Ah, is that what left-wing bias on the ABC means?

Is it no surprise that Latika Bourkes’ nickname is LIBtika. Harsh or not depends on your perspective.

Imagine the dynamics within caucus if Julia Gillard hasn’t flushed out Kevin Rudd in March (and then carpet bombed him c/o Roxon+Swan et al)

And there we have it, ABC’s raison d’être, it is all about the dynamics, carpet-bombing, fireworks – the media is pushing leadership challenges because it gives lazy political journalists something to do. Speculation and opinion have replaced research and facts.

At least, it wasn’t Tony Abbott says

 

They rewrite history, and there is no one to stop them. Apparently Stalin was pretty good at rewriting history, to remove enemies or add himself. Maybe that is what critics mean by ABC has a left-wing bias, the Stalinisation of the news.

Did I just hear ABC news refer to @PeterSlipperMP as a ‘Labor MP’?

Did they? Who knows, probably, that kind of fact-checking is beyond the reach of most ABC reporters these days.
By the way, ABC, Slipper is NOT a Labor MP, no matter how hard you hope and wish it to be so.

 

These people are playing games with our future – because when you have a 24-hour news cycle something has to fill the airwaves.

When they don’t have actual news to report, or rumours to speculate on, or opinions to bore us to death with, they just simple sit around talking to each other.

ABC news. ABC reporters interviewing ABC reporters is not news. Nor is it cutting edge, groovy or interesting. Please stop it.

There you have it, ABC, you are not groovy. A sentiment that many former ABC viewers would whole-heartedly agree with.

 

But have no fear, all that left-wing bias is more than balanced by the Murdoch media.

The Daily Telegraph’s an unapologetic liar that creates ‘news’ yet we allow it to try manipulate regime change by publication? #auspol

Murdoch, and his near saturation levels of ownership, does not seem to affect politics any, because if there is one that Murdoch media is, it’s fair and balance. You will only get truth, justice and the American way if you read one his publications.

 

All this surveying people about trusting leaders, how about asking about trusting media commentary, so-called analysis & “reporting”

Many people don’t know their local politicians any more, so they only way they know them or their parties is through the media. When all the media in this country is pushing a Liberal-party, Election-now, Abbott-for-PM agenda, it is presenting a distorted view of reality. Of course, right-wing voters are happy with that distortion, it reflects their biases, makes them feel comfortable that they are right, but it is not a healthy democracy.

Music Monday – two Anti-Murdoch songs

Never Buy The Sun – Billy Bragg

This 2011 song by Billy Bragg, is a celebration of a 22-year Boycott, by Northern Englanders against the Murdoch newspapers in Britain. When people are “crying out for justice”, sometimes, if us commoners can’t compete with Murdoch and his billions, then perhaps our little rebellion is not buying his products. No point giving him our hard-earned dollars
(This song is also available for Free legal download from http://www.billybragg.co.uk/sun.php)

 

Dear Mr Murdoch – Roger Taylor (of Queen)

An old song that found new meaning in recent years.

Here is Roger Taylors personal views about music:

What happened to the protest song? Music is now so polished, shiny and predictable, we have forgotten to try and say something with it. I am getting old and like everyone, have the right to say something about the “state of control” we live under – powerless to do anything about it. In case you hadn’t noticed. The high street is full of holes. We are fighting a pointless actively negative war which is killing our young soldiers and which we simply cannot afford. This war promotes and prolongs terrorism. This is our Vietnam. Unwinnable. Pointless. We are taxed and retaxed while the nation is not only broke but utterly bankrupt, being propped up with tax payers’ money and money which is simply printed. We are spied upon by 5 million cameras. We have thousands of petty rules and regulations more than ever before – no wonder people are bewildered and confused. As a nation we own almost nothing including water, electricity, gas, airspace and major manufacturers. Personal privacy is non-existent. We are directionless. I’m pissed off – you should be too.
source

Carbon Price Not Evil, says Church

Despite misleading headlines in the Murdoch media (Dumping on charities – Salvation Army says the carbon tax will be a costly load of rubbish, story repeated in the daily newspapers in the capitals), it turns out this may not be the case after all.

Paul Bongiorno, a reporter on channel 10 tweeted: The Salvos tell me they have been misrepresented on the carbon tax in today’s News Ltd tabloids. They do not see the tax as evil.

Later on, in promo for his piece on the news tonight, Paul Bongiorno tweeted again: Australians dump thousands of tonnes of rubbish on charities and there is a carbon price link. Soon on Ten News

 

And, this time around, as pointed out by @GenGusface – Bongiorno called it by its correct name, Carbon Price, rather than its Murdoch name of Carbon Tax

 

Being misrepresented by the Murdoch media, who would have thought!

 

The Salvation Army issued a press release, clarifying their position and they way they were represented in the media: The Salvation Army Responds to Carbon Tax Reform (11 Apr 2012)

 

But the question is why are millions of tonnes of rubbish being dumped on charities, transferring cost of proper disposal to the charities?

 

text by @redglitterx
use of quotes and tweets is in no way intended to imply that the people quoted would in any way endorse the contents of this post or blog

The Climate Change “Debate” – debate implies we still don’t know

Doubt and Controversy, these are words climate change deniers will use to get you to question the facts about climate change when spoken by climate scientists.

In this country – where the media is overwhelmingly dominated by one man (or his various corporations) – climate change tends to be framed in terms of climate change debate.

Apparently the jury is still out, weighing up the evidence, throwing a few ideas around and rewarding those with the most convincing argument and spin, instead of those with facts and truth on their side.

So let us all talk about this some more until we reach a conclusion – that kind of debate.

Everyone has an opinion, and believe that entitles them to have an equal say in the climate change debate, as much as climate scientists, who spent years studying these things.

Listen to climate change deniers – how often is their debating filled with vague statements, such as I feel, I believe, I heard. Read the Murdoch media, and they fill their articles with anything but science, instead they will focus on how the average Joe, Jane or Tarek feel they will be affected by climate change.

Or, we could ignore a newspaper who just wants to sell readership numbers to advertisers, and instead we could listen to a climate scientist, they will say We know, we have the research, we have studied.

By describing the rejection of climate science as debate, deniers are throwing doubt on years of science.

Murdoch’s media says NO climate change, Scientists say YES climate change, and now we have controversy, and any scientist who disagrees is being controversial.

Maybe Murdoch media will present a scientists views – without specifying what type of science they study. Science is a broad church, full of various disciplines, not all of them study climate change. Then suddenly the meme is that scientists themselves are unsure about the validity of climate change.

Murdoch’s media will then run a few articles that disagree with scientists or people whining that the cost of running their air-con in their McMansions will be more expensive, and suddenly we have a a debate, or a controversy – two sides that disagree.

The ABC will then run anti-climate change stories, all in the name of balance, it’s about having all viewpoints represented, having all sides of the debate given serious air-time.

 

Related articles

NASA Climate Scientist Compares Climate Change to Slavery (inhabitat.com)

text and digital mischief image (not the polar bear, all the decoration) by @redglitterx

ABC wants you to change your mind about climate change

The ABC website is running a survey to gauge viewers opinions about climate change.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/

And so far, those dismissive of climate change are out in front – by a long way. 80% when I voted. (68% dismissive + 12% doubtful)

What a complete farce – of course the climate change deniers will vote en masse to skewer the results, unless that was the objective, was it?

Which is interesting because I don’t remember surveys being done to get peoples opinions on any other science, such as physics, botany, geology, mathematics.

Although I am sure it is only a matter of time before we start canvassing whether the earth is flat or should creationism (intelligent design) be taught in science classes.

When did this scepticism about science take hold in the public debate in Australia. It’s not philosophy, it is not something where everyone’s opinion is entitled to equal air time on the national broadcaster.

Nor, is this 70s style conciousness raising where I feel becomes more important than I know especially when said by someone who has spend a career studying issues as compared to, say, an office worker, or banker, or a Cardinal, who think their opinion should hold as much weight as climate scientists.

This is climate scepticism on par with Murdoch’s News Limited. But there is a difference between News Ltd and the ABC, News Ltd are trying to make a profit, promote the agenda of their own, sell advertising space, create fear, and keep the people voting Tory. As much as we might not like it, News Ltd have a duty to maximise profits for shareholders, not save the planet. And if for some reason, action on climate change became profitable for Murdoch, then News Ltd may probably start getting alarmist over lack of action.

But from the ABC, what is their agenda? This is beyond mere scepticism, this is heading into rabid climate change denial territory.

This is not balance, this is agenda setting. It is no longer objectively reporting news, ABC are actively trying to change opinions and beliefs.

Can we now finally stop the myth that the ABC has a left-wing bias?

disclaimer: the number 99/100 used in this image is not based on any real information, but I feel it to be true, it is my opinion

image by @redglitterx
text by @redglitterx
references to ABC, News Ltd, Rupert Murdoch, and Climate Scientists are in no way intended to imply that they would in anyway endorse the contents of this blog, but I don’t know, I haven’t asked them

Gillard promised, Gillard delivered, Gillard vilified in Murdoch media

The federal election that elected the Gillard government was held on 21 August 2010. On 20 August 2010, The Australian ran a piece by Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan under the headline Julia Gillard’s carbon price promise.

The opening three sentences of this piece was:

JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.

It will be part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health.

In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.
source: Julia Gillard’s carbon price promise; 20 Aug 2010, The Australian

So, where is the Lie?

text by @redglitterx
additional text by The Australian

A piece of Murdoch merde – Rupert achieves Regime Change

Newspapers don’t make money. The only reason to own a newspaper publishing empire is to influence public opinion. There has been no secret that the Murdoch media empire in Australia has been trying to bring about Regime Change.

Media is not unbiased. It is not a neutral thing. It is run by editors that have political agendas, for good or bad, they are human.

And this, is Greens Senator Bob Brown’s reaction

images of tweets, used for illustrative purposes and is no way meant to suggest the tweeters in anyway endorse the contents of this post
text by @redglitterx

A piece of Murdoch merde – Turning Back The Boats “Impossible”

The News Limited broadsheet, The Australian, has decided to take a look at the issue of refugees. The article Visiting Indonesian ministers have said the Federal Opposition’s boats policy is ‘impossible’ (15 March 2012) makes reference to Julie Bishop.

Julie Bishop recently attempted to allay Indonesian concerns over the policy, telling Ambassador Primo Alui Joelianto that boats would only be turned back “where it is safe to do so”.

The Liberal Nationals tell the Australian public that they will Turn back The Boats, but tell the Indonesians something completely different.

Which is it? Which is the real Tony Abbott? And, Mr Abbott, will your party’s new slogan fit on a protest sign Turn Back The Boats…. where it is safe to do so”

text by: @redglitterx