Given Labor's unrelenting attack on the free press, freedom of information and attempts at internet censorship, I am not surprised.

As the author says, freedom of the press is not absolute, giving rise to real dilemmas about finding a balance.

While there are obviously threats of government censorship which need to be opposed, my sense is that this author ignores the other side of the equation (perhaps understandably given his association with journalism). This is particularly important in the days of large corporate media (see the British News Ltd hacking episode).

Is RSF concerned about the quite explicit attempts by media owners to influence events through their control of media companies (see the recent moves by Gina Rinehart)?

If not, they should be.

Its interesting to note that bastion of freedom of the press and free speech the United States of America finds itself in 47th position just behind Taiwan and South Korea.
The biggest danger to a free and open media in Australia is the concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few mega rich individuals who's power to influence public opinion is far to great. To have a well informed society we need a good mix of public and private media, we don't have that in Australia. Quality journalism mostly gets lost between the shock jocks on radio and the 30 second grab on the 6 o'clock news on commercial TV, too many Australian get their new this way, not a healthy outcome to create a well informed society. Having said that we do have some quality journalists both in the print media and on TV mostly ABC, unfortunately they are not herd often enough to have a deserving impact on Australia.

Paul,

Australia's ranking dropped under labor with no change to press ownership.

Who has the biggest % of media ownership? Consider that press is only a small section.

Newscorp only owns a few newspapers, that they have become the most popular and purchased, is because they do the best reporting.

Shadow Minister has his fact wrong again, but hey what's new. If News corp. only had news papers then most of the papers they own would have been shutdown a long time ago. Instead they could afford to run many of their papers at a loss and kill off the opersition. News corps "Australian", Australia's only national paper is run at a loss still and has done for a long time.

Back to the Author, I think Australia’s drop in the Jurno's international ranking, is a reflection on the very bad state of affairs in Australian journo-lie-ism.
In their race to the bottom of advertising dollars all media in Australia has gone downhill. I can't think of a single journo operating in Australia at the moment, every single one of them are ambulance chasers looking for the next News of the World headline story.

Kenny,

You got your facts wrong.

Where did I say Newscorp only had newspapers? Reading not your strong point I see.

The few Newscorp papers in Aus grew the 70% market share from very little through good reporting.

It seems ,from comments from GODO, Paul and Kenny that a real threat to quality journalism might be a lack of reading comprehension among the the great unwashed. Of course, I am assuming that each of these respondents actually read Mark Pearson's explaination of the derivation of the RSF ratings.
Chaps, it is not about who owns what as much as the freedom of the media to report with factual integrity without government intervention or oppresive legal restrictions if you happen to offend someones elses personal views.
Transparency has not been the first priority for Governments in Australia for the last few years -so we shouldn't be surprised if others have noticed a decline our Press Freedom in Australia.

If SM says it's for reasons of good reporting, means it's one sided approach makes for good reading. Distorted facts, and biased opinion.
Stories that are cut short, or repeatedly repeated. Newspapers need to be restricted to press releases, only. As soon as it is touched by human hand, a natural bias takes over. Even reporting of parliament, takes on a swing, all depends who gets the kick backs i suppose.

It seems to me that there are two very important points that emerge from the article. there are undoubtedly others, but I want to comment on just two.

The first point is the observation that Australia is almost unique (in fact I don't know any other example) among nations generally listed as "western democracies" or a similar rubric that has neither a Bill of Rights or a constitutional guarantee of free speech. We need a serious debate on that deficiency.

The second point is the one of self-censorship; that is, where editors avoid publishing informed comment on a range of issues. The reasons for that are manifold. They include fear of ridicule (subscribing to so-called conspiracy theories) or, much more common in my view, simply avoiding topics because an honest appreciation goes against the received wisdom of those who hold the real power in our societies.

There are literally dozens of examples. The US Project Censored website is illuminating to say the least. Currently we are being subjected to a barrage of misinformation about, inter alia, Iran's alleged nuclear program; the unrest in Syria; and the Fukushima nuclear contamination.

Another common failing is to omit to provide context or relevant information. One example suffices. There was much manufactured shock/horror over Russia and China's veto of military intervention in Syria. Not one newspaper bothered to print the history of American vetos in the Security Council where they (the US) vote against the overwhelming weight of world opinion, as with Palestine motions, or removing the embargo from Cuba.

If Australia is to move up the rankings of the WPFI then there is a great deal to be done.

SM, Rupert's big 3 Melbourne's Herald Sun, Sydney's Telegraph and Brisbane's Courier Mail outsell The Australian by a factor of 10 to 1. They attract those that want to know if Blockhead is playing for the Wombats this weekend, front page news. When the reader has checked out the big news about Blockhead they are then told on page 2 how Julia bits the heads of chickens, when she's not ruining the country,they then proceed to tell you this is all taking place while dear Tony is tending the sick and needy of Calcutta, before he thinks of new ways to save Australia. All in a days unbiased reporting. At least the story about Blockhead is true.

I love a good index.

Even better an index from a Think Tank.

Actually I love a good think tank!

Just like Gittins' happiness index and the consumer confidence index, I see it as useful as trying to compare Tendulkar to Lara. Or even Bradman for that matter.

Still it brightens my day when I hear Kohler tell me that consumers are feeling confident. I think we all should feel confident. I anticipate eagerly the day when someone rings me and says 'Houllie, how confident do you reckon you feel today?'.

I'd say about an 8 out of 10, lock it in Eddie!

Then if I one day get a business, I can even be rung by the business confidence people. I reckon I'd just answer them with

'Well, I'm the backbone of the country, and these new regulations are killing me man! You just don't appreciate how hard it is to run a business. It'll cost jobs I'll tell you, I won't be doing everyone a favour forever if it's gonna cost me! I'm the heart and soul of the country, and if I have to fill out a new form I'll have to cut staff! Have you seen it out there, we're going to the wall, you ain't seen nothing yet! All for doing the country a favour. And being the backbone. And being misunderstood. And unnappreciated! Like my staff I suppose, but they're not the backbone like me and I'me doing them a huge favour and they'll never understand how hard I've got it and how if I have to fill out a form I have to make one of them redundant because they're killing businesses. I'm losing confidence baby! I'm losin' it and it's gonna cost jobs! You ain't seen nothing yet!'

Unbiased reporting to me is reporting the truth. Just because Tony Abbott says we have the worlds biggest carbon price, does not mean it is true. The unbiased reporter should check to see if this allegation is in-fact true, before he puts it in print. Two days ago Tony was told in parliament by Mr Rudd , we do not have the worlds biggest carbon price, and backed by figures. Tony has ignored this information and is spruiking deliberate lies to the media. Now read from the top again.

579, The vote has been taken in Australia, well not actually in Australia, as most of the voters were overseas at the time and Abbott and his Coalition cronies have been elected the new government,a return to normality, the natural way of things etc. The trouble is Gillard and her cronies wont vacate the premises. The vote was unanimous 3 nil Big Mining, Big Club and Big Business all voted for Tony and his bunch. All the right wing media is doing at the moment is passing on the 'good news' to the rest of us. That's how democracy in Australia works. If universal suffrage made a real difference as to who runs the show, we wouldn't have it, the born to rule class would soon make sure of that. Every now and then the voters, all 3 of them, allow the Labor Party to take hold of the reins, as Labor are normally a compliant mob who don't rock the boat, its not much of a problem, besides its good PR. However, they soon grow tied of Labor running things as deep down some of them, just a few, still have a bit of a social conscience, which the voters thought had been completely snuffed out. We can't have people like that making decisions, next thing you know they will do things for the benefit of the other 22 million Australians, at the detriment of the voters, all 3 of them, and we can't have that, can we?

579,

Please name one country with a higher carbon tax.

SM You can watch the replay of parliament and find out for yourself. Freedom of the press, Does that mean it's ok to tell lies to the public without question.
The innuendo and lies have gone on long enough, it's time all noalition supporters took a good look at the real coalition and seen it for what it is. It consists of negativity and talk down the economy. That is not the role of opposition, that is the role of terrorists.
Joe Hocky's budget has a 70 billion dollar black hole, and he admits he made a mistake. I hope that was in the paper also. You can't have treasurers making mistakes.
Tony says 3 days ago the economy won't be in surplus for 5 years, and now he says it will be in surplus in one year.
What sort of a leader is that, one that can-not make up his mind apparently.

For 5 cents, Lock in Botswana Eddie. SM do I get the bickies? Who cares we must have a carbon tax, for all the right reasons. Its all pandering to vested interest like Big Coal and the big polluters. Help save the planet SM before its to late.

This is a seriously problematic article.

Despite the headline: 'Explaining Australia’s fall in the RSF World Press Freedom Index', there is no valid explanation offered at all, is there?

Yes, we get this: "there were five simultaneous government inquiries into news media regulation at the time it was being compiled [which] sent a message to the international community that ... the Australian government and its agencies were entertaining tougher regulatory measures."

So what will be the findings of those inquiries? What "tougher regulatory measures"? We do not know. Until we do, it is unfair to pre-empt them.

So, some questions for Mark Pearson:

1. What submissions did you make to the RSF to assist them in downgrading Australia’s ranking?

2. Can we see them please?

3. Who else from Australia made submissions to assist the RSF's “expert qualitative judgment when making the final determinations of a country’s comparative ranking”? This is vital information in the interests of freedom of information. It should not be hard for you, Mark – Australian correspondent for the past six years – to provide these.

4. Mark, why do you write: "The Federal Court’s ruling that hate speech laws should trump free expression was of concern when a judge ruled Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt breached the Racial Discrimination Act in his criticisms of fair-skinned indigenous people”?

Did the judge really say that? At what paragraphs in the judgment?

5. Have you actually read the judgment?

6. Do you agree that the judge found that Mr Bolt's articles were riddled with accusations that were “erroneous”, “factually inaccurate”, “without factual basis”, “factually incorrect” and “grossly incorrect”?

7. Do you accept that the judge actually ruled that expressions of opinion are perfectly valid, but that blatant falsehoods should not be published?

8. Did the judge say “Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance” or not?

9. Do you actually teach this appalling misrepresentation of the Federal Court judgment at the university?

10. And finally, who funds your position at Bond University?

Thanks, Mark.

More questions when we have answers to these.

Cheers, AA

Alan you ask

8. Did the judge say “Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance” or not?

Of course lies are part of the equation but there is evidence - see link below - that conservative ideology is at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance, and this evidence is backed up by the ignorance and prejudice of the right wing commenters on this site.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187

The authors of this research, "found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology.

A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact."

So it probably isn't worth the effort to point out the logical inconsistencies that constitute the emotive and irrational basis of the nonsense that the right continue to provide as support for their opinions; they just don't have the cognitive ability to understand reality.

The emotive basis for their deluded ideas is explained by research - link below - published in Current Biology, which using MRI brain scans shows that Liberals - that's US liberals not our own not-so-liberal party - have more grey matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear.

So much fear out there in bogan land!

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/04/08/3186006.htm?topic=

Before you go flashing that research around Mollydukes you should check out this critique of your first paper. http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?s=bright+minds.

You should also ask yourself if the correlation holds true why it is that the least intelligent electorates tend to vote left-wing in Australia. (Not sure if the correlation holds true in the USA, but suspect it does in the UK.)

The fascist left are on the move trying to pathologise any group that disagrees with them. Not only has history shown that this sort of outgroup prejudice is wrong (it is frighteningly close to phrenology which was used to justify racism), but it must be resisted by anyone with a respect for the human race and civilised discourse.

The two papers you cite are part of that movement.

Sure Graham as with most social psychological research, the results of the questionaire study are open to criticism and alternative conjecture, but the Briggs article does not present any real argument as to why the study is wrong in it's conclusions

Consistent with confirmation bias, it is my experience that right wing people are racist, it's how they and I know that they are right wing. The study provides a reasonable scenario for the mechanisms that would lead some people into the stupid types of thinking that are so prevalent on this forum.

Do you worry about the many sad people here who are so fearful of women, homosexuals, athiests, black and yellow people - oh and probably purple and green ones also - fearful in fact of anyone and anything different from them or what they know and understand? And the fear renders them angry and abusive.

But do I detect the beginnings of a trend toward denial of the psychological science? You have perfected the art of deluding yourselves and your 'stupid' followers that climate scientists are all lefties with a point to prove, and now you are out to get the psychological researchers. Pffft

Graham, did you notice that the right is now making up another bogeyman to be scared about? The fascist left! For goodness sake, don't get sucked into conspiracy theories.

Mollydukes, the Briggs article is pretty comprehensive. The psychologists work is not transparent - they don't have a definition of "conservative" or "liberal" that is apparent in the paper. I've read it. Perhaps you haven't.

Because of the size of the sample the p values tell you nothing useful either. So it's poor research. And it doesn't cross-check with reality.

If intelligence is such a good predictor of ideological preference how is it that the left-wing parties in the English speaking world rely on people with lower IQs for the bulk of their vote as inferred from the demographics from which they draw this vote.

I would never belittle someone's intelligence because they have a different political point of view from me. Apparently in the social sciences that is OK.

As for fear, if you want to see fear, have a look at all the paranoid left fantasies about various conspiracies to control the world by class or capital, the latest manifestation of which is a tsunami of op-eds condemning Gina Rinehart because she bought some shares in a media company, which has been preceded by a tsunami of concern that Rupert Murdoch tells us all what to think, even though most of us don't get our news from him.

>> If intelligence is such a good predictor of ideological preference how is it that the left-wing parties in the English speaking world rely on people with lower IQs for the bulk of their vote as inferred from the demographics from which they draw this vote. <<

An "intelligent" society is measured by how well they look after the most disadvantaged in that society.

As far as the "paranoid left" goes, I would have said the 'Lord Christopher Monckton' and his followers were somewhat more paranoid:

>> Until we crack that one both in the UK and Australia, we're going to suffer the disadvantage over against the more libertarian, right-thinking people in the United States who have got Fox News and have therefore got things like the Tea party, and have therefore at last put some lead in the pencil of the Republican Party…You have the business people explaining how the free-market concept in business works every day and reaching thousands of millions of people around the world on Fox News. And let's be clear, that's still the way to do it. <<

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/08/fox-news-lord-monckton-australia

bonmot,

Agree!

I said this before on another thread, but I'll say it again....Fox News is a cheer-squad for the Republican Party masquerading as a news outlet.

Graham,

You appear to overlook the fact that much U.S. right-wing support comes from an under-educated white underclass who seem happy to consistently vote against their own interests...the "fear" factor triumphs again.

This thread is neat little study.

First Mollydukes:
<< ...conservative ideology is at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance...>>>

And,

<<Do you worry about the many sad people here who are so fearful of women, homosexuals, athiests, black and yellow people - oh and probably purple and green ones also - fearful in fact of anyone and anything different from them or what they know and understand? And the fear renders them angry and abusive>>

Then he goes off to talk about "Bogan land"
And label rightwing people as racist, ignorant & prejudiced.

Nuffin abusive or hypocritical about that -- no siree!

Then Bommot (enters, stage left--he always seems to enter from the left!)
Having just used terms like <<Discount Monckton>> " & <<Gina-money>>
And criticized "Quadrant and the Murdoch press" for rightwing bias.
He quotes from that paragon of balance, The Guardian!

Nuffin ironic there--no siree!

Then Poirot (following Bonmot-- in "what light through yonder window breaks?" mode)

<<bonmot,

Agree!>>

(well, Surprise, surprise)

<<I said this before on another thread, but I'll say it again....Fox News is a cheer-squad for the Republican Party masquerading as a news outlet>>

There is of course no cheer squad quality to Poirot following Bonmot around applauding his posts -- no siree!

Boy, I'm glad I’m just a mild mannered neutral observer!

I should probably point out that this thread is about the slide in Australia's ranking in the World Press Freedom Index.

I commissioned the piece because I saw the RSF media release but couldn't work out how they had drawn the conclusion they had.

Mark's article now gives me some understanding of it. I'm however not sure that the drop is warranted. However I do agree that media in Australia faces a threat to its freedom from various government inquiries, motivated by a desire to control what and how media reports.

I think I would withhold any downgrade until I'd seen the outcome of those various inquiries, but it is a very unhealthy sign that they've occurred in the first place.

SPQR,

Well, you may be right - there's so few posters around here with whom I find agreement.

Talking about following others around.....

I suppose I should be flattered to have you tagging along deconstructing my posting habits. Every time I turn around lately there you are offering a first class critique (or should I say a flippant put-down)...don't get out much, eh?

A few quotes by one of America's better presidents, Franklin D Roosevelt.

"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education."

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward."

"It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach."

"It isn't sufficient just to want - you've got to ask yourself what you are going to do to get the things you want."

"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds."

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

All I can say to our conservative brethren is come out of the dark, cast off your fears and enjoy the light.

Journalism is perceived in australia as to being of very poor quality. I personally hardly ever watch the commercial stations. I do watch ABC and ABC 24hrs. I see it as left wing slanted. However as I know that I believe I can sift the weet from the charf. I get most of my news from the internet- The guardian,various blogs and news sheets,New York Times and so on. My impression from my grandaughter who is doing journalism at uni is that the teaching is very left wing orientated. Of course its usual for uni professsors to be left wing so nothing new there.

The reasons for the downgrade of Australia's ranking put in the article do not seem adequate, particularly as diversity of media ownership (greatly lacking in Australia) does not even get a mention. The Bolt case judgement (despite the carry-on by Bolt and others) has nothing to do with media freedom. There is some argument that Bolt's victims should have taken him to court using defamation laws, rather than laws concerning racial prejudice - they certainly would have won the case using defamation laws - however the facts remain that Bolt's factual errors concerning his victims were egregious and glaring. The case should have told the media to check facts before going to print, even in a so-called "opinion" piece. Sadly, I don't think this lesson has been learnt, and we are burdened with ever more opinion in Australian media masquerading as "news". This phenomenon, along with a lack of diversity in media ownership, are ongoing threats to press freedom in Australia, much more real at present than any mooted internet censorship by the Federal government (which hasn't happened, and hopefully won't).

I was totally off topic Graham and you have done well to ignore the provocation and get the discussion back to the issue.

I'll just make a couple more points on the issue of IQ and racism and hope that you will publish something in the future that will provide an opportunity to discuss this issue in more depth.

The way I see it, the problem is not with the low IQ; the problem is with the conservative ideology that makes it easy for low IQ people to be lazy in their thinking.

As you say, IQ can and does change over the lifespan, and so it would be a good thing if people try to use whatever intellectual apparatus they have been given and in that way grow their ability to think in a more nuanced way. Leftist ways of thinking do require more complex reasoning and a more rigorous type of evidence.

The really good thing about this researh is that it will force you right wing people to understand the problems with your conception of IQ as an explanation for the differential between white and black success, as presented in that really stupid book "The Bell Curve".

When you have understood how useless the idea of IQ is, as a measure of man and his achievements you will then be able to move on and become better people and the world will be a better place.

Oh and have you noticed that not being racist is one of the things that distinguishes our western ideals from those of the 'less evolved' 'races' who are so very racist.

One last question; Graham do you still believe that the aboriginal people practiced cannibalism and that they have a lower IQ than we white people? I remember having a discussion about this issue way back before OLO was like it is now.

Mollydikes asks: "One last question; Graham do you still believe that the aboriginal people practiced cannibalism and that they have a lower IQ than we white people? I remember having a discussion about this issue way back before OLO was like it is now." There is ample writings on this. My ancestors who were early settlers told of the practice. It was a spiritual practice. If a babe or infant was a burden in the struggle for survival then it was dispatched and the mother would eat it. Thus consuming the spirit of the babe so it could be born again at a later time. Also 'Daisy Bates' writings have been denigrated by the establishment, however she had a wealth of knowledge among aboriginals that was far and away above modern day anthropologists.

The issue of banning free expression because it cause offence has gone too far. People should not be prosecuted for for raising genuine issues just because it touches a raw nerve.

The Andrew Bolt case is a prime example. The issue of individuals claiming aboriginal status (and the financial perks that go with it) with the most tenuous connections is a legitimate issue. That Bolt handled it badly does not change the issue that his rights to expression are being trampled on.

This combined with Labor's assault on the media is why we are falling in the RSF index.

Bolt was just plain wrong. There is no issue of "rights of expression." To inform yourself on the issue, however, you have to read articles not published by Bolt's then-employer. Like this: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/in-black-and-white-andrew-bolt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html

Always, when analysing news or opinion peices, you need to look at the money trail - who owns the media, who is being paid by who, what boards are people on etc. I wonder sometimes how the "debate" on the original mining tax would have gone if the media back then had noticed that Andrew Forrest's Fortescue Mining Co had not paid any tax for 7 years? It would have put some things into perspective....this is exactly where the media is failing us: giving us the facts: instead we get uninformed opinion and the whinging of opinionated rich tax-avoiders, with no analysis and no information on the money trail.

JJ,

Bolt made factual errors, but that is not what he was prosecuted for, If he had made no errors, the judgement would still have applied.

That the topic had a racial element, effectively makes it potentially criminal to discuss.

SPQR

What actually in the link don't you agree with:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/08/fox-news-lord-monckton-australia

Perhaps you prefer this view:

http://www.readfearn.com/2012/02/monckton-rinehart-and-a-plan-to-capture-the-australian-media/

Gina Rinehart has an agenda to push and is increasing her influence in MSM - she is prepared to pay, big

.

SM

Yes, Bolt does make "factual errors", all the time. He also makes stuff up.

>> That the topic had a racial element, effectively makes it potentially criminal to discuss. <<

So don't, nuff said already.

Either way, neither Bolt nor his employer appealed the court's judgement.

Though I've been fond of calling the phrase "intellectual left" a tautology, I'm uncomfortable with pegging intelligence quotient to an ideological spectrum. To begin with, we don't begin to understand what intelligence is in any objective sense; iq tests are a tendentious measure and intelligence can take myriad form. While I'd love to assert that conservatism is tantamount to ignorance, one need only read Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolutions in France" to ascertain that conservatism can be both eloquent and compelling. Moreover "fascist left" is a completely legitimate term. As the historian Eric Hobsbawm has argued, it was the popular uprising of fascism that supported it's emergence between the wars, after the great slump, and hardly the aristocratic movement it's so often associated with. We are seeing a similar movement around the world now; a puerile fascist mentality reacting to the need for economic austerity. and manifesting as intolerance and xenophobia generally. Indeed this is the common ground of Left and Right, only the Right is in the minority. It's the popular Left, the Labor bogan, who's the worst racist, the most jealous of his job, the most pro-protectionist, espousing the socialism of fools, and it's the savvy rightwing aspirant that courts it.
When all's said and done it's surely impossible to substantiate any other interpretation since the genuine conservative is a tiny minority in Australia's banal class structure.
Before the research can be quantified, Mollydukes (and I'm taking a plunge as I haven't read it) terms like IQ, radical and conservative have to be defined.
Back on topic; the media is surely a barometer of popular sentiment, rather than a measurable index of the objectivity or freedom of the press, and Australia's fall in the freedom index is a reflection of popular sentiment rather than the media. It seems to me we're in danger of becoming a country of petty fascists, with Dick Smith and Harvey Norman as our statesmen.

Bonmot,

Here's a few I picked up from a cursory reading of your link:

i) The heading: <<Australia reacts to Lord Monckton's call for a 'Fox News' funded by 'super rich'>>

No. It wasn't "Australia" reacting --if you read the article it was GETUP and a few of its political allies.

ii) <<The reason why Rinehart's "media grab" is so feared in Australia...>>
Again. What evidence do they have that her action(s) are "so feared in Australia"

iii) << Get Up! ("an independent, grass-roots community advocacy organisation which aims to build a more progressive Australia")>>

ROFL -- Note the favorable & unreal presentation of GETUP!

iv) << I played a small role in this video going viral.... Within a few hours...Graham Readfearn had spotted my tweet... His blog was then quickly reposted on DeSmogBlog. And then again on ABC's The Drum>>

So it's Ok for left leaning sources to work together to manipulate opinion.It's Ok for the ABC (& it derivatives like The Drum) to carry only pro-AGW news but should Monckton talk of a new media channel, or Rinehardt take 15% of Fairfax the sky is falling!


v) <<But, thankfully, a copy had already been secured and Get Up! posted an edited version on its website. Get Up! emailed its members asking them to "share the video with friends".>>

What was that again?
They posted an EDITED version!

Vi) << she's using that wealth now to change our media landscape and our nation's politics. Ms Rinehart may believe she has the power and the wealth to take over our media without facing a fight>>

This is sheer distortion--real alarmist stuff, right up there with Peter Garret's 6 metre sea rises!

The below's a more realistic appraisal:

"Buying up to 14.9 per cent of Fairfax makes her a major shareholder on a widely held register, but nothing more. She may agitate for a board seat, but Fairfax has a long tradition of editorial independence. The views of individual shareholders amount to diddly-squat on the editorial floors of the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Australian Financial Review"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/gina-rinehart-cant-buy-a-voice-at-fairfax/story-e6frg9tf-1226260016987

I see why you think that way SPQR.

Perhaps this will make it easier to understand mine:

http://theconversation.edu.au/the-online-test-for-media-inquiries-4100

If that didn't work, then this (lengthy but worth the read)

http://theconversation.edu.au/turnbull-lectures-on-the-crisis-of-newspapers-and-the-opinion-epidemic-4634

Wait, those are from an 'intellectual' site that you wouldn't dream of going to.

That's a pretty nasty backhander LeftHander (Mollydukes). At no time have I ever speculated on the IQ of Aborigines as a group, let alone asserted that it was lower than other races.

I have said that Aborigines practiced cannibalism and my authority for that is A History of Australia by Manning Clark. I think I may even have defended Pauline Hanson on that point.

Now, to get back to the debate, I think there are a couple of things that have come up which illustrate problems with the media, although again, I wouldn't use it to regulate them. One of those things is the lack of research.

When I saw that video from GetUp I contacted one of the people who was there - wasn't difficult they had his name printed on the video. He referred me to a blog post that he made about the meeting at the time when it happened. You can read it here http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/07/01/an-evening-with-the-stars-at-mannkal/.

So no conspiracy, just a group of Libertarians discussing dead Austrian economists and a little bit of tub-thumping by Monckton before they head off to a pizza parlour.

The other issue is that bodgy research about intelligence and conservatism. Some good points have been made already, but one that hasn't is that for a large percentage of political scientists, perhaps the majority, conservatism isn't even an ideology, it's a tendency. A good demonstration of that is that Edmund Burke was at one stage a Tory (Conservative) but at another a Whig (Liberal).

There are a lot of others that could be made, but again it makes you wonder why no journalists have been poking around doing stories on this sort of thing - or at least none that I have seen.

I doubt whether the people of low IQ would be hanging around with Monckton, Champion et al discussing Austrian economics, yet it's Monckton Champion et al who many on this forum would think of as "conservatives" even though not many conservatives over the last 400 years would have regarded them as such.

BM,

Your comment:

">> That the topic had a racial element, effectively makes it potentially criminal to discuss. << So don't, nuff said already."

Says it all. You have completely missed the point of the thread.

Shadow, like SPQR - your attention span is limited to short, snarkey and snipey soundbites.

Ok, if you want to play that way - read this over your bowl of Coco-Pops:

http://theconversation.edu.au/turnbull-lectures-on-the-crisis-of-newspapers-and-the-opinion-epidemic-4634

Turnbull is correct.

Perhaps it's too early SM, but do try and connect the dots.

Bonmot,

It's a bit rich that someone like yourself who has either argued directly, or implied, that the media should filter out anti-AGW opinion.
Should now try to position himself as a champion of media diversity/plurality!

It's rather like a wolf running for the position of sheepdog.

BM,

I also agree with Turnbull, but not with you. The issues regarding quality of journalism is important but separate from federal laws criminalizing discussion of certain topics.

Journalists should be held accountable not to publish factual inaccuracies, but should only be held to account when what they say is proven wrong not simply against majority opinion. Otherwise only prevailing opinion would be permitted. For example the holocaust is a fact, whilst the scope and effects of AGW are subject to a wide range of opinion.

Freedom of expression means that opinions should be allowed to be expressed without censorship, and that banning of publications should only be limited where there is direct harm such as child porn, and DIY bomb making etc.

Your history on this issue would indicate that either you don't understand the issue, or simply would prefer to curb dissenting opinion.

Squeers
The intellectual left and mainstream psychology have always questioned the use of IQ as a useful measure of anything, except for diagnosis.

Who knows why the Canadians psychologists decided to undertake this effort – perhaps it is an underhanded method of ‘forcing’ conservatives to make the effort required to understand that their reliance on IQ as an explanation for white ‘supremacy’ is flawed, as it surely can be used to denigrate their own supporters.

It seems to me to be a good thing that they did venture into such a murky and controversial issue, as conservatives are now rising to the bait and having to acknowledge that there could be a problem with a lot of the IQ research that they have used to justify their behaviour.

The information I have about the MRI study that shows differences in brain ‘shape’ does not indicate that this researcher is involved in any conspiracy to discredit conservatives.

"The research was carried out by Geraint Rees director of the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience."

"It was commissioned as a light-hearted experiment by actor Colin Firth as part of his turn guest editing BBC Radio 4's Today programme but has now developed into a serious effort to discover whether we are programmed with a particular political view.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brain-shape-shows-political-allegiance-271822

So Squeers ‘facist left’ may be a completely legitimate term, but there is no evidence that such a group or movement is at the bottom of these two publications as Graham, using his amygdala rather than his frontal lobes, suggested.

As you said, the labor bogan was courted by the right and they abandoned ‘the left’ during the Howard years; so now they belong to the conservative right.

But who knows what a conservative is these days; historical analysis is useful but conservatives need to clarify what they believe in and how they can reconcile the divide between the two parts of ‘the right’; libertarianism and conservatism.

On the subject of "bogan mentality" - what ever exactly that is, here's an article by Joe Bageant on what he terms is the pervading "cultural stupidiy" that has been cultivated in modern America. Bageant comes from the sort of small-town, flag-waving environment that is particularly susceptible to the sort of thinking he criticises. He's been dubbed a "leftneck" because of the contrast between his roots and his ability to critique it from ouside.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/12/america-y-ur-peeps-b-so-dum.html

I always love a thread that features bogans!

'Leftist ways of thinking do require more complex reasoning and a more rigorous type of evidence.'

That really had me falling off my chair!

Is it a more complex reasoning because it is so hard to twist the facts into the ideology and explain away their contraditcion with common sense I wonder?

It strikes me that kind of statement is very ironic when the topic at hand is the arrogance and 'blindness' of the right. Was it just me or were people also bashing Fox News while quoting The Guardian?

Squeers,

' the media is surely a barometer of popular sentiment,'

That's always been my position.

When it comes to the media, I don't care who owns what, because the market decides what the content is. People generally read what will reinforce what they already believe. I remember reading a gloating article by Gerard Henderson after the 2001 election, explaining the daily life of a left wing Greens/Alp supporter, reading the Herald and New Matilda, cycling to work from Surry Hills, it was quite an amusing characature. But he had a point, in that these people were left absolutely gobsmacked that the coalition won because everything they read and everyone they met reinforced their opinion about, oh, something like... 'Leftist ways of thinking do require more complex reasoning and a more rigorous type of evidence.'

Which brings us to the Bogans. Those bloody bogans are 'happy to consistently vote against their own interests'? IS it possible to be more arrogant than to thnk you know what's best for people.

What amuses me is the left knows what's best for bogans, but doesn't think the right knows what's best for aboriginies, and cant see the double standard.

Maybe aboriginies require more complex reasoning than bogans.

Houellie,

My point was in reference to that particular section of the U.S. populace known as the "working poor" who consistently vote for the Republican Party. This party is equally fervent in its ardour to exclude said "battlers" from access to affordable health insurance (or, God forbid, a universal healthcare system - it's communism by stealth, you know). These are the sort of people attracted to the Tea Party.

That is only one example.

But hey, you're right - after all, it's a democracy over there, aint it?

The best democracy money can buy Poirot.

Affordable health insurance comes at a cost. Perhaps the working poor believe the cost isn't worth it. Perhaps they want the option to not be taxed more so the even less well off can have health care and they cant afford a new plasma. Perhaps they rather the Armed Forces plan, and they are happy with fighting for the American way and the social currency that comes with that.

I always believe people act in their best interests. Even people in abusive relationships do. They actually want to be controlled, because they would rather not take control.

A bit like the populace. A lot don't want freedom. They want the status quo. They want to have an enemy who's taking their jobs, and they want to be proudly nationalistic.

The left wants to 'enlighten' them, but they don't want to hear it. The right wants to 'enlighten' aboriginals to the benefits of not sniffing petrol all day, but the left wants aboriginals to be masters of their own 'culture'. Somehow, the Bogan's culture of cars, ACA, smoking drinking gambling and voting for the coalition because of Boat People isn't worth preserving. They must be re-educated to cycle to work in the city from Penrith for environmental reasons and start drinking Chai Latte's to be considered worthwhile members of society. And start voting in 'their' own interests of course.

I find these two areas very contradictory.

It must be all about self-flagellation.

Oh dear Houellebecq, aren't you just so well read and intellectual!

I'll stick by my assessment that understanding leftist ideas does require more complex reasoning and a more rigorous level of evidence than is required by conservative ideology.

The most stupid thing you say among all your rambling thoughts is "I always believe people act in their best interests. Even people in abusive relationships do. They actually want to be controlled, because they would rather not take control."

You've been there eh? You've been the victim of an abusive relationship and that was how you responded?

Pffft you are overreaching your current ability to reason and/or you are not familiar with any of the psych research. But hang on, you don't need any research do you? You are just so intelligent and have such insight that you know how abused people think and what motivates them.

There is a payoff dukes. Some kind of emotional payoff for staying in that situation. It might be disfunctional, but they are getting something. There is part of the ego that thinks that is what is best for them. So who is to argue with the individual in that situation. They will leave when they decide the alternative may be better than the current reality.

I suppose you know better than the individual in that situation?

Some may fear being alone, some may fear parental disapproval that their relationships don't last, some may think that's how people show love, some may think they are mother theresa and think they can change their partner.

My point is, at some level, they are working for their own interests. Something is doing it for them. Even if it's a sadomasochistic streak, they are doing it because they are getting something out of it and that something is better to them than the alternative. Like a smoker chooses instant gratification against peace of mind about their long lasting health, that is the decision they are making. Actions do not lie. Self-justification and wallowing in self-pity are a mere side-show to the obvious truth of actions.

Ever hear people complain about their relationships, they would do something if they didn't like complaining so much. Such is the life of martyrs. I have no time for them.

I've never been accused of being well read before! Fascinating. What an appalling insult! But then I am accused of NOT doing research too. Maybe I am reading the wrong books. By intellectuals perhaps. Perhaps you put too much credence in what intellectuals think, or somehow want to be 'intellectual' as an ends in itself, an image, but cant quite pull it off in your own mind. It seems to be making you angry regardless.

Fear not, my ego is based on other things, so such insults really do me no harm. I realise most people on here are looking to out-intellectualise each other, but I have long mocked this phenomena.

The press and old days of broadcasting cricket are linked. When the action is not there you make some up, continuity of supply.
So nothing has changed and never will, not while you have human hands pushing the pen.

Houellie,

You know I've always enjoyed your "mocktualisation"...still waiting for you to write your book (if you don't consider it too intellectual a pursuit?)

Mollydukes,

Given your contention that you need a higher IQ to understand leftist ideology, why then do the more affluent professional areas vote conservative?

Your reasoning is based on a statistically horribly flawed study by a couple of pseudo intellectuals.

Mollydukes,
I agree that radical/critical thinking takes more intelligence (and courage) than conservative thinking, much more. The trouble is that most leftist thinking isn't radical enough, or radical at all. It's a supplicatory mode of cringing reformism that can't get it through its collective head that concessions won (concessions to genuine equality, and not gay marriage etc.) are only granted during the good times, while the voracious nature of the beast stays the same, but placid. The problem is there is no popular support for genuine change and the vast majority of left and right are conservatives. The so-called left cohort are content to push their various hobby horses and identity politics and flatter themselves they're radicals. The truth is that for the last five decades while the ostensible slow revolution has been eagerly prosecuted by its progressive leftist misfits, the doctrine and reality of neoliberal economics has gradually gained the ascendency. The small l left is like a petulant child that is indulged and and spanked by turns, and it's naive confidence waxes and wanes accordingly. The popular left and right are effectively the same and share a collective brains trust. I despise them both.

SPQR

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Bolt and Monckton are good opinion writers. However, as Turnbull lectures, some people can't discern the difference between opinion and fact – something lost on SM by the way. Indeed, the distinction was one of the Court's findings in the 'Bolt' judgement.

.

Yes Shadow, journalists should be held accountable not to publish factual inaccuracies. Yet, this was what Bolt did. Neither Bolt nor his employer appealed the Court's judgement. Just because your opinion differs with the Court's does not make the Court's judgement wrong, or your opinion right.

There is a wide range of public "opinion" about AGW, especially given the increase in access to the World Wide Web - as Turnbull stated. However, that does not make that public “opinion” right – despite how much you might want it to be.

The vast majority (97%) of scientists who study, research and work at the coal-face of climate science say the planet is warming, human activity is a significant component, and it would be prudent to do something about it. Even a real “climate sceptic” like Roy Spencer differs from Monckton’s “opinions”.

Yes Shadow, people like Monckton (claiming AGW is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated by humankind) and Abbott “it’s crap”, and you, deliberately distort and misrepresent facts to bolster their own ideological agenda.

Freedom of expression infers a responsibility to tell the truth, not to make stuff up – as both Bolt and Monckton are wont to do. Unfortunately, as Turnbull also pointed out, there is an obnoxious growth in the perversion of truth and a concomitant deference to “opinion” – regardless of the truth.

Yes Shadow, opine all you like. However, that does not make your opinions right, something of which you seem incapable of understanding.

By the by:
>> Given your contention that you need a higher IQ to understand leftist ideology, why then do the more affluent professional areas vote conservative? <<

Non sequitur Shadow, typical of fallacious reasoning based on logical fallacy.

BM,

Now you are confused on the facts. That Bolt got some facts wrong was not the main issue in the court case, even if he had all the facts correct, he could still have been prosecuted for causing offence.

If you are going to include politician's utterances, you could include Juliar's no carbon tax promise, Labor's promise not to touch the health care rebate etc etc.

Mollydukes et al,
allow me to draw your attention to this specimen of Australia's state of journalistic enlightenment, and OLO's editorial rigour: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13238&page=0

Dearest Shadow

You accuse others of going ‘off thread’ but are quite willing to engage in that tactic yourself – the epitome of hypocrisy and the strategy of someone ‘losing it’.

The real Shadow Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, gave a speech about “The future of newspapers: is it the end of journalism?” and you have the arrogance to call it off-topic “utterances”.

Ok Shadow, you are from the 'extreme right’ (explaining much of your virulent OLO rants) and Turnbull is much more moderate (centrist if you like) but please, show some "intelligence" and give him the credit that is due.

SM, you may want to dismiss Turnbull’s “utterances”, but he is correct (and on topic) when he says the MSM, op-eds, shock-jock ‘journalists’ (Bolt and Jones being prime examples of Monckton’s front line) and ‘opinionaters’ like yourself, are becoming more shrill and shallow.

Of course, this is ostensibly due to 24/7 sound-bites and the 'dumbing-down' of the masses by the ‘stuck-in-the-muds’ and power control freaks who will say anything to gain 'office'.

Turnbull is correct – we are in desperate need for real fact-checking investigative journalism. The likes of Monckton, Gina and their fellow travellers will make it more difficult and no doubt will/has contributed to a lower RSF press freedom index for Oz.

.

Poirot

At the risk of being accused of agreeing with you : )

“I for one am in favour of giving Assange the Médaille militaire, the Noble Prize, 15 virgins in paradise and a billion in cash as a reward for his courage in doing damned well the only significant thing that can be done at this time -- momentarily fracking-up (profanity removed) government control of information.” Bageant.

At the risk of being accused of disagreeing with you:

Abbott & Co has moved more to the 'right' (Tea-Party-esque) and the Greens have forced Labor more to the left. I would posit the only way to move-buzz-word-forward is to meet in the middle. Rudd tried, Turnbull tried. They both got knifed, methinks we're in for a very uncertain future : (

BM,

Are you delusional?

"you have the arrogance to call it off-topic “utterances”"

I said no such thing.

I wasn't even referring to Turnbull's article rather your references to snippets from other politicians comments on global warming. In fact I said I agreed with Turnbull.

I would firmly place you with the looney left. The Don Quixotes charging at imaginary foes.

Bonmot,

Je vous demande pardon (& all that baloney) I know it's impolite of me to intrude on your cooing session with Poirot, on valentines day ;)
But I'm sure you'll get back to it as soon as I've said my little piece.

Re: <<Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.>>

It is fact that (in some locales) years 1-5 have shown an increase in average temperate.
And it's an opinion it is due to AGW.
It's also an opinion that we can ameliorate it by reducing CO2 emissions.
But it's a blatant beat-up, that when the X family who chose to clear the mangroves & settle on a low delta in Bangladesh gets washed out, it's all due to AGW.

I'll give you one thing though:there would be no "uncertain times" under your tutelage. You'd leave us with no uncertainty as to what we could read & hear.

But heck, look at the upside: Our media would no doubt get a five star "world Press rating" ...from The Guardian ...or GETUP...or one of the other little leftist (group) think tanks!

You have literally and figuratively lost it, Shadow

You are delusional if you think I refered to "snippets from other politicians' comments on global warming". I did not.

The only politician I referenced was Malcolm Turnbull.

Sadly, you are not imaginery - as many of your OLO foes would attest.

.

SPQR

I find your comprehension skills very disturbing.

When will you get it through your thick head that it is NOT all due to the anthropogenic component!

Natural variability (noise) does play a part!

Pouring billions of tons every year of a GHG into the atmosphere does have an influence on climate (that is the signal).

The component due to human activity is now a signifcant component, but NOT the only, component.

For your particular stupid edification, science is not absolute (there are uncertainties). However, there are those (of your class of ignorance) that won't take any action on the science unless it is "proven" 100 percent!

Your ignorance of that fact is telling and is a blatantly stupid and dumb position to hold, SPQR!

If you want to play like you know science, go back to school and learn some basics, go to university and do some catch-up, then do some post-grad in the specifics and then, get a job and work in the field for a few years.

As it is, you don't have any credibility where it counts other than displaying your ignorance and your unintellectual opinions on an opinion site. But go ahead, show us all, you're entitled.

Here's a tip: don't get your science from the blogosphere or your favourite MSM shock-jock to justify your own ignorance - it shows, BIG TIME.

Please show me, Bonmot, where in my last post --or any other, I have implied that you believe it is all due to the anthropogenic component?

Please show me , Bonmot, where in my last post --or any other, I implied that the science needed to be 100% certain –ON ANY ISSUE?

It would appear that it is you who suffers from a comprehension deficit --or, perhaps, it’s just a age related memory issue!

On the other hand, Bonmot, have been a long term cheerleader for bodies who push the proposition that ever breeze and ripple is the result of the anthropogenic component!
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13002
As I pointed out to you before –if you can remember it – you can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hounds!

You do science no favors by feigning to speak on its behalf. Fortunately, you are in no position to arbitrate as to what is scientific and what is not. You are little more that a political groupie seeking to use science for your own ends.

PS: Thanks for the careers advice –I might take it up, after I finish my current masters.

Hollie I will apologise for my tame insults; you touched a personal nerve and hence my amydgala overrode my ability to reason in a complex and nuanced way.

I spent a number of years in a relationship in which I was abused so I can certainly refute your self-serving analysis which appears to absolve men of any responsibility for their violence.

I spent many years as a research psychologist and still keep in touch with the field and and colleagues and I am not impressed by 'natural' psychologists like yourself, who believe they understand people better than 'academics' or even 'practitioners'.

It is very depressing to think that with all the evidence available these days to show that human are essentially irrational and motivated by a great many impulses that are not amenable to rational analysis.

Your claim that 'underneath it all, we do what we want'; it is on a par with the one that says 'we all have a choice'. What rubbish, there is absolutely no evidence that people do make free choices or do what they want; most people don't even know what they want.

I've not the time or interest in educating you and it is your responsibility to use the resources of the internet to educate yourself, before you come out with any more of your folk psychology nonsense.

Mollydukes,

I do enjoy your insights...however, I think you underestimate Houellebecq's innate ability to cut through the cultural bullsh!t most of us trot out from within the confines of our softly padded cells.

Thanks for the memories SPQR

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13002&page=0

Unless you are a sock-puppet, you obviously did not contribute to the thread.

Thanks Poirot,

I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I will get to the book at some stage. In the fullness of time. At the appropriate juncture.

Mollydukes,

I have no 'responsibility', to do anything but state my opinion. Is it, perchance, a responsibility to you? To society? To myself? Do tell. It's sad that you found yourself in an abusive relationship, but that's irrelevant to my argument. Certainly I would love you to try and prove how one would infer that giving responsibility to people for choices somehow equates to 'absolve men of any responsibility for their violence'

Leaving aside the fact that both men and women can be violent, I made no mention of the responsibility of violent people. It seems that you have decided to make this a personal matter and projected your anger about this onto my good self.

Regardless you seem to be the one absolving people of responsibility ...

'there is absolutely no evidence that people do make free choices..'

I make free choices all the time. I often times take stock of the reasons for those choices too. It seems to me your theories are all about wiping away any responsibilities 'victims' have over their own lives. I say victims as you definately seem to think abusive men have responsibilies.

Ah that wonderful cry of 'Blaming the Victim!'. Well, I reckon labelling yourself a victim is a sure fire way to experience being a victim for the rest of your life, and taking away any power you have to change your circumstances.

'who believe they understand people better than 'academics' or even 'practitioners'. '

Au Contraire. My point is that the individual is in the best place to make any calls, no matter how much your lot would wish to profit by telling them what's best for them. Does my independence threaten the demand your lot attempt to create for your services?

Since in your opinion I don't have free choice, I cannot fulfil this responsibility you have thrust upon me to indoctrinate myself with views more to your liking.

BM,

Caught in a Lie?

"You are delusional if you think I refered to "snippets from other politicians' comments on global warming". I did not."

What about your previous post:

"Abbott “it’s crap”"

OOPS

It appears that not only do you have trouble reading my posts, you also forget what you have written.

If you don't feel like a complete idiot, you ought to.

To Hollee-beck, I do believe that we all have a responsibility to seek the 'truth' (truth is defined as a horizon value that science can and does strive toward while acknowledging that there is no absolute reality) and to make the world a better place, if only by our own actions.

Perhaps your problem is that you hang out with too many of those low IQ, right-wing types. So that because you are clever and you have been 'right' many times when 'analysing' them, you think that you can generalise this to the entire population?

You rely on your nous too much. You really should get a first year psych textbook out of the library and check it out.

Check-out this site; read the research from the people who do it, not the science 'journalists'.

http://researchblogging.org/post-search/list/tag_id/226

Poirot, he might be an okay bloke but he does go on about nothing and spends a lot of time and effort jumping to conclusions on the basis of his own assumptions, and ignoring the point I was making, or tying to make.

Here are a couple of articles you might enjoy

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-science-of-success/7761/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/navigating-love-and-autism.html?_r=3&pagewanted=3&h&adxnnlx=1325204341-ez6rYj56govslEc5A2ozGw

Andrew Bolt's findings had nothing to do with free speech or free expression, he invented lies to demonise innocent people.

Bonmot,

<<Unless you are a sock-puppet, you obviously did not contribute to the thread.>>

I was pointing you to the *article* which criticized the Durban potlatch -- not your Marie Antoinette-esque attempts in the comments section to spruik it to us lesser beings!

In particular this bit:

"If something nasty happens - meteorologically and climatically - in the developing world today, a cacophony of voices invariably insists it is the developed world's fault. Most delegates at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) seventeenth annual meeting of its Conference of the Parties (COP-17) in Durban, South Africa, agreed with this alleged causal connection."

Perhaps we could term the widespread acceptance of such a false causal connection as the fruits of *your labor*.

Thanks for the links, Mollydukes. I've briefly perused the first and will give them both an in-depth read later on (it's all happening here today, so quite busy).
I'm a little wary of diverting this thread anymore than we have - but we could consider starting a thread in the general section on these sorts or psychological and behavioural questions.

...besides I wouldn't want to interrupt SPQR and Shadow Minister's act of alternately standing on each others' shoulders trying to attain the level of bonmot : )

<<besides I wouldn't want to interrupt SPQR and Shadow Minister's act of alternately standing on each others' shoulders trying to attain the level of bonmot>>

ROFL

Birds of a feather!
(Though if linking you & Bonmot, Drosophila might be a better fit)

For your bedtime reading: http://blogs.fu-berlin.de/neuro-jc/2012/02/the-role-of-experience-in-flight-behaviour-of-drosophila/

Hmmm, definition of an idiot?

A wannabe international leader, diplomat and 'expert climatologist' who said "climate change is crap".

Yep, Shadow can sure pickum.

.

Master SPQR, like I said (to the author, 2nd comment):

"Well sung Maestro Michael ... now let the chorus begin."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13002&page=0

It did and you're still chirping - a tad off-key and slow off the mark - not unexpected but well done ; )

.

Poirot

HAHAHAHA !!

The imagery of SM & SPQR stumbling and fumbling over each other will endure in my dreams.

tende ad astra : )

SM & SPQR

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13247#228915

ce qu'il fallait démontrer

What we have in Australia is basically a corrupt media, it just sells out to the highest bidder who butters their bread.
Whether it is the big end of town corporate Newspaper, TV, radio, being showered in hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising from the former Howard Liberal Govt, which as we see, all of these newspapers are just tripping over themselves to return to business as usual from their 24/7 repetitive propaganda campaign against the reformist Labor Gillard Govt.
To the little suburban, newspaper, Radio, "all the TV stations were gobbled up long ago", that will ignore a developer building an estate on a flood plain approved by corrupt council and State Govt, because that developer will advertise in said newspaper, radio, we see this happening day after day, every one knows it's happening, follow the money trail, it is corrupt and it should be illegal.
The Monkton (GET UP video) just shows every one exactly how rotten to the core the manipulated media really is.
There is virtually no investigative news any more it's only opinion and propaganda, have a look at some old Docos from the late 1920's and early 1930's see the real right wing fascist propaganda in action, Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, all we are seeing today are plagiarists copying their roll models, some of what we see and here on the repetitive radio shock jocks and usual suspects of the media 24/7 is almost word for word fascist comment.

Not a paper I buy often, Sydney's The Daily Telegraph, seems way overpriced at $1 considering its content. However in this mornings addition, the front page 'news' under the banner BOATLOAD OF GOODIES is a story by a real investigative journalist, one Gemma Jones, I don't know much about Ms Jones or her credentials, but upon reading her article I can only assume Ms Jones is a graduate of 'The Joseph Goebbels School of Journalism', I wont bore you with detail of the content of the piece. Firstly came the claim of the luxurious life style asylum seekers are living with references to plasma TV's and DVD players (get it right Ms Jones its Blue-ray these days). Ms Jones peppers the story with cynical references to "welcome gift packs" and "hampers" her words no one else. Then to stir the pot of hate there is reference to "The handouts will anger middle income workers bracing for cuts to private health rebates etc.", an assumption by Ms Jones, but then again Ms Jones wants this anger, no reference to the $5000 a week these poor receivers of welfare earn in their pay packet.Then again Ms Jones may well be a middle class welfare recipient and therefore an expert on what angers such people. Did Ms Jones do any real investigation as to facts, no she like other Murderdock journalists gets all the facts straight from the opposition, in this case immigration spokesman Scott Morrison. I suppose if you are going to be an investigative journalist, its far easier to open an e-mail from some Liberal party hack than meeting with an informer up a dingy back lane at midnight. I think Gemma is in line to win the Joseph Stalin Medal for the best investigative journalist of 2012. What's the motto "plant the seed of hate and watch it grow!" From this I can understand why Australia is in 470th position on the RSF ratings.

In some ways FOI releases have improved but not by much and only vicerally, mainly with trivialities like how much does a bottle of vino cost at the GGs or what was the cost of Paul Keating's decor. This is not to suggest this sort of expenditure is unimportant.

When it comes to the meatier stuff, such as documents relating to influence on governments or broader funding then there is obfuscation and reference to exemptions under the Act - many flimsy at best. And if there is anything that would be embarrassing or suggest mismanagement don't book your holidays just yet. Often simple requests that would involve a quick run-off a report or a bit of photocopying end up being extended over the legally required 30 days.

Graham Y
You are in a feisty mood.

'You should also ask yourself if the correlation holds true why it is that the least intelligent electorates tend to vote left-wing in Australia. '

That is an odd comment, we just had another poster go on about the 'intellectual-Left' on another thread (or words to that effect) or the 'inner city mob', 'the academics', 'chardonnay drinkers' (or is it latte?). Where is your evidence that the Labor electorates are the least intelligent? There are intelligent people across all the three major parties in Australia - an odd statement.

I don't know the demographics or statistics for those who vote for the Socialist Party in Australia, most people vote Labor or Liberal.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee when it comes to essentials. The latest mutterings from both about the private health rebate suggest the Liberals might be leaning more to the socialist for a party that stands for individual responsibility. Both parties are happy to provide bail outs, subsidies and grants for corporate endeavours and failures - is that corporate socialism