Don’t write crap
My observations of both the mainstream and independent media over this past week show just how far removed one is from the other.
Stories that might be – should be – damaging to the Opposition are brushed off by the mainstream media (MSM) as mere leftie conspiracy theories, or, worse still, are somehow the fault of the Prime Minister or her party. Look at the menu-gate issue if you need further evidence of this. Or look at the reaction to the Prime Minister’s misogyny speech in Perth a few days ago.
Both are treated as nothing more as the Government playing dirty, divisive tricks.
The MSM and the right-wing fan club are going to great pains in attempting to discredit those individuals with the integrity to reveal the menu-gate affair; allowing freedom to the perpetrators of this heinous act.
Those in the independent media re more interested in the story and holding the offenders to account. And in doing so, ie, wanting to put on the table the actual story and the players involved, they are immediately pounced on by the right-wingers as belonging in a loony bin.
Where the independent media like to ask if a story is true and probe for supporting, the opposite side of the ring don’t bother with any probing questions. Instead of asking if it is true – if they are indeed interested, which I doubt they are – their immediate reaction is to attack the innocent messenger.
This site has been hit with a deluge of right-wing snipers, disturbed that we don’t toe the line of the right-wing press which must obviously provide them with a comfort zone. “How can you be independent when you religiously present a left view?” In other words: “Why can’t you be like the right-wing MSM and write crap?”
I have ferreted through my archives to find examples that show the MSM do nothing but write crap. Examples that show they are more interested in spewing forth right-wing opinion in the guise of news or information. It bewilders me that the right-wing protagonists find nothing wrong with the crap written by the media, yet they have no compunction in finding fault with the truth that fills the pages of independent media sites. Like their media heroes, I guess they have one interest only: ignore the truth and if it doesn’t go away … then distort it.
Perhaps they’d like to digest the three articles I’ve chosen (from many) to re-post here. Three articles that aim to remind people just how shockingly biased and incompetent the MSM are. Three articles that should encourage one to ask: “Why should I have a problem with independent media while evidence abounds that when compared with the MSM, they don’t write crap?” Three article that show that the MSM in this country exists in a parallel universe from reality.
The first was titled The shout heard round the world in response to Julia Gillard’s ‘attack’ on a misogynist Tony Abbott in Parliament last year. To the Australian media, misogyny wasn’t a bad thing and neither was Tony Abbott’s display of it. The big bad evil one was Julia Gillard for wanting to both expose it and stamp it out. Read on:
Julia Gillard might have stopped shouting at Tony Abbott but her words reverberated around the world.
Hence this post is not about the speech by Julia Gillard or about the man it was directed to, but briefly on the impact of it.
By now most of you would have digested some of the more celebrated responses – including those linked above – so I won’t cover old ground, however, one is worth mentioning; not for Julia Gillard’s stand against misogamy but for her often overlooked performances as a gutsy politician. The New Yorker wants performances like that to enter into American politics. They write:
So why is this among the most-shared videos [the Julia Gillard attack on Tony Abbott] by my American friends today? Purely as political theatre, it’s great fun. Americans used to flipping past the droning on in empty chambers that passes for legislative debate in this country are always taken in by the rowdiness of parliamentary skirmish. It could also be that the political dynamic depicted in the clip parallels the situation in the States: a chief executive who is a “first” took power after a long period of control from the right of center, and whose signature policy achievements have at times been overshadowed by personal vitriol. Or perhaps it’s that we are right now in one of the rare periods every four years where the American political process provides actual face-to-face debate between the leaders of the two parties. After his performance last week, supporters of President Obama, watching Gillard cut through the disingenuousness and feigned moral outrage of her opponent to call him out for his own personal prejudice, hypocrisy, and aversion to facts, might be wishing their man would take a lesson from Australia.
Similarities between our two political theatres abound. Julia Gillard has found a way to evolve from it.
But her attack on misogamy has attracted more responses than her parliamentary grunt. And oh how the responses differ. In one corner we have the international media, the social media and social analysts supporting her speech while in the other corner sits the Australian mainstream media going alone in its condemnation.
Yet in the Australian media all we hear about are the opinions of the Australian media. Elsewhere it is news. Here they are purely opinions.
To hear the praise coming from Australians one has to read an overseas newspaper. For example, the Irish Times provided a better and more balanced appraisal of Julia Gillard’s speech than that dished up locally. Where, in the Australian media, will you read such honesty as this?:
When Australia’s prime minister, Julia Gillard, told the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, this week that if he wanted to know what misogyny looked like he should pick up a mirror, it was seen by many women as a defining moment for feminism in the country.
“I almost had shivers down my spine,” said Sara Charlesworth, an associate professor at the University of South Australia. “I was so relieved that she had actually named what was happening. She was so angry, so coherent and able to register that enough is enough.”
It was the first time an Australian leader – and possibly any world leader – had delivered such a forthright attack on misogyny in public life.
Prof Barbara Pini, who teaches gender studies at Griffith University in Queensland, said it was a watershed moment. “It’s incredibly significant to have a prime minister powerfully state that she has experienced sexism and even more powerfully state that she will refuse to ignore it any longer,” Pini said.
“That the sexism which is so deeply embedded in the Australian body politic was named may give some women licence to express and seek to counter the sexism they have experienced in their working lives.”
According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, one in five Australian women has experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. A recent study by Monash University in Melbourne showed that 57 per cent of women who worked in the media had experienced sexual harassment. It said women were badly under-represented in top levels of media management, holding 10 per cent of positions, compared with an international average of 27 per cent.
The report’s author, Louise North, said her findings might go some way to explaining why much of Australia’s mainstream media concluded that Gillard’s speech was a political disaster. “PM will rue yet another bad call,” said one comment piece.
“Gillard’s judgment was flawed. All she achieved was a serious loss of credibility,” said another.
That response was in stark contrast to much of the commentary in social media and conversations between women around the country, which were alive with praise for the prime minister’s stance.
“Leader writers are generally white, middle-aged men and they have no perception of gender bias,” North said. “They don’t want to acknowledge that it happens within their newsrooms and they certainly wouldn’t be open to challenging some of those positions and changing the public discourse either.
Tim Dunlop, in his fabulous article on The Drum, The gatekeepers of news have lost their keys takes up the fight against the Australian media – one of the few in the media to do so – as he tackles the local bias:
The authority of the media – it’s ability to shape and frame events and then present them to us as “the” news – was built upon its privileged access to information and the ability to control distribution.
Collecting, collating, packaging and transmitting information – “news” – was expensive and thus the preserve of a small number of big companies, and we were pretty much bound by the choices they made.
But those days are gone. That model is a relic, though it still dominates the way the mainstream media goes about its business, and provides the template for how journalists think about their role as reporters.
When you have the likes of Michelle Grattan, Peter Hartcher, Peter van Onselen (paywalled), Jennifer Hewett (paywalled), Geoff Kitney, Phillip Coorey, and Dennis Shanahan (paywalled) all spouting essentially the same line in attacking the Prime Minister – a line at odds with the many people’s own interpretation of events – people wonder what the point of such journalism is.
It bewilders me that our mainstream media is taking such a vociferous and concerted stand against public and international opinion. The impact of the speech is lost on them. One could be forgiven for thinking they have an agenda. Regardless of how much they condemn the Prime Minister, the world isn’t listening.
Next we come to an editorial from the Herald Sun in a post that I titled, simply, Editorial bullshit. The editorial was nothing but a pack of lies and to the editor, obviously a pack of lies worth spreading. Read on:
I’m not in the habit of reading the Herald Sun’s editorial. Actually, this morning’s was the first one I’ve ever read and I curse the individual who suggested I do so. In future if I want to read what Murdoch’s editors are thinking about I’ll grab a copy of Mein Kampf.
This morning’s editorial was written by a person equally as mad. A clear-thinking person could not have written such bullshit. I will dissect it in parts to support my claim. We begin:
The Gillard Government has finally admitted what Australians have long suspected to be the case. Its promised Budget surplus was nothing more than a political fantasy.
Economic data made it clear Labor’s much promised surplus was unachievable. Yet the Prime Minister and Treasurer belligerently stuck to their mantra in what can only be described as a cynical political ploy.
They should have admitted the inevitable long ego. The economic decision is the right one, as the Herald Sun has consistently advocated in the face of falling revenues and slowing growth.
Let’s see if I understand this. The decision is supported by the editor’s newspaper and more or less expected by the Australian community. Nothing wrong there. Labor are responding to the economic data at hand and, again, I see nothing wrong there either. All of a sudden our editor sees this as a cynical political ploy, which means he does not read Murdoch’s masthead paper, The Australian who almost two months ago wrote that “For a second day, Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan have refused to directly guarantee a budget surplus in 2012-13“. Sort of admitting the inevitable, in a way.
The editorial continues with:
But the Government ignored all warnings and has damaged consumer confidence in announcing what they should have come to terms with months ago.
People will ask, not unreasonably, if they can ever trust this Government.
Where is the evidence to support this? The evidence I found was the complete contrary to that claim. From Roy Morgan Research we learn that:
The weekly Morgan Consumer Confidence Rating is now at 117.4pts (up 2.4pts over the past week). Consumer Confidence is now a significant 6.2pts higher than a year ago, December 3/4, 2011 — 111.2.
Driving the rise was more confidence in Australia’s economic future and also in personal financial situations compared to a year ago.
Australians are more confident about Australia’s economy over the next twelve months with 32% (up 2%) of Australians expecting ‘good times’ economically compared to 28% (down 3%) that expect ‘bad times’.
Now 33% (up 1%) of Australians say their family is ‘better off’ financially compared to a year ago while 29% (down 4%) say their family is ‘worse off’ financially.
Over the next five years 35% (unchanged) of Australians expect Australia’s economy to have ‘good times’ economically while just 18% (down 3%) expect ‘bad times’ – the lowest since May 12/13, 2012.
Australians are more positive about their personal finances over the next 12 months with 39% (down 1%) saying they expect their family to be ‘better off’ financially while just 18% (up 2%) expect to be ‘worse off’ financially.
Unsurprisingly, the editor took a swipe at Labor’s economic credentials:
. . . ineptitude and political cynicism was behind the promise of a Budget surplus. It was to convince voters Labor was in control of the economy when clearly it was not.
Meanwhile, in the real world outside of the editor’s office:
The OECD’s latest economic survey of Australia released today shows once again that our economy stands tall amongst its peers, with 21 consecutive years of growth, robust economic fundamentals and a positive outlook in the face of acute global challenges.
The OECD finds that, unlike many developed economies, the Australian economy remains resilient, with successful macroeconomic management contributing to solid growth, low unemployment, contained inflation, and strong public finances.
The OECD commends the Government’s “exemplary handling of the global economic and financial crisis” avoiding recession in 2008-09.
Although the OECD notes our economy is not immune from risks in the global economy, the survey notes that “[t]he current monetary and fiscal policy mix is appropriate to sustain recovery, and Australia is in a good position to respond to risks.”
The report also highlights that the Government’s fiscal consolidation is part of a re-balancing of policy which “implies less pressure on interest and exchange rates, thereby alleviating adjustment difficulties for the exposed non-mining sector.”
While we understand that not everyone is doing it easy, this OECD report today is another reminder that Australians have a lot to be proud of and confident about.
Would the Herald Sun editor be bullshitting? Of course he would. Here’s why:
Today, the Herald Sun renews its call for the Prime Minister to call an election in March to allow the Australian people to decide who should govern this country.
Yes, in other words let’s organise a distraction from Tony Abbott’s embarrassing performances and Labor’s jump in the polls.
The final post, Let’s focus on what’s important looked at the media reaction to Wayne Swan’s announcement some months ago that a surplus was unlikely to be announced in the May 2012 Budget. The Opposition were in an uproar over the announcement and the media were delighted to act as their mouthpiece. Meanwhile, economists were hailing it a good move but their opinions were suppressed by the Opposition’s compliant media. They couldn’t let the facts get in the way of some juicy propaganda. Read on:
Many of us are not surprised to learn that the Treasurer, Wayne Swan today announced that it was unlikely that Labor will be able to achieve the promised budget surplus in 2012/13. For the purpose of this post I won’t go into any of the reasons or throw figures at you.
Economists are in unison, agreeing that the Government has done the right thing to drop the surplus commitment. Unsurprisingly, evidence of their support is very hard to find in our media online news sites. If you’re lucky you might catch a brief interview with one of them on TV. One of them might even be given the chance to explain why this is a good outcome.
The reason Australia was able to escape the Global Financial Crisis of a few years back was because it had the guts to spend money and thus create jobs. Again, I won’t go into that as we all know how Australia benefited from this bold, but necessary move.
Well, almost everybody knows we benefited. The exceptions being our Murdoch media and the Federal Opposition. And today we hear that this duo are still the world experts on the Australian economy. Today, their opinions take precedence over our economy. The online news sites are filled with nothing but their ‘valued’ opinions.
From that economic minnow Terry McCrann:
Wayne Swan’s decision to finally come clean and admit the bleeding obvious with the budget is just another cynical and dishonest move from a discredited treasurer in a completely discredited government.
It’s been blindingly obvious for months that there was no way the budget was going to swing miraculously from a massive $44 billion deficit last year to a tiny $1 billion surplus this year.
Indeed, it’s been obvious right back to budget night in May.
But Swan and prime minister Julia Gillard believed they had to keep promising a surplus, after her: “There’ll be no deficit in 2012-13 under a Government I lead”.
Swan quite deliberately brought the mid-year budget update forward, while the figures could still be massaged to still pretend to predict a surplus.
Even though the surplus predicted was pathetically, meaninglessly small.
Now he’s just as dishonestly chosen to tell the truth just before Christmas and the extended summer break.
Did McCrann focus on the economy? No.
BTW, how does one dishonestly tell the truth?
From ‘he who runs away‘:
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said it was a “humiliating, embarrassing, nervous announcement from the Treasurer”.
Mr Abbott said the surplus was not a forecast – “it was a fact”.
“It has now been dumped,” he said.
“You just can’t trust this government to manage the economy. You just can’t trust this government to tell the truth”.
Mr Abbott said the Prime Minister made “two solemn covenants” during the election – the carbon tax and the surplus.
“She said that the day after she made the no carbon tax commitment. This second solemn commitment, this second covenant with the Australian people, dumped.”
“For three years they have been boasting of this surplus. Well, they don’t have that anymore”.
Did Abbott focus on the economy? No.
Even from Mr Eleventy:
Opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey said it is “not in the Labor party’s DNA to live within their means”.
“Taking out the garbage five minutes before Christmas is the way the Labor party operates,” he said.
“They are treating the Australian people with contempt.”
Did Hockey focus on the economy? No.
And this front page non-story ‘ha ha I told you so’ from an un-named news.com reporter:
Treasurer Wayne Swan:
“We’ll be back in the black by 2012/13, as promised.” (May 2011)
“The government remains absolutely committed to delivering our return to surplus as we planned.” (August 2011)
“We’ve nailed our colours to the mast.” (February 2012)
“Despite the tough global conditions, we remain determined to return the budget to surplus in 2012/13, and we will get there.” (March 2012)
Prime Minister Julia Gillard: “My commitment to a surplus in 2012/13 was a promise made and it will be honoured.” (April 2011)
“We stand by the predictions, the entries in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. We stand by the figures and we’re on track to deliver a budget surplus.” (November 2012)
Did he or she focus on the economy? No.
Of course they don’t want to focus on the economy. It’s going gangbusters and will continue to do so.
Well done, Mr Swan, on what is another bold move. I don’t care what you said previously. You have the good sense to act upon approaching change, rather than react after the change.
As an aside, I’ve never supported the need for such a quick return to a surplus as I believe it has been the Government’s hasty response to pressure from the media, the public and the Opposition. Unfortunately they are going to be under attack from all sides over this. It’s my hunch that the leading economists in the country – who support the move – will be gagged by the media.
Is it too much to ask that the critics try and focus on what’s important, ie, the economy?
PS: This announcement has really let Abbott off the hook. He’s happy to face the media again.
OK, I’ve only picked out three examples but most intelligent observers would agree that millions more examples are being produced on a daily basis. You just don’t find this sort of rubbish on the independent media sites. When the Prime Minister suggested that the media would gain some credibility if they didn’t write crap, it is clear that only the independent media heeded her call.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
45 commentsLogin here Register here
Thank you for reminding us Michael, not that i needed to because i well know that the MSM only writes crap and never anything of substance. It really verges on the criminal what Murdoch and cohorts and the Abbott admirers are doing to mislead the people of our country. We must have faith that people will wake up before it is too late.
Keep them coming Michael, I truly enjoy reading your posts.
Thank you to the both of you. Much appreciated.
Well said! Thank you for saying what I wanted to, but couldn’t.
Michael, is this post an invitation to the right-wingers to stomp their way in here tomorrow to make fools of themselves? They are sure to do it. My guess is that CS will fall for it. 🙄
Pingback: Just Don't Write Crap | Cheesy Twisties #auspo...
I would say say from the economy standpoint it would be a fool’s errand not to install fibre now given we’ve been ripped off by ADSL/VDSL//ISDN charges for years, atleast with fibre deployed level across the board instead of 1/2,1/4, 1/3 to 1/100th of a level, which is a guaranty under anything the LNP has to offer…
100mb/1gb/10gb home lans becoming ever more present, with 10gb being the preferred option due to fois iptv services requiring that level of backplane within the home especially in context to native 1080p-4k res and above vs upscale from 320p and up to upscale to 1080p and above…
I came to this conclusion after watching lord of the rings on BD knowing that 100mb it wouldn’t pass for streaming content from a low end bd player like a sony 370, even with a 1gb lan you would be stretching 1080p content, on average for a mainstream title vs titles direct to tv, a min of 2.5gb is a base requirement for a mainstream movie..
there are means and ways to reduce this overhead though you end up poor res as a result..
people will understand this once you start looking above stereo audio and 240p-720p and 4mb internet connection..
this is what I know from streaming online content from online sources, like abc, 7plus, 9, hosting services of madman ent., youtube, google plus, crunchyroll and viki…
also streaming content across the home network on 10/100 lan to know that adsl and the lesser extent isn’t a solution for video content, anything above 720p and 5.1 will show how bad 100mb really is when it comes to broadcasting content over multiple devices and 1gb isn’t far behind once you consider movies like lord of the rings and the bandwidth that would require to be viewed without lag across multiple devices…
everything is data now days which the idiots in the LNP don’t realize how ill-equipped copper outside the home really is to support video content past 720p through multiple devices on 1 connection…
and multiple 4/4-10/10 xdsl connections aren’t practical service options anymore, I know this as I run multiple xdsl connections purely for quota reasons, i tried block data buys years ago and uneconomical to keep using the method for more quota so it worked out cheaper in the long run to run 2 connections vs 1 connection plus additional quota above service cost..
when i look at a 30-100 device possible home network i wonder why it is taking so long to migrate to FTTH service as I can see adsl isn’t a serviced outcome for that type of network presence and given the cost of copper upgrade for vdsl service’s to be used, it seems fibre for the longer term will be the cheaper option to deploy..
I will apologize if I sound like i’m ranting on a broadband topic though the reality i’m on a 4/1 adsl and 4/1 ndsl connection and i know the cost of trying a multi vdsl type service is around 5k to deploy and most likely be more than that as an upgrade to the lead-in is a base requirement nevermind the d/a to pit requirements also and d/a to exchange requirements..
I’m also talking in context of 6-8 person household and the requirements they may have for internet services knowing that both sat and 3g/4g services to date don’t have the device capacity support for a medium to large home network and given primary, secondary and university requirements now and in years to come the common reality whether you’re in the middle of nowhere or in middle of suburbia xdsl is ill-equipped to handle our need today nevermind the next 20-40 years in terms of our kids and grandkids network requirements..
we don’t live life as a 1 item per household society anymore and it’s about time the by sides of government learned that…
by 2015-2017, it will be 40 year since the 1st discussion on fibre begun, how long will it take to deploy now, at a guess looking at the idiocy of the lnp policy another 50-80 years tthe rate it is going..
the question i have why does the idiot Turnbull have the comms package anyway, the way i see it whether you own stock in comms companies whether it be national or international, I would think it would be a a big conflict of interest for a sitting federal member of parliament..
i know of a few councilors both local and state have been raked over the coals due to conflicts of interest within their business holdings…
from what i’ve seen it common practice of telcos whether they be large or small to hold shares in other telco’s whether they be local, state, national and internationally based…. which makes me ask why the hell does that idiot turnbull have stocks in telco’s internationally and why the hell has he got the comms portfolio I would think that would be major conflict of interest on his part to be passing on comment on policies he shouldn’t even have listening ears in on and eyes on to read…
it has been reported that he owns stocks and likely bonds in international telcos..
Looking at Abbot it makes me wonder why he hasn’t removed turnbull from the comms portfolio yet???
the reality is we need fibre today not in 30-50 years time, to delay even further is stupid on the monumental scale..
This is why I keep coming back here Michael…thankyou!
A nice peice to put up here would be the apology speeches by JG and TA on the forced adoption issue. The difference between the two is stunning.
JG appears to have no notes, and yet is eloquent, passionate and coherent. TA is…..not!
I know which I would rather have leading this country!
Pingback: Don’t write crap | lmrh5
Wonderful. Sometimes MSM slant of the news is sometime so diffuse, if that is the word I need, it is hard to catch. Even the ABC reports some things but slanted in a critical way about ALP even when ALP have done good things. You almost think you are going mad, and then you realise you are angry and frustrated as well. It is like when you watch footy and you believe the umpire did not see what you saw and you feel like throwing a shoe at the TV.
I am fine now and do not watch, unless I sometimes watch just to confirm there is bias and see if any changes, however slight, but no still the same.
Reblogged this on lmrh5.
But this isn’t Independant media, it’s Labor sponsored media so its biased in its own right! The only difference is the MSM journalists have degrees in journalism and are held accountable and the hobby “journalists” here are not held to the same accountability.
Didn’t Swann and Gillard both promise that the budget would be in Surplus in 2012/13? They made a promise and broke it, fact.
Crap they write, crap they talk and crap people consider as an alternative government. This election is on the nose as a whiff of truth is putrefied by the stench of unadulterated crap. The electorate is normalised to crap and only when it is cleansed will people wake up to clear air and the fact that the opposition is full of crap. Great post Migs
Not only does the MSM write crap, the gormless right wing supporters repeat the crap with nary a thought to validity or veracity, and they also go to sites that reveal the crap they mindlessly repeat for the crap it is and then defend their MSM aped crap by putting out more crap.
Wayne, Andrew Bolt doesn’t have a degree in anything. But thanks for the comment. I always love rash generalisations. They make your views so compelling.
Regarding Wayne’s view of MSM journalists, It is worth noting they are all employed to produce copy edited by and published for the MSM and it has been obvious for some time that most of the MSM have had a partisan political agenda. Is it completely unsurprising their journalists pen copy promoting the company line or, in some cases, hired specifically to do so.
Just put TV on flashed thru all the news channels, my god! What is going on, all telling me , still sending the boot in on Labor, mainly our Prime Minister, are there any news programs that show the other side of politics or even 50/50, I’ve never seen it so one sided, if I was a billionaire, I could buy all the stations/newspapers and maybe I would have a chance of becoming Prime Minister. I’ve been in this country for 44 years and never seen it so one sided coming up to an election. Ps what are the policies of the Liberal Party. Please let the people be aware of them, if any !!!!!
“…and it has been obvious for some time that most of the MSM have had a partisan political agenda.”
Indeed some have gone beyond that and unlike the past have openly and almost boastfully promoted their political bias and the fact they will get rid of opposition to Abbott.
One went as far as to say their job was to destroy a legitimate political party.
The thing those lamely trying to defend the MSM and their obvious and unreasonable bias overlook is that the media does this against their own self regulated charter. Almost daily they break everyone of the charter they swore to uphold when they were given self regulation.
oh Wayne… such a sad simplistic comment indicative of the state of the prozac polarising propaganda of power obsessed political pugilism
Why for the life of me does our public broadcaster give so much significance to the likes of Ross Cameron on The Drum and Piers Ackermann on this mornings The Insiders?
I think the producers believe that if they create some controversy, they will increase their viewers. Most thinking viewers are, in fact, switching off in frustration.
What we expect from our ABC is good analysis and quality discussion.
‘Balance’ in the ABC has become a kind of tyranny. The ABC concept of ‘balance’ leads producers to give minority, sometimes inaccurate and often ultra-conservative views credence than they deserve. We are in desperate need of transparency about the ABC’s use of Think Tanks for commentary and the use of their spokespersons on panel programs (The Drum, QandA, 7.30 report, RN Breakfast and so on).
Akerman is the consumate spluttering ratbag on Insiders this morning, or should I say the weekly ABC “LABOR IS DOOMED” show.
Seriously, I have long suspected the ABC have conservitard “commissars” riding shotgun as TV and radio current affairs go to air.
Oh Jason H, your saying we need fibre so you can watch movies, you think taxpayer should pay BILLIONS OF DOLLARS EXTRA so you can with HD movies, here’s an idea, when Abbott gets in and puts in FTTN you pay out of your own pocket to watch movies. The take up rate of the current rollout is just 30%, this means 70% of people are having their taxes spend to Benifits just 30% of the people so they can download porn faster. User pay all the way.
Reblogged this on woosterlang87.
For stuff sake Wayne does it really take that much effort to check facts or do you just regurgitate the right wing lies because it’s easier?
And if you take that attitude then why are the majority paying taxes to subsidise the minority in the wealthy and big business? Why are the majority paying taxes to benefit the minority in private education and health?
Right across the board from local, State and Federal government there are examples of the majority paying taxes to subsidise minority areas. So I guess what you want is for taxes paid only to go to those areas and people the taxpayer states they want them to go to?
Analysis: Big numbers, big growth in just five weeks.
NBN Co releases new take-up rate figures
NBN maintains rollout forecast, shows increase in up-take rates
And where Wayne and co get their “
factsfibs” from: Years later, only 16pc want the NBN
But wait on Wayne said it was 30%. So what is it 16% or 30%?
The right wingers can’t even get their stories straight even when they are printed for them in their propaganda guide.
Wayne, what on earth gives you the idea that we’re Labor sponsored? It’s like me saying that you’re Liberal brainwashed.
Oh, that’s right. You probably are.
Michael T, thanks for all your work in putting together this piece of, dare I say?, journalism.
Research, analysis all based on fact. Incredible.
The Murdocracy (IPA, Big Corpa et al) have so distorted what used to be ‘news’ and ‘journalism’ that one can be branded a member of the “loony left” simply for pointing at a tree and calling it a tree.
I have stopped reading paper news, assiduously avoid Commercial TV ‘news’ and now apply discretion when viewing or listening to the ABC.
Articles like this keep me from completely turning off altogether.
As was explained to Wayne back in April, “You can lead a moron to education, but you can’t make him learn” 🙄
Perhaps you should review that thread Wayne – you may learn something this time, especially if you take my suggestion of using the 4×2 😆
Fantastic article, as an Irish man living in QLD I am amazed at the massive disconnect between the MSM here in Aus and the reality of life here in Aus; if I listened to the media I would think I was living in some kind of dystopian reality akin to Greece
Thanks Michael for your efforts here.
It seems to me that most MSM journos have a crowd delusion, a herd mentality that carries its own reasons & justifications for existing. They call it being “objective” and “reporting facts” without questioning the basis of their certitude. I think they truly believe those words, like people truly believed the Earth is flat and that the Sun orbits the Earth.
We are dealing with a right wing flat earth consciousness that is fed by fear of losing their jobs and of being independent from the crowd. These MSM journos have relinquished their professional duty of seeking and reporting truth for a pittance of job security and being accepted by the status quo.
The over riding reason they have swallowed the billionaire lies is NBN. Murdoch and the other media barons know that Labor’s NBN is a game changer for their business model. They know it will annihilate everything they now depend on for their wealth. These coward journos don’t question LNP lies and scrutinise Tony Abbott because the editors that creates the “reality bubble” they live in are in survival mode.
I’m glad you and your site exists because you bring some light into the cavern of MSM misinformation. I also believe that the election result will be much closer than MSM predicts. In fact I think ALP will win with a hung parliament again.
Wayne…you know who we are and what we want to hear, and consequently why we come here. If you don’t agree …fine….. put forth an argument, but don’t just call us names.
You know you can go to Murdoch or Fairfax to hear what you want, we can’t! I don’t comment there anymore because I know what will happen!
BTW didn’t TA have a WRITTEN contract with the Govt to reform the party donations rules, which included much more than just more money to the parties, but tore it up when he thought there was no political capital in it any more?
Most of what both parties say are statements of intent more than promises. They will work fervently for them until circumstances change to make then unacheivable! Always has been the way…always will…only the view of this process has changed, mainly since the 2010 election!
As for “the taxpayer” paying for the NBN my recollection is the capital cost will ultimately be cost neutral to the Federal budget
When they say, they have the right to destroy a political party; they are saying they have the right to stop us from being heard. Yes, they are saying that we have no rights, They are saying they will take our rights away from us.
They are saying, we will not be heard.
In their eyes, we have no legitimacy, therefore a PM that dares to represented us, also has no legitimacy, especially if a woman.
What a lovely democratic country we live in.
The only way one can turn this shocking situation around, is not to reward the bullies by voting for them.
We need to demand that they behave in a civil manner.
That means that all respect the views of those who differ and their supporters.
Not much to ask, it is called playing fair, being a good sport.
Good point John.
Wayne i was using movies as an example only, the same can also be said for telehealth and teleconferencing with that in mind try and construct a teleconference with mum in kitchen, kids in their perspective bedroom talking with the in-laws suburbs to 2 districts away or another state for that matter and try and do from a 4/1-12/1 internwt connection..
gaming and stock market is another use for the service..
never mind kids doing research for school projects, it is the libs and their various dipstick mates on the same page that ftth has been on the pucblic purse strings for near on 40 years 10-20 years ago fttn was a burden we couldn’t afford then or now..
I suspect operational delays ftth might reach 100 billion at the end of the day
fttn mk1 29billion is a d/a deployment technically unusable due copper loop distance not mention extra vdsl support..
fttn mk2 165-185 billion node every 1km still no cost vdsl copper remediation support..to lead-in and trunk,
fttn mk3 185-300 billion this is pure pit deployment of fibre>vdsl technology with still an unknown cost to tthe lead-in for copper remediation per household
fttn>ftth 300-450 billion as you use mk2 or mk3 1st before installing the ftth component..
ask yourself this wayne what would you see used 1st a end pay 100billion for ftth deployment or a fttn step-up up to 300 billion with a side annex of 150 billion to deploy ftth over fttn… creating a double dip on a tech solution that was canned 20 years ago because it cost to much to deploy..
i’m a swing voter, I vote for a product that is needed now not in 50-80 years time.. the is the reality what the libs are preaching..
my suggestion to you wayne, get 24/1-50/3 xdsl slap a 24 port switch on it and have 10-20 devices using the network for internet connection and ask yourself tis this fast enough upload for all to use and is this fast enough for download speed for all these devices..
you obviously haven’t listened to turnbull’s broken record repeats every time he is asked a question..
I have had cable internet for the last 5 years, I recently had my speed increased to the maximum available of 100 kbps but does anyone believe that is the speed I actually get? In reality my download speed is between 40 and 55 even though I was told it would never go below 50, and the upload speed is a whopping 3.4 kbps better than the 1.4 I used to get.
I am not as tech savvy as some of you are but , I have many facebook friends that live in the UK. One in particular says, When fibre was first introduced for the broadband network in England they decided on FTTN, BECAUSE it was slightly cheaper to install than FTTP and it could be done a bit faster. Fast Forward less than five years and it has been well and truly realized that FTTN has been a HUGE expensive mistake and FTTP should have been done in the first place, so at enormous cost, all the places that got FTTN are being changed to FTTP.
By his own admission Tony Abbott thinks the internet is “Nothing better than a big gaming console” and we should all be happy with 25 kbps,well excuse me but I believe our Government is obliged, no matter which party is in power, to provide us with the best available option at the time and not some sub-standard afterthought, If some people use their internet as a huge world wide gaming console then that is their business but there are millions of us out there that do far more with our internet than that and we should have the best access and speed that can be provided for now and the future.
Abbot has that mr rabbit guy in the back his mind and is really flipping clueless, to the he doesn’t care as long as the dumb idiot turnbull discredits fttn..
“Yet in the Australian media all we hear about are the opinions of the Australian media. ”
that one line sums up the tedium of the msm.
Yes Eric, they lost me when journalists started interviewing journalists for opinions.
“Has Murdoch made up your mind who to vote for”.
JFraser, thanks again for the link to Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism here it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFDwdRXCg3I if you can’t get the above video to work for whatever reason.
It explains just how much power Murdoch has had in the world & why he wants to protect his Fox News from the NBN & wants to purchase the ABC if it were to become privatized. That is how this man has managed to get over 70% of all of the Media in Australia and guess when the cross media laws were relaxed – under John Howards time in power.
It is no wonder that our PM and her party are just not getting enough airspace or kudos from the MSM. They (journos) are directed on a daily basis as to what opinions Murdoch wants them to broadcast & print. The above video is over an hour long but well worth looking at, even the trolls might like to look at it as well. They (LNP) are being manipulated by a man who thinks also that it his God given right to do & say anything to get what he wants. THAT’S PROPAGANDA FOLKS, BIG TIME & WE NEED TO KNOW THAT SO WE CAN FIGHT AGAINST IT FOR DEMOCRACIES SAKE.
14 defining characteristics of Fascist governments
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, Flags are everywhere.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – fear of enemies and the need for security, the people are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way from long incarceration of detainees
3. Identification of Scapegoats as a unifying cause -The people are rallied by the need to eliminate a perceived common threat of enemies or terrorists.
4. Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding.
5. Rampant Sexism – The governments tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, and abortion are suppressed and the state is represented as the guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media – Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by sympathetic executives.
7. Obsession with Border Security – Fear is used as a motivation by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments use religion as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders.
9. Corporate Power is Protected – The industrial and corporate aristocracy often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial power elite.
10. Labor suppressed. Because the organizing power of labor unions is the only real threat. Unions are either eliminated, or suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -They tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. Free expression is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment – The police are given almost limitless power. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of security and patriotism. There is often a national police force.
13. Cronyism and Corruption – Regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates. who appoint each other and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability.
14. Sometimes elections elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or opposition candidates, use of legislation to control political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media.
As always, thank you Michael for laying out the facts so eloquently.