Gary Johns, for thosewho don't know or can't remember, was Special Minister of State in the Keating govt. He is now an academic.
Over the years he has chipped in with many informative and enlightening comments and propositions.
His latest comes in an interview on the ABC's RN program Counterpoint, where the host by the way is none other than former Senator Amanada Vanstone, who, it turns out, has imo more than a flair for radio.
I think Gary's contribution relates to a chapter he has contributed to a new book.
The gist of it is that he thinks we should dismantle, disband and generally do away with the Human Rights Commission. He sees no need for it in the present state of society and he sees it as a body which simply seeks to perpetuate itself by looking for more & more obscure causes.
Good old Gary Johns.

no one cares

Quote:

no one cares

Try listening to the clip. You just might.

Surely this couldn't have been on ABC Radio National?
Amanda Vanstome as Host?
This must be some mistake.

I have been reliably informed that the ABC is left wing bordering on communist.

There are two ABC's.
There is the ABC which puts out news & current affairs.
Overwhelmingly it has a left bias, tending to the green end. I refer here to TV programs such as Q&A, 7.30, Insiders, Lateline and to radio programs such as Breakfast, Bush Telegraph, Life Matters, Sunday Extra.
The RN program Counterpoint is the one exception to this rule.
Then there is the ABC which puts out quality entertainment & documentaries, and even some programs like Phillip Adams' LNL, which though he makes his left position openly known is nevertheless even-handed in its discussions.
I'm glad you have given me the opportunity to set you right on this.
Now if you compare the ABC with the BBC you will find a total difference.
There is a BBC radio program that has run for decades called Any Questions Any Answers. Similar to Q&A, a panel of 4 chosen from different points of view, but it is not a place of crucifixion for those who do not tow the left/green line.
There is a radio program called Today where the interviewers are equally aggressive towards Labor & Conservative, no bias at all.
Why can't the ABC take a lesson from the BBC?

Oh Yeah, having made his sneering remark in relation to justifiable complaints about the bias in the ABC, chooses not to engage in any further argument on the matter. No wonder.
Among the matters I would like to see an Abbott govt do something about is ensuring a level playing field in ABC commentary.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 3:28pm:

Oh Yeah, having made his sneering remark in relation to justifiable complaints about the bias in the ABC, chooses not to engage in any further argument on the matter. No wonder. Among the matters I would like to see an Abbott govt do something about is ensuring a level playing field in ABC commentary.

There is no point. Unless media coverage gives uncritical support for Tony Abbott (ie daily telegraph, Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt etc) they are labeled as being biased to the left.

It still mystifies me how Q&A can be labeled bias. They have a panel made up of equal numbers of left wing and right wing commentators and politicians and an audience that roughly matches the profile of the opinion polls. By definition this program can not be bias.

Unless of course its because the crap that gets posted here by members of the Right under the cloak of anonymity are things that the cowards would never say in public on national television.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 8:31pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 3:28pm: Oh Yeah, having made his sneering remark in relation to justifiable complaints about the bias in the ABC, chooses not to engage in any further argument on the matter. No wonder. Among the matters I would like to see an Abbott govt do something about is ensuring a level playing field in ABC commentary. There is no point. Unless media coverage gives uncritical support for Tony Abbott (ie daily telegraph, Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt etc) they are labeled as being biased to the left. It still mystifies me how Q&A can be labeled bias. They have a panel made up of equal numbers of left wing and right wing commentators and politicians and an audience that roughly matches the profile of the opinion polls. By definition this program can not be bias. Unless of course its because the crap that gets posted here by members of the Right under the cloak of anonymity are things that the cowards would never say in public on national television.

QandA has a number of repetitive subjects whose repetition cannot be an accident. It must be planned. Boat people, gay marriage, and climate change almost always come up, and it's the same opinions all the time - save the boat people, pro gay marriage, with little opposition.

Why not have repetitive topics like overpopulation in the third world, and what are the third world (not the first world) going to do about it? What about the multi-billion dollar foreign aid bill that we fork out with little in return? What about funding for the Bruce Highway? What about the waste in the public service?

They don't talk about these things because the trendies who operate QandA have an agenda.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 8:47pm:

QandA has a number of repetitive subjects whose repetition cannot be an accident. It must be planned. Boat people, gay marriage, and climate change almost always come up, and it's the same opinions all the time - save the boat people, pro gay marriage, with little opposition. Why not have repetitive topics like overpopulation in the third world, and what are the third world (not the first world) going to do about it? What about the multi-billion dollar foreign aid bill that we fork out with little in return? What about funding for the Bruce Highway? What about the waste in the public service? They don't talk about these things because the trendies who operate QandA have an agenda.

They are also among the most popular topics on this forum. I haven't seen any threads on funding of the Bruce Hwy or the foreign aid bill.
Its kind of ironic that you should bring up boat people because that is a subject invariably brought up by the right wing. I've lost count of the number of times Tony Abbott has said he will "stop the boats"

So the subjects discussed on QandA are often the same as those on this forum. And that is because they are the ones that interest people.

Funnily enough, the exact opposite opinion to those on QandA is taken by many on this forum.

Something doesn't add up in your assessment.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 9:12pm:

Funnily enough, the exact opposite opinion to those on QandA is taken by many on this forum. Something doesn't add up in your assessment.

But they have coalition politicians and right wing commentators on the show.

As I have already said   



The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 8:31pm:

Unless of course its because the crap that gets posted here by members of the Right under the cloak of anonymity are things that the cowards would never say in public on national television.

The "right-wing" commentators on the show tow the same line as the trendy side does on these issues. Probably the only exception is Bob Katter on gay marriage.

No one is game to come out and say what they really think because the slogan of "racism" will get thrown about the second someone deviates from the script. Once it's thrown, it's almost impossible to shrug off, regardless if a credible opposing argument was made.

Q&A especially started to lose it when the crowd went all Jerry Springer. The cheering and jeering in the audience has become a competition to see what side of the political divide can out do each other. They should just put a decibel meter down with the tweets and stop pretending to be a serious show.      

I urge you all to check out the difference with the BBC show I mentioned above. You can find it as a podcast.
It doesn't have to be this way.