Category: Media

What is happening to centre-right media?

Posted by Chief Blogger – 24 January, 2012

Listening to Alan Jones this morning it became clear to me how utterly inconsistent his positions are across a range of issues. For instance, AJ opposes subsidies for the auto industry and rails against JGill for driving up the cost of energy – fair enough – but is okay with sweet heart deals for ethanol producers in NSW, where Barry O’Fail is abolishing regular unleaded to be replaced with the less energy efficient E10 fuel. A fuel that is more expensive to use and will force tens of thousands of non-E10 compliant vehicles onto more expensive higher non-ethanol fuels. Governments have an incredibly bad record of mucking of energy prices in Australia, and Barry O’Fail’s latest eco venture into nanny state knows best should have sounded warning bells to AJ. Instead, AJ let his vested rural interests get the better of him and consumers bear the hard financial consequences.

Also today, AJ ventured into US politics with Paul Sheehan, and to put it mildly it was embarrassing. Apparently AJ sees no problem with Bill Clinton having had 12 separate affairs and so sees no moral conundrum with Newt Gingrich’s sordid martial history and the implications it has for his character, such as when he sat in judgement of Clinton yet was carrying on an affair of his own. No mention of Newt’s ethics violations, a polite way of saying he was corrupt, and that he got kicked out of the House of Representatives. No mention either of Newt’s lobbying efforts in his post-political career and his attempts to miss-represent what he was doing promoting socialist mortgage financing with Freddie Mac. No mention either of Newt’s pro-global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi and his past attempts to promote Co2 regulation and pricing. Like Andrew Bolt on MTR, AJ presented a mostly fact free analysis and you wonder if he bothers to brush up on the details prior to his show. And then there is AJ’s unholy alliance with the Greens to take down exploratory gas and oil interests.

If AJ is an indication of where the centre-right media are at the moment it is going to be even harder for the Coalition to regain office. Analysis should be considered and based on facts.

Andrew Bolt is not a conservative – part VII

Posted by Chief Blogger – 16 January, 2012

Previous coverage of Bolt’s yes/no conservative credentials can be found here.

On MTR today the following conversation took place between Steve Price and Bolt, around the 24 minute mark:

Bolt: Obama will win the election.

Price: Yes, I’ve written that down as well.

Bolt: Bugger.

Price: The republicans in that whole country of 350 million people can’t find a decent candidate.

Bolt: Yep, yep, amazing. That’s astonishing. How could that be?

Price: A whole bunch of loonies and religious freaks and nut cases…

Bolt: …and people as absurd as the Mormons….

Apart from the fact that this conversation sounds a good deal like one might find at the ABC, a few issues come out of this puerile exchange.

The Australian media seem to know virtually nothing about US politics. It is as if the internet does not exist and the media can’t be bothered looking. As an example of this, the GOP front runner Mitt Romney consistently out polls Obama or is within the margin of error.

No mention of this in the discussion, not even a mention of any of the candidates by name. I doubt Price and Bolt know them. If listeners were tuning into MTR to be informed then they would have been disappointed.

For Price to say and for Bolt to agree that the GOP field are “…a whole bunch of loonies and religious freaks and nut cases…” is probably a reflection of their own ignorance and Bolt’s disingenuous attempt to be a conservative on issues Australians care about, but on more obscure issues default back to his leftists tendencies as he has done previously (see first link). For instance, Jack Welch said recently on CNN that Romney is the most qualified Presidential candidate in 50 years. Does Bolt even know who Romney is? Or that Newt Gingrich has written 13 New York Times best sellers. And we could go on, but don’t expect to get any facts from Bolt on MTR.

I admit that some of the GOP candidates are not my cup of tea, but I would not come close to characterising them as Bolt and Price have. If Price and Bolt had watched every GOP debate so far as I have, it would have become obvious to them that the GOP field are full of people of substance who care deeply about their country. They are not ‘nut cases’, while people’s religious persuasion should not be considered relevant. There is no religious test for office. Can you imagine Bolt saying: “…and people as absurd as the homosexuals…”.

I have pretty much given up on Bolt. I urge readers to study the details found in the link at the top of this post and make up their own minds. What I have documented so far is really only the tip of the iceberg. A more intense and comprehensive study of all that Bolt has written and said would likely reveal more conservative ‘game breakers’. Get real – Bolt is not a conservative.

MORE
From today’s GOP debate. Gingrich is not my first choice, but how can Bolt agree with the statement that the GOP candidates are ‘…a whole bunch of loonies, religious freaks and nut cases…’ after watching this video. Bolt is either extremely ill-informed, intellectually lazy or is not a conservative.

What was Rupert Murdoch thinking?

Posted by Chief Blogger – 4 January, 2012

Why did Murdoch open a Twitter account and tweet days before the Iowa primary that Rick Santorum was the best Republican candidate? I can offer one explanation. Murdoch was afraid that Romney would win Iowa and thereby close out the Republican primary process. Murdoch saw Santorum on the rise and so thought to give him a push along to make Iowa and therefore the primary process a contest. I don’t see Murdoch being naturally attracted to Santorum’s brand of social catholic conservatism. So Murdoch’s endorsement was certainly not motivated by ideology.

The Republican primary process is Fox News’ ratings bread and butter. Conservatives are not exactly going to turn on to MSNBC or any other cable network to see what is happening in the process. A Romney victory would kill ratings for months to come and so Murdoch tried to spice things up. Santorum is also a paid up Fox News contributor – which I have no problem with, it merely constitutes circumstantial evidence to support my claim.

Obviously it was a tight contest with Romney winning by only 8 votes. I’m not suggesting that Murdoch is the reason Santorum did so well however, merely speculating on Murdoch’s motivations.

Watching Fox News’ coverage of the primary you’d think that Romney lost even though he won. Part of the commentary bordered on product placement for anyone other than Romney, instead of considered factual based analysis. Apparently Romney needed to win by a bigger margin than 2008 for Iowa to be considered a success, even though the field in 2012 is far more competitive than in 2008. Karl Rove was the main exception to this flawed thinking. Romney won in a state he was not expected to win and at various stages fended of challenges from Pawlenty, Bachmann (won the Iowa straw poll, Romney did not even contest it), Trump, Perry, Cain and Gingrich, with last minute challenges from Paul and Santorum. Only 1 month ago Romney was polling as low as third place in Iowa. It was a great victory by Romney so much so that Perry and others are even thinking of skipping Romney’s strong hold of New Hampshire and going straight to South Carolina. Despite their best efforts I think Romney will win the nomination. If Romney can win in Iowa he can win in most places prior to Super Tuesday, which this year is not so super. This again falls to Romney’s organisation and funding strength for a long campaign, if need be. By Super Tuesday though it will be clear that the nomination is a fait accompli. Disappointing for ratings and political junkies – which includes me – good for Romney.

When is advertising on the ABC not really advertising

Posted by Chief Blogger – 20 December, 2011

…when the request comes from a former ALP adviser of course. What follows is an email transcript of a conversation about one of these non-advertisements on the ABC TV.

At approximately 1550 hours, on 16th November 2011, ABC 24 broadcast a promotional advertisement for the Australian Himalayan Foundation, which is headed by former ALP adviser Simon Balderstone. Is not this advertisement segment contrary to ABC’s editorial policy: Advertising and sponsorship restrictions, Chapter 11?

The ABC response:

As your correspondence raised concerns of a breach of the policies on advertising, your email was referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC’s editorial standards. In light of your concerns, we have reviewed the broadcast and assessed it against the ABC’s editorial requirements for advertising, as outlined in section 11 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm. In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC Television.

The Australian Himalayan Foundation is a Not for Profit charity whose aim is to promote awareness of the need to improve educational outcomes in Nepal. It is highly respected and reputable with a distinguished board drawn principally from Australians, New Zealanders and Nepalese with extensive experience with mountaineering in the Himalayas. The ABC has a long history of broadcasting such announcements for charitable organisations. They are consistent with ABC policies as the ABC is not paid for broadcasting them and they do not compromise the independence of the ABC.

Simon Balderstone, the Chairman is a former trek guide and a member of the 1984 First Australian Everest Expedition.  His former role as an advisor to the Australian Labor Party are not grounds for rejecting this announcement.

Accordingly, while noting your concerns, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied the broadcast was in keeping with the ABC’s policies.

The counter claim:

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1983, Schedule 31(1) states: “The Corporation shall not broadcast advertisements.” Given that the advertisement for the Australian Himalayan Foundation was not related to the ABC or part of an artistic, literary, musical or theatrical production or educational pursuit or a programme, the only part of the Act which might allow for the broadcast of the advertisement in question would be Schedule 31(2)(c), “…broadcasting any matter the broadcasting of which is directed by the Minister pursuant to subsection 78(1)”. This section requires the Minister to satisfy him/herself that the advertisement is in the national interest. Did the Minister approve the broadcasting of the advertisement for the Australian Himalayan Foundation as being in the national interest? Whether or not the ABC was paid for the advertisement is irrelevant to the Act.

You stated that the ABC has a long history of broadcasting advertisements for not-for-profit organisations. Are you able to provide a record of this history? If the ABC does allow advertising for not-for-profit organisations – as you state – what is the process a not-for-profit organisation must follow in order to obtain this free advertising service? In any case, the practice of advertising is a breach of the Australian Broadcasting Act, 1983.

The ABC response:

The example is covered by section 9 of the Editorial Policies

Standards

9.1 Free broadcast time or publication space may be provided to enable individuals or

organisations to communicate directly with the ABC, the audience and each other,

provided that:

a the content is broadcast or published as a public service;

b the content is relevant and suitable in the context in which it appears;

c the ABC maintains editorial control; and

d ABC independence and integrity are maintained.

These announcements do not constitute advertisements as intended by the Act because they are not paid for.

Readers should note that no where in the ABC Act is a distinction made between paid and unpaid advertising. The purpose of the advertisement was to solicit money from individuals, but according to the ABC that’s okay.

Am I my brother’s keeper?

Posted by Jeremy – 19 December, 2011

In the beginning, the tone of the media was very positive in support of the Iraq war. The western world was still largely aggrieved following 9/11 and taking action against any purported enemy, no matter how tenuously linked to the crimes of 9/11, certainly brought relief to a shaken western world. In the absence of any direct action, we felt like vulnerable little lambs just hoping the wolves didn’t pick us next. But, as the gears of war started to turn in our favour, suddenly we were back in control, we were calling the shots, and we felt truly powerful.

The sugar rush of this increased confidence initially gave George W Bush’s popularity a boost to 65%. However, the media would quickly turn permanently negative and has been running down the former US president and the Iraq war virtually every day since. This narrative continues today where the media seems to celebrate any negative news coming out of Iraq.  With the troop withdrawal now complete, all we hear is how bad it has been.

But is this fair and balanced? No.  What’s missing from the analysis is the ‘opportunity cost’ of not intervening in Iraq. Now war is ugly, and it is my personal belief we should err on the side of peace wherever possible. But the bottom line is this, without hyperbole, some people in this world are truly evil.

Enter Saddam Hussein:

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator responsible for the deaths of over 1.3M of his own people, with cold blood runing through his veins he murdered over 40 members of his own family, detained and tortured political prisoners, used chemical weapons to commit genocide against a Kurdish minority, and while in his formative years as a secondary student he killed a distant cousin by shooting him in the head.  Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein? Absolutely. But how much so? Based on extrapolating the casualty rates during two discrete periods of time, (Saddam Hussein’s reign vs the Iraq war), on average, 108.4 extra lives were saved per day (see below). As a result, the opportunity cost of not intervening in Iraq is that 345,796 more people would be dead. From this Iraq has at least 345,796 reasons to sing ‘God Bless America’, and two more if you include freedom and democracy.

References:

  1. Wikileaks Iraq War Logs – http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,724845,00.html
  2. Iraq Body Count Project – http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
  3. Infoshout – http://www.infoshout.com
  4. Whitehouse Release – http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html

What about the irony?

Posted by Chief Blogger – 14 December, 2011

You are a homosexual couple that has a child. You naturally want the best for your child and so when considering where to send her to school you decide that only a Christian school will do.

A same-sex couple whose daughter was originally rejected by a Broken Hill Catholic school have turned down an offer of enrolment.

The couple, who do not want to be identified, say they were shocked and hurt when told their relationship was the reason their daughter’s kindergarten application had been turned down by Sacred Heart Primary.

Acting head of the Wilcannia-Forbes diocese, Bishop Kevin Manning, says he was appalled to hear about the situation and had extended an offer to the couple.

The irony of this couple’s decision has been completely lost on the main stream media. What does this say about the homosexual couple’s lifestyle choice and the choices Christians make? By their choice to send to their daughter to a Christian school, a religion that is opposed to homosexuality, this couple tacitly admitted whose values are best. I wonder where Senator Wong’s new child will go to school?

Senator Wong has said the biological father is a friend who will be known to the baby, but his name is not expected to be made public.

“We are extremely grateful to our IVF service and staff, and to our donor, for giving us the opportunity to raise a child together,” Senator Wong said.

Yes, well. Thank you daddy IVF. The media used the occasion to push Senator Wong’s case for homosexual marriage. To my friends on the right, consider this article from the Witherspoon Institute:

Same-sex marriage will contribute further to the erosion of our marriage culture by making it unacceptable to say that children need married moms and dads… Far from being a neutral or pro-liberty position, same-sex marriage amounts to a government takeover of an ancient and honorable institution….government cannot create life, and did not create marriage, and government has no business redefining either.

The WSJ last year reported on the problems associated with IVF treatment for fatherless homes:

Young adults with maverick moms and donor dads report a sense of confusion, loss and distress about their origins and identity, and about their inability to relate to their biological father and to his kin… Fifty-six percent of these offspring said they depend more on friends than on family, compared to just 29% of young adults born to two biological parents.

As a note, studies that claim that there are no negative consequences for children raised in homosexual households usually suffer from data sampling issues.

A tender stitch up for their ABC

Posted by Chief Blogger – 5 December, 2011

No surprises:

The Federal Government has decided that the contract for the Australia Network international television service will remain with the ABC.

The Government scrapped the tender process last month, citing damaging leaks to the media.

No one has actually detailed what these mysterious leaks were about. I think it is a lie. You’d just run the tender again if it were true. The AFP are investigating. Like so many of their previous investigations into the government’s shoddy practices – the leak of Liberal Party costings by Swan’s office during the 2010 election – I’m sure the AFP will turn up nothing.

Sky says it expects to be “fully compensated” for applying for the now-failed tender.

Chief executive Angelo Frangopoulos says the decision to grant the contract to the ABC permanently is “extraordinary” given the two investigations.

If I was Sky News, I’d be suing Conroy and the government.

First order of business for an Abbott government: scrap the Australia Network, ABC’s online news network and privatise SBS.

ABC’s Ali Moore – making up the numbers

Posted by Chief Blogger – 30 November, 2011

Ali Moore tried to ping Andrew Robb last night:

ALI MOORE: Joe Hockey said 12,000 public servants redundant in the first two years.

ANDREW ROBB: That’s the first two years, if you don’t replace anybody. This is a much higher efficiency dividend than we were looking at, and yet they were criticising our efficiency dividend and said that it would and must imply public service cuts. Well, of course now Penny Wong and Wayne Swan say that no, that’s not necessary, even though two thirds or three quarters of the bills in all of these departments are in fact wages.

ALI MOORE: But how does your policy of 12,000 public servants to be made redundant voluntarily – you’re saying no forced redundancy in the first two years – yet you’ve also got a policy that says you will scrap the Department of Climate Change. I understand that includes something like 15,000 people?

ANDREW ROBB: We’re yet to detail all of this. We will show what our cuts will be. The 12,000 was from last time, we said we will repeat that. But in the main we will wait to see… we’ve still got possibly two budgets, and if you base it on this MYEFO. I mean, this MYEFO has blown out in the space of five months by $15 billion. The debt has gone up $26 billion.

ALI MOORE: Can you confirm the decision to scrap the Department of Climate Change. Are you saying on top of your 12,000 you will now be adding more?

ANDREW ROBB: We have said we will get rid of the Department of Climate Change, and those functions will be, in a modified version, part of the Department of Environment. So that is a decision we have announced.

Try 821 people, according to the Annual Report page 119.

ABC’s disgusting coverage of Obama’s visit

Posted by Chief Blogger – 16 November, 2011

A quick summary of the ABC’s coverage of President Obama’s visit:

1. None of the Republican presidential candidates look presidential.

2. Obama will be re-elected in 2012.

3. 60 per cent of Obama’s election commitments have been honoured, and that is a good thing (so much for thr 40 per cent).

4. President G.W. Bush ignored Asia (even though he visited Australia twice).

‘Guns are back’

Posted by Chief Blogger – 12 November, 2011

This is meant to be a problem, apparently:

Last financial year alone Australians imported more than 85,000 firearms, including 44,000 rifles, 12,000 shotguns and nearly 20,000 handguns, and research by Radio National’s Background Briefing program has revealed a resurging interest in guns and hunting….The national police information service CrimTrac does have a national database, and it lists 4.3 million registered firearms. A CrimTrac spokesperson says it has no control over the data and was unable to say anything else about those 4.3 million guns.

Let’s look at this ABC story in detail. The first paragraph in the story speaks volumes of the ABC’s agenda:

More than a decade after the horrific Port Arthur Massacre, gun ownership is on the rise in Australia, but experts say this resurgence is highlighting serious problems with the current regulation and registration system.

Notice how the ABC automatically links registered gun ownership with a massacre. Where’s the balance?

Gun control advocate Rebecca Peters says gun control groups are worried a resurgence of guns means a return to a pre-1996 gun culture.

“It’s possible that gun ownership is becoming cool again,” she said.

“It’s possible that the interest in guns is rising. I don’t think that’s a good thing, because in general it’s a kind of a pastime which is more associated with Australia’s past than with the modern Australia.”

Interesting how self appointed special interest groups get to determine what constitutes ‘modern Australia’. But this is the damning detail which is left for the end of the story. Despite gun ownership increasing:

For the past 15 years, gun homicide rates have been falling…

Oh…..so the murder rate has actually gone down while gun ownership has gone up, but at the beginning of the story would got an ear full of gun-massacre.

….but researchers fear because gun data is poorly kept and rarely shared, new crime trends involving guns are being missed.

Evidence? Are there gun related murders that are not being reported and recorded by the police? That makes no sense. Other factually challenged statements are throughout the ABC article as well.