With the demise of Clinton, the left has been furiously looking for scapegoats in every corner. From Russian Hacking to racist white voters and now the "fake news" on Facebook influencing the weak minded. These SJWs now either want to fine Facebook and/or force it to censor out false news (or news they don't agree with).

As Facebook is not a news organisation, and is as responsible for the news on its website as the Australia post is for the content of the letters it delivers, and given that on the internet "fake news" has been active from all sides of politics for at least a decade, I believe that this is yet another attempt by the left to filter out discussions that they don't want to hear.

My words of wisdom are:
-Not everyone thinks like you do,
-If you don't like it, don't read it,
-The world is not a safe space.

Hey Shadow Minister,
The 'Russian Hacking' and 'Fake News' isn't just a plan of the left to filter out news they don't want to hear, though is one of their general strategies. It's a strategy to have the 'college votes' defect and support Hillary tomorrow. Even if they don't pull it off, the damage they are causing to his presidency is probably worth it from their point of view.

America does seem to be in a bit of a mess
at the moment:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/17/barack-obama-fake-news-facebook-social-media

cont'd ...

A democracy requires its citizens to make informed
choices. If citizens or their representatives
are denied access to the information they need to
make those choices, or if they are given false or
misleading information, the democratic process
becomes a sham. Therefore when information is
concealed, or made up, by public officials their
actions are contrary to democratic values and will
tend to possibly damage public faith in the country's
political institutions.

Still this is America we're talking about - where
anything goes. President Johnson, for example,
campaigned against an air war in Vietnam when he
was running for re-election, even though he had
already given orders to launch such a war. President
Nixon had Cambodia bombed for over a year while
denying that he was doing so, and he secretly
invaded Laos in violation of specific prohibitions
voted by Congress and signed by himself.

President Reagan publicly urged an international arms
embargo of Iran but approved secret arms sales to that
country - and the profits were illicitly used to
support revolutionary guerrillas in Nicaragua.

Under such circumstances the people cannot use their
rights in a meaningful way.

Interesting what the future holds.

Foxy

There has always been "fake news" Just look at "the new matilda" and the "independent australia" for left whinge polemics.

Definitions of fake news do I suspect depend a lot on the bias's of the person making the judgement.

Sometimes not entirely fake but presented in a way that gives a lot more credibility than the evidence would suggest.

A couple of examples. I saw a lot of posts about the rape complaints against Trump during the lead up to the US election. When I looked into it those allegations were from a complainant using a Jane Doe alias. Not entirely unreasonable given the power difference etc but also diminishing the seriousness those allegations should receive from the public. A little truth to the "News" but presented in a way that I think was misleading.

I have been trying to get an understanding of the PizzaGate material. One of those stories that I think fit's the left's definition of fake news. Many of the claims I've seen appear to be highly overstated compared to the supporting evidence which I've seen put up but at the same time there is enough material there that's not ready explained away (unless you really want it to be explained away) that there is reason not to dismiss the whole thing out of hand. I've seen some suggestions that do seem plausible saying that there is a deliberate overplaying of the claims and evidence from some people to try and put the whole thing into the extreme conspiracy basket. Make it seem extreme enough and people other than a small fringe are unlikely to bother paying any attention.

R0bert

Dear SM,

We should also include Mr Murdoch's News Limited
in your summation (Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun,
and of course the Australian). News Limited is
an appropriate name as the news really is limited.

Foxy,

News limited fact checks every story before it is published, and is centre right to Fairfax and the ABC which are centre left. The New Matilda and IA are far left blogs with no fact and more comparable to the Bolt report.

Dear SM.,

Here's a quote that is appropriate.
Taken from "The Project," (news reported
differently).

"Once upon a time you'd read it in the newspaper
and you knew that a hundred different fact-checkers
had checked the story, a sub-editor, an editor,
but these days information and news is put up so quickly
that you know there's no one there to check it ..."

Thank Goodness for "Media Watch."

There's a lot of strategy behind what the globalists are doing.
Apart from what I said yesterday (had to cut my comment short as friends came over) they are trying to demonise and shut down the independent media because it now has too much power and they are unable to control the masses anymore through the corporate media.
The people don't believe the lies anymore and are waking up.

- Despite what the corporate media did to demonise Trump he still won and they are beside themselves that they've lost control.
The elite will not stop, they will try to retain their power.

Anyway, if they are going after independent media - and attempting to scrap the first amendment; you know that they're in a serious mess.

RObert...
Pizzagate. The media wanted everybody off that subject in a hurry didn't they. I've got to agree with you, I think something doesn't smell right about this topic. I'm not satisfied that a reasonable explanation has been given for those suspicious Podesta emails.

Emails saying Obama spent $65,000 on 'hot dogs'; messages that the 'kids are waiting in the hot-tub' and other messages using a strange code where they were substituting the names of pizza and food orders for something else, and that something else points suspiciously towards pedophilia, with those restaurants in question using known pedophile related symbolism.

They even scared me away from the topic, though I'm not sure why.
It seems too unbelieveable to the average person, but somethings definitely not right here.

Wow Foxy, Iran Contra hey.
Careful you might join the conspiracy theorists like me.
They weren't just running guns, they we're running guns out of the country, and cocaine into the country.

http://realitieswatch.com/george-w-bush-brother-jeb-bush-caught-on-videotape-picking-up-kilios-of-cocaine-in-1985/
http://prorev.com/connex.htm

Essentially this is where the current modern day mess of three decades of bad presidents, wars and everything else all started.
Remember they shot Reagan.

Dear AC,

My husband and I worked and lived in the US
(Los Angeles) for close to ten years. I worked
at the University of Southern California.
We both saw a great deal. It was a very educational
experience for two young people who'd lead rather
sheltered lives in OZ.

It is always easy to knock the 'left' or the 'right' (ie those people who don't think the way you do). But if Trump had got the popular vote and Clinton the electoral college numbers, we'd be having the same debate just in reverse, and probably with even wilder accusations being bandied around from Trump.

As for fake news, there are two kinds:
1. Gossip, errors, carelessness, jumping to conclusions, false assumptions, wishful thinking etc all working on the Chinese whispers process, aggravated these days by the speed of the media and the lack of time or interest in fact-checking.
2. Deliberate falsehoods, deceptively twisted versions of facts, or innuendo repeated till it becomes assumed to be fact (the old fashioned term is propaganda) are mainly intended to damage opponents, especially their credibility, and are used by all sides. Because of (1) these falsehoods are hugely more effective than in the past.

There is just one way to handle this: constant across the board scepticism. Ok so you are already sceptical of anything about people or politics that you don't like or agree with. But it's important to be equally - or even more - sceptical of things that on face value appear to support what you already think. After all, shouldn't your deep beliefs and values be based on solid ground? What value are they if they are manipulated?

Cossomby nicely said.

R0bert

Shadow, you have out done yourself. "News limited fact checks every story before it is published," Did they drug your 'Coco Pops' in the morning for you to say that. The Daily Telegcrap and other member publications of the Nonews stable with their regular load of sensational hogwash for the consumption of the knuckle dragging supporter. Speaking to the occasional half intelligent conservative, they will admit they are embarrassed at times by the steady stream of biased claptrap masquerading as news which comes from the Murdoch press.
Is that why the links your provide on the forum come almost exclusively from such rubbish publications.

Dear Paul,

Media ownership in Australia is notoriously narrow.
Mainstream media offers precious little diversity
and such as there is runs along predictable lines.
However it is the internet that offers a vast
supply of news - especially opinion.

Fairfax's and Murdoch's print regimes are under great
pressure. Australians are great consumers of
online journalism. Alan Austin tells us in an article
on the web that the top 500 websites in Australia in
terms of web traffic include about 100 news outlets
and that more than 30 of Australia's top 100
online news outlets are from outside Australia -
including US, Britain, China, Russia, Indonesia, New
Zealand and India. The US, in contrast has only 60
in its top 500 internet sites. We are able to be
well informed but we need places where national and
diverse views can be found on important issues.
Places like - New Matilda, Independent Australia,
The Guardian Australia, The Conversation, The Drum,
On Line Opinion, Q and A, and others.

Julian Burnside, QC, once stated that:

"It would be difficult to agree with every view expressed
in the columns of New Matilda, but it would be
difficult to disagree with them all. And it would be
impossible to criticise any of them as irrational or
foolish."

So it's true that Hillary was "demon possessed" and has personally murdered, chopped up and raped children and that Donald Trump is also The Messiah (or his forerunner) too?

That Kenyan phoney Barack Obama is secretly gay and his wife Michelle is really a transgender man? (We all know they murdered Joan Rivers in hospital when she spilled the beans but made it look like natural causes!).

As well as PizzaGate, that's just a tiny sample of what the Right Wing media has widely been broadcasting without restraint.

PizzaGate led a man to drive across the country with an assault rifle and shoot up that store. How many others are preparing to do the same sort of thing, based on similar deliberate lies? It's not a political point-scoring game - it's life and death to many.

I suggest Shadow Minister have a look at Right Wing Watch to see what and how his compatriots think. Trump publicly went along with a lot of these notions during the campaign and won't be allowed to completely distance himself from those supporters.

Some Leftists may have some strange ideas but a lot of the American Right is certifiably and barking mad.

Paul,

I realise that from the sheer flatulence of your post how much that you and the rest of the knuckle dragging greens hate newscorp. I guess your impotent rage is partially at their viewpoints, but more so at your inability to challenge what they write.

Foxy,

As the topic is about false news, with respect to the deliberate publishing of false information.

With this in mind it is not possible to point the finger at any major news organisation (without lying) such as Newscorp, Fairfax or the Guardian as deliberately publishing falsehoods, given their need to maintain their reputations, and the oversight of the the Australian Press Council that enforces apologies and retractions if any of them get it wrong.

However, those you claim to be "independent" such as the New Matilda and IA (though Newscorp, fairfax and the guardian can also claim to be independent) being only blogs are free from the oversight of the the Australian Press Council and its onerous requirements for fact checking.

While most of their material is devoid of any news and consists primarily of Left whinge polemics, occasionally some of these "authors" will deviate from their emotive whining and try and produce some analysis and stupidly quote ALP statements or opinions as facts when often they are at best fanciful.

Rache,

For every false news story published by Trump supporters there were dozens by self appointed guardians of the left. These were devoured and repeated ad nauseam by these left whingers until they began to believe it.

The problem is that when the music stopped and these denizens of these pre truth safe places realized that they had been soundly whipped by those they had called deplorables, instead of doing the unimaginable and opening their eyes, descended into weeping and wailing and blaming everything but themselves for their cock up.

Dear SM,

Thank You for your opinion.

Mine happens to differ from yours.

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.

No matter how much the pre truth denizens might try to bring it down.

Shadow, the Murdoch press has different publications for different sections of its readership 'The Daily Telecrap' is very much for the mass consumption of the misinformed bottom feeders. Those who's first read of the day is the latest news on Blockhead's front up at the Monday night footy tribunal, they want to know if their favorite front rower has been rubbed out, or will he create more mayhem for the Wombats this weekend. That is their first news priority for the day out of the way, then they are ripe for some shock horror "news" from whatever bit of the scare mongering agenda 'Nonews' is peddling at that point in time, Could be 'Gay Muslims secret deal with the Labor Party to take over the Catholic Church' as reported by unnamed reliable sources.
I'm sure you would not disappoint, kicking off a lively forum discussion on the subject, and supply the appropriate shock horror "Telecrap' story to fire up the debate, as you often do.

To challenge what they write, gives their nonsensical diatribes some air of legitimacy, and that is the last thing they deserve. It is mostly contemptible hogwash they publish, in their fish n' chip wrappers, best ignored.

Hi Foxy,

Once more we seem to be in general agreement on a subject. What sets the mainstream media apart from a purely news reporting outfit, something akin to the BBC of the 1950's and 60's is the overuse of opinionated journalism at the expense of news reporting. Although I must say the BBC, and its little Aussie brother the ABC, were with hindsight very much establishment orientated organizations, that used overt censorship when presenting the news. This took the form of a sanitized report, although not overtly biased, one way or the other, they tended to present the established view in a positive manor.
The privately owned electronic media, first radio, and then later on television, seen themselves firstly as entertainment businesses, and news reporting was only of a secondary consequence and received little in the way of finance. Often private electronic media outlets simply relied on reports from the established news organisations like Reuters or the BBC, and local newspaper reports for their daily six o'clock bulletin.
Newspapers have always been different, the mainstream conglomerates owned by the 'Press Barons' presented the (political) news in an extremely biased fashion, coupled with this was totally biased editorial content, all went together to reflect the views, and opinions of the owner. With their control of public opinion this made the Murdoch's of the world such powerful people, answerable to no one, and still are.

Hi Paul,

Maybe. I was raised on the Sydney Morning Herald (when the man delivered it, I used to yell out to my mum, 'Hark ! The Herald !') so every so often, I still buy a copy. But with the best will in the world, I usually get right through it in a quarter of an hour. The Age similar. But I always take at least an hour and a half to get through the Australian. For the big Saturday edition, usually about three hours.

I recall when the SMH had a good coverage of world news, on page 3 if I remember right. Currently the Australian's coverage often goes for three pages, with some quite obscure stories, or stories from rarely-covered countries. And the stories in the Australian are usually accurate as far as I can ell, corroborated eventually by bits and pieces on the ABC or SBS, or from Time or Newsweek.

On the other hand, the Australian doesn't cover Lifestyle stuff as thoroughly as the others. If I wanted to know about the 25 best cheese shops in Melbourne, I suppose I would read The Age. It's a pity life's too short for that. Even a quarter of an hour on The Age seems like a quarter of an hour that I'll never get back.

Joe

There's an interesting article by Terry Barnes
that goes to the crux of the issue. It's worth
a read. Some of the questions raised by Mr Barnes
include - is the line between reporting and
opinion becoming too blurred? Are too many
journalists covering politics becoming "players,"
rather than reporters? Do some media organisations,
have it in for certain political parties? And the
fact that many journalists indeed have become as
much a part of the news as what they report.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-02/barnes-does-dutton-have-a-point-about-media-bias/6742332

cont'd ...

It's worth noting that Terry Barnes also tells us that:

"No Australian media is monolithically biased as
some claim, but neither are they wholly unbiased in
what they report and how they choose to report it.
As long as the news itself is presented accurately and
fairly, editorial and journalistic leanings shouldn't
matter. But there's also no point in claiming
snow-white impartiality for political coverage if it's
not there."

Hey rache,
Some radio hosts say Hillary is 'demon possessed', but Larry Nichols who worked for the Clintons as a handler says she's a luciferian witch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HysOLOa5Bo

Now chech the Podesta emails 'spirit cooking'
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-05/spirit-cooking-wikileaks-publishes-most-bizarre-podesta-email-yet

Anyone who thinks the US was founded on Christianity is wrong, it was founded just as much on occultism, by the way.

The Obama birth certificate thing, it wasn't about Obama not being born in the US as many did (his birth certificate is fake though); it was about hiding who his real father was. Frank Marshal Davis was a Obama's mentor and a leading Communist Party member in Chicago.
http://freedomoutpost.com/obama-admits-communist-mentored-him-taught-him-about-white-racism/

Pizzagate - The armed man went to a backroom area and shot a lock off a door to try to gain access to 'underground tunnels and secret rooms' which were said link all these adjoining businesses.

- TO EXPOSE THE PEDOPHILIA SAID TO BE GOING ON THERE.

He never threatened to shoot anyone as far as I am aware.

There IS known pedophilia related symbolism on those 'pizzagate' businesses, and they have been related to Soros and Rothchilds.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3560069/The-symbols-pedophiles-use-signal-sordid-sexual-preferences-social-media.html

As for right wing watch, they obviously aren't right wing are they?
That would be like a Hillary supporter making a website to demonise Trump, and you'd find that credible?

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/mat-staver-says-right-wing-watch-is-one-of-the-biggest-purveyors-of-fake-news-in-the-country/

There's a fair amount of BS that comes from all news agencies, some more than others.
Who pushed Black Lives Matters?
Do you think this corporate media effort didn't get people hospitalised and killed?
It did.

Thanks AC,

I have been starved of crazy conspiracy talk for some time, so this lot should fill me up for a while.

How come nobody ever can see the hand of the Swedes in all of this, 9/11, Kennedy, August 1914, hmmm ? For the simple reason that they are meticulous in covering their tracks and NEVER leaving any evidence. Simple: no evidence, so nobody suspects them. Innocent little Scandinavians, quietly sitting up there making their cuckoo clocks and sun-baking: butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. Devilishly clever. But some of us, very few but some, are bright enough to see through all that. Next time there is some sort of 'natural' disaster or atrocity, just ask yourself: could the Swedes be behind this ? Hmmmm ?

If I never post anything else, you will know what has happened to me :(

Joe

Foxy,

Terry Barnes expresses it well. All major media organisations don't report incorrect facts, but the bias clearly lies in the omission of inconvenient facts and the bias of those supplying opinions.

Newscorp tends more to the conservative, and fairfax and the Guardian tends to be more left whinge. The ABC which is supposed to be unbiased clearly acts as a cheerleader for left whinge policies criticising Labor when it deviates from its "progressive" path.

False news tends to come from individuals or Blogs with particular agendas and no accountability. Mark Zuckerberg defined the problem well:

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103269806149061

with millions of "news" items every day, labelling news as false requires unbiased fact checking, which by the time it is complete is obsolete. Most of those that complain of false news often do so because they don't like the opinions.

Some of the most reliable news these days comes from sites like these:

http://www.theonion.com/

http://www.betootaadvocate.com/

Strongly recommended.

Marry Christmas !

Joe

Speaking of fake news....
Yesterday (QLD) we had this 'Amber Alert' flash all across our TV screens about this newborn baby girl missing from a Gold Coast hospital.
One got the impression from news reports that someone unrelated to the newborn had stolen her from a hospital.

This morning I was browsing the headlines...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-23/police-locate-newborn-baby-girl-taken-from-gold-coast-hospital/8145948

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/amber-alert-for-missing-baby-on-gold-coast/news-story/f4786656eb05bc8b91f40be707a0203a

- From yesterday -
"Police are searching for a man and woman".
Why did they say that?
Why didn't they say "Police are looking for the newborns mother and father".
Reading on...
Regional duty officer for the South Eastern region Inspector Jim Plowman said: “What I would like to say to the parents, that have taken the child, they’ve currently committed no criminal offenses, this is purely looking at the welfare of the baby and I would urge them to get in contact with the police as soon as possible.”

So they interrupt the whole of Queensland to send out this 'Amber Alert' of a missing newborn, when its actually the newborns parents that have taken the child, and have not committed any offense.

Now I'm assuming the parents might be junkies, and hospital staff probably weren't planning on allowing these people to take their child out of concerns for its welfare; but was this news justified when no offense has occurred?
And what about the parents themselves, have they been unfairly targeted by placing news reports about them across every news channel?

I don't know these peoples DOCS or criminal histories.
But should the government really be placing news reports all over the TV about people (including their photos) who've not actually committed any offenses?

Just my 2 cents for this morning...

The key question is: What is news. The definition is "newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events."

I.e, information (facts) about recent events

Most complaints of "fake news" are simply opinions which the readers don't like, and are not news. Mark Zuckerberg made it clear that these could not and should not be controlled.

Where the area gets fuzzy is where blogs blindly repeat information that is patently false, and this is where New Matilda and Independent Australia fall short so often. That the information is repudiated by reliable sources makes no difference.

A lot of "false news" seems to be simple click bait to score hits and I assume collect advertising dollars. Plenty around that's a headline not substantiated by the content link to.

The role of Facebook, Goggle and other major players in the advertising market does get interesting.

Not just false news but allowing their platforms to be used for what are clearly scam activities (anybody else found plenty of Facebook links that on android devices go to a pop up claiming that the device is badly infected by virus's).

I don't think the platform providers should be responsible for opinions expressed via those platforms but do think there is a significant responsibility when it's paid advertising which should be vetted and apparently is not.

R0bert

A couple of questions need to be asked
because the line between reporting and
opinion is becoming too blurred.

Are too many journalists covering politics
being commentators "players," rather than reporters.
Do some media organisations have it in for the
Coalition/Labor/Independents/ et cetera.

It seems that many journalists have indeed become
as much a part of the news as what they report.

As long as the news itself is presented accurately
and fairly, editorial and journalistic leanings
shouldn't matter. But there's also no point in
claiming snow-white impartiality for political
coverage if it's not there.

Hi Foxy,

There are a swag of political commentators to be found in the pages of newspapers, on cable TV, online etc. These people are employed not to report the factual news as such, but to present political opinion which reflects the views of the organization/proprietor. The problem with that is many people believe the commentator is presenting the facts and not opinion, and therefore they themselves now feel they too are armed with the facts. This works well particularly when the reader/listener is already inclined to that view anyway.

Another worrying aspect of news reporting in Australia, is the lack of news reporting, I recall at one time Channel 9 trumpeted that "More Australians get their news from Channel 9 than any other source!" The fact being Channel 9's news bulletin contains very little news, some local content with a fair bit of popular material, a little bit of international news at best, then a good deal of sport and weather, reporting all that in less than 20 minutes with breaks. The commercial TV stations have abandoned investigative reporting, which was pioneered by the ABC with 'This Day Tonight' and 'Four Corners'. The commercials now provide a light magazine type show and call it 'A Current Affair' or some such name. I am sure this is all driven by the bottom line and returns the best financial outcome for the station.

The average Australian is happy to live an all beer and skittles existence, and is glad it is all happening over there, and not here. Its when over there starts to turn up on his front door that the average Australian starts to freak out about it all, demanding the polititions do something!

Dear Paul,

That's why those of us who are torn between the
desert of mainstream media and the jungle of
the internet need places where national but
diverse views can be found on important issues.

Merry Christmas to you and yours and a Happy New Year.
I'm now going to start working on my Christmas lunch.
The family is coming and it's going to be a busy day.

Foxy, Paul,

So you two shy away from the real news outlets and rely on politically biased blogs on the fringe that will tell you what you want to hear.

Dear SM,

What a peculiar thing for you to say when you
know very well that most people nowadays
get their news from a huge variety of sources.
You also know full well that no Australian
media is monolithically biased as you suggest.
I find it surprising that you continue to
claim snow-white impartiality for political
coverage from your personal preferences
whilst continuing to slam ours.

Disappointing to say the least.

Foxy,

My sources are the Aus and the SMH with some of the overseas media. They are centre right and left respectively, but both have opinions from both sides.

However the IA and the NM are both unreservedly far left whinge with several authors with only scant knowledge of what they write about.

If you can't see this then I am disappointed in you.

Dear SM,

You're disappointed in me. I'm disappointed in you.
I guess that makes us even. Disappointments are
part of life - it's something we shall both have to
learn to live with, because I suspect with us it
will be an on-going thing as far as politics is concerned.
Ah well.

cont'd ...

I shall repeat what was stated earlier:

Media ownership in Australia is notoriously narrow.
Mainstream media offers precious little diversity
and such as there is runs along predictable lines.
But it's also the internet that offers a vast supply of
news, especially opinion. Those of us who are torn
between the desert of mainstream media and the jungle
of the internet need a place where national but diverse
views can be found on important issues. New Matilda
is such a place. As Julian Burnside, QC stated:

"It would be difficult to agree with every view
expressed in the columns of New Matilda, but it would be
difficult to disagree with them all. And it would be
impossible to criticise any of them as irrational or
foolish."

Obviously, you have no difficulty in disagreeing.

See you on another discussion. Where I dare say more
of the same will follow. That's to be expected.

Shadow, you never disappoint me, your links to the Murdoch tabloids on this forum are legendary! There is no virtue in being Piers Arkman's parrot.

Happy New Year!

Hi Paul,

Murdoch seems to have a very large menagerie - in today's Australian, there is a terrific article by William Galston, a long-term Democratic Party stalwart and policy writer, perhaps an inspiration for the 'West Wing'. It would be difficult to slag Murdoch as a Trump-supporter, don't you think ? maybe there is some good in everybody :)

All the best for Christmas and the New Year,

Joe

Foxy

Many blogs in NM are foolish and irrational. Quoting JB who is a NM contributor is like using Ivanka as an unbiased reference for Trump.

Paul,

Better than being a Galah

Hi Joe, Happy New Year

Rupert Murdoch believes himself to be a great newspaper man in the vain of his father Sir Keith Murdoch. 'The Australian' is a refection of that belief, Rupert wanted to be seen as the publisher of a quality broadsheet and 'The Australian' gave him that, even if it has cost millions in losses over its lifetime. I supposes if you are worth $12 billion you can afford millions to satisfy a fantasy.

I am old enough to recall that it was Murdoch's publications that were pivotal in the election of the Whitlam Labor Government in 1972, (Shadow, Oh! the pain) just as it was equally culpable in its downfall in 1975.

As for Trump, I don't see any real difference between Trump and Clinton. Sure there is a different in style, and some difference in emphases, but otherwise they are essentially the same. At the end of the day they both would receive the stamp of approval of the ultimate American leader Mr Dow Jones.

Shadow, can't you do better than that, a pathetic response at best, "Better than being a Galah" This may come as a shock to you, but a Galah is also a parrot! I can't be a Galah, you said I was a Nincompoop, or some such thing, and Galah's and Nincompoops come from different genotypes and are not compatible.

G'day Paul,

All the best of the season and kia ora to you and yours, too.

I think there may be differences between Trump and Clinton: Clinton meant pretty much more of the same for four more years, no upheavals, no surprises, then, to relieve the boredom, a Republican win in 2020.

But I suspect/fear/dread some of the horrible possibilities that Trump and his bucket of turds might get up to. I keep hoping that, say, in relation to Putin, Trump has a cunning plan, but it's more likely that Putin will have a few of his own. The only bright possibility is that, after four years of chaos and mayhem, Senator Michelle Obama wins the 2020 election. What do you reckon ?

Cheers,

Joe

Paul,

You amazingly manage to cock up several things at once.

1 the species of animal is irrelevant to a metaphor, and the galah being a parrot was intentional as a double entendre. Obviously it went over your head.

2 that Murdoch has supported both sides is something that I have pointed out several times. He supported Whitless initially but changed sides when Whitless proved incompetent. It is you that has claimed that he is right wing.

3 The Aus was initially very profitable and provided the funding for his other enterprises which made him a billionaire. It might lose money now, but supports the rest of his businesses such as sky and Fox. It is Fairfax and the Guardian that are going to the wall.

Dear SM,

Here's something that you may enjoy:

http://newmatilda.com/2016/08/22/what-reading-new-matilda-says-about-you/

Foxy,

NM has an article that says what wonderful people NM readers are, what an unexpected scoop.

There is one NM reader born every minute.

I open up this page on OLO and who pops up, none other than the man himself, Jamie Packer! With the message "They want my head for revealing this, Everyday Aussies are quitting their..."

I can only assume the rest is...jobs, to open up an environmental disaster called 'Barangaroo' and have the good folk of NSW pay for a sizable chunk of it!"

Shadow, you and I are birds of a feather, but we do not flock together.

"Obviously it went over your head." Obviously, of course it did. Me, with my two feet firmly planted on the ground in the real world, telling it like it is, see above, and you up there in the clouds drifting around reading the thoughts of Piers Akerman and Co with their powder puff politics. Getting wacked on the scone every so often as I fire off a little old double entendre's you can't see coming.

Tena koe hoa (greetings friend) Joe, I can only liken Trump to a fire cracker, those who lit the fuse now hope like hell that the bunger don't go off! We can only wait and see. In the game of political gamesmanship the Putin v's Trump fight will prove to be a no contest. Not that I'm any sort of Putin fan, but like Khrushchev was with Kennedy, just politically too savvy to be taken down by a political nobody such as Trump. Trump's best defense will prove to be the dummy spit.

hari tau hou, (Happy New Year)

p/s I am fortunate to have the worlds best teacher of the Maori language with me, but unfortunately she has the worlds worse student

Dear SM,

So you think that there's one New Matilda reader
born every minute? That would be fantastic and
prove my point - that so many people are dissatisfied
with the MSM and they're
going to places that do provide diverse views
on important issues.

"There's one born every minute..."
And one to knock 'em, and one to trim 'em!

Dearest Foxy,

NM ? Diverse views ? Gosh, really ?

Yesterday, The Australian carried a long article by William Galston, by no means a pro-Murdoch writer, with a long history as a philosopher on the Democrat side, and probably inspirer of The West Wing. Today, it carries a fairly long letter by Robert Manne in mealy-mouthed defence of Gillian Trigg and her attacks on human rights.

All media outlets have a slant one way or the other and most of us are sensible enough to know this from the first page. Most of us do too, and we easily realise this from the first posts. I don't think that any media - or OLO contributor - can be expected to be somehow 'neutral', whatever that might mean, but can be expected to have fairly strong views and to express them, as articulately as possible. Let that freedom of expression continue.

Love always,

Joe

“The problem of fake news isn’t solved by hoping for a referee but rather because we as participants, we as citizens, we as users of these services help each other,” he said. “The answer to bad speech is not censorship. The answer to bad speech is more speech. We have to exercise and spread the idea that critical thinking matters now more than ever, given the fact that lies seem to be getting very popular.”

- Edward Snowden

Hi AC,

“The answer to bad speech is not censorship. The answer to bad speech is more speech." Yes, indeed.

Is that the Edward Snowden currently in Putin's Russia ?

How's he going with that sort of philosophy there ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

As long as the news itself is presented accurately
and fairly, editorial and journalistic leanings
shouldn't matter. But there's also no point in
claiming snow-white impartiality for political
coverage (as SM tends to do) if it's not there.

No Australian media is monolithically biased
but neither are they wholly unbiased
in what they report and how they choose to report it.

As stated earlier - those of us who are torn between
the desert of mainstream media and the jungle of the
internet need a place where rational but diverse
views can be found on important issues. New Matilda
is such a place for me. Of course as stated earlier -
it would be difficult to agree with every view
expressed in the columns of NM - but it would be
equally difficult to disagree with them all.

Dear Foxy,

Yes, NM: I was trying to follow an article from some months back concerning an assertion that Aboriginal people had agriculture, and on a large scale: seven miles of grain crops in one part of NSW, already stooped ['stooked'?], according to Major Mitchell, according to the author. I was intrigued how they quickly they cultivated seven miles of land (and why so much: that could be a hell of a lot of grain), and why such tools have never been found. Did cultivation tools evolve ?

I'm wondering why the production system wasn't copied elsewhere in Australia. And whether or not the cultivators put fences around their crops, as everywhere else in the world, not least against foraging animals like kangaroos or emus, and jealously guarded them from other groups, and whether or not they lived in permanent defensive villages for mutual protection. Did they trade their grain for meat, like groups living near 'Bushmen' do in southern Africa, and have done for hundreds of years ? How did they store excess grain throughout the year ? What cultivatable grain are we talking about ? Are there still wild fields of it ? Did white farmers ever plant it ?

Professor Megan Davis suggests that, if Aboriginal people were foragers alone, then 'settlement' may be an appropriate term, but if they also cultivated, i.e. used land in a much more proprietorial way, then the country was invaded. The problem with that formula comes in assessing how much of Australia was cultivated, and how much was used for foraging alone.

So many intriguing questions ! Thanks, NM !

Love,

Joe

Paul,

I'm sorry you struggle with English so I'll use smaller words.

Foxy,

I have never claimed that anyone is unbiased as you mendaciously claim. However, the NM has almost never presented news, and certainly never presented a conservative POV, compared to newscorp which presented news and opinions from a wide spectrum of political viewpoints.

Dear Joe,

I'm glad to read that New Matilda has brought you
some fresh ideas and new information. They don't
duplicate the stories and perspectives available
in other outlets.

Dear SM.,

New Matilda has published the work of many, many, writers,
including - journalists, current and former politicians,
lawyers, academics, critical and creative thinkers,
bloggers, policy makers and even satirists. NM publishes
commentary on current events, as well as
breaking news, and investigative journalism. With shrinking
media diversity and huge changes underway in delivery
there are fewer and fewer outlets publishing independent
minded journalism like New Matilda.

I realise that you don't approve of NM. And that's
fine. It's your choice after all to stick
to the sources that you feel comfortable with.
We interpret things according to our own values, make
subjective judgements, and state our personal opinions.
That's what makes this forum so interesting.

Shadow, as my old Granny used to say; "No news, is good news." so like you, she must have been am avoid reader of Uncle Rupert's no news newspapers. Do you have 'The Daily Telecrap' home delivered, or simply rely on old copies you find on the bus seat for your daily dose of shock horror?

Foxy, I totally agree with what you have said about New Matilda. The contributes to NM are far more diverse than the narrow bunch of mostly right wing talking heads you find in News Corp publications. Which mostly pander to the conservative predispositions of people like SM, that is why they find those publications so acceptable.

Dear Paul,

I would love to tell some butt-head,
to go stick it where the sun don't shine.
Instead I'll probably come
out with, "Each of us is inclined to perceive
facts selectively and to interpret them
accordingly". :-)

cont'd ...

I'm glad that you can see the value of New Matilda.

Hi Foxy,

Studies have shown that conservative thinking people have a greater fear factor built into their brains than liberal progressive thinkers. This may explain why they only digest the opinions of conservative writers, and dismiss the views put forward by liberal progressives such as those found in 'New Matilda'. To read any contrary opinion causes the conservative to suffer a biological reaction resulting in an uncomfortable arousal of fear within their body chemistry, something liberal progressives do not suffer when subjected to alternate opinion. Unfortunate this uncomfortable feeling of fear suffered by the conservative cannot be relieved with a simple dose of 'Alka-Seltzer'. Therefore they find it best to avoid upsetting publications like 'New Matilda' and rely on the tried and true opinions of the Andrew Bolt's and Piers Akerman's of this world .

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

Foxy,

I looked again at NM and unsurprisingly saw not one piece of news or investigative journalism,and only a collection of far left whinge pieces.

If you choose to inhabit this narrow little echo chamber then it is no wonder that you are continually mugged by reality.

A classic reaction from the rabid conservative, is when presented with reasonable, even centralist views, he or she will over react. Often, the rabid conservative will claim that those moderate views and opinions are a collection of far left whinge pieces, accusing others of inhabiting a narrow little echo chamber and being mugged by reality. Unfortunately these rabid conservatives will reach for the 'Alka-Seltzer', but alas no relief is forthcoming.

My old Granny who subscribed to the philosophy of "no news is good news", also recommended in these situations, "a Bex, a cuppa tea, and a good lie down," Shadow you may want to countenance Granny's remedy for what ails you.

http://medicalsciences.med.unsw.edu.au/node/302500715

Dearest Foxy,

I'm still digesting that brilliant story about Aboriginal people being farmers. The article talks about yam fields 'right to the horizon'. But no workers beavering away out there ? If it were rice fields 'right to the horizon, you would expect to see many people out there, planting padi or regulating the irrigation or harvesting, etc., all day, sun-up to sun-down. I wonder if Mitchell noticed people tending their yam crop ? Or their grain crop ?

That grain crop: nine miles long, and say, a mile wide ? That would be six thousand acres, a big farm in today's standards. You would need a bloody big tractor to plant it these days, and a number of harvesters. So if it was planted and reaped by hand, it would need perhaps a thousand people going flat-out. Even kangaroo-grass would yield maybe a thousand tonnes of seed. No fences to keep the animals out ? So people patrolling and repairing the twenty miles of fences ? I wonder how the work-force was organised, and where they stored that much, and who gave it out. Oh, of course, it was shared equally.

Thanks, NM, for provoking new thinking: it's a pity NM readers don't do much of that and realise what a crock this story is. And don't get me started on the yams 'right to the horizon'. Oh, all right: 'To the horizon' would mean many more thousands of acres, at about a tonne of yams per acre. Who dug them up ? Where were they stored ? Who planted them out in the first place, and worked on regulating the water supply, 'right to the horizon' ? Who organised the thousands of workers to do it ?

Do NM readers ever ask questions ? Do they just accept whatever is pushed at them ? I can't believe it, surely nobody is that stupid.

But thanks anyway, Foxy.

Lots of love,

Joe

Dear SM,

What you saw does not surprise me.
People from different walks of life
may interpret the same phenomenon - whether it
is a president's or prime minister's policies,
a religious doctrine, or anything else, in very
different ways. If the world consisted simply
of self-evident reality that everyone perceived
in exactly the same way, there might be no
disagreement among observers. But the truth of the
matter is that what we see is not determined by what
exists "out there." It's shaped by what our past
experience has prepared us to see and by what we
consciously or unconsciously want to see. Each of us is
inclined to perceive facts selectively and to
interpret them accordingly.

Dear Joe,

I am so pleased that you are questioning the
objectivity of what you read. History books
are written by historians, and historians are
human beings. Their words are often wise, but
never "gospel." It's great that you tend to
ask questions all the time and don't accept
and reference as if it could not be wrong.
Therefore just as with primary sources, we
need to consult as many history books as possible
on issues to get a really fair picture of the
past. Not only is it necessary to question the
objectivity of what we study (that is, how fair
is it to all sides) but we must be able to use the
different theories put forward.
Well done and keep up the good work.

Dearest Foxy,

Oh, I don't think that objectivity means 'fairness to all': it means heartless attention to accuracy, truth and reality and cruel destruction for anything which is BS. And, despite NM's stout defence of it, crap is still crap.

You suggest that "But the truth of the matter is that what we see is not determined by what exists "out there."". Well, yes, it is, or at least it ought to: the problem is how to uncover what is 'out there' as much as possible. And the way to do that is to search for evidence and cruelly junk any 'theories' or beliefs and prejudices for which there isn't any.

Yes, as Popper says, we can never get the 'whole truth' but by Christ, we can get to a point from which we can say that one 'interpretation' is crap, and others may not be. Further evidence will thin out this unfair field by this cruel process of demanding evidence and weighing it up. In the meantime, we can make inferences, in the expectation that they may crumble in the face of counter-evidence. No conjecture or theory is completely provable but, with some evidential backing, some are more likely than others. Nothing fair about it.

Not all stories are true. That may come as a surprise to NM readers. Not all stories are equal. Not all beliefs are equal. Not all cultural practices are equally admirable. I'd prefer to leave that childish thinking to seven-year-olds.

Love,

Joe

Hi Joe, I am not sure what you are saying. Indeed "crap is crap", but who determines what is crap in their view and what is real. I don't agree with some form of censorship to weed out the crap being applied in the first place. Why not allow all arguments to be presented and in that way the informed reader/listener can formulate their own opinion. I happen to believe the Earth is round, based on sound judgement of the evidence provided, but I don't deny the "Flat Earth Society" its right to put forward an alternate theory.
When I attended Catholic High School in the late 1960's, the Science curriculum required the Brothers to teach Charles Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution', equally during Religious classes I was subjected to the Churches teaching of the 'Creationist Theory'. The former was presented with scientific evidence to support it, and made no mention of 'Creationist Theory', nor did it impose any penalty if you were a none believer. On the other hand the zealot teaching the 'Creationist Theory' demanded blind obedience to the theory without presenting any evidence to support it, derided Charles Darwin and his 'Theory of Evolution' at every opportunity, and threatened severe penalties for non believers, burn in Hell. Because of that type of teaching I am an atheist, and a believer in Evolution. it is good to be given both sides of the argument.

Dear Paul,

Very well said.

Precisely the point that I was trying to make.

G'day Paul,

Of course. To support one interpretation of reality, preferably backed by evidence of some sort, doesn't mean to ban all alternative interpretations, no matter how free of evidence. Let freedom of expression reign. Of course, let them all flower, let their adherents elaborate them to their hearts' content and clear up any doubts about their value, but I have to reiterate that not all opinions are equal, not all 'truths' are equal, not all beliefs are equal, whatever that may mean. Let idiocy and fatuity reign too, which is why I would NOT support any boundaries put on NM.

Darwin proposed a 'struggle for survival' between individuals and species in the natural world. I'm all in favour of a 'struggle for survival' of ideas, each given their head. Without that teasing out of faulty notions and proposals, we may not be aware of their faulty assumptions, limitations and defects. One of my favorites is the discussion in Monty Python's 'Holy Grail' about the nature of ducks, women and evil. Faulty premises but pretty good logic :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Back in 2013 Marni Cordell then owner of New Matilda
(and a great journalist) shortly before moving on from
NM published a story the morning after protests on
Manus Island led to the vicious backlash that left
Reza Barati dead. Immigration Minister Scott Morrison
said the Iranian had been killed after escaping the centre.
Marni reported that this was not the case. As Morrison
later admitted, and as the Government's own report would
find, Marni was right.

In May 2014 Chris Graham took over the publication. It is
now pivoted to a hybrid-tabloid style, mixing
thorough investigations, and more aggressive stories
and comment

The reason why NM has lasted this long is the people who make
it and who read it - care. It is an outlet that will
continue the weary slog against public indifference on
important issues that others don't deal with. If it
disappeared who would be brave enough to replace it.

Dear Paul,

You may like this quote on the theme of "crap is crap."

One of the few times in a man's life when he's not full
of "crap?" - The morning of a colonoscopy.
Enough said.

Hi Foxy, many a true word is spoken in jest. I have to agree with that one.

Only a short time ago Copernicus and Galileo had their books (their versions of New Matilda) banned because at that time they contained the "crap is crap" theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun, Such heresy contradicted the Bible, which states the Earth is at the center (maybe runner can do a run through and tell us its all true). Copernicus died a short time after his book 'The Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies' was published in 1543,he died the same year, so was not prosecuted by the Church, they just dammed him to Hell for eternity. Galileo published his 'Dialogue' in 1632, and was tried by that crap sorting organisation 'The Inquisition' in 1633, forcing Galileo to recant his previously published beliefs.

And these bloody people still want to this day, to tell us how to live our lives! In my school days I was caned for daring to contradict a Brother on matters of scripture. He too was also sorting the "crap from the crap". I can't recall if it was my theory that Jesus was a homosexual, or if it was my other theory that Adam and his sons were bonking Adams daughters and their sisters, and therefore we are all misfit bastards. I had lots of such theories which didn't go down too well with the Zealots!

Foxy,

Your reply is intellectually slovenly. While people may have different opinions of the same article(s) based on different histories, this does not mean that all opinions are of equal value.

You claim that NM has a diverse range of views, yet are unable to give one example of an article that is not left whinge. Not a single even mildly conservative article in its entire existence.

Essentially NM is written by the greens and for the greens.

Dear SM,

I would love to agree with you, but then
we'd both be wrong.

"Essentially NM is written by the greens and for the greens." Is that opinion, or is that fact. If it is opinion, it is worthless, if it is fact, then present the evidence.

SM, you maybe so far to the conservative way of thinking, that even moderate progressive views are seen as extreme left to you. So, in that way it would be impossible to point out anything in NM that may be construed by you as being conservative.

Foxy,

I would like to agree with you, but I don't have sufficient pointless platitudes.

Paul,

The proof is that neither of you have yet been able to produce a single article from NM that reflects a non left whinge POV.

Q.E.D.

P.S. I see that I was right all along, Rhiannon and her fellow Stalinists have finally come out of the closet and declared war on capitalism and authority (such as the police).

Hi Paul,

Actually Copernicus was much smarter than that, I think he died on the same day that his book was published: brilliant career move, outwitting the medieval thought police AND yet getting published.

Both he and Galileo put many years of observations into their findings: in their case, 'truth' wasn't just an impotent opinion or suspicion, but something backed up with irrefutable evidence. I love evidence :)

Most of us atheists go through that adolescent phase of ripping into the idiocies of the Bible, before we realise that they don't matter to believers, who take unquestioning belief even in those idiocies as some sort of test of their belief, and so come out believing even more strongly. Such is 'belief without evidence': intelligent people believing what can't be proven. Most of us just write off such unquestioning belief - after all, it's part of every religion - and move on, hopefully to evidence-based understandings of the actual world.

Gosh, I hope that nobody on the 'Left' holds 'beliefs without evidence'. If that was even possible, that would make them ....... ummm ..... religious ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

"brilliant career move!", but poor old Nicolaus went to Hell, where he is now burning for eternity, I have it on good authority that eternity is rather a long time. Sister Mary, an old Irish Catholic nun, who I had the misfortune to cross paths with in the third grade gave me the good oil on all this stuff. at a very early age I must say. Remember this, the only thing worse than atheists and pagans, are those haters of the Holy Father, Protestants. Sister Mary had a long list of hates, she condemned me to purgatory several times. Purgatory for those who are not familiar is a sort of hotted up holiday camp for sinners.
On Galileo Galilei, "Both he and Galileo put many years of observations into their findings" He quickly admitted it was all crap, particularly when he thought about having his arms and legs stretched on the rack. I think Sister Mary would have liked her very own rack, she could have used it on Protestants, and naughty 8 year old boys.

Cheers Paul.

Dear SM,

You ask for -

One example that is not "left Whinge," as you so
intellectually put it, in New Matilda?

Ok. I'll give you two. Jeff McMullen's, "The Road To a Treaty."
And Marni Cordell's article on Reza Barati's death.

Then of course there's the articles by Waleed Aly,
Julian Burnside QC, Michael Brull,
and many others.

Hi Paul,

Galileo agreeing that his findings were crap - well, one might do that if one's arms and legs are being slowly pulled out of their sockets. He added, something like, 'Ma il muove,' i.e. the Earth moves, it isn't fixed at the centre of a God-made universe. I wish I had his courage. I think that, if NM was pulling my fingers out of joint, one by one, I would probably, in extremis, agree that some of their articles were worth reading. But they would have to keep pulling :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear SM,

You don't have sufficient "pointless platitudes?"
Really?

This may help. Taken from the web:

Wink Knudge

"That's a good point - one can easily
deride all the verbal concoctions
developed over time and oft used by the
masses. Maybe an example of a new
authorative variant of a turn of phrase could
be offered to demonstrate the superior ability
for a unique response in those situations.
If the foo shitz, wear it."

Dearest Foxy,

Thanks for this, but I'm a bit alarmed that Jeff McMullen, Marni Cordell, Waleed Aly, Julian Burnside QC, Michael Brull, and many others are not counted as being on the 'Left'. Do you mean that they're all part of some secret undercover pro-Government Del-Con clique ?

So who's left on the 'Left' ? What can any of us do about it before it's too late ? How can any of us stimulate discussion on NM in order to provoke the proper exposition of key issues for the GCC like gay marriage and a republic (of course, a people's republic, a people's democratic socialist workers' republic), and kale vs watercress.

It's vital that some of these issues be thoroughly thrashed out (for example, whether or not kale should ever be eaten raw) and the only way is to allow complete freedom of expression, even of opinions (since opinions are not all equal) with which we disagree.

Funny, a comment I made on NM recently disappeared ...... Probably a computer problem ......

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Sorry to hear that you're alarmed.

Don't be.

The issue is not whether journalists are left-leaning
or right-leaning, the issue is whether this is a
serious problem. I don't believe it is because
the journalists/authors mentioned are genuinely
fair-minded ones and they strive for objectivity
in their work. This is far more powerful an influence
than cynical readers like yourself seem to believe.

Of course, it is also true that every piece of writing
involves subjective judgements as I stated earlier.
One can strive for fairness and balance, but even in
one's choice of topics and the presentation of facts, one
inevitably shows one's hand (something you'd be familiar
with) and a writer's personal views may sometimes
glimmer through.

Still take heart that what with the fragmentation of
the media in the era of the internet, cable TV and talk
radio - this allows for more opportunity for different
views to be aired.

We should all be happy with that.

Foxy,

Jeff McMullen's, "The Road To a Treaty." - Epic fail. The concept of a treaty is considered only by those on the fringe of the left whinge.

And Marni Cordell's article on Reza Barati's death. Epic fail on two counts. 1 not published in NM, 2 An article by a refugee advocate. As far as I recall that rules out any conservative and most Labor members. Again a far left whinge article.

All of the other authors you mention don't even vaguely approach rational conservative values.

Yet again confirming that NM is a fringe whinge blog.

Secondly, the problem with the NM fringe whinge blog is not just that they are a solely left whinge blog, but that their "facts" and opinions are often incorrect and or seriously flawed.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Surely you jest.

You can't possibly be serious.

I always regarded you akin to Menzies
in intellect - but I'm beginning to suspect
from you last post that you're more of a
hamster version of Menzies.

Hi Foxy, Good to see you are back to your best, go get em' gal! As you can see from my posts I have mellowed somewhat over the past year and one of my New Years resolutions is not to get A holed into the 'sin bin' on OLO too early in 2017, that can happen later in the year, say in February.

"Surely you jest." Shadow never jests, like all those dour old conservatives its all doom and gloom, Queen Victoria reincarnated. To be a dyed in the wool conservative you cannot afford a humerus bone in your body. As that punk rocker conservative Andrew Peacock would often say "It is a very serious matter!" (I think he was referring to his hair style)

Shadow, now you are making an unintentional funny; "rational conservative values" of course they don't, there is no such thing. Unless you believe the rantings of Piers Arkerman and Co you read in your home delivered 'Daily Telecrap' are rational conservative values.

P/s Foxy. I hate to mention it, but you seem to be a bit more at ease now days, since your forum antagonists OTB seemed to die a forum death on 29th September 2016. I miss the old Beach, hated the Greens, but loved Aunty Lee.

Dear Paul,

You're very perceptive. I did find OLO very
challenging (and sometimes bruising) in the
past but life has a way of putting
things into perspective for us. Left/Right?
Conservative/Progressive? Most people are
a little bit of each and they change their
minds on various issues. I take comfort in
that. The others don't really matter to me
and are best avoided. Plus a sense of humour
helps. See you on another discussion - I've
wasted enough time on this one.

Foxy,

Most people consider their views to be mainstream and centrist, many are surprised when they find out that the majority does not actually share their views.

The two examples you gave were 1) of someone advocating for a treaty with indigenous Australians, and 2) of a refugee advocate.

Given that recent polling showed that roughly 80% of Australians support strong border controls, and that refugee advocacy is found only in the Greens and ALP far left, and the two centrist parties i.e. the coalition and Labor do not, to offer this up as a conservative issue is laughable.

Similarly, the whole issue of a treaty is another prime example of gesture politics, as "treaty" would need to be negotiated separately with 3000 odd separate tribes / peoples many of whom have now disappeared, and those that exist often have no recognised leaders. Unsurprisingly no one in the coalition considers it seriously and it remains a far left wet dream.

The closest I have found to rational values in the NM is Geoff Russell even though his political values are left of centre:

https://newmatilda.com/2016/08/01/wind-and-a-prayer-the-problem-with-sas-power/
https://newmatilda.com/2016/11/10/the-nuclear-waste-dump-south-australia-does-a-brexit/
https://newmatilda.com/2016/10/30/the-nuclear-debate-fast-reactors-only-have-to-succeed-once/
https://newmatilda.com/2016/10/09/black-friday-brain-fades-black-outs-and-josh-frydenbergs-awkward-day-in-canberra/
https://newmatilda.com/2016/10/23/nuclear-waste-scott-hicks-to-remake-the-shining-with-radiation-starring-as-jack-nicholson/

Paul,

Firstly I have given up on humour with you, firstly because most it goes right over your head, and you seem not to have graduated from junior school, as your version of humour is to state something outrageous and giggle at the reaction.

Secondly, it would appear that you are a far more avid reader of the Daily telegraph than I am. I read the SMH and the Australian every day, and the telegraph typically if someone leaves a copy in the lunchroom. I do notice that it is the paper of choice amongst the tradesmen.

Hi Shadow,

"Firstly I have given up on humour with you" When did you start?

"you are a far more avid reader of the Daily telegraph than I am" No.

"and the telegraph typically if someone leaves a copy in the lunchroom. I do notice that it is the paper of choice amongst the tradesmen." Eating with the riff-raff, heaven forbid, could be worse they could be CFMEU members, no telling what you could catch. Do you not have a key to the 'Executive Lunchroom'?

Dear SM,

The voting patterns of the Australian electorate have
shifted. There is more volatility in the Australian
electorate than ever before. As we've seen from recent
results more Australians are swinging between the two
major parties or are voting for third parties with
one in four Australians voting for a minor party.

In the past the political views and opinions of most
voters like their social, geographical and class
location were comparatively much more fixed and stable.
The major parties organised their election platforms
around clearly differentiated, left-right ideological
platforms. By offering two contrasting poles, the major
parties had a powerful tool to attract and connect with
the public. The 21st Century world fundamentally changed
all of that.

Public opinion is now continually shaped and re-shaped by
avalanches of instant-internet-driven information.
Geographical and social mobility means that increasing
numbers of voters no longer identify in a clear way
with the boundaries of socio-economic class and the
ability of our political parties to "represent" is
deteriorating.

Political party membership across the board is at
negligible levels and the percentages will continue to drop
as the world becomes even more fragmented and the
disconnect between voters and parties grows.

That is why sharp poll swings, hung parliaments, and one
term governments will increasingly become the norm.

This was taken from the following website for your
information:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-16/triffitt-vote-compass:-australians-looking-for-direction/7418236

Foxy,

Don't confuse the swing of voters from the two major parties to the plethora of minor parties with more focus positions with the views of voters on individual issues.

The preference of voters for strong border control has been roughly 80% from 2003 to today. KRudd and Juliar both fell foul of this when in 2007 KRudd promised to maintain the Pacific solution and broke this promise to pander to the left whinge of the ALP, and ended up setting up Manus Island and Nauru again after killing 1200+ men women and children as to do otherwise would be electoral suicide.

As far as a treaty is concerned it is a peripheral issue that does not even cross the minds of most Australians, and is talked about only in left whinge circles.

In all the cases where treaties exist, they were negotiated to cease hostilities between the British colonists and the indigenous nations. There have been no hostilities for many years and certainly not since federation, and in 1800 there were no recognisable indigenous nations and certainly none today. Secondly in most cases the separate "nations" fare no better than the Australian indigenous.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Seeing as you claim to read the Sydney Morning Herald
here is an article that hopefully shall inform you:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/treaty-with-australias-indigenous-people-long-overdue-20131112-2xeel.html

A few quotes:

"Treaties and other forms of agreements are accepted around the
world as the means of reaching a settlement between indigenous
peoples and those who have settled their lands. Treaties can
be found in countries such as the US, Canada, New Zealand.
Indeed, in nations such as Canada, new treaties are still
being made. Australia is the exception. We are now the only
Commonwealth nation that does not have a treaty with its
indigenous people."

"We have never entered into negotiations with them about
the taking of their lands or their place in this nation.
Rather than building our country on the idea of a partnership
with the Aboriginal people, our laws have sought to exclude
and discriminate against them. This is reflected in our
constitution which in 1901 created the Australian Nation."

"That document was drafted at two conventions held in the 1890s.
Aboriginal people were not represented, nor were they consulted
in the drafting of the constitution. They were viewed by the
drafters as a dying race and the Australian legal system was
premised on the idea that they had no long-term future in
the Australian Nation."

"Until the Mabo case in 1992, this was reflected in the idea that
Australia was "terra nullius," or no man's land, when white
settlers arrived in 1788. For the purpose of our laws it was
as if Aboriginal people simply did not exist..."

The rest of the article is worth a read.

The following link may also help:

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/would-a-treaty-help-aboriginal-self-determination

Dearest Foxy,

I'm so glad that you've come back, after abandoning this thread a couple of times. I won't be so indelicate as to mention Nellie Melba :)

Those quotes from authority: quite a few can of worms there. For example, 'terra nullius' was first mentioned by Justice Blackburn in Milirrpum v. Nabalco, in 1971, perhaps I'm wrong, but he seemed to suggest that people of course were here, but didn't have a system of land proprietorship which was recognised in any body of modern land law. Is that so ?

I've scoured a few tomes on land law and in their history sections - how land proprietorship came about - they skip straight over foraging societies (which usually have their rights to USE the land recognised) - to farming societies.

I'm very uncomfortable about raising the issue but is it possible that foraging societies have a very different perception of their relationship to land compared to farming societies, such as Maori, or many Native American groups ? i.e. in societies which they prepare ground, cultivate, weed, fence in to protect from animals, and harvest crops, either individually or in family groups ?

Yes, I've seen articles about harvesting yams and kangaroo grass, but that's the foraging part of farming: grain farmers are doing right this moment. Foraging societies 'harvest' what nature has provided, farming societies harvest what nature and their labour and capital has provided.

Early farming societies also hunt, gather and fish, so of course they are or were also foragers. The hard question is: are foragers really cultivators ? If not, what is the extent of their proprietorship over land ? I don't like the answer, to be honest. Why couldn't everybody have left 'Mabo' alone, as it was, and gone from there ? This may not end happily.

Love always,

Joe

Dear Joe,

While I appreciate your comments you really should read
the links I gave - especially the one concerning
whether a treaty would help aboriginal self-determination.
I'd be interested to read your views on that particular
subject.

Wishing you love in your heart and joy in all of your days.
Happy New Year!

Foxy,

Of all the reasons for implementing government policy, "Everyone else has one" is the most puerile.

Yes I have read the article and find it at best vague and unsupported. While I support the amendments in the constitution to grant recognition and remove the last vestiges of racism, I find it difficult to see the need for a treaty that would separate indigenous Australians from other Australians and create separate classes of citizens.

Treaties in other countries were created to halt vicious territorial wars and granted indigenous peoples pretty much the same rights as they already have under the Mabo judgement.

Is this just more meaningless left whinge gesture politics. I think so.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I don't think anything productive will be achieved
in any further discussions with you.
I trust that you will find others who will happily
oblige you in further dialogue. I don't see the
point in continuing any further.

Cheers.

Shadow, showing your ignorance once more.

"In all the cases where treaties exist, they were negotiated to cease hostilities between the British colonists and the indigenous nations"

A load of cobblers!

The most famous indigenous/British treaty in our part of the world is 'The Treaty of Waitangi' 1840. The New Zealand (Maori) Wars took place between 1845 and 1872 at its peak in the 1860's over 18,000 British troops and Maori allies were pitted against many thousands of Maori warriors, probably four or five thousand, the war resulted in an eventual Government victory, the Government enforced the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 and confiscated large areas of Maori land, something of a sore point today. Between 1807 and 1845 a period known as 'The Musket Wars' which peeked around 1832/33 although of concern to the British it had nothing to do with them, and they were not military involved. In fact it was the Official British Resident in NZ James Busby who assisted in the formation of the 'Declaration of Independence' setting up the British recognized (1836) United Tribes of New Zealand in 1835. The British motivation was its concern that France was increasing its influence in the region at that time. Following the 1840 treaty, the first signs of Maori discontent with the application of the treaty took place in 1845/46 with the 'Flagstaff War' led by chief Hone Heke (my partners famous ancestor).

Shadow, what hostilities took place in New Zealand between the British Crown and the indigenous Maori prior to the signing of 'The Treaty of Waitangi' 6th February 1840? It is my view that no such hostilities took place.

Foxy,

As I thought, you can't come up with a definitive reason for the treaty.

Paul,

You're right. The treaty enabled a tiny colonising force to declare British sovereignty over many large and well organised Maori Chieftains, and allowed them later to divide and conquer and slowly acquire most of their land.

Perhaps you could show where this treaty gives the Maoris any more rights than the Aboriginals have in Australia?

Dear SM,

I have come up with a definitive reason (several in fact)
for a treaty but I can't be held responsible for your lack of
comprehension skills and due to that we are unable to
have a useful dialogue.

Enjoy your day.

Dear Foxy,

Do you think I haven't been chewing over the issues of self-determination, treaty, community, etc. etc., for more than forty yeas now ? That I'm going to be persuaded by some half-baked rubbish, for example that in an article in today's Australian by Fred Chaney ? Unbelievable.

Back in 1973, when we were making Aboriginal Flags, we also set up a little journal, 'Black News', dedicated to self-determination; fourteen issues, around 1200 pages all-up, all from our own funds, until we ran out of them and I went fruit-picking. We went to live in a settlement in 1973 precisely to boost self-determination there, in our own strange ways. We learnt by doing if you like, the limits to that airy notion of self-determination.

The notion of a treaty was even further off in the realm of fantasy, even then. But I followed the doings of Nugget Coombs and Stewart Harris and Lorna Lippmann and others in their push for a treaty, and the great Bill Hagan and Lyall Munro Jr. in their promotion of a Makarrata in about 1980-1981. Nothing then was persuasive. But now, of course, many people have discovered the Joys of Treaty and its open-ended financial possibilities.

Clearly, now, in 2016-2017, recognition will not stop at a few nice words, nor at a Treaty, nor at the notion of a separate Black State within Australia. So 'recognition' and 'reconciliation' are antithetical: one means permanent separation (where, for God's sake ? who would go there from the cities ?) while the other will necessitate a long and mutually-interrogating struggle for common ground, i.e. eventual reconciliation.

I choose eventual reconciliation. But now we will have to get over this idiotic separatist hump in the road.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Of course I respect your expertise in this area.
You're the expert. I'm not.
All I have to go by is what I read.
A treaty makes sense to me. Like or not - there
it is:

http://www.australianstogether.org.au/stories/detail/why-treaty

cont'd ...

on the other side of the coin there's an interesting
article by Greg Craven in The Australian, entitled,
"False promise of indigenous treaty could derail
recognition ..." which may be of interest. It's
worth a read.

Dear Foxy,

Yes, I've circulated Craven's article:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/greg-craven/false-promise-of-indigenous-treaty-could-derail-recognition/news-story/a831cb624f4e3f8dfa0c2c33cacd0530

I urge all OLO readers to have a good look at it. I suspect that 'Treaty' will morph into 'a separate State within Australia' which, soon enough, will morph into 'a separate, independent State carved out of Australia', still funded from Canberra and joining together a string of remote communities 'with predominantly Aboriginal populations', i.e. out in the sticks, with no economic base, and already representing the most dysfunctional parts of Aboriginal Australia.

Will the great majority of Aboriginal people, i.e. those in the cities, joyfully move out there ? Gosh, I'm not so sure.

Otherwise, what can 'a separate State' mean ? Bits and pieces all over Australia, somehow co-ordinating their fund-raising in Canberra ?

Ironically, when we moved to that community in 1973, we thought that, if every community worked hardtop build 'self-determining' economies, perhaps even exchanging goods between each other, they COULD build up a strong and healthy network of Aboriginal economic communities, and thereby a strong and healthy Aboriginal society [Marxists to the end :) ].

But very quickly, that hope faded. The 'communities' that I am most familiar with have either been abandoned (one or two families still there), or converted themselves into basically pensioner villages with no economic activity worth the name (although tens of thousands of good acres between them). I can't see that mkodel attracting people from the cities, to which they have already fled, sometimes long ago.

The question arises: If Aboriginal 'leaders' have their way, should urban Aboriginal people be required to move out to remote 'communities' ? Or should urban people be allowed to have some say in their lives ?

Did somebody mention Apartheid ?

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

It is a complex matter isn't it.
Here's two more links:

http://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/essay/2014/09/a-rightful-place/extract

And -

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-14/creation-of-indigenous-treaties-being-led-by-states/8119488

Foxy,

To sum up your reasons for having a treaty:

1 Other countries have one,
2 You have reasons but can't tell anyone?

The reasons given in the link you provided are:

1 a symbolic recognition of Indigenous sovereignty and prior occupation of this land
2 a redefinition and restructuring of the relationship between Indigenous people and wider Australia
3 better protection of Indigenous rights
4 a basis for regional self-government
guidelines for local or regional treaties
5 structures and systems for local and regional decision-making processes

All wishy washy and vague, none of which require a treaty.

Dear SM,

To quote David F.,:

" I think that I will have to be satisfied
that we are so far apart in our views that
we cannot have a useful dialogue."

Cheers.

Foxy,

Indeed we are. I don't base my views on what feels good at the time.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Yes we know. You've signed up for an ideology and given up
your willingness to think for yourself.
Evident everywhere.

Coming from someone who can't explain why she supports left whinge gesture politics, that's a little rich.

I've signed up for reasoned debate, not Left whinge dogma.

Even history taught in our schools is taught according to idealogical leanings.

For example, it is touted by those of leftist leaning ideas that our kids
should be taught about " Invasion day"because it s the truth.

On the other hand if it is pointed out , that the only thing here when the English arrived
was bush, and the whites are responsible for the building of the advanced society that Australia is today. That the English at that point in history already had towns, streets,
courts of law, advanced musical acheivements and all the superior attributes of an advanced civilisation. That, although it is also a fact of history,must be suppressed
and not spoken of.
This is being selective in the teaching of facts to suit a political agenda.
So, is it any wonder that our media cant report fact, when our schools cant teach it
without censoring it.

Dear CHERFUL,

Be careful or Shadow Minister may accuse you of being
a "Left wing whinge."
What he doesn't seem to realise is that -
Right wing or Left wing, they're both part of
the same bird. :-)

Happy New Year to you and yours from me and mine.

Hi Shadow,

On the question of a treaty between colonialists and indigenous peoples I am somewhat ambivalent. As for a modern day Australian Treaty, until something is on the table for discussion, and one can hear argument from both sides, I am ambivalent about that as well.

On the question of the 'Treaty of Waitangi' I believe Lieutenant Governor William Hobson who was given the task of establishing a treaty between the Maori people and the British Crown was an honorable man, as were all the colonials involved. Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands only a few days before the signing was due, without a treaty in hand and no knowledge of the Maori language or experience at treaty making. He did have with him some other treaty style documents etc, which he used to draw up his document with the help of his secretary James Freeman, possibly an early cut and paste job. The first draft was reviewed by James Busby, I mentioned him before, and was rejected out of hand on Busby's advice, as being something the Chiefs would not accept. The redraft was given Busby's seal of approval.
The immediate problem then was Hodson did not have a Maori language translation. The missionary father and son, Henry and Edward Williams provided Hobson with a written translation, the two were proficient in the local language, having been in NZ for many years. The translation was reviewed by Busby and he proposed a couple of word changes. The result was that there were now two treaties, the English version, and the Maori version (most chiefs signed the Maori version). The major point of contention to this day is the word "sovereignty" as found in the English version, and the Maori word for "governance" found in the Maori version.

The moral of the story is "be careful of what you write."

Paul,

The issue I have with the idea of a "treaty" is that some people believe that it is a magic bullet, that will in one fell swoop fix the education problems, get kids into school, provide jobs in remote communities etc. None of this will occur, no one wants to set up businesses in remote communities where there is no market, no skilled labor, and where crime is rampant. Kids of alcoholic parents will still not go to school, and teachers and medical staff will still have to be paid a fortune to go to these remote communities.

The original topic was of False news, what is it, and is it possible to control without damaging the right to free speech.

My contention is that anyone that reads "news" on one man blogs, facebook or Twitter needs to do with some level of skepticism and cross check the information, as these tend to have half truths, omissions and sometimes outright lies.

Dear Shadow Minister,

At last an excellent well reasoned post.
Congratulations and a Happy New Year to you and yours!

Happy new year to you too foxy and Paul.

And a Happy New Year to you Shadow.

I can not argue with what you have said, a piece of paper is not in itself going to solve a multitude of problems, no fair minded person would think otherwise. I have spoken to many Maori people about the Treaty of Waitangi, and have visited the treaty grounds several times. most agree the treaty was not a great document in the first place, and was essentially abandoned by the Pakeha from around 1860 onward.
For a treaty of any kind to be successful, it has to be both binding on all parties, and it has to impose reasonable conditions for all involved.
The Treaty of Versailles, is seen as the classic bad treaty, with extremely harsh conditions imposed on one side, and all the benefits being for the other side. Given those conditions imposed it's no wonder it did not work.

Hi Paiul,

As you would know better than me, the Treaty of Waitangi came near the end of thirty-odd years of the 'Musket Wars' between Maori groups, with the Ngapuhi in the north, and Te Rauparaha (Ngati Awa?) in the south wreaking havoc on many other groups, hence the entreaty (no pun intended) by Maori chiefs to the British to provide some form of protection. 'Governance' by an administration separate from that of New South Wales was the intended outcome, so, as I understand it, the Protectorate of New Zealand was separated from the colony of New South Wales.

But I'm not sure if 'governance' can be effective without entailing 'sovereignty': how does one govern without have the authority of some form or sovereignty recognised by the population ? Perhaps there is a sort of hierarchy of 'sovereignty': from the British Crown, down to the Governor of NSW and Lt-Governor Hobson before the Treaty, then more direct authority from the Crown to the Governor of (parts of) New Zealand (and his Council?), then the Maori Chiefs who had signed the Treaty ? Did those Maori chiefs cede 'sovereignty' when they ceded 'governance' powers to the new Governor ?

Either way, I don't see any Australian government ever ceding anything which challenges its sovereignty: certainly, it can delegate powers - but can instantly withdraw that delegation at any time: such ceded 'sovereignty' would be therefore entirely contingent on the wishes of the central government, and therefore could never be 'sovereignty' at all, no more than any local government has 'sovereignty' merely because it takes on responsibilities from federal and stage governments that are more effectively handled at local level. Delegated responsibilities are one thing, sovereignty is an entirely different matter.

So what would be the point of an agreement, contract or arrangement - even if it were called a treaty ?

Cheers,

Joe