#jacindaardern

ABC MD issues an apology with a feather duster

Image result for qanda

Good to see it took the ABC three days to come up with this response to the diabolically toxic Q&A program which hosted an expletive-laden show with a bunch of feminists. Pathetic. The producer will be hit over the knuckles with a feather duster.

Monday night’s episode of Q&A was presented in conjunction with The Wheeler Centre’s feminist ideas festival, ‘Broadside’. The intention of the program was to present challenging ideas from high-profile feminists whose expertise ranges across ageism, disability, Indigenous and domestic violence issues.

The ABC acknowledges that the program was provocative in regard to the language used and some of the views presented.

Q&A has always sought to tackle difficult issues and present challenging and thought-provoking content. However, I can understand why some viewers found elements of this episode confronting or offensive.

We have received audience complaints about the program, are assessing the concerns raised and will investigate whether the program met the ABC’s editorial standards.

Huh? Investigate whether it met editorial standards? Just read the transcript,

Some choice moments that have so much balance that even Mary Whitehouse would have accepted the content, are presented here,

MONA ELTAHAWY

“Well, you’re asking the person here who travels the world to say fuck the patriarchy, so I think that what we have to do is start seriously talking about dismantling patriarchy. And when I talk about patriarchy, I’m talking about a white-supremacist, capitalist, imperialist patriarchy…

I go online exactly to tell people to fuck off when they attack me, and I’m very well-known for it...

FRAN KELLY

And at this point, I will utter a language warning on the program, and remind our guests.

MONA ELTAHAWY

No, honestly, it’s… You know, this idea of respectability, this idea of civility, this idea of unity, all of these words, decorum, who invented those words? Those words were invented by white men for the benefit of other white men in systems and institutions that were always designed to be for white men. And they weren’t designed for women like you and me and so many others. Like you said, people of colour and gender-diverse people. They never imagined us in those spaces, and then we show up and we just ruin it for them….

And so those who abide by the system – and Barack Obama was part of the system and remains part of the system… I also disagree with his wife when she says, “When they go low, we go high.” No I fucking don’t. If you go low I’m going to come for you. So, no, I do not have the luxury or the privilege to sit there and be civil with people who do not acknowledge my full humanity. I refuse. Number one…

…So, for those who say, “Be civil,” for those who say, “Be polite,” I have an entire chapter on the political importance of profanity, and I remind them of a Ugandan feminist called Dr Stella Nyanzi who is currently in prison in Uganda because she wrote a poem on Facebook wishing that the mother of the dictator of her country had poisoned him, that her birth canal had poisoned him during birth. And when she was taken to court and doing her sentencing, she was video-taped in, because she’s known for her profanity, she stood there in the video, she took off her top, she jiggled her breasts and she said, “Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you!” In court!“…

…Nothing. For me, as a feminist the most important thing is to destroy patriarchy. And all of this talk about how, if you talk about violence, you’re just becoming like the men. So, your question is a really important one but I’m going to answer it with another question. How long must we wait for men and boys to stop murdering us, to stop beating us and to stop raping us? How many rapists must we kill? Not the state, because I disagree with the death penalty and I want to get rid of incarceration and I’m with you on the police. So I want women themselves… As a woman I’m asking, how many rapists must we kill until men stop raping us?

We all know what will happen. Assurances by the ABC it will never happen again until the next time which won’t be that far away. We were promised that when Q&A got in trouble over giving a platform to a man who pleaded guilty to threatening to kill ASIO and DFAT officers, Zaky Mallah who went on a rant against then conservative MP Steve Ciobo. Who could forget the “@AbbottLovesAnal” hashtag the show gladly allowed during the former PM’s term? A mistake, honest. Just like Triple J’s guide to blowjobs.

The ABC should be defunded and forced into the TVNZ business model of having to provide content customers are willing to look at and advertisers willing to support. If the organization is so confident it has an audience for its content, it should put its confidence where its mouth is.

If you want to look at why the ABC doesn’t need more money, look at the staff costs to income ratio. Despite plateauing between 2008 & 2011 it quickly exploded. It now sits at 46% of the government handout generated. That is $524mn on staff costs per year and rising. 4,939 staff grace the ABC. Funding per employee is $232,000. A decade ago it was $232,700. Is that what the management target for hiring? Give the ABC $2bn and presumably, it will have employment costs of $1bn.

Channel 9 must fight hard for every advertising penny but still manages a 29.1% staff cost to revenue ratio. $380m in staff costs on $1.3bn revenue. 3,310 employees convert to $392,750 in revenue per staff member.

Sevenwest Media raked in $1.62bn in revenue on staff costs of $395mn or 24%. The same cutthroat world of earning a living instead of feeling entitled to one. Seven West has 4,528 staff meaning it generates $357,800 in revenue per employee.

Maybe ABC should be forced to channel the New Zealand state broadcaster, TVNZ. After all ABC fawns over NZ PM Jacinda Ardern, all the time and she hasn’t demanded the state take TVNZ back to a taxpayer-funded model. It gets $310m of its $318m purse from advertising. It’s staff costs excluding capitalizing into programs is $72m which converts to 23% staff cost/revenues. They do with 642 FT employees. Revenue/employee is $495,000. It paid a dividend back to the government of $3.7m. i.e. it is a revenue-generating asset.

In 2007, TVNZ had $339m in revenue. It employed 1,023 people. Therefore revenue per employee was $331,380. So in a decade, TVNZ efficiency improved almost 50%. A 6% cut to revenue on 63% of the staff.

Instead of the long term ratings slide at the ABC across metro and regional Australia, TVNZ’s figures keep improving. Last year, TVNZ had a 43.2% all day audience up 1.3%.

Comparing 2017/18 and 2015/16 at the ABC we see that TV audience reach for metro fell from 55.2% to 49.7% and regional slumped from 60.3% to 54.0%. If we go back to 2007/8 the figures were 60.1% and 62.4% respectively. For the 2017/18 period, the ABC targets 50% reach. Hardly a stretch.

ABC clearly has no place receiving funding with content like this. As it stands, the ABC isn’t out of control. It is in full command of its content. The Minister for Communications has lost control and continues to let the broadcaster do as it pleases – even allow shows with Aboriginal actresses pretending to defecate on white people or kids programs that take a stab at white privilege. The ABC is so left-leaning it would make Stalin’s Pravda blush for being too conservative.

The ultimate irony is that things are so bad at the ABC that the latest Annual Report revealed a survey that showed staff engagement at 46%, 6 points lower than the previous survey which placed the organization in the bottom quartile of ALL Australian & NZ businesses. It is so bad that many staff complained that poor performers are not dealt with but tolerated.

Advertisers’ own goal as Alan Jones’ ratings remain top

So Alan Jones’ 17.1% share (-0.3%) on morning radio should be confirmed with the following month’s data. ABC came in second at 11.5% (+1.6%) according to GfK.

If we go back in time (Jan-Mar 2019 ) survey Jones’ breakfast program rated 15.0% (-2.9%). He has been as high as 19.0% (Jul-Sep 2018) figures. So recent relatives are important in giving a fair appraisal on popularity or any “hit” from Jacinda Ardern commentary.

Anyone that listens to Jones would hardly be surprised by his brand which has kept him #1 for so long.

Till, cue the lefties looking to celebrate plummeting ratings on a quarterly basis in the next survey and the self congratulatory back slapping pointing to their hard work in bullying spineless advertisers to fold to the likes of Mad Fucking Witches (which says something about the marketing departments to follow any campaign led by a group of radical feminists with profanity in the name). Talk about double standards.

Once again corporations are free to choose how they advertise. If Jones’ audience is relatively stable and #1 (presumably the right targets for companies that advertise), what purpose has sanctimoniously folding to a cabal of empty headed lefties who probably don’t even make a meaningful contribution to these brands or listen to Jones? Absolutely none. Complete own goal and sort of hilarious to be given lectures on morality by a bank or a mattress company that promotes the likes of the expletive laden, misandrist bile spewed by Clementine Ford.

To shareholders, the hope is that advertising is spent where its most effective in converting to revenue, not on proving they are answering questions no one of relevance to the business was even asking.

The Woke will end up being the Joke – as usual

Do the marketing departments of these corporations honestly believe they will gain anything via this ill-considered moral preening? Do they have any real cohesive cognitive plan outside of vacuous virtue signalling to appeal to an existing or potential client base that has already moved on?

What is the bet had Alan Jones told PM Scott Morrison to shove a sock down President Trump’s throat that they would have said absolutely ZIP. Maybe they’d up the spend? The double standard is guaranteed. What it really says is that the marketing teams are pandering to their bigger client – trying to appear relevant to their own management team. Such gutless and spineless actions speak volumes of the utter uselessness of marketing teams in general.

Before dozens of woke corporations pulled their adverts from the top-ranked radio jockey, did they ponder for one second that their clientele who listen to him probably haven’t collapsed into an inconsolable heap? What is more, they couldn’t care less what Anytime Fitness, Chemist Warehouse or Big W think.

It doesn’t take much imagination to work out the utter brain dead groupthink in these marketing meeting rooms (echo chambers) of corporate Australia as they seek to self-censor to justify their glaringly redundant roles. No rocket science is required. Big W could have had a special campaign on socks and BBQ charcoal. When did Australia lose its sense of humour? Especially at the expense of our neighbours across the ditch. It is not to condone Jones’ remarks but it is only because NZ PM Jacinda Ardern is the high priestess of woke causes that these corporates have buckled.

If the decision to advertise on Jones’ program was made because of his reach and ideally the “right” demographic for their products, will they stand to gain anything from this? Haven’t they studied Gillette’s latest 180-degree flip on trying to win back customers they have probably lost for good in that ridiculous self-inflicted $8bn brand destruction?

The Jones’ clientele is likely to remain exactly the same. The ratings will unlikely budge a jot. The activists moaning to have ads pulled are probably the least likely to use their products and services in any case.

For instance, why would anyone think that Commonwealth Bank (CBA), which has been found seriously wanting in the ethics department after the Royal Commission, has any leg to stand on over Jones’ remarks? CBA is still pondering what to do. Do they follow the herd (proving marketing departments aren’t warranted) or twist 2GB’s arm to get some bonus slots for showing loyalty?

Here’s an idea. Why don’t CBA and others leave the moral grandstanding to their customers? When people withdraw cash at an ATM it is highly unlikely they’re going to punish them by closing their accounts. Why not keep tabs on the number of complaints from its 10m customers and see if they number more than 0.000001% of the total. Don’t marketing departments use data? Clearly not.

So watch this space. Corporate boardrooms might think their marketing teams walk on water but if they opened their eyes for a moment would soon find their utter lack of creativity and zero value add as clear as crystal. Or maybe they’re just as out of touch to fall for the Yes, Minister PowerPoint presentation.

Look at the bullying by groups such as Mad Fucking Witches. Can corporates take activists seriously with names like that? How weak are they to fold when words like “complicit” are thrown at them. Once again marketing departments should study data, not fear standing up for themselves.

The double standards of companies like Koala Mattresses, which is happy to have the potty-mouthed Clementine Ford as a brand ambassador (who has a long track record of tweeting profanity, misandry and killing all men) but preach sanctimonious tripe over pulling advertising from Alan Jones’ program.

Make no mistake. The woke are already looking like the bigger joke. These self-appointed enforcers of a moral points system President Xi might approve of have even ignored Jones’ unconditional apology for his remarks. Tells you exactly what ideology is being preached inside so many Australia’s companies. It is hardly the stuff that will rescue them in a slowdown. The ones which have cut Jones have signalled why they don’t make good investments. Get woke. Go broke.

NB Mad Fucking Witches deleted this post because as always with the radical left the only free speech that matters is their own.

Violence against men – the facts

The ghost returns. What a surprise that former PM Malcolm Turnbull has decided to comment on the Alan Jones/Jacinda Ardern saga. Does Turnbull honestly believe that Jones telling the NZ PM to mind her own business on climate change really part of “where all violence against women begins“? “Violent abuse“? Seriously?

By that logic, have all of the men that Jones has shredded on his radio program enabled violence against men? Where were you then Mr Turnbull?

Let’s explore the research. According to a UK study,

“Male victims  (39%) are over three times as likely than women (12%) not to tell anyone about the partner abuse they are suffering from. Only 10% of male victims will tell the police (26% women), only 23% will tell a person in an official position (43% women) and only 11% (23% women) will tell a health professional.

The number of women convicted of perpetrating domestic abuse has increased sevenfold since 2004/05. From 806 in 2004/05 to 5,641 in 2015/16…In 2015, 119,000 men reported to English and Welsh police forces stating they were a victim of domestic abuse. 22% of all victims who report to the police are male. In 2012, 73,524 men did…

Men don’t leave abusive relationships for various reasons – the top reasons being: concern about the children (89%), marriage for life (81%), love (71%), the fear of never seeing their children again (68%), a belief she will change (56%), not enough money(53%), nowhere to go (52%), embarrassment (52%), not wanting to take kids away from their mother (46%), threats that she will kill herself (28%) and fears she will kill him (24%). 

Of those that suffered from partner abuse in 2012/13, 29% of men and 23% of women suffered a physical injury, a higher proportion of men suffering severe bruising or bleeding (6%) and internal injuries or broken bones/teeth (2%) than women (4% and 1% respectively). 30% of men who suffer from partner abuse have emotional and mental problems (47% women). Only 27% of men sought medical advice whilst 73% of women did.

The percentage of gay or bi-sexual men (6.2%) who suffered partner abuse in 2008/09 is nearly double the number for heterosexual men (3.3%). Lesbian women (12.4%) as a percentage also suffered far more partner abuse compared to heterosexual women (4.3%).

The US National Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Survey (NIPSVS) conducted in 2010 showed that 25 million men had claimed they were victims of some form of sexual violence by an intimate partner or acquaintance. Heather Jo Flores wrote in The Independent with respect to disrespecting women, 

Men, it’s not our job to keep reminding you. Remind each other, and stop abusing. It’s as simple as that. Until men speak out against men who abuse, this will never stop. How about y’all post “I ignored it and I won’t anymore” instead? Because #hearyou doesn’t cut it. Just hearing us doesn’t cut it. Taking action, speaking out, and showing zero tolerance for abuse is the only way through. Silence enables. Be the change..So why do men need to have multiple victims come forward before anybody says a damn thing”

Flores went on to say, “Yes, I know men get abused too. Once in a lifetime, maybe a handful of times, in extreme situations. And they get abused by men, mostly. Just like us…I write this to ask: why are we still demanding that women out themselves as survivors, again and again and again, rather than demanding that men out themselves as abusers? Violence against women is a daily reality,.”

In the 12 month period conducted in the NIPSVS survey, 6.46mn women and 6.1mn men were victims of sexual violence by their partner, an acquaintance or stranger. 4.74mn women were victims of physical violence by men and 5.365mn men were victims of physical violence by women. Hardly a handful of times, nor at the hands of men.

1.555mn men claimed their intimate female partner hit them with fists or a hard object vs 1.289m women claiming the reverse. 3.13mn men were slapped by their women vs 1.85mn in the reverse. Awful stats on any measure. Still, it puts paid the notion that men are generally victims of other men once a blue moon. When it came to psychological intimidation around 20.5mn men were victims of it vs 16.5mn women.

The NIPSVS survey was conducted again in 2011 and revealed much the same trends.

By the logic, if men must out other men as abusers, perhaps female abusers should do likewise and male survivors should speak out just as women do. #believeallmen?

Perhaps Mr Turnbull might reflect on this research and work out that making such irrelevant remarks do absolutely nothing for anyone other than highlight yet again why his own party turfed him.

Heaven forbid toxic masculinity took out a knife-wielding murderer in the Sydney CBD. Wouldn’t it be convenient if the perpetrator had said he had been motivated by listening to the Alan Jones Morning Show on 2GB?

Most people get that violence against anyone shouldn’t be tolerated but trying to sound “woke” on Twitter hasn’t fooled anyone.

Thank God China has clarified the Pacific Island claims with action

One would think China is channeling the former Iraqi Ministry of Information.

China’s Special Envoy to the Pacific, Ambassador Wang Xuefeng, told the Pacific Island Forum in Tuvalu,

“As the largest developing country in the world, China always attaches great importance to the special concerns and legitimate demands of small island countries in combating climate change…Developed countries should earnestly carry out their obligations set out in the (UN Climate Change) Convention and the (Paris) Agreement, including providing sufficient support in terms of finance, technology and capacity-building to small island countries and other developing countries to help them increase their capacities in combating climate change.”

What he should have added was,

We intend to belch as much CO2 as we please until 2030. We know we’re already 29.3% of global CO2 emissions. We’re not sure why but until the Extinction Rebellion Beijing chapter starts we figure it mustn’t be a concern in China. ”

Perhaps the most laughable part of it was to say all countries, big or small, are equal in China’s eyes. Except HK, Taiwan, Paracelsus, Spratly and Senkaku Islands.

It wasn’t so long ago that CM was covering machinery stocks and local Chinese governments preferred industry polluted because it meant fines that filled up their coffers. The industry obliged because it was cheaper to produce by paying the fines.

Perhaps China will open its doors to all these climate refugees when whole villages are forced to move to mountain tops.

We should expect that Ambassador Wang will travel by sailing boat to future summits. It’s for the planet you know.

Even China can’t help us avoid a Climate Emergency

CLimateEmergency.png

Here are the numbers. This is the contribution of many of the Pacific Island Summit attendees’ CO2 emissions as a % of the global atmosphere. Why do the media guffaw at the ridiculous when looking at the numbers? Do the political class honestly think that spending billions on renewables will make the slightest difference? Scott Morrison absolutely right to soften the language in the draft agreement at the summit. Honestly, he should push to have it removed in its entirety. Even China’s CO2 emissions are 0.000352% of the world’s atmosphere. China can’t even save us.

So to the Pacific Island leaders – go ahead and buy more Maseratis. The Italian economy needs an economic boost because they’re sinking, unlike your islands.

Jacinda, time to deal with fects

Jacinda

NZ PM Jacinda Ardern! You may be the high priestess of wokeness but sadly you need to have a better grasp of numbers. CM already detailed that Australia is more generous by a considerable currency-adjusted per capita margin than your Wellness Budget. Look at the ratio of Kiwis living in Aus vs Aussies living in NZ. 570,000 plays 37,000.

Sledging Aussie PM Scott Morrison may win brownie points with the left (and the global mainstream media cheerleading squad will find you faultless) but here are some facts you might consider before you speak:

  1. China is 45% of global coal powergen. China has over 1,000 coal plants in operation. A further 126 are under construction and another 72 are in the planning stage. Australia has only 2 in the pipeline.
  2. China has grown CO2 emissions from 10.6% of the global total atmosphere in 1990 to 29.3% today. Australia has slipped from 1.21% to 1.08% respectively. You are but a spec.
  3. Since 1990, Australia’s CO2 emissions per capita have risen by 1.8%. NZ has grown by 10.8%. Yes, we emit more CO2 per capita in gross terms because we have a monster mining industry that you don’t. Australia’s impact on global CO2 is 0.0000134% of the total atmosphere. Yours is 0.00000124%. Nothing. So no matter what we do, our impact via virtue signalling will account for zero. Feel free to flash those pearly whites to the adoration of the sheep that think you should lead a global government. No thanks.

The NZ PM’s Wellness Budget has received lots of accolades. A true leader! Champagne socialist Sir Richard Branson also praised her saying other countries should take note. Despite owning an airline…

The idea that a budget should be solely based on economics is not progressive and more should be directed at “well-being”. That is not to say this budget is not “well-intentioned”. However, the statistics compared to across the ditch do not fare well in relative terms.

Comparing her newest policies versus Australia reveals the kangaroos get better access to social services than the kiwis. How surprising that none of the mainstream media bothered to look at the budget numbers on a like for like basis? Just praise her because she represents their ideal version of a socialist leader.  CM has looked through both budgets and adjusted for currency to make for easier like-for-like comparisons.

When it comes to health spending per capita (currency-adjusted), Australia is expected to climb from A$3,324 in 2019 to A$3,568 in 2022. NZ is expected to go up slightly from A$3,516 to A$3,561 respectively.

On social security and welfare, Australia is expected to pay out A$7,322 per capita in 2019, growing to A$7,977. NZ, on the other hand, is forecast to go from A$5,573 per head to A$6,489.

On mental health, Australia forked out around A$9.1bn exclusively on these services reaching 4.2m citizens last year. NZ is planning on spending A$45.1m in 2019 with a total of A$428m by 2023/24 to hit 325,000 people on frontline services for mental health. While the move is a positive one, NZ will allocate A$1.78bn to mental health as a whole over 5 years. On an annualised basis, Australia will still allocate 5x the NZ amount to mental health per capita. So much for wellbeing.

On education, NZ plans to increase per capita spending 7.9% between 2019 and 2022 whereas Australia will lift it 12.5% over the same period. NZ spends around 2x Australia per capita on education although PISA scores between 2006 and 2015 are virtually identical (and both heading south)

On public housing, Ardern can claim a victory. Australia is expected to cut spending per capita from A$240 in 2019 to A$194 in 2022 when NZ will go from A$137 to A$282. Although let’s hope Ardern has more success than her KiwiBuild policy. The Australian’s Judith Sloanrightly pointed out,

“Ardern also has stumbled with other policies, most notably KiwiBuild. The pledge was to build 100,000 additional affordable homes by 2028.

It has since been modified to facili­tation by the government to help build new homes. Moreover, the definition of afford­ability has been altered from between $NZ350,000 ($340,000) and $NZ450,000 to $NZ650,000.

What started off as an ill-considered public housing project has turned out to be an extremely unsuccessful private real estate scam. The government estimated that there would be 1000 homes built last year under KiwiBuild; it turned out to be 47.”

Good news KiwiBuild has made it to 250.