Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Sit Back and Relax, Non-Bass Related Chat
User avatar
veebass
Posts: 7958
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by veebass » 24 Dec 2017, 07:02

noplanb wrote:
23 Dec 2017, 19:32
he intended to prohibit same-sex marriage and the passage of legislation to that end through the house
The journo lost me with his credibility right there. It is absolutely shallow to say that. So if true, then anyone could have married someone of the opposite sex prior? For over 5,000 years that has been absolutely untrue as a feature of any civilisation, so it is (was) so much so that it was literally not thought of when *any* countries laws were drafted, let alone any constitution.
It is true to say that adding the specific wording did head-off any test-case against the marriage act (and possibly the constitution). Otherwise, we could have had something akin to the US event of their (close fought) Supreme Court ruling that SSM was valid under their law.
Which brings another point - is something that was hitherto not conceived of, automatically valid under law? It is, but it isn't(?) Take low-flying drones for example - lets say there was very little or no law against it for privacy etc, so it must've been legal? No, and I understand that there are also now laws prohibiting drone activity. And we don't see journos righteously indignant that some rights for drones were unjustly removed. If one is going to argue a point, it should at least be on the right footing.
Just one of Howard's many "sin's" against Australia. I think there's a fair bit more in the article to think about than just that one- a shame if you didn't get past that issue and dismissed the rest. Clearly, Howard was closing off the possibility and attempting to future proof it. He could see where society was going and he didn't like it.

It is obviously a partisan article, (most are) but it seeks to take on the equally partisan view run by the government every day that every perceived bad thing in Australia is the fault of the ",left" - whatever that is?- whether it be the ALP, Bill Shorten, the Unions, Labor Premiers. Bikers, Get Up, The Greens, the YES campaign, marxists, gay activists, environmental activists, refugee activists, any other activists they don't like, the "godless" or past Labor Leaders. Pretty diverse lot of views there.
I think the article may be right to dismiss Abbott in the longer term now because of his ineffectiveness. My problem with the article is it's focus on Dutton as an emerging force. Plod is not that clever. We are now starting to see Morrison publicly fashion himself as the next Christian soldier to lead the Liberals. My question about Morrison is to do with whether his evangelical type of Christianity will be acceptable to the powers that be in the Liberal Party. All Liberal PMs have been from "mainstream" denominational backgrounds as far as I know. The Dutton Morrison battle will be interesting and hopefully very destructive for the Liberal Party..
Truth is Shorten has never been PM so how can he really be responsible for anything to do with the running of Australia? He simply leads the biggest non government voting block in parliament. 49.64% of people didn't vote (2PP) for him to be the first Leader of The Opposition ever to roll over on everything.. Even the current PM is only responsible for what he wants to be responsible for. ;)
As for past Labor leaders, really how much time have they had in charge since we started to implement neoliberalism in earnest in Australia under Howard in early 1996. In the intervening time, almost 22 years, Labor has been in government for a bit under 6 years (3 of those in minority). Howard was PM for about half that total time.
Commonsense tells you, which side of politics is the more likely to have caused any problems we are struggling with currently.
The thing I do hold Rudd and Gillard accountable for is blowing Labor's chance to rebalance the pendulum more. They should have had minimum three terms of majority government after the 2007 victory. Instead they got one- Rudd's. Rudd then cruelled the chance of a second Labor majority term during the 2010 election campaign the result of which consigned Gillard to minority, which I think was also a contributing factor to the disintegration of government later in that term.
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 7958
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by veebass » 24 Dec 2017, 09:10

Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 7958
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by veebass » 27 Dec 2017, 07:54

Oh great we have a new slogan! What Michaelia Cash is actually going to do now after the big reshuffle is much clearer. Get the tax give away for big business through. She will talk us around- she is such a great communicator.

Exclusive interview with the Daily Telegraph :rolf: - the Murdoch papers are the only ones on orders not to laugh at her or ask her real questions. She won't go near any reporter who is not very tame.

BTW- how does the Employment Minister not have responsibility for Industrial Relations in any real government? Cash is now Minister for Jobs and Innovation. Craig Laundy has responsibility now for ripping of workers and crushing unions as Minister for Small and Family Business, Workplace and Deregulation. Absolute BS!. So Turnbull.

https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5AF74BB9

Happy New Year!
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 7958
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by veebass » 27 Dec 2017, 17:07

Bravo, Ms McManus!
The government wants Shorten to rule this out. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -workforce
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 7958
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by veebass » 03 Jan 2018, 11:41

Hmm.........submissions to Ruddock's review of religious freedoms will not be made public.
Isn't this supposedly essentially about freedom of speech? :shifty:


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... 0cbsf.html
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 7958
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by veebass » 03 Jan 2018, 14:50

And the republic thought bubble lasted 24 hours.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... 0cehq.html
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

packrat
Posts: 123
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 02:17
Location: Sydney

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by packrat » 03 Jan 2018, 15:31

I'm yet to see any republic proposal which isn't vastly more dangerous and generally inferior to having an elderly monarch a long way away who has almost certainly forgotten about us and who we only need to pay for when they're visiting.

In short, populist heads of state didn't seem like a good idea 10 or 20 years ago, but just look at them now.

B>

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 7958
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by veebass » 05 Jan 2018, 06:40

^ Good point...invoking the Trumpster. I am sure, though, we can find an Australian less troubling than him to be our leader.

I am getting tired of the government's standard response to their NBN mess. That is, Labor only connected X houses we have done Y. Well derr... Labor had only just started the rollout when Murdoch conned the population into voting for that tool Abbott. What an insult to our intelligence!

It's a real mess around here too. Many businesses without computer and phone and no word on when it will be fixed. Some are taking out ads just to let customers know they are still in business. Some friend of small business. Nimble.....innovation.....jobs.....growth

This alone should cost Turnbull his job.



http://www.smh.com.au/business/a-dog-s- ... 4yy8v.html
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 7958
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by veebass » 06 Jan 2018, 05:01

Bit harsh....expecting Dutton, all of a sudden, to back up what he says with actual evidence, after allowing he and his predecessors to lie about issues like this since 2001?

Political irrelevancies, like Mark Latham, can come out and say this is all about the left's constant war on angry, old, rich white men. Crappy papers can use promo pictures from some rap band in their stories on this issue as evidence of youths out of control on Melbourne public transport, but should the Minister in charge of our security be able to get away with statements as ridiculous as he regularly makes designed to play to pre existing prejudice and further divide our community for political gain?

Problem is ........it's actually our fault. He is just doing what we have consistently rewarded the Coalition for doing since 2001. They wouldn't do it if it didn't win them elections. Dutton is just more ham fisted than most in the way he does it. Is it that his lies are too ridiculous? Perhaps he needs better lies? Maybe, it is in his delivery?

If Immigration Ministers, PMs etc had to back up what they say, particularly on security issues, with evidence we wouldn't have had the good old children overboard misunderstanding or the Tampa porky. Seriously, why wouldn't they treat us like idiots? We let them do it to us. We have allowed them to thumb their noses at us for four years about what is happening in offshore detention centres and on the high seas in our name.

Howard would never have had the opportunity to launch his 2001 Election Campaign on 28 October, 2001 with the following famous quote. A lie that Liberals now proudly wear as a badge of honour.
It's about this nation saying to the world we are a generous open hearted people, taking more refugees on a per capita basis than any nation except Canada, we have a proud record of welcoming people from 140 different nations. But we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.
The subsequent 2001 Election would not have been won by "Honest" John without the deliberate misuse of this issue to play on the fears and prejudices arising from 9/11, which had only just happened...

Howard's government was travelling very poorly in the polls until he, Ruddock and Reith simultaneously hit the race, fear and security buttons. Howard was gone before Tampa "occurred" in August, 2001, 9/11 followed- obviously September, 2001 and then "Children overboard" in October, 2001., A lesson well learned and a practice used ever since by the Coalition when they get in trouble. The real question is do enough Australian's even care that a desperate government will outright lie to them?

Funny how we talk about mistrust of politicians and then reward them for lying to us if the lie feeds our prejudice.

http://www.watoday.com.au/victoria/no-p ... 104-h0dnhh
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

packrat
Posts: 123
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 02:17
Location: Sydney

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by packrat » 06 Jan 2018, 09:14

If you call something illegal enough, your base starts loyally repeating it. Fun fact to bring up when ‘how did we get signed up for such monesense’ comes up. Where did the convention of refugees come from?

Sure. We wouldn’t have elected Trump president, we’d have elected Abbott.

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 7958
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by veebass » 06 Jan 2018, 10:31

packrat wrote:
06 Jan 2018, 09:14
If you call something illegal enough, your base starts loyally repeating it. Fun fact to bring up when ‘how did we get signed up for such monesense’ comes up. Where did the convention of refugees come from?

Sure. We wouldn’t have elected Trump president, we’d have elected Abbott.
I have no faith that we would not have elected Trump with the right media support behind him.

Yes the whole talk of illegality is a subset of the lies we are repeatedly told with respect asylum seekers.

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees built upon Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It recognises the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries., It is therefore not illegal for asylum seekers to seek asylum. The mode of entry may arguably be illegal in some cases, but the right to seek asylum is not.

It was instituted to assist people seeking asylum after WW2.. It took affect in 1954 and initially related only to Europeans seeking asylum before 1951. An additional protocol was approved in 1967 that removed the restriction on time and origin, Australia is a signatory.

A fun fact. Here are some things we should not do to refugees under the agreement. Impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally in search of asylum if they present themselves (Article 31), expel refugees (Article 32), forcibly return or "refoul" refugees to the country they've fled from (Article 33). We skate close to the wind on a couple of these, but I think we are defenceless against Article 31. How do we apply different arrangements depending on the way a person arrives in Australia? I would argue indefinite detention on Manus or Nauru constitute a penalty. Anyone who disagrees may wish to try it for themselves.
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 7958
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by veebass » 15 Jan 2018, 13:31

Channel 7 is getting boycotted by me.
Any place seeks the views of neo nazis and merely describes them as right wing activists disgusts me.

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/blair-cottrell-7-news/
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1055
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by noplanb » 16 Jan 2018, 07:03

veebass wrote:
15 Jan 2018, 13:31
Channel 7 is getting boycotted by me.
Any place seeks the views of neo nazis and merely describes them as right wing activists disgusts me.
Chilling indeed. I hope the MSM, and local government, eschew all anti-Semitic and anti-Christian reporting and decision-making. A lot more of this sort of thing, and broader, is happening now.
I see..............basses!

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 7958
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by veebass » 16 Jan 2018, 07:39

noplanb wrote:
16 Jan 2018, 07:03
veebass wrote:
15 Jan 2018, 13:31
Channel 7 is getting boycotted by me.
Any place seeks the views of neo nazis and merely describes them as right wing activists disgusts me.
Chilling indeed. I hope the MSM, and local government, eschew all anti-Semitic and anti-Christian reporting and decision-making. A lot more of this sort of thing, and broader, is happening now.
Yes it is. The problem comes from the top. Turnbull and his ministers say good things about One Nation and make deals with them every day of the week, The Coalition has been too accommodating of One Nation, who have ties to lots of these guys.
The free speechers are now caught when people like this demand the same treatment. It is worse, of course, when a network actively assists, them as is the case here.
Groups such as neo nazis do not deserve to be heard IMO.
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1055
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by noplanb » 16 Jan 2018, 08:16

I would extend that to groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, connected to language and means of violence, active and allowed in Australia, but who are banned in Indonesia (July 2017), Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan.
https://www.counterextremism.com/threat/hizb-ut-tahrir
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017 ... s-hti.html

This brings up the argument that "the law that bounds the exact amount of free speech has not yet been invented" (to modify a quote from EM Forster). If you ban left, right and centre, you send groups underground. But without the fertile ground of the disenfranchised, disturbed and dejected, groups such as this and the neo's wither on the vine.
It is an argument for inculcation of national moral spirit.......
I see..............basses!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests