ABC Bias

The ABC bias debate. Dr Martin Hirst from the School of Journalism & Communication UQ writes to the Australian and proves the bias of the ABC by trying to prove there isn’t any. I find his letter as a case in point about what is wrong with the ABC.

If you watch the ABC, particularly the news and current affairs programmes and find yourself generally agreeing with what you see and hear then you are most probably in the political range of centre to left – if you disagree, you are most probably centre to right. It isn’t “juvenile” to comment on this, it is simply a matter of fact and has ever been thus. The point thousands of people previously, and Senator Alston recently, are trying to make, is that it is simply unprofessional to show a bias one way or the other when reporting the events of the day and to then claim it is a balanced opinion.

Calling a government “juvenile” indicates the type of bias we conservative types are talking about. Martin Hirst teaches at UQ’s School of Journalism – can’t you just see him lecturing and shaping the minds of undergrads with key phrases like ‘juvenile government’, ‘propaganda….a lie’, ‘Alston’s half-arsed whingeing’, ‘gung-ho patriotism’ and ‘the Government’s ridiculous panic-inducing anti-terrorism publicity campaign’? Good fodder for a balanced diet!

The quote from Max Uechtritz that annoyed Senator Alston:

“We now know for certain that only three things in life are certain – death, taxes and the fact that the military are lying bastards,” Mr Uechtritz is reported to have said during a forum on war reporting in Afghanistan”.

Martins letter:

Senator’s dossier is meaningless

WELL done Max Uechtritz for getting up Richard Alston’s nose again. It just goes to show how juvenile this Government can be. The 14-page “dossier” Alston’s office compiled is ridiculous and so out of context that it’s meaningless. This is a blatant case of political interference and Alston’s motive, in my view, is no more than trying to distract attention from the mounting problems of the Howard Government.

There is no substance in the minister’s allegations of bias. The situation on the ground in Iraq was very fluid and many things were said by reporters that later proved false. Let’s not forget that in the last 24 hours, the US has admitted they found no weapons of mass destruction and that they probably never existed. So the propaganda that the coalition had to invade Iraq to get rid of the WMDs was a lie.

No! The coalition invaded Iraq as part of the War against Terror – WMDs was one of several reasons – there were a lot more. The fact that Hussein has tortured and murdered hundreds of thousand of his citizens is one. Another is that we know his form – he has fired missiles at Israel; he has chemical weapons and has used them against the Iranians and his own people, he has atomic research programs for the stated purpose of creating atom/nuclear weapons and is altogether an unsavoury person.

It is the duty of independent journalists to question everything. The Senator seems to think the media’s duty in time of war is to fall meekly into line with the Government. This is not the media’s role and it is not what the public would expect. As a former journalist and now as a lecturer at the University of Queensland, I know that journalists must report without fear or favour.

The requirement is not to ‘fall in line’ but to report the facts in an unbiased manner. Leave editorials to editors and snide political comments to political commentators – we expect an opinion from these people and can allocate a loading left or right depending on their background. But the everyday journalist who fills in a line on TV or contributes to an article in the newspaper should indeed ‘question’ everything in the pursuit of professional accuracy and then when satisfied he or she has the story correct, submit for broadcast. Just the facts mate!

Martin adds

I have read upwards of 40 student essays on the Australian television news media’s coverage of the Iraq War and in each of them the conclusion drawn by the students is that the ABC did a better job than everyone else.

Besides stating the obvious that if taught by you ‘they would say that wouldn’t they’ you are hardly comparing apples with apples here. Commercial TV exists on 30 second grabs to get their story over – something to do with the attention span of the viewers maybe? Try tasking your students to compare the ABC with some major broadcasters – BBC, NBC, CNN, Fox, ABC (US) to name a few.

I’m not so much concerned about the ABC’s or Martin’s left wing sentiment as I am about the fact that he feels he has to abuse people who call it for what it is.

Senator Alston penned an article in the Age about the issue. Judge for yourself.

Now interested in Martin Hirst I googled his name and found him billed with Margo Kingston at a symposium on the Language of War organized by Just Peace – People for Peace through Justice – in response to what it called was the “unilateral, pre-emptive and illegal military response by the US with the aim of imposing its views and authority on the nations of the world”. It was all faithfully recorded by the ABC but, strangely enough, try as I might, I couldn’t get a response for “right wing symposiums” the ABC might have recorded.

Finally an invite for Max Uechtritz. I am going to a Regimental Reunion in Wagga Wagga in August – you might like to drop in and explain to the blokes of my Infantry Battalion what you mean by ‘lying bastards’. For details visit the website.

ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTION LYNDALL!

The Aborigine Genocide debate. If you haven’t been keeping up on the ‘how many aborigines did we kill when Aus was first settled” debate, then read on. Left-wing history revisionists are making all sorts of exaggerated claims that tell the story in their own distorted way as they try to prove ‘settlement’ equals ‘slaughter’. Keith Windschuttle released a book claiming their figures were rubbery and not based on fact. Since then the revisionists have refused to answer Windschuttle’s direct accusations. They are still at it.

This interview was reported in the Australian yesterday.

May 26, 2003
KEITH Windschuttle: Lyndall Ryan cites the diary of the colony’s first chaplain, the Reverend Robert Knopwood, as the source for her claim that, between 1803 and 1808, the colonists killed 100 Aboriginals [sic].

The diaries, however, record only four Aboriginals being killed in this period.

Reporter: It’s a devastating claim Ryan cannot refute.

Lyndall Ryan: Right. I certainly agree that the Knopwood diaries say that, but I also had another reference referring to a report by John Oxley who was a surveyor who’d been sent down to Tasmania in 1809. He said too many Aborigines were being killed.

Reporter: Okay, but how did you extrapolate from his words saying “too many Aborigines had been killed”, to “about 100 lost their lives”? Is that just made up?

Ryan: Well, I think by the way in which Oxley wrote that he seemed to think there had been a great loss of life from the Aborigines.

Reporter: So, in a sense, is it fair enough for [Windschuttle] to say that you did make up figures? You’re telling me you made an estimated guess.

Ryan: Historians are always making up figures.

I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again.

ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTION LYNDALL!

Mary Jane

I’m a bit confused here and may need some help from others. This from the Australian.

Medicinal cannabis trial approved
By Megan Saunders and Monica Videnieks
May 21, 2003

THE nation’s first trial of cannabis for medical relief will begin in NSW by the end of the year, a move that Premier Bob Carr said yesterday would stop decent people feeling like criminals.

On News Years day this year and old friend phoned with a bombshell that started with “I have pancreatic cancer and the doctors have given me 8 months at best.” My friend and I go back forty years when we were young soldiers together and after his stint in the Army he settled in New South Wales and followed a career as a Systems Analyst. A couple of years ago his father died and subsequent to that his mother had a stroke. For the very best of reasons my friend, once married – now a bachelor, retired and moved to the North Coast to be near his mother. So he has left his social and professional infrastructure in NSW and now gets the death nod. For many reasons, one of which related to his being virtually alone, I decided to ensure he didn’t die that way. I cared for him, paid his bills, kept his house, swapped ‘old soldier’ stories with him during the day and asked the medical staff to help him sleep at nights. “No man should be allowed to ponder his demise for too long over endless dusk to dawn dog-watches” I said. “Could you knock him out at night?” They did and he died with dignity 90 days into the year.

We discussed marijuana and its use. My friend had a bit of the hippy in him and was an occasional user and while I didn’t use it I had no strong opinions either way. As his time drew closer and pain and the indignity of a body that was failing, threatened to impact on everything, we spoke of using marijuana to camouflage the pain. My point is it was never necessary. Palliative Care nursing has made tremendous leaps over the years and my friend had no pain right to the end. His body was being infused with a cocktail of drugs that had been cleared for the purpose by government laboratories and they did the job. These drugs didn’t just control the pain, they also controlled the mind and bodily functions. The drugs kept him coherent and able to organize his final posting and to say goodbye to friends with his mental facilities intact. There was no pain and no long ‘dog-watches’.

My confusion should now be clear. Why do we talk about using marijuana for palliative care when there are suitable drugs available. Why does Bob Carr, Premier of NSW, make an issue of allowing a trial of marijuana. The cynic in me makes me think he is ‘buying’ green votes or throwing some crumbs to his ‘left wing’ factions but then I’ve always though he was a reasonable chap – intelligent, well read and not normally involved with the more seedier side of politics.

Could someone please explain?

Road of Bones

A lifetime ago I fought in Vietnam as an Aussie Infantryman. I did so because I believed communism was evil and wanted to do what I could to stop it’s spread. Over my life I have been continually bemused and confused by the likes of Phillip Adams and cohorts who never saw any evil and still today believe it is the answer to the worlds problems.

I submit that it is a therapeutic, every so often, to remind ourselves about the horrors of communism.

A living testament to that horror can still be found today in Siberia. It is the road that runs from Magadan to Yakutsk, otherwise known as the the Road of Bones