Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here’s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Our ABC myth makers

By Bill Muehlenberg - posted Monday, 4 November 2013


I hate to say it, but the recently established ABC FactCheck unit is anything but. It would be much more accurate to call it the MythMaker unit. Or MythPerpetuator unit. Or just plain BaloneyManufacturing unit.

Take the recent "fact check" that had to do with Tony Abbott's claim that marriage has always been about one man and one woman. That happens to be quite true. Have there been some rare exceptions along the way? Sure, but exceptions do not make the rule.

No culture ever promoted and recognised homosexual marriage until the Netherlands became the first nation on earth to do so in 2001. Up until then, no nation officially and publically recognised homosexual marriages. Yet you would never realise this if you just went by this questionable ABC "fact checker".

Advertisement

All that it does here is push the homosexual agenda and pretend it has offered us some scholarly fact checking. If they were honest and called themselves the ABC Propaganda unit that might be one thing. But claiming to be fact checkers as they peddle social activist agendas is especially appalling.

The "experts" which they relied on were all homosexuals themselves or very partial to the homosexual agenda. One professor given a dream run by the ABC, Stephanie Coontz, of course has been a long standing historical revisionist here when it comes to family matters. She has long tried to argue that family and marriage come in all shapes and sizes, and they cannot be pinned down in any way.

Consider also John Boswell: we are simply told he was a Yale professor. The ABC nicely declined to inform us that he was also a homosexual who died of AIDS at age 47. His work – claiming, among other things, that homosexual marriages were performed in Christian churches – has been roundly debunked by experts.

And consider as well William Eskridge, a leading proponent of homosexual marriage. Are we informed of that in this article? Nope, he is just passed off as another prof from Yale University. Hey, guess what – you can lie just as much by what you do not say as what you do say.

And was one marriage and family expert who would have fully concurred with Tony Abbott allowed a look in here? Absolutely not. There are plenty of these experts and scholars, yet the ABC resolutely refused to dig up even one. Of course to do so would have undermined and discredited their little exercise in propaganda.

Indeed, are they even aware of such experts as David Popenoe, Bryce Christensen, Allan Carlson, Christopher Lasch,

Advertisement

Philip Abbott, William Bennett, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, Brigitte and Peter Berger, Maggie Gallagher, James Q. Wilson, Douglas Farrow, Dana Mack, Connie Marshner, Mary Eberstadt and a host of other scholars and marriage and family experts? I doubt it.

Just imagine if I set up my own FactChecker unit. Let's say I did a fact check on whether tobacco is harmful to the user. What if I offered up a list of experts who all said that tobacco use is just fine, and causes no harm? What if I said Professor Jo Blow from such and such university, and smoking expert from another uni, etc., all agreed here?

Oh, and what if I failed to inform my readers that every single one of my "experts" were in fact in the pay of Big Tobacco? Would that not skew my presentation just a bit and render it a bit useless? Indeed, would that not be a clear case of professional misconduct on my part, by deliberately concealing valuable information about my expert witnesses?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

50 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Bill Muehlenberg is Secretary of the Family Council of Victoria, and lectures in ethics and philosophy at various Melbourne theological colleges.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Bill Muehlenberg

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Bill Muehlenberg
Article Tools
Comment 50 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy