ABCwatch |
|
|
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation: too important to be left to its Friends. Email.
 Site Feed ABC alphabet Media Watch, 1
Others
Blogs
Archives
|
Friday, November 14, 2003
WHEN IS A DETAINEE WORTH OUR ATTENTION? When he's detained by the US. Not when he's detained by China. Australian David Hicks has been detained less than two years. Henny Herald and her Fairfax pals have chronicled his fate "more than 200" times. Auntie has been concerned about his rights since January 2002 at the latest. Australian Wang Jianping had been detained for "more than ten years" until last week. Amnesty International has defined him as a political prisoner, "imprisoned after two grossly unfair trials". He's never taken up arms against anyone. Auntie's on-line news service has never heard of him before his release last week. Henny Herald used to know about him, but her index has forgotten. And Justice Michael Kirby hasn't declared his right to escape from lawful Chinese custody, although it was a good deal less comfortable than Baxter detention centre. "SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE HEARINGS ARE GENERALLY VERY BORING" says a reader, and then goes through a transcript of Biffer Balding's evidence to find the Smarties among the rabbit shit. Item 1. Should Media Watch comment on the findings of the Independent Complaints Review Panel that the AM programme had demonstrated "serious bias"? Yes yes yes, and No no no, reply Biffer Balding, and TV boss, Sandra Levy: Senator Santoro: Mr Balding, do you regard it as a little unusual that the producers and presenters of Media Watch have, in the past few weeks, either written to or telephoned myself, Senator Richard Alston, Ralph Zwier of the International Committee for Jewish Solidarity, and others, inquiring as to who had helped Senator Richard Alston compile a dossier of complaints about ABC news and current affairs bias and lack of balance? Mr Balding —No, Senator, I do not see it as unusual. The remit of the Media Watch program is to inquire into all aspects of the media and the reporting of the former minister's complaints against the ABC was an issue occupying quite a significant amount of space and time in the media and it was a relevant issue. But should Media Watch deal with the substance of the bias detected in the AM program, and why Auntie's Complaints Review Executive (one of Biffer's underlings) couldn't find it? Mr Balding —Senator, again I do not see it as their remit to report on those sorts of things. The director of television has some other comment in that regard. Ms Levy —Again, I would back up what Mr Balding is saying.. (Media Watch) .. is concerned with the wider media and what it is saying, whereas the complaints process is an internal ABC matter … The two processes do not come together at all. The only time Media Watch might deal with it is if it were reported in the press or in other forms of media and they may choose to comment on that coverage of it. But it is not their role to deal with complaints". And what does Media Watch do for its last program? It cans the Independent Review, on good trade union principles. Balding and Levy were half right. Media Watch can not be trusted to comment with integrity on any matter of public importance. Having failed to prove that the Jews were behind Minister Alston's complaints, Media Watch slammed Alston because, they claimed, no-one was behind him! Crap journalism is OK if no-one notices, according to Media Watch. If only they'd listen to the Boss sometimes. Like Linda Mottram, recently departed from the megaphone of the seriously biassed AM. Item 2. How to flog with a feather. Mr Balding: Senator, senior news and current affairs management have spoken to both the journalists concerned [including Linda Mottram] and reminded them they have to be vigilant in these types of periods. They have brought to their attention the findings, not only of the CRE report, but the findings of the Independent Complaints Review Panel report and the issues arising out of that report Senator SANTORO: I refer, Mr Balding, to an article ... in the Australian, dated 18 October 2003 in which Linda Mottram states that she was not asked or directed to change any aspect of her reporting on comment following the panel’s review. Specifically Ms Mottram states, ‘Nobody is telling me to do anything differently on the basis of it.’ In view of what you have just said, are Ms Mottram’s comments correct? Mr Balding—Senator, I have taken that up with the management of news and current affairs and I am still speaking to them about that. And he still is. As a leader, Biffer has even less credibility than Simon Crean. Item 3. And now for something really finite. Senator TCHEN—How far do you think the independence should go in the organisation? How far down the line? Mr Balding—That is a very hard question. How long is a piece of string? It depends on the issue itself, but independence is independence. It is a finite item. You are either independent or you are not independent, so it is very hard to talk about how far independence should go. Item 4. What, me listen to the ABC? Two of the most public embarrassments suffered by Auntie in recent months were the punishment of relgious affairs reporter Stephen Crittenden, and the resort by Four Corners and Media Watch to the anti-Semitic put down. Senator SANTORO —'In the light of that extreme sensitivity, ABC management was concerned about comments being expressed by Mr Crittenden that may be seen as critical of Islam.' Mr Balding —Senator, I will take that on notice and have a look at that. Senator SANTORO —Is it correct that in a recent Four Corners program entitled American Dreamers, ABC presenter Jonathon Holmes in claiming to look behind the oft-cited reasons for war, found—and I quote—'a tight-knit group of Washington hawks'—page 1 of the transcript, and the so-called `neo-cons' who are described as being `almost all Jews'—page 4 of the transcript? Mr Balding —Senator, I would have to have a look at that in detail. Your tax dollars at work. CAN A JOKE BE A LIE? And if it is, does it matter? On last night's 7.30 report that duo of drollsters, John Clark and Brian Doyle, take off complaints that Auntie is biased. The skit is 100% based on the assumption that the members of the Independent Complaints Review Panel that reviewed the complaints made by Minister Alston were all appointed by the Minister. If that were true the skit would be ponderously droll. In fact, the "independent" review was ordered by Biffer Balding, the fearless manager of the ABC, and was conducted by a committee appointed by the ABC. Alston had nothing to do with it. So where does that leave Clark and Doyle. Giggle-free and looking stupid. It also leaves Auntie looking like a self-indulgent, ignorant wanker. Or worse. WHEN IS A LIE A JOKE, and also a jolly good thing? When Guy Rundle abuses the comic genius of Max Gillies with his lying scripts. In "Your Dreaming" Rundle helped delude thousands of his fellow leftists into thinking John Howard a silly old duffer, a political Sandy Stone. Now they know they were done, but it's too late. Hard to see any public benefit in Rundle's other theatrical fib, that historian Geoffrey Blainey is a blind denier of the dispossession of Aboriginal people and of violence against them. Rundle's various assaults on the public good came to mind last Saturday when Henny Herald brought him back from his exile to the Age. The column was supposed to be funny. About as funny as Rundle's last big joke. You remember, he wanted to see Australian service men and women killed in Iraq, provided there was enough mayhem to merit his attention. Or was that a big lie? Monday, November 10, 2003
HERE'S A CRIB for those of you too mean to buy Paul Sheehan's new book, The Electronic Whorehouse, which is not just about Auntie. This bit is about Auntie. The Australian's writer Michael Stutchbury does a Readers Digest version of Sheehan's expose of Media Watch's vicious doing over of Janet Albrechtsen. When you get to the bit where Media Watch admits, sotto voce, that they took their case against Albrechtsen from Amir Butler, just add to it this bit of information: just a week ago Media Watch's researchers were trying to discredit Senator Alston's criticisms of ABC bias on the grounds that the ammunition was all prepared by the Jewish lobby. It wasn't, and they didn't dare to say so. But this analysis of the pro-Palestinian bias on Auntie's ethnic cousin, SBS, is the product of the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council. Thanks MR for the link. UNCLE'S PRINCIPAL OBJECTION to Auntie's ghetto pulpits, like Earthbeat, is not the causes they promote, but the way they lower her already ground-hugging standards of journalism. A good example in this week's Earthbeat is their treatment of Senator Brandeis's comparison of Lord Bob Brown of the Barricades to the Nazi Brownshirts. In the programme's introduction, the presenter states, as fact, that Brown's purpose in his disruptive behaviour in the joint Sitting addressed by President Bush was to assert "the right to speak to foreign leaders". Cute, aren't they. The programme then replays Brandeis speaking to the Senate, to the point where he is about to quote a Professor Dominick, presumably to support his case. Then, they cut to an interview with Dominick, who doesn't agree with Brandeis's politics. The programme then milks the interview for every favourable comment they can extract. Favourable to the Greens, that is. And we still haven't heard what use Brandeis made of Dominick. Or what his reasoning is. In other words, what purports to be a critique of Brandeis's ideas is nothing of the kind. It is a manipulation to support the programme's fixed political position. Now, Uncle doesn't think that Bob Brown is a Brownshirt. Bob Brown just treats any democratic procedure that inhibits his "right to be loud" with contempt. Who knows how far Brown and Nettle are prepared to go? I don't know what Professor Dominick had to say in his book. But anyone who looks at European history, especially that of the Nazis, can see that Green and democratic don't always go together. Any fool could also see that many Green policies could only be introduced by a highly authoritarian government, and that law-breaking by Green activists is applauded by many of their supporters, and rarely denounced by the Parliamentary Greens. Just as in the 1920s, politicians of the extreme left and right condoned street violence by their supporters. It may have escaped Earthbeat's notice, but it is still a fact that Germany's Green foreign minister, Joe Fischer, is an ex-streetfighter, and former friend of left-wing murderers. Professor Dominick may be as reluctant as Earthbeat to draw comparisons between fascism and Greenery. That says more about his politics than it does about the validity of the comparisons. Greenery and fascism are not the same things. The students of fundamentalist Islamic schools are not the same as suicide bombers. Nor are they unrelated. And Earthbeat's contempt for elementary journalistic integrity is not unrelated to the health of our democracy. |