Wednesday, 7 September 2011

Media Watch ignores ABC Charter

Paul Sheehan's book The Electronic Whorehouse detailed many inaccuracies and distortions made by the ABC's Media Watch.
The episode that really hit me was the Janet Albrechtsen episode. The distortion on that programme by Marr was followed by then Labor leader Mark Latham calling Albrechtsen a skanky hoe in the coward's castle.

The inaccuracies and distortions continue. Although I hadn't watched the programme for years, last night the repeated episode came on and, because it covered subject matter already covered here in the TCS blog, I perservered through it.


To me, Presenter Jonathan Holmes looks more like he is presenting "Creature-Feature" or "Tales from the Vault."

The accuracy of Bob Kernohan's Statutory Declaration has yet to be tested but it poses some questions that need to be answered. Consider these two quotes:
"AWU Secretary Bob Smith, AWU official Bill Shorten and myself believed that the other property was owned by Bruce Wilson's then partner, Julia Gillard."
"I was informed by Bob Smith, with Bill Shorten present, that some thousands of doillars were paid illegally from union funds, by Wilson, for house renovations to Julia Gillard's property."
All Bob Kernohan wants (or claims that he wants) is that the funds rorted from members of the AWU be returned. Surely these two statements need clarification from the Prime Minister, however, according to the very left-wing bias of the Media Watch programme, Mike Smith has no right to be asking questions.
.....hour after hour, day after day, Smith demanded that the Prime Minister come on his program and submit to a public interrogation ... On Monday ...

Michael Smith: I want to ask you some questions: Ma'am did you set up these entities? Did you set up the accounts? Did you know what they were about? Did you make inquiries to find out what they were about?

— 2UE, Afternoons with Michael Smith, 29th August, 2011

On Tuesday ...

Michael Smith: Did you receive any monies from any of those accounts? Did you pay any monies back? Ma'am did you receive any clothes paid for by any other person or entity from the business known as Town Mode of Melbourne Fashion House?

— 2UE, Afternoons with Michael Smith, 30th August, 2011

Same thing on Wednesday and Thursday.
How about some responsible journalism from the ABC?

Kangaroo Court has written a similar post on the abuse of the ABC Charter by Media Watch -
Kangaroo Court post on Media Watch


  1. According to Holmes, persistent denial of wrongdoing proves innocence.  Criminals might care to try that “persistently deny wrongdoing” defence next time they’re in court:

    Judge: How do you plead?
    Defendant: Not guilty!
    Judge: Really?
    Defendant: Yes, your honour, I am not guilty!
    Judge: Are you absolutely sure? These charges seem to be pretty serious; and I note that there is quite a pile of evidence against you, with a long list of witnesses for the prosecution.
    Defendant: I aint never done nothing. I am, as I’ve said all along, absolutely innocent of all charges. Not guilty! Not guilty! Not guilty!
    Judge: Well, then, I shall dismiss all charges, and you’re free to go. I shall, however, have some stern words to say to the prosecutor.

  2. I don't think that the ABC know the meaning of responsible journalism, look at the live export debarcle from Four Corners.
    It is the same old saying, "Who is watching the watch dog".

  3. Media Watch is created by trustworthy journalists, your seem to be too stubborn to realise this because they reveal the truths behind your blogs of slander.
    How was the live export story by Four Corners an act of irresponsible journalism? Even though your beliefs and arguments are appalling, even I wouldn't want you to be treated like those cattle were/are.

  4. Gee, Willigers, you say "trustworthy journalists."

    That live export story was presented using faked evidence filmed at the back of only one of hundreds of abbatoirs in Indonesia.

    That irresponsible piece - filmed by anti-animal advocates - was put to air by your ""trustworthy journalists" without checking the facts behind the story.
    That shameful lack of journalistic investigation (and the knee-jerk government reaction) put on hold the live export trade which meant
    • Indonesians deprived of protein;
    • Strain on Indonesia/Australia Diplomatic Relations;
    • Loss of jobs to Aboriginal Stockmen
    • Suffering of Beasts intended for the market;
    • Loss of income to businesses directly and indirectly related to the trade

    etc etc unw

  5. Beasts doesn't even have a capital you imbecile.

    They could have acted and killed the cattle in a more humane manner. As for 'Indonesians being deprived of protein', there are endless sources of protein, they have never relied purely on the importation of cattle, because no one does. The government compensated for the losses due to the ban. There were more animals suffering before the live export ban, and this active and honest journalism may prevent further inhumane slaughters of cattle exported by Australia, in Indonesia. You should probably find some stronger arguments, though I highly doubt there are any.

  6. Gee says; "Beasts doesn't even have a capital you imbecile." Ad hominems are not acceptable on this blog, gw (lower case)

    Lower case gw says; "they have never relied purely on the importation of cattle, because no one does"
    but gw, have you considered that they may have accepted cattle from other countries that do not worry about their Beasts?

    gw says: "The government compensated for the losses due to the ban." Oh really? To the aboriginal stockman who lost the jobs?

    To the road-train operators whose businesses were at least halved?

    To the small businesses who had their businesses reduced because of the afore-mentioned loss of money in the community? The flow-ons affected the whole of the top-end.

    The flow-on was incredible - the top-end suffered intolerably because of a falsified report from an animal terrorist group who don't even care about animals. (Did you see them try to intervene when filming the [paid for] footage?

    No! They just accepted it and then held on to the footage for months. Months when the supposed ill-treatment would have continued.

    "active and honest journalism.." I wish we had that on "OUR" ABC!


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!