The Silent Truth

By Roger Chao The Silent Truth In the tumult of a raging battle, beneath…

Nuclear Energy: A Layperson's Dilemma

In 2013, I wrote a piece titled, "Climate Change: A layperson's Dilemma"…

The Australian Defence Formula: Spend! Spend! Spend!

The skin toasted Australian Minister of Defence, Richard Marles, who resembles, with…

Religious violence

By Bert Hetebry Having worked for many years with a diverse number of…

Can you afford to travel to work?

UNSW Media Release Australia’s rising cost of living is squeezing household budgets, and…

A Ghost in the Machine

By James Moore The only feature not mentioned was drool. On his second day…

Faulty Assurances: The Judicial Torture of Assange Continues

Only this month, the near comatose US President, Joe Biden, made a…

Spiderwoman finally leaving town

By Frances Goold Louise Bourgeois: Has the Day Invaded the Night or Has…

«
»
Facebook

Tag Archives: Andrew Bolt

Independent media: the sleeping giant and the MSM’s response

Paul Sheehan’s recent attacks on the hugely popular Facebook site Tony Abbott – Worst PM in Australian History are not isolated incidents of the mainstream media (MSM) publicly airing disdain towards the social media.

Ferocious, and to some, persuasive attacks by the MSM have become rabid from the moment the independent media (the Fifth Estate) and voices in social media (blogs, Facebook, Twitter) became even the slightest of threats to their diminishing integrity. And why wouldn’t their integrity be diminishing when the direction we’ve seen in the MSM leans towards, especially in the last few years, are stories that are trivial, narrow, shallow and sensationalist? And often untrue. My recent article, The facts versus Andrew Bolt offered an example of the of the fabricated sensationalism so evident in today’s media.

It was a couple of years ago that I first noticed the MSM unleash an attack on the independent blog sites. A couple that I read from the Murdoch media exhibited a sort of ‘xenophobic’ hatred. Christian Kerr, a political journalist with The Australian, savaged the blogosphere with more zeal than I’ve ever heard him attack incompetent politicians, writing that:

It’s also worth noting that the`blogosphere’ supposedly outraged is the small incestuous clique of self-identified lefties, with readerships composed mostly of themselves, who were more than happy to out other bloggers a few years ago with whom they disagreed.

That last bit, for the uninitiated, is a reference to the modern dull and doctrinaire Crikey and its very own Adrian Mole, barrister-blogger Walter Jeremy Sear, and his role assisting The Sunday Age dissect the corpse of the spectacularly snarky site The Spin Start Here that offended sensibilities for years until it reached its logical conclusion and ripped itself apart. Sear was happy to help with an outing then.

The whole thing smacks of naivety and self-righteousness.

And naivety and self-righteousness seems to define the vast majority of the Australian blogosphere. That and whining conspiracy theories.

Quite remarkably, Christian’s little dummy spit was shadowed by the editorial of another from the Murdoch empire, the Townsville Bulletin, which announced to North Queenslanders that bloggers are cowards:

When reporter James Massola “outed” an anonymous blogger in The Australian newspaper last week, he received death threats and a torrent of personal abuse.

How dare someone in the mainstream media name one of these increasingly puerile bloggers, self-appointed guardians of righteousness and all that is wrong about society and, in particular, newspapers.

Grogs Gamut was named as a Canberra public servant and the reaction from his mates was as predictable as it was boring.

Those who hide under the veil of anonymity, taking cheap shots to satisfy their trendy social agenda, don’t like it when they are thrust into the real world.

The great thing about newspapers is that, love us or hate us, we’re the voice of the people. We represent the community, their views, their aspirations and their hopes. We champion North Queensland’s wins and we commiserate during our losses.

Oh how high and mighty they are, being the acclaimed “voice of the people”. And true to from, jumping in on the act the aforementioned Andrew Bolt screamed that the outed blogger, Greg Jericho, be sacked from his usual job. Indeed, let’s punish this new media.

There is no doubt that all forms of dialogue in the social and independent media have profoundly influenced the nature of modern communication and obviously this doesn’t sit well with the traditional media. The above references are indicative of their opinion that the new media produces public discussion that falls well below their standards. I, however, disagree. News stories these days are nothing more than opinion pieces to which nobody is held to account.

New media is now holding them to account and this sits very uneasily with them.

In a few short years the new media, blogging in particular, has become a global phenomenon and it has reshaped our view of journalism. It is in the political sphere, that the impact of blogging is being nurtured.

In an essay titled The Influence of Political Blog Sites on Democratic Participation, ShariVari wrote that:

A computer-mediated environment may make it easier for citizens to express their feelings about political candidates and allow them to speak more candidly than if they were in a face-to-face situation. The diversity of the internet gives citizens access to a wide variety of opinions and information that they may not have access to otherwise, and this may play a role in changing or shaping an individual’s political views. After disregarding any blog sites that have a corporate financial objective or are engaging in political agenda-setting, political blog site users can begin to discuss their personal view points with peers.

I find this essay to be rather heartening. As a blogger and a social media user who has lost all faith in the MSM it was good to know that we can indeed have an impact, albeit small at this stage.

ShariVari concludes that:

All of the research shows that increased opportunities for participation can only encourage democracy . . . This research means that citizens are increasingly turning to and trusting the Internet for accurate information, using it as a platform for participatory democracy, and becoming more knowledgeable about political information in the process. A Spiral of Silence is less likely to exist where citizens have only each others’ opinions to evaluate in terms of their own civic participation and lack status cues such as gender, race, and socio-economic status. Blog sites definitely are increasing the ways in which citizens can participate in their democracy.

The above article, although American and a couple of years old, aptly describes how independent media is now evolving in Australia.

Independent media are better suited to provide the diversity which is often ignored by traditional journalists. Both independent and social media advances the opportunity to expose doctored or omitted facts from mainstream media and point out the bias by particular reporters who do not provide such opportunity for his/her readership to give voice to alternate opinions.

Independent media also encourages contributors and readers to think objectively and ask the probing questions that might often be avoided by the MSM, particularly if they are working to a different (or hidden) agenda. Further, social media gives people the opportunity to analyse and disseminate the news and opinions thrown at them from the established media and as a consequence social media is awash with a more objective and factual analysis. Where, for example, would you find corrections to false or misleading statements from the current government exposed? Not the MSM. Not the MSM as they operate under a different agenda.

But if the MSM was objective, impartial and committed to providing a quality service then there may not be the thousands of social media groups the MSM are now taking a disliking to.

Had we a balanced and analytical media, there would be blogs and social media groups, certainly, but at the extremes of the political spectrum although their popularity would have been limited to those that simply agreed with them. Now we have people turning to the new media because they know they cannot expect the truth out of the old media. If the MSM did their job better they wouldn’t need to be so capriciously attacking social media because, quite simply, they wouldn’t be competition.

Sheehan’s recent attack, as mentioned earlier, is not an isolated incident. David Donovan of Independent Australia has also been targeted. David innocently tweeted:

Forgive if I recall incorrectly, but didn’t Abbott promise to spend his first week as PM in an Indigenous community?

It was a fair question. If it wasn’t bad enough that this pre-election commitment was washed aside by the MSM, then the insulting attack on David by Samantha Maiden, the national political editor of News Corporation’s Sydney Sunday masthead, the Sunday Telegraph was. The attack was personal. I encourage you to read David’s account of it.

What on earth is wrong with the MSM? Not only is the credibility of their professionalism crumbling but they attack the independent media for introducing the credibility that they themselves lack. Independent media are asking the questions that should be asked. Independent media are exposing the falsehoods that should be exposed. And in doing so, incur the wrath from the MSM who people, traditionally, have looked to for balanced news and opinion.

Margo Kingston – a former journalist with the Sydney Morning Herald and now a leading figure in social media – summed it up rather succinctly in an interview with The AIMN:

It’s scary that the media are not doing their job. Many journalist friends have expressed the same concerns; they don’t feel as though they are traditional journalists anymore, they are simply writing what the powerful want them to write . . . And there are journalists in the traditional media who secretly admit that the new, independent media is the way of the future.

Some, however, are obviously frightened of it. They can persist with their attacks, but like their news stories they are shallow as rossleigh proved when he spoke to the creator of the Tony Abbott – Worst PM in Australian History Facebook group; the one that Paul Sheehan fabricated stories about. It was a glaring example of story being made up to attack the independent media. It’s not a good move. The Fifth Estate is a sleeping giant. It’s starting to wake up and my advice to the old media is not to provoke it. It is going to consume you. We are no longer passive observers. Margo adds:

We need to build a bridge between the new media and journalists who see the corruption within the mainstream media. We need to collaborate and work together. We can do this by luring traditional journalists into the new media and free them of their shackles. If we do this, one day we in the new media will look back and be grateful for the decisions we make today.

That would be ideal, however, even if ‘traditional’ journalists prefer to ignore the freshness that the new media can offer, there has already been an emergence of ‘new’ journalists in the Fifth Estate to fill the void.

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

Donate Button

The facts versus Andrew Bolt

I don’t know how many times I’ve read Andrew Bolt’s claims that global warming stopped 16 years ago. Announcing the claim, on one of many occasions he recently asked:

How many more years of no warming before global warmists admit their theory is broken?

New data released two weeks ago shows the pause in global warming has now lasted 16 years.

Now, where did he get that information from? Maybe he read it in a newspaper. Maybe this one:

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released … and here is the chart to prove it.

Note the dates. Bolt’s article was published 18 October last year, the British article on 13 October: five days earlier. In between, on 16 October the MET Office* disputed the claim:

Met Office denies claims that latest data shows global warming slowdown.

Reports suggesting that global warming stopped 16 years ago are “misleading”, the Met Office said yesterday.

Why do Andrew Bolt and many right-wing commentators prefer to rely on misleading media reports to push their ideologies? I’m of the opinion that there is no crime in denying climate change – you can believe in it or not – but if you are going to publicly argue for or against it, it would be a good idea, for a start, to know what you’re talking about.

In my opinion, Andrew Bolt doesn’t. But it hardly deters him from attacking climate change believers with his poisoned pen whilst continuing to maintain his discredited argument that global warming had ceased. He was overjoyed at the sacking of Tim Flannery and the Climate Commission, writing:

New Environment Minster Greg Hunt made only one mistake yesterday when sacking Tim Flannery and junking his Climate Commission.

Hunt actually thanked the alarmist for his work.

Thank Flannery? Hunt should instead have asked Flannery how much of his $180,000 a year salary he’d refund after getting so many predictions wrong.

He should have told Flannery it was disgraceful to even now claim global warming was increasing, when atmospheric temperatures have failed to rise for 15 years.

No sooner had the ink dried on his article when world renown environmentalist David Suzuki appeared on the ABC’s Q&A and Bolt was at it again:

Oh. My. God.

David Suzuki on the very first question is revealed as a complete know-nothing. His questioner tells him that the main climate data sets show no real warming for some 15 years.

Suzuki asks for the references, which he should have known if he knew anything of the science.

His questioner then lists them: UAH, RSS, HadCrut and GISS – four of the most basic measurement systems of global temperature.

Suzuki asks what they are.

Anyone interested in global warming should know right there that Suzuki has absolutely no understanding of what he is talking about.

In my opinion he is a phoney.

Here, for Suzuki’s information, is the GISS measurement.

Bolt’s rant was backed up with a number of charts he had obtained from the link he provided to climate4you.com. I took a look at the site. It was overflowing with charts contradicting Bolt’s argument. His claim that “atmospheric temperatures have failed to rise for 15 years” is rebuked on the very site he referred to. Here’s a typical chart showing global monthly average surface air temperature since 1979, according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), USA:

 

 

It doesn’t look like Andrew is good at sourcing information, does it?

I think I can do a better job than him. Here’s something from the Los Angeles Times for a start: 2012 was among the 10 hottest years on record globally. Here’s what it says:

The average global temperature in 2012 was among the 10 hottest since official record keeping began in 1880, with most of the world — from North America to far northeastern Asia — experiencing higher-than-usual temperatures, according to related reports issued Tuesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Speaking of NASA, they have this on their website:

Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

According to the IPCC, the extent of climate change effects on individual regions will vary over time and with the ability of different societal and environmental systems to mitigate or adapt to change.

The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will increase over time as global temperatures increase.

“Taken as a whole,” the IPCC states, “the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.”

Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:

  • North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them.
  • Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.
  • Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe.
  • Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised.
  • Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions.

Not a bad source to reference, in my opinion. Far better than referencing a journalist whose claim was almost immediately shot down in flames. And while I’m finding all these facts here’s one from our very own Bureau of Meteorology who arguably, know a little bit more about our weather than Andrew Bolt. From their article Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record, again: Australia’s warmest September on record comes these Bolt defying revelations:

Australia’s record for warmest 12-month period has been broken for a second consecutive month. This continues a remarkable sequence of warmer-than-average months for Australia since June 2012.

September 2013 was easily Australia’s warmest September on record. The national average temperature for September was +2.75 °C above the long-term (1961–1990) average, which also sets a record for Australia’s largest positive anomaly for any monthly mean temperature. The previous record of +2.66 °C was set in April 2005.

The mean temperature for Australia, averaged over the 12 months from October 2012 to September 2013, was 1.25 °C above the long-term average. This was also 0.17 °C warmer than any 12-month period prior to 2013.

The previous record, set over September 2012 to August 2013, was +1.11 °C above the long-term average, and the record preceding the current warm spell was +1.08 °C, set between February 2005 and January 2006.

Temperatures for the calendar year to date (January to September) have also been the warmest on record, at 1.31 °C above the long-term average, well above the figure set for January to September 2005 (+1.07 °C). 2005 currently holds the record for Australia’s warmest calendar year.

The past 18 months have been characterised by widespread heat across Australia. The mean temperature has been above average over the entire continent.

In the past 12-month period a large number of mean temperature records have fallen across Australia including:

  • Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
  • Australia’s warmest September on record
  • Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)
  • Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)
  • Australia’s warmest January to September period on record
  • Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)
  • Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long ending September 2013

Two significant daily maximum temperature records were also set this year:

  • Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January)
  • Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August)

The periods inclusive of September 2013 have also resulted in numerous State and Territory mean temperature records including:

  • Warmest September on record for South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory
  • Largest positive monthly anomaly on record for South Australia and Queensland (September)
  • The warmest January to September period on record for South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and the Northern Territory, and also for Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide
  • The warmest 12-month period on record for South Australia, the Northern Territory, and southern Australia

In addition to these records, and those set during the heat events of January and autumn, many individual stations have set records for early season heat or September record highs.

Generally above-average temperatures have persisted with few breaks since September 2012. The period has been characterised by long periods of warmer-than-average days and a distinct lack of cold weather. Nights have also been warmer than average, but less so than daytime temperatures.

Every calendar month since September 2012 has recorded temperatures at least 0.5 °C above average, with eight of those thirteen months topping 1.0 °C above average including January, April, May, July, August and September of 2013. Widespread record warmth has also been recorded in the oceans around Australia.

I am sure that none of this will be of interest to Andrew Bolt. I’m also sure we’ll keep hearing that global warming stopped 16 years ago despite evidence to the contrary. But we have one thing to be thankful for Andrew Bolt for whilst he keeps writing articles denying credible evidence and supporting discredited sources, and continuing to promote a raft of fallacies which add a sweetener to his bitter hatred, this can only be good for the growth of independent media. When people stack the truth up against Andrew Bolt … they’ll see that the truth wins.

*The Met Office is the UK’s National Weather Service.

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

Donate Button

Why Labor Lost

labor

Firstly:

The truth of the matter is that my Party is at times its own worst enemy. For the six years Labor has been in power it governed well in spite of the enormous inconvenience of minority governance. This is indisputable when you look closely at its economic record, the legalisation passed and reformist policy from within a minority framework.

Its problems though did not originate from everyday governance. In this sense, it has been no better or worse than any other government.

Rather its problems stemmed from personality conflict and the pursuit of power. Politics by its very nature is confrontational and uneasy with those with ego who pursue power for power’s sake or those who think they have some sort of ownership of righteousness.

Labor had two formidable intellects in Rudd and Gillard. In fact, combined they would total much of the opposition front bench’s intellectual capacity.

It is one thing to replace a leader but a different thing when the leader happens to be the Prime Minister who the voters perceive they have elected.

Hindsight is, of course, a wonderful thing so it is easy to say that Rudd should never have been replaced. That Rudd undermined the 2007 election campaign and continued to undermine Julia Gillard for most of her tenure. He never showed the grace in defeat that Turnbull displayed.

So we had two leaders of sagacious intellect. One a ubiquitous narcissist, who couldn’t listen and who couldn’t delegate. On the other hand, we had a woman of immense policy capacity (and history will judge her that way) but would be hard pressed to sell a Collingwood Guernsey to a rabid supporter.

Minority government has enormous, day to day difficulties without having one’s leadership frequently undermined. And we can speculate about a myriad of other possibilities but it won’t change the fact that ego destroyed any chance Labor had of winning the 2013 election.

This is the main reason why Labor lost. Not because they didn’t govern well. As Tanya Plibersek said 10/10 for governance and 0/10 for behaviour.

But because life is about perceptions, not what is, but what it appears to be. We painted a picture of irrational decision making, of dysfunction and murderous disloyalty. Rightly or wrongly that is the perception. In other words, we committed political suicide.

Secondly:

There are of course other factors that contributed to our downfall.

Despite the growing influence of the Fifth Estate the Main Stream Media still packs an enormous punch. In advertising, the success of one’s spend is measured by the resulting sales. The media can measure its influence in the Polls.

Labor was the victim of the most concerted gutter attack ever insinuated upon an Australian political party, from all sections of the media, although one, in particular, News Corp, has gone well beyond the realm of impartiality.

Labor was drowned in an avalanche of lies, repugnant bile, half-truths and omissions. The media lost its objectivity and news reporting. It became so biased that it no longer pretended to disguise it.

The MSM has forsaken truth, justice and respectability in its pursuit of the protection of privilege. They printed and told lies with such reprehensible consistency that a gullible and politically undiscerning Australian public never really challenged it.

As a famous businessman once said.’’ I spend a lot of money on advertising and I know for certain that half of it works’’ Clive Palmer has won a seat because he had the money to promote himself. He proved the power of persuasion with money.

The Fifth Estate (including me) attempted to counter these nefarious attacks but in my view, we are three years away from reaching full potential.

Having said that I plead some degree of ignorance, and I must say, I am absolutely astounded at how many people participate in social media and the voice it gives them.

However, in three years’ time, its ability to influence the younger generation will have risen exponentially. Added to that will be a declining older generation.

Thirdly:

Tony Abbott successfully adopted an American Republican-style shock and awe approach in his pursuit of power. Mainstream media hailed him the most effective opposition leader in Australian political history.

This was solely based on his parties standing in the polls and said nothing about the manner in which he lied and distorted facts and science to bring about this standing.

Perhaps they should rethink the criteria they use.

On a daily basis and in the parliament he sought to abuse, disrupt proceedings and tell untruths that normal men would not.

His gutter style negativity set a new benchmark for the behaviour of future opposition leaders. Luckily though, he may be the only one of his characterless ilk, and future opposition leaders may be more affable.

However, the consistency of his negativity had an effect on an electorate in a state of comatose. From the time the election date was announced he portrayed himself as a different person. An indifferent public was fooled by this chameleon disguise. He was and still is by his own admission a liar.

David Marr used these words, to sum up, the character of this would be Prime Minister.

“An aggressive populist with a sharp tongue; a political animal with lots of charm; a born protégé with ambitions to lead; a big brain but no intellectual; a bluff guy who proved a more than competent minister; a politician with little idea of what he might do if he ever got to the top; and a man profoundly wary of change.”

“He’s a worker. No doubt about that. But the point of it all is power. Without power, it’s been a waste of time.”

How one appraisers the reasons for Labor’s loss might differ from individual to individual and there will undoubtedly be many thousands of words written on the subject. For me, it can be rather succinctly summed up in a sentence or two.

A political party, union of workers, sporting team or board of directors is only as good as the total sum of its parts. A good leader facilitates, emboldens and inspires the team, but a leader with self-interested ambition can destroy it all.

This is the first in a series. Next week: Labor reform.

 

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

Donate Button

Politics Is Boring!

Or as the Buddha said, “You want to find Nirvana? Why you following me for, I already told you the path was long – do you think it was just a matter of walking in my footsteps and wearing silly clothes?

It shouldn’t be about winning.

That’s the thing.

Andrew Bolt was all over his court case – he had a front page on his restrictions on freedom of speech, but he was strangely silent on Gina Rinehart trying to make a couple of journalists reveal their sources, but that was because his only concern wasn’t with the PRINCIPLE or freedom of speech. It was about WHOSE speech was being silenced.

“The man with the megaphone supports freedom of speech until someone else gets one – then he supports the regulation of megaphones and laws on noise pollution.”

We know it’s about winning, so we put our principles to one side, we play the game, we do what’s necessary.

If we were better people Tony Abbott wouldn’t just be as laughable as the One Nation Candidate who thought Islam was a country, he’d be unnecessary!

Let’s try to be better people.

Otherwise politics is even more boring.

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

Donate Button

 

Apparently Australia is full

“We can’t take all these illegals, Australia is full!”

“Full of racists, you mean!”

OK, we know where this dialogue is going. The words “Nazi” and “bleeding heart” will be tossed around, but rarely do people ever go beyond abuse once a dialogue starts this way. Personally, I try to focus on the issues rather than simply resorting to abuse like those fascist bastard right wingers do! (See, Andrew Bolt, two can play at that game.) But every now and then it’s fun to bait the angry.

Of course, a lot of things are fun. It doesn’t make them right. We all need to demand higher standards of ourselves – except for Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt who always rise to the highest standards. (No-one can accuse me of lacking balance!)

And so, I write this in a state of some confusion. I’m no Julia Gillard groupie, but I admire her courage and toughness, and I do think that she’s been harshly treated. And I suspect that if I’d gone to school with Rudd, I’d have eventually been so annoyed by him that I’d have rubbed his face in the dirt, until someone pointed out that I’m actually a pacifist, and that I actually agreed with the first statement he made.

Having been on social media, read the paper, listened to the radio, watched TV and, generally, heard the forces of Abbott gloat as though they’d actually won the last election, I must confess: I like watching Rudd restore some sense of reality to these wanna-be “Tea Party” losers. They may still lose! Ha!

Of course, the whole asylum seeker issue disturbs me greatly. So let’s start with the things we agree about.

  1. It would be better if people didn’t travel to Australia on unsafe boats.

I’m pretty sure that no-one will disagree with that. The “Stop the Boats Nazis” and “The Bleeding Hearts” and everyone in between.

The question is what is our second point of agreement. Can we agree that a strong deterrent will work? Well, if the strong possibility of drowning isn’t a strong deterrent, what is? So I doubt that will be the second point of agreement. From this point of agreement we spread off in different directions. Some complain that Rudd is no better than Howard. Others gloat that he’s removed an electoral positive from Tony. Yet others say that he’s admitted the Liberals were right. And finally, we have Abbott’s: It’s a good policy, but we think he’ll muck it up, because that’s all we’ve got now.

Will there be number two?

I’d like to think that we could agree to find the best solution possible. That people will be treated humanely, that we won’t resort to slogans. And that something better is possible, providing we think about it.

I mean, actually think, and not resort to emotive language, whichever side you’re on!

  1. _________________________

Good luck and good wishes.

 

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

Donate Button

The growing irrelevance of the Murdoch media

For a number of decades the Murdoch media have enjoyed an unbridled run as the major source for news, information and opinion in this country. It is a position, many would suggest, that they’ve protected without ethics or morals. Especially when it comes to opinion. Theirs, and only theirs counts and they’ve recently become fanatical at protecting it.

For example, anyone wishing to have their own ideas and opinions published on their media sites have had to contend with the editorial policies that are generally based on the ideology of the editors (or Murdoch himself, perhaps) and of course, on what is sellable. However, this regime of control over what content is allowed to emerge is now collapsing in today’s world of participatory media.

We have witnessed the internet create an arena where everyone can be a publisher. All a person needs is an opinion. Today’s audience want to be part of the media, rather than passive receivers. Not only do they want to comment on the news, they want to be part of creating it. They no longer rely on the Murdoch media.

Hence the rise of the citizen journalists, better known as the ‘Fifth Estate’ who are better suited to provide the diversity that today’s democracies need, yet which are often ignored by traditional journalists. The Fifth Estate advances the opportunity to expose doctored or omitted facts from mainstream media and point out the bias by particular reporters who do not provide such opportunity for his/her readership to give voice to alternate opinions. Aka Andrew Bolt, for example.

The Fifth Estate also encourages contributors and readers to think objectively and ask the probing questions that have blatantly been avoided by the MM; lending rise to the growing opinion that the Murdoch media is working to a particular political agenda. Their lack of scrutiny to the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, and his empty bag of policies, is typical of this.

Further, the Fifth Estate have the opportunity to analyse and disseminate the news and opinions thrown at them from the Murdoch media. Denis Shanahan’s interpretation of the opinion polls are good example, which are clearly based on his opinions, and not the polls. After each of his articles, the Fifth Estate is awash with a more objective and factual analysis.

Another direction we’ve seen the Murdoch media lean towards are those stories that are trivial, narrow, shallow and sensationalist. And often untrue. But the Fifth Estate generally has the meaningful intention of changing the direction of the media and exposing the shallowness and inconsistencies so evident in today’s Murdoch media. The events of the last week have certainly highlighted this. Following Margo Kingston’s explosive story EXCLUSIVE: Abbott forced to repay $9,400 he charged taxpayers to promote his book the Fifth Estate (and social media) shifted into overdrive to find out more about what could turn out to be one of the defining moments of the 2013 election campaign. The mainstream media was eventually swept up with the story gaining currency with Fairfax, the Guardian and the national TV channels. But not so with the Murdoch media. While the rest of the country was falling over itself providing their readers/viewers with the latest developments, the main story on news.com was how a surfing advert was considered offensive. Clearly more important than what is now called battlerort, but I’d prefer to think that the Murdoch media is just making it obvious that they don’t want Tony Abbott tarnished in any way.

The Fifth Estate, subsequently, has exploded in numbers and influence in Australia, not because they are the echo of dissenting voices but because the Murdoch media has created an arena for them to enter. If the Murdoch media was objective, impartial and committed to providing a quality service then in a modern democracy there may not be a Fifth Estate, or for that matter, the dozens of blog sites that exist purely to fill in the gaps exposed by the Murdoch empire. It is also fair to say that the Murdoch brand has been tarnished globally over the last 18 months thanks to the despicable phone-hacking scandal. Arguably, Rupert Murdoch is one of the most despised individuals in the developed world. He could also be considered the least trustworthy. So how can we trust his media outlets? It is becoming increasingly evident that his only interest in Australia is how much it can add to his bottom line and his newspapers are filled with stories each shaped to ensure that the profits head upwards. For example, could his loving support for Tony Abbott be motivated by Abbott’s promise to dismantle to Government’s NBN program? A move, as pointed out in Why Murdoch’s media is gunning for your NBN, that would keep his bottom line healthy.

There is no doubt that in a few short years the Fifth Estate has not only reshaped our view of journalism, but has unlocked previously unrealised publishing opportunities. The blog sites of the Murdoch media usually filter out contributions from bloggers whose opinion do not fit into their schema, so while independent blog sites provide some impact, the avenues through the Murdoch media have been providing none.

Then what are the impacts of the Fifth Estate?

This remains the unanswered question, or if you will, a work in progress. The Fifth Estate still has nowhere near the influence of the Murdoch media, such as being able to manipulate election outcomes or influence public discourse, but, the events of the last week show that the sway of the Fifth Estate is gaining traction. Independent Australia (IA) and the aforementioned Margo Kingston are now providers of news, but not only news, but on the stories that would be filtered out of the Murdoch media, and both IA and Margo are attracting massive audiences which one would expect is to the detriment of the Murdoch media. They lead a number of long-established independent sites such as Andrew Elder, The Failed Estate, The Pub, Café Whispers, The Political Sword, Grog’s Gamut and more recently here at The AIMN where alternate opinions are awarded some voice.

In a democracy we need these alternate voices. Margo Kingston sums up why:

“Journalists used to be a bridge between the people and the powerful. Journalists used to be outside the circle but now they’re inside the circle. They’ve joined the powerful and this very dangerous for a democracy”.

“It’s scary that the media are not doing their job. Many journalist friends have expressed the same concerns; they don’t feel as though they are traditional journalists anymore, they are simply writing what the powerful want them to write.

Very true. Hence we need to make the Murdoch media irrelevant. And that’s not beyond us.

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

Donate Button

Abbott without Costello is starting to look like one of The Three Stooges

“It’s a so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no-one.” Tony Abbott.

Sometimes one can use too many double negatives and try to sound far too clever by making a statement which when it fails to be analysed is all right but because of the overly complicated nature of the said statement one suspects that the person who made the statement didn’t not ask someone else to look at it and tell said person that it was clever.

Or to ask the obvious questions:

  1. Why is it a “so called market”? Are things not bought and sold? In what ways does this fail the test of being a market.
  2. If a substance is one which is not delivered, and it’s not delivered to “no-one” does that mean that it IS delivered to someone? Or does it mean that it IS delivered to everyone?
  3. Are we to presume that the fact it’s invisibility somehow makes it somehow less real? Are we to apply this standard to other invisible things and dismiss them because no-one can see them? Australia’s borders, honesty, carbon monoxide, God, radiation, the Internet, friendship, Liberal policies, love, the intelligence of Andrew Bolt fans, family, and so on?
  4. Will we see an opinion poll taken in the days after that comment?
  5. Has the several billion dollar cost (variable depending on which Shadow Minister was talking) been factored into the Liberal’s alternative budget, given they were saying that it’ll leave far too big a hole in Labor’s budget?
  6. How long will it be before someone asks Turnbull why the “inventor of the Internet in Australia” hasn’t taken his invention overseas?
  7. Three weeks ago you could get odds of 10-1 about Labor to win. Now it’s less than 2-1. Has Abbott backed them and is he deliberately throwing the election? If this were Racing, the stewards would be launching an inquiry.

Without Peter Costello, Tony Abbott really is starting to look like one of The Three Stooges. (No offence to The Three Stooges intended). Cheers!

 

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

Donate Button

It’s easy to get the impression that Andrew Bolt might just be a bit hypocritical

Against my better judgement I’m occasionally intrigued to take (what I intend) to be a cursory glance at what Andrew Bolt’s writing about and soon find myself – trance like – mired in a world devoid of any reality. I found myself in such a state with today’s piece, ‘How Tony Abbott was framed by an activist journalist who should calm down’. The article begins:

You cannot get a better example of media bias and malice – the gotcha journalism of the Left.

Bolt was referring to the interview where Tony Abbott told Guardian Australia journalist Bridie Jabour to calm down after she asked a few probing questions about the $9,000 travel expenses he was forced to pay back. Here is the interview:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58mXIc6ggpo]

These are questions that all journalists should be asking, but not in Bolt’s world. Such questions should not be asked, so it was time for him to attack Ms Jabour. “Note also the aggressive tone of the heckling” he motioned his readers when presenting the above video for their amusement and concluded with the claim that Jabour was acting offensively. Quite laughable, really, coming from a person who is infamous for his constant degradation who do not sit on his side of the political fence. It’s easy to form the opinion that he might just be a bit hypocritical.

BTW, I found her manner quite calm and nonthreatening compared to this:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoeGeV-7OEQ]

Amid one of the most explosive stories facing Tony Abbott since he took over as leader of the Opposition, Andrew Bolt finds it necessary to attack about the only journalist who seeks answers for questions we need to know. This is a much bigger story than a journalist asking a question in a manner not satisfactory to Andrew Bolt, as even noted by the much maligned Michelle Grattan:

It’s little wonder that Abbott just wanted to shut down the questions. Misused government funds, even if inadvertent, sounds dodgy.

Andrew Bolt gives me the impression that the protection of Tony Abbott is more a priority than the integrity of the trade he belongs. That he favours the deflection of any scrutiny towards Tony Abbott in preference to the accountability expected of him, is indicative of either the poor state of Australian journalism or just further confirmation that Abbott is untouchable as far as the mainstream media is concerned.

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

Donate Button

One should always doubt the Sceptics

If you have a choice between a conspiracy and incompetence, according to popular wisdom, it’s generally safer to presume incompetence. Mind you, conspiracy theories are always entertaining, if not reassuring. Even though we may rail against it, in some ways, it’s nice to think there’s an elite group of people out there who actually know what they’re doing.

Evidence of conspiracies, I’ve always thought was a little bit oxymoronic. Surely the best conspiracies would leave NO evidence. “There’s a group of people who are doing something that none of know about because they’ve hidden their tracks so well that not only don’t I know who they are, but I don’t know what they’re doing either! What evidence do I have that they exist? None, which just shows how effective they are!”

And so when it comes to climate change we have believers in a conspiracy on both sides of the debate. One conspiracy argues that energy and mining companies are conspiring to muddy the evidence and to dispute the science, so that they can continue to make massive profits destroying the earth. Whereas, the other conspiracy is that scientists have decided that they’d like funding to study something which they all know doesn’t exist, because there aren’t enough things that do exist to study. Of the two theories, I know which I find more plausible.

However, I don’t think that either is true. I suspect that big business hasn’t conspired to do this. I suspect that they think that there’s nothing really wrong with what they’re doing and when they look at the evidence, they find what they’re looking for. It’s human nature to ignore what doesn’t suit us. (“They tell us that smoking is (cough, cough!) bad for you, but (cough, cough!) Uncle Harry smoked forty two packets for twenty years and when he died at fifty it was from a car accident, so I reckon the evidence it unclear!”)

When it was a minority of scientists talking about climate change, it was argued that they were a minority. Now, the same people argue that scientists are victims of “group think”, and besides there isn’t a consensus because a geologist in Woollongong says he agrees with Andrew Bolt. Of course, the people who once said that being in a minority doesn’t make you wrong, now argue that having the majority of scientists agree with you means that there’s no need for a debate any longer.

Science is not about consensus or voting. It’s about developing theories and putting them to the test. With something like climate change, the difficulty comes about when both sides confuse climate and weather. Weather is a day-to-date event; climate is measured over a period of thirty four years. Picking a date and then measuring temperatures from that date means that you can manipulate the data so that it looks like the climate is not changing. If the summer of 2013 was the hottest on record, the fact that the next three years aren’t that hot doesn’t mean we aren’t experiencing climate change, any more than it’s only 19 degrees today and it was twenty yesterday, means that the planet’s “cooling”.

Predictions, of course, will be wrong. Why? Because there are so many of them, all using different assumptions. Sceptics of climate change jump on the extreme nature of some of the predictions as “evidence” that the whole notion is inaccurate. But this is like arguing that there are no precious metals underground, because some mines fail to find what they’re looking for.

There’s nothing wrong with being sceptical, but one needs to look at the consequences of being wrong. Arguing that I’m sober enough to drive in spite of two scotches and seven wines, may seem very sensible at the time, but I should, at least, consider the possibility that my judgement may be impeded and taking a taxi will only put me a few dollars out, whereas the consequences of my driving may be far worse. Should I, by good luck, get home safely, scoffing at the people who predicted I’d lose my licence, or worse, doesn’t mean that their concern was misguided, or that they won’t be right into the future.

I particularly liked the views of one sceptic I encountered on the Internet. Anyone who believed in climate change was gullible and left wing, and therefore needed to be personally attacked, because telling someone that were a moron is a pretty effective way of changing their mind. He thought that Climate Change didn’t exist, but had always happened so wasn’t man-made. Australia was “going it alone on action”, but Global Warming was a UN conspiracy to impose world government. And that people were brainwashed by mainstream media and unable to think for themselves. He’d then post a link to website or Youtube clip which had enabled him to think for himself.

Scientific debate allows for different viewpoints. It shouldn’t be personal or vindictive. And when a hypothesis is shown to be wrong, it contributes to our knowledge. Compare that to the rantings of Andrew Bolt, or the climate science is crap viewpoints. With anything, we should ask: how do we know we’re right, and what are the consequences if we’re wrong? If someone asserts, Bolt-like, that they’re never wrong, it’s time to worry about their sanity, not their intellect.

 

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

Donate Button

Feel free to speak about whatever I want you to

Part A

In an address to the IPA titled “Freedom Wars”, Tony Abbott declared that it is his intention to repeal s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, claiming that this section of the Act impacts upon Freedom of Speech. This ideal of freedom of speech is that which we should all aspire to, however, as a friend once stated: You mean the freedom to be an asshole. We will explore this later.

The text of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) can be found via Austlii.

Section C18 of the Act, that being which Tony Abbott so vehemently opposes concerns offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. That’s correct, it’s offensive behaviour, with the specifics being:

For an act to be unlawful it must fulfill the following criteria:

  • that the action causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or that it is done in a public place.
  • that the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people.
  • that the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

So let us consider that which is not considered unlawful under s18C of the Act.

It is not a group of friends in a public bar talking amongst themselves, even if the subject matter would offend and humilitate a person standing directly next to them. For example, racist jokes.

It is not public discussions for the purpose of information, education or analysis.

There is also the matter of intention plus “the reasonable person test” that is, would a reasonable person given an identical set of circumstances feel humiliated or intimidated. With regard to intent; for example a remark said in public about a person’s religion might offend that person, however if there was lack of intent on the first person’s part to cause offence, then it is not racial vilification.

Therefore, what we are dealing with is people who want the right to make statements in the public forum, and with the intention of causing offence and humiliation. Enter Andrew Bolt.

Is it nothing more than a sheer coincidence that Abbott announced his intention of changing the racial vilification section of the Racial Discrimination Act just prior to Bolt writing this one. How dare they try to censor this flyer.

Andrew Bolt:

Sadly, the ACT Government seems only too keen on the idea:

Attorney-General Simon Corbell said laws prohibiting religious vilification should be considered by a review of the act that is being conducted by the ACT Law Reform Advisory Council.

How dare these people presume to strip others of the right to speak? How dare they?

And . . . again, where Bolt once again attempts to defend freedom:

I make no comment on their opinion but on the principle.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott rightly calls the laws under which two of my articles on this matter were declared unlawful an offence against free speech, and says he will strip them back. But the Left is furious, and introduces absurd excuses for their excesses:

As reported in news.com, Mr Abbott’s speech came after he wrote in The Australian that section 18C of the act was a “threat” to freedom of speech.

“Expression or advocacy should never be unlawful merely because it is offensive,” he wrote.

All well and good, but this is where it gets strange . . .

Part B

The parties that are advocating relaxation to the freedom of speech laws, nay, hysterically demanding it, are the ones who are in reality practicing the most rabid suppression of it. They want the freedom to be an asshole whilst limiting free speech on those who hold opposing views (to them). You’ll be able to racially vilify or abuse anyone whatsoever, but you will be silenced if any form of dissent, no matter how trivial, is directed towards them.

Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi provides us with a number of examples where he takes freedom of speech to mean exactly ‘freedom to be an asshole’. From his Facebook page:

His post “300 more illegal arrivals in the past three days. Labor’s border failures are costing us over $10 billion” attracted a large number of comments, mostly in support of what he said. Here are some of the responses:

I wonder how these lefties will feel when one of there family gets raped like the girl at Sydney uni by a so called legal asylum seeker. Then we have aids tripling in NT ,not to mention known terrorists being released into the community. I class left wing progressive socialists as much a threat to Australia as Islam.

Just what we need more Sudanese and samarlians they’ve settled well hear,NOT! There would have to be a very high likely hood they are connected to terrorist group alshabab,they would be the only ones with the money to get here.

Just think of all the radical muslim’s that are coming as well!

And his post “Here are some facts surrounding the convicted Egyptian jihadist living in the Adelaide Hills…and still this Government won’t admit their failure to protect our borders and our nation. For more of today’s bulletin go to CoryBernardi.com” also attracted comments of support.

Just think of all the radical muslim’s that are coming as well!

We will never know how many other terrorists, murderers or people of disrepute have come into our country because of this Gov, and it’s loss of control of our boarders. We will never know who could be walking amongst us, or what threats could be awaiting our country. This Gov, has put our country in a very vulnerable situation because it has not done it’s job of protecting our boarders !!!!!!!!!!

We should start denying entry to muslims. Make it happen Cory! Fight the good Christian fight!

One terrorist detected….thousands go undetected. Big salaries being paid for incompetence. Stop muslim migration in Australia whether it be legal or illegal. Don’t let history repeat itself.

As much as I disagree with Bernardi’s opinion, or those who support it, I have no problem with their right to express it (however some of it borders on an incitement to racial hatred and should not have been published). Now here’s where it gets funny; where the freedom to be an asshole takes precedent over freedom of speech. I left a simple comment on his page:

Could you please point out why they are illegal arrivals?

That comment was removed and I was subsequently blocked from commenting on his page again. Yes, they love freedom of speech, don’t they? They can vilify anybody who is non-white or non-Christian but but you can’t question their ‘right’ to do so.

There are a number of other examples across social media that confirm the hypocrisy of these right-wing fundamentalists. Let’s also look at Andrew Laming (a politician fond of composing racist tweets), courtesy of Michael White:

Federal Liberal MP Andrew Laming went on a trolling warpath earlier this month in regards to his perception that the National Broadband Network (NBN) was being rolled out in the Brisbane area on a politico-geographic agenda.

“The cold, hard reality in Brisbane is that households in Labor seats are eight times more likely to get the NBN than those in Coalition seats.”

“Worse, the odds are around 50 per cent better if your Labor MP is a minister. This is a save-the-political-furniture strategy. They are not targeting marginal seats here. They are just trying to survive.”

Of course, there are many reasons why his position was completely wrong, as I highlighted in my article last week on how the Coalition – (deliberately or otherwise) – manage to get their facts on the NBN completely wrong.

Constantly.

At the time of his rant – (spread throughout the media over several days) – myself, @CameronWatt and @Gwyntaglaw engaged in a terse dialogue on Twitter with Laming, pointing out clear, well documented facts in regards to the NBN and its rollout schedule, that were contrary to Laming’s own beliefs on the matter.

He ably demonstrated his inability to grasp even the basic concepts of how the NBN works, how it connects together, and how technical matters – (in most cases) – dictate which parts of the network are rolled out first.

He clearly didn’t like being shown up as being wrong about it.

In fact, he hated it.

How much did he hate it? Well, he blocked me on Twitter, a fact I discovered when putting together the aforementioned article last week.

They really do get precious about freedom of speech when it’s not engaged under their rules. They raise their preciousness to the point of being ridiculous. Here is one that definitely ranks as ridiculous:

Andrew Nikolic, a Liberal Party candidate in Tasmania has threatened to contact the employers of Facebook users who “liked” a satirical article posted about him online.

Mr Nikolic informed the New Examiner last week that if the offending article was not taken down he would write to the employers of all the individuals who had “liked” the story.

“I hope the employers and influencers of your satirical group will be amused by the formal letters of complaint I will now send them on this issue,” wrote Mr Nikolic in a Facebook comment that has since been deleted.

Joe Hockey is another who denies free speech to those who have any semblence of opinions that differ from his own.

Yesterday I discovered that Joe Hockey had called me a troll and blocked me on twitter. My dastardly crime that had caused Joe Hockey to call me a Labor Troll was the reposting of one of his own tweets.

I will say that again, my trollish crime was re-posting one of Joe Hockey’s own tweets.

Oh dear Joe Hockey, Oh deary dear. Is this what our politicians have come to? Reduced to name calling and public hissy fits because a member of the public questions their own words.

It was your own words I was responding to Joe, not Labors words, not a PR piece or a smear campaign designed to discredit you, but your own words, Joe Hockey.

Now go back and read Part A again. Do you see two parallel worlds?

If time permits, also do a Google search and you’ll find dozens of instances where Coalition politicians have blocked people for exercising their freedom of speech; for reasons none other than having a different opinion. It really is a case of freedom to be an asshole. You can vilify, say, Aborigines or Muslims in their brave new world, but you can’t ask them to justify it.

Their reaction to the few examples I’ve revealed in Part B certainly do make their intentions in Part A nothing but Freedom of speech LNP style: Feel free to speak about whatever I want you to.

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

Donate Button

I may not be consistent, but I’m Right!

“This is the problem, the NBN is just happening too slowly.”

Malcolm Turnbull, February 19th, 2013 (Link to article).

“Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull said the rollout had been “super-charged” beyond the normal pace of the industry and this had caused guidelines not to be followed, similar to the disastrous pink batts insulation scheme.”

This was posted on a discussion site by someone called Alain.

“Which of these economists have a knowledge of science? Most economists are preaching about the financial mechanisms than the science. Most economists have never been involved in business particularly their own where they CREATE wealth & prosperity for themselves & others. Most preach their left wing ideology hoping that people believe them because they have a degree on their wall & in some cases have appeared in the media. I think Australians need to ignore these economists most of whom want Australia to be part of some world wide carbon trading system so they & their banker mates, like Malcolm Turnbull, can get rich at the expense of the hard work masses. The carbon dioxide tax debate has shot down their credibility & shown what most economists are, socialists!”

Now I’ve heard some strange things from people on the Left side of politics too. But, generally, even where I’ve heard a Lefty ranting like some crazed loon, there’s been a consistency in their peculiar view of the world. At least their conspiracy theories involve people who might conceivably conspire together.

But “Alain” just about captured all that disturbs me about the Ridiculous Right (my term for the equivalent of the “Looney Left” – do you think it’ll catch on?). The fact that they’re impossible to argue against because they present a moving target. “Alain” complains that economists shouldn’t be commenting on climate change policy because they’re not scientists, yet seems to have no trouble commenting on it himself. And I suspect he has no problem with Andrew Bolt’s comments either even though Bolt lacks a science degree. (Or any degree, considering he was a university dropout). But economists commenting on carbon tax are outside their area of expertise.

They are just out to help their banker mates, like Turnbull, because, that’s right, they’re socialists! Economists and bankers, hiding their socialist colours by making huge profits, are actually plotting the overthrow of the capitalist system.

And we could all have a good laugh at “Alain” and the absurdity of his inconsistency. Except that this is the sort of strange logic we hear all the time from the Liberal Party. OK, perhaps not quite as bad as “Alain”, but Julie Bishop’s assertion that Indonesians were actually saying different things behind closed doors seemed to show a similar disconnect from reality. Here are a few more examples:

When the budget surplus didn’t eventuate, we all know because revenue wasn’t as big as expected. The LNP jumped all over this, and said that Swan was dreaming to expect the revenues predicted. They, of course, have a plan to return the budget to surplus. It involves cutting revenue. They intend to cut that ENORMOUS tax on everything, the Carbon Tax, but continue to give us the compensation. (And I presume, the compensation for companies, too.) This REDUCTION in revenue is how they’ll return the Budget to surplus.

Cracking down on the misuse of 457 visas is attempting to demonise foreign workers – “disgusting and racist” according to Murdoch, but it was ok to suggest that asylum seekers are likely to throw their children into the sea. An honest mistake, we know, and I wish I could remember the apology.

Similarly, if one looks at the pink batts installation, Labor was criticised for their lack of oversight by the LNP, but that hasn’t stopped the Opposition calling for a reduction in government red tape and make demands that we should allow private operators to just get on with it in nearly every other area of business. Rather than a discussion about how much government regulation is desirable, it’s asserted that the government should have had more checks and balances in this instance because people died, but at other times, we’re told that self-regulation is just fine. When the wall collapsed in Melbourne, the unions were terrible people for linking this to workplace safety, because the people killed weren’t workers. Trying to make political capital out of an tragic accident is just wrong, unless it’s a Labor Government that’s being blamed. (An interesting perspective on the whole pink batt saga can be found at Crikey.)

So, I’m gobsmacked that somehow the NBN is being linked with the asbestos which Telstra is digging up. Somehow, it seems to be Gillard’s fault that there is asbestos there. As though it’s not something that would have been uncovered sooner or later; as though it’s the people installing the NBN that are the ones who’ve failed to take proper precautions.

Surely they can’t blame the presence of asbestos on Labor. Surely, everyone knows who’s really to blame: Turnbull, the bankers and their socialist mates!

 

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

Donate Button

 

I’m not a racist, but I know when “those people” have a right to be offended!

Andrew Bolt: “Collingwood was being thrashed and when the bearded Goodes took another possession in front of her, she shouted “ape”.

This is very rude. I wonder at her parents. It’s also possibly racist, though she insisted she didn’t mean it that way. Whatever, she needed a talking-to.

Goodes heard the abuse, and pointed her out to security. A bit over the top, since she’s so young, but Goodes has Aboriginal ancestry and no doubt understandably feels such insults more keenly than I think reasonable.”

Ok, if you’ve read the article in question, you may be angry. You may have been convinced that Andrew eloquently argues that the poor thirteen year old has been given some pretty shabby treatment.

Whatever! (Or, in case there are 13yo’s reading this: woteva!)

But I felt I couldn’t let this comment slip past without me going against my basic belief that talking about Bolt only gives him oxygen.

” …but Goodes has Aboriginal ancestry and no doubt understandably feels such insults more keenly than I think reasonable.”

Now, of course, Bolt claims to have Dutch ancestry, so this may explain his stupidity, and being Dutch, he may feel that my insulting of the Dutch more keenly than I think reasonable. Because, after all, those people can be a little sensitive when it comes to generalisations like suggesting that it was the Dutch that were responsible for Apartheid. Of course, Andrew may be a little sensitive when I point out that I have no reason to believe that his father wasn’t a strong supporter of Hitler. And surely, it’s what I think that counts, isn’t it?

Just as the girl was using the word “ape” – if that indeed is all that she said – in a non-racist way, I, too, am suggesting that the Dutch have a history of stupidity and arrogance in a totally non-racist way. I don’t mean all Dutch, of course, just most of them.

Yes, you’re right I’m being offensive. But it’s the Dutch who are feeling the brunt of my insults in a way that I don’t find reasonable.

I guess I’m forced to wonder that if Bolt considers pointing out someone to security was going too far, how would he respond if Goodes had jumped the fence and slapped the girl?

Probably no differently. I suspect that he will always have a problem when people with a history of being down-trodden – women, unions, aborigines, the poor, etc – find some way to fight back. As a superior white man, he knows that when they do, it’s bullying. When they complain, it’s bullying. When they report, it’s bullying. He’d know – he’s an expert at it!

Of course, he began his article with: “I detest racists. But …”

 

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

Donate Button

So you think Tony Abbott’s going to lead you to the promised land? Think again!

There are some opinions of we ordinary folk that just don’t find their way onto the pages of the mainstream media. Need I tell you what these are? Probably not, for we all know that if our opinions run counter to the media agenda then our opinions are promptly suppressed. Try and say something on Andrew Bolt’s blog, for example. The only arena where Cuppa could express his opinion freely was in the social media.

Cuppa, like us, is one of those good folk who don’t believe for one bit that Tony Abbott is poised to lead us to the promised land. Readers of mainstream media are led to believe that he will. Those people need to hear what others are saying. Such as Anomander who commented here the other day and like Cuppa’s earlier comment, is worthy of a post by itself. Here’s what Anomander had to say:

Just because a series of polls and a biased (manipulated) media say one thing, doesn’t make it true. Look how good the MSM’s predictions were in the US election?

This is a war being waged over the very fabric of our society.

Do we want to live as a serfdom for ultra-rich extremists or do we want our country back again?

Do we want to multi-national overseas companies to rape and pillage the land and strip it of all resources, or do we want to protect the environment for us and future generations?

Do we want a society where you are denied an education because you’re born in a lower socio-economic suburb or your parents don’t earn enough, or should all children deserve the right to the same educational standard and a chance at a worthwhile future?

Do we want a society where the aged, poor and infirm are thrown on the scrap heap when they’ve passed their use-by-date, or do we want a society where those in need are cared-for and supported to get back on their feet?

Do we want a country willing to invest in infrastructure that benefits all Australians or do we want to generate surpluses that are squandered on $3 per week tax cuts and hand-outs to the already wealthy?

Do we want a country where our assets are sold-off at bargain basement prices into private hands and we are forced to pay a premium to gain access to them again, or do we want fundamental services, local employment and control over our own future?

Do we want a future where food and asset prices fluctuate wildly based on the whim of an algorithm running on some supercomputer, or do we want regulation to ensure accountability, responsibility and governance?

Do we want real democracy where we all have an equal voice in how the country is run, or do we want powerful psychopaths dictating what we should see, hear, read and say?

Do we want basic rights, protections, a safe working environment and a wage that allows us to work, live and raise a family without having to forego food, shelter and warmth, or do we want an underclass working for $2 a day, unable to feed themselves, let alone consider raising a family?

Do we want a world where a bunch of fundamentalist zealots restrict your activities based on the words of some sky-god and the writings in a 2000 year old fictional book, or do we want a country where two people who love each other are not demonised and discriminated against?

You sit back and passively accept it, if you wish. For me, I know what kind of country I want to live in, and I’m prepared to fight to make it happen.

All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

Now, just try and find gutsy words like that on the MSM.

 

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

Donate Button

Tainted Journalism

Yes, I’m writing on this topic again. On the same topic that I wrote about last week in response to Mr Denmore and the same topic that my mother, Kay Rollison, has written so eloquently about today. There’s more to be said and no doubt I will keep saying more because this topic is important.

I’m talking about the quality of our mainstream press.

I’m sure mainstream journalists who write about politics in Australia have noticed how angry huge swaths of the politically engaged populace are with them and their measly efforts at ‘journalism’. I often wonder what they think about the criticism they receive, week in, week out on social media, blogs and independent news sites. But I’m not likely to find out, because to tell us, they would have to reveal what they really think, and as I’ve already established, this is a big no no. Having an opinion is akin to hysterical nonsense in their world. So they end up saying nothing at all. They end up saying ‘the Opposition Leader says’ while we all yell at our TV’s ‘so what? This is completely irrelevant!’

I’ve been thinking this week about how has this sorry situation occurred. How has it come about that we have an oversupply of right wing commentators and talking heads all over our TV, including the ABC, but we never seem to hear from anyone who is willing to go out on limb and say anything about the successes of the Labor government? There are a couple out there, I will admit. Channel 10’s Paul Bongiorno is one who battles on, giving his opinion on policy and sometimes even debating on Twitter, proudly showing off what he really thinks about political news. But the fact that Bongiorno stands out as not always negative about the Gillard government, while there are literally tens of journalists, commentators, columnists and personalities on News Ltd, Fairfax and the ABC who are openly partisan towards the right, openly hostile about the Gillard government, and completely unreasonable when it comes to balance and accuracy, shows just how slim pickings there are for a left-wing audience. And I’ve got a hypothesis about why this is the case.

The problem is, the likes of Andrew Bolt in all his revolting disrespect for facts, accuracy and balance, scares the pants off journalists who don’t want to appear to be as downright unprofessional and dodgy as this gutter dweller is. It’s like their thought process works as follows:

‘Andrew Bolt agrees with everything Abbott does, and hates everything Gillard does. He is quite obviously a terrible excuse for a journalist. He is a propagandist and is untrustworthy. If I endorse anything Gillard does, I’m just a left-wing version of Bolt and this is not the type of journalist I want to be. I’m above that’.

The whole ‘above it’ argument has been brought up again by Jonathon Green on the Drum this week. The headline is all you really need to read to understand Green’s point: Journalism tainted by conviction isn’t journalism. Conviction. Defined as “a firmly held belief or opinion”. Green’s basically saying if you have a a firmly held belief or opinion as a journalist, you are tainted. You are alike to Andrew Bolt. But here lies the problem. There are so many journalists making such an effort not to be ‘tainted’, they are missing the fact that their lack of conviction is destroying their work. Because they have no conviction, or they hide their conviction in order to make it appear they are pure and unaffected, they end up being nothing and offering their audience crap.

It’s no wonder so many of us are frustrated. Because it’s perfectly clear that while the left has this problem, the right doesn’t.

Let’s pause for a moment and think about this left/right divide. If I write that I think the Gonksi education reforms are a fantastic idea and will be good for the long term success of the Australian economy and I provide evidence for why I have this view, am I automatically ‘tainted’ as a ‘lefty’? Remember I’m analysing the policy and I’m providing evidence for why I think it’s a good policy. Does this make me a Labor stooge? Does this make me a propagandist? Does this make me a tainted ‘lefty’? No. It doesn’t. I’m not behaving like Bolt in any way shape or form. Because Bolt doesn’t use facts. He prefers to misrepresent them. He prefers to use hyperbole, mock outrage and general nastiness towards people he doesn’t agree with. He doesn’t reason. He doesn’t analyse. And his conclusions are always utterly predictable and easy to refute. But somehow, journalists have let the Bolts of the world win by using this tactic, as they have convinced themselves that if they say anything complimentary about the Gillard government, they’ll be tainted in the same way Bolt is who obviously campaigns for Abbott regardless of what he think of his policies.

It’s quite obvious that the reason there is an abundance of left wing bloggers, and a distinct shortage of right wing ones, is because the right have their opinions adequately covered in the mainstream press, and the left are screaming out for a voice. So us bloggers are doing the job of journalists in analysing policy and providing our thoughts on the impact of these policies. We can’t find this analysis elsewhere so we write it ourselves. Let’s be clear – we’re not doing this because we’re campaigning for the Labor party. We have convictions that we have no intention of hiding. We’re not in anyone’s pocket and there’s no vested interests dictating our views. Just because I’m a Labor voter, and proud to say it, does not mean I’ve given up the right to analyse with an objective eye. Each and every post I write is filtered through my view of the world – which is all any one can ask of any writer or journalists. In fact, most independent bloggers I read, who would be considered ‘left wing’, are critical of the Labor party when they feel it’s warranted. And we’re always very particular about getting our facts right. We’re doing the job of the journalists too when it comes to correcting the official trail of lies the right wingers in our press leave in their wake. For example, since journalists aren’t pulling Andrew Bolt up on his blatant misrepresentation of climate change (and his insult to mathematics), independent bloggers like Greg Jericho point out these facts instead.

Independent writers and bloggers seem to have more conviction in one post, than the mainstream media have collectively in all their work. Mainstream journalists don’t care that Abbott’s Opposition are constantly distorting the facts about the current state of the Australian economy and the size of Australia’s debt. They don’t care that a well orchestrated campaign was carried out within the Liberal National Party to force the resignation of the Speaker, to try to force an early election. They don’t care that Abbott’s Direct Action policy has been left un-scrutinised, while the story about climate change and the Carbon Price was all about Gillard’s supposed ‘lie’. If they had even an ounce of conviction (not left or right, just plain old conviction about right and wrong), how could they possibly ignore this? How can we trust what they say if they are so determined not to care about anything? Surely this is the definition of tainted; writing without conviction.

The question of balance is also one that needs to be examined. Does balance mean being negative about Gillard one day, and positive the next, while being equally negative and positive about Abbott? Do climate change deniers funded by vested interests get the same access to an audience as distinguished scientists who have proved time and time again that the deniers are wrong? Of course balance means none of these things. Gillard should only get positive coverage when her government deserves it. But when you look at the facts, and the resulting coverage, there is a huge hole when it comes to positive stories about the Gillard government. Balance is the ability to weigh up facts fairly, to report these facts fairly and to provide analysis of the impact of these facts fairly, without prejudice or dishonesty. There is no simpler way to explain it.

Frankly, I’ve had enough of the whole scene and I don’t think I’m alone. While Abbott gets a free run in a cowardly press, who refuse to question anything he does, while Gillard’s achievements are buried and her problems over-exaggerated or created, and while the right wing mouth-pieces get free rein to say anything they want without any standards of fact-checking or decency applied, we are all losers. While journalists are ducking and weaving to hide their convictions, all that is left for the thinking public is to find analysis and inspiration elsewhere. And if we can’t find it, we write it ourselves.

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

Donate Button

“See this front page story on Labor’s leadership tensions?”

“See this front page story on Labor’s leadership tensions?”

“Yep!”

“Well, I heard from a guy down at the pub that his brother-in-law knows somebody in Canberra who empties bins and he heard from another bin emptier that the guy who empties Kevin Rudd’s bin had a look at what was on one of the scrunched up bits of paper, and do you know what he saw?”

“No idea, mate!”

“There were numbers. So I can confirm this article about Kevin Rudd looking at the numbers is 100% correct.”

“Gees, you reckon that guy’s the ‘unnamed source’ quoted in the article?”

“Nah, he had a name. I think it was Barry, but I probably shouldn’t say that.”

“So there really is going to be a challenge to Gillard’s leadership this time.”

“What you mean, this time.”

“Well, they’ve been saying that Gillard won’t last the month since 2010.”

“Have they?”

“Yeah.”

“First time I heard anything was from the guy at the pub.”

“Rudd’s probably going to challenge her over this media thingy.”

“What media thingy?”

“Well, apparently the Government’s trying to shut down free speech by subjecting the media to some sort of regulation.”

“Probably to stop them publishing stories like the one about Rudd doing the numbers.”

“And also to hide the fact that Conroy’s related to Joseph Stalin.”

“Whose that?”

“He was a Russian dictator that killed his political opponents!”

“No, who’s Conroy?”

“He’ s the guy trying to stop free speech:”

“And how is he related to Stalin?”

“Don’t know exactly, but I heard someone in the ALP saying that relating Conroy and Stalin was just ridiculous. You know when they deny something that it has to be true.”

“Yeah, like when they say that the leader is safe. You know that they’ll be gone within the week. So how are they actually going to stop the press from publishing articles they don’t like?”

“They’re going to introduce some sort of standards thing that the press have to sign up to.”

“And if they don’t they’ll be taken out and shot?”

“Nah, they’ll lose some of their protections.”

“And then they’ll be shot.”

“Nah, they’re not going to shot at all.”

“Oh, so how is Conroy like Stalin?”

“Well, the stifling free speech thing. Like with Andrew Bolt.”

“Yeah, I remember that front page article by him where he said he wasn’t allowed to say anything ever again. And all because he’d suggested that some aborigines were pretending to be white.”

“No, what he said was that these Aborigines were pretending to be black, and they shouldn’t because they weren’t dark enough, and that they were doing this to get some of the enormous benefits that go with being an aborigine, such as getting an acknowledgement that they used to own the land before a lot of events. Anyway, the court decided that they were actually aborigines, and that Bolt wasn’t allowed to say they weren’t because that was incorrect.”

“That’s ridiculous. You mean, people can’t write things that aren’t true?”

“That’s right. My grandfather was a digger and he fought so that we’d have the right to say whatever we liked about any group of people whether it was true or not. That’s what freedom of speech means.”

“You’re grandfather must be turning in his grave.”

“Yeah … Well, he’s not actually dead, but he would be. He’s very upset about this Government and how they’re taking away his rights.I mean, he doesn’t mind that Gillard’s a woman, he just objects to her being prime minister. He says that if God had meant women to be in charge, he would have made them men.”

“Exactly, I mean, I’m not sexist, but I was expressing the same view the other day, and my daughter told me that I was wrong. I said that it’s a free country and I can say whatever I like. Then she told me I was stupid bastard. So I said if she was going to talk that way, she could get out of the house. I won’t have my free speech stifled like that!”

“Yeah, if I was in power, I’d make sure that those teachers and uni didn’t indoctrinate our kids.”

“How would you do that?”

“I’d make it illegal for them to comment on anything political!”

“I’d vote for you. Well, do you want another drink, or do you have to get going?”

“I have to get going. My radio program starts in a few minutes, and the producer gets upset if I can’t read the screen.”

 

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

Donate Button