Jump to content

Talk:A Current Affair (Australian TV program)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kipper909 (talk | contribs) at 06:35, 12 March 2013 (→Facebeef Vandalism - Attacks will continue). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAustralia: Television Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconA Current Affair (Australian TV program) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as Mid-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

I have some serious issues with the word Journalism being used in reference to this program, should be removed immediately,as should the show....

Neutrality

Without sources the article isn't neutral. There has been an edit by an Anon who changed poor ratings to the strong competition win. Both are unsourced and are not neutrally worded. Bidgee (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This program is highly controversial in what it chooses as subject matter, and yet there isn't even a Criticisms section? Wampusaust (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any detail on this program is immediately removed as unverifiable if it has negative connotations; as its neutrality is totally compromised the article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtonstreet01 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have dug up plenty of reliable sources, to wants to work them in?

  • A Current Affair inaccurate and unfair reporting

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23399847-7582,00.html

  • A Current Affair rapped over 'one-sided' report

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/06/12/1213283196702.html

  • A Current Affair in breach of industry code: ACMA

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2193234.htm

  • Everything on ABC's Media Watch:

http://www.google.com.au/search?&hs=npR&q=+site:www.abc.net.au+%22media+watch%27+%22a+current+affair%22

  • All ACMA television operations investigations

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_91717

Wongm (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Wongm. However I suspect any attempt to add this information would result in an instant deletion, for whatever other spurious reasons. On the basis of the arguments against my edits, easily-verifiable information (verifiable merely by viewing the show), even if provided by someone with a background in professional media analysis (which I have) is less relevant to an article than a so-called "sourced" claim, even if taken, for example, from a website or an obscure newspaper. Myriad other articles on Wikipedia show that such "verifications" are not required ... but here they apparently are. As I see it the far-reaching power of media organisations is too great for Wikipedia to handle at this point in time. Ashtonstreet01 (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is supposed to happen is that content should be Verifiable against reliable sources, and you can't do any original research. They are the main content policies, and even though a lot of pages don't meet them, if you are a new person and you don't follow them exactly then stuff gets removed. Wongm (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is most objectionable about all this is how regular users reinforce their "authority" by stating rules, regulations and policies which are entirely arbitrary, wholly manipulable and more or less unworkable. For instance, in this instance you have an entry on ACA which is over 700 words of supposed facts with not one citation, however not one person has objected to this. Then suddenly someone comes along with some equally incontestable facts (for instance, can someone disprove that ACA reporters manipulate interviewees by using leading questions - of course not; can this information be "verified" from a so-called source - only in the highly unlikely event that some academic decides to do peer-reviewed research on the issue) that just happen to highlight truths unpalatable to the program's creators, & they are deleted within hours. Naturally Wikipedia's success as a source of information means that media organisations are going to monitor their own entries & ruthlessly dispatch any details that might show them in a bad light. & thus Wikipedia's quality standard as a media product is dragged down to the same level as the likes of ACA - i.e. lightweight propaganda. Ashtonstreet01 (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed; this is a highly controversial show which time and time again presents populist, sensationalist stories with obvious bias as proper editorial content. They also frequently air poorly disguised advertisements (sometimes you see the same one twice in a week) and yet there is no mention of this whatsoever in this page, I smell something fishy - Drthatguy (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common Themes

Given that ACA always follows such a prescribed formulae for the stories it runs, I think we should draw up a table of the most common ones - My initial list follows:

  • Miracle Diet
  • Shonky Builder
  • Aussie Battler Ripped Off
  • Supermarket Rip Off
  • Survive the financial crisis
  • State the obvious
  • Someone think of the children
  • This man is evil
  • Sea change
  • Welfare cheat
  • Dead Beat Dad
  • Friendly Car enthusiasts are automatically marked as "Hoons"
  • Praising lowbread bogans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.173.54 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt a table is needed, but possibly some of these could be mentioned under "Content". Of course you would need to add a source for that... --Brad F 89 (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air dates

There is somebody out there that keeps changing the dates of presenters on this page. They insist that the show was around in Australia in 2005 (and I have previously seen that the show was rested in December? 2007/2008 Summer Period). A Current Affair never was on the air in Summer 2007-2008!!! I will change these dates back unless I have evidence that prooves me wrong (which I doubt!) --Darijoe 06:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC) —Preceding incorrectly signed comment added by 121.217.106.9 (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACA has only ever been "rested" in the summer of 2005-2006. I can quite clearly remember that ACA did air over the summer of 2007/2008 so your information is incorrect. --Brad F 89 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, I did some research, and infact it was not the whole summmer of 2005/06, only four weeks. Brad F 89 (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facebeef Vandalism - Attacks will continue

Please be aware of a popular Facebook trolling page inciting the vandalism of this page. Please be careful when reverting and keep an eye on cunning vandalism attempts. Cheers.

List of IPs and users who participated

Here's a list of the IPs and users who participated in the coordinated vandalism attempt, which was initiated via Facebeef on Facebook. This list may be used for anyone who wants to track down coordinated vandalism attempts by the same group in the future.

YuMaNuMa Contrib 06:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Current_Affair_(Australian_TV_program)&oldid=543575977"