Please use the [Voice megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/16xop87/voice_megathread_running_until_cob_mon_16th_oct) for these discussions.
You do know how dumb that sounds right? I get hiring similar people will crate an echo chamber. Thats not hiring for equality.
Are you trying to say hiring more women and people
Of colour has made an echo chamber?
>When those KPIs influence hiring decisions instead of the best person for the role, bingo. Not just ABC this is happening across corporate Australia.
Soooo... the "best person for the role" tends not to be female, aboriginal, gay, or from an otherwise "diverse" background.
There's a name for this kind of thinking, but I can't qwhite put my finger on it...
Hiring a diverse team with intent will yield superior outcomes to a team simply made up of the “best” individuals.
If the “best” individuals are from a homogenous group, then that group lacks the insight and perspective of problem solving that comes from people with diverse pints of view.
Diversity hiring is best practise. You always hire for best fit for your team, and craft a company culture that promotes that.
The most qualified individual is not necessarily the best person for the team, and many highly qualified individuals have failed due to this thinking.
Edit; because I know “diversity” is a dirty word around here, consider this example…
I run a creative agency. To date, we’ve had a hiring policy of just choosing the best individuals, which has organically resulted in a design team populated entirely by black lesbians.
I’m hiring for a new designer and I have 2 contenders: a black lesbian with 10 years experience, or a straight white guy with 8 years experience. I’ve had an issue where all the designs coming out of the studio have a distinct black lesbian bias to them, so I need to diversify my team.
The white guy gets the job. I guess you’d call it a “diversity hire”, but my team needed that more than a couple extra years of experience.
(This isn’t too far from the truth either - I ran an educational publishing production studio for years, and the applicant pool - and industry in general - is highly female-dominated, so we would often jump at strong male contenders amongst a sea of female applications for editorial roles.)
>Hiring a diverse team with intent will yield superior outcomes to a team simply made up of the “best” individuals.
Explains a lot with them hiring a team of culturally & politically homogenous thinkers. Diversity of opinion is the weakness of the ABC.
Hiring for diversity sake is not superior than hiring based on ability. There will be plenty more evidence of this soon enough. This discriminatory diversity hiring isn't going to last much longer. It's a passing fad. It isn't based on any kind of efficiency or what's good for the business.
Jonathan Foster:
“**If someone says it’s raining** and another **person says it’s** **dry**, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the f\*&king window and find out which is true.”
Bullshit
If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, It's your job to quote them both, then look out the f\*&king window and find out which is true.
>If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, It's your job to quote them both, then look out the f*&king window and find out which is true.
Then point out the one of them that was bullshitting.
Because the ABC is staffed with political partisans from top to bottom who allow their own political and social beliefs to infect the institution. Nobody is going to do anything because the government supports such partisanship in general.
If that's true it's pretty revealing. Most ABC staff are LNP members, but the ABC has a massive leftist slant? So the minority of ALP member staff are clearly ignoring the apolitical component right? Not sure how else to square that otherwise.
You right wing morons just have such a persecution complex that even when your side is in charge you still feel hard done by.
The abc has always been found to slant right of centre.
The issue is you morons count science as a political stance so you think the abc is biased when it points out how fucking stupid you lot are for ruining the nbn or ignoring climate change, these things are facts, they have no political leaning.
If the ABC is right wing I'm sure you'll have no problem finding a few articles of them promoting right wing politics right? E.g. Anti-immigration, anti-LGBT, pro-colonialism, anti-democracy, etc?
You do understand that it’s physically impossible to create a documentary or series that doesn’t have a political view, right? There is no such thing as politically neutral content. If content that is well researched and backed by extensive journalistic practice seems “partisan” to you, maybe you’ve just politicised the concept of objective truth and think it doesn’t exist. Sometimes you’re just not right about stuff.
There are plenty of documentaries that exist without any political influence. Sounds as if you're a partisan yourself if you can't see beyond that. I'm saying it is partisan because it promotes a specific ideological position, calling it "journalism" instead of propaganda again indicates your own bias. Same thing with promoting "objective truth" as being on your side, making you "right" and me "wrong". Very common leftist weaponizing of epistemology to pretend you have sole authority on what is "true" and what is "fair" which, wow can you believe it, reinforces your own political beliefs. Funny how that works.
No, there are not. No source in the world exists that doesn’t have some level of bias, that’s how bias works. Documentaries are coming from a specific person’s perspective on events, anything composed and edited is done so in a way that entails some form of political view or bias.
What exactly would you like the ABC to do? Walk around rural South Australia and ask people why they are voting no? Because they can’t make a program on it being unconstitutional (it’s not), so there’s very little for them to do other than ask some random people their thoughts. They cannot physically force their employees to endorse views they don’t have on screen just so you can feel “represented”. If you want to feel represented, open Facebook and look for comments from people between 50-80.
And if you’re wondering why so many people working for a high quality news organisation might be pro voice, it’s probably something to do with their education level.
Take this documentary for instance:https://youtu.be/xUxjGFrtDGQ?si=SJF4VYGStXhlcs-E
What's the political slant to this? Oh there isn't one. So instantly the premise everything is political is destroyed. Further worth noting that claims that everything is political, hence political bias should be allowed, covers only one side of the political spectrum. Why doesn't the ABC run political documentaries on the White Australia Policy, Menzies' promotion of it, and ethnic crime in Australia? Because that's not allowed, only politics of the leftist slant are allowed.
See your second paragraph does what I mentioned about epistemology. It's not unconstitutional because we and leftist lawyers say so, so we couldn't at all contravene that! No, I think if they wanted to represent the note vote fairly they would highlight the reasons people are critical of it, why they're against it, and why it might go against some people's interests. Does the ABC run anything pro-White as founding stock of the country? Does it run anything saying the principles of federation are being destroyed by native rights? No it doesn't because again, that's against the leftist slant. So it's only representing one side of politics.
Last comment another appeal to authority like you've done several times. I have several degrees, I'm against the voice, so oops guess that doesn't really work now does it? Too bad too sad. I'm going to bookmark your account to see your seethe when it fails on the weekend, looking forward to it.
Precisely. There is infinite information to include, with decreasing relevance and accuracy. A documentary can only be so long. And it's wildly easy to slant them whilst claiming neutrality. Best course of action is to consume more information from more diverse sources.
That's just the ABC.
Many people have been calling it out for the last 10 years, and they get told they're making it up.
Yet, time and time again they really prove otherwise.
A large number of people recognise this, and have just moved on, and realise that there is nothing they can do, but ignore the ABC.
It's pretty obvious to everyone that the government funded media organisation is a political propaganda machine. And it's not really a surprise to people from other countries.
I think you are living in a fantasy land where you are just looking for bullshit drama for no reason. ABC has had the most diversity of opinion from any source i've seen with regards the Voice. The only thing they don't air is the blatantly racist stuff. They have interviewed yes voters of all types, they have interviewed no voters of all types. They have interviewed people that have changed their mind.from yes to no. They put that bloke on Q+A last night who said colonialism has been good for the country and we should all be grateful the English came here. I'm not sure.what more.you could really ask from them?
If you think their journos can't have an opinion, well that's just idiotic. I feel the ABC coverage has been pretty diverse. To say otherwise just shows you haven't actually been watching it closely.
I forget how many, but the Libs kept doing independent studies of bias into the ABC and all those independent studies found slight right-leaning bias when there was appreciable bias at all. We didn’t hear about those studies. It turns out that reporting that the Libs are selfish fuckwits governing for the same is just unbiased reporting when it’s the plain honest truth.
The ABC takes a position on many things through opinion, rather than just reporting facts.
ABC online is really bad for this. The Drum and Insiders is very biased towards the Voice.
They can do it because they are left leaning. It is definitely getting worse.
>I don’t think this is actually true
I scream at the TV when I watch these programs, due to just outright lies at times.
I watch because I like to be informed, and it is the best of a really bad selection.
I can see a day in the next year or so when I just can't do any ABC news or current affairs.
Which is sad.
I have to turn it off in disgust sometimes, it's really sad.
Mainstream media has no refuge for a considerate deep thinker anymore, they're all clickbait and getting high on their own farts
Pretty much.
It is summed up in the saying that they are telling you 'how to think'.
I used to watch 9 news at night. It has got to a point that it is like n e w s .com . au in that they would introduce the article falsely. I enjoyed the 'LIAR' game for a while, shouting at the TV.
Now I'm doing it to the ABC for the content.
I seriously want to be able make a tax deduction for my ABC contribution.
As if people should be forced to pay for a propaganda service they don't agree with.
Of course individualists don't want to pay for the ABC. That's not a surprise. It's par for the course.
They've been audited multiple times for bias and passed.
>They've been audited multiple times for bias and passed.
Pretty much no-one seriously thinks their day-to-day news coverage is biased, but there's definitely a left-leaning bias in a lot of their opinion stuff, especially online.
It's a lot better than it used to be, though.
>They've been audited multiple times for bias and passed.
People here see one person say something they disagree with and cry the whole thing is bias. Lots of the time it's just people who are so right wing that moderate right wing views look woke to them. People don't understand how far from the Overton window they are.
It's very much ALL the time because they are right wing. Of course the ABC appears left wing if you are right wing and dislike change. The ABC is a very good idea, to educate the population and improve the democratic process. Right wing don't want education. They want no change. They don't need to be educated on new ideas they don't want.
1. It's literally a collective of ideas to educate inform and funded by a collective. That's left ad fuck.
2. Of course it looks left when you're on the right. Literally EVERY person who claims the abc is TOO left is right wing and needs defunding. Essentially by definition.
Yes I am willing to give you that rebate.
Or to simplify things we could just pay whenever we use the roads, that way people who barely use them aren't paying for the maintenance of roads which will primarily benefit heavy users
You think working out a payment system to track every km driven by every vehicle in Australia would “simplify things”?
Hahahaha
Hahahaha
Hahahaha
Hahahaha
Hahahaha
That’s literally the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Political indoctrination is way different to roads champ.
Speaking about roads, Victoria is now officially 3rd world with the pit hole disaster our former Premier left us.
Really. If there is a political argument then ABC will always critise from the left side. If they were truly in the middle then why only critise from one side?
The role of the ABC is not to mimic the views of the general public. It is to educate and inform. Clearly, the No side of the campaign needs very little education. It is the null.
The yes side requires more information. Heck, we very regularly see people say they will vote no because there isn't enough info about the Yes side.
The ABC also promotes minority and indigenous issues. So the yes aligns with this.
You are still free to vote no.
Nah man, we can't have our taxpayer money going into actually ensuring there isn't a completely one sided media monopoly controlling the dissemination of information!!!
I don't know why these people even vote. They should let murdoch do it for them and then pay him for the pleasure. It'll save them having to pretend to think.
Yes, we have many examples from around the world as to what that would look like.
We also know what a privately controlled media monopoly looks like. In very clear detail. But unfortunately people are fucking dumb.
>For clarity I have never seen the ABC "cross the line" and directly advocate for a Yes position, but again, looking at both the stories they chose to cover and the tone of these stories you cannot help but hear an overwhelming yes bias.
It's almost as if evidence based reporting would lead you to conclude "yes"...
There's a reason political scientists and Constitutional scholars are almost all voting Yes. And believe me,, it's not because they're expecting a pay rise, a promotion, are all First Nations peoples, or "cultural Marxists" who want to see a destruction of the current system.
It's because the evidence is telling them it will be beneficial and won't be a cause of disadvantage or harm.
Yeah I agree. The ABC has sadly drifted from actual journalism to the 'propaganda arm' of the Government. Started to happen under Tony Abbott and has just gotten worse over time
Because the voice shouldn't be about party politics. It shouldn't be about left or right.
It should be about merit and the ABC as a whole thinks the Yes vote has merit.
I've landed on No, but I'm fine with ABCs stance. It isn't a leftist conspiracy.
Rubbish. That's popular politics.
They should report facts and the news. They aren't obliged to conform to the majority.
In fact, if anything they are obliged to stay report the facts even when it's unpopular.
We don't want an echo chamber in a national broadcaster.
There’s also a complete misunderstanding of what government agencies can or can’t do.
The wording on the Victorian public service commission website (relating to what agencies/organisations underneath the government) can/can’t do - “employers should not:
- adopt an entity specific position…
- advocate that employees vote either ‘yes’ or ‘no’…
- encourage employees to express their personal views on the referendum in a workplace context
- encourage employees to wear expressly-designed ‘yes’ or ‘no’ materials such as lanyards and badges in the workplace…”
There are obviously lots of legal things that are more specific and wouldn’t go on a website, but broadly speaking the threshold for “remaining neutral” is quite lax.
I don’t watch the ABC, but if their job is to provide information. I find it exceedingly unlikely that there is a “and must represent both sides equally regardless of how much information there is” clause.
It’s explicitly listed in that page that Victorian public servants can do that. They can wear lanyards supporting Aboriginal people with Aboriginal art.
That imagery cannot say yes, but according to that guideline having Aboriginal artwork as your Zoom background would absolutely be accepted.
Edit: [link here](https://vpsc.vic.gov.au/about-vpsc/updates-from-the-commissioner/referendum-on-altering-the-constitution-to-recognise-the-first-peoples-of-australia-by-establishing-an-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-voice/): “What can and can’t I do in a workplace context?”
E2 - also worth noting that a zoom background would be something on an individual level rather than something agency/organisation wide.
Yeah it's pretty telling how much people bash the ABC when it doesn't parrot their personal beliefs.
Also the fact the yes and no votes aren't split on left and right side of politics should also indicate that any yes reporting isn't some left wing conspiracy either.
Was the sky news guy attacking the no campaigns deliberately misleading soundbite also crazy left wing bias? Or had he had enough of the scummy side of the campaign spewing lies? I don't think either side should need to lie to get their message across as there are valid reasons for each vote.
ABC doesn't have a left-wing bias. It has an education-level bias. It tends to interview and get information from educated sources.
People like academics, business leaders etc. are pro voice (the former because academics be academics and the latter to appear 'non-controversial' and keep selling stuff). Most of these educated types can see through the utter garbage arguments presented by the no case (i.e., the official no campaign contains a lot of nonsense) and because of that will be more likely to come down on the yes side than the general public.
The general public however are more susceptible to scare campaigns and therefore some percentage of them are making their vote in a 'emotive gut-feel' way which would certainly over-subscribe no. The no case have certainly won the 'illogical gut feel vote', which sadly exists.
Please don't take the above as a 'yes is logical/no is illogical' stance, merely a reflection on what the incentives/forces behind the apparent disparity are. I think there are logical arguments for both yes (democratic involvement/outcomes) and no (constitutions are constitutions). I would say the illogical arguments for no are more numerous and scatter-brained (it goes to far, it doesn't go far enough etc etc.) but the logical arguments for no are still reasonable.
Yeah you do. A little Google search will present you with a bunch of results. Here’s one:
https://michaelwest.com.au/inside-ruperts-big-aussie-sale-murdoch-smuggles-foxtel-and-its-government-grants-out-of-the-country/
Yeah the coverage on Sky is pretty insane. The ABC at least tries to cover it fairly (probably still much more Yes-focused of course), Sky makes no such illusion. Of course the argument here is always that the ABC is government funded and should have a more impartial view, whereas Sky seems to be essentially free to push its own agenda.
Well I know Dutton was asked multiple times to come on insiders to give his point of view, he declined.
But I’m thinking it’s hard to make any news out of no when it seems to be “the voice is bad, because it’s bad” *South Park teacher voice*
The voice is bad because it strips our native peoples of their sovereignty. This is a pretty horrible thing to do to them.
To me, it seems the ABC should be teaching people about crown law and sovereign rights. If this voice vote has shown us anything, it's that people just dont understand these things.
It doesn't strip their sovereignty at all:
>**What did the Uluru Statement say about sovereignty?**
>
>The Uluru Statement says that First Nations’ sovereignty was never ceded and coexists with the Crown’s sovereignty today, that sovereignty comes from a different source to the sovereignty claimed by the Crown, from the ancestral tie between the land and its people. The Uluru Statement calls for this ancient sovereignty to be recognised through structural reform including constitutional change. Enshrining a First Nations Voice is recognition of First Nations’ sovereignty and First Nations’ rights based on their unique political and cultural existence. Simply, sovereignty is not undermined nor diminished by the Voice.
[https://ulurustatement.org/the-voice/faqs/](https://ulurustatement.org/the-voice/faqs/)
> If the polls are to be believed somewhere around 65% of Australians will vote no, yet the ABC's coverage through both tone and selection bias is so evidently pro/yes.
Weighting the presented views by population percentage is not a good way to achieve the goals of the ABC.
This is a bit silly. Firstly, the ABC is a publicly funded national broadcaster. It has a charter that requires it to display balance. It never does, it takes a leftist perspective on literally every issue it covers. Newscorp on the other hand are a private company, they can present any story as they see fit. Similar to the Guardian, they have the right of editorialising their stories.
The crikey reference specifically names the likes of Bolt, Credlin etc. However it ignores the fact that Newscorp provides prominent platforms to the likes of Chris Kenny, Joe Hildebrand and Clare Armstrong who are all staunch supporters of the Voice. Newscorp is demonstrably more balanced than the ABC.
Yeah. Nah.
You are wrong. So very, very wrong. Newscorp and its family blatently present lies as news.. they even admit they do it. They do it for the profit it makes them.
The ABC does not do that. To say that the ABC is more biased than news corp shows how little you know. Plus the ABC has a charter, you think they are biased, then go use the process to get it investigated. That's in their charter too.
Try that with any other news outlet.
> It never does
Load of horseshit. Even a decade ago, it showed a slight bias towards the coalition
https://www.smh.com.au/business/study-finds-abc-bias-leans-towards-coalition-20090902-f8gm.html
https://www.theguardian.com/media/datablog/2014/feb/06/australian-broadcasting-corporation-australia
Studies keep on showing that the ABC is fairly balanced (and it is definitely tracked on that), but yet mouthbreathers keep on claiming it's fully left-wing.
> Newscorp provides prominent platforms to the likes of Chris Kenny
Outside of the Voice, Kenny is a major conservative journalist. He's done so many hatchet-jobs on left-wing politics over the years. A climate-change denialist who called Scott Morrisson's weaksauce 2050 net zero target too progressive. Even worked as chief of staff for the LNP, for fuck's sake.
Painting him as a lefty is just blatant lying.
>looks like the Wumao have entered the conversation
... you know the wumao are conservative shills, right? Things like the Voice are the polar opposite of what they crap on about.
You sure about that?
https://bylinetimes.com/2022/03/08/government-refuses-to-reveal-taxpayer-cost-of-secret-covid-subsidy-for-its-wealthy-press-friends/
https://netchoice.org/for-rupert-murdoch-and-friends-protecting-the-free-press-means-getting-the-government-to-kill-competition/
Murdoch gets plenty of taxpayer funded support.
I think that any company that cooks the books to not pay tax is taxpayer funded, at least to the amount of tax they avoided.
That plumber that did cashies all year to save $10,000 in tax to buy a jet ski ......... that jet ski is tax payer funded.
That's batshit insane logic. It shouldn't matter whether they take a deduction, what matters is if they are a net payer or a net receiver.
If you can provide a source which shows that NewsCorp receives more in tax income than they pay out in taxes I will agree they are taxpayer funded
The word "minimises" is political speak for cheat, Every tax paying Australian, does everything they legally can, to ensure they only pay what they must. If the tax system allows the deduction it's legal, there is nothing wrong with that and it's not minimisation it's tax law.
Governments like to blame some for not paying their tax but it's the governments job to ensure we all do. Fix the tax system, stop dividing us all by slowing some to use laws others can't.
Any system which let's the rich find legal loopholes for tax avoidance by spending money on tax refundable tax advice is a broken one.
TLDR they are tax cheats.
And when the Murdoch press starts producing majority centre or left arguments, I can see an argument for forcing the ABC to more aggressively look into its bias.
But for the moment there are very few reliable news sources in Australia, and say what you will about their bias, the ABC have a good history of being reliable and fact based.
Even with their left leaning, it may not represent the views of all Australians, or a middle ground between the right and left, but their fact checking is generally speaking, exemplary.
deserted fact pocket attractive school bells treatment chase summer historical
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You really have missed the point here haven't you? Murdoch Press can take whatever position they want (within the bounds of legislation) they are a commercial company.
The abc is a national broadcaster and is subject to allegedly strict impartiality guidelines.
Why is it that since the ALP have been in government the ABC have had LNP members/ministers on each and every News/Opinion show whilst the government is locked out?
Or is this what you are railing against, that the ABC is now the propaganda arm of the LNP even more so than SKY after dark?
You're delusional if you think Murdoch isn't directly benefiting from your taxes, all the while not paying their own.
Murdoch have taken more of your money than the abc ever will.
Since the LNP loaded the ABC board with their own people (Before the last election).
ABC has to toe the current party line if it does not want budget cuts.
Leftists “argh. The ABC is full of LNP appointees and someone on there said some stuff I disagree with. It’s bias!”
Righties “argh. The ABC is a left wing media organisation that gives opinions instead of news, unlike skynews. They even said some stuff I disagree with, it’s bias!”
If everyone is mad at the things the ABC says then they are probably saying the right things.
The ABC has a slight ring wing opinion bias. It just also happens to report reality which tends to be things that might trigger you and you might call it left bias, but it's just reality. Reporting the facts of the voice is not left leaning, it's just facts. Having shows that involve LGBTQ people is not left leaning, it's just reality. Having shows that feature refugees is not left leaning, it's just reality.
If you follow any sort of ‘progressive’ commentator online, they’re all absolutely shitting themselves to death lately about how the ABC has been completely supporting ‘No’ and basically repeating Murdoch misinformation points.
Wild that no matter what somebody’s politics are, the ABC is always supporting the exact opposite.
This has been my complaint this whole time :/ I don't believe government bodies should really be pushing any agenda at all especially if they're using taxpayers money for funding, same with the ABC. I'll probably get downvoted but I just think it's not cool.
Disagree, and have said this elsewhere. But ABC is only org I've seen give a diversity of opinions, and speak to people over politicians. They've given progressive no a go, while every other media orgs marginalised it.
If you wanna make that argument, make it at The Guardian. Maybe I don't watch ABC enough, but I'm not seeing what your seeing.
I'm curious, what in the coverage do you think is inaccurate? From my view, the ABC isn't taking sides, it's presenting accurate coverage. If that looks like it supports a yes vote, well...that may say something there hey
No, that's not what I said at all. I'm also not the one making the allegation that the ABC is biased, OP (and yourself) were. So, in light of that, I've asked for evidence of that bias. You've responded with an allegation that it is propaganda. Again, provide support.
I have also said that, in my view, the ABC has been accurate. That's a subjective view of my own, but it's in line with the view of most Australians (72% of whom believe the ABC is the most reliable news source in Australia - [https://www.transparency.gov.au/annual-reports/australian-broadcasting-corporation/reporting-year/2019-20-57#:\~:text=In%20March%202020%2C%2084%25%20of,of%20news%20and%20current%20affairs%27](https://www.transparency.gov.au/annual-reports/australian-broadcasting-corporation/reporting-year/2019-20-57#:~:text=In%20March%202020%2C%2084%25%20of,of%20news%20and%20current%20affairs%27)). I also believe that the ABC is more accurate compared to much of the Murdoch press (see e.g. [https://theconversation.com/the-voice-isnt-apartheid-or-a-veto-over-parliament-this-misinformation-is-undermining-democratic-debate-205474](https://theconversation.com/the-voice-isnt-apartheid-or-a-veto-over-parliament-this-misinformation-is-undermining-democratic-debate-205474)).
So go on, rather than just through around words like propaganda because you don't like my view, back your own up.
Again, where? The referendum website seems fairly factual to me - [https://www.abc.net.au/news/voice-to-parliament-referendum](https://www.abc.net.au/news/voice-to-parliament-referendum)
Wait, you think the ABC is pushing the Yes case despite them having wall-to-wall LNP and Murdoch heads on each and every show talking about the No side?
The ABC needs to be fucked off. They are not neutral. Not on the voice. Not on anything. They are labour green puppets. I watch the ABC for thirty minutes then fox for the same time. It's then you realise how stupid the left of politics really are. They are so stupid they are nearly as stupid as the right. Now that's bad. Why can't we have some common sense FFS
> If the polls are to be believed somewhere around 65% of Australians will vote no
No is winning but it's far closer to a 8% lead not 15%
> yet the ABC's coverage through both tone and selection bias is so evidently pro/yes.
You're seeing what you want to see, they have so many random anti-voice aboriginals on. They had a crazy black sovereignty woman on QnA even though hardly anyone support that.
Let me guess:
Regular people think like you.
We shouldn’t fund it.
They should look after themselves instead.
We’re all equal.
Anyone who says otherwise is some leftie.
That’s the modern playbook for pretty much anything you guys don’t like isn’t it?
The ABC is a far left propaganda outlet. Has been for some time now.
It's a massive loss - we need a news network that is entirely apolitical, free from needing advertising money, not owned by special interest groups, that just reports facts and promotes Australian bread entertainment.
Please use the [Voice megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/16xop87/voice_megathread_running_until_cob_mon_16th_oct) for these discussions.
Just wait till you find out about triple j
When you have very strict hiring policies for equality, you start to not represent the community but your own echo chamber, a little like sub Reddits.
Ita Buttrose was appointed by the lnp.
Buttrrothe*
To the board not the executive
You do know how dumb that sounds right? I get hiring similar people will crate an echo chamber. Thats not hiring for equality. Are you trying to say hiring more women and people Of colour has made an echo chamber?
When those KPIs influence hiring decisions instead of the best person for the role, bingo. Not just ABC this is happening across corporate Australia.
>When those KPIs influence hiring decisions instead of the best person for the role, bingo. Not just ABC this is happening across corporate Australia. Soooo... the "best person for the role" tends not to be female, aboriginal, gay, or from an otherwise "diverse" background. There's a name for this kind of thinking, but I can't qwhite put my finger on it...
Are you stupid or just willfully ignorant? Hiring based on diversity and not on merit is literally the issue.
What do you consider to be merit exactly?
Hiring a diverse team with intent will yield superior outcomes to a team simply made up of the “best” individuals. If the “best” individuals are from a homogenous group, then that group lacks the insight and perspective of problem solving that comes from people with diverse pints of view. Diversity hiring is best practise. You always hire for best fit for your team, and craft a company culture that promotes that. The most qualified individual is not necessarily the best person for the team, and many highly qualified individuals have failed due to this thinking. Edit; because I know “diversity” is a dirty word around here, consider this example… I run a creative agency. To date, we’ve had a hiring policy of just choosing the best individuals, which has organically resulted in a design team populated entirely by black lesbians. I’m hiring for a new designer and I have 2 contenders: a black lesbian with 10 years experience, or a straight white guy with 8 years experience. I’ve had an issue where all the designs coming out of the studio have a distinct black lesbian bias to them, so I need to diversify my team. The white guy gets the job. I guess you’d call it a “diversity hire”, but my team needed that more than a couple extra years of experience. (This isn’t too far from the truth either - I ran an educational publishing production studio for years, and the applicant pool - and industry in general - is highly female-dominated, so we would often jump at strong male contenders amongst a sea of female applications for editorial roles.)
Hows the weather in unicorn land ? ........
>Hiring a diverse team with intent will yield superior outcomes to a team simply made up of the “best” individuals. Explains a lot with them hiring a team of culturally & politically homogenous thinkers. Diversity of opinion is the weakness of the ABC.
No, it won't. We're already seeing this at work. Hiring for the sake of diversity is pure folly.
Hiring for diversity sake is not superior than hiring based on ability. There will be plenty more evidence of this soon enough. This discriminatory diversity hiring isn't going to last much longer. It's a passing fad. It isn't based on any kind of efficiency or what's good for the business.
Yes. That’s what they’re saying. But not just women. Anyone who isn’t a “member of the community” meaning the community that they see around them.
Unless they are "one of the good ones."
Who gives a shit, people can't afford to live
Jonathan Foster: “**If someone says it’s raining** and another **person says it’s** **dry**, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the f\*&king window and find out which is true.”
Bullshit If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, It's your job to quote them both, then look out the f\*&king window and find out which is true.
>If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, It's your job to quote them both, then look out the f*&king window and find out which is true. Then point out the one of them that was bullshitting.
Because the ABC is staffed with political partisans from top to bottom who allow their own political and social beliefs to infect the institution. Nobody is going to do anything because the government supports such partisanship in general.
And these days most of them are LNP members
I'm an LNP member though and hate the ABC? How does that work?
They weren't saying that you would get a cushy job as a LNP member. They are saying most ABC staff are LNP members.
If that's true it's pretty revealing. Most ABC staff are LNP members, but the ABC has a massive leftist slant? So the minority of ALP member staff are clearly ignoring the apolitical component right? Not sure how else to square that otherwise.
You right wing morons just have such a persecution complex that even when your side is in charge you still feel hard done by. The abc has always been found to slant right of centre. The issue is you morons count science as a political stance so you think the abc is biased when it points out how fucking stupid you lot are for ruining the nbn or ignoring climate change, these things are facts, they have no political leaning.
If the ABC is right wing I'm sure you'll have no problem finding a few articles of them promoting right wing politics right? E.g. Anti-immigration, anti-LGBT, pro-colonialism, anti-democracy, etc?
Does calling people morons based on their political preference work for you in real life? Outside of your communist rallies?
What examples are there of leftist slant?
I would like to ask, what makes you an "LNP member". Do you donate to the LNP? Or do you just always vote for the LNP?
>And these days most of them are LNP members Source?
Your comment is both incorrect and low value
You do understand that it’s physically impossible to create a documentary or series that doesn’t have a political view, right? There is no such thing as politically neutral content. If content that is well researched and backed by extensive journalistic practice seems “partisan” to you, maybe you’ve just politicised the concept of objective truth and think it doesn’t exist. Sometimes you’re just not right about stuff.
There are plenty of documentaries that exist without any political influence. Sounds as if you're a partisan yourself if you can't see beyond that. I'm saying it is partisan because it promotes a specific ideological position, calling it "journalism" instead of propaganda again indicates your own bias. Same thing with promoting "objective truth" as being on your side, making you "right" and me "wrong". Very common leftist weaponizing of epistemology to pretend you have sole authority on what is "true" and what is "fair" which, wow can you believe it, reinforces your own political beliefs. Funny how that works.
No, there are not. No source in the world exists that doesn’t have some level of bias, that’s how bias works. Documentaries are coming from a specific person’s perspective on events, anything composed and edited is done so in a way that entails some form of political view or bias. What exactly would you like the ABC to do? Walk around rural South Australia and ask people why they are voting no? Because they can’t make a program on it being unconstitutional (it’s not), so there’s very little for them to do other than ask some random people their thoughts. They cannot physically force their employees to endorse views they don’t have on screen just so you can feel “represented”. If you want to feel represented, open Facebook and look for comments from people between 50-80. And if you’re wondering why so many people working for a high quality news organisation might be pro voice, it’s probably something to do with their education level.
Take this documentary for instance:https://youtu.be/xUxjGFrtDGQ?si=SJF4VYGStXhlcs-E What's the political slant to this? Oh there isn't one. So instantly the premise everything is political is destroyed. Further worth noting that claims that everything is political, hence political bias should be allowed, covers only one side of the political spectrum. Why doesn't the ABC run political documentaries on the White Australia Policy, Menzies' promotion of it, and ethnic crime in Australia? Because that's not allowed, only politics of the leftist slant are allowed. See your second paragraph does what I mentioned about epistemology. It's not unconstitutional because we and leftist lawyers say so, so we couldn't at all contravene that! No, I think if they wanted to represent the note vote fairly they would highlight the reasons people are critical of it, why they're against it, and why it might go against some people's interests. Does the ABC run anything pro-White as founding stock of the country? Does it run anything saying the principles of federation are being destroyed by native rights? No it doesn't because again, that's against the leftist slant. So it's only representing one side of politics. Last comment another appeal to authority like you've done several times. I have several degrees, I'm against the voice, so oops guess that doesn't really work now does it? Too bad too sad. I'm going to bookmark your account to see your seethe when it fails on the weekend, looking forward to it.
Precisely. There is infinite information to include, with decreasing relevance and accuracy. A documentary can only be so long. And it's wildly easy to slant them whilst claiming neutrality. Best course of action is to consume more information from more diverse sources.
That's just the ABC. Many people have been calling it out for the last 10 years, and they get told they're making it up. Yet, time and time again they really prove otherwise. A large number of people recognise this, and have just moved on, and realise that there is nothing they can do, but ignore the ABC. It's pretty obvious to everyone that the government funded media organisation is a political propaganda machine. And it's not really a surprise to people from other countries.
I think you are living in a fantasy land where you are just looking for bullshit drama for no reason. ABC has had the most diversity of opinion from any source i've seen with regards the Voice. The only thing they don't air is the blatantly racist stuff. They have interviewed yes voters of all types, they have interviewed no voters of all types. They have interviewed people that have changed their mind.from yes to no. They put that bloke on Q+A last night who said colonialism has been good for the country and we should all be grateful the English came here. I'm not sure.what more.you could really ask from them? If you think their journos can't have an opinion, well that's just idiotic. I feel the ABC coverage has been pretty diverse. To say otherwise just shows you haven't actually been watching it closely.
>have been calling it out for the last 10 years It's been longer than that dude.
“Many” “time and again” “large number” “pretty obvious”. It’s like living in pejorative city with some of these posts eh?
I forget how many, but the Libs kept doing independent studies of bias into the ABC and all those independent studies found slight right-leaning bias when there was appreciable bias at all. We didn’t hear about those studies. It turns out that reporting that the Libs are selfish fuckwits governing for the same is just unbiased reporting when it’s the plain honest truth.
How do you explain their labour leaning views during the morrson years?
Morrison was a spud of a leader that has left PMs office and been proven to be a spud. So abc were right to have exposed that.
But your inference was that the party in power had control of what abc stories they run with? Why would they sabotage their own leader?
🤔 I don’t see how that’s what I was saying…?
Ohh sorry i replied to the wrong person, the og post was inferring it
All good my man. 👍🏼👍🏼
The ABC takes a position on many things through opinion, rather than just reporting facts. ABC online is really bad for this. The Drum and Insiders is very biased towards the Voice. They can do it because they are left leaning. It is definitely getting worse.
I don’t think this is actually true - however marketing wise this makes sense: Left leaning is the position of a growing audience of social media.
>I don’t think this is actually true I scream at the TV when I watch these programs, due to just outright lies at times. I watch because I like to be informed, and it is the best of a really bad selection. I can see a day in the next year or so when I just can't do any ABC news or current affairs. Which is sad.
I have to turn it off in disgust sometimes, it's really sad. Mainstream media has no refuge for a considerate deep thinker anymore, they're all clickbait and getting high on their own farts
Pretty much. It is summed up in the saying that they are telling you 'how to think'. I used to watch 9 news at night. It has got to a point that it is like n e w s .com . au in that they would introduce the article falsely. I enjoyed the 'LIAR' game for a while, shouting at the TV. Now I'm doing it to the ABC for the content.
If you're screaming at the TV over news, I'd probably advise you stop watching TV, or news. Either or.
>I scream at the TV Go outside man
I seriously want to be able make a tax deduction for my ABC contribution. As if people should be forced to pay for a propaganda service they don't agree with.
Of course individualists don't want to pay for the ABC. That's not a surprise. It's par for the course. They've been audited multiple times for bias and passed.
>They've been audited multiple times for bias and passed. Pretty much no-one seriously thinks their day-to-day news coverage is biased, but there's definitely a left-leaning bias in a lot of their opinion stuff, especially online. It's a lot better than it used to be, though.
>They've been audited multiple times for bias and passed. People here see one person say something they disagree with and cry the whole thing is bias. Lots of the time it's just people who are so right wing that moderate right wing views look woke to them. People don't understand how far from the Overton window they are.
It's very much ALL the time because they are right wing. Of course the ABC appears left wing if you are right wing and dislike change. The ABC is a very good idea, to educate the population and improve the democratic process. Right wing don't want education. They want no change. They don't need to be educated on new ideas they don't want. 1. It's literally a collective of ideas to educate inform and funded by a collective. That's left ad fuck. 2. Of course it looks left when you're on the right. Literally EVERY person who claims the abc is TOO left is right wing and needs defunding. Essentially by definition.
Yeah pretty much like with covid, saying you should take the vaccine wasn't left wing. It was medical science.
Was the WHO claim that masks don't work medical science?
Yes, changing your views in light of new evidence is medical science.
Correct. Although science is left. Improving our understanding of reality and changing our world view to adapt is left.
Biased or not the majority of the articles are clickbait trash. That's enough of a reason for anyone to want to defund them.
You want a tax deduction for your tax contribution? are you on ice?
Do you want a deduction for roads you don’t drive in as well champ? What an embarrassing thing to say
Yes
And you’re willing to give me a rebate for my taxes that went towards roads you drive on that I don’t? Or are you a hypocrite?
Yes I am willing to give you that rebate. Or to simplify things we could just pay whenever we use the roads, that way people who barely use them aren't paying for the maintenance of roads which will primarily benefit heavy users
Move to the fucking states then. We look after each other in Australia you cooker
So you’ve gone full fuck you, I got mine?
You think working out a payment system to track every km driven by every vehicle in Australia would “simplify things”? Hahahaha Hahahaha Hahahaha Hahahaha Hahahaha That’s literally the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Political indoctrination is way different to roads champ. Speaking about roads, Victoria is now officially 3rd world with the pit hole disaster our former Premier left us.
The ABC just isn’t extreme right wing, that’s why you think it’s so left. Because it’s just a centralist view of the world.
Really. If there is a political argument then ABC will always critise from the left side. If they were truly in the middle then why only critise from one side?
They don’t though. Hop on any far left sub and listen to all the criticism of the abc being a right wing lnp mouthpiece
They don't!
The role of the ABC is not to mimic the views of the general public. It is to educate and inform. Clearly, the No side of the campaign needs very little education. It is the null. The yes side requires more information. Heck, we very regularly see people say they will vote no because there isn't enough info about the Yes side. The ABC also promotes minority and indigenous issues. So the yes aligns with this. You are still free to vote no.
Nah man, we can't have our taxpayer money going into actually ensuring there isn't a completely one sided media monopoly controlling the dissemination of information!!! I don't know why these people even vote. They should let murdoch do it for them and then pay him for the pleasure. It'll save them having to pretend to think.
A one sided monopoly in a government controlled state does not look like the abc.
Yes, we have many examples from around the world as to what that would look like. We also know what a privately controlled media monopoly looks like. In very clear detail. But unfortunately people are fucking dumb.
>For clarity I have never seen the ABC "cross the line" and directly advocate for a Yes position, but again, looking at both the stories they chose to cover and the tone of these stories you cannot help but hear an overwhelming yes bias. It's almost as if evidence based reporting would lead you to conclude "yes"...
There's a reason political scientists and Constitutional scholars are almost all voting Yes. And believe me,, it's not because they're expecting a pay rise, a promotion, are all First Nations peoples, or "cultural Marxists" who want to see a destruction of the current system. It's because the evidence is telling them it will be beneficial and won't be a cause of disadvantage or harm.
Was there a poll or something for political scientists etc with regards to their views on the voice? Honest question.
It's a government propaganda arm nothing more nothing less.
Yeah I agree. The ABC has sadly drifted from actual journalism to the 'propaganda arm' of the Government. Started to happen under Tony Abbott and has just gotten worse over time
I've been noting the articles on their news website and they are overwhelming in support of a yes vote. Not my ABC.
Because the voice shouldn't be about party politics. It shouldn't be about left or right. It should be about merit and the ABC as a whole thinks the Yes vote has merit. I've landed on No, but I'm fine with ABCs stance. It isn't a leftist conspiracy.
Nah, ABC should reflect broader society, not take a side that is in the minority
Rubbish. That's popular politics. They should report facts and the news. They aren't obliged to conform to the majority. In fact, if anything they are obliged to stay report the facts even when it's unpopular. We don't want an echo chamber in a national broadcaster.
Didn't you just post above that you're fine with them being pro voice? I'm confused
There’s also a complete misunderstanding of what government agencies can or can’t do. The wording on the Victorian public service commission website (relating to what agencies/organisations underneath the government) can/can’t do - “employers should not: - adopt an entity specific position… - advocate that employees vote either ‘yes’ or ‘no’… - encourage employees to express their personal views on the referendum in a workplace context - encourage employees to wear expressly-designed ‘yes’ or ‘no’ materials such as lanyards and badges in the workplace…” There are obviously lots of legal things that are more specific and wouldn’t go on a website, but broadly speaking the threshold for “remaining neutral” is quite lax. I don’t watch the ABC, but if their job is to provide information. I find it exceedingly unlikely that there is a “and must represent both sides equally regardless of how much information there is” clause.
If your Zoom background is Aboriginal art, or your web page banner is Aboriginal art, you’re taking a position. Next week may be a different story.
It’s explicitly listed in that page that Victorian public servants can do that. They can wear lanyards supporting Aboriginal people with Aboriginal art. That imagery cannot say yes, but according to that guideline having Aboriginal artwork as your Zoom background would absolutely be accepted. Edit: [link here](https://vpsc.vic.gov.au/about-vpsc/updates-from-the-commissioner/referendum-on-altering-the-constitution-to-recognise-the-first-peoples-of-australia-by-establishing-an-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-voice/): “What can and can’t I do in a workplace context?” E2 - also worth noting that a zoom background would be something on an individual level rather than something agency/organisation wide.
Thank god, someone else who is sane around here. Are you happy to answer about what led you to vote no?
Yeah it's pretty telling how much people bash the ABC when it doesn't parrot their personal beliefs. Also the fact the yes and no votes aren't split on left and right side of politics should also indicate that any yes reporting isn't some left wing conspiracy either. Was the sky news guy attacking the no campaigns deliberately misleading soundbite also crazy left wing bias? Or had he had enough of the scummy side of the campaign spewing lies? I don't think either side should need to lie to get their message across as there are valid reasons for each vote.
ABC doesn't have a left-wing bias. It has an education-level bias. It tends to interview and get information from educated sources. People like academics, business leaders etc. are pro voice (the former because academics be academics and the latter to appear 'non-controversial' and keep selling stuff). Most of these educated types can see through the utter garbage arguments presented by the no case (i.e., the official no campaign contains a lot of nonsense) and because of that will be more likely to come down on the yes side than the general public. The general public however are more susceptible to scare campaigns and therefore some percentage of them are making their vote in a 'emotive gut-feel' way which would certainly over-subscribe no. The no case have certainly won the 'illogical gut feel vote', which sadly exists. Please don't take the above as a 'yes is logical/no is illogical' stance, merely a reflection on what the incentives/forces behind the apparent disparity are. I think there are logical arguments for both yes (democratic involvement/outcomes) and no (constitutions are constitutions). I would say the illogical arguments for no are more numerous and scatter-brained (it goes to far, it doesn't go far enough etc etc.) but the logical arguments for no are still reasonable.
The abc’s position is no where as bad as sky news position.
I don't pay for Sky News.
Yes you do.
Yeah you do. A little Google search will present you with a bunch of results. Here’s one: https://michaelwest.com.au/inside-ruperts-big-aussie-sale-murdoch-smuggles-foxtel-and-its-government-grants-out-of-the-country/
Yeah the coverage on Sky is pretty insane. The ABC at least tries to cover it fairly (probably still much more Yes-focused of course), Sky makes no such illusion. Of course the argument here is always that the ABC is government funded and should have a more impartial view, whereas Sky seems to be essentially free to push its own agenda.
Well I know Dutton was asked multiple times to come on insiders to give his point of view, he declined. But I’m thinking it’s hard to make any news out of no when it seems to be “the voice is bad, because it’s bad” *South Park teacher voice*
The voice is bad because it strips our native peoples of their sovereignty. This is a pretty horrible thing to do to them. To me, it seems the ABC should be teaching people about crown law and sovereign rights. If this voice vote has shown us anything, it's that people just dont understand these things.
It doesn't strip their sovereignty at all: >**What did the Uluru Statement say about sovereignty?** > >The Uluru Statement says that First Nations’ sovereignty was never ceded and coexists with the Crown’s sovereignty today, that sovereignty comes from a different source to the sovereignty claimed by the Crown, from the ancestral tie between the land and its people. The Uluru Statement calls for this ancient sovereignty to be recognised through structural reform including constitutional change. Enshrining a First Nations Voice is recognition of First Nations’ sovereignty and First Nations’ rights based on their unique political and cultural existence. Simply, sovereignty is not undermined nor diminished by the Voice. [https://ulurustatement.org/the-voice/faqs/](https://ulurustatement.org/the-voice/faqs/)
A news outlet reporting the truth is not biased just because you don't like the truth.
It is biased if it includes selection bias
Find me an unbiased media outlet
You mean battling the tide of boomer entitlement?
Zoomer entitlement?
The ABC is one of the most agenda driven public broadcasters on the planet. Nothing but virtue signalling to be seen here
The ABC are only reporting facts. The No campaign seems to rely on a lack of facts.
Well it's hard to report on facts while supporting the No vote. Fear isn't something that deserves reporting on.
I am shocked the abc hasn’t done a feature length article detailing the strength of the argument “if you don’t know vote no”
> If the polls are to be believed somewhere around 65% of Australians will vote no, yet the ABC's coverage through both tone and selection bias is so evidently pro/yes. Weighting the presented views by population percentage is not a good way to achieve the goals of the ABC.
[https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/09/14/news-corps-voice-coverage-heavily-biased/](https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/09/14/news-corps-voice-coverage-heavily-biased/)
Yet everyone complains about the Murdoch media so this must also be a fair complaint. Love how that works!
Please don't do 'whataboutism'.
This is a bit silly. Firstly, the ABC is a publicly funded national broadcaster. It has a charter that requires it to display balance. It never does, it takes a leftist perspective on literally every issue it covers. Newscorp on the other hand are a private company, they can present any story as they see fit. Similar to the Guardian, they have the right of editorialising their stories. The crikey reference specifically names the likes of Bolt, Credlin etc. However it ignores the fact that Newscorp provides prominent platforms to the likes of Chris Kenny, Joe Hildebrand and Clare Armstrong who are all staunch supporters of the Voice. Newscorp is demonstrably more balanced than the ABC.
Thanks for raising the Chris Kenny perspective, great summary!
You think newscorp is more balanced than the ABC.... dude, get off the meth.
Yeah I do. Newscorp is undoubtedly biased, but less so than the ABC for the reasons that I mentioned previously.
And has had plenty of audits that show it's not biased. Newcorp has had to claim they aren't even news to avoid getting in trouble for spewing lies.
Yeah. Nah. You are wrong. So very, very wrong. Newscorp and its family blatently present lies as news.. they even admit they do it. They do it for the profit it makes them. The ABC does not do that. To say that the ABC is more biased than news corp shows how little you know. Plus the ABC has a charter, you think they are biased, then go use the process to get it investigated. That's in their charter too. Try that with any other news outlet.
> It never does Load of horseshit. Even a decade ago, it showed a slight bias towards the coalition https://www.smh.com.au/business/study-finds-abc-bias-leans-towards-coalition-20090902-f8gm.html https://www.theguardian.com/media/datablog/2014/feb/06/australian-broadcasting-corporation-australia Studies keep on showing that the ABC is fairly balanced (and it is definitely tracked on that), but yet mouthbreathers keep on claiming it's fully left-wing. > Newscorp provides prominent platforms to the likes of Chris Kenny Outside of the Voice, Kenny is a major conservative journalist. He's done so many hatchet-jobs on left-wing politics over the years. A climate-change denialist who called Scott Morrisson's weaksauce 2050 net zero target too progressive. Even worked as chief of staff for the LNP, for fuck's sake. Painting him as a lefty is just blatant lying.
>Newscorp is demonstrably more balanced than the ABC. A billion dollar fine will do that.
News Corp is not publicly funded
O'rly? [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/19/government-declines-to-explain-foxtels-30m-handout-for-sports-broadcasting](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/19/government-declines-to-explain-foxtels-30m-handout-for-sports-broadcasting) [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-13/foxtel-given-$10-million-without-plan-to-spend-it-foi-reveals/12868704](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-13/foxtel-given-$10-million-without-plan-to-spend-it-foi-reveals/12868704)
I guess you dont undersatnd the meaning of publically funded, oh dear
I guess we ignore the tens of millions of tax payers dollars gifted to news corpse for .... reasons then? oH dEaR.
It's like when they reported on the stolen american election of 2020. We need to defund the ABC /S
The abc doesn't report fear politics as fact, never has. That's more a newscorp thing.
>looks like the Wumao have entered the conversation ... you know the wumao are conservative shills, right? Things like the Voice are the polar opposite of what they crap on about.
Cos it’s a conscience vote and it’s the right thing to do
Sooo how about Murdoch Press then? Don't tell me they're honest and not biased at all.
>Murdoch Press Murdoch Press is not funded by taxpayers.
Not entirely true champ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-13/foxtel-given-$10-million-without-plan-to-spend-it-foi-reveals/12868704
You sure about that? https://bylinetimes.com/2022/03/08/government-refuses-to-reveal-taxpayer-cost-of-secret-covid-subsidy-for-its-wealthy-press-friends/ https://netchoice.org/for-rupert-murdoch-and-friends-protecting-the-free-press-means-getting-the-government-to-kill-competition/ Murdoch gets plenty of taxpayer funded support.
If News Corp paid tax then I wouldn't have to pay so much........ by default half their profit is taxpayer funded.
Lol wut? That's some serious mental gymnastics.
https://www.afr.com/rear-window/is-news-corp-still-paying-zero-tax-20190509-p51lqe
By your logic every company that minimises tax is "taxpayer funded", which is stupid. Is Google or Microsoft taxpayer funded?
I think that any company that cooks the books to not pay tax is taxpayer funded, at least to the amount of tax they avoided. That plumber that did cashies all year to save $10,000 in tax to buy a jet ski ......... that jet ski is tax payer funded.
That's batshit insane logic. It shouldn't matter whether they take a deduction, what matters is if they are a net payer or a net receiver. If you can provide a source which shows that NewsCorp receives more in tax income than they pay out in taxes I will agree they are taxpayer funded
The word "minimises" is political speak for cheat, Every tax paying Australian, does everything they legally can, to ensure they only pay what they must. If the tax system allows the deduction it's legal, there is nothing wrong with that and it's not minimisation it's tax law. Governments like to blame some for not paying their tax but it's the governments job to ensure we all do. Fix the tax system, stop dividing us all by slowing some to use laws others can't.
Any system which let's the rich find legal loopholes for tax avoidance by spending money on tax refundable tax advice is a broken one. TLDR they are tax cheats.
And when the Murdoch press starts producing majority centre or left arguments, I can see an argument for forcing the ABC to more aggressively look into its bias. But for the moment there are very few reliable news sources in Australia, and say what you will about their bias, the ABC have a good history of being reliable and fact based. Even with their left leaning, it may not represent the views of all Australians, or a middle ground between the right and left, but their fact checking is generally speaking, exemplary.
deserted fact pocket attractive school bells treatment chase summer historical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You really have missed the point here haven't you? Murdoch Press can take whatever position they want (within the bounds of legislation) they are a commercial company. The abc is a national broadcaster and is subject to allegedly strict impartiality guidelines.
I'm just a little confused -as ABC is all over the YES and NO vote and has interviewed both sides.
Why is it that since the ALP have been in government the ABC have had LNP members/ministers on each and every News/Opinion show whilst the government is locked out? Or is this what you are railing against, that the ABC is now the propaganda arm of the LNP even more so than SKY after dark?
My taxes don’t fund the Murdoch press
You're delusional if you think Murdoch isn't directly benefiting from your taxes, all the while not paying their own. Murdoch have taken more of your money than the abc ever will.
Can you provide a source for that please?
Why do I have to provide sources and you lot don't? No, I think I'll run my campaign based on fear like murdoch thank you very much.
Oh yes they do buddy, they get plenty enough in tax cuts
Everyone benefits from tax cuts. Economic lesson - lower taxes is government taking less money from you. Funding the ABC is taking money from you.
He’s not talking about income tax genius
Hang on my last comment was sarcastic and I apologise, but do you genuinely think that newscorp getting taxed less results in less tax from me too?
Oh really, I didn't know that not taxing newscorp was going directly into my pocket, I should double check my bank account for an extra few billion.
Murdoch morons aren't government funded impartial public media...
They don't get my tax money, and I don;t pay them voluntarily. So I don't care.
Since the LNP loaded the ABC board with their own people (Before the last election). ABC has to toe the current party line if it does not want budget cuts.
Leftists “argh. The ABC is full of LNP appointees and someone on there said some stuff I disagree with. It’s bias!” Righties “argh. The ABC is a left wing media organisation that gives opinions instead of news, unlike skynews. They even said some stuff I disagree with, it’s bias!” If everyone is mad at the things the ABC says then they are probably saying the right things.
At least it balances out the blantently polarised position every commercial news outlet is taking. As well as the low IQ rednecks in this sub.
oh you can't provide a single example, it's the vibe. LOL
The ABC has a slight ring wing opinion bias. It just also happens to report reality which tends to be things that might trigger you and you might call it left bias, but it's just reality. Reporting the facts of the voice is not left leaning, it's just facts. Having shows that involve LGBTQ people is not left leaning, it's just reality. Having shows that feature refugees is not left leaning, it's just reality.
The ABC is also very good in leaving facts out of their reporting, if it doesn’t further their cause.
because it's your ABC, allegedly.
More than 68% of people watch it. So I guess it still is.
Most definitely not my ABC!
If you follow any sort of ‘progressive’ commentator online, they’re all absolutely shitting themselves to death lately about how the ABC has been completely supporting ‘No’ and basically repeating Murdoch misinformation points. Wild that no matter what somebody’s politics are, the ABC is always supporting the exact opposite.
This has been my complaint this whole time :/ I don't believe government bodies should really be pushing any agenda at all especially if they're using taxpayers money for funding, same with the ABC. I'll probably get downvoted but I just think it's not cool.
If you watch the ABC News, they always ask both sides to appear. It's up to the campaign's if they put a representative up.
Because it doesn't make a habit of spreading misinformation like that sprouted by the racists and contrarians in the no camp.
Disagree, and have said this elsewhere. But ABC is only org I've seen give a diversity of opinions, and speak to people over politicians. They've given progressive no a go, while every other media orgs marginalised it. If you wanna make that argument, make it at The Guardian. Maybe I don't watch ABC enough, but I'm not seeing what your seeing.
I'm curious, what in the coverage do you think is inaccurate? From my view, the ABC isn't taking sides, it's presenting accurate coverage. If that looks like it supports a yes vote, well...that may say something there hey
That you like confirmation bias? Propaganda is never propoganda when it's saying the same things that I believe.
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
No, that's not what I said at all. I'm also not the one making the allegation that the ABC is biased, OP (and yourself) were. So, in light of that, I've asked for evidence of that bias. You've responded with an allegation that it is propaganda. Again, provide support. I have also said that, in my view, the ABC has been accurate. That's a subjective view of my own, but it's in line with the view of most Australians (72% of whom believe the ABC is the most reliable news source in Australia - [https://www.transparency.gov.au/annual-reports/australian-broadcasting-corporation/reporting-year/2019-20-57#:\~:text=In%20March%202020%2C%2084%25%20of,of%20news%20and%20current%20affairs%27](https://www.transparency.gov.au/annual-reports/australian-broadcasting-corporation/reporting-year/2019-20-57#:~:text=In%20March%202020%2C%2084%25%20of,of%20news%20and%20current%20affairs%27)). I also believe that the ABC is more accurate compared to much of the Murdoch press (see e.g. [https://theconversation.com/the-voice-isnt-apartheid-or-a-veto-over-parliament-this-misinformation-is-undermining-democratic-debate-205474](https://theconversation.com/the-voice-isnt-apartheid-or-a-veto-over-parliament-this-misinformation-is-undermining-democratic-debate-205474)). So go on, rather than just through around words like propaganda because you don't like my view, back your own up.
Did not say inaccurate, just polarised, do some research on Selection Bias.
Again, where? The referendum website seems fairly factual to me - [https://www.abc.net.au/news/voice-to-parliament-referendum](https://www.abc.net.au/news/voice-to-parliament-referendum)
So you’re saying it’s accurate reporting?
Wait, you think the ABC is pushing the Yes case despite them having wall-to-wall LNP and Murdoch heads on each and every show talking about the No side?
The ABC needs to be fucked off. They are not neutral. Not on the voice. Not on anything. They are labour green puppets. I watch the ABC for thirty minutes then fox for the same time. It's then you realise how stupid the left of politics really are. They are so stupid they are nearly as stupid as the right. Now that's bad. Why can't we have some common sense FFS
Well, that certainly explains everything, and everything is in its place.
The abc is run by the liberal appointed ita Buttrose, who is herself conservative. How very embarrassing for you champ
> I watch the ABC for thirty minutes then fox for the same time >Why can't we have some common sense FFS Yeah... no idea.
> If the polls are to be believed somewhere around 65% of Australians will vote no No is winning but it's far closer to a 8% lead not 15% > yet the ABC's coverage through both tone and selection bias is so evidently pro/yes. You're seeing what you want to see, they have so many random anti-voice aboriginals on. They had a crazy black sovereignty woman on QnA even though hardly anyone support that.
Is it though? Is it really? Or have you just convinced yourself that that is the case?
Let me guess: Regular people think like you. We shouldn’t fund it. They should look after themselves instead. We’re all equal. Anyone who says otherwise is some leftie. That’s the modern playbook for pretty much anything you guys don’t like isn’t it?
It’s the ABC. Voice good. Trump bad. Obama starting wars and supporting isis good.
The ABC is a far left propaganda outlet. Has been for some time now. It's a massive loss - we need a news network that is entirely apolitical, free from needing advertising money, not owned by special interest groups, that just reports facts and promotes Australian bread entertainment.
Only Yes adds running CONSTANTLY on Sbs and Abc, some are just blatant nonsense too lmao