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 > It really does matter who you are, and where you come from > Comments

It really does matter who you are, and where you come from : Comments

By Leslie Cannold, published 28/12/2006

Lobbyists should disclose their agendas, allies and paymasters.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Feminists are quick to scream foul when people with differing opinions join 'their' organisations, however they see nothing unethical about cherry picking 'statistics' and 'facts' to bolster their arguments.

It is not as though feminists have always declared their allegiances when lobbying, or when taking up public positions. How many employers are conscious of the invisible networks they are signing up for when they recruit a feminist for a job? What about feminists who do not declare a conflict of interest up-front when they pursue jobs in public agencies that handle (say) education, families and children's policy? These are targets of feminists, right? Should a feminist who believes that marriage is an archaic, patriarchal institution devised by men to enslave women not dedclare those beliefs prior to seeking a job as a counsellor to do with Family Law?

Returning to the main source of complaint of the author, I might not agree with the policies of anti-abortionists however I also do not agree with the unethical stance of feminists that abortion is the sole choice of the woman and the father should have no expectation of being consulted.

Ethics is always subjective, but it does not have to be one-eyed.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 28 December 2006 11:54:07 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
Correct but there is always 2 sides of the matter.

people are told and expect to be told everything not just that, that is only the parts they they want us the people to hear.

Also refering about feminists well they do have problems but have also chosen to take a more robust path.

It is not up to what i would say as the bible on an altor to make descisions for the people but the people and when it comes to oneself that is your right and not somebody elses belief to tell you what to do.

Religion is what some of these problems comes down too and when this opposes the rights of an individual re oneself then that is unlawful.

So in the end to this discusion all facts should be presented and the author told but media should give all sides not just their agenda approach
Posted by tapp, Thursday, 28 December 2006 12:22:48 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
tapp,
I am sure on this occasion you are incorrect, or are you saying the good people like the Packers and the Murdochs really set the agenda as to what we are told and what we are not told.

And that sites like OLO are essential if the common man are to be heard?
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 28 December 2006 12:37:54 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 problem now is that journalists themselves are no longer abiding by their code of ethics. Maybe they should preface their articles with the studies they undertook at University to see whether they have been programmed to join in the current liberal anti-West chant. They are increasingly becoming irrelvant, helped along by the internet and blogosphere. We can seek out information across the globe ourselves and join the dots just as well. Cos you know, we're generally all better educated now.

Cornflower, you are kidding aren't you, or do you need some HRT? So any woman who considers herself a feminist, whether she is active or just a regular gal, must at her job interview give details on the general philosophies she holds. Well, maybe guys should be made to tell their bosses about the porn they watch to determine the degree of misogyny they have to see if they are suitable to work in a mixed workforce? To have parental guardianship over their children, especially girls? How far do you want to go with this, Cornflower. Get over feminism, it's well over you.
Posted by chrisse, Thursday, 28 December 2006 1:58:37 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
chrisse,
I think you will generally find both journalists and Editors know what their wealthy bosses want them to report, even the ABC is changing now to suit the Liberal Party appointments on the board, it's a sad world if you want independence and honesty in your news services.
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 28 December 2006 2:20:02 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
Leslie is apt and correct. Ingrained bias rules politics and the more covert the group the better they are at getting away with it in a democracy.

I cannot see how Howard could survive his children overboard and WMD’s and support for the dinosaur industry of nuclear power without the media spinning for him. This begs the question, why do the media do it?

There is much innuendo that corporate sponsors of the Liberal party were the drivers behind Howard’s unsustainable AWA’s. Wether or not that there is truth to that lobbying can create reputations for all companies and individuals donating to political parties, smearing the innocent. Still the question remains what could motivate a donor to a political party other than the expectation of something in return? Especially as there are many needy people in the world which the dollar could benefit more. Famed are the church agenda groups posing as abortion and prenatal councillors.

All such things are anti democratic and serve to undermine democracy.

Steps to clean the practice require an independent regulator to track political donors and lobbyists and match the speeches and corporate policy activities with that of not only the ruling political party but all active political parties. The independent regulator should have the power to request ministers, or even the Prime Minister himself to be sacked and prosecuted if it appears the government panders to sponsors and lobbyists.

Organisations should by law publish preambles on their websites and published documents and any form of advertising outlining who they are and what their explicit agenda is.

Such measures would give security to citizens, certainty to investors and credibility to governments.
Posted by West, Thursday, 28 December 2006 2:30:55 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
SHONGA, this is true and I know you'll also share my concern about the increasing control over western media by the Middle East, where they are buying into the various media, including I think it's either Reuters or AP.

Scary times, which is why we as individuals must seek out for ourselves the information from as many sources as possible to use our own minds to determine our attitudes and beliefs. We should be grateful that we are no longer reliant on our own MSM for this and have the internet and blogosphere available.
Posted by chrisse, Thursday, 28 December 2006 2:32:36 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
I notice the author is silent on who funds her own Centre for Gender and Medicine. Probably us long-suffering taxpayers, again. At least the people who finance the IPA and its ilk do so knowingly and voluntarily. I resent being compelled through taxes to finance the full-time propaganda machines that shelter in academia. Perhaps we could debate the ethics of that, one day.

More seriously, I agree to an extent with the author’s point that we should know where people are coming from and how they are financed. But in contemporary debates, these things are more likely to be given too much weight, not too little.

Ideologues of both right and left tend to dismiss counter-arguments simply by virtue of who is presenting them or who they represent, most typically in ad hominem attacks on the messenger, appeals to authority, and association fallacies (“Hitler supported animal rights, and the RSPCA supports animal rights, therefore the RSPCA is a fascist organisation”) – all forms of logical fallacy.

The main issue in any policy debate should be the quality of the argument and evidence presented, not the funding or character of the presenter.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 28 December 2006 2:41:19 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
Shonga

I must have turn left or right somewhere if you got the wrong impression.

I have been told out there that there is no other choice in politics but after writing to newspapers and that did they report the choice of the Australian Peoples Party even though not yet registered no on your life, this is not part of their agenda and to packer and murdoch they run the media agenda and we only read what they want us to hear.

So realy the media should be unbiased and there should be laws to be able to protect the people from untruths and what is realy happening.

Even here on OLO you see the factions bringing up facts and figures on how each party have been better but now solutions to the problem.

I myself am not a academic and even though my spelling is not correct at times it is what i am feeling is what is happening to the people and why i get angry.

Overall people will accept what they are told as many are brainwashed into a certain fold and it doesnt matter how much corruption and deciet is brought up and shown to be truth they dont care and until they start to care things will not change.

I am not her to give you a load of crap and that is how i have been brought up and also my respect from being ex army which gives you that sense of mateship and patriosm which people dont like to here but it is what i fell and with what i am trying to achieve is to find the problem and solve it.

I couldnt care less if you sit in a safe , minority seat that is just bull Sh#t party agenda bull if there is a problem at least we will fix it and be looking at the future.
Posted by tapp, Thursday, 28 December 2006 2:47:40 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 enjoyed this article. While not really saying anything new, it did articulate a few of my own concerns about the nature of money in politics.

I, and many people I've spoken with over the years, find something unsettling about our political parties and "private" think-tanks being funded by large corporations. Two good examples are the NSW state government, which received in excess of $650,000 in 2004/2005 from developers, and the so called "competitive enterprise institute" in the US, a think-tank specialising in pushing (mis) information about global warming, which is almost completely funding by oil and energy utility companies. These groups are not dealing out cash for the sake of it. They are buying something with their money. This perverts the democratic process.

For those who are interested in where the money comes from, here are two good sites. The Greens democracy for sale:

www.democracy4sale.org/

is good for tracking the flow of cash to political parties, while source watch:
www.sourcewatch.org/
gives a good background on think-tanks and political figures

Now, a quick rant about some of the comments on this article. Please address the issues raised in the article. A few posters seem to have gone of on tangents about feminism, despite the fact that the article does not address any particular feminist topic.
Posted by ChrisC, Thursday, 28 December 2006 2:54:30 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
chrissie

Your abuse shows you are on the defensive against against anyone who would question your view of 'feminism'. On the other hand you would 'love bomb' anyone who agrees with you. That is the way of some modern feminists I guess.

I do not agree that feminism is best served by presenting a united front at all costs. The theories, values and beliefs of those feminists who claim to represent us should be tested and be revised or discarded if found wanting.

I suspect and I think quite rightly so, that the theories and opinions of some of the feminists penning articles for OLO are quite different and probably alien to most Australian women. To give an example, very few women would honestly believe that false paternity is merely a 'discrepancy' and men should be trained and 'encouraged' to accept financial responsibility for any of their partner's progeny wherever the female partner chooses to 'label' them as a 'parent' [not 'father', of course].

Likewise I would be confident that few women would ever be in a position where they were unsure, through frequent illicit, overlapping encounters (combined with failing memory), just who was the father of their child (so presumably the one with the best prospects for $$ might do). For whom are these 'ethics' framed? Not for the general community surely!

To my way of thinking feminists should be inclusive, frank and above all, honest and forthright in their dealings. If that sounds old-fashioned to you then so be it.

So it is reasonable for me to ask for feminists to clean up their own backyard ethically speaking before challenging others.

Anyhow what is so wrong about women with (possibly) differing opinions joining the groups mentioned by the author? Is feminism so fragile that it cannot withstand some alternative opinions or do all who join organisations that (reputedly) represent women have to first pass muster with an inner sanctum comprised of a self-appointed feminist intellectual elite?

One of the features of Western feminists is their intolerance of tolerance.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 28 December 2006 3:06:25 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
Nik, Of course it matters who you are and where you come from. People have likes and dislikes that are groomed by environment and culture.

The biggest problem is that there is this push to not differentiate and to see everybody as the same no matter what.

This takes away our freedem of choice.

Everybody is not the same and we shouldn't have to see them as such. We should have the right to discriminate so long as we show all due respect.

It is when discrimination is borne out of malice or spite that it is a problem and guess what, discrimination fueled by malice or spite is not against the Law. Only discrimination in relation to certain things are agains the law. I cant help but wonder who designed these laws and who they were trying to protect?
Posted by Jolanda, Thursday, 28 December 2006 7:11:12 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
Transperancy is the proverbial 'take two asprin and call me in the morning' for the various diseases of our political system. When the banks can buy Alan Jones without repercussions and Howards appoints a (previous) chief scientist who keeps right on working for Rio Tinto, then knowing who the pimp is becomes of merely academic interest. Democracy is dead, stop fiddling with the corpse. (ps. this comment is probably illegal under new Sedition laws - QED).
Posted by Liam, Sunday, 31 December 2006 4:06:38 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
Goodness me, anyone actually read what the author wrote? A few have but most have concluded what the topic is before reading as far as I can tell.

As Rhian has written "The main issue in any policy debate should be the quality of the argument and evidence presented". I wish! Not a quality used by many here, or on most web sites, blogs and media. All of it actually.

For those who doubt the effect of the media (and media control itself) on the population's opinions could I ask you watch the movie "Outfoxed" before commenting further.

Leslie asks if it matters who or what any media report etc is motivated by. That is the question everyone should ask before considering what is written. Until that question is answered any quality of argument or presentation of facts is irrelevant.

Tapp points out that media coverage is limited, covering only those they wish to. It would seem he is right. The exception is for someone to become an irrestible media target as Pauline Hanson was, and is. To actually say what you think, and believe. Right or wrong that gets attention but usually the "let's demolish this before it becomes a big problem" kind of attention. As instructed, as opposed to the worthiness of what was said or done.

In that regard the current attitude is to totally ignore any small group unless they can be demonised and ridiculed. They don't bother until there are nervous signs from Canberra.
Posted by RobbyH, Monday, 1 January 2007 3:42:49 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 author throw her net wide, however the following two paragraphs from the text appear to outline the key concerns she had in mind when drafting the article:

“Well-known anti-choice activists and several women with links to Opus Dei recently became directors of Women’s Forum Australia, which asserts feminist grounds for opposing the drug regulator’s control over RU486, transparent advertising requirements for pregnancy counselling organisations and stem cell research." and

"The Coalition Against the Decriminalisation of Abortion seems like a new pro-life grass roots organisation, but shares a mailing address with Catch the Fire Ministries. In its first year of operation, Cadoa found about $34,000 to fund anti-decriminalisation newspaper ads.”

Taking the first example, what would be the ethics of rejecting the ‘several women’ directors on the basis of suspected religious affiliation? What is the point of enforcing a monoculture for board members (if this is what the author wants) and how would this affect the accountability of members of boards?

Taking the second paragraph quoted, there does not seem to be any evidence of wrongdoing or misrepresentation. In the commercial world mail addresses may be shared, organisations diversify and directors can sit on many boards. At least in the example given, the ‘offshoot’, if indeed that is what it is, seems to be quite above-board in that it is allegedly doing what its name implies it was set up to do. What would the author have this organisation do differently, accepting that there cannot be one rule for organisations she dislikes and another rule for the remaining organisations at large?

I have no interest in the organisations quoted above, my objections are based on practical reasonableness alone and I cannot imagine what remedies the author might propose for the two examples quoted.

Itis desirable that journalists and others could disclose more often what interests they represent, however the lessons of history show that it is the black arts of clever rhetoric and propaganda we should be more wary of and no writer or orator is likely to disclose it when he/she is reaching into that bag of tricks.
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 1 January 2007 11:21:06 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
Cornflower
"“Well-known anti-choice activists and several women with links to Opus Dei recently became directors of Women’s Forum Australia, which asserts feminist grounds for opposing the drug regulator’s control over RU486, transparent advertising requirements for pregnancy counselling organisations and stem cell research." and

"The Coalition Against the Decriminalisation of Abortion seems like a new pro-life grass roots organisation, but shares a mailing address with Catch the Fire Ministries. In its first year of operation, Cadoa found about $34,000 to fund anti-decriminalisation newspaper ads.”

The author is demonstrating the dishonest strategies the superstition industry engage in. The abortion debate is a good example as pro-life (an oxymoron) organisations employ deceit, fabrication and character assasination in their quest to gain power to dictate to the non-superstitious how they must live.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 8:50:14 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
I don’t buy the concern about the innocent man in jail because black people have been the victims of injustices for years without too much concern from the white man.

In the real reality of White man’s law the 100 guilty men that will be freed will probably be white and the innocent man in jail will be black.
Posted by Jolanda, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 9:10:37 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
Jolanda,
So you're a realist, arguing against red neck extreme right wing capitalists I wish you luck, please remember logic and common sense was a concept of the 20th century. Now they do what the Cornflours do, just rabbit on with any old nonsense which makes neither sense nor logic, but keep going lady your doing well.
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 11:02:28 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
West

What about the ethics of sledging without evidence? I reckon this was an elaborate and sneaky way to sledge some women who were recently (?) appointed as directors of WFA. Where is the supporting evidence for the assertions? If you were a director of WFA do you think this allegation could reflect on you?

At the same time, another hated group came in for a cat swipe on flimsy 'evidence' as well.

Where are the ethics in any of that? To my way of thinking it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from, spin is spin and it is equally unwelcome coming from those who would regard themselves as being on the side of the angels as from those they cast as devils.

Ethics is not a cloak that is donned or removed to suit the target and occasion.

Again I feel I must add that I have no interest in either of the bodies discussed.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 11:52:11 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
Cornflower I see your point and can only add that articles or essays are venues for information or points of view which only allow broad strokes. I regard what anybody says is just the tip of the iceberg.I guess from that the name of the game is to evoke interest to motivate the reader to investigate further. We as the audience can investigate claims ourselves. Some may choose to not bother which is their right. Personally a quick indication of why is sufficient. Reports, books or chapters or tv and radio documentaries of course are the exception which require indepth discussion.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 12:09:31 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 have been unfairly demonised and/or turned into a joke by the system in order to cover up serious allegations that my family have made of systemic victimsation and discrimination aimed at my children.

I recently got told the following:

"Try and focus on how long you have been feeling that you and your kids have been "wronged". You no doubt have cause for feeling that way but where can it end? You now have a Premier with your name on the "laugh" list. And your children's names too. Don't you understand that?"
Posted by Jolanda, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 12:58:22 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
Cornflower I understand feminism being the right to be paid the same rate for the same work as the man next to you. 40 years ago women in australia earned 66% of the male wage and could not be permanent public servants. In the 1920s women were not paid for work.

Yes I am annoyed that the catholic Church is being paid to run counselling services _ i am appalled that the contract was actually awarded to an overseas outfit, Kinross. For goodness sake our graduates leave Australia because there is no work, so why does the government waste taxpayers dollars lining overseas pockets.

Yes its important to know that groups with environmental names are actually fronts for forestry lobby groups or big tobacco because these groups have been set up to expressly change public opinion and make people doubt the truth of what they know.

Like many Victorian teachers, nurses and child care workers who are called out for casual work at one hours notice - I am appalled at the country's embrace of labour hire companies who send jobs overseas, hire in migrants and leave our home grown graduates with no choice but to migrate in search of work. This activity will do more to destroy the cohesiveness of the family than anything else.
Posted by billie, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 4:56:50 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
Oh well done Jolanda. I wrote that comment to you a couple of days ago via your website, where you did not have the guts to publish my comment(s). I notice you have now done so after telling me you would not publish them. Did you find advantage in publishing after refusal?

And do try and read the whole message, not just the bits that suit your paranoia. My sole interest, as you know fully well, is the mental health of your children.

Why have you excluded that from my comments here on OLP? You know why and so does every other reader here. Simply it doesn't suit your purpose does it? Whatever that may be as you certainly do not put your children's health above your obsession(s), in my opinion.

Why did you not publish your own response to my first comment on your website? You have since published a response but it is not the one you sent me by email. Should I publish that here for you?

What is a laugh list? It's an expression Jolanda. It describes the reaction large organisations have to repetetive complaints from someone on a sole topic over many years. It's what exists in the imagination of the person complaining, no one else.

You should also state that I have not questioned the validity of your problem(s) as I have not. My interest, repeat, is in the mental health of your children.
Posted by RobbyH, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 2:23:12 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
What a load of Crock Robby You challenged me saying that I would not post your post on my blog and, in that first instance, for some reason I didn’t. I usually do I guess nobody has ever challenged me like that before. At that point, instead I replied to you, after I replied to you and you responded I decided to post your post, if people read your response they will see why I posted your posts- http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/

That your concern is my children’s mental health is a load of you know what! If children are being systemically victimized, neglected and discriminated against and it is causing them harm and impacting on their mental and emotional health it isn’t the best thing for the children if the parent ignores it and does the same.

This is not in my head this is real and I have the evidence to prove it. My children stand tall because I fight for their rights. If you really cared about my children you would agree that the serious allegations and complaints needed to be investigated, not covered up, so as to be resolved and so that my children can feel safe, validated and vindicated and could move on with their life without discrimination and fear and so those that are abusing their power can be made to answer and held accountable.

You like everybody else is protecting the guilty adults.

Feel free to publish what you like the post was pretty much identical and it is a free country.

Oh and it really does matter who you are because if you are not rich enough to buy respect and if you happen to be of dark background nobody believes that you deserve respect or rights
Posted by Jolanda, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 9:25:57 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
RobbyH - can I suggest that you take the off topic discussion out to the general forums. You should be able to create a new thread there and put a link to it here for those who want to follow it.

Now for the article.

I broadly agree with the author but do wonder how realistic it is to achieve a useful disclosure by those who want to hide an advocacy role.

How detailed does a persons bio have to be to tell the reader what really motivates the author? We are influenced not only by professional roles but also by our own personal history and to some extent by our relationships. Can a bio ever really cover that stuff adequately?

If I want to know how much weight to give an authors words on a topic I'll often do a search for other work by the same author (or the group from a known affiliation).
- What else do they write about?
- Do they have a history of advocacy on the same topic?
- How fairly do they deal with their opponents arguments (do they use strawmen tactics in their arguments or unbalanced selective quoting)?
- Do they show evidence of giving honest consideration to the alternative viewpoint on the topic in question?

Looking for the answers to questions such as these may be of more help than a carefully controlled list of affiliations.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 9:50:08 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
Hi RObert,

Many apologies. Of course I went off topic and should not have, regrettably I needed to respond to Jolanda as her interpretation is innacurate and out of context. I also do not hide from what I write. By the way it is Jolanda, not I, that introduced this issue here, as she says herself. Enough Jolanda.

But it is actually quite a valid example of knowing who is saying what, and why, is it not? Which demonstrates the ability of some to muddy the waters, divert attention and so on. In this topic Jolanda sought to turn the topic to her and her troubles. Sorry I responded at all mate.

I have no intention of responding to Jolanda further, here or elsewhere as good intentions are misinterpreted.

Peace to her and her children. By all means read Jolanda's website/blog.
Posted by RobbyH, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 12:17:13 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
West said: "articles or essays are venues for information or points of view which only allow broad strokes."

Not so, brevity enables a skilled writer to be even more disciplined.

In this case the author is a highly educated academic and wordsmith who drew the two examples from fields in which she claims considerable professional expertise.

Is it wrong to expect that academics should model independence, fairness and balance when going to print?

You should give the author credit for being very skilled in rhetoric.

It really doesn't matter who the persuader is or where he/she comes from, it is his/her skill in in the black arts of rhetoric that we should be most cautious of.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 1:04:08 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
Yes Cornflour , I am just very tolerant about it. The level of amount of detail in an article is all in the end about personal preference. Obviously some broad stokes can be too broad. I dont like to get hung up on prose as the information I would like from an expert is the useful information and not the fancy bits.

This contradicts the spirit of the article but a well balanced article can say nothing. In the debate of 'do pink elephants fly ?' do we have to put foward the pro argument in depth when the only valid point is that there are no pink elephants ? Should I have added flying to pink elephants?

I get the authors point
Posted by West, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 1:23:01 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 the end justifies the means and where it suits us it is quite OK to discriminate because of alleged religious belief?

Also, it is quite OK to decry one company/organisation for doing what others do as a normal part of their business?

We cannot very well criticise the alleged lack of ethics of others if we 'flex' our ethics and fairness in doing so.

Thank you for your responses and I think we will have to differ on this one.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 2:38:56 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
Cornflower you can find discrimination in everything I think its an issue of where to draw the line of corruption.

Nobody expects mining companies or banks to be self regulating thats why tax payers form democracies, so that government can perform that role. The bias is still there , it is biased toward the well being of the nation.

Religions discriminate on the basis of religions and gender and sexual preference and constructs of superstitious ritual and codes. This is why when Tony Abbott handed over power over womens lives to the Catholic Church it results in a trainwreck of destroyed lives and a boom time for misery.

The key is awareness and to act upon it responsibly.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 4:26:16 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
Ronnie Peters. The suburbs. Represents self.

My ideas are so good and wise that the anti-feminists and others (who disclose very little and often hide behind non-de-plumes) take to making up and imagining all sorts of irrational things. These things often betray their true prejudices, lack of temperance and hatreds. Who needs a bio?

Now where did I put my broom stick, zinc cream, copy of Mein Kampf, dolpin-shaped sex toy (who needs man)and my chardony? Have to rush my lattes are ready.

And yes of course my carton of Guiness for the one who I like to live vicarously through - what is my/his non-de-plume?

Happy New Year and keep working on those insults
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 4 January 2007 3:33:01 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
Yeah, I was interested to see a number of posters launch a tirade against this piece on the basis of feminism.

The article isn't about feminism. Yes, Cannold is a feminist - and she's listed her affiliations at the bottom. What she's calling for is greater transparency. Are you arguing with that?

You can disagree about abortion - but this article isn't about abortion, so pick a more relevant thread.

It's about disclosure. Something I feel is important in a society that is placing more and more emphasis on spin.

So... who should be made to disclose their funding and affiliations?

And... who shouldn't be allowed to receive donations at all?

I think for a functional labour party, we need to have less funding from the unions, perhaps then they can get back to the issue of wage regulation which they seem to have confused with unionism.

Ditto for the liberal party and business.

I don't yet know what the alternative here is - perhaps some kind of system where promotional funds are distributed on a membership/seat basis. Better yet, a system where there is already a set media platform for this kind of activity outside of paid advertising.

I can hear the shrill fears of communism getting ready to rise, though I happen to think there are ways of increasing government involvement without these fears.

Back to disclosure - politicians should always have the highest standards of disclosure. When they nominate at the ballot, their entire lives should be open for scrutiny. There are more people I can add to this list, but I'm sure there are other posters who can continue in that vein.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 4 January 2007 4:55:47 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
TRTF

When you read the author's affiliations at the bottom of the article you possibly noted that she is a spokeswoman for a particular organisation.

If you look at the web site for that organisation you will find that she needed to go no further than that to find a good example of what she is complaining about. There is no disclosure of the individuals and entities supporting this organisation and the reader is left to wonder if it is only one individual with a fax machine or something more.

So what about the ethics of the pot calling the kettle black?
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 4 January 2007 6:24:08 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. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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