Zaky Mallah on Q&A

[icyfroth]

I'm surprised there's no thread about this. Maybe I just haven't seen it.

Q&A episode would be real comedy if it wasn’t so tragic

Nobody at the ABC seemed particularly worried that Mallah had spent time in prison due to a conviction for threatening the lives of ASIO officers.

On the contrary, the ABC fawned over Mallah as though he was a particularly sensitive and needy celebrity.

The former Goulburn prison resident was collected by an ABC-supplied minibus in Western Sydney prior to Monday’s broadcast.

As many as five senior ABC producers helped Mallah prepare for the show.

Host Tony Jones even whipped up a brief Mallah biography to accompany the young man’s appearance. And then the minibus dropped Mallah back home, all at taxpayer expense.

So let me get this straight.

The ABC give Mallah, convicted of death threats agains ASIO officers and various firearm offences, 8 minutes of air time during which he recommends 2 senior female journalists should be gang-banged. 

Has the ABC lost the plot?

 When an Islamic extremist who has called for female journalists to be “gang-banged” on live television and threatened to murder senior security officials wants to have his say on Q&A, the ABC not only welcomes him into the audience — for at least the third time, by the way — but they do everything possible to make his visit as amiable as possible.

Entire Article Here

He's just as erratic and threatening as Man Monis, and look what happened there. The ABC see fit to give him air time? What the F?

Why is the sisterhood not baying for his blood over his gang-banging comments?

[icyfroth]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

t is an attack on the ABC, pure and simple."

Which it roundly deserves.

Why does it?  It is our public broadcaster providing a service to our community.  Why should we be deprived of it?  Why should one organization control all and filter all the news we see and hear?

And before you say it's biased, it's not. Much research has been done over the years because of the cries of bias from the conservatives and it's been found time and time again to not be biased.

---

Why does it?  It is our public broadcaster providing a service to our community.  

Exactly. It is funded from the public purse. The Australian public don't need yet another radical Muslim being given a forum in which to sprout anti-australian sentiment and to whom young Muslim men busting for a fight can rally around.

Remember the outcry after the Lindt cafe siege? When the big question was, why wasn't Man Monis stopped earlier? Why wasn't anyone taking notice when he sent the families of fallen soldiers that hate mail. Why weren't security forces watching when he was sprouting hate messages on youtube? Why was he even out on bail when he was convicted of being an accessory to murdering his wife. Why wasn't anyone listening?

We're still not listening. Not only are we not listening, we are allowing our media to promote it and calling it "freedom of speech". "A healthy debate". "An opportunity to enter another strand of thought". Get outta here.

Why should we be deprived of it?  Why should one organization control all and filter all the news we see and hear?

Jan Albrechtson made a good point on Bolt last Sunday. If the ABC want to be an independent broadcaster then they should cut themselves loose from the teat of government funding (via the taxpayer) and EARN the right to air the programs they air.

be back later

[aftanas]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

t is an attack on the ABC, pure and simple."

Which it roundly deserves.

Why does it?  It is our public broadcaster providing a service to our community.  Why should we be deprived of it?  Why should one organization control all and filter all the news we see and hear?

And before you say it's biased, it's not. Much research has been done over the years because of the cries of bias from the conservatives and it's been found time and time again to not be biased.

---

There is a book written by Humphy McQueen called Australia's Media Monopolies.  It makes the argument that the mass media is big business and it serves the ends of big business.  The ABC is the natural enemy of big business because it does not rely on big business for its revenue.  That is, there is no impediment to the ABC shining a bright light on issues big business would prefer remain hidden.

The article which sparked the current **bleep**nal was Daily Telegraph article. The Daily Telegraph is, of course, a Murdoch paper.  Rupert Murdoch would be very happy if the ABC ceased to exist.  Think about that before wishing away the ABC.

[raptor_rebooted]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

If Mallah had been the one to say heads should roll would that have been taken as a threat?

---

not sure.

going by the way he expresses himself -

could be taken the wrong way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHKSJ9cdrWQ&feature=youtu.be

[debra9275]

---

@aftanas wrote:

---

@gleee58 wrote:

t is an attack on the ABC, pure and simple."

Which it roundly deserves.

Why does it?  It is our public broadcaster providing a service to our community.  Why should we be deprived of it?  Why should one organization control all and filter all the news we see and hear?

And before you say it's biased, it's not. Much research has been done over the years because of the cries of bias from the conservatives and it's been found time and time again to not be biased.

---

There is a book written by Humphy McQueen called Australia's Media Monopolies.  It makes the argument that the mass media is big business and it serves the ends of big business.  The ABC is the natural enemy of big business because it does not rely on big business for its revenue.  That is, there is no impediment to the ABC shining a bright light on issues big business would prefer remain hidden.

The article which sparked the current **bleep**nal was Daily Telegraph article. The Daily Telegraph is, of course, a Murdoch paper.  Rupert Murdoch would be very happy if the ABC ceased to exist.  Think about that before wishing away the ABC.

---

I think you're pretty spot on with that post aftanas

I never knew much about this zaky person beforehand but i did watch the qanda episode.  I thought it controversial, but i don't want another media owner or a govt. telling me what I can or can't have an opinion about. 

the offensive tweet, was produced by miranda and rita (what's her name) immediately the next morning and I noticed it was dated from January. I think zaky has numerous pages of tweets, so it wouldn't be easy for anyone to find.  Miranda herself has also said some pretty offensive things to people ( but we don't hear about that) one in particular I saw was to a homosexual person

I read the outrage that this Zaky was picked up by a 'courtesy bus" and at the time the murdoch papers were running with  'the ABC paid him.. however a courtesy bus apparently picks up the audience.

I thought it ironic that  the murdoch press have been so active in pursuing the ABC when in fact it was The Australian newspaper who paid him a fee of $500 for an interview and some (probably staged) photos in 2003 and 2012

[gleee58]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@gleee58 wrote:

t is an attack on the ABC, pure and simple."

Which it roundly deserves.

Why does it?  It is our public broadcaster providing a service to our community.  Why should we be deprived of it?  Why should one organization control all and filter all the news we see and hear?

And before you say it's biased, it's not. Much research has been done over the years because of the cries of bias from the conservatives and it's been found time and time again to not be biased.

---

Why does it?  It is our public broadcaster providing a service to our community.  

Exactly. It is funded from the public purse. The Australian public don't need yet another radical Muslim being given a forum in which to sprout anti-australian sentiment and to whom young Muslim men busting for a fight can rally around.

Remember the outcry after the Lindt cafe siege? When the big question was, why wasn't Man Monis stopped earlier? Why wasn't anyone taking notice when he sent the families of fallen soldiers that hate mail. Why weren't security forces watching when he was sprouting hate messages on youtube? Why was he even out on bail when he was convicted of being an accessory to murdering his wife. Why wasn't anyone listening?

We're still not listening. Not only are we not listening, we are allowing our media to promote it and calling it "freedom of speech". "A healthy debate". "An opportunity to enter another strand of thought". Get outta here.

Why should we be deprived of it?  Why should one organization control all and filter all the news we see and hear?

Jan Albrechtson made a good point on Bolt last Sunday. If the ABC want to be an independent broadcaster then they should cut themselves loose from the teat of government funding (via the taxpayer) and EARN the right to air the programs they air.

be back later

---

Apparently the police sought out Mallah on the day of the Lindt seige.

Why compare the two?  Mallah is an Australian by birth, Monis wasn't.  Monis has a history of violence, Mallah apparently doesn't. Monis was on bail over murder accessory charges, Mallah spent 2 years locked up on remand before being aquitted of terrorist charges.  Not much similarity at all really.

Janet Albrechtson did not offer a valid alternative at all.  Her alternative would deprive a huge number of Australians their broadcasting service that they already pay for via their taxes.  SHe speaks from a newscorpse point of view, not from the communities point of view. She see the ABC as competition for newscorpse and that is the basis of her objection to the ABC. 

Mark Scott gave a great speech about the ABC and their charter last week.  You should listen to it, if you want some balance.  Don't forget he is a Howard appointment, not an appointment of the previous government.

[debra9275]

he is also an ex LNP advisor- the Greiner govt I think it was. 

[raptor_rebooted]

---

@debra9275 wrote:

---

@aftanas wrote:

---

@gleee58 wrote:

t is an attack on the ABC, pure and simple."

Which it roundly deserves.

Why does it?  It is our public broadcaster providing a service to our community.  Why should we be deprived of it?  Why should one organization control all and filter all the news we see and hear?

And before you say it's biased, it's not. Much research has been done over the years because of the cries of bias from the conservatives and it's been found time and time again to not be biased.

---

There is a book written by Humphy McQueen called Australia's Media Monopolies.  It makes the argument that the mass media is big business and it serves the ends of big business.  The ABC is the natural enemy of big business because it does not rely on big business for its revenue.  That is, there is no impediment to the ABC shining a bright light on issues big business would prefer remain hidden.

The article which sparked the current **bleep**nal was Daily Telegraph article. The Daily Telegraph is, of course, a Murdoch paper.  Rupert Murdoch would be very happy if the ABC ceased to exist.  Think about that before wishing away the ABC.

---

I think you're pretty spot on with that post aftanas

I never knew much about this zaky person beforehand but i did watch the qanda episode.  I thought it controversial, but i don't want another media owner or a govt. telling me what I can or can't have an opinion about. 

the offensive tweet, was produced by miranda and rita (what's her name) immediately the next morning and I noticed it was dated from January. I think zaky has numerous pages of tweets, so it wouldn't be easy for anyone to find.  Miranda herself has also said some pretty offensive things to people ( but we don't hear about that) one in particular I saw was to a homosexual person

I read the outrage that this Zaky was picked up by a 'courtesy bus" and at the time the murdoch papers were running with  'the ABC paid him.. however a courtesy bus apparently picks up the audience.

I thought it ironic that  the murdoch press have been so active in pursuing the ABC when in fact it was The Australian newspaper who paid him a fee of $500 for an interview and some (probably staged) photos in 2003 and 2012

---

yep not surprising at all that the above post

contained no criticism about the **** **** tweet. 

criticise the women who it was directed at instead. 

[debra9275]

To most, my opinion about his tweet would be a given... I thought it disgusting... Others in the media spotlight also make some pretty disgusting tweets.. Including some of those who are complaining the most about his

[gleee58]

Nobody criticised the women the tweet was about. The tweets are not the subject of the thread.  

[raptor_rebooted]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

Nobody criticised the women the tweet was about. The tweets are not the subject of the thread.  

---

what would you call it then?