Re: 49% of Victorians never use PT: Skynews
  Dudley Horscroft

I watch a fair bit of Sky TV and I would say that in the mornings and afternoons the station is almost overbalancing to ensure both
ALP and Liberal politicians are equally represented. Either one of each on at the same time, or one interviewed and then the other
for the same length of time.

In the evenings, the presenters are almost always right wing - though Nicholas Reece of Melbourne City Council and a staunch
supporter of the Democratic People's Republic of Victoria has his own show. However the right wing presenters usually ensure at
least one ALP MP makes up the panel - and sometimes two! Cross bench senators get a fair look in, though rarely Greens - I think
that Green Senators have determined they should not appear on any of the evening Sky shows. Peta Credlin, Andrew Bolt and Paul
Murray are pretty scathing about the Coalition, though even less happy about the ALP and detest the Greens, while Graham Richardson
happily balances it up. And Alan Jones rarely has anything good to say about the Coalition! Ex-Senator Conroy gets a good run, and
seems to crop up on several shows, and he spruiks the ALP and slams the Coalition - usually rightly - whenever possible.

So, yes, Sky in the evening tends to the right side of politics, but it is not one eyed, and there are some beautiful barneys when
the guests get into one another. As Paul Murray was heard to say "It is very easy being the presenter when you can just sit back
and let the guests shout at each other and run the show." Or words to that effect.

Regards

Dudley Horscroft
----- Original Message -----
From: "Prescott" lenkaprescott@...>
To: "TramsDownUnder" tramsdownunder@...>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] 49% of Victorians never use PT: Skynews


> As far as I can see, Sky provides a counterfoil to the ABC, which is

> necessary in a democracy. Any attempt to restrict access to the ABC would

> be as reprehensible as restricting access to Sky. The general grievance

> with the ABC is that it's taxpayer-funded, therefore it should have an

> obligation to be impartial. The other side was already well-represented by

> Fairfax, for example, which the ABC has helped kill off by stealing its

> audience with free content. This is a bigger problem in the Australian

> media. From my apolitical stance I see a general trend to try to kill off

> conservative voices. I would be equally disturbed if there was a trend to

> kill off left-wing opinion. Being able to hear and form judgements from

> both in an unrestricted way is essential in a healthy democracy. What's

> happening in Australia (and overseas) at present is that the left is trying

> to shut down information and debate by trying to ban things. Allan's action

> (as evidenced by her words spoeken when trying to retreat) is directly in

> this vein. I guess that if anyone's personal inclinations are "of the

> left", naturally they wouldn't see any problem with that.

>

> Sky isn't two different entities, it simply separates its news and opinion,

> which is more than can be said for some other media outlets. Here are a

> couple of news items from yesterday that seem to contradict the suggestions

> of "bias", or "having it in" for the Andrews government:

>

> https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_5820916413001

> https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_5821147706001

>

> If their news were biased they would either not run with these stories

> (quite common practice overseas, like in the land of the Beeb) or turn them

> around to sound better. Allan is either stupid or more likely politically

> conniving, meaning her action was simply a petty payback and attempt to

> intimidate a media outlet - which in plain language is censorship. I think

> that the only thing we need to concern ourselves with on this forum though

> is the quality of the journalism and that is unfortunately more often than

> not poor regardless of the political leanings of the outlet.

>

> I would still be interested to learn about the transport policies of the

> Victorian opposition, even though it looks like they may not win simply

> because they seem to be not proactive and fail to take opportunities even

> when they're handled to them on a plate. We've seen plenty of that in

> Australian politics.

>

> And I don't have any problems with video streaming in railway stations.

>

> Tony P

> (in a state where the Liberals have consistently been the party of trams

> since the 1950s and Labor the party against them since then, showing that

> nothing can be stereotyped in Australian politics)

>

> On Sunday, 12 August 2018 16:47:04 UTC+10, Daniel Bowen wrote:

>>

>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 13:50, Prescott lenkap...@... <javascript:>>

>> wrote:

>> > Having observed Sky for a few days (and having seen them elsewhere for

>> years, e.g. on airlines), I find that they're no better or worse than any

>> of the outlets nowadays, that is, like all them, pretty bland and mediocre

>> but with no flagrant demonstrations of bias at least through these

>> streaming outlets.

>>

>> Sky News is really two different channels. It's straight news/weather

>> during the daytime, and then opinion (overwhelmingly right wing) after

>> 6pm.

>>

>> Whether you consider what you viewed to be biased would heavily depend

>> on what time you were viewing (and if it were live to air or

>> prepackaged as provided on planes and at railway stations), and your

>> own political views of course.

>>

>> Where Minister Allan was completely misinformed was about the specific

>> content aired on the railway station screens, which was confined to

>> news and weather, not opinion. The interview with the Nazi was not

>> shown in the railway stations.

>>

>> > There is a huge problem, however, with the idea that she thinks it's OK

>> to censor media

>>

>> Oh please. It's not censorship to get a program removed from a dozen

>> TV screens in three properties you (indirectly) administer.

>>

>> Using the law to remove it off the air completely, preventing anybody

>> watching who wants to tune in - *that* would be censorship.

>>

>> The bigger question is why passengers have to put up with TV screens

>> blaring ads and news in stations at all.

>>

>>

>> Daniel

>>

>

> --

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email totramsdownunder+unsubscribe@....

> To post to this group, send email totramsdownunder@....

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

>