…Australia isn’t my country. I wouldn’t visit them because they bowl underarm and they wear yellow. So you don’t want to visit Australia? Neither do I. I live in New Zealand. So if you want to google random links to prove that the country I live in is “not free” you’ve chosen the wrong country.
And I’ve provided plenty of links on how un-free the United States is. Your country locks people up four times as much as our country does. Prostitution is illegal in the United States and I think that the way you treat prostitutes in your country is disgusting. Do you guys want to keep up this inter-country pissing match, or do you want to simply acknowledge that there are cultural differences at play?
Journalists are not forbidden from reporting on this organization or interviewing this organization. Where did you hear that lie? I’ve provided cites to state that is a lie. Why are you guys continuing to spread this mistruth?
My country didn’t go to Iraq, and I’m damn proud that they didn’t, and a lot of that was down to how things were reported here. Australia isn’t my country and I wouldn’t want to live in a country with such an inferior rugby team. When you’ve actually taken the time to research the decision that was in the case in question come back to the thread with some comments on it. The news media wasn’t “berated” for not providing balanced reporting. Balanced reporting is the kind of rubbish the United States used to do with the fully constitutional “fairness doctrine.”
I provided the report. Go and read it. Stop making stuff up about it.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with press freedom, other than being a poor attempt at diversionary tu quoque.*
Interesting that you think balanced reporting is “rubbish”.
You are however misinformed about the Fairness Doctrine, which is a) long defunct, b) was rarely used to penalize any broadcast outlet when it was in effect, and c) would not have been applied in the manner that the Australian AMCA’s rules were. In that instance the government decided against the station not because they didn’t think it presented differing views, but that it gave the (antivax) side too much of a platform and created a “false balance”.
We’ve had some effort in the U.S. in recent years by Democrats to revive the Fairness Doctrine, apparently as a means of curbing right-wing talk radio. Seeing as how the Doctrine even before that had been supported or opposed for political reasons, and that there’s far greater media diversity now than when it was instituted, it’s a pretty good indicator that it’s better left in the trash bin.
And again, bringing up a regulation that’s been dead and buried for decades in the U.S. in an effort to defend restrictive regulation that’s currently in effect in another country, is just another feeble attempt at tu quoque*.
*A reminder as to the subject of this thread: Should advocacy groups be required to have non-misleading names?
…have you read your posts? You keep trying to “catch me out.” But you failed, yet again.
Your rant is entirely irrelevant.
You claimed The news media was “berated” for not providing balanced reporting. This didn’t happen. Balanced reporting wasn’t the issue and if you had read the report you would have known this. I’m well aware what the Fairness Doctrine is. Why did I bring it up? Because the Fairness Doctrine was an attempt to provide “balanced reporting”, which is your claim. The media in this instance was not berated for not being balanced. When you have read the report come back to the thread and we will discuss it. But I’m getting tired of debating your “strawman” version of what happened.
I made no such claim. I said “the government decided against the station not because they didn’t think it presented differing views, but that it gave the (antivax) side too much of a platform and created a “false balance”.”
You need to read your own link. The AMCA found against the TV station, agreeing with the complainants and ruling that the station presented the vaccination issue as more of a controversy than it really was, i.e. conveying a false balance between pro and anti-immunization views. If you’re still confused, read the ruling with regard to the station’s “breach” of clause 4.3.1.
So far you’ve managed to mis-attribute the source of an online article as Meryl Dorey, misrepresented my comments (see above), falsely suggested I said the U.S. is a “bastion of free speech in an unfree world.”, and attempted to duck out of a discussion of government restrictions on news media by indulging in flaming irrelevancies about the Iraq invasion, the illegality of prostitution and a prohibition on network TV’s use of the word “fuck”.
I thought you might have something interesting and even relevant to say in regard to the following questions (repeated for your convenience):
Banquet Bear, as someone who previously said “(Australia) has nothing to rival the propaganda put out by the Bush Administration during The War Against Terror” - do you really believe there would have been more more and better criticism of the Bush Administration by the media here, if we’d had an Australian-style government agency in place ready to berate news organizations that it felt weren’t doing “balanced” reporting?
Are you convinced that your own media (with their “voluntary” acceptance of government oversight) don’t feel the least pressure to stay in the government’s good graces when they report on political matters?
But if all you’re interested in doing is chanting USA BAD!*, there’s little point in addressing you further.
I have no issues relating to Australia* apart from its handling of free speech issues in regard to the cases under discussion, and if I did, I’d refrain from jabbering about them in an unrelated thread simply as an expression of uncontrollable xenophobia.
**not even the vegemite thing.
***I don’t have anything against Kiwis either. You guys make pretty good shoe polish.
I’ll speak as a Kiwi here. And I’ll take the Kiwi Civil Service as a close approximation for what happens in Australia (maybe not the best idea, I dunno)
I think you’re underestimating the level of separation between “govt” (meaning ruling party) and “civil service” (meaning ministry employees).
For me, I have absolutely no problem in a broadcaster being castigated by the civil service for unbalanced reporting with a few provisos -
i) it is triggered by a complaint rather than proactive action
ii) the action is very open and transparent
iii) it is reserved for the most egregarious examples.
Public broadcasters should, in my mind, be held to some standard of truth and accuracy.
Of course, some places take that too far - Singapore would be a good example, where the stated purpose to the media is to support the govt and propagate their messages (yes, really*)
When I read the boards here, and I see some of what passes for reporting in the States I really cringe - I would dearly love to see someone whacking media outlets, and hard, for the terrible inaccuracies. To my mind, things that happen on a regular basis (like the Obama funding the Muslem museum thing) warrant punishment - and not just a correction either but an actual fiscal punishment against the outlet. With the history of the outlet taken into account to recognise that we all make mistakes, but that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - and that as a media outlet, with the resources to check such matters the onus falls far more on them than on an individual to seek out a factually accurate** report.
I also think that sometimes action of this sort is somewhat symbolic - the sad thing in today’s world is that all too often stories are unbalanced, inaccurate, use selective facts and then people cherry pick quotes - as an individual the time taken to chase down a factually accurate summary of even the most innocuous story is huge - so we should be able to “rely” on media to present something at least approaching accuracy
As an aside, for those that are interested in the media, or are in the industry, “OB Markers, My Straits Times Story” by Cheong Yip Seng is a cracking good read.
** The difficulty is, of course, in separating facts, opinion and speculation - but I don’t see this as insurmountable using the “reasonable person” standard
Indeed. The station wasn’t “berated” as you claim. The problem wasn’t that the story was not balanced, as you claimed. The problem was that the story was presented as balanced, when it was not.
No I didn’t. I asked the question, you answered it.
I did not.
I talked about the way you act and continue to act in this thread, not your words.
The discussion was about advocacy groups having non-misleading names. If you want to talk about government restrictions on news media, (that had nothing to do with the name of the organization) what is wrong with talking about the word fuck? They are as irrelevant as everything that you have introduced.
As I pointed out to you news organizations weren’t berated because they didn’t provide balanced reporting. Do you want to discuss this fictional version of the Australian style government agency or the real one? I don’t agree with the premise of the question. The news media wan’t berated. They were found to be in breach of a couple of regulations that the media themselves set up. Your entire premise is wrong: I simply can’t answer the question as written.
I believe all media have bias. I don’t think that pressure to stay in the governments good graces when they report on political matters is that big of an issue. I have more faith in the NZ media than I do in the US media, where the financial stakes are much, much higher. I don’t believe there is much governmental pressure on media outlets in the States. But I believe the corporate dollar has a much bigger impact on the news than anything else.
Strawman. I’m chanting “USA BAD” as much as you are chanting “AUSTRALIA BAD!”
This isn’t a free speech issue. If the AVN wanted to keep its association status then it has to change its name. The decision made by the AMCA is not a free speech issue: the rules that the AMCA used to make its rulings were set up by the broadcast agencies themselves.
You can keep on trying to make this a free speech issue but it isn’t one. You can keep on bringing up unrelated issues and I will keep on bringing up unrelated issues in response. Its really up to you.