Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Sit Back and Relax, Non-Bass Related Chat
Locked
User avatar
veebass
Posts: 8544
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

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

Post by veebass » 20 Jul 2018, 12:38

PilbaraBass wrote:
20 Jul 2018, 12:02


I will challenge you on the 3.3% vs 35.5% "Australian" comment... 3% of the population is Aboriginal... does that mean only 0.3% of the population can't trace their heritage back more than a few generations?

Generally, once you go back more than a generation (and sometimes less), the mix of heritage steps in... Would my children consider themselves, Australian or American (they consider themselves Australian, even though I'm American, as my wife is "Australian" and they were born here... My wife certainly has no clue as to what her heritage is, although it is likely European of some form, but where? :shrug:

As far as the "war debt" thing... Australia is a sovereign nation... (well should be if they dumped the outmoded crown thing) ... Australia if free to choose however they want to go ...

Personally, I have absolutely NO qualms about muslim, hindu, christian, agnostic, atheist, or any other nation coming in to settle. We have requirements, they abide by them, that's all that I'm concerned with. Sure, there's a large faction who don't "like" the muslims coming in... but, in terms of human rights and Australian law, they are entitled to opinion and little else. Sure, muslim culture impacts "Australian" culture... but what IS Australian culture? ... Didn't the Brits and other nations dramatically change the original Australian culture?
"Culture" is a fluid thing... it changes CONTINUALLY...
Hey Kerry!
I got a figure of 3.5% Aboriginal when I looked it up. My comment was semi tongue in cheek.
My point was that 35.5% (presumably less the Aboriginal people) don't understand ancestry or were being difficult. I take you to be saying they mightn't know. Maybe...?

I am serious about the war debt comment, though. Australia gets away with paying less IMHO than it would have, had we not followed the US into every war I can remember. We are free to choose, I suppose. We chose to pay less for our defence and spend the lives our our young people instead. Only most people don't know that we chose.

Cultures are in constant state of flux and , unfortunately, conflict.
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1316
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

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

Post by noplanb » 20 Jul 2018, 13:25

Chinese and Russian...clumsy dig...?
Nope. Purely national. Russian intervention in middle east, Ossetia, Chechynya, Afghanistan, etc etc. Chinese persecution of Uyghurs, at least that we know of. Both China and Russia are kind of not western, and kind of are. But both are known to attack Muslim homelands, in their own way. Both have plenty of reason for 'self-radicals' to pop up and do their thing, as indeed they have done in those countries. Christians are far more persecuted all round, in *all* Muslim countries/enclaves bar none, and in the most number of countries in the world, of any religion. So where are all the Christian self-radicals popping up to pop-off people, and to set up no-go/less-go enclaves?
Overall, I'm not saying it is *this*, or it is *that*, but that it seems to easy to lump everything into one cause, and one only. And I'm sure it's not that you intend exactly that.
the "words" you have mentioned
I should've said Daily Mail - so no change after/during the conference? - where are they getting this stuff then?
I see..............basses!

packrat
Posts: 657
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 02:17
Location: Sydney

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

Post by packrat » 20 Jul 2018, 14:18

I think they're all busy bombing abortion clinics and lynching gay people and engaged in extended inter-sect extermination campaigns.

As for the people trying to set up Christian only no go zones, why they are right here on this forum and in government here.

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1316
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

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

Post by noplanb » 20 Jul 2018, 22:13

bombing abortion clinics
Didn't that only happen in the US? One or more? Terrible thing regardless. The only bombing here that comes to mind is the anti-Christian activist in ACT bombing the AU Christian Lobby.
lynching gay people
I think you've got the wrong religion there - except they seem to push them off of buildings. Or maybe its the KKK lynching in the deep south, - but that was against unfortunate afro-americans.

Your comments get more obtuse after that - you will need to explain yourself, otherwise you just appear to be trolling. You are a smart bloke - you are worth more than that.
Last edited by noplanb on 20 Jul 2018, 23:43, edited 1 time in total.
I see..............basses!

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1316
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

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

Post by noplanb » 20 Jul 2018, 22:40

in terms of human rights and Australian law, they are entitled to opinion and little else.
Exactly. But my point is why will that work in AU when it certainly hasn't worked anywhere else?
Sure, muslim culture impacts "Australian" culture... but what IS Australian culture? ... Didn't the Brits and other nations dramatically change the original Australian culture?
"Culture" is a fluid thing... it changes CONTINUALLY...
This goes to the very heart of it. Exactly what culture does one want? If we are 'revisionist' (as opposed to 'originalist', as per terms used for Constitutional Judges), then *what you think is of no effect* !! And we will have open polygamy, and open child-adult sexual relationships and child-marriage - in time. Because time is all that will impede this 'progress.'
*This* generation can say 'Ah, but that's just not right', but your descendents won't! Children, and education, are the target of anyone seriously condoning culture-change. It has already happened, and continues to - what was unthinkable is now becoming law. On more than one front.
So sure the culture might be changing, but who is doing the changing? In short, we are - by not being bothered, or stopping to think or question, when radical revisionists target culture for strong change - and the rule of law is side-stepped and/or applied with a double-standard.
I could go on and on, but it really is the archetypal slippery slope.
I see..............basses!

User avatar
ozrider
Posts: 3737
Joined: 29 Oct 2011, 21:14
Location: Out West

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

Post by ozrider » 20 Jul 2018, 23:24

noplanb wrote:
20 Jul 2018, 22:13
Your comments get more obtuse after that - you will need to explain yourself, otherwise you just appear to be trolling.
I agree, but I think the whole thread is breaking down into excessive argumentation and labours over points endlessly. I don't get the sense we are discussing media coverage as it is unfolding. I used to like this thread when it was a media report, when people briefly highlight how the media is directing people's attention, or how the politicians are manoeuvring in the media. Sure, we sometimes got into it a bit antagonistically, but I don't know, I'm tired of this thread for now. I've done my share of arguing but now I can see how it can grow tiresome when it goes around in circles with all of us endlessly banging our drums. Tiresome...

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1316
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

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

Post by noplanb » 20 Jul 2018, 23:49

it can grow tiresome
I guess it can. I do find myself answering either a) disputes of what I have said (mostly good), or b) what appear to be thinly veiled barbs, with no substance as far as I can tell.
I try to make my comments from the media - I also think the world stage gives a lot of context to what is happening here - it is not always what it seems - and that of course leads to disputes. I dunno - I'll try to be briefer.....
I see..............basses!

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 8544
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

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

Post by veebass » 21 Jul 2018, 06:54

ozrider wrote:
20 Jul 2018, 23:24
noplanb wrote:
20 Jul 2018, 22:13
Your comments get more obtuse after that - you will need to explain yourself, otherwise you just appear to be trolling.
I agree, but I think the whole thread is breaking down into excessive argumentation and labours over points endlessly. I don't get the sense we are discussing media coverage as it is unfolding. I used to like this thread when it was a media report, when people briefly highlight how the media is directing people's attention, or how the politicians are manoeuvring in the media. Sure, we sometimes got into it a bit antagonistically, but I don't know, I'm tired of this thread for now. I've done my share of arguing but now I can see how it can grow tiresome when it goes around in circles with all of us endlessly banging our drums. Tiresome...
Excellent feedback. It can be tiring participating.
I enjoy providing my take on the media's intrusions into Australian politics as I see it.
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 8544
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

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

Post by veebass » 21 Jul 2018, 11:20

Here is a good example.

We are seeing the Murdoch Press, Sky and much of the free to air TV run a concerted attack on Union and other influence on the ALP. No one has ever disputed that the ALP is the political wing of the labour movement in Australia, but still we are provided with endless stories of Union thuggery and alleged crooked dealings by Bill Shorten.

Below is a story that won't get a run in any of those media. Rinehart has donated $4.5 Million (reportedly a third of the IPAs income) to the right wing think tank, the IPA. The IPA, which is registered as a charity, provides the policy script for the Liberal Party and is a training ground for a number of Liberal politicians and political appointments. I have posted about that here before. If you don't believe me about the IPA- do some research before arguing with me, please.

Some irregularities are apparent in the IPA's financial reporting, even allowing for their immunity from declaring donors because they are a "charity".
The IPA’s 2017 annual report declared $6.1m of income but said that 86% had come from individuals. Based on that report, Hancock Prospecting’s $2.2m donation would appear to have constituted more than a third of the IPA’s income that year.
In 2016, the IPA reported that 91% of donations were from individuals, but that year Hancock Prospecting’s $2.3m donation constituted almost half the IPA’s income of $4.96m.
Hancock Prospecting was asked why it was supporting the IPA, if the donations were linked to specific work, and if it was still a supporter.
Ever wondered exactly why the Coalition is better described as the "COALition"? I guess this says it all.
The IPA has a long history of publishing books and sponsoring speaking tours of prominent climate science deniers.
Rinehart’s own views on human-caused climate change match those promoted by the IPA.
In 2011, she wrote in a magazine column that she had “yet to hear scientific evidence to satisfy me that if the very, very small amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (approximately 0.38%) was increased, it could lead to significant global warming”.
She added: “I have never met a geologist or leading scientist who believes adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will have any significant effect on climate change, especially not from a relatively small country like Australia.”
Rinehart has also supported Australian speaking tours of British climate change denier Lord Christopher Monckton. Prof Ian Plimer, another prominent geologist who rejects climate change science, sits on the board of Hancock Prospecting subsidiary Roy Hill Holdings.
n 2013, the IPA gave Rinehart a “free enterprise leader award” – which she accepted at a dinner alongside Tony Abbott just before he became prime minister and Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch’s father, Sir Keith Murdoch, helped found the institute and the News Corp boss served on its council from 1986 to 2000. In 2016 Rinehart was made an “honorary life member” of the IPA.
IPA spokesman Evan Mulholland replied, “no comment” when asked about the donations and if supporters should be concerned that so much if its income is derived from one person.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... are_btn_fb
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1316
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

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

Post by noplanb » 21 Jul 2018, 14:33

IPA's financial reporting,
Fascinating stuff! Good coverage. I wondered what some of the exact mechanisms were that gave the coal industry so much capability and influence into Lib/Nat and any government of the day. This is a case of the report itself is the message - immaterial of who it comes from. As always, I'm otherwise just as suspicious of biased reporting from the Guardian as I would be of any Murdoch press.
I see..............basses!

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 8544
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

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

Post by veebass » 24 Jul 2018, 07:16

Here's another piece of the "puzzle".

We already know the IPA does "research" that seeks to debunk anything that might be detrimental to mining, advocates privatisation of virtually all Government assets, very small government, reduced regulation of employers and very low taxes for the wealthy and big business- all of which just happen to benefit Gina and her interests. Gina, it so turns out, pays a third of the annual running costs of the IPA. The Liberal Party seem to pay an inordinate amount of attention to the IPA priority list. I have posted about that before.

Here is an article about the IPA attacking Labor's NBN plan. What the article calls grievous errors, I call deliberate lies which were, of course, published as facts by the Murdoch Press.

Now I wonder who might be paying some of the "other" two thirds of the IPA's running costs?
:hmm We wouldn't want the NBN to be competition for Foxtel, would we?

Everyone knows the Unions influence the Labor Party's policies. How dreadful! Policies that advantage workers! How many people who are voting in Longman on Saturday actually understand the very direct relationship between the ultra wealthy and the Liberal Party? Seems, from the media coverage, quite a few are aware of Bill Shorten being "too close" to the Unions, though. Proceeding to plan, Rupert.

https://delimiter.com.au/2016/05/23/ipa ... us-errors/
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1316
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

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

Post by noplanb » 24 Jul 2018, 08:46

I hope she pays her additional security bill and doesn't leave it to the tax payer,
This came up in a couple of articles as well - somehow, there will be agitators, so the police charge in advance for security.
So, suppose it was Yassmin Abdel-Magied making a big deal about coming here (if she wasn't a resident), doing street-publicity etc, - would she be hit with a security bill before being permitted to speak publicly?
If there were 'no agitators', it is not because she is innocuous - plenty disagree with her viewpoint. Is it because her opponents do not organise as potentially violent crowds? If she really is too innocuous, is there some young poster-person for the left/socialism who would attract 'agitators'? (There isn't a complement to Antifa-type gatherings?)
The thought experiment somehow doesn't seem to add up - I may be missing something.
The point I'm heading to is that the process of suppression is to threaten violence to those you don't like - and the police fall in line! Not a good look for free speech - our freedoms we take for granted, were either never there, or are quietly eroded via adverse interpretation of standing law.
I see..............basses!

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 8544
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

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

Post by veebass » 24 Jul 2018, 08:59

noplanb wrote:
24 Jul 2018, 08:46
I hope she pays her additional security bill and doesn't leave it to the tax payer,
This came up in a couple of articles as well - somehow, there will be agitators, so the police charge in advance for security.
So, suppose it was Yassmin Abdel-Magied making a big deal about coming here (if she wasn't a resident), doing street-publicity etc, - would she be hit with a security bill before being permitted to speak publicly?
If there were 'no agitators', it is not because she is innocuous - plenty disagree with her viewpoint. Is it because her opponents do not organise as potentially violent crowds? If she really is too innocuous, is there some young poster-person for the left/socialism who would attract 'agitators'? (There isn't a complement to Antifa-type gatherings?)
The thought experiment somehow doesn't seem to add up - I may be missing something.
The point I'm heading to is that the process of suppression is to threaten violence to those you don't like - and the police fall in line! Not a good look for free speech - our freedoms we take for granted, were either never there, or are quietly eroded via adverse interpretation of standing law.
Sort of user pays. Extremes on both sides can get violent.
I stand by what I said. I hope she pays her additional security bill unlike Yannopoulos, who apparently didn't.

Yassmin is a poor example- you don't need to have a right wing perspective to disagree with her.
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1316
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

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

Post by noplanb » 24 Jul 2018, 09:38

Extremes on both sides can get violent
Really? Do you have any examples for the reverse? I'd be interested in the nature of the speaker and such antagonists.
Take an extreme, I am aware of the concept of 'neo-nazis', but under what circumstance would the police charge a visiting speaker a 'security' fee, due to the 'threat' of neo-nazis? If they did, is that therefore ok?
The fact that the police do this, actually encourages the threat of violence as a means to an end.
I see..............basses!

User avatar
veebass
Posts: 8544
Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 07:01

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

Post by veebass » 24 Jul 2018, 10:36

noplanb wrote:
24 Jul 2018, 09:38
Extremes on both sides can get violent
Really? Do you have any examples for the reverse? I'd be interested in the nature of the speaker and such antagonists.
Take an extreme, I am aware of the concept of 'neo-nazis', but under what circumstance would the police charge a visiting speaker a 'security' fee, due to the 'threat' of neo-nazis? If they did, is that therefore ok?
The fact that the police do this, actually encourages the threat of violence as a means to an end.
There are many examples of extremists from both sides of the fence getting violent.
I am not going to argue.

I would have thought the concept of user pays would sit well.
Happiness is .......a Telebass and 500W.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests