Abbott and Turnbull the worst economic managers since Menzies

My 58 is in answer to your 57.

Maybe e bit cynical, but IMO the voters of the world are to blame for the mess ware in.

They INSIST on free stuff, and vote for it.

OC
 
Old Codger said:
wanna get elected?

Promise the voters ANYTHING! All free of course, and to clinch it promise to halve tax rates. Promise to double wages, promise to take a million 'refugees'.

Promise FREE EVERYTHING!

OC

Correct!

And that applies to both sides of the political spectrum.
 
Here's an interesting read on the new paradigm:

Bread and circuses and no criticism.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph

This was the pivotal moment. From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were discouraged. HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph. Its account, I have been told by an extremely well informed insider, was extremely valuable. HSBC, as one former Telegraph executive told me, is "the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend". HSBC today refused to comment when I asked whether the bank's decision to stop advertising with the Telegraph was connected in any way with the paper's investigation into the Jersey accounts.

Winning back the HSBC advertising account became an urgent priority. It was eventually restored after approximately 12 months. Executives say that Murdoch MacLennan was determined not to allow any criticism of the international bank. "He would express concern about headlines even on minor stories," says one former Telegraph journalist. "Anything that mentioned money-laundering was just banned, even though the bank was on a final warning from the US authorities. This interference was happening on an industrial scale.

"An editorial operation that is clearly influenced by advertising is classic appeasement. Once a very powerful body know they can exert influence they know they can come back and threaten you. It totally changes the relationship you have with them. You know that even if you are robust you won't be supported and will be undermined."
 
^ Why would you advertise with someone who criticises you irrespective of if they are right or wrong?
 
Stoic Phoenix said:
^ Why would you advertise with someone who criticises you irrespective of if they are right or wrong?

The pull quote probably explains it:

The coverage of HSBC in Britain's Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril.
 
^ I fail to see what point you are trying to prove here other than the newspapers are weak.
Again I state why would you advertise with someone who criticises you?
There are many forms of advertising available today outside of newspapers who will happily take your marketing $ and not criticise you.
Its hardly the clients fault if the newspaper has a conflict of interest between reporting and advertising.
 
Basically because I believe in the independence of the press, and the vain hope that honest reporting would inform the population. Up until the Boer War, the Times was the ultimate honest resource for events. The corruption of the media for propaganda is now well honed and I'm probably naive thinking there is any point hoping that the population will be informed, and make reasonably informed decisions.

Quote from the newsletter that opened my eyes to this issue currently.

Australian media companies just did a deal with China's propaganda minister, Liu Qibao. As part of this deal, China Daily the Chinese Communist Party's English language outlet will produce a supplement that will appear in Fairfax newspapers.

The same sort of deal is in place with the US Washington Post, the UK Telegraph, and France's Le Figaro, according to the same FT report.

Perhaps this quote best sums it up:

'Beijing's bid to burnish its image as a global power is finding a receptive audience among cash-strapped western media even if they do not always realise the nature of the deal being struck.'

You've probably heard the saying, 'They don't ring a bell at the top of the market.'

But actually, the bell ringer would never be allowed to get anywhere near the bell as far as the mainstream media is concerned, even if they wanted to.

They will protect their advertisers and owners before they publish articles contrary to those interests.
 
The Australian (and international) media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the ALP/socialists!

The ALP is the "political arm of the union movement".

...and the public are stupid enough to lap up the bullshit!

OC
 
precious roar said:
mmm....shiney! said:
precious roar said:
What a load of tripe.

Both sides of the ledger have all sorts of people - it's only the people who can't think for themselves who simply barrack for one team regardless of the discussion.

:lol: let's take debt/loss as an example.

On one side of the court we have the socialists. These people have no issue with a government going into debt or suffering a loss as they merely wave a magic wand and collectivise the losses via increases in taxes. In the other court we have the crony-capitalist. These people have no issue with private debt as they merely wave a magic wand and collectivise the losses via government subsidisation.

WTF does have to do with what Results wrote?

I was actually agreeing with what you wrote. Maybe I didn't make myself clear :lol:

Both sides of our political debate are as bad as each other, the left and the right. Both sides are only interested in gaining and wielding power at the expense of someone else.
 
Old Codger said:
The Australian (and international) media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the ALP/socialists!

The ALP is the "political arm of the union movement".

...and the public are stupid enough to lap up the bullshit!

OC
Fox News and CNN support the ALP/Socialists...:rolleyes:

You got two out of three right..You are getting better OC.

Regards Errol 43
 
It was a general statement, and the 'right' are grossly outnumbered by the lefties.

...and no need for the childish little point scorers thanks.

OC
 
Old Codger said:
It was a general statement, and the 'right' are grossly outnumbered by the lefties.

...and no need for the childish little point scorers thanks.

OC
What do I have to go for a knockout now! :(

Regards Errol 43
 
From a gov. website:

OIvFdqI.jpg

Src: http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/media-interests-snapshot

The Media Interests snapshot below provides an overview of the main interests in major commercial television and radio networks and associated newspapers.

From this snapshot, you can click through to maps showing the location and details of the relevant media operations.

The snapshot and maps will be updated as required.
 
The ABC is owned by the Greens, even though they don't pay for it. Where is that on the diagram?
 
A tried and true bias:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/datablog/2014/feb/06/australian-broadcasting-corporation-australia

Another way to approach the question of bias is by using public trust as a proxy. Newspoll conducts a survey commissioned by the ABC every year to gauge various aspects of audience satisfaction.

In the 2012-13 financial year, the "percentage of people who believe the ABC is balanced and even-handed when reporting news and current affairs" was 79% (PDF, page 30). While this is down slightly from early years (it was 83% in 2008-09), this is still an overwhelming majority.

A 2013 Essential poll on trust in different media organisations has ABC TV news and current affairs as the most trusted, with 70% saying they had total, a lot, or some trust in the ABC. Again, there was a small decline from the last poll, but almost all media organisations on the list had seen similar declines in trust.

Complaints are another measure of dissatisfaction with the ABC.

The famous 7:30 interview with Abbott by Leigh Sales accrued 523 complaints of anti-opposition bias. There were 2139 political bias complaints in 2012-13, meaning this one interview accounted for a quarter of all accusations of political bias.

However, Sales was cleared of political bias by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (Acma) and the ABC's audience and consumer affairs section.

Complaints have historically been split evenly between right and left viewer who feel their team is hard done by Aunty. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq there were 147 complaints of pro-US coverage and 144 complaints of anti-US coverage. On this Wayne Errington and Narelle Miragliotta wrote in 2011, "there appears not to be any factual evidence to back the claim of left-wing bias" at the ABC.

But bias has occurred.


According to the Gans and Leigh study the only statistically significant slant was for the ABC Channel 2 News programme which preferences Coalition-favoured intellectuals in their reporting. This suggests the ABC news has a right-wing bias with a score of 0.511.

But of course The Guardian is a lefty socialist rag and they would say that wouldn't they?
 
Back
Top