The latest fortnightly Roy Morgan face-to-face survey finds Labor maintaining the remarkable upward trend it has recorded across recent polling: its primary vote is up 2.5 per cent to 52 per cent, the Coalition’s is up 0.5 per cent to 34.5 per cent, while the Greens, Family First and independent/others are all down. On two-party preferred, Labor’s lead has edged up from 60-40 to 60.5-39.5. The pattern is further demonstrated by the latest Reuters Poll Trend aggregate, which finds Labor’s two-party lead has crept steadily upwards since June, and has now increased to 59.0-41.0 from 58.0-42.0 a month ago. George Megalogenis of The Australian offers an exquisitely simple hypothesis: “the women swing first, then the men”. This was apparently the pattern when the current governments in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia were elected (I suggest One Nation complicated the picture in Queensland and Western Australia), and it gives every appearance of playing out at present federally. However, there is the curious exception of men under 35, many of whom seem to have abandoned Labor since the onset of the financial crisis.
Other news:
• Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald reports Julia Gillard is “working behind the scenes” to save the career of Laurie Ferguson, a fellow member of the “soft Left” faction who backed the Rudd/Gillard coup against Kim Beazley in December 2006. Ferguson has been left high-and-dry by the effective abolition of his western Sydney seat of Reid, the redrawn seat of that name being the effective successor to its abolished neighbour Lowe. However, Ferguson’s efforts to find a new home are being resisted by the “hard Left” faction of Anthony Albanese. Coorey reports Ferguson believes he has the numbers to win a local preselection vote in Fowler, to be vacated with the retirement of Julia Irwin, but it seems at least as likely that this and other contentious seats will be filled by the decree of Kevin Rudd and the panel of factional leaders which was empowered to make final determinations through a recent change to the party constitution. VexNews intimates that if denied, Ferguson might look at “obtaining support for a potentially expensive and spectacular legal challenge”.
• Paul Sheehan of the Sydney Morning Herald had an interesting piece last week on the Liberal preselection for Cook ahead of the last federal election, which saw the dumping of the initially victorious Michael Towke and his eventual substitution with Scott Morrison. Towke’s Right faction lost the PR battle at the time (as my own electorate profile attests), but as Sheehan tells it, talk that Towke had fudged his CV had little or no foundation in fact. Rather, he was a victim of “a view among some senior Liberals” – evidently including John Howard – that “a Lebanese Australian could not win Cook in a tight election”. It will be recalled that the expanse of southern Sydney covered by the electorate includes Cronulla. Sheehan also relates that the Daily Telegraph’s reporting of Towke’s preselection led to a defamation action which was settled out-of-court with a payment of $50,000.
• Peter Caton of the Tweed Daily News reports the Nationals are struggling to find candidates to run against Labor incumbents Justine Elliot, in the one-time party stronghold of Richmond, and Janelle Saffin, in its marginal neighbour Page. The only known candidate for the latter is Kevin Hogan, who according to The Northern Star “runs his own finance business from his Clunes cattle farm”.
• Pat Farmer, the Liberal member for Macarthur, has as expected been soundly defeated for preselection by Russell Matheson, a police sergeant and former mayor of Campbelltown. The margin was 22 votes to nine.
• Rick Wallace of The Australian reports the Victorian ALP will follow the footsteps of the NSW Nationals by choosing a state election candidate through a US-style primary. Whereas the Nationals are still to decide which seat in which to conduct their experiment, Labor has earmarked the Liberal-held marginal of Kilsyth. The decision stems from a cross-factional committee report which also recommends reinvigorating the party organisation by slashing membership fees.
• VexNews reports that Louise Staley, who has previously sought federal preselection for Wannon and Menzies, is now hoping for a state berth in the country seat of Ripon, which Labor’s Joe Helper holds on a margin of 4.4 per cent. Staley is a former state party vice-president and Institute of Public Affairs agriculture policy expert. Also said to have nominated are “John van Beveren, a local winery owner and education professor and Vic Dunn, the local inspector at Maryborough”.
• The Australian Review of Public Affairs has published my review article on Australia: The State of Democracy, written by Marian Sawer, Norman Abjorensen and Phil Larkin through the auspices of the Democratic Audit of Australia and published by The Federation Press.
Plenty happening in Tasmania:
• Labor’s troubled first-term member for Bass, Jodie Campbell, has confirmed she will not contest the next election. Geoff Lyons, a staffer to Senator Helen Polley, has been mentioned as a possible successor, which would see the seat’s factional alignment transfer from Left to Right. The Liberals have preselected Steve Titmus, a former television news reader and PR consultant for Gunns Ltd. The winner will be the seat’s sixth member in less than two decades. UPDATE: The Launceston Examiner reports that the new candidate is likely to be determined by prime ministerial fiat “after the dust settles”, and that there is a second potential candidate in Winnaleah District High School principal Brian Wightman, who is currently pencilled in as one of six candidates for the Bass state election ticket.
• Terry Martin, independent member for the northern Hobart upper house division of Elwick, faces criminal charges which regardless of their merits are politically lethal by nature. Martin was elected as a Labor member in 2004, but was expelled by the party in March 2007 after crossing the floor to vote against the government’s fast-tracking of the proposed Tamar Valley pulp mill. He is due to face re-election at the next round of periodical elections in May; a by-election need not be held if the seat is vacated after January 1.
• Sue Neales of The Mercury reports the Liberals have finalised their state election ticket for Denison, adding “renewable energy lawyer Matthew Groom, businesswoman and former Miss Tasmania Sue Hickey, and high-profile school parents advocate and Glenorchy councillor Jenny Branch” to the already announced Michael Hodgman (the sole incumbent), Elise Archer and Matt Stevenson.
• Tasmanian government legislation for fixed terms has been referred to a committee, scuppering any chance of it being passed in the week remaining before a recess that will last until the election. Premier David Bartlett nonetheless swears that the election will be held on March 20, again locking the psephological community into the headache of simultaneous elections in South Australia and Tasmania.
Elsewhere on the site, note that it’s all happening on the Willagee by-election thread, while things are ticking over more slowly yet still surely on the Bradfield and Higgins threads. Observe also the New South Wales Newspoll post immediately below.
[To project their requirement of “balance” in their piece, they add a small countervailing attribute from an ALP source, usually not even a “direct” one!]
I’ve actually spoken to a couple of ABC producers and journos about this and it is untrue. They actually get a stopwatch out and time exactly how much coverage each side gets to make sure it’s fair. They are inundated with complaints from both sides and spend half their lives worrying about minimising complaints rather than doing their real job.
My complaint is that this has emasculated them as a news agency, but it’s not their fault. It’s all the people who endlessly complain to the umpire.
[I’ve not seen a PB post that makes a blanket accusation of ABC bias]
I do hope you are kidding.
[In virtually every piece presented on the ABC whether ABC On-line, AM, PM and other agencies, the Coalition and their opinion, stance, policy, leads the presentation with the body of it commonly using News Ltd sources for added substance to the tenant being presented. ]
As they did for Labor when they were in opposition. The ABC has always gone in hard on the government of the day. Get over it.
Pegasus
Thanks for that article about SL.
[The Times newspaper in England has reported that 1400 civilians each week are dying in the camps.]
As I’ve tried to say on many occasions, the reason these people are willing to risk coming in leaky boats is that they think they are more likely to die if they stay in SL than coming here on a dodgy boat.
In the end, this problem is not what Rudd, Oz, Indonesia, SBY or even the people smugglers have done. The Sri Lankan Government is the problem and your article explains that very plainly.
I don’t think it will ever be likely that Tamil refugees would be returned to Sri Lanka.
And just on a curious statement that Smith made on Lateline? interview he noted on two occasions that we rescued the Sri Lankans fully aware/despite that it might cause later difficulties. It is a strange thing to say as it implies that you have some sort of choice when of course you don’t, unless you recall the SIEVX.
The Liberals never made anything out of Smith’s quite deliberate comment and must have been aware of where it would lead.
[Obama’s Declaration Of Swine Flu Emergency Prompts Pro-Swine-Flu Republican Response]
With the state that they are in at the moment, even that is more than probable.
Even John McCain has been suggesting that Obama should be pulling the troops out of Afghanistan and Dick Cheney has been criticising Obama’s Afghanistan strategy.
Could someone remind me again which political party committed the US to Afghanistan and Iraq and is really responsible for the debacle of both adventures?
Poor old Obama is getting “blamed” for the mess the Republican Administration has left behind and is being “criticised” for not being able to sort it out in three Months!!!
You know what Labor should do? Next edition of Q and A they should stud the audience with Young Labor hacks, and get a couple of them to make very loud comments that they are sick of the ongoing media beat-up about asylum seekers, and can’t the media concentrate on the real issues, such as what the government is doing to protect jobs and businesses.
To which the other operatives will applaud and cheer volubly.
This will be written up in the media the next day as proof-positive that the public are OVER this issue.
The notion will take hold, and within a week it’s taken as fact.
A real-world bootstrapper, as BB coined the tactic.
… OK, so I’ve plagiarised the idea from the Liberal Party. As Poll Bludgers will remember this same tactic worked a treat for them to implant the notion that the public was bored with the Turnbull fake email affair.
Diogenes
The key word in my observation is “blanket”. I can’t imagine that any PBer’ would be accusing Kerry O’brien or, for that matter, Tony Jones of a pro-rightwing bias.
Not being as frequent a PB contibutor as you are, I could easily haved missed it. If so, then my bad.
[If we’re playing stereotypical supporters, you’re also a socialist.
Why do people here often revert to outright lies? I am not a socialist, I never have been and never will be.
Hemingway,
I agree with you that I’ve never seen anyone accuse O’Brien of right-wing bias.
I’m pretty sure Jones has copped it from the PB commentariat, though.
I would have thought the general point is that the ABC puts out hundreds of news items per day – one can prove almost anything by quoting three or four of them selectively, which is what seems to happen here.
On media bias, and further to a point about what people say on “RW” blogs about it (this was raised by Diogenes the other day).
When I tell my Liberal-supporting friends that many people here think the ABC is right-wing, this is greeted with complete disbelief, or the assumption that I must be kidding.
Diogenes,
[I’ve actually spoken to a couple of ABC producers and journos about this and it is untrue. They actually get a stopwatch out and time exactly how much coverage each side gets to make sure it’s fair.]
I think what bothers people so much is not the balancing of time or space allotted to both sides, it is the quality of, and manner in which the material is presented.
In contrast with the way in which the ABC “generally” leads their articles from the Coalition perspective, the following are some “leaders” from a variety of US media sources.
[WASHINGTON — President Obama met Friday with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the way ahead in Afghanistan]
[WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama grappled Friday with the costs and consequences of a long-term commitment to Afghanistan]
[(Reuters) – US President Barack Obama’s advisers appear to be laying the ground for a hybrid war strategy]
[Washington (CNN) — If President Obama decides to send the 40000 additional forces to Afghanistan as requested]
And it goes on and on with the majority of the 2027 articles linked. Coalition supporters daily make a point of criticising the media (including the ABC regularly) that they are always making the Opposition the “issue” and should be focussing their attention on “the Government”.
They can’t have it both ways. It is far more difficult to make the Government the issue if most media material leads with the Opposition position or issues in which the Opposition are in conflict with the Government but are at the same time in internal conflict over the same issue or are in conflict but don’t have a coherent position or even a logical position at all.
The regular, Coalition claim to deflect criticism is “we are not the Government”, it is the Government which is making the decisions and implementing the policies.
Therefore, shouldn’t the onus be on the media to present the Government position first and then the Coalition response following a reasonable analysis of the facts that are available and for it to be left up to the reader to decide their opinion and stance on the issue being presented!
The greater majority of the US and British media agencies seem to be able to do so. Why can’t the Australian media, “especially” the ABC which is a publicly owned media agency and is mandated to present its material in an independent, unbiased manner.
Perception is everything!!!
ShowsOn isn’t a socialist. He’s some kind of amalgamation of Kevin Rudd and every Labor yes man ever created.
FoxNews also don’t believe they are bias if you see the link I provided previously.
[Why do people here often revert to outright lies? I am not a socialist, I never have been and never will be.]
But i’m simply following your rule of basing what you believe purely on the party you support 😀 The Labor constitution says they’re a democratic socialist party 😀
Don’t worry about giving me an apology, for I already accept it 🙂
[ShowsOn isn’t a socialist. He’s some kind of amalgamation of Kevin Rudd and every Labor yes man ever created.]
Based on this comment by him, he must be.
[LOL! Yeah, because Greens like you were big supporters of privatising the Commonwealth Bank, QANTAS, and cutting tariffs and income taxes.
You only like Paul Keating in theory, you don’t actually like his economic policies.]
[ShowsOn isn’t a socialist. He’s some kind of amalgamation of Kevin Rudd and every Labor yes man ever created.]
And this coming from a person who is “some kind of amalgamation of Bob Brown and every Green yes man ever created.”
There’s opportunities left right and centre on this 🙂
[ShowsOn isn’t a socialist. He’s some kind of amalgamation of Kevin Rudd]
The same Kevin Rudd that once described himself as a christian socialist?
[As they did for Labor when they were in opposition. The ABC has always gone in hard on the government of the day. Get over it.]
If that was the case, then the Coalition campaign to brand the ABC as biased against the in favour of the ALP and the inquiries they initiated would have clearly shown that. They didn’t, did they Bob?
You memory might be short in this regard, but I clearly remember the ridiculous lengths a number of prominent Libs went to, to apply pressure on the ABC to lean more heavily in their direction with their coverage.
It was also quite noticeable how a great deal of ABC content did just that. The main problem now is, is returning the culture in the ABC back to where it should be. As an independent, unbiased presenter of news, current affairs and other programs, articles for the viewing, listening and reading of the general public!
[Therefore, shouldn’t the onus be on the media to present the Government position first and then the Coalition response following a reasonable analysis of the facts]
The ABC should as a matter of course be reporting factually what the Govt of the day does, it is the most relevant thing in any country’s news, and also the stated purpose of the action. That can be followed by any response from other political parties, community. It shouldn’t add analysis of its own making, but can invite independent thinkers to provide later analysis.
The most important thing in the first instance is to report the mere facts.
The example the other day to do with the Cataract bill is an example of very briefly putting what the Govt was doing and why last, at the end of an emotive presentation showing some old lady who just had her operation saying how she could’t afford etc… followed by a very aggressive former AMA head doing an over the top rant against the govt, isn’t to my mind honest reporting.
In fact it could only have been designed to obscure the Govts act and intention and editorialise that it was all quite nasty.
You should listen to ABC radio news in the early hours, they start off saying Liberal MP “slams, accuses etc” labor of …… followed by a rant by said MP and that’s the end of the story. Very balanced.
on the road – back to mobile.
Dyno said,
[I would have thought the general point is that the ABC puts out hundreds of news items per day – one can prove almost anything by quoting three or four of them selectively, which is what seems to happen here.]
More like an average of 40 or so with only 10 or less of those politically based. The remainder being on crime, disasters/accidents, sport, entertainment and a range of other areas!
That the political coverage is only a portion of the coverage makes it stand out far more to political observers such as ourselves and of course, any shortcomings in format or balance, very quickly becomes pointed out and evident.
A person would have to be suffering from self delusion or be so far indoctrinated towards a particular political position not to be aware of the move towards more opinion being expressed in ABC articles and presentations.
This not only reflects on the culture that has been introduced into ABC coverage as I identified in a previous post, but also in the reliance of basing much of their coverage on material from other “news” sources which in many cases is itself “opinion based”. ie The Australian, other News Ltd sources and some Fairfax sources.
Hemingway
Jones has copped heaps here. I don’t recall Red Kerry getting it though. No-one has said that every person in the ABC is biased but the ABC as an organisation is frequently labelled as biased (to Labor on right wing blogs, and to the Libs on left wing blogs).
TP or anyone else
What did end up happening with the cataract rebate? Did it change to the $450 easy and $900 hard option or are they sticking with the $600 for all cases rebate?
scorps
Don’t forget that a major function of “the fourth estate” is to scrutinise the Government of the day.
Regarding Foley in SA, I don’t mind him either. He strikes me as rough and blunt in his communication, but honest. Everyone I know who has dealt with him in his ministerial role says that he is hard working, thorough and generally competent. Give me that over the sound-byte populist Mike Rann any day. I have no idea what he is like personally but if he does his job well and impartially then I don’t care.
Bob1234,
[Get over it.]
SNIP: Abuse deleted. I am entitled to an opinion and have a right to express it, which I try to do with reasonable information and links to back it up, something you rarely if ever make “any” attempt to do.
By just wandering through others comments looking for an avenue to have a shot at any part of a commenters post that takes your fancy, doesn’t give your contributions any legitimacy whatsoever.
Until you can present any sort of considered opinion of your own and not just getting off on taking snide pot shots and personal attacks on others, you will hopefully be ignored by the more reasonable and informative contributors to PB which IMO, you so richly deserve! 🙂
It is not how much time the ABC gives to each party in interviews, it is the ABC reporters’ failure to question the questionable.
Cases in point.
Everything Tony Abbott said on Lateline the other night, with the possible exception of “good evening” and “good to be with you” was an untruth, a fabrication, a misrepresentation or an evasion. Any interviewer should have torn that to shreds.
Sharman Stone on PM apparently “misspoke”. Whoever made that statement should have been asked: “What do you mean by ‘misspoke’” and “So current Opposition policy for asylum seekers is the Pacific solution, razor wire and indefinite detention?” That didn’t happen or wasn’t reported.
On Lateline, Anthony Albanese had some very awkward questions to answer. Tony Jones should have slowed down and propped. Instead he, apparently, had a list of questions to get through, come hell or high water.
In contrast, whenever Stephen Smith is asked about the Oceanic Viking he gives the one answer that Australia is working with Indonesia and it will take time. Any other minister gives the same answer. The reporters keep asking them the same question. Then go in search of backbenchers and anyone else who might be thought to be pro-ALP to get a contrary view.
Diogenes,
[scorps
Don’t forget that a major function of “the fourth estate” is to scrutinise the Government of the day.]
Yeah, I more than understand that and realise that society is all the more richer and better served when that role is undertaken in a responsible and beneficial manner.
The unavoidable fact is that in Australia, we the people are not very well served by such a “concentrated” media especially with more than 60% of the print media controlled by one man who not only uses that powerful avenue of influence in public opinion towards his own ends but also has influence in other media agencies.
Therefore we are not being served in a beneficial manner by a media which has a primary aim of benefiting itself in a corporate sense as well as trying to benefit other Corporate/Business interests which flow on back to itself, through advertising streams etc.
[Don’t forget that a major function of “the fourth estate” is to scrutinise the Government of the day.]
Pity they don’t do it – mostly what they do is listen to or read an opposition media release, and then lead with “Kevin Rudd remains under pressure over…”
The fourth estate is also there to scrutinise the alternative govt as well…
Diogenes
[What did end up happening with the cataract rebate? Did it change to the $450 easy and $900 hard option or are they sticking with the $600 for all cases rebate?]
Assuming the facts as reported are correct…
[THE Federal Government has backed away from its plan to cut by half the Medicare rebate for cataract surgery, but patients will only receive an extra $28.
The Government will make a new regulation providing a rebate of $340.50 for standard procedures and $731 for more complex procedures.
The new rebate levels are safe until November 16, when the Senate next has the opportunity to disallow the latest regulation.]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26276648-12377,00.html
I keep seeing arguments that contend that because the ship (Ocean Viking) that rescued these people happens to under charter to an Australian entity that this makes Australia primarily responsibility for those involved rather that the nation in whose waters the rescue occurred.
I would ask what do you think should happen if the OV was off the coast of Mexico and performed a similar rescue and on reaching a Mexican port those recused would not get off because they wanted to go to the USA.
One thing is certain is that no one would be arguing that Australia should be responsible and should accept those that were rescued as residents.
We have to remember that the rule of law is important to our civilisation functioning in a sustainable manner. Because it is impossible to shape a law that will work and make sense in all circumstances there will be times when the law (any law) will look silly – not that I think that it looks silly in these current circumstances. However, it is important that individual and nations endeavour to follow these laws as best they can.
The alternative is chaos.
[Pity they don’t do it]
I think that’s more to do with deadlines, declining revenues leading to cut-backs and the 24 hour media cycle more than bias. They don’t have the time to investigate, analyse and do things properly.
On ABC
Agree with Dio that it depends on teh journalist; TV ones vary from pro-Labor (O’Brien) to pro-Liberal (Jones). Radio ones are more biased pro-Liberal, thanks to the recent changes under the politicised Flynt/ Albrechtson board.
On Sri Lanka
I agree there are many good reasons why Tamils want to leave. The camps are the worst example, though not the only one. When the Oceanic Viking saga started I looked up some Sri Lankan english language news sites. I could hardly find a mention, except one that disputed the peoples’ country of origin. The camps too seem to be a taboo subject. They are described as “welfare villages”. If their press is that censored, combined with widely reported corruption, then its probably not a pleasant place for any minority. The last source below seemed the least biased; it mentioned stories of polcie being prosectuted for brutality towards Tamils. I don’t know if this is an unrepresentative sample of Sri Lankan media, but these sites all came up rated highly on a Google search.
http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/10/31/main_News.asp
http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2009/10/25/new20.asp
http://www.lankapage.com/index.php
Unfortunately one consequence of the brutal nature of the way the Tamil Tigers waged their war is that the anti-Tamil racism in the broader community is far worse now than before.
Diogs,
If Moses came down today from the mount with the Ten Commandments, today’s journos would ask for a sound bite of the best three.
[If Moses came down today from the mount with the Ten Commandments, today’s journos would ask for a sound bite of the best three.]
If an ABC journalist, the Egyptian Pharoh would get equal time…down to a stopwatch
[If Moses came down today from the mount with the Ten Commandments, today’s journos would ask for a sound bite of the best three.]
I think that is one of the reasons, rather than any political bias, why some journalists may not like Rudd. he doesn’t give them much to work with. Whereas Turnbull is the gift that keeps giving headlines.
I remember a asking a junior jouranlist at the Courier Mail back in the early 80s what the senior journos there thought of Sir Joh? “They love him” he said, not because they were conservatives, but just that Joh always gave them colourful lines to use, even if they were at his own expense.
[I think that’s more to do with deadlines, declining revenues leading to cut-backs and the 24 hour media cycle more than bias.]
I wish that was true and the primary reason for the standard of media coverage in Australia.
Unfortunately, I stand by my analysis in post #79 and add that the influence of Rupert Murdoch in relation to editorial policy of the News Ltd outlets in Australia is a major factor in the manner and content of material provided to the public. As was Kerry Packer in regard to his PBL publications and Channel Nine!
Murdoch has “never” attempted to disguise his boast as to being a mover and shaker or person with substantial power in influencing and directing, Government and Public opinion here and with his overseas interests in the US and GB.
Rudd has received counsel from a number of sources that to try to stand his ground against the wishes of “King Rupert” is something to be avoided at all cost and is fraught with the possibility of severe reprisal.
It can be debated as to whether or not that “power” is still as potent as it has previously been acknowledged, but the perception remains in many peoples minds.
That is not conducive to an effective, balanced, provision of reliable information which impacts on public awareness and allows us to develop a considered opinion. The so-called fourth estate in this country is not performing the responsible role expected of it by normal, reasonable people who wish for a fair, ordered and tolerant society.
But this is only my opinion. Others are welcome to theirs but I would hope, that their opinion is supported by a reasoned analysis of the facts and reality of the media performance in this country and not blinded or clouded by partisan ideology!
[If Moses came down today from the mount with the Ten Commandments, today’s journos would ask for a sound bite of the best three.]
More likely ask “Coalition sources” for a second opinion!!! 🙂
ShowsOn, any comment you leave henceforth which accuses other commenters of “lying” will disappear without explanation.
The ABC can’t possibly be biased.
Every time I have written to them complaining, or anyone I have known or heard of has written to them with complaints, the ABC’s reply always states that they have examined their consciences, gone over their program material, and otherwise put themselves through mental anguish trying to find bias… and have come up with nothing. Their Charter forbids it, you see. So they cannot be biased.
I once wrote to them complaining about their top of the bulletin comment regarding the 2005 Budget:
[“They’re on a winner, and they know it.”]
… replete with shots of beaming Liberal Party MPs exiting Parliament, upbeat stand-ups, jolly laughs and smiling faces from the government ranks.
I pointed out that, in fact, their poll rating had gone down after the Budget, that there was no evidence to support the fact that they were “on a winner”, except the Liberals’ say so and the reporter’s opinion (Jim Middleton wrote the script for the Barbie Doll to read, apparently). Anyway, the ABC had no brief to decide whether the Budget had been a winner or not, especially on the morning after its delivery.
They were wrong and they knew it.
However, their reply was that Middleton was an “experienced” reporter (i.e. he knew a lot more than me,a mere member of the public), and any Budget giving away billions just had to be popular. Moreover, their Charter forbade bias, so thanks for the letter, we value your input, now piss off. This reply took 6 weeks to arrive.
A second letter on the same subject, setting out more bad poll results for the government in the ensuing weeks (i.e. it really hadn’t been a “winner” after all) was completely dismissed with a curt thank you and the advice that future letters on the subject would be ignored. So much for “dialogue” with the viewers.
Great work, Peter Garrett. Well done. This proposal should have never got to first base and was “never” going to be of benefit either ecologically or commercially!
Next step, shove Anna Bligh’s Traveston Dam proposal in the trash can with this one.
[A central Queensland conservation group says a failed proposal for a resort development on Great Keppel Island was too big for the area.
Environment Minister Peter Garrett yesterday knocked back Tower Holdings’ proposal – which included a 300-room hotel, a ferry terminal, retail village, golf course and sporting oval – saying it is unacceptable because of the impact it would have on the World Heritage area.
Ian Herbert from the Capricorn Conservation Council says the plan was destined to fail.
“This proposal by Tower Holdings was likely to become the Cubbie Station of the Keppels, because it was just too massive too big a proposal for that area,” he said.
“The damage that could’ve been done by building the marina would have been excessive.”]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/31/2729537.htm?section=business
And another point:
[Don’t forget that a major function of “the fourth estate” is to scrutinise the Government of the day.]
This should not include the stupid “Gotcha”, “Will you rule out…”, “Can you give an ironclad guarantee” and “Some people say…” questions that many of their interviewers trot out with gay abandon. They elicit no information for the public, waste time and are – except in the rarest circumstances – completely ignored by the interviewees.
Scorpio:
Like it or not, The Australian is an influential publication and they sometimes have exclusive news, etc. that other newspapers/stations have to quote.
As a balanced source of information, ABC is obliged to quote the opposition’s claim. It also must give the opposition opportunities to voice their position. It is a little hypercritical to cheer for Kerry O’Brien ripping into Turnbull and to cry “bias” when Tony Abbott gets a chance to talk.
The claim that “Howard’s appointees” are influencing the integrity of ABC lacks factual support. It is not recently that The “insiders” features right-wing journalists/columnists. Very recently the GM of ABC publically and rather forcefully disagreed with Murdoch, so much for ABC’s fondness of Murdoch publications.
Trioli has been labelled many a time a sympathiser of the left on this board. Yet one would be hard pressed to not take her recent gesture against Barnaby Joyce as anything but a right-leaning attitude.
Trioli: sympathiser of the RIGHT, not left.
Bushfire Bill,
[The ABC can’t possibly be biased.]
Bill, Bill, Bill! What you said in your post @ 91 cannot possibly be right. You were correct with your first sentence.
The rest of your post must relate to some terrible mistake or misunderstanding. So many commenters have stated categorically that there is “no” bias in “any” ABC presentations and never has been.
Just because literally countless hundreds of examples of operating outside their guidelines can readily and swiftly identified, does not mean that you are correct in your assertions and notice, I label them assertions because as you say; there is no way that “The ABC can’t possibly be biased.”
Shame on us for even having the gall to even suggest such a thing! 🙂 😉
scorpio
I had to read the OO for a week while I was in FNQ and it wasn’t nearly as bad as everyone says here. It’s very easy to cherry-pick articles which criticise Labor, sometimes fairly and sometimes not, but most of the articles are not bad and don’t slant one way or the other.
It’s getting like an expanded folie a deux thing here where a siege mentality has developed and everyone in the media is out to get Labor.
robot,
I think it would have been better to direct your comments directly to their sources of origin rather than to me as I may not necessarily agree with them!
[It is a little hypercritical to cheer for Kerry O’Brien ripping into Turnbull and to cry “bias” when Tony Abbott gets a chance to talk.]
I have “never” made any comments in this regard.
[The claim that “Howard’s appointees” are influencing the integrity of ABC lacks factual support.]
This is “my” opinion and is of course something that is difficult to either prove or disapprove but that does not in itself make my point invalid as there is more than enough “circumstantial” evidence to support my “opinion”!
[It is not recently that The “insiders” features right-wing journalists/columnists.]
Again, this is not something that I have commented on, but is a valid point nevertheless!
[Trioli has been labelled many a time a sympathiser of the left on this board. ]
Again, this is not something that I have commented on and is, I suspect, the personal opinion expressed by someone who has reason to believe otherwise!
Cheers, Scorpio!
It would be easier for us if our political journos told us who they voted for but i the fact is we all have the right to keep who we vote for secret.
I dont consider the ABC biased though I have said they were Anti-Howard in the past this was silly because one tends to view any criticism of ones own side as bias.
Re: Page and Richmond…why dont the Liberals run? I doubt they’ll ever vote National again but they may in future vote Liberal.
[They replayed Howard’s interview on Hardtalk today on ABC News Radio.]
Lucky me – had coffee in Cafe today and read the Daily Terror. A small column mentioned Howard’s Hardtalk interview. It said wtte “Mr Howard was comfortable throughout”
What!! I thought I saw Mr Howard squirming most of the time. He was definitely not relaxed and comfortable.
BB – have had same experience with complaint letter to ABC. They are so ‘factually’ wrong, so often, that one can only yell at them from afar. We are insignificant and no nothing,according to the ABC. Well I think we know far more now because many of us have the time to search out the truth.
Journos are no longer the font of all knowledge.