Imrah wrote on May 31^st, 2018 at 10:17am:


Forcing?

This may be of some assistance:
]

pt 2...

But it’s not only climate change. What about Four Corners’ “investigations” into live cattle exports, Nauru, the Don Dale centre and greyhounds, where so much contrary evidence ended up on the cutting-room floor.

Clearly, the ABC’s much-­promoted digital transformation can’t solve the fundamental issue of embedded bias and a culture of moral and intellectual superiority. Sadly, the public broadcaster has long surrendered any claim to be a trusted source of news and information. Its arrogance, disregard for facts and shameless advocacy define it as a $1 billion-a-year green propaganda machine, [/highlight]certainly not fit to sit in judgment of complaints made against it. Its conduct is an affront to the taxpayers who fund it. Yet, despite rapidly declining audiences, it maintains an exaggerated sense of self-importance, which was reflected in the managing director’s warning to government that a pause in the indexation of ABC funding could result in a political backlash. Perhaps once upon a time, but not today.

With Sky News set to become regionally available on free-to-air television, a major justification for public broadcasting (perhaps the last big reason) will cease to apply.

Maurice Newman was chairman of the ABC from 2007 to 2012.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 31^st, 2018 at 10:41am:


Obviously this thread has hit you on a raw nerve, hasn't it? 
Do you want to see this one-sided propaganda perpetuated? 

Why don't you just say so and argue honestly, instead of nipping at my heels like some hungry stray dog?  Are you too afraid of the truth?

greggerypeccary wrote on May 31^st, 2018 at 11:00am:


Another typical lefty trick to fall back on when you know you've been hit on a RAW NERVE and you want to hide the truth.  You just spam the thread to make it as unintelligible as you can and hope it all goes away. 

Commendations to the OP for posting the truth, or people like you wouldn't be here to try spam all over it.

The ABC has become more propaganda now than honest news, and more than half the 'news' stories on their website are infomercials for some leftwing mob or other, if not the AMA.  You're going to need a long time to keep up the spam on this one, Greggerry.  They keep broadcasting it, people will keep seeing it.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 31^st, 2018 at 11:14am:


You keep niggling over that one petty semantic, which is a side issue, but still it means that you consider the Australian public broadcaster to be an unnecessary waste of time.

Is that what you want, Greggerry?  Do you want all taxpayer funding of the ABC to stop?  Are you telling me that there is no point in our national public broadcaster and you would like it closed down?

That would be the second best solution in my opinion.  There is a better way.

 

greggerypeccary wrote on May 31^st, 2018 at 11:40am:

No, you are just not thinking logically.  If nobody is forced to watch the ABC then that means that it is not important, and if it is not important then it is a waste of taxpayers' money.  Understand?

Imrah wrote on May 31^st, 2018 at 11:48am:


So what are people forced to watch? What is important? Why do you have to be forced to do something for it to be important?

Spot

The only strange argument, nay idiotic argument, is that unless you are forced to do something you are unable to object.  Relax the idiot said.

I wonder if that argument can be extended to other arguments by the idiot and other idiots. It's going to be fun.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 31^st, 2018 at 12:23pm:

Why are people forced to pay for it then?  I did not want to see it privatised, but if you are telling me that the ABC is of no use at all to the Australian public then I guess it is fair to privatise it and they can try crowd-funding.

To get over this ridiculous teenaged argument, I am forced to watch it so that I can understand what the latest fake news is this week, to better understand the way that the people in my community have been brainwashed by the propaganda, and try to help them with their deradicalisation.

It would be nice if instead there was just an honest, unbiased, non-politically-driven public broadcaster, and then we wouldn't have to waste all that time and funding.

Why are you posting in this thread when you are unaware of the fake news that the ABC is forcing on decent Australians?  Yes, forcing.  There is no alternative.

If you don't understand this increasingly obvious bias, then you are welcome to keep out of it.  You have mentioned repeateldy that you don't understand the problem, and that's great.  Ignorance is bliss so I am happy for you. 

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 31^st, 2018 at 1:45pm:


I should hopefully be able to post links sometime soon.  Then I will be most glad to.

Grendel wrote on May 31^st, 2018 at 9:26am:

Newman's assertions - climate scientists call them "zombie arguments", because they keep on popping up - have all been comprehensively debunked, repeatedly and in detail, by national academies of science around the world, including the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the Royal Society of London and the Australian Academy of Science. Andy Pitman, a climate scientist from the University of NSW, tells me that, "Newman's arguments are so wrong they are inconsistent with some fundamental laws of physics."

Maurice Newman is not known to have any scientific qualifications and, according to a search of Google Scholar, has never had a scientfic paper published on the subject of climate change.

Never let physics get in the road of a good rant 

Let me Help
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news-australia/

Imrah wrote on May 31^st, 2018 at 2:12pm:


He's real.

For those of you who missed it...  this is the ENVIRONMENT FORUM...  the topic is about the climate alarmist bias of the ABC....  do try and be on topic.  If it aint about the ABC and the Environmental lean to the Prog Left they have don't fill my topic with crap.
This means mainly YOU Peccerhead.

Newman's assertions - climate scientists call them "zombie arguments", because they keep on popping up -

Andy Pitman, a climate scientist from the University of NSW, tells me that, "Newman's arguments are so wrong they are inconsistent with some fundamental laws of physics."

You mean the little blog run by a Weatherman ?
Andy Kosh is his name isn't it

heartland institute = Koch

ohh don't like me talking about that Conspiracy-Pseudscience website
https://wottsupwiththat.com/

ever hear of parody Lee 

man , humour ... ever hear of it

In reality they've never stopped...


Maurice Newman
The Australian
12:00AM May 31, 2018

In 2005, then federal treasurer Peter Costello and his media ­adviser had a private “off the ­record” dinner with three members of the parliamentary press gallery, including Michael Brissenden of ABC TV’s 7.30 Report. It was agreed the treasurer could speak openly and without attribution. In the lead-up to the ­November 2007 federal election and in the context of a predicted tight poll, Brissenden contradicted Costello’s understanding in what appeared to be a partisan act.

Brissenden did himself no favours when, to the cameras, he implied that he had notes of the dinner. In fact, according to media reports at the time, what he bran­dished were collective, wrongly dated notes, initiated by another journalist. Shortly after, Brissenden conceded he had brandished a note that was drafted by Paul Daley.

ABC management never properly investigated the matter but, post-election, relocated Brissenden to the Washington bureau, proving once again that, at the ABC, no one gets demoted for pushing leftist political and cultural causes.

This disregard for perception, let alone reality, was apparent when the Australian Communications and Media Authority upheld a complaint ruling the ABC had breached its impartiality rules with an unsubstantiated and opinionated attack on former prime minister Tony Abbott describing him as “the most destructive politician of his generation”. Rather than apologise, the ABC has not accepted the verdict.

Indeed, management resorted to Orwellian sophistry to justify its position, relying on a Macquarie Dictionary definition of “destructive”. Still, it did advise the regulator that “ABC News will incorporate the finding into its editorial compliance training programs”.Orwell’s Ministry of Truth would be proud.

An apparently unreconstructed Brissenden is back in Australia, demonstrating the same attention to detail Costello once criticised. Recently he fronted an ABC Four Corners program, titled Weather Alert, which was entirely devoted to global-warming advocacy masquerading as science. The program’s promo led: “There are no politicians in tonight’s story … Only people who’ve seen, from their own experience, that the change to our climate is under way.” Brissenden added: “These farmers and businesses aren’t waiting for politicians to agree that our climate is changing.” Really? Politicians not agreed? Why does he think Australians pay the world’s highest electricity prices?

In the segment on Brown Brothers wine, he made it clear that due to the warming climate “the company has planned to move part of its operations to cooler country”.However, retiree Bob Fernley-Jones wrote to Brown Brothers and found: “At this stage we don’t intend on selling any vineyards in Victoria. We have always had the philosophy that we grow the right varietals in the most suited climate …” So, the story appeared to be an ABC ­invention, meant to add weight to the program’s catastrophic ­global-warming theme.

This was one of many exaggerated examples of so-called climate change. Perhaps none was worse than the blatant perpetuation of a false Bureau of Meteorology announcement that at Penrith on January 7, the Sydney Basin recorded its hottest day. The bur­eau, with lightning speed, ­corrected the record to acknowledge Richmond in 1939, but [highlight]the ABC chose to ignore the correction.

The errors and omissions kept coming. Amateur records were preferred to official archives. Viewers were told that warming in southwest Western Australia had “happened faster than anywhere else on the planet”, without mentioning the region had just recorded one of its coldest summers in two decades. It beggars belief that any broadcasting organisation could put such biased ­rubbish to air. But unforced corrections or apologies are not in today’s ABC’s DNA. When Malcolm Turnbull raised 11 grievances about a story on research and innovation spending, with one exception, all aspects of the complaint were rejected. The Abbott episode exemplifies the [highlight]ABC’s refusal to acknowledge mistakes

Fernley-Jones lodged five complaints about Weather Alert. All he achieved was a rebuke. “Our records indicate that to date you have lodged five complaints via our webform regarding the edition of Four Corners 5 March. In future should you wish to lodge a complaint about a program please set out your entire complaint in one submission … Kieran Doyle wrote to you on 12 April acknowledging your emails and attachments … The email advised you your complaint would not be investigated by Audience and Consumer Affairs. This advice relates to all of the complaints you have submitted.” Take that!

On climate change, the ABC has long adopted the “science is settled” position. Giving sceptics or sceptical views a platform is likened to promoting the tobacco industry. So Fernley-Jones’s com­plaints never stood a chance.

pt1

Imrah wrote on May 31^st, 2018 at 10:52am:


No raw nerve.

I just find all this nonsense highly amusing.

It has been proven over and over again that the ABC does not have a left bias.

Moreover, even if it did, nobody is being "forced" to watch it.

Crisis over.

https://gifcrap.com/g2data/albums/Animals/Cat%20relaxing%20on%20it_s%20couch.gif

greggerypeccary wrote on May 31^st, 2018 at 11:00am:



It has been proven over and over again that the ABC does not have a left bias.

Greggy,
Please post evidence for this claim.

"TWO independent audits into the ABC’s coverage of the federal election campaign and the asylum seeker issue have concluded it was impartial and its news coverage of asylum seekers was of a high standard."

...

"Stone assessed 46 segments from Lateline and 51 from 7.30 and concluded: “As an independent observer, I found no grounds for concern” in any measurements of bias or prioritising of particular viewpoints."