two-faced partisan AusBC (again? - No, still)

.. 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:

Exhibit A:google search results
Exhibit B:3rd party (topix.com) content (AusBC 'original')
Exhibit C:'Current' AusBC content

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.

Boo! Hiss!


  1. Q: Why lie? A: Beats me.

    What we know:

    1) That 'the people in the street' - i.e. Norm Everage & his stalwart Mrs, plus 2.3 kids (aka screaming horrors) have been *deliberately* dumbed down, by what I like to refer to as the 'pushed-paradigm propaganda.'

    2) That "All politicians lie!" (A special formulation made both necessary and ubiquitous by JWHoward.)

    3) That the AusBC transmits (bad) and (worse, worst) *actively augments* the many and several politicians' lies.

    4) That IF they have to lie about it (lying being far harder than 'truthing'), THEN their enterprise(s) are most probably filthily criminal - for incontrovertible proof, see Iraq; the US+UK (and to our eternal shame, Aus) illegal invasion morphed to brutal occupation; murder for spoil (Or 61+ years Z-murder for soil, of the hapless Palestinian sort.) Both the US & Zs and their hangers-on try to hide behind multiple, rotten & deliberate lies (also and not so BTW, indicating guilty consciences.)


    Now, the upshot of the dumbing-down and lies, *plus* the fact that our so-called 'representatives' don't properly represent us, we the sheople, is that no matter how the sheople decide (based mostly on lies) or who they vote for (the only 'effective' choice being the *non-choice* between Lib/Lab pug-ugly twins), all we ever get is 'US-allied' warmongers, more predatory war, and the slathers of lies they layer over us.

    In clear text, our so-called 'democracy' is 'inoperative;' our army will be sent to help do the US' killing & stealing, no matter what/how we think, want, vote or do.

    So (full-circle); why bother lying to us? Why the AusBC?

  2. a typical AusBC beat-up

     .. plus an 'inside' story


    1. Garrett demoted over insulation bungle
    Updated February 26, 2010 16:18:00
      «Mr Rudd admitted the department changes were a demotion for Mr Garrett.» 
    [AusBC/justin,Updated February 26, 2010 16:18:00]

    2. Garrett pays price for insulation debacle
    Updated February 26, 2010 20:25:00
      «Mr Garrett says he welcomes the opportunity to focus on key interests and passions.» 
    [AusBC/justin,Updated February 26, 2010 20:25:00]

    Comment: It's the *same* article (check the URL), only the timing is different. It means that the AusBC dept. of political incorrectness is on the job, again changing the sense of the article, and adding a section of abuse of Garrett by Abbott. This might be humorously referred to as adding 'balance' - in the later version, Garrett now gets a kick from both 'sides;' by the AusBC on the 'left' (guffaw) and Abbott on the furthest 'right.' The AusBC's reports often take the form of "Lib slams Lab" - unnecessarily 'colourful,' shall we say, and mentally, if not morally unbalanced? Now, something a bit different:

    3. Reporters with Conflicts of Interest in Israel
    February 25, 2010
      «That is why you will not read anything in the NYT questioning the idea that Israel is a democratic state or see coverage suggesting that Israel is acting in bad faith in the peace process.» 
    [ICH/Jonathan Cook]

    Comment: For NYT, read AusBC. This item explains why anyone reporting from Israel must be 'inside the Israeli tent' (my paraphrase; a 'gentler' way of speaking.)

    Which means *by definition* pro-Z biased, and so to the last item:

    4. No army as moral as ours, says Israel
    By Middle East correspondent Anne Barker
    Posted January 30, 2010 13:10:00
      «Israel has submitted its official response to a United Nations report which accuses it and Hamas of war crimes during last year's Gaza war.» 

    This last report by Barker is - IMHO - both utter rubbish and Israeli propaganda - and total lies, to boot. The IDF murdered around 1400 mostly 'civillian' Palestinians in their invasion of Gaza in '08/9, that is simply *not* moral. Barker should be a) ashamed and then b) sacked.