If this guy was at the BBC for 25 years, given he is very conservative and right wing proves the BBC is not biased.
Can't have it both ways. All media has some bias as they are only human, some far more than others. When guys like this complain, just like they do about the ABC, what they really mean is the public broadcasters are not biased towards them.
It is easy to think anyone is a lefty liberal when you have far right views. Just look at fox news.
I got bored watching that interview after a few minutes - so I am not going to comment on th merits of it.
But, Litespeed, your point above got me thinking..
I identify as a liberal, which to me is someone who is open minded, willing to respect others and, at least to my values, willing to give people a fair go and strive for fairness all-round. But I had to second guess myself and look up the definition of liberal - after all , the righties are telling me that I have to be for letting any immigrant in, or allowing murderers to be let off scott free if I am a liberal.
So, I looked up the definition of liberal in the Ocxford dictionary (I could have used the Macquarie dictionary, I suppose):
I particularly identify with the example of "liberal amounts of wine"... of the definitions that resonated with me:
"(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. " I do favour these. This does not mean I necessarily support the EU, nor does it mean that I support putting an individuals liberty above the liberty or safety of the community. However, I would defend an individual libery (e.g. Lord Justice Auld's reform to the cromimal code allowing even the fact someone has been charged but not found guilty of an offence as evidence to prive guilt in a subsequent allegation is one I cannot reconcile with.. but.. I have no problems with their past being used to influence sentencing..
"Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. " - I make no apology for keeping an open mind and willing to challenge my own beliefs or ideas. In fact, not doing so would surely result in cultural and political stagnation.
"Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change. " Now - which political direction woulld be the one not to subscribe to this one?
Although not expressed particularly well, "(especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal. ‘they could have given the 1968 Act a more liberal interpretation’. In other words, sometimes the strict application of the law produces an unjust or harsh result and a more liberal (progressive?) inerpretation should be applied.
All of this implies not some hard-line leftist view of the world at all.. but more a reasoned approach, but with a bend to ensuring a fair outcome to an individual.. and fair is the key here, because it has to be in relation to the outcome of something else - other indiciduals - society. Therefore, if the outcome is fair, it has to balance the needs of the individual versus that of society as a whole.
So, the hard right's alignment of liberalism with the hard left seems a "little" disingenious to say the least - after all, the hard left are as unreceptive to others ideas and also as much about inequality as the hard right - they are both about controlling people for their own ends... But it is not just the hard right that is an issue - the hard left also seem somewhat disingenous in aligning their agenda with liberalism - a fair go for people.. Unfortunatley, the liberals are caught up in this cross-fire... Neither the hard right nor the hard left are open minded nor do they care much about anything but their own agenda..
Now, I thought and was brought up on Aus being about giving people a fair go.. It appears the liberals more closely align to that than either the right or the left.
I listened to the full length of Phil's video interview (which I suspect few voters would bother to do) and can see that Robin Aitken has a point. I suspect this new media outlet will attract lots of supporters, even if they won't sit thru these interminable discussions. Political opinion constantly swings like a pendulum and at the moment an extreme right wing element is exploiting the general dissatisfaction of many voters who tend to listen to slogans rather than study the details of policy.
It's all happened before, with catastrophic results. The worrying part now is that in some countries, the two sides have become so polarised that political compromise is no longer possible. Let's hope Oz doesn't blindly follow them.
@nomadpete - that is sort of the point I am trying to make.. the more left or right leaning of our pollies and parties are hijacking the notions of liberalism to suit their agendas rather than calling themselves for what they really are. Our "conservative" party call themselves the Liberals!! Indeed! Fraser Anning, Tony Abbot, ScoMo (who?) and a whole list a mile long don't have a liberal bone in their body. Then we can talk about the ALP - they too have their issues with far left leaning folks (although I would need to do some research to currently name them - but at the end of the day a lot of their purse strings are controlled by unions - who aren't as militant as they once were.. but still relentlessly pursue their agenda and liberal is also a word I would refrain from using to describe them - admittedly, since the Hawke/Keating years, their power has been reduced).
The "Left" hardly exist in Australia. The cowardly reaction by the ALP to the coup that eviscerated Gough Whitlam's govt was to select Hawke as leader just prior to the "Drover's Dog' election in 1982. Hawke and Keating put in place a strategy that was to emasculate the union movement and hand control of the economy to Hawkie's mates, eg. Sir Peter Ables, head of Ansett Airlines, the Commonwealth Bank, (sell it to the Mum's and Dad's, haw haw haw!). He and Paul Keating, who effectively emasculated the unions by denying them the avenue of secondary boycotts (Section 27a of the Trade Practices act I think) were the greatest Liberal PM's Australia ever had.
The effect of the mass media's PR war against Bill Shorten is laying the groundwork for another nobbled progressive govt. Watch as the media destroyer finds excuses to bleed off any public goodwill for the soon to be Shorten govt.
The "Left" hardly exist in Australia. The cowardly reaction by the ALP to the coup that eviscerated Gough Whitlam's govt was to select Hawke as leader just prior to the "Drover's Dog' election in 1982. Hawke and Keating put in place a strategy that was to emasculate the union movement and hand control of the economy to Hawkie's mates...
Recent LNP governments have been so inept and corrupt, yet I still hear people talk of the prospect of a Labor government as near disastrous for the country. The Coal-ition has blundered thru so many stuff-ups, any one of which the Murdoch media would have blown up into a massive scandal had they been committed by a Labor government.
Whitlam's minister Rex Connor might today be celebrated as the man who saved the nation, had he succeeded in stopping the sell-off of our mineral wealth to foreigners. Instead, our weak government is dependant on subsidising foreigners to plunder our nation and pay no tax.
Meanwhile tiny Norway, why had the balls to maintain control of its national resources, has amassed a trillion-dollar wealth fund.