Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314 LastLast
Results 133 to 144 of 159

Thread: Hawthorn racism review

  1. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruck'n'Roll View Post
    The ABC is the most balanced media entity in Australia, actually it's almost the only media entity in Australia that actually makes any effort to provide balance in reporting. I've seen plenty of right wing talking heads given air time on the ABC, presumably to balance the microscopic ABC tendency towards the left of the middle, but I've yet to see any actual hard left dogmatists given airtime. And frankly, if one did pop up calling for the cancellation of the personal tax cuts for the top income brackets, the nationalisation of Qantas, the end of franking credits, and possibly even a spell in a re-education camp for all those responsible for the Opal Tower - I think I'd probably applaud.
    But seriously, I recall a poll on 'trusted institutions' done early in Abbotts premiership, the result was emphatic in that the ABC was the most trusted institution/body in the country (I think nurses came second).
    I know it's an article of faith for the loony right to question the ABC's impartiality and balance, but I think that just reflects their inability to recognise either of those concepts, certainly the alternatives make no effort whatsoever. If anything the ABC make fetish of impartiality, they regularly castigate those failing to meet the requirements. And Media Watch spends far more time pillorying the ABC as they do anyone else.
    "Nine Entertainment" is precisely that, it's employees function more as flacks than hacks and they're news reporting is becoming contaminated with paid content.
    And as for the Murdoch empire, it's nothing more than a propaganda factory, the only thing I have personally experienced comparable to Sky commentary were the military grade loudspeakers that were such a feature of late Cultural Revolution China. Whatever their political affiliation, totalitarians don't do subtle.
    Hear, hear.

  2. #134
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,527
    Quote Originally Posted by i'm-uninformed2 View Post
    Sydney flagging some sort of review of its own. Micky O involved in the board subcommittee to consider the way to do it.

    Good on the club for being proactive.

    No Cookies | Herald Sun
    So good. Really pleased with this. And to be expected from Pridham and Harley.

  3. #135
    Senior Player Matty10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southbank, VIC
    Posts
    1,306

    Hawthorn racism review

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruck'n'Roll View Post
    The ABC is the most balanced media entity in Australia, actually it's almost the only media entity in Australia that actually makes any effort to provide balance in reporting.
    I don’t approach news on that basis. There is too much individual bias to trust any one news outlet. It is unavoidable. You basically have to hear from a range and critique everything you hear, but that can be both tedious and frustrating. Sometimes I think it is better to just ignore them all and live a happier life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruck'n'Roll View Post
    And Media Watch spends far more time pillorying the ABC as they do anyone else.
    I think the days of objectivity are long gone in respect to Media Watch. They are, I would say unashamedly, an ideological mouthpiece. That is not to say that a lot of what they highlight isn’t true, but they are clearly trying to counter the right in what they present and how it is presented. And good luck to them.

    When the Hawthorn story was reported on the ABC one of the journalists editorialised that the complainants reached out to a news service they could trust, which I thought was an interesting turn of phrase as it seemed more like a persuasive catchphrase than a matter of fact. It is also one of the questions that I would like clarified: who contacted who to initiate the story? The other comment made at the time was that the complainants didn’t want (or were reluctant) to tell their story as it was too painful to revisit. These two points are somewhat incongruous.

    The comments last night by Gil on AFL360 about the saga were also interesting in that they still did not know who the individuals were who made the accusations against the coaches who were named.

    What happens if they refuse to take any further part in the investigations that follow? Does that make it more difficult to verify the veracity of the claims? And how can that be done to anyone’s satisfaction? Does it then put limitations on the possible outcomes? Whose sense of justice will then be compromised?

  4. #136
    Ego alta, ergo ictus Ruck'n'Roll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Over here!
    Posts
    3,222
    Quote Originally Posted by MattW View Post
    So good. Really pleased with this. And to be expected from Pridham and Harley.
    I am too, keeping a condition hidden and untreated is never a valid treatment. I'm glad the club is going to get themselves checked out. I hope there is no issue, and trust that if there is, we will take appropriate remedial steps.

    I wonder what Elijah Taylor will have to say?

  5. #137
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    2,106
    I'll give you one reason why the Hawthorn players mightn't have wanted their names bandied about. Adam Goodes.

  6. #138
    Senior Player Matty10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southbank, VIC
    Posts
    1,306
    Quote Originally Posted by KTigers View Post
    I'll give you one reason why the Hawthorn players mightn't have wanted their names bandied about. Adam Goodes.
    Of course. But there is a difference between public and private anonymity.

  7. #139
    Ego alta, ergo ictus Ruck'n'Roll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Over here!
    Posts
    3,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Matty10 View Post
    When the Hawthorn story was reported on the ABC one of the journalists editorialised that the complainants reached out to a news service they could trust, which I thought was an interesting turn of phrase as it seemed more like a persuasive catchphrase than a matter of fact.
    So the complainants trust in the ABC has no basis in fact, whereas distrust of the ABC does? Talking of bias - good lord.

    The Sky bias against Media Watch, is only partly based on having their poor work brought to light, I think there's a degree of sour grapes from Andrew Bolt - when his campaign to get the host gig didn't succeed.
    I think your perceptions on the program are incorrect though, are you a regular viewer?

  8. #140
    Senior Player Matty10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southbank, VIC
    Posts
    1,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruck'n'Roll View Post
    I think your perceptions on the program are incorrect though, are you a regular viewer?
    Only for a few months a year when teaching students about media bias.

  9. #141
    Senior Player Matty10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southbank, VIC
    Posts
    1,306

    Hawthorn racism review

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruck'n'Roll View Post
    So the complainants trust in the ABC has no basis in fact, whereas distrust of the ABC does? Talking of bias - good lord.
    I think you are conflating and mischaracterising two separate points I made here.

  10. #142
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Close to the old Lake Oval
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Matty10 View Post
    I don’t approach news on that basis. There is too much individual bias to trust any one news outlet. It is unavoidable. You basically have to hear from a range and critique everything you hear, but that can be both tedious and frustrating. Sometimes I think it is better to just ignore them all and live a happier life.



    I think the days of objectivity are long gone in respect to Media Watch. They are, I would say unashamedly, an ideological mouthpiece. That is not to say that a lot of what they highlight isn’t true, but they are clearly trying to counter the right in what they present and how it is presented. And good luck to them.

    When the Hawthorn story was reported on the ABC one of the journalists editorialised that the complainants reached out to a news service they could trust, which I thought was an interesting turn of phrase as it seemed more like a persuasive catchphrase than a matter of fact. It is also one of the questions that I would like clarified: who contacted who to initiate the story? The other comment made at the time was that the complainants didn’t want (or were reluctant) to tell their story as it was too painful to revisit. These two points are somewhat incongruous.

    The comments last night by Gil on AFL360 about the saga were also interesting in that they still did not know who the individuals were who made the accusations against the coaches who were named.

    What happens if they refuse to take any further part in the investigations that follow? Does that make it more difficult to verify the veracity of the claims? And how can that be done to anyone’s satisfaction? Does it then put limitations on the possible outcomes? Whose sense of justice will then be compromised?
    Great post

  11. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by Matty10 View Post
    It is simply way too early in the reporting of this story to be definitive about anything. To be making judgements at this stage probably says more about the individual bias that a person holds than anything else.

    I know this investigation is being framed in terms of race, as the initial probe was charged with exploring the treatment of Indigenous Australians within the Hawthorn Football Club, but I think it would be wiser to expand the criteria and look at the treatment of all young recruits at the club (or any AFL club). The power imbalance that exists between player and club, particularly for those who are vulnerable in some way, could see this sort of thing happen to anyone.

    It might end up looking like the RCIADIC where the statistical anomalies are multifaceted instances of institutional racism and its legacies that leads to an outcome rather than racism being the cause of the outcome itself.

    At this stage, it is a wait and see approach from me.
    Agree 100%

  12. #144
    On the veteran's list
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Swans Heartland
    Posts
    1,958
    I think critics of the ABC confuse lack of balanced reporting with failure to give nutcase theories equal air time. Should flat-earthers be given equal time with stories assuming the earth to be a globe? Should Holocaust deniers be given equal time with stories around WW2 Germany? Should theABC give air to Bolt’s uneducated stolen generation rants every time they report on indigenous issues?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO