Tim Blair

I'm sure Media Watch will highlight this obvious bias in its next episode.

I often wondered about how the media decides to describe various groups. Is it possible that it's more likely that a conservative group is more likely to self-describe as conservative than a liberal one would? I'm off topic a bit, because I'm thinking more of the US, where liberal has been turned into a dirty word, and you tend to see liberal groups label themselves as 'progressive' or 'activist' rather than the dreaded L-word.

Then there's the dreadful way in which the Israeli Government ruthlessly spins terrorist killings.

From Sunday's ABC Correspondents' Report:

Middle East Correspondent Jane Hutcheon reports on how Israel handles its public image.

JANE HUTCHEON: Have you ever wondered why an Israeli Government spokesman appears on the scene of a suicide bombing and fronts up to the media?

Did you know that last year the Israeli Government played a select group of journalists video of the aftermath of a suicide attack on a bus because it felt foreign journalists weren't sympathetic enough to such atrocities?

Putting the right spin on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no different to the way any government manipulates its public image.

The 'right' spin?

What is the right spin on terrorist bombings and murders?

The story then goes on to point out that when Palestinians are killed, the spin doctors are nowhere to be seen. A pointless and stupid story.

One of the sicker from 'Your ABC'.

No, Tim. The most recent mention of the Australia Institute on the ABC was on Four Corners last night (24/5) where it was described as a "left-leaning" think tank.

I might add - so what? Bear in mind that it was a right-wing think tank that suggested that Chalabi would make a good president of Iraq. In Australia, left-wing think tanks suggest that ATSIC should be preserved and protected. It seems to me that in many cases, whether left or right, the contentious part of the description is the word "think".

FOX is still using 'homicide bombers'. Is there any other kind?

Just heard Triple J jockette speak of September 11 'which made everyone in the West review our behaviour.' Thank you terrorists. ABC-Think Tanks. And how.

Think tank - I feel it is time to review this outdated term. How about intellectual wank tank?

ABC: A Battery fed Comintern tank.

Of course we couldn't call the ABC a think-tank, left or right. That'd be an oxymoron.

I'm not sure where the ABC got the idea that the Rand Corporation was a 'conservative think-tank' unless they thought it had something to do with Ayn Rand. That's the only explanation I can think of. If so, they're complete and utter fools and ignoramuses - Rand is the original non partisan think tank and it stands for Research ANd Development.

Well, Tony Jones thought the Australia Institute was conservative. They need to think more about these think tanks.

What political leanings would an Abrahams Tank have? In favour of liberating people from slavery?

This think tank definition issue reminds me of the time a State politician in a marginal electorate thanked the "broad-based community groups" that helped campaign for his re-election and condemned the participation of various "narrowly-based fringe organisations" that campaigned against him. Moral of the story is that when you hear the phrase "community group", watch out for handouts.

I've got one in my garden.

surprised not to read mention of the fact that 90% of screen-time on last night's media watch was highly critical of......the abc!

only kidding, not surprised in the least. this post is referring to the same abc?

To be fair, only last night 4 Corners introduced the Australia Institute as a "prominent left leaning think tank".

I remembered because it was a surprise.

oops. I just read the comments.
apologies to tim g.

There's something in the air, Chico. Philip Adams praised the Howard Government in today's Australian!

Did you read all of phatty phil's column? The priceless bit was when he recounted how *he* told the australian solomon islands administrator that the 23 hour lockdown in the prison was unacceptable. They supposedly agreed with phil and changed it to 20 hours. They should send adams to iraq, and get him to solve all the problems there as well...

This is hilarious.

Good work Tim. You should work for media watch pro bono.

Incidentally, have there been any other moves to provide a right and left 'leaning' commentator on media watch? Surely the bias is more evident now than any other time in the history of media watch and therefore this measure will have to be examined again.

Wouldn't an Abrahams tank be a yank tank? (Or I am I still in yesterday's car blog?)

Attila I was struck by that very point - Adams does have an ego the size of Michael Moore, everything revolves around him.

Tim:

You forgot the time when The World Today called The Australia Institute "Australia's foremost think-tank".

ABCwatch might have the links.

Yeah, Phatty did praise the Howard Gov, but with smacking's of backhandedness. A few mentions of iraq here (symbolism, tokenism, unconvincing veneer of multilateralism etc) a coupla comments about our refugee's-that-ain't there (i deplore our... internment of refugees). If that article is our Phatty complimenting Howard, I think I'll go throw up on Latham, kill his dog, screw his wife and tell him his mum's a 'cute old bag'. Hell, that'll prolly get me in with the In-laws too!

"There's something in the air, Chico. Philip Adams praised the Howard Government in today's Australian!"

Nah, that's gotta be subterfuge. Or a sub-editor's joke. Or the submariner. I see it, but I don't believe it!

Michael Moore winning an artistic award.
Phillip Adams praising the Howard government.

These are signs, people! The end of all things is coming...

C'mon...IT'S IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION PEOPLE!

Not just the ABC, but check out the Sydney Morning Herald's article from the Australia Institute's Clive Hamilton at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/24/1085389333857.html

Of course, the Herald is a private organisation, and is free to publish what it wants, unlike the ABC which has a responsibility to the taxpayer. Nonetheless, Big Clivey argues that private schools need to be held accountable to the anti-discrimination act, and shouldn't be able to teach doctrines which don't comply with the dominant paradigm; he spoke about this on ABC radio last week, arguing that 'private schools were out of touch with community attitudes'. Basically he was trying to stifle dissent, oppose diversity. Why does the ABC allow this?

The interviewer gave him a free kick. What is he opposed to? What behaviours that are 'out of touch with community attitudes' does he propose to ban? Muslim kids only having Halal food in the canteen? Jewish kids having Yom Kippur off? Waldorfs celebrating the seasons of the year?

Finally, lest there be any concern about the Australia Institute's left-wing credentials, look under 'Philosophy' in the 'About Us' part of their website which is at http://www.tai.org.au/

Quentin Congrats another quality Simpsons quote

So what if Four Corners referred to the Australia Institute as a "left-leaning"? I watched their asinine "report" on personal debt. Where was the "right-leaning" commentator to balance Clive Hamilton's idiotic views?

This is an extremely important issue in our ongoing war against obfuscation and downright trickery in the naughty public-owned media. Such wrong labeling of think tanks is an affront to democracy everywhere. Think tanks that are left wing should not be confused with other think tanks that are actually right wing. We must not cut and run, we must stay the course and win for the sake of tghe little children. Especially the children of upper management who consult to right wing think tanks.

I think.

This is an extremely important issue in our ongoing war against obfuscation and downright trickery in the naughty public-owned media. Such wrong labeling of think tanks is an affront to democracy everywhere. Think tanks that are left wing should not be confused with other think tanks that are actually right wing. We must not cut and run, we must stay the course and win for the sake of the little children. Especially the children of upper management who consult to right wing think tanks.

I think.

Miranda sez:

This is an extremely important issue in our ongoing war against obfuscation and downright trickery in the naughty public-owned media."

Do you mean that a tax supported corporation must not be held accountable to the public? That a balanced presentation of the news is not required? That biased reporting is acceptable?

I'm a Yank; we have the Public Broadcast System and National Public Radio up here. PBS is reasonably balanced. NPR is.....somewhat looser. But they are not loonie about it. If the Aussies want the ABC accountable for their actions, more power to them!

And if you think otherwise, you really do work for the UN.

Regarding NPR, Real Jeffs, another point of distinction is the way NPR fund-raises in the USA: they regularly held fund-raising drives, and this created a need to justify their existence, explain what's good about themselves, and actually cater for a demand. This created a totally different dynamic from the ABC's, which is really more one of us being expected to be grateful for what they are doing 'for' us. (or should I say, 'to' us...).

The ABC would benefit enormously from conducting such fund-raising drives. I'm still not sure if I'd buy an ABC coffee mug though....

That's a good point, GeoffM. I'd forgotten that. PBS does the same thing, as well.

Maybe the ABC should sell cakes and pies, instead? No, wait, it seems a lot of the Aussies already can't stomach the ABC......

Real JeffS and GeoffM--

The next time PBS and NPR come srounging around for your "dollar a day" contribution, check out the budgets and salaries these people make.

The Morning Edition newsreader on NPR they just unceremoniously demoted was getting near a quarter MILLION dollars a year!

And what programming does PBS provide that wouldn't/couldn't get an outlet on a dozen different commercial channels? History? Nature programs? Arts? Childrens'? Lefty agit-prop? Puh-leaze.

Time to push those leeches outta the government nest and make 'em fly or fall on their own....

By the way, have you seen Link TV or Free Speech TV (FSTV)? Hard left stuff on the satellite. They're like the Chomsky Channel.

Ah, JDB, I did not say that I supported NPR and PBS financially. I don't watch PBS, for the reasons that you mention. I listen to NPR only when on long drives in areas with minimum FM coverage....and if I am really bored.

But those networks get a lot of their funding from donations that they have to go and get. I'd like to see them get fewer tax dollars myself; the original reason for them was to offer alternate programming. With the advent of cable/satellite TV and zillions of channels, they're not needed. As I understand things, the ABC is exclusively public funded (unless they sell ads?).

But I do agree.....$250K for a friggin' news reader? Too much! Unless they pay me to read the news, where upon it's not enough, especially if I to read Chomsky crap with a straight face.

Absolutely JDB, you have us all wrong: the last thing the Real Jeffs and I intended was in any way to suggest that NPR and PBS were in any sense worthy of our praise as media organisations. Its difficult to imagine a more sanctimonious bunch of middle class leftoids.

All I'm saying is that it was healthy that they had to go out and collect the money, rather than it being extracted from the taxpayer against their will. Of course, they get some of this latter money as well, and that needs to be fixed.