FUN TIMES AHEAD

Fisk-loving Margo fan Tim Palmer is the new Executive Producer at Media Watch.

Posted by Tim B. on 12/29/2006 at 08:21 PM
    1. “That bigoted anti-Western crank Robert Fisk is his journalistic guide…”

      Let’s look forward to some balanced reporting from the ABC in 2007. More ‘freedom fighter’, ‘militant’ reports on the way.

      Posted by The Best Infidel on 2006 12 29 at 08:53 PM • permalink

 

    1. Look for Fisk to become the next Media Watch presenter.

      Posted by PW on 2006 12 29 at 09:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. The ABC continues its journey down the rabbit hole.

      Posted by Inurbanus on 2006 12 29 at 10:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. Old Yoda wisdom: He who love Fisk forget facts.

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 12 29 at 10:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. More Old Yoda Wisdom: He who love Fisk got more to worry about than just forgetting facts.

      Posted by paco on 2006 12 29 at 10:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. Not only has this program made redundant by the likes of Tim Blair, it is now making a bid to become a relic of Leftism at the heart of ABC-Land just like Adamski, Tim Lane etc. Sort of self-parody.

      They couldn’t even let go of this increasingly Trivial Pursuit of their pet hatreds, and so we’ll go on paying for it….

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 12 29 at 10:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. phatty phil for media watch – millions will watch, attracted by his gravity gravitarse

      Posted by eeniemeenie on 2006 12 29 at 10:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. 6: They couldn’t even let go of this increasingly Trivial Pursuit of their pet hatreds . . .

      Oooooo, good one Barrie!

      Posted by paco on 2006 12 29 at 10:43 PM • permalink

 

    1. Good. Now we can call it Media Botch.

      Posted by carpefraise on 2006 12 29 at 11:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. What happened to this ABC board that was supposedly stacked by conservative baby-eaters?

      Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 12 30 at 12:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. Is there anyone in that organization who is not a Fisk-loving Margot fan?

      Posted by chrisgo on 2006 12 30 at 12:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. O/T

      I posted this somewhere else today, trying to explain Oz Fed Politics to an American Conservative. How did I do?:

      Frank, the Liberal Party here are our conservatives, the Labor Party being our “liberals”. Our Green Party is led by a guy named Brown, who’s more Red than Green or Brown. Our Democrats would be our “loony left”, but Brown, the Red Green beat them to it. The Democrats are usually led by young sexy blondes, who eventually defect to Labor. Here a Republican is someone who wants an Australian, even if they’re red, green or blonde, to be our Head of State, rather than the Queen.

      Labor’s only been in Federal Govt twice (thank God!). The first time was in the 70s and was interesting to say the least. Imagine Jimmy Carter and his Democratic Congress, but not so far to the Right – then you have an idea of the Whitlam years.

      Labor in the 80s got off to a good start, but only because they started off looking more conservative than liberal. They liberalised various markets such as Forex and the banking sector, lowered tariffs, cracked down on welfare cheats, rejigged the tax system to be a little more friendly to the average person, privatised and corporatised Government owned enterprises, and balanced the Federal budget for a couple of fiscal years.

      Then a new Prime Minister overthrew the old one, and he had grandiose ideas about the World, and his place in it. While unemployment and budget defecits were heading up around the levels he’d inherited from the last time the Liberals were in, he was doing Big Picture politics: issues such as Native Title, locking up large tracts of forest from Labor voting timber workers and huge grants to “the Arts”. The most recent sighting of him has been at a musical about him – complete with him winning the 1996 election, even though in the real world, he lost that election in a landslide of historical proportions. I guess “the Arts” community pines for the days of easy money, and recognises who their biggest sugardaddy was.

      Then the Liberals (conservatives) got back in, reduced the size of the public service, lowered tariffs further, ran regular budget surpluses until Labor’s debt was paid off, got unemployment down from nearly 10% to its current level of under 5% and cracked down on refugee queue jumping illegal immigrants. In other words, they ran a fairly recognisably conservative game plan.

      Frank, it’s a pity your own Republicans forgot they were conservatives – they might not be in the dire straits they are now.

      Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 12 30 at 12:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. I was told there would be no math.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 12 30 at 12:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. I was told there would be no math.

      Sorry Andrea! I understand US politics is complicated too, and I’ve tried to get Americans to give me a summary like the one above, but they always start from now and work backwards. I’ve never gotten past the part about a certain “John Kerry” without falling asleep. It’s a pity – lots of people have told me that the bit about some guy named Jimmah is a barrel of laughs.

      Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 12 30 at 12:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. #12- A very long bow describing the Liberal Party as conservative- if they were, this chaps ideas would be policy, instead he’s regarded as radical and a loose cannon, because he thinks nuclear energy is a good idea and is skeptical about human-influence on planetary weather. But what would he know? After all he’s only a scientist.

      Better to listen to a series of peanuts with no qualifications, but a shitload of books and videos to flog.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 12 30 at 03:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. Well, conservative is the best I could do – it was posted on a discussion board for ex-members of a religious cult, so hard political theory isn’t really on, and it’s not really my bent, either. Anyway, how do you explain that the Liberal party is ultimately descended from a merger between the Protectionist Party and the Free Trade Party?? While it helps explain an identity crisis that’s plagued the party from inception, it hardly makes sense to rational human beings!

      Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 12 30 at 03:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. A very long bow describing the Liberal Party as conservative- if they were, this chaps ideas would be policy, instead he’s regarded as radical and a loose cannon, because he thinks nuclear energy is a good idea and is skeptical about human-influence on planetary weather. But what would he know? After all he’s only a scientist.

      Shit I looked at his site and just looked at his view on water. Privately tradable water rights is a very good start on the right track. Why don’t we have more like him?

      Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 12 30 at 03:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. Oh my! I killed the thread!!

      Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 12 30 at 08:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. Some background on Tim Palmer here.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 12 30 at 06:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. #12 AlburyShifton.

      I’d like to take up a few of your points about Australian political history. But I suggest we wait for a thread where it’s relevant.

      BTW. Tim Palmer sounds like a prime dickhead.

      Posted by geoff on 2006 12 30 at 07:12 PM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.