Julia's Reign

[Scotty]

Incidentally. I've assisted with two independent studies of ABC language in reporting, and read most of the literature produced in the last decade and a half, and there is simply no evidence to support the accusation of bias in the ABC. One of the statistics gurus I briefly worked with at USyd used to describe ABC bias as Gerard Henderson's personal Tasmanian Tiger. I am usually a subscriber to old idiom "where there's smoke, there's fire", but in this case I'll adjust it slightly; 'Where there's smoke, there's a dry ice machine with "property of John Howard" scrawled near the on/off switch'.

Never looked at The Drum then? You honestly see no bias there?

 

[Scotty]

As I understand it, what you're talking about is reducing the value, in relative terms, of our housing. Those structural changes are beyond the courage of any politician. It will require an external shock for that to take place. We missed the last one that hit the US, Britain and Europe. Although completely unpalatable in the short term, it would possibly be in our interests in the long term. I recognise that but wouldn't welcome that sort of shock to our economy (and haven't prepared for it financially).

Nor are we as a nation prepared from it due to the over reaction of our government last time. They have spent and spent and spent our tax dollars until we are in a position of standing right on the edge of a cliff waiting for the next big gust of wind to knock us off. Serial wastage of funds. Wastage doesn't help anyone, or anything. It doesn't help our personal well being, our economy in general and it certainly hasn't helped our environment.

Our politicians obsession from both sides of not going into a recession is ridiculous. They need to spend more time explaining real situations and basis to the public and less time just throwing around the R word. That goes for journos as well.

I am sure that both Keating and Hawke are extremely frustrated with the Rudd and Gillard regimes.

I also noticed that no one has disagreed with my comment of them being the worst government in 20 years in this country.

 

[Scotty]

Does anyone else see this as a cynical attempt by Labour to ensure that they are in Surplus in 2013 as promised? The tax kicks in in July 2012 which would enable them to meet their self-imposed deadline.

And we can see how this tax is going to affect the end user.

Low income earners will receive generous rebates and not end up paying anything. Disincentive if ever you saw one.

Middle classes will again bear the brunt of the new taxation regime.

Adding to the means testing this government has brought in it is another socialist style spreading of the wealth scheme.

 

[Scotty]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ys-julia-gillard/story-e6frg6xf-1226012682698

The Greens are pushing to have petrol included in a carbon tax regime, something which Labor is lukewarm on.

The plan - yet to be finalised - excludes agriculture from the carbon price, but includes the transport and energy sectors.

Greens deputy leader Christine Milne said on Friday she wanted fuel included.

But Ms Gillard said this was not a foregone conclusion.

"I understand that the deputy leader of the Greens, Christine Milne, made some statements about this matter," she said.

"Those statements, in my view, were not appropriate in the sense these discussions are still to come and discussions are to be taken."

But Greens leader Bob Brown said he did not want Australian motorists to be punished by a carbon price.

Asked if the Greens were sympathetic to compensation for consumers, Senator Brown said: "Absolutely."

"Our job is to ensure that the average Australian household and car user is not punished by a carbon price," he told Network Ten.

"The idea here is to make the polluters pay."

Can anyone makes sense of this? He wants polluters to pay, but not car users. Yeah, sure Bob.

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

Never looked at The Drum then? You honestly see no bias there?

I read The Drum semi regularly, and while the quality of the analysis isn't what I'd call "world class", I'd not be inclined to accuse it of any particular bias. The most recent surveys of ABC reporters and output did not find any statistically significant political mention bias. Analysis is, admittedly, difficult to test for bias, but, never the less The Drum complies with the ABC's stringent charter. Unfortunately we live in a day and age where the term bias is applied to anything that doesn't agree with the accuser.

I'd be interested to know what you actually define as bias. Are you talking about specific discussion of policy positions, or analysis of whole issues?

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ys-julia-gillard/story-e6frg6xf-1226012682698



Can anyone makes sense of this? He wants polluters to pay, but not car users. Yeah, sure Bob.

It's just a bit of disingenuous reassurance. Exactly the same as the old "No one will be worse off under a GST". It's wrong, of course, but so is most things that politicians say.

More seriously; I imagine we'll see a subsidy of petrol come out of the revenue from the carbon tax. This is fine, and necessary in the short to medium term, but it doesn't change the fact that prices will need to rise to force a change.

 

[Scotty]

I read The Drum semi regularly, and while the quality of the analysis isn't what I'd call "world class", I'd not be inclined to accuse it of any particular bias. The most recent surveys of ABC reporters and output did not find any statistically significant political mention bias. Analysis is, admittedly, difficult to test for bias, but, never the less The Drum complies with the ABC's stringent charter. Unfortunately we live in a day and age where the term bias is applied to anything that doesn't agree with the accuser.

I'd be interested to know what you actually define as bias. Are you talking about specific discussion of policy positions, or analysis of whole issues?

I find it often a one sided coverage. More picking and choosing on which issues to focus on. The coverage will look in depth at anything nasty that Christopher Pyne says, but ignore (or almost ignore) huge policy back flips from Labor.

Doesn't Marieke Hardy write for the Drum? I'm sure you can agree with me that she has a most definite bias.

 

[Scotty]

http://www.abc.net.au/thedrum/

There is very little in the head story here that suggests the writer thinks Gillard has actually done anything wrong by lying to the Australian public, in fact the writer seems to want to paint her as some hero. This is only a light example.

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

I find it often a one sided coverage. More picking and choosing on which issues to focus on. The coverage will look in depth at anything nasty that Christopher Pyne says, but ignore (or almost ignore) huge policy back flips from Labor.

Doesn't Marieke Hardy write for the Drum? I'm sure you can agree with me that she has a most definite bias.

No. While Marieke Hardy is an ABC employee, she writes for Unleashed which is an unpaid external contributors opinion blog that operates as part of the Drum. In this capacity she is not being paid by the ABC. Anyone (provided they have a public profile in the area they are commenting) can contribute to Unleashed, and the comments therein are the opinion of the contributor (only vetted for inappropriate content), and so are not subject to the ABC's charter with regards to bias. If there isn't sufficient representation from a certain view point it's only because people who hold that view point haven't written in.

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

http://www.abc.net.au/thedrum/

There is very little in the head story here that suggests the writer thinks Gillard has actually done anything wrong by lying to the Australian public, in fact the writer seems to want to paint her as some hero. This is only a light example.

This is a light-hearted analysis of a specific political action. The story isn't very good, but it includes positive and negative mention, and would satisfy the terms of ABC charter. It does not offer condemnation or support of her policy decisions, rather it is suggesting that this type of snap decision is preferable to the indecisive way she is perceived to have acted since her election. In this respect it is analysis of her political style, and it is perfectly legitimate for the author to conclude in favor of the change in style. This is, after all, what analysis is.

 

[chief]

I find it often a one sided coverage. More picking and choosing on which issues to focus on. The coverage will look in depth at anything nasty that Christopher Pyne says, but ignore (or almost ignore) huge policy back flips from Labor.

Doesn't Marieke Hardy write for the Drum? I'm sure you can agree with me that she has a most definite bias.

Hardy should have been cut after that article, which was idiotic. I don't mind Christopher Pyne, he has his moments. Bit of a lap dog though.

The Drum isn't too bad. 7:30 report under Kerry O'Brien was biased on occasion, I remember Abbott after Gillard became PM, even I could understand what Abbott was saying, O'Brien just didn't get it.

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

Hardy should have been cut after that article, which was idiotic. I don't mind Christopher Pyne, he has his moments. Bit of a lap dog though.

The Drum isn't too bad. 7:30 report under Kerry O'Brien was biased on occasion, I remember Abbott after Gillard became PM, even I could understand what Abbott was saying, O'Brien just didn't get it.

As I said before, there is nothing to cut. She was writing for Unleashed, which is for external contributors. Same with Pyne - he can write anything he wants, as that is the point of Unleashed. Authors do not get paid, and are not subject to the ABC charter's stipulations on bias.

As for Kerry, the 7:30 Report is one of the most fiercely scrutinized shows on television. His questioning might have been off on one occasion, I cannot speak to specifics, but despite years of complaints, and the installation of a frankly antagonistic board, the 7:30 Report has consistently returned good scores in any measure of bias thrown at it.

 

[Scotty]

Sevenpoint,

Are you able to give us a little of your own role/history. You seem to know a lot about this subject.

Regarding your comment on Hardy, it is a very grey line. What you can't get around is that she is paid by the ABC, maybe not in that specific capacity, although it did also appear on an ABC website, so it could easily be argued that it stepped way over the line, particularly considering her salary is paid by the taxpayer. In fact I suspect you also work there?

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

Sevenpoint,

Are you able to give us a little of your own role/history. You seem to know a lot about this subject.

Regarding your comment on Hardy, it is a very grey line. What you can't get around is that she is paid by the ABC, maybe not in that specific capacity, although it did also appear on an ABC website, so it could easily be argued that it stepped way over the line, considering you and me both pay her salary. In fact I suspect you also work there?

Certainly. I assisted with setting up two studies into various aspects of ABC communication. In the interest of internet prudence I'll be a bit institutionally vague, but suffice to say I am not from an arts background, and I was not involved in designing the study; I merely assisted with the statistical analysis - (I was, at the time, studying in the field). I did quite a bit of background reading at the time, and spent a bit of time on the results - but you certainly shouldn't consider me an expert in any respect.

I'm not intending to single out any political persuasion, but I do believe the accusations of bias under the Liberals during the Howard era weren't supported by the evidence. I feel that, particularly after the Tampa affair, the threat of interference on the grounds of bias was used in a largely unsuccessful attempt to gain greater control over what was deemed an ideologically unpalatable organization. It has be suggested that it was a nefarious attempt by the Howard government to stifle dissent (and indeed there are several whole books on the subject), but I don't really think it had much to do with silencing the ABC, so much as limiting the influence of an organization that was closely associated with a "socialist" past. In a way I think it was probably a miscalculation by Howard's political advisers, as the ABC has never had a particularly strong impact on our political landscape, and certainly didn't have any measurable effect on the success of the Howard government, and the damage done by the imposition of Jonathon Shear (in particular) had a negative impact on the quality of Australian artistic programing, whilst having little effect on the ideologically problematic structure of the organisation. This is unfortunate, as it targeted one of the great forces behind interesting and creative Australian programing with no improvements in efficiency. I am prepared to accept a good argument regarding reform of the ABC, but I think most of the discussion today is political, and most proposals would have little effect on the quality of ABC's output.

Edit; And no, I have never worked at the ABC, or indeed for any government agency (though I did, at one stage, draw a little indirect income from the Department of Defense).

 

[liquor box]

, I want to see action. Half the Coalition thinks this carbon price is a good idea, as the Coalition's plan was paying the big polluters to stop polluting and they would achieve token cuts, nothing big at all. .

Will a Carbon tax actually make much difference? There wont be much of an incentive to change your amount of polution because there is no hope that "green" companies will undercut "dirty" industries by any significant amount.

If you have two power companies- company a and company b and at the moment they both charge $1 per KW/hour for power and they both get taxed $1 for using coal, then the new price of power becomes $2 per KW/hour.
If company A decides to go green and does not have to pay the $1 tax then they have a competitive advantage of being able to produce power for $1 less than company B. At first this looks like a great thing, but think about this in a realistic real world situation- what price will they ACTUALLY charge the consumer to retain their market share? Will it be $1 or $1.99? both give them an advantage, one delivers more profit!
A climate change tax aimed at changing habits will just make "green" products marginally cheaper than "dirty" products and will never achieve the changes it intends to make.

 

[Scotty]

SPDG,

What do you mean by 'ideologically problematic structure of the organisation'?

 

[Scotty]

Will a Carbon tax actually make much difference? There wont be much of an incentive to change your amount of polution because there is no hope that "green" companies will undercut "dirty" industries by any significant amount.

If you have two power companies- company a and company b and at the moment they both charge $1 per KW/hour for power and they both get taxed $1 for using coal, then the new price of power becomes $2 per KW/hour.
If company A decides to go green and does not have to pay the $1 tax then they have a competitive advantage of being able to produce power for $1 less than company B. At first this looks like a great thing, but think about this in a realistic real world situation- what price will they ACTUALLY charge the consumer to retain their market share? Will it be $1 or $1.99? both give them an advantage, one delivers more profit!
A climate change tax aimed at changing habits will just make "green" products marginally cheaper than "dirty" products and will never achieve the changes it intends to make.

Which exactly why an ETS with a capped emission volume is much better.

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

SPDG,

What do you mean by 'ideologically problematic structure of the organisation'?

I'm sorry, that was poorly put. I was intending to relate that the changes achieved little except for a reduction in the breadth and quality of programing. That the interference in the ABC was intended to change an "ideologically problematic structure" within the organisation, was purely conjecture on my part, which I've briefly explained below.

By the specific phrase "ideologically problematic structure" I was referring to the nature of the organisation, which, as a directly tax-payer funded public broadcaster, had a structure that was not compatible with the Howard government's thinking on private vs public infrastructure. Indeed the stated aim of some hardliners within the Howard governments was the full, or at least partial sale of the ABC. It was unlikely that this would have happened, and indeed it is not clear whether Howard himself supported this, but it gives a clear indication that there were at least some Liberal advisers at the time who considered the funding of the ABC to be inappropriate.

 

[Cutter]

Will a Carbon tax actually make much difference? There wont be much of an incentive to change your amount of polution because there is no hope that "green" companies will undercut "dirty" industries by any significant amount.

If you have two power companies- company a and company b and at the moment they both charge $1 per KW/hour for power and they both get taxed $1 for using coal, then the new price of power becomes $2 per KW/hour.
If company A decides to go green and does not have to pay the $1 tax then they have a competitive advantage of being able to produce power for $1 less than company B. At first this looks like a great thing, but think about this in a realistic real world situation- what price will they ACTUALLY charge the consumer to retain their market share? Will it be $1 or $1.99? both give them an advantage, one delivers more profit!
A climate change tax aimed at changing habits will just make "green" products marginally cheaper than "dirty" products and will never achieve the changes it intends to make.

That is too simplistic. If there is one energy provider making an enormous profit others should join the market and the price will decrease. Nothing is ever that straightforward either.

The point is that we pay for the measurable costs of producing electricity but not the externalities being, in particular, the environmental damage. If we were paying for the externalities, the price would be higher and the means of producing electricity which don't have the negative environmental costs will be able to compete with the likes of coal.

The real problem for Australia, and barely anyone talks about it, is that we know we have to reduce our carbon output, we know that one of the ways of doing that is to stop burning coal and we're ok with that in isolation. However, we're making so much money selling our dirty coal to the rest of the world that if we stop using it but keep selling it we'll be exposed for the hypocrites we are. Even more than that, the amount of carbon saved nationally is dwarfed by the amount of carbon we're exporting to be emitted. Here's an article http://www.themonthly.com.au/renewable-energy-comment-guy-pearse-2988ndiscussing that point (and others). Before you criticise the source and the author, he's a former speechwriter for the Howard government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Pearse.

Scotty - I'm glad to hear sevenpointdropgoal's analysis of the ABC. I note on another thread you actually agreed with someone saying that the ABC and SBS were the only credible news sources. I think politics in Australia has, generally, moved further to the right meaning that the ABC is increasingly to the left of, in particular, the Liberals but that doesn't mean they are biased to the left. It means Australian political representation has become biased to the right. I think that is correcting at the moment (and I hope it is) because, as a country, we've done some things over the last 15 years that have disappointed me.

 

[Scotty]

Don't think I said they were the only credible news source rather the only good one. I see a difference. They are certainly they only ones I bother watching.

I agree that the further right slant to politics may be the reason the abc seem to be leaning left but don't see it as an excuse. They still need to be center in the political sphere.

If you ever listen to triple j you might notice a definite left slant there which is only natural for a youth station and for artists, however some presenters barely contain there view. This is a problem particularly when they are influencing the next generation.

I guess I see a lack of balance. I don't see anyone leaning much right but do see many going the other way. In a country where conservatives gain an equal vote from the taxpayer this can or should be a problem.