to ABC-L or ABC-R? That way the channels would not stray far from the wishes of the Australian public?
We can’t leave news and “government interest” programs as is. If the ABC was merely a kids and cooking channel (with BBC reruns of faulty towers), it wouldn’t matter. These news shows are exactly the shows that need to be split most.
Australia does not have a “Fox news” of any sort. We have three free-to-airs, and two government broadcasters. There is a small cable competition from Skynews, which is reasonable, but a lot of Australian’s don’t have cable. The free-to-air channels take their cues on a lot of issues from the ABC and from “academia” and generally don’t rock the boat much.
143
This afternoon I listened to a ‘balanced’ BBC broadcast on climate change.
Approximately one sceptic commentator to ten alarmists. I have to admit it was very professional and convincing. However, if you knew the subject you would immediately spot the tired old lies, such as:
97% of all climate scientists, in a study two years, confirmed all climate change was the result of human carbon dioxide levels – no ifs, no buts, just a 100% supposed fact. The reality was less than 1% of a study of over 10,000 papers stated that. However, although we all know that, few listening would have realised this was a classic case of misleading/deceiving alarmist propaganda.
A grudging confession that the Antarctic ice cap is expanding, but far more important was the supposed fact the Antarctic glaciers are all melting at an alarming rate – the fact the only melting (of the modest variety) is on the west Antarctic isthmus,probably the result of hydrothermal activity, was conveniently ignored.
The really scary part was how convincing this program was to anyone who did not really the subject matter.
152
Peter
How much notice would be taken of Robert Wyndham in the UK?
Would his letter and ideas carry much “clout” ? Is it to be found in the UK press ?
21
Ross, I would guess that Ruperts views are largely unreported and would be mostly invisible to the masses. But the high IQ thinkers would easily recognize the talent and importance. The “clout” won’t show up on opinion polls, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t influential.
51
Jo,
Bang on.
The large majority of the MSM legitimise the beat-ups reported by the ABC.
Obviously that is where the larger audience is still because they have less MSM alternative views to compare.
Support the alternative commentators first in the education of the audience base.
The MSM will follow as the audience base changes.
The ABC will eventually become less relevant and will not be able to justify its budget.
It’s taken 30 years to get here and it will take thirty years to get back.
30
I’d vote for citizen ownership.
With any luck the ABC would rapidly morph into an Australian version of Wayne’s World!
What a slap in the face for the champagne socialists that would be.
10
Yes!
Agree
00
Apart from one film from the UK I haven’t heard any scepticism of the global warming hypothesis coming from the ABC or SBS. And yet they have given full coverage to our “leading climate scientists”, Drs. Karoly, Flannery et Co. …. latest forecasts that it is never going snow again, and the dams will never fill, though they have reported events about exceptional snow events and cold temperatures in the northern hemisphere. Whereas with the non-tax payer funded Murdoch press you do get a variety of opinion. The bias towards global warming stories by the ABC means that viewers, particularly the young, are being “brain-washed” due to the lack of balance and paucity of programming reflecting any doubt on the subject. What to do with them, cut their budgets by 20% each year until they get back to unbiased journalism.
142
And notice how they only ever call people in the public sector “scientist”. There is as much science in the private sector, but strangely, whilst I do not live in Australia, I can be quite confident that almost none of the people the ABC have on who they call “scientists” will be from the private sector.
It’s just a bit of brainwashing by public sector broadcasters trying to suggest to the public that the public sector are intelligent – and there’s is the only valid viewpoint on issues like Global warming.
111
So true Mike. Private sector science hardly ever rates a favourable mention on the Australian Broadcasting Commission despite its enormous benefits to the Australian way of life. A classic example of this is mineral and hydrocarbon exploration which has underpinned the Australian economy to an enormous extent. Do the efforts of private sector geologists and geophysicists ever get mentioned, for example? NEVER!!! But get a few nutters together whinging about the mining or oil industries and the journalistic beat-ups run rampant. PARTICULARLY FROM “OUR” ABC.
The presenters from the ABC science programs are usually a waste of space, at best, or when they are peddling warmist lies, they can be downright dangerous. I have nothing but contempt for them.
40
Robert,
“Whereas with the non-tax payer funded Murdoch press you do get a variety of opinion. The bias towards global warming stories………”
I’m not so sure about that. Only Channel 10 puts an alternative in the form of Bolt but for the most part it, along with 7 and 9 are still very much pro-climate change especially the weather
forecastersreaders. They put their little digs in regularly like last nights weather forecast “March was the 4th warmest on record” and “rain fall was half the average for March”.And I can’t remember skeptics ever being given air time on the commercial channels (except for Bolt).
So I’m not even sure that privatising the the ABC will work. Leftist ideologies are too prominent in today’s society. I hope I’m wrong.
R-COO- K+
70
Ron,
I wonder if there is a general part of the overall text which goes out to all weather presenters to read off their autocues to include the standard meme, because local Channel 7 (Northern Queensland) weather presenter Livio Regano said a similar thing here last night, adding that March was the hottest Month ever recorded.
Tony.
60
Tony,
that’s interesting. May be so. Hadn’t thought of that.
Cheers
Ron
10
I had to find the heater here in WA as it got to 16 degrees and lower for quite a few days, I haven’t heard them say it was the hotest March ever.
20
He who controls the teleprompter controls MSM thought
00
Ron, I think Tony is right but BOM never give the full story.
Tonight on the ABC the weather lady (who seems to be reducing her weight) said that Century Mine (airport) and Julia Creek (airport) had the highest temperatures for March on record. They fail to say that Julia Creek records date from 2001 and Century Mine dates from 2003. I tried to put Century Mine in the BOM search but it came back with no such town exists. I had to look via Google for Century Mine airport weather from where I found the weather station number (29167)which I could then enter into the BOM search.
Re – March rain (SE Queensland) yes the rainfall was less than half normal but then they do not say that the rainfall for February was double normal. The total for the first quarter (the rainy season) is above average. Further, some areas near Brisbane have had close to the average for April on the first day of the month. Weather is very variable and over a short time records will always be broken.
50
Watch RT and get a very one-sided Russian view.
Watch al Jazeera and get a very one-sided Qatar view (anti Israel).
Watch the BBC and get a very one-sided anti-establishment view.
Watch the ABC and get a very one-sided anti Australian Government view.
Japanese and Chinese networks are remarkably even-handed when compared with the four doozies mentioned herein.
120
You could add the CBC to this list (or as I like to call them the “ABC-BC’s). The English-language CBC produces biased news and documentaries plus absolute crap comedies and drama — for which we get to pay $1B in taxes and mandatory carry on cable ($20-30 per year). The good news: they just lost the rights to the NHL and thus $1-2B a year in ad revenue; the resulting ratings losses were going to be so bad they agreed to carry the private broadcasters hockey games on their network at the CBC’s cost and for zero share of the ad revenue in order to maintain their relevance (and not have to answer questions about just who watches the CBC).
90
I did mention the CBC once, but will revise. We do appreciate hearing the Canadian point of view.
82
Not to forget the New Zealand crowd I hunted for the NZBC or equivalent, and found a mess (or maybe a solution?)
Can anyone explain what happened in NZ media?
According to this site, both sides of government are to blame for the demise of public media. Sky TV has a hold on the NZ market. Public TV starves apparently…
62
Jo
Those comments about TVNZ7 are obviously from someone who wanted a hand out of Govt. funds. The Channel has since been shut down.
In NZ –TVNZ is Government owned and runs two of the three main TV stations ( they have 6 channels in total). They are run as an SOE ( State Owned Enterprises –run like a private company having to earn their way for 95% of their funding, but still owned by the Govt.)
The news on these is biased towards the Left but maybe not as much as elsewhere. On the AGW front they are completely “sucked in” about it. There is also a Govt. funded TV station for Maori programs ( often completely in the Maori language) –they do some very good programs.
There is Radio NZ which is the equivalent of the ABC. “Affectionately” known by many as Radio Pravda, so that tells you what it is like.
We also have a funding body called NZ On Air which funds TV programming, radio, music, digital and research. Anyone ( I think) can apply for funding with the appropriate proposal. It is a way for independent producers to fund programs. I think they often work in tandem with the TV or radio stations.There are always debates about how it works but I think overall it is a good idea.
So while funding of public broadcasting in NZ is different to Australia there are similar biases, but maybe not as much.
50
Sorry , I should have added that Radio NZ is a non commercial station, so it is totally Govt. funded.
50
NZ broadcasting is a mess.
So is this response :-). This is neither accurate nor comprehensive. It is mostly personal opinion, so accord it due credit.
There is some public ownership and much private ownership of TV. You have two sources for TV: Free to Air and Sky (pay).
Free to Air has about twenty channels, with three publicly owned, the rest are private. It’s all pap, grass for the ovines and bovines. I can’t be bothered with mindless pap. Sky is privately owned pay for viewing, and is too cost ineffective, and repetitious with no payment plan which would fit my viewing habits; it’s all or nothing, so I can’t be bothered with it.
You Tube and the Internet are far more interesting and entertaining. What’s more, its programming is all under my control and when I want for as long as I want it. I can read/listen/view any and every side to a topic and form my own opinion. I can research topics from amongst the databases available and if the data says my opinion is wrong, as does happen, I can change it. Can’t do that with the current broadcast media.
As they stand, They Are Dinosaurs.
FM radio: about the same as TV. There are three publicly owned stations: The Concert Program (the only classical music provider. It’s audience is small, about 2% of the population.), National Radio (not bad, some good hosts whom I’ve heard actually ask hard questions, occasionally, of the pollies. Talk the climate orthodoxy but that’s understandable—it’s not a big topic.) and NewsTalkZB (talk back radio. I’ll say no more on this because I have very strong, uncomplimentary and probably highly libellous opinions of the talkback hosts and their average audience. I have a T-shirt with the logo “If you thing education is expensive, try ignorance!” Right.) Many, but not all, of the FM music stations seem to belong to one organisation. Got a taste in music? There’s a station for you. They all seem to be cheap; have few staff and lot’s of lights out operation (recorded programming). The privately owned ones all sound the same. Even the hip-hop station sounds like the `classic hits’ one.
I prefer to copy my music CDs and use those in the car (when I’m using the car, which is not as often as the motorcycle). I mostly prefer silence.
As they stand, They Are Dinosaurs, a different genus from TV but still Dinosaurs.
AM radio: mostly religious evangelism now. Not to my taste.
Bottom feeders.
My advice to you:
Don’t sell.
Don’t split.
Check the charters carefully so you can argue them critically, and walk, jump, drive, whatever, all over the pollies’ and the broadcasters’ feet to haul those broadcasters back to their charters and nail them to them.
This won’t be easy to do. Honest educated people who can think will need to be (re)hired. These people cost money and there are two things pollies hate:
First: they hate being threatened by people who can see and will tell the truth, are more knowledgeable and better educated than they are. That’s why governments have gagging orders.
Second: They won’t spend money on what they don’t want to know nor on what they see as threatening them. Politics works best in the dark.
And last: Consider how they could be improved not just in content but combined, attached, included, with the internet sources. You think about it, you come up with improvements you want to see/hear/interact with. Talk back is a chance for people to air their opinions. Can listners/viewers add to content in any way? Contribute? Discuss? The broadcasters are forty years behind the times. So are we with our expectations of them. You think about it, you formulate it. You propose it, you push it. You improve it. Because it doesn’t fit now, don’t throw it away. What you throw away, you never get back. The internet is interactive. Can this be introduced to it? Something? Anything.
Well run, good publicly owned radio and tv is something to be treasured. If it’s not good, don’t throw it away. Instead, look to improve it. We seem to have thrown it away in NZ and what we’ve now got is way worse that what we had. NZ was as imaginative as the World Bank. And now we have … almost nothing except visual and aural pollution without any intelligent spark.
By the way: TVNZ7 was a breath of fresh air for its short life. It is missed.
60
I’d have to say wrt the NZ model (to the extent the outcome of a random walk can ever be described as a model) it has ended up with the taxpayer primarily funding of indigenous content through a contestable process for top-up funding (i.e. not a full funder) for free-to-air content. For example 3 current affairs TV programmes are funded: 40% to Gvt owned TVNZ, 40% to private Mediworks and 20% to Maori TV (established by statute to promote te reo Māori me ōna tikanga, with governance through stakeholders – largely govt funded).
Free-to-air TV all carries ads, pay to view not unless you are watching cricket:)
To get an idea where NZ gets its daily fix the purchase agent for programming (NZ on Air) does interesting market research downloadable off http://www.nzonair.govt.nz/document-library/2014-audience-research-full-report/
NZ on Air is probably not a bad model inasmuch as there is at least a balance of interests at play and it can be introduced without splitting or selling any sacred cows. Getting the ABC competing with private free-to-air TV providers for production funding and being expected to raise revenue from ads (do they do that now?) would start to move the game away from the capture that currently seems to exist.
40
Thanks to HAS and Sophocles.
The NZ model is quite different if there is not a huge pipe for taxes to fund filtered news services. NZ public TV has to stay onside with advertisers (corporate world) and with viewers (ratings and advertising). It sounds much better.
The ABC earns no money from advertising, but is still somehow full of ads for it’s shop and other programs. It runs many long introductions for programs and lionizes ABC Staff as if they are heroes. If an ABC journalist dies in a slightly newsworthy fashion, they practically get a state funeral on TV. Other much more significant Australians get a line in the news bulletin or nothing at all.
If you risk your life for your country in a warzone, you won’t get the running 7:30 report documentary of what you achieved. But prime time programming is stopped for an ABC journalist who dies in a helicopter crash in Australia.
The problem with our ABC is they are untouchable. People have reminded them of their charter, but they no longer care. Nothing happens. That’s why we need to sell or split. No government could run to an election with “sell” or even “cut 5%”. The ABC will bully and hound them.
Hence the increase funding and restructure of the ABC would be a lot easier to campaign on. But it’s very important to do it well, or it is “feeding the monster”.
61
Just a couple of other thoughts.
Radio doesn’t follow the model I described for TV.
NZ On Air (aka The Broadcasting Commission) was established in the late 1980s when we were donkey deep in funder-provider splits to prevent provider capture (and to facilitate the sale of commercial govt owned entities – it removed one of the public good elements out of the delivery agency, the other being regulatory functions that were easier to strip out). Despite this approach going a bit out of fashion because of transaction costs, it’s been pretty successful model despite Labour’s move to fund TVNZ7 & 8 (mentioned by others) and National giving it the chop.
In response to criticism that the National Government had killed off public broadcasting the Minister of Broadcasting replied that government policy was to fund programmes, not broadcasters, and that this fitted with their support for the NZ On Air model.
Its functions are identity and culture, access/coverage, interests that might miss out, reflecting a diversity of beliefs, and archiving. They do it by funding programmes, broadcasts and archiving. Budget $80m pa. Say $400m on a population basis, not quite comparable with the ABC’s A$1.22 b (I don’t think our dollars are worth that much more than yours yet). But just think of the opportunity cost of all that free advertising time.
The hard bit could be ads on the ABC, but I gather there is a bit of slash and burn on the ABC budget so maybe sweetening that by putting it into a purchase pot that the ABC can compete for could be a way through.
10
Thanks HAS. That’s a very useful background.
BTW, there has been no slash and burn at all at the ABC, though they have screamed like there was. The $250m (!!!) headline cut was over 5 years. So, it’s 250m/$6000m. That’s 4.6% (?) according to the ABC. SBS will be cut by 1.7%.
31
BOTH SIDES on CBC? I do recall that happening once or twice. Balanced, of course, by David Suzuki’s
reported statement linking hot automobile interiors with all that nasty Carbon in the glass…
51
“carbon in the glass”? Suzuki’s got to be kidding. When did he say that? Wasn’t the 1st of April was it?
First I’ve heard of that.
R-COO- K+
21
Greenhouse gases a reckless gamble
David Suzuki on problem on global warming in 1990
That was surprisingly easy to find.
(Highlights are mine.)
20
Thanks Bernd.
Ron
10
Have they let him out of the asylum yet? Or did he take refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy?
30
Graeme
If you read Small Dead Animals it appears one of his refuges is CBC
00
For a government to sell it, they would have to use the strategy of the re-elected Mike Baird NSW government – make a plan for how you will spend the money, or at least some of it, after some debt was paid off. If voters can see something tangible in return for privatisation, they are more likely to accept it. Use the money for schools, roads, hospitals. Tell Mark Scott his salary could pay for the running of a new school.
70
Except for the public ownership that sounds exactly like the media here.
What to do?
I’d enjoy seeing them all tossed out in the street on their butts. But no one is going to do that. My god, it’s not politically correct.
Above anything else we must kiss up to the gods of PC. And so it will go until the collapse finally reaches critical mass and the people rebel.
50
I’m definitely for selling the ABC to Rupert Murdoch so that we can achieve perfect balanced journalism. In this scenario Murdoch would own nearly all the media and that wouldnof course get rid of left wing bias and make Australia’s media wonderfully evenly balanced.
410
Methinks you missed your sarc tag.
Murdoch papers have left wing opinion. ABC has none.
Murdoch supported Krudd over Howard and AGW. But lefties forget that. You must always believe and support “the cause”.
Shorton. “Labor party must tell the truth” until someone did. Now that they want Ferguson kicked out from the party for telling the truth.
Because of course, telling the truth is a new thing to the Labor Party.
160
oops. should read.
“Murdoch papers have left wing opinion. ABC has” no conservative opinion.
90
Martin Ferguson commented that he is “ashamed” of the Labor Party and apparently he is not alone among the seniors of the party. Last Sunday on Bolt Report former NSW Labor Treasurer Michael Costa said similar things and that he wanted a divorce for Labor and the unions, and for the Greens to be pushed away.
110
We had a member(ALP) for the NSW seat of Castlreagh called Jack Renshaw;old guard Labour – you can be sure. Practical no-nonsense bloke who got respect from town as well as the bush. Labor then represented something not CFMEU s*** or the arty farty progs who would not understand reality outside their small “collective” milieu.
30
Glen,
re Jack Renshaw, and off topic, but nonetheless of interest.
All my life I have been a supporter of the non Labor side of politics, from the first time I got to vote in 1972. Because of that I always tended to believe the best of that side of politics and the worst of Labor.
All that changed in the late 90’s, not that I ever voted Labor at any level, but I saw the worst of the Conservative side and the best of the Labor side, and Jack Renshaw was part of that era (in NSW anyway) when Labor was at its best.
It came about from research on a matter not related, but just for background. I was looking for information about the Sydney Opera House around 1968, before it was actually finished.
I found a good book, and was only going to use it for incidental background information, However, my interest was piqued and I ended up reading the whole book. It detailed the history of the Opera House.
Started under Joe Cahill as Premier, it then became the province of Jack Renshaw as Minister for Works. It then fell to Bob Heffron who took over as Premier when Joe died in Office, and Renshaw was promoted to Deputy Premier, and then Premier after Heffron.
Bob Askin used the Opera House for the most base political purposes in an effort to get rid of the Labor Government.
Jørn Utzon was the football in the middle, and was attacked from all quarters by Askin, but only to get at the Labor Government.
When it finally succeeded and Renshaw lost to Askin, Bob Askin then handballed the whole Opera House thing to William Davis-Hughes, who ended up artfully getting rid of Utzon, perhaps one of the single most disgusting things done by the non Labor side of politics in Australia. Utzon was a monstrous loss to Australia, and to our eternal shame, he never came back, was not even invited to the opening of that iconic wonder of World architecture.
The treatment regarding the Opera House from those 3 Labor Premiers, probably most importantly from Jack Renshaw who, as Minister for Works was what made me see Labor in a new light and made me actually ashamed of the Liberal side of politics, albeit at this State level.
These years (1952 to 1965) under those 3 Labor State Premiers were indeed the very best of Labor, and the continual sniping from Askin was the worst of politics, only to get in as Premier and then dump it completely to Davis-Hughes.
Utzon was crucified by politics. That beautiful building was only half of the whole at the opening, Utzon’s original overall being chopped to death by Davis-Hughes, under Askin. Luckily, Utzon’s original masterpiece was restored at a later date, but Jørn Utzon was a football.
I have a lot of time for those three Labor premiers, and very little for the one who followed from the Liberals.
Tony.
Post Script – And that book. “The Masterpiece. Jorn Utzon. A Secret Life”, written by Phillip Drew published in 1999. If you find a copy, probably only in a library now, get hold of it. Every Australian should read that book.
20
FIN, you choose the Split option then? Smart man. I bet you relish the competition. After all, with all those bureaucrats on your side, plus overwhelming evidence and Leonardo De Caprio, how could you lose the ratings war?
162
It has to be sold. Govt funding suits socialists. Libertarians aren’t that interested. They are off doing something productive.
Just like 18c. True conservatives (like Bolt) don’t sue. They argue. So it only suits one side of the spectrum.
100
My take on this a week ago.
Follow the link for the full article. No charge.
150
great letter!!
50
I think the Abbott government has to move soon. The fear of losing votes has determined their actions or inactions . Dismantling of the ABC will almost guarantee electrol success. In Australia votes are literally bought.. The Palmer Party showed that if you have heaps of money to throw at a campaign and are prepared to say anything then the public is actually pretty gullible. If you split the campaign funds of the public broadcaster that is your 2% swing there. Rather than lose votes you will gain considerable ground. If you don’t have the balls to do it then you don’t deserve to govern and Australia is the loser.
70
The ABC/BBC have virtually become a political party in their own behavior, they don’t even have to register as that’s not how Totalitarians operate.
During the recent Victorian election we had the Ambulance and Firefighters Unions and members publically supporting the ALP while savagely condemning the LNP and anyone that dared to question their motives, this is an extremely dangerous road to go down and is how Police states or Military coup’s manifest.
Stop this third world socialist crap now!
150
The “MIA” Memory Vault came up with an exquisite plan for the ABC in a comment on this site a couple of years ago.
If my (challenged) memory serves me correctly it involved a complete privatization ( gratis ?) to the current employees.
The general idea was to create a private holding company to hold the ABC’s assets & issue shares to the current employees ( I think on an existing salary pro-rata basis) Then it would set sail generating its own income competing with the existing commercial networks.
There was however a couple of conditions which made it beautiful & appropriate & a gorgeous honey trap for all those arrogant, self-righteous, pompous, condescending, chardonnay swilling literati elitists whose confidence allows them to live in a parallel universe of their own omniscience.
I can’t recall whether the physical property assets were gifted or leased via a separate “QANGO”, but critically the all-important licensed bandwidth was to be held inviolate & NOT TO BE TRADED, LEASED OUT or IN ANY WAY DISPOSED OF & could only ever be surrendered to the government.
Further the shares issued could only be ever sold internally; that is to existing other employees/fellow shareholders.
The sheer beauty of the separation from the public teat would be in the necessary humbling by the exigencies of commercial reality. All of those touchy feelies would have to bear the inescapable cost of their own “cutting edge ideas” which they are SO certain will lead us, by example into a BRAVE NEW WORLD!
Reality is a HUNGRY BEAST. ( real reality TV?)
Come back MV. I am sure I am not alone in missing your razor wit & dry humour.
100
Paul Craig Roberts nails big media:-
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/03/paul-craig-roberts-shames-corporate-media-hucksters-masquerading-as-journalists/
30
ABC is a disgrace, the employees most often ignore the ABC Charter that requires unbiased bi-partisan reporting. Too many seem to believe that the Minister for Communications controls ABC but that is not correct, the ABC Act of Parliament provides for a Board of Directors who are responsible for what management does and the directors cannot easily be replaced until they have served their allocated time on the Board.
When I hear about the blatant waste of our money, an example being more than one outside broadcasting unit being sent to cover the same event for different ABC programmes I wonder how much more waste there is in ABC operations. Why do they need so many television channels? Why is SBS needed at all?
ABC was well bribed by the Rudd & Gillard Labor governments, Asia Broadcasting contract and related extra funding handed to them despite a better private sector tender received, extra funding to widen social media activities, etc. But don’t forget that Rudd Labor gifted the private sector with a $250 million a year licence fee cut, apparently agreed during discussions with a well known media boss when the PM diverted his aircraft to Broome while on the way to Perth during his first term as leader. That has saved media companies over one billion dollars, a major incentive to keep up the pressure on Labor’s political enemies.
Very clearly ABC is out of control, ignores its Charter responsibilities blatantly and leans to the left of politics mostly.
It is no longer our ABC but all of us fund it via our taxes.
90
I cannot believe that Turnbull, the current responsible minister, does not have the power to instruct the Board to apply the Charter to the letter as is their legal responsibility and if, in his judgement they fail to do so, sack them.
100
I was thinking the same thing. And if The minister doesn’t have that power then it should be given to him. I wrote complaining but Turnbull’s office said he couldn’t intervene. They suggested i go through a complicated reporting procedure every time I detected bias. i don’t see that I should have to do that umpteen times to have it dismissed by their internal processes. it is a ministerial responsibility. But given Turnbull’s own left wing bias he wouldn’t want to make the changes.
60
No taxation without representation! The ABC fails to observe
an even handed policy and is the dedicated voice of a left
wing coterie. It can’t be called ‘the people’s’ABC, so best
sell it and help balance the budget.
10
Expect more ramping up of the rhetoric via the ABC , BBC etc. in coming weeks as it appears most Governments are playing to script for the Paris talkfest.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/30/cop21-paris-climate-conference-already-in-trouble-as-countries-miss-submission-deadline/
Instructions have ben sent out from “head office” already –the Green Party had question the NZ Parliament yesterday at question time about it.
50
Not sure a split would work, the average citizen is unaware of the bias and blatant propaganda, and would question any attempt at balance as a right wing takeover. Politically it would be a mine field and Abbott is unlikely to tread there.
Shaun Micallef can stay, but we need a standup in a separate show with lots of weather and climate jokes. How hard could it be?
40
ok gordo, can you point me to a rw comedian that is actually funny and not a bitter and twisted nut-jobbie?
Oh, and Bolt, Ackerman, Devine and Albrechtson dont count. 🙂 they try hard…but thats most likely their problem.
00
Actually gordo, i fear for the careers of “leftist” comedians and cartoonists. I think they are becoming too accustomed to having so much of their material essentially written for them by having Abbott and Hockey in the big chairs. They are going to have to actually get the creative juices flowing again when the Libs dump them. Are they up to it?
Will Abbotts legacy be a “comedy debt and deficit disaster” ??
Nah, just kidding. The conniption of the Bolts and their ilk in the idiot right wing at the appointment of Malcolm will be enough to keep people laughing. 🙂
And it will of course be the ABC’s fault. Note Malcolms cunning plan on how to get the top job without becoming a media baron coming to fruition.
00
Ah, the Government owned New Zealand Media follows these simple steps.
1. Produce a charter saying the outlet is fair, balanced and impartial.
2. Ignore that charter for pure, unabashed, biased agitprop.
3. Point to Charter to refute criticism, hire more luvvies so to be seen to be doing the right thing.
4. Ask for more money, produce niche programming for luvvies.
5. Claim DIVERISTY! (Just not of opinion). Distract public with sporting events.
6. Have a purge every three years, restructure and sack staff who are fair, balanced and impartial.
7. Go to 1. Repeat Ad Nauseum.
60
Do you think the Liberal-Fascists at the BBC will even bother to reply?
60
O/T update:
SMH: Australia not among rich nations releasing post-2020 emission goals on time
“John Connor, chief executive of the Climate Institute, said it was a poor showing by Australia to fall short of the March 31 goal for releasing its post-2020 target.”
. . .
I bagged Abbott @jonova the other day, again, but, I am glad to be proved wrong!
40
handjive
As pointed out in the link in my post #24 the USA was the ONLY country that met that deadline.
40
That State Liberal Party motion to privatise the ABC/SBS was a cry of frustration at the irrefutable bias on display.
Why doesn’t the ABC board act to demand compliance with their charter?
The ABC needs to return to simply reporting the facts, as it used to do.
Then the ABC/SBS can fill the gaps left by commercial stations (due economics) in terms of regional coverage, support for the arts and fringe sports etc.
It should STOP trying to drive commercial media (including the web) out of business.
50
I believe a split would be a very smart and good move. It would allow one half (or whatever) to remain a Leftist refuge, and allow the other to become a (hopefully) balanced media (not necessarily Conservative). It would also show that the government is not reducing the ABC budget, but redistributing it instead. In time, media statistics will show which half is more valid and appropriate for Australia and promote further review. Oh, and two separate boards, or the like.
30
A dorothy dixer for Tony Abbott: Why is it the role of government to run such a vast media empire as the ABC?
It is not as though the ABC dispenses a government information service, or even facilitates discussion. It is in fact a Vanguard service intent on community organising.
How can the Alynskyite Broadcasting Commissariat be Alynskyite broadcasters without being Alynskyite?.
70
We have exactly the same problem here in Canada, the CBC is sacred and must be protected at all costs-even to the tune of $$$$BILLIONS wasted. Yet the CBC is free to advocate politically for all sorts of silly-arsed nonsense without penalty. But we do love watching them collapse into a state of shrieking shock when there is a national election where they gleefully predict the destruction of the Conservative party (presently in power) and are proven wrong by the electorate yet again. Election coverage and their failures to read the public are the only thing worth watching on CBC- certainly not the stream of suzuki trash.
30
In a Catallaxy post Steve Kates says:
The problem with splitting is that you could end up like the CBC, with parallel English and French stations.
At least your splitting proposal wouldn’t result in the problem that it does in Canada: the message in French is not always the same message in English. And nobody knows the difference.
The question is not about the 1.1 billion dollars of resources expended on a public broadcaster.
Rather, it is the question as to this use of resources? Which of the three W’s is it?
I strongly suggest that most of it is sheer waste. In fact it is the opposite of wealth creation. It is (currently) one of wealth destruction.
40
Unfortunately, the issue isn’t limited only to the public broadcaster.
Jennifer Oriel outlines it well in this essay.
20
I was chatting to someone last year and the subject of the ABC being out of control came up. Enough rope and next term comes to mind.
40
Enough Rope is long gone.
30
It would be nice if Catalyst could do a thing on Stevenson Screens.
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/pre-1910-stevenson-screens-bom-does-not.html
20
The ABCs bias in presenting climate research is clear. You’d think they would want to report on published research on direct empirical measurements of atmospheric “greenhouse” gases. Maybe my site searches used the wrong keywords but I can’t find anything from 2015 of relevance using “Feldman”, “Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer”, “determination of surface radiative forcing”.
Why just report the models and not the observed evidence?
60
Glad to see 6 skeptics who read Nature. I did expect some bitter slayers to red thumb me though.
00
Climategate? Investigations? the Pause? not even mentioned in the latest from the Beeb, yet the very title of this program screams out for their inclusion.
if only it were true that the MSM & pollies had lost interest in CAGW post-Copenhagen as this program claims.
presently on rotation at BBC World Service radio, broadcasting to nearly 200 million people worldwide (hopefully, mainly for their English football/soccer coverage).
AUDIO 25 MINS: BBC: Helena Merriman: The Inquiry: Are We Tired of Talking About Climate Change?
It seems something is missing from newspapers and TV bulletins – climate change. A story which dominated the news five years ago has dropped steadily down the agenda. One study has found coverage has dropped 36% globally in that time. Why? On The Inquiry this week we hear a tale of chronic political fatigue. We ask whether our hunter-gatherer brains simply aren’t wired to think long-term. And we find out why climate change has all the hallmarks of a story likely to make newspaper editors groan. It could be – as one of our expert witnesses tells us – time to “change the narrative”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02mnn29
to “change the narrative”, who does BBC call on?
Part 1: A Disappearing Story
Max Boykoff, Associate Professor, Center for Science and Technology Policy, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder. Senior Visiting Research Associate in the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford.
Part 2: The Trauma
Jennifer Morgan, Global Director of the Climate Program at the WRI, formerly Global Climate Change Director at E3G & leader of the WWF’s Global Climate Change Program,
supporting the head of the German delegation to the UN climate change negotiations, etc.
Part 3: Our Ancient Brain
Robert Gifford, professor of Psychology and Environmental Studies at the University of Victoria (British Columbia, Canada).
Part 4: An Inconvenient Story
Joe Smith, Open University UK, plus broadcast and online learning and research project Creative Climate (2009-present).
i laughed so hard from start to finish, no more so than when Morgan says we must think of the poor negotiators who took a break(?) post the disaster, failure, trauma of Copenhagen. their families hadn’t seen them. the personal sacrifice blah blah.
the MSM, Govt-funded or commercial, is deplorable. however, taxpayers should not be forced to fund the ABC (or, in part, SBS), or pay a Licence fee to BBC.
50
Rupert seems to be re tasking aspects of the letter he wrote here http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/rupert-wyndhams-excellent-prose-to-bishop-langrish-the-26-ethical-flaws-of-propagandists
Being a former MSM journalist, I suppose, you’d not expect that in one of these letters he’d provide a citation or evidence. And being a journalist, he is quite good at writing rhetoric.
01
You mean a list like this:
“Some of the consensus naturally now tries hard to ignore/hide/excuse away new data (pause, polar ice, unaccelerated SLR, observational energy budget sensitivity, thriving polar bears,…) because of the meme that the science was settled perpetrated by 95% confident IPCC AR5, which hid the hiatus AND deliberately misrepresented its previous conclusions. Mann’s faux pause article April 2014 in Scientific American is another poster child. Continuing evidence of ongoing intellectual dishonesty at both individual and institutional levels”
[Rud Istvan, March 31, 2015]
Obviously, this list is but a brief summer shower, as it were. But even this small bucket is too hefty for the MSM to contemplate acknowledging. That these despicable actions can accumulate over twenty years and have the MSM untroubled in supporting them is the core reason I regard the war as lost to the activists. Hammering away at the proposed vandalism of the power grids with windmills is the most likely avenue for some relief. TonyOz’ posts and mine to a lesser degree, supply the raw data
00
apologies, I didn’t notice that he’d done that. It must have been deleted before I saw it.
00
No sense whatsoever selling off to private enterprise. With all the resultant biases inherent in that.
I fear we all (including Jo) succumb to our own dogmatic beliefs in the end.
So, on that note, here are mine: They differ from Jo’s in that they are correct … 😉
It is not necessarily true that only private enterprise can run things efficiently.
When Australian states sold off their power assets, who was the biggest buyer? Singapore and Chinese government owned companies. Someone must have been wrong on one side or the other of that decision making process. http://www.smh.com.au/business/chinas-state-grid-powers-up-in-australia-20130517-2js2n.html
It is not necessarily true that the ‘free market’ will automatically result in the most efficient use of resources and provide the best economic conditions for the community.
Look at the case of iron ore prices right now. Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and Brazil’s Vale have massively ramped up production, in the face of known weakening of Chinese demand. It may give those big guys the opportunity to gobble up broke small guys and get even bigger, but it does not help any nation or community. http://www.theage.com.au/business/markets/charted-why-the-iron-ore-price-keeps-falling-20150331-1mbl5s.html
There has to be a middle way in all this mess.
Leaving it all up to big (and ever growing) business WILL end in tears.
02
Public support for completely shutting down public broadcaster.. not there?
Perhaps the tax cutters need to explain the problem.
What public good do these dinosaurs serve?
Why in the internet era do we need them?.
The civic damage of these parasitic helpers is a massive negative, lying by omission is a breach of trust.
CBC was exposed a couple of months ago, Explaining to canadians that they are not here to report the news, but rather to ensure we feel good about ourselves and think correctly.
This was part of their explanation of failing to show us the Charlie Heblo Cartoons.
These organizations are home to those blind grubs that gnaw at the foundations of civilization, their byproducts are a vile slime that chokes everything.
Face it CBC,ABC and BBC are chock full of bureaucrats.
These bit actors are convinced they are the true stars of the show, never mind reality, its all about them.
The need for government propaganda institutions have passed, if the elected leadership needs to address the voters, it would be far cheaper to buy time on a private television channel.
Might even get someone to watch them too.
The concept of the public broadcaster as sacred cows, works until voters find out what the cow costs them and where it dumps its bovine excrement.
30
Is there a reference for that, please ?
I experience momentary fun when vain and hypocritical poseurs are forced to admit their abuses of power 🙂
10
One of Sun TVs Ezra Levants last broadcasts.
Google : Ezra Levant on CBC’s fear of showing the Charlie Hebdo Cartoons. January 8th 2015. Its a Utube.
In the first 60 seconds.
10
no time to listen properly now, but u will quickly get the tone.
Fran’s hostile-sounding opening question to Alex Hall
“is this enquiry a thinly-veiled attack on environmental groups?”
followups from Fran such as “that could be subjective?” “it might not be a problem at all?” “do you think there is an issue?” “political activity might be about education”.
Fran thinks taxpayers should be funding activism/advocacy because we’re a democracy.
Fran’s tone changes completely with Lyndon.
almost a whopping 17 minutes:
AUDIO: 1 April: ABC RN Breakfast: Parliamentary inquiry into environmental organisations’ donation spending
Environmental groups could soon be facing a fight to hold on to their tax deductible donations.
A parliamentary inquiry will be held into the Register of Environmental Organisations to make sure that donations made to almost 600 conservation groups are being spent on their intended purpose – environmental projects – and not being used for political advocacy or activism.
Liberal MP Alex Hawke joins RN Breakfast to discuss his approach to the inquiry as the chairman of Parliament’s Environment Committee.
Lyndon Schneiders, National Director of the Wilderness Society, also joins Fran Kelly in our Sydney studio.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/parliamentary-inquiry-into-environmental/6363758
approx 600 not-for-profit, tax-deductible, sometimes taxpayer-funded-in-part, conservation groups??? give me a break.
30
accidentally typed alex “hall” instead of “hawke”.
10
Saw this at WUWT http://www.maxphoton.com/
10
How the ABC is managed and operated, or should be;
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/abca1983361/
10
I have a fear that the private media outlets may oppose privatisation of Government media. I noticed their opposition to SBS increasing its per hour advertising recently.
10
How about two channels: Private-sector tax-paying citizens’ channel, and public-sector tax-recipients’ channel. The latter can call the former the greedy free-market capitalists channel, and the former can call the latter the government welfare kings and queens channel.
The reality is, the people who work for government don’t pay taxes. If I make $100,000 in free enterprise, I collect that. I reserve $40,000 of that for my annual tax payment to the government (40% federal and state).. I could say, “I want to spend and save my entire $100,00,” but if I fail to forward $40,000 of it to my national and state governments, I can go to gaol.
Let’s say Jon is a government employee. Let’s say Jon’s nominal salary is $60,000, and Jon’s employer withholds $20,000, and Jon’s salary actually paid, is $40,000. Jon knew that when he took the job–of course every civil servant figures out his/her take-home pay when he accepts his/her job.
Does Jon pay 33% of his salary to the government? Not at all. The treasury (treasuries) take my $40,000, and pays it to Jon. Jon’s nominal “salary” is a fiction.
The component that he, the government employee, says, “I pay taxes” is MY contribution to the federal and state treasuries. Without my contributions, Jon would not have a government job, since my contribution IS his job salary. My tax is Jon’s living allowance-stipend.
41
Real taxes are paid by private sector businesses and employees, as you pointed out. Too many people cannot understand this. Of course the spending by public servants and others paid from real tax revenue stimulate the economy when they spend money but they do not contribute new or real revenue to governments, they just hand back part of why they are paid. It is also not widely understood that about 40 per cent of real taxpayers do not pay enough to cover the government services they use and therefore, they are subsidised by higher income taxpayers and businesses to varying degrees. And that 34 per cent of total Commonwealth Government budget expenditure right now is spent on welfare.
10
Old Farte
Taxes from a capitalists viewpoint
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/an-entrepreneurs-experience/
10
Let’s take John Cook’s 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is mostly due to man.
Suppose that somebody did an analysis of this 97%, and found that 100% of the 97% consisted of people who received government grants.
New press release:” Nearly all of the 97% consensus people are government-grant welfare kings and queens.”
99% of the manmade-global-warming alarmistm-promoting scientists admit, “This climate-change campaign has really helped my career.”
Michael Mann admits, “Even though I went to Berkeley for undergrad, MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley Columbia, Chicago and Cornell refused to admit me for graduate work. So I had to accept Yale, a second-rate program which had zero faculty who had ever won a Nobel Physics Prize. Crap! I thought I was smart, but my Berkeley physics profs thought otherwise. That’s why their grades didn’t allow me to graduate with highest honors, or high honors.
20
Of course the most beautiful thing about alarmist climate change guys is they say, “You can’t look at my raw data, you can’t look at my methods. I’m telling you my data and methods show that the world temperature is rising drastically. Look at the results I am telling you, and stop trying to dig into my data. If you don’t believe my conclusions, you are a denier. You are denying that my conclusions, without data are not trustworthy, You are denying my proclamations that I don’t have to back up with actual data. That makes you a climate denier.”
“You can’t look at my raw data, because you didn’t pay for it. You paid for my grants, giving me a job, but you didn’t pay to look at the detailed aspects of my work. Yes it’s true that research fraud-perpetrators could not produce raw data that supported their conclusions, but their examiners were universities. You mere payers of my research are disqualified to examine my research. That’s the beauty of taxpayer-funded research, you pay us, but we are unaccountable to you.”
50
Here’s the latest report from Flannery’s Climate Council, with David Karoly, Anna Rose etc etc.
That’s if you have the stomach for this type of garbage?
http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/6de0d41fee3922420fd73c810adbb9a8.pdf
00
O/T: A request for information from any American readers, in light of this –
What does it take to impeach a President?
50
Bob,
I’m going to work up a Post for my own home site on this.
This is perhaps one of the most artful things done, and when you see the facts, this is pretty disingenuous of the President.
The original Kyoto called for a reduction of CO2 emissions to a level 5% less than 1990 levels, however that figure was 7% lower than 1990 levels for the U.S.
However, the UNFCCC was NEVER going to make that fly, as levels increased almost exponentially since that time, so that 5% lower than 1990 was never ever going to be reached, by any Nation on the Planet, so now it’s 2005, a nice round figure seeing as how it’s ten years, and it’s a carefully selected figure of 28%.
However, they year he picked 2005 was when emissions from the electrical power generating sector were at their highest, mainly due to the huge amount of coal fired plants, most of them ancient.
Those coal fired plants have diminished markedly since that time (2005) but have been replaced in more than their totality by Natural Gas fired plants.
So while coal consumption at those remaining plants has decreased, NG plant emissions have increased, and NG emits less CO2 than coal fired, so the decrease in emissions from that power sector have decreased already. More coal fired plants are slated to close, also replaced in their totality by NG fired plants, so CO2 emissions will fall naturally.
The have decreased to the point now where the current reduction already in place sits at around 17% just in the power generating sector alone, so he’s more than half way there already.
As for steel production, another large CO2 emitter, Bethlehem steel closed, and taken over by two other entities, they have also closed operations oddly enough, in 2005/6, and hey, wasn’t that lucky.
Concrete manufacture, also a large emitter has scaled back considerably in the U.S. as well, also in that interim, lucky on that front too.
So going on the original 1990 levels, they would absolutely never reach that, ever, without chopping America to its knees.
Right now, he’s committed to that figure of cutting to a level 28% lower than those 2005 levels, and in fact, he’s a long way closer to that than people would really understand.
Hopefully, I’ll have my own Post ready for perhaps Saturday.
Tony.
Post Script – Incidentally, with respect to Concrete manufacture, get this. China manufactured more concrete in the last three years than the U.S. manufactured ….. in the WHOLE of the 20th Century.
50
The first thing that came to mind after reading Rupert Wyndham’s letter was a comedy skit by Derek & Clive (Dudley Moore & Peter Cook) in which one of the two was disgusted at something the BBC had done (or not done) and wrote a letter of complaint. He simply addressed the envelope to “C**t London”, and it was promptly delivered to the Director General of the BBC.
50
???
30 March: Xinhua: Chinese scientists mull power station in space
The battle to dispel smog, cut greenhouse gases and solve the energy crisis is moving to space.
Chinese scientists are mulling the construction of a solar power station 36,000 kilometers above ground.
If realized, it will surpass the scale of the Apollo project and the International Space Station, and be the largest-ever space project.
The power station would be a super spacecraft on a geosynchronous orbit equipped with huge solar panels. The electricity generated would be converted to microwaves or lasers and transmitted to a collector on Earth.
In 1941, U.S. science fiction writer Isaac Asimov published the short story “Reason”, in which a space station transmits energy collected from the sun to various planets using microwave beams.
Wang Xiji, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and a member of the International Academy of Astronautics, says Asimov’s fiction has a scientific basis…
After devoting more than half a century to space technology research, Wang, 93, is an advocate for the station: “An economically viable space power station would be really huge, with the total area of the solar panels reaching 5 to 6 square kilometers.”
That’s equivalent to 12 of Beijing’s Tian’anmen Square, the largest public square in the world, or nearly two New York Central Parks.
“Maybe people on Earth could see it in the sky at night, like a star,” says Wang…
The world has recognized the need to replace fossil fuels with clean energies. However, the ground-based solar, wind, water and other renewable energy sources are too limited in volume and unstable.
“The world will panic when the fossil fuels can no longer sustain human development. We must acquire space solar power technology before then,” Wang says.
“Whoever obtains the technology first could occupy the future energy market. So it’s of great strategic significance,” Wang says…
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-03/30/c_134109115.htm
00
fortunately, SE Qld isn’t getting these things…so far:
30 March: CBS Local: Stockton Smart Meters Explode After Truck Causes Power Surge
A power surge left thousands without power in Stockton on Monday after smart meters on their homes exploded.
The explosions started at around 8:30 a.m. after a truck crashed into a utility pole, causing a surge.
When the customers in more than 5,000 homes get their power back on will depend on how badly damaged their meters are.
Neighbors in the South Stockton area described it as a large pop, a bomb going off, and strong enough to shake a house…
PG&E says a dump truck crashed near its Alpine substation on Arch Road. When the truck hit the utility pole, the top wire fell onto the bottom wire, creating a power surge.
“The top lines are considered our freeways. The bottom lines are our distribution lines taking power directly to homes,” said PG&E spokeswoman Brandi Ehlers. “So when the two collide, they’re at different voltages and the higher voltage wins out, causing an overload.”…
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/03/30/stockton-smart-meters-explode-after-truck-causes-power-surge/
10
Rupert Wyndham sure knows how to pen a great letter. Unfortunately they are all water off a duck’s back.
10
OR REGULATE with an ombudsman Jo. There is another way, make the ABC subject to the law like commercial broadcasters.
20
1st April – Guardian fools a few of the readers, going by the comments…not very funny:
Guardian: Daisy Pofallo: Jeremy Clarkson joins Guardian drive for fossil fuel divestment
Former Top Gear presenter says being sacked by the BBC was a ‘wake-up call’ as he joins host of celebrities backing climate change campaign
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/01/jeremy-clarkson-joins-guardian-drive-for-fossil-fuel-divestment
00
***not 1st April.
this appears to be ABC’s only coverage.
***is the suicide claim too insane even for Auntie? no Fairfax/Guardian coverage either!!!
31 March: ABC Rural: Michael Cavanagh: Climate Council says southern Australia likely to suffer more severe droughts through climate change
***In its report titled ‘Thirsty Country: Climate change and drought in Australia’ the council argued the rate of suicide in men aged between 30 to 49 could rise by up to 15 per cent, as the severity of drought increased…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-30/climate-council-cliamte-change-report-droughts/6359090
00
Aunty’s editorial policy.
http://about.abc.net.au/how-the-abc-is-run/what-guides-us/our-editorial-policies/
10
Paul Chadwick was once very involved with ABC editorial policy, but these days he’s a non-executive director of Guardian Australia.
Groupthink.
10
O/T – the Climate Council are at it again.
https://www.facebook.com/climatecouncil
They claim NZ ran on a record breaking 80% renewables last year. According to Wiki NZ runs on 80% renewables every year and the renewables are Hydro Power and Geo thermal power.
They also claim Costa Rica ran 100% on renewable power – Costa Rica runs on 35% fossil fuels and 55% Hydro power.
These people have no shame!
40
had to find the Climate Council Report to prove the suicide thing wasn’t a figment of ABC’s Michael Cavanagh’s imagination:
28 pages: PDF: Climate Council: THIRSTY COUNTRY: CLIMATE CHANGE AND DROUGHT IN AUSTRALIA
P3: Key Findings: 2. …The relative risk of suicide can increase by up to 15 percent for rural males aged 30-49 as the severity of drought increases …
http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/37d4a0d2a372656332d75d0163d9e8b8.pdf
eventually found The Guardian’s coverage. they couldn’t resist the “suicide” talk after all!
31 March: Guardian: Oliver Milman: Climate change making droughts in Australia worse as rain patterns shift
Climate Council report says projected decreases in average rainfall are linked to reduced agricultural productivity and increased suicide risk in rural areas
The Climate Council said that increasingly severe droughts were linked to a drop in agricultural productivity and a 15% increase in suicide risk for rural males aged between 30 and 49…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/31/climate-change-making-droughts-in-australia-worse-as-rain-patterns-shift
ABC Country Hour Tasmania covered the report, but didn’t name it or link to it & didn’t mention the “suicides”:
Country Hour Tasmania for Monday 30th March 2015
The crowd-funded Climate Council has argued in its latest paper that the probability of drought will increase, and it will become more severe, because of climate change…
The West Australian wrote about the report, not the suicides, but didn’t name the report or link to it.
——
Climate Council has definitely gone too far this time.
10
The media rush to relay,
What governments want them to say,
Is the state of compliance,
When consensus science,
Pervading our world today.:-D
41
Erratum: when should read with.
20
Erratum: when should read with.
00
31 March: UK Independent: Prince Charles ‘burns 1.3 tons of carbon’ in private helicopter after urging public to turn off lights for Earth Hour
by Kashmira Gander
Clarence House said in a statement: “Safety, security, the need to minimise disruption for others, time and cost are just some of the factors taken into account when travel decisions are made.
“Clarence House balances out its emissions by investing in sustainable forestry and projects that reduce deforestation.”…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/prince-charles-burns-13-tons-of-carbon-in-private-helicopter-after-urging-public-to-turn-off-lights-for-earth-hour-10147440.html#
20
I’d say split the ABC into two broadcasting companies, one left leaning as is the current one, and the other right, and let the public decide who to listen to and believe. That way no one can claim the government is funding a biased broadcaster, or shutting down the current ABC left.
20
Slightly OT but the UK readers may get their BBC overhaul resulting from an “unusual” event.
I read where following Clarkson’s sacking ( ex Top Gear )his two mates are going with him. The Executive Producer has also resigned. No matter what you think of the show it has been a massive profit earner.
You cannot lose all the talent and expect it to be business as usual especially when the competition are probably already talking to Clarkson & co.
So major heads at the BBC must roll —well you would expect it from any normal corporation. If not then the politicians will have good ammunition to start asking hard questions.
10
I juI just wanted to add something to this discussion. Firstly, I am a little pessimistic about what can be done about their ABC in the short to medium term. But I think we need to be realistic about the march of Cultural Marxism through the institutions of the Western World, particular the sectors and cultural institutions that rely on the State for funding. We live a world that is now culturally left-wing from the kindergartens, primary and secondary schools, universities, movies and films, music, art, literature, etc. that is just the reality – so the genie is not going to go back into the bottle in the foreseeable future.
I love the description of the ABC monoculture – it is so true and I see it on a regular basis. My partner is friends with some ABC journalists. So I am exposed to their worldview and the worldview of their friends, and even their kids on a regular basis. They are really lovely, friendly people but they are also extremely confident of their moral, cultural and intellectual superiority over others. This, combined with an ideological and doctrinal rigidity, makes them absolutely intolerant and dismissive of those who do not share their moral or ideological worldview – this verges on a real hatred of those that don’t agree with them.
This manifests itself in dinner parties where everyone agrees with everyone else – on the only key issues that matter: Abbott hatred, refugees, Julia Gillard is a secular saint, climate change, and gay marriage. Generally, the dinner parties start with a 10-15 minute hate session about Abbott and the Murdoch press which I think allows everyone to bond and feel secure in the prevailing group-think- and part of the collective. One interesting point that I have gleaned is that they privately acknowledge that the ABC is left-bias but that is okay because its role is to maintain balance in a media landscape dominated by Murdoch and shock-jocks. The other interesting observation is that EVERYTHING is political to them, and it is clear that politics is so important to them because it adds moral meaning to their lives.
The group-think is stultifying – there is no room for deviation from the orthodoxies. I baited them at one dinner party about Netanyahu’s recent address to Congress. This unleashed a tirade of abuse directed to Israel and Netanyahu (“ that C&^%”). As I didn’t join in the hate-fest, it was clear that I was taken aback by the response. Later on my partner told me that they asked “Did we offend him? Is he Jewish?”. The question was telling in itself: every opinion or moral position comes from one’s identity group, not from one’s free-will.
The kids are well indoctrinated too, looking for signs of doctrinal or ideological incorrectness. When I questioned Wayne Swan’s $1,000 cash hand-out, the son of the journalists commented to me “That sounds like a liberal talking.”
The other thing that makes me laugh is that although impeccable progressive, when it come to things that materially affect them like housing investment or the private school education of their kids – they are more right than Attila the Hun.
st wanted to add something to this discussion. Firstly, I am a little mes
40
Moth, as someone who attended Canberra Dinner Parties of the ANU/Public Service type for years, I hear your pain.
Sadly, it is getting worse, which only makes people like you (the lone independent thinker in the pack) all the more important.
Bullying is a group event, and hate feeds hate. Though to break it we need two people in every group. One baits and scores the flak. The other plays third party spectator who pops the “smug-bubble” with a line of quiet support. They just need to say “yes, but he has a point”.
20
Hey Joanne, thanks for the prompt reply. I love your site – I have so many ideas in my head about the predicament we face today. Like why is the leftoid mindset so prevalent – is it the result of the success of Cultural Marxism or just an inevitable end-of-civilization malaise? Why am I the odd one out? Am I crazy? Or it just that 50% of the population are quiet commonsense practical people and the other 50% are noisy wacko romantics? One explanation could come from Margaret Thatcher’s comment that “The facts of life are conservative.” Maybe a huge proportion of the west’s population is so cosseted from the facts of life that it has bred a contempt for the values (commonsense) built up over centuries of people confronting the facts of life on a daily basis.
To make matters worse I have a PhD from Melbourne University, in a gay-relationship and live in Fitzroy!!! According to the identity politics algorithm, I should be a green voter. I think that confounds my circle of friends and acquaintances – who think my reference’s to Libertarianism and freedom of the individual are just my odd quirks. I think I am getting to the time of my life (50 yrs next month), where I am tired of self-censoring or modulating my comments in the face of these ideological bullies.
20
Hey Miss, pick me; pick me.
I know about free-to-airheads in NZ; jus been there. Everybody has a working OFF-SWITCH! ABC’s good like that too. Hit the little red button and ‘poof’ all its climate-pain is gone.
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Bill
20
Don’t know how I missed that: Turnbull Turns on Aunty
Why didn’t the ABC report this? 😉
30