ABC News 24.05.2019
ABC News presenter of no consequence:
Can I just summarise how I understand the professor Peter Greste University which is that on one side there are journalists and newsgathering organisations that go through data and try to interpret it and try to make it relevant for people and try to make it do as little harm as possible when it comes out. And on the other side, there are whistleblowers who are at the coalface, who are breaking the law, who deserve better protection for whistleblowing bad things going on. But in the middle, there is a vacuous nebulous, grey area where a person like is Assange, who is not actually a whistleblower, and he’s not actually a journalist, he’s just someone who dumps information.
Never heard of him Prof Peter Greste, University of Queensland:
That’s right, and that’s what the digital world has done for us, it has created this very difficult space where anybody with a website can call themselves a publisher, that doesn’t mean that I think that anybody with a website deserves the kind of protections and deserves to be called a journalist and deserves press freedom protections.
Delusional moments of mutual masturbatory exchanges from the authoritarian extremist left are becoming a staple in the West. A recent exchange of the sort took place on the ABC news yesterday, where a lesser news presenter facilitated a teacher of journalism to conspire, live, as to why the competition needs to be eliminated. The presenter even went so far as to employ the oldest journalistic psyop trick in the book of summarising and reiterating the interview, in his own words, so that the viewers who fell asleep or used the opportunity to take a toilet break would not miss out on the vitally important message. What agent 86 and 99 don’t realise is that their thinly veiled un-journalist techniques, on the rare occasion that people actually note them, only achieve to anger mentally healthy Australian.
I would love to counter argue the fellatio-exchange of these two men, but I find myself unable to do so because they did not provide any arguments. The prof did nothing by whine, stating that only the MSM journalists had the right to be journalists. So, now I find myself forced to counter-argue a whinge, not an argument. But I’m always up for the challenge.
1. The teach’ is a classist snob supporting MSM media privilege by stating or implying that the alternate media is immoral, unprincipled and should all be locked up.
2. The teach’ interpretation of the world and the people who occupy it, and his push to jail Assange and other alternative media is conspiratorial in nature. At best.
3. The teach’ peddled MSM journalistic entitlement which was anti-free speech, undemocratic and anti-competitive.
4. The teach’ is unwilling to allow journalism to evolve into a merit-based system. He’s a dinosaur.
5. The teach’ used fear speech to justify the MSM media appropriation of information and narratives.
I really wanted to play debate this evening but the teach’ has forced me to attack his sneaky tactics instead of his ideas. I wanted to play fair, but the game is rigged so I am left with no other choice.
Time to learn to code, teach’.
Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving