The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Right-Populist monopoly media attempts to ‘deprive carbon debate of oxygen' > Comments

Right-Populist monopoly media attempts to ‘deprive carbon debate of oxygen' : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 3/6/2011

This ‘trivialisation’ of politics in Australia is a regular phenomena, and perhaps a deliberate one, having the effect of weakening our democracy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
If Gillard Labor wants to transfer money from the rich to the poor they have every right to do so: but they should do it honestly as a stated policy goal, not in an underhanded way that attempts to exploit the (rapidly fading) public hysteria over 'climate change'. Any incidental benefits that may derive from this tax don't effect the fact that it is triggered by panic over a non-existent problem which -- even if it existed -- the tax would do nothing to alleviate anyway.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 3 June 2011 7:32:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh boo hoo, the overly well funded alarmist academia, getup and unions amongst many others including the Children's Climate Crusade, who get the majority of media coverage .. including nearly 99% of (your) ABC coverage, are crying "not fair"

Come off it, trying to claim underdog status is not going to work. Now the government and their pet idiots are spending money far and wide on campaigns, advertising, ganging up on a blogger to try to shut down advertisers on his show. It's a huge concerted effort to convince the public that a big new tax is a good thing.

So what do we get, whining over one media group who is playing down the middle and doing what journalists should, and report, not like Fairfax or the ABC or others who try to create.

News Ltd is not in the anti AGW camp, but to the alarmists if you're not way over on their side .. you must be against them.

It's still a democracy here, though the alarmists would like to suspend that, and it's OK to have some of the media disagree with the government and their groupthink lackies.

Now even Tristan thinks he has to throw his weight in .. look if it is taking all this effort and you still can't convince the rest of Australia .. maybe you're the ones on the wrong side of reason, as much as you all clearly hate that .. the Australian public is not going to take well to being bullied and blustered and BS'd into a corner for a relatively small and very loud group of activists.

You're in the minority, get over it and stop with the denial of the obvious .. see what I did there, I pointed out that the alarmists are actually in denial that the rest of Australia is not going along with this silly hysteria.

It will infuriate the true believers, because they cannot understand what's happening so have to blame someone, to the rest of us, it's obvious.
Posted by rpg, Friday, 3 June 2011 8:03:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If Gillard Labor wants to transfer money from the rich to the poor they have every right to do so:" Hear hear! The carbon debate is over. The Australian people are more in favour of excepting Climate Change than the war in Afghanistan and anyone who thinks humans are not changing the world and its environments, are the one's that are in REAL denial.
The short answer is a simple one: to reduce the impact of climate change, we need to reduce global warming. That means producing fewer carbon dioxide emissions and it might mean using less energy or using it more efficiently (doing the same things with less energy or better technology). In practice, reducing emissions is both very simple and very hard.

It's very simple for any one of us to reduce our personal carbon dioxide emissions. You can replace the incandescent lamps in your home (ones that make light by getting hot) and use energy-saving fluorescent lamps instead. You can switch your utility company so more of your electricity is made from renewable energy. Or you could bicycle, walk, or take the bus from time to time instead of using your car. You could put on a jumper instead of turning on the heating, open your windows instead of using the air-con, and drive with better fuel economy in mind. These things are all very easy to do and will make an immediate difference. But are they enough?

The science is over-whelming and if the tax has a spin off to helping the poor and families Iam for it. Taxing the rich is exactly whats needed to be done, and to keep the business people happy, give them something they can benefit from. Reform right across the board.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXqOLXSZ5Xs

LEA
Posted by Quantumleap, Friday, 3 June 2011 9:47:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Tristan, sad times indeed. For many years now there are those who are convinced that the AGW alarm phenomena is political rather than scientific (silly I know). That it is a deliberate attempt to tax capitalism and industrialization and as a direct result it is a trivialization that weakens our democratic rights.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but have you not just taken the case made against politicized alarmism and turned it around? Is your case so weak that you have resorted to the skeptic’s handbook?

The last refuge of political scoundrel is to lay blame. It's not your fault that your case is so flawed that it has become toxic. It not your fault that thanks to the internet we flat earthers can see two sides of each debate and it’s not your fault that the government is making an absolute hash of it and further damaging the cause. It is not your fault that the severely degrading and increasingly embarrassing alarmist cause is going to leave you looking really, really silly.

So what can you do? I know, you could blame the “Right-Populist monopoly media”!

You remind me of a party balloon with a leak, slowly deflating as it circulates the room going eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

The real hypocrisy of course is in your attempt to defend our democracy by your attack on sections of our media and, forgive me for reminding you of this fact, is it not our free press that is one of the cornerstones of our democracy? Ouch, sorry, I know that hurt.

What you are telegraphing of course, is the threat you perceive and that which gives you the night terrors, is the potential for exposure from a more inquisitive media.

Australians have an intuitive grasp of fair play. They are members of “Get It” not “Get Up”.

Anyway, we wish you well and please keep doing all those things that are contrary to your self interest.

PS. Your application for membership of “Get It” has been rejected on the grounds of not getting any of it.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 3 June 2011 9:48:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On Page One of this Article ,Tristan Ewins comments on Liberal Senator George Brandis saying ' that 'Labor is addicted to debt,' 'cannot handle money' etc.

Erwins then makes the extrodinary comment....

He said this not because it is true, but rather because Liberal focus groups MUST BE reporting that these kinds of truisms 'resonate' with the public.

What a statement... He calls Brandis a liar because someone/thing MUST BE reporting etc etc.

Then, I realized that this Article was going to be total rubbish, directed at the looney left zealots.

I stopped reading it there
Posted by Aspley, Friday, 3 June 2011 9:53:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

Remember the campaign against work choices. The ALP and unions used exactly the same tactics. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and aimed firmly at the ALP backside.

The silly compulsory voting system encourages the the donkey vote, and the intellectual argument you are trying to push mainly resonates with the 15% high achievers that are faced with no compensation.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 3 June 2011 10:02:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan has just admitted that a large section [the deep left] of the Labor party are mainly interested in a carbon[dioxide] tax to use it as a mechanism to transfer wealth from those who have earned it, to those who don't or wont.

Good one Tristan, thanks for confirming what many are thinking, & saying. Rip off springs to mind.

Mate, do you ever wonder why no thinking people will trust your lot?
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 3 June 2011 10:09:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan

"overcompensation is essential for Labor in 'selling' the carbon tax."

So assuming that the tax achieves it's stated goal of reducing greenhouse polution by the big polluters what happens to the compensation when the cost of living has had it's rise due to the tax and a swing to more expensive energy sources but not as much tax is being paid?

Do the lower income earners have to lump it then?

Any comment on the Qld Governments decision to increase electricity prices because not enough energy was used last summer?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 3 June 2011 10:32:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just re: 'freedom of the press' and how it relates to monopoly media.

I'm not in favour of censorship. My aim is not to 'shut down' media expressing opinions I disagree with.

But at the same time we have a very high concentration of media ownership in this country. And we have media moguls with right-wing political agendas - willing to campaign for this agenda through their media assets.

What we need is more diversity in the media at all levels. The model we have here with 'On Line Opinion' - with a wide and inclusive range of opinions - is much better than what exists in the monopoly media. But On Line Opinion doesn't have the resources to compete with the monopoly media.

But how to achieve? Perhaps a media diversification levy? Combined with new cross media ownership laws?
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 3 June 2011 11:24:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan's Left-Unpopulist media - the ABC and Fairfax mainly, though not only - have had a virtual monopoly on propaganda management for years. And they've failed at that as they've failed at everything else.

Stop whining, Tristan. Nobody's listening to the global warming crap any more.
Posted by KenH, Friday, 3 June 2011 12:06:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This essay describes how right-wing populist media works.

http://www.dabase.org/popdisgu.htm

In the USA it has manifested as the Republican Noise Machine. I would argue that right-wing populist media here in the land of Oz is our version of this noise machine.

The workings and cultural ramifications of which are described by Henry A Giroux in his book Zombie Politics.
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 3 June 2011 12:17:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan - look, where have you been?

This statment: "these kind of ideas have been reinforced again and again over decades by the right-populist monopoly media".

I hate to break this too you, but as a member of the media I can tell you that the bulk of the media in Australia is not right wing. Perhaps the days when The Melbourne Age was referred to as the Spencer Street Soviet are gone, but to suggest that my colleagues are either right leaning or puppets in the hands of their capitalist masters is risable nonsense. There has been more diversity of opinion in recent years, and some papers may actually be considered right wing for a change, perhaps that is what is confusing you?

If you want to refight a run-of-the-mill Q&A that's up to you, but if you leave the slogans at home your arguments may be more interesting to a general audience
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 3 June 2011 12:19:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgen;

I think Fairfax is more the exception than the rule; though even the Fairfax titles have moved somewhat to the right. Labor got really bad coverage in the last Federal Election - don't know why... But also: Newscorp has FAR greater reach and influence than Fairfax... Here in Melbourne the Herald-Sun has most of the newspaper market in its own right. There are no real competitors here for the tabloid market. Jill Singer is good; but again she is 'the exception rather than the rule'. Often the commercial television networks promote a vision of 'politics as entertainment' as well; which means marginalising deep discussion of the issues. There are some great journalists out there - including from Fairfax. Think Ken Davidson, Tim Colebatch etc. I'm not saying you're a 'puppet' at all; But I do think newspapers take editorial lines - eg: 'The Australian' wanting to destroy the Greens; When that happens and media ownership is so concentrated there needs be action to ensure real diversity of ownership; and representative inclusion of diverse viewpoints.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 3 June 2011 12:43:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan, your statement that conservatives are “attempting to 'deprive the climate and carbon tax debate of oxygen,' manipulating voters through distraction and focus on trivalities” is fatuous.

When the simple facts are put forward that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measureable effect on climate, and that no action on carbon emissions will have any effect, it is the supporters of the AGW fraud who come up with distraction and trivialities, because there is nothing else left to them.

Naturally produced CO2 comprises 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Human emissions comprise 3% of the total. There is a natural variation of 10% in the CO2 cycle, so the 3% is not noticeable in the natural cycle and cannot be shown to have any effect.

A great example of the nonsense put up by the AGW backers was on SBS the other night, when a professor supporting the AGW assertion attempted to answer this by asserting that the 3% of CO2 contributed by humans was in some way separate from the natural CO2, and would accumulate. It was ludicrous.

There is no basis in the real world for the opinion you put forward.

The settled science is that warming occurs in natural cycles. Human input has not been shown to have any but a negligible effect.

It is highly unlikely that it will be shown to have any effect, considering the billions spent so far, in attempting to produce such proof with no result.

There is no rational basis for a so called “carbon tax”, and your article is an embarrassment to sensible debate.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 3 June 2011 12:59:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

You are sounding like Brown, claiming that negative press is "biased"

Don't you think it could be simply that all reporters don't see the world through Rudd tinted glasses?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 3 June 2011 1:10:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan
I don't really disagree with your second post, and I care not a jot about being called a puppet, but it has reminded me about another part of your slogan "monopolistic". The sad truth is that the monopoly the major media organs had over news is now fading.

The Internet, in general, is proving a major alternative means of disseminating news and opinion, mostly opinion. The carbon debate is a case in point. The bulk of the debate is online. In fact, before the climategate incident, it was about the only place the sceptics had a voice.

But that is just one, small example. This shift online, as well as cable television, and digital everything, is leading to all sorts of problems in your monster right wing media companies, both print and broadcast. The media market is fracturing. Part of the reason your TV shows may be trivialising issues, in your view, is that they are losing audiences. This may also explain why you are seeing a little more right wing comment than there use to be.

Time to update your slogans. The media are not right wing nor monopolistic, but they are getting desperate
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 3 June 2011 2:11:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of USA populist zombie-land they even have their own Zombie Queen in the form of Sarah Palin. Who is also popular among right-wing populists here in the land of Oz.

I work in the newsagent business. Tristin's observation that the Herald-Sun completely dominates the "news"-paper market here in Victoria is true. Go into most newsagents, milk bars, and petrol outlets and you will find that the H-S outnumbers the Age by a huge factor - sometimes 50 to 1.
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 3 June 2011 2:30:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan, the OLO model is a good one for many reasons and diversity of opinions is one of them.

Your problem is that you are not ready to move out of kindergarten, when you are we would love to hear a cogent case from you rather than whining about who is to blame for your failures.

As they say in the movie, OLO! You can’t handle OLO!

If you aspire to anything like real media you need to practice on OLO, then you can grow up to be a big boy can’t you, instead of a wet behind the ears, ideological nincompoop.

It’s interesting that the problem has now moved right along. It’s not the media per se anymore; it is the high concentration of “media ownership”, really. So where is this all leading Tristan?

As I said earlier, your problem is an inquisitive media and that won’t do will it? You are trying the same method as the Church of Rome to defeat the Lutherans’ in the 14th century.

Not doing crash hot here on OLO are you Tristan?
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 3 June 2011 2:35:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Shadow Minister: Remember the campaign against work choices. The ALP and unions used exactly the same tactics.

Work choices was in part a direct and deliberate attack against the unions. If I was going to compare the way the Unions lashed out at it to something, it would be the way miners reacted to the super profits tax. The way both the unions and the miners attacked the government of the time using the media is eerily similar.

The AGW debate looks entirely different to me. The organisations and individuals leading the debate don't look to be under any major threat. There is no expensive media campaign. Its just a whole pile of hot air produced by talking heads in opinion pieces, apparently done only because they like being the centre of attention.

Both sides of politics appear to making a right royal mess of it. The right strategy is probably to appear to be earnestly doing something while doing as little as possible. I think that is the track Gillard would have taken by choice, as I have now decided she is the purest populist I've seen in Australian politics in my time. I seen things crawl out of my garden with more willing to take a personal stand than she is. She doesn't have the choice of taking the populist road this time of course. No doubt you enjoy watching her squirm.

Abbott's "we will bride industry not to pollute" policy has no such excuse. The guy is a curates egg - brilliant one day, a moron the next. That policy choice was made on one of his more moronic days. I didn't think it would come back to haunt him as much as it has. Apparently there is a limit to how long his liberal mates can pretend to like something. I find that really heartening.
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 3 June 2011 2:45:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Newscorp has FAR greater reach and influence than Fairfax.'

Could that not just reflect more right wing people than left wing people.

I think people read the paper that tells them what they want to hear.

Although I read whatever will make me the angriest.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 3 June 2011 2:51:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc;

What I actually wrote just then was:

"When...media ownership is so concentrated there needs be action to ensure real diversity of ownership; and representative inclusion of diverse viewpoints."

Concentrated ownership can affect "representative inclusion of diverse viewpoints". But it's not *just* conentration of ownership, but effective and inclusive pluralism that counts.

That's not really in contradiction with what I wrote earlier. When I take of "right-populist monopoly media" I'm not saying all commercial media fall into this category.

re: your comments about the counter-reformation - I've been a non-denominational Christian much of my life. I think the true Christian church is all who are in Christ - *regardless of denomination.* But I think Christians have persecuted Christians over the years so often because of the misapproriation of the faith by others for ulterior motives.

I'm actually quite thankful to have the opportunity to write here as well; I think I reach enough people to make my efforts well worth it. One day it would be nice to reach more people; But integrity is always important; and the flexibility I have writing for OLO means I can balance writing with study.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 3 June 2011 2:52:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan, I’m fully aware of what you wrote. Your problem is with “meaning”. You fail to comprehend the relationship between symptoms and causes.

The crux of your case is criticism of some sections of the media. You feel that the diversity of viewpoints is somehow restricted (by concentrated ownership) and therefore “your” viewpoint is not well enough represented.

To make your case you must first demonstrate this “limitation” in views or perspectives. Good Luck. I can’t think of a country that is blessed by such diversity of opinions as Australia. That said Tristan, we are listening and await your case.

Like I said, you need to first establish the “problem” before you speculate on a “solution”. Creating a pseudo-problem of your choice will not cut it.

There are a number of phrases you also need to consign to the “utter bollocks, polli-bable diatribe” garbage bin. These include but may not be limited to, “representative inclusion of diverse viewpoints”, “inclusive pluralism” and “Right-Populist monopoly media”. Get rid of this stuff and you might sound less like a pseudo- intellectual smart assed dork.

As to your response to Lutheran model, I think we can conclude from this is you did not study English comprehension or History. Bull dust might baffle brains but you need to choose your audience more carefully.

Over to you.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 3 June 2011 3:36:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ho hum "H-S outnumbers the Age by a huge factor - sometimes 50 to 1."

Why do you think that is?

Because the Age is a biased rag and not worth reading and even the H-S, lean as it is, is a better read than the over opinionated Age .. the SMH not much better.

The News Corp papers sell, because they have better journalism, not everyone wants the idealized pulp of the left wing elites.

So now Tristan wants, "What we need is more diversity in the media at all levels. But how to achieve? Perhaps a media diversification levy? Combined with new cross media ownership laws?"

That'[s forced censorship, let the market decide and the market, the people have decided the Age is rubbish.

You can't force people to buy it, next will be government grants to give it away, with the same result, it won't be read - those opinions are not relevant to the average Australian.

BTW - they tried this in the USA, forcing radio stations to give equal time to the left, it died miserably, no one listened, and no one would advertise.

You kid yourselves if you think there is some evil plot that makes people move to the right, away from the flailing loonies screaming the world is ending and you have to pay to stop it.
Posted by rpg, Friday, 3 June 2011 3:40:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK, I confess to a significant level of pedantry but I still think English usage is important. As the author is a qualified teacher, he presumably knows that 'phenomenon' is the singular and 'phenomena', the plural. If he doesn't, let's hope the children of Victoria are safe from his teaching - and his political views.
Posted by Senior Victorian, Friday, 3 June 2011 4:06:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Senior Victorian' - well *everyone* makes a typo every now and then...

re: Media diversity and pluralism, see this quote at Wikipedia:

"According to Reporters Without Borders in 2004, Australia is in 41st position on a list of countries ranked by Press Freedom; well behind New Zealand (9th) and United Kingdom (28th). This ranking is primarily due to the limited diversity in media ownership." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

re: growth of online media, I'd suggest that the existing media interests have shifted to the online sphere - and dominate that sphere because they are established brands. The internet provides opportunities, yes - But there are issues of bandwdith, ability to gather original primary material, capability to promote alternatives, inability to pay a regular array of journalists...

There are some great blogs our there that get several hundred hits - maybe sometimes over a thousand - every week... But the Herald-Sun *alone* has a readership of 1,500,000...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 3 June 2011 4:49:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon

You are spot on. I was going to comment earlier, but you are right to indicate how newspapers are just one (albeit important) avenue for news.

There are now so many alternatives out there (mainly online).

Tristan, blaming the messenger for Labor's woes, is poor commentary.
Just because Labor is not winning the debates does not mean they cannot be won. Then what will you have to say. The media turned around to support Labor?

There are also so many aspects of Aust society today that are much better than two decades ago.

You really need to move beyond partisan politics. It almost sounds stupid.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 3 June 2011 5:03:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan;you have to come to terms with the reality that many of us now realise the scam of AGW.IPCC "We have hide the decline."

There are thousands of scientists who have been silenced.The IPCC is a Maurice Strong creation who wants to see a New World Order spurred on by environmentalism,under the guise of saving the planet.They won't tax carbon as it comes out of the ground because the large corps will have to pay.They want an ETS because it will let only an elite few have the means of production since only they can afford to buy the carbon credits.

Their scam is falling apart and they are getting very desperate.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 3 June 2011 5:20:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan, your case remains flawed. You have failed to show any correlation between the range and diversity of views available in Australia, on any topic, and the number media owners.

This is fundamental to the case you seek to make, without it we must draw the conclusion that you have fabricated the “problem” in order to offer your “solution”. The Wikipedia link you provided provides nothing in respect of this.

I have no problem with a comparison of media ownership but unless you can present an “effect” associated with this limitation you are just proselytizing ideological dogma.

It is also critical that we leave a market driven industry to be just that, market driven. If you don’t like “the market” then you are at odds with those who support it. It matters not if you agree because quite frankly, it is none of your business what the market chooses to support. Unless of course, you wish to see legislation imposed upon those who like the democratic principle of choice?

In which case, many Australians might suggest you to stick it where the Sun doesn’t shine.

Do you imagine for one moment that those trying to extricate themselves from the grip of despotic dictatorships would warm to your proposals? If so, we can arrange for a whip round for you and as many of your friends as possible, to have an all expenses paid, one way trip to say, Syria, Libya,Tunisia, Morocco, UAE, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Central Africa and almost anywhere in South America, where you can do a muti-media presentation extravaganza to their populations.

You won’t because they would stone you. You do it here in Oz because we won’t. Yet!

PS. Your application to join “Get It” has again been rejected on the basis of non compliance.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 3 June 2011 5:56:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Tristen. It's good to see a truly canonical example of preaching to the converted. No half-measures here.

Seriously, the biggest handicap for climate action supporters seems to be an irresistible urge to chant slogans that impress like-minded mates. Calling the unconverted 'Right WIng' or 'Populist' might be popular at a Wilderness Society picnic, but it's unlikely to morph the doubtful into true believers. Would you reconsider your opinion if I called you a left-wing useful idiot? I hope not.

This should be easy. There's no downside to reducing emissions per se. When the AGW crowd stop predicting apocalypse and start discussing the relative merits of sequestration vs. geothermal, MSR vs. solar thermal, you'll be half-way there. If you really want to exclude nuclear, fine, but you need to offer superior alternatives: not outrage, not hyperbole, and definitely not sanctimony.

Consider your AGW bona fides established. Now, can we move on to discussing solutions to the problem, please?
Posted by donkeygod, Saturday, 4 June 2011 12:08:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You continually are getting muddled up with your political spectrums Tristan, Right and Left are the same, but with one subtle difference in the measures they deploy in regards to any Economic activity and how it is administered under The Collectivist Mentality – and with a Demagogic followers support;
Monopoly can only exist because of Government; Government is the Biggest Monopoly Control over the Population and Society, and can only grant Monopoly to a selected few;

And it is a fallacy to claim that Oxygen starved Leftists and Rightists will control the Media – Education – or any other public institution –For Governments have the monopoly on the Education system for a great many years , and has produced Automatons who cannot function with a thought to reason, or deploy any rational factual argument, or construct Ideas based on Rational Utilitarian Ratiocination to form working Theories; Instead they deploy Empirical Utilitarian theories that are false – misleading and detrimental to society- therefore are antisocial and Unjust- Quite the opposite of your intended point.
So the point must be it is not for the Social reasons you aspire . It is not hard, So what is the point?
Posted by All-, Saturday, 4 June 2011 9:18:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I understand some may think terms like 'right-populist monopoly media' may be a turn off. Some may think it's just a 'slogan'. But at the same time I think it expresses a truth about the state of much of Australia's media right now. I think 'trivialisation' *is* a big problem - and popular cynicism with regards this can be seen as translating in the atrophy of the major party's membership bases.

And I think the 'big players' who invest in popular media don't do it just for the profits - I think they do it for the cultural power that flows from this. Somehow stating this seems 'taboo' because it throws the substance and quality of our democracy into question - with a manipulated and limited public sphere. But real press freedom means pluralism and participation - best achieved with diversification.

But also I'm trying to convince elements in the government, and the government's independent and Green supporters - with regards pension reform. (especially Newstart) I think I've made a reasonable effort there. Though I understand there are those who think I should be less combative - to appeal to more conservative elements.

Could some aspects of pension reform be achieved separately? Perhaps. Whatever is the best strategy and gets the job done, while helping secure another term for Labor. (for instance few would object to a separate increase in the Aged Pension - as these don't face the vilification and stigma faced by the unemployed...) But the position of the unemployed is so dire now we should not just evade the issue... Especially with the new 'work for the dole' provisions I think a strong case could be put for reform here.

I also think there's another core point which needs to be recognised; and it's not just 'propaganda': Any kind of action on climate change will have a cost. As much so if not more for real 'direct action', as with an ETS or carbon tax. So yes I think Abbott is obfuscating the issues here, and I think that needs to be made clear.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Saturday, 4 June 2011 12:28:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

here you go,

'On our side, it is university, union, ministerial or MP's office, and then stand for an election.'
'If you've been in that cloistered world, how can you expect to know what the real world is like, what issues the real people face and the aims and aspirations of those real people'

Neville Wran
The Weekend Australian
Sat. 4th June 2011

Mate he sees how blokes like you and your views have wrecked the great Australian Labor Party. Why don't you just leave them alone, pee off and join the CPA , if that deluded organisation still exists.

BTW within 4 weeks, Julia and Wayne will be knifed, replaced by Combet and/or Shorten. Once that happens Kevvy will resign, Abbott will support Jenkins as speaker and will have a majority of one even if Oakshott continues with his current form and continues to not vote, then it's all, over for you red bovers, and your greenie weenees pretty well for ever in Australia. Four PM's in one year. Get on at centrebet now! Can you now see the game Tony's been in, with his 'workers friend' attitude. He's got the whole Labor party in a tizz and it's getting worse for them while they play the conventional labor thought game of attack Tony, play to the 'leftie elites', push for new taxes and waste our money. He's not undermining Labor in the marginals ... they are doing well enough by themselves, he's been underming them in their safest seats. And it's working. But that won't show in the polls but it will in seat loses at the next election ... when he calls one.

Watch this space.

Why aren't your mates in the leftie Canberra media reporting on this coup... and this self-evident senario. Oh well they missed Julia's coup and didn't report on it, so I supposed they are performing true to their leftie denial form eh?
Posted by imajulianutter, Saturday, 4 June 2011 2:24:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan, you've got to be kidding. Come on, tell us it was a joke.

The press did not report climate gate in Oz to any extent. They let the cheats & rorters off without a mention.

They have not reported that any country that got into alternate energy in a big way, apart from the twits in the UK, have been backing out of it just as fast as their little legs can carry them.

They never report any of the findings, happening so often now, that disprove the connection between CO2 & dangerous global warming.

They never question the garbage coming out of particularly the ANU, other universities, & government established committees, staffed by government funded stooges.

Just how much do you expect to get away with, without being asked to justify at least some of it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 4 June 2011 3:58:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So - you seem to think caring for vulnerable pensioners is an idea which has "wrecked the great Australian Labor Party"?

Or maybe you think it's support for a National Disability Insurance Scheme that the problem? (which incidentally is supported by Shorten)

Or is the idea of a mixed economy somehow 'extreme' - when you see banks profiteering, and insurance companies ripping off families whose lives were destroyed by the floods?

If you want to know what's destabilising the ALP it's the kind of speculation you're running with here; If there's any specific proposal I've made you have a problem with why don't you elaborate?

BTW - the CPA in Australia was one of the first to oppose the Soviet invasion of Czechslovakia, and adopted a position which could be said to have been Eurocommunist - A kind of reproachment between socialism and liberal democracy. Personally I consider myself a liberal democratic socialist, or left social democrat - But I don't see a sense of connection and continuity with the democratic left has being anything to be ashamed of.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Saturday, 4 June 2011 4:02:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW I've never had a job in the labour movement, and I've never even looked for one. My position has always been one of being a grassroots activist. Your quote from Wran may epitomise some; But my path in the Labor Party has not been one of careerism. In fact I think remobilising and empowering the grassroots is the only way to save the party....
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Saturday, 4 June 2011 4:08:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan, you’re going off topic.

You whole case was that the limited ownership base of Australian media was “restricting” diversity of views. You have failed to show any correlation between the range and diversity of views available in Australia, on any topic, and the number of media owners.

Your tactic now is to ignore the cases presented to you. Conveniently forget the topic of your own thread and drift off into a political diatribe.

You ask if “we” want to know what’s destabilizing the ALP. You are kidding of course. Why should we care?

We could suggest that the ideological babble you are presenting is the primary cause. You are incapable of engaging with OLO contributors, no acknowledgement of counter argument, trivialization of the views you see as non compliant and diversions from the case you have failed to make.

If you feel “trivialized” there is a very simple reason, you are being trivial.

If you want to make political speeches, go find an appropriate audience of like minded people. If you want to “empower the grassroots”, please do your gardening somewhere else, this is NOT the place.

Get back to your original argument, acknowledge defeat or buzz off.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 4 June 2011 4:42:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

"Or is the idea of a mixed economy somehow 'extreme' - when you see banks profiteering, and insurance companies ripping off families whose lives were destroyed by the floods?"

Have you any proof of this. The government has tried and failed, with the banks, and surprise surprise, the insurance companies wouldn't sell flood insurance to houses built in the flood zones by a cash hungry labor government.

A mixed economy is code for heavy handed socialist meddling, which has a recent record of chronic failures.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 4 June 2011 4:48:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc; I was responding to a personal calling themselves "
"imajulianutter"; And if you look back to their comments you'll find I'm responding to what they said rather than 'drifting off topic'.

Run out of responses for today now, though...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Saturday, 4 June 2011 5:05:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I thought it was a typo, I wouldn't have mentioned it. Rigour is necessary in both thought and expression. Both are sadly missing here.
Posted by Senior Victorian, Saturday, 4 June 2011 5:23:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan as a student with no economics background is reduced to spouting leftist dogma rather than reasoned debate.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 4 June 2011 6:08:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And he should try being a tad apologetic rather than his pathetic attempt at being apodictic.

Tristan you're from the cloistered world of 'leftie academia' and making a slew from the cloistered profession of teaching.

You are no more in touch with the 'people' and their aspirations than all the labor membership...combined.

Time for a good lay down and a bex Tristan.

What are you going to do when the Labor Party finally and thankfully implodes? Have a read of what Wran has to say and you'll understand the inevitability of that... are you going to attach yourself to Malcolm Turnbull?
Posted by imajulianutter, Saturday, 4 June 2011 9:29:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we are dealing with something very strange in this “Tristan” phenomena and it needs more scrutiny. The more we challenge and interrogate, the more obtuse it becomes.

I particularly liked him using his last post up to tell us he has no posts left?

Perhaps he has run out of catch phrases. Perhaps that’s why he’s gone off topic.

I previously likened Tristan to “a party balloon with a leak, slowly deflating as it circulates the room going eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! But it’s more annoying than that.

Looking at his article we can identify “noble and sweeping goals”. A sense of anxiety is created to which we are offered “structure and certainty”. There is a very strong message of alienation that is resolved by a creating a sense of “community”, I hear a genuine sense of impotence which is replace by “solidarity directed by all-knowing leaders”.

Other identifiable traits include:

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged.
Elitists, claiming a special, exalted status.
Polarized us-versus-them mentality.
Crisis Creation, provide simple answers to the confusion they, themselves, create.
Opposer Warnings.
Guilt and Fear, dwelling on sinful nature.
Critical thinking is discouraged.
Absolutism.
Shoot the messenger.
Obsessiveness regarding orthodoxy.
Persecution complex.
Loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.
Loaded languaging (characterized by “thought-terminating clichés).
Rejection of rational analysis.
Wishful thinking,

Australians might not be able to explain “languaging” but I suspect most are aware of it and are concerned by it. Perhaps this growing sense of unease is isolating the ALP from the electorate? Tristan beware.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 5 June 2011 9:16:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan, as just evidenced for you, your writings are neither real nor genuine. They are complete fabrications modeled on and compliant with known “languaging” phenomena.

You further use a “composite” of electric words and phrases designed to agitate the converted and confuse the opposition. It’s called “plausible intelligence”, it is of course neither plausible nor intelligent but as a tactic it does present well, at least until challenged. At this point of “breakdown” under challenge it becomes “indefensible”.

You seem to have reached a point of recognition that you can no longer defend what you have fabricated. This is because it bares no resemblance to reality; therefore fabrication can only be defended with more fabrication.

I could by wrong and you have the opportunity to demonstrate this here on OLO.

Just to remind you and to avoid you being criticized for going off topic, your assertion is that limited ownership base of Australian media was “restricting” diversity of views. You have failed to show any correlation between the range and diversity of views available in Australia, on any of the policy topics you mentioned, and the number of media owners.

You have defined (fabricated) what you see as “the problem” but have not supported this assertion.

You may well be miffed at those sections of the media that do not conform to your single orthodoxy however, to suggest taxing and legislating against them (Perhaps media diversifications levy? Combined with new cross media ownership laws?), says more about your insecurity and the weakness of your case, than it does about your sincerity.

Bit of a rock and a hard place for you granted. You can ignore us and confirm our assertions, or you can try again and provide the opportunity to critique both your article and your responses, which is what OLO offers all of us.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 5 June 2011 11:36:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc,

'Loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.'

I whole heartedly agree. As is evidenced in his avoidance of addressing me by my non de plume.

He's quite ruined my little joke.
Posted by imajulianutter, Sunday, 5 June 2011 12:31:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the best way of depriving the carbon debate of oxygen is

1 ignore the ramblings of the left - as we should ignore this trite article full of the predictable lefty bile and venom

2 cut off the lefts' access to public funding - in other wards, make them pay for their indulgences, just as my wife and I have to "pay" for her Mercedes.

For the benefit of all ..... less government, lower taxation and personal financial accountability is the way forward....

more government and more taxes is simply the path of waste, indolence, corruption and equality in poverty.

And lets be honest,

A living under libertarianism is a rich "Life" of choices and expression

A living under collectivism is bare "Existence" under dictates and repression
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 5 June 2011 12:43:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SpinDoc;

Media concentration does not "in essence" and unavoidably lead to dominance of right-wing perspectives.

But where you have high media concentration; and you have active intervention into the editoriral policies of media assets (even if not overtly so); then yes that can - and usually does - result in a constriction in the plurality of perspectives represented. I contest that this is what has occurred in Australia.

Media cross-ownership laws can limit this; But even still - ownership by several interests with similar political perspectives in of itself would not provide a remedy.

What we really need is to 'level the playing field' providing opporunities for all manner of interests and perpsectives to take part freely in the debate. Kind of like the 'perfect speech situation' promoted by Habermas - Although I'm not really as optimistic as Habermas ere....

This should mean subsidies for community and social media, and especially for pluralist and participatory media. Again - perhaps a media diversification levy could help?

Maybe in ten years time the spread of new technologies will also signficantly lower the playing field by reducing overheads? And perhaps this could be aided by international and independent media networks supporting each other?

I think there may be hope for the future.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Sunday, 5 June 2011 1:02:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan

My observation is that most Australians want to see action on climate change but they are not supportive of the governments carbon tax. I don't see this as being the influence of the "right-populist monoploy media".

The fact is that after 3 and a half years of Rudd / Gillard government they have not been able to articulate their policy position. This is because their modus operandi has been to make announcements before any of the detail has been investigated. Witness the East Timor solution, Malaysian solution, mining tax marks I & II, home insulation, solar panels, NBN, etc. In each case where a policy has eventually evolved it's been comprimised by the government first backing itself into a corner.

Your article is able to outline a stance from Ross Garnaut (whose report was critised for lacking detail) & others, but all we know from the government is that 1000 (a suspiciously round number) companies will be taxed & that most people will be compensated if not over compensated (and this is not limited to those earning under $80,000) and that it starts July next year. It has already committed itself to these outcomes before they know the basics.

No cost on the price of CO2 output.

No indication of how the scheme is to be administered from the taxing the companies or the compensation of households or trade exposed industries.

No indication of how much it will cost to administer.

No indication of how they predict CO2 cuts are to be distibuted across sectors of the economy.

No policy!

Without formulating a policy the government will now be seeking talks with the Greens & independants to pass this thought-bubble.

Cont.
Posted by Piston Broke, Sunday, 5 June 2011 2:52:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is ironic that the government has put all it's eggs in a market based mechanism (or in Rudd terminology, a "neo-liberalist" approach). Especially given that a closer inspection of the Australian CO2 output landscape shows a very mixed probable response to a carbon price set initially set at around $20/CO2 tonne.

The EU has a CO2 trading scheme that is currently around $23/CO2 tonne. Their experience has been that they have been able to stabilise their CO2 output. Unfortunately the CO2 embedded in what they consume has actually increased by 50%. The reality is that CO2 production has been outsourced to the emerging economies. Many industries such as cement production are likely to be forced offshore.

Electricity generation is particularly problematic. We see it as a basic utility. The demand is relatively inelastic. Yet the price of $20/CO2 tonne could actually increase the production of CO2. This is because of the price signal will also undermine the value of the capital asset for coal fired power station operators, increasing the cost of borrowing. Forcing companies to increase profits by producing more electricity at the lowest cost per kW which will still be by burning coal as opposed to gas. The medium term effect will be to decrease investment in lower CO2 producing plant and to increase price inflation for electricity
Posted by Piston Broke, Sunday, 5 June 2011 2:54:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Piston-Broke' - I guess the lack of details is partly due to the government's insistence on a drawn-out consultation process. The down-side of this is over a year of uncertainty and speculation which is hurting them every day it goes on. Only successful implementation will see fears put to rest.

Re: the cost of borrowing; This is another argument against privatisation (as referred to in the article) - and the increased costs of private borrowing are passed on to consumers in the context of privatised utilities....
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Sunday, 5 June 2011 8:02:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sorry I meant "level the playing field" before...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Sunday, 5 June 2011 9:32:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan;

If you cannot show any reduction in the range of views expressed in our “concentrated media” ownership, across the very wide range of policy topics you have nominated, then we are left with just your opinion. That’s OK, your opinion is as valid as the next.

However, you drew an “assumption close” that your unsupported opinion was a factual problem and set about solving this problem with punitive measures against the offending media which “trivializes” or fails to support your political views.

I know just how long you agonized over the choice of wording in your reply and why. When asked to evidence your assertion you say;

<<Media concentration does not "in essence" and unavoidably lead to dominance of right-wing perspectives.>>

You were looking for a phrase that avoided quantification. You could have simply said, “not always” or “sometimes”. But that draws the response of OK, tell us about the sometimes? Not only did you come up with the qualitative expression “in essence”, you also told us how pleased you were with your choice by putting it in parentheses. Dumb and dumber.

I did caution you in advance that fabrication has nowhere to go but more fabrication, once you start it gets trickier.

Your second paragraph tells us that even though this effect does not always happen (?), that you “contest it has occurred in Australia.” Really?, based on what?

In summary this non existent problem, that you cannot evidence, but you wish to complain about, because it trivializes your political views, is not acceptable, even as a non existent problem, you contest that it occurs in Australia and we should stamp it out through re-regulation and financial penalties and if the last vestiges of freedom of the press refuse to support you, we should “take ‘em out”.

OK?

Thank you for staying engaged long enough to expose your real meanings, not every author is that gracious.

I for one look forward to your next totalitarian complaint and will read it with interest. I’m sure OLO’ers will also enjoy reading you, like a book
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 6 June 2011 4:50:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc,

I see you're enjoying your game here; I think sometimes you read too much into the specifics of my expression; So to be specific - I think Newscorp does overwhelmingly present right-of-centre perspectives - very often decidedly right-wing perspectives. Often it is blatant. The lack of alternatives does impinge upon the principle of pluralism - In that sense it is a danger to democracy.

You talk about press freedom. I am *not* in favour of censorship. But what has it to do with 'press freedom' if one corporation can buy up most of a nation's print media? Do you think Berlusconi in Italy should be supported in his virtual monopolisation of media interests for the sake of 'press freedom'?

This is a very strange and warped conception of 'press freedom' you have there...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Monday, 6 June 2011 6:27:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Tristan, we know what you think about Newscorp, you’ve been venting your spleen at them consistently. The criticisms you direct at them could equally be levelled at say the ABC by those who do not share your political perspectives.

What you need to do is to show that your complaint of reduced opinion is indeed true and is caused by limited media ownership.

You can protest your opinion on this and it will be accepted as your opinion. If on the other hand you want it to be the factual basis for changes to regulation or imposing levies upon our media industry, you need to make a case and you have failed to do so.

I’m confident you can keep avoiding any substantiation of your case and I have already shown why and how you do this.

Answer the questions you created
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 6 June 2011 8:31:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan;

<< I think sometimes you read too much into the specifics of my expression; >>

It’s called scrutiny Tristan.

80% of Green voters support the CO2 Tax
60% of ALP voters support the CO2 Tax
30% of Coalition voters support the CO2 Tax.

Conclusion 1, 60% of Coalition supporters are Denialist, Flat Earther Bogans.

Conclusion 2. On average, 70% of support for the government comes from ALP, Greens and Independents who believe in conclusion 1.

Complaints against the ABC from Greens 5.
Complaints against the ABC from Coalition 940.

I think your case against Newscorp just fell in a big hole.

There are dozens of threads on OLO that also cover the issue of complaints against the ABC, perhaps you could “cut and paste” these into a more comprehensive attack on Newscorp?

Your proposals in relation to our media are not based on politics at all, it’s theology. It is going the same way as all theologies when challenged, more theology, more complexity, more confusion and ultimately, more doubt.

Your methodology for dealing with “crumbling and threatened” theology is following a very precise and predictable model, that of the Reformation. You are not deviating one iota, it is great to see. It also predicts just as precisely what you have to do next. May I give you a clue?

“So much Catholic credibility was lost through the Cathar campaign that it had to be publicly “justified” and “explained”. It was of course all the Cathars’ own faults for not “understanding”, but the Catholics did accept responsibility for their failure to “engage” with their populations to “explain” the orthodoxy (dogma) that the peasants were expected to follow.

In modern terms this is synonymous with wrecking your “brand image”. To fix this you have to either launch new branding or start selling hard.

A sustained effort was made to “educate” the masses by forming and dispatching the “Teaching Friars” (Media and Politicians) in the form of a new Order called the Benedictines, whose job it was to engage the communities through local meetings (Citizens Assemblies and advertising).”
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 9:13:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc;

Different interests will fight it out for influence in the ABC like any other locus of cultural power.

When Howard was in power he enacted a witch-hunt against 'ABC bias'.

But in reality even the ABC remained fixed on the 'broad relative centre' - although probably more friendly to the Coalition than before. Truly Left opinions didn't get that much of a look in - and still don't.

What really matters is pluralism in the final analysis. If most of the commercial media is biased against the Left would a degree of bias in the ABC matter, or would it be a correction? Howard wanted the ABC to be 'objective' but didn't seem to think this ought apply to commercial media... He also removed tax free status from charities who dared to disagree with him - so so much for 'free speech'.

The point is that we all need to be genuine about pluralism and participation, not just the 'winner takes all' mentality.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 11:58:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK Tristan, you get to have the last word.

Mine is; WHAT?
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 1:21:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy