Hate Radio

[http://www.aussieseek.com]

Hate Radio
<< Thread Started on Today at 3:11pm >> [Quote] [Modify] [Delete]
This is interesting from
Canada Free Press - Toronto,Ontario,Canada

The Shunning of Immigration Critics by the BBC, ABC and CBC
By Tim Murray Thursday, February 28, 2008

Is there something endemic in state broadcasting in the Anglophone
world which makes the population question taboo and the pro-
immigration stance the default position? Is there an intrinsic bias,
and if so, where is it coming from? The journalists, the presenters,
the researchers, the producers or the higher-ups? Is state media more
captive of political correctness than the private media?

In attempting to answer some of these questions it is thought useful
to first review two fascinating accounts, one about the British
Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC), another about the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) and finally a short summary of the
disgraceful record of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

In "The Treason of the BBC" the late Jack Parsons argued that "The BBC
has been systematically excluding virtually all material on the
question of basic population policy." This while "our present
government has adopted a policy (without discussion or mandate) of
deliberately increasing our numbers by about one million every five
years," making Britain the fastest growing country in Europe with a
population density almost twice that of China. Yet the BBC allowed
Beverly Hughes, Minister of Immigration, to "blandly repeat,
unchallenged, the government's mindless policy of continued mass
immigration to meet the alleged needs of the economy." Much in the
same way that Home Secretary Charles Clark was granted a free pass to
say that there were 'no obvious limits' to net migration and rapid
growth.

Parsons asks, "How can BBC claims about the carrying capacity of the
prison system and its "overpopulation" be made so openly, so
effortlessly, so devoid of fear and moral opprobrium, while not the
slightest hint can ever be allowed to slip out vis a vis the vastly
more important case of the carrying capacity and numbers of the nation
as a whole?"

He is not accusing those who run the BBC of criminal activity but
"colluding in a very Great Betrayal, fostering the myth that human
numbers have so little consequence that there is no need to take them
seriously." "The charge I am leveling at all executive levels of the
BBC as a corporate body concerns what I am convinced is coercive,
institutionalized bias which for years has prevented virtually all BBC
news of, and discussion about, a literally vital object, the long-term
balance between human numbers, resources and the quality of life...this
was not always so, but has been the case for at least 15 years.

The signs of population myopia were apparent to Parsons in 1967 when
he asked the BBC why it was so concerned about the Tory Canyon oil-
tanker spill disaster but so unconcerned about the doubling of the
world's population in 30 years. Since the early seventies "a steady
and insidious process among governing circles, opinion-formers, the
greater bulk of the media, including the BBC, has built a powerful and
near universal censorship, by consent...that the absolutely fundamental
ecology question, the need for a sustainable balance between numbers
and resources---is almost totally ignored. The sad corollary of this
is that mass migration---since it has a major and obvious impact on
the overall population situation---cannot be rationally discussed
either."

Parsons, in a letter to a BBC Complaints Unit, asks, "Dare one hope
that, one of these days, someone in the higher echelons of the BBC
will screw his/her courage to the sticking point and actually issue
and follow through on a set of instructions that free the BBC---and
hence the nation--from this appalling and near-totally disabling
taboo." He is given to wonder "Why does this large, wealthy, powerful,
highly prestigious institution...cringe so abjectly at the very idea of
free speech in the realm of discourse?" And why the taboo? "Has there
been an explicit but secret directive to all producers to steer clear
of the subject? Has this policy been built up by means of nods, winks
and frowns on high; or does it stem from tacit acceptance by all
concerned at the prevailing orthodoxy in the wider society?"

Four things are needed to reform the BBC according to Parsons'
prescription. Firstly, there needs to be major change in 'media
Zeitgeist' that will permit a Population Glasnost. Secondly, the BBC
needs to "stop cowering beneath its cloak of political correctness"
and by honest analysis foster the emergence of a mature, ecologically
informed electorate. Thirdly, the BBC needs to hire population
experts. "Some BBC presenters who have an overweening confidence in
their qualifications start laying down the law on those population
topics which are allowed a mention, and in the process frequently
display their ignorance...They pick up and mindlessly repeat half-baked
notions about alleged labour shortages and pension problems, and
swallow hook, line and sinker any free-floating opinions about how
much better things will continue to become as numbers inexorably
swell."

Fourthly, it would be nice if the BBC followed its own Producer
Guidelines. "Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All BBC
programmes and services should be open-minded, fair and show a respect
for truth. No significant strand of thought should go unreflected or
unrepresented at the BBC."

Until then, however, its Motto will remain that of the Three allegedly
Wise Monkeys: See no population problem! Hear no population problem!
Speak no population problem!

Mark O'Connor, poet and one-time National Vice President of
Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population (AESP, renamed
SPA), has made a similar assessment of the ABC. In his upcoming book,
"Overloading Australia", O'Connor concedes that the ABC is critical to
Australian democracy and is able to speak to the people---"and often
does". "But the ABC has in some parts of its news and current affairs
sections failed to provide objectivity or fairness to portray debates
or news coverage relating to population, immigration or economics." It
is living the Comfortable Lie--that growth is good and sustainable, and
the mass immigration that fuels it must continue. "The fact must be
faced. There is something deeply wrong in some parts of it."

O'Connor asserts that "issues and news items that require at least
occasional coverage have been ignored. These issues certainly have
reached the initial attention of those researchers who filter stories
up the chain. Thus we are forced to speak of a given ABC program
'suppressing' stories even if many or most of those in a given unit
were unaware this was going on. But there certainly is bias." Even if
outside observers will never be able to locate its precise source.

He offers some examples of this bias. The ABC collaborated with the
bipartisan support of high immigration by suppressing most of the
debate and repeatedly gave airtime to propagandists who claimed that
our 'shamefully low immigration quotas' were 'proof of racism'. The
inconvenient fact that Australia had the highest per capita intake of
immigrants in the world when these brazen assertions were made was
never raised by the corporation to challenge them. And "among its many
acts of censorship, ABC TV News suppressed the fact that the
Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Democrats had
long been calling for zero net migration. Yet as soon as the One
Nation party announce a zero net migration policy, the ABC cited it as
"racism".

O'Connor speculates as to why the ABC behaves in this manner. "The
ABC's failure through nearly three decades to deal with population
issues--the most important matter facing Australia today--- may have
less to do with individuals than with a pervasive institutional
culture." Nevertheless, "if there are such persons blocking the
debate, then it is assuredly time they were persuaded to move on to
other areas where their biases will do less harm."

He concludes, "The ABC has a problem with its news service and current
affairs programs. It may not be able to rectify past unfairness, but
it needs urgently to offer guarantees that the censorship will cease,
and that at least in future those who disagree with high immigration
or with 'birth-bribes' will receive equal time on its programs." New
'balance and accountability' guidelines announced by management in
October of 2006 "will not address ABC News' pro-growth, pro-natalist,
pro-conventional economic views."

Can what has so far been said of the BBC and the ABC be said of the
CBC as well? In one word, yes, and more. While some regional centres
have attempted to bring more balance to immigration issues, CBC Radio,
the National centre in Toronto and the Vancouver centre have
emphatically not. The corporation has refused to engage the public on
the two questions that they keep asking: Why is the government
importing more people per capita than any other country than the world
and what effect is this infux, which gives us the highest growth rate
of any G8 nation, having on our economic, cultural and environmental
health?

Timidity and cowardice are not the exclusive province of CBC
journalists, but only private media outlets have on occasion exposed
abuses of the immigration system and questioned the country's high
immigration intake. The CBC, on the other hand, has done what it can
to promote mass immigration on the basis of its misinterpretation of
its 1991 legislated mandate to promote "multiculturalism". Somehow
there is an equation in corporate logic of the stated "CBC Vision" to
reflect "the cultural diversity of our people" with support for mass
immigration. But apparently the promotion of a diversity of cultures
is quite different than the promotion of a diversity of opinions.

Those very many Canadians who voice negative concerns about
immigration are simply denied airtime by the people they subsidize. It
is indeed an impertinent supplicant who holds out one hand to ask for
public funding while clenching the other in a fist to drive into the
mouth of the taxpayer who dares to challenge the corporate line on
immigration. And yet, the CBC allows generous airtime and interviews
with pro-immigration groups, so that they may in turn, as a quid pro
quo, advertise for the non-commercial CBC. So to partiality and deceit
one can therefore add corruption to the list of CBC immigration vices.

So what then is the remedy? Suffice it to say that the CBC's
commitment to mass immigration and multiculturalism comes at the cost
of balanced, honest journalism. Immigration Watch Canada demands that
the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage should
order the CBC executive to answer for this conflict of interest and to
terminate the corporation's corrupt arrangements with the immigration
industry, its blatant pro-immigration advocacy and the employment of
people who engage in it.

Such measures would seek not to curb journalistic freedom, but
journalistic abuse. And return public broadcasting to the public. Then
once again, the National Broadcaster would offer a forum where indeed
"no significant strand of thought should go unreflected or
unrepresented" and the exclusion of topics or the shunning of voices
would be thought foreign to its corporate culture and democratic
mission.

It's time to end the conspiracy of silence against critiques of
immigration and population growth.

Then Again what is the alternative?
try
http://groups.google.com.au/group/hateradio

Visit

http://groups.google.com/group/australiapoliticsmoderated