.. two versions ...
.. the *same* URL ...
.. but: totally conflicting content
I've seen this happening over time (mostly saying nothing except grumbling to myself), but here is a nice, neat little proof of their utterly crass perfidy/partisanship:
Comment 1: The two extracts imply diametrically opposite meanings.
Comment 2: Even if we assume that the AusBC are merely 'stenographers' who quote their sources accurately, the indisputably selective editing here displayed *proves* that the AusBC manipulates the apparent meaning of what they 'report' and (worse!) are demonstrably partisan.
Comment 3: This amounts to nothing less than lying by the AusBC.
This prompts a few questions:
1. Why don't they strive for (honest!) accuracy?
2. Why do they favour one 'side,' most often the Liberals?
3. How dare they take our tax-$s under such wickedly false pretences?
PS 1: The AusBC has the choice as to what they broadcast; by choosing to report this, they encourage salacious interest and promote the alleged story, further muddying the waters. IF what someone does in the privacy their bedroom (or even in an office or car) is *none* of anyone else's business THEN leave the parties in peace. This also goes for Ms Chantelois; "Kiss and Tell" is not too ethical and especially not when for $s.
PS 2: The same propaganda techniques are employed here, i.e. the AusBC harping on 'what people say,' when that 'what' may be an unproven allegation. Typical of this is Barker's repetitions of scurrilous allegations vis-à-vis Iran.
PS 3: The AusBC propagandising by telling us, we the sheople lies corrupts our democracy.
two-faced partisan AusBC (again? - No, still)
Posted by IDHolm at 08:51