“Did the proprietors have this coming? Because of their attitude…?”
I am absolutely gobsmacked.
But hey, what about this version:
“Did the ABC have this coming? Because of their attitude …?”
What would Barrie “Timbo’s best mate” Casssidy have to say about that version?
The ABC certainly have it coming.
Blogstrop
18 Mar 13 at 7:17 am
I am not sure why; it is slightly more brazen than usual, however there hasn’t even been a pretense of balance from Cassidy for some time.
Insiders is unwatchable. That is produced with the money of public money including from people at whom they openly sneer and condescendingly laugh is just so offensive.
Brett
18 Mar 13 at 7:18 am
Yes he did say that. As I have argued if the Coalition lose this and the bill is passed then it should use the public interest test to destroy the ABC as the government owned media behemoth it is. Is it really in the public interest for the government to be the only media proprietor not subject to the rules the others are subject to? Is it really in the public interest for the government to be the biggest media proprietor in the land? Is it really in the public interest that the 45% of voters that regularly vote conservative or libertarian have no editorial or journalistic representation in the opinion expressed by the government broadcaster? Abbott could use this bill t finally destroy the ABC before repealing it.
John Comnenus
18 Mar 13 at 7:18 am
I suggest that by Cassidy saying what he said can only mean Murdoch.
The SMH/AGE and ALPBC are leaderless!!!!!
Mike of Marion
18 Mar 13 at 7:19 am
Yes, but the real tradgedy will be Abbott won’t defund it.
Forester
18 Mar 13 at 7:22 am
Leatherface needs to be fire immediately. No ifs no buts , just fired.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 7:27 am
John, I think you will find the ABC is exempt from this law.
Entropy
18 Mar 13 at 7:30 am
Entropy, probably, but you could still use the public interest test to demonstrate why the ABC should be broken up and privatized.
John Comnenus
18 Mar 13 at 7:42 am
Indeed, Their ABC have something on the LibLabs. How otherwise can Howard’s disgraceful refusal to act be explained. Tone will do nothing except cringe and create an ‘independent’ (until Labor returns) ABC ombudsman type position. Maybe they have pics of Menzies fornicating with his kelpie.
Alfonso
18 Mar 13 at 7:44 am
Cassidy did say that and proved himself yet again to be just another Labor stooge. The behaviour yesterday was unacceptable. Both he and Middleton know the laws will not affect them.
Mother G
18 Mar 13 at 7:46 am
Agree, JC, it’s time ol’ leatherface was absolutely jobsacked.
Rabz
18 Mar 13 at 7:48 am
Turnbull bloviating on Sky about the attacks on free speech and the role of the nuclear milkman…
Rabz
18 Mar 13 at 7:50 am
Perhaps Barrie can prevail upon his mate to supply the questions which Gillard thought should be answered.
Mind you, things won’t necessarily be that bad.
When I parley thirty years of broadcasting experience into getting the public interest commissar gig, you’ll hardly notice. Sure, some may privately wonder at who’s been black listed under the rumoured Fisk Doctrine, or why Mark “How can we help” Riley only ever does saccharine, lost puppy stories and why Insiders only covers the Union/ALP Royal Commission revelation of the week.
Or what ever happened to David Marr.
They’ll be little things like that, a subtle smoothing of a few rough edges.
lotocoti
18 Mar 13 at 8:05 am
Answer this question, would the ABC or SBS be covered by the new law?
Are they answerable to the Press Council?
You are looking at an organisation that is lobbying to nobble its competitors with oversight they will not have themselves.
Token
18 Mar 13 at 8:09 am
Along those lines, seeing the ABC & SBS are so excited by the law, we should do targeted testing of the law post the election of the Coaltion government.
The trial should be that the Abbott government appointed commissar impose the oversight on all arms of the ABC & SBS only for the length of the first term of the new government.
Token
18 Mar 13 at 8:11 am
Poor old Barrie, he’s probably still scratching his head: what did I say?
manalive
18 Mar 13 at 8:32 am
First they came for the billionaires, the big miners and the media magnates. Perhaps they should have picked softer targets.
Come to think of it, they did: poor people who want to use electricity and underemployed people looking for casual work on the weekend.
Rafe
18 Mar 13 at 8:42 am
This just shows up the right as the greatest hypocrites of all time. They would censor the ABC simply because it airs opinions it disagrees with. Please explain how this is different to what you are claiming Conroy is allegedly doing to Murdoch?
hammygar
18 Mar 13 at 8:46 am
Oh, Hammy, your Arlene Composta style satire is just so funny. The faux moral outrage you use to lampoon the people you are pretending to defend is so delicious.
More please.
Token
18 Mar 13 at 8:51 am
No we wouldn’t censor it Hamster we want to close the f-cker down.
There is little or no public interest in a public broadcaster and publisher.
Moreover the ABC only airs leftist opinions.
JamesK
18 Mar 13 at 8:54 am
ABC should be funded based on market share. They can struggle for the advertising dollar like the rest, or they can all face 90% pay cut. We’re still not allowed to know the pay levels of Leathery, or mummybrain Sales or even the gelded Uhlmann.
Keith
18 Mar 13 at 8:57 am
For me the gobsmack moment in Cassidy’s comments came in this exchange:
BARRIE Cassidy: Well the media story certainly did break through. . . . Is there a bit of hysteria in all this?
Malcolm Farr: I’m still left with the question why they did it?
Cassidy: (passionately) Well, how about this for an answer. Because they believe in it . . .
Really? The phone hacking scandal in Britain used as a casus belli for the Finkelstein inquiry designed to give the government cover for an attack on News limited.
You would have to be obtuse or paid off not see this.
But Cassidy hangs out at the footy with Tim and he is a really nice guy and Julia is really nice too and the 10 milllion hand out to the ABC will keep Cassidy employed for the nest few years.
The Gillards really love Australia so don’t impugn their motives.
The irony in this is that when Cassidy refers to the hysteria he obviously has the comparison of Conroy to Stalin in mind. Stalin always had true believers to defend him and their arguments would ring hauntingly like Cassidy’s. It’s ok, uncle Joe cares, uncle Joe believes.
ja
18 Mar 13 at 9:10 am
It airs Piers Akerman, Gerard Henderson. Nikki Savva, Tony Abbott, etc etc. Hardly left of centre.
hammygar
18 Mar 13 at 9:14 am
Rubbish.
It has not a single conservative host except 4pm on a Monday Radio National for an hour and then only if you consider Amanda Vanstone a conservative.
If you did by the way, you’d be a leftist.
Most ABC ‘conversations’ or debates on-air – particularly radio – have no conservative.
Occasionally – if conservatives are lucky – there is a token conservatives in a sea of leftists on QANDA and Insiders but usually there is a single wet liberal in lieu.
JamesK
18 Mar 13 at 9:25 am
So you are angry at him for not acting on the ABC yet don’t want Labor to act on the media as a whole? Bizarre!
Andrew
18 Mar 13 at 9:31 am
Just remember what Graham Richardson described the ABC as – a collective, or something. Uncontrollable then as now.
Louis Hissink
18 Mar 13 at 9:32 am
The abc cannot see that if conroy is successful they are no longer needed and swan will sell their spectrum in a heartbeat,where will they go,not even Fairfax will touch them.
brinkin
18 Mar 13 at 10:19 am
I don’t normally listen to the ABC.. but was pleasantly surprised when Sunday’s religion program was on (SWMBO had left RN on) and Clifford Longley (I think) got stuck into the presenter.
Presenter: “but there’s were 20,000 protesting at the last Pope when he came to Britain, including ”
CL: “First time I’ve heard those numbers, I think it was actually 10,000″
Presenter: “Oh, yes.. maybe they were inflated”
CL: “.. and you are forgetting the order of magnitude more people there who came out to greet him.
The difference in demeanor of the two groups was startling: joyous celebration from supporters, including a large contigent of young people, versus a small crowd of dour sour-pusses. They won the argument then and there”
(*) – paraphrased.
duncanm
18 Mar 13 at 10:31 am
The ABC is a government department who takes it funding at the point of a gun. It exists at the whim at the taxpayer.
Why is it so difficult for some people to see the difference??
twostix
18 Mar 13 at 10:53 am
Piers Ackerman column today:
It would not be news to readers of this site that this dysfunctional government’s ham-fisted attempts to muzzle the media anger me.
Unfortunately, I permitted that anger to show on the ABC’s Insiders program yesterday.
Flanked by two people who laughed at the notion that press freedom was threatened, and mocked by the show’s host, I raised my voice.
Perhaps I should not have.
I was angered by their naivete, by their apparent belief that freedom can be trifled with.
I believe freedom is an absolute.
You either have a free press or you do not.
The Gillard government, and one assumes, the snickering panelists and the host of the Insiders seem to think that it is possible to have a regulated free press.
Oxymoronic? The morons had all the oxygen the ABC could give them.
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is a buffoon.
His arguments for reining in the media are specious, at best.
I think they are plain dishonest.
He bases his case on the two inquiries into the media in Australia.
Neither were valid.
The current Press Council is a censorious do-gooder body which leans to the Left under Julian Disney, a classic bleeding heart and former head of ACOSS, the social services umbrella group.
He has tried to dictate the language the media uses to describe people who pay illegal people smugglers to ferry them to Australia (after they destroy their passports).
But the Press Council is still a better body than any government-enforced regulator could possibly be.
I had to fly to Melbourne to appear on the Insiders.
The usual creche of wailing babies were on both the flight to and from the city.
I buried myself in Belomor, a recent novel by Nicolas Rothwell, a great Australian author.
At one point he describes the bombed city of Dresden when it was under the control of the East German Soviet-puppet state, and its citizens lived in fear of the Stasi.
I visited the Soviet bloc several times during the era Rothwell described so vividly. It was not hard to recall the fear that shrouded the population.
My point on the Insiders was that the Berlin Wall came down in November, 1989, and the world cheered for the freedom symbolised by that destruction.
Now, we are seeing an attempt to remove an essential freedom from Australia, a nation which I thought was a liberal democracy.
And people laugh at my fears, just as they laughed as the Soviets started to impose their will on millions, and Mao began his march and the Nazis began to recruit their followers.
I do not believe freedom is a laughing matter.
Finally, I wish to thank readers for the hundreds of messages of support I have received. Make sure the Labor Party and its Green and Independent supporters know of your wrath.
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 11:02 am
Why are you gobsmacked that a left-wing ‘journalist’ wants dissidents jailed?
C.L.
18 Mar 13 at 11:09 am
Judith et al,
surely it is time to start gathering the momentum, the people and the numbers to petition the incoming Abbott Government to do something once and for all with the ABC? It would have to be done First Term and early!
It is all good and well to whinge on blogs about it all (as I am guilty of this as well) but the time for talk is over. I propose these actions:
-The ABC stop competing with commercial agencies;
-The ABC stop providing “commentary” on sites like The Drum amongst others;
-The ABC’s core service (“news” and kids’ shows) be left as a statutory and appropriated arm of government;
-ALL other ABC shows become Pay-for-View – whether it be documentary, music, commentariat, views etc…
That’ll save about 800 million a year. (Cos I doubt it will make any revenue)
Lysander Spooner
18 Mar 13 at 11:09 am
It’s a deranged argument out there.
Some journalists are saying they want the PIMA because, effectively, they don’t know what the public interest is. They need a little nudge.
Buffoons
Dan
18 Mar 13 at 11:26 am
NO, LS, they cannot be trusted with anything any more. They’ll turn any type of program into a left-prism lightshow.
blogstrop
18 Mar 13 at 11:31 am
No they know what the public interest is and it’s not them, it’s overwhelmingly News Ltd’s publications and journalists. That’s the “problem” – that people are choosing to read the wrong newspapers and websites.
So some journalists (the ones nobody reads) want that recitified by preventing us from reading what we want so that we may have to read them and their swill again. It’s the ugliest form of protectionism: they’re saying they can’t compete, that the public overwhelming rejects their message so the competition must be knobbled.
We should take heart: the left are dying. Their newspapers are dying, their political influence is being systematically rooted out of the nation by the electorate.
The current madness is a symptom of that death. And was predicted two years ago. They’ve realised that the public gave them a chance five years ago and now are completely rejecting what they’re selling – politically and commercially.
twostix
18 Mar 13 at 11:47 am
“Journalist”? A left-wing ALP Member, former advisor to a Labor Prime Minister and best friend of the current Prime Ministers boyfriend.
How such a person ends up hosting a taxpayer funded political show is an interesting question. How people say the ABC isn’t biased when people with such links to the ALP (Cassidy, Obrien, Mckew, Ulhmann) keep ending up at the top of the ABC political shows is the real problem.
twostix
18 Mar 13 at 11:56 am
Where I work its important that any potential conflict of interest be tabled and declared . One would imagine that an ex Labor staffer going to the football with the Prime Minister”s partner would be worthy of some questions as to a possible conflict of interest . Not at our ABC obviously.
Nic
18 Mar 13 at 11:57 am
My take on the Insiders exchange is as follows:
1 I think the goons were laughing at the analogy and they think it is OTT, all seemed to agree that there could be problems with the proposal.
2 For them the big issue was not the proposal but the reaction from News Ltd.
3 Cassidy’s asking whether they had it coming perfectly demonstrates his complete inability to view any issues other than for or against the govt. The underlying principle is irrelevant to him.
I don’t much see Ackerman and my sense is he’s largely a buffoon. I wouldn’t have led with the berlin wall. The intelligent approach is to simply point out how extraordinary it is that the govt should be proposing that the Minister appoint a person who will have the clear ability to interfere with how the press conducts its core business. And invite the shills to address the principle and not the politics. They’d have had the simple choice of agreeing or looking like fuckwits. Conroy’s proposal is not the establishment of the KGB, but it is the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge.
Pedro
18 Mar 13 at 12:04 pm
The other thing worth discussing is Conroy’s comparison to the appointments of the head of ACMA and the ACCC. The second one is not any sort of analogy because the ACCC is not dealing with a fundamental building block of democracy. But the ACMA appointment does.
I’ve heard in the past people arguing that the govt should have a public interest oversight role because the broadcasters use public spectrum, but this is nonsense and should be attacked. The public interest in the spectrum is to get top dollar and to have a free media. Full stop.
Pedro
18 Mar 13 at 12:08 pm
That’s their concocted narrative Pedro.
They’re making it about the DT’s frontpage. They want the regulation for various reasons and they don’t want to have to argue about such things like freedom of the press so they’ll just keep talking about the DT’s front page and: “News Ltd’s hysteria – does it prove we need regulation?”.
I agree Akerman is a TV lightweight and his rant is not the hill to die on in this battle – when battling in public and not poking fun ratchet up the stalinist analogies last not first.
twostix
18 Mar 13 at 12:27 pm
Hammy,
by destroy I mean broken up and sold off in pieces. I would even be happy to sell it to the current employees.
John Comnenus
18 Mar 13 at 12:37 pm
BTW,
that’s not censoring it, it is refusing to subsidize it. In my view, there is no over riding public interest for the public at large to subsidise one particular political viewpoint. In fact I think there is a very strong public interest for the Government to refuse to subsidise one political viewpoint at odds to the views of those forced to subsidise it. I dislike Fairfax, the Global Mail and Crikey, but I unreservedly support their right to write and publish what they want.
John Comnenus
18 Mar 13 at 12:40 pm
How did Juanita “Combet” Philips get missed from your list?
Token
18 Mar 13 at 12:54 pm
I thought you meant Barry OFarrell, who recently said that ‘businesses are like children – they need to be shown their boundaries’.
Did he really say that? Yeh, he did. Poor old NSW.
Uber
18 Mar 13 at 1:31 pm
There’s just far too many to remember them all.
twostix
18 Mar 13 at 1:39 pm
Too late.
jupes
18 Mar 13 at 1:50 pm
And don’t forget Mrs Cassidy, Heather Ewart.
Steve of Ferny Hills
18 Mar 13 at 1:56 pm
Have to agree with Pedro I’m afraid. Ackerman does not come across well on TV. He’s a poor public speaker and his Berlin Wall comments were hardly the place to begin a logical discussion here. It was obvious that the Leftists were going to laugh at his OTT remarks. Nevertheless, it was good in that it exposed Cassidy’s “did they have this coming” remarks which, from an alleged journalist, were extraordinary in the extreme.
Fred C Dobbs
18 Mar 13 at 2:17 pm
Without the stomach for a return to the tape for exact wording Cassidy did utter something equally astonishing when he posed the question of his panel, less Ackerman – maybe they believe in it? Of course they believe in controlling the press, knucklehead. It’s their reason for living. It’s also now the final piece to the puzzle. Those of us who know that don’t like it but will not fall in fear and honour it. But as history will prove, as it always does, the blind disciples will be laughing on the other side of their faces when their wish does come true.
Wishing Well
18 Mar 13 at 2:38 pm
Holy shit.
Are you fucking serious?
His wife as well?
So we’ve got direct relational or membership links to the ALP and government inside the senior ABC political and news section in:
Barry Cassidy
Kerry O’brien
Maxine Mckew
Chris Ulhmann
Juanita Philips
Heather Ewart
Let’s make this a definitive list anybody know of anyone else?
twostix
18 Mar 13 at 3:53 pm
Ulhmann’s a good operator, leave him out of it. Paul Kelly is/was married to Ros Kelly.
Pedro
18 Mar 13 at 4:03 pm
I created this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_Against_Bias_Journalists
Someone just needs to fill it up with substantiated evidence! I can’t because I work for government and our IP address is publicly available….anyone want to list the names above (amongst others such as Fran Kelly, Tony Jones etc..)
Lysander Spooner
18 Mar 13 at 4:10 pm
Sure thing Lysander . Happy to.
I’m not in my home office at the moment but I’ll fill in the names as soon as I get home.
You want the names of the offending taxeating reprobates on the wiki page, right?
…….Not listing them here …?
JC
18 Mar 13 at 4:16 pm
Ulhman is fine…. And he isn’t a first rate dickhead like say Tony Jones, fuckwit Terry O’Brien or Fran tractor Kelly.
I agree with Pedro.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 4:19 pm
Or that little leftist rat, alberici.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 4:20 pm
I notice that offensive twerp, social justice obsessive, Kero boy is stealing pixels again from the site.
Moderator, he’s as useless as third bull’s tit.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 4:28 pm
Tractor kelly? Is it the dungarees? Or ploughing a furrow? Or a head like a Massey?
Pedro
18 Mar 13 at 5:19 pm
If you had to draw a map or family tree of the ABC and the incestual links to Labour, the Unions, and the public service it would look like this..
The only difference is that the colours of the branch lines would represent factions,and the stations would represent WAGS, divorced spouses, and FB’s.
Splatacrobat
18 Mar 13 at 5:25 pm
Pedro
No kidding she reminds me of the front end of an international harvester tractor. Not the wheat harvestor thingi they sell…the tractor…. I wanna be clear.
It’s not a put down (scouts honor) as people can sometimes look like a machine. In her case she reminds me of international harvester tractor. No biggie.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 5:25 pm
I’m happy for the put-down, she’s damn ugly. Just because people have stupid ideas and obvious journalistic bias is no reason to ignore their unpleasant personal characteristics when listing all of the things you don’t like about them.
Pedro
18 Mar 13 at 5:32 pm
JC – I think it is a fine idea! Wiki accepts any page creation so long as it is backed up by a reference. That way, if anyone takes it down you can have it reinstated based on facts.
You might get some lefties trying to write from the “other perspective” (i.e. wrong) that there a plenty of Libs but I think this is nonsense. Gerard Henderson has plenty of links as well.
I’d be happy to help out as well (whilst at home).
Let’s get the (wrecking) ball rolling folks!
Lysander Spooner
18 Mar 13 at 5:48 pm
In true form, the title of the wiki page was wrong!!! Here is the new page to work on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Bias_in_the_ABC
All contributions invited!
Lysander Spooner
18 Mar 13 at 6:00 pm
Lysander
I went to the page pressed edit, include this, but for some reason it doesn’t shoo up.
These allegations have continually revolved around the following presenters at the ABC (see below), whom according to numerous journalists and bloggers, are the worst offenders, flouting laws and internal fairness regulations of the publicly funded broadcaster.
Fran Kelly
Tony Jones
Jonathon Holmes
Emma Alberici
Barrie Cassidy along with his presenter wife, Heather Eawart
Juanita Phillips
Kerry O”Brien
Jonathon Faine
JC
18 Mar 13 at 6:16 pm
It’s up now, yukyukyuk
Oh come on
18 Mar 13 at 6:26 pm
Oh Good, OCO
I added Emma the rat Alberici, Tractor Kelly, Jonathon Faine and Jonathon Holmes.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 6:35 pm
That’s all well and good, but some citations of examples would benefit the page’s credibility.
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 6:39 pm
Gab
I added Ol’ Leatherfaces ” the proprietors had it coming” comment.
I need a cite though.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 6:43 pm
Yes indeed! If you don’t have refs it can be taken down – I have some advice that “it won’t last long” from the inside so it must get refs!!! My wiki syntax sux so any help would be desirable!
Let anyone who has any claims cite them (regardless of which side!)
Lysander Spooner
18 Mar 13 at 6:43 pm
Here ya go, JC:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cut-paste/butch-cassidy-and-the-chuckle-grubs-have-a-good-old-giggle-about-muzzling-the-press/story-fn72xczz-1226599370194
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 6:46 pm
So, not long after its creation, Somebody has already dobbed you in?
How fucked it is that?
Dan
18 Mar 13 at 6:57 pm
By this loser apparently
Dan
18 Mar 13 at 7:01 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_March_18
Suggest someone adds a comment to the deletions page maintaining that citations are being loaded.
Alternatively, we can build a “page” here, with citations and even if it takes a few days, and then load it onto a new ABC bias allegations page.
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 7:02 pm
Someone should put in – for shits and giggles – claims of a right wing bias.
Oh come on
18 Mar 13 at 7:03 pm
It wasn’t even up 20 minutes before some wiki user called “I am one of many” requsted Wiki consider the page for deletion based on editorial content rather than fact.
“I am one of many” sounds a bit like that fringe-dwelling 99% percent movement eh? Let’s get a mass swelling of people onto it, add as many SUBSTANTIATED references as possible.
It has to be substantiated, otherwise wiki will delete it – a policy which makes perfect sense.
As I said, I don’t care which side of politics puts substantiated claims on it – but it is just in the hope that it will help clear up this bias fiasco (or not) once and for all!
Lysander Spooner
18 Mar 13 at 7:03 pm
Also suggest the title use the words Australian Broadcasting Corporation rather than ABC.
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 7:04 pm
well “oh come on” apparently a 2007 ABC report showed that 10 members of the ABC went onto work for the ALP and 9 went to work for the Libs – so there’s an authoritative source.
You have to show both sides….but which side will prevail?
Lysander Spooner
18 Mar 13 at 7:05 pm
Or at least make an empty ‘Claims of conservative bias’ subheading. Yukyukyuk
Oh come on
18 Mar 13 at 7:05 pm
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 7:05 pm
I have heard/read of a few moonbats around the traps complaining of a right wing bias.
Actually, a relative of mine (a rabid lefty) was once recounting the latest lefty outrage to me, and after finishing exclaimed “and I heard that on the ABC and you can’t get more right wing than that!”
Huh? I almost fell off my chair. No point reasoning with such a confused individual.
Oh come on
18 Mar 13 at 7:10 pm
Hah….. Well the fight is on now!!! See the talk section!
Lysander spooner
18 Mar 13 at 8:13 pm
Yes I just added another comment, Lysander. Gosh that other person is paranoid.
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 8:53 pm
They should be!!!!
Lysander spooner
18 Mar 13 at 9:45 pm