Quick tell the ABC

While the ABC thinks nothing of calling climate deniers paedophiles the Australian Press Council has other views.

… it has concluded that the report of the anonymous remarks concerning paedophilia, a very serious and odious crime, were highly offensive. The Council’s principles relate, of course, to whether something is acceptable journalistic practice, not whether it is unlawful. They are breached where, as in this case, the level of offensiveness is so high that it outweighs the very strong public interest in freedom of speech.

But I wonder is the difference in approach is because the ABC referred to deniers as paedophiles and the article the Press Council was criticising was referring to (some) alarmists as paedophiles?

It was fully justifiable in the public interest to convey the intensity of feeling by some opponents of wind farms but that goal did not require quoting the reference to paedophilia.

The point remains, however. The Australian Press Council thinks that referring to people as paedophiles is highly offensive – the ABC does not.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Quick tell the ABC

  1. Dan

    The anonymous comment sure was apt, straight to the point and quite funny

  2. Harold

    I know the name Blair Donaldson from early Facebook days. Used to take his side on Creationism debates though he always did seem a little obsessed with it all, got quite manic at times. He has a condition which restricts him to a wheelchair so likely has a lot of time for social media and complaints. (the rest of us are just lazy shuttins)

  3. SteveC

    No Sinclair, the difference is Delingpole’s article directly referred to wind-farm groups as pedophiles
    “The wind-farm business is bloody well near a pedophile ring. They’re f . . king our families and knowingly doing so.”"

    The ABC show used an analogy that saying AGW is nonsence, not based on fact blah blah, is analogous (as in equally unscientific) as saying pedophilia is good for children or inhaling asbestos is good for asthmatics. i.e. clearly nonsense.

  4. Sinclair Davidson

    I understand everything you wrote there except the “No”. The ABC says deniers are and the other article says alarmists are. The article is offensive the ABC not.

  5. Up The Workers!

    “The Australian Press Council thinks that referring to people as paedophiles is highly offensive – the A.B.C. does not.”

    Maybe that is because the Australian Press Council has some measurable degree of intelligence, morality and decency, whereas the A.L.P.B.C. does not.

  6. Harold

    SteveC it’s obviously an analogy (by Delingpole) because a large wind-turbine doesn’t sexually interfere with children.

    Also when he said “f**cking our families” he’s obviously used f**cking in a metaphorical sense, like we say lawyers fuck people by charging them so much.

    If I’m wrong “wind-farm groups” can sue Delingpole for libel.

  7. Gab

    Let’s be clear. Delingpole never actually said those things. It was said by a farmer.

  8. SteveC

    true Gab, but he was dumb enough to repeat it in print.

  9. Tiny Dancer

    Thank goodness you are here to point it out SteveC. I feel blessed.

  10. Gab

    True, Tiny, he;s the master of the obvious.

  11. Viva

    Wasn’t Cory Bernardi slammed by the ABC for allegedly making a connection between gay marriage and bestiality? Bestiality is only slightly less repugnant to most sensibilities than pedophilia but of course gays are on a pedestal whilst climate sceptics are at the bottom of the heap in ABCWorld.

  12. And Another Thing

    The scariest thing about all this is that while there should be alarm bells ringing at the ABC, no one at the organization thinks there’s anything wrong with what’s going on.

    How much longer will the taxpayers bankroll an organization of spin staffed by the left, for the left.

  13. Lysander Spooner

    It easy. Start the same campaign we started at our home. Its called “Turn it off.”

  14. Jarrah

    “the ABC referred to deniers as paedophiles”

    No, it didn’t. Your assertion is without foundation. I can only presume you’ve started on the eggnog early.

  15. Entropy

    That might work if Lysander if the ABC was a broadcaster whose income was dependent on people actually watching them. However, it’s revenue is guaranteed regardless of whatever crap the collective deems fits their agenda.

  16. MattR

    Lysander Spooner

    This only works if the organisation is privately funded. Nobody in the country could watch the ABC and it would still be there, wasting taxpayer money.

  17. Toiling Mass

    It is a nice thought, though, that funding to the ABC could be tied to viewership.

    The resident lefties would go apoplectic, of course. Insisting that the purpose of the ABC is to provide what is not popular (which is not actually true).

    Most voters would see the advantage of the ABC they are paying for providing them with something, instead of taking their cash and then insulting them for their efforts, and the ABC would have to consider how much revenue-securing time they could afford to sacrifice to ‘non-revenue’ programs.

  18. Pedro

    Sorry, but if you can’t see the difference between this:
    the “wind-farm business is bloody well near a pedophile ring. They’re f..king our families and knowingly doing so”.
    and what Williams said then you’re not really trying.

  19. hammygar

    This is a trivial issue. What’s really important is that the Government is taking the highly responsible decision that it won’t deliver a surplus this financial year. Of course they’ll have to put up with cheap sneers from the likes of the wall-punching Abbott and the fool Hockey. Thank heavens we have a government with a sense of responsibility.

  20. Gab

    LOl keep at it, hammybacon. People have been telling Swan for months now that there will be no surplus. The Opposition have been saying this for months, industry has been warning Swan for months. Finally, the DC Swan has seen the reality of the situation and is backpedaling like a clown on a unicycle.

  21. Gab

    Why it was only last week that gillard argued

    There will be a budget surplus under the government I lead

  22. tgs

    This is a trivial issue. What’s really important is that the Government is taking the highly responsible decision that it won’t deliver a surplus this financial year. Of course they’ll have to put up with cheap sneers from the likes of the wall-punching Abbott and the fool Hockey. Thank heavens we have a government with a sense of responsibility.

    Too obvious to be an effective troll.

    3/10

  23. Gibbo

    Honey I Shrunk The Surplus, eh Hammy? Maybe the surplus was a hysterical inaccuracy?

  24. Jannie

    Debate about the ABC is pointless, they either ignore it or attack it from their bully pulpit. Switching it Off is not good enough, because they support our enemies, and undermine our allies, even when we dont watch.

    The Libs and moreso the Nats have to address the matter, and articulate their policy, which can only be privatisation. At the moment they are so scared of the ABC they just whistle in the dark.

  25. Rococo Liberal

    So why does it matter if the quoted remarks were ‘offensive?’

    Why does it matter if Robyn WIlliams equates those of us who are sceptical about AGW as peodophiles? We the listeners know that the first remark is by someone aggrieved and therefore should be discounted, and that the second remark is made by a first class twat who should be ignoored as an unscientific fantasist with a very small penis.

  26. Jannie

    Feeding the trolls only encourages them.

  27. Jarrah

    “Why does it matter if Robyn WIlliams equates those of us who are sceptical about AGW as peodophiles?”

    Except he didn’t. At least criticise him for what he did, not imaginary offences.

  28. Harold

    Just like the Catholic church protecting paedophile priests, the ABC protects their own too.

    Lets keep this up and see how cool they are with non-direct comparisons with paedophiles.

  29. Anne

    Hamburglar, I wish they would stop being so responsible. The weight of $250B of debt is more than our children can bear!

    Okay, no more peanuts thrown to trolls…got it!

  30. MattR

    Except he didn’t. At least criticise him for what he did, not imaginary offences.

    Except he did:

    “”What if I told you that paedophilia is good for children, or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma, or that smoking crack is a normal part, and healthy one, of teenage life, and to be encouraged? You’d rightly find it outrageous. But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths, again and again in recent times distorting the science.”"

    Paedaphilia is good for children = Climate change is not predominantly man-made.

    Perhaps you should think before commenting?

  31. Jarrah

    “Except he did:”

    Do you have problems with reading? He clearly doesn’t. He says certain claims are outrageous, and equates those claims with the claims of AGW ‘sceptics’.

    “Perhaps you should think before commenting?”

    The irony is strong with this one.

  32. MattR

    Are you brain dead? He clearly equates saying “paedaphilia is good” as being along the same logical consistency as saying “CAGW is nonsense”. Ergo, he equates approval of paedaphilia as being the same as “climate change denial”.

    And you call skeptics ‘deniers’ lol…

    The stupidity is strong with this one.

  33. Dianne

    I find it very interesting that Neil James from the ADFA had a letter to the Editor in the Aus a few days back giving the Defence Force view on bias at the ABC – I really believe that there are consequences for the ABC & others who continue to flout their obligations….

  34. Lysander Spooner

    The “Turn if off” campaign, while home-based, also encompasses Government participation :-)

  35. Pedro

    “Ergo, he equates approval of paedaphilia as being the same as “climate change denial”.”

    What a dope. He said denial of AGW is as stupid as approval of paedophilia. This debate is evidence for the lefty claim that conservatives are stupid.

  36. Keith

    Turn it off ?
    I’d have to turn it on first. :-)

  37. Gab

    He said denial of AGW is as stupid horrific and morally repugnant as approval of paedophilia.

    FTFY.

    At least be a little honest.

  38. Jim Rose

    the purpose of political speech is to provoke dispute and debate. if some over-reach, and many do at least once, they make a fool of themselves.

  39. Token

    Let’s get a few articles out there making oblique links between ABC staff and paedophiles & manufacturers of asbestos and we’ll soon see how “allowable” the precious poppets think such comments are.

  40. Token

    Let’s get a few articles out there making oblique links between ABC staff and paedo’s & manufacturers of asbestos and we’ll soon see how “allowable” the precious poppets think such comments are.

  41. Jarrah

    “He clearly equates saying “paedaphilia is good” as being along the same logical consistency as saying “CAGW is nonsense”. Ergo, he equates approval of paedaphilia as being the same as “climate change denial”.”

    Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise, and your premise isn’t even accurate.

    “The stupidity is strong with this one.”

    Talking about yourself in the third person makes you look like a prat.

  42. I am the Walrus koo koo k'choo

    The ABC’s being allowed to investigate and rule on complaints against itself makes about as much sense, and produces the same results as, allowing pedophiles to investigate and rule on complaints against themselves.

  43. I am the Walrus koo koo k'choo

    Allowing a climate loon like Robyn Williams to go on air and spruik rubbish about the dangers of climate change makes about as much sense as letting a paedophile on air to spruik the benefits of paedophilia.

    See, anyone can play this game. Don’t get mad, get even. Give climate loon Williams a taste of his own medicine.

  44. cohenite

    Well, I have to be consistent; I called steve a shithead for arguing that Williams did not compare sceptics to pedophiles so I suppose I know have to call Jarrah a shithead as well.

  45. William Bragg

    I understand everything you wrote there except the “No”.

    Then you need, Sinc, to learn a little more about the English language. You have attempted the verbal the ABC, and your ‘hot under the collar’ rant about the imagined different standards of the press council and the ABC reflects nothing more than your own misunderstandings on this matter.

    SteveC and Jarrah have the point totally right – that you and others here can not – or at least do not want to – see the simple distinction reflects the strong blinkers that, alas, come with being a Catallaxian true believer.

  46. Token

    I note that Dellers got an article in The Oz quoting “100 meters” Williams puerile analogy.

    He also compares the UK Press Standards ruling to the Australian ruling on a similar topic.

    I think I’ll refer the article to the Australian Press Council and complain about Williams words. I’d love to see the luvvies face when they have to assess the frank criticism of their disgraceful standards.

  47. Jarrah

    “I called steve a shithead for arguing that Williams did not compare sceptics to pedophiles so I suppose I know have to call Jarrah a shithead as well.”

    Yes, your resort to insult when you have no argument is well known.

Comments are closed.