JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[Rajesh Koothrappali]

Pretty good summary of the situation. I can't see him becoming PM any time soon unless Abbott does something catastrophic or decides he doesn't want the job or some ****. As for stand/fall by his beliefs, true however Abbott is pretty consistent on that one. Some will agree with his take on the world, others won't. Beyond that you could also add the greens as conviction based politicians however I'd say for the most part, their beliefs are just loony tunes.

Fixed it for you.

 

[c2105026]

Beyond that you could also add the greens as conviction based politicians however I'd say for the most part, their beliefs are just unworkable.

I would actually agree with that up to a point; having actually read all 3 major parties platforms in recent days the Greens one did stick out as focusing on a lot of issues that people wouldn't normally really care about. Eg. biodiversity. Unless you are a nature lover or naturalist, I don't think it's an issue that'd keep you up at night. Changing date of Australia Day - seriously Ms Milne, do you want your office trashed? Saying that is the right way to go about it! Finally there is GMOs. Greens hate GMOs. Personally I feel that humans have always been genetically modifying food crops, via selective breeding, and as such I have no issue with GMOs, provided there are no obvious bad ramifications.

I think when my Greens membership runs out mid-year I won't renew it.

 

[Calaber]

I think when my Greens membership runs out mid-year I won't renew it.

You strike me as a rational, intelligent person. Whatever possessed you to join the Greens in the first place? Were you drunk?

 

[c2105026]

You strike me as a rational, intelligent person. Whatever possessed you to join the Greens in the first place? Were you drunk?

lol, no had previously been interested in the greens c.2001 but didn't join for I felt they had a comprehensive set of policies. I did join ALP and assisted with a couple of election campaigns in the Newcastle area, but after I left uni didn't renew membership. After leaving old career I became very interested in politics again; however I wasn't overly thrilled with BER and roof batts (but In hindsight I was listening to talkback radio a lot without appreciating the bias, maybe that influenced things , and also they didn't support equal marriage. So around 2010 I became a greens supporter, and thought why not, join the party and meet other like-minded people.

However since then, I have noticed that most of Greens campaigns are of limited relevance to the 'average' Australian. ALP supports equal marriage now, so there is one less barrier.......

 

[vr94ss]

I dont think theres anything more to read into that.

Both sides have a very legitimate and good point.

The ABC reported on sheer nonsense. It went for sensationalism and went on the attack with a story that lacked any sort of credibility from the get go. This type of reporting does nothing but totally undermine the Government and causes tension between Indo and Australia once again. Theyre trying to destroy the boat policy by any means necessary. The bias of the ABC is starting to really shine. Taking anything the ABC says as gospel is like only reading Andrew Bolt.

On the other hand, Turnbull has a valid argument. The ABC does not answer to the Government. In the end they do have stakeholders. If the Government starts telling the ABC what to write, how is that any different to what Labor tried to do to the Fairfax and Murdock press 12 months ago?



Obviously was living in a cave whilst Gillard and Conroy went on the warpath.

I'll think we should close this topic with a few words from our glorious leader, what do you say Tony?

TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER (at press conference): Politicians don't always like the coverage that they get. But if you're in public life you've got to take the rough with the smooth. And a vigorous, critical media is an important part of a healthy democracy. And I think the Prime Minister should accept that.
Insiders - 24/07/2011: Privacy laws need review: OConnor - Insiders - ABC

 

[Grennan]

I'll think we should close this topic with a few words from our glorious leader, what do you say Tony?

There is a difference between a critical media - which I agree is crucial in "keeping the bastards honest" - and what the ABC is starting to tread a very fine line on. What they reported was little more than make believe and I refuse to believe anyone here is gullible enough to buy into their story.

 

[vr94ss]

There is a difference between a critical media - which I agree is crucial in "keeping the bastards honest" - and what the ABC is starting to tread a very fine line on. What they reported was little more than make believe and I refuse to believe anyone here is gullible enough to buy into their story.

What they reported on were allegations made against RAN personnel. Don't have to like the allegations made, don't have to believe them, I don't, but reporting on allegations made is a must, if only so they can be debunked with evidence. Remember children overboard? That one was debunked, embarrassing though it was to Howard.. Let the media report, I say, democracy depends on it.

 

[Reaper]

Here in lies the problem for the abc:

AN ABC news journalist has admitted asylum-seekers' claims of mistreatment by the Australian navy are "likely to be untrue" a week after the broadcaster claimed it had footage that "appears to back up" the allegations.

To think the national broadcaster would publish as fact anything like this which they know to be "likely to be untrue" is just staggering. I know that other media outlets do the same and I hold exactly the same opinion of the practice regardless of the source. The big difference is the ABC is funded by the taxpayer and is covered by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 where it's summarized in it's code of practice 2013. Part IV (Principles & Standards)

2. Accuracy
Principles: The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation
of news and information is accurate according to the recognised standards of objective
journalism. Credibility depends heavily on factual accuracy.

Types of fact-based content include news and analysis of current events, documentaries,
factual dramas and lifestyle programs. The ABC requires that reasonable efforts must
be made to ensure accuracy in all fact-based content. The ABC gauges those efforts
by reference to:

• the type, subject and nature of the content;
• the likely audience expectations of the content;
• the likely impact of reliance by the audience on the accuracy of the content; and
• the circumstances in which the content was made and presented.

The ABC accuracy standard applies to assertions of fact, not to expressions of opinion.
An opinion, being a value judgement or conclusion, cannot be found to be accurate or
inaccurate in the way facts can. The accuracy standard requires that opinions be conveyed
accurately, in the sense that quotes should be accurate and any editing should not distort
the meaning of the opinion expressed.

The efforts reasonably required to ensure accuracy will depend on the circumstances.
Sources with relevant expertise may be relied on more heavily than those without.
Eyewitness testimony usually carries more weight than second-hand accounts. The
passage of time or the inaccessibility of locations or sources can affect the standard
of verification reasonably required.

Standards:
2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented
in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience.
In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information

From this whole fiasco it seems to me they have clearly breached their own charter and for that heads should roll. It's not just an arbitrary internal standard they have breached - it's an act of parliament, AKA Law. At the very least the relevant director of news and producers which put the information to air have a lot of explaining to do.

 

[minux]

. Let the media report, I say, democracy depends on it.

Shame you didn't say that when Smith come out with evidence regarding Gillards lies with her then boyfriend and using union funds to buy property. She had 2 journos sacked because she didn't like what they were reporting...

I guess she picked the wrong guy to have fired though as the case is now with Vicpol Fraud squad.

 

[minux]

Here in lies the problem for the abc:



To think the national broadcaster would publish as fact anything like this which they know to be "likely to be untrue" is just staggering. I know that other media outlets do the same and I hold exactly the same opinion of the practice regardless of the source. The big difference is the ABC is funded by the taxpayer and is covered by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 where it's summarized in it's code of practice 2013. Part IV (Principles & Standards)



From this whole fiasco it seems to me they have clearly breached their own charter and for that heads should roll. It's not just an arbitrary internal standard they have breached - it's an act of parliament, AKA Law. At the very least the relevant director of news and producers which put the information to air have a lot of explaining to do.

The thing that annoys me most is people keep saying but 7/9/10 etc are all bias too...none of these stations are tax payer funded...that there is the major problem.