News Corp Australia

Why does that need to be “officially” declared? Is there a journalistic standard which says so? And which organisation has to “officially” declare it? Does the ABC wait on the UK Government?

Well that’s incorrect. Fairfax does criticise the ABC. The just slammed their soccer coverage from about a week ago an talked about how they wrecked their chances of getting the A-League contract.

1 Like

Because they don’t want to jump the gun and look incompetent like other websites constantly do when they backtrack, take whole articles down or have to apologise. Most recently, News.com had the Queen abdicating for a few hours before changing it to Prince Phillip stepping down from public life. :joy:

2 Likes

…and hasn’t Fairfax joined News Corp (and probably others) in slamming the ABC’s NYE coverage in the past?

In any case, I personally think that the ABC does a lot of great things but like all other broadcasters, I will criticise the ABC on this forum whenever I feel it’s warranted as the case is with every media outlet.

But the amount of anti-ABC commentary that The Australian (well…News Corp in general along with some other, largely right-wing media outlets) does is just ridiculous. In the past, some of the ridiculous anti-ABC complaints I’ve heard in the media include questioning why the ABC News channel should exist when we have Sky News. Or why the ABC has an online presence when other news outlets have websites. That’s a bit like questioning why the ABC even has TV and radio stations when other companies have TV and radio stations! :rolling_eyes:

Australia is very lucky to have a fairly wide range of media/news outlets, both the ABC and News Corp included. We are far better served with more media outlets than less and I would probably go as far as suggesting that a variety of viewpoints on the news (regardless of whether I agree with those viewpoints or not) is an important part of a healthy democracy. Long may that continue, I say!

Yeah, except you pay for one.

Pfft, that’s not criticising WHY the ABC exists with the funding model that it does.

Yes, jumping the gun. Three men mowing down pedestrians and then slashing people with knives was just…a movie scene gone wrong, perhaps? :rolling_eyes:

Dont be ridiculoous. There’s no advantage in rushing in guessing the intentions and risking getting it wrong. You’re complete brainwashing by right wing media is obvious.

…but no one is arguing that anyone should be reckless with facts…

Falsely attributing quotes to someone, interesting hill to die on, matlock.

I guess it comes down to this - the facts of what has occurred are established and therefore I see terrorism as the appropriate way to describe those acts. You and others here see the word “terrorism” as somehow being a word of such legal importance that it can only be used with the express permission of Theresa May. That’s really quite weird.

That it was terrorism is not a fact only confirmed by the word passing Theresa May’s lips…do you understand that?

Oh no no no.

Me thinking that an incident where people are mown down by a large van, and then stabbed at with knives, is terrorism, is not brainwashing.

What’s brainwashing, by the predominantly left-wing media, is thinking this can not be described as terrorism until you are allowed to do so!

That is completely sinister.

And really, how the ABC describes it or not doesn’t bother me particularly…BUT when I hear The Australian being criticised for properly highlighting this issue…well, that doesn’t sit right with me.

You just want people to wildly speculate that everything is terrorism until proven otherwise? Great way to live your life.

lol. I see we’re going around in circles here. Cya!

Yeah. The terrorists have won, in your mind. kthxbye.

1 Like

Yeah. That’s totally it.

1 Like

Are you missing everything I’m saying?

I’m questioning WHAT is the process for the Australian journalists. WHICH authorities they have to allow to process certain information - is waiting for confirmation from the British government the same as waiting from confirmation from the Sierra Leone government? WHY they can not describe something as an “apparent terrorist attack” when the facts are known?

Some news organizations have editorial policies where they need verification from two sources before airing or publishing certain information and perhaps this was also the case here.

Umm, since the story is UK-based, then obviously the UK authorities and UK news organisations.

What on Earth is your point here lol. Just seems like a whole lot of concern-trolling and wasted breath over some finicky non-problems.

4 Likes

Really? Is that how Australian news organisations should operate? On the basis of what other news organisations tell us?

As for the “UK authorities” (I note again you are not being specific)…does this extend to the governments of countries other than the UK? I come back to my previous post…if a nuke was dropped on Darwin, is that something that can not be said until Malcolm Turnbull says so? If a missile is fired from North Korea into South Korea…must that only be reported once we have confirmation from South Korea’s President?

You need to be very specific here matlock. Rather than using the same old cliches.

Are you for real? This is the most fundamental issue of news reporting. That is, when you are allowed to disseminate information. That the wording of events like this, which are live and happening and which attack the public, should be controlled by government, is very worrying.

But in any case, the only concern-trolling and wasted breath is that used up in ranting against evil Rupert Murdoch and the right wing The Australian in very legitimately highlighting this issue.

Both the London and Manchester attacks happened after 10pm UK time. You seriously expect the ABC to mobilise its European resources in the early hours of the morning so it can get first-hand accounts? Get real. They must rely on UK resources in this scenario, who are far more prepped.

Furthermore, there is the whole issue of local knowledge of the area. I trust a local reporter for a British news agency to have a much deeper understanding of a breaking story than the ABC from Sydney. Reporters in the UK would already have sources within the Police and Government, and would know the emergency response protocols much better. A UK news organisation would be able to mobilise many more reporters to the scene more quickly than an Australian one.

Holy mother of whataboutism.

In the instance that there was any sort of major development akin to a nuclear strike, I’m pretty sure that any first-hand verification would be impossible since everyone would be dead. [quote=“Firetorch, post:204, topic:588”]
You need to be very specific here matlock. Rather than using the same old cliches.
[/quote]

Stop applying unrealistic standards to others when you yourself are resorting to hypothetical arguments about a nuclear strike in Darwin to argue something about something about stuff. [quote=“Firetorch, post:204, topic:588”]
This is the most fundamental issue of news reporting. That is, when you are allowed to disseminate information.
[/quote]

You are most welcome to rely on right wing blogs and Twitter if you want unreliable, living-on-a-prayer news coverage with little to no verification, as it appears you already do. No one is stopping you or the masses from ignoring mainstream sources such as the ABC when accessing media coverage.

When a terror attack does occur, I and I assume most people don’t want sloppy coverage and constant retractions of false info. I want the news. Therefore, I’ll stick with the mainstream outlets who deal with only facts confirmed by multiple other news orgs, first hand accounts or the authorities. [quote=“Firetorch, post:204, topic:588”]
But in any case, the only concern-trolling and wasted breath is that used up in ranting against evil Rupert Murdoch and the right wing The Australian in very legitimately highlighting this issue.
[/quote]

2 Likes

Like JBar, you’re just going around in circles again. A cliche soup.

We’re talking about WHY the word terrorism can not be used, by an international news organisation, to describe a sequence of VERIFIED FACTS without express permission first from the UK GOVERNMENT.

When you have an answer, get back to me, I’m open to hearing it.