Bad Producers: Twice in one week

[EvilSmurf]

First example (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2022776.htm) - I mean, a quick watching of that special should have told them something was amiss.
Second example (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2022998.htm) - A simple google search would have told you this guy is an absolute quack. Or how about actually talking to a guest before you book him?

These were two different groups of television producers who should have known better.

[lionking]

I recall that before he was outed and rightly condemned as a Holocaust Denier, David Irving's work on Hitler was highly regarded, but I only caught a few moments of the doco so did not get a good feel for how the Nazis were portrayed.

By the way, I wouldn't take Monica Attard and Media Watch as ultimate authorities. There is a clear leftist bias in the reporting on this show (IMHO).

[EvilSmurf]

I recall that before he was outed and rightly condemned as a Holocaust Denier, David Irving's work on Hitler was highly regarded, but I only caught a few moments of the doco so did not get a good feel for how the Nazis were portrayed.

The book that the special was based on (Hitler's War) was the start of Irving's descent into denialism. Before it, he was a lightly-regarded writer (with no formal historical training) of a few books describing the war from a German perspective. About the only ones of his early books which are held in any regard are the ones on the German secret weapons programs.

Hitler's War was where he tried to claim Hitler had no knowledge of the Holocaust and claimed Germany's invasion of the USSR was a preemptive strike against a planned Soviet invasion of Germany.

By the way, I wouldn't take Monica Attard and Media Watch as ultimate authorities. There is a clear leftist bias in the reporting on this show (IMHO).

I used to watch Media Watch and I personally don't believe they've had any real bias since Richard Ackland hosted it. Political bias or no, the facts in these two cases are indisputable.

[Flange Desire]

I recall that before he was outed and rightly condemned as a Holocaust Denier, David Irving's work on Hitler was highly regarded, but I only caught a few moments of the doco so did not get a good feel for how the Nazis were portrayed.

By the way, I wouldn't take Monica Attard and Media Watch as ultimate authorities. There is a clear leftist bias in the reporting on this show (IMHO).

For our non-aussie friends ...

Media Watch may well have a slightly leftist bias.
But IMO that is not too surprising considering the decades of shabby treatment and funding cuts that the national broadcaster (ABC) has recieved under various rightist governments.

Media Watch is pretty unique in how it focusses on the ethics of jounalism.
It cops bit of flak, but that is normal for vocal skeptics and whistleblowers.

[lionking]

The book that the special was based on (Hitler's War) was the start of Irving's descent into denialism. Before it, he was a lightly-regarded writer (with no formal historical training) of a few books describing the war from a German perspective. About the only ones of his early books which are held in any regard are the ones on the German secret weapons programs.

Hitler's War was where he tried to claim Hitler had no knowledge of the Holocaust and claimed Germany's invasion of the USSR was a preemptive strike against a planned Soviet invasion of Germany.



I used to watch Media Watch and I personally don't believe they've had any real bias since Richard Ackland hosted it. Political bias or no, the facts in these two cases are indisputable.
Fair enough, I was being lazy and relying on my recollection rather than researching David Irving. And I agree that the facts reported by Media Watch were, well, facts, but still contend that they look at issues through a leftish prism.