George Pell on the ABC

George Pell has a long piece on Easter in the Weekend Australian. Most of it is fluff, but this bit has been news-worthy:

Sensibly, Italy has at least a couple of government-sponsored television stations to reflect the different points of view, which is an option that should be considered by any national conservative government in Australia, where the ABC is dominated by a Gramscian hegemony hostile to social con­servatives, most Christians and often to Western civilisation. The Italian media is divided and disputatious but not monochrome.

To be fair – Australia has two government sponsored television stations; the ABC and SBS (Sex Before Soccer).

It seems to me that issue isn’t one of competition, but rather incentivisation. As I’ve argued before, there is no incentive for the ABC to comply with its charter and no disincentive for it to be ‘hostile to social con­servatives, most Christians and often to Western civilisation’. So, unsurprisingly, they do as they please.

This is especially so when people who could bring legal action against the ABC for malicious defamation refuse to do so. Even if George Pell has ‘forgiven’ them their trespasses and turned the other cheek, he has a duty to sue the ABC on behalf of the weak and powerless who are also being oppressed by their behaviour.

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

48 Responses to George Pell on the ABC

  1. Entropy says:

    This is especially so when people who could bring legal action against the ABC for malicious defamation refuse to do so. Even if George Pell has ‘forgiven’ them their trespasses and turned the other cheek, he has a duty to sue the ABC on behalf of the weak and powerless who are also being oppressed by their behaviour

    Quite so. And in fact, so pertinent, here it is again:

    This is especially so when people who could bring legal action against the ABC for malicious defamation refuse to do so. Even if George Pell has ‘forgiven’ them their trespasses and turned the other cheek, he has a duty to sue the ABC on behalf of the weak and powerless who are also being oppressed by their behaviour

  2. Entropy says:

    I would also point out that ABC and SBS between them already half about half the FTA TV channels between themselves. Even more government owned TV won’t help any.

  3. Roger says:

    To be fair – Australia has two government sponsored television stations; the ABC and SBS

    Three…NITV.

  4. Mr Johnson says:

    “…he has a duty to sue the ABC…”

    And so he should. But the sad fact is, win or lose, the ABC is spending our money.

  5. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “This is especially so when people who could bring legal action against the ABC for malicious defamation refuse to do so. Even if George Pell has ‘forgiven’ them their trespasses and turned the other cheek, he has a duty to sue the ABC on behalf of the weak and powerless who are also being oppressed by their behaviour.”

    Agree….all turning the other cheek has done is empower the organisation and grubs like Nillagain.

  6. Entropy says:

    I thought NITV was just an offshoot of SBS? Roger, are you saying they are completely separate? Why? Why?

  7. Frank says:

    Sex Before Soccer

    Shit Box Station, home of the hairy backed Euro porn.

  8. Roger says:

    I thought NITV was just an offshoot of SBS? Roger, are you saying they are completely separate? Why? Why?

    Yeah, began as such but since spun off, iiuc.

  9. TBH says:

    Sensibly, Italy has at least a couple of government-sponsored television stations to reflect the different points of view,

    I disagree with this entirely. There is no reason in the modern age of an abundance of media outlets that the taxpayer should be funding any such outlet. What need is going unserved that the government has to step in?

  10. bradd says:

    Any government-funded TV station set up to ‘balance’ the ABC would be captured by the left within five years.

  11. Old Lefty says:

    The trouble is that, to sue Milligan and Adler/MUP, Pell would have to take action in a Victorian court. Enough said!

    Porter’s approach is more promising: the Federal Court and in Sydney because the ABC HQ is in Ultimo.

    Fwiw, the judge hearing the Porter case is married to McClellan of the Gillard royal commission. But there’s always recourse to the High Court.

  12. Old School Conservative says:

    After all that George Pell has been put through at his age, I will give him pass on not instigating more legal action.
    There must many more people, younger and highly motivated, who can take the attack to the ABC.

  13. Suburban Boy says:

    The trouble is that, to sue Milligan and Adler/MUP, Pell would have to take action in a Victorian court. Enough said!

    Actually, Old Lefty, you can bring defo cases in the Federal Court of Australia. But if you are in Victoria, you would quite likely find yourself before His Honour Justice Mordy “I Never Met I Bolt I Didn’t Hate” Bromberg.

    So perhaps better to take your chances in Victoria’s occasionally straight Supreme Court.

  14. Bruce says:

    Contrary to the lies most of us have been fed about that “turning of the other cheek”:

    The actual meaning is this:

    If you are struck once by someone, turning the other cheek will soon reveal whether the first blow was a rash moment or in earnest.

    If it stops there, it may well have been a momentary lapse of reason and easily forgiven.

    If struck a second time, the assailant’s life is in your hands.

    The legalists and terminal statists do not like this idea of applied social responsibility.

    Sadly, most of the “men” of the cloth have abandoned their faith and guzzled the statist Kool-Ade.

  15. BrettW says:

    Just how do people expect Pell to fund such a defamation case ? He would have to be backed by considerable legal resources and then spend a considerable amount of his final time tied up with the case.

    I hope Porter wins hugely !

    “This is especially so when people who could bring legal action against the ABC for malicious defamation refuse to do so. Even if George Pell has ‘forgiven’ them their trespasses and turned the other cheek, he has a duty to sue the ABC on behalf of the weak and powerless who are also being oppressed by their behaviour”

  16. Des Deskperson says:

    ‘Any government-funded TV station set up to ‘balance’ the ABC would be captured by the left within five years.’

    Under the old pre-tangentopoli political party system in Italy, the government television network – the RAI, the only major TV service – was divided up into three channels, each one more or less officially allocated to the three major political blocs, the Christian Democrats, the Socialist and the Communists.

    I’m not sure how this works in Italy’s more diverse – or fractured – political system today.

    The CDU seems to have had the political will to maintain its channel as a conservative Christian voice for at least two decades. I have no idea what political force in contemporary Australia would have and maintain the same resolve.

  17. H B Bear says:

    Any possible reason, technological, cultural or otherwise for either the ALPBC or SBS to exist ended years ago. If neither existed would anybody seriously suggest they be formed today? Let alone on the scale they do.

  18. notafan says:

    Has Cardinal Pell turned the other cheek.

    One can forgive but still seek trmporal justice.

    He doesn’t have any money and he’s nearly 80.

    There is no teaching in Catholicism that suggests temporal consequences through proper legal change are not licit, not that I know of.

  19. Entropy says:

    Brett, just like Folau, any GoFundMe would be overwhelmed. You are on stronger ground that no reasonable person would want to spend their last years doing so though.

  20. John A says:

    The Italian media is divided and disputatious but not monochrome.

    “Now there’s a sight you couldn’t beat
    Two party leaders in each street
    Maintaining with no little heat
    Their various opinions!”

    Kings Marco & Giuseppe (from The Gondoliers)

  21. Fred says:

    Instead of $1 billion wasted on a television station I don’t watch, the government should waste $2 billion on 2 television stations I won’t watch.

    Great idea George.

  22. Mak Siccar says:

    Even if George Pell has ‘forgiven’ them their trespasses and turned the other cheek, he has a duty to sue the ABC on behalf of the weak and powerless who are also being oppressed by their behaviour.

    +1000

  23. Squirrel says:

    To the extent (presumably considerable) that legal action by George Pell against the ABC would be enabled by wealthy and influential backers, I would rather see that money and influence deployed to lobby and bring pressure to bear on wobbly Liberal and National politicians and any remaining Labor politicians who might be prepared to acknowledge that there are serious problems with the ABC.

    Splitting the ABC into ABC Regional/Local (which would pick up many of the programs for which there is broader support) and ABC National (everything else, including much of the blatantly Leftist crud and all the imported stuff) would make it easier get rid of the latter on the grounds that it has marginal support and/or duplicates what the commercial networks do.

  24. A Lurker says:

    There really is a simple fix for the ABC and SBS.
    Change their funding to subscription only and let the lunatic Left pay for their propaganda arm.

  25. HD says:

    “…people who could bring legal action against the ABC for malicious defamation refuse to do so.”

    Really Sinclair? At the risk of encouraging corroboration out of the woodwork? Potentially adding a series of contempt of court charges and two year gaol terms? Defamation could only succeed conditionally ( what of the legion of convicted pederasts and paedophiles it is beyond reasonable doubt he definitely was in charge of? Or who on the balance of probabilities abused children?) How could the Cardinal prove loss of income to enable the defamation action?

  26. egg_ says:

    Squirrel says:
    April 3, 2021 at 6:28 pm

    +1

    It’s apolitical issue, not commercial.

    The Govt steam broadcasters’ audience share is waning, anyway, so they’re becoming less relevant.

    Splitting the ABC into ABC Regional/Local (which would pick up many of the programs for which there is broader support) and ABC National (everything else, including much of the blatantly Leftist crud and all the imported stuff) would make it easier get rid of the latter on the grounds that it has marginal support and/or duplicates what the commercial networks do.

    Aunty has been making cutbacks along the lines of its programming, so the more visible subdivisions of the organisation are, the better to cut with.

    At least, freeze its funding so that natural attrition will occur with inflation and growth of costs/bloat.

  27. egg_ says:

    There really is a simple fix for the ABC and SBS.
    Change their funding to subscription only and let the lunatic Left pay for their propaganda arm.

    A PBS soyboy network.

  28. Gyro Cadiz says:

    SBS = Socialism, Bestiality & Sodomy

    ‘Sex Before Soccer’ is so 1980s! They have progressed.

  29. stackja says:

    Taxpayers to fund ABC defence of taxpayer funded ABC?

  30. stackja says:

    PBS needs and gets extra funding. ABC has only taxpayers.

  31. BorisG says:

    he has a duty to sue the ABC

    Nonsense. He suffered so much and doesn’t have a duty to anyone. Besides such case would be doomed, as he won’t be able to prove that they lied. It is one thing for the high court to decide that the jurors should have had reasonable doubt. In the defamation case, the onus will be on Pell to prove he did not commit these acts (on the balance of probabilities). Had he had such a proof (e.g. a strong alibi) he wouldn’t have been convicted in the first place. And there is not an insignificant risk that he would lose. Which would be a huge loss for the cause you are advocating.

  32. BorisG says:

    Change their funding to subscription only and let the lunatic Left pay for their propaganda arm.

    I would support such a model. Might even subscribe to SBS to watch Tour de Fracnce.

  33. BorisG says:

    I disagree with this entirely. There is no reason in the modern age of an abundance of media outlets that the taxpayer should be funding any such outlet.

    I ageee.

  34. BorisG says:

    no reasonable person would want to spend their last years doing so

    ‘Xactly. People demanding legal action by Pell are cruel.

    His idea of two rival government channels is preposterous though.

  35. stackja says:

    Boris – alibi of distance and defence witnesses not believable to ABC. Of course, ABC is never wrong.

  36. BorisG says:

    Stackja, I am taking about the jury, not the ABC.

  37. chrism says:

    My humble offering , below, was ‘rejected’ by censors at The Australian :

    no censorship here… move along …

    to Barrowclough’s article : Tears, fury, pain: George Floyd’s death in witnesses’ words today’s Oz :

    Similar to the courtroom drama in To Kill a Mockingbird, it seems highly likely that emotions & prejudices still remain potent forces in a decision process that should only consider and weigh evidence in order to establish guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt.
    In the very high profile Chamberlain, and recently, Pell, decisions, the trial courts found ‘guilty’; and whether and how much they were swayed by popular outrage remains debated.
    Chauvin is likely to be convicted it seems to me.
    Whether that calms or provokes also remains to be seen.

  38. Tel says:

    Even if George Pell has ‘forgiven’ them their trespasses and turned the other cheek, he has a duty to sue the ABC on behalf of the weak and powerless who are also being oppressed by their behaviour.

    Let’s suppose he wins “bigly” and then the ABC shrugs and holds out the hand for the government of the day to cover whatever fines are imposed. Would a ScoMo government say no to those guys? They would hand over your tax money to Pell and the ABC have no reason to care in the least. It would be quicker and easier for you to find your local Catholic Church and stuff a wad of cash in their donation box.

  39. egg_ says:

    Let’s suppose he wins “bigly” and then the ABC shrugs and holds out the hand for the government of the day to cover whatever fines are imposed. Would a ScoMo government say no to those guys? They would hand over your tax money to Pell and the ABC have no reason to care in the least. It would be quicker and easier for you to find your local Catholic Church and stuff a wad of cash in their donation box.

    Yup, the solution is to starve Aunty of funding – not FEED her.

  40. egg_ says:

    NITV started out as Imparja before eventually being absorbed into SBS.

  41. Texas Jack says:

    Shut it tonight. Give whatever to whoever. Napalm Ultimo if you have to.

  42. HD says:

    For some reason my comment of yesterday evening went to moderation? Here it is again;

    “…people who could bring legal action against the ABC for malicious defamation refuse to do so.”

    Really Sinclair? At the risk of encouraging corroboration out of the woodwork? Potentially adding a series of contempt of court charges and two year gaol terms? Defamation could only succeed conditionally (what of the legion of convicted pederasts and paedophiles it is beyond reasonable doubt he definitely was in charge of? Or who on the balance of probabilities abused children?) How could the Cardinal prove loss of income to enable the defamation action?

  43. Des Deskperson says:

    ‘Let’s suppose he wins “bigly” and then the ABC shrugs and holds out the hand for the government of the day to cover whatever fines are imposed.’

    I’m not aware of been any situation where a Commonwealth government of any political colour has topped up the budget of an agency that has had damages award against it.

    I have personally been involved in two cases where agencies have been obliged to pay out around $300,000 and $500,000 respectively in damages and costs. These agencies had to find the money from their current budget allocations.

  44. Bruce says:

    @ Notafan:

    “There is no teaching in Catholicism that suggests temporal consequences through proper legal change are not licit, not that I know of.”

    There is a bit of advice in the Gospels about “Rendering unto God and rendering unto Caesar”.

    Maybe the latest edition of the Good Gook have been “adjusted”.

    See also:

    Luke 22:36

    King James version of Jesus words to the disciples at the Last Supper::

    “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

    Christianity was not started as some limp-wristed soi-boi glee club.

  45. Bruce says:

    @bradd:

    “Any government-funded TV station set up to ‘balance’ the ABC would be captured by the left within five years.”

    Optimist. It would be captured the minute the proposal was first aired, LONG before the “legals” started, let alone a camera switched on.

  46. Robbo says:

    Don’t bother suing the ABC because that just means them using taxpayers money to defend themselves.
    The better way is just defund it and then sell it off to a private buyer. The ABC is a parasitic boil and its operations are either meaningless or vindictive. Australia will survive quite well without this mob of useless left wing propagandists sucking up over a billion dollars of taxpayers money every year.

  47. frank hughes says:

    If the ABC and SBS haven’t been sold off or severely restricted to pure news reporting with successive liberal governments ignoring their blatant bias and effrontery in crusading for every left wing and greenie cause then it’s never going to happen.
    Even if Porter wins the tax payers will foot the bill in any damages and legal fees.
    Milligan et al will remain financially shielded from the fall out and just carry on unbridled.

  48. Bruce says:

    @ 9:51; that should read Good Book………….

Comments are closed.