4 ms·

It's the government's broadcaster. This is not a private company. They own it.

jacques_chester 7y ago
That's irrelevant. Police raids are not a proportionate response to inaccuracy, regardless of ownership, bias, wing, hair colour, day of the week, preferred cologne or any other criteria whatsoever.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  I don't agree, but say I give you that point, what's the difference? They can just do it behind closed doors and we wouldn't know.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    > I don't agree, but say I give you that point, what's the difference? The difference is not raiding journalists for reporting on matters of public interest.
    - friendlybus 7y ago
      So if they undermine reporting for matters of public interest in private it's okay? Just be aware you don't actually have control here.
sdwisely 7y ago
It's a public broadcaster, WE own it. The idea that the government should set the agenda for it either as an organization or via intimidation is insanity. It should represent the diversity of people that it in itself is there for. It should have diversity of political thought, culture and the ability to report on whatever it can fact check.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  >The idea that the government should set the agenda for it either as an organization or via intimidation is insanity. That's precisely what the government does on sensitive topics. That's why there's no anti-vax and conspiracy theory bs. What "we" want isn't always a good thing for running a country.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >What "we" want isn't always a good thing for running a country. That isn't (and shouldn't be) up to anybody else to decide.
    - friendlybus 7y ago
      It should be, inside government institutions, like the ABC. Out in the commons and private companies, I agree it should be discussed openly. This whole post has gotten too political and has already broken several rules. I'm bowing out.
  - sdwisely 7y ago
    > That's precisely what the government does on sensitive topics. That's why there's no anti-vax and conspiracy theory bs. What "we" want isn't always a good thing for running a country. That is not at all their role. That conspiracy theories are unverified is what makes them theories, that they take a pro-vax stance is based on the data, research and reaching out to experts in the field. What you're describing is the propaganda arm of a regime, not a media outlet.
    - friendlybus 7y ago
      I don't argue conspiracy theories or antivax is a good thing. My point is that the people have different interests in news than the gov does. For or against the scientific arguments, there are some people out there that want to engage in stupidity and resentment. That is undeniable. The gov denies that outlet and you get it online. I'm not here to defend abject stupidity that you get online, merely to point out decision s are in fact being made by the media. Yet and that's what every country in the west has. Watch the US media deal with NSA wiretapping laws in the 2000s. There are acres of examples of a value structure of stories imposed by governmental interest on gov broadcasters. This is fundamental to what it does as an org.
danso 7y ago
What does that have to do with the critique of the raid? Or ABC's editorial independence? > The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is Australia's national broadcaster founded in 1929. It is currently principally funded by the direct grants from the Australian government, but is expressly independent of government and partisan politics. The ABC plays a leading role in journalistic independence and is fundamental in the history of broadcasting in Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corpor...
- friendlybus 7y ago
  That page has a list a mile long for criticisms on it's attempt to be editorial independent. The ABC Board is appointed by the Governor General with the Federal Parliament. If they own the corporation and can appoint board members they want, even political ones as listed on that wiki page, then they have zero incentive to actually raid the place to get anything done, they can simply do it. So that takes away intent or motive for the "removal of rights" angle. They have a right to run the company as the government sees fit already. The raid may have been done for legitimate reasons, the simple fact it happened isn't enough to say that there was excessive foul play involved and we should distrust the face value story.
  - danso 7y ago
    Every news outlet in existence has its own long list of controversies and accusations of being the government's lapdog; e.g. The New York Times has the legacy of Judith Miller [0] tied to its brand for the foreseeable future. And in any case, what does this have to do with the critique of the raid? The previous commenter [1] argued that A police raid for biased reporting is not a proportionate response.. How is ABC's government charter, or its perceived lack of independence, a mitigating explanation? If the government has the "right to run the company as the government sees fit already" – again, an assertion with no official basis – then why was there a police raid in the first place? As opposed to the government, who purportedly runs and operates ABC, spiking the story? And even this is just a tangential and irrelevant line of argument. In the U.S., the attorney general is appointed and directed by the President. When President Nixon initiated the "Saturday Night Massacre" [2], you believe that the public and the press should have remained unconcerned because Nixon is the boss of his attorney generals? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Career_at_The_New_York_Times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Career_at_The_Ne... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542135 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

That's irrelevant. Police raids are not a proportionate response to inaccuracy, regardless of ownership, bias, wing, hair colour, day of the week, preferred cologne or any other criteria whatsoever.

friendlybus 7y ago
I don't agree, but say I give you that point, what's the difference? They can just do it behind closed doors and we wouldn't know.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  > I don't agree, but say I give you that point, what's the difference? The difference is not raiding journalists for reporting on matters of public interest.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    So if they undermine reporting for matters of public interest in private it's okay? Just be aware you don't actually have control here.

sdwisely 7y ago

It's a public broadcaster, WE own it. The idea that the government should set the agenda for it either as an organization or via intimidation is insanity. It should represent the diversity of people that it in itself is there for. It should have diversity of political thought, culture and the ability to report on whatever it can fact check.

friendlybus 7y ago
>The idea that the government should set the agenda for it either as an organization or via intimidation is insanity. That's precisely what the government does on sensitive topics. That's why there's no anti-vax and conspiracy theory bs. What "we" want isn't always a good thing for running a country.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >What "we" want isn't always a good thing for running a country. That isn't (and shouldn't be) up to anybody else to decide.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    It should be, inside government institutions, like the ABC. Out in the commons and private companies, I agree it should be discussed openly. This whole post has gotten too political and has already broken several rules. I'm bowing out.
- sdwisely 7y ago
  > That's precisely what the government does on sensitive topics. That's why there's no anti-vax and conspiracy theory bs. What "we" want isn't always a good thing for running a country. That is not at all their role. That conspiracy theories are unverified is what makes them theories, that they take a pro-vax stance is based on the data, research and reaching out to experts in the field. What you're describing is the propaganda arm of a regime, not a media outlet.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    I don't argue conspiracy theories or antivax is a good thing. My point is that the people have different interests in news than the gov does. For or against the scientific arguments, there are some people out there that want to engage in stupidity and resentment. That is undeniable. The gov denies that outlet and you get it online. I'm not here to defend abject stupidity that you get online, merely to point out decision s are in fact being made by the media. Yet and that's what every country in the west has. Watch the US media deal with NSA wiretapping laws in the 2000s. There are acres of examples of a value structure of stories imposed by governmental interest on gov broadcasters. This is fundamental to what it does as an org.

danso 7y ago

What does that have to do with the critique of the raid? Or ABC's editorial independence? > The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is Australia's national broadcaster founded in 1929. It is currently principally funded by the direct grants from the Australian government, but is expressly independent of government and partisan politics. The ABC plays a leading role in journalistic independence and is fundamental in the history of broadcasting in Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corpor...

friendlybus 7y ago
That page has a list a mile long for criticisms on it's attempt to be editorial independent. The ABC Board is appointed by the Governor General with the Federal Parliament. If they own the corporation and can appoint board members they want, even political ones as listed on that wiki page, then they have zero incentive to actually raid the place to get anything done, they can simply do it. So that takes away intent or motive for the "removal of rights" angle. They have a right to run the company as the government sees fit already. The raid may have been done for legitimate reasons, the simple fact it happened isn't enough to say that there was excessive foul play involved and we should distrust the face value story.
- danso 7y ago
  Every news outlet in existence has its own long list of controversies and accusations of being the government's lapdog; e.g. The New York Times has the legacy of Judith Miller [0] tied to its brand for the foreseeable future. And in any case, what does this have to do with the critique of the raid? The previous commenter [1] argued that A police raid for biased reporting is not a proportionate response.. How is ABC's government charter, or its perceived lack of independence, a mitigating explanation? If the government has the "right to run the company as the government sees fit already" – again, an assertion with no official basis – then why was there a police raid in the first place? As opposed to the government, who purportedly runs and operates ABC, spiking the story? And even this is just a tangential and irrelevant line of argument. In the U.S., the attorney general is appointed and directed by the President. When President Nixon initiated the "Saturday Night Massacre" [2], you believe that the public and the press should have remained unconcerned because Nixon is the boss of his attorney generals? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Career_at_The_New_York_Times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Career_at_The_Ne... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542135 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre