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

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