Trying to Get Rid of Skynews from Qantas Lounges.

[harvyk]

<snip>
Just wondering how can the ABC be unbiased if they don;t have left and right wing presenters putting across a balanced view? Just asking the question.

Whilst I can't comment on the rest of ABC, I listen to JJJ's hack program on my drive home from work each day. I honestly can not tell you which side of the political divide those reporters would vote for. One of the most memorable comments I've heard basically went like this:

Politician (can't remember from which side): I thought you like the plan?
Interviewer: I do like the plan, but that's not my job to talk up the plan. My job is to asked the hard questions about the plan.

Being unbiased doesn't mean that you don't have political opinions yourself. Being unbiased means that you allow others of all political persuasions an equal opportunity to provide their say. I've heard representatives from all sides of politics on that show, given pretty free reign to answer the questions put towards them, and to speak up about whatever it is they are proposing. I've noticed no real difference between the questions asked between a left and right leaning person. I've even heard people who would dearly love to shut the ABC down given airtime on that show. If that doesn't count as providing an unbiased platform, I don't know what does. Of course, IMHO being genuinely unbiased can look like left leaning bias to a right leaning person, especially as it's typically the ALP who talks up the importance of the ABC.

Of course, I agree with Get Me Outta Here. These left vs right debates probably shouldn't be on AFF (or at least relegated to the playground). I've noticed the OP tends to post something which will spark such debates in the past, and realistically this really only has a tenacious link to travel. I like others tend to ignore the TV's around the place unless they have the departure boards on them.

 

[drron]

Sky News has about half the viewers of ABC NEWS 24 (not the mainstream channel 2) and a evening of about 1.5% of viewers which is not much.

Sky News would have a contract to be on the big on the big screen in the lounges, otherwise why not ABC 24 which is watched by more flyers statistically than Sky.

For those who want politics, Barry Cassidy beats the Bolt Report on ratings.

So if there was a channel button in front of you when you're sitting in the lounge that everyone would push, would you go for Sky? I wouldn't.

Apples and oranges.
But on subscription TV Bolt has the number 4 most watched program whilst BBC news and CNN have been dropped by foxtel on their Play box as they didn't rate.
So by your example BBC news is rubbish?

 

[opusman]

BBC News is rubbish these days, yes.

 

[Forg]

Would still like to know who the “ fairness and equality channel” you are referring to ???

As I already said, I made it up.
Right = Greed, self-interest & general Trumpness.
Left = Fairness & equality & Bambi.
I don't think you'll find anything which is 100% anything ... even de-ionised water has ions in it!

Apples and oranges.
But on subscription TV Bolt has the number 4 most watched program whilst BBC news and CNN have been dropped by foxtel on their Play box as they didn't rate.
So by your example BBC news is rubbish?

Does news have to be entertaining?
Does the fact that it entertains, and hence TV watchers watch it, make it good news?

 

[Renato1]

Instead of trying to make a quick buck, go for something as least offensive as you can find - like BBC or something.

The BBC seems to dislike Trump and hate Israel, and loves talking about the Gender pay gap.

I remember that when stuck in Bali last year, and having to watch it - they were highly critical of Trump's no nonsense words towards North Korea. Their position seemed to be that Trump and the USA should cowtow to the tin-pot dictator threatening the USA with nukes. They look like dills now.
Regards,
Renato

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The BBC seems to dislike Trump and hate Israel, and loves talking about the Gender pay gap.

I remember that when stuck in Bali last year, and having to watch it - they were highly critical of Trump's no nonsense words towards North Korea. Their position seemed to be that Trump and the USA should cowtow to the tin-pot dictator threatening the USA with nukes. They look like dills now.
Regards,
Renato

Let’s ask again in five years and see who’s right. AFAIK nothing has actually happened out of the N Korea meeting. And that’s on the charitable side. The uncharitable suggest the USA got played big time.

 

[jkbaus]

Apples and oranges.
But on subscription TV Bolt has the number 4 most watched program whilst BBC news and CNN have been dropped by foxtel on their Play box as they didn't rate.
So by your example BBC news is rubbish?

Is Bolt number 4 on Foxtel or on all subscription including Foxtel, Fetch, Netflix, etc?

 

[vetrade]

Hey Forg, you need to sharpen up your cut and paste skills. I never wrote the quote you attributed to me in post #71.

 

[Franky]

As I said, they report facts. Political leanings don't come into it.

Anyone who believes that would fall into the 'there are none so blind as those who will not see' camp..

 

[tgh]

Some might opine that facts are opinions in a tux…..

 

[Forg]

I thought that is what the left do 'force feed rubbish" like global warming (hasn't happened yet)

Woah, woah, woah ... huh?
What about "global warming" hasn't happened? Where does your opinion on this come from?

 

[Renato1]

Let’s ask again in five years and see who’s right. AFAIK nothing has actually happened out of the N Korea meeting. And that’s on the charitable side. The uncharitable suggest the USA got played big time.

Trump's first duty is to protect US citizens.

North Korea were building nuclear weapons and intercontinetal ballistic missles capable of hitting the USA - where an Electro-Magnetic Pulse in the atmosphere would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths from the fried electronics. Trump will never let that happen, and it may be unfortunate for the South Koreans for the damage they will suffer as a consequence - but Trump would effectively destroy North Korea if he has to.

With Trump in power, North Korea has only two options, comply or be destroyed.

The BBC would rather Trump just paid North Korea protection money.
Regards,
Renato

 

[mannej]

This is what I see when one mentions that one news source is more factual than another and vice versa.

 

[dajop]

Who cares what news, oops I mean entertainment, is playing in the background in Qantas lounges. Really if passengers don't like it , the TV can be easily ignored. Much more important things to worry about, like finding a good seat, or where the next drink is coming from

Anyone who thinks any news is unbiased is kidding themselves. All news can ever hope to be is a combination of selective reporting of facts (facts often selected for their ability to garner views/ratings/readers or reinforce the views of the news organisation), opinions, and entertainment, with each having varying degree of importance depending on the proponent.

 

[opusman]

Woah, woah, woah ... huh?
What about "global warming" hasn't happened? Where does your opinion on this come from?

Andrew Bolt

 

[serfty]

North Korea were building nuclear weapons and intercontinetal ballistic missles capable of hitting the USA - where an Electro-Magnetic Pulse in the atmosphere would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths from the fried electronics.

That was until much of the North Korean Nuclear test facility caved in when the mountain directly above North Korea's Punggye-ri nuclear test site collapsed strait after their most recent test last September.

 

[Renato1]

That was until much of the North Korean Nuclear test facility caved in when the mountain directly above North Korea's Punggye-ri nuclear test site collapsed strait after their most recent test last September.

Not sure what you mean.
The North Koreans have tested nuclear bombs - which means they have nuclear bombs, and after a certain amount of product testing well.....it's mission accomplished. The bombs work and are ready for deployment.
Regards,
Renato

 

[TheRealTMA]

Not sure what you mean.
The North Koreans have tested nuclear bombs - which means they have nuclear bombs, and after a certain amount of product testing well.....it's mission accomplished. The bombs work and are ready for deployment.
Regards,
Renato

Do you know that the first US 'atomic' bomb ("Little Boy") was never tested before it was dropped on Hiroshima? The principle is simple - essentially just bang the rocks together. It's not hard if you have the right materials.

 

[Renato1]

Woah, woah, woah ... huh?
What about "global warming" hasn't happened? Where does your opinion on this come from?

My opinion comes from the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), where they note the existence of the "Hiatus" (failure to warm as predicted by models), and in their discussion of Equlibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) which is the amount of warming arising from the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the four previous assessment reports, they had given the ECS figure of 3C. But in the Fifth assessment report they decline to give a figure, noting that computer models give an estimate of ECS of 4.5C or higher, while several studies using direct measurement give figures of ECS between 1.5C to 2C.

And flipping through the IPCC's earlier reports, you see that the genuine reason they were alarmed was that from the late 70s to early 90s, world temperature was rising at a very scary 0.3C per decade - which started the ball rolling. But the datasets in the Fifth assessment report, when discussing the Hiatus, show temperature rising at a not so scary 0.06C per decade - a fifth of the earlier very scary figure. Sneakily, they then compare the smaller figure not to the 70s/90s 0.3C per decade baseline which shows how bad their prediction was, but instead to the 1952 to 2000s baseline of about 0.12C per decade (from memory), and effectively say they were only off by a factor of 2, instead of by a factor of 5.

From which the final conclusion of the IPCC is that they are 95% confident that by the year 2100 the world would have heated up by between 1C to 7C. Of course, it should be noted that via this settled science, according to the IPCC the world may be fine (1C increase) or a disaster (7C).

You can check all the above on-line, as all the IPCC reports can be Googled, and search within the 5th Report for "Hiatus" and "ECS"
Regards,
Renato

 

[Moody]

Not sure what you mean.
The North Koreans have tested nuclear bombs - which means they have nuclear bombs, and after a certain amount of product testing well.....it's mission accomplished. The bombs work and are ready for deployment.
Regards,
Renato

So North Korea have a few coughty nukes with dubious deployment technology. Bully for them. The cost of this has been a regime of sanctions that have hurt their economy so badly that domestically "Rocket Man" was already talking up economic issues whilst downplaying the nukes. So he makes a last flurry of launches, trash-talks with the King Kong of trash-talking, then suddenly rolls out the red carpet and stage-manages a frankly cringe-worthy meeting with POTUS (which made him look like Trump's equal).

Nothing was promised on his side that they weren't willing to give up for a packet of choccy biscuits, and in return Trump abandons military exercises with the South Koreans and the sanctions start crumbling.

Rocket Man 1 , Ronald McDonald 0