Throughout the country people are protesting about the introduction of Climate Polution Reduction Scheme. The overwhelming theme of these protests is that Canberra has caved in to the demands of fossil fuel lobby by contemplating emissions trading.
Their argument is that cap and trade strategies are a clayton's solution; they given the appearance of doing something when in fact you are doing nothing. Even the Greens appear to have fallen for this, the ultimate of cynical three card tricks.
Yet where is the media in all this? Not only are the protests not reported, apart from the blogosphere, there is no public discussion of the alternatives available to us.
It would seem that the free press has been bought lock stock and barrel.

Nahhh, you missed one important word there, FREE, it wasn't bought, it was given.
Government, Corporates, and Media are the New Trinity, indivisible yet separate
That word "free" used to imply an ideal, but in this world of economic rationalism, it meant something else entirely.

The government's ETS is not worth the paper it is written on because they have sold out to the fossil fuel lobby. That does NOT mean a properly constructed scheme designed to actually cap emissions in Australia would not be an extremely useful tool for doing so.

The fossil fuel industry is against ETS like it is against every other measure they see as a threat to their business. They are even complaining about the toothless, gutless scheme this sorry government is trying (not)to introduce.

Rudd I am sure welcomed the financial crisis as a distraction from its promised ETS. The crisis is seen as a means to take measures that big business favour rather than oppose.

Any impost on business, especialy 'big business' WILL COST JOBS!

REMEMBER THAT!

Any impost on business, especialy 'big business' WILL COST JOBS!

Beware the Bandersnatch!

Dear BAYGON, I think this is one of the most important questions of our time. The media and entertainment industries have overwhelming and disproportionate influence over us. Why? Because they can!

Our societies can be sold almost any opinion, often because we are too lazy or too busy to think for ourselves. We have become a society of headline junkies. Where do the media stand on all the key issues? The answer is they are all over the place.

It is often difficult to recognize the same news item when it is presented differently by so many media outlets. After the initial release of the news item we then get the second wave, the “opinion shapers”. After that we get the intellectual/academic wave, which instructs us on the associated philosophy of their views and how we should actually “feel” about that news item.

Your frustration at the selective way news and current affairs editors, program producers and staff journalist’s present news is shared by many.

It’s all about marketing really, sow the seeds of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, create vulnerability and offer the “product”. We don’t have to buy it but many of us do.

Selective media coverage and opinion is frustrating because many do not see the balance of views and information they expect, they intuitively know that the issue is being presented with bias and prejudice. It is presented to us through the prism of an ideology. The opinion can relate to social, financial, political, religious or ecological issues and the precursor is always an implied threat or risk, no exceptions.

Whilst ever we fail to distinguish reality from ideology the 4th estate will continue to influence the thinking of the lazy, vulnerable and fearful in our society. The 4th estate has very few products for those who can think rationally for themselves.

In short, spindoc, we get exactly what we ask for, and deserve.

>>Our societies can be sold almost any opinion, often because we are too lazy or too busy to think for ourselves<<

I suppose, in a perfect world, we might expect those who profit from selling us newspapers and feeding us soundbites on the six o'clock news, to respect our stupidity, and refrain from pandering to our thoughtlessness and laziness.

Only, not in this one.

Of course, if we refused to fork out our hard-earned for the dross with which we are presently fed, and instead demanded a more intelligent and honest fourth estate, we'd get one quickly enough.

But that's not going to happen any time soon, is it?

BAYGON, you survey the wasteland and suggest...

>>It would seem that the free press has been bought lock stock and barrel.<<

I'd suggest that any attempt to address the Climate Pollution Reduction Scheme (whatever that might be) in a thoughtful and even-handed manner, would instantly lower that newspaper's sales, or cause mass TV switch-off.

They don't need to be "bought lock stock and barrel".

They are already acutely aware of the side upon which their bread is buttered.

Pericles I was being perhaps too mild when I said the press has been bought lock stock and barrel. It is a great deal more complex than that. You are right when you suggest that a considered debate about the CPRS would bore most people. (This is of course Rudd's strategy - bore the electorate into submission; anyone capable of producing inpenetrable prose must be a genius so let him have his way.)
When liberal democracies were first established the 4th estate was with the people on the barricades making sure that people's voices were taken seriously. Similarly the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc was a result of some fearless and often illegal reporting.
Those lessons have been learnt by those who want to subvert democratic processes to their own ends. On the one hand media has become entertainment (you only have to consider how the Vic bushfires were covered by the commercial media - two lots of looters at work some stole property others stole dignity.) Entertainment means that serious issues are rarely discussed and there is very little scrutiny of the government of the day. On the other you will also find that this medium has been exploited by those with the money to ensure that their particular point of view dominates. (for an example see http://newmatilda.com/2009/03/24/has-carbon-lobby-captured-kevin-rudd) The result is that someone who wants to be well informed on a range of issues struggles to find a reasoned, disinterested discussion.
Ultimately this is to our cost for if public policy escapes scrutiny then for good or ill we have to live with the consequences.

Interesting.

I totally fail to see how any one, with even a little school boy science, can possibly believe the AGW rubbish.

There is just so much evidence that disproves the theory, the real scandal is that our pollies, & our media, can continue to push the rubbish.

This is not about AGW; it is about the quality of reporting. If the only people commenting have a vested interest in pushing a particular point of view, then regardless of what that view is, you have no way being certain that the information you are getting is reliable. All you need to do is look at the various ministerial porfolios. Each of these ministers is charged with spending our taxes. If there is no reliable independent source of informatio0n about how well they are discharging that duty then how does one know that our taxes are being spent appropriately? You cannot rely on the opposition because you know that it is their job to make one doubt whatever the government does; so you depend on a disinterested media. Note this is not even about left versus right wing politics because the same arguments apply no matter who is in power.

Interesting debate. The Fourth Estate has been burying its collective head in the sand, since at least 1986, when the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was actually first lawfully enacted in Australia. It has had its head in another place since 1995 when the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) was enacted, and not a whimper has emerged from them protesting or informing the Australian people that we now have one country DUH.

It was over six years after the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) was enacted before it was proclaimed, on the 16th October 2001, and now the systematic attacks on the civilian populations of Australia by the States have been made illegal. The Fourth Estate is unwilling to report this enactment or investigate its implications. It makes a whole raft of State Legislation, from the Criminal Code Act 1899 in Queensland, to the Crimes Act 1900 in New South Wales and the Crimes Act 1958 into crimes against humanity, and a breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when carried out by a State, a crime punishable by seventeen years imprisonment.

S 268.1 says: It is the intention of the Parliament that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is to be complementary to the jurisdiction of Australia with respect to offences in this division that are also crimes within the jurisdiction of that Court.

OOPS: Imprisonment is a crime against humanity if the perpetrator imprisons one or more persons or otherwise severely deprives one or more persons of physical liberty, and the perpetrator’s conduct violates Articles 9,14 or 15 of the Covenant. Article 9 makes arbitrary imprisonment illegal, so all State sentences imposed by a Judge without a jury are now illegal.

The State Governments of Australia have been waging a collective war against Australian civilians, since 1986. They did this with the consent of the Commonwealth after the Australia Act 1986. The Fourth Estate failed to tell us that Keating had moved to repeal this imposition, in 1995. The law sat in waiting till 2001. Wake up Australia.

Sadly I don’t think we’ve been able to answer your question BAYGON. I think all contributors agree that we don’t have to swallow what is presented to us on any given issue however, many of us do.

The power of the media is well understood by all who use it. The most legitimate media users are those selling a product or service through media advertisements. A measure of their success would be in increased sales.

Other users are selling a “message”, through news, current affairs, editorials and opinion pieces. They can be from absolutely any domain, politics, religion, economics, ecology and social. What is interesting though is in the change in both the nature and the use of, opinion polls.

Given the scope, sophistication and reach of modern media, they need to measure their own effectiveness at selling the “message” in order to increase their revenues; after all they are in business to make money. It seems now, that the media uses opinion polls to measure how many people have actually “bought” the message. Worse still is the fact that absolutely nothing in marketing terms is more easily manipulated than surveys or opinion polls. Respondent sample selection, timing, demographics, survey location and most importantly, the composition of the question (emotion generators), are all mechanisms for “steering” an outcome.

Emotion generators are front and centre in most debates; these are created and harnessed by the media industry. A good example is the way we have been “sold” responses to AGW versus the stimulus package.

The prospect of AGW is frightening; we are convinced that whilst it won’t have much impact current generations, we must fix it to avoid a horrible legacy to our next generations.

The stimulus package has no such “next generational” context. We support it because we need money, jobs, infrastructure and housing, and we need it now. The fact that the money comes from our own “next generations” credit card as another type of horrible legacy, seems to have escaped us. Emotion was embedded by the media in AGW but not in the stimulus package.