Journalism

Now I know my ABC

FNF Media has finally got around to updating the state of our ABC as compiled in the 2018/19 annual report.

The national broadcaster still believes we should fork over even more taxpayer dollars to keep this icon producing more of what the citizens supposedly demand, even though more of the audience believes that “efficiency/management quality” is headed south (p.158) and overall ratings continue to slide.

Despite over $1bn per annum, why do ratings in the metro and regional areas keep falling? We wrote about this last year:

Comparing 2016/17 and 2015/16 the TV audience reach for metro fell from 55.2% to 52.5% and regional slumped from 60.3% to 57.3%. If we go back to 2007/8 the figures were 60.1% and 62.4% respectively. For the 2017/18 period, the ABC targets a 50% reach. Hardly a stretch.

In 2018/19 it fell into the mid-40s. So inside of 13 years, ABC audiences have shrunk by 10-15%. That is appalling.

We have argued for a long time that the ABC needs a complete overhaul.

In the 2018 annual report, the ABC staff survey revealed engagement was at 46%, 6% below the previous survey. This put the broadcaster in the bottom quartile of all ANZ businesses. Reform was and still is desperately needed.

ABC staff complained that management didn’t do enough to get rid of underperformers. Another clear signal that state-sponsored mediocrity was tolerated and staff didn’t like it.

In the 2018/19 annual report, Chair Ita Buttrose AC made the following comments,

Staff morale was badly shaken, and my priority has been to reinvigorate it by restoring order and enhancing good governance with the help of Managing Director, David Anderson, and his management team. Our employees, in content areas and vital support functions, need a strong sense of direction and a feeling that management has their backs. I feel we are now providing it.

Tucked away in the back pages (p.216) is an interesting subsection on the Code of Practice. There is some eye-opening content with respect to the way it conducts its business.

Take this gem to start with on complaints as to whether it constitutes a potential breach of the charter:

A complainant is entitled under section 150 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) (“the BSA”) to take their complaint to the ACMA if, after 60 days, the ABC fails to respond to the complainant or the complainant considers the ABC’s response is inadequate.

The ACMA has a discretionary power to investigate a complaint alleging the ABC has,
in providing a national broadcasting service, breached its Code of Practice. Section 151 of the BSA provides that the ACMA may investigate the complaint if it thinks that it is desirable to do so.

The ACMA’s jurisdiction under sections 150-151 does not encompass the ABC’s print content or content disseminated by the ABC over the internet or through mobile devices.

Print and internet-based content fall out of the remit for complaints. So technically ABC can say what it pleases. ACMA is hardly wielding a big stick when it comes to the ABC.

Accuracy is a fun area which would seemingly fall foul of rarely being presented in context:

2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

Why did the ABC report that less than 1% of burnt area in the recent bushfires had been started by arsonists? Given that most fires couldn’t be attributed to anything at the time, the ABC forgot to mention the “unknown” category so it could slice the data so it could list the smallest possible percentage. 12,000 fires had been reported since August 2019. 1,700 had been investigated with 42% reported by the NSW Police as deliberately lit.

Impartiality

…The ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:
• a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
• fair treatment;
• open-mindedness; and
• opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

Why did it allow a bunch of radical feminists to openly call for the murder of men, providing a platform to a convicted terrorist or happily release a tweet that said former PM Abbott liked anal sex? Or calling conservative politicians “c@nts“? Guess we’re just not open minded enough.

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.
4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.
4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic
principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.
4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.
4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

Why does the ABC constantly run a climate alarmist narrative? Why does Q&A attack conservatives on the panel almost every episode?

Secret recording and other types of deception

“5.8 Secret recording, misrepresentation or other types of deception must not be used by the ABC or its co-production partners to obtain or seek information, audio, pictures or an
agreement to participate except where:

(a) justified in the public interest and the material cannot reasonably be obtained
by any other means; or
(b) consent is obtained from the subject or identities are effectively obscured; or
(c) the deception is integral to an artistic work.

In cases, the potential for harm must be taken into consideration.”

Why did the ABC insert ­itself into the election campaign with a program timed to derail the election prospects of the Left’s hate ­figure, Pauline Hanson and One Nation? An Al ­Jazeera expose, How to Sell a Massacre, was a sting three years in the making, employing hidden cam­eras to ­record One Nation’s ­unsuccessful attempts to solicit foreign funding with the aid of the National Rifle Association. Why was the ABC consorting with the national broadcaster of a foreign power which has highly exceptional human rights standards which flies in the face of all the woke agenda pushed by the ABC? Double standards much?

Privacy

Privacy is necessary to human dignity and every person reasonably expects that their privacy will be respected. But privacy is not absolute. The ABC seeks to balance the public interest in respect for privacy with the public interest in disclosure of information and freedom of expression.

That is a whole can of worms. Can we trust the ABC to execute fairly in this regard?

Harm & Offence

“7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.
7.2 Where content is likely to cause harm or offence, having regard to the context, make
reasonable efforts to provide information about the nature of the content through the use of classification labels or other warnings or advice.”
7.6 Where there is editorial justification for content which may lead to dangerous imitation or exacerbate serious threats to individual or public health, safety or welfare, take appropriate steps to mitigate those risks, particularly by taking care with how content is expressed or presented.
7.7 Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.”

Again, what purpose was there to get a panel of radical feminists outright calling for the murder of men? Or just use taxpayer funds on an article on how to give blow jobs?

Kids Programs

Take due care over the dignity and physical and emotional welfare of children and young people who are involved in making, participating in and presenting content produced or commissioned by the ABC…Take particular care to minimise risks
of exposure to unsuitable content…

Why did the ABC run a kids program attacking white privilege?

We have long supported a shift to the TVNZ model, where the kiwi national broadcaster is forced to raise most of its own revenue by appealing to the demands of the market.

TVNZ gets $310m of its $318m purse from advertising. It’s staff costs excluding capitalizing into programs is $72m which converts to 23% staff cost/revenues. They do with 642 FT employees. Revenue/employee is $495,000 vs half that at the ABC. It paid a dividend back to the government of $3.7m. i.e. it is a revenue generating asset.

In 2007, TVNZ had $339m in revenue. It employed 1,023 people. Therefore revenue per employee was $331,380. So in a decade, TVNZ efficiency improved almost 50%. A 6% cut to revenue on 63% reduction in staff. TVNZ ratings are up too.

So instead of Ita Buttrose impersonating Oliver Twist she should be channeling Jerry Maguire and asking advertisers to “show her the money!”

The ABC needs to live in the real world of media because it provides no distinct differentiation from what is already available in the marketplace. You see our ABC should be confident that it has a sustainable audience for its type of journalism. It shouldn’t be one to fear but one to embrace.

For the ABC, it’s best not risk it. Easier to suck on the teat of the taxpayer and ask for even more money so it can try to arrest the decline in so much content that is totally unsalvageable.

Trump trounces the party of raw onion, lemon and chilli mouthwash in SOTU

Trump smashed the State Of The Union speech. Utterly exposed the Trump Derangement Syndrome within the Democrat’s ranks.

Trump has a glass jaw. This is well known. He made his feelings well known to Speaker Nancy Pelosi in his 2020 SOTU address. He snubbed her handshake and set the tone. It was juvenile and unpresidential to refuse Pelosi’s gesture but Trump wanted the optics. She was shocked. Then again their mutual hate is no surprise to anyone, especially given the impeachment farce.

Before he spoke, Trump was greeted by chants of “4 more years!

The sound of Pelosi’s applause was quieter than a one-handed clap.

Pelosi or the Democrats couldn’t raise one round of applause for record unemployment for blacks, Hispanics, veterans or disabled people. So much for identity politics, they bleat incessantly about.

Trump awarded stage 4 lung cancer sufferer Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Not even Pelosi could extend any warmth for his achievements, let alone his ailment.

You have to hand it to Trump for rallying American greatness. As a media man, he knew exactly how to win the crowd with his special guests.

He spoke of an 8th grader who wants to join the newly created Space Force. His great-grandfather is the 100yo Tuskegee Airman, Brigadier General Charles McGee. Americans love their war heroes. It was a powerful moment.

Even awarding a child of a single mother of colour, Stephanie and Janiyah Davis, with an education freedom scholarship couldn’t bring Democrats to applaud them.

He also spoke of his repudiation of illegal aliens and sanctuary cities. He spoke of Rocky Jones who was shot 8 times and killed at a gas station. He was murdered by an illegal immigrant who was released by a sanctuary city. Trump said he wants to pass legislation to allow victims to sue sanctuary cities for suffering such losses. He also stamped his disgust of giving free healthcare to illegal aliens.

He spoke of drug price transparency and introducing record numbers of generic drugs to lower the cost of medicines. Healthcare is far from perfect but steps are being made.

One of the most powerful moments was the surprise visit of Sgt Williams who was reunited with his family after a long deployment. Chants of “USA” as they embraced was one to pull at the heartstrings of a nation that is proud of its military. Probably the most exceptional moment of the SOTU speech.

Whatever bluster or fact-checking that will inevitably surface in the hateful mainstream media, much of his achievements will ultimately be weighed by the electorate come November.

During all of this, the fact was most Democrats swished a mix of raw onion, lemon and chilli mouthwash. Too bitter to accept the realities of a president that has kept a lot of promises. Staring down at their smartphones as he rattled off KPIs on the economy and the number of companies who are setting up in America. The mainstream media will talk of the handshake snub but the SOTU will be what is remembered by Americans for making them feel proud again.

On the back of the Iowa Caucus farce and his inevitable acquittal from impeachment this week, his coronation looks ever more certain after tonight.

Nancy Pelosi couldn’t wait for it to be over. She ripped his speech up in front of the audience, a terrible look especially given her bitterness. It is hilarious to think on so many issues the Democrats couldn’t celebrate successes of their own citizens.

Trump 1 Democrats 0.

NB – he didn’t mention Iowa or impeachment once.

WaPo wins prize for consistency

Gotta love journalists who stick to their core beliefs. WaPo’s Jennifer Rubin was all about Iowa mattering until it didn’t when her own team so badly stuffed up the vote count. As ever with the Left, it’s the side that matters, not the principle.

It must be a disaster for The Guardian to have this opinion

No need for words – it speaks volumes if The Guardian admits Trump is the winner in Iowa.

Cancel culture puts holes in Swiss chocolatier

Featured Image

Cancel culture. Weak corporate. Gutless response. Repeat.

It seems that Swiss Airlines will remove Swiss chocolatier, Läderach from its supplier list in April over the owner’s affiliation with a pro-life/pro-family Christian organization.

Who is this supposed to help? Passengers have a hard enough time consuming airline meals at the best of times to have the only edible certainty banned. To be honest, how often do passengers actively look through the list of suppliers of crackers, chocolates or packaged cheese and demand a boycott? Why don’t corporates truly work to understand their customers?

For over 10 years, Läderach had supplied Swiss Airlines with small boxes of chocolates that were given to some passengers as a token of appreciation. The company was aware of the CEO’s stance. Why didn’t it conduct proper due diligence 10 years ago?

According to an article published by Swiss magazine “Beobachter,” the airline has a significant number of homosexuals among its employees.

CEO Johannes Läderach denied being against homosexuals.

We have homosexuals working for us, too. We don’t ask them. I attended a gay network event because I wanted to hear what the LGBTQ movement has against Läderach. There I explained that I may have a different opinion on same-sex marriage or on the question when life begins. But this does not mean that I have anything against homosexuals. Läderach has zero-tolerance for discrimination.

Jürg Läderach, the owner of the chocolatier, is president of ‘christianity for today‘ (cft), a Swiss-based group. Johannes Läderach is a board member. cft advocates pro-life and calls for Christian values to be instilled in children.

In October 2019, left-wing activists attacked the Basel Läderach store using butyric acid which causes respiratory irritation, nausea and vomiting. 7 stores were attacked and forced to close for two days to clean the mess. A lot of lost business. Protestors surely broke the law. Repercussions? Probably not. It only emboldens more radical activism.

One has to wonder why Swiss Airlines doesn’t stand up against this form of terrorism instead of giving in to it. The majority of Swiss Airlines passengers probably pay little mind about the views of a chocolate owner. Is everything up for debate? Will something said 20 years ago surface?

As it turns out. Swiss Airlines buckled to a German homosexual lobby group which suggested,  “One way of protesting would be, for example, if hotels or restaurants decided to eliminate Läderach’s products from their range of goods and clearly mark the reason.

Are you noticing a pattern? The list is longer than FNF Media thought.

Greyhound Australia chickened out to a bunch of truants over Adani.

Gillette told its customers to mind their toxic masculinity but was forced to wipe off $8bn in market value as a result of alienating its core clientele. 

Extinction Rebellion inspired protestors are actively trying to bankrupt Shell through willful property destruction.

NFL ratings plunged on the back of the kneeling saga.

Cricket Australia and Tennis Australia were targeted by the ACF over risking violating the Corporations Act if they didn’t address climate change. This was despite the average temperatures during both events being below the long term average.

John McEnroe & Martina Navratilova protested Margaret Court holding different views and pushed Tennis Australia to rename a stadium named after the 77yo sports star after someone they hadn’t consulted who actually loves and admires Court.

Greta Thunberg slammed Roger Federer for having a sponsor which financed the fossil fuel industry. He folded with an utterly spineless response.

Nike cancelled a sneaker on the back of advice from a woke social justice warrior Colin Kaepernick who still can’t make the cut.  

Recall Starbucks forcing its staff to undergo compulsory training to understand their ‘white privilege’ over the legitimate arrest of two people freeloading in the restaurant.

Reebok told us about compelled speech. 

The plastic bag boycott movement which in reality only proved substitution rather than reduction.

NY Times hired an editor who openly said she hates “dumbass f*cking white people“. She has since been fired.

San Francisco Mayor London Breed told her staff that she will no longer conduct business with 22 states that have laws limiting the ability of women to obtain abortions, specifically late-term. Sadly for Breed, Coca-Cola, WalMart, AT&T, Aetna, Pfizer & Eli Lilly have donated to politicians who have advocated for abortion bans in some of those 22 states. Will SF City Council vending machines be stripped of Diet Coke?

Multiple corporates folded to Mad F*cking Witches over radio presenter Alan Jones’ remarks over Jacinda Ardern. One has to question the corporate PR departments to flake out over a group who has that as a name. Companies like Koala Mattresses proudly dumped Jones despite promoting its brand via profanity-laced man-hater, Clementine Ford.

The Code of Conduct from the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia has some interesting clauses regarding nurses acknowledging our colonialist past and check our white privilege.

The University of Texas  started the  “MasculinUT” programme. It was organized by the school’s counselling staff and most recently made a poster series encouraging students to develop a “healthy model of masculinity.” The program is built around “restrictive masculinity” and tries to encourage men to drop traditional gender roles to “act like a man”, be “successful” or “the breadwinner.”

11,000 signatories attached to the non-peer reviewed paper which the media made absolutely zero attempts to question the validity of included Mickey Mouse, Aminta Aardvark and Albus Dumbledore. Typical drip-feed brainless and contemptable reporting.

An open letter supporting the Extinction Rebellion threw up some very enlightening facts. Read it and weep. Not the letter – the stats. Perhaps the most hilarious signatory to the letter is Matthew Flinders of Flinders University. Unless the university website has another Matthew Flinders listed as an active member, our esteemed explorer seems to have navigated his way back to life…simply adding to the total lack of credibility of the cabal of 268 academics who believe they have some sort of intellectual superiority over us. If one ever wanted proof of our judiciary leaning hard left, 12% of the people that signed this document were in law-related fields. Eerily, over 90% of the signatories do not appear to be renowned experts in teaching science, much less climate science.

The Inclusive Communications Task Force at the Colorado State University has introduced an appropriate language guide and it has deemed the words “America” and “Americans” might prove offensive to some and have discouraged their use on campus.

Dr. Aaron Brough of Utah State University conducted the study to see if there is a correlation between toxic masculinity and climate change. His assumptions ran the line that men see environmentalism as more feminine and get triggered if forced to make ecological choices if they feel threatened.

The government-funded University of Melbourne allows an artistic performance that requires “paying” white customers access on the basis of signing an acknowledgement of white privilege.

Don’t miss the posters put up by the University of San Francisco which pointed out how to spot privilege.

A Michigan State University religious studies professor Shreena Gandhi has claimed that white people who do yoga contribute to a “system of power, privilege, and oppression… White Americans should learn yoga’s history, acknowledge the cultural appropriation they engage in and possibly reduce the cost of yoga classes for poor people, a group that often includes people of colour and recent immigrants, such as Indian women to whom this practice rightfully belong.”

According to the BBC, it was. The UK taxpayer-funded broadcaster is buying into this hypothesis that the CIA may have been too “white” and not diverse enough to spot the terrorist activity around September 11, 2001. Weren’t the whites that founded the agency in 1947 the same thinkers who had the nous to use “diversity” (Navaho Native Americans) to devastating effect to transmit sensitive information during WWII?

We could go on and on – but you get the drift.

There have been some good wins from those that have stood up for their beliefs.

Chik-fil-A, refused to back down on its Christian beliefs that the store was founded on.  It is now the fastest-growing fast-food chain in America.

Adani has said things are progressing just fine.

FedEx told customers that it didn’t like guns but wasn’t getting involved in boycotting NRA loyal customers after the Parkland shooting.

NRA membership searches surged 4900% the week after the Parkland shooting as people valued their 2A rights.

What a surprise in today’s academia. Three scholars—James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian—wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable politically correct jargon (wrt gender equality, white supremacy, LGBTQI) and developed ridiculous conclusions with the aim of placing these ‘peer-reviewed’ pieces in high-profile journals. At the time of exposing the hoax 7 journals succeeded in being published, 7 were in the approvals process

This growing intolerance and failure to respect alternative opinions. Instead of openly debating Läderach on how normal the overwhelming majority of LGBT people are, do lobby groups honestly believe shouting them down, using acid, shaming and boycotting will somehow win them over? Not in a million years.

Worryingly, a CIS study in Australia showed that 58% of millennials had a favourable view of socialism. Unfortunately, 51% did not know who Chairman Mao was. Another 32% did not know Stalin and 42% hadn’t heard of Lenin. If we combine with “know but not familiar” with “don’t know” we see almost 80%, 66% and 74% respectively. Oh, how wonderful to learn in school about three men whose social policies led to the deaths of 10s of millions.

Silence is consent. As Orwell said, “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!

Smug?

This comment from Lisa Wilkinson is about as smug as it gets.

ABC Q&A’s audience, true to form, showed the exact opposite. If climate alarmists truly oozed common sense they would actively listen to the opposing view and smash it with hard evidence. The very fact they don’t tells us much.

99% of the audience wont know the statistics in the below links which bring to light the very argument of Senator Jim Molan to question the data.

Lisa Wilkinson might do well to reference these data sets on bushfires in Australia too before rattling off tweets about climate skeptics being smug. Happy to debate her on The Project anytime:

The number of times climate change is mentioned by our fire services before the crisis

NSW RFS budget – where the tax dollars go

$1bn dollars in extra Fire Service spending gone up in smoke?

VIC CFA – why does it have 3x the admin of NSWRFS to cover an area half the size?

WA DFES discusses what causes bushfires and it isn’t climate change

The Fire Services senior management act like a mafia

Volunteer Firefighters Association torches alarmist claims

BOM’s claim it was the hottest year on record in 2019 is untrue

BOM won’t release its methodology on reporting temperatures. Just believe us.

85% of BOM staff in senior management positions.

Shameless behavior at BOM over temperature measuring

Rules on fuel management permits

So the open offer stands to discuss your common sensical ooze. In order to empathize, she will need to look at the data objectively and unemotionally.

One final question, has your household signed up to Zali Steggall’s ‘Roadmap to Zero‘? I note she is up to 171 households now. 0.3% of the households in the electorate! Maybe 99.7% of Warringah residents are permanently smug?

How many oil & gas companies ever advertised in the wokenist Guardian?

For such a spiteful alarmist newspaper, it is highly unlikely that many, if any oil and gas companies regularly advertised in The Guardian. So this token (woken) gesture speaks volumes about the virtue signaling nature of the rag. Presumably Rupert Murdoch will pick up those spoils? The management probably hasn’t thought of that.

While The Guardian might chalk it up as a victory, it is without doubt they are still powered largely by fossil fuels, including coal-fired power. It’s journalists no doubt use planes, cars and other forms of fossil fueled transport to produce their alarmist articles.

The Guardian proudly wrote,

ICYMI, we made an important announcement yesterday. We will no longer accept advertising from oil and gas companies, becoming the first major global news organisation to institute an outright ban on taking money from companies that extract fossil fuels. It will be implemented with immediate effect. https://gu.com/p/d6qq4/au

“Our decision is based on the decades-long efforts by many in that industry to prevent meaningful climate action by governments around the world,” the Guardian’s acting chief executive and chief revenue officer said in a joint statement. “It’s true that rejecting some adverts might make our lives a tiny bit tougher in the very short term. Nonetheless, we believe building a more purposeful organisation and remaining financially sustainable have to go hand in hand.”

In May last year we also updated our style guide to change the language we use to more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world. This is why we favour “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” instead of “climate change”. We also favour saying “climate science denier or climate denier” instead of “climate sceptic”. https://gu.com/p/bfgxm/au

We will not stay quiet and we want the Guardian to play a leading role in reporting on the environmental catastrophe.

As we’ve reported in the past, The Guardian begs for charity after its articles because it’s content is not unique enough to attract a paying audience. It bats against the SMH and ABC for its readership- no palpable differentiation, even if the paper admits it loves using climate hyperbole.

As for being a “tiny bit tougher in the short term” on revenues it is probably as immeasurable as Australia’s impact on C02 in the atmosphere…i.e. 0.0000134%.

Get woke, go broke. Perhaps the paper should reflect on the quote from Rockefeller,

Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it.”