What’s missing?

Here is a screen shot from the ABCs Media Watch program website.

So what do you notice? The very last story is one where the ABC beat up a story posted by our good friend Roger Franklin.

Then there is all sorts of silliness.

Yet I cannot see a condemnation of the leftist attack on Andrew Bolt. Strange omission.

This entry was posted in Media, Shut it down. Fire them all.. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to What’s missing?

  1. Gab

    A scorpion will always behave like a scorpion.

  2. Texas Jack

    Hardly a strange omission given it’s the ABC. Surely it’s past time we stopped wailing about bias at the ABC and scale what’s left of the ramparts that defend it inside the f-wit Liberals, and Nats for that matter, who know beyond a skerrick of doubt that the thing should be shut without any fears, and certainly without Liberal tears.

  3. ar

    ABC good-think dictates that any violence must have been sparked by Franklin’s comments.

  4. Token

    Yet I cannot see a condemnation of the leftist attack on Andrew Bolt. Strange omission.

    It’s the history of foot in mouth at Media Watch.

  5. Rabz

    The very last story is one where the ABC beat up a story posted by our good friend Roger Franklin.

    Ailene Composta was unavailable for comment, presumably.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle

    Breitbart loses its bite

    Fake news.

    Pretty much everything the ABC extrudes with a political slant cannot be believed. It’s mostly crap.

  7. DaveR

    Dont hold your breath! ABC is biased by selection of the news items it runs – or doesnt run.

  8. Pete of Perth

    A hammer and sickle?

  9. Nick

    Yet I cannot see a condemnation of the leftist attack on Andrew Bolt. Strange omission.

    Perhaps also appropriate would have been condemnation of various arms of the media for their reporting of the attack.

  10. Habib

    In ABC-world stating obvious fact apparently is an episode of “foot in mouth”. My only criticism is that an explodey would let them off far too lightly, I’d favour a good spray of aerosol shit, heavily contaminated with ebola virus.

  11. GerardO

    Did you look in the Comedy section?

  12. john constantine

    The only pleasure the abc gives me is when I contemplate the quiet way they will all have to vomit into their own little abc mouths, behind their own pursed abc lips, as they have to be politically correct and support shorten over turnbull, when it is truly the turnfailure they want to buckle them into harness and ride them like ponies,

  13. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    A glaring omission. The attack on Bolt was premeditated and serious. This is the violent shutting down of an individual’s right to freely speak and freely associate. Shame on the ABC.

    Roger Franklin too has shown them up for what they are: beat-up media merchants who are best ignored for drumming up a non-story. They are so morally without compass that they can’t recognize a real and politically-motivated beat up using genuinely violent methods when it actually happens.

  14. Norman Church

    Good point Lizzie. It should be an aggravating factor in sentencing that the assailants used violence in suppression of AB’s civil rights, ie, the right to free speech and the right to free association. Of course, the argument would be stronger if anybody other than Cats actually believed that there is a right to free speech in this Gestapo khazi.

  15. Robber Baron

    ABC are political king-makers and they continually remind each politician of that fact. Daily!

  16. Mark M

    That is not the comment you’re looking for.
    (Old jedi mind-trick)

  17. Up The Workers!

    Andrew Bolt was assaulted by the A.L.P.’s ‘rank and vile’.

    ‘Rank’ was the “fug” on the extreme Left, and ‘Vile’ was the “fug” next to him (or vice-versa?).

  18. Ilajd

    Headline in today’s Smh…those fridges at it again

    “Faulty fridge may have sparked deadly blaze at London tower”

  19. Baldrick

    Yet I cannot see a condemnation of the leftist attack on Andrew Bolt. Strange omission.

    TheirABC are still too busy opining the death of the Hero of the Socialist Workshop, Mark Colvin.

  20. Louis Hissink

    So why do leftists never criticise the violence, and its far worse physical derivatives, committed by the political left of all varieties?

    The only explanation I can offer is that not being thinking individuals in the first place, the left in general when confronted with ‘fact’ or ‘truth’ immediately go into “does not compute” mode. Since there are no intellectual tools in their kit to deal with facts etc, their brains simply stall into silence.

    I can’t think of alternatives.

  21. Quickheads

    A primary aim of Mediawatch is to provide a summary of the best gossip and “gotcha” stories from Today Tonight, ACA, etc, while allowing one to feel superior for not watching gossip and gotcha stories.

  22. redress

    With Ch10 in financial trouble, maybe its time for some cloud funding……ala that done in an attempt to buy S Kidman and Co…..and purchase Ch10 as a conservative media outlet to take on the leftists and their ABC……….??

  23. OldOzzie

    #2413104, posted on June 15, 2017 at 9:42 am
    With Ch10 in financial trouble, maybe its time for some cloud funding……ala that done in an attempt to buy S Kidman and Co…..and purchase Ch10 as a conservative media outlet to take on the leftists and their ABC……….??

    Sorry No – from the main Forum post re Channel 10 – Other Agendas at work

    For Cat Conspiracy Theorists

    Something twisted in Ten Network’s collapse

    When Chanticleer sifted through the entrails of the Ten Network Holdings corporate collapse there was more than the usual amount of twisted bits.

    It would seem a series of coincidences involving the Murdoch-controlled 21st Century Fox played a critical role in the directors deciding to put the company into administration.

    It just so happens that one of the coincidences involving the Murdoch-controlled film company occurred around the same time that Lachlan Murdoch and fellow billionaire Bruce Gordon had threatened to sue all the directors of Ten if they went ahead with a recovery plan.

    That threat was contained in a letter sent to the Ten directors on Monday night at 9pm. The same letter was sent to the directors of Ten’s subsidiary companies, which included Ten chief executive Paul Anderson and chief financial officer Dave Boorman.

    To put it another way, Murdoch was threatening to sue Ten director and Foxtel chief executive Peter Tonagh, and Gordon was threatening to sue Ten director and WIN Corporation executive chairman Andrew Gordon. Andrew Gordon is Bruce Gordon’s son.

    Tonagh’s company is half-owned by News Corp, which is co-chaired by Lachlan Murdoch

    The threat was not taken lightly by the directors of Ten. The directors told the ASX on Wednesday that the letter from Murdoch and Gordon left them “with no choice but to appoint administrators”.

    Of course, the administration puts Murdoch and Gordon in the box seat to buy the company if there are changes to the media ownership laws.

    The first coincidence involving 21st Century Fox relates to the attempt by Ten to renegotiate its content and programming arrangements with the Hollywood studio. These negotiations were a critical part of a plan that had been worked on by Ten’s management for the past five months.

    The company was trying to develop a viable plan for recapitalising or refinancing the company and ridding itself of the guarantees of its $200 million facility from the Commonwealth Bank. The CBA facility was guaranteed by Murdoch, Gordon and James Packer. It was due to expire in December.

    Ten’s recovery plan was proceeding well until last week when 21st Century Fox could not come to an agreement on a replacement content package.

    Anderson and his team had done an extraordinary job putting together a plan that would have delivered a $50 million positive impact on earnings in fiscal 2018 and $80 million in fiscal 2019.

    Add in the expected licence fee cuts of $22 million in 2017 and $12 million in 2018 and you had the makings of a $90 million boost to the bottom line. The management and the board were convinced this would be sufficient to allow the balance sheet to handle a $250 million loan.

    But there was one final piece of the puzzle missing – an agreement with 21st Century Fox to agree to a replacement content supply agreement. During the negotiations over the past two weeks, Ten made it clear to 21st Century Fox’s president of international distribution, Mark Kaner, that there was a certain urgency to getting a deal done.

    Last week, Kaner became difficult to contact. Last Friday, after Murdoch and Gordon said they would not renew their guarantees of the CBA facility, the board was still confident it could get a refinancing facility in place.

    Rival Hollywood studio CBS had already agreed to a replacement content deal. The moment that Kaner agreed to a new deal Ten would have prepared a term sheet for its corporate adviser Moelis.

    Moelis had advised the board that there were several options for refinancing by distressed credit funds in the United States.

    On Saturday and Sunday, Kaner was uncontactable. Ten was trying to get him several times an hour, without success.

    The board, chaired by David Gordon (no relation to Bruce Gordon), knew it was facing the need to use its CBA facility this week to pay wages and meet other financial commitments.

    But all of its plans collapsed in a heap when the letter from Murdoch and Gordon arrived on Sunday night. It was sent by Fort Street Advisers on behalf of the two billionaires.

    The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by Chanticleer, said the billionaires understood the company would need $45 million “in the coming few days”.

    It said that the company would need to draw down $147 million by the end of this week and $173 million by the end of July.

    The letter said that unless the company had in place alternative finance, Murdoch and Gordon would consider that Ten directors could not avoid an administrator.

    “Fort Street Advisers has been requested by our clients to put you each on notice that, to the extent they are damaged by you failing to prevent drawdowns under the existing facility in breach of the statutory requirements mentioned above, they will reserve their rights to pursue the statutory compensation rights they may have against you personally,” the letter said.

    The ultimate irony and perhaps the ultimate coincidence is that one hour after the company was put into administration, there was an email from Kaner at 21st Century Fox saying he had agreed to a replacement content deal for Ten.

  24. OldOzzie

    #2413104, posted on June 15, 2017 at 9:42 am
    With Ch10 in financial trouble, maybe its time for some cloud funding……ala that done in an attempt to buy S Kidman and Co…..and purchase Ch10 as a conservative media outlet to take on the leftists and their ABC……….??

    Sorry No – from the main Forum post re Channel 10 – Other Agendas at work

    and there is this

    Murdoch fingerprints all over Ten’s body

    Ten Network Holdings isn’t dead yet, but it’s on life support with administrators appointed. Should an autopsy be conducted, Murdoch fingerprints and DNA will be found all over the body.

    It’s not in the Murdochs’ interest to actually kill Ten: It’s best kept alive as a rich source of income for various arms of their empire, plus the potential of harvesting body parts if/when federal parliament is bent to the industry’s will by removing the remaining restraints on cross-media ownership and audience reach.

    The odd quartet of billionaires – James Packer, Lachlan Murdoch, Bruce Gordon and Gina Rinehart – who took control of the broadcaster have overseen a monumental reduction of value and the loss of hundreds of jobs with more to go. They’ve blown hundreds of millions of their own dollars, but it’s been at their own hand and, hey, they can afford it.

    Largely overlooked in the rolling disaster have been the 17,000 small shareholders who have suffered from a compromised governance structure and a heavily conflicted board.

    While the Murdoch empire is likely to continue to do nicely out of Ten, the Australian Shareholders Association warned that retail shareholders face the prospect of losing all their money if administrators were appointed.

    ASA CEO Judith Fox wanted independent directors added to the board as a matter of urgency.

    “Given the substantial conflicts of interest and potential related party transactions at play, ASA believes Ten needs to immediately move to a conventional board with a majority of independent directors,” Ms Fox said in a statement on Tuesday

    “For that to happen, Ten needs to quickly add two new independent directors so the independents have a majority and can out-vote all of the conflicted directors if necessary to ensure the interests of minority shareholders are protected and conflicts of interest are appropriately managed.”

    Ms Fox believed the board should not rush into administration but instead remain suspended from trading while renegotiating contracts, exploring other funding options and, potentially, benefiting from the government’s proposed licence fee cut and ownership regulation changes.

    The ASA expressed “surprise” that the prospect of administrators was being canvassed when the crucial $200 million CBA loan facility guaranteed by Murdoch, Packer and Gordon was only drawn to $66 million and had six months to run.

    Purely as a matter of my opinion, the Ten dramatics will add to the industry campaign to have the Senate agree to the government’s media ownership changes.

    Also as a matter of opinion, it would be a little rich if the end result of the years of troubles on the billionaires’ watch result in Ten dropping into the Murdoch family’s lap after the crucial three-year period when Lachlan Murdoch was either CEO or chairman.

  25. Bill Thompson

    Their ABC today – all the news that fits the narrative? Clifford Hughes has now been convicted for the attempted murder of Bede Mulvien in early 2016. Hughes apparently had a long criminal history, including a “similar attack on his step-brother in 2004.” So why can’t their ABC broadcast a picture of him? They didn’t show a picture of a bloke named Dudley Davey, either, until he eventually pleaded guilty, 14 months after being charged with raping & killing outback nurse, Gayle Woodford. Google his name for a pic. But of course they DID immediately show a picture of Republican, Greg Gianforte, when HE was charged over the “misdemeanour assault” (ie. not rape & murder) of a Guardian reporter. There must be an explanation…


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *