What an insufferable hypocrite

It really is hard to credit such lack of judgement, but there you are. Now Mark Scott himself has gotten into it. From The Australian:

“As someone said to me this week, free-speech arguments would be easier if you were always defending Martin Luther King,” Mr Scott said at a Centre for Corporate Public Affairs’ function. “At times, free-speech principles mean giving platforms to those with whom we fundamentally disagree.

That is exactly the point, but it is precisely what you and the ABC never do. Is he really that dense? Does he honestly not see what the rest of us are saying. It is that the ABC does not give platforms to those with whom they fundamentally disagree, unless they first stack the deck. The entire explosion over Zaki was that this was the typical ABC approach. Yes, see, we have the Minister whose views we fundamentally disagree with and have provided him with a platform. But of course, we then try to expose him to our own hit job, in a way that would never ever happen if he were someone from the left, or even better from the Greens.

It is insulting and disgusting to have to listen to such shallow reasoning. This is now the Thursday after the Monday and is this really the best Scott can do? Because you didn’t give Zaki a “platform”. You gave him an opportunity to sandbag a government minister, which you were hoping he would do. He was not there because anyone cared about his opinions.

The political side of the ABC is a wasteland of vacuity. It is an empty shell of green-left ignorance and the greenest and most left of them all appears to be its CEO. But the most disgusting part is this, from the opening para of the article:

ABC managing director Mark Scott has compared extremist Zaky Mallah’s right to appear on Q&A with the campaign for free speech that flowed from the jihadist murder of 12 journalists from the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

To even mention Charlie Hebdo in such circumstance is beyond maddening. If I follow this analogy right, Zaki, according to Scott, is like those poor journalists who were murdered by jihadi gunmen, in that he is being deprived of his right to free speech (really, how? when? where?). And the jihadi murderers at Charlie Hebdo are likened to the people who object to Zaki, a former jihadist himself, being brought in to confront a government Minister on national television. This is so warped that really, it is time for the board at the ABC to ask for Scott’s resignation and set the Corporation off in a new direction. He is a mouthpiece for the left and is too blinded by his prejudices to understand what he is saying and why what the ABC did was so fundamentally wrong.

This entry was posted in Federal Politics, Media. Bookmark the permalink.

256 Responses to What an insufferable hypocrite

  1. Austin Mangosteen

    Dot, James, Stevem are right about this Q&A episode concerning Mallah being a setup engineered by Mark Scott and Tony Jones to attack the government.

    Steve Ciobo effectively acted how as we would expect a minister of the crown ought to act in a situation where he is presented with a question of the nature posed by Mallah.

    If Mallah was genuinely representing his own views as a deradicalist (as claimed) he would have at the very least prefaced his question with a reference to his deradicalization of Muslim extremist activities. He did not. Moreover, we also saw the true color of Mallah by his attitude and the threats he made against a government representative, which questions his advocacy for deradicalization. Even on the Project, when interviewed by Waleed Aly, Zaky defended what he said and appeared unrepentant, exposing his latent jihad tendencies. Meanwhile, Jonathan Green and his supporters gloat over how they showed up the government for being against free speech.

    The ABC set up “the Mallah question” to attack the government and hopefully provoke dissent within its ranks. This is not a free speech issue. This is an issue of sedition.

  2. Old Fred

    It really is unbelievable that this person leads the largest media organisation in Australia and doesn’t have a clue. He professes to support free speech but everything that he does simply shows that he really has no understanding of the concept.

    He continually demonstrates his arrogance and contempt for the Australian way of life and allows everyone that does not share his anti Christian, anti democratic, anti conservative, green leftist views to be castigated by the treacherous sycophants making up the ABC news and current affairs departments.

    Got no time for the man or the organisation that he leads. He and the ABC Board are doing a disservice to Australia and must go.

  3. Old Fred

    It really is unbelievable that this person leads the largest media organisation in Australia and doesn’t have a clue. He professes to support free speech but everything that he does simply shows that he really has no understanding of the concept.

    He continually demonstrates his arrogance and contempt for the Australian way of life and allows everyone that does not share his anti Christian, anti democratic, anti conservative, green leftist views to be castigated by the treacherous sycophants making up the ABC news and current affairs departments.

    Got no time for the man or the organisation that he leads. He and the ABC Board are doing a disservice to Australia and must go.

  4. BorisG

    sadly, the left managed to present this issue as a freedom of speech issue and the majority of thg public can’t see the difference.

  5. AlanR

    What hogwash. The only thing achieved on Q&A was a clear demonstration that we must never let a politician of any colour ever be above the law. Ciobo clearly demonstrated that he (and the whole government apparently) are very happy and can sleep soundly at night if a minister doesn’t like the ruling of a court and can make up their own ruling. This ministerial ruling by the way, to be based on ‘intelligence’. The allowable and proven evidence which didn’t suite the minister can only be used by the courts. I hope this intelligence is more intelligent than that which John, George and Tony used as justification to go to war. Somehow I doubt it will. Ciobo also clearly demonstrated that he didn’t like the ruling of the court, because Mallah got off on a ‘technicality’. In that case Steve, go chase everyone else who has not been convicted because of a ‘technicality’. Or is it that you only dislike one particular type of technicality?

  6. .

    Thanks Austin. I just can’t understand how it isn’t so obvious.

Comments are closed.