I know full well whereof I speak. I have been on far too many of these debate programs over the years. I have done dozens, perhaps hundreds, of these debates on radio, TV and elsewhere over the past 25 years. They are never pretty, as they are ridiculously stacked against you.
They are always completely one-sided, with you as the sole token conservative, pitted against a secular lefty host, and 1, 2, 3, 4 or more secular lefty sparring partners. That is how the lamestream media thinks a “fair” debate ought to be conducted.
And our taxpayer-funded ABC and SBS are among the worst culprits here. I have written dozens of articles on these rogue broadcasters, and have pointed out plenty of such shocking miscarriages of intellectual justice. These folks are not in the slightest bit interested in fair debate.
They are interested in only one thing: ramming their radical agendas down everyone’s throats. The token conservative voice is there for only one reason: to give the ever so slight impression of balance and fairness. But there is nothing fair or balanced about these shows.
And the ABC show Q&A is among the worst of these shows. The host Tony Jones is an uber-secular lefty who never displays impartiality or fairness. He always sides with his lefty buddies over against any conservatives or Christians who might happen to be on.
We get another crystal clear example of all this coming up next Monday night on Q&A. On the May 27 panel we have the following line-up (as described on their website):
Lawrence Krauss – Theoretical Physicist & Cosmologist
Gene Robinson – America’s First Openly Gay Bishop
Fred Nile – Conservative Morals Campaigner
Amanda Vanstone – Former Howard Government Minister
Susan Ryan – Age Discrimination Commissioner
There you have it – another completely stacked ABC deck: one biblical Christian against a hardcore atheist, an apostate Bishop, and two other non-Christian non-conservatives. So it is Fred against Tony (another secular lefty) and four others.
For more on just one of these characters, see my write-up about this American apostate wolf in sheep’s clothing: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2013/04/17/wolves-endorsing-wolves/
And notice how Fred Nile is described: “Conservative Morals Campaigner”! Never mind that he is one of NSW’s longest standing politicians who has done so much good over the decades. Instead we have simply a pejorative, prejudicial description. Thus the deck is stacked against him already, an entire week before the program even goes to air.
Oh, and can I tell you already what topics will be covered? Homosexuality and homosexual marriage will take up a large part of the show – I guarantee it. And isn’t it interesting that every single person on that panel, along with the moderator – except for Fred – will be in favour of the homosexual agenda.
This is how the ABC operates. Pick a hot potato contentious issue and pretend that everyone in the world – except the token conservative – is in favour of it. Never mind that the community at large is quite divided over this, as is in fact even the homosexual community.
But here you will have everyone blasting away at Fred, seeking to make him look like a Neanderthal and a barbarian. This is what the ABC does deliberately. This has absolutely nothing to do with a genuine discussion of ideas. This is not at all a real and proper debate.
It is simply our taxpayer-funded leftist outfit using shows like this to push radical agendas – in this case the agenda of the radical homosexual lobby. That is the only reason for this program. Ideas are not there to be discussed and debated. Instead, ideologies and agendas are there to be pushed and promoted – all at our expense of course.
So please do pray like mad for Fred. He will need our prayers more than you can imagine. And I know – as I said, I have been on plenty of these sorts of shows, and they are the most unpleasant programs to be on. I do not envy Fred one bit. He has the entire diabolical intelligentsia up against him.
He not only needs a whole lot of prayer cover, but he needs other bits of practical help as well. For example, he needs supporters there with him in the audience. And we need to send in questions which can be helpful to Fred as the debate goes on.
So please stand up for Fred. This is a very tough assignment, and it can cause plenty of indigestion and grief. Our God is a great God, and will go with Fred. But he needs the prayers and help of his people as well. So please stand with him.
****
Oh, and just in case you think I overstate the leftist bias of the ABC in particular and the MSM in general, this just came in from Andrew Bolt:
“Folker Hanusch, senior lecturer in journalism at University of the Sunshine Coast, on new polling confirming the Leftist bias of the overwhelming majority of journalists: ‘Our survey was conducted by telephone with carefully selected journalists from newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, online news sites and news agency AAP, as a sample of the 8000 to 10,000 journalists in Australia today.
“‘When asked about their voting intentions, less than two-thirds of the journalists we surveyed revealed their voting intention. Of those 372 people, 43.0% said they would give their first preference vote to Labor; 30.2% would vote for the Coalition; and 19.4% said they would choose the Greens – about twice the Australian average.’
“No bunch of journalist skews more violently left than the ABC: ‘However, 41.2% of the 34 ABC journalists who declared a voting intention said they would vote for the Greens, followed by 32.4% for Labor and 14.7% for the Coalition’.”
There you go folks. The ABC is one big wasteland when it comes to conservatism – and Christianity as well I might add.
A sample of “carefully selected journalists” is not a well-defined sample. I am ready to believe that Australians journalists lean strongly to the left, as they do in the United States, or here in France, and I would be surprised if Australia were different, but we need serious data.
Claude Boisson, France
Thanks Claude
The method may not have been perfect or watertight, but it is just fine by me. When media folks tell us who they vote for, that tells us heaps. It is a solid indication of where they are at politically. Indeed, I think it is one of the better and more revealing indicators.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
The last time Lawrence Krauss appeared on Q&A, he dominated most of the discussion. Between the other panellists, the host, and the studio audience for this program, Fred Nile will really be up against it. I have Christian friends who don’t like Nile, but do like Gene Robinson.
Ross McPhee
Thanks for the “heads-up” on Fred’s forthcoming “outing” to the Q&A inquisition. For the early Christians, witnessing for Christ often meant witnessing as a defendant in a court of law… Seems we may be headed to back to the intolerance of Christianity commonly experienced in the Roman Empire in the centuries before the rise of Emperor Constantine.
John Wigg
John Dickson was on Q&A a while back and did a fantastic job dialoguing with Krauss and others and lifting up the name of Jesus tastefully against practically everyone else on the panel.
It’s well worth a watch if you haven’t already. One of the best Q&A episodes IMO
Wes Wright
Around 2000, I found a newspaper clip where 1,000 Australian newspaper journalists were asked this question: How many hours did you spend in church last month? The 1,000 came in at just on 1/2 the national average. It was worst in the big city dailies, and best in the rural city weeklies. Kind of confirms our long-standing suspicions, doesn’t it?
Ian Brearley
Hello Bill,
I think I know why the ABC pitted the Rev. Fred Nile against four leftists. I recall a programme, on ABC television (in the 70’s or early 80’s), which was hosted by Geraldine Doogue in which Fred Nile was put up against Ken Buckley. Buckley was a professor at the University of Sydney, an ex-Communist Party member (but still a communist at heart), and member of the Council for Civil Liberties (CCL). On this occassion he was wearing his CCL hat.
Richard Carlton was to mediate the debate. I don’t remember what the topic for debate was but Fred demolished Buckley’s argument very decisively in one, or at the most two sentences, at which point Richard Carlton terminated the debate with, “I’m sorry, but that’s all we have time for.”, and immediately passed the programme back to Geraldine Doogue. Doogue’s face said it all – she was not pleased with the outcome.
The military reckon that they need a 2.5 to 1 advantage to be assured of victory, but the ABC thinks they need a 4 to 1 ratio agaist Fred.
Donald Battaglini
This is the intellectual and spiritual equivalent of a prisoner being dragged out by 5 burly guards and given a kicking and beating that he can’t possibly hope to defend himself from…but God!!! Thanks Bill for posting this call for prayer. We have to not only give lip service but to pray ourselves and call for as many people as we know to pray. Fred is a major target and the enemy is going to want to make him suffer. Let’s cry out to God to give Fred the kind of answers that will shut the lions’ mouths.
Dee Graf
I’ve noticed that Mr Jones usually asks his Christian guests about evolution/creation. None of them it seems has ventured to suggest in reply that the Bible’s perspective could be taken literally (though Dawkins almost did). Then Tony asks “So what about original sin, then?”
Terry Darmody
Agree with most of what you’ve written Bill, but not sure if former Howard Government Minister and more recent newspaper columnist Amanda Vanstone quite qualifies as a leftist non-conservative. I suspect she’d be well to the right of the other panelists (not counting Fred of course).
Rowan Forster.
Thanks Rowan
But you miss the point because you may not know much about Vanstone. When it comes to biblical Christianity, Fred will be outnumbered 1 to 5. When it comes to conservative politics, Fred will be outnumbered 1 to 5 (Vanstone considers herself to be a centrist, not a conservative). And when it comes to the main issue of the night, homosexuality, Fred will be outnumbered 1 to 5 (Vanstone is fully in favour of homosexuality and homosexual marriage). So my article is entirely correct – this is yet another ABC con job, and a sham debate. It is never a real debate when it is 1 against 5.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
We all remember when Peter Jensen was on Q and A. They sat him next to a woman who was supposed to be a comedian but all she managed to be was a rude, stupid, ignorant interruptor. If that was her intention and that of the ABC she did a good job for them. Any modicum of respect for an archbishop that one might expect was completely absent.
David Morrison
I think the best question to be asked would not be on the topic of gay marriage, that’s, sadly likely to be fruitless, but rather call the ABC/presenter out on his manipulation of the debate.
Anyone know anyone who’s going to be in the audience next week?
Matthew Pearson
Will be praying for Fred and enlisting others. Thanks for this important advance notice.
Anna Cook
Darn -looks like my 8 cents a day to pay for the ABC is largely tax money very badly spent.
John Davis
Fred did well.
If I had just turned on and heard the “bishop” mention his “husband” I would have thought I had stumbled across a comedy programme. It was good to hear the atheist say he couldn’t understand how a homosexual bishop could stay in the church.
A sample of “carefully selected journalists” is not a well-defined sample. I am ready to believe that Australians journalists lean strongly to the left, as they do in the United States, or here in France, and I would be surprised if Australia were different, but we need serious data.
Claude Boisson, France
Thanks Claude
The method may not have been perfect or watertight, but it is just fine by me. When media folks tell us who they vote for, that tells us heaps. It is a solid indication of where they are at politically. Indeed, I think it is one of the better and more revealing indicators.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
The last time Lawrence Krauss appeared on Q&A, he dominated most of the discussion. Between the other panellists, the host, and the studio audience for this program, Fred Nile will really be up against it. I have Christian friends who don’t like Nile, but do like Gene Robinson.
Ross McPhee
Thanks for the “heads-up” on Fred’s forthcoming “outing” to the Q&A inquisition. For the early Christians, witnessing for Christ often meant witnessing as a defendant in a court of law… Seems we may be headed to back to the intolerance of Christianity commonly experienced in the Roman Empire in the centuries before the rise of Emperor Constantine.
John Wigg
John Dickson was on Q&A a while back and did a fantastic job dialoguing with Krauss and others and lifting up the name of Jesus tastefully against practically everyone else on the panel.
It’s well worth a watch if you haven’t already. One of the best Q&A episodes IMO
Wes Wright
Around 2000, I found a newspaper clip where 1,000 Australian newspaper journalists were asked this question: How many hours did you spend in church last month? The 1,000 came in at just on 1/2 the national average. It was worst in the big city dailies, and best in the rural city weeklies. Kind of confirms our long-standing suspicions, doesn’t it?
Ian Brearley
Hello Bill,
I think I know why the ABC pitted the Rev. Fred Nile against four leftists. I recall a programme, on ABC television (in the 70’s or early 80’s), which was hosted by Geraldine Doogue in which Fred Nile was put up against Ken Buckley. Buckley was a professor at the University of Sydney, an ex-Communist Party member (but still a communist at heart), and member of the Council for Civil Liberties (CCL). On this occassion he was wearing his CCL hat.
Richard Carlton was to mediate the debate. I don’t remember what the topic for debate was but Fred demolished Buckley’s argument very decisively in one, or at the most two sentences, at which point Richard Carlton terminated the debate with, “I’m sorry, but that’s all we have time for.”, and immediately passed the programme back to Geraldine Doogue. Doogue’s face said it all – she was not pleased with the outcome.
The military reckon that they need a 2.5 to 1 advantage to be assured of victory, but the ABC thinks they need a 4 to 1 ratio agaist Fred.
Donald Battaglini
This is the intellectual and spiritual equivalent of a prisoner being dragged out by 5 burly guards and given a kicking and beating that he can’t possibly hope to defend himself from…but God!!! Thanks Bill for posting this call for prayer. We have to not only give lip service but to pray ourselves and call for as many people as we know to pray. Fred is a major target and the enemy is going to want to make him suffer. Let’s cry out to God to give Fred the kind of answers that will shut the lions’ mouths.
Dee Graf
I’ve noticed that Mr Jones usually asks his Christian guests about evolution/creation. None of them it seems has ventured to suggest in reply that the Bible’s perspective could be taken literally (though Dawkins almost did). Then Tony asks “So what about original sin, then?”
Terry Darmody
Agree with most of what you’ve written Bill, but not sure if former Howard Government Minister and more recent newspaper columnist Amanda Vanstone quite qualifies as a leftist non-conservative. I suspect she’d be well to the right of the other panelists (not counting Fred of course).
Rowan Forster.
Thanks Rowan
But you miss the point because you may not know much about Vanstone. When it comes to biblical Christianity, Fred will be outnumbered 1 to 5. When it comes to conservative politics, Fred will be outnumbered 1 to 5 (Vanstone considers herself to be a centrist, not a conservative). And when it comes to the main issue of the night, homosexuality, Fred will be outnumbered 1 to 5 (Vanstone is fully in favour of homosexuality and homosexual marriage). So my article is entirely correct – this is yet another ABC con job, and a sham debate. It is never a real debate when it is 1 against 5.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
We all remember when Peter Jensen was on Q and A. They sat him next to a woman who was supposed to be a comedian but all she managed to be was a rude, stupid, ignorant interruptor. If that was her intention and that of the ABC she did a good job for them. Any modicum of respect for an archbishop that one might expect was completely absent.
David Morrison
I think the best question to be asked would not be on the topic of gay marriage, that’s, sadly likely to be fruitless, but rather call the ABC/presenter out on his manipulation of the debate.
Anyone know anyone who’s going to be in the audience next week?
Matthew Pearson
Will be praying for Fred and enlisting others. Thanks for this important advance notice.
Anna Cook
Darn -looks like my 8 cents a day to pay for the ABC is largely tax money very badly spent.
John Davis
Fred did well.
If I had just turned on and heard the “bishop” mention his “husband” I would have thought I had stumbled across a comedy programme. It was good to hear the atheist say he couldn’t understand how a homosexual bishop could stay in the church.
As for Amanda…
David Morrison