Print Page | Close Window

What is your view of ABC?

Printed From: Thoroughbred Village
Category: All Sports - Public Forums
Forum Name: Joffs All Sports Bar
Forum Description: Visit the famous All Sports Forum to chat with friends about any sporting topic
URL: https://forum.thoroughbredvillage.com.au/forum_posts.asp?TID=60310
Printed Date: 28 Mar 2024 at 9:11pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: What is your view of ABC?
Posted By: VOYAGER
Subject: What is your view of ABC?
Date Posted: 28 May 2017 at 12:19am
Alright we have seen many threads created talking about this issue concerning certain shows or personalities, but for me to comment on the bias which some viewers see, I need you to nominate the bias (whether it is promoting the same sex agenda, multiculturalism or climate change or any of the other liberal social/political issues) which there is a perceived bias. I would also like an example so we can discuss the bias or lack thereof.

The issue I will start with is climate change. This issue is a liberal darling and one of the modern jewels in the liberal crown.

The ABC are perceived in the mainstream media as biased towards the acceptance of this issue even at the detriment of our national economy.

Now I have seen this issue be discussed on Landline, Q&A (if you call that a report), Four Corners, Catalyst and 7.30 report. In all the reports I have seen, the issue has been dealt with in an analytical manner. So what I am saying is the report has highlighted a consequence of climate change, the report has then given scientific reasons, backed up with real practical evidence of climate change, and then the report has talked to people who are experiencing the changes (drought or more frequent severe weather patterns) and then used the dreaded forward projections of what might happen. Now this last area of each report is the one which has no scientific basis and is usually the area of the report that critics of either the ABC and/or climate change use to say the report was biased, such as in the case of Tim Flannery when he said the desalination facility was needed for Sydney, because in twenty years Sydney would need a alternate source of water due to global warming.

I feel the mainstream pundits such as Bolt, Hadley and the like seem to have a warped view of bias and what the ABC is there to do. The ABC is not there to be totally unbiased. If they have a report which is considered biased towards one view of an issue, then they usually allow the other side to go on one of the shows and make their case (again this act is perceived as only windo dressing and in the case of interviews the ABC presenter is considered biased when they respond to inaccurate or plain false statements by the respondent, once again reinforcing bias perception. Also Bolt and Hadley and others, are biased in their views and statements as well, so is it okay for them to push one point of view on their viewers listeners or readers, but if anyone else does it or at least they think they do it, it is all of a sudden the wrong thing to do.

The idea of a free media is for reports to have both sides of the issue. The public then do their own research and then decide which side is correct. When you have Tony Jones, Leigh Sales, Bolt or Hadley trying to brainwash their audience they start becoming the insidious control freaks of the novel 1984 and the animated series V For Vendetta or using a real life example, Vladimir Putin.

   

-------------
Remember, it might take intelligence to be smart , but it takes experience to be wise



Replies:
Posted By: maccamax
Date Posted: 28 May 2017 at 12:59am
A very good question VOYAGER and I'm best out of it really.
Main reason is I refuse to watch any of their programmes in recent times.
Flannery is a dirty word for starters and The Greyhounds farce was filmed many years before they aired it .
The Royal Commission they sparked in the NT is one of my great laughs in life .    As I worked many years in areas where similar practices were a must ( 2 Royal Commissions were held during my years there )
( The Schedule 5 Psychiatric Centres )
Nothing untoward was uncovered , the same as will happen In the NT.
   People must understand how difficult it is for those working on the front line to contain dangerous offenders.
Unfortunately , these days, too many of these people are out there in the community.   The reason for our truly unsafe society.
I switched the ABC off , Immediately Stan Grant went there . Enough said.



Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 28 May 2017 at 1:24am
Climate Change is a liberal darling. Jesus f'n Christ.. ... didn't bother reading past that nonsense.


Posted By: Dr E
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 4:25am
The ABC is irrelevant and unnecessary ... why do we need a Government owned broadcaster when we have a thousand free to air TV options, and then pay TV on top of that, and they reach every corner of the country?

SBS is even less relevant today, since it was only introduced to pander to the immigrants, and they can get anything they like in their own language on the internet - or just learn to speak English.

How is it fair to the rest of the broadcasting industry to have to fight for ratings ($'s) against a fully subsidised entity.

Privatise the ABC and SBS, get some cash, and also save about $1.5 billion a year - more than we are going to get from the Bank Tax, and we will not be paying for it ... which we will with the Bank Tax!



-------------
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!


Posted By: acacia alba
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 1:53pm
Who even watches it now ? Its so full of bs and political fluff,  you would need to be one of these uni flag wavers to even bother going there.  So biased its not even amusing.
Why have a govnt funded out of touch mob like that ?


-------------
animals before people.


Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 1:57pm
Lol, you miss out on some truly brilliant and vital TV. Last fortnights 4 Corners will win award after award. No commercial network could have done the job as well. Fact.


Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 1:59pm
Originally posted by acacia alba acacia alba wrote:

Who even watches it now ? Its so full of bs and political fluff,  you would need to be one of these uni flag wavers to even bother going there.  So biased its not even amusing.
Why have a govnt funded out of touch mob like that ?
 
How would you know? Just more baseless rhetoric you picked up on your talkback radio or from Blot, Kenny and co....


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 2:01pm
I think the ABC is basically outstanding. I do not agree with everything and do not like all their shows but as a whole, I like them, like them a lot.





-------------
reductio ad absurdum


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 2:03pm

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/conversations-brian-j-obrian/8391708" rel="nofollow -
- Brian J. O'Brien: the moon

with  http://www.abc.net.au/radio/people/richard-fidler/7689816" rel="nofollow - Richard Fidler
51mins 18secs •
 


-------------
reductio ad absurdum


Posted By: acacia alba
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 2:04pm
How would I know ?  You seriously think because I dont believe all the stuff you do, that I live a sheltered life, dont you ?
Not all of us think like you do, and you know what ?
That doesnt make you any smarter than me.
I dont do talkback radio. I get enough rubbish from TBV to last me without listening to that waffle.


-------------
animals before people.


Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 2:07pm
Same, Djebel. Only terrestrial TV I watch is ABC and occasionally SBS.
I don't like every show either (I abhor Q&A) but love most of their current affairs, local comedies (Rosehaven was simply brilliant) and great docos on ABC 2.
Australia would be a far dumber place without the ABC.
 
 


Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 2:08pm
Originally posted by acacia alba acacia alba wrote:

How would I know ?  You seriously think because I dont believe all the stuff you do, that I live a sheltered life, dont you ?
Not all of us think like you do, and you know what ?
That doesnt make you any smarter than me.
I dont do talkback radio. I get enough rubbish from TBV to last me without listening to that waffle.
 
Yes, how would you know? You said you don't watch it.


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 2:10pm
Acacia, You would be doing yourself a great favour by listening to ABC Radio National. Outstanding radio.

If you are going to watch current affair style programs the ABC are the one to watch. They are not the Sensationalist bullgelati you get on commercial TV.

The problem with right wingers is, they do not like facts, They like sensation.




-------------
reductio ad absurdum


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 2:22pm
It has hard right IPA shills on the reg. But as a network, it loves left leaning cult topics.

its far better than tabloid tv though.


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 2:25pm
their sports reporting is LOL.

other than roy masters, OFFSIDERS, is classic uni style dressmaker commentary on sport. they only see sports through an intellectual lens. they analyse a footy or cricket match like david stratton does a movie.

gerard whatley is a piss take. how does anyone take him seriously?


Posted By: Dr E
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 3:08pm
If it's so good, why are taxpayers subsidising it?

Privatise it and make some money.

Set legislation to ensure we retain minimum Australian content, and sell it off!Thumbs Up

Surely SBS can go regardless, it serves no purpose.


-------------
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!


Posted By: Passing Through
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 3:10pm
Cause privatizing everything else has gone so well

-------------


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 3:14pm
Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

If it's so good, why are taxpayers subsidising it?

Privatise it and make some money.

Set legislation to ensure we retain minimum Australian content, and sell it off!Thumbs Up

Surely SBS can go regardless, it serves no purpose.

We are rightfully warned by Gay to stay civilised, You make it very difficult to do so at times.




-------------
reductio ad absurdum


Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 3:15pm
Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

their sports reporting is LOL.

other than roy masters, OFFSIDERS, is classic uni style dressmaker commentary on sport. they only see sports through an intellectual lens. they analyse a footy or cricket match like david stratton does a movie.

gerard whatley is a piss take. how does anyone take him seriously?
 
They don't have a sports department anymore, thanks to Turnbull and his cutbacks.


Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 3:16pm
Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

If it's so good, why are taxpayers subsidising it?

Privatise it and make some money.

Set legislation to ensure we retain minimum Australian content, and sell it off!Thumbs Up

Surely SBS can go regardless, it serves no purpose.
 
 
Teenage boys across the country learnt plenty from their late night movies......


Posted By: Magnolian Khan
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 3:18pm
I only watch the ABC for Play School. Noni Hazelhurst is my favourite


Posted By: Tlazolteotl
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 3:33pm
Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Same, Djebel. Only terrestrial TV I watch is ABC and occasionally SBS.
I don't like every show either (I abhor Q&A) but love most of their current affairs, local comedies (Rosehaven was simply brilliant) and great docos on ABC 2.
Australia would be a far dumber place without the ABC.
 
 

Imagine television if there was no ABC or SBS.Shocked It would be like being stuck in a lift with Ray Hadley and Alan Jones.


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 3:36pm
Originally posted by Magnolian Khan Magnolian Khan wrote:

I only watch the ABC for Play School. Noni Hazelhurst is my favourite


benita collings. she was 'clare' in 'the restless years' - i think she played the role of a piss pot from memory


Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 3:52pm
Originally posted by Tlazolteotl Tlazolteotl wrote:

Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Same, Djebel. Only terrestrial TV I watch is ABC and occasionally SBS.
I don't like every show either (I abhor Q&A) but love most of their current affairs, local comedies (Rosehaven was simply brilliant) and great docos on ABC 2.
Australia would be a far dumber place without the ABC.
 
 

Imagine television if there was no ABC or SBS.Shocked It would be like being stuck in a lift with Ray Hadley and Alan Jones.

LOL That is not a pleasant thought. Add Bolt, Chris Kenny, Miranda Devine, Cabo and Dr E and you have hell on earth!!


Posted By: Whale
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 3:53pm
Originally posted by acacia alba acacia alba wrote:

Who even watches it now ? Its so full of bs and political fluff,  you would need to be one of these uni flag wavers to even bother going there.  So biased its not even amusing.
Why have a govnt funded out of touch mob like that ?


there it is the big problem you have, you don't like their political views
 so you boycott the entire channel, missing out on many great shows Confused

This discussion seemsto be about talk, political, current affairs shows, what about the outstanding drama ?

People like Dr E and AA to make a stupid point are missing out on great stuff aalthouh i think the doc smeaks a look every now and then Smile


-------------
Victor Orban 1.74 m, Michael Bloomberg 1.73 m, Emmanual Macron 1.77 m, George Soros 1.8 m


Posted By: Dr E
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 4:09pm
Originally posted by djebel djebel wrote:

Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

If it's so good, why are taxpayers subsidising it?

Privatise it and make some money.

Set legislation to ensure we retain minimum Australian content, and sell it off!Thumbs Up

Surely SBS can go regardless, it serves no purpose.

We are rightfully warned by Gay to stay civilised, You make it very difficult to do so at times.


What is "uncivilised" about that?

We can't fund education or health care adequately, but the bed wetters have a tantrum if we suggest that the the parasitic socialists at the ABC sheltered workshop and the completely superfluous SBS, are forced off the public tit?Confused


-------------
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!


Posted By: Dr E
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 4:16pm
Originally posted by Whale Whale wrote:

Originally posted by acacia alba acacia alba wrote:

Who even watches it now ? Its so full of bs and political fluff,  you would need to be one of these uni flag wavers to even bother going there.  So biased its not even amusing.
Why have a govnt funded out of touch mob like that ?


there it is the big problem you have, you don't like their political views
 so you boycott the entire channel, missing out on many great shows Confused

This discussion seemsto be about talk, political, current affairs shows, what about the outstanding drama ?

People like Dr E and AA to make a stupid point are missing out on great stuff aalthouh i think the doc smeaks a look every now and then Smile

Whale, I acknowledge that there is some fantastic content on ABC, and maccamax will vouch for the soft porn on SBS (although "World Movies" is now a Foxtel channel anyway) ... so it will clearly survive and thrive in a commercial environment, and we will be BILLIONS of dollars better off. The only concern is for the amount of local production that they are responsible for, and that can easily be legislated for.

... it's hardly an essential service, unless you are the ALP and rely on it for your marketing ...


-------------
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 4:19pm
Anhs brush with fame isnt too bad a show. but just once he should get the guest to close their eyes and then he turns around his portrait to reveal blobs of paint all mixed together. and say "how do u like it?"

Charlie pickering is up himself, big time. not a fan.


Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 4:21pm
We pay nothing for quality TV, 8 cents a day and it is an essential service. Commercial TV is absolute tripe. Look at 60 Minutes, ACA etc with their Schapelle and Cassie coverage compared to 4 Corners and their greyhound expose and Lindt siege coverage. 
Funny Doc complains about losing our culture in reference to muslims, but fails to see how much culture we would lose with the death of the ABC.


Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 4:23pm
Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

Anhs brush with fame isnt too bad a show. but just once he should get the guest to close their eyes and then he turns around his portrait to reveal blobs of paint all mixed together. and say "how do u like it?"

Charlie pickering is up himself, big time. not a fan.


Anh tries a little too hard to illicit tears for my liking. 


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 4:25pm
Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

Anhs brush with fame isnt too bad a show. but just once he should get the guest to close their eyes and then he turns around his portrait to reveal blobs of paint all mixed together. and say "how do u like it?"

Charlie pickering is up himself, big time. not a fan.



Anh tries a little too hard to illicit tears for my liking. 


his portraits arent that good either. ray martin was good value, interesting story.


Posted By: Carioca
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 6:15pm
ABC news 24 that's it doesn't move, 1 hour of the BBC at night, half hour in the morn.
If they go to parliament it goes off. Landline for me,a bit of 7.30 , over to CNN , I'm a bit crooked on fox for losing the EPL so I stopped paying for movie ch. didn't go too well,
offsiders if Roy's on, can't handle GW, abc handling of Liverpool match was a disgrace,
that's about it for me apart from this bloody I- pad at my age I should be exercising more.


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 7:12pm
Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

Originally posted by djebel djebel wrote:

Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

If it's so good, why are taxpayers subsidising it?

Privatise it and make some money.

Set legislation to ensure we retain minimum Australian content, and sell it off!Thumbs Up

Surely SBS can go regardless, it serves no purpose.


We are rightfully warned by Gay to stay civilised, You make it very difficult to do so at times.



What is "uncivilised" about that?

We can't fund education or health care adequately, but the bed wetters have a tantrum if we suggest that the the parasitic socialists at the ABC sheltered workshop and the completely superfluous SBS, are forced off the public tit?Confused



Again, There is nothing civilised about the way you pose that question.




-------------
reductio ad absurdum


Posted By: Afros
Date Posted: 30 May 2017 at 10:27pm
Originally posted by djebel djebel wrote:

Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

Originally posted by djebel djebel wrote:

Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

If it's so good, why are taxpayers subsidising it?

Privatise it and make some money.

Set legislation to ensure we retain minimum Australian content, and sell it off!Thumbs Up

Surely SBS can go regardless, it serves no purpose.


We are rightfully warned by Gay to stay civilised, You make it very difficult to do so at times.



What is "uncivilised" about that?

We can't fund education or health care adequately, but the bed wetters have a tantrum if we suggest that the the parasitic socialists at the ABC sheltered workshop and the completely superfluous SBS, are forced off the public tit?Confused



Again, There is nothing civilised about the way you pose that question.




His attitude is simply typical of the rightards in general, they despise anything they can't control and want to destroy anything they can't gain control of.


Posted By: Dr E
Date Posted: 31 May 2017 at 3:16am
Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

We pay nothing for quality TV, 8 cents a day and it is an essential service. Commercial TV is absolute tripe. Look at 60 Minutes, ACA etc with their Schapelle and Cassie coverage compared to 4 Corners and their greyhound expose and Lindt siege coverage. 
Funny Doc complains about losing our culture in reference to muslims, but fails to see how much culture we would lose with the death of the ABC.

Are you still stuck in Romper Room? ... can't you comprehend plain English? 

When did I suggest the death of the ABC, or ANY of their programming?Confused

... now go back and read my comments again, then write them out a hundred times, and then start again.

8 cents a day = $1.5 Billion a year? ... quite possibly!

Sure you don't know of a welfare program that could use $1.5 Billion a year? ... maybe if it had gone to education when you were at skool I wouldn't need to repeat myself to often!Ermm 
... oh that's right ... it's already paying for the sheltered workshop for unemployable socialist hand wringers - THEIR ABC!!!Clap

Yes, you may well be right, with Q&A and 7:30 and Insiders, etc., it IS an essential service ... for thumb sucking bed wetters!Cry


-------------
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 31 May 2017 at 3:25am
Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

We pay nothing for quality TV, 8 cents a day and it is an essential service. Commercial TV is absolute tripe. Look at 60 Minutes, ACA etc with their Schapelle and Cassie coverage compared to 4 Corners and their greyhound expose and Lindt siege coverage. 
Funny Doc complains about losing our culture in reference to muslims, but fails to see how much culture we would lose with the death of the ABC.

Are you still stuck in Romper Room? ... can't you comprehend plain English? 

When did I suggest the death of the ABC, or ANY of their programming?Confused

... now go back and read my comments again, then write them out a hundred times, and then start again.

8 cents a day = $1.5 Billion a year? ... quite possibly!

Sure you don't know of a welfare program that could use $1.5 Billion a year? ... maybe if it had gone to education when you were at skool I wouldn't need to repeat myself to often!Ermm 
... oh that's right ... it's already paying for the sheltered workshop for unemployable socialist hand wringers - THEIR ABC!!!Clap

Yes, you may well be right, with Q&A and 7:30 and Insiders, etc., it IS an essential service ... for thumb sucking bed wetters!Cry

If you privatise the ABC it will become the muppet of whoever owns it, Whatever agenda they wish to side with.

You may believe the ABC has agendas but the majority of their programming is factual based.




-------------
reductio ad absurdum


Posted By: Dr E
Date Posted: 31 May 2017 at 5:20am
Originally posted by djebel djebel wrote:

Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

We pay nothing for quality TV, 8 cents a day and it is an essential service. Commercial TV is absolute tripe. Look at 60 Minutes, ACA etc with their Schapelle and Cassie coverage compared to 4 Corners and their greyhound expose and Lindt siege coverage. 
Funny Doc complains about losing our culture in reference to muslims, but fails to see how much culture we would lose with the death of the ABC.

Are you still stuck in Romper Room? ... can't you comprehend plain English? 

When did I suggest the death of the ABC, or ANY of their programming?Confused

... now go back and read my comments again, then write them out a hundred times, and then start again.

8 cents a day = $1.5 Billion a year? ... quite possibly!

Sure you don't know of a welfare program that could use $1.5 Billion a year? ... maybe if it had gone to education when you were at skool I wouldn't need to repeat myself to often!Ermm 
... oh that's right ... it's already paying for the sheltered workshop for unemployable socialist hand wringers - THEIR ABC!!!Clap

Yes, you may well be right, with Q&A and 7:30 and Insiders, etc., it IS an essential service ... for thumb sucking bed wetters!Cry

If you privatise the ABC it will become the muppet of whoever owns it, Whatever agenda they wish to side with.

You may believe the ABC has agendas but the majority of their programming is factual based.



There are a lot of ways to go about it - I would not imagine anyone taking it on as a singular entity, but each section (and there are a bloody lot) would probably be appropriated by relevant parties, some would survive, and some would not.  

Commercial media people want ratings, pure and simple ... if the programs don't rate, they will be axed, if they are popular, they will!

As I said, it is easy to legislate for minimum Australian produced content, so I would expect that most of the popular programs - even the ones that are biased - would survive in a commercialised ABC, which ever way it is done.

The biggest problem is that ABC is a glaring atypical example of the problem we have with our public services.

For starters, it is unnecessary, and obsolete. It is well and truly overcapitalised and top heavy, and it is overrun with socialists who just live to self perpetuate the welfare mentality within their departments.

As a country, if we got rid of all of the surplus public services, our unemployment rate would be about 30% ... but the budget would be in surplus.


-------------
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!


Posted By: VOYAGER
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 3:09am
Alright I know it is a forlorn hope but sitting here watching New Zealand, throw away Kane Williamson's century in England, can we sort of get back to the threads point.

Apparently the ABC is full of bed wetters and socialists, so can someone please tell me what makes a bed wetter and a socialist in this specific instance.

Now if you use Tony Jones as an example then I am all with you, a guy who was looking a for a retirement package (you know what I am talking about like the old former champ footballer who moves from his junior club for one last contract to get some coin before his physical capabilities fail)and who thinks his shyte does not stink. he is a poor host/presenter anyway.

Leigh Sales thinks she is the best interviewer going around (if you call interrupting and trying to scream over people interviewing then she is your gal)even though she was parachuted into the stations prime show.

But I am looking for examples of bias. Now the ABC have been reporting about Manaus Island. That reporting is bordering on bias, so there is one example you could use, however the government is not helping by keeping people in detention for years, instead of months at the most.

The ABC do not have a leaning when reporting politics. I have seen them get stuck into the coalition and also get stuck into the Kevin/Julia governments, and labor party.

Whenever I have watched Media Watch, their reports have been accurate. Now just because they select Jones and Hadley and Bolt every week, that does not make what they are reporting untrue. If those guys do not want to be on the show, then guess what, don't say lets take the prime minister out in a sack to the middle of the ocean and throw her overboard. We all know Julia was a shocking PM so just attack her in a more intelligent manner.

The ABC have got some great content. I love Media Watch, Landline and Four Corners. They were the station who stepped in and saved Clarke and Dawe when no commercial channel even wanted it. Rake is one of the best written comedies of recent times. If you haven't caught Cleverman, then Check the second series out from July and Gruen is a very informative show.

Some of the stations comedy is a bit off putting to me. Not sure how Chris Lilley is so revered, Charles Pickering is a bit hit and miss but Channel ten wanted to keep him so he is a wanted commercial host and some of their dramas like The Blake Mysteries and Miss Fisher are well produced, not my cup of tea but the talent on show is evident.

They produce great documentaries. Sports Nation is one of the best documentary series ever made, The Track a series about horse racing is a cracker, the Cricket series of documentaries tells the tale of Australian cricket very well, and their music documentaries, especially the one about Alberts music and Countdown were outstanding.

So is the ABC biased, or are they balancing the debate on issues by countering mainstream medias slanted point of view? Because just like Micheal Moore's documentaries if you are bombarded with one view on an issue, and then the ABC come along with a differing view, which is the backed up by evidence, then that is not bias, that is setting the record straight.

Suppose someone will call me a bed wetter now! If you do want to call me a bed wetter, then that is fine, but you need to tell me why I am a bed wetter. Okay all this bed wetting has got me wanting to visit the little boys room and believe me it is a little boys room!       

-------------
Remember, it might take intelligence to be smart , but it takes experience to be wise


Posted By: Dr E
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 4:00am
Hey Voyager ... bloody rain! 

I've made my position on the ABC and SBS clear, it's not about the bias, perceived or otherwise, as I said, it's not like it is an essential service that nobody else is prepared to supply at a reasonable cost. More importantly, I see that they are now spending taxpayer money to attract online views, by engaging services that move them to the top of google searches ... that is simply hurting independent businesses, and the Public funded broadcaster has an unfair advantage.

Yes there are glaring examples of left wing biased news and current affairs programs, and even comedy, but that is also the case in commercial media ... but that is more about the nature of the majority of "journalists" and their producers (don't forget, THEY are the ones who determine what goes to air) who are invariably products of our socialist Universities.

PT has a favourite saying about renewable energy - the market will decide - if the ABC was privatised, the market would decide which programs survived and which didn't - no viewers and you are gooooone, axed ... get good ratings, and you will be renewed ...like those brain dead reality shows that infest commercial TV these days ... Good Grief!

The biggest concern would be losing some very good Aussie produced dramas, less so the comedies and the news.However, we have strong media rules that ensure minimum programming requirements around content, and it would simply be a matter of making sure that those rules were adequate, and adhered to.

At the end of the day, everyone can IQ or record their favoured programs in some fashion, so i don't see a problem.

Agree with you on Dr Blake (Craig McLachlan! ... 25 years ago, who'd have thought!?) and a lot of the other stuff is very good quality. Disagree sabot Chris Lilly - genius!

Cut Corners is really no better than any other commercial current affairs programs - they have done some excellent stuff (they all have their good moments), but what they did with Dondale was unforgivable. You have gotta give them credit, they sucked a lot of people in, and they perpetuated a myth, and cost us a lot of money on a pointless wild goose chase with the knee jerk RC, to investigate stuff they reported on ... that had already been investigated! ... anyway, they have kept a lot of their Public Service Comrades in work, along with a lot of lawyers and a few aboriginal Elders who collectively never knock back a chance to get their snouts in the trough - the predictable outcome of course, will again be a "pineapple"!  

Sorry, again, funding something like this is a cruel joke on tax payers.

History of the ICC Trophy is good stuff!


-------------
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!


Posted By: Tlazolteotl
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 8:59am
Cut Corners is really no better than any other commercial current affairs programsWacko


Posted By: Shrunk in the Wash
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 9:44am
Originally posted by Tlazolteotl Tlazolteotl wrote:

<span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">Cut Corners is really no better than any other commercial current affairs programsWacko</span>


When did they last have a show tell you the best washing up detergent to use as the other shows do on a regular basis ?


Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 1:41pm
Originally posted by djebel djebel wrote:

Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

We pay nothing for quality TV, 8 cents a day and it is an essential service. Commercial TV is absolute tripe. Look at 60 Minutes, ACA etc with their Schapelle and Cassie coverage compared to 4 Corners and their greyhound expose and Lindt siege coverage. 
Funny Doc complains about losing our culture in reference to muslims, but fails to see how much culture we would lose with the death of the ABC.

Are you still stuck in Romper Room? ... can't you comprehend plain English? 

When did I suggest the death of the ABC, or ANY of their programming?Confused

... now go back and read my comments again, then write them out a hundred times, and then start again.

8 cents a day = $1.5 Billion a year? ... quite possibly!

Sure you don't know of a welfare program that could use $1.5 Billion a year? ... maybe if it had gone to education when you were at skool I wouldn't need to repeat myself to often!Ermm 
... oh that's right ... it's already paying for the sheltered workshop for unemployable socialist hand wringers - THEIR ABC!!!Clap

Yes, you may well be right, with Q&A and 7:30 and Insiders, etc., it IS an essential service ... for thumb sucking bed wetters!Cry

If you privatise the ABC it will become the muppet of whoever owns it, Whatever agenda they wish to side with.

You may believe the ABC has agendas but the majority of their programming is factual based.




The right dont deal in facts, Djebel. Unfortunately ruins all their arguments, hence they prefer a fact-free existence. Makes life easier.


Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 1:42pm
Originally posted by Tlazolteotl Tlazolteotl wrote:

Cut Corners is really no better than any other commercial current affairs programsWacko


Which is why the Doc should never be taken seriously.


Posted By: Dr E
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 2:10pm
The deranged hand wringers would never get out of their drenched beds if the ABC didn't tell them what their opinion was going to be that day ... just sayin'LOL

-------------
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 2:11pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-03/linda-sarsour-hijabi-feminism/8583482" rel="nofollow - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-03/linda-sarsour-hijabi-feminism/8583482

-------------
reductio ad absurdum


Posted By: maccamax
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 7:08pm
Diebel:-      That is a sickening read .

My first & only response is the World has deteriorated into one huge Psychiatric Centre and rapidly worsening.
If you get a cage full of budgerigars & allow them to in breed indiscriminately ,   they will quickly lose the ability to function or to even fly.
The human race is no different really & this push for Gay marriage is further evidence of us heading down the similar path.
When this earth has only cock roaches ( that's males ) I forget what they call the female roaches,   only then , will stability return.
( Whale won't get that one )


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 7:36pm
Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

The deranged hand wringers would never get out of their drenched beds if the ABC didn't tell them what their opinion was going to be that day ... just sayin'LOL


Or van badham, mike carlton or jane caro


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 7:48pm
Originally posted by maccamax maccamax wrote:

Diebel:-      That is a sickening read .

My first & only response is the World has deteriorated into one huge Psychiatric Centre and rapidly worsening.
If you get a cage full of budgerigars & allow them to in breed indiscriminately ,   they will quickly lose the ability to function or to even fly.
The human race is no different really & this push for Gay marriage is further evidence of us heading down the similar path.
When this earth has only cock roaches ( that's males ) I forget what they call the female roaches,   only then , will stability return.
( Whale won't get that one )


"The world has descended into one huge psychiatric center"

- not too far off the mark macca.


Posted By: Passing Through
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 7:51pm
People lose their tiny minds over religion, The sooner we are an athiest society the better

-------------


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 7:55pm
Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

People lose their tiny minds over religion, The sooner we are an athiest society the better


So you were just telling more lies when you said religion has been good for peoples moral guidance?

do you hold the world record for number of times an atheist has quoted the bible?



Posted By: maccamax
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 7:58pm
Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

People lose their tiny minds over religion, The sooner we are an athiest society the better


How right you are .      We would be half way there .


Posted By: Passing Through
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 8:00pm
Nope, moral guidance is great, the Magna Carta, US constitution are based on the bible, but when you lose perspective and let it lead your life rather than leading your life with it as a guide, it becomes a destructive force 

-------------


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 8:12pm
Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

Nope, moral guidance is great, the Magna Carta, US constitution are based on the bible, but when you lose perspective and let it lead your life rather than leading your life with it as a guide, it becomes a destructive force 


Oh, you are talking about islam.

i agree. 👍


Posted By: maccamax
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 8:15pm
Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

Nope, moral guidance is great, the Magna Carta, US constitution are based on the bible, but when you lose perspective and let it lead your life rather than leading your life with it as a guide, it becomes a destructive force 


Moral Guidance PT. ???

     When the main concern for our elected representatives appears to be Gay marriage equality. ?
    


Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 9:23pm
Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

People lose their tiny minds over religion, The sooner we are an athiest society the better


So you were just telling more lies when you said religion has been good for peoples moral guidance?

do you hold the world record for number of times an atheist has quoted the bible?



Do you hold the record for number of times a Catholic has mentioned Islam?


Posted By: Dr E
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 9:49pm
Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

People lose their tiny minds over religion, The sooner we are an athiest society the better


So you were just telling more lies when you said religion has been good for peoples moral guidance?

do you hold the world record for number of times an atheist has quoted the bible?



Do you hold the record for number of times a Catholic has mentioned Islam?

mind numbing, isn't it cabo ...Stern Smile


-------------
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!


Posted By: Passing Through
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 10:13pm
Ridiculous isn't it Doc? cabo is only a pretender. You have him well coveredThumbs Up

-------------


Posted By: Shrunk in the Wash
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2017 at 11:25pm
Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

People lose their tiny minds over religion, The sooner we are an athiest society the better



I know where we can start


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2017 at 12:12am
Speaking of the political spectrum and agenda's or bias ....

has their been a newspaper that has lurched so far left in a short space of time as the SMH?


Posted By: subastral
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2017 at 12:36am
Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

Speaking of the political spectrum and agenda's or bias ....

has their been a newspaper that has lurched so far left in a short space of time as the SMH?


You cant be serious here?? Murdoch rags have nosedived hard right and towards the gutter. 


Posted By: maccamax
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2017 at 12:45am
SUB...   It is called the RIGHT because that's exactly what it is .

        RIGHT ...     NOT WONG


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2017 at 1:32am
Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

Speaking of the political spectrum and agenda's or bias ....

has their been a newspaper that has lurched so far left in a short space of time as the SMH?



You cant be serious here?? Murdoch rags have nosedived hard right and towards the gutter. 


Murdoch rags have always been hard right. the smh was a center/right paper as far as i could tell, but almost overnight it has lurched into left territory....it runs all the stories you social engineering wack jobs love.


Posted By: Passing Through
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2017 at 9:12am
Maybe your sudden and extreme lurch to the right just makes them look further away than you previously thought they were

-------------


Posted By: Nostradamus II
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2017 at 10:04am
If there was no ABC, the alphabet would suffer. 

-------------
https://sites.google.com/site/cosmosthoroughbredpedigrees/" rel="nofollow - https://sites.google.com/site/cosmosthoroughbredpedigrees/


Posted By: maccamax
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2017 at 11:17am
Originally posted by Nostradamus II Nostradamus II wrote:

If there was no ABC, the alphabet would suffer. 


   ( Whale won't get that one )


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2017 at 11:48am
Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

Maybe your sudden and extreme lurch to the right just makes them look further away than you previously thought they were


Nope i can be rational in these observations.

hey, dont take my word....read what former smh journo mike west says - the same thing


Posted By: Dr E
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2017 at 12:01pm
Originally posted by maccamax maccamax wrote:

Originally posted by Nostradamus II Nostradamus II wrote:

If there was no ABC, the alphabet would suffer. 


   ( Whale won't get that one )

LOL (is it the use of multisyllabic words?)


-------------
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2017 at 10:39pm
There is simply no better TV than 4Corners

-------------
reductio ad absurdum


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2017 at 10:49pm
Chris masters has some top investo work as a journo. his brother roy was great in his field too. smart family.


Posted By: 3blindmice
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2017 at 11:25pm
Originally posted by djebel djebel wrote:

I think the ABC is basically outstanding. I do not agree with everything and do not like all their shows but as a whole, I like them, like them a lot.




Dead right djebel and it's not just TV. If you want real, diverse info and even entertainment turn on ABC local radio. Anyone who hasn't discovered Richard Fidler's Conversations is missing an absolute gem. 

The ABC and Fairfax have also joined forces in numerous in-depth investigations important to the community including underpayment of wages to migrant fruit pickers and 7Eleven workers, student visa rorting, CommInsure, the recent Chinese influence story etc etc

The ABC's poll figures across a range of areas are numbers Murdoch could only dream about. You can find results on their website iirc.


Posted By: Tlazolteotl
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 10:32am
Meanwhile, Breitbart has toned down the madness, under advertiser pressure, and their cucks don't like it.


Posted By: Passing Through
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 10:58am
Breitbart want Congressional and White House media accreditation They have had temporary WH access, but not Congress who have shelved their application indefinitely, probably due to Gorka and Bannon having a percieved conflict of interest. These days Breitbart are trying to portray themselves as mainstream In the current bizarre environment who can tell?

-------------


Posted By: Tlazolteotl
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 11:28am
Breitbart and Fox are now more left-wing on Islam than Andrew Bolt.


Posted By: 3blindmice
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 1:09pm
Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

Speaking of the political spectrum and agenda's or bias ....

has their been a newspaper that has lurched so far left in a short space of time as the SMH?


You cant be serious here?? Murdoch rags have nosedived hard right and towards the gutter. 

If it was meant to be so serious it's hilarious. Then again some cons believe that any reasoned argument or analysis which doesn't fit their extremely narrow perspective is "left wing" bias - or fake news as the narcissistic, lying "head of the free world" would say.  


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 1:39pm
Listening to a broadcast of the very beginning of the ABC and the reason it exists is basically because all the Newspapers at the time were conservative and had a serious bias toward the Liberals or whatever they were known as prior to the ABC coming into existence.

The Newspaper owners were dead against the ABC coming into being and demanded that they pay copyright fees for any of the news that they took from papers.

They were also not allowed to have a nightly news bulletin until after 8pm so they did not eat into the afternoon editions readership.

 




-------------
reductio ad absurdum


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 1:42pm
Worth a listen

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/conversations-bill-leak-rpt/8330160" rel="nofollow - Cartoonist and artist Bill Leak's life-changing accident

with  http://www.abc.net.au/radio/people/richard-fidler/7689816" rel="nofollow - Richard Fidler
48mins 9secs •
 


-------------
reductio ad absurdum


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 1:45pm

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/this-is-the-news-how-the-newspapers-tried-to-kill-an-independen/8579498" rel="nofollow - This is the news: How the newspapers tried to kill an independent ABC news before it even began

  • https://radio.abc.net.au/search?service_guid=RN-lnl-20170601-8579498" rel="nofollow - Listen http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2017/06/lnl_20170601_2205.mp3" rel="nofollow - Download

The bitter political battle behind the beginning of the independent ABC news service in June 1947.



-------------
reductio ad absurdum


Posted By: djebel
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 1:45pm
If you click on LISTEN in the above mess it will work LOL

-------------
reductio ad absurdum


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 2:20pm
Originally posted by 3blindmice 3blindmice wrote:

Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

Speaking of the political spectrum and agenda's or bias ....

has their been a newspaper that has lurched so far left in a short space of time as the SMH?



You cant be serious here?? Murdoch rags have nosedived hard right and towards the gutter. 



If it was meant to be so serious it's hilarious. Then again some cons believe that any reasoned argument or analysis which doesn't fit their extremely narrow perspective is "left wing" bias - or fake news as the narcissistic, lying "head of the free world" would say.  


you pair of dunces...stop exagerating and being outraged at what i said. i said...

the smh has lurched left. thats all i said. Nothing about the media landscape, right wing media or domination, narrative or agenda.

check their commentary on israel/palestine now. a massive shift, given anything that wasnt pro israel was anti semitic. the smh was as glued to israel as murdoch is. thats the most glaring example. and thats a good shift imo. so what agenda have i got?

And if you dont believe me...then you dont believe former smh journo mike west. who says the same.



Posted By: Tlazolteotl
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 2:39pm
Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

Originally posted by 3blindmice 3blindmice wrote:

Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

Speaking of the political spectrum and agenda's or bias ....

has their been a newspaper that has lurched so far left in a short space of time as the SMH?



You cant be serious here?? Murdoch rags have nosedived hard right and towards the gutter. 



If it was meant to be so serious it's hilarious. Then again some cons believe that any reasoned argument or analysis which doesn't fit their extremely narrow perspective is "left wing" bias - or fake news as the narcissistic, lying "head of the free world" would say.  


you pair of dunces...stop exagerating and being outraged at what i said. i said...

the smh has lurched left. thats all i said. Nothing about the media landscape, right wing media or domination, narrative or agenda.

check their commentary on israel/palestine now. a massive shift, given anything that wasnt pro israel was anti semitic. the smh was as glued to israel as murdoch is. thats the most glaring example. and thats a good shift imo. so what agenda have i got?

And if you dont believe me...then you dont believe former smh journo mike west. who says the same.


Where are the examples? Show us- that's what example means.Wink

"believe former smh journo mike west. who says the same." Where? 


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 2:47pm
west says it in one of his articles on his website.


Posted By: Tlazolteotl
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 3:29pm
Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

west says it in one of his articles on his website.

No he doesn't.Wink


Posted By: Tlazolteotl
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 3:32pm


Posted By: Passing Through
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 3:52pm

Pauline Hanson abandons case against ABC over secret tapes, forced to pay legal costs

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pauline-hanson-abandons-case-against-abc-over-secret-tapes-forced-to-pay-legal-costs-20170613-gwpv58.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pauline-hanson-abandons-case-against-abc-over-secret-tapes-forced-to-pay-legal-costs-20170613-gwpv58.html


-------------


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 4:02pm
Originally posted by Tlazolteotl Tlazolteotl wrote:

Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

west says it in one of his articles on his website.


No he doesn't.Wink


sorry. he does. keep on searching....


Posted By: 3blindmice
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 7:08pm
Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:


you pair of dunces...stop exagerating and being outraged at what i said. i said...

the smh has lurched left. thats all i said. Nothing about the media landscape, right wing media or domination, narrative or agenda.

check their commentary on israel/palestine now. a massive shift, given anything that wasnt pro israel was anti semitic. the smh was as glued to israel as murdoch is. thats the most glaring example. and thats a good shift imo. so what agenda have i got?

And if you dont believe me...then you dont believe former smh journo mike west. who says the same.

I'm not outraged, I'm not even surprised after reading more of your comments elsewhere. I assume you've been at a con temple learning the dark arts for many months?

I don't know what West said,  but if his redundancy is anything to go by it surely means a shift to the RIGHT. If FF loses a few more of his calibre they will disappear up their own fundamentals and that will be both a huge shame and a huge blow to democracy - yes democracy. 


Posted By: Whale
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 8:21pm
[

you pair of dunces...stop exagerating and being outraged at what i said. i said...

the smh has lurched left. thats all i said. Nothing about the media landscape, right wing media or domination, narrative or agenda.

check their commentary on israel/palestine now. a massive shift, given anything that wasnt pro israel was anti semitic. the smh was as glued to israel as murdoch is. thats the most glaring example. and thats a good shift imo. so what agenda have i got?

And if you dont believe me...then you dont believe former smh journo mike west. who says the same.

[/QUOTE]

are you an anti  Semite ?


-------------
Victor Orban 1.74 m, Michael Bloomberg 1.73 m, Emmanual Macron 1.77 m, George Soros 1.8 m


Posted By: Dr E
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2017 at 1:00am
With the good ship Channel 10 listing badly, Waleed will be looking for a safe port to suck dry shortly ... wonder what ABC's The Project will have to say about Radical Islamic Terrorism?

More of this no doubt!




-------------
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!


Posted By: Passing Through
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2017 at 8:37pm
Great news Doc. Waleed isn't going anywhere with Channel Ten refinancing. 

Another well deserved Gold Logie coming up next year Thumbs Up


-------------


Posted By: 3blindmice
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2017 at 9:56pm
Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

Speaking of the political spectrum and agenda's or bias ....

has their been a newspaper that has lurched so far left in a short space of time as the SMH?



You cant be serious here?? Murdoch rags have nosedived hard right and towards the gutter. 


Murdoch rags have always been hard right. the smh was a center/right paper as far as i could tell, but almost overnight it has lurched into left territory....it runs all the stories you social engineering wack jobs love.

Priests without hard-ons. There's some social engineering I'd love to see. Offended? Put your offence to better use - such as understanding minorities, discrimination, etc.  Conservatives have been engaged in social engineering since the year dot. Understand that and you're one step along the way to getting some balance. How do the old teachings go again? Do unto others...  Walk a mile...


Posted By: JudgeHolden
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2017 at 10:02pm
Originally posted by 3blindmice 3blindmice wrote:

Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

Originally posted by subastral subastral wrote:

Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

Speaking of the political spectrum and agenda's or bias ....

has their been a newspaper that has lurched so far left in a short space of time as the SMH?



You cant be serious here?? Murdoch rags have nosedived hard right and towards the gutter. 


Murdoch rags have always been hard right. the smh was a center/right paper as far as i could tell, but almost overnight it has lurched into left territory....it runs all the stories you social engineering wack jobs love.

Priests without hard-ons. There's some social engineering I'd love to see. Offended? Put your offence to better use - such as understanding minorities, discrimination, etc.  Conservatives have been engaged in social engineering since the year dot. Understand that and you're one step along the way to getting some balance. How do the old teachings go again? Do unto others...  Walk a mile...

Cabo's traded all that in for some cheap tribalism. And to kneel at the altar of the Doc. A pretty sad spectacle, really.


Posted By: stayer
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2017 at 10:17pm
You lot are worse fanatics than any christians I've ever met. Well, maybe a bit like the Hillsong Prosperity Gospel zombies.


Posted By: cabosanlucas
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2017 at 10:36pm
Originally posted by stayer stayer wrote:

You lot are worse fanatics than any christians I've ever met. Well, maybe a bit like the Hillsong Prosperity Gospel zombies.


hillsong is an understatement. more like a bunch of jimmy swaggarts.





Posted By: Passing Through
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2017 at 11:07pm
Yeah, atheists and agnostics are the cause of all the world's problems. 

-------------


Posted By: Redemption
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2017 at 1:57pm
Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

Yeah, atheists and agnostics are the cause of all the world's problems. 

Correct. Clap

STALIN=  Murdered an estimated 60 million, including ordering the shooting of 100,000 Priests.

POL POT = Murdered an estimated 2.5 million people

ZEDONG = Murdered an estimated 60 milllion people

MUSSOLINI = Did such things as invade Ethiopia, even bombing Red Cross buildings. His widow strongly stated he didnt believe in God.

JEFFREY DAHMER =an infamous serial killer and atheist sentenced to 900 years in prison, said “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”. 

The list goes on.

If you were to compare ISIS, to the over 100 million that leading atheists have murdered, well ISIS have a heck of a lot of catching up to do, illegally murdering people, hijacking the peaceful Muslims that dont preach hate.


Posted By: Passing Through
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2017 at 5:21pm
The athiest atrocities fallacy 

-------------


Posted By: stayer
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2017 at 7:13pm
^ Doesn't exist.


Posted By: Second Chance
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2017 at 7:33pm
The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy: Micheal A Sherlock

 [extract only]
Religious apologists, particularly those of the Christian variety, are big fans of what I have dubbed, the atheist atrocities fallacy. Christians commonly employ this fallacy to shield their egos from the harsh reality of the brutality of their own religion, by utilizing a most absurd form of the tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy, mingled with numerous other logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies.  Despite the fact that the atheist atrocities fallacy has already been thoroughly exposed by Hitchens and other great thinkers, it continues to circulate amongst the desperate believers of a religion in its death throes.  Should an atheist present a believer with the crimes committed by the Holy See of the Inquisition(s), the Crusaders and other faith-wielding misanthropes, they will often hear the reply; “Well, what about Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler? They were atheists, and they killed millions!”

Given the obstinate nature of religious faith and the wilful ignorance it cultivates in the mind of the believer, I am quite certain that this article will not be the final nail in this rancid and rotting coffin.  Having said this, I do hope it will contribute to the arsenal required by those who value reason, facts and evidence, in their struggle against the fallacies perpetually flaunted by those who do not value the truth above their own egocentric delusions, delusions inspired by an unquenchable thirst for security, no matter how frighteningly false its foundation.



Posted By: Passing Through
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2017 at 7:40pm
This has been well argued by notable atheists like Christopher Hitchins and  Richard Dawkins

-------------


Posted By: stayer
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2017 at 7:51pm
Wòhoo, must exist if it's beeb blathered about by those 2 and... um... 1 other?
Load of nonsense.
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/the-atheist-case-against-existence-of.html?m=1



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2022 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net