click for source
I don’t know about anyone else but when I read that someone is “bashed” I imagine that a rather intense and cowardly beating has taken place, that multiple blows have been delivered and that the person delivering the “bashing” is some kind of evil bully because the word “bashing” usually has those sorts of associations. The use of the term in today’s Fairfax press is at best sloppy journalism but I suspect that this is rather deliberate word choice with the intention of casting the worst possible aspersions upon the staff of the detention centre. From the latter part of the report we see that the so called “bashing” may not have been entirely unprovoked you know what I reckon that there are few people out there who would not respond to being assaulted by a detainee with some sort of like for like response. If ever there was an example of lopsided reporting and propagandising its this entirely crappy piece from Fairfax. You would have thought that a good journalist would have sought details about how many blows were struck and precisely what sort of blows they were , the duration of the incident and if any injury ensued but no all Fairfax give us is a piece of skewed drivel that leads the reader to imagine some poor innocent Asylum seeker “bashed” by their cruel jailers…
Lift your game Fairfax you can certainly advocate for your desired position on the government policy but this piece is totally lacking in accuracy or fair minded balance, sadly that is situation normal for Fairfax.
Cheers Comrades
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
I totally agree, Iain. Fairfax so-called reporting is nothing more than progandising for the left. It’s no wonder their stock market rating is in the toilet.
Much as The ABCs would be if it wasn’t tax-payer funded.
Tony Abbott will go down in political history as the worst of the worst ever, political leader and Prime Minister, in Australian History—-you heard it here first on Iain Hall’s SANDPIT. Shalom,Richard Ryan.
Well Iain in the absence of an open and transparent environment this sadly is the type of journalism we have to put up with. Over to you and Mr Morrison to be more open and honest with the taxpayers of Australia.
Speaking of environment will there be any left when you and your conservatives vandal mates have finished raping and pillaging the country?
Actually, Richard, previously on the Sandpit you have said, repeatedly, and I quote, ‘Tony Abbott will never be Prime Minister of Australia’.
You’re starting to sound like Bob Ellis.
It’s becoming obvious that you don’t have a clue about Australian politics.
Iain, read the piece – they used the word “bashed” because they were quoting a source. Besides, the report is no more anti-Govt than previous Fairfax reports about detention centre conditions under Labor. It is not “biased” or inaccurate. It gives both sides of the story. It is not “leftist”. It is just the way journos work – they look for the powerful headline. End of story.
(PS: For a moment there I thought I’d landed on PP)
lower case les, you need to take a Bex powder, have a cup of tea and a good lie down..
Wow, Ray, an unnamed source says ‘bashed’ and you believe that rather than the rest of the story..
You’re misquoting me, GD. I didn’t say I “believe” any part of the story; I said Fairfax used “bashed” because they were quoting a source and it made for a good headline. You guys have got yourselves all riled up over nothing.
No Ray, we’re not riled up, just laughing at the way Fairfax irresponsibly reports the news to suit their leftist ideology, with the result that their shares are in the toilet.
And I’m laughing at the way you see the report as meaning that. What’s “responsible” reporting mean to you, GD? News Ltd, perhaps? Come off it, you’re sounding like the mirror image of the boys from PP (and look how that ended up).
Ray, if you examine the range of articles in the Australian, both left and right, and then compare them to the leftist tripe dredged up by Fairfax and the ABC, you’d see the difference. Have you ever read The Australian? If so, please link to an article that you disagree with. If not, perhaps you should take your head out of the sand.
I have read The Australian and disagreed with some articles. I have also read The Age and disagreed with some of their articles. So what? I am NOT going to provide a link to them, not because I have my “head in the sand” but because I am not going to play your silly ‘the Age and the ABC are leftists’ games. Here’s the bottom line with your take on this particular article: You are seeing ‘Reds under the bed’ (again) where none exist.
I’ll let Iain reply to this.. Really Ray, the ABC and Fairfax are hopelessly biased in favour of the left.
You read into it what you want to read, GD, from your own (heavily) biased right-wing perspective. Of course they looked biased to you, I understand that. Anyone who dares report an article that shows your precious Coalition in a poor light is biased, right? They’re “leftists”. Even though the same journals often report news that shows the ALP in a bad light. That doesn’t count, does it, because in those cases they’re just reporting the news, aren’t they?
And I’ll bet you that the initial attack by the detainee on the PNG national was racially motivated.
How much do you want to put on it?
Hmm – I’m feeling good about $20 says that this attack was basically about a nice light brown muslim man not wanting his food served by a dirty, pig-eating, dark brown new-guinean.
Ray,
If the headline was quoting their source then they should have put the word “bashed” in quotation marks, they did not do so, just remember that this is supposed to be a piece of news reporting not opinion or political polemic.
Paul
Your suggestion may have some virtue, however the claim that the detainee tried to remove the gloves worn by the food server strikes me as rather strange, unless it was because he perceived that to be implying that the detainees are in some sense unclean. Its notable too that the detainees are not trusted with metal cutlery.
GD
The Fairfax bias has been consistently to the left for years but this sort of nonsense goes further than just being questions of its usual leanings to the very quality of their presentation as a serious news source and contrary to ray’s suggestions I have no intention of following the example of our learned friend into blogging self destruction by making this post the template for all of may future writing.
Come on, Iain, that’s being as pedantic as PP. Please mate, don’t go down ‘the media is intellectually dishonest’ path.
Paul, only $20? Make it $200 and I’ll take your bet. I’ll be the book and even give you odds of, say, 3/1. Here’s how it works: You give me $200 and if you can prove conclusively the initial attack by the detainee was racially motivated, I’ll give you $600. Plus your $200 back. Do you want my online banking account number?
Ray
I just think that the piece as bad journalism on so many levels but I won’t go as far as to make a judgement about intellectual honesty I think its probably the pernicious influence of twitter which makes their writers sloppy and imprecise, something they just don’t care about. Maybe if their former spell checker were not dying of TB things might be better 😉 😉
So it’s “sloppy journalism” post the hyphen-girl era @ The Age and not bias then? I agree. Although I’d add that it’s also looking-for-a-sensational-headline, which is what all papers do.
There is always bias Ray you just can’t get away from that but if you have the usual bias AND sloppy journalism then its a sad and sorry combo IMHO
Sure, but I just don’t agree that The Age (or the ABC) are as biased as you & GD suggest they are. Especially the ABC, who NEVER editorialise. Compare that to News Ltd and I think you’ll find the media overall is more biased to the conservative side. Which is understandable, as most people – be they Coaltion or ALP voters – are basically conservative. Can’t speak for The Greens though. Whoa!
Ray
thanks for conceding that the AGE and the ABC do have bias, that is the necessary first step to you appreciating the truth, It seems clear to me that you are mistaken if you think that the the lack of formal “editorialising” makes the ABC superior to News Ltd, they are quite different creatures who express their institutional bias differently. Its just not a case of biased or less biased as you suggest its more a case of both equally biased but in differently directions.
Iain, I did not concede that both The Age and the ABC are biased. I only said the two are “not as biased as you suggest they are”. Eg: On a scale of 0 – 10 you would probably put their bias rating at around 8 or 9, I guess. But I would put the ABC’s at zero – and that is “not as biased as you suggest they are”. You’re trying to verbal me, mate.
Anyway, I do agree there is some left-leaning among Age journos and they do editorialise and give opinion along those lines. But I don’t believe it’s anywhere near as biased as News Ltd. And I don’t think it’s influencing the masses or anything to think twice about. I’d put The Age bias at about 2 or 3/10, but News Ltd bias to the Coaltion very high – at least 7 or 8/10.
However, I stand by my view (as do something like 80% of the population) that the ABC is NOT biased and simply reports news on a non-partisan/political basis without undue emphasis. You just don’t like it when they report bad news for the Coaltion as it is.
For a politician to complain about the press is like a ship’s captain complaining about the sea. Enoch Powell
Yes Richard, now what was that about Tony Abbott never being Prime Minister of Australia? Remember, you snivelled that for months prior to the election. Now what are you snivelling? A so-called quote from a bloke that you revile? Keep snivelling old man, feel lucky that Iain’s blog still posts your bizarre bile as most others don’t.
Ray pontificated:
That is patently not true. 80%? keep dreaming. Ray you are living in a world of your own imagining.
Clearly you aren’t a ‘centrist’, you are a leftist. Why not stand up and be proud? You vote for the Labor Party, you spruik for them, and you go to great lengths to explain why they aren’t what they are… ie a union beholden political apparatus harking back to the Fifties..
Ray, you are a leftist. Of course you see the ABC as unbiased.
The ABC is biased further to the left than the Labor Party.
Since the election, the ABC has been unrelenting in its attack on the incumbent Abbott government. This is fair enough in the privately funded media such as Fairfax or News Ltd. However the ABC has a charter to report the news honestly and without favour.
The ABC is negligent in this respect and its bias is showing like granny’s knickers after a few drinks on St Pats Day, which is next week, if you’re partial to a guinness.
By the way, where are your links showing that ‘80% of the population’ believe that the ABC is NOT biased and simply reports news on a non-partisan/political basis without undue emphasis? They don’t exist, it’s a figment of your imagination.
The only political party the ABC panders to, rather than criticising, is the Greens. Bob Brown was given a free run and Sarah Hansen Two-Fathers is constantly called upon for opinions far beyond her electoral reach, which is about .02% of the population.
The ABC also focuses on topics that are of little interest to work-a-day Australians: gay marriage, global warming scams and weird leftist predilections for such practises as scatology and bestiality..
Why should the tax-payer keep paying for this leftist garbage?
No, I’m not a “leftist”. Since when does voting ALP make you a “leftist”? That’s a classic example of your absurd view on politics. And it was actually 79% of people in that survey who supported the ABC as ‘unbiased and fair, not 80%. My apologies for that grave error.
Do you have a link for that ‘survey’? And do you watch the First Tuesday Book Club program? It’s enlightening isn’t it? Lots of tax-payer funded fun for lefties sniggering like school kids.. and that link was?
Here’s another instance of the ABC showing extreme bias. Virginia Trioli’s reaction to a LNP member’s statement.
Unbiased? I don’t think so. The ABC is over-funded and under scrutinised.
Yes, GD, I’ll get them for you. But later because I’m busy right now. You’ll have it by tonight. You are wrong and you are in a small minority who believe the ABC is biased against the Coalition. You are even in a minority of Coalition voters who believe that. But that’s no surprise, considering you are of the extreme right in your political views and thinking. Be patient – I’m not here to do your research for you but I will, in this case.
As for the First Tuesday Book Club, who the hell watches that? I don’t. I’d hardly call it political though, I’d call it nerdy.
Ray. I’m not asking you to do research for me, I’m asking you to back up your claims, ok? Big difference.
So why is the tax payer funding such crap?
Look GD, it was YOU who made the initial claim the ABC was biased against the Coalition.
And it was YOU who failed to back up that claim up with any facts.
All you’ve put up is cherry-picked examples that in YOUR opinion exhibit bias.
I have merely countered that by pointing out that surveys indicate you are wrong.
It’s You who has not bothered to do any research but now you demand that I do it?
Sheez.
Well, I will do it for you but right now I have guests coming for lunch so WAIT please.
Ray, I’ve posted three videos showing extreme bias.. anyway enjoy your lunch, we can argue later, cheers!
The guests haven’t arrived yet, GD, so I’ve got that research for you. You know, the one you failed/refused to find for yourself:
From the ABC Annual Report 2013
On Page 31 it states:
And on page 34:
Now I know you’ll claim that’s the ABC’s own survey but it’s not … it’s a NEWSPOLL survey. Yes, that’s right, conducted by News Ltd.
If you don’t believe that then read this report from News Ltd’s own paper The Australian dated February this year:
Get it? Only one in 5 (20%) believe the ABC is biased against the Coalition. And only one in 3 Coalition voters believe that too. You’re in the minority group of extremists on the right. Clearly. But we knew this.
Worse still, your comments, biased opinion, examples, sarcastic responses to my reasonable statements here and calling me a “leftist” – coupled with your arrogant demands that I prove you wrong (which I have) – shows just how extremely one-eyed, biased, unreasonable and uneven you are in ‘loudmouthing’ your views over the Internet.
Now I’m starting the BBQ. You can retract & apologise anytime you like.
Yes that is convincing, 14 years and over really? Especially when conservative journos like Janet Albrechsten, Piers Ackerman, Andrew Bolt, Gerard Henderson and Tim Blair garner tens of thousands of comments weekly proving you and your poll wrong.
I note that you always deride any poll you don’t agree with, but really, to put up a phone poll of less than 2,000 people, over the age of 14 as your argument is pathetic. Enjoy your barbecue.
” The ABC focuses on topics that are of little interest to work-a-day Australians: gay marriage, global warming scams and weird leftist predilections for scatology and bestiality.”
A little disturbing GD, you really should get out a bit more and stop being so dull and boring.
No lower-case les, it’s disturbing that you think the government should fund such rubbish.
It’s also disturbing that you find scatological and bestial references so interesting that you think the tax-payer funded broadcaster should promote such topics.
speaking of scatological and bestial references I thought Bolt was on Ch 10?
So now you’re knocking a poll conducted by News Ltd that showed the ABC as “fair & balanced”? And one that was quoted by them? You are one selective piece-of-work, GD. You hold News Ltd up as a beacon of respectability but when they publish a survey that goes against your extreme right wing grain you nitpick it. Got any surveys you can point to that contradict the Newspoll findings? No – I didn’t think so. Look mate, is it really beneath you to admit you were in the wrong, quoted rhetoric & opinion instead of fact and just may be a tad biased yourself? Yes, I thought it was.
Oh, and as for this:
That is freakin’ ridiculous. Comments made by anonymous wingnuts on far right wing blogs do not “prove” News Ltd’s poll (not my poll) wrong. You are clutching at straws, GD. If you won’t concede then maybe quit while you’re behind.
This GD bloke sounds like a boring old far right wing tosser. He probably votes One Nation and hangs out down his local RSL.
Yes there’s some crap on the ABC. If you don’t like it then don’t watch it. There’s even more crap on the commercial networks. And don’t bother with the bullshit argument that those networks aren’t publicly funded. Australian commercial networks benefit from tax breaks and government funds for public service announcements. The Nine network got $60 million last year alone from government advertising.
Also, the ABC only looks full of left wing bias when your own politics are just to the left of Attila the Hun. Noone other than Bolt and the wankers who think he is God consider the ABC to be full of left wing bias.
Short answer GD, you’re a clown. Grow up and stop sooking.
Ray, les, et al
for the sake of fairness I think we need to differentiate between the pure news reporting, which I agree tends to be somewhat above average in terms of its veracity and both current affairs and programs that discuss politics which tend, almost without exception to lean heavily to the left, a good example is Phillip Adams show Late night live which is the archetype lefty opinion show, Phil has four hours of air time each week which contrasts with only one hour allowed for Counterpoint which is RN’s token conservative show. Other current affairs shows are without exception left leaning, look at any episode of Q&A and you will find lefty panellists outnumber conservatives by about 5 to one, likewise look at the tweets that they put on screen nine out of ten will be sprouting the leftist song sheet. In conclusion their bias is patchy but it is impossible to credibly deny that its there.
They are anecdotal, cherry-picked examples of ABC left-leaning bias, Iain. At best. I just point to the general populus’ opinion that regards the ABC as “fair, unbiased & balanced”. It is. But don’t tell GD – he’ll lose it (again).
a large paragraph of well, nothing really..well done Iain.
if you don’t like the ABC or SBS for that matter then don’t bloody watch them! Simple.
and don’t give me that taxpayers money nonsense mate it’s starting to get a bit dull and repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive,
Wrong Iain, every time I have watched Q&A they have two conservatives, one or two left wingers, someone from the ALP (hardly “left wing”) and usually someone without any political affiliation. Also the Q&A audience splits usually seem to be fairly even. I have also seen the host throw up some curly questions to / criticisms of the ALP. If you reckon Q&A is “left wing” then you must be from the far right wing, like Adolf, Benito and GD above.
That said, I have stopped watching because it bores the sh&t out of me. The panelists don’t interest me and most of the time its just politicians of both sides getting on their soap boxes.
les
I write about subjects that interest me les, and the nature of news reporting is something that has been in my sights for years, I’m sorry that you don’t understand the nuances of media and journalism theory, I suggest a course of study may cure what ails you in that department.
As for not watching the ABC or SBS well that is no solution to their shortcomings.
Jeff
by your own admission you hardly ever watch the show so how can you expect your assessment of the panel make-up to be credible?
the host Tony Jones is left wing and your suggestion that one should not consider the ALP of the left is just silly as is your notion that one has to be “far right” to think that they are oif the left.
Well if you don’t watch then I suggest you do so before again such uninformed oppinion.
No, I said I have stopped watching because it started to bore me. I didn’t say when I stopped or how much I’ve seen. Try not to insult me based on things I haven’t said, it doesn’t reflect well on you.
Also… the ABC is centre-left, not left wing. The Murdoch papers are centre-right, not far right. Bolt is far right and thinks he’s in the centre. The problem is that some numb nuts think that “bias” is based on some objective starting point. Well it isn’t. “Bias” is your perception of how something leans, formed from your own position.
Jeff
I find claims of “boredom” from some one commenting on a political program (at) a political blog rather insincere to say the least.
I gather that you would consider yourself to be “of the left”
Why mention Bolt and describe him thus?
That sounds like post modernist nonsense, suggesting that there is no such thing as an an objective measure of “bias” at all
I said I was bored with watching Q&A, not bored with politics. Why do you keep discussing things I haven’t said, can’t you read?
I am a swinging voter and consider myself a centrist. I can see the merits and problems in all political parties/ideologies. As for Bolt, his politics are hard right but he is in denial about it.
Postmodernism has got nothing to do with it. To have an objective measure of bias you need an objective starting point, i.e. a factually truthful position. But most aspects of politics are open to debate or perspective. Biggest problem in politics is when one side claims to know or own the truth. Both left and right do this regularly. “True believer syndrome” someone called it. Anyone who thinks they have a monopoly on all truth and knowledge is a wanker. Politics is about what works best for the greatest number of people, not what is set in stone.
Jeff
I stand by my suspicions about anyone claiming “boredom” at a blog about politics.
Really? I had you pegged as a Greens voter who might even consider a tilt at the Game of Politics themselves. It never ceases to amaze me how people classify themselves and how often they are rather wide of the mark.
Well I agree with that sentiment even though I think that there are more vices on the contemporary left left than the right
Now that Is something that I utterly disagree with Bolt certainly is an economic dry but most of his social views are more to the centre than what I have seen of you so far Jeff.
Not at all when you are looking at the political stance of individuals, what you need is a back of an envelope survey that looks at where they stand on contemporary issues, Asylum seekers , AGW, and welfare are pretty good litmus indicators in my experience.
Tend to agree with that but you have to avoid being too wishy washy and too inclusive
I tend to agree with that sentiment
No, only a minion of the left would that. Politics in a democracy is the art that makes manifest one’s desire for governance or change. Oh and most of all its the biggest game of all, everyone is a player and everyone is their own side.
Where is my two posts to your blog did I indicate that I vote Greens and I aspire to a political career? Or do you dabble in amateur clairvoyance as well as blogging? If so then it isn’t working for you.
Again, I have made two posts and said almost nothing of my own political views. Yet you claim to know what they are. How astonishingly presumptuous (and wrong) of you.
As for Bolt, he is of the far right. He’s anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism, anti-anything not European, anti-public ownership, anti-climate change, a supporter of no holds barred laissez faire economics and a paranoid obsessive about socialism. Only Bolt and his fellow travelers (you seem to be one of them) think he’s close to the mainstream. As you say, it’s amazing how people classify themselves and end up being wide of the mark.
That is not all that different to what I said. Most political issues are an ongoing debate about how best to do things. Neither side is necessarily right or wrong. The question is which of their ideologies or policies works best for the greater number of people. Democracy meets utilitarianism. The game of course involves convincing the populace that your policy is best.
Jeff
Its not clairvoyance at all Jeff its just that I have been doing this blogging game for a rather long time with a largely hostile readership who mostly disagree with what I write here so I try to read between the lines, to recognise certain allusions and references that various people may make and from that I play a little game of deduction, which is rather accurate over all.
Oh but what you have said in these posts is most revealing, more revealing than you realise.
Take this sentence above from that I would say that you are very much pro asylum seekers being allowed to settle here, for multiculturalism, Pro Muslim, You truly believe in climate change and humanity’s responsibility for the perceived warming, anti Anglo culture even though that is most likely your ethnicity, you are certainly leaning towards socialism and a constrained free market; all of that comes frrm your expressed concerns about Andrew Bolt’s opinions. That said while I agree with Bolt on some things (like climate change)I don’t buy into his thoughts about economics or his positions on welfare.
No, convincing the populace is only a very small part of the game, the more important portion of the meal is making things happen as you promise and within the expectations of the costs that you enunciate while you “sell” your ideas to the public. Why do you think that Labor are totally disbelieved? Because they spent the last six years over promising and under delivering.
Not this time it’s not.
Iain, my tip is that you leave detective work to Miss Marple. Just because I wrote a one sentence description of Andrew Bolt’s position doesn’t give much if any insight into mine. “Pro Muslim”? Don’t make me laugh. I think anyone who worships invisible men in the sky has a screw loose, and those who do so fanatically are a step away from the looney bin.
You’re arguing from the general to the specific. I was referring to political ideology at large. Of course there are many different aspects (and problems) when trying to turn ideological positions into real policy and law. But that’s government, which is a rather more different art to political debate.
I agree that there are more crosses than ticks against the Labor government. But to say they are “totally disbelieved” is nonsense. Many still consider Labor a more socially responsible party of government. Many also have little or no confidence in Tony Abbott and his lot. Interesting times because the pressure is on Abbott and co. to deliver.
Jeff G reckoned:
And that’s why the majority of the population voted for the Coalition. They’re sick of lefty dreamers running up massive debt and deficits, while delivering nothing more than a symbolic apology and a ‘feel good’ wish list to satiate the masses.
Ray, I notice on another thread that you say I’ve cut and run or words to that effect from my comments on this thread about ABC bias. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It’s interesting, bias wise, how you interpret the link you quoted.
Ray, your support for a phone poll of less than 2,000 which included 14 year olds is your proof that the ABC isn’t biased?
You aren’t interested in fair reporting from our national taxpayer funded broadcaster. Like a pig in shit, you’re happy with the current lopsided reporting favouring the Greens and Labor.
On the other hand, if your poll is proof there is no bias, why is Mark Scott, the director of the ABC, who earns $800,000 per annum, employing an ex-Mudoch man to tell him why the ABC is being accused of bias? At a cost to the taxpayer of $600 per hour?
Isn’t $800,000 enough? Can’t this bloke work it out for himself?
Perhaps you could help him out, Ray, with your decisive poll that proves that the ABC isn’t biased.
Scott will be most grateful for your help, then again maybe not. He doesn’t seem to give a rats about spending taxpayer money.
“Many” isn’t “most”. And in any case I was responding to Iain’s overstatement that Labor is “totally disbelieved”. Labor still has its core followers. Just like the Liberals have had, even when they were led by talentless nobodies like McMahon and Fraser.
As for “lefty dreamers”, for every “lefty dreamer” there’s a “Murdoch arselicker” or a “pro-Rinehart neo-con”. Those kind of ad hominem labels are meaningless and boring.
No GD, I didn’t say the Newspoll was “proof” the ABC was not biased. I said the opinion poll by News Ltd supported my claim that, according to opinion polls, about 80% of people believe it’s not and that means you are, therefore, in a small right-wing minority who think otherwise. You asked me to produce that poll, remember? Even though you supplied no such support to your incessant, repetitive and insulting retorts about ABC bias yourself. Your latest comment is typical of how you skew a debate. Now let’s get it straight: It’s only YOUR OPINION that the ABC is biased and conducts “lopsided reporting favouring the Greens and Labor”. And your opinion is out of whack with the vast majority.
Jeff
Well we will see over time how close I am to the mark won’t we?
When I say “pro Muslim” what I mean is that you are more likely to argue that anyone who is concerned about the spread of Islam is exaggerating the problem and to claim that they are suffering from “Islamaphopia” or that well founded concerns about Islam are evidence of racism.
I was talking about the Game of Politics not just political debate, even so how is what I said “arguing from the general to the specific” ?
Maybe there is hope for you yet.
Oh, so when you say “pro Muslim” you mean something else entirely different. Which leads me to wonder why you used the term “pro Muslim” in the first place. Even if I held those views you list (which I don’t) then it would hardly make me a supporter of Islam or Muslims.
Also, Islam is not a “race”, therefore criticisms of Islam cannot be racist.
Jeff
Clearly different to the way that you perceive it.
My house, my blog, so please catch up with the way that I use language here. 😉
Sorry to disappoint you Jeff but Islam relies upon not being criticised because of the politically correct wanting to avoid giving offence and I was suggesting that you might be one of the wilfully blind.
True but you would be amazed at just how many minions of the left get that wrong.
I perceive it using its standard meaning in English. You obviously use another measure.
I’ve seen how you use language here. But I am a fairly tolerant fellow and won’t hold it against you.
Then you’d be wrong, not for the first, second or even third time in this thread.
All religions rely on and hide behind political correctness, Iain. It’s how they dodge scrutiny and criticism.
Well that’s their failing then. Unless of course “the minions of the left” are referring to elements of the right wing who attack Islam to attack brown and black people. Then it’s being used as a vehicle for racism and/or xenophobia. But neither the left or right have a monopoly on stupidity.
Jeff
Language is always context specific and one of the beauties of English is its flexibility
You couldn’t even if you wanted to.
Here at the Sandpit I am NEVER wrong Jeff, just occasionally misunderstood 😦
True to some extent but some religions do it far more than the others do, Islam is in fact one of the most precious and certainly the quickest to threaten violence to its critics.
That comment moves you very firmly to the left IMHO. Simply because its only the far left who will make the suggestion that you do above. Simply put there is no reason to make such an assumption about critics of Islam being closest racists.
What, I couldn’t hold it against you? What exactly do you think “hold it against you” means?
Not sure whether that’s colossal hubris or homespun humor but I’m hoping for the latter.
Threatening violence to its critics (which Islam certainly does) is hardly the same as hiding behind an expectation of political correctness. There’s no evidence that Islam does the latter any more or less than Christianity or Judaism.
No mate, that is unmitigated garbage. Firstly, I’m making an observation, not lending support to any position, so your continual attempts to tell me I’m a “minion of the left” are dishonest and manipulative. Secondly, some critics of Islam are ipso facto racists. They are less interested in the ideology of Islam than they are keeping out the little darkies. If you are in denial of that, you are a fool. Conversely, there are many on the right wing of politics who claim that left wingers who criticise Israeli policy are anti Semitic. A quick google shows that you yourself have made this argument. Either both are true or neither is true, you can’t have your cake and eat it as well.
That of course is just your opinion, not fact.
The word was “darkies”, GD. Very telling that you mispelt it.
Yes, my reasonable opinion. Unlike some of the paranoid drivel you’ve been spraying on the walls here.
as is everything you spray capital GD, opinion.
which I am happy to ignore.
Ray, I copied Jeff’s words verbatim. I apologise for not correcting his typo.. although it seems some else has…
Seriously, why would I re-type another commenter’s sentence?
I’m glad you’re enjoying yourselves, guys..
Jeff look in the mirror. Your passive apology for islam is still glaringly obvious.
Just because I don’t hate on the brown people like some doesn’t mean I’m an apologist for Islam. It’s a warped medieval cult as far as I’m concerned. I just live in hope that people can be saved from stupid ideas. This applies to xenophobes and bigots as much as it does to the Muzzies.
Jeff, it’s this medieval cult that Australia is importing, often without identification, that concerns people. It’s not a ridiculous fear of ‘darkies’. There aren’t any strident calls to curtail Indian immigration. Indian immigrants possibly outnumber islamic immigrants/refugees.
The problem is the ideology, and the worldwide pattern of that ideology negatively affecting host nations, that concerns many Australians.
Ray, I apologise about the ‘darkies/drakes’ typo. It wasn’t a typo by Jeff, it was an ‘auto-correct’ correction. I thought it was Jeff’s fault and left it as it was.
Immigration isn’t about importing ideas, it’s about importing people. Sure if they’re fanatics and they cling to backward pagan ideas like polygamy or female circumcision, send em back home. All others, come on in and learn the mystical Australian ways of barbecues, football, egalitarianism and utter indifference to omnipotent men in the skies. Australian society will give your Old World superstitious bullshit a good hard enema.
I have heard plenty of chitter chatter about Indian migration too GD. Sure it’s of a different type but the tone is the same, i.e. they’re different, they don’t speak the lingo, they smell, they’re unhygenic, they work cheap, etc. Heard it about Asians, Africans, Pacific Islanders, eastern Europeans too. There’s always been a crass racist element in Australian society. Nobody in their right mind can deny that.
If we judged people on their ‘ideological beliefs’ we’d be deporting Gina Rinehart.
Well if we don’t want totalitarians in then we should be wary of importing any Ray
Independent assessment finds ABC is NOT BIASED. The few articles/reports (out of many hundreds) they cited as ‘potentially biased’ were actually while we were still under the ALP Govt – ie the reports could have been conceived as biased against the then (ALP) govt.
GD …… LMAO! No bias against the Caolition.
Did you watch Q&A last Monday? One conservative against four leftists and a leftist host. Disgraceful imbalance.
Two of your mythical “leftists” were Chris Bowen, probably the most right wing member of the NSW Right faction. And the media editor from The Australian, one of the most right wing papers in the country. They only look like “leftists” if you take your political views from Il Duce.
So GD ‘s answer to the independent audit that showed the ABC was not biased is to point to this week’s Q & A show as some kind of anecdotal ‘proof’ that they are? So typical. When are you going to admit you were wrong?
Jeff,
Sharri Markson works for the Australian, yes, but her opening comment was that she disagreed with the Australian’s stance on Section 18C. Cleary a left-leaning young journalist. The Australian employs a number of left leaning columnists, if you hadn’t noticed.
Troy Bramston and Peter van Onselen are almost daily contributors to the political debate on the Australian website and print version, which is why the Australian isn’t as biased as the ABC or Fairfax.
Chris Bowen is a ‘mythical leftist’?
He was Labor’s Immigration Minister. He is neither centrist nor conservative. He is of the left.
His opening comments were, ‘None of us can engage in speech that defames another’.
Marcia Langton then proceeded to defame Andrew Bolt continually with untruths and false accusations. Of course, neither the host Tony Jones nor Bowen called her on this.
Bowen went on to compare the Andrew Bolt case with the Holocaust. To his credit, Tony Jones called him on that. Bowen still said they were the same thing under the 18C law. Pathetic.
Labor is not centrist, it is left wing, especially the recent disfunctional Gillard government.
The Coalition are conservative. The electorate voted for them.
This is an overt display of leftist bias by the ABC.
Watch the rest of the ABC program to see more examples of the host and leftists railing against the magnificently performing George Brandis. Four against one, on our taxpayer funded ABC.
Here’s a gem of wisdom from Chris Bowen:
“Foreign investment comes predominantly from other countries” – Chris Bowen at the 34:34 mark of the video.
The most damning evidence of leftist bias is at the final few minutes.
Sharri Markson, the Australian journo, actually apologises for agreeing that the ABC is biased and offensive. 55:10
It’s just freakin’ robust debate, GD. Take your blinkers off.
Four against one? That’s a strange version of balanced (taxpayer funded) debate.
The only person on that panel who works for the ABC was Tony Jones. How was Jones “overtly” displaying bias by merely hosting the show? Your perspective and take on this is out of whack (no surprise there) because Q & A regularly has right-wing panelists on its show as well, and in equal numbers overall. The idea of the show – and indeed the whole intent and role of an independent media – is to question those in Govt. And when Labor were in Govt they copped plenty from Q & A and ABC current affairs shows like 7.30 and Lateline as well. But now, just because the Coalition is in Govt and therefore (rightfully) under scrutiny, you cry “foul” and “bias”!! Honestly, give up, GD.
Oh for God’s sake, GD, you wouldn’t know “balanced” debate if it smacked you in the face. Look at your own style – do you think it’s balanced? Hardly. Once again, you cherry pick one single example that you claim exhibits bias (among the panelists not the ABC) and ignore the hundreds of shows that were the opposite (as verified by the audit).
She’s a “left leaning journalist” based on her views on one issue, and because she disagreed with her employer? Really?
Why are you political numpties from the far right so keen on putting everyone into a little box marked “left” or “right”? Do you realize there are more than just two sides to politics? Do you realize there is more than two points of view people can have on the one issue? Do you realize the Cold War is over and that Joe McCarthy ended up looking like Homer Simpson? Do you realize that beds are used for sleeping and shagging, not just for hiding Reds under?
Federal Labor isn’t a “left wing party” and hasn’t been for some time. They sit to the right of centre on most issues and in the centre or centre-left on a few specific ones. True, they are more left wing than Abbott’s Coalition, but that says as much about the Coalition as it does Labor. The ALP only looks “left wing” to you because you’re sitting over in the corner with Benito, Adolf, Augusto and Juan.
I might add that I tried to watch Q&A on Monday but had to turn it off after about 20 minutes. All that blathering about Andrew Bolt was doing my head in. The only thing equally as boring as Andrew Bolt himself is people complaining about Andrew Bolt.
Ray, the audit by Gerard Stone was limited to the ABC coverage of asylum seekers. It wasn’t an overall examination of bias. For instance, it didn’t probe the coverage of the scam of AGW that is actively promoted by the ABC. The ABC refuses to feature dissenting opinions and evidence of this massive money churning and money wasting fraud.
Likewise, the audit didn’t examine the ABC’s relentless coverage of the gay marriage debacle. The ABC being entirely one-sided on this issue, they refuse to allow alternate views, except to sneer or scoff at such views.
This is hardly the well-balanced, non-partisan behaviour that is expected of our tax-payer funded national broadcaster.
A separate audit of 23 ABC radio interviews with Rudd and Abbott during the 2013 election found them to be impartial.
That isn’t surprising. During an election campaign, of course reporters will attempt to grill both sides of the debate.
However, day to day, the ABC news and current affairs programs show a marked bias in favour of the left. Unfortunately, this bias extends beyond the Labor Party and embraces the poisonous Greens’ ideology.
More than 40 per cent of ABC journalists who answered a survey question about their political attitudes are Greens supporters, four times the support the minor party enjoys in the wider population.
Neither audit examined or addressed the inherent bias in current affairs programs such as Q&A and the Insiders, both which are heavily over-laden with leftist panelists, both which have strident leftists as hosts and both which begrudgingly feature the occasional conservative.
The fact that the ABC employs no conservative presenters or hosts is a clear indication of the government funded organisation’s mindset and subsequent bias.
GD, Stone found 4 cases of ABC ‘possible’ bias against the Govt on the issue of asylum seekers – all of them when Labor was in Govt. Wake up – the ABC is not a left wing propaganda machine. It just reports news and a lot of it is anti the so-called left.
Oh okay, I should add that the ABC also questions politicians (on both sides) and promotes robust debate. Er ….. so what? That’s their charter. Look, they’ve invited your precious TA on Q & A how many times? And he always declines. Likewise, they’d gladly have the likes of Bolt on Q & A and in fact did have him on Insiders until Andrew signed up with 10. They still have Ackerman on regularly though. And Savvas. And Albrechsten. And a whole raft of right wingers. You are making this up as you go but, then again, that’s what you do.
Yes capital GD, Wake Up!
I’m with Ray on this one, again!
Ray, Insiders has a leftist host and therefore left-leaning questioning. It features two leftist commentators and often three, but only ever one conservative commentator and that isn’t on a weekly basis. This is the biased slant of the ABC. The ABC doesn’t employ one conservative host or presenter on any of its news or current affairs shows. Counterpoint for one hour on Monday at 4.00PM is a laughable attempt to show balance.
To suggest the people on Insiders are “leftists” is laughable. They’re as conservative as anyone – except you of course. I’ve not seen any bias in their comments or questioning and I recall them giving the ALP a hard time when they were in Govt. This bias only seems to exist in your eyes.
are you a real person capital GD?
gee thanks Iain but why?