February 27, 2004


The Australian’s Greg Sheridan makes a good point: if Australia’s ABC had based its coverage on Fox News instead of the BBC, “it would have got many more judgment calls about the war right than it did.”

Perhaps Fox should become the national broadcaster. For more on the ABC’s war coverage, such as it was, check the report.

Posted by Tim Blair at February 27, 2004 12:32 AM


Posted by: qmite at February 27, 2004 at 05:20 AM


Posted by: Quentin George at February 27, 2004 at 06:39 AM


Your report is interesting, informative, entertaining and well worth its price. I've been trying to get my lefty workmates to read it but they don't want to know about it. So, the very people who should read your report, won't. I wonder why that is?

Posted by: S Whiplash at February 27, 2004 at 09:12 AM

Hmmm ... are we talking about the same television network that chose not to report David Kay's initial disclosure that he believed that Iraq sis not have WMD?

Posted by: Mork at February 27, 2004 at 09:55 AM

I heard it on FOX,mork. Have you seen a memo or can point to specific dates/times to prove it. Or are you once again attributing a view though you own perception.

Posted by: Gary at February 27, 2004 at 10:34 AM

Hey blogheads, is there some way we can make the report available to us on the left for free? After all, it's obviously too important to be left languishing only with those stupid enough to pay for it.

Posted by: Miranda Divide at February 27, 2004 at 11:40 AM

No. Pay up, you waste of space.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 27, 2004 at 01:16 PM

Ahh, Greg Sheridan I remember him, he is the bloke who said Allied forces would find WMDs in the first week after the war finished, he also said the war would lead to greater peace in the Middle East.

He is also the Foreign Affairs editor whose expertise is in Asia who could write a column about the word skanky ho without knowing where the term came from.

I can see why you would find him reliable Timbo.

Err who owns the Australian and Fox?

Posted by: Homer Paxton at February 27, 2004 at 01:17 PM

Homer's point about WMD was answered by this letter to The Oz this morning:

Aziz forgotten
27 February 2004
FULL credit to Greg Sheridan (Opinion 26/2) for revealing that Saddam insisted
on maintaining a WMD program despite counter-argument by his deputy Tariq Aziz.
It's been a supreme vindication of Paul Sheehan's "electronic whorehouse"
theory of journalism that reporters have shown virtually no interest in the
Aziz interviews since their existence was briefly mentioned last November.
Instead the wolf pack has had us all barking up the wrong tree demanding to
know, not the truth of what transpired in Baghdad, but when a "smoking gun"
will be found.
Lew Bretz
St Marys, Tas

Posted by: Bodger at February 27, 2004 at 07:38 PM

You're kidding. You whinge - and rightfully so - about the ABC being biased to the left all the time and it's not blinding obvious how biased Fox is towards the right? Or is it conveniently ignored because it's in your favour?

Posted by: Adam at February 27, 2004 at 11:23 PM

Yeah, how dare FoxNews treat the President with respect. Biased bastards.

Posted by: S Whiplash at February 28, 2004 at 01:37 AM


Anyone who hears Fox's "Fair and Balanced" line hears it with a wink. Here's the difference - while Fox skews right, the other media are WILDLY biased to the left, and at the same time positively screetch about how "objective" they are. Fox is not neutral, it is a corrective.

Here in the States, you've got Fox, the WSJ, and AM talk radio on one side, and on the other side you've got NPR, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the NYT, LA Times, Time, Newsweek, every single boringly predictable local alt-weekly, and Hollywood. So snarky asides at Fox's wink-and-a-nudge "balance" don't make a ripple with me.

Posted by: Dave S. at February 28, 2004 at 06:40 AM

Adam - you realise that the "ABC" we are talking about is the *Australian* Broadcasting Commission, right? We are not talking about the American network "ABC".

Fox can be as biased as it likes as long as it supports itself from its own advertising and investors. As can American "ABC", the New York Times or any other privately owned and funded media. It doesn't mean than their persistent biases should not be criticised and critiqued, but they should be free to be as biased as they like - if you don't like them, dont read/watch/support them.

The Australian ABC, however, is entirely funded by Australian taxpayers. It should serve all Australians. We have every right to expect it to abandon the continuing left-wing bias that it shows - to demand it, in fact! If it can't, it should be closed down or sold.

Posted by: Bob Bunnett at February 28, 2004 at 10:56 AM

I forgot his best result a Novak like prescience that WMDs had been found!

Posted by: Homer Paxton at February 28, 2004 at 04:19 PM