Play Conservative For Me: An exercise in futility

[chookmustard]

I have been fascinated over the last few weeks with Conservative types (Bolt, Chris Kenny, Akerman, Henderson et al) constant whinge about the lack of conservative representation at the ABC.

A few points I'd like you guys to try to explain to me:

1. Are these blokes wanting a main ABC program to be fronted by a known Conservative/Rightist? Adam Spencer is leaving so there is a Sydney radio morning time slot up for grabs for example.

2. Is what they want a 50/50 split of Left/Right reporters, and for the bona vides of said journos to be clearly displayed (they report, you decide).

3. Do they want a Crossfire style presenter format for every masthead program? Example, Fran Kelly or Jon Faine or Jonathon Greene teamed up with someone deemed a polar opposite?

4. Do they want MediaWatch to be a double team presentation with Paul Barry alongside Gerard Henderson and his dog? 7 and a half minutes each on Monday night?


I'm going to try to find an article for the ABC news site and try to re-represent it in a conservative manner, if possible.

[Matthew Of Canberra]

"Is what they want"

Treating the subject honestly for a moment, what they WANT is to attack the ABC because it has influence and won't give their preferred candidate an easy ride. They're playing the ref - attacking a prominent commentator that won't parrot their spin (as much as they'd like).

One might assume that the next election is a walkover ... but the libs might not get the senate. And that's problematic if one wants to turn back all those things that upset the murdoch crowd as soon as possible. A complete electoral wipe-out is worth striving for - there's big money at stake. And the oppo sure as heck isn't going to achieve that on their own.

As for what they "objectively" want, you'd have to ask them. The "not one conservative presenter" thing is a stalking horse. The ABC could go find a conservative presenter, parachute him/her past all the better-qualified candidates, ignore the normal terms of pay and conditions which apparently dissuade those free-market conservatives from even applying for the job and just given them gobs of money, and a free hand, and legal cover for when they start talking about drowning the PM at sea ...

What would the response be? "Only one conservative presenter ...". Rinse and repeat.

And unless you appointed david duke himself, there'd be SOME sort of position they'd have taken in the past that would let the right dismiss them as being relevant to the bias debate. Take amanda vanstone, for example - she doesn't count because she's "from the left of the liberal party" (whatever that is).

Look closely when hendo and bolt try to actually pin bias on the ABC's coverage (as opposed to shouting and pointing at lists of leftists). Exclude AGW, which (apparently) isn't considered by everyone to be a fairly uncontroversial scientific position and look at the rest of it ... not much there, is there? They fall back on "the average australian is more X than the ABC, and less Y ..." etc. But that doesn't actually mean the ABC is biased. The average australian (as concocted by hendo and bolt) could actually just be misinformed and push-polled. Grab one of these "average australians", give them all the facts, entice them to let their assessment of the issues not be motivated by their own perceived short-term gain and let's see how far off from the ABC they really are.

But that's (IMHO) just pretend. NEWS is attacking the ABC because NEWS has an agenda, and the ABC is one of the few things in the way of complete media dominance and achieving that agenda. They're trying to grab the ball, and then just attack the other players.

Which is a shame, because the bias/diversity-of-views discussion is worth having. It's just that this isn't that discussion.

[chookmustard]

So, the below report is reproduced without permission from the ABC. Would Stephen Stockwell, if we knew his political bent and assuming it went a certain way, tack on the last bit? (apologies to Stephen).

www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-23/waste-to-electricity-power-plant/4708202



Rubbish power plant approved by WA Government


ABC Rural By Stephen Stockwell

 

A power plant that would convert rubbish to electricity in the north-west of Western Australia has been approved by the State Government.

The New Energy plant is slated for development near the town of Port Hedland, and would turn over 250,000 tonnes of waste a year into gas. That would then be burnt to produce 15 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 21,000 homes.

General manager of New Energy, Jason Pugh, says the company chose the north-west of WA because of the issues it faces managing waste.

"As the mining industry really cranks up, the landfills that currently exist in the Pilbara are just not a sustainable way to manage that into the future.

"So the opportunity to create a power station from an existing need seemed too good to pass up."

comparatively, The Pilbara region also has LNG supplies and a LNG power plant could cost approximately $545 million and produce enough electricity to power up to 150,000 homes when completed.

[richard]

Chookmustard-

Further to MoC’s reply I offer this:

‘1. Are these blokes wanting a main ABC program to be fronted by a known Conservative/Rightist? Adam Spencer is leaving so there is a Sydney radio morning time slot up for grabs for example.’

No.

2. Is what they want a 50/50 split of Left/Right reporters, and for the bona vides of said journos to be clearly displayed (they report, you decide).

No.

3. Do they want a Crossfire style presenter format for every masthead program? Example, Fran Kelly or Jon Faine or Jonathon Greene teamed up with someone deemed a polar opposite?

No.

4. Do they want MediaWatch to be a double team presentation with Paul Barry alongside Gerard Henderson and his dog? 7 and a half minutes each on Monday night?

No.

What these blokes are about is total domination of public discussion. Why would they aspire to this lamentable state of affairs? It’s pretty basic: commercial interest and power. Unrestrained power.

The power to do whatever you want, regardless of social, economic or environmental consequences.

Of course fuckwits like Bolt aren't going to magically inherit the right to exploit huge tracts of the Pilbara like one of his benefactors, but make no mistake he benefits from the largesse that someone who has provides. It isn’t just about money and security: it’s about influence and power.

Andrew Bolt, Chris Kenny, Gerard Henderson, Miranda Devine etcetera are hardcore spruikers for fascism, as defined by the Marxist Encyclopedia, to whit:

‘Fascism championed corporate economics, which operated on an anarcho-syndicalist model in reverse: associations of bosses in particular industries determine working conditions, prices, etc. In this form of corporatism, bosses dictate everything from working hours to minimum wages, without goverment interference. The fascist corporate model differs from the more moderate corporatist model by eradicating all forms of regulatory control that protect workers (so-called "consumers"), the environment, price fixing, insider trading, and destroying all independent workers' organisations. In fascism, the corporate parliament either replaces the representative bodies of government or reduces them to a sham and the state freely intervenes in the activity of companies, either by bestowing favouritism, or handing them over to the control of rivals.’

Get the picture Chookmustard? But wait there’s more...ready yourself for a massive chunk of cut and paste...

“to believe, to obey, to combat”

'There are several fundamental characteristics of fascism, among them are:

1. Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology, though it can be opportunistic.

2. Nationalism: Fascism places a very strong emphasis on patriotism and nationalism. Criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is lambasted as unpatriotic at best, and treason at worst. State propaganda consistently broadcasts threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war. Fascism invariably seeks to instill in its people the warrior mentality: to always be vigilant, wary of strangers and suspicous of foreigners.

3. Hierarchy: Fascist society is ruled by an righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secretvanguard of capitalists. Hierarchy is prevalent throughout all aspects of society – every street, every workplace, every school, will have its local Hitler, part police-informer, part bureaucrat – and society is prepared for war at all times. The absolute power of the social hierarchy prevails over everything, and thus a totalitarian society is formed. Representative government is acceptable only if it can be controlled and regulated, direct democracy (e.g. Communism) is the greatest of all crimes. Any who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism will be imprisoned or executed.

4. Anti-equality: Fascism loathes the principles of economic equality and disdains equality between immigrant and citizen. Some forms of fascism extend the fight against equality into other areas: gender, sexual, minority or religious rights, for example.

5. Religious: Fascism contains a strong amount of reactionary religious beliefs, harking back to times when religion was strict, potent, and pure. Nearly all Fascist societies are Christian, and are supported by Catholic and Protestant churches.

6. Capitalist: Fascism does not require revolution to exist in captialist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficent and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed.

7. War: Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wrecking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.

8. Voluntarist Ideology: Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can bemade true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist.

9. Anti-Modern: Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimises artists, and artists which do not promote the fascists ideals are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths. The peddling of conspiracy theories is usually substituted for the objective study of history.’

I don’t consider myself to be a hard leftist, let alone a Marxist. But I’ll give you the tip right now: the above is the most accurate and succinct description of News LTD opinionist and Institute of Public Affairs (a truly fucking Orwellian title for an organization that promotes the interests of the corporocracy) outpourings that you will find.

Of course the Liberal Party and, to a slightly lesser extent, the National Party, are the beneficiaries of this dream of an ABC/SBS free media domination.

The rubbish spouted regarding ABC bias is all to do with maintenance of privilege and nothing to do with democracy, let alone general fairness.

[chookmustard]

Thanks Richard! Lots to read. Although there is a Godwin at point 3

[chookmustard]

Without going back and checking blog posts, I'd assume Blot et al whinge mostly about 2 things on the ABC.

1. Reporting of AGW without 'balancing' reportage with wing nut theories
2. Not appropriately critiquing Islam or Muslims with enough vitriol

Whatcha think ?

[angra]

Hell's bells - Waterhouse is still there tonight infesting the League coverage like a cockroach.

I'm turning it off. Is that what he wants?

[chookmustard]

Cockroach= NSW fan? I'm taking that as a sign nsw will win SOO!

[richard]

Chookmustard-

Re: Your 242016 post.

The aim of the IPA is not to simply tinker with ABC programming. It is to disband the ABC.

Today’s Ron Tandberg cartoon as published by Fairfax illustrates why:www.smh.com.au/photogallery/opinion/cartoons/ron-tandberg-20090910-fixc.html




ABC balance is what irks the right wingers. That balance questions commercial/ corporate motivation and may hold those interests up to nationally broadcast public scrutiny and potential critical exposure.

Balance is something that can lead to the diluting of stories. For instance, Mike Carlton in today’s SMH (www.smh.com.au/comment/now-for-the-real-story-the-uncensored-version-20130524-2k6e7.html) is extremely unhappy that the ABC’s interview with him regarding Ray Hadley for Monday night’s Australian Story only showed Carlton mildly criticising Hadley.

AGW Sceptics get a run on the ABC due to the requirement for balance. IPA spruikers such as Chris Berg and Nick Cater, people that would like to see the demise of the ABC, get a run as well- and they get paid for it! LPA Federal ministers with twisting the truth form like Christopher Pyne and Sophie Mirabella get a run on programs like QandA and Lateline.

There are two major issues RW ideologues have with the ABC. One is that a state funded broadcaster unfairly competes with commercial broadcasters, and thus reduces the latter’s revenue streams. The other is that without the heavy stick of commercial imperative the ABC is able, in fact obliged by its charter, to broadcast balanced- and thus more accurate- material. This means that the ABC cannot be used as a party political propaganda tool like the Murdoch press currently has been for the Coalition.

In your 242016 post you referred to ‘Godwin’s Law’, a notion that seeks to highlight the absurdity of overplayed comparison. Regardless of my understanding of this idea I offer you this: RW nutters want the ABC to be snuffed to remove one of the many obstacles on the march toward a Thousand Year Reich!

If you can be bothered, this article by Nicholas Reece in today’s Age (www.theage.com.au/comment/sell-medibank-private-yes-but-sell-our-abc-never-20130524-2k6or.html is worth reading.