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 > PM's tactics muzzle media > Comments

PM's tactics muzzle media : Comments

By Sally Young, published 20/4/2007

How we follow the election will be determined by what we glean from the media, which is now controlled more and more by politicians.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Thought Rupert Murdoch and John Howard, along with Georgie Dubya, were of the same mind anyway. Notice when making a point, they all say - I - rather than - us or we - anyhow, just like a Hitler or a Stalin.

If our public hasn't noticed, it shows what a craven lot we've all become.

Notice Tony Blair's been trying to escape. Fat chance, however, when both him and Bush swore an oath with David Rockefeller's Trilaterists a long time ago, watched over from a CFR heaven, once controlled by Cecil Rhodes, but now just a mixed up mob, down here mostly run by ex-Israeli ex-cons, including lover boy Paul Wolfowitz.
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 20 April 2007 4:58:09 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 Media a commercial organisation doing their job growing and producing profit for the shareholders?
The Media a source of accurate information that informs voters in a democracy so that they may act in a free and informed way?
The Media a source of indulgence and entertainment for members of a democracy ensuring a complacent easily managed electorate?
The Mouthpiece of those whose ego entitled them to think they have something worth saying?
The Mirror in which those who would rule can see themselves in glossy wonder?

Which?
Friel and Falk have just published their book analysing “The Record of a Paper” and find the New York Times to have taken news as the sayings of the establishment with little effort at checking or investigative reporting.

One of the sites attempting to analyse what the media is doing Media Lens has just published “Guardians of Power” which finds the liberal media a myth. Glasgow university in “Bad News from Israel” have found on analysis of the UK press that the Palestinians receive a bad indeed dishonest treatment buy the Media. One could go but I feel sure these and any more will be dismissed as the writings purporting to truth of the disaffected left wing. But you know our own, Australian, Alex Carey wrote widely on the media including ”Taking the Risk out of Democracy” reprinted 1997.
So it goes.
But lets take one more example the question of terrorists suicide bombers etc Robert Pape has analysed these and finds very differently form the spin of the media. So why should not J W Howard use the outlet providing the more comfortable ride less questioning more obsequious?
Why should we imagine ourselves of sufficient importance to be lied to, Iraq--- but I do go on. Left wing spin is as embracing and loud as any other. Is it not?
Posted by untutored mind, Friday, 20 April 2007 5:46:27 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
John Howard should be ashamed of himself.

His statements yesterday that we will have a national food shortage and food prices will go through the roof are truly disgusting and contemptible.

What he doesn't say of course is that he sat on his hands while this problem developed, despite warning after warning. Doing nothing, nothing.

All he sees is a political opportunity, a chance to scare the people. Somehow he thinks this will give him votes. I'd like to give him just a bit more than that.

This typical example of Howard's "leadership" should be noted by all Australians. He is a gutless man, not a leader. He should be rewarded with a bleak future which is what we will have if he stays.
Posted by RobbyH, Saturday, 21 April 2007 9:12:14 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
as usual, different varieties of twaddle.

'the meeja' is a commercial organism and responds to to its clients. the clients are in general not interested in political discussion, just gossip. why should they be? they have no control over the political aspect of society and time spent thinking about it is time wasted.

that is why those people who in other societies are characterized as the intelligentsia are here known, tellingly, as the chatterati. a 'clayton's' democracy can only generate gossip, for all power and most information is sequestered in the politicians guild.
Posted by DEMOS, Saturday, 21 April 2007 10:27:07 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
This world is full of dynamic events which affects us the people in different ways and extents. Us wanting information of whats happening around us and 'media' developed on this premise over time...

There is one basic premise;media must be neutral, investigative, extract what is known, told and hidden, ie the full story of relevant material particulars declared then give an attempt at analysis to which our analysis process agrees/disagrees...the second limb of this premise is if its printed by 'media-organization' then we reasonably assume it has the power of the above said and accept the information as the fact...a dangerous and manipulate-able psychological factor...

Any failure at the above skews the whole process, then if done with manipulative intent then the media becomes a tool of propaganda than fact...

I dont blame john howard for 'looking after his interests, local and general,'for he survives in an adversarial process...its the medias job to accept this factor and work in it to extract the full fact whatever the acts to hide,obstruct etc...it is fundamental ground for good working democracy and so media have a special protection given...a good reporter acts without fear to personal interests for delivering the full facts to the people(as hollywood sensationalizes...)

In reality media has become a tool for power and manipulating us the people inlcludinng non-reporting eg the media never reported the brutality being effected by family/dv court+women on fatherschildren of Australia until your average fatherchild on the street was damaged and became common public knowledge...food for thought considering they still 'non-report' current practice allowing unacceptable risk of abuse of government power to continue, and same principle applies to other areas of public interest...

eg virginia massacre, talk about less relevant details, but not one attempt/effort to help us understand what would make a soul pull the trigger so many times while looking at other frightened unarmed souls...which is the key to us analysing this event and must include all sorts of facts including childhood experiences/maldevelopment as we expect it was abnormal for such an abnormal act...and the true facts given without fear or favour....

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Saturday, 21 April 2007 12:39:32 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 Geneva conventions and international law are in part based on the idea that in some way this limit’s the nasty things another country may do to us and of course if we do not abide than expectation of retaliation is correct.

So also the Media. People should be interested for the same reason.
If there is a media providing information on Government actions and the background to such and people take the trouble to be informed then maybe the Government, in theory our joint creation to do our will, can be kept to actions which are our will.
Okay so a sizeable group, still a minority? For we deal in majorities, were against the Iraqi Wars. The Government as is their right in this case the PM having the power, decided otherwise. In doing so he said he accepted full responsibility meaning I assume at International law. An illegal war then presumably any killing becomes a murder and damage criminal damage. But it is argued though not tested that the war was legal based on self defence in one case and existing security council resolutions still being applicable. This despite agreement at the time that resolution 1441 was not a trigger for war, Negroponte the American rep. amongst others. This has a so far as I am aware been concealed by the media as in large part were the Downing street memos whose implication that the propaganda WMD’s was being fitted to the aim of war.

Naturally Australians do not need to care for presumably our being of the Coalition ensures American protection should we need it. I guess 655,000 excess deaths is fare payment. Sorry I forgot this figure is not accepted despite using a technique widely used including for the Congo whose deaths were accepted as realistic estimate. Still those were black fellows and we were not involved!
Posted by untutored mind, Saturday, 21 April 2007 1:40:06 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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