“Muslim Drag Queens”.
“How Gay is Pakistan”.
Why are these the prime time viewing options on ABC2 recently? They seem like trashy filler for 11pm.
Why is the taxpayer funding the Government to put to air an entire channel, with THE prime time programming of the day being “Muslim Drag Queens”?
It sounds like a program with an interesting insight into cultures not normally represented by the media (which is our public broadcasters charter). I don’t see an issue. The time-slot seems perfect for that type of programing at 11pm. Sounds like something worth jumping on iview and watching… I don’t see them as ‘trashy’.
Right, “not normally represented” except on the ABC which plays this sort of programming constantly.
How can something be an “interesting insight” when you have programming along the same lines all the time?
There are MANY cultures not normally represented by the media - why is the ABC not fulfilling the charter in that respect?
Where are the “niche” programming choices for Australians each night who view themselves as quite traditional or conservative, AND specifically on topics which are conservative and niche? Why is there no balance with ABC2’s programming?
Yes, people who don’t want to see issues usually don’t.
No, they’re NOT on at 11pm - that’s the time I suggest they SHOULD be on - they’re usually played at 8:30pm.
The whole of ABC2 is trashy. What, you think Catfish and Muslim Drag Queens is quality programming? Next you’ll tell me SBS’s tits and Nazis style is high-brow too. 
The commercial networks don’t cater for the far right, but you don’t see the lame excuse about the ABC’s “charter” trotted out to argue that the ABC should be representing THOSE views or interests.
It’s pretty poor form to personally attack me. The forum is about constructive conversation about television. I’m not going to engage in a conversation without common respect.
So constructive, that you didn’t even know what timeslots were being referred to.
I prefer a constructive conversation where people have the common respect to establish facts for themselves before attacking another viewpoint as being “no issue” - there’s no respect in not even knowing the issue before commenting.
Ali Moore who’s doing drive in Melbourne currently told a caller that presenters have been told to use the term same sex marriage and not marriage equality.
Which would be correct - marriage gender equality makes sense but marriage equality makes no sense because it doesn’t say what it’s actually making equal. Age? Gender? Class? Species? There’s no specification, at least SSM actually defines what it is.
I agree. The term “marriage equality” sounds slightly politically charged.
The “equality” part makes it sound more positive towards making it legal (coz who doesn’t want equality?), whereas “same sex marriage” doesn’t really have any sort of bias, and I’m sure ABC management will want to rein the presenters in to ensure that they don’t appear to be biased to the public.
There was a survey a few years ago which showed a remarkably high level of support for the Greens in the ABC’s journalists, so it’s almost certain that there level of support for same sex marriage among the ABC journalists will be almost universal, and I think this does skew their reporting.
My opinion, even as a supporter of same sex marriage, is that the ABC has not given the anti-SSM side a fair showing, especially on social media.
Here are the last few posts on the topic of same sex marriage from ABC News’ Facebook page:
There’s not a single story on ABC News’ Facebook page today which shows the anti-SSM side’s viewpoint, which makes it all feel like an echo chamber and presenting a skewed slant on things.
Opinion polls have shown that around 30-35% of Australians are against same sex marriage, but it feels like the ABC isn’t presenting the voice of the minority viewpoint here. The ABC seem to be happy to give more than the fair share of airtime to other minority viewpoints, usually held by those on the left side of the political spectrum. That’s what a lot of people seem to be unhappy about.
I should reiterate my viewpoint here as well - I support same sex marriage wholeheartedly. I also think the ABC should be made stronger by increasing its funding. In fact, I think a lot of the issues with ABC’s perceived bias is due to the cutting of funding
But the staff are simply is not representative of the whole range of Australian society, and I think it definitely has a bias. Not necessarily because management hires lefties as some sort of old boy’s club, but because of this whole left/right divide over the role of the ABC.
A lot of conservatives object to the existence of the ABC, which means a lot of them will just outright reject a job from the ABC. Lefties might also be more attracted to joining the ABC because they believe in the concept of the national broadcaster and are willing to work for less money because of the non-commercial aspect of it.
Here’s an article from Jonathan Holmes which I found interesting:
SSM and OSM? (Opposite sex marriage)
For sure, she didn’t sound put put or annoyed by it. It was in response to a SSM supporter:s call pleading for her to call it equality. The next two calls were people who were voting no in the ballot.
Yeah, marriage equality is a very emotive term for the reasons you mentioned.
I think I recall the survey too about the Greens support, doesn’t surprise me too much. I’m glad you’ve noticed the Facebook page too, the past few days have been very one sided and certainly hasn’t been very unbiased.
There was another post the other night which had no real reason to be there other than to trigger people to turn it into anti-religion rants and abuse. Something about why do people still trust religions. Surprise, surprise it just turned into an endless bashing thread bringing out the religious nutters against those who have absolutely no clue about religion but love to throw around as much offensiveness as possible. Completely forseeable and completely pointless.
Hahahaha BINGO!!!
Great post, spot on. 
When the minority’s viewpoint is in support of a continued denial of civil rights, there is no reason why a media organisation should be obligated to report a ‘balanced’ argument.
What sort of silly statement is this? Are you even aware of the ABC’s Editorial Policies? How on earth is what you’re saying consistent with them?
4 IMPARTIALITY AND DIVERSITY OF PERSPECTIVES
Standards
4.2 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.
4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.
brb writing a pro-slavery article for the national broadcaster
What a very weird post.
I know you want to hop on the bandwagon of a “movement”, but spare us the nonsense comparisons.
Deliberate hyperbole on my part, but it shows you the ridiculous manner to which that sentiment can be applied.
Got that right.
