So I have been out of the country for a week and a half. I arrive back yesterday and it's nice to see nothing's changed.  The ABC's Q & A returns for its first episode of the year, and is back to its usual bias self. Instead of having a fair and balanced panel, they instead, as usual stack it with lefties. 4 left-wing panellists, and 2 conservative panellists, not to mention that the host is also of the left, making it a ratio of 5:2, on a taxpayer-funded station that is supposed to be balanced, impartial, neutral and fair to both sides.

Also, as is often the case, the left-wing panellists gang up and interrupt thr conservative panellists. In addition, the audience was yet again stacked with lefties. Why should conservative-minded Australians have to pay for the ABC, which is nothing but a propahanfa machine and mouthpiece of the progressive left? Why can't we get some balance, like having 3 conservative panellists, and 3 leftists?

Until/unless the ABC gets some balance, there should be no cuts, it should just be privatised, and taxpayers should stop having to pay altogether.

Idiot! You really are full of it.

I watched the show, and you are, quite categorically, wrong.

Again.

Kat wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 8:45pm:

Idiot! You really are full of it. I watched the show, and you are, quite categorically, wrong. Again.

I will leave the personal insults to you, Kat. Care to show how I am wrong?

Barnaby Joyce - conservative.
Nick Cater - conservative.
Tanya Plibersek - leftist.
Ray Martin - leftist.
Akmal Saleh - leftist.
Cassandra Goldie - leftist.

If they had more than 2 nutjobs at a time the show would become an unbearable screeching rubble.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 8:59pm:

If they had more than 2 nutjobs at a time the show would become an unbearable screeching rubble.

So you didn't watch last night's episode, then?

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:59pm: If they had more than 2 nutjobs at a time the show would become an unbearable screeching rubble. So you didn't watch last night's episode, then?

I didn't, but let me guess: Barnaby demonstrated yet again that he is an imbecile?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:23pm:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:59pm: If they had more than 2 nutjobs at a time the show would become an unbearable screeching rubble. So you didn't watch last night's episode, then? I didn't, but let me guess: Barnaby demonstrated yet again that he is an imbecile?

Bingo!!!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:23pm:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:59pm: If they had more than 2 nutjobs at a time the show would become an unbearable screeching rubble. So you didn't watch last night's episode, then? I didn't, but let me guess: Barnaby demonstrated yet again that he is an imbecile?

I do agree that Barnaby is not the best performer and certainly isn't one of the more intelligent politicians, but the points of the op all still stand, as much as you want to eschew discussing them.

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:32pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:23pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:59pm: If they had more than 2 nutjobs at a time the show would become an unbearable screeching rubble. So you didn't watch last night's episode, then? I didn't, but let me guess: Barnaby demonstrated yet again that he is an imbecile? I do agree that Barnaby is not the best performer and certainly isn't one of the more intelligent politicians, but the points of the op all still stand, as much as you want to eschew discussing them.

Care to explain how you have determined all non-politicians were left? Just because someone isn't an extreme nutjob like your late night material, Baranadi, Joyce, Tony et al, does not mean they are left. Politics isn't "everyone who doesn't agree with Matty is left."  Usually that means they simply aren't extremist nut jobs :)

Q&A is skewed to the right and Tony Jones is a dreadful compere of the show. The Qs are known beforehand and the As are preprepared and stilted. B o r i n g !

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:32pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:23pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:59pm: If they had more than 2 nutjobs at a time the show would become an unbearable screeching rubble. So you didn't watch last night's episode, then? I didn't, but let me guess: Barnaby demonstrated yet again that he is an imbecile? I do agree that Barnaby is not the best performer and certainly isn't one of the more intelligent politicians, but the points of the op all still stand, as much as you want to eschew discussing them. Care to explain how you have determined all non-politicians were left? Just because someone isn't an extreme nutjob like your late night material, Baranadi, Joyce, Tony et al, does not mean they are left. Politics isn't "everyone who doesn't agree with Matty is left."  Usually that means they simply aren't extremist nut jobs :)

Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others on here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull.

Skewed to the right  :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D
To believe that, one would have to be an Uber Communist.
The left always outnumber the Right on Q&A and then you have the LW stalwart of a compere.
The Insiders have much the same problem 2L, 1R...  and LW Barrie...  not to mention the LW cartoonists etc.

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:46pm:

Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others on here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull.

Not at all.

Turnbull
Hockey
Robb
Bishop
Stone
Brandis

Not extreme.  Centre-right, yes.

But Tony comes from the extreme pack of dogs.  His views on women, the vulnerable, non-standard families, it's all very much chunder worthy.

IN an case, stop deflecting.  Or are you doing it because you realise you raised an idiotic OP, as USUAL, and can't sustain your opinion?

The hell is Ray Martin doing on Q&A?

Grendel wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:49pm:

Skewed to the right  :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D To believe that, one would have to be an Uber Communist. The left always outnumber the Right on Q&A and then you have the LW stalwart of a compere. The Insiders have much the same problem 2L, 1R...  and LW Barrie...  not to mention the LW cartoonists etc.

Very true. Sometimes they even have three leftists and no conservatives. This sunday just gone was actually okay, they had a conservative, a lefty and I think a centrist on, so very balance. That is very much the exception, however.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:52pm:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others on here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull. Not at all. Turnbull Hockey Robb Bishop Stone Brandis Not extreme.  Centre-right, yes. But Tony comes from the extreme pack of dogs.  His views on women, the vulnerable, non-standard families, it's all very much chunder worthy. IN an case, stop deflecting.  Or are you doing it because you realise you raised an idiotic OP, as USUAL, and can't sustain your opinion?

Stone and Turnbull are not centre-right, they are centrists. Abbott is not extreme right. The only one that comes close is Cory, and possibly Corrmann.

I am not the one deflecting. You're the one who didn't address the substance of the op.

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:00pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:52pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others on here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull. Not at all. Turnbull Hockey Robb Bishop Stone Brandis Not extreme.  Centre-right, yes. But Tony comes from the extreme pack of dogs.  His views on women, the vulnerable, non-standard families, it's all very much chunder worthy. IN an case, stop deflecting.  Or are you doing it because you realise you raised an idiotic OP, as USUAL, and can't sustain your opinion? Stone and Turnbull are not centre-right, they are centrists. Abbott is not extreme right. The only one that comes close is Cory, and possibly Corrmann. I am not the one deflecting. You're the one who didn't address the substance of the op.

;D  Can't even back up your own thought bubble.

Nice chatting with you.  It was a hoot, as always. Welcome back.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:03pm:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:52pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others on here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull. Not at all. Turnbull Hockey Robb Bishop Stone Brandis Not extreme.  Centre-right, yes. But Tony comes from the extreme pack of dogs.  His views on women, the vulnerable, non-standard families, it's all very much chunder worthy. IN an case, stop deflecting.  Or are you doing it because you realise you raised an idiotic OP, as USUAL, and can't sustain your opinion? Stone and Turnbull are not centre-right, they are centrists. Abbott is not extreme right. The only one that comes close is Cory, and possibly Corrmann. I am not the one deflecting. You're the one who didn't address the substance of the op. ;D  Can't even back up your own thought bubble. Nice chatting with you.  It was a hoot, as always. Welcome back.

What thought bubble? I stated that Q & A is biased, and you didn't respond to that, but instead insulted Barnaby Joyce. You have not addressed the substance of the op in any way, shape or form.

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:11pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:03pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:52pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others on here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull. Not at all. Turnbull Hockey Robb Bishop Stone Brandis Not extreme.  Centre-right, yes. But Tony comes from the extreme pack of dogs.  His views on women, the vulnerable, non-standard families, it's all very much chunder worthy. IN an case, stop deflecting.  Or are you doing it because you realise you raised an idiotic OP, as USUAL, and can't sustain your opinion? Stone and Turnbull are not centre-right, they are centrists. Abbott is not extreme right. The only one that comes close is Cory, and possibly Corrmann. I am not the one deflecting. You're the one who didn't address the substance of the op. ;D  Can't even back up your own thought bubble. Nice chatting with you.  It was a hoot, as always. Welcome back. What thought bubble? I stated that Q & A is biased, and you didn't respond to that, but instead insulted Barnaby Joyce. You have not addressed the substance of the op in any way, shape or form.

How do you figure that Ray Martin And Achmal are lefties? Or do you simply categorise anyone that criticises Abbott as being a lefty?  :D :D :D

I dunno, are right wing comedians even a thing?

Stratos wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:30pm:

I dunno, are right wing comedians even a thing?

good point .... they think the chaff bag comment was funny. ;) ;) ;D

John Smith wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:28pm:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:03pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:52pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others on here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull. Not at all. Turnbull Hockey Robb Bishop Stone Brandis Not extreme.  Centre-right, yes. But Tony comes from the extreme pack of dogs.  His views on women, the vulnerable, non-standard families, it's all very much chunder worthy. IN an case, stop deflecting.  Or are you doing it because you realise you raised an idiotic OP, as USUAL, and can't sustain your opinion? Stone and Turnbull are not centre-right, they are centrists. Abbott is not extreme right. The only one that comes close is Cory, and possibly Corrmann. I am not the one deflecting. You're the one who didn't address the substance of the op. ;D  Can't even back up your own thought bubble. Nice chatting with you.  It was a hoot, as always. Welcome back. What thought bubble? I stated that Q & A is biased, and you didn't respond to that, but instead insulted Barnaby Joyce. You have not addressed the substance of the op in any way, shape or form. How do you figure that Ray Martin And Achmal are lefties? Or do you simply categorise anyone that criticises Abbott as being a lefty?  :D :D :D

Did you even watch? You couldn't see that the four apart from Joyce and Cater were lefties?

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:28pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:03pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:52pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others on here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull. Not at all. Turnbull Hockey Robb Bishop Stone Brandis Not extreme.  Centre-right, yes. But Tony comes from the extreme pack of dogs.  His views on women, the vulnerable, non-standard families, it's all very much chunder worthy. IN an case, stop deflecting.  Or are you doing it because you realise you raised an idiotic OP, as USUAL, and can't sustain your opinion? Stone and Turnbull are not centre-right, they are centrists. Abbott is not extreme right. The only one that comes close is Cory, and possibly Corrmann. I am not the one deflecting. You're the one who didn't address the substance of the op. ;D  Can't even back up your own thought bubble. Nice chatting with you.  It was a hoot, as always. Welcome back. What thought bubble? I stated that Q & A is biased, and you didn't respond to that, but instead insulted Barnaby Joyce. You have not addressed the substance of the op in any way, shape or form. How do you figure that Ray Martin And Achmal are lefties? Or do you simply categorise anyone that criticises Abbott as being a lefty?  :D :D :D Did you even watch? You couldn't see that the four apart from Joyce and Cater were lefties?

Yes I watched it ... and you didn't answer my question. They were critical of some of Abbotts policies ... does that make them lefties?

Stratos wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:30pm:

I dunno, are right wing comedians even a thing?

Pretty much all of the actors and comedians that go on are lefties. The only exception that I can recall is Barry Humphries. Either those fields are very much left-wing dominant, or Q & A only tries to find lefties from those fields so as to promote their left-wing agenda. Probably a combination of both factors.

John Smith wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:50pm:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:48pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:28pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:03pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:52pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others on here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull. Not at all. Turnbull Hockey Robb Bishop Stone Brandis Not extreme.  Centre-right, yes. But Tony comes from the extreme pack of dogs.  His views on women, the vulnerable, non-standard families, it's all very much chunder worthy. IN an case, stop deflecting.  Or are you doing it because you realise you raised an idiotic OP, as USUAL, and can't sustain your opinion? Stone and Turnbull are not centre-right, they are centrists. Abbott is not extreme right. The only one that comes close is Cory, and possibly Corrmann. I am not the one deflecting. You're the one who didn't address the substance of the op. ;D  Can't even back up your own thought bubble. Nice chatting with you.  It was a hoot, as always. Welcome back. What thought bubble? I stated that Q & A is biased, and you didn't respond to that, but instead insulted Barnaby Joyce. You have not addressed the substance of the op in any way, shape or form. How do you figure that Ray Martin And Achmal are lefties? Or do you simply categorise anyone that criticises Abbott as being a lefty?  :D :D :D Did you even watch? You couldn't see that the four apart from Joyce and Cater were lefties? Yes I watched it ... and you didn't answer my question. They were critical of some of Abbotts policies ... does that make them lefties?

No, that doesn't make them lefties in itself, but their comments on the whole do.

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:50pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:48pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:28pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:03pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:52pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others on here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull. Not at all. Turnbull Hockey Robb Bishop Stone Brandis Not extreme.  Centre-right, yes. But Tony comes from the extreme pack of dogs.  His views on women, the vulnerable, non-standard families, it's all very much chunder worthy. IN an case, stop deflecting.  Or are you doing it because you realise you raised an idiotic OP, as USUAL, and can't sustain your opinion? Stone and Turnbull are not centre-right, they are centrists. Abbott is not extreme right. The only one that comes close is Cory, and possibly Corrmann. I am not the one deflecting. You're the one who didn't address the substance of the op. ;D  Can't even back up your own thought bubble. Nice chatting with you.  It was a hoot, as always. Welcome back. What thought bubble? I stated that Q & A is biased, and you didn't respond to that, but instead insulted Barnaby Joyce. You have not addressed the substance of the op in any way, shape or form. How do you figure that Ray Martin And Achmal are lefties? Or do you simply categorise anyone that criticises Abbott as being a lefty?  :D :D :D Did you even watch? You couldn't see that the four apart from Joyce and Cater were lefties? Yes I watched it ... and you didn't answer my question. They were critical of some of Abbotts policies ... does that make them lefties? No, that doesn't make them lefties in itself, but their comments on the whole do.

examples?

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:50pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:48pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:28pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:03pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:52pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others on here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull. Not at all. Turnbull Hockey Robb Bishop Stone Brandis Not extreme.  Centre-right, yes. But Tony comes from the extreme pack of dogs.  His views on women, the vulnerable, non-standard families, it's all very much chunder worthy. IN an case, stop deflecting.  Or are you doing it because you realise you raised an idiotic OP, as USUAL, and can't sustain your opinion? Stone and Turnbull are not centre-right, they are centrists. Abbott is not extreme right. The only one that comes close is Cory, and possibly Corrmann. I am not the one deflecting. You're the one who didn't address the substance of the op. ;D  Can't even back up your own thought bubble. Nice chatting with you.  It was a hoot, as always. Welcome back. What thought bubble? I stated that Q & A is biased, and you didn't respond to that, but instead insulted Barnaby Joyce. You have not addressed the substance of the op in any way, shape or form. How do you figure that Ray Martin And Achmal are lefties? Or do you simply categorise anyone that criticises Abbott as being a lefty?  :D :D :D Did you even watch? You couldn't see that the four apart from Joyce and Cater were lefties? Yes I watched it ... and you didn't answer my question. They were critical of some of Abbotts policies ... does that make them lefties? No, that doesn't make them lefties in itself, but their comments on the whole do.

So in other words you haven't got a bloody clue ... 

how dare they be critical of Abbott, they must be lefties ...

grow up you idiot. :D :D :D

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:51pm:

Stratos wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:30pm: I dunno, are right wing comedians even a thing? Pretty much all of the actors and comedians that go on are lefties. The only exception that I can recall is Barry Humphries. Either those fields are very much left-wing dominant, or Q & A only tries to find lefties from those fields so as to promote their left-wing agenda. Probably a combination of both factors.

Right-wing people have no sense of humour.

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 11:13pm:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:51pm: Stratos wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:30pm: I dunno, are right wing comedians even a thing? Pretty much all of the actors and comedians that go on are lefties. The only exception that I can recall is Barry Humphries. Either those fields are very much left-wing dominant, or Q & A only tries to find lefties from those fields so as to promote their left-wing agenda. Probably a combination of both factors. Right-wing people have no sense of humour.

I just tried to google 'Right Wing Comedians' and got a photo of Fred Nile

says it all really.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

Kat wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:45pm: Idiot! You really are full of it. I watched the show, and you are, quite categorically, wrong. Again. I will leave the personal insults to you, Kat. Care to show how I am wrong? Barnaby Joyce - conservative. Nick Cater - conservative. Tanya Plibersek - leftist. Ray Martin - leftist. Akmal Saleh - leftist. Cassandra Goldie - leftist.

Even if you were right - why shouldnt there be @ least 1 show that isnt extreme right? The ABC should have some left shows and some right shows. They dont though - its all right but you cant see it because you are so extreme that you dont like anything "left" to be aired @ all.

SOB

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

Kat wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:45pm: Idiot! You really are full of it. I watched the show, and you are, quite categorically, wrong. Again. I will leave the personal insults to you, Kat. Care to show how I am wrong? Barnaby Joyce - conservative. Nick Cater - conservative. Tanya Plibersek - leftist. Ray Martin - leftist. Akmal Saleh - leftist. Cassandra Goldie - leftist.

What 'personal insults', you goose?

I stated a fact, I insulted no-one.

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:46pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:36pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:32pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:23pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:59pm: If they had more than 2 nutjobs at a time the show would become an unbearable screeching rubble. So you didn't watch last night's episode, then? I didn't, but let me guess: Barnaby demonstrated yet again that he is an imbecile? I do agree that Barnaby is not the best performer and certainly isn't one of the more intelligent politicians, but the points of the op all still stand, as much as you want to eschew discussing them. Care to explain how you have determined all non-politicians were left? Just because someone isn't an extreme nutjob like your late night material, Baranadi, Joyce, Tony et al, does not mean they are left. Politics isn't "everyone who doesn't agree with Matty is left."  Usually that means they simply aren't extremist nut jobs :) Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others on here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull.

More proof, if it were needed, that you ARE an extremist, and ARE a fool.

John Smith wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:59pm:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:52pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:50pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:48pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:28pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:03pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:52pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others on here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull. Not at all. Turnbull Hockey Robb Bishop Stone Brandis Not extreme.  Centre-right, yes. But Tony comes from the extreme pack of dogs.  His views on women, the vulnerable, non-standard families, it's all very much chunder worthy. IN an case, stop deflecting.  Or are you doing it because you realise you raised an idiotic OP, as USUAL, and can't sustain your opinion? Stone and Turnbull are not centre-right, they are centrists. Abbott is not extreme right. The only one that comes close is Cory, and possibly Corrmann. I am not the one deflecting. You're the one who didn't address the substance of the op. ;D  Can't even back up your own thought bubble. Nice chatting with you.  It was a hoot, as always. Welcome back. What thought bubble? I stated that Q & A is biased, and you didn't respond to that, but instead insulted Barnaby Joyce. You have not addressed the substance of the op in any way, shape or form. How do you figure that Ray Martin And Achmal are lefties? Or do you simply categorise anyone that criticises Abbott as being a lefty?  :D :D :D Did you even watch? You couldn't see that the four apart from Joyce and Cater were lefties? Yes I watched it ... and you didn't answer my question. They were critical of some of Abbotts policies ... does that make them lefties? No, that doesn't make them lefties in itself, but their comments on the whole do. So in other words you haven't got a bloody clue ...  how dare they be critical of Abbott, they must be lefties ... grow up you idiot. :D :D :D

Okay, I will give an example - their comments on boat people, for one.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:59pm:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:52pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:50pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:48pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:28pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:11pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:03pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:52pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others on here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull. Not at all. Turnbull Hockey Robb Bishop Stone Brandis Not extreme.  Centre-right, yes. But Tony comes from the extreme pack of dogs.  His views on women, the vulnerable, non-standard families, it's all very much chunder worthy. IN an case, stop deflecting.  Or are you doing it because you realise you raised an idiotic OP, as USUAL, and can't sustain your opinion? Stone and Turnbull are not centre-right, they are centrists. Abbott is not extreme right. The only one that comes close is Cory, and possibly Corrmann. I am not the one deflecting. You're the one who didn't address the substance of the op. ;D  Can't even back up your own thought bubble. Nice chatting with you.  It was a hoot, as always. Welcome back. What thought bubble? I stated that Q & A is biased, and you didn't respond to that, but instead insulted Barnaby Joyce. You have not addressed the substance of the op in any way, shape or form. How do you figure that Ray Martin And Achmal are lefties? Or do you simply categorise anyone that criticises Abbott as being a lefty?  :D :D :D Did you even watch? You couldn't see that the four apart from Joyce and Cater were lefties? Yes I watched it ... and you didn't answer my question. They were critical of some of Abbotts policies ... does that make them lefties? No, that doesn't make them lefties in itself, but their comments on the whole do. examples?

Their comments on boat people, for one.

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 11:13pm:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:51pm: Stratos wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:30pm: I dunno, are right wing comedians even a thing? Pretty much all of the actors and comedians that go on are lefties. The only exception that I can recall is Barry Humphries. Either those fields are very much left-wing dominant, or Q & A only tries to find lefties from those fields so as to promote their left-wing agenda. Probably a combination of both factors. Right-wing people have no sense of humour.

I would consider myself to lean a bit towards the right, and I have a good sense of humour.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 4:28am:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:50pm: Kat wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:45pm: Idiot! You really are full of it. I watched the show, and you are, quite categorically, wrong. Again. I will leave the personal insults to you, Kat. Care to show how I am wrong? Barnaby Joyce - conservative. Nick Cater - conservative. Tanya Plibersek - leftist. Ray Martin - leftist. Akmal Saleh - leftist. Cassandra Goldie - leftist. Even if you were right - why shouldnt there be @ least 1 show that isnt extreme right? The ABC should have some left shows and some right shows. They dont though - its all right but you cant see it because you are so extreme that you dont like anything "left" to be aired @ all. SOB

The ABC's shows and programs should all be completely balanced, fair and unbiased.

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

So I have been out of the country for a week and a half. I arrive back yesterday and it's nice to see nothing's changed.  The ABC's Q & A returns for its first episode of the year, and is back to its usual bias self. Instead of having a fair and balanced panel, they instead, as usual stack it with lefties. 4 left-wing panellists, and 2 conservative panellists, not to mention that the host is also of the left, making it a ratio of 5:2, on a taxpayer-funded station that is supposed to be balanced, impartial, neutral and fair to both sides. Also, as is often the case, the left-wing panellists gang up and interrupt thr conservative panellists. In addition, the audience was yet again stacked with lefties. Why should conservative-minded Australians have to pay for the ABC, which is nothing but a propahanfa machine and mouthpiece of the progressive left? Why can't we get some balance, like having 3 conservative panellists, and 3 leftists? Until/unless the ABC gets some balance, there should be no cuts, it should just be privatised, and taxpayers should stop having to pay altogether.

I tried a coujple of times to watch ABC's Q&A but the bias from the chairman and the applause from the stacked audience made me go to the bathroom and vomit.

When the election was well won by the right, who were they who got through that door to make up the biased audience?

Kat wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 5:58am:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:46pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:36pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:32pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:23pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:59pm: If they had more than 2 nutjobs at a time the show would become an unbearable screeching rubble. So you didn't watch last night's episode, then? I didn't, but let me guess: Barnaby demonstrated yet again that he is an imbecile? I do agree that Barnaby is not the best performer and certainly isn't one of the more intelligent politicians, but the points of the op all still stand, as much as you want to eschew discussing them. Care to explain how you have determined all non-politicians were left? Just because someone isn't an extreme nutjob like your late night material, Baranadi, Joyce, Tony et al, does not mean they are left. Politics isn't "everyone who doesn't agree with Matty is left."  Usually that means they simply aren't extremist nut jobs :) Calling me an extremist, or calling Cory an extremist, is one thing. However, to call Abbott an extremist is another thing altogether. I think that the truth is reverse - you seem to think that everyone to the right of you is an extremist. You and some others  here seem to think that every member of the government is extreme right-wing, with the exception of Turnbull. More proof, if it were needed, that you ARE an extremist, and ARE a fool.

Actually, more proof that you have no evidence to support your claims, as seen in the above post as well.

Best proof that the ABC and Q&A is left leaning is that the luvvies protest it so much.  If it was right leaning they would be wailing and gnashing of the teeth and calling for it to be banned. 

Clowns reveal themselves and their agendas, protect the ABC at all costs!!!!  Do you think they would be doing that if they perceived it was inimical to their prejudices?  ;D ;D

Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10%

olde.sault wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 10:42am:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: So I have been out of the country for a week and a half. I arrive back yesterday and it's nice to see nothing's changed.  The ABC's Q & A returns for its first episode of the year, and is back to its usual bias self. Instead of having a fair and balanced panel, they instead, as usual stack it with lefties. 4 left-wing panellists, and 2 conservative panellists, not to mention that the host is also of the left, making it a ratio of 5:2, on a taxpayer-funded station that is supposed to be balanced, impartial, neutral and fair to both sides. Also, as is often the case, the left-wing panellists gang up and interrupt thr conservative panellists. In addition, the audience was yet again stacked with lefties. Why should conservative-minded Australians have to pay for the ABC, which is nothing but a propahanfa machine and mouthpiece of the progressive left? Why can't we get some balance, like having 3 conservative panellists, and 3 leftists? Until/unless the ABC gets some balance, there should be no cuts, it should just be privatised, and taxpayers should stop having to pay altogether. I tried a coujple of times to watch ABC's Q&A but the bias from the chairman and the applause from the stacked audience made me go to the bathroom and vomit. When the election was well won by the right, who were they who got through that door to make up the biased audience?

I agree, I just can't wait it any longer. I remember last year, there was end episode where it was 5 against 1, or 6 against 1 if you include Tony jones. The lone conservative - the lovely Sophie Mirabella, was constantly interrupted, mocked, criticised and jeered. It was disgraceful.

matty wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 10:38am:

Okay, I will give an example - their comments on boat people, for one.

Thats not a clue, thats a position on one issue .... not every rightie agrees with every single thing Abbott does idiot. Grow up!

I don't agree with labors PNG solution, does that make me a rightie too?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Datalife wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 10:45am:

Best proof that the ABC and Q&A is left leaning is that the luvvies protest it so much.  If it was right leaning they would be wailing and gnashing of the teeth and calling for it to be banned.  Clowns reveal themselves and their agendas, protect the ABC at all costs!!!!  Do you think they would be doing that if they perceived it was inimical to their prejudices?  ;D ;D

Great point. They know just as well as the rest of us that it's biased, they just won't admit it because they want taxpayer-funded dollars to unfairly protect and glorify their beloved Labor and Greens.

olde.sault wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 10:42am:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: So I have been out of the country for a week and a half. I arrive back yesterday and it's nice to see nothing's changed.  The ABC's Q & A returns for its first episode of the year, and is back to its usual bias self. Instead of having a fair and balanced panel, they instead, as usual stack it with lefties. 4 left-wing panellists, and 2 conservative panellists, not to mention that the host is also of the left, making it a ratio of 5:2, on a taxpayer-funded station that is supposed to be balanced, impartial, neutral and fair to both sides. Also, as is often the case, the left-wing panellists gang up and interrupt thr conservative panellists. In addition, the audience was yet again stacked with lefties. Why should conservative-minded Australians have to pay for the ABC, which is nothing but a propahanfa machine and mouthpiece of the progressive left? Why can't we get some balance, like having 3 conservative panellists, and 3 leftists? Until/unless the ABC gets some balance, there should be no cuts, it should just be privatised, and taxpayers should stop having to pay altogether. I tried a coujple of times to watch ABC's Q&A but the bias from the chairman and the applause from the stacked audience made me go to the bathroom and vomit. When the election was well won by the right, who were they who got through that door to make up the biased audience?

no one is making you watch .... feel free to watch the bolt report instead  :D :D :D

Dnarever wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 10:46am:

Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10%

Actions speak louder than words.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 10:46am:

Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10%

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  Bull Shyte   ;D ;D ;D ;D

AKMAL SALEH (on Abbott)

Quote:

he doesn't make to be, you know, taken - made accountable or to be scrutinised. He hasn't been used to that. And if he is - you know, if a man has morals and ethics and believes in balanced reporting in the media, then he should protest when that bias, you know, is in favour of him as well, if that's his belief, if that's his value. And I didn't see him or I didn't hear him made any complaints during the elections when Rupert Murdoch turned his newspapers into the most grotesque form of propaganda that even, you know, North Korea would be put to shame. You know?

John Smith wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

matty wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:38am: Okay, I will give an example - their comments on boat people, for one. Thats not a clue, thats a position on one issue .... not every rightie agrees with every single thing Abbott does idiot. Grow up! I don't agree with labors PNG solution, does that make me a rightie too?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

No, but it is a clear left-wing position on their behalf. They both also strongly defended the ABC, the reporting of the RUMOURS about boat people injuring their hands due to Australian navy personnel, and said that the government is demonising boat people (paraphrasing here).

matty wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 10:49am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:46am: Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10% Actions speak louder than words.

Some words add meaning

matty wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 10:49am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:46am: Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10% Actions speak louder than words.

what actions are you referring too?

matty wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 10:52am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:47am: matty wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:38am: Okay, I will give an example - their comments on boat people, for one. Thats not a clue, thats a position on one issue .... not every rightie agrees with every single thing Abbott does idiot. Grow up! I don't agree with labors PNG solution, does that make me a rightie too?  ;D ;D ;D ;D No, but it is a clear left-wing position on their behalf. They both also strongly defended the ABC, the reporting of the RUMOURS about boat people injuring their hands due to Australian navy personnel, and said that the government is demonising boat people (paraphrasing here).

Matty's got voices in his head ....

I'm not interested in what they said on certain topics ...not evey liberal voter agrees with of shore processing ....   the truth is you have no idea how they vote, and you simply cannot accept that anyone can be critical of Abbott

Dnarever wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 10:46am:

Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10%

The number don't make sense. It is too consistent every single week. There has to be more to it.

The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show.

How long has it been since Tony's been on q&a?

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 11:10am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:46am: Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10% The number don't make sense. It is too consistent every single week. There has to be more to it. The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show.

if they didnt regulate it would you scream bias?

John Smith wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:10am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:46am: Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10% The number don't make sense. It is too consistent every single week. There has to be more to it. The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show. if they didnt regulate it would you scream bias?

No. Regulating it is useless if it only creates a false statistic. During the little spat between the Greens and Labor last year there was a few occasions when the greeny ripped into both Labor and Liberal. The crowd erupted in applause. No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist.

My issue of bias comes from the fact that the last two years the show has essentially rotated around three topics; Refugees, Gay marriage, and Climate Change. No matter what the focus that night is supposed to be it always comes back to those three topics. Funnily enough it the three things the greens never shut up on. Now it is not that those three issues are not relevant to either Liberal or Labor, but there are more to those two parties, as well as more things of importance in Australia than those three issues. That is where the bias is. Not so much the people on the show, but the issues that are continuously addressed as if that is all that really matters. The way the crowd responds to those three issues is also out of touch with the temperature of the wider community. If that was all that matters Milne would be PM right now and Brown before her. Clearly most people think there is more to Australia and Government than supporting these three areas. But you wouldn't know that by the boos and cheers from the crowd on Q&A.

 

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 12:56pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:27pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:10am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:46am: Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10% The number don't make sense. It is too consistent every single week. There has to be more to it. The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show. if they didnt regulate it would you scream bias? No. Regulating it is useless if it only creates a false statistic. During the little spat between the Greens and Labor last year there was a few occasions when the greeny ripped into both Labor and Liberal. The crowd erupted in applause. No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist. My issue of bias comes from the fact that the last two years the show has essentially rotated around three topics; Refugees, Gay marriage, and Climate Change. No matter what the focus that night is supposed to be it always comes back to those three topics. Funnily enough it the three things the greens never shut up on. Now it is not that those three issues are not relevant to either Liberal or Labor, but there are more to those two parties, as well as more things of importance in Australia than those three issues. That is where the bias is. Not so much the people on the show, but the issues that are continuously addressed as if that is all that really matters. The way the crowd responds to those three issues is also out of touch with the temperature of the wider community. If that was all that matters Milne would be PM right now and Brown before her. Clearly most people think there is more to Australia and Government than supporting these three areas. But you wouldn't know that by the boos and cheers from the crowd on Q&A.

I tend to agree with the focus. However it may be also that those three topics get the most controversy and therefore most viewers.

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 12:56pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:27pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:10am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:46am: Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10% The number don't make sense. It is too consistent every single week. There has to be more to it. The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show. if they didnt regulate it would you scream bias? No. Regulating it is useless if it only creates a false statistic. During the little spat between the Greens and Labor last year there was a few occasions when the greeny ripped into both Labor and Liberal. The crowd erupted in applause. No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist. My issue of bias comes from the fact that the last two years the show has essentially rotated around three topics; Refugees, Gay marriage, and Climate Change. No matter what the focus that night is supposed to be it always comes back to those three topics. Funnily enough it the three things the greens never shut up on. Now it is not that those three issues are not relevant to either Liberal or Labor, but there are more to those two parties, as well as more things of importance in Australia than those three issues. That is where the bias is. Not so much the people on the show, but the issues that are continuously addressed as if that is all that really matters. The way the crowd responds to those three issues is also out of touch with the temperature of the wider community. If that was all that matters Milne would be PM right now and Brown before her. Clearly most people think there is more to Australia and Government than supporting these three areas. But you wouldn't know that by the boos and cheers from the crowd on Q&A.

So nobody should applaud if they are on the other side of politics? Is that what you are saying? Perhaps it just sounded like it anyway. to you.

SOB

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 1:00pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:27pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:10am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:46am: Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10% The number don't make sense. It is too consistent every single week. There has to be more to it. The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show. if they didnt regulate it would you scream bias? No. Regulating it is useless if it only creates a false statistic. During the little spat between the Greens and Labor last year there was a few occasions when the greeny ripped into both Labor and Liberal. The crowd erupted in applause. No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist. My issue of bias comes from the fact that the last two years the show has essentially rotated around three topics; Refugees, Gay marriage, and Climate Change. No matter what the focus that night is supposed to be it always comes back to those three topics. Funnily enough it the three things the greens never shut up on. Now it is not that those three issues are not relevant to either Liberal or Labor, but there are more to those two parties, as well as more things of importance in Australia than those three issues. That is where the bias is. Not so much the people on the show, but the issues that are continuously addressed as if that is all that really matters. The way the crowd responds to those three issues is also out of touch with the temperature of the wider community. If that was all that matters Milne would be PM right now and Brown before her. Clearly most people think there is more to Australia and Government than supporting these three areas. But you wouldn't know that by the boos and cheers from the crowd on Q&A.   I tend to agree with the focus. However it may be also that those three topics get the most controversy and therefore most viewers.

No doubt it makes for a more fiery debate, but that raises another question of the aims of the ABC; Should viewer statistics matter? Sure there needs to be someone watching for the ABC to be worth having, but they don't need numbers for advertisement money. If they have to use tricks to get people watching then how are they any different to commercial channels?

Just last week there was the whole issue of the boat people and the torture claims. Was that news, or just a trumped up issue for a catchy headline to get viewer numbers?

I actually support the concept of the ABC and certainly don't want to see it censored or shut down, but I do have issues with the way it is run at the moment. From pushing opinions, corny promos and self advertisement breaks, it is becoming more and more like a commercial channel in its feel and less like the ABC of the past.       

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 1:04pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:27pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:10am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:46am: Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10% The number don't make sense. It is too consistent every single week. There has to be more to it. The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show. if they didnt regulate it would you scream bias? No. Regulating it is useless if it only creates a false statistic. During the little spat between the Greens and Labor last year there was a few occasions when the greeny ripped into both Labor and Liberal. The crowd erupted in applause. No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist. My issue of bias comes from the fact that the last two years the show has essentially rotated around three topics; Refugees, Gay marriage, and Climate Change. No matter what the focus that night is supposed to be it always comes back to those three topics. Funnily enough it the three things the greens never shut up on. Now it is not that those three issues are not relevant to either Liberal or Labor, but there are more to those two parties, as well as more things of importance in Australia than those three issues. That is where the bias is. Not so much the people on the show, but the issues that are continuously addressed as if that is all that really matters. The way the crowd responds to those three issues is also out of touch with the temperature of the wider community. If that was all that matters Milne would be PM right now and Brown before her. Clearly most people think there is more to Australia and Government than supporting these three areas. But you wouldn't know that by the boos and cheers from the crowd on Q&A.   So nobody should applaud if they are on the other side of politics? Is that what you are saying? Perhaps it just sounded like it anyway. to you. SOB

You seem to have a habit of engaging with people who are - according to you - just "trolls". Is it worth me answering that question, or will you just reply with "go away troll" when you are once again shown to be wrong? 

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

Kat wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:45pm: Idiot! You really are full of it. I watched the show, and you are, quite categorically, wrong. Again. I will leave the personal insults to you, Kat. Care to show how I am wrong? Barnaby Joyce - conservative. Nick Cater - conservative. Tanya Plibersek - leftist. Ray Martin - leftist. Akmal Saleh - leftist. Cassandra Goldie - leftist.

Just because people are not loony fringe loonies, like you, does not mean the are lefties. There were two imaginary lefties, as Pliberseck is hardly a true lefty, two extremist loonies from the right, and two centrists. No wonder you're the forum whipping boy. ::)

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:04pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:27pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:10am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:46am: Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10% The number don't make sense. It is too consistent every single week. There has to be more to it. The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show. if they didnt regulate it would you scream bias? No. Regulating it is useless if it only creates a false statistic. During the little spat between the Greens and Labor last year there was a few occasions when the greeny ripped into both Labor and Liberal. The crowd erupted in applause. No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist. My issue of bias comes from the fact that the last two years the show has essentially rotated around three topics; Refugees, Gay marriage, and Climate Change. No matter what the focus that night is supposed to be it always comes back to those three topics. Funnily enough it the three things the greens never shut up on. Now it is not that those three issues are not relevant to either Liberal or Labor, but there are more to those two parties, as well as more things of importance in Australia than those three issues. That is where the bias is. Not so much the people on the show, but the issues that are continuously addressed as if that is all that really matters. The way the crowd responds to those three issues is also out of touch with the temperature of the wider community. If that was all that matters Milne would be PM right now and Brown before her. Clearly most people think there is more to Australia and Government than supporting these three areas. But you wouldn't know that by the boos and cheers from the crowd on Q&A.   So nobody should applaud if they are on the other side of politics? Is that what you are saying? Perhaps it just sounded like it anyway. to you. SOB You seem to have a habit of engaging with people who are - according to you - just "trolls". Is it worth me answering that question, or will you just reply with "go away troll" when you are once again shown to be wrong?

That is obviously a projection since it is you who does that. No its not worth answering because everyone knows the answer already.

SOB

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

In addition, the audience was yet again stacked with lefties.

"Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10%"

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3898590.htm

Plibersek not a true lefty eh Skip?  Why not?  what in your opinion is a true lefty?  Marx? Lenin? Castro?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 1:51pm:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: In addition, the audience was yet again stacked with lefties. "Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10%" http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3898590.htm

Puhlease we all know this is crap.  The Uni students invited will say anything to get in especially those in the Socialist Alliance etc...
They've admitted to it many times before.

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 12:56pm:

No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist.

Can you substantiate that claim?

Grendel wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 1:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:51pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: In addition, the audience was yet again stacked with lefties. "Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10%" http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3898590.htm Puhlease we all know this is crap.

Can you substantiate that claim?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 1:40pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:17pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:04pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:27pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:10am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:46am: Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10% The number don't make sense. It is too consistent every single week. There has to be more to it. The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show. if they didnt regulate it would you scream bias? No. Regulating it is useless if it only creates a false statistic. During the little spat between the Greens and Labor last year there was a few occasions when the greeny ripped into both Labor and Liberal. The crowd erupted in applause. No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist. My issue of bias comes from the fact that the last two years the show has essentially rotated around three topics; Refugees, Gay marriage, and Climate Change. No matter what the focus that night is supposed to be it always comes back to those three topics. Funnily enough it the three things the greens never shut up on. Now it is not that those three issues are not relevant to either Liberal or Labor, but there are more to those two parties, as well as more things of importance in Australia than those three issues. That is where the bias is. Not so much the people on the show, but the issues that are continuously addressed as if that is all that really matters. The way the crowd responds to those three issues is also out of touch with the temperature of the wider community. If that was all that matters Milne would be PM right now and Brown before her. Clearly most people think there is more to Australia and Government than supporting these three areas. But you wouldn't know that by the boos and cheers from the crowd on Q&A.   So nobody should applaud if they are on the other side of politics? Is that what you are saying? Perhaps it just sounded like it anyway. to you. SOB You seem to have a habit of engaging with people who are - according to you - just "trolls". Is it worth me answering that question, or will you just reply with "go away troll" when you are once again shown to be wrong?  That is obviously a projection since it is you who does that. No its not worth answering because everyone knows the answer already. SOB

F*ck your a laugh. There are only a few things you are know for (none of them are good) and one of them is saying "go away troll". Now you have the hide to say I'm projecting and that it is myself who does that?!?!?!

That Brisbane water has some seriously good shlt in it doesn't it? Seen any unicorns riding rainbows lately? Did they have star trek uniforms on by any chance?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 1:56pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist.   Can you substantiate that claim?

The actions of the audience is proof enough. When someone in the crowd gets up and attacks the two big parties and talks up the greens, then there wouldn't be a roar of applause by a crowd made up of mostly liberal and Labor voters. You wouldn't here such deafening boos when someone attacks the greens. 10% is a minority. The cheering and booing is simply too loud for such a minority group.

But all that is irrelevant to the real question. How do the ABC know how many are in the room? They make the claim, where is their proof? 

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:56pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist.   Can you substantiate that claim? The actions of the audience is proof enough. When someone in the crowd gets up and attacks the two big parties and talks up the greens, then there wouldn't be a roar of applause by a crowd made up of mostly liberal and Labor voters. You wouldn't here such deafening boos when someone attack the greens. 10% is a minority. The cheering and booing is simply too loud for such a minority group. But all that is irrelevant to the real question. How do the ABC know how many are in the room? They make the claim, where is their proof?

I always assumed they gave the audience survey cards before the show.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 1:56pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:51pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: In addition, the audience was yet again stacked with lefties. "Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10%" http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3898590.htm Puhlease we all know this is crap.  Can you substantiate that claim?

can't you?  ;D ;D ;D ;D
just be wastin' my time if you already believe it is not stacked and not LW Prog biased...  that self delusional.
But so you know, a year or so ago a girl from SA was on the afternoon GB show and stated such...  they lie about their politics and stack the show.
Any fair minded person watching the audience would see it as the truth.

[/quote]
can't you?  ;D ;D ;D ;D
just be wastin' my time if you already believe it is not stacked and not LW Prog biased...  that self delusional.
But so you know, a year or so ago a girl from SA was on the afternoon GB show and stated such...  they lie about their politics and stack the show.
Any fair minded person watching the audience would see it as the truth.[/quote]



Actually is it a matter of the ABC stacking the show, or is it more a reflection of the political profile of the average ABC watcher.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:08pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:56pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist.   Can you substantiate that claim? The actions of the audience is proof enough. When someone in the crowd gets up and attacks the two big parties and talks up the greens, then there wouldn't be a roar of applause by a crowd made up of mostly liberal and Labor voters. You wouldn't here such deafening boos when someone attack the greens. 10% is a minority. The cheering and booing is simply too loud for such a minority group. But all that is irrelevant to the real question. How do the ABC know how many are in the room? They make the claim, where is their proof?  I always assumed they gave the audience survey cards before the show.

Perhaps. But virtually every week the numbers are;

Green 10%
Liberal 45%
Labor 35%

give or take a percent or two. It is simply too consistent each week for it to be a random sample of the public. There should be weeks of 1% greens or even 50% greens if it was just a random 150 or so people walking through the door. For it to be almost the same numbers each week suggest filtering who gets in for the week. If they do indeed filter who gets in, then no doubt many will lie to make up the numbers.

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:14pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:08pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:56pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist.   Can you substantiate that claim? The actions of the audience is proof enough. When someone in the crowd gets up and attacks the two big parties and talks up the greens, then there wouldn't be a roar of applause by a crowd made up of mostly liberal and Labor voters. You wouldn't here such deafening boos when someone attack the greens. 10% is a minority. The cheering and booing is simply too loud for such a minority group. But all that is irrelevant to the real question. How do the ABC know how many are in the room? They make the claim, where is their proof?  I always assumed they gave the audience survey cards before the show. Perhaps. But virtually every week the numbers are; Green 10% Liberal 45% Labor 35% give or take a percent or two. It is simply too consistent each week for it to be a random sample of the public. There should be weeks of 1% greens or even 50% greens if it was just a random 150 or so people walking through the door. For it to be almost the same numbers each week suggest filtering who gets in for the week. If they do indeed filter who gets in, then no doubt many will lie to make up the numbers.

I'd be interested in seeing if anyone has done a long term study of this.

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:14pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:08pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:56pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist.   Can you substantiate that claim? The actions of the audience is proof enough. When someone in the crowd gets up and attacks the two big parties and talks up the greens, then there wouldn't be a roar of applause by a crowd made up of mostly liberal and Labor voters. You wouldn't here such deafening boos when someone attack the greens. 10% is a minority. The cheering and booing is simply too loud for such a minority group. But all that is irrelevant to the real question. How do the ABC know how many are in the room? They make the claim, where is their proof?  I always assumed they gave the audience survey cards before the show. Perhaps. But virtually every week the numbers are; Green 10% Liberal 45% Labor 35% give or take a percent or two. It is simply too consistent each week for it to be a random sample of the public. There should be weeks of 1% greens or even 50% greens if it was just a random 150 or so people walking through the door. For it to be almost the same numbers each week suggest filtering who gets in for the week. If they do indeed filter who gets in, then no doubt many will lie to make up the numbers.

There's nothing random about it.

Audience members have to register in order to get in.

As part of the registration, they're asked what party they would vote for.

It's no accident that the percentages are always pretty much the same.

http://www2b.abc.net.au/AudienceBooking/Client/AudienceRegistration.aspx

::)

Grendel wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:56pm: Grendel wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:51pm: matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: In addition, the audience was yet again stacked with lefties. "Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10%" http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3898590.htm Puhlease we all know this is crap.  Can you substantiate that claim? can't you?  ;D ;D ;D ;D just be wastin' my time if you already believe it is not stacked and not LW Prog biased...  that self delusional. But so you know, a year or so ago a girl from SA was on the afternoon GB show and stated such...  they lie about their politics and stack the show. Any fair minded person watching the audience would see it as the truth.

All you had to say was "no".

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 1:59pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:40pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:17pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:04pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:27pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:10am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:46am: Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10% The number don't make sense. It is too consistent every single week. There has to be more to it. The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show. if they didnt regulate it would you scream bias? No. Regulating it is useless if it only creates a false statistic. During the little spat between the Greens and Labor last year there was a few occasions when the greeny ripped into both Labor and Liberal. The crowd erupted in applause. No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist. My issue of bias comes from the fact that the last two years the show has essentially rotated around three topics; Refugees, Gay marriage, and Climate Change. No matter what the focus that night is supposed to be it always comes back to those three topics. Funnily enough it the three things the greens never shut up on. Now it is not that those three issues are not relevant to either Liberal or Labor, but there are more to those two parties, as well as more things of importance in Australia than those three issues. That is where the bias is. Not so much the people on the show, but the issues that are continuously addressed as if that is all that really matters. The way the crowd responds to those three issues is also out of touch with the temperature of the wider community. If that was all that matters Milne would be PM right now and Brown before her. Clearly most people think there is more to Australia and Government than supporting these three areas. But you wouldn't know that by the boos and cheers from the crowd on Q&A.   So nobody should applaud if they are on the other side of politics? Is that what you are saying? Perhaps it just sounded like it anyway. to you. SOB You seem to have a habit of engaging with people who are - according to you - just "trolls". Is it worth me answering that question, or will you just reply with "go away troll" when you are once again shown to be wrong?  That is obviously a projection since it is you who does that. No its not worth answering because everyone knows the answer already. SOB F*ck your a laugh. There are only a few things you are know for (none of them are good) and one of them is saying "go away troll". Now you have the hide to say I'm projecting and that it is myself who does that?!?!?! That Brisbane water has some seriously good shlt in it doesn't it? Seen any unicorns riding rainbows lately? Did they have star trek uniforms on by any chance?

Seriously? You are that dim that you thought that was what i was saying? Perhaps you need to learn some comprehension skills.

What i was saying was that you are projecting (a psychological term meaning you think other ppl are doing what you yourself are doing) about the habit of engaging with ppl who are trolls. You always show up whenever i make a comment then for once i actually reply to you about something and you say im doing it. (I actually didnt realise it was you until to late). You are a troll.

Meanwhile arent you breaking some rules there with that thinly disguised swearing? Reported.

SOB

flip

SOB

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:08pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:56pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist.   Can you substantiate that claim? The actions of the audience is proof enough. When someone in the crowd gets up and attacks the two big parties and talks up the greens, then there wouldn't be a roar of applause by a crowd made up of mostly liberal and Labor voters. You wouldn't here such deafening boos when someone attack the greens. 10% is a minority. The cheering and booing is simply too loud for such a minority group. But all that is irrelevant to the real question. How do the ABC know how many are in the room? They make the claim, where is their proof?  I always assumed they gave the audience survey cards before the show.

You apply weeks before, and they email you the date you'll be attending.

I've been in the audience twice (and I didn't lie about what party I'd vote for).

http://www2b.abc.net.au/AudienceBooking/Client/AudienceRegistration.aspx

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:20pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:14pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:08pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:56pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist.   Can you substantiate that claim? The actions of the audience is proof enough. When someone in the crowd gets up and attacks the two big parties and talks up the greens, then there wouldn't be a roar of applause by a crowd made up of mostly liberal and Labor voters. You wouldn't here such deafening boos when someone attack the greens. 10% is a minority. The cheering and booing is simply too loud for such a minority group. But all that is irrelevant to the real question. How do the ABC know how many are in the room? They make the claim, where is their proof?  I always assumed they gave the audience survey cards before the show. Perhaps. But virtually every week the numbers are; Green 10% Liberal 45% Labor 35% give or take a percent or two. It is simply too consistent each week for it to be a random sample of the public. There should be weeks of 1% greens or even 50% greens if it was just a random 150 or so people walking through the door. For it to be almost the same numbers each week suggest filtering who gets in for the week. If they do indeed filter who gets in, then no doubt many will lie to make up the numbers. There's nothing random about it. Audience members have to register in order to get in. As part of the registration, they're asked what party they would vote for. It's no accident that the percentages are always pretty much the same. http://www2b.abc.net.au/AudienceBooking/Client/AudienceRegistration.aspx ::)

So there is a limit on how many greens can get in the door. About 10%. Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? It would seem logical on a show that has such a focus on Green issues, and has such limited seat space for Green voters, that many Green supporters would lie so as to enter.

There seemed to be adifference in the Pell v Dawkins show. A shitload of Christians from what I remember

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:33pm:

Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth?

They don't.

Do you?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:23pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:59pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:40pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:17pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:04pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:27pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:10am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:46am: Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10% The number don't make sense. It is too consistent every single week. There has to be more to it. The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show. if they didnt regulate it would you scream bias? No. Regulating it is useless if it only creates a false statistic. During the little spat between the Greens and Labor last year there was a few occasions when the greeny ripped into both Labor and Liberal. The crowd erupted in applause. No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist. My issue of bias comes from the fact that the last two years the show has essentially rotated around three topics; Refugees, Gay marriage, and Climate Change. No matter what the focus that night is supposed to be it always comes back to those three topics. Funnily enough it the three things the greens never shut up on. Now it is not that those three issues are not relevant to either Liberal or Labor, but there are more to those two parties, as well as more things of importance in Australia than those three issues. That is where the bias is. Not so much the people on the show, but the issues that are continuously addressed as if that is all that really matters. The way the crowd responds to those three issues is also out of touch with the temperature of the wider community. If that was all that matters Milne would be PM right now and Brown before her. Clearly most people think there is more to Australia and Government than supporting these three areas. But you wouldn't know that by the boos and cheers from the crowd on Q&A.   So nobody should applaud if they are on the other side of politics? Is that what you are saying? Perhaps it just sounded like it anyway. to you. SOB You seem to have a habit of engaging with people who are - according to you - just "trolls". Is it worth me answering that question, or will you just reply with "go away troll" when you are once again shown to be wrong?  That is obviously a projection since it is you who does that. No its not worth answering because everyone knows the answer already. SOB F*ck your a laugh. There are only a few things you are know for (none of them are good) and one of them is saying "go away troll". Now you have the hide to say I'm projecting and that it is myself who does that?!?!?! That Brisbane water has some seriously good shlt in it doesn't it? Seen any unicorns riding rainbows lately? Did they have star trek uniforms on by any chance? Seriously? You are that dim that you thought that was what i was saying? Perhaps you need to learn some comprehension skills. What i was saying was that you are projecting (a psychological term meaning you think other ppl are doing what you yourself are doing) about the habit of engaging with ppl who are trolls. You always show up whenever i make a comment then for once i actually reply to you about something and you say im doing it. (I actually didnt realise it was you until to late). You are a troll. Meanwhile arent you breaking some rules there with that thinly disguised swearing? Reported. SOB

Worse excuse yet. You have outdone yourself once again. But I did like this part;

"Perhaps you need to learn some comprehension skills."

followed by;

"I actually didnt realise it was you until to late"

You can't even read a name and you want to lecture others on reading skills...

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 12:56pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:27pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:10am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:46am: Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10% The number don't make sense. It is too consistent every single week. There has to be more to it. The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show. if they didnt regulate it would you scream bias? No. Regulating it is useless if it only creates a false statistic. During the little spat between the Greens and Labor last year there was a few occasions when the greeny ripped into both Labor and Liberal. The crowd erupted in applause. No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist. My issue of bias comes from the fact that the last two years the show has essentially rotated around three topics; Refugees, Gay marriage, and Climate Change. No matter what the focus that night is supposed to be it always comes back to those three topics. Funnily enough it the three things the greens never shut up on. Now it is not that those three issues are not relevant to either Liberal or Labor, but there are more to those two parties, as well as more things of importance in Australia than those three issues. That is where the bias is. Not so much the people on the show, but the issues that are continuously addressed as if that is all that really matters. The way the crowd responds to those three issues is also out of touch with the temperature of the wider community. If that was all that matters Milne would be PM right now and Brown before her. Clearly most people think there is more to Australia and Government than supporting these three areas. But you wouldn't know that by the boos and cheers from the crowd on Q&A.

maybe liberal and labor voters disagreed with their own parties stance on whatever issue they were talking about  ... not another one like Matty. I can be a labor voter without having to agree to every single thing they say or do ...

the fact is some of the things they do or say I don't agree with. Does that mean I'm suddenly a liberal voter? Not a chance, because as much as I disagree on a few things with labor, I disagree on a lot more things with the libs.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:37pm:

There seemed to be adifference in the Pell v Dawkins show. A shitload of Christians from what I remember

I don't know what religion the audience members were.

"Audience: ALP 31%, Coalition 47%, Greens 13%"

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:38pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:33pm: Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? They don't. Do you?

Stop with the stupid games. I already said that the actions of the crowd does not fit the numbers. If you now admit that the ABC don't know the actual numbers, then quoting them as a fact is waste of time. The ABC do not know if there are only 10% greens in the crowd, so their numbers are not proof that that is all that is there. 

Why do you actually think that this type of debating is constructive? It is just circles for no reason.

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:38pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:33pm: Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? They don't. Do you? Stop with the stupid games. I already said that the actions of the crowd does not fit the numbers. If you now admit that the ABC don't know the actual numbers, then quoting them as a fact is waste of time. The ABC do not know if there are only 10% greens in the crowd, so their numbers are not proof that that is all that is there.  Why do you actually think that this type of debating is constructive? It is just circles for no reason.

because all you are doing is saying they are lying ... anyone can say that about anyone who makes a claim they disagree with, it do you think this type of debating is constructive?

John Smith wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:43pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:27pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 11:10am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 10:46am: Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10% The number don't make sense. It is too consistent every single week. There has to be more to it. The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show. if they didnt regulate it would you scream bias? No. Regulating it is useless if it only creates a false statistic. During the little spat between the Greens and Labor last year there was a few occasions when the greeny ripped into both Labor and Liberal. The crowd erupted in applause. No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist. My issue of bias comes from the fact that the last two years the show has essentially rotated around three topics; Refugees, Gay marriage, and Climate Change. No matter what the focus that night is supposed to be it always comes back to those three topics. Funnily enough it the three things the greens never shut up on. Now it is not that those three issues are not relevant to either Liberal or Labor, but there are more to those two parties, as well as more things of importance in Australia than those three issues. That is where the bias is. Not so much the people on the show, but the issues that are continuously addressed as if that is all that really matters. The way the crowd responds to those three issues is also out of touch with the temperature of the wider community. If that was all that matters Milne would be PM right now and Brown before her. Clearly most people think there is more to Australia and Government than supporting these three areas. But you wouldn't know that by the boos and cheers from the crowd on Q&A.   maybe liberal and labor voters disagreed with their own parties stance on whatever issue they were talking about  ... not another one like Matty. I can be a labor voter without having to agree to every single thing they say or do ... the fact is some of the things they do or say I don't agree with. Does that mean I'm suddenly a liberal voter? Not a chance, because as much as I disagree on a few things with labor, I disagree on a lot more things with the libs.

Of course many will disagree with their own party on one thing or another. But I cannot imagine a Labor or Liberal voter cheering like a school girl when a green member gets up and says that the two big parties are no good and you should vote for the greens. So when stuff like that happens Q&A, why does the entire bloody studio shake with applause when there are only 10% greens in the building? It is fairly clear by the crowds behaviour that the numbers mean shlt.   

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:38pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:33pm: Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? They don't. Do you? Stop with the stupid games. I already said that the actions of the crowd does not fit the numbers. If you now admit that the ABC don't know the actual numbers, then quoting them as a fact is waste of time. The ABC do not know if there are only 10% greens in the crowd, so their numbers are not proof that that is all that is there.

Quantum: "The actions of the audience is proof enough."

Such as the act of filling in the online registration form?

Or, only the actions that support your argument?

John Smith wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:48pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:38pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:33pm: Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? They don't. Do you? Stop with the stupid games. I already said that the actions of the crowd does not fit the numbers. If you now admit that the ABC don't know the actual numbers, then quoting them as a fact is waste of time. The ABC do not know if there are only 10% greens in the crowd, so their numbers are not proof that that is all that is there.  Why do you actually think that this type of debating is constructive? It is just circles for no reason. because all you are doing is saying they are lying ... anyone can say that about anyone who makes a claim they disagree with, it do you think this type of debating is constructive?

Who am I saying is lying?

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:50pm:

Of course many will disagree with their own party on one thing or another. But I cannot imagine a Labor or Liberal voter cheering like a school girl when a green member gets up and says that the two big parties are no good and you should vote for the greens. So when stuff like that happens Q&A, why does the entire bloody studio shake with applause when there are only 10% greens in the building? It is fairly clear by the crowds behaviour that the numbers mean shlt

no, was is clear is that your interpretation (and thats all it is) of the audiences behaviour means sh1t .. I watched almost every episode of Q&A and I've never seen anyone 'cheering like a school girl' ...

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:48pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:38pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:33pm: Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? They don't. Do you? Stop with the stupid games. I already said that the actions of the crowd does not fit the numbers. If you now admit that the ABC don't know the actual numbers, then quoting them as a fact is waste of time. The ABC do not know if there are only 10% greens in the crowd, so their numbers are not proof that that is all that is there.  Why do you actually think that this type of debating is constructive? It is just circles for no reason. because all you are doing is saying they are lying ... anyone can say that about anyone who makes a claim they disagree with, it do you think this type of debating is constructive? Who am I saying is lying?

Some of the people who ticked 'ALP' or 'Coalition' on the online registration form.

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:33pm:

So there is a limit on how many greens can get in the door. About 10%. Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? It would seem logical on a show that has such a focus on Green issues, and has such limited seat space for Green voters, that many Green supporters would lie so as to enter.

You fill out the questionnaire and then get invited to a program. You may have noticed that the Greens get about 8% of the vote, there are not as many of them.

matty wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:57pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:49pm: Skewed to the right  :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D To believe that, one would have to be an Uber Communist. The left always outnumber the Right on Q&A and then you have the LW stalwart of a compere. The Insiders have much the same problem 2L, 1R...  and LW Barrie...  not to mention the LW cartoonists etc. Very true. Sometimes they even have three leftists and no conservatives. This sunday just gone was actually okay, they had a conservative, a lefty and I think a centrist on, so very balance. That is very much the exception, however.

Usually because Akerman goes on and makes a fool of all conservatives.

John Smith wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 10:28pm:

How do you figure that Ray Martin And Achmal are lefties? Or do you simply categorise anyone that criticises Abbott as being a lefty?

Bingo - we have a winner.

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

Who am I saying is lying?

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:33pm:

So there is a limit on how many greens can get in the door. About 10%. Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? It would seem logical on a show that has such a focus on Green issues, and has such limited seat space for Green voters, that many Green supporters would lie so as to enter.

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:14pm:

If they do indeed filter who gets in, then no doubt many will lie to make up the numbers.

it appears you are accusing anyone and everyone

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 8:59pm:

If they had more than 2 nutjobs at a time the show would become an unbearable screeching rubble.

Four leftists against two conservatives?

What a show of cowardice on the part of the leftists.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:52pm:

But Tony comes from the extreme pack of dogs.  His views on women, the vulnerable, non-standard families, it's all very much chunder worthy.

Yes, but he is a grown-up, you have to admit that.

And thank heavens for that.

olde.sault wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:59pm: If they had more than 2 nutjobs at a time the show would become an unbearable screeching rubble. Four leftists against two conservatives? What a show of cowardice on the part of the leftists.

Perhaps old spice, you can help Matty as he couldn't provide an answer after he made a comment similar to yours,

how do you know Salam and Ray Martin are lefties?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 1:51pm:

matty wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: In addition, the audience was yet again stacked with lefties. "Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10%" http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3898590.htm

The coalition backers in the audience must have been mutes.

John Smith wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Who am I saying is lying? Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:33pm: So there is a limit on how many greens can get in the door. About 10%. Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? It would seem logical on a show that has such a focus on Green issues, and has such limited seat space for Green voters, that many Green supporters would lie so as to enter. Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:14pm: If they do indeed filter who gets in, then no doubt many will lie to make up the numbers. it appears you are accusing anyone and everyone

I was just making sure that you weren't accusing me of saying that the ABC is lying. I don't  question that the statistics are real, I question that the statistics (That people like pecca quote as proof of something) are accurate. If you want to believe those stats are exact and that no one lies so as to get in then go ahead. Believe it all you want. 

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:20pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:14pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:08pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 1:56pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 12:56pm: No way was there only 10% greens in the room. It would be better to say nothing about political affiliation, but if they must have a count, then let it be what ever is. If there are 50% greens voters in the room, so be it. Better that then only allow 10% in and have the other 40% pretending to be Labor or Liberal voters just to get in the door. It is just a façade of political balance in the crowd where none exist.   Can you substantiate that claim? The actions of the audience is proof enough. When someone in the crowd gets up and attacks the two big parties and talks up the greens, then there wouldn't be a roar of applause by a crowd made up of mostly liberal and Labor voters. You wouldn't here such deafening boos when someone attack the greens. 10% is a minority. The cheering and booing is simply too loud for such a minority group. But all that is irrelevant to the real question. How do the ABC know how many are in the room? They make the claim, where is their proof?  I always assumed they gave the audience survey cards before the show. Perhaps. But virtually every week the numbers are; Green 10% Liberal 45% Labor 35% give or take a percent or two. It is simply too consistent each week for it to be a random sample of the public. There should be weeks of 1% greens or even 50% greens if it was just a random 150 or so people walking through the door. For it to be almost the same numbers each week suggest filtering who gets in for the week. If they do indeed filter who gets in, then no doubt many will lie to make up the numbers. There's nothing random about it. Audience members have to register in order to get in. As part of the registration, they're asked what party they would vote for. It's no accident that the percentages are always pretty much the same. http://www2b.abc.net.au/AudienceBooking/Client/AudienceRegistration.aspx ::) So there is a limit on how many greens can get in the door. About 10%. Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? It would seem logical on a show that has such a focus on Green issues, and has such limited seat space for Green voters, that many Green supporters would lie so as to enter.

Lying comes naturally to the Greens and the ALP.

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:58pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Who am I saying is lying? Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:33pm: So there is a limit on how many greens can get in the door. About 10%. Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? It would seem logical on a show that has such a focus on Green issues, and has such limited seat space for Green voters, that many Green supporters would lie so as to enter. Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:14pm: If they do indeed filter who gets in, then no doubt many will lie to make up the numbers. it appears you are accusing anyone and everyone I was just making sure that you weren't accusing me of saying that the ABC is lying. I don't  question that the statistics are real, I question that the statistics (That people like pecca quote as proof of something) are accurate. If you want to believe those stats are exact and that no one lies so as to get in then go ahead. Believe it all you want.

sure you were !!!!  ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:38pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:33pm: Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? They don't. Do you?

DO You?
Short answer...  no.  ;D ;D ;D
But I do know that university students from the Socialist Alliance and Resistance, lie about their politics to get in, as explained by their leader at Sydney Uni and that this is part of the national strategy for political involvement.


Quote:

The Socialist Alliance is a radical far Left party in Australia which engages in grassroots activism and electoral politics. With branches in all states and territories, and electoral registration federally and in a number of states, it claims to be the largest group on the Australian far Left.

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:58pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Who am I saying is lying? Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:33pm: So there is a limit on how many greens can get in the door. About 10%. Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? It would seem logical on a show that has such a focus on Green issues, and has such limited seat space for Green voters, that many Green supporters would lie so as to enter. Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:14pm: If they do indeed filter who gets in, then no doubt many will lie to make up the numbers. it appears you are accusing anyone and everyone I was just making sure that you weren't accusing me of saying that the ABC is lying. I don't  question that the statistics are real, I question that the statistics (That people like pecca quote as proof of something) are accurate. If you want to believe those stats are exact and that no one lies so as to get in then go ahead. Believe it all you want.

I didn't say the stats were proof.

You're the one who seems to think you have proof: "The actions of the audience is proof enough."

I merely posted the numbers, and asked you to substantiate your claim that some of the people were telling lies (which you still haven't managed to do).

John Smith wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:04pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:02pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:58pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Who am I saying is lying? Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:33pm: So there is a limit on how many greens can get in the door. About 10%. Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? It would seem logical on a show that has such a focus on Green issues, and has such limited seat space for Green voters, that many Green supporters would lie so as to enter. Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:14pm: If they do indeed filter who gets in, then no doubt many will lie to make up the numbers. it appears you are accusing anyone and everyone I was just making sure that you weren't accusing me of saying that the ABC is lying. I don't  question that the statistics are real, I question that the statistics (That people like pecca quote as proof of something) are accurate. If you want to believe those stats are exact and that no one lies so as to get in then go ahead. Believe it all you want.  sure you were !!!!  ;D ;D

:-? Yeah, I was.

My argument has been that from the start. This is what I originally said that you took issue with;

"The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show."

I do agree that Q & A can sometimes be a bit biased to the left, I didn't see it last night at all. Goldie and Plibersek are obviously of the left, and Joyce and Cater are clearly of the right. Saleh and Martin weren't obvious at all though, and I wouldn't have any idea which way they vote. The audience was very balanced too, they showed the stats at the start of the show. Some of the Lib fanboys on here are so unbelievably extreme right that they think anyone to the right of them is a lefty.

F

U

C

Grendel wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:38pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:33pm: Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? They don't. Do you? DO You? Short answer...  no.

That's correct.

I haven't said, at any time, that the audience members were telling the truth (except for me, that is).

Glad to see you're paying attention.

Hsia

I was watching Q&A the other night and they were talking about journalistic responsibility when reporting sensitive issues. This little inner city graffiti artist sticks his hand up and proceeds to tell the world that he just got his degree in journalism and he would absolutely do the Indonesian spying story if he had the chance. Barnaby Joyce replied-  well if you had the chance to do a similar  story on a person in your street would you do it. He replied- why not? Barnaby Joyce replied- well you might get your house firebombed!! Was that a stupid reply or not. Think about it.

Sparky wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:

I was watching Q&A the other night and they were talking about journalistic responsibility when reporting sensitive issues. This little inner city graffiti artist sticks his hand up and proceeds to tell the world that he just got his degree in journalism and he would absolutely do the Indonesian spying story if he had the chance. Barnaby Joyce replied-  well if you had the chance to do a similar  story on a person in your street would you do it. He replied- why not? Barnaby Joyce replied- well you might get your house firebombed!! Was that a stupid reply or not. Think about it.

Joyce clearly is out of his depth when attempting to respond off-the-cuff to questions.  If you watch the show he was struggling nearly every time a question was directed to him.

Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:36pm:

Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:25pm: I was watching Q&A the other night and they were talking about journalistic responsibility when reporting sensitive issues. This little inner city graffiti artist sticks his hand up and proceeds to tell the world that he just got his degree in journalism and he would absolutely do the Indonesian spying story if he had the chance. Barnaby Joyce replied-  well if you had the chance to do a similar  story on a person in your street would you do it. He replied- why not? Barnaby Joyce replied- well you might get your house firebombed!! Was that a stupid reply or not. Think about it. Joyce clearly is out of his depth when attempting to respond off-the-cuff to questions.  If you watch the show he was struggling nearly every time a question was directed to him.

He had a room full of lefties hanging on his every word , talking over him and mocking his replies. It's a wonder he did as well as he did. The 2 female do-gooders on either side of him were waffling idiots. The muslim must of punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense.

Sparky wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:43pm:

Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:36pm: Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:25pm: I was watching Q&A the other night and they were talking about journalistic responsibility when reporting sensitive issues. This little inner city graffiti artist sticks his hand up and proceeds to tell the world that he just got his degree in journalism and he would absolutely do the Indonesian spying story if he had the chance. Barnaby Joyce replied-  well if you had the chance to do a similar  story on a person in your street would you do it. He replied- why not? Barnaby Joyce replied- well you might get your house firebombed!! Was that a stupid reply or not. Think about it. Joyce clearly is out of his depth when attempting to respond off-the-cuff to questions.  If you watch the show he was struggling nearly every time a question was directed to him. He had a room full of lefties hanging on his every word , talking over him and mocking his replies. It's a wonder he did as well as he did. The 2 female do-gooders on either side of him were waffling idiots. The muslim must of punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense.

Yes a room with 45% lefties. Damn those 45% lefties.

Isn't it time the extreme loonies on this forum realised that just because people don't agree wiht the view of the world as told to them by Tony, Baranadi, etc, it does not mean that they aren't right-wing.

Centre-Right is the traditional right in this country. Hence it would be no surprises that the vast majority of the audience in Q&A would still give a crap about the environment, education, health, asylum seekers etc.  Because, unlike the loony fringe represented by the matty's of this world, centre-right isn't that far off from centre-left.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:54pm:

Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:43pm: Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:36pm: Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:25pm: I was watching Q&A the other night and they were talking about journalistic responsibility when reporting sensitive issues. This little inner city graffiti artist sticks his hand up and proceeds to tell the world that he just got his degree in journalism and he would absolutely do the Indonesian spying story if he had the chance. Barnaby Joyce replied-  well if you had the chance to do a similar  story on a person in your street would you do it. He replied- why not? Barnaby Joyce replied- well you might get your house firebombed!! Was that a stupid reply or not. Think about it. Joyce clearly is out of his depth when attempting to respond off-the-cuff to questions.  If you watch the show he was struggling nearly every time a question was directed to him. He had a room full of lefties hanging on his every word , talking over him and mocking his replies. It's a wonder he did as well as he did. The 2 female do-gooders on either side of him were waffling idiots. The muslim must of punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense. Yes a room with 45% lefties. Damn those 45% lefties.

45%  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Try a 100%. The ABC always stack their audiences.

Sparky wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:43pm:

Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:36pm: Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:25pm: I was watching Q&A the other night and they were talking about journalistic responsibility when reporting sensitive issues. This little inner city graffiti artist sticks his hand up and proceeds to tell the world that he just got his degree in journalism and he would absolutely do the Indonesian spying story if he had the chance. Barnaby Joyce replied-  well if you had the chance to do a similar  story on a person in your street would you do it. He replied- why not? Barnaby Joyce replied- well you might get your house firebombed!! Was that a stupid reply or not. Think about it. Joyce clearly is out of his depth when attempting to respond off-the-cuff to questions.  If you watch the show he was struggling nearly every time a question was directed to him. He had a room full of lefties hanging on his every word , talking over him and mocking his replies. It's a wonder he did as well as he did. The 2 female do-gooders on either side of him were waffling idiots. The muslim must of punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense.

I agree Joyce's replies were mocked - they deserved to be.
The muslim 'comedian' was a total waste of space, fortunately he didn't get much opportunity to speak.
Tanya seemed to talk a lot but say very little.
Not sure that Cassandra understood the questions.

The 'real debates' really came from Ray Martin and Nick Cater and their contributions made the show worth watching

Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:57pm:

Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:43pm: Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:36pm: Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:25pm: I was watching Q&A the other night and they were talking about journalistic responsibility when reporting sensitive issues. This little inner city graffiti artist sticks his hand up and proceeds to tell the world that he just got his degree in journalism and he would absolutely do the Indonesian spying story if he had the chance. Barnaby Joyce replied-  well if you had the chance to do a similar  story on a person in your street would you do it. He replied- why not? Barnaby Joyce replied- well you might get your house firebombed!! Was that a stupid reply or not. Think about it. Joyce clearly is out of his depth when attempting to respond off-the-cuff to questions.  If you watch the show he was struggling nearly every time a question was directed to him. He had a room full of lefties hanging on his every word , talking over him and mocking his replies. It's a wonder he did as well as he did. The 2 female do-gooders on either side of him were waffling idiots. The muslim must of punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense. I agree Joyce's replies were mocked - they deserved to be. The muslim 'comedian' was a total waste of space, fortunately he didn't get much opportunity to speak. Tanya seemed to talk a lot but say very little. Not sure that Cassandra understood the questions. The 'real debates' really came from Ray Martin and Nick Cater and their contributions made the show worth watching

Nick Cater was interesting.

Sparky wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:43pm:

The muslim must of have punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense.

Who was the muslim?

And what religion were the other panelists?

Sparky wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:56pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:54pm: Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:43pm: Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:36pm: Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:25pm: I was watching Q&A the other night and they were talking about journalistic responsibility when reporting sensitive issues. This little inner city graffiti artist sticks his hand up and proceeds to tell the world that he just got his degree in journalism and he would absolutely do the Indonesian spying story if he had the chance. Barnaby Joyce replied-  well if you had the chance to do a similar  story on a person in your street would you do it. He replied- why not? Barnaby Joyce replied- well you might get your house firebombed!! Was that a stupid reply or not. Think about it. Joyce clearly is out of his depth when attempting to respond off-the-cuff to questions.  If you watch the show he was struggling nearly every time a question was directed to him. He had a room full of lefties hanging on his every word , talking over him and mocking his replies. It's a wonder he did as well as he did. The 2 female do-gooders on either side of him were waffling idiots. The muslim must of punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense. Yes a room with 45% lefties. Damn those 45% lefties. 45%  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Try a 100%. The ABC always stack their audiences.

Can you substantiate that claim?

"Audience: ALP 36%, Coalition 46%, Greens 10%"

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3898590.htm

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 4:04pm:

Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:43pm: The muslim must of have punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense. Who was the muslim? And what religion were the other panelists?

Akmal Saleh

He is Egyptian and a coptic.

Quantum wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:12pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:02pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:58pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Who am I saying is lying? Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:33pm: So there is a limit on how many greens can get in the door. About 10%. Now how does the ABC know who is telling the truth? It would seem logical on a show that has such a focus on Green issues, and has such limited seat space for Green voters, that many Green supporters would lie so as to enter. Quantum wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:14pm: If they do indeed filter who gets in, then no doubt many will lie to make up the numbers. it appears you are accusing anyone and everyone I was just making sure that you weren't accusing me of saying that the ABC is lying. I don't  question that the statistics are real, I question that the statistics (That people like pecca quote as proof of something) are accurate. If you want to believe those stats are exact and that no one lies so as to get in then go ahead. Believe it all you want.  sure you were !!!!  ;D ;D :-? Yeah, I was. My argument has been that from the start. This is what I originally said that you took issue with; "The ABC must regulate the audience to keep those proportions. It would not be possible to get a random group of about 150 people each week and to always get about the same percentage. If they do regulate it, then something is still up, because the response of the audience doesn't fit the make up of it claimed by the ABC. Either the numbers don't include guests (not those on the panel, but those invited by those on the panel who may make up a considerable number in the room) or people are just lying about their affiliation to get on the show."

I didn't actually agree nor disagree with your statement, I just pointed out that if they didn't regulate it, you would have more screams of bias.

I think on many of those type of questionaires people would simply answer according to how they voted at the last election, and not because of any particular ideology. Many who voted liberal last time would have answers lib, with very little prospect of them voting liberal at the next election

*

Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 4:05pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:04pm: Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:43pm: The muslim must of have punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense. Who was the muslim? And what religion were the other panelists? Akmal Saleh

This Akmal Saleh?

" ... grew up in a "very right-wing fundamentalist Christian family", which he says contributed to his sense of humour."

"Searching for something meaningful in his life, Saleh became very religious and joined the Coptic Orthodox Christian church."

"Saleh now describes himself as an agnostic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akmal_Saleh

What religion were the other panelists?  Can you tell by just looking? 

Aussie wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 4:08pm:

*

!!

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 4:09pm:

Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:04pm: Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:43pm: The muslim must of have punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense. Who was the muslim? And what religion were the other panelists? Akmal Saleh This Akmal Saleh? " ... grew up in a "very right-wing fundamentalist Christian family", which he says contributed to his sense of humour." "Searching for something meaningful in his life, Saleh became very religious and joined the Coptic Orthodox Christian church." "Saleh now describes himself as an agnostic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akmal_Saleh What religion were the other panelists?  Can you tell by just looking?

The 2 women definitely worship the hairy cheque book and business shoulder pads. Most of the crowd worship graffiti artists, trance music, sniffing paint and the chocolate starfish. They're your sort of people peckery.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 4:09pm:

Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:04pm: Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:43pm: The muslim must of have punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense. Who was the muslim? And what religion were the other panelists? Akmal Saleh This Akmal Saleh? " ... grew up in a "very right-wing fundamentalist Christian family", which he says contributed to his sense of humour." "Searching for something meaningful in his life, Saleh became very religious and joined the Coptic Orthodox Christian church." "Saleh now describes himself as an agnostic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akmal_Saleh What religion were the other panelists?  Can you tell by just looking?

Ouch.  I did not know about the 'agnostic bit.' 

:-[

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 4:09pm:

Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:04pm: Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:43pm: The muslim must of have punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense. Who was the muslim? And what religion were the other panelists? Akmal Saleh This Akmal Saleh? " ... grew up in a "very right-wing fundamentalist Christian family", which he says contributed to his sense of humour." "Searching for something meaningful in his life, Saleh became very religious and joined the Coptic Orthodox Christian church." "Saleh now describes himself as an agnostic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akmal_Saleh What religion were the other panelists?  Can you tell by just looking?

Sorry about the way that appeared Greg - I was lazy to check.

I assume Sparky said Muslim because he didn't recall his name - and I didn't bother checking - but i did know who he meant using that 'identity'. 

My bad.  :(

Nah, Sparky's bad.

Sparky wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 4:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:09pm: Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:04pm: Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:43pm: The muslim must of have punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense. Who was the muslim? And what religion were the other panelists? Akmal Saleh This Akmal Saleh? " ... grew up in a "very right-wing fundamentalist Christian family", which he says contributed to his sense of humour." "Searching for something meaningful in his life, Saleh became very religious and joined the Coptic Orthodox Christian church." "Saleh now describes himself as an agnostic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akmal_Saleh What religion were the other panelists?  Can you tell by just looking?  The 2 women definitely worship the hairy cheque book and business shoulder pads. Most of the crowd worship graffiti artists, trance music, sniffing paint and the chocolate starfish. They're your sort of people peckery.

did you get that information from the same source that told you Akmal Saleh was muslim?

And that bloke with the cowboy shirt and bad haircut that brought forth the idea of printing tonnes of money to get out of our debt made the muslim look like Einstein.

Sparky wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 4:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:09pm: Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:04pm: Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:43pm: The muslim must of have punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense. Who was the muslim? And what religion were the other panelists? Akmal Saleh This Akmal Saleh? " ... grew up in a "very right-wing fundamentalist Christian family", which he says contributed to his sense of humour." "Searching for something meaningful in his life, Saleh became very religious and joined the Coptic Orthodox Christian church." "Saleh now describes himself as an agnostic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akmal_Saleh What religion were the other panelists?  Can you tell by just looking?  The 2 women definitely worship the hairy cheque book and business shoulder pads. Most of the crowd worship graffiti artists, trance music, sniffing paint and the chocolate starfish. They're your sort of people peckery.

Disagree with your assess of the crowd Sparky.  With the exception of one major idiot, the quality of the questions was very high.

Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 4:22pm:

Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:15pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:09pm: Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:04pm: Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:43pm: The muslim must of have punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense. Who was the muslim? And what religion were the other panelists? Akmal Saleh This Akmal Saleh? " ... grew up in a "very right-wing fundamentalist Christian family", which he says contributed to his sense of humour." "Searching for something meaningful in his life, Saleh became very religious and joined the Coptic Orthodox Christian church." "Saleh now describes himself as an agnostic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akmal_Saleh What religion were the other panelists?  Can you tell by just looking?  The 2 women definitely worship the hairy cheque book and business shoulder pads. Most of the crowd worship graffiti artists, trance music, sniffing paint and the chocolate starfish. They're your sort of people peckery. Disagree with your assess of the crowd Sparky.  With the exception of one major idiot, the quality of the questions was very high.

Except for the kid that went through all the hard work of getting a journalism degree and didn't understand the basic idea behind actions have consequences.

Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 4:22pm:

Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:15pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:09pm: Cliff48 wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 4:04pm: Sparky wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:43pm: The muslim must of have punched a couple of cones before the show because he didn't make any sense. Who was the muslim? And what religion were the other panelists? Akmal Saleh This Akmal Saleh? " ... grew up in a "very right-wing fundamentalist Christian family", which he says contributed to his sense of humour." "Searching for something meaningful in his life, Saleh became very religious and joined the Coptic Orthodox Christian church." "Saleh now describes himself as an agnostic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akmal_Saleh What religion were the other panelists?  Can you tell by just looking?  The 2 women definitely worship the hairy cheque book and business shoulder pads. Most of the crowd worship graffiti artists, trance music, sniffing paint and the chocolate starfish. They're your sort of people peckery. Disagree with your assess of the crowd Sparky.  With the exception of one major idiot, the quality of the questions was very high.

Sparky struggled to understand the questions and so writes them off.