ABC: Whoring for the ALP. Isn't that what fucking when there's money involved called? Public money in this case.

Is there a reason the ABC seems so cavalier about government waste? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog



And all charged to the taxpayer - along with billions for other Labor follies and grandeurs not criticised by the ABC:

PANICKED ABC management ­believed star newsreader Juanita Phillips left them in a “tricky” position after blindsiding them over her controversial $72,000 taxpayer-funded European first class trip with Labor lover Greg Combet. 





Emails reveal the $320,000-a-year star only told her superiors about the
10-day climate change ministerial trip with Mr Combet, who held the
­portfolio at the time, through France, Germany and Belgium last year
upon her return and after it was raised with the Gillard government.




But ABC head of editorial policy Alan Sunderland instead planned to tell
the public the ABC 24 host and Sydney news anchor had “always been
upfront and clear” with the ABC about the romance…




The ABC attempted to downplay the lack of prior knowledge of the trip,
saying Ms Phillips did not have to seek permission, that it was later
found to be within ABC guidelines anyway and that the broadcaster had
always provided a “high degree of transparency” dealing with the
issue...”




Six months after ABC chiefs plotted how to handle the romance’s
conflict-of-interest concerns, it was revealed the 10-day trip racked up
$57,673 on airfares, $8914 on hotels and meals and $4634 on ground
transport for Mr Combet to attend meetings and a climate conference.

How did Phillips think she was morally entitled to spend so much
taxpayers’ money on a jaunt, and one that compromised her responsibility
as an ABC presenter to seem impartial?




The emails:













Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013, 4.35 PM




FROM: Juanita Phillips




TO: Alan Sunderland; Donald Lange




SUBJECT: Daily Tele





Dear Alan and Don,




Just alerting you to another spotfire. Recently while on annual leave, I
accompanied Greg — in a private capacity, as his partner — to Europe
where he was having climate change meetings and was the keynote speaker
at an EU carbon price conference. The Daily Tele has got onto this and
is going to make something of it.




The Prime Minister’s office has go

ne over the trip with a fine toothcomb
and says all guidelines have been adhered to, and they’re very
comfortable defending it. Ministers are entitled to have their partners
travel with them, subject to strict guidelines, and approval by the
Prime Minister’s office. Both of these criteria have been met.







Juanita Phillips and Greg Combet / Picture: Craig Greenhill


Juanita Phillips and Greg Combet / Picture: Craig Greenhill Source: News Limited


There’s no suggestion of anything inappropriate — presumably it will
just be the usual beat-up about politicians’ overseas trips. From my
point of view, I was on annual leave, and my role was purely personal.




I’m not sure when this story will appear, but hopefully it will blow over in a day.




Let me know if you want to have a chat about it.




Cheers




Juanita





***





Date: Thursday, April 18, 2013, 3.54 PM




FROM: Alan Sunderland




TO: Sally Cray




SUBJECT: RE: I have some questions for the ABC in relation to Juanita Phillips





Heads up — the expected story looks like it’s on the way.




It’s a little tricky, because we are being specifically asked if we were aware of the trip in advance.




I have discussed all this at length with Sally Cray and what she will be saying (via email) to (the journalist) is:-




*We are aware of the situation




*Juanita was on leave at the time.




*She is perfectly entitled to travel with her partner, and we understand
Mr Combet is also perfectly entitled to travel with an accompanying
partner on such trips.




*Juanita has always been upfront and clear about her relationship with the ABC.




*As with all other situations with ABC editorial staff, we consider and
manage conflicts as they arise. We do not believe that legitimate
private like this creates an editorial conflict.





***





Date: Thursday, April 18, 2013 4.29 PM




FROM: Sally Cray




TO: Alan Sunderland; Kate Torney; Donald Lange




SUBJECT: Tele





Went with Mick and Alan’s advice that less is more on this one. We
figured he has the story written and these will be three lines at the
end.




I didn’t insert the no editorial conflict line as I thought — better to
play dead in case he has something in his story we are not aware of.

News - I'D HAVE PUT A FOOT THROUGH MY RADIO... - The Pickering Post

News - I'D HAVE PUT A FOOT THROUGH MY RADIO... - The Pickering Post





Here's the thing. Listening to the radio today on my way home from
the city and some clown comes on talking about the disgusting conditions
at Manus Island. 'The gates of hell' I think he said it was. Whether
this bloke is a Greens or Labor plant I have no idea but his language
suggests he might be.





He is at the head of a h-u-g-e push to get these poor asylum seekers
out of there and over here living on welfare. In nice Government
provided houses. With nice Coles vouchers and other handouts provided by
the Australian taxpayers. Near a mosque I presume.





He feels so strongly about it that he went to Europe to discuss it
all. And they said Australia should 'hang its head in shame' and that
Manus Island is the 'Guantanamo Bay of the Pacific.' How Kev has the
delusional notion that he can become head of the UN with this apparent
atrocity hanging over his head is anyone's guess. But I think he's moved
on. He's moved forward like Julia always was. Now it's Tony's problem
of course! Nothing to do with them.

ABC makes the smallest apology it could get away with | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

ABC makes the smallest apology it could get away with | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog



One thing you need to understand about beta males:

Andrew Bolt's favourite topic is... Andrew Bolt


And passive aggressive self victimisation is a lot safer than fighting for justice.

How ironic, in the circumstances.

No wonder he went after the fauxboriginals. He can smell his own.

Guest Post: A taxpayer – How the ABC fobs off serious complaints | Catallaxy Files

Guest Post: A taxpayer – How the ABC fobs off serious complaints | Catallaxy Files

Guest Post: A taxpayer – How the ABC fobs off serious complaints

Posted on 11:25 am, March 16, 2014 by Guest Author

On Thursday 27^th February a complaint was submitted about the 730 TV show’s editorial choices and biases, on Tuesday 4^th
March it was answered by the show’s Supervising Producer.  The
complainant was not satisfied with the response and wrote back the same
day.  No answer from the ABC.  Matter closed.


COMPLAINT SUBJECT: 730 Bias and Editorial Decisions


Last night’s 730 (Wed 26 Feb 2014) did not have a political segment
covering the extraordinary events in the House of Representatives today,
namely:


1)    An independent moved a motion to admonish a Shadow Minister.  This is a very rare and important event.


2)    The Government allowed the motion to be debated and put – another rare and event worthy of analysis


3)    The House voted on the motion and passed it.  Thus the House
admonished a Shadow Minister (and Senator) – perhaps a unique event in
living memory.


Obviously these events, in their entirety, were a suitable story for a
leading news & current affairs show.  The segment could have been
presented with comments from both sides of politics, along with comments
from the independent moving the motion.  The original comments, from
the Shadow Minister that gave rise could have been aired, along with the
response from offended subject (an army general) along with the
comments from the Head of the Defence Force stating the comments were
offensive and out of line.  Then analysis by an ABC political reporter
could have been made on the meaning of these events for (a) The
Opposition Leader (b) The Shadow Minister for Defence.


As this segment was not done and aired, all I can conclude is that editorial decisions were made that:


a)    prevented the The Opposition (Australian Labor Party) from being shown in a bad light

b)    prevented the Opposition Leader from being shown to be
cornered/snookered whereby he had to support his Shadow Minister, rather
than condemn his comments – judge by all commentators to have “crossed
the line”.

c)    prevented the Shadow Minister of Defence from being shown in a bad
light.  Although he did withdrawn his original comments – he did not
apologise for the offence he caused to the general, and by extension to
all members of the armed forces who faithfully execute policies of the
Government  (however controversial politically).


The stories covered by 730 on Tue 26 Feb were:


      i.        What’s behind Qantas’ troubles?


    ii.        Barnaby Joyce !  says drought support is sign of ‘a caring nation’


   iii.        Assistant Health Minister refuses to say if she’s offered resignation


   iv.        Could two retail giants become one beast?


Any of which could have been “bumped” to a later night.


The matter raised in this letter was not a usual he says / she says
to and fro of political and policy debate.  It was one Senator making
his own comments and the fallout that ensued for him, his leader and his
party.


By not running any segment on this matter, the 730 has been guilty of
“protecting” the Shadow Minister of Defence, the Opposition Leader and
the Australian Labor party from adverse publicity, and hence the ABC 730
program is guilty of extreme bias in favour of the Australian Labor
Party.


RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT: 730 Bias and Editorial Decisions


Thank you for your feedback regarding the ’7.30′ program on 26 February, 2014.


I agree with you that Andrew Wilkie’s motion to admonish Stephen
Conroy’s comments in the Senate was a big political story on that day,
but it was competing with other stories, each of which had important
policy ramifications.


We did, however, invite the Chief of the Defence Force David Hurley
and Deputy Chief of Army Angus Campbell (to whom the comments were
directed) on to the program to respond to the comments, but both
declined our invitation.  We decided, given 7pm News covered the story,
that without any of those people available for interview, we’d just be
repeating what news’ coverage was.


In terms of the editorial justification for running the other stories:

The Qantas story had to run on the eve of the Qantas results, and as you will have seen since that story has gone to air and Qantas’ profit announcement last week, it has been the most significant political and policy story.  We also felt it was an important opportunity to provide context and explain to our audience how Qantas got into the financial position it’s currently in and the challenges facing the company.
The drought assistance package announced by the government that day was the most significant policy story of the day, and given we have followed the impact of the drought closely, we felt it was important to cover the government’s response to that challenge in our program.
The story on the Assistant Health Minister had to run that night because she had appeared at Senate Estimates that day.
the story on the David Jones and Myer merger is an important business story and had we not run the story including the head of the ACCC Mr Rod Sims’ comments that night, his comments could have dated had the story not run that night.

I hope you’ll continue to watch the program and thanks again for your feedback.


Supervising Producer

7.30, ABC TV 


COMMENTS ON RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT: 730 Bias and Editorial Decisions


Thank you for your prompt response to my complaint.  However, I find
your arguments/explanations to be deficient for a number of reasons, as
outlined below.


1)   You say that you invited Generals Hurley and Campbell but they
declined.  They were not the only players in the game and their
declining should/could have been predicted.  Did you invite Senator
Conroy and Senator Cash the two politicians who were present at the
Senate hearing?


2)    Were the senior minister (Mr Morrison) and shadow minister (Mr Marles) asked for an interview?


3)    Could you not have provided analysis on why Senator Conroy,
withdrew his comments, but did not apologise?  And why Mr Shorten could
not, or did not, ask Senator Conroy to apologise?  A discussion of the
importance of Senator Conroy’s factional power base and his relationship
with, or importance to,  Mr Shorten’s leadership power could have
informed your viewers.  Thus, was Mr Shorten asked for an interview?


I postulated that the other stories could have been bumped for a more
detailed analysis of this extraordinary event (I can’t remember an
“admonishment” motion happening before – 730 did not even provide that
analysis – has it ever been done before? When? To whom?)


a)    Context and explanation of QANTAS could have been done after
the profit announcement and Alan Joyce’s speech, when more facts could
have been injected into the story – rather than conjecture from the day
before on what the results may have been.


b)    The drought assistance package was a newsworthy item, current
and worthy of running – perhaps with an explanation of the ‘exceptional
circumstances” declarations now made by the States and how that
currently feeds into Federal Government assistance, i.e. why was the
package necessary at all? What is wrong with the current severe drought
assistance processes?


c)    You say “The story on the Assistant Health Minister had to run
that night because she had appeared at Senate Estimates that day” (why
is that reasoning not applicable to Senator Conroy’s accusation and the
admonishment motion?)


d)    You say “The story on the David Jones and Myer merger … could
have dated had the story not run that night” because of Mr Sims comments
that day (why is that reasoning not applicable to Senator Conroy’s
accusation and the admonishment motion?)  Also there was no outcome in
the merger talk – it was all conjecture and thus less susceptible to
dating)


An answer to the questions posed above would provide me with a
greater understanding of your reasoning, and strengthen your argument
that 730 could not have covered the biggest political story of the day,
to some extent, in 30 minutes of TV.


I will keep watching 730, but I hope that through analyst you can
provide greater insight, rather than just providing a platform for
“talking heads”.


No further response from ABC.  So how is a citizen to get heard when faced with this stonewall defence? 

Their ABC: ALPBC: out of control. Defund, sack, destroy. Only police states need official broadcasters.

ABC boss Mark Scott signals new corrections policy | The Australian

ABC managing director Mark Scott has signalled a
dramatic shift in the way the national broadcaster publishes corrections
and apologies after becoming embroiled in a series of controversies
over the standard of its reporting and its refusal to admit mistakes.

Mr Scott, who is also editor-in-chief of the ABC, last night rejected
suggestions the broadcaster did not publish corrections but conceded to a
Senate estimates hearing that it needed the equivalent of a “page two”,
where newspapers typically run corrections, apologies and
clarifications.

The ABC has been criticised this year for airing allegations that
Australian navy personnel deliberately burned the hands of
asylum-seekers intercepted at sea, and then being slow to correct the
record and apologise when the incidents could not be proved. It has
refused to apologise for portraying Chris Kenny, a columnist for The
Australian and television personality, having sex with a dog, triggering
a defamation action.

And last night, the corporation’s Media Watch program ended a week of
stonewalling by indicating it would correct false claims The Australian
was losing $40 million-$50m a year, although host Paul Barry was
resisting an on-air correction.

ALPBC presstitutes not worth the money they are given

BLACKMAILERS IN PYJAMAS | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog

BLACKMAILERS IN PYJAMAS | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog