After a three month hiatus I am now back to do more critical analysis on the issues of the day. We start with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in particular the aspect of its charter which dictates that equal time be given to both sides of politics. If an interview is conducted with a Labor MP, one of equal time must be given to an LNP MP as well. Fair and Balanced, some might say.
This is at once good in theory and terrible in its application. In theory, all sides of a debate should be heard and let the viewer make up their own mind. However, what actually happens, intentionally or otherwise, is the creation of a false equivalence between the two expressed views: Labor says one thing, the LNP (typically) says the complete opposite. Both are given equivalent airtime, so the assumption is that both views hold equal weight.
While this sounds good in theory, it is the in-principle equivalent of the giving geocentrism and heliocentrism equal airtime in a debate about the relationship between the earth and the sun. One is objectively, verifiably correct and the other is simply wrong. Please note here that my criticism of the ABC’s neutrality does not come from a place of partisan rancour (even though the LNP are objectively, verifiably wrong on many of the issues.) Rather, my point is to observe the dangerous equating of neutrality with objectivity. Neutrality is to let the two sides battle it out with equal time without taking a side: let the viewer decide. Objectivity on the other hand is siding with the truth, the facts and the data on an issue, whichever side of politics happens to espouse said view. This would result in the media reporting what was true (verifiably correct according to data) rather than what was merely factual (it is a fact that the two sides say what they say, even if what they say is not necessarily true).
To counteract the inevitable cries of media bias from the conservatives, I invite you to stop and think. If your position coincided with the aforementioned truth, facts and data, you would welcome media objectivity, because it would be the proverbial water off a duck’s back. The flaw here is not the media for calling you out, rare as that is. Rather, the flaw is your own petulant insistence on sticking to ideologically (or more likely financially) motivated views and policies which are contrary to existing laws and treaties, science, economic theory or other data. The media is not ‘biased’. You are simply wrong. Adapt!
If, in the interest of not showing ‘bias’, the ABC insists on hearing both sides of an argument, I must insist that the national broadcaster do their job and hold whichever side/s whose position is contrary to facts accountable. If they scream bias you have a multitude of responses: show them how they are wrong using facts, or say ‘Please address my question rather than attacking me or the ABC’. As stated above, holding politicians accountable is not ‘bias’, no matter how loudly they shriek.
CA
criticalanalystsite 