This ABC-promoted grievance celebrity served her purpose

Posted on 29 December, 2021 by C.L.

In November, teacher Stephanie Lentz claimed she was fired for being a lesbian. That was untrue.

This entry was posted in Fake news. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to This ABC-promoted grievance celebrity served her purpose

Shy Ted says:

29 December, 2021 at 11:44 am

Q+A host Stan Grant asked Ms Lentz if she believed she was fired “because you were gay or because you could no longer teach the ethos or the doctrine of that school? Had you offered to do just that”.

Nice leading question from Tan and not at all scripted.
Not Trampis says:

30 December, 2021 at 7:11 am

I believe this was reported in the SMH well before Q&A indeed she wrote of her alleged experience in the SMH which is why she was on Q&A.
Given the silence from Anglican authorities it was assumed she was telling the truth.
Why did it take so long for them to respond. Incompetence at its ‘best’.
Boambee John says:

30 December, 2021 at 8:15 am

Non Compos Mentis

The school is apparently a non-denominational Christian school. Two questions arise from the event, both reflecting badly on Their ABC.

Given, as you note, that the story was a bit passe, why did Q & A choose to feature it? And, given that the school was not specifically Anglican, why did Q & A choose to ask an Anglican to respond to it? The teacher might well be a nominal Anglican, but surely the school should have been on Q & A?

What the SMH (a privately owned group) might do is a matter of commercial judgement. Given the declining state of the Fauxfacts chain, perhaps they should take a hard look at themselves.

Their ABC, however, is taxpayer funded and should (but doesn’t) hold itself to a higher standard. Their ABC should not be pursuing old stories in an attempt to beat them up as clickbait. Assuming that she was telling the truth is not an adequate standard for what claims to be “Australia’s most trusted news source”.
Not Trampis says:

30 December, 2021 at 12:19 pm

oh dear,
first of all it appeared in the SMH. We can assume there was a no comment when asked to comment. After her column it in the SMH was natural to ask her on Q&A. They too would have been given the no comment answer.
That it takes an organisation almost a month to respond to a very easy question is incompetency at is ‘best’. They should have responded with a press statement immediately the claim was made.
Nor was it clickbait ( on a TV program??) it was a natural thing to do after the proposed legislation was put to the Ho f R.
Boambee John says:

30 December, 2021 at 12:40 pm

Non Compos Mentis

We can assume

What you choose to assume, and reality are not necessarily the same, particularly when the dishonest members of the media are involved.

It was “natural to ask her on Q & SA”, because it suited a particular media agenda.

Nor was it clickbait ( on a TV program??)

Oh dear, Non Compos Mentis is not aware of the existence of an ABC website, on which many stories are also published.
Not Trampis says:

30 December, 2021 at 1:59 pm

We can assume that because the SMH only ran the reason for the sacking very recently.
No if correct then it showed how poor the legislation was.
Oh dear someone does not know it started on a TV program. duh! Showing highlights of a TV program is not clickbait. Mind you since there is no advertising on the ABC someone does not understand what clickbait means.
Boambee John says:

30 December, 2021 at 2:16 pm

Non Compos Mentis

The legislation is not yet passed.

Their ABC likes to tout itself as “Australia’s most trusted” news source. Having lots of clicks is part of that. Sad that you are too narrow minded to understand that simple reality. Broaden your mind beyond your narrow financial perspective.
Not Trampis says:

31 December, 2021 at 7:05 am

it is being debated. That is the point. It can be changed.

No clicks have nothing to do with that. Surveys showing that to be the case is evidence of that. you do like kicking own goals don’t you.
Boambee John says:

31 December, 2021 at 7:55 am

Non Compos Mentis

So, an event that occurred before the legislation is passed, and therefore was not directly affected by it, shows “how poor the legislation was”, even though the legislation is not yet in effect? No wonder you never made it out of kindy!

Their ABC claims that surveys show that around 70% of Australians regard Their ABC as the “most trusted news source”. Strangely, only around 10% of Australians actually watch/listen to that “most trusted news source”.

Either the surveys are a crock, rigged to get a specific result, or the surveys are made only among the audience of Their ABC. If the latter is correct, then Their ABC is in the embarrassing position that some 30% of the audience does NOT regard Their ABC as the “most trusted news source”.

You do like kicking own goals, don’t you?

PS, your punctuation standard has again declined. Pull your socks up! And your grammar also has slipped. A plural subject requires a plural verb. Really, it’s like trying to train a donkey.