Day to Day Politics: Where did Murdoch’s readers go and what about the election?

February 13, 2016
Written by: John Lord
34 Replies

Saturday 13 February.

Author’s Note.

This week’s announcement that News Corp’s revenue has declined for the fourth successive quarter has sent a shiver down the spine of the newspaper industry. It is now in its inevitable death throes. Further cuts will now have to be made in his Australian publications and when the traditional hard core readers have passed on what will be left.

This is a repost of an earlier.

Recently I found myself without access to the internet. It only lasted a day and a bit, thankfully, but it did bring home to me just how reliant I am on it. The pause however, did give me reason to think about how very differently I consume information now as opposed to say 10 or so years ago. It also gave me reason to think about what influence old media, and in particular Murdoch newspapers, might have on the next election.

I have been a prolific reader all my life and not to fill my brain with a daily dose of anything newsworthy might lead to withdrawal symptoms. Habitually at 6am I would be awake waiting for the familiar thud of the Melbourne Age dropping onto the driveway. Together with a hot cup of green tea my day was put in perspective.

With the advent of the internet it all changed. Both the reader and the media proprietor now find themselves in a vastly different arena.

Where as in my case I relied on The Age to provide the entirety of information about my many and varied interests I now find I have unlimited access to anything and everything I want to know. It is simply astonishing just how much the webb has changed the world.

Now I wake at six (a lifelong habit) turn on the ipad, check the weather, my email, post some thoughts on Facebook and then peruse the newspapers, but not before seeing whose writing what on THE AIMN. In fact my newspaper reading is now limited and specific. I hone in on what I want to read and move on. I don’t subscribe to pay sites because there is ample quality information available on free sites and blogs. For example I look with contemptible curiosity at the headlines on The Australian site just to see the outrageous unmasked bias. I can peruse any newspaper in the world.

The interesting thing about the decline in sales and influence of Australian newspapers has been how they have responded. On the one hand Fairfax decided to cut costs, lower its journalistic standards, change its size and be a little more tabloidish. On the other hand Murdoch, who had made his fortune on smut decided to prostitute his publications by becoming even more offensive and provocative. It hasn’t worked. They both now opine rather than report.

So in terms of political influence Labor has little to fear from the nefarious front pages and slanted editorials of his tabloids. The recent Labor victories in both Queensland and Victoria have highlighted News Limited’s growing irrelevance to the electoral process.

Last year, the total daily circulation of all Australian daily newspapers was a little over 2.1 million, fully one million lower than it was at the turn of the century. When you take into account the growth in population post Second World War the decline is even more specular. In 1947 two copies of daily newspapers were sold for every five people. In 2014 the figure was 1-14. So now, Murdoch with a 60% share of the Australian circulation can only attract 4% of the population to buy his rags.

And the point of course is that the readership is rapidly ageing and disproportionately Coalition. They are voters who are locked into their political preferences. If you analyse any poll you will find that 60% of the Coalitions support comes from those over 65 and 60% of Labor’s from the under 40s. Hence it’s unlikely that Murdoch is influencing the younger voters. The group that gives Labor the best chance of winning the next election. And with so much support coming from a rapidly ageing cohort the right must be concerned as to where their future voters will come from.

Recent surveys by Essential Research also suggest that even those who read the Murdoch tabloids have little trust in them. Of the major newspapers The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald constantly score 70% trust with The Australian on 60%. But the three Murdoch metropolitan tabloids are only trusted by a little over half of their readers. The Herald Sun 53%. The Courier Mail 54% The Daily Telegraph at times fell to 41%. This of course means that those who buy this tabloid filth must do so for entertainment or sports. Certainly not for reliable reporting on politics. Habit may be another factor of course.

So, if all the research is correct, Murdoch only reaches less than 10% of the voting population which is about half the reach they had when they so blatantly supported Howard in 2001.

There are a couple of things to remember when discussing Murdoch’s political influence. The first is the flow on effect. The Australian is the shock jocks first point of call every morning and whatever bias is on for the day is quickly absorbed by the presenters of untruth.

Whilst the shock jocks have substantial audiences the fact is that the average listener can be likened to the average Murdoch reader. Elderly and set in their ways.

The Australian loses around $30 million every year and it is difficult to imagine it continuing production after the mogul dies. It is also difficult to expect that it doesn’t exert some influence on television which still attracts a sizable audience of uncommitted voters. Again it must be said that television audiences are now older. The young have deserted it for the internet, games or streaming media.

The second factor in all this is that whilst there has been a dramatic decline in the sales of newspapers and readership there has been a corresponding rise in the readership of their websites. Tabloid newspapers however have not been able to successfully merge their image into the digital market. It may be a graphics thing where internet news demands some form of visual and quantifiable sophistication.

Research also shows that Australian newspaper web sites have high traffic rates but whereas we might assume the average readership of the print edition The Daily Telegraph might have a 15 minute duration. Visits to its website are a lot shorter. As little as thirty seconds or so. So, it’s fair to assume these visits wouldn’t have much political impact at all.

There is no doubt that Labor can expect the full treatment from Murdoch at the next election. Anything from filth to fantasy. Everything will be magnified out of proportion, images crudely photoshoped to show leaders in the worst possible way together with lie after lie after lie. There is no doubt they will be as crass as is possible. But the big question is. Given all the evidence, what sway will they have?

There was a time when you would do nothing to offend the mogul but instead ingratiate oneself. Perhaps it’s time to call a spade a spade and tell the Australian people just how un Australian this American citizen is. Tell them he should not be imposing his Republican Tea Party ideology on us and that it’s about time he started to pay some tax in Australia. In other words call the mongrel for what he is. A pathetic self-serving power hungry bastard who believes you can control people with words calculated to gain favour with conservative governments.

The decay of traditional news media and the rise of digital media has meant that the young have not been touched by the Murdoch cancer. Instead they are forging opinion based on information sourced of themselves. And in doing so have dramatically reduced Murdoch’s sphere of influence.

He may preach from the high alter of propaganda but only reach the already converted but he is certainly not winning over any new adherents.

Some findings from the Essential survey.

How much trust do you have in the following media commentators and journalists?

Lauri Oakes 71% Sarah Ferguson 51% Tony Jones 51% Mark Riley 51% Michelle Gratton 49% Neil Mitchell 49% Chris Uhlmann 46% Andrew Bolt 38% Alan Jones 29%

The most trusted newspapers were.

SMH (70% a lot/some trust) and The Age (66%). The least trusted were The Telegraph (46% a lot/some trust), the HeraldSun (48%) and the Courier Mail (48%).

Overall, trust in media has fallen a little since this question was asked last year – however rankings remain much the same.

The most trusted media were ABC TV news and current affairs (63% a lot/some trust), SBS TV news and current affairs (61%) and ABC radio news and current affairs (58%).

The least trusted were internet blogs (20%) and commercial radio talkback programs (34%).

How much trust do you have in the following institutions and organisations?

AFP were top with 68% the ABC had 58% at the bottom on 16% and religious organisations 25%

Don’t ask me how the AFP got there.

My thought for the Day

‘Lying in the media is wrong at any time however when they do it by deliberate omission it is even more so. Murdoch’s papers seem to do it with impunity’.

Post Views: 812

34 comments

Login here Register here

Brett PattinsonFebruary 13, 2016 at 7:41 am

Yes, the reporting of surveyed levels of trust in newspapers is getting old. The latest survey by Essential, released earlier this week, shows improvement since June for the News Corp papers (including The Australian: 63%, The Telegraph: 56%) and a worsening for Fairfax papers (SMH:66%, The Age: 65%). So that12% lead held by the SMH over The Australian has narrowed over the last 6 or 7 months to 3%.
Deidre ZankerFebruary 13, 2016 at 8:05 am

Decline of Murdoch newspapers. Good news week!
LeeFebruary 13, 2016 at 8:42 am

I have not knowingly given Rupert any of my money for years and I intend to keep it that way.
Miriam EnglishFebruary 13, 2016 at 9:28 am

The Murdoch media empire has been slow motion imploding for years. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving slimeball. I just wish it would crash and burn faster.
Terry2February 13, 2016 at 9:39 am

I wonder when News Corp editors have their circulation meetings has anyone suggested that they try a new tack and actually aim their products to the broader community rather than just a relatively small conservative right-wing demographic.

Murdoch’s Fox News tried the slogan “Fair & Balanced” which sounded OK but it turned out to be an unpleasant euphemism for right-wing prattle and propaganda.
Paul MurchieFebruary 13, 2016 at 11:01 am

and you have to include FoxTel World Trivialisation (all the shit you never wanted to know about) and Murdoch’s version of BBC spewing absolute LIES about the Australian Economy and Politics … and then there’s Murdoch’s ABC. yeah, the print media is almost dead or on expensive life-support, but the NeoConian propaganda machine crunches on relentless …
hemingway13February 13, 2016 at 11:36 am

Much as I’d like to see the potency of Murdochia’s media juggernaut being greatly diminished, the flow-on influence of his propaganda remains dominant in national politics. Our multi-state television networks still promulgate camouflaged variations on the daily agendas set by Murdoch’s minions.

The most effective are the infotainment morning tv shows featuring an exceedingly affable pair of hosts, the female of which is usually “easy on the optics” (no female versions of Kochie need apply). They employ massive dollops of charm, and humour to maintain a centre-right political viewpoint on all topical matters.

Even worse are the ABC 24 News morning program’s pairing of puffed up “celebrity journos”, as their supercilious chitchat and selective “attack” interviewing expose them up as SkyNews wannabes. Not to mention the ABC’s Senior Canberra correspondent that was “fair and balanced” enough to be tapped for the Coalition Government’s top P.R. job by PM Abbott.
WallyFebruary 13, 2016 at 11:42 am

Rupert is getting married again, the latest fling with Jerry Hall has probably taken more attention than flagging sales recently.

MEDIA mogul Rupert Murdoch and former supermodel Jerry Hall will hold a marriage celebration next month at St Bride’s church on London’s Fleet Street, the spiritual home of British journalism.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/rupert-murdoch-jerry-hall-wedding-details-revealed/news-story/3079912595b93ef9a7a32df60180511a
lanceFebruary 13, 2016 at 3:16 pm

Abbott still, to this day ,does not understand the mechanics driving the American’s News Corp king pin’s
full backing of team Abbott last election .

It goes something like this -:
-Murdoch was in a full on— do or die near death experience with the Australian Taxation Department to the tune of a near billion dollar tax anomaly .
Murdoch threw every thing he had, with everything he had in the way of every cashed up conservative think tank with every wicked evil lie and twisted contorted untruth ever printed ,to maligne the Labor,Greens anti-Conservative forces

Abbott or that is Murdoch wins the 2013 election –Abbott celebrates Christmas that year with every Murdoch, boot licking opinon writer he has ever employed —Albrechtsen ,Devine ,Akerman ,Bolt ,Henderson and the rest of the Murdoch think tank claque that could fit into the tatty squat of Kirribbilly House .

Weeks later ,Abbott jumps on a plane with his chief of dirty tricks Peta Credlin to dine and wine with Mr Murdoch at his New York penthouse –weeks after that abracadabra —tax bill anomoly magically reversed in Mr Murdoch’s favour to the tune of $800,000,000— pay out
Thanx Tony –ya on ya own now son —

(how did that work out for ya Tony?—conned).
thebustopherFebruary 13, 2016 at 4:04 pm

“The Australian loses around $30,000 million every year” – that’s 30 billion a year. Maybe not, John?
Terry2February 13, 2016 at 4:19 pm

lance

Shortly after that, Murdoch Tweets to the world that Abbott should sack Peta Credlin : what’s going on there do you think ?
Michael TaylorFebruary 13, 2016 at 4:32 pm

Thanks thebustopher. Fixed.
lanceFebruary 13, 2016 at 6:48 pm

Terr2
Murdoch is informed that the *closeness* of Abbotts’ chief of staff is closer than close orders all his opinion writers to trash her –hoping to rescue his hand puppet from himself –love conquers all .
David (other)February 14, 2016 at 3:42 pm

Only blind Freddy wouldn’t see there is more than ‘platonic’ in the Abbott/Credlin relationship and Fred is slowly enjoying the glimmer of light.
Dom FammartinoApril 19, 2016 at 8:55 pm

But I think that I need to explain why the Liberals are much better economic managers. help support the aimn Of course, we know that some of the reason that these two are being singled out is because of their stance on same sex marriage. Bernardi and Abetz have managed to articulately argue that children need a mother and father to be well-balanced, so if they happen to have two parents of the same sex, then these parents shouldn’t be able to formally declare their commitment to one another by marrying. This might lead the children somehow not realising that they were deprived by not having a mother AND father, and then they’d be even more unbalanced because they might grow up to think that it was perfectly ok to be raised by two men or two women. However, I’ve seen “Modern Family” and I know that two gay parents may lead to their child growing up Asian.
dom fammartinoOctober 12, 2016 at 12:58 pm

Most of those wanting same sex marriage are totally inconsiderate of anyone who does not want it. The same “Gay” brigade are not gay but very angry that some do not want what they want and they are coming out with many wild claims without any evidence to support the claims. If they get same sex marriage they will feel more powerful and make more demands. I hope that there are enough Australians out there that want to respect marriage and the family to say no to same sex marriage. AND FOR PEOPLE WHO DONT UNDERSTAND GOD DOES NOT CONDONE GAY MARRIAGES! He clearly states it is an abomination, and he destroyed Sodom and Gorrmorhea and did not allow even children to escape!! The Sovereign Creator does not bless what deems blasphemous and an abominable!! It is lowly and detestable to our creator to see men or women in an unholy bonding. Mankind pushes ever so dangerously past guide lines at there own peril. Truth is every where in the bible; when are going to stop saying GAY IS NORMAL!!? YOU can make decisions against God’s will? Homosexual orientation is NOT natural. It is from our fallen nature, initiated from Original Sin. Same sex attraction in itself is not necessarily a sin, unless homosexual persons engage in or give their desire to homosexual acts. That is a grave sin, and sin of great depravity (read your Catechism if you don’t believe me). If you don’t believe what the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, then you are not a practicing Catholic. Dr. Scott Hahn calls that “cafeteria Catholicism” – thinking you can pick and choose what you want to believe. That is the definition of heresy. You need to open your heart to better formation, or you become complicit in others’ sins – which is also a mortal sin.
Miriam EnglishOctober 12, 2016 at 2:45 pm

Oops, Dom, your prejudices are showing.

Why is it that Christians who believe that their God created the world are so quick to ignore that world in favor of a book written by humans? I would have thought that they would be the most fervent students of the natural world because it is the direct hand of their God, but no. Point out to an anti-gay Christian that their God created all intelligent creatures (lions, dolphins, geese, dogs, cats, giraffes, penguins, and so on) so that about a tenth of them are same-sex attracted and they are generally astonished and disbelieve the truth in the world around them. To them the human-written Bible with all its errors and vagaries is much more reliable.

But unreliable though it is, you do realise, don’t you that God gives his blessing to a gay marriage in 1 Samuel 18:1, 3-4 when Jonathan and David are married. A little later it is obvious they’re in love when they have to be apart for a while they embrace, kiss, and weep together at the prospect. (1 Samuel 20:41) And much later, at Jonathan’s funeral David declares that he loved Jonathan more than any woman.

The piece about killing witches was introduced by a mistranslation from the original text. My favorite part of the Bible is when the villagers bring an adulterer to Jesus so she could be stoned to death and he gives the beautiful answer that the one who is without sin can cast the first stone. I was actually disappointed when I found out this wonderful piece is a forgery added by a medieval monk during the Dark Ages. There are many parts like this. There are literally hundreds of contradictions in the Bible, and even more inconsistencies. The Bible clearly approves of one of the greatest evils humans can ever perpetrate — enslaving another person. This makes its claims on morality somewhat shaky.

As for gays being an abomination, the Old Testament is filled with outdated, rather stupid prescriptions — do you wear cotton-polyester blend (abomination), do you allow crops with more than one plant? (abomination) do you cut your hair at the sides? (forbidden) trim your beard? (forbidden) do any on the sabbath? (punishable by death), eating fruit of a tree within 4 years of planting it (forbidden), and so on. You choose one that you have an irrational hatred for and declare that this one is the one that should be observed. Does something strike you about how self deceptive that is?

I think what is more blasphemous is people putting their own words of hate into their creator’s mouth, wouldn’t you agree? We have seen this down through the ages. If someone hates something or someone then they use their religion to say their God hates the same thing they do.

Your reaction to other people being allowed to formalise their love in marriage says a lot about you. Don’t you think marriage should be about love, not hate? It amazes me how many Christians make marriage about hate. Do you really think your God would approve of that? He made same-sex attraction natural, why would you be so hateful of people who mean you no harm, but simply want to live good and loving lives.

As for the children, there is plenty of research to show that children of same-sex parents actually do better than other children, so please don’t use them as an argument against same-sex marriage.

We get that you have an irrational fear and hatred of gays. Please don’t try to cloak such vile prejudice in holiness.

As a Christian, remember that the one you’re named after — Christ — in the Bible hung out with thieves and prostitutes and other people who were sneered at by the church. How do you think he’d react to your hateful rant?
HarquebusOctober 12, 2016 at 3:29 pm

I read dom’s comment earlier, but did not respond. I knew that someone would.
Well said Miriam.
Cheers.
Miriam EnglishOctober 12, 2016 at 4:35 pm

Thanks Harquebus. I have a lot friends who believe in gods and all kinds of other crazy stuff, a number of them Christian too. I don’t have a problem with that. They’re good people and try to do well by other people, just like all my atheist and agnostic friends too.

What I can’t abide is people pretending to be reverent and using their god as a vehicle for hatred. Those people are broken. They need to wake up to what monsters they are making themselves and their god into.
Domenic fammartinoOctober 17, 2016 at 6:05 pm

Each religion has there own beliefs. Im not against same sex marriage but it should be betweem a man and women. It will effect children and it will get used for wrong thats what im afraid of. There are much more important issues that are a priority. The law should not tell the catholic church to accept something they believe in.
Domenic fammartinoOctober 17, 2016 at 6:07 pm

21fathers commit suicide every week due to child access issues across Australia and Penny Wong and her Labor party pals don’t care one bit, but then tears up during a speach on equal marriage. She talks of ending discrimination against one social group while fully supporting discrimination against another social group. The hypocrisy is vomit worthy! PENNY WONG THE DONG LIAR FRAUD CHEAT AND A DISGRACE TO AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. An inconvenient truth for Labor! So Penny Wong you have been exposed for the fraud liar and out right cheat that you are and always have been. Wong the dong says that we are all bigoted and Homo-phobic if we don’t support Gay Marriage which I find a bit of a Twitter when you consider that Ju-Liar Gillard and Bill Shorten were both dead set against it. So is Penny saying that her own Left wing socialist comrades are Bigoted and Homo-Phobic ?The issue here is not whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage. it’s the blatant hypocrisy and double standards displayed by various high ranking Labor political figures and the obviously left leaning pro same sex marriage lobby when it comes to how they dealt with this issue when Labor was in government and how they’re dealing with the issue now that they’re in opposition! Love him or loath him, Tony Abbott has, rightly or wrongly, never changed his own personal view regarding his opposition to same sex marriage………. And his very own sister is a lesbian! Yet he’s been flamed to a crisp by the very same left leaning pro same sex marriage lobby and within the predominantly left leaning media for rightly or wrongly sticking to his guns by refusing to change his position for the sake of political expediency. Meanwhile, the most that these very same advocates could say about former prime minister, the pathetic failure Julia Gillard’s previous lIDENTICAL opposition to same sex marriage when she was in the top job was DIDDLY SQUAT!!!! Yes, they said Jack shit if I put it a little less eloquently! Oh, they did express ‘dissapointment’, but she wasn’t raked through th’e coals and demonised for her opposition to gay marriage when she was PM like Tony Abbott was when he was prime minister. Does anybody sense the blatant hypocrisy and double standards here???? Another former PM’ (twice in the same government), the compulsive liar Kevin Rudd also made it very clear that he opposed gay marriage CONVENIENTLY right up to just before the 2013 election when he did an about face overnight! Was this sudden change of heart foe politic point scoring? NOOO surely not!!!! (ps note my intense sarcasm in that last sentence!) Similarity, openly gay senator, Penny Wong the biggest disgrace and hypocrite of them all is on public record openly opposing same sex marriage when her mob was in government. Yett all of a sudden she made a complete about face and has done what she should have done from the onset and changed her stance! Why the about face Comrade Wong????? This lady is a moron beyond wordsIs it perhaps that your mob can make massive political mileage from the issue of now conveniently supporting same sex marriage – AN ISSUE THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE SUPPORTED ALL ALONG MY DEAR!!!!!!!!! Labor was in government for 6 years between 2007-2013 and they did barely JACK SHIT regarding the issue of legalising same sex marriage! And now we’ve got senior Labor figures from Shorten, Wong to Plibersek and their left leaning political allies in the pro gay marriage lobby shouting from the rooftops about how ‘Neanderthal’ this current government is regarding this issues . This is despite the fact that the issue of legalising sane sex marriage is going to be PUT TO THE PEOPLE in a plebiscite or referendum so WE THE PEOPLE (plebs) d NOT the politicians on either side who are merely interested in their own self serving political grandstanding agendas and opportunism at any cost! Why should anyone in favour of sane sex marriage oppose a PEOPLE’S VOTE on the issue when, judging by the prevailing attitude and polls conducted, A VAST MAJORITY OF AUSTRALIANS SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGE!!!! Are they perhaps concerned that a plebiscite or referendum wouldn’t be accepted by a majority of voters???? Again, it’s all down to will of THE MAJORITY of the people, NOT the will of opportunistic politicians who are supposed to represent us but obviously don’t, judging by the recent rorts scandals on BOTH SIDES of politics! The Australian Greens, are the only political force who have supported same sex marriage from the start! Labor only supports it now that they’re in opposition and can score political points! The Greens, to their credit have Stuck to their guns in supporting same sex marriage! Unlike Labor!Again I ask, why are conservative politicians like Corey Bernardi and the former conservative PM, Tony Abbott flamed for opposing gay marriage,? Yet socialist politicians like the pathetic Penny Wong (incidental openly gay herself) and former socialist PMs Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd who also opposed gay marriage when they were in government weren’t raked through the coals for supporting exactly the same stance against gay marriage? The issue isn’t about supporting or opposing something that is inevitably going to occur because the will of the MAJORITY of the people will demand it at the ballot box! The issue is one of breath taking hypocrisy and double standards displayed by those who put self centred political agendas and vested interests ahead of the the well being of the SILENT MAJORITY OF AUSTRALIANS who want everyone to live equally in peace, harmony and LOVE!!!!!!!! In the U.S. the GLBTI Lobby convinced the U.S. Congress that Gays represented 10% of the population/ voters to manipulate the Congress into thinking that they needed the Votes to keep their seats and so they started to pandering to the Gays. The Gay Lobby 7 bragging about how they had deliberately misled the Congress and had a good laugh when in fact the Gays were 2%-3% of the population !! The same con-job has been applied to the Australian Politicians and the people are thoroughly sick of hearing about this day after day after bloody day! SAME SEX MARRIAGE WHICH IS SUCH A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMMUNITY. Let’s move on and talk about how to fix the economy, you’d think we didn’t’ have any other problems in this country! Summary of facts• 1.2% of Australians identify as gay or lesbian• 1.6% of men in Australia identify as gay, 0.9% identify as bisexual• 0.8% of women identify as lesbian, 1.4% identify as bisexual• 97.9% of Victorians aged 12-24 identify as heterosexual• Same-sex couples represented about 1% of all couples in Australia WITH SUCH A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE IT EFFECTS WHY THE FUSS ITS TOTAL NONSENCE. HOW ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT REALLY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. THERE ARE SO MANY SERIOUS AND URGENT TOPICS THAT ARE A PRIORITY AND SOMETHING THAT IS 2% seems to be a priority. you would think terroism, national security, immigration 18c reform would be the major concerns seeing tbough these topics effect such a large number of us.we need to look at BORDER security,DEBT,Stopping foreigners accessing OUR CENTRELINK and MEDICARE,the APEX GANGS,SELLING off our country,ASIAN CRIME and the list goes on.same sex marriage should NEVER happen in this country and the crap of children wanting to be another gender is just plain brainwashing from silly parents.WAKE UP AUSTRALIA…
Matters NotOctober 17, 2016 at 7:23 pm

Domenic fammartino seems nice.
RossleighOctober 17, 2016 at 7:25 pm

Dominic. You say that you’re not against same sex marriage but that it should be between a man and a woman.
Personally, I don’t think that same sex marriage can be between a man and a woman, but with logic like that I can see that you could be a future Liberal minister.
P.S. When used as a verb as you have done, you should spell it “affects”.
There’s one or two other minor problems with your spelling and grammar, but I figure I shouldn’t be too harsh as it must be hard to write one-handed!
Michael TaylorOctober 17, 2016 at 8:33 pm

Could somebody please tell me what that was all about?
JexpatOctober 17, 2016 at 8:53 pm

Michael: I would be curious to know too, but perhaps in the meanwhile we might surmise that it was an angry, disjointed rant from one those who “Essential Survey” recruits their bogus samples from.
Miriam EnglishOctober 18, 2016 at 10:20 am

Domenic fammartino, you should be very ashamed of displaying such a tragic inability to think clearly. But then, I guess that’s how you’re able to hate gays and lesbians while denying that hate.

You poor, sad, bitter, hateful person. Not a fragment of of goodness anywhere in that diatribe. All hate. So much for your religion of love. Pffft!

Oh, and for the record, same-sex-attracted people form roughly 10% of the population. That’s about the same percentage of people who regularly attend church.
Miriam EnglishOctober 18, 2016 at 10:36 am

I just struggled through some more of your indigestible, enormous single paragraph and found that you’d been arguing that the 10% same-sex-attracted statistic was wrong, based on some recent questionnaires. Based on personal experience I think the 10% statistic is probably pretty close to the mark, but who can say, really? Sexuality is a shaded thing — a spectrum. Where do you decide the boundary is?

Even if it is only a couple of percent that isn’t actually an argument against it. Why the big fuss in trying to prevent 2% of people living their lives in love?

Why all the over-the-top, frantic hate?
Adrianne HaddowOctober 18, 2016 at 11:11 am

So Domenic Fammartino feels it is just and right that one group of people get to vote on the human rights of another group, regarding same sex marriage.

It must be justice because that’s what happened in the case of the unfortunate refugees incarcerated forever in gulag Nauru and gulag Manus.

Where do we stop deciding what’s right for other people? Who made you the arbiter of the lives of others?

And in spite of all the capital letters, or maybe because of them, you don’t convince me.
dom fammartinoNovember 6, 2016 at 10:15 pm

THE UNSAFE SCHOOLS PROGRAM IS THE BIGGEST DISGRACE IN POLITICS AND SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS ON EVEN PAR….All Australian students should be required to study ethics and morality. Parents can have a choice as to which religious tradition will fulfill the mandate. The non-religious may enroll their children in “Secular Ethics” classes. Christianity has always played a special role in shaping our nation, our culture, our morals. The Church may be separate from the State. But in the soul and history of our people, it is all together. It always has been and always will be.Why would you want to follow the U.S. were kids learn of condoms, queer sex and vibrators, which is uneccessary. Australian kids should learn about morality and ethics. They will grow into much better adults. These silly safe schools programs must end. these left leaning polititions clearly have failed to consider all aspects of any question and the inevitable resulting problems of young children exposed to this unwarranted practice at young ages. They believe they alone have the right to dictate to the rest of population on what is acceptable and what is not and use all manner of intimidation/bullying to suit their agenda …im 100 % certain if there was a vote on this we would get 90 % in favour of this common sence aproach. WAKE UP AUSTRALIA DONT LET OUR CHILDREN BE DESTROYED BY POLITITIONS THAT DONT CARE ABOUT OUR CHILDREN AND ARE ALL ABOUT AGENDAS. (1) the hauling of an Archbishop before an Anti-discrimination board by an LGBT activist (which was upheld by an LGBT activist/anti-discrimination commissioner) which was later withdrawn because they knew they would lose the case. this action was an abuse of position by the commissioner and something she ought to be sacked for (2) the exposure of the harmful and confusing LGBT indoctrination program aimed at kids which is badly misname Safe Schools which has led to parents withdrawing children from some schools (3) the trashing of MP Corey Bernardi’s office by LGBT activists and (4) the most recent threats of violence against hotel staff and guests after the LGBT lobby found out a group of NO campaigners were planning a meeting. Enough is enough. All consenting adults should have the freedom to form whatever relationships they want but not all relationships are marriage. Marriage is for a man and a woman. Anything else is something else. We need to step back and ask what is marriage? Why is the government in the marriage “business”? Governments worldwide record which citizens are marrying and creating new citizens (children) so as to record who is responsible for those children. All children are created by a man and a woman. Sperm and Egg. Really simple biology folks. All children have rights to their mum and dad. Denying kids either parent by an act of law is an abominable hateful act against children. That is discrimination against children. Atrocious. You can’t mess with marriage laws without messing with surrogacy laws. Homosexual men will rent-a-womb (currently exploitation of third world women and tearing a baby away from its mum and denying the child its brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles and grandparents which is disgraceful). Lesbian women will need sperm and deny children their father and possibly their fathers medical records. You can’t mess with marriage laws without messing with children’s sex ed with no parental opt out. That is a violation of parental rights sanctioned by the UN for parents to be able to oversee their child’s education. You can’t mess with marriage laws without changing everyones marriage and birth certificates. Unbelievably the ACT has already lost the plot on this one. ACT birth certificates record “parent 1 and parent 2” now unless you specifically ask for “mother and father”. You can’t mess with marriage without messing with gender. If marriage is a genderless institution then gender theory gets turbo charged and if someone declares they are transgender then we have biological men using female change rooms. Those men might not be a problem or danger but sexual predators can abuse that loophole to get access to women and girls in vulnerable areas. Changing the world to accommodate 2% of the population. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. All of the points above are reality in Canada which redefined marriage over ten years ago. That is where this can lead. Sadly in Oregon, USA, a 15 year old can have hormone therapy and sex change operation WITHOUT parental knowledge and consent PAID for by the government. People who oppose redefining marriage are well versed in the injustices of what is happening in countries that have messed with marriage. We don’t hate homosexuals or lesbians or transgender people. We are concerned for ALL people in our country and the country our children will inherit. Clearly this issue affects EVERYONE. The definition of marriage is a trump card for the sexual “rights” movement. Take a good look at Canada. It’s a nightmare. Vote No. We can still be accepting of LGBT people without setting fire to marriage culture and children’s rights and parental rights and freedom of speech and gender. All relationships in Australia already have the same rights. Don’t tell me they don’t because LGBT can’t marry. I will simply tell you LGBT people can’t reproduce within their relationships. Their relationships are not geared towards creating children. Yes, some heterosexual couples are unable to reproduce but those relationships are still geared towards reproduction. Massive difference. Preserve Marriage. Vote NO. Be accepting of all people.WHY SO MANY ARE AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE. My greatest concern is how gay marriage is profoundly illiberal and authoritarian and will take away rights from all: freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, parental rights, rights of children to their natural mother and father and on it goes. You don’t want to see ‘safe schools’ under gay marriage legislation. under gay marriage legislation. Crazy same sex classes for kids will be compulsory and parents will be fined. Watch and see. Gay marriage will basically obliterate marriage and create a new political insitution which does not recognise any natural filial bond and henceforth no one can be assured their own child is theirs nor can a child be assured the security of their mother and father unless a government or public servant specifically states it is. And of course even of you conceive and give birth to that child naturally, it will not be a guarantee. Don’t believe me? Check what has happened in Spain and Canada. For my money no politician gets to vote on what marriage is. And sorry, neither does anyone else either. Marriage is not defined or redefined by vote. People should just leave marriage alone. Enough of this destructive bullying by the SSM activists. Activists, politicians and journalists..” Yes – the same people who call us all “racists” are now calling us “homophobic” as well. We all know that any change to the marriage act will open a floodgate of censorship and litigation by the LEFT against any individual and organisation they choose to go after. The “safe-schools” Marxist indoctrination program was just a warm up and the public know it. WAKE UP AUSTRALIA AND UNDERSTAND HOW DANGEROUS IT CAN BE. many gays recognise this themselves and say many dont really understand the serious negative effect it will have on family structure and countless other issues. SSM is cultural appropriation The SSM debate is just an attempt by homosexuals to “culturally appropriate” the heterosexual tradition and definition of marriage.Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. The left use intimidation/bullying to suit their agenda. . even when they themselves have clearly failed to consider all aspects of any question and the inevitable resulting problems/tragedies and how it may effect different cultures, and religious beliefs etc. Summary of facts • 1.2% of Australians identify as gay or lesbian • 1.6% of men in Australia identify as gay, 0.9% identify as bisexual • 0.8% of women identify as lesbian, 1.4% identify as bisexual • 97.9% of Victorians aged 12-24 identify as heterosexual • Same-sex couples represented about 1% of all couples in Australia WITH SUCH A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE IT EFFECTS WHY THE FUSS ITS TOTAL NONSENCE. HOW ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT REALLY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. THERE ARE SO MANY SERIOUS AND URGENT TOPICS THAT ARE A PRIORITY AND SOMETHING THAT IS not even 2% seems to be a priority. 10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed 1. It Is Not Marriage Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing. 2. It Violates Natural Law Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose. Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15) 3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent. The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests. 4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality. 5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex. 6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State. Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage. 8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval. In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants. In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality. 9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.” If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations. The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
“The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality. 10. It Offends God This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it. Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29) The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7). Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25) Taking a Principled not a Personal Stand In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only intent is the defense of traditional marriage, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian civilization. As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin. We pray for those who fall into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may assist them with His grace. We are conscious of the enormous difference between these individuals who struggle with their weakness and strive to overcome it and others who transform their sin into a reason for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law. However, we pray for these too. We pray also for the judges, legislators and government officials who in one way or another take steps that favor homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” We do not judge their intentions, interior dispositions, or personal motivations. We reject and condemn any violence. We simply exercise our liberty as children of God (Rom. 8:21) and our constitutional rights to free speech and the candid, unapologetic and unashamed public display of our Catholic faith. We oppose arguments with arguments. To the arguments in favor of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” we respond with arguments based on right reason, natural law and Divine Revelation. In a polemical statement like this, it is possible that one or another formulation may be perceived as excessive or ironic. Such is not our intention.SECTION 18C MUST BE REPEALED So ridiculous is the application of Australian racial vilification laws that they can now be used to punish anti-racist sentiment. 18C is now used as a gag to any debate about race and ethnicity. The same was true of a case whose inauspicious five-year anniversary looms later this year. Here’s a refresher. Section 18C makes it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person because of their “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”.political activists and their lawyers have come to realise that section 18C can be used to aggressively pursue political goals.Too often the law is being used opportunistically. Section 18C is being used not as a shield but as a weapon. In silencing, or threatening to silence, opponents in a debate using legal means, complainants remove the possibility of debate. It’s unhealthy and it’s undemocratic. At a time when we are in the midst of a debate about recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the constitution a provision which prevents discussion of these issues should be of concern to all Australians
Miriam EnglishNovember 7, 2016 at 7:22 am

Oh dear. Dom, where do I begin to answer such ingrained hate?

Why is it that people who profess to believe in a loving and just God are so hateful and prejudiced and so committed to repression of people they hate? Why do they so love bullying? Whatever happened to peace, love, and charity?

When people die in floods or fires or young children die of lukaemia they say they can’t know the mind or intention of God, yet when presented with groups they hate they suddenly are in no doubt about their God’s mind. They’re certain their God has the same prejudices they do. Their infinitely good and just God will torture forever people who fall in love with the wrong person.

Do you cut your hair, Dom? It’s forbidden. Do you exert yourself on the Sabbath? You should be put to death. Do you wear cotton-polyester-blend clothes? Forbidden. Do you cut your beard? Forbidden. Do you have a garden in which more than one kind of plant grows? Forbidden.

The Bible is an ancient text written by people thousands of years ago. If there is a God then the natural world around us is authored by him. All intelligent animals (horses, geese, penguins, lions, giraffes, dolphins, etc.) have a small number of their populations that are same-sex attracted. Clearly this is something designed by the God you say you revere. Why would you so hate the hand of your God and prefer the words written by ignorant, misguided and prejudiced people?

You have become an idolator. You worship a book.
HarquebusNovember 7, 2016 at 8:11 am

dom fammartino
I make a point of reading comments however, your previous is a rare exception.
Please structure your comments using paragraphs.
Cheers.
Miriam EnglishNovember 7, 2016 at 8:33 am

Actually, Harquebus, it is probably for the better if he makes his diatribes impenetrable. Such hateful vomit deserves not to be read.
HarquebusNovember 7, 2016 at 8:47 am

Thanks again Miriam.
Cheers.
dom fammartinoNovember 15, 2016 at 8:21 pm

sorry guys i not mean to offend or be hatefull anything but if you knew what i knew about political agendas you would be the same