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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

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