Hello again Shadow Minister,

So I gather you scored zero out of 12 on that quiz.

Hmmm. Never mind. Most readers of The Australian do.

Okay. Try this one:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/03/15/could-you-be-treasurer-take-our-quiz

Hello again LEGO,

So I gather you also scored zero out of 12 on your quiz.

Hmmm. I see. But you read The Australian also.

Okay. Here's another one for you:

https://newmatilda.com/2012/03/23/pin-tip-iceberg

And here's a clue for free: Whatever you have read about these topics in the Murdoch media is nearly always the opposite of the truth.

Cheers,

Alan A

Alan, in further response to your post of 1 September 2013 8:49:33 AM…

You wrote:

<< Agree completely about abuse of corporate power. But in a democracy, the people elect representatives who make laws to ensure corporations operate for the greater good.

In some countries, Australia being the most dramatic example, many people have no idea who to elect because they have a distorted understanding of what's going on in the world because a large section of the media is controlled by a criminal organisation which fabricates and lies routinely. >>

Isn’t that a tad contradictory? The people elect those reps based on a lot of dodgy information! And the choice of who to elect amounts to no choice at all, as in most cases they effectively only get to choose between two parties which both pander like all buggery to corporate power!!

Indeed, people who join those parties and get preselected as candidates automatically have fundamentally flawed doctrines as it concerns the continuous growth bias!

And then the party that is supposed to present the alternative view to manic continuous rapid expansionism and antisustainability, the Greens, has failed dismally to do so… which is something I really don’t understand and find most disillusioning.

I reckon the Rudd/Gillard government has tried to assert its authority and make corporations operate just a little more for the greater good - with the carbon tax, MRRT, etc, but the business lobby has howled it down and effectively asserted its power over government…. with the very significant assistance of Murdoch!

<< …controlled by a criminal organisation which fabricates and lies routinely. >>

Wow!!

I can’t say whether it is as bad as that, but I will assert that our government is dismally failing in its duty of care by pandering as strongly as it does to the big end of town, notwithstanding some attempts to do the right thing. Criminally so? Maybe. Shirking its responsibility to the people of our country in the longer term? Absolutely.

As bad as Labor is, they are definitely better than the Coalition in this all-important regard.

i get..most of my..media via my ears[radio/tv]
and when..i think i hear a factoid..[like just now aguy said super funds =8 trillion..inaussie

,my..mind says prove it
get it in writing

is that with..public super/the slush fund..
plus private industry..or what..thats where news papers have let us down

putting faCT..NOT OPINION..INTO HARD COPY..
documenting history..the full day today movements..
the hard copy record..of this all too fast moving spoken opinion

is full transcript..media
too much to..ask for..to hell with sport

Hi LEGO and SM,

That last response from Alan Austin is really fascinating.

When the enamel is scratched away the groupthinkers angry, juvenile, activist glory is exposed.

As discussed on another thread, groupthink and over simplistic solutions are replacing thoughtful analysis and rationalization of complex issues.

I thought it worth comparing Alan’s responses as he abandons his “link wars” and resorts to being snide and emotional.

Alan, it seems you fit the same pattern of a socio-educational problem. Your cases are built upon a list of web Links that reflect only your “feelings” about things and not about how they really are.

These complex issues require analysis, context, relevance, research, and most importantly a willingness to absorb information from various diverse perspectives in order to form a rational position.

For those who are unable to perform these tasks for themselves there is always “groupthink” as a fallback. Many group thinkers they seek to blame the great Satan, the USA, big oil, Israel, capitalism et al, for you the great Satan is Murdoch.

You refuse to recognize that the genre of proselytized activist media you represent has failed and naturally, you need to blame something other than self, you chose Murdoch.

From your responses to posters, it seems that emotion acts as a filter that blocks any capacity to rationalize. You don’t actually “read” or “comprehend”, you just “feel”. You feed of other posters by using their responses not as alternative views, but triggers for your vast arsenal of predetermined groupthink ammunition.

Which explains why your links serve only to reinforce your own feeling about the topic rather than provide evidence that you are seeking and analyzing broader perspectives.

LEGO previously asked the question << What do these people use for brains? >>

I suggested in response. “The answer must be they don’t. Not because they don’t have a brain, I’m sure that they all have high intellects. But they are driven by emotion, they are intellectually lazy, they like being told what they already feel and they lack the investigative rigor of the socially balanced”.

Alan,

I have grown beyond doing these juvenile "quizzes"

I could do one starting:

The abolition of pacific solution increase illegal boat arrivals by about:

a 50%
b 500%
c 5 000% or
d 50 000%

PS the answer is d

The lowest that Labor's deficit exceeded the budget since 2007:

a $1bn
b $5bn
c $10bn
d $20bn

PS the answer is d

etc.

But relying on the dross from NM and IA, you have probably forgotten how to think.

Hi again Ludwig,

Yes, agree with most of that.

Perhaps not this: “in most cases they effectively only get to choose between two parties which both pander like all buggery to corporate power!”

The two major political forces deal with corporate power differently.

There’s a stark difference with big tobacco, for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHc-SssCaRg

Validated and itemised here:

http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/financial_disclosure/index.htm

Yes, the Murdoch organisation was found by the Leveson inquiry to have engaged in extensive criminal activity in Britain.

Happy to provide examples of fabricated stories in Australia, Ludwig. There’s no shortage.

@Shadow Minister, for you:

Alan's facebook/NewMatilda election 2013 instant quiz #158

The most thorough investigation of any media corporation in history recently concluded in Britain.

Which of these assertions did the Leveson Parliamentary investigation find true of Rupert Murdoch:

(a) his newspapers deliberately invent stories with no factual basis.

(b) his editors are reckless in running sensational stories, with no consideration for the harm they cause innocent victims.

(c) his employees deploy covert surveillance, blagging and deception with no public interest justification.

(d) his newspapers vigorously resist complaints. When an apology is required, his papers get their own back by high-volume, extremely personal attacks on those who challenge them.

(e) discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and asylum seekers is routine in his company, not just an aberration.

(f) Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to run a major international company.

(g) all of the above.

@Spindoc, for you:

Alan's facebook/NewMatilda election 2013 instant quiz #159

The extent of criminal activity in the global Murdoch empire is seldom reported in Australia. None of the mainstream media – Murdoch, Fairfax or the ABC – will touch the subject.

So take a guess at the number of people, including senior Murdoch executives and police officers, arrested and formally charged as a result of the illegal phone-hacking scandal in Britain. [Just in Britain. Just the phone-hacking, not other criminal activities elsewhere]:

(a) 14 arrested, 3 charged
(b) 34 arrested, 6 charged
(c) 64 arrested, 13 charged
(d) 104 arrested, 31 charged
(e) one too few

Cheers,

AA