Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,722

    Neo-nazis on TV (sf state politics)

    It's interesting that most of the outrage against Bongiorno is coming from the Murdoch press, which had no problem, at least initially, with promoting an actual Nazi:

    Sky News hosted the far-right activist Blair Cottrell in its studios for a one-on-one discussion about immigration on Sunday night, sparking widespread condemnation and an apology from News Corp hours later. Sky posted three videos on Twitter of Cottrell arguing for immigration based on race, and live tweeted his ideas. After complaints on Twitter, Sky removed all the tweets about Cottrell and apologised.
    Sky News Australia

    @SkyNewsAust
    It was wrong to have Blair Cottrell on Sky News Australia. His views do not reflect ours. The interview has been removed from repeat timeslots and online platforms.
    - Greg Byrnes, News Director
    9:44 PM - Aug 5, 2018
    The United Patriots Front leader has a criminal history, including being found guilty last year by a magistrate of inciting contempt, revulsion or ridicule of Muslims.The bodybuilder and carpenter has also expressed admiration for Hitler and claimed to have manipulated women “using violence and terror”.

  2. #2
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    983
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    It's interesting that most of the outrage against Bongiorno is coming from the Murdoch press, which had no problem, at least initially, with promoting an actual Nazi:

    Sky News hosted the far-right activist Blair Cottrell in its studios for a one-on-one discussion about immigration on Sunday night, sparking widespread condemnation and an apology from News Corp hours later. Sky posted three videos on Twitter of Cottrell arguing for immigration based on race, and live tweeted his ideas. After complaints on Twitter, Sky removed all the tweets about Cottrell and apologised.
    Sky News Australia

    @SkyNewsAust
    It was wrong to have Blair Cottrell on Sky News Australia. His views do not reflect ours. The interview has been removed from repeat timeslots and online platforms.
    - Greg Byrnes, News Director
    9:44 PM - Aug 5, 2018
    The United Patriots Front leader has a criminal history, including being found guilty last year by a magistrate of inciting contempt, revulsion or ridicule of Muslims.The bodybuilder and carpenter has also expressed admiration for Hitler and claimed to have manipulated women “using violence and terror”.
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...0865da0b984682

    CHRIS KENNY

    This relates to an ABC radio and online report that rightly made a big deal about how the alleged Christchurch terrorist had responded directly to Australian extremist Blair Cottrell on social media after he made an appearance on national television.

    The ABC did not mention on which station or program Cottrell had appeared; perhaps hoping their audiences would assume it was Sky News because the ABC has been critical of an appearance by Cottrell on Sky News last year. But the timeline of events made clear that the ABC had been deliberately deceptive.

    There was only one program the alleged terrorist could have been responding to, so the ABC clearly decided to hide this fact.

    The viewer — now known as an alleged terrorist charged over the assassination of 50 Muslims at prayer — was watching Cottrell on ABC TV in 2016.

    Why would the ABC not include this fact?

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,722
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...0865da0b984682 CHRIS KENNY
    This relates to an ABC radio and online report that rightly made a big deal about how the alleged Christchurch terrorist had responded directly to Australian extremist Blair Cottrell on social media after he made an appearance on national television. The ABC did not mention on which station or program Cottrell had appeared; perhaps hoping their audiences would assume it was Sky News because the ABC has been critical of an appearance by Cottrell on Sky News last year. But the timeline of events made clear that the ABC had been deliberately deceptive. There was only one program the alleged terrorist could have been responding to, so the ABC clearly decided to hide this fact. The viewer — now known as an alleged terrorist charged over the assassination of 50 Muslims at prayer — was watching Cottrell on ABC TV in 2016. Why would the ABC not include this fact?
    The problem with the Sky News interview was that it didn't challenge Cottrell's views, unlike the ABC program, as Paul Barry pointed out at the time on Media Watch:
    But Sky’s mistake was not to have Blair Cottrell on. It was to do an uncritical interview. ... Now, as some have pointed out, Sky’s not the only network to have given Cottrell oxygen. He’s been on Nine and on Seven, which also failed to challenge him. And he’s appeared on the ABC in a panel debate. But the big difference is, on that occasion two years ago the interviewer did his job: ...

    This is the section that Kenny is presumably referring to, a small part of a very large article:
    Tarrant made similar comments months earlier, when Mr Cottrell appeared on national TV. "Knocked it out of the park tonight Blair," he wrote. "Your retorts had me smiling, nodding, cheering and often laughing. "Never believed we would have a true leader of the nationalist movement in Australia, and especially not so early in the game.
    Personally, I would never have assumed that "national TV" referred to Sky News. And Cottrell would not have needed a 'retort' on Sky News, as his views were never challenged. There was actually widespread condemnation of the interview on Sky News (not just by people on the ABC), including by some of its own employees. While Kenny may have a point about the ambiguity, he has no evidence that the omission was intentional, so it doesn't seem very strong.

    EDIT: Kenny could actually be accused of the same thing he accuses the ABC of. He refers to the ABC being critical of the Sky News interview, but doesn't mention that Sky News presenters were also critical of it. A reader might assume (wrongly) that only the ABC criticised the interview!
    Last edited by Patrick Byrom; 01-04-2019 at 03:29 PM. Reason: Additional argument.

  4. #4
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    983
    Tarrant made similar comments months earlier, when Mr Cottrell appeared on national TV. "Knocked it out of the park tonight Blair," he wrote. "Your retorts had me smiling, nodding, cheering and often laughing. "Never believed we would have a true leader of the nationalist movement in Australia, and especially not so early in the game. (PB)

    Can you please explain how the ABC was able to directly quote Tarrant's comments about Cottrell's appearance on the ABC without knowing it was an ABC programme he was responding to? And if you can't, can you please explain how Chris Kenny has no evidence that the omission was intentional. Chris Kenny has the evidence of the ABC response to The Australian's pursuit of the issue because the ABC itself acknowledged that the omission was intentional - and gave its reasons! You argue that Kenny's point isn't very strong because he has no evidence that the omission was intentional. It follows that it is because it was.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,722
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Can you please explain how the ABC was able to directly quote Tarrant's comments about Cottrell's appearance on the ABC without knowing it was an ABC programme he was responding to? And if you can't, can you please explain how Chris Kenny has no evidence that the omission was intentional.
    But I didn't say anything about whether the ABC reporters did or didn't know that it was an ABC program.

    Chris Kenny has the evidence of the ABC response to The Australian's pursuit of the issue because the ABC itself acknowledged that the omission was intentional - and gave its reasons! You argue that Kenny's point isn't very strong because he has no evidence that the omission was intentional. It follows that it is because it was.
    This is what Kenny said in your post - there was no mention that the ABC had acknowledged the omission was intentional:
    The ABC did not mention on which station or program Cottrell had appeared; perhaps hoping their audiences would assume it was Sky News because the ABC has been critical of an appearance by Cottrell on Sky News last year. But the timeline of events made clear that the ABC had been deliberately deceptive. There was only one program the alleged terrorist could have been responding to, so the ABC clearly decided to hide this fact.
    Kenny's argument is: "But the timeline of events made clear that the ABC had been deliberately deceptive." But the timeline doesn't establish deliberate deception, or even deception.

    If Kenny had a statement from the ABC when he wrote the above, why did he not include that as evidence instead of using such a weak argument? And why would he ask the question: "Why would the ABC not include this fact?" if he already knew the answer? Obviously Kenny did not have the ABC reply when he wrote that.

  6. #6
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    983
    The article I linked included the following:

    The Australian pursued the issue and reported this response: “An ABC spokeswoman said Mr Cottrell has ‘made TV appearances on a range of programs and networks over the years, including Seven, Nine, the ABC and Sky News Australia.

    “It was decided not to specify any of them in this report so as not to detract from the central and very important focus of the story, that being his connections to white supremacy groups in Australia,” she said.


    In other words, when asked, the ABC clearly did not say that the omission was unintentional. To the contrary, it said that it acted in the public interest by not revealing that Tarrant praised Cottrell's performance when the ABC gave him a platform to air his hateful rubbish. It was a deliberate omission. It was not unintentional.
    Chris Kenny had a statement from the ABC and he referenced it in the article. I linked the article and included a sample. You concluded that Kenny clearly did not have the evidence of the ABC reply when he wrote the article. You are wrong and should apologise to Chris Kenny - and hope that this time he doesn't also require cash compensation.

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,722
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    The article I linked included the following: ...
    You mean the article you linked to that I can't easily read without subscribing, which contained important details that you didn't include in your post!
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    In other words, when asked, the ABC clearly did not say that the omission was unintentional. To the contrary, it said that it acted in the public interest by not revealing that Tarrant praised Cottrell's performance when the ABC gave him a platform to air his hateful rubbish. It was a deliberate omission. It was not unintentional. Chris Kenny had a statement from the ABC and he referenced it in the article. I linked the article and included a sample. You concluded that Kenny clearly did not have the evidence of the ABC reply when he wrote the article. You are wrong and should apologise to Chris Kenny - and hope that this time he doesn't also require cash compensation.
    Kenny himself admits here that the follow-up by The Australian occurred after he had made the original claims. So my argument about his original claims, which was all your post contained, was correct. The follow-up by The Australian wasn't in your post, and wasn't available to me, so no apology is warranted.

    Of course, Kenny still hasn't established that the ABC was being deceptive - perhaps Kenny should be wary of a defamation suit.
    Last edited by Patrick Byrom; 01-04-2019 at 10:36 PM.

  8. #8
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    983
    I am not allowed to post complete articles. If you are not able to read a linked article, my advice would be to refrain from commenting on it. Ignorance is not usually a good defence. However, as even the sample copy I posted makes abundantly clear, Kenny did not need a response from the ABC to correctly assert that the ABC had acted deliberately in failing to reveal itself. The response from the ABC simply confirmed what the timeline established. Or are you aware of other programmes that gave Blair Cottrell a platform around July, 2016 or thereabouts?
    What is clear is that neither Kenny or the ABC ever claimed that the omission was unintentional. You are the only one who ever claimed that. In other words, your argument about his original claims, even if limited to the sample copy, is incorrect - and even by your own meagre measure you should apologise to Mr. Kenny (or, better, be like the Chaser boys and forward some cash with your apology).
    Last edited by idledim; 02-04-2019 at 09:18 AM.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,722
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    I am not allowed to post complete articles.
    I don't expect you to. But you are able to summarise the important points.
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    If you are not able to read a linked article, my advice would be to refrain from commenting on it. Ignorance is not usually a good defence.
    Defence to what? I can reasonably comment on what other people have posted - I can't be held responsible if what they post (not including the links) is misleading or incorrect.

    EDIT: By the way, your original post stops dead after this sentence: "Why would the ABC not include this fact?". There's no indication (eg, by the use of "...") that your link contains anything more than what you've already posted.

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    However, ...
    We'll just have to agree to disagree about this. And if the site is concerned about being sued, I'm sure Kevin will delete our posts (your references to my posts could also be defamatory).

    Back to my original point about Neo-Nazis on TV:
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    ... To the contrary, it said that it acted in the public interest by not revealing that Tarrant praised Cottrell's performance when the ABC gave him a platform to air his hateful rubbish.
    So why did Sky give Cottrell an even better platform "to air his hateful rubbish", after the ABC did?
    Last edited by Patrick Byrom; 02-04-2019 at 12:28 AM. Reason: Explication.

  10. #10
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    983
    So why did Sky give Cottrell an even better platform "to air his hateful rubbish", after the ABC did? (PB)

    I have no idea why Cottrell was interviewed on Sky. I didn't see it at the time and can't comment (whereas I understand that you do comment when you don't see things).

    I do remember a couple of things from that episode. First, the presenter was immediately sacked; second, Sky immediately apologised - unlike the ABC (which thanked Cottrell for coming along at the end of that programme and included lotsa background footage during it for Tarrant to applaud)); third, the Victorian government used it to ban the Sky feed from train platforms, despite the interview never being broadcast via that feed package - which seemed to show that Sky was the real target, not Mr. Cottrell. Here, for example (sans link) is some more sample copy from The Australian:

    Sky News has confirmed an interview with far-right extremist Blair Cottrell did not go to air in Victorian train stations — but Transport Minister Jacinta Allan says she received “different advice”.

    Ms Allan today defended her decision to ban Sky News from Victorian train stations in a train wreck interview with Sky presenters Laura Jayes and David Speers, but was unable to give specific examples of offensive content that had been aired on train station platforms.

    She argued “dozens of advertisers” had left Sky following the decision to air the Cottrell interview, when in fact only three — American Express, Huggies and Specsavers — had taken such action.

    Ms Allan also admitted she was aware that no long-form interviews, such as the Blair Cottrell segment, were screened as part of the Sky News package aired at train stations.


    I also have no idea why you regard Sky as an even better platform for Blair Cottrell than the ABC. Not many people watch Sky - and many people who watch Sky never watched the Adam Giles show (or whatever it was called). You have already said that you would never think of Sky as 'national TV.' Let me guess - you don't have a subscription to either Sky or The Australian, so your prejudice is quite literally blind. Fair guess? I thought so - no chance of mad, bad and dangerous to know Lord Byrom ever discovering that there's actually more diversity of opinion on both those platforms than on 'our ABC.'

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,722
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    I have no idea why Cottrell was interviewed on Sky. I didn't see it at the time and can't comment (whereas I understand that you do comment when you don't see things).
    I only comment on what I see, like everyone else. It's ironic that in a post accusing the ABC of deceiving people by leaving out important details, important details were left out, resulting in deception!

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    ... You have already said that you would never think of Sky as 'national TV.' Let me guess - you don't have a subscription to either Sky or The Australian, so your prejudice is quite literally blind. Fair guess? I thought so - no chance of mad, bad and dangerous to know Lord Byrom ever discovering that there's actually more diversity of opinion on both those platforms than on 'our ABC.'
    I stopped reading the Murdoch press for two reasons. Firstly, I found that I couldn't rely on the news presented, and had to constantly check what was reported. For example, I didn't say that I would "never think of Sky as 'national TV.'" I said: "I would never have assumed that "national TV" referred to Sky News." - my assumption would have been that "national TV" referred to the ABC. Secondly, the paper often resorts to the lowest form of wit (such as calling people "Lord Byrom"), which I found rather tiresome. However my conclusions were based on the Courier Mail and The Australian - I don't believe that Sky (at least during the day) suffers from these issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    I also have no idea why you regard Sky as an even better platform for Blair Cottrell than the ABC. Not many people watch Sky - and many people who watch Sky never watched the Adam Giles show (or whatever it was called).
    I don't regard Sky as an even better platform than the ABC. I pointed out that they gave Cottrell a better platform than the ABC. From my original post:
    ... Sky posted three videos on Twitter of Cottrell arguing for immigration based on race, and live tweeted his ideas. After complaints on Twitter, Sky removed all the tweets about Cottrell and apologised.

    I notice that our original posts are still here, so your fears about defamation appear to have been unfounded

  12. #12
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    983
    Patrick

    I did not accuse the ABC of deception in this matter. You just made that up.

    Nor did I mislead anyone by posting a link to an article by Chris Kenny and a few sample sentences from that article. You just made that up.

    Nor do I believe The Courier Mail and The Australian often refer to people as Lord Byrom. You just made that up.

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,722
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Patrick
    I did not accuse the ABC of deception in this matter. You just made that up.
    Nor did I mislead anyone by posting a link to an article by Chris Kenny and a few sample sentences from that article. You just made that up.
    Nor do I believe The Courier Mail and The Australian often refer to people as Lord Byrom. You just made that up.
    This is a perfect example of what the Murdoch papers often do. They misinterpret what people say, and then attack them on that basis. Obviously I was using "Lord Byrom" as an example of sarcasm, not suggesting that the Murdoch papers have ever used that name. And I didn't say that you had accused the ABC of deception, or that you had mislead anyone. I said that your post did: "It's ironic that in a post accusing the ABC of deceiving people by leaving out important details, important details were left out, resulting in deception!" My use of the passive voice was very deliberate.

  14. #14
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    983
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    This is a perfect example of what the Murdoch papers often do. They misinterpret what people say, and then attack them on that basis.
    As you are a confessed non-reader of The Courier Mail and The Australian, I look forward to reviewing your list of examples of this kind of misinterpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Obviously I was using "Lord Byrom" as an example of sarcasm, not suggesting that the Murdoch papers have ever used that name.
    Indeed! As a confessed non-reader of The Courier Mail and The Australian how could you possibly know how often they refer to people as Lord Byrom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    And I didn't say that you had accused the ABC of deception, or that you had mislead anyone. I said that your post did: "It's ironic that in a post accusing the ABC of deceiving people by leaving out important details, important details were left out, resulting in deception!" My use of the passive voice was very deliberate.
    Your use of the passive voice, howsoever deliberate, does not remove the imputation if you claim, as you do, that the (by which you must mean your) deception is the result of my omission. Indeed, the idiocy of your imputation is compounded by the extent of your deliberation.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,722
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    As you are a confessed non-reader of The Courier Mail and The Australian, I look forward to reviewing your list of examples of this kind of misinterpretation.
    Kenny's original claim was a perfect example: "the ABC had been deliberately deceptive." He provides no evidence that the ABC intended to deceive people, although he attacks the ABC on that basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Your use of the passive voice, howsoever deliberate, does not remove the imputation if you claim, as you do, that the (by which you must mean your) deception is the result of my omission. Indeed, the idiocy of your imputation is compounded by the extent of your deliberation.
    That deception resulted from your omission is obvious. That doesn't mean that you intended to deceive anyone, and I didn't accuse you of that.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Australian state politics and elections thread
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 1179
    Last Post: 22-08-2019, 12:16 AM
  2. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 16-12-2018, 12:48 AM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 30-11-2018, 12:19 AM
  4. nazis sf. extending state bans
    By bergil in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 31-03-2006, 02:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •