Overnight, elements of the mainstream media (MSM) displayed the gutter journalism and sensationalist crap that Senator Conroy admirably wants to tackle head on in this country. He rattled a few cages and the MSM are squealing like stuck pigs. They are behaving like pigs too. The front page of The Daily Telegraph (above) deserves nothing better than to line the kitty litter tray (as should the whole paper, if you’re brave enough to buy it). I cannot find enough words to describe my utter disgust at this piece of filth. It is so wrong.
Senator Conroy, to his credit, shrugged it off. I don’t think too many other decent people will.
He has certainly hit a raw nerve and the more restrained responses have that guilty look about them. Take these sentences in today’s editorial in The Australian:
The minister has never hidden his dissatisfaction with News Limited, publisher of The Australian, or his warm relationship with other media proprietors. Indeed, free-to-air television networks are the winners.
The removal of the “75 per cent rule” will allow the Nine Network to buy its affiliate, Southern Cross, thus reducing diversity. At the same time, regulations governing free-to-air television remain the same.
To me, this sounds like The Australian has voluntarily put its hand up as the nasty guy while stressing they need to be the major player in Australian print media. To continue on unabated.
Even the Sydney Morning Herald, on their web site were playing the same fiddle:
The chief executives of Australia’s biggest print and online news media, including Fairfax Media, publisher of this website, have come out against the reforms announced by Mr Conroy on Tuesday, saying they were unclear and would introduce uncertainty into the media landscape.
Yes, let’s keep the certainty. Let’s keep having a media that publishes front pages that compare an elected politician to mass murderers. Pathetic.
But now to the crux of my post. Up until 2007 the media barons controlled the Government. Losing this control is more the issue here. Let’s take a look at a few significant moments from the Howard years, thanks to the Centre for Policy Development:
Pre-1996 election
Opposition Leader John Howard is rumoured to have reached an understanding with Kerry Packer to remove the cross-media ownership restrictions that mean he is prevented from buying Fairfax. Packer appears on his Nine Network to endorse John Howard for Prime Minister. The Coalition promises a full public review of cross-media rules.1996
October
Communications Minister Richard Alston scraps the promised review and instead calls for private submissions to be sent directly to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) for analysis by Alston’s advisors.
1997
April
Howard says he believes the cross-media rules should be scrapped, but favours retaining limits on foreign ownership.
The Coalition backbench says it is worried about media ownership and wants a role in formulating policy.
Howard meets with Murdoch and Packer. Network Seven owner Kerry Stokes accuses Howard of doing a deal with Packer over Fairfax.
May
Howard says he won’t consider relaxing foreign ownership limits, claiming that “70-80 per cent of the newspapers of this country are owned by foreign interests”.
Liberal MP Gary Hardgraves, deputy chair of the Coalition backbench communications committee, writes to Howard: “I have been contacted by several colleagues requesting no public announcement of any changes in cross-media ownership provisions be made until the committee has been afforded a full briefing with opportunity to comment. As a committee we are very concerned matters will be decided before we are consulted.” (The Age, 6/5/97)
James Packer appears on the Nine Network and announces that he wants Fairfax for Christmas.
The Coalition backbench tells Howard it will not back change without partial relaxation of foreign ownership limits to keep the industry competitive. Hardgrave explains that “There was no one here who could take on Packer, so it had to be a foreigner. We went for diversity over xenophobia.”
Howard again refuses to consider abolishing limits on foreign media ownership but, under pressure from his backbench, offers Murdoch a lift in foreign ownership limits from 15 percent to 25 percent.
Cabinet considers Richard Alston’s plan and advises him to consult the backbench.
June
James Packer lobbies backbenchers for relaxation of cross-media ownership restrictions.
ABC Television hosts a debate on media policy. No one from the Murdoch or Packer companies participates.
August
Murdoch says no to Howard’s offer, and threatens to fight any attempt to give Fairfax to Packer without the abolition of foreign ownership restrictions at the same time.Howard dumps the plan.
September
Howard tells Cabinet he’s dropped the issue after the backbench committee announces “MPs would not accept any policy that allowed the Packers or Rupert Murdoch to own more of the Australian media”.Alston tells Parliament that Cabinet bailed out “because they well understood that the Australian public was interested in the real issues”.
2001
Pre-election, 2001
The Government announces it will review media ownership laws after the election.
Howard meets Rupert Murdoch in the United States just before the September 11 attacks. Insiders assume a deal was done whereby the Murdoch press would support Howard in the election campaign, and in return Howard would alter legislation to allow Murdoch to expand his media interests in Australia by buying a television network.
2002
January
Richard Alston meets Rupert Murdoch in New York to discuss possible changes to media ownership laws.
Alston dumps his promise of a review, and instead holds private talks with media players, obtaining majority agreement for his plan.
March
Cabinet approves the Alston-Howard plan to abolish cross-media and foreign ownership restrictions on the media, which would allow Packer to buy Fairfax and Murdoch to buy a television network.
March 19
Alston presents proposed legislation to the Coalition party-room meeting as a done deal.
At least ten backbenchers protest, saying Alston hasn’t explained what the legislation means and demanding more time to consider it. Critics include National Party MPs Paul Neville, De-Anne Kelly and Ron Boswell, Victorian Liberal MPs Bruce Billson, Petro Georgiou and Sophie Panopoulos and NSW Liberals Bruce Baird, Bronwyn Bishop and Marise Payne.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports: “They are concerned at the impact such a liberal regime would have on media diversity in the bush and the centralising of ownership that would result from a relaxation of the cross-media laws. A few backbenchers fear that in the absence of a strong cross-media regime foreign investors could buy up as many local media outlets as they liked.”
Major media players arrive in Canberra to begin lobbying politicians to support the Alston plan. Critics claim that this is proof that they all knew the detail of the plan before the Coalition’s own backbench.
March 20
A hastily formed new communications backbench committee agrees to the original plans after meeting with Alston. No committee members will reveal the reasons behind their about-face.
March 21
The coalition party room approves the Alston-Howard plan and Alston introduces it into the House of Representatives.
June
A Senate Committee inquiry rejects the Alston plan, but Western Australian Liberal Senator Alan Eggleston, Tasmanian Liberal Senator Paul Calvert and Victorian Liberal Senator Tsebin Tchen back it with two provisos:
1. Any company could own only two of the three media – TV, radio and newspapers – in any one region;
2. A media group should be required to disclose its ownership of another media group when it is reporting on the latter.
(http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ecita_ctte/media_ownership/report/report.pdf)
September
Alston agrees to these changes and starts negotiating with the four independent / minor party Senators whose support he needs to pass the bill: South Australian ex-Democrat Meg Lees, Tasmanian ex-Labor Senator Shayne Murphy, Queensland One Nation Senator Len Harris and Tasmanian independent Senator Brian Harradine.
2003
June 22
Alston announces a new offer to the independents, including cash to extend the reach of ABC news radio to the regions.
June 25
The Senate passes Alston’s bill with Brian Harradine’s amendment, which bans a company owning a newspaper and a television station in the same capital city market.
June 26
The House of Representatives rejects the Senate compromise and re-passes Alston’s legislation.
June 27
The House of Representatives lays the bill aside.
Alston announces he’ll demand the Senate pass his original legislation in October, and ensures that all the preconditions are met to make the bill part of a double dissolution election trigger.
July
Alston starts negotiations with the Democrats to pass the legislation.
November 5
The Bill is reintroduced into the House of Representatives.
December 1
The house passes the Bill, in the same form as that introduced on 15 October 2002, with the addition of amendments passed by the Senate and agreed to by the House.
December 2
The Bill is reintroduced into the Senate; the second reading debate adjourned.
2004
The Bill lapses following the calling of the 2004 Federal election.
The Howard Government includes a commitment to reform media ownership laws in its election platform.
2005
The Government commences consultations with stakeholders on possible approaches to media ownership reform.
2006
14 March 2006
After months of unexplained delays, Communications Minister Senator Helen Coonan releases a discussion paper on media reform, entitled Meeting the digital challenge: reforming Australia’s media in the digital age. The paper is open for public discussion and submissions for one month, until the 18th of April.
I don’t know about you, but I think some of that is rather damning. Howard consulting Murdoch on proposed media changes. Obviously Senator Conroy was unaware that Rupert had to be consulted first. In 1997 George Megalogenis caught a whiff of Howard’s backroom deals. George wrote:
Howard himself fed this perception by telling colleagues he thought the Fairfax papers lacked direction. Howard believed the Sydney Morning Herald, for example, was not fulfilling its potential of becoming a quality” small-c conservative” broadsheet like The Times in London.
Early on in the process, Howard and Communications Minister Richard Alston decided the way to counter the inevitable claims of bias towards Packer was to give Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited, which publishes The Weekend Australian, a share of the media spoils.
The economics, as well as the politics, of the issue demanded that the cross-media rules preventing someone could not be reformed in isolation.
The foreign ownership rules, which restricted News from expanding further in Australia, also had to be looked at. But unlike Keating, Howard could not strike a balance that placated both Packer and Murdoch.
Every model that Howard and Alston came up with gave Packer an easier run at taking over Fairfax than it gave Murdoch at controlling Seven. Insiders now agree that Howard effectively killed his own reform drive on April 30 when he went on Melbourne radio station 3AW to talk up the Packer cause. The Prime Minister said then there were three choices on media policy – do nothing; open up the media to all comers; or reform the cross media rules while retaining the existing controls on foreigners. (Interestingly, Howard did not mention option four which he had discussed with Murdoch – relaxing both cross-media and foreign ownership controls).
It certainly continues to be damning, not just for the Howard Government (and I suspect the current Opposition) but also for Murdoch. That’s Conroy’s problem: he won’t hop into bed with Murdoch so he’s rallied his troops. This too, is so wrong. Media Content is Influenced by Ownership, and that suited both the Howard and Murdoch to a tee:
Media companies are not solely a means to earn income. They are frequently also a vehicle for furthering the interests of their owners. Expression of an owner’s political interests is rarely as overt as it was in 1995 when Kerry Packer appeared on his own Nine Network and declared that John Howard, then leader of the Liberal National Party Opposition, would make a good Prime Minister. It usually occurs in subtle ways, through theappointment of senior management and, in turn, the selection of stories and the way in which information is presented to the public.The public is frequently unaware of information that should but does not come to its attention. For example, back when Nine promoted itself as the major television news network and was owned by the Packer family, which also had strong financial interests in casinos, it was highly unlikely that Nine would have screened weighty content on serious social problems that have resulted from the proliferation and promotion of legal gambling.The editorial position of News Corporation’s newspapers around the world in support of the 2003 US led invasion of Iraq is one example of homogeneity of perspective on a crucial matter of public interest.Undertakings given by media companies bidding for AFL rights to support and promote the sport rather than ‘bag’ or ‘demonise’ it provide another one.In his recently published book, ‘Rupert Murdoch: An investigation of political power’, David McKnight (Associate Professor and a Senior Research Fellow at the Journalism and Media Research Centre at the University of NSW) has described Rupert Murdoch’s use of his media empire to further his political agenda over decades.There has been widespread speculation by media and business analysts and commentators that shareholdings which Gina Rinehart (mining magnate and Australia’s richest person) has recently acquired in the Ten Network last year, and recently in Fairfax are in pursuit of influence for her mining interests, not investment potential.
Murdoch has a Howard ‘mimi-me’ in Abbott, whereas Conroy won’t bend over.
That is so good.
[textblock style=”7″]
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 greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
Nor will the PM..
Cannot help but think the PM and Conroy, along with Albanese are toying with Turnbull and the Opposition,
Not sure if they care whether they get this bill through or not. Just wanted to see how Murdoch and Turnbull would react.
Got the answer very quick.
Minister Conroy should get in and amend the ABC Charter. In fact he should rewrite it, putting in place actual penalties for:
1) Partisan editorial favoritism
2) Politically-motivated hiring and promotion practices
I’d second that Cuppa.
Not sure if he’d get the chance though.
There is nothing these Main Stream Morons will not do to keep the truth from Australians. Great piece Miglo.
Silly, in whose eyes?
As far as Murdoch and Co are concerned, it has all to do with power.
Nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Does not matter much what this government does.
With the onset of the web and all that goes with it, their power will whither on the vine anyway. Just take a little longer.
Black smoke once again.
The opposition promise to repeal any bill that Conroy may happen to get up and the way that he is going about trying to get the bill passed probably means that it will fail anyway.
As for the headline/front page I think that its fair comment on what Conroy is proposing and evidence of our healthy disrespect for our government especially when they do something silly.
This goes to explain why Howard won the number of elections that he did…when will the people of Australia get to choose the future without undue media influence? Bring on the NBN – soon. Please.
And yet you’re the first one to jump up down if anybody says anything against you LNP heroes.
Howard consulting Murdoch on proposed media changes. Obviously Senator Conroy was unaware that Rupert had to be consulted first
I think Conroy and the Government as a whole are very aware, which is why they pulled their punches so much. To implement such a watered down policy against what I am assuming is the reaction they bargained on and only makes newslibited look more ridiculous and outdated.
For the doubters, here is a sample of the experts opinions, not the ‘professionals’ opinions (as directed by rupert)
http://theconversation.edu.au/conroy-proposes-media-reforms-the-experts-respond-12769
maybe ian can read it and realise just how stupid newslibited look in the light of the facts. Free speech, they don’t even know what it is.
Tom R
I think that Alan Kohler has a better handle on the matter than your citations: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-13/kohler-media-reforms/4569210
Migs, we know what kind of games Murdoch plays courtesy of the Leveson enquiry.
And as I wrote, Newman is Abbotts Mini Me, so you took it to the next logical conclusion that Abbott is Murdoch’s Mini Me… Spot on! 😀
Good post BTW 😎
Cheers 😀
Your real journalism is a refreshing light in the gloomy mud that is MSM. Thank you.
Michael
I don’t do hero worship when it comes to politics and while I have been tenacious arguing against the Gillard Glee club that does not mean that I would ever try and regulate the way that they express their views.
If this is their reaction against what was really a minimalist and safe policy change then imagine if real like Canada media accountability policies were introduced.
Yet John in doing so, just like Alan Jones, they are more often than not only talking to a core rusted on closed mind audience. It’s why the MSM is dying as that core is not very big.
I believe they are over reaching, and it is backfiring.
A leader of a major medium body, leading the revolt. A revolt against what?
Barry Cassidy ABC 24.
media not medium. Should have put the glasses on.
Are they paranoid? Yes, he is correct,, many do not like the company he works for. It has to be an attack against Murdoch, as they are far the biggest section of the MSM.
Hear the whine in the voice.
http://video.news.com.au/2342657155/Conroy-measures-are-an-attack-on-free-speech-Williams
Michael
The fact is that I don’t do “Hero worship” of anyone in politics and even if I have tenaciously argued against things cited by the Gillard Glee Club that does not mean that I have any desire to censor the things that they might have said.
I’ve been spaminated 🙄
“It is said of pornography (and I am not expert in this field) that in order to maintain the viewers interest it needs to progressively become more outlandish – more tantalising – more seductive-more flirtatious-more provocative – more stunning and more enticing. And in their desire to maintain some dominance,that’s exactly what main stream media is doing. It has chosen to prostitute itself in the forlorn hope of remaining relevant”
What does one expect from one that has a liking for pornography.
I side with John, but a better example is using physical punishment on children.
This type of disclipne starts off with a gentle tap but as time goes on, to get results, those taps have to give pain to be of any use.
At the end of the day, the only lesson learnt, that if one wants their own way, violence is acceptable.
John
I have seen you cite similar things about pornography before and I really think that it is very far from true, and definitely not the case for the diversity of pornography in the internet age where there is no one source or style of online erotica. Can I suggest as you are so keen on citing pornography that you take a moment or two to peruse the range of what is very freely available?
You will find both the extremes that you mention but also vast amounts of every possible variation of desire.
In fact yours is an argument form the age of print when publishers were trying to push the boundaries and anti-porn activists wanted to draw an analogy with drug addition. With the current ubiquity of erotica on the net the analogy just does not work any more.
Sorry, I have investigated too many children, who have suffered from physical punishment been used as a way of discipline.
Thankfully most parents wake up that is not the way to go, and really start teaching the child self discipline.
Saying that, this post is about the media. They have called wolf so often, that most are turning off.
Hall, this is not about parents and children. Get back to the topic.
I have made myself a promise. That I will no longer allow myself to be diverted from what the thread is about
Not interested in your parenting skills. Has nothing to do with this topic.
Fed Up
One does not have to have a “liking” for pornography to make the argument that I am putting about John’s use of that quote.
On your talk of physical punishment well I think that you are sprouting nonsense, there are times when physically punishment may be apt, like slapping a small child’s hand away from a flame, but it just does not follow that having done that you will need to provide more and more severe chastisement to get the same results, Oh and before you suggests that I beat my children, let me assure you that I don’t and that I have never found it necessary to do so.
When it comes to the crunch families socially function just the same in humans as they do in pack animals like wolves (cue cries of horror from the usual suspects) there is a constant struggle for dominance.
Frankly I think that you have to accept the fact that violence is a part of life and not something that can be trained out humanity, far better to teach that it is only occasionally appropriate than to pretend that it never is.
Todays Daily Telegraph front page was far from factual. The only member of Federal Parliament with links to a despot, is Eric Abetz. You see, the facts are that Eric Abetz is the great-nephew of SS-Brigadeführer Otto Abetz, Nazi German ambassador to Vichy France from 1940 to 1944, and he was a member of the Nazi Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Abetz
I bought it up as an example of what John was trying to say. It is you that tried to make more of it.
Why do you always want to make every topic about you?
Fed up
you may well be right about the abused children that you have investigated, but the vast majority of parents who only very rarely use physical punishment in the way that I suggested never go on to abuse their children, either physically or mentally.
And this post is not about media its about a government that wants to regulate a media that has been quite rightly critical of it. Worse still given the prospects for this proposed reform, either becoming law or enduring past the defeat of the Gillard government are less than zero there is little point in you singing its praises.
Perhaps instead you could consider that the ham-fisted way Conroy has launched this brain fart is just a way of distracting attention from the government’s other woes. Its just the ole “bait an switch” in action, surely you can see that?
What happened to my Last comment?
Fed up
You may have “bought it up as an example of what John was trying to say” which is rather presumptous of you considering John can answer well enough himself if he wishes to clarify his position, but that does not oblige any reader to accept your opinions without question.Least of all me.
Finally I am not at all making the subject of the thread me and frankly I am disappointed that you are making such a claim .
Finally I want to reiterate my request that you address me as “Iain” and return the courtesy in your manner of address as I have been giving you.
Let me guess, Hall is now etiquette master in charge of this blog. Hall, I personally would not want to address you as anything at all and don’t know why Fed up bothers.
Is this wrong? Absolutely..Complain about it, see how far you get. The current regime of complaining to the media outlet is a farce. The proposed changes only seek to make the media outlets accountable for their own flagrant disregard for the process of ineffective self regulation.
Try and sue them? They have lots of money and run papers here in Australia at a loss to maintain influence over public opinion for political capital. They engage in qualified litigious risk assessment for opinion. How much do we make, what is the chance of being sued?
This is a media outlet that will seek to increase its coverage to 100% of the Australian market. They are not interested in democracy or diversity only power and profit.
This is a media outlet that is more interested in broadcasting overseas content and does not want to increase the proposed quota of Australian content.When one looks at news like all totalitarian regimes you must look at all the testicles as it is all interrelated.
This is a media outlet that would oppose the status of recognising the ABC and SBS in online news reporting with changes to their charter as it is a competitor who voice diverse opinion free of charge.
Sound like a striking similarity to despot totalitarian corporate regime?
Does anyone see the irony here?
Propaganda control? Political influence? Favor for the few? The removal of choice? The erosion of the voice of opposition? Protection of power base?
The apparatchik’s and minions of the great dictator’s propaganda machine are subservient to the great leader who seeks to control democracy as the puppeteer of politicians. If that sounds crazy, look at that front page again. It is a gaze into the abyss of information control, the subterfuge of truth in reporting.
Because obviously this person has not read the proposed changes,
Does not understand the issue, just paste’s the manufactured “communist” smoke screen by desperate despot News.
Has not provided any substantiated facts
Adds nothing to debate other than “I think its fair, I don’t know why it just is”
The puppets dance for the puppeteer http://bit.ly/WcSIJm
This is more on the money
,
https://twitter.com/BushfireBill/status/311843492555005952/photo/1
Petition.. https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/australian-press-council-prosecute-the-daily-telegraph
Sorry Iain.
Some of the above comments are as appalling as the tabloid nonsense spewed forth by these “bottom of the budgie cage” (apt description, by the way) newspapers! But there are an awful lot which express the same feelings I have towards the two major players .. Murdoch, an American who sold his Australian citizenship to amass wealth and power in America and the UK through nothing more than greed, and now Rinehart with Fairfax, who should be ashamed of themselves for descending as deeply into the gutters as the News Ltd. group. I am also so saddened by the fate of “Aunty ABC” and how they they are trailing after the commercials like the waif following the gang through the back streets of the city! I am ashamed that taxpayer’s money is supporting the previously untainted ABC outlets, radio and television, managed as a conservative propaganda machine by former Liberal Staffer Mr. Mark Scott! This appointment should be revoked immediately along with the Board and the previous impartiality of the ABC returned as soon as possible! More power to the Press Council is needed NOW!
Following
Mr Denmore
@MrDenmore
The Murdoch press are not newspapers. They are propaganda rags for the commercial and ideological agenda of News Corporation.
Reply Retweet Favorite More
Ricky
You assert the wrongness of the headline as if its is self evident, so kindly explain just why you contend its wrong.
what is wrong with that?
For a “media Professional” and NBN fan you seem rather out of touch with the changing media landscape.
As an insider you seem rather unaware theta the point of any media is not to provide an outlet for news journalism but to make money and news and political reporting are secondary
Updating the ABC and SBS charters to recognize their online presence makes sense, the pity is however than Conroy has chosen to bundle it with an otherwise stupid “reform”
No one cares that corporations are “despotic or even totalitarian” if they return a profit because unlike governments there is no pretense unlike the Labor party and commissar Conroy
Yes all of those things are pending should Conroy’s scheme get up which is why it will fail.
Ricky you are:
Thanks for that Fed up 🙂
Ricky
.
Mate this claim of yours shows just how out of touch you are on this matter NO ONE has read the bill or considered its detail because it is as yet unreleased by Conroy so like all of the other commentators I have been going on what Conroy said in his press conference and subsequent interviews.
Care to try again on this point as you are,once again, incomprehensible.
Hall is consistently all opinion and no fact, obviously his lack of facts with inane responses with no detail is indicative of his complete lack of understanding of the media landscape.
Hall cannot even say what he is opposed to in the legislation because he has not read, or provided an analysis the bill.
Apparently no one cares?…that’s some news of the world.. The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the Times of London and The Australian are all losing money.
maybe he is is living in noddy land?
http://youtu.be/4w0ELKWQXaA
Sure
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4991
That was only made available this afternoon Ricky, so you don’t win a Kewpie doll and my point stands
I asked a friends opinion on this, she tends to listen to those shock jock types and reads the free newspapers in Maccas…and she said that she “wondered what Labor was up to”, apparently there is nothing wrong with our media laws and they (Labor) are “just trying to limit freedom of speech”. Apparently all this was true because she read it in the Sun Herald.
I despair I really do…
Seems to me that if an industry has some form of regulation (even self-regulation) then it’s a good idea to have a body that can call attention to the fact that they have broken their own regulations, otherwise it’s, well, worthless isn’t it?
Reputations and careers cannot be ruined by the telecommunications carriers or utility companies – yet both these industries have a body that ensures they abide by their regulations. Why should Rupert and Gina be any different?
Alison
its the thin end of the wedge
Apparently a point was made 🙄 The fact that major News flagship publications in Australia, America and the UK are run at a loss is a point lost on some.
Ricky, I heard that The Australian lost $25M last year.
ian: NO ONE has read the bill or considered its detail because it is as yet unreleased by Conroy
………..
Ricky: Sure
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4991
I think that is what they call PurePwnge Ricky 😉
ian: so you don’t win a Kewpie doll and my point stands
I think that is what they call PureIgnrnce ian 😉
I heard that The Australian lost $25M last year.
It will actually be seen as a good investment if it wins Him a Government.
Migs its somewhere between 20 and 30 pretax loss..
Pre-tax losses for The Times and Sunday Times for the year to June 2009 were £87.7 million ($A145 million)
The New York Post loses an estimated $US70 million ($A76 million) a year, and The Wall Street Journal lost $US80 million ($A86 million) in the year ended June 30, 2009
Emma Alberici talking sense to the ideologues. (found this linked to over at PB thread)
https://twitter.com/chriskkenny/status/311990098428317696
Personally Tom I really don’t care that Hall does not do his research, its smart ass answers like that serve to reinforce just the type of person hall is. The extent he goes to in order to embarrass himself is astonishing. I am actually tiring of it. 🙁
I am actually tiring of it.
You’re not the first, and, sadly, won’t be the last.
Ricky & Tom R
The simple fact is that at the time I commented on this topic no details of the bill were available and the information that Ricky so gleefully cited had not been posted by the government, so Ricky deriding me for “not reading the bill” was an own goal and indicative of the fact that he had not read it either even though he subsequently found it posted and sought to save face by implying it had been there all the time when it hadn’t.
Probably time for the fans of this silly bit of parliamentary theatre to take a very cold shower as this report suggests the bill is unlikely to get through the house anyway:
Getting your knickers in a knot over the details is probably a very big waste of time and energy the bill will fail and just make Labor look even more silly. It has however provided a nice smoke screen to cover leadership tensions with in the party for a few days, which is, I suspect, the point anyway.
seems to me the only things the libs want to do is talk shite… when if ever will they give full details of their policies… if they have any that is ????
Ricky, I have noticed that with Mr Hall. He likes to try and derail a topic to suit his preferences. Yes, when confronted on this he blames someone else after picking a sentence out of their comment then exclaiming “but they started it”.
Iain, it is becoming very off putting for a large number of people.
Iain, the opinion seems to be, that most find your comments annoying. They do n not seem to agree, that you are offering much at all. There does not seem to be must respect for what you have to say. Does that not make you think, that maybe you could possibly be wrong. Just mentioning a few facts as I see it.
Statements about something that has long been a part of our wage system for generations, seems a little silly.
That is penalty rates. The simple fact is that employers would get many to work shift work without them. Shift works does muck up ones personal life.
As someone pointed out recently, the worker came before capital. The worker helps create wealth. A worker is entitled to a fair share of that wealth.
Not much wealth is created without the worker.
Once again, the post is about Mr. Iain Hall. Another tick for him.
Own goal 🙄 This just gets better, Sorry Migs, can’t cop this bloke. Like whispers, its patently obvious he is here for no other reason but to derail and divide.
I thought the well known term for people like Iain is “troll”.
He is simply trolling the thread.
Iain, why not use “Miglo”
Ricky
you just can’t stand anyone putting any sort of counter argument to the Gillard Glee Club either here or at the Cafe and to that end you whine and bitch at and about anyone who does so.
Iain, I’d hardly say that you only put up counter arguments. Most of them are long winded rants condemning just about every idea someone else comes up with.
Michael
my comments here have been on topic and without rancour and the very last thing that I have tried to do is derail and distract from the issue of Conroy’s media regulation folly, its just too delicious in its bull-headed ineptitude. I certainly get that you want to defend the Gillard government but even you have to admit that no matter how laudable her ideas may be she seems to have an unending ability to stuff up either the funding or presentation and delivery of the idea through the house. This little cavort is just the latest example and it has been almost universally panned even by those of the left like Jonathan Holmes who damns it with very faint praise:
Craig Thomson seems unlikely to support it either and to get the bill though house his vote will be needed:
Turnbull so beloved by those who would never vote for him is being most realistic
Here goes Hall again, not only is he the etiquette guardian of this blog but the best that he can do to comment is to make condescending remarks about other bloggers.
Michael
I have been trying to go for succinct brevity in my more recent comments here and I would not classify any of my comments as rants.
Using Mr. Morrison words, that there is something odd about the PM defending workers over those that come on 457 visas.
What is odd about defending Australian workers. What is nasty about this. What does Mr. Abbott mean, by saying that 457 visas should be the centre piece of Australian migration scheme.
Are those on 457s migrants or guest workers.
Abbott is attempting to blur in people minds, the role of the Skill worker scheme and those who come on 457s.
What in hell is the connection between asylum seekers and 457 workers.
Where has the PM criticize these workers. All that has been alleged, is that the bosses are being accused of abusing the system. Many workers know this is true.
Mr. Howard introduced two schemes, that appeared to allow many to come by the back door to this country. That is the student visa and 457’s. It seems that most come with the intention of staying.
At the same time we have the Opposition screaming blue murder about refugees, fleeing was zones that we have help create.
. Mr. Abbott is saying :”457s replace with asylum seekers. That the PM cannot control the borders”. Does anyone fall for this pea and thimble trick.
Is the PM correct in standing up for the right of Australians to have jobs, over imported, temporary workers, that hope to stay full time..
Fed up
I have no desire at all for any thread to be about me personally as for your comment about penalty rates, I think that you have that in the wrong thread and I will respond to it in the appropriate place.
Finally in answer to your question look at the way that Michael signs off his posts here for your answer.
Its all there passive aggressive, platitudes, personal attacks, off topic rants, unsubstantiated opinion, not addressing the topic….
Its whispers all over again. After his comments in Fays thread, which to me is an all time low, I am convinced he has not changed or moderated the behavior for which he was expelled from whispers (notice the change in vibe? Much better for it)
I would suggest, centric to the subject; we have an election to contest where political discourse and education will be crucial. hall is deliberately devaluing AIMN by seeking to sabotage. He is a spoiler; a man who by his own actions is held in such contempt that his association brings his baggage. People look at hall in a thread and its “oh its hall”, the result is so predictable.
I am all for expression of views but I cannot cop an attention seeking pathological protagonist dominating and derailing AIMN.
People say, just ignore, scroll over… well that’s all well and good… People don’t.
When John makes a metaphorical, salient point and it ends up as an invitation to cruise porn, I rest my case.
The most ardent intellect on any side of the debate could not in any conscience defend that front page, yet hall does. With fact? With the construction of a cohesive argument? No. Its just fair enough…off to porn.
It is his expressed mission to “start it”, I draw your attention to my last comment in this thread.
Sincerely
Ricky
It appears that senator is not alone when it comes to making attempts, to make the media more accountable.
http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=854689
Fed up 457 visa’s are for importing expertise and training not as a stop gap to circumvent immigration law with ludicrous claims of “we cant get people to do the job”
I don’t have a problem , with academics, inventors, specialist trainers or anyone coming here on a 457 to add to Australian expertise. I have a huge problem with 457’s being used to import people who quote low because I will take a stab in the dark here… most jobs taken by people on 457’s could be filled by Australians if the will to do so was realised.
Just as the front page of this paper is an assault on common decency and democracy by totalitarian corporate interest serving to undermine democracy through information stealth, so is the agenda of those who wield financial power.
Lets be honest here, cheap labor is the end game. Go to the extremists for the strategy of entrenched attitude. Look no further than ANDEV and the IPA for a living example of Gina pushing daddy Lang’s vision of EEC.
Could someone moderate & filter the input from ‘Iain Hall’ – at least a bit ? He’s so obviously lurking here to try to sabotage the site. It’s one thing to voice differing opinions, but this bloke seems to be going out of his way to flood the comments with all sorts of unrelated stuff, or else with bullshit copied from Limited News Corpse, along with click-bait. His goal seems to be to distract & to damage the quality of this site; not rational intelligent discussion. And those responding to his prolific argumentative & voluminous posts; remember the adage, “don’t feed the troll”….
And he’s doing the same thing here.
Thank you Fran 🙂
Ricky, we do have skilled migrant programme as well as the 457’s. One is a stop gap where skills are missing. The other is a more long term answer.
Stamp this one “Hijacked by Hall”
Fed up, absolutely… I agree. The skilled migrant program has afforded my mate who I had dinner with tonight, in his words not mine “paraphrasing” a great life of oportunity. He is a builder and when I met him had 120 bucks in the bank. He now has 6 full time employees and 16 full time (constant work) contactors. Nine people now cam afford their own houses due to him. That is real entreprenial spirit with a concious. Everyone gets paid what they are worth, no waves…….
Earlier I have been suggesting that the whole Push by Conroy to reshape the media landscape was a convenient smokescreen intended to distract attention form the leadership woes of Julia Gillard and now this morning we have Peter Harcher of the Age making precisely the same claim but with the added flavour of his contacts within the Labor party.
Amazingly those who are in the Gillard Glee Club seem to be in absolute denial about any thing as Machiavellian in this rather crude stupid and unseemly push for “media” reform. Instead focusing on shooting the messenger who has been telling them that this “reform” will not get through the parliament and that it was never intended to in the first instance. There is only one thing that Gillard is focused on an that her personally remaining in the Lodge until September 14 and as I have said its all a smokescreen, and example of the old bait and switch and sadly there are far too many of the left who are letting their despair at the prospect of an Abbott victory cloud their political judgement about the machinations of the regime that they would see endure into another term even though it is everyday shuffling more and more zombie like towards a horrid end.
Lost another comment, sigh
I do believe that Conroy and the PM are playing games with Abbott.
What’s more he is taking the bait.
After all it is politics we are talking about. Abbott has set the rules one plays by. That is anything goes, and the end justifies the end.
Oh Iain why twist what one has said.
All that matters is the reaction one gets from it.
Did not one suspect something was not as one expected, when Conroy made the announcement on his own.
When Conroy said it sinks or swims as it is.
Yes, the reaction has shown the media and Opposition up for what they are.
Noticed that the Greens did not bother to give it much attention.
No not a smoke screen, but playing games with Abbott.
One needs to be careful. Things are not always as one sees.
Yes, the PM is political, playing politics with Abbott’s rule. Anything goes and the end justified the means.
Yes, one can play the same game, as the opponent.
Not only play it, but play it better.
Fed up
do you remember at the beginning of the thread when I opined that this whole thing was a smoke screen?
well now Peter Harcher is saying he same thing in the Fairfax press”
<blockquote.But there is another explanation, too. ”Conroy’s view has been that the media stuff isn’t the worst thing in the world, and it’ll distract from leadership speculation and get us through to the end of next week,” says a senior Labor figure. ”Gillard’s entire world is an inside game,” of how to hold the leadership against any Kevin Rudd recrudescence.
The end of next week? That’s the last time Parliament sits before the budget, the last time the caucus will be together in one place, the last time there will be a venue and opportunity for any leadership challenge before the budget.
But Rudd is resolutely sticking to his pledge that he will not challenge again. This is frustrating some of his more determined supporters, but he is proving immovable.
Without any challenge, the onus for change rests with the senior Labor members who, until now, have been Gillard supporters. A delegation to tell her to resign, like the one that gave the same message to Bob Hawke in 1991, is widely mooted. Messy, unpleasant, and, so far, no volunteers.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/conroy-runs-distraction-for-pm-20130315-2g5w0.html#ixzz2NdixqxW2
Less than a week after the govt announces its media reforms, and voila!
ABC News is establishing a network research and fact checking unit, and is looking for a key editorial leader to develop and drive the project. The unit will scrutinise the factual accuracy of claims made by politicians, business, unions and special interest groups, to produce compelling content across all ABC News platforms and programs.
http://www.seek.com.au/job/24179339?tracking=JMC-000038
Thanks for that link Jason. It’s about time ABC news had a fact-checking unit overseeing their content. In recent years, the quality has gone downhill, & they seem to be simply following the commercial media scrum in spreading rumour & gossip, & opinion, rather than simply reporting the facts.
As for the years of continual leadership speculation from the MSM, there’s no way to tell if they are simply making it up, or if they do have a mole in the Labor party betraying & white-anting them. Since reporters don’t reveal their sources, for all we know, they could be simply writing lies to try to destabilise the government. It wouldn’t be the first time.
The mainstream commercial media needs fact checking units as well. An independent body to ensure that they comply with their own code of practice. Oh, wait a minute; that’s what the media reforms are trying to achieve. The policy the government has put forward, isn’t even a fraction of what 2 independent inquiries into the media had advised. But it’s better than nothing. The Greens should remember the major stuff-up they caused by rejecting the original ETS, & this time, they should be willing to compromise, & support this reform – even if it isn’t exactly what they prefer. The same goes for the Independents. They’re mostly wanting something stronger; but if they knock it back, Australia will get no media reform at all. We badly need media reform in this country.