ABC biased

[noosard]

Violent crime nearly three times worse since 2020, Queensland statisticians find, and it's not youth

Who's the most violent cohort?
Queenslanders aged between 30-39 committed the most assaults. 24%

But it is not quite true
The age groups are 10 years each except for the ages from 10 to 30 which are 7 7 and 4
Add the crime percentages for these 3 groups and you will find 50% for ages 10 to 29


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-22/ ... /103751192

[Whistler]

Read the article, read your summary. Cannot understand what is biased. The pie chart shown with various age groups is a tad strange, by lumping different age groups together, but it comes from the Queensland staticians office, not the ABC

Who have the ABC targeted with their bias? Isn't this a rather straightforward piece on an increase in the past few years?

[noosard]

Yes straightfoward manipulation of numbers
Like I said not quite true

[Whistler]

Yes straightfoward manipulation of numbers
Like I said not quite true

if you think so. You are much smarter than me, did the ABC change the figures from the Queensland Stats department? Can you show what the stats department published and where the ABC changed those numbers.

Also you say bias, as there was blantent manipulation showing a biased vew, what group was the report biased against?

[noosard]

It is not about me but what the ABC published
Someone at ABC did not do any homework
or was because the dog ate it
anyway I see numbers are not your thing

[Whistler]

Naughty, naughty ABC, they should not be publishing statistics from the Queensland Statistician, what would that department know about statistics.?

55

[pipoz4444]

The hypocrisy and arrogance of ABC and the lies they tell finally called out by the OZ legal system

The ABC as a media organization, what a f..kn disgrace.

As for the is the so call journalist / reporter involved Mark Willacy he should be brought up on criminal charges.

Heston R was only awarded AUD 390,000 in defamation compensation. In the USA it would have been 3.90 Mill to 39.0 Mill.

Time to dissolve the ABC and stop wasting Taxpayer funds


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvjLvF5PIAE







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXlK-DR3pV0

[jackspratt]

I'm not sure what criminal offence you think Willacy may have committed, pipo - particularly as the ABC has already said he was not involved in whatever editing may have occurred.

Anyway, let's see what the independent review throws up.

[AlexO]

I'm not sure what criminal offence you think Willacy may have committed, pipo - particularly as the ABC has already said he was not involved in whatever editing may have occurred.

Anyway, let's see what the independent review throws up.

Before they ABC were found guilty by the courts they claimed they didn't doctor video evidence either. Serial liars.

[pipoz4444]

I'm not sure what criminal offence you think Willacy may have committed, pipo - particularly as the ABC has already said he was not involved in whatever editing may have occurred.

Anyway, let's see what the independent review throws up.

Possibly under the Australian Crimes Act 1900 Section 307B for False or Misleading information

Willacy and the ABC Management have known that the report which they published Report, was inaccurate and contained edited misleading information for some time, given that both were formally advised by Heston's legal team several years back. Including a written notification to the ABC's legal department.

Buy the way, nobody looses or misplaces a letter from another Legal Firm.

Yet both Willacy and the ABC Management perpetuated the lie and continued the process of allowing a false an misleading report to remain on the Public domain, to a point where the even took that false and misleading report into a Court room.

Both had access to / were aware of the the the full sequence of events that took place on that day (the full Video). Yet both omitted part of that full Video. So yes they committed a Criminal Act.

As for the as the ABC saying they were not involved in whatever editing may have occurred, that is Bullsh..and you would have to be an idiot to believe it. Clearly the Judge in this case didn't believe it.

No reputable media organization or reporter would take an edited video from an unknown source (one that has obviously been cut down to 30-60 seconds) and then perpetuate it as the full video truth. I suspect the ABC had access to copy of the full video for some time and were is some way overseeing the editing of it, firstly buy its reduction in length to dramatize it and then secondly but knowingly adding in false information (the additional shots taking from one shot to six shots) to give their report credibility and at the same time make it misleading.

No major media organization would allow a video which had been edited by an external source, to be published as their own (when that video inferred a criminal action by others) without first doing a check on the content / accuracy of that edited video. It just doesn't happen in this day and age.

Both Willacy and the ABC Management are culpable for the Act, in my view.

[jackspratt]

pipo, if you are going to accuse someone of being an idiot, you would do well to get your facts correct to start with.

1. There is no S307B in the Australian (I assume you mean Commonwealth) Crimes Act 1900 (actually 1914). You are presumably referring to the NSW Crimes Act 1900 - more of that later.

2. There is no evidence so far that the letter from Giles Legal to ABC Legal was passed on to either ABC management, or ABC News (including Willacy). And management have denied it was. Presumably, the inquiry will get to the bottom of this.

3. The presumed edited footage was never "taken to court". Russell's successful defamation action was related to an entirely different incident ie

In October 2020, the ABC published an article that alleged the November Platoon, led by Mr Russell, had executed a prisoner because they would not fit onto a helicopter.
https://www.codea.com.au/publication/fi ... rporation/

4. I haven't read anywhere that the ABC has said it was not involved in the editing - obviously they were.

You are welcome to your suspicions and speculations, but not incorrect facts. I would prefer to wait to see what the inquiry throws up, and what appropriate action is taken then.

As for S307B, I suggest you have another read of the entire section, particularly sub-section (c), and tell us why you believe a prosecution is even available.

[pipoz4444]

JS you are welcome to keep defending the ABC, a somewhat irrelevant Media organization.

However, the Court in this case has passed judgment on the ABCs Report in this case judgment has not been in the ABC favor. If nothing else the ABC has been shown to be incompetent if not it deceiving/misleading, with the content of that report.


Re Item 2 Extract: This is part of the ABC Press Release, as stated by Mr. Anderson, in which he confirms / acknowledges that ABC Legal did receive that letter in Nov 2022

Head of independent review to be announced in coming days
Other allegations have since been made about the ABC's reporting and its use of the helmet cam footage, including how it was edited for broadcast in the 7.30 program, Mr. Anderson added.

"It has now come to my attention that in November 2022, ABC Legal was sent a letter raising concerns about the audio editing. Regrettably, at no point was this letter, or the information in the letter, disseminated to ABC News," he said.


As for the inquiry, it can hardly be viewed as Independent. Who is heading it up??

[jackspratt]

Keep your head in the sand, pipo.

- there are 2, or 3, major media organisations in Australia. The ABC is one of them, and still the most trusted and reliable of the 3. Hardly irrelevant.

ABC NEWS is Australia’s No 1 online news brand with almost 12.6 million unique visitors in June, according to the latest Ipsos iris data released today*.

More Australians now get their news from ABC NEWS than any other online news brand. It’s the first time ABC NEWS has reclaimed the top spot under the current Ipsos iris digital audience measurement system, which started in January 2023.
https://www.abc.net.au/about/media-cent ... /104125436

- the incident which is the subject of the "edited" video story has never been aired in any court. I have shown you it is totally different to the defamation case, but hey .....

- you state that the inquiry "can't be viewed as independent", but the details have yet to be announced.

[pipoz4444]

JS maybe one day when you have been "Defamed", after having placed your life at risk, every day, for your country, as a result of a decision by your government, you might have a different outlook on the incident, the role of the ABC & the Reporter in this case and the impact it has had on ones person.

But then again, you have never been a soldier and never been in out there where others take pot shots at you with live bullets, have you?

It's so easy for those who have spent their life at home, in safety, to criticize those who have placed their lives at risk.

pipoz4444

[jackspratt]

Now you are deflecting, pipo. This thread is about alleged ABC bias.

I have never criticized Russell, or his Army service.

I have never had any desire to join the armed forces. Australia no longer has conscription, so those who do choose to join do so entirely of their own volition, and for their own varied reasons.

Good luck to them, but just because they wear a uniform doesn't put them beyond scrutiny if they choose to transgress.

[AlexO]

Good luck to them, but just because they wear a uniform doesn't put them beyond scrutiny if they choose to transgress.
Yes
But why do entirely innocent soldiers have to defend themselves against scurrilous false accusations from scummy, dishonest media outlets who are quite happy to fabricate and manipulate video evidence in an attempt to win politically driven agenda's

[tamada]

...
No major media organization would allow a video which had been edited by an external source, to be published as their own (when that video inferred a criminal action by others) without first doing a check on the content / accuracy of that edited video. It just doesn't happen in this day and age.
...

I wouldn't be too keen on defending any news source based on whatever stellar record and storied history they may have.

Recently in the UK, at least two well-respected newspapers and a news channel very quickly posted on their online broadsheets in their broadcasts, that the perpetrator of a triple child murder in England was an illegal immigrant from 2023, who had been denied asylum and was already on law enforcement's 'watch list'. This led to a brief but quite intense outbreak of race and religion related rioting in several cities across the UK. This despite the police having already arrested the perpetrator at the scene, a British juvenile, and publicly stating there was no racial or religious motivation.

The mainstream media's source was social media, which was subsequently found to be from a troll farm called Channel3Now, a news aggregation website with a past history of spreading misinformation.

The earlier articles cited on the online broadsheets subsequently were '404'd' like they never existed. Once the murderer's real identity had been revealed, the news channel broadcast it without reference to their earlier 'error'.

[AlexO]

...
No major media organization would allow a video which had been edited by an external source, to be published as their own (when that video inferred a criminal action by others) without first doing a check on the content / accuracy of that edited video. It just doesn't happen in this day and age.
...

I wouldn't be too keen on defending any news source based on whatever stellar record and storied history they may have.

Recently in the UK, at least two well-respected newspapers and a news channel very quickly posted on their online broadsheets in their broadcasts, that the perpetrator of a triple child murder in England was an illegal immigrant from 2023, who had been denied asylum and was already on law enforcement's 'watch list'. This led to a brief but quite intense outbreak of race and religion related rioting in several cities across the UK. This despite the police having already arrested the perpetrator at the scene, a British juvenile, and publicly stating there was no racial or religious motivation.

The mainstream media's source was social media, which was subsequently found to be from a troll farm called Channel3Now, a news aggregation website with a past history of spreading misinformation.

The earlier articles cited on the online broadsheets subsequently were '404'd' like they never existed. Once the murderer's real identity had been revealed, the news channel broadcast it without reference to their earlier 'error'.

And there were other not so well respected newspapers and media channels who are followed by the left wing who labelled 'everyone' who took place in the anti-immigration protests as Racists, Fascists, Far Right Thugs. Unbelievably the self proclaimed Servant of the People (just as long as you agree with my Marxist views) parrotted this view as well.

[pipoz4444]

Its called trial by Media these days, whereby the Media think they have immunity to the consequences of their actions, provided they issue a series of Retractions, in some short period thereafter.

Apparently, according to Mr. Google: In the USA, the First Amendment permits information, ideas and opinions without interference, constraint or prosecution by the government. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. "Opinions"

In answer to the question? Is a Retraction a defense to defamation?, Mr. google tells me,

Although a retraction does not completely exonerate the Defamer unless published so soon after the defamation as to negative the utterance,4 retraction has traditionally been admissible both to demonstrate that the defendant's defamatory publication was not malicious and to mitigate awards of compensatory damages .


So, it appears the Media Organizations can issue or put out whatever opinion and smear anyone they want, (with inferred meaning or direct statement) and then, provided the issue retractions on some inconspicuous part of the second to last page or a newspaper or through some other means that few people actually see / hear about, then the Media Organizations or Journalist, cannot be easily held accountable for their initial action/opinion/statements.

I presume this also depends on the level of smear, what damage it has done and if it is considered malicious or intentional

Doctoring a video to deliberately make that Video misleading, would by definition be "Intentional"

pipoz4444

[AlexO]

Doctoring a video to deliberately make that Video misleading, would by definition be "Intentional"
Absolutely pipoz.
Disgusting behaviour from a public funded media outlet. Unfortunately there are some who try to defend this totally illegal practice, but then again is their politics not based on the lie that all are equal?