I enjoy watching Media Watch, but have not agreed with all of David Marr's ramblings - some of which are just attacks on journalists. If Media Watch wants to be viable, they should show more stuff-ups FROM the ABC.
They have hardly ever done that, but then I guess, who wants to diss their own network.
ABC stuffs-up more often than not. About time they looked at themselves, and stopped showing only the stories that suit them the best.
I also agree this is not a fair attack. Go to the MW website and their archives and you will see that MW has never hesitated to can the ABC or itself for that matter. Whenever it's been pointed out they have stuffed up or got it wrong they apologise in full, in the lead item of the show and prominently, something no commercial media outlet ever does. If they apologise at all it's buried in small print or a curt mentioned at the back of the article / bulletin.
Media Watch might do what are minor pieces (which means the general media are doing well) every now and again but that doesn't detract from the purpose or viability of the show. Also remember it's on a very limited budget with a small research team mostly fed from people like you and me (I've submitted some stuff in the past) and can't possibley catch everything in the Media.
If you think they are not catching items then become proactive and submit them to MW instead of bitching about them here, that's what it's about?
As to the ABC stuffing up more often than not you obviously don't watch much of it and probably just ignore the continuous stuff ups, exaggerations and sometimes outright for sensationalism lies the commercial media practice as a matter of course.
Finally can someone please rename this thread to Media Watch as it's current name is insulting and would be the same as for example calling the Sunrise thread Sundown or Today, Yesterday etc.
All content is from the author's twisted mind and does reflect his bent personality. He is seeking professional help.