'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....

sorry I meant "level the playing field" before...

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

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...

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

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).”