Liberal MP says any old sh*t about the Greens; ABC reports it credulously

ABC news ticker running under tonight’s frankly infuriating Howard episode of Q&A: “Liberal MP says terrorists would laugh at Brown’s soft touch”.

Really? Who? Oh, it’s that idiot Randall bloke who’s been busy embarrassing his party this week. Nice of the ABC to give his fatuous rant headline cover. Wonder what it’s based on:

Liberal backbencher Don Randall used the quote “evil prospers when good men do nothing” to have a chip at the Greens who he says would have Australia be a “soft touch”. “I find the Greens’ policy on this issue very, very concerning,” he said.

“Did you know that the Greens believe we shouldn’t be involved in any conflict but we should have good-faith negotiations instead of a military solution?

Well, no, I didn’t know that. Because it’s not true. Did Mr Randall not watch Bandt’s speech on the subject?

Randall is just outright lying. Apparently the Coalition can’t attack the Greens on what they’ve actually said, and have to invent a position for them based on the empty stereotypes they’re trying to sell to their more credulous supporters.

Having spouted it, of course, Randall then got stuck into the shamelessly fictional construction he assumes gullible Liberal voters at least will believe:

Can you imagine the terrorists just laughing their heads off about the fact we might want to sit down and have a good-faith negotiation – them with a Kalashnikov [AK-47] in one hand and us with an olive branch in the other. It just doesn’t happen that way.”

You know what I heard? That Bob Brown wants to toast marshmallows with the terrorists, and give them back rubs.

I know! Insane! And I can make up a whole lot more stupid claims about the Greens that I can then attack, too!

The bit that bothers me most about this is not that Randall is once again mouthing off like a crazy person. It’s that once again the ABC just repeats any old crap that the Coalition puts out there, any deliberately provocative if frankly absurd claim that their imaginations can concoct, and gives it a prominent airing to persuade those to whom that propaganda is aimed.

Is there any line the Liberals could come up with that the ABC wouldn’t give a good run on their behalf?

About these ads

35 responses to “Liberal MP says any old sh*t about the Greens; ABC reports it credulously

  1. Hard to blame the Tories for using this tactic and assuming the media will run it. They’ve been spouting this bullshit about being fiscal conservatives for years, despite spending like drunken sailors in their last term.

  2. It’s not so much that they publish any old shit the Coalition says, it’s that they highlight the shit at the expense of the sensible, because it’s sexier. It’s no wonder the Right is agitating for the abolition (or privatisation, which is the same thing) of the ABC when it behaves no differently from the commercials.

  3. So now even the ABC is acting as a stenographer for the powerful: a magnifier not of the truth, but of the most ‘newsworthy’ message of the day.

    It was only a matter of time – the abject corruption of journalism as a profession has been going on for far too long for the disease not to have spread to the ABC.

  4. What was so infuriating about Q&A Jeremy? I’ve never been a Lib voter and would describe myself as leaning left of the fence but I thought Howard presented himself with dignity and intelligence.

    He made the shoe thrower look like a fucking fool and I’m not sure what that idiot hoped to achieve. Did he think Howard would engage him in a reasoned and sensible dialogue after he flung a shoe at him?

  5. “It’s no wonder the Right is agitating for the abolition (or privatisation, which is the same thing) of the ABC when it behaves no differently from the commercials.”

    Actually, I suspect their enthusiasm for destroying the ABC will be somewhat reduced now that it’s such a handy outlet for getting their propaganda into the homes of those who wouldn’t pick up a News Ltd publication if a gun was held to their head.

    PJH – of course the shoe thrower looked like a fucking fool. He was. And he gave Howard cover for the rest of the crap he was spouting.

    Next post is on Q&A though.

  6. Splatterbottom

    Obviously the ABC thought the comments were so ridiculous that publishing them was in line with their charter to use public funds to further the leftist agenda. Interestingly the thin-skinned response from the Greens machine indicates they were a little too close to the bone.

  7. That doesn’t make any sense at all, SB. Why wouldn’t the Greens object to an inaccurate and fatuous caricature of them that was getting more of a hearing in the media than the reality?

  8. Splatterbottom

    I thought maybe the Greens would be happy that the ABC is publicising the fact that this guy made a complete goose of himself. The best tactic to discredit Pauline Hanson was to give her airtime – she did the rest.

  9. SB bludging again.

  10. Splatterbottom

    I understand the bit where Jeremy defends the Greens, although I don’t think anyone would take Randall seriously. But I don’t get Jeremy’s attack on the ABC. I don’t think they were giving credence to Randall’s remarks. It seems that reporting Randall’s lunacy was enough to discredit him.

  11. SB – I think that Lefty’s beef (and mine too) is with the apalling state of modern journalism and the idiotic “he said/she said” style of reporting that has now permeated even the ABC.

    How is the public ‘informed’ by a journalist simply writing down what a politician says and then broadcasting those comments to the public without any form of critical analysis? Shouldn’t the journalist, at the very least, make some sort of effort to determine whether the politicians claims are accurate/correct/based on reality?

    If journalists see themselves solely as stenographers whose role does not extend to actually investigating the validity of what they’re reporting then we might as well do away with them all together and just allow the politicians to feed their propoganda directly to the media distributors.

    Although, to be honest, that’s pretty much where we are these days anyway in relation to substantial political issues.

  12. That’s better SB. You’re trying.

  13. Splatterbottom

    Mondo, there is still a place in journalism for straight reportage. The article in question merely listed various opinions. It wasn’t selective, and any sane reader would just laugh at Randall’s comment. It certainly did not pose as an analysis of the various positions.

    An in-depth analysis may have looked more closely at the content of the claims of the various politicians, but there is also a place for short reports which just state what was said. There is also a place for opinion pieces, although if you look at the ABC’s Drum site you might think that only leftist opinions count.

  14. It is a given among any serious watcher of the media process, the A.B.C. has abandoned its brief to analyze and report the news in an independent spirit, and has turned into the Liberal party’s own media outlet..I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the journalists working for the A.B.C. are not on special for want of a better word ‘privileges’ reserved for the journalists working for the News corporation.

    As for nobody taking any notice of Randell, what a hoot.Yea right some body must be taking a lot of notice of him.Never before have I seen a politician put so much effort into getting re-elected.He is well known to the Green movement in W.A. he is considered dangerous.He is expected to say any thing, and doesn’t let anyone down.

  15. Splatterbottom

    Lynot, I don’t think your message about being a Liberal Party media outlet has gotten through to many journos at the ABC! Still I’ll remember your comment when I am listening to Alan Jones’ leftist doppelganger Philip Adams tonight.

  16. “Lynot, I don’t think your message about being a Liberal Party media outlet has gotten through to many journos at the ABC”

    I see you have a sense of humour S.B. so hope springs eternal.

    Philip Adams and Alan Jones in the same sentence?My God! However I will unlike many not insult your intelligence.Yes, Adams is a lefty to be sure, an intellectual lefty never the less.But unlike Jones et al, Adams doesn’t try to hide the fact of what/who he is.But how infuriating, Adams most of the time knows what he is talking about.A rare commodity indeed in these times of uncertainty.

  17. Splatterbottom

    Lynot, Adams is Alan Jones, just in a different clown suit, for a different audience. His congregation of unthinking Gladdies are all presumed to be fellow lefties, as he smugly whispers his pious platitudes to assure them that the old leftist verities are still intact, at least in the insular world that is LNL.

    If you look at the endless trail of like-minded guests he interviews it becomes clear that Adams is about as broad-minded as Sarah Palin, but not quite as bright. He is a sucker for the fake plastic turkey (that wasn’t actually plastic, but the real thing) and thinks himself a shining wit when referring to George Bush as ‘Shrub’. He fawns over disgusting geriatric commos that have no greater claim to virtue than sad old Nazis and the listener is positively soaked in his dribbling adulation when Adams chats with Bruce Shapiro in their weekly wank.

    Having said all that I still think Adams is well worth listening to. He does lengthy interviews rather than short grabs, and his gentle approach with his guests belies the research he has put into the interviews, while allowing him to hone in on the topical issues without bilious confrontation. It is thus an informative show for those interested in keeping up with current leftist memes and it is easy on the ear. For the critical listener it is a peaceful garden to explore, populated as it is by strangely mutated lifeforms, where these exquisite specimens flourish away from the disinfectant sunlight of the real world.

  18. S.B. Adams is nothing like Alan Jones.His congregation you happily describe as’ unthinking Gladdies’ is just a throw away line, it is not the reality, you saying it does not make it so.It is Adams and his ilk, who are bringing light into a world that is slowly sinking into the abyss of a tea party culture, that is spreading like the plague. I must however confess the enlightenment that intellectuals like Adams brings to the already converted, or not so converted, is getting less and less on the ground. The sad reality is, the electronic media is being taken over by an ever increasing coterie of un-educated dolts, who have all the insight of political discourse, and current affairs (in keeping with your mutated life forms) of your average garden worm.Being no doubt remunerated with a kings ransom to spread their gospel of swill.

    Comparing Adams to Sarah Palin, I will spare you what I think of that nonsense.

    Of course the real problem conservatives have with Adams is not that he is of the left.It is because he is a well read, educated intellectual lefty, who is more dangerous to them and their agenda, than a bus load of union heavies, commies, and other assorted left wing extremists.

  19. Oh, for fuck’s sake SB. That is the most confused piece of trolling tripe I’ve ever seen from you , and Jesus that’s saying something. Comparing Adams to Jones and Sarah Palin. “Like-minded guests”. “Weekly wank.” Disparaging a consistently interesting, intellectually curious and morally serious broadcaster like Adams with your cheap, cookie-cutter insults. You don’t listen often, do you?

    Once in a while you’re interesting. You have the capacity to be stimulating occasionally. The rest of the time you just make me wish you’d find a hole to crawl into, and die.

  20. Splatterbottom

    Lynot: “The sad reality is, the electronic media is being taken over by an ever increasing coterie of un-educated dolts, who have all the insight of political discourse, and current affairs (in keeping with your mutated life forms) of your average garden worm. Being no doubt remunerated with a kings ransom to spread their gospel of swill.”

    The fact is that the government funded electronic media has been colonised by leftists who see nothing immoral in using public funds for their partisan purposes. They are nothing more than corrupt buffoons. These moral pygmies are so deluded they probably don’t even think they are doing anything wrong when they appropriate public funds to pursue private agendas. Also, they seem to enjoy their petty celebrity, and the financial rewards that come with it. Our country squire Adams is not a poor man.

    Bloods, it was at least affectionate trolling. In fact it wasn’t trolling at all. I noted Adams’ good points and made some criticisms of him. I like Adams, and listen to him most nights, including the Friday night golden oldies broadcasts. Still I can see the similarities Adams shares with Jones – they are both intelligent and multi-talented, both are polarising figures and both cater to the prejudices of their respective audiences, albeit in different ways. Jones adopts a tone of moral outrage, whereas Adams projects a smug entre nous style with his Gladdies. Ultimately they are both cheerleaders for their respective constituencies, and conduct their shows accordingly.

    If, like Adams, you are going to characterise your opponents as stupid then falling for the ‘fake plastic turkey’ lie makes you look pretty stupid as well. It seems that believing your opponents are stupid is a common attitude among the left, whereas conservatives often characterise the left as deluded and morally vacant. This is reflected in the respective approaches of Jones and Adams to their audiences.

    Now, just to be clear, Adams is a uniquely talented broadcaster. He is intelligent, and makes the effort to be across the many issues he deals with. He is gentle in the way he directs the discussion when the guests begin to waffle, and the format of his show allows them time to develop their arguments. He generally affects a humble approach, but sometimes he can’t help himself. All in all I don’t see how a thinking lefty could not be at least amused by Adams’ foibles, even if they are a devoted fan, as I am.

    BTW, if you want to take down Jones using his own methods, Chopper shows how it is done.

  21. “The fact is that the government funded electronic media has been colonised by leftists who see nothing immoral in using public funds for their partisan purposes. They are nothing more than corrupt buffoons. These moral pygmies are so deluded they probably don’t even think they are doing anything wrong when they appropriate public funds to pursue private agendas. Also, they seem to enjoy their petty celebrity, and the financial rewards that come with it. Our country squire Adams is not a poor man.”

    S.B.you really do like to shoot the messenger don’t you? ‘Moral Pygmies’!My God !Surely after your reference to the Chopper & Jones you jest? ‘Corrupt Buffoons’ Ermmmm, cash for comment rings a bell.

    You have now made two utterances about the so called ‘Plastic Turkey’ Apart from the myth or no, it was probably meant by who ever introduced its fame, a metaphor for the lies of Bush, or as I and Adams affectionately like to call him, the shrub. The jury is indeed still out on the matter.Or could it be we have our Turkeys mixed up?I mean, Bush was more plastic than a Chinese toy factory.

    Adams as you have said is not a poor man, granted, but what percentage of that wealth was/is generated by the A.B.C. I should imagine, would pale into insignificance in comparison to the wealth that the right wing shock jocks are making out of the art of propaganda.The ideology matters not, the principle remains the same.Who could forget growing up with the ramblings of B.A. Santamaria? Paid for by the Packer family.

    To compare the influence tax funded media has over the populace compared to the commercial media outlets of any description is not even close.The commercial media has cart blanche to just about say/print anything, and as your link to the Jones/Chopper snippet proved, they will pull the pin on anything that shows them up to be the hypocrites they are.The reaction of the crowd in that particular incident spoke volumes of their preferred audience, dumbed down tools who love to wallow in other people’s shite.

    But if you want to live a state that only has the equivalents of Pravda fine, not I.

  22. “The fact is that the government funded electronic media has been colonised by leftists who see nothing immoral in using public funds for their partisan purposes. They are nothing more than corrupt buffoons. These moral pygmies are so deluded they probably don’t even think they are doing anything wrong when they appropriate public funds to pursue private agendas. Also, they seem to enjoy their petty celebrity, and the financial rewards that come with it. Our country squire Adams is not a poor man.”

    This is the sort of shit that makes me despair of ever seeing anything genuinely constructive from you SB. Espousing delusions like this will not get you anywhere. You won’t persuade anyone, because it’s just plain bullshit, not even worth debating. As soon as you name names, your whole argument turns to dust. It is nothing more than gratuitous, generalised abuse. You are degenerating into the thinking man’s Iain Hall, and that’s a fate your worst enemy wouldn’t wish on you. Beware.

  23. Splatterbottom

    Lynot, luckily we have the privately owned media to counteract the bias of Australia’s own Pravda, known locally s the ABC.

    I’m not arguing that the private media is less biased than the ABC. My point is really a simple one, namely that it is corrupt and immoral to use a government funded organisation to push one’s leftist agenda. Given that you have not even attempted to address that proposition, I assume you agree with it.

  24. Splatterbottom

    Bloods, are you suggesting that the ABC is not bent to the left, or that that is not a problem?

  25. “Bloods, are you suggesting that the ABC is not bent to the left, ”

    Left of you is not necessarily left SB.

    “If, like Adams, you are going to characterise your opponents as stupid”

    LOL – You’re the gift that keeps on giving SB, after all you characterise your opponents as stupid.

    “namely that it is corrupt and immoral to use a government funded organisation to push one’s leftist agenda”

    LOL – Who’s ‘leftist agenda’. Oh, that’s right you claim Obama is a leftist!

  26. Of course the ABC is not “bent to the left”. It’s not even worth discussing, it’s preposterous. All I look for from a public broadcaster is intelligent analysis, intellectual honesty and informative programs that show respect for their audiences. RN gives me that in spades. The trouble is that “the left” has come to mean almost anyone with a critical intelligence and a heart. What I don’t like is people like Michael Duffy who clearly have an agenda. Not because I don’t like his agenda, but because people with obvious agendas are boring.

  27. Splatterbottom

    Well, bloods, if you don’t think the ABC leans left, I’m speechless. Maybe I spend too much time listening to Adams, or maybe I’m just paranoid, but it seems to me that the ABC has a leftist slant to its politics. I’ve never listened to Duffy, so I wouldn’t know. Barrie Cassidy is a good neutral political reporter. But reading The Drum, there is a lot of leftist sentiment, and not much that is not. Media Watch is just a leftist hobby horse. At least with Marr and Littlemore the presentation was interesting. Now it is just pathetic. As you say, RN is a good channel ( I particularly like Asia Pacific) and the Australian sourced bits of News Radio are good.

  28. “Lynot, luckily we have the privately owned media to counteract the bias of Australia’s own Pravda, known locally s the ABC.”

    S.B. I don’t agree with the proposition, that the A.B.C. has a left bent, if anything it has moved from a central position to the right.This was no more evident than in the last election, where certain journalists were scared to death of saying anything at the risk of being accused of being stooges of the Labor party.

    Your assertion that they all have bias is true,(see above) however, to say the electronic media or for that matter the print media in this country is not biased towards the conservative cause by some orders of magnitude, is frankly bollocks.

    I have vivid memories of the absolute bastardy the commercial media organizations will get up too.For the prosecution, 1967 the hanging of Ronald Ryan.Sir Henry Bolte had influenced channel nine to pull an anti capital punishment documentary, the week before Ryan hung.They also in the same week pulled the magazine Newsweek off the distribution points, after it had already been delivered.It had an anti capital punishment editorial.

    The Ryan case has been seared into my very soul.The bias of the commercial electronic media is the stuff of legend.The Peterson years, Apartheid, Vietnam, South America,and now as we shall soon find out, their complacence in the propaganda of 1.Iraq.2.Afghanistan. the list is long and vile.

  29. jordanrastrick

    Its always incredibly depressing when Splatterbottom is trolling and STILL manages to seem like the most reasonable person in the debate.

  30. “….if you don’t think the ABC leans left, I’m speechless.”

    Now you’re making sense. I simply refuse to engage with anyone who makes this assertion.

  31. “Splatterbottom….STILL manages to seem like the most reasonable person in the debate.”

    Oh, he’d LOVE that. Like Bolt and Howard, he has the demonic gift of being able to appear reasonable and moderate (to the superficial observer) while spouting tendentious and sometimes poisonous nonsense. As gifts go, it’s not one I’d choose to have.

  32. Splatterbottom

    Lynot, I’m not trying to defend commercial media. My issue is with the application of public funds to pursue a partisan political agenda.

    Jordan, there is very little trolling involved here on my part. I merely pointed out similarities between Jones and Adams, while also noting their differences, using examples. Also my views on the ABC are genuinely held, and were supported by examples.

    An example of trolling would be baldly rejecting a proposition without any supporting argument, then stating: “I simply refuse to engage with anyone who makes this assertion.”, and then complaining that reasoned arguments appear to be reasonable!

  33. It is telling that the only people who think the ABC has a leftwing bias are rightwing crybabies with victim complexes. And the only response ever given to requests for actual evidence of this bias is words to the effect of “OMG!!1! I can’t believe you think it’s not biased!!!11!” Meanwhile, even the Howard government’s inquiry into the ABC’s supposed bias found there is a bias towards the Coalition, and they had to know that wasn’t the conclusion they were expected to come to.

  34. “My issue is with the application of public funds to pursue a partisan political agenda.”

    My issue is that anyone could keep trotting out this utterly dicredited assertion, and expect people to engage with it. It doesn’t happen, it never has happened, and it won’t happen as long as the ABC is constituted as it is. As a hard-Right centrist Thatcher-loving Catholic libertarian anti-abortion anti-Green Greens voter, just about anything is bound to look biased from your multiple self-contradicting perspectives. Maybe your argument is “reasoned”, sort of, but it is not reasonable. There is a crucial difference. I refuse to engage with an argument whose underlying premises are unreasonable. It’s just a policy I have, and it has served me well when I’ve stuck to it. Superficial reasonableness doesn’t do it for me.

  35. “My issue is with the application of public funds to pursue a partisan political agenda.”

    S.B. If you believe that’s true, fine, we all have different perceptions of an argument.It is the nature of the beast that we all see what we want to see, hence the robust debate on these issues.But as for public funding of the A.B.C.with my tax. My tax., I assume is the same value as yours, I haven’t got a problem with the government countering what I see as an agenda by a right wing media, to have us live in a one party state.

    I don’t like the fact that Murdoch has an all powerful media empire that is one of the main reasons we have to suffer the likes of a George Bush, or indeed a John Howard.He (Murdoch) is on record as saying “I will decide who will govern Australia and who wont” He is currently using all of his media influence to try and unseat Obama, and for mine,it is a lay down misere they will soon have another right wing cracker jack in the White-house making Bush look like a social worker. If only Adams and his warm fire side chats had the same influence.

    But I take your point.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s