Monday 17th of June 2024

gus apologises for a cartoon about ABC journalists being pressured to apologise and stop doing their job, to satisfy turdy...

editor in chief, tony abbott, controls the ABC...

The ABC’s managing director, Mark Scott, ordered the flagship current affairs radio program PM not to broadcast an interview the show had recorded with the former terrorism suspect Zaky Mallah after his appearance on Q&A.

The interview, by senior reporter Peter Lloyd, was due to be broadcast nationally on Mark Colvin’s PM program on Tuesday evening.

But sources said a directive came down from news management that Scott, in his role as editor-in-chief of the ABC, had forbidden the airing of the interview. It was dropped from the lineup.

Mallah’s appearance in the Q&A audience the night before had sparked debate about who should be allowed to appear on the program and had angered the government.

Mallah said, in reference to Coalition minister Steve Ciobo, who was on the panel: “The Liberals have just justified to many Australian Muslims in the community tonight to leave and go to Syria and join Isil because of ministers like him.”

Q&A’s host, Tony Jones, apologised and ruled the comment “totally out of order”.

Writing for Guardian Australia on Tuesday, Mallah denied he was a threat, and said he was “on good terms” with Asio now.



Despite its association with totalitarian societies of the left and right, indoctrination is also a common feature of societies that describe themselves as free: those where the coercive powers of the state are weakest and the population cannot be easily controlled by violence and fear.

Although since the 1930s it has been primarily understood in pejorative terms, not all indoctrination should be seen as malignant.

It underwrites every faith-based belief system including all monotheistic religions. It is the primary means for the transmission of values from one generation to the next. And it would be difficult to imagine any educational curriculum – or parental advice to young children - without propaganda of some kind featuring extensively.

Indoctrination is particularly prevalent in minority and persecuted cultures, especially amongst 1st generation migrants, because it is seen as an essential tool for maintaining social cohesion, integrity, and ultimately, group identity.

In establishing traditions which must be followed, or taboos which need to be avoided, indoctrination first erects and then patrols the intellectual boundaries within which legitimate thoughts can be freely expressed. These boundaries are tightly prescribed but they must remain largely invisible if they are to be effective and remain unchallenged.

As Milan Rai argues, “we can no longer perceive the ideas that are shaping our thoughts, as the fish cannot perceive the sea.” Debate and discussion occurs, but within strictly controlled limits that may not be widely recognised.

In this way, a degree of ideological control is achieved in free societies, not by threats or intimidation, but by defining the spectrum of permitted thought: a voluntary rather than a coercive constraint, but no less effective.

Control is achieved by removing contestable ideas from the contest of ideas, making them instead presuppositions whose acceptance is actually a pre-requisite for discourse about a particular subject.

Making an idea implicit tends to protect it from being challenged or opposed. By being constantly reinforced, the idea comes to be accepted as part of the framework necessary to even start a discussion.

Paradoxically, this is easier in open societies which champion free speech and permit vigorous debates and discussion: said to be the lifeblood of all liberal democracies.

In truth, much of what is defined as dissent in these societies is in fact feigned and confined to the mainstream, which by definition is the only location where “serious” ideas can be found. On some issues, the spectrum of legitimate thought is very narrow.

One recent example is the aftermath of the global financial crisis (GFC) which began in 2007. Policy responses to the crisis in the US centred on how to stabilise or “reform” the global financial system, but within strictly controlled limits which largely preserved the status quo: exorbitant fees regardless of company share price or the performance of bankers, generous bonuses unrelated to share price or performance, innovative complexity of financial instruments and, most importantly, minimal regulation of the sector.

The challenge was to make the existing system work better, rather than replace it with something less volatile and dangerous, or more just and humane.

As a consequence of a concerted mobilisation by the business class and President Obama’s indebtedness to the finance community for funding his election campaigns, even minor proposals for long overdue reform were aborted. Despite a window of opportunity for wholesale reform at the height of the crisis, serious attempts at structural change were not even considered.

The financial crash of 2008 exposed many of the flaws in an economic model once seen as perfect. 

An elite consensus for preserving the privileges of the status quo prevailed over the interests of the general population. Consequently, the crisis will almost certainly be reprised, though for much of Europe it has been barely attenuated.

This outcome could not have occurred without the lowering of public expectations and propaganda which sought to limit any changes to the margins of the current system. It was presupposed that the existing system was the best that could be hoped for, and permitted policy discussion was confined to proposals which would not inhibit its workings in any meaningful way.

Extraordinary disparities of wealth and income, or the contrasting fortunes of bankers and pension holders, were seen as simply part and parcel of life. This is because it is vital that the system is seen as broadly legitimate, even by those who have the least to gain from it.

From the perspective of the bankers who launched an offensive against regulation, the campaign was a total success. We are no better prepared for the inevitable, next financial crisis today than we were five years ago.

Indoctrination and propaganda train us for obedience and conformity. They discourage us from thinking differently or creatively, particularly in dealing with new problems and challenges we face every day.

Instead they provide ready-made, pre-prepared answers so we don’t really have to think at all. Too often they attempt to constrain our possible futures by limiting our possible thoughts.


The hysteria over "useful idiots"...

The hysteria over Zaky Mallah on Q&A would make Joseph McCarthy proud

Richard Ackland

It’s as though the nation is in the grip of an hysteria that would make Joseph McCarthy proud.

A young man with a conviction for threatening to kill Asio officers appears on ABC television and asks what would happen to him if the immigration minister had the power to unilaterally cancel his citizenship.

All hell rained down on the head of the national broadcaster. The prime minister suggested the ABC was treacherous, “Whose side are you on?”; the minister for communications Malcolm Turnbull rang the managing director and the chairman to complain, declaring that Mallah’s appearance on the show was a “grave error of judgment”; another Liberal backbencher declared that the broadcaster had engaged in a “form of sedition”.

All of which culminated an a grovelling apology from the director of television, Richard Finlayson and, in the time honoured fashion, an “external review”.

Predictably, the Murdoch newspapers over-indulged in a bout of hyperventilation. The Daily Telegraph stole the morning with “How dare the taxpayer-funded ABC allow this man to spout his bile on national TV”. The Australian thought that Mallah’s appearance was “deliberately manufactured by the ABC to ambush guests”.

The answer to Mallah’s question of what would happen to his citizenship was lost in the fog of confected indignation. Actually, nothing would happen to his citizenship because, according to Q&A’s star performer, he is an Australian citizen without dual nationality.

Mallah told the ABC audience that he was charged with planning a terrorist attack in Sydney in 2003, was acquitted by a supreme court jury in 2005, but pleaded guilty to a charge of threatening to kills Asio officers.

Q&A panellist and parliamentary secretary Steve Ciobo, a cardboard cutout Liberal from the Gold Coast, immediately leapt in with an impressive display of stupidity.

He thought Mallah was acquitted on “a technicality rather than it being on the basis of a substantial finding of fact” and because “at that point of time the laws weren’t retrospective”.

What on earth was he talking about? Mallah was acquitted because a jury found him not guilty of charges relating to doing acts in preparation for a terrorist act.

As Mallah himself says: “I was dumb and naive at the time. I was only 20.” He was talking the talk and strutting his stuff, and importantly the jury believed he had no intention to follow through with his threats.

Where’s the technicality? The Howard-era amendment to the criminal code applied squarely to the charge and wasn’t in need of retrospective fiddling.

In terms of making sense, Ciobo failed dismally, but that has not stopped other hairy-chested souls seizing the moment and ramping-up the “war on terror”.

There is an interesting aspect in relation to the charge of threatening to kill Asio officers.

Radio man Alan Jones was on the case about Mallah and this was followed up by the Australian. It is understood the newspaper paid him $500 for an interview.

The police then secured further information by sending an undercover officer, posing as a journalist to interview him. He told the police officer-journalist that he had a suicide bomber video tape. The “journalist” said this was a great story and he could get it on to the front page of Time Magazine and published elsewhere.

The plan hatched with the undercover officer was that on payment of $5,000 Mallah would hold everyone hostage at Asio headquarters and the “journalist” would have a scoop.

When the police go undercover, in the guise of someone else, and offer money as part of the entrapment of a suspect, they are supposed to obtain a “controlled operations authority”.

Here there was no controlled operations certificate when the police approached Mallah pretending to be interested in buying his story, so if we’re talking about “technicalities” the police in this instance were acting illegally.

Nonetheless, at Mallah’s trial Justice James Wood let the evidence in.

Defence lawyers tell of stories where they have successfully acted for people accused of terrorism offences, secured their acquittal, and seen them go on to lead productive and successful lives. These people are pleased that their youthful excesses are behind them, however under the government’s proposed amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act, any dual nationals in this category would be marched out of the country.

At this stage the government’s amendments on citizenship seem confusing. Immigration minister Peter Dutton is saying there are three proposed ways that could see the “automatic loss of citizenship”: anyone who acts “inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in certain terrorist conduct”; someone convicted of a terrorist offence; and those fighting in another country against Australia.

The first mechanism, could on its face, pose a constitutional problem because it engages in the imposition of a penalty without the application of a prior judicial function. However, there would be a post facto judicial review of revocations that fall in that category. Guilty first, trial later.

There are then two categories of revocation: automatic and non-automatic. The latter is more soundly based in law than the former and doubtless at some point that will play out in the courts.

Counter-insurgency adviser David Kilcullen had useful observations to make in this context. He says Isis regards its western recruits as poor military assets and wastes them with tasks that will almost certainly result in their death.

If they try to escape they will be shot or beheaded as deserters. Numbers vary, but it is understood that over 60 Australians are now fighting for Isis in the Middle East. Kilcullen estimates that no more than 10% could return home.

So the new citizenship law will “technically” apply, on this reckoning, to about six Australians who might want to return.

Adapting Lenin’s phrase, Kilcullen calls them “useful idiots”.

It’s also fascinating to see “retrospectively rolled out” as the new-new thing “by hook or by crook” method of doing business. Ciobo was frustrated, mistakenly, that Mallah only slipped through the law because it wasn’t retrospective. The government would also like the citizenship amendments to apply retrospectively.

Retrospectivity is all the go, which must make the NSW government’s retro-amendments to the Icac Act seem perfectly acceptable.

In 2002, the Australian reported that while at university Ciobo considered joining Asio. Instead, he went to work for PricewaterhouseCoopers.

With that sort of career path in mind, little wonder the parliamentary secretary was mightily miffed by Mallah’s TV appearance.

None of which explains why it was an “error of judgment” to have Zaky Mallah zhoosh up an otherwise tepid Q&A.

turdy's photo op shows he's off the narcissistic scale...


Labor is demanding Prime Minister Tony Abbott explain how classified documents showing terrorist-recruiting hotspots in Melbourne and Sydney were allowed to be filmed during his visit to ASIO's headquarters yesterday.

ASIO has confirmed that the maps - showing which suburbs foreign fighters who have gone to the Middle East came from - were not meant to be made public.

Maps laid out on a table for Mr Abbott showed highlighted suburbs in Sydney including Lidcombe, Greenacre, Punchbowl, Bankstown, Auburn and Lakemba.

The suburbs highlighted in Melbourne included Craigieburn and Campbellfield.

The Opposition says their publication may threaten Australia's national security.

The maps were shown as ASIO director-general Duncan Lewis gave Mr Abbott an update on the security situation in Iraq and Syria during a briefing inside the agency's new headquarters in Canberra.

Television and newspaper cameras were allowed in for part of the meeting.

"This is a map which shows the two cities of Melbourne and Sydney, where fighters who've gone off to the Middle East have emanated from, the home addresses if you like," Mr Lewis said.

read more:


Our Turdy has been so keen to show himself doing stuff "against terror" (and anything that wriggles, including cocopops under milk attack) at every opportunity for the camera (smile, you idiot) that he showed himself basically doing a MAJOR stuff-up... Should Turdy have any one small tiny microscopic quantum decent bone in his body, he would resign. But he won't. As usual he'll blame everyone else, including ASIO operatives, cameramen (camerawomen?), journalists and his staff for the stuff up...

An idiot with a narcissistic bent beyond belief. Stuff-up number 769 on the list of crap coming from Tony Abbott. Come on Malcolm, do the decent thing by this country which is going to the nasty rabid wolves...

Mind you, one does not need to be Einstein to guess "where the hotspots" for recruiting idiots are... Thus here I sense a BIG rat... I am prepared to believe that Abbott deliberately let this yet another stuff-up happen... Why? Well, you want to warn your citizens about places that are hotbeds for terrorists in your mist, "but you're not allowed to by the secret service act"... Work it out... Let the knowledge be passed on accidentally in a moment of apparent idiotic narcissism but of precisely calculated trickling effect: now everyone knows where the "hotbeds" are, including the hotbeds know now there are being watched and that the sheepish populash knows where they areth... 

Sneaky little bastard... He knows he can take the risk of another blunder because the result in the populash is more feareth... BOO !

turdy should sack himself...

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has declared "heads should roll" at the ABC over Monday's night's Q&A program, with the Government ordering its own inquiry into the show.

The ABC has been roundly criticised for allowing Zaky Mallah, who had pleaded guilty to threatening to kill ASIO officials, into the show's studio audience.

The Government is setting up an inquiry into the program, which Mr Abbott says betrayed Australia.

"They compounded the mistake by re-broadcasting the program," he said. "Now, frankly, heads should roll over this."

The ABC board signed off on an external review of Q&A two-and-a-half weeks ago, before the show in question aired, but has not appointed someone to undertake it yet.

Mr Abbott said he did not think that was sufficient.

"We've announced that we're not satisfied with an internal ABC inquiry because so often we've seen virtual whitewashes when that sort of thing happens."

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull says he will continue to appear on the program but has asked his Department to conduct the Government inquiry into the error.

"I think it's very important that we get an understanding of the reason this judgement call was made, which was clearly, as the ABC has acknowledged, so mistaken."

Former ABC presenter turned federal Liberal MP Sarah Henderson has called for the head of Q&A to be sacked.

"It is my view and I say this with some experience in television, including in live television, that the executive producer Peter McEvoy must be sacked," she said.


The only head that should roll is that of Turdy Abbott for leaking sensitive classified documentation through a photo op gone arse up, voluntarily or not... Who does this low-life think he is? He has lied through his teeth for years to the Australian people and his only salvation is through the merde-och press and his mate Pell.

Tony Turdy, the liar, should take his belongings and go... Go Turdy, GO !... You've done too much damage to the psyche of this fair nation that the strongest cancer drug might not be able to repair for years... GO AWAY !


the other heads that should roll...


The Abbott Government’s political interference into public broadcasting has just got serious. 

Very serious.

NOT CONTENT with going beyond his ministerial brief and ringing Mark Scott in the middle of the night to demand answers, the Duke of Double Bay has now decided to politicise his department by demanding senior officers conduct an inquiry into the ABC’s editorial decision-making.

The ego of this merchant wanker seemingly knows no bounds.

Everybody who ever watched Play School or an ABC news bulletin should be outraged and demanding Malcolm Turnbully resign his commission. 

Turnbull has breached his ministerial guidelines with this move, but he’s gloating about it.

The jumped-up, smug little Napoleon has gone well beyond what is acceptable in a system that relies on the separation of powers.,7865


With the support of the merde-och press, the Liberals (CONservatives) feel invincible... please note that even Achilles had an Achilles heel... Come to think of it, all the head of the ministers in the Turdy government should roll...


scott fights back...


In a passionate speech which could escalate conflict between the ABC and the Abbott government, Mr Scott responded by saying the ABC's independence from government must be jealously guarded. 

"At times, free speech principles mean giving platforms to those with whom we fundamentally disagree," Mr Scott said in a speech in Melbourne on Thursday night. 

"Media organisations often give air time to the criminal and corrupt, to those who express views that run contrary to accepted public values.


See also:



the theatre of the merde-och absurdists...


"All the world's a stage"...

Our daily life is a Punch and Judy show... 
Gus Leonisky 

Today Miranda Devine drives into areas she fancies knowing but gets lost into. "Q&A gives oxygen to enemies of the West" screams the headline inside the merde-och's turdograph... It is of course designed to be a one-sided dump, a one-way garbaged street, like the Piers Akerman drivel a few pages away: "Grubby excuses cannot erase the ABC's shame." Let us spew

Critics ! Appall'd I venture on the name,
Those cut-throat bandits in the path of fame,
Bloody dissectors, worse than ten Monroes:
He hacks to teach, they mangle to expose.
Robert Burns (1759-1796)

Whether life is a world stage or a Punch and Judy box theatre, life has always been a debate since the invention of theatre. Q&A is theatre

Plato himself would not be very impressed by the show:
And therefore when any of these pantomimic gentlemen, who are so clever that they can imitate anything, comes to us and makes a proposal to exhibit himself and his poetry, we will fall down and worship him as a sacred, marvellous and delightful being: but we must also inform him that in our State such as he are not permitted to exist; the law will not allow them. And so when we have anointed him with myrrh, and set a garland of wool upon his head, we shall send him away to another city...
Is this censorship or not? 

The invention of "theatre" as we know it is an extension of entertaining "religious" rituals. It began in Greece, around 700-600 BC. It grew from ribald worship of the god Dionysus, the god of wine and of poor people. There was song and dance, heavy drinking and of course some bawdy sex involved. The singing was improved though, into a "traditional" event with improvements and the performance of "tragedy" like the Reenactment of today's American Civil War. But these were mostly about the exploit of the god Dionysus. This "tragedy" theatrics was accepted as part of religious celebrations in 534 BC when a contest of "tragedy" theatre was won by Thespis. Thespis was thus acclaimed as the "first actor/poet" in this sense of drama. The word Thespian derives from him.
In parallel, comedy flourished from the boozing: giant phalluses, fun, abuses and obscenities were part of this side of entertainment. Some nasty tight-arse Christians would say that Greece to this day is paying for this antique "debauchery"...

Mind you, politics is the Theatre of the Absurd. Talking of cut-throat bandits, it was the same Q&A Ciobo who uttered: ''I think that if anybody had the opportunity to slit Julia Gillard's throat, Nick would be one of the first ones to be there.''
Big nasty nasty words indeed. 
And not a single gasp from the peanut gallery, but cheers and reinforcements from ultra-right wing clods, including Peter Reith : "if I was her [Julia Gillard's] adviser I'd go and slit my throat."

So, tragedies and comedies grew to become part and parcel of the Greek culture. It still is part of our culture but it faced some mighty obstacles, none more significant as those placed by the theatre of the absurd: POLITICS.
In Greece, not everyone could afford tickets. Street theatre blossomed. Due to the State "pseudo-censorship", NO words were spoken. It was the birth of miming...
Most of the miming street theatre was about denigrating any religious (and political) concepts. The gods were "burlesqued', lampooned and cut down to size in order to ridicule any form of authority, especially that of the State.

The Romans took over but soon theatre went kaput, despite the Romans building some of the most remarkable amphitheatres and arenas. Romans preferred the circus' blood and guts. They preferred the organised mayhem of reality show against the elevation of stylised, distilled theatre and against street miming. Theatre disappeared from the Western Roman World culture in about 600 AD
We may owe this demise to the rise of another theatre: Catholic rituals. The early ecclesiastics did not like the miming of their own "theatrics". Amen.

Away then with these Lewd, Ungodly Diversions, and which are but impertinence at the best. What part of impudence either in words or Practice, is omitted by the Stage? Don't the Buffoons take almost all manners of Liberties, and plunge through Thick and Thin, to make a Jest? 
St Clement of Alexandria AD 150-215)

By the 5th century, the Church became powerful enough to excommunicate all actors and actresses. The Emperor Justinian closed all the Roman theatres that had managed to survive... 
There was no public plays for another 1000 years in the Western Roman World and its decayed remnants. THESE WERE the REAL DARK AGES. 

Only few wandering troops of actors, entertainers and underground satirists went from village to village to relieve the dark mood brought by wars, famines and plagues. On the nobility side, few minstrels, like painters as well, became attached to courts to laud the master of the castles — in songs and decoration...

Eventually, all the unused latent talent was allowed to perform "to strengthen faith in the unlearned vulgar"... Most people could not understand a single word of Latin and since Latin was the official lingo of the church, people had no idea what the church was about apart from burning in hell for posterity. But life on earth at the time was hell (war, pain, pestilence and death), so most people could not careless about the non-understandable indoctrination, I guess. The vulgar was the common language of the people, but mostly these new drama pieces were performed like "illustrations" of the scenes of the bible.
Liturgical dramas were thus born and morphed into medieval Mystery Plays. The secularisation of such plays started with the introduction of shorter "interludes" into castles. Queen Elizabeth was not amused by this English "Drama" that sometimes poke satirical remarks at her Church (of England). 
Some of the best interludes were written by John Heywood, a court jester under Edward VI and Mary —and a Catholic. Heywood fled to "Europe" for the security of his person, and the preservation of his religion".

Under Elizabeth, unemployment was a major problem. Vagrants, soldiers, monks, clerks, farm labourers, beggars, scholars, actors had become homeless from the dissolution of the monasteries and some other administration. Travel was dangerous. The Queen was not pussyfooting:
All Fencers, Bearwardes Comon Players in Enterludes and Minstrels, not belonging to any Baron of this Realme or towards any other honorable Personage of greater Degree... shall wander abroade and have not Lycence of two Justices of the Peace at the leaste... to be Rogues Vacabounds and Sturdye Beggers... on first conviction to bee grieviouslye whipped, and burnte through the gristle of the right Eare with an hot Yron of the compasse of an ynche about.
Statute 14 Elizabeth, 1572

Makes Dame Thatcher look like a loosing whimp. It brings water to my eyes from imagining the pain...

Shakespeare was born (April 1564). The rest is history. His early plays were mostly comedies from 1589. He also wrote histories, tragedies and "romances". Theatre was really reborn
Not a single Roman play manuscript ever survived. NONE. The empire had killed its own theatre. 

In conclusion:
The critic's symbol should be the tumble-bug: he deposits his egg in somebody else's dung, otherwise he could not hatch it.
Mark Twain.

The tumble-bug is I guess related to the dung-beetle, and some members of the opinionated press, such as the turdograph, make their own dung or find dung where there is none, just to have a head-egg opinion, that is no more than a smelly fart.
Q&A is live theatre and is far more inspiring that the stinking drivel from these critics. I personally don't watch Q&A at most times, because I am more interested in facts and figures, and in valued opinions — rather than watch confrontational slit-throater bark idiotic rubbish, such as Ciobo... 

On the same page as well, Miranda attacks Adam Goodes (obviously a good man) for "displaying" his Aboriginality on the playing field. She sort of claims it is divisive when the great CONservative whitefella is trying to include recognition of the Aboriginal people in the constitution.
It is of course highly hypocritical when at the same time, the "whitefella" is throwing out the aboriginal people out of their traditional lands on which they have lived for millenniums, using various means. This is a REAL TRAGEDY

Miranda devine of course is a Catholic CONservative writer who has no understanding of reality. At least a natural dung beetle does its dungbeetleries with sensitivity. My apologies to dung beetles to compare them with the darth-writers of the merde-och press. 

Gus Leonisky
Your local theatre expert, but an actor not...



See also : PANIC !

malcolm loses the plot...


Malcolm Turnbull has foreshadowed formal recommendations for policy changes at the ABC as a result of the government’s investigation into Q&A and has renewed his attack on the national broadcaster, accusing it of “undergraduate ... tabloid journalism”.

The communications minister said the ABC had a “higher duty” than other media organisations to be accurate, impartial and objective because of its statutory obligations.

read more:


... Than any other media organisations? Very rich words, Mr Turnbullshit. The media, apart from a few loose independents in this country, is more than 70 per cent run by a rabid right-wing Conservative agenda with not an ounce of accuracy, NO balance and NIL "objectivity". NONE ! The mediocre mass media de mierda (MMMM) is there to support Tony Turdy. NO-One ELSE.

The ABC has a duty to show other points of views, even if these are not savoury to "our" Culture, especially when the counter-argument was driven by "CUT JULIA'S THROAT" Ciobo... Why was he allowed on the show?

Please, take the ABC to the media dog ACMA if you wish and let it debate its case in LAW, rather than produce a ministerial fart that smells of right-wing buggery. You attitude runs in the shape of a censorship decree that seems like a Roman edict to kill-off debate altogether by sending it to a circus of blood and guts. We expect better than this from you, Mal... Go and play with your lousy NBN... 


using the stick and boots...

The ABC board has moved against Q&A executive producer Peter McEvoy, issuing him a formal warning under the misconduct provisions of the ABC’s industrial agreement for having Zaky Mallah on the live program.

The serious penalty for the Walkley award-winning journalist who has produced the program since 2008 was announced after an ABC board meeting on Wednesday.

“Given [Mallah’s] criminal background and past public statements, the live broadcast meant that the ABC was not in a position to manage unpredictable or inappropriate actions or responses,” the board said in a statement.

“There was inadequate consideration given to important issues around his presence in the studio, considering his previous actions, his desire for the media spotlight and some of his public comments.”

read more:


I believe Mr Ciobo was also reprimanded by the fair government for having suggested that anyone found innocent of terrorism by the courts should be stripped on their Australian ncitizenship and for having said in the past that someone should cut Julia Gillard's throat... And I believe that Alan Jones will be taken off the air by ACMA for having suggested Gillard should be placed in a bag and thrown out to sea... 

malcolm does not understand democracy...

In all the fuss over Zaky Mallah's appearance on Q&A last week, there was one comment by Malcolm Turnbull that seems just about the most extraordinary development, writes Tim Dunlop.

The Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, made an extraordinary comment on the weekend. Speaking in light of the controversy over last week's episode of Q&A, he said:

[The ABC] is independent of government, but it has a higher duty, it has a duty of objectivity that the rest of the media does not. They can be as opinionated as they like.

Just let that sink in: according to the actual Minister for Communications, a man who is often lauded for his reasonableness and intelligence, the non-ABC media are allowed to be as opinionated as they like. Only the ABC has a higher duty to objectivity.

In all the fuss over Zaky Mallah's appearance on Q&A last week, this, to me, seems just about the most extraordinary development.

If the Minister really believes that, then the problem is not that he doesn't understand media, but that he doesn't understand democracy.

Read more:


And should you have had the unfortunate instance of having to read yesterday's Telegraph or the phonebook at your local hairdresser, the Turdograph was possibly the most RABID BAD BIASED PIECE OF SHIT "JOURNALISM" ever produced in this fair country... Boy, was it awful !... Uncle Rupe would have been overjoyed...

hail emperor turdy...


First the inquiry.


Then the inquiry into the inquiry.


Then the Zaky Mallah royal commission.


And then?


All hail Emperor Tony!


emperor has no clothes

read more:

emperor hypocrite has no clothes...

The level of hypocrisy in the Australian political landscape has sunk to an all time low since Abbott & Co. took to using Karl Rove's faux shock and horror routine, writes Bob Ellis.

IT PROBABLY comes from the Karl Rove book of tactics. And it involves a pretence of shock, and a public declaration that there has never been anything like it, ever before. Last week it was when it was discovered that Bill Shorten had professed his loyalty to Julia Gillard three days after that loyalty had grown wobbly.

Peacock, Howard, Costello, Turnbull and Abbott had done this before him, Beazley, Latham, Rudd and Gillard. They had said they were “a hundred percent” behind their leader Howard, Peacock, Howard, Downer, Nelson, Turnbull, Crean, Beazley, Beazley and Beazley.

But we were told, last week, hand on heart – by Abbott, Pyne, Bolt, Reith, PVO, David Speers – that this had never happened before. Never ever. Shock horror. What a unique villain he is.

Last week, also, we heard the appearance of Zaky Mallah on Q&A was appalling, unprecedented, and grounds for selling off or starving the ABC. Not because of what he said on the show, but what he had written when he was nineteen, and had served his time for, that he would like to kill some men from ASIO. It was unprecedented, we were told, that such a man should be on Q&A, and that he had not been frisked for weapons before he was let in.  

But Alan Jones had also, lately, been on Q&A. And he had threatened the life of Julia Gillard. He had said she should be towed out to sea and, in a sugar bag, thrown over the side. (See IA’s story on Jones’ history of bullying and offensive behavior). Steve Ciobo had been on the show on the same night. And he had to be reprimanded on Lateline for using the phrase “slit Julia Gillard’s throat”. (See IA’s story here). Chopper had been on the show after saying he had slit the belly of a friend, and had written about it in his book. 

It is to be presumed that had Norman Mailer, who stabbed his wife, appeared on the show, there would have been no complaint. Or Roman Polanski. Or George W Bush, who illegally killed with firebombing and street-fighting a hundred thousand people in Iraq.

It was a near-run thing with Zaky. What he said was unexceptionable:

“it’s people like you, and the things you say, that make young Muslims want to join ISIS." 

But he had threatened to kill someone, not meaning it, thirteen years ago, and a few weeks ago had expressed his lust – "gang bang" is not rape, it’s consensual, and frequent in the motel rooms of football stars – for a couple of female journalists whom he named.

Part of the trick is to quickly conceal what was actually said, and go into other details: how he was let in, what else he had said. With Peter Slipper it went quickly from his rorting of money – of which he was proven guiltless – and his office harassment of a male, of which he was proven guiltless, to what he had said – “cunts in brine” – in a private communication to a friend. For this vivid phrase he was hounded from office, made mad and ruined. The word “cunts” was shown to be a new word in the world, though it was old as Chaucer and a staple of English, Irish and American literature. And Australian drama also, as in the first words of Don’s Party, “G’day, cuntface”.

The feigned shock is the trick. And then the concealment of what was actually said, or done.

Let us imagine Malcolm Tucker was a real person – and I have met one of the men, John McTernan, he was based on — and he was accused, accurately, of violent threat and bad language, and told he could never, ever appear on Q&A. How stupid that would be.

Zaky Mallah, meanwhile, remains at large. He drinks coffee in Lakemba. He advises disaffected young Muslims not to join Daesh. No warrant is out for his arrest, no ASIO agent follows him, and photographs him, or records his phone calls. He has served the cause, he has provided the Karl Rove Moment, and he is no longer of interest to his persecutors.

It is as though he had never been.,7893

turdy gets help from the chairman...

Prime Minister Tony Abbott is willing to lift the ban on his frontbenchers appearing on the ABC's Q&A panel show if the program is transferred to the news division.

Q&A has come under intense scrutiny following its decision to allow convicted criminal Zaky Mallah into the live studio audience last month and question a Government frontbencher.

The ABC has admitted that was an "error of judgement" and the show's executive producer, Peter McEvoy, has been issued a formal warning.

Mr Abbott has labelled the decision "unacceptable and indefensible", and has banned Government frontbenchers from appearing on the program while an external review is being carried out.

Government MPs have also accused Q&A of having a left-wing bias, with Mr Abbott describing the show as a "lefty lynch mob" during a recent partyroom meeting.

ABC chairman James Spigelman has written to Mr Abbott suggesting the option of moving Q&A from the Television Division into News and Current Affairs

read more:

Yeah let's all get totally in favour of destroying the country and rape the democratic process in this country. Let's value people like Ciobo who incite people to cut another prime minister's throat, with fascist views — taking the court process out of the equation of justice, letting the whim of a minister to decide your life status... Let's value a political debate with no debate in it... Let's all chant "Hail Turdy"... 

And moving one programme to another division would be a pyrrhic victory of sorts for Turdy without achieving anything for the losers.

Of course the suggestion by the chairman is out of line... When people want to down their trousers and be buggered it's their prerogative. BUT NOT FUCKING THE ABC. DEFEND THE ABC against what is a blatant biased attack from the primal minster... GET MORE CASH FOR THE ABC is the job for the chairman...

popularity contest...

Malcolm Turnbull, who had always thought that the ban was a silly idea, persuaded the ABC chairman James Spigelman to conciliate, and Spigelman floated the suggestion that Q&A be moved to the news and current affairs division as a token gesture of reform and repentance. Turnbull agreed, and then made the mistake of telling Abbott, who immediately and publicly turned it into an ultimatum: if this was done, he would free his ministers. If not … well, what?

Apart from the fact that this was a clear breach of the ABC’s jealously guarded charter of independence from political coercion, this was deluded; he seemed to believe that he was negotiating from a position of strength, while in fact he should be suing for terms. The ABC is vastly more popular than the prime minister; indeed, arguably a fart in a crowded lift would be more popular than Tony Abbott at the moment.

read more:

the killing season mark II....


In an interview with Guardian Australia after delivering the AN Smith lecture in journalism in Melbourne on Wednesday evening, Ferguson had strong words for the way corporate Australia and governments tried to block journalists pursuing important stories. But she didn’t let journalists off lightly either.

Ferguson said journalists were too ready to accept restrictions on reporting in return for access and drips of information, and they were not transparent enough when reporting the motivation behind political leaks.

read more:


Meanwhile, Sarah can prepare herself to do the sequel to her most famous "the Killing Season" showing the Rudd-Gillard philosophical psychological life drama — this time, a story about Malcolm and Tony, two annoying kids, one of them being a lying bully, playing in a sand box.

Read from Top.


the big lie...


In the incident that sparked the boycott, Mallah told Liberal MP Steve Ciobo that, because of "ministers like him", many Muslims would feel justified "to leave and go to Syria and join ISIL".


Jones said: "It never occurred to me actually that what [Mallah]  said - the intent of what he said - would be reversed [by some in the media].

"Even though he's pretty extreme in many of his views, he is absolutely not a supporter of ISIS. Which, if you look at the front pages and you've got ISIS flags - I'm talking about the News Limited tabloids in particular - you've got ISIS flags with the ABC logo on as if somehow this guy was backing ISIS terrorism or that he was in fact a member of ISIS or something along those lines ... he wasn't ISIS. So I didn't think anyone would turn around and say that he was.


"In the end, the big lie sometimes wins out in propaganda wars and there was a sense - a kind of general sense from people who hadn't seen the program or had misunderstood it - that we put on a program a guy from ISIS, deliberately. We didn't."

Jones said when it emerged that Mallah had previously made sexually threatening remarks about women journalists on Twitter, it was clear he had "plenty of other things to be ashamed about".

"The following week we made the point that, had we known about that, of course we would not have given him the opportunity to ask the question," Jones said. "In the end lots of issues got muddied in that particular period."

Jones said he knew "we were in a quite nasty political fight" - with two inquiries launched, including a continuing independent investigation.

But, behind the scenes, Jones and his colleagues decided on solidarity in the face of the onslaught.

"We took the view early on that this was a collective decision that we'd made, that if anyone wanted to blame anyone we were all equally to blame and that no single person on the program could or should be singled out or scapegoated," he said.

"We're all pretty experienced journalists so I can say we understood the urgency of the matter but no one was panicking or arguing with each other behind the scenes.

"It was actually a pretty unified response and with cool heads ... we thought about how we could handle this.

"Obviously the ABC at a broader level was involved at a higher level so we had lots of meetings about it and in the end I think we behaved sensibly.

"The ABC behaved relatively sensibly and the government finally saw that we were taking it seriously."

Of the barrage of criticism from News Corp papers and columnists - specifically the cartoon mock-up of the ABC logo on an Islamic State flag - Jones said: "It was a combination of things. Yes, it was offensive but it was so absurd that it was also laughable."

Read more:
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

I've got news for you, Tony: THE BIG LIE usually wins the propaganda wars... Unless you can deconstruct the lie publicly in a one clever move, which to say the least is more difficult than to promote shit alla News limited, it will still hangs in the mind of infected people like the reality of a bad smell, which News Limited will still try to promote in a counter-move. The liars, Tony Abbott and his cronies, with the help of News Limited hate to loose or be found out... "News Limited is always right" "Tony Abbott is right"...
The creative idiots responsible for the images of an ABC logo on an ISIS flag should be ashamed of using their skills in this manner, at the service of rabid lunatic lying idiots:
ACMA, should have fallen on News Limited with a fine of several million dollars for promoting hatred, falsehoods and misunderstandings. At least Malcolm got rid of Tony Abbott. Though the whole matter could be found laughable for some intelligent people, some people who do not have access to the refinements of life and eat pizza from the box while watching couch potatoes on TV eating pizza from the box, will believe anything Tony Abbott said which was promoted by News Limited. Horrid newspapering. See refined toon at top...
And should your time be limited, just thoroughly read: 

the theatre of the merde-och absurdists...

the big lie
the big lie


no bias at the ABC but plenty at merde-och inc...

The ABC’s Q&A program does not have a “left wing anti-Coalition bias” and is equally a challenge to both sides of politics, according to a draft report of the long-awaited review of Q&A obtained by Guardian Australia.

The key criticism by former prime minister Tony Abbott that the popular panel program hosted by Tony Jones is a “lefty lynch mob” was effectively dismissed by the report’s authors broadcaster Ray Martin and former managing director of SBS Shaun Brown.

In June after former terror suspect Zaky Mallah asked a question on the program there was an outcry from the Coalition and critics of the ABC and Abbott called for “heads to roll” at the national broadcaster.

read more:


No bias at the ABC but plenty at merde-och inc. (see article above)...

a magical hat...


It was 2015’s most controversial piece of marijuana-themed headwear and graced a dozen front pages — now it could cost eBay thousands of dollars.

The Sydney activist Zaky Mallah is suing the online auction group for $30,000 for delisting the “weed hat” he wore during his appearance on ABC’s Q&A program, according to documents lodged with the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Ncat).

Mallah, who was tried and acquitted of terrorism charges in 2005, sparked a federal government frontbench boycott, an internal ABC review and a communications department investigation after being allowed to question the Liberal MP Steve Ciobo during an episode of the program in June.

rea more:


see toon at top...


not free to express a view about rapists...

If you were labouring under the belief that women are free to express ourselves in 2019, the ludicrous theatrics inspired in some by last week’s episode of Q&A on the ABC should disabuse you of this dangerous misapprehension.

The panel consisted of five women and one non-binary person and was chaired by veteran broadcaster and presenter, Fran Kelly. The ABC apparently received over 200 complaints about bad language and what was interpreted by some viewers to be an incitement to violence.

This “incitement” was, in fact, Egyptian-born feminist, journalist and writer Mona Eltahawy asking a rhetorical question about how many rapists we have to kill before men stop raping us. Hardly an incitement to violence, more a profound expression of intolerable frustration at the unwillingness of governments and institutions to adequately protect women and children from sexual assault.


Read more:



Read from top.