3 ms·

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

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

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