It’s all about ABC-bashing, as you’d expect. So the liars double down, encouraged by another faux conservative, Malcolm Turnbull.
Prime Minister brands the ABC un-Australian in the wake of the navy-asylum seeker torture story
- Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull says ABC not accountable to politicians
- Foreign Minister Julie Bishops calls on ABC to apologise for navy slur
- What do you think? Take our poll
A FORMER ABC chairman last night backed Tony Abbott’s blistering attack on the billion-dollar broadcaster’s coverage of claims Australian navy staff tortured asylum seekers.
Maurice Newman joined the PM’s condemnation after exclusive reports in The Daily Telegraph revealed that even some senior figures in the ABC now doubted if the torture claims were accurate.
The ABC tards are bringing out the has beens to lie some more about what Abbott didn’t say:
A former ABC boss proves Abbott right by verbalising himÂ (Andrew Bolt)
A former ABC boss grossly misrepresents Tony Abbott, demonstrating exactly the kind of bias which Abbott so rightly diagnosed in the ABC:
Former ABC managing director David Hill savaged Mr Abbott’s comments against the ABC’s perceived lack of patriotism. ‘’It’s an absurd proposition, laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous,’’ he said.
‘’This is the first serious suggestion I know of, certainly in the last half a century, where a prime minister of the country is suggesting the Australian public be denied access to the truth, andÂ the first time that a prime minister has seriously intimated that the ABC should censor and withhold information from the Australian public.’’
Of course, nowhere did Abbott say any such thing. In fact he said the very opposite:
Look, you know, if there’s credible evidence, the ABC, like all other news organisations, is entitled to report it…
Nor is Abbott railing at the ABC having reported “the truth”. He’s in fact protesting that the ABC treated asÂ virtually provenÂ aÂ highly improbableÂ and damaging claim against the Navy that an ABC staffer concedes her boss thought ”are likely to be untrue”.
Same with the Edward Snowden reports. Abbott did not deny the right of the ABC to report his damaging claims, but took issue with its vigorous promotion of something so dangerous to our national interest and even to Australian lives:
The ABC seemed to delight in broadcasting allegations by a traitor… The ABC didn’t just report what he said, they took the lead in advertising what he said, and that was a deep concern.
Moreover, the ABC has itself conceded that in such cases, it should indeed consider withholding information likely to damage Australia’s national interest for no real public benefit. Here is ABC director of news, Kate Torney, on the ABC’s reporting of the Snowden leaks:
We did not publish everything we had access to. We took advice from Australia’s intelligence authorities on the matter andÂ redacted sensitive operational information that might have compromised national security.
Hill, a former ABC managing director, has perfectly demonstrated what conservatives loathe about the ABC. He verballed a Liberal leader, and misrepresented his argument. He attacked a Liberal leader for allegedly arguing for something which the ABC has elsewhere admitted was actually standard procedure. He did not engage in a Liberal leader’s real argument, but smear him. And this from a former ABC boss.
Then there’s the ABC’s one-sidedness, again represented by Hill himself. Over the past two years we had a Labor government which threatened News Ltd for reporting material about Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s involvement in a union slush fund. Labor forced News Ltd to remove entire articles about the slush fund allegations from websites.Â News Ltd had to face a hostile media inquiry created by Labor to investigate “bias” – including the reporting of warming sceptics. Labor then even proposed a state-supervised media watchdog. Meanwhile two journalists lost their jobs for their reporting the slush fund scandal, which is now the focus of an intensive police investigation. (Gillard insists she did nothing wrong.)
And where was David Hill during all this? Protesting about a prime minister trying to censor reporters? Or keeping comfortably silent? One rule for Liberals, another for Labor?
How often have Liberals seen this from ABC staff, again and again and again? As with Hill, so with the ABC he once led.
Readers below remind me that Hill also stood as a Labor candidate for the seat of Hughes.
As Hill verbals, so does ABC host Jon Faine, who this morning claimed that Abbott was asking the ABC to take “the government’s side”.
If the ABC refuses to honor its charter and provide balance in exchange for our taxes, then it deserves all the cuts it’s going to get – and many more besides:
THE ABC’s $223 million Australia Network Asian broadcasting service is likely to be scrappedÂ in the May budget to save money and end the pursuit of “soft diplomacy” in the region through television… Cabinet ministers believe the ABC’s coverage of Australia in the region is overly negative and fails to promote the nation as originally intended in the Australia Network’s charter by using the “soft diplomacy” of Australian news and cultural programs.
THE ABC’s status as one of a handful of government bodies spared the cost-cutting efficiency dividends applied across the commonwealth public sector could be reviewed by the Coalition… . A source within the Coalition suggested the government “may need to look at” the exemption that currently applies to the ongoing efficiency dividend of 2.25 per cent.
(Thanks to reader Peter of Bellevue Hill.)