Remember the Finkelstein Review?

You would think Craig Emerson would recall media policy under the previous Labor government. But no:

By asking the ABC whose side it is on following the airing on Q&A of a question from a man who had been charged with terror offences, Australia’s Prime Minister was essentially accusing the national broadcaster of supporting terrorism. It’s part of a pattern. Eighteen months ago, the Prime Minister accused the ABC of taking “everybody’s side but Australia’s”. It seems the Prime Minister will decide who is on Team Australia and the circumstances in which they are selected.

Under the previous Labor government we had a Prime Minister in Julia Gillard who didn’t ask who was on Team Australia’s side – a legitimate question for the Australian Prime Minister to ask of the Australian taxpayer funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation – but who was on Team Gillard’s side. When journalists investigated her own role in some union activity she organised for journalists to be sacked from their jobs, and had a full on inquiry into the media. Her partner in incompetent governemnt Bob Brown took to singling out and abusing News journalists at his press conferences. All that for criticising the government. Abbott isn’t just suggesting the ABC is anti-government, he is suggesting the ABC is anti-Australia – a very clear distinction.

This entry was posted in Hypocrisy of progressives, Media, National Security, Sink the Fink. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Remember the Finkelstein Review?

  1. Big_Nambas

    The answer is YES the ABC is anti Australia. They want a socialist paradise not a liberal democracy.

  2. Rabz

    You would think Craig Emerson would …

    … be roundly belittled and otherwise ignored by anyone who considers themselves in possession of more than one functioning brain cell.

    Seriously, he should have died of shame shortly after that legendary piece of semi-impromptu insanity we don’t talk about.

  3. Karabar

    If Emerson were in possession of a brain, he would get down on the floor and play with it. His nonsensical comments only suggest the question “Who the Hell put this idiot in Parliament?”

  4. Toiling Mass

    was essentially accusing the national broadcaster of supporting terrorism

    That is a rather atrocious mischaracterisation.

    First ‘supporting terrorism’ sounds like sharing an agenda or providing materials, but is bogstandard political hyperbole (or hyperbowl) so that any clarification can be cast as a backdown. Labor really is seething with a hate-filled mob. They have one objective – to get their hands back on the purse strings.

    The ABC did unwittingly provide the twat a podium. Q&A was blinded by their desire to embarrass a Lib. They gave it no more thought than that, and looked no further because it was irrelevant.

    They were just as surprised by his going off script as everyone else – and it revealed Snowcone for the stammering, slow witted little man that he is.

  5. incoherent rambler

    Australia’s Prime Minister was essentially accusing the national broadcaster of supporting terrorism

    Yes. Both Craig and Tony got this bit right!

  6. Tim Neilson

    Ah yes, Bob Brownshirt, tyranny’s friend.
    Chris Uhlmann (of the ABC, mirabile dictu) asked Bob Brown whether the Greens would shut down the coal industry. Brown confirmed they would. Slightly later in the same interview, Uhlmann asked him how the Greens would fund certain spending sprees they were advocating, and Brown said that a country that got [however many] billions from coal could afford the Greens’ promises. Uhlmann asked the obvious question, how coal revenue could be used to fund things if the coal industry had been shut down. Brown went incandescent with rage and spent the next several months barnstorming around Australia supporting Gillard’s demands that the “hate media” be subjected to control by a government appointed panel with powers to prohibit people engaging in public commentary.

  7. Gab

    Silly Abbott asking such questions when everyone knows their ABC is not on Team Australia and their sympathies lie with anyone or anything else, even terrorists – oops, can’t say ‘terrorists’ becuase their ABC have said that word is far too negative.

  8. blogstrop

    They are relentlessly both anti-conservative and anti-Australia. Like Obama, they’d Hope to see it “Change”, and the direction they’d like it to go would be as set out by the Greens. Nothing they’ve done in response to criticism over many years suggests otherwise.

  9. Ivan Denisovich

    Under the previous Labor government we had a Prime Minister in Julia Gillard who didn’t ask who was on Team Australia’s side – a legitimate question for the Australian Prime Minister to ask of the Australian taxpayer funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation – but who was on Team Gillard’s side. When journalists investigated her own role in some union activity she organised for journalists to be sacked from their jobs, and had a full on inquiry into the media.

    Worth re-visiting:

    Gillard already knew that Andrew Bolt, the conservative and widely read commentator for the Herald Sun (sister paper to The Australian), had flagged the revisiting of the slush fund scandal – he had written of a “tip on something that may force Gillard to resign”. “On Monday, I’m tipping, a witness with a statutory declaration will come forward and implicate Julia Gillard directly in another scandal involving the misuse of union funds,” Bolt wrote on his Herald Sun blog over that August weekend.

    On the Monday morning, early, a furious Gillard called John Hartigan, the then head of News Limited in Australia. News, and Milne’s column, were in her sights. “She said they were very damaging accusations,” Hartigan told The Australian a few days later. “She wanted some action and she wanted it quickly.”

    Gillard demanded a public apology, the immediate expunging from the website of Milne’s column, and undertakings that the allegations never be repeated again in The Australian. Leaving nothing to chance, the PM extended this demand to cover all News Limited newspapers and their websites. The Australian’s editor-in-chief, Chris Mitchell, who was told to call Gillard that Monday morning, described her reaction at the time as “apoplectic”. Paul Keating’s rages were nothing compared with this one from Gillard, Mitchell noted.

    Almost all of Gillard’s demands were met. Seeing what was happening over at News Limited, Smith’s bosses at the Fairfax-owned 2UE then lost their nerve and pulled his carefully researched story, too. Smith protested but lost his job over it. Bolt, appalled at the censorship and the cave-in, considered resigning. Milne lost his column and his place at The Australian.

    But this ugly, self-serving assault by a prime minister on the Australian media was not over by a long shot. The Gillard government’s announcement of a public media inquiry just a couple of weeks later, in September 2011, was the next blunt instrument to ensure we were more poodle than watchdog.

    The slush fund story had been torched and reduced to ashes. But it could not be permitted to flare up again. The media inquiry, headed by former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein QC, was a precursor to the government’s threats of unprecedented media regulation.

    Gillard had said in 2011 that News Limited’s journalists in Australia had “questions to answer”, apparently arising from the unlawful hacking of telephone voicemails by journalists at the News of the World in Britain. There was never a skerrick of evidence of any hacking by any staff of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers in Australia.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/how-julia-gillard-was-ready-to-censor-our-free-media/story-e6frgd0x-1226761407076

  10. H B Bear

    The Legover Man.

    Still out there.

    Still stupid.

  11. Old School Conservative

    Toiling Mass
    They were just as surprised by his going off script as everyone else

    I was under the assumption that the twit’s question had indeed been scripted, and also approved by the Q&A producers.

  12. pete m

    Toiling Mass is referring to his subsequent comment that the Libs were responsible for people turning to ISIS.

  13. Memoryvault

    Isn’t using the words “think” and “Craig Emerson”
    in the same sentence some kind of oxymoron?

  14. Fred Lenin

    Who would take any notice of a Muppet whi used to ahag giliard ,and swallowed her contact lenses ,earning the sobriquet Four Eyes ,the man with eyes on the back of his ” Er?

  15. Dan

    following the airing on Q&A of a question from a man who had been charged with terror offences

    Poor Emmo can’t even get his facts right. Mallah was not charged with terror offences.

  16. Des Deskperson

    Speaking of the ABC, this show:

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/making-families-happy/

    which has been widely touted by the Fairfax TV guide as the programme of the week, and was due to premier tonight at 8.30, has been suddenly dropped, to be replaced by (presumably) re-runs of ‘New tricks”.

    Does anyone know why? Was there something in a programme on families that offended ABC orthodoxies, has someone sued or was there just some administrative, legal or technical issue that the ABC overlooked with its usual incompetence?

  17. Ant

    I think the ABC giving a national voice to a terrorist sympathiser, paying for his transportation and helping him frame his question to embarrass a government minister is a little closer to home than the concocted outrage unleashed by Julia Gillard against the Murdoch press and exploiting some phone tapping stunt by News in far off England.

  18. Crossie

    Bob Brown took to singling out and abusing News journalists at his press conferences.

    I wonder what would be the reaction to Coalition ministers and MPs doing the same to the ABC journos.

  19. Boambee John

    Coalition ministers should ignore questions from ABC staff at media conferences; if the media collude to have only ABC staff ask questions, simply say “No other questions? Thank you ladies and gentlemen” and walk out.

  20. jumpnmcar

    Could someone please explain the difference between ” Patriotic ” and ” Nationalistic ” ?
    I genuinely need to hear a Libertarian view.

  21. Squirrel

    Des Deskperson

    #1731438, posted on July 7, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    Speaking of the ABC, this show:

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/making-families-happy/

    which has been widely touted by the Fairfax TV guide as the programme of the week, and was due to premier tonight at 8.30, has been suddenly dropped, to be replaced by (presumably) re-runs of ‘New tricks”.

    Does anyone know why? Was there something in a programme on families that offended ABC orthodoxies, has someone sued or was there just some administrative, legal or technical issue that the ABC overlooked with its usual incompetence?

    A most interesting mystery, and a reminder, once again, of where would Aunty be without all those comfy programs from BBC and ITV and, more to the (latter) point, what would its ratings and community support figures look like if it had to rely solely on its own patchy productions……?

  22. Kool Aid Kid

    It’s the last refuge of a scoundrel Sinclair.

  23. Chris

    It’s the last refuge of a scoundrel Sinclair.

    I have always thought that a very patchy piece of rhetoric. It is now used by the leftist herd mind to imply that any patriotism is from ‘scoundrels’, but if its their LAST refuge surely its a decent person’s motivation, falsely adopted by a scoundrel when his other defenses fail.

  24. Tim Neilson

    Chris
    #1732108, posted on July 8, 2015 at 8:50 am
    You’re right. It’s one of the most misused quotations in history. Boswell makes it clear that Dr Johnson was talking about false patriotism, not genuine patriotism.

Comments are closed.