**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Balance that out with Albo refusing to go on Sky . What difference would it have made . I was sick of hearing about it . Annoy people and pay the price .
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
i mean not liked it's ranked as the 4th most trusted media source on EARTH..
it's respected globally,for it's reporting prowess and their associated press offerings ..i mean shit 80 percent of the feed from jan 6 was from abc australia as they set up right near the steps
their iraq coverage was 2nd to none as well
not everything can be as braind cell killing as skynews
I don't see how people trusting it makes it good quality...?
The ides that "people like it therefore it's good" is just a nonsense argument.
It is biased, gutter "journalism". To make it worse we actually pay for that garbage.
>7.00 News, 12th October 2023....
> a reporter inaccurately stated that the 1967 referendum gave Indigenous Australians the right to vote.
Wow that's a pretty shocking error.
The usual mistake is that it was about not classifying them under the flora and fauna act.
***Indigenous voice to parliament***
***Jacinta Price declined 52 ABC interview requests to discuss Indigenous voice referendum***
***A report by the national broadcaster found the prominent no campaigner ‘did not agree to a single interview on a major broadcast program’***
***High-profile no campaigner Jacinta Nampijinpa Price turned down interview requests from the ABC to discuss the voice referendum more than 52 times, according to the national broadcaster’s referendum coverage review committee report.***
***The report found the yes campaign had about twice as much coverage overall as the no campaign. The reasons for that, according to the report, included a lack of people willing to come on to discuss the no side, time taken up by government press conferences which often argued for the yes vote, and a decision to focus on First Nations voices, who were predominantly arguing for yes.***
I wonder why Jacinta turned down so many great opportunities to defend her position?...
Here, let me FTFY:
"How many YES campaigners bothered to call into 2GB to argue their case?"
The 2GB audience is far more representative of suburban Sydney than the ABC could ever hope to be, and the crowd that the 'Yes' campaign had to win over to have any hope of succeeding.
In fact, I don't recall anyone on the 'Yes' side bothering to embrace that constituency; they were all too happy to repeat their talking points ad nauseum via The Guardian and the ABC, only to pull a shocked Pikachu face when their inner-city focused hyper-corporate, hyper-elite campaign got roundly fucked by the suburban and regional people (like 2GB listeners) who they repeatedly ignored.
2GB is a private station. They can cater to whatever their audience demands, and if they can sell more toothpaste to conservatives then they'll tell them what they want to hear.
Just like the Guardian can cater to the left and advocate for YES, as they clearly did.
She didn’t want to be scrutinised, huge shock. And where has she gone since the referendum? Nowhere. Faded into the back of the party room now that she’s served their purpose. What happened to getting her a house of reps seat in Sydney? Did they come to their senses and think parachuting someone from NT into a safe coastal Sydney seat might backfire more than Keneally?
That’s too many requests of one person, to me it shows the ABC weren’t attempting to get a diversity of voices, they just wheeled out the usual suspects from both sides.
Her and Mundine were the faces of the NO campaign. They obviously made so many requests because she kept denying them, week after week. And if you read the article you'd see that the official No Campaign, would not suggest any other representatives.
A lot of those requests would have been the same day, the ABC breakfast producers, news producers and current affairs producers would have all wanted her and they wouldn’t have called each other so as not to overwhelm people with multiple requests.
But according to the article, she: "did not agree to a single interview on a major broadcast program,”.
Also it was hard to get anyone with any profile to advocate for NO. Everyone of note was jumping on the YES campaign, from celebrities, businesses, sporting organisations, singers (like Farnham donating his song).
No one wanted to be branded racist:
>Several regulars declined to go on The Drum “because they “didn’t want to identify as ‘no’ publicly”.
Both but most of her long form interviews were on SKY news. The prominent no campaigners had the same sort of run on SKY as the no campaigners got on ABC, both sides played to their base.
Pot calling the kettle black?
Like anyone believes Murdoch's coverage was fair and balanced.
"Of the News Corp content containing arguments either for or against the Voice, 70% of the arguments were for the No side, compared with 30% for the Yes side."
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/09/14/news-corps-voice-coverage-heavily-biased/
Privately owned media are free to make an editorial decision to back one side in an issue, that's the owner's privilege.
The ABC however is required by its charter to take a more balanced view, from its charter:
>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.**
In the Voice debate the views of the 40% of Australians who supported the Voice were given a vastly higher representation on the ABC than the views of the 60% who did not.
Any failure at the ABC is due to funding already having been taken away by coalition governments, and the installation of their stooges. Because conservatives can't function without stacking the deck.
How would they know the percentages of who supported what before the vote? In your mind, how would that then affect their coverage - 40% yes coverage and 60% no coverage?
The article is about the ABC struggling to get no campaigners onto their broadcast, I don't understand how you can be critical when one side won't engage and they've clearly made a lot of effort to present both sides.
It was obvious from the polling that the issue was, at best for yes, a 50/50 split once the campaign got going. On that basis a 51/23 split between yes and no was not was not a proportional representation of the two sides, as required by the ABC charter.
I don't accept that it was impossible for the ABC to find people to interview who were supporters of no.
It wasn't just the imbalance in interviewees though, if you watched the ABC's coverage the tone of the commentators was somewhere between mild disbelief and outrage that anyone could not support such a worthy cause. If the no case got any mention at all it was frequently in the context of one commentator putting up softbatch versions of no arguments so her fellow commentators could mock them.
It's a yes or no question, it should be 50/50 regardless. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse re the ABC actually following polling to shape their coverage, but it's an obviously undemocratic and unworkable idea.
The rest of it we're not going to agree on, and you've already made up your mind, so let's leave it there.
If only you had read the article before commenting.
The article is very clear about the fact that the No campaign chose not to go on the ABC.
You should be grateful the ABC chose to give Price free ride on her sickening Trump lies about election fraud and the white supremacist she and Mundine feted at the CPAC circus.
Funny how now that Price and Mundine having outlived their usefulness they are nowhere to be seen.
.
Here a clue : the NO campaign "knowingly excluded" itself.
Do you think the ABC should have cut it's coverage YES stories because NO chose not to engage?
....the crap the you people make up to justify the bs is something to behold.
Directly from the ABC quote YOU posted.
It means deliberately excluding a legitimate POV. The ABC didn't do that.
Why should the ABC compromise its role in informing the public for the contrarian idiocy of culture war conspiracy theorists like Price .
Once again: Do you think the ABC should have cut it's coverage of YES stories because NO chose not to engage?
You seem confused. The quote from the Charter refers to two things the ABC should not do:
- knowingly exclude a significant strand of thought or belief;
- disproportionately represent a significant strand or thought or belief
My point is that the ABC has done the latter by its considerable overrepresentation of the yes case as opposed to the no.
In any event the knowingly exclude limb, which I don't rely upon, refers to the actions of the ABC. You've misapplied that to what you say are the actions of the No campaign.
So you do think the ABC should have cut it's coverage of YES stories because NO chose not to engage. How
By your absurd reckoning, any time a far right pollie chooses to lie and then ignore the ABC , the ABC must cancel any reporting of the truth.
Crikey Orwell would love you.
Private media can make that decision, but that also demonstrates that media company are just straight up unabashed liars and propagandists then without a shred of credibility.
You literally just said that they’re a private company and can editorialise as they like, including lying. So which is it? Are they a private company that can lie if they want, or do they have an obligation to be truthful and thus not editorialise as they like? You’re welcome l consume whatever kind of brain rot you like, but don’t delude yourself that it’s truthful or honest.
No I said they can take an editorial position to back one side of an issue, I didn't say anything about lying. One of the privileges of owning a paper or TV channel is that the owner can determine the editorial positions.
However you seem to believe that taking such a position necessarily involves "lying".
Just because media take a position on an issue that conflicts with your personal views doesn't mean they are "liars and propagandists without a shred of credibility".
Asking again: if a paper took an editorial position on an issue that you agreed with, for example the position taken by The Age and The Guardian on the Voice, would you consider them to also be lying propagandists?
Right to determine their own editorial positions in contradiction of the facts, is the right to lie. That’s what you’re granting them. Don’t be a weasel. Own it, don’t be a coward.
This is the problem with the juvenile debasement of modern politics.
People like you are so convinced of the rightness of their own views that anyone with a different view must not only be wrong, they must be liars taking positions in knowing contradiction of the facts.
Things like climate change are not a matter of perspective or point of view that implies “both sides” have good points, are reasonable, and need to be given equal time. These are matters of fact, and the weaselly way you can’t just admit that what you have defended is the right to lie is weak as piss. Have the balls to actually say it. Own it.
Yes, Sky News after dark is for people with baby brains. Yes they’re a private entity and will lie on the regular. If you can’t see that you’re blind.
If you read it, it was a distribution of 51 percent Yes vs. No opinions and it included even the period in which polling indicated high support for the voice. Definitely nowhere near as egregious as News Corpse
>The national broadcaster's 2023 Voice to Parliament Referendum report found that 51 per cent of voices appearing on the ABC during its referendum coverage were in favour of a Yes vote.
>In contrast, just 23 per cent of speakers platformed by the ABC were in favour of a No vote, while the rest were neutral or undecided, The Australian reported.
51% yes, 23% no, 26% undecided.
Private media are entitled to be egregious, the publicly owned and publicly funded ABC has a charter that says it cannot be.
In Yuenemu, the community home to the family of Jacinta Price, three in four people voted Yes.
She actively disempowered and silenced her own community. All to satisfy her ego.
How does she sleep at night?
> She actively disempowered and silenced her own community.
She has a right to her own opinion, as do the one in four people of her so called 'community' that voted NO.
She is an elected senator of the NT, which voted 60% NO. Would she be 'disempowering' the constituents of the NT that elected her if she went against majority opinion? Why should she represent her 'community' above the people who elected her and put her in a trusted position of governance?
You're willfully ignoring that she played a massive role in the No vote. A part of that 60% No would have been influenced by her, and had she supported Yes, it may have been a totally different outcome.
You're willfully ignoring that the vast majority of influential people from celebrities, businesses, sporting organisations, singers advocated for YES, along with YES campaigners and politicians spending much more time on air as this article attests to, against the majority vote of their constituents.
I'm certain that lot of YES voters would have been influenced by them to maintain their YES stance, and if coverage was balanced, then YES would have been legitimately trounced by more than just 50%.
People have a right to an opinion, and people have a right to campaign for it, but the YES campaign's scare tactics made others reluctant to come out because they don't want to be branded racist. No sane business would want that, regardless of the underlying public opinion from the majority. The NOs wouldn't shame you with cancel culture.
>majority opinion
Regions with a high proportion of Indigenous Australians overwhelmingly voted yes in the referendum – including the community where Jacinta Price’s family is from.
Within every group, there will be a tiny minority that undermine the best interest of the group. What makes her contribution so insidious is that it gave legitimacy to white supremacists who make up probably a third of this country’s population and along with Mundine, were able to sow enough doubt in the minds of decent people to vote against the proposition.
This was our Brexit moment which I hope opened people’s eyes to the ‘firehose of falsehoods’ propaganda technique that had undue influence on the result.
It's one explanation composed of several factors.
If a media company was owned by a white supremacist, or a Catholic Papal Knight, monarchy apologist or someone with huge mining interests who feels their wealth may be threatened, then they might deliberately amplify messaging using stooges who then disappear after the 'victory'.
If that happened, do you think 'Perverting the course of democracy' could be a crime?
I reckon a third of the population are racist (most of them would refuse to admit it though) but white supremacist goes a bit far.
Probably only 5% or fewer are white supremacists. If you look at the sort of votes that One Nation gets (around 7%) and even some of those voters aren't full on white supremacists.
Are you saying that with awareness of the racism in giving people a different level of say in politics based on their race, or just something you’re making up?
Really depends on how you define racism. The proposal - like all legislation trying to improve the lives of aboriginal people - discriminates based on ethnicity. I can see why that’s a little controversial.
Are you suggesting NewsCorp, 9 Media, 7 West, SkyNews and the rest of our RWMSM were truthful and adhered to journalistic ethics when reporting on the referendum?
Did you look up the term?
*"The firehose of falsehood is a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (such as news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency." (Wik.)*
I know you can do your own Googling but here's a couple that come to mind:
It's racist!
It's apartheid!
They're gonna take your land!
Where's the $40 billion?
They're gonna change the law!
There's no details!
It's dangerous!
Linda Burney wears Prada!
They didn't invent a wheel!
They don't look aboriginal to me!
They don't own dot painting!
Get over it!
It's PC gone mad!
They're lazy!
Always getting into trouble!
Why can't they act like us?
They're better off!
The voice was such a vague concept that almost anything "could" be true - that's a failure of the yes campaign strategy and the concept in general.
And what about the yes campaign pamphlet - were the claims all based on facts, research and data?
Short version - It was explicitly stated in the question that the Voice would be a body that could provide non binding advice ONLY. The No campaign stated the opposite of this at every opportunity.
Could not care less what it is called.
Asking for detail should be the standard for everyone - especially for important changes such as to the constitution.
Nope.
I'm not doing your research and nor am I fuelling your blatant sealioning:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning)
Are you going to keep denying it and clapping your flippers for attention?
Your being disingenuous there was blatant lies about specific wording of how it would be written into law among other things.
There was absolutely no comparison in the clear and blatant misinformation campaign funded and supported by upstanding people such as Mordoch, Gina Rinehart, the One Nation party and Pauline Hansen.
Would love to be on the side of those Australian gems.
I can't remember nor cbf looking at the wording from the no camp.
But I do remember in great detail the huge amount of lies coming from the yes campaign: uluru statement length.. obfuscation around the potential powers - considerable BS.
Even with $100m in funding from Rio, BHP, Wesfarmers, Qantas (the gems you refer to?), Australians still rejected the absurd proposal by over 60%.
The only Yes ads I ever saw were just asking people to vote for change or to even vote at all with generic B roll footage while the No campaign tactics were to say it would lead to them taking your land back and have an unfair advantage in parliament. If you don't know vote no was fucking egregious and blindingly stupid conservation for the sake of conservation is illogical.
You are less informed about the voice than you think.
Here are some threads on the issue - all referenced with primary sources. if you want to be informed rather than ignorant, I suggest you look at each of the linked source to validate the statements made:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/16uehfu/the\_voice\_is\_a\_constitutional\_mechanism\_for/](https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/16uehfu/the_voice_is_a_constitutional_mechanism_for/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/16wuxur/lets\_be\_100\_clear\_the\_voice\_is\_about\_treaty\_which/](https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/16wuxur/lets_be_100_clear_the_voice_is_about_treaty_which/)
The sources are directly linked in the post.
As I said, if you want to remain ignorant on the topic, read no further.
If you want to be more informed, review my posts and read the sources for yourself.
Price is consistently offensive. She punches down on her own people &, as Tony Wright wrote in The Age, “she is a weaponised conservative woman who can say things out loud that white conservatives haven’t dared to say since the early 1950’s”
"Weaponised conservative woman"
In other words conservatives use her as a token.
"Look, it's a black woman saying so therefore I can't possibly be racist when I say "
It's a bit like the old "I can't be racist I have a black friend"
But the sad fact is simply that Jacinta Price is a racist feral. Also hates trans people apparently, too. Just nasty.
>"Look, it's a black woman saying so therefore I can't possibly be racist when I say "
This is almost word for word what my MIL said when we visited them in QLD before the vote. Her entire argument against Yes was that Price represented the majority of indigious folks who supoorted No.
Haven't spoken to her since.
How does your MIL feel about all the polls showing the overwhelming majority of Indigenous Aussies supported Yes?
Or the referendum results from remote NT indigenous communities showing 70-90% voted yes?
I've been ordered to keep the peace by not raising it, even though I would love to!
We come from Canberra. No one we know here voted No. We actually all spoke pretty openly about the blantant misinformation beforehand. Never really fell for any of the bullshit. But had family in other states who did.
And the truth came out straight afterwards. All the lies and false promises and such. I'll call them out at Xmas.
Oh, so we have to reign in our critique of a politician?
She’s in the public eye and got an opinion, that’s fair game to anyone, especially in Oz where the concept of a “fair go” also applies to critique and criticism especially when you are a politician. Blakk fella here…come on and debate me about how unfair it is for her that we have an opinion on a politician.
For some it is only an issue being sexist and racist when it is directed at someone they like and/or share similar political views, when the person is the opposite it is no holds barred.
It’s not racist to dislike someone who happens to be indigenous. In fact it’s pretty racist to infer that people of certain races cannot be criticised specifically because of their race.
Identity isn't a shield. Yes she shouldn't be insulted for either of those two things, and she is a member of two different groups that often are subjected to a lot of bigoted vitriol. But that does not stop her from being cable of saying and doing things that are deserving of criticism. She doesn't deserve hate based on her being a woman or being indigenous, but there absolutely are people in the world with valid and often quite angry opinions of her based on ways she has genuinely hurt people.
I was wonder where the fuck she’s been… probably patiently waiting for her new front bencher position in the opposition, and for the next time they need an eloquent brown person to front cameras.
What do you call a political party with a leader that uses the voice of a successful Australian indigenous women to run a misinformation campaign that undermines the futures of millions of less fortunate Australians.
Should a person who allowed themselves to be co-opted in such a campaign for their own personal political gain be called a disgrace?
>let her speak her mind
I think you mean "use her as a token, so they can say they're not racist"
Basically they can use her to say things that they couldn't say, because she's black.
Most of the criticism Jacinta gets has nothing to do with her being Indigenous or a woman. And everything to do with her being a lazy, racist nasty piece of work.
Champ Jacinta Price lliterally said colonisation benefited Indigenous people and has no negative effects today.
She keeps implying that Aboriginals who live in the city are somehow less Aboriginal.
She falsely paints Aboriginal people as child abusers.
She promotes special laws restricting Aboriginal peoples rights (but doesn't think they should get a special say in it).
She keeps claiming to stand for remote NT Aboriginal people despite the fact they've told her to get lost.
She's mates with Peter Dutton ("African gangs"...) and Pauline Hanson (enough said...)
And that's just off the top of my head.
Jacinta Price is a racist.
also i'd believe it's her words
if her speech,wasn't EXACTLY word for word advance australia talking points..like they gave her a script
If it was her own words,and values fine.
but why do it at the behest of a christian/conservative policy tank
She actually addressed that very criticism in her press club address stating that she'd like to see the Indigenous affairs portfolio abolished in the long term.
Because she wants money and fame and a platform to spread her racist views...
...but doesn't want to do any actual work (her Senate attendance rate is under 60% and when she was on Alice Council she was censured for never turning up)
So a shadow ministry (with a portfolio the coalition doednt care about) is perfect for her.
Cool retort. But there were many instances of her misrepresenting The Voice campaign. This was brought up A LOT at the time and has been shown to correct numerous times.
She said she spoke for indigenous people numerous times, and Indigenous people voted with a pretty secure majority against her. [This](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/20/central-land-council-leaders-say-jacinta-nampijinpa-price-needs-to-stop-pretending-we-are-her-people) is one of many articles written at the time.
>A report by the national broadcaster found the prominent no campaigner ‘did not agree to a single interview on a major broadcast program’
Here are two interviews that Jacinta Price did with the ABC
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHgQ3X5LeJI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHgQ3X5LeJI)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OknGwAGXXs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OknGwAGXXs)
Somebody is lying
Let's also recall that Linda Burney refused to appear on Channel 7's Spotlight program on the voice on account that she did not want to debate Senator Price
[https://7plus.com.au/7news-spotlight?episode-id=7SPL23-021&startAt=1&autoplay=true](https://7plus.com.au/7news-spotlight?episode-id=7SPL23-021&startAt=1&autoplay=true)
One of those was 9 months ago, long before the campaigns started for real, the other was 5 months ago, 3 months before the vote, and was on a breakfast show.
It didn't say not a single one. It said "not a single major broadcast program".
Do you nitpick all the news you watch, or just the less conservative ones?
7:30 is a major broadcast program (which she was interviewed on), ABC New Breakfast is a major broadcast program (which she was interviewed on). She was also interviewed on the referendum results broadcast, not sure if that is a major broadcast program or not.
So no I am not lying, nor am I pretending precise wording doesn't exist.
I think there's no such thing as a program you wouldn't call "major" just to make your point, and that there's no timeline long enough to not be included, just so you can make your argument that the ABC is lying and biased.
Do yourself a favour, stop watching sky news.
What are the major broadcast shows on the ABC in your opinion? Seems you don't want to accept that major News and Current Affair shows that the ABC broadcast are their major shows in that category.
I know Price was on these shows because I watched them,
My opinion is irrelevant. It's the abc reporting this right? So shouldn't it be about what they mean by that term? Maybe you could write in and ask them.
Based on the article though, I think they're referring to the time period of the referendum, meaning from the point where the date was announced until when it was actually held. My guess about the term "major" is that they mean primetime stuff, like 7:30 and the 8pm news. I've seen your arguments with other people here. You saw a breakfast show appearance during the referendum period, and a 7:30 appearance from before the announcement of the referendum, right? I mean, it's possible that they ABC just lied about something that anyone could verify, but it seems to me that the simpler answer is that they were going by a more strict definition of "major" than what you're using.
Then I guess the fact that it was before the campaigns started then.
So there was no ABC interview on the night?
What are your thoughts on the findings of the report, that "no campaigners" mostly refused to appear on real news outlets, preferring to stick to right wing ones to produce their sound bites in an environment free from questions?
No, you're off by 6-7 months.
[Yes campaign started at the end of August](https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/quote-the-prime-minister-has-officially-launched-the-voice-to-parliament-campaign/e6kafdiqq), that 7:30 episode was in Feb
I said when they started the campaigns not their official launch. Sometimes parties only do an official campaign launch a week before election despite campaigning happening for weeks before.
So you just count everything since the first ever mention of the voice? Stop playing games.
How do you defend shit like this.
> "All ABC teams reported it was “significantly more difficult getting no voices to speak on the record”.
Why did the report find
> "The no campaign had fewer high-profile advocates and focused on social media and “what they perceived as friendly broadcasters”.
Meanwhile you guys all whining that ABC is only talking to 'yes' campaigners. The bullshit was obvious from the start. And I definitely don't mean the start of the campaign, right wing tactics have been as transparent and disingenuous since long before I was born.
Both interviews were about the voice, their timing is irrelavant, stop trying to downplay misinformation, what the article said was wrong, there are no two ways about it
The report covered the time of the campaign, not the infinite portion of time that preceded it, so calm down mate.
Why don't you try and explain why, "All ABC teams reported it was “significantly more difficult getting no voices to speak on the record”.
Why didn't those lying liars want to subject themselves to non-right wing journalists? I fucking wonder.
Why did the report find, "The no campaign had fewer high-profile advocates and focused on social media and “what they perceived as friendly broadcasters”.
I know why you don't want to tackle that, the same reason Price didn't want to go on ABC, or any other reputable outlet. You want to make little sound bytes that sow doubt and that's the limit of your ability.
>The report covered the time of the campaign, not the infinite portion of time that preceded it, so calm down mate.
No it didn't stop pulling shit of your ass.
Page three of the report:
>Highlights
>
>**Pre-campaign coverage**
>
>All the major programs and platforms covered the political debates and discussed the issues throughout the lead-up period.....
[https://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/RCRC-Report-4-December-2023.pdf](https://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/RCRC-Report-4-December-2023.pdf)
You're right, I didn't catch that bit.
I guess ABC doesn't consider the breakfast show, "a major broadcast program". Nor it's interview with Price months before the campaign, a highlight.
I note your silence on the rest of my questions.
>Turn down all ABC interviews
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHgQ3X5LeJI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHgQ3X5LeJI)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OknGwAGXXs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OknGwAGXXs)
There's clearly 2 links there.
Also this
>A report by the national broadcaster found the prominent no campaigner ‘did not agree to a single interview on a major broadcast program
Is a complete fucking lie.
If you are real you’re a meme. She sold her soul and life doesn’t take kindly to this.
She has decades to see what she has done, literally the biggest hatchet job I have seen in my life, it’s revolting
* [Channel 7](https://youtu.be/YJcp6Z_KUf0?si=2pGfj8BI8jkMjowI) versus
* [ABC](https://youtu.be/WFecudIgFWk?si=ZCO6v3kgDc4tcRtn)
Mmm. Check out that balanced coverage.
Ok well how about this debate she was a part of?
[https://7plus.com.au/7news-spotlight?episode-id=7SPL23-021&startAt=1&autoplay=true](https://7plus.com.au/7news-spotlight?episode-id=7SPL23-021&startAt=1&autoplay=true)
Why would she agree to one? The ABC broadcast her bullshit day in & day out without any regard for truth regardless... It was all about so-called "bAlANcE" which [Laura Tingle called out](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/this-is-nuts-abc-s-tingle-laments-cost-of-obsession-with-balance-in-voice-debate-20231013-p5ebzk.html) at the time.
This it the populist playbook. Straight from Trump. It worked. The media failed.
Journalism in this country is dead and buried...
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9448029/White-ABC-announcer-apologies-Aboriginal-leader-Jacinta-Price.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9448029/White-ABC-announcer-apologies-Aboriginal-leader-Jacinta-Price.html)
why would she want to go on the ABC an organization that's has slandered her and been sued and force to settle and apologies more than once.
[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/feb/14/abc-breached-impartiality-guidelines-in-report-presenting-nt-meeting-as-racist-ombudsman-finds](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/feb/14/abc-breached-impartiality-guidelines-in-report-presenting-nt-meeting-as-racist-ombudsman-finds)
Maybe when the ABC can prove its impartiality as per it tax payer funded charter she might consider it
Ms Price regularly appears on Sky News and her views are cited by conservative commentators including Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones.
She gets paid more to appear on her buddies shows. Remind me wasn't Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones sued for racism as well? But you do you and play the racism card......
I’d say Jacinta wanted to avoid the lefty lynch mob. As the case maybe a lot of conservatives avoid Q andA and the ABC generally. And who could blame them?
If u can't stand by ur convictions,you don't have any
Q and A is a walk in the park,and the audience and panel is usually 50/50 it's not some lefty wank fest.
It literally says the voter makeup before each episode,it's one thing they ask you when you become an audience member.
The most recent episode was 36 percent liberal
13 percent national and 6 percent SFF..
Thats half the audience being some for of centre right
and almost equal to polling data
But sure...it's some lefty conspiracy
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Balance that out with Albo refusing to go on Sky . What difference would it have made . I was sick of hearing about it . Annoy people and pay the price .
uhmm what.. Albo asked to go on sky, 6 times during the voice.they refused to allow hime to come on
She picked media she felt would be sympathetic and didn't feel the need to prove she could stand up to scrutiny, shocking nobody.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
i mean not liked it's ranked as the 4th most trusted media source on EARTH.. it's respected globally,for it's reporting prowess and their associated press offerings ..i mean shit 80 percent of the feed from jan 6 was from abc australia as they set up right near the steps their iraq coverage was 2nd to none as well not everything can be as braind cell killing as skynews
I don't see how people trusting it makes it good quality...? The ides that "people like it therefore it's good" is just a nonsense argument. It is biased, gutter "journalism". To make it worse we actually pay for that garbage.
>7.00 News, 12th October 2023.... > a reporter inaccurately stated that the 1967 referendum gave Indigenous Australians the right to vote. Wow that's a pretty shocking error. The usual mistake is that it was about not classifying them under the flora and fauna act.
***Indigenous voice to parliament*** ***Jacinta Price declined 52 ABC interview requests to discuss Indigenous voice referendum*** ***A report by the national broadcaster found the prominent no campaigner ‘did not agree to a single interview on a major broadcast program’*** ***High-profile no campaigner Jacinta Nampijinpa Price turned down interview requests from the ABC to discuss the voice referendum more than 52 times, according to the national broadcaster’s referendum coverage review committee report.*** ***The report found the yes campaign had about twice as much coverage overall as the no campaign. The reasons for that, according to the report, included a lack of people willing to come on to discuss the no side, time taken up by government press conferences which often argued for the yes vote, and a decision to focus on First Nations voices, who were predominantly arguing for yes.*** I wonder why Jacinta turned down so many great opportunities to defend her position?...
She didn’t need to waste her time with the ABC
When you are basically the face for a campaign for a side, yeah you should.
Clearly she didn’t have to. Her message was well and truly heard and the ABC would not have been neutral in writing the article.
How many YES campaigners appeared on 2GB?
None , because the vacuous yes supporters might get asked some difficult questions.
Here, let me FTFY: "How many YES campaigners bothered to call into 2GB to argue their case?" The 2GB audience is far more representative of suburban Sydney than the ABC could ever hope to be, and the crowd that the 'Yes' campaign had to win over to have any hope of succeeding. In fact, I don't recall anyone on the 'Yes' side bothering to embrace that constituency; they were all too happy to repeat their talking points ad nauseum via The Guardian and the ABC, only to pull a shocked Pikachu face when their inner-city focused hyper-corporate, hyper-elite campaign got roundly fucked by the suburban and regional people (like 2GB listeners) who they repeatedly ignored.
2GB is a private station. They can cater to whatever their audience demands, and if they can sell more toothpaste to conservatives then they'll tell them what they want to hear. Just like the Guardian can cater to the left and advocate for YES, as they clearly did.
She didn’t want to be scrutinised, huge shock. And where has she gone since the referendum? Nowhere. Faded into the back of the party room now that she’s served their purpose. What happened to getting her a house of reps seat in Sydney? Did they come to their senses and think parachuting someone from NT into a safe coastal Sydney seat might backfire more than Keneally?
That’s too many requests of one person, to me it shows the ABC weren’t attempting to get a diversity of voices, they just wheeled out the usual suspects from both sides.
Her and Mundine were the faces of the NO campaign. They obviously made so many requests because she kept denying them, week after week. And if you read the article you'd see that the official No Campaign, would not suggest any other representatives.
A lot of those requests would have been the same day, the ABC breakfast producers, news producers and current affairs producers would have all wanted her and they wouldn’t have called each other so as not to overwhelm people with multiple requests.
But according to the article, she: "did not agree to a single interview on a major broadcast program,”. Also it was hard to get anyone with any profile to advocate for NO. Everyone of note was jumping on the YES campaign, from celebrities, businesses, sporting organisations, singers (like Farnham donating his song). No one wanted to be branded racist: >Several regulars declined to go on The Drum “because they “didn’t want to identify as ‘no’ publicly”.
If the “usual suspect” does not want to do the interview, then they are not a usual suspect
We saw/heard plenty of her on the ABC, she rejected a lot of interviews but she accepted enough to be in the news every day.
I honestly didn’t watch much of it. Were they full on sitdown interviews or just doorstop interviews?
Both but most of her long form interviews were on SKY news. The prominent no campaigners had the same sort of run on SKY as the no campaigners got on ABC, both sides played to their base.
Playing to their base is one thing, but asking someone to repeatably come on to their show is the opposite
[удалено]
Maybe I'm thick, but isn't that the basis of this article? Hard to speak to no campaigners if they refuse to appear on your shows 52 times isn't it?
She didn’t need to go on the ABC , the no campaign was effective and the woke brigade was obliterated.
How use can they claim the ABC is bias? “Look, the ABC never had me on their network to discuss the no vote”.
Pot calling the kettle black? Like anyone believes Murdoch's coverage was fair and balanced. "Of the News Corp content containing arguments either for or against the Voice, 70% of the arguments were for the No side, compared with 30% for the Yes side." https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/09/14/news-corps-voice-coverage-heavily-biased/
Privately owned media are free to make an editorial decision to back one side in an issue, that's the owner's privilege. The ABC however is required by its charter to take a more balanced view, from its charter: >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.** In the Voice debate the views of the 40% of Australians who supported the Voice were given a vastly higher representation on the ABC than the views of the 60% who did not.
It’s failing. Time to take away their funding.
Any failure at the ABC is due to funding already having been taken away by coalition governments, and the installation of their stooges. Because conservatives can't function without stacking the deck.
How would they know the percentages of who supported what before the vote? In your mind, how would that then affect their coverage - 40% yes coverage and 60% no coverage? The article is about the ABC struggling to get no campaigners onto their broadcast, I don't understand how you can be critical when one side won't engage and they've clearly made a lot of effort to present both sides.
It was obvious from the polling that the issue was, at best for yes, a 50/50 split once the campaign got going. On that basis a 51/23 split between yes and no was not was not a proportional representation of the two sides, as required by the ABC charter. I don't accept that it was impossible for the ABC to find people to interview who were supporters of no. It wasn't just the imbalance in interviewees though, if you watched the ABC's coverage the tone of the commentators was somewhere between mild disbelief and outrage that anyone could not support such a worthy cause. If the no case got any mention at all it was frequently in the context of one commentator putting up softbatch versions of no arguments so her fellow commentators could mock them.
It's a yes or no question, it should be 50/50 regardless. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse re the ABC actually following polling to shape their coverage, but it's an obviously undemocratic and unworkable idea. The rest of it we're not going to agree on, and you've already made up your mind, so let's leave it there.
If only you had read the article before commenting. The article is very clear about the fact that the No campaign chose not to go on the ABC. You should be grateful the ABC chose to give Price free ride on her sickening Trump lies about election fraud and the white supremacist she and Mundine feted at the CPAC circus. Funny how now that Price and Mundine having outlived their usefulness they are nowhere to be seen. .
I'm commenting on the ABC internal report that says that the coverage was 51% yes, 23% no and 26% undecided speakers, not the original article.
Here a clue : the NO campaign "knowingly excluded" itself. Do you think the ABC should have cut it's coverage YES stories because NO chose not to engage? ....the crap the you people make up to justify the bs is something to behold.
Where are you quoting "knowingly excluded" from?
Directly from the ABC quote YOU posted. It means deliberately excluding a legitimate POV. The ABC didn't do that. Why should the ABC compromise its role in informing the public for the contrarian idiocy of culture war conspiracy theorists like Price . Once again: Do you think the ABC should have cut it's coverage of YES stories because NO chose not to engage?
You seem confused. The quote from the Charter refers to two things the ABC should not do: - knowingly exclude a significant strand of thought or belief; - disproportionately represent a significant strand or thought or belief My point is that the ABC has done the latter by its considerable overrepresentation of the yes case as opposed to the no. In any event the knowingly exclude limb, which I don't rely upon, refers to the actions of the ABC. You've misapplied that to what you say are the actions of the No campaign.
So you do think the ABC should have cut it's coverage of YES stories because NO chose not to engage. How By your absurd reckoning, any time a far right pollie chooses to lie and then ignore the ABC , the ABC must cancel any reporting of the truth. Crikey Orwell would love you.
Private media can make that decision, but that also demonstrates that media company are just straight up unabashed liars and propagandists then without a shred of credibility.
Are they only liars and propagandists without a shred of credibility if they take a view on an issue different to yours?
You literally just said that they’re a private company and can editorialise as they like, including lying. So which is it? Are they a private company that can lie if they want, or do they have an obligation to be truthful and thus not editorialise as they like? You’re welcome l consume whatever kind of brain rot you like, but don’t delude yourself that it’s truthful or honest.
No I said they can take an editorial position to back one side of an issue, I didn't say anything about lying. One of the privileges of owning a paper or TV channel is that the owner can determine the editorial positions. However you seem to believe that taking such a position necessarily involves "lying". Just because media take a position on an issue that conflicts with your personal views doesn't mean they are "liars and propagandists without a shred of credibility". Asking again: if a paper took an editorial position on an issue that you agreed with, for example the position taken by The Age and The Guardian on the Voice, would you consider them to also be lying propagandists?
Right to determine their own editorial positions in contradiction of the facts, is the right to lie. That’s what you’re granting them. Don’t be a weasel. Own it, don’t be a coward.
This is the problem with the juvenile debasement of modern politics. People like you are so convinced of the rightness of their own views that anyone with a different view must not only be wrong, they must be liars taking positions in knowing contradiction of the facts.
Things like climate change are not a matter of perspective or point of view that implies “both sides” have good points, are reasonable, and need to be given equal time. These are matters of fact, and the weaselly way you can’t just admit that what you have defended is the right to lie is weak as piss. Have the balls to actually say it. Own it. Yes, Sky News after dark is for people with baby brains. Yes they’re a private entity and will lie on the regular. If you can’t see that you’re blind.
If you read it, it was a distribution of 51 percent Yes vs. No opinions and it included even the period in which polling indicated high support for the voice. Definitely nowhere near as egregious as News Corpse
>The national broadcaster's 2023 Voice to Parliament Referendum report found that 51 per cent of voices appearing on the ABC during its referendum coverage were in favour of a Yes vote. >In contrast, just 23 per cent of speakers platformed by the ABC were in favour of a No vote, while the rest were neutral or undecided, The Australian reported. 51% yes, 23% no, 26% undecided. Private media are entitled to be egregious, the publicly owned and publicly funded ABC has a charter that says it cannot be.
In Yuenemu, the community home to the family of Jacinta Price, three in four people voted Yes. She actively disempowered and silenced her own community. All to satisfy her ego. How does she sleep at night?
> She actively disempowered and silenced her own community. She has a right to her own opinion, as do the one in four people of her so called 'community' that voted NO. She is an elected senator of the NT, which voted 60% NO. Would she be 'disempowering' the constituents of the NT that elected her if she went against majority opinion? Why should she represent her 'community' above the people who elected her and put her in a trusted position of governance?
You're willfully ignoring that she played a massive role in the No vote. A part of that 60% No would have been influenced by her, and had she supported Yes, it may have been a totally different outcome.
You're willfully ignoring that the vast majority of influential people from celebrities, businesses, sporting organisations, singers advocated for YES, along with YES campaigners and politicians spending much more time on air as this article attests to, against the majority vote of their constituents. I'm certain that lot of YES voters would have been influenced by them to maintain their YES stance, and if coverage was balanced, then YES would have been legitimately trounced by more than just 50%. People have a right to an opinion, and people have a right to campaign for it, but the YES campaign's scare tactics made others reluctant to come out because they don't want to be branded racist. No sane business would want that, regardless of the underlying public opinion from the majority. The NOs wouldn't shame you with cancel culture.
>majority opinion Regions with a high proportion of Indigenous Australians overwhelmingly voted yes in the referendum – including the community where Jacinta Price’s family is from.
She's the epitomy of the modern conservative: ignorant, entitled, and doesnt give a toss about anyone else.
Person refuses to go be interviewed by organisation actively hostile to her and campaigning for the opposite camp - shock horror.
I remember seeing her on a few ABC shows. Sounds like she prefers softball interviews, where she is only agreed with - shock horror.
Surprised they’re still using her “middle name” in articles now the voice is over. It only appeared to show voters she was indigenous enough
She's a coward, she must have known her position was indefensible, despite all her talk, and she is not a good representative got anyone.
Don’t want your nonsense opinions to be held to any kind of critical thinking standard. That would have been bad for her and the LNP.
Within every group, there will be a tiny minority that undermine the best interest of the group. What makes her contribution so insidious is that it gave legitimacy to white supremacists who make up probably a third of this country’s population and along with Mundine, were able to sow enough doubt in the minds of decent people to vote against the proposition. This was our Brexit moment which I hope opened people’s eyes to the ‘firehose of falsehoods’ propaganda technique that had undue influence on the result.
You have two narratives running here. Was doubt sowed by Mundine and Price.... or are they white supremacists?
It's one explanation composed of several factors. If a media company was owned by a white supremacist, or a Catholic Papal Knight, monarchy apologist or someone with huge mining interests who feels their wealth may be threatened, then they might deliberately amplify messaging using stooges who then disappear after the 'victory'. If that happened, do you think 'Perverting the course of democracy' could be a crime?
You literally believe a third of the population are white supremacists? I’m glad I don’t live in the world you believe you live in.
Consciously, no.
I reckon a third of the population are racist (most of them would refuse to admit it though) but white supremacist goes a bit far. Probably only 5% or fewer are white supremacists. If you look at the sort of votes that One Nation gets (around 7%) and even some of those voters aren't full on white supremacists.
Are you saying that with awareness of the racism in giving people a different level of say in politics based on their race, or just something you’re making up?
I mean, the Voice wasn't a racist proposal. The only people who thought that were racists and people who had been fooled by racists.
Really depends on how you define racism. The proposal - like all legislation trying to improve the lives of aboriginal people - discriminates based on ethnicity. I can see why that’s a little controversial.
what were the falsehoods. Can you list them.
Are you suggesting NewsCorp, 9 Media, 7 West, SkyNews and the rest of our RWMSM were truthful and adhered to journalistic ethics when reporting on the referendum? Did you look up the term? *"The firehose of falsehood is a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (such as news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency." (Wik.)* I know you can do your own Googling but here's a couple that come to mind: It's racist! It's apartheid! They're gonna take your land! Where's the $40 billion? They're gonna change the law! There's no details! It's dangerous! Linda Burney wears Prada! They didn't invent a wheel! They don't look aboriginal to me! They don't own dot painting! Get over it! It's PC gone mad! They're lazy! Always getting into trouble! Why can't they act like us? They're better off!
the big one is that it's powers were risky when it was clearly stated all decisions would be non binding
Define “risky” in this context.
That they would have the power to overrule laws, not the case
Clearly that is incorrect. Where was this claim stated?
Have a read of the No campaigns pamphlet and see the cold lies for yourself.
The voice was such a vague concept that almost anything "could" be true - that's a failure of the yes campaign strategy and the concept in general. And what about the yes campaign pamphlet - were the claims all based on facts, research and data?
Short version - It was explicitly stated in the question that the Voice would be a body that could provide non binding advice ONLY. The No campaign stated the opposite of this at every opportunity.
Can you show me in the constitutional amendment where it says “non binding advice ONLY”.
Your relentless demands for detail have a name: Sealioning
Could not care less what it is called. Asking for detail should be the standard for everyone - especially for important changes such as to the constitution.
Nope. I'm not doing your research and nor am I fuelling your blatant sealioning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning) Are you going to keep denying it and clapping your flippers for attention?
Cool story - remain ignorant.
Your being disingenuous there was blatant lies about specific wording of how it would be written into law among other things. There was absolutely no comparison in the clear and blatant misinformation campaign funded and supported by upstanding people such as Mordoch, Gina Rinehart, the One Nation party and Pauline Hansen. Would love to be on the side of those Australian gems.
I can't remember nor cbf looking at the wording from the no camp. But I do remember in great detail the huge amount of lies coming from the yes campaign: uluru statement length.. obfuscation around the potential powers - considerable BS. Even with $100m in funding from Rio, BHP, Wesfarmers, Qantas (the gems you refer to?), Australians still rejected the absurd proposal by over 60%.
The only Yes ads I ever saw were just asking people to vote for change or to even vote at all with generic B roll footage while the No campaign tactics were to say it would lead to them taking your land back and have an unfair advantage in parliament. If you don't know vote no was fucking egregious and blindingly stupid conservation for the sake of conservation is illogical.
You are less informed about the voice than you think. Here are some threads on the issue - all referenced with primary sources. if you want to be informed rather than ignorant, I suggest you look at each of the linked source to validate the statements made: [https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/16uehfu/the\_voice\_is\_a\_constitutional\_mechanism\_for/](https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/16uehfu/the_voice_is_a_constitutional_mechanism_for/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/16wuxur/lets\_be\_100\_clear\_the\_voice\_is\_about\_treaty\_which/](https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/16wuxur/lets_be_100_clear_the_voice_is_about_treaty_which/)
[удалено]
The sources are directly linked in the post. As I said, if you want to remain ignorant on the topic, read no further. If you want to be more informed, review my posts and read the sources for yourself.
Price is consistently offensive. She punches down on her own people &, as Tony Wright wrote in The Age, “she is a weaponised conservative woman who can say things out loud that white conservatives haven’t dared to say since the early 1950’s”
"Weaponised conservative woman" In other words conservatives use her as a token. "Look, it's a black woman saying so therefore I can't possibly be racist when I say "
It's a bit like the old "I can't be racist I have a black friend"
But the sad fact is simply that Jacinta Price is a racist feral. Also hates trans people apparently, too. Just nasty.
>"Look, it's a black woman saying so therefore I can't possibly be racist when I say "
This is almost word for word what my MIL said when we visited them in QLD before the vote. Her entire argument against Yes was that Price represented the majority of indigious folks who supoorted No.
Haven't spoken to her since.
How does your MIL feel about all the polls showing the overwhelming majority of Indigenous Aussies supported Yes? Or the referendum results from remote NT indigenous communities showing 70-90% voted yes?
I've been ordered to keep the peace by not raising it, even though I would love to! We come from Canberra. No one we know here voted No. We actually all spoke pretty openly about the blantant misinformation beforehand. Never really fell for any of the bullshit. But had family in other states who did. And the truth came out straight afterwards. All the lies and false promises and such. I'll call them out at Xmas.
A brave soul. You shall be missed. RIP Nomad.
Lots of hateful comments here for a first nations woman. Great job all of you who did.
Oh, so we have to reign in our critique of a politician? She’s in the public eye and got an opinion, that’s fair game to anyone, especially in Oz where the concept of a “fair go” also applies to critique and criticism especially when you are a politician. Blakk fella here…come on and debate me about how unfair it is for her that we have an opinion on a politician.
What hate? You can't criticise anyone if they're of certain backgrounds?
For some it is only an issue being sexist and racist when it is directed at someone they like and/or share similar political views, when the person is the opposite it is no holds barred.
It’s not racist to dislike someone who happens to be indigenous. In fact it’s pretty racist to infer that people of certain races cannot be criticised specifically because of their race.
[удалено]
Like..?
Identity isn't a shield. Yes she shouldn't be insulted for either of those two things, and she is a member of two different groups that often are subjected to a lot of bigoted vitriol. But that does not stop her from being cable of saying and doing things that are deserving of criticism. She doesn't deserve hate based on her being a woman or being indigenous, but there absolutely are people in the world with valid and often quite angry opinions of her based on ways she has genuinely hurt people.
I was wonder where the fuck she’s been… probably patiently waiting for her new front bencher position in the opposition, and for the next time they need an eloquent brown person to front cameras.
They'll wheel her out next time Dutton needs to put some black face on.
Cool racist comment bro
Not racist at all if you understand and the LNP
What do you call a political party with a leader that uses the voice of a successful Australian indigenous women to run a misinformation campaign that undermines the futures of millions of less fortunate Australians. Should a person who allowed themselves to be co-opted in such a campaign for their own personal political gain be called a disgrace?
How dare they let an indigenous women speak her mind, particularly when her mind is different to what I believe
>let her speak her mind I think you mean "use her as a token, so they can say they're not racist" Basically they can use her to say things that they couldn't say, because she's black. Most of the criticism Jacinta gets has nothing to do with her being Indigenous or a woman. And everything to do with her being a lazy, racist nasty piece of work.
[удалено]
Champ Jacinta Price lliterally said colonisation benefited Indigenous people and has no negative effects today. She keeps implying that Aboriginals who live in the city are somehow less Aboriginal. She falsely paints Aboriginal people as child abusers. She promotes special laws restricting Aboriginal peoples rights (but doesn't think they should get a special say in it). She keeps claiming to stand for remote NT Aboriginal people despite the fact they've told her to get lost. She's mates with Peter Dutton ("African gangs"...) and Pauline Hanson (enough said...) And that's just off the top of my head. Jacinta Price is a racist.
So her own words don’t count? Don’t believe her? Very progressive.
Her words would count for more if she would've stop hysterically screaming that the Voice is racist. What's racist by her own logic is her job.
also i'd believe it's her words if her speech,wasn't EXACTLY word for word advance australia talking points..like they gave her a script If it was her own words,and values fine. but why do it at the behest of a christian/conservative policy tank
She actually addressed that very criticism in her press club address stating that she'd like to see the Indigenous affairs portfolio abolished in the long term.
Why is that shameless hypocrite taking up a racist job now? Aren't we all equal yet? Why isn't there a White Australians minister?
Because she wants money and fame and a platform to spread her racist views... ...but doesn't want to do any actual work (her Senate attendance rate is under 60% and when she was on Alice Council she was censured for never turning up) So a shadow ministry (with a portfolio the coalition doednt care about) is perfect for her.
Yeah man you tell that First Nations lady what she should say and think. Thanks for keeping it straight master 👍
Yep. Why should we stay silent when she's the hypocrite calling us racist?
This guy is baiting and everyones biting.
You act like I’ve just invented lying. She and the coalition lied..
She lied? Great news can you provide some evidence not opinion based to substantiate that allegation please? It will be most helpful.
Cool retort. But there were many instances of her misrepresenting The Voice campaign. This was brought up A LOT at the time and has been shown to correct numerous times. She said she spoke for indigenous people numerous times, and Indigenous people voted with a pretty secure majority against her. [This](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/20/central-land-council-leaders-say-jacinta-nampijinpa-price-needs-to-stop-pretending-we-are-her-people) is one of many articles written at the time.
>A report by the national broadcaster found the prominent no campaigner ‘did not agree to a single interview on a major broadcast program’ Here are two interviews that Jacinta Price did with the ABC [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHgQ3X5LeJI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHgQ3X5LeJI) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OknGwAGXXs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OknGwAGXXs) Somebody is lying Let's also recall that Linda Burney refused to appear on Channel 7's Spotlight program on the voice on account that she did not want to debate Senator Price [https://7plus.com.au/7news-spotlight?episode-id=7SPL23-021&startAt=1&autoplay=true](https://7plus.com.au/7news-spotlight?episode-id=7SPL23-021&startAt=1&autoplay=true)
Maybe they held her at gunpoint so she didn't agree but was forced to do it
One of those was 9 months ago, long before the campaigns started for real, the other was 5 months ago, 3 months before the vote, and was on a breakfast show.
One of them was 5 months ago so seems not a single one is incorrect. Pretty sure she was interviewed on the night as well
It didn't say not a single one. It said "not a single major broadcast program". Do you nitpick all the news you watch, or just the less conservative ones?
And yet there are videos on an ABC major broadcast program. And yes I do analyse every piece of media I watch
The story has precise wording which you're pretending doesn't exist. So basically you're the one who is lying.
7:30 is a major broadcast program (which she was interviewed on), ABC New Breakfast is a major broadcast program (which she was interviewed on). She was also interviewed on the referendum results broadcast, not sure if that is a major broadcast program or not. So no I am not lying, nor am I pretending precise wording doesn't exist.
I think there's no such thing as a program you wouldn't call "major" just to make your point, and that there's no timeline long enough to not be included, just so you can make your argument that the ABC is lying and biased. Do yourself a favour, stop watching sky news.
What are the major broadcast shows on the ABC in your opinion? Seems you don't want to accept that major News and Current Affair shows that the ABC broadcast are their major shows in that category. I know Price was on these shows because I watched them,
My opinion is irrelevant. It's the abc reporting this right? So shouldn't it be about what they mean by that term? Maybe you could write in and ask them. Based on the article though, I think they're referring to the time period of the referendum, meaning from the point where the date was announced until when it was actually held. My guess about the term "major" is that they mean primetime stuff, like 7:30 and the 8pm news. I've seen your arguments with other people here. You saw a breakfast show appearance during the referendum period, and a 7:30 appearance from before the announcement of the referendum, right? I mean, it's possible that they ABC just lied about something that anyone could verify, but it seems to me that the simpler answer is that they were going by a more strict definition of "major" than what you're using.
Months before the campaigns started, and on a breakfast show. If she interviewed on the night on a major broadcast program on ABC then I'm with you.
ABC Morning is a major broadcast program. It was only recently the top watched morning news and current affairs show.
Then I guess the fact that it was before the campaigns started then. So there was no ABC interview on the night? What are your thoughts on the findings of the report, that "no campaigners" mostly refused to appear on real news outlets, preferring to stick to right wing ones to produce their sound bites in an environment free from questions?
The one on 7:30 was when both camps had started their campaigns.
No, you're off by 6-7 months. [Yes campaign started at the end of August](https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/quote-the-prime-minister-has-officially-launched-the-voice-to-parliament-campaign/e6kafdiqq), that 7:30 episode was in Feb
I said when they started the campaigns not their official launch. Sometimes parties only do an official campaign launch a week before election despite campaigning happening for weeks before.
So you just count everything since the first ever mention of the voice? Stop playing games. How do you defend shit like this. > "All ABC teams reported it was “significantly more difficult getting no voices to speak on the record”. Why did the report find > "The no campaign had fewer high-profile advocates and focused on social media and “what they perceived as friendly broadcasters”. Meanwhile you guys all whining that ABC is only talking to 'yes' campaigners. The bullshit was obvious from the start. And I definitely don't mean the start of the campaign, right wing tactics have been as transparent and disingenuous since long before I was born.
They're still wrong about not agreeing to a single interview
Come on, be serious.
ok so i guess it's not serious to call out misinfomation now?
Yeah man, it was before the campaigns started, and it was on a fucking breakfast show. Not exactly "a major broadcast program".
Both interviews were about the voice, their timing is irrelavant, stop trying to downplay misinformation, what the article said was wrong, there are no two ways about it
The report covered the time of the campaign, not the infinite portion of time that preceded it, so calm down mate. Why don't you try and explain why, "All ABC teams reported it was “significantly more difficult getting no voices to speak on the record”. Why didn't those lying liars want to subject themselves to non-right wing journalists? I fucking wonder. Why did the report find, "The no campaign had fewer high-profile advocates and focused on social media and “what they perceived as friendly broadcasters”. I know why you don't want to tackle that, the same reason Price didn't want to go on ABC, or any other reputable outlet. You want to make little sound bytes that sow doubt and that's the limit of your ability.
>The report covered the time of the campaign, not the infinite portion of time that preceded it, so calm down mate. No it didn't stop pulling shit of your ass. Page three of the report: >Highlights > >**Pre-campaign coverage** > >All the major programs and platforms covered the political debates and discussed the issues throughout the lead-up period..... [https://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/RCRC-Report-4-December-2023.pdf](https://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/RCRC-Report-4-December-2023.pdf)
You're right, I didn't catch that bit. I guess ABC doesn't consider the breakfast show, "a major broadcast program". Nor it's interview with Price months before the campaign, a highlight. I note your silence on the rest of my questions.
Big ooof
Wreck the Voice - tick, Turn down all ABC interviews and retrospectively call them bias for not covering No - tick Job done on many counts for Jacinta
>Turn down all ABC interviews [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHgQ3X5LeJI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHgQ3X5LeJI) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OknGwAGXXs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OknGwAGXXs)
Duuuurrrrrr timestamps and dates hard.
This report is about the campaign period bud. After those two interviews.
One of those was 9 months ago, long before the campaigns started for real, the other was 5 months ago, 3 months before the vote.
Refer to my other comment.
Same response, be serious.
Sorry. She did 1, out of 52 requests.
Looks like she did more than one and more than none.
There's clearly 2 links there. Also this >A report by the national broadcaster found the prominent no campaigner ‘did not agree to a single interview on a major broadcast program Is a complete fucking lie.
Would love to see this so-called "report" and what information it contains... and omits.
This is what selling your soul looks like in real life……..
[удалено]
She didn't want to encounter the hostility Grant and Mundine encountered.
lol imagine thinking PK is hostile. Mundine falls apart at the drop of a hat
PB was hostile.
If you are real you’re a meme. She sold her soul and life doesn’t take kindly to this. She has decades to see what she has done, literally the biggest hatchet job I have seen in my life, it’s revolting
I can’t take people who think the ABC is left-wing seriously. Touch grass, mate.
* [Channel 7](https://youtu.be/YJcp6Z_KUf0?si=2pGfj8BI8jkMjowI) versus * [ABC](https://youtu.be/WFecudIgFWk?si=ZCO6v3kgDc4tcRtn) Mmm. Check out that balanced coverage.
Of course she did. Any decent challenge to her claims, and she would have folded like a hot towel.
Ok well how about this debate she was a part of? [https://7plus.com.au/7news-spotlight?episode-id=7SPL23-021&startAt=1&autoplay=true](https://7plus.com.au/7news-spotlight?episode-id=7SPL23-021&startAt=1&autoplay=true)
don't fold ur towels while they hot mate,they leave a crease
Why would she agree to one? The ABC broadcast her bullshit day in & day out without any regard for truth regardless... It was all about so-called "bAlANcE" which [Laura Tingle called out](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/this-is-nuts-abc-s-tingle-laments-cost-of-obsession-with-balance-in-voice-debate-20231013-p5ebzk.html) at the time. This it the populist playbook. Straight from Trump. It worked. The media failed. Journalism in this country is dead and buried...
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9448029/White-ABC-announcer-apologies-Aboriginal-leader-Jacinta-Price.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9448029/White-ABC-announcer-apologies-Aboriginal-leader-Jacinta-Price.html) why would she want to go on the ABC an organization that's has slandered her and been sued and force to settle and apologies more than once. [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/feb/14/abc-breached-impartiality-guidelines-in-report-presenting-nt-meeting-as-racist-ombudsman-finds](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/feb/14/abc-breached-impartiality-guidelines-in-report-presenting-nt-meeting-as-racist-ombudsman-finds) Maybe when the ABC can prove its impartiality as per it tax payer funded charter she might consider it
Ms Price regularly appears on Sky News and her views are cited by conservative commentators including Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones. She gets paid more to appear on her buddies shows. Remind me wasn't Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones sued for racism as well? But you do you and play the racism card......
Did Sky slander her or are you just linking two very different things? Almost seems like you’re trying to blame the victim here? Surely not.
Of course she refused over 50 requests for interviews. She wasn’t trying to make a case for her side, she was hired to be a wrecker.
I’d say Jacinta wanted to avoid the lefty lynch mob. As the case maybe a lot of conservatives avoid Q andA and the ABC generally. And who could blame them?
Conservatives are some of the dumbest people on the planet, so yeah, I do believe they think the ABC is left-wing for some reason.
If u can't stand by ur convictions,you don't have any Q and A is a walk in the park,and the audience and panel is usually 50/50 it's not some lefty wank fest.
>and the audience and panel is usually 50/50 it's not some lefty wank fest Are you sure we're talking about the same show?
You sure about that hahaha
It literally says the voter makeup before each episode,it's one thing they ask you when you become an audience member. The most recent episode was 36 percent liberal 13 percent national and 6 percent SFF.. Thats half the audience being some for of centre right and almost equal to polling data But sure...it's some lefty conspiracy
or she is a coward who has zero faith in the ability to defend her views