You know that new right-wing book full of insights as to why market and Christian fundamentalists don’t like the Greens? Launched yesterday by Kevin Andrews and Janet Albrechtsen, and containing chapters by luminaries like Wendy Francis, Kevin Donnelly, Mirko Bagaric, Peter Faris, and Ted Lapkin, you’ll be SHOCKED to discover that the Greens are EVIL LEFTISTS WHO DON’T BELIEVE IN THE PRIMACY OF CHRISTIANITY AND CORPORATISM. It’s a book that will convince every far-right Australian who would never vote Green in a pink fit (because that’d be gay, obviously), not to vote for the Greens.
Anyway, we here at An Onymous Lefty have been fortunate enough to see some of the early planned covers, before they ultimately stuck with the bland “Policies, Reality and Consequences” subheading.
I think they would’ve sold more copies:
Moved On 
Well at least I now know what to get SB for Christmas. All the confirmation bias a right-wing troll could ever want in one handy volume.
lucky the book launch was at the celtic club.. I bet a few people had a pint
Not having read the book, I presume SB did the forward for it?
Just what we need another book on the thoughts of wingnuts.
It will no doubt end up in the fiction shelves of most book shops, along with the works of Spike Milligan.
I love it! For my continent:
The Greens … also think African debt is a stinkhole.
The Greens: Killing Millions of Africans Since Rachel Carlson.
The Greens: Intellectual Heirs of Stalinism
The Greens: Intellectual Heirs of Nazism
The Greens: Want You to Live in a Cave Eating Lentils
The Greens: The Real Power in the Gillard Government
The Greens: Ineffectual in Government.
The Greens: Taking Over the World.
etc etc. etc.
The Greens: Use cars and not horses to get around.
That doesn’t make any sense.
Any truth in the rumour you get a free copy with every subscription to The Australian?
The Greens: Mowing Down Your Rights with Whippersnippers.
The bombing and shootings in Norway, probably a rabid right wing Green.
The Greens….Only 12% of the vote makes you irrelevant.
(Apologies to the 3.5% National party of Australia)
Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t a “Red” he was a “Green”
“The Greens –
Won’t Somebody Think Of The Children?!”
And now the authors are busy at work on their new book on the threat of right-wing extremists.
Malcolm X was a member of the Black Panthers, who according to the Murdoch media, left the “Green Panthers” who according to Malcolm X, were far too radical and dangerous.
Poor widdle thin-skinned Greens. The horror, the horror – somebody said nasty about them. Quick, quick everybody pile on.
And while we’re at it let’s have an inquiry into those parts of the media who dare to criticise the sainted “progressives”, and let’s change the privacy laws to further diminish free speech. Let’s shut up the “shock-jocks” (except for Philip Adams and Mike Carlton). Let’s interfere with government contracts to punish Murdoch and send a warning to everyone else who might think of criticising the progressive revolution.
Welcome to the brave new world of “progressive” fascism!
Hyperbole much?
Ever had your privacy invaded SB? I mean really invaded, like images taken of you illegally and then sold. Or worse. There are no damages. The Vic case used a loophole of damages in lieu of an injunction; but still didn’t get the sort of damages that would’ve been available if there was a tort of privacy. There are protections for corporate secrets, but not personal ones.
Let’s shut up the “shock-jocks” (except for Philip Adams and Mike Carlton). Let’s interfere with government contracts to punish Murdoch and send a warning to everyone else who might think of criticising the progressive revolution.
Ho, Ho Ho, Philip Adams a “Shock Jock” I’ve heard it all now. Philip Adams couldn’t shock you if he jumped out from behind a tree in a cemetery at midnight with an AXE in his hand. As for Mike Carlton. Well, at least he’s civil when he’s taking the piss out of right wing Jack Asses.
I’ve just been reminded why I never bothered commenting here before.
Thanks for the post Jeremy, might go back to lurking!
“And while we’re at it let’s have an inquiry into those parts of the media who dare to criticise the sainted “progressives”,”
Or have an inquiry into the whole media. Sainted progressives have nothing to hide. We aren’t the ones standing up at Liberal party meetings calling for armed rebellion.
“and let’s change the privacy laws to further diminish free speech.”
You use these words “privacy” and “free speech”, but I don’t think you know what they mean. The freedom to speak does not imply the freedom to rifle through my trash looking for front-page gossip.
“Let’s shut up the “shock-jocks” (except for Philip Adams and Mike Carlton).”
Free speech does not give you the right to a free microphone. The shock jocks would be off the air in a nanosecond if their right-wing sugar daddies amongst the rich would stop paying them – no government intervention required. And it wouldn’t shut them up anyway – they’d just retreat to blogs and YouTube. Which is where progressive voices are stuck at the moment. Hasn’t stopped us from speaking.
“Let’s interfere with government contracts to punish Murdoch and send a warning to everyone else who might think of criticising the progressive revolution.”
I assume you are referring to the Australia Network contract. Explain to me why the “Voice of Australia” should not be the ABC? In what universe does it make sense to tender this out as a contract at all? There’s nothing stopping Murdoch from publishing Australia content on his overseas networks – why does he need government funding to do it? Rent seeker, stealing from taxpayers.
Maybe there is no conspiracy to punish anyone, just a very very long overdue reckoning on the unethical and unprofessional behaviour of major players in the media who have constructed a vurtual ethics free zone in the pursuit of profits, with total impunty.
Other recent events might suggest that here should be limits to the echo chamber of vilification and conspiracy that operate in some quaters, as there can be real consequences from the promulgation of irrational untruths.
Given their choice of front cover – a big bold “THE GREENS” title and an equally large ballot paper saying “VOTE” in big bold letters, and the clarifying sub in a font size A Certain Demographic reserve for court-ordered apologies – “readers” and “writers” of A Certain Demographic probably thought it implored them to vote Green.
How else could it take SB THREE WHOLE DAYS to react to a post about Teh Teeming Gay Communist Heroin-Shooting Death-Panelling Green Hordes(TM)?
narcotic
Ever had your privacy invaded SB? I mean really invaded, like images taken of you illegally and then sold.
Only people with dignity worry about that.
The freedom to speak does not imply the freedom to rifle through my trash looking for front-page gossip
Indeed. Too long have corporations hid behind ‘freedom of speech’ rights without considering that rights all must be balanced. I for one don’t give a shit about corporation’s rights if they are impinging on a citizen’s rights, particularly when the profit is not in the greater public interest, hell no. The motive for invading and trampling said citizen is purely profit. That is not a rationale to diminish a citizen’s rights. There are very good reasons for a right to be limited in favour of another right – profit is not one of
Narcotic: “Ever had your privacy invaded SB? I mean really invaded, like images taken of you illegally and then sold.”
If the images were taken illegally that means there is already a law in place to deal with the situation. We do not need more laws limiting speech. In fact defamation law ought to be reformed to allow more comment about public figures, as in the US.
Lynot: “Ho, Ho Ho, Philip Adams a “Shock Jock” I’ve heard it all now.”
Of course he is. His method of preaching to the deluded is slightly different to his conservative doppelganger Alan Jones, more the smug conspirationally-whispered entre nous comment of derision for his intellectual inferiors. Oh how we laughed as he went on and on for years referring to Bush as “Shrub”. And he was so easily deceived by the fake plastic turkey hoax. To be fair I enjoy Adams but I don’t mistake him for being a balanced commentator. Like most of the ABC “journalists” he is using public funds to further his private political agenda.
Unique: “Free speech does not give you the right to a free microphone.”
Unless you work for the ABC or SBS, of course. Free speech is certainly no warrant for ripping the microphone out of the hands of your critics.
The stench of corruption hangs over the whole Australia Network affair. The Greens and the ALP are vastly underestimating the attachment of Australians to free speech. Their attempts to punish critics and silence dissent may play well among their conceited constituency but will earn them the undying contempt of ordinary Australians.
‘Gadj: “Other recent events might suggest that here should be limits to the echo chamber of vilification and conspiracy that operate in some quaters, as there can be real consequences from the promulgation of irrational untruths.”
Of course there are some matters of journalistic misconduct currently being investigated by the authorities, involving the Fairfax press. Funnily enough these are not mentioned by the Greens in their current campaign to muzzle the press.
These should be investigated on a case by case basis. What we see instead is a concerted campaign by the cry-baby left to muzzle its critics.
Lykurgus: “Only people with dignity worry about that.”
If you mean by dignity “so up themselves that they can’t bear a word of criticism” then you are probably right.
(Also, a very, very funny comment, Lykurgus)
As certain as night follows day,
If there’s any sign of Splatter Bottom
He’s sure to Blather Sputum.
Actually, SB, images taken illegally do not guarantee a remedy. The confidential information laws are very poor. Also, if images are taken with consent but then misused, there is pretty much no recourse. Privacy invasion is a serious issue and profit should not be put before a citizen’s rights. I don’t want a limitation on freedom of speech, I want acknowledgement that there are two sides to a coin such that one right is balanced against another – and profit cannot ever be a reason for tipping the rights.
“Unless you work for the ABC or SBS, of course. Free speech is certainly no warrant for ripping the microphone out of the hands of your critics.”
ROTFLMAO. The ABC regularly provides a forum to the libertarian fools from the Institute of Public Affairs and other conservative think tanks to spout pro-corporate bullshit on a daily basis. Every opinion show on ABC24 is infested with them.
Of course, every time The Drum’s comments section lights up with people ripping the fools to shreds for their shoddy reasoning, they cry to mommy about how their free speech is being violated, and the ABC is so biased. After the ABC gave them a free microphone to say whatever rubbish came into their heads!
Now try getting a single progressive voice into the Murdoch media without them being used as a punching bag.
“What we see instead is a concerted campaign by the cry-baby left to muzzle its critics.”
Projection. Look it up. The progressive left may seem a little riled on this issue only because over the last two decades we have been driven off the airwaves by corporate “it’s only free speech if it serves my bottom line” nitwits. We don’t want to muzzle our critics – we want our critics to stop muzzling us! You can dish it out, but you can’t take it.
SB
…more laws limiting speech…smug conspirationally-whispered entre nous…derision for his intellectual inferiors…his private political agenda…ripping the microphone out of the hands of your critics…free speech…punish critics and silence dissent…undying contempt of ordinary Australians…campaign to muzzle the press…concerted campaign…cry-baby…muzzle its critics…can’t bear a word of criticism…
Dry your eyes, Princess.
We already know how much Jamie Murdoch really really doesn’t want to go to jail.
Narcotic under our law as I understand it the image belongs to the photographer unless there is an agreement to the contrary. Also provided the photographer is not trespassing he is allowed to take whatever images he can. If there are some abuses in this situation, it is still not a warrant for further restrictions. It is better that photos like the Indonesian animal torture photos come out rather than to create some bogus right to privacy.
The whole idea of legislating a right not to have your feelings hurt is insane. We have existing harassment laws and they are sufficient. More restrictions means more scope for keeping the lid on stories powerful people would rather remain hidden.
Lykurgus a lot of people are hoping that those executives who sanctioned this are jailed. i don’t know how the large bribes got through the books without them knowing.
The crime here is how the information was obtained. If the news organisation comes by the information honestly it should publish it. If it was involved in the hacking that is a whole different matter. It is the difference between Julian Assange and Bradley Manning.
Again, SB, the balancing of rights should apply. That we have neither an enshrined right to free speech or privacy is abhorrent. There is at least a right to free political speech, and any potential right to privacy is limited to public interest – which is appropriate (See Lenah Game Meats v ABC if you are interested). I agree that the profit of the co should not be placed before the public interest in animal treatment. In Lenah, their sole argument was that it will hurt their image and thus bottom line, if images of what they did to animals everyday got out. Screw their bottom line, this is what they do. Similarly, if the images were false or personal in nature – ie not public interest, simply public nosiness, then the profit of the media should not be placed first. If it was a ‘corporate secret’ it is protected, why not a personal secret?
“Of course he is. His method of preaching to the deluded is slightly different to his conservative doppelganger Alan Jones, more the smug conspirationally-whispered entre nous comment of derision for his intellectual inferiors.”
Ho ho ho. You’re kidding right? To compare an intellectual Australian icon like Adams to the other dross that infects the air waves just shows how desperate you are. Your own propaganda unit has been sprung big time,
The most sad part is, the electorate have been brainwashed by this propaganda outlet for years. They are responsible for not only hacking telephones, and other nefarious practises but outright lies by act, and by omission. Worst yet some of them have blood on their miserable souls, for supporting wars they all knew were as phony as a nine bob note.
Narcotic I think Lenah had a good outcome. I don’t know why we should legislate further privacy rights. The courts are much more likely to sensibly develop this area of law than a bunch of precious self-interested politicians.
Lynot: “To compare an intellectual Australian icon like Adams to the other dross that infects the air waves just shows how desperate you are.”
Jones v Adams is a fair comparison. Both are interesting, intelligent broadcasters who make their money catering to the foibles of their respective audiences.
Jones v Adams is a fair comparison. Both are interesting, intelligent broadcasters who make their money catering to the foibles of their respective audiences.
Again you are kidding? The only comparison that could be made between Jones and Adams is their shoes. Cash for comment ring any bells? Jones is a propagandist for the worst aspects of wingnuttery. At least Adams appeals to some of the more progressive wingnuts among us, even ‘P J O’Rourke listens to Adams. Jones! I think not..
As for Jones being an intellectual you are again having a laugh. Being filthy rich and being a self opinionated know all, an intellectual does not make. His appeal is to the worst demons that plague the current political debate. He’s a button pusher nothing else.
Name us ten examples of Jones’ intellectualism. Just ten.
He coached the Wallabies!
The stench of corruption hangs over the whole Australia Network affair. The Greens and the ALP are vastly underestimating the attachment of Australians to free speech. Their attempts to punish critics and silence dissent may play well among their conceited constituency but will earn them the undying contempt of ordinary Australians.
What is it with the Right and purporting to speak on behalf of ordinary Australians? As if “ordinary Australians” could possibly not agree with you on everything, SB? I presume that’s the logic behind it.
There’s no attempts to “punish critics and silence dissent”. That’s merely a product of your anti-left paranoia and fantasy.
Here’s some research suggesting you’re not as tuned in to the views of “ordinary Australians” as you obviously think:
http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/essential-report/
48% think there should be more regulation of the media over 6% saying less and 31% saying it’s about right already. 58% think the government should not allow one company to own the majority of Australian newspapers. A majority of people are more concerned about the conduct of Australian newspapers in light of the hacking scandal in the UK. Possibly, people may have been asked whether they agreed with the government’s moves to punish critics and silence dissent but for the fact that the government isn’t actually taking steps to do those things.
Jones v Adams is a fair comparison. Both are interesting, intelligent broadcasters who make their money catering to the foibles of their respective audiences.
Nothing you could ever say would convince me that even a professional left-baiter like yourself could possibly believe this. Jones is a hate-filled, fraudulent, racist, egomaniac bully-boy. As much as I find Adams an insufferably boring old tool and quite an embarrassment to the left a lot of the time to the point where I avoid him where possible, only a complete partisan or a troll would suggest he’s anywhere near the opposite of Jones. What is it with the Right and false equivalencies?
returnedman
Name us ten examples of Jones’ intellectualism. Just ten.
1 – Going into a public loo to jerk off to a cop
2 – Being called out on it by Chopper Read during a broadcast
3 – The realisation that he didn’t have the delay on
4 – The prolonged dead air that followed
If that doesn’t make him “interesting, intelligent broadcaster” (SBs words, not mine), what does?
Six to go.
SB
i don’t know how the large bribes got through the books without them knowing.
Coincidentally, I don’t know how that compels you to marinade in their ocean of tears over possibly being obligated to treat their targets’ rights or their avowed ethics as something other than a singalong to “Deutschland Uber Alles”.
Or the leap you make from something hitting your head, and the sky caving in.
Or why you think bribes go through books.
Or your own ocean of tears at the thought that this is the end of tabloid sleaze. Unfounded, I assure you.
Or why you believe their cock-and-bull story about not knowing. Or as Jamie put it, “have no direct knowlege of wether those things were known”.
But he’s VERY sorry.
But then, I’ve never been in a cult… so I guess I have no business knowing.
Buns: “What is it with the Right and purporting to speak on behalf of ordinary Australians? “
Funnily enough I think that Australians value a free press and do not want to see a leftist jackboot stamped on their faces. It is obscene that the precious “progressives”, who get in a snit every time they get a bit of negative press, now want to intimidate the media. When the little green darlings get this upset it is a sign that the press is doing its job.
The recent attacks on the media who dare to criticise the Greens are a continuation of Clive Hamilton’s suspend the democratic process. People are naturally revolted by these gruesome fascists spouting their anti-democratic bile.
“only a complete partisan or a troll would suggest [Adams is] anywhere near the opposite of Jones”
Precisely my point old cock! Their similarities as biased commenters catering to their respective audiences are greater than their political differences.
Lykurgus, Adams is moderately smart, but he is no intellectual. He is a biased troll. He only ever gives one side of the story and has no sense of balance whatsoever. Once you factor in these limitations (which apply equally to Jones) he is quite entertaining in his own pompous way.
“Funnily enough I think that Australians value a free press and do not want to see a leftist jackboot stamped on their faces.”
Or a rightist jackboot either. One which is actually being stamped right now with the conservative domination of most mainstream media sources and the cowing of the ABC into reporting conservative narratives as fact with little real balance. We seem to agree that one-sided speech is not free speech. We don’t have a free press right now in any meaningful sense of the term. The press currently is by the rich for the rich. What do you propose we do to fix this?
Funnily enough I think that Australians value a free press and do not want to see a leftist jackboot stamped on their faces.
It’s not about what you “think” Australians want. You are not the appointed spokesperson for Australians. Please try and remember that. I’ve linked to a survey showing more people than not want more regulation of the media and that a significant majority of people think the government shouldn’t allow one company to own the majority of Australian newspapers. Granted the questions put could have employed some more emotive language such as “leftist scum”, “jackboots” and what have you, but they were probably trying to be more objective and mature about this than you’re capable of being.
Unique: “What do you propose we do to fix this?”
Step 1: tell the ABC to be more balanced or it will cease to be funded.
Step 2: make sure the Age is fully investigated over the recent hacking allegations made against it.
Step 3: legislate an absolute right to free speech other than speech which is incidental to the commission of a crime.
Step 4: make the intimidation of media critics by politicians a crime.
Step 5: insert a requirement to demonstrate malice for public figures who wish to bring defamation proceedings.
Buns: “It’s not about what you “think” Australians want. You are not the appointed spokesperson for Australians.”
As of now I am permitted to think as I please. Unfortunately thoughtcrime is coming soon. No doubt the day is soon coming when some grimy thin-skinned leftist will be able to have me locked up for expressing my thoughts.
As of now I am permitted to think as I please. Unfortunately thoughtcrime is coming soon. No doubt the day is soon coming when some grimy thin-skinned leftist will be able to have me locked up for expressing my thoughts.
Yakkety yak. You’re like a broken record. Who said you can’t express your thoughts? Nobody here has even implied that. Take your hyperbolic strawman and get a room if you love it so much.
What the Australian people think is a matter of fact, not opinion. While you’re free to express your opinion as to what Australian opinion is on any given subject, it’s completely worthless unless there’s some objective basis for it. Don’t pretend you don’t understand this.
“Step 1: tell the ABC to be more balanced or it will cease to be funded.”
Step 1b: tell News Ltd to be more balanced or it will lose its right to operate near-monopoly media properties.
“Step 2: make sure the Age is fully investigated over the recent hacking allegations made against it. ”
Step 2b: make sure that News Ltd is fully investigated to ensure that it isn’t using criminal methods to obtain stories in Australia in the same way its sister properties overseas are.
“Step 3: legislate an absolute right to free speech other than speech which is incidental to the commission of a crime.”
Step 3b: anyone who is found to have committed a crime to obtain a story loses the right to operate a media business in Australia.
“Step 4: make the intimidation of media critics by politicians a crime.”
Step 4b: make the intimidation of politicians by the media also a crime.
“Step 5: insert a requirement to demonstrate malice for public figures who wish to bring defamation proceedings.”
Step 5b: insert a requirement to disclose all funding sources for media opinion makers on the article in question. No more “Institute of Generic Naming” – the media must be upfront and honest about who is paying the bills.
You can’t call for “balance” SB while your “Steps” are completely one-sided and don’t apply to the people causing the problems in the first place.
I’d like to see both politicians and the media to be required to comply with provisions similar to the old TPA – which essentially outlaws misleading and deceptive conduct in trade/commerce – I’d like this expanded to politians promises during an election and the media in general. This would mean Gillard’s BS would’ve been captured and some form of appropriate sanction imposed. It would of course need to consider all the circumsances of the situation (like sometimes shit happens despite best intentions etc) but because misleading/deceptive conduct is subjective, it would account for intention.
This could provide the appropriate counter balance to freedom of speech – which I agree with SB should expand our constitutional right beyond merely political commentary.
I’d also like a tort of privacy introduced and/or a Privacy Commissioner so that there is an independent body similar to the ACCC that can investigate privacy breaches for citizens (this means that you don’t just get rich people with their privacy protected). It should only apply to citizens in their capacity as a person (ie not companies, organisations or positions – so a Minister in capacity as Minister is different to a Minister in capacity as a dad worried about his sick kid) because of the reasons given in Lenah .
For those curious, the reason given in Lenah that privacy should only apply to real people (vis-a-vis legal entities that pretend to be people) was because (my paraphrase) only people have the necessary quality of dignity that would require privacy.
We could also improve regulation of the media.
The Press Council is a bit of a joke, confirming yet again, that ‘self-regulation’ is an industry fig-leaf for no regulation.
We need to acknowledge that in a democracy the distribution of information is a vital function, one not best left to the vagaries of a business model. I wouldn’t mind seeing TV /radio licences take on a more ‘liquor licence’ format, where breaches of the licence (such as unethical conduct, breaches of fairness provisions etc) would see real sanctions applied, via an independent body, up to the revokation of the licence.
To get back to the thread topic, one of the chapters from “The Greens” has been published on The Drum today:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2813242.html
And SB, you can now officially shut the hell up about the ABC’s left-wing bias. They publish conspiracy theory stuff like this from the right on a regular basis.
Step 1: tell the ABC to be more balanced or it will cease to be funded.
Wow, I missed this before. What happens on the ABC should be dictated by the government? Really? Who’s got the jackboots on now?
ABC can’t help it if an informed view is considered left wing…
😉
[puts on flame proof suit]
“If there’s any sign of Splatter Bottom
He’s sure to Blather Sputum.”
Oh, ho ho ho!! A Spoonerism of the highest order! RM, that one’s going straight to the pool room!
… ok, so it was me … would have been nice if SOMEONE had noticed it. Laugh, monkeys, damn you – LAUGH!!
‘Gadj: “We need to acknowledge that in a democracy the distribution of information is a vital function”
Exactly! Which is why a free press is essential to democracy. The worst possible outcome is to have meddling leftists control the media through bureaucratic regulation. I am sickened, absolutely sickened, at the recent antics of that drooling lunatic Milne and Big Brother Bob. The short answer to those fascist clowns is: “Fuck off. You can’t control the press. Guess what arsewipes? This is still a democracy. People are going to vigorously disagree with you and you will just have to get used to it, you poor precious little darlings.”
Unique: “And SB, you can now officially shut the hell up about the ABC’s left-wing bias. They publish conspiracy theory stuff like this from the right on a regular basis.”
The Drum is a case in point. It is 99% leftist bullshit with the odd fig-leaf of conservative comment thrown in for cover.
Buns: “What happens on the ABC should be dictated by the government?”
There was a time when the ABC was scrupulously even-handed with its political coverage. Now it is a plaything of a leftist cabal who are appropriating public resources to disseminate their private political agendas.
Narcotic: “ABC can’t help it if an informed view is considered left wing”
Ramming leftist bile down the peoples’ throats is not disseminating an ‘informed’ view. It is theft of public funds by contemptible elitists.
RM: “A Spoonerism of the highest order!”
Truly you are a shining wit.
Thank you for your cunning stunt.
“Ramming leftist bile down the peoples’ throats is not disseminating an ‘informed’ view. It is theft of public funds by contemptible elitists.”
Wingnuttery in full flight. I love it.
SB I only ever thought people like you existed in works of fiction. Skakespear comes to mind with you “Much Ado About Nothing”
But full marks for defending the indefensible. That takes the type of devotion……that the more progressive among us just don’t have.
There was a time when the ABC was scrupulously even-handed with its political coverage. Now it is a plaything of a leftist cabal who are appropriating public resources to disseminate their private political agendas.
I understand that there are plenty of conservative cry-babies out there such as yourself who maintain this and you’re all entitled to your opinions of course, but that doesn’t make it true.
Perhaps you could present us with the sum total of the quantifiable evidence which you rely on to prove the bias you are asserting, bearing in mind that the opinions of conservative, ABC-hating whingers is not evidence.
Anyway, your answer to my question is “yes” – the government should dictate content on the ABC. Which kind of makes a mockery of your earlier claim to opposition to government interference in the media. You are happy to don the jackboots when it suits you, clearly. Well, you can’t have it both ways, old man.
Ramming leftist bile down the peoples’ throats is not disseminating an ‘informed’ view.
It’s not ramming leftist bile down people’s throats. Repeating these sorts of things over and over will not make them true.
RM you are like an incompetent teacher, always marking badly. A complete fustercluck in fact. You should get a new raincoat so that you are not always ducking fogs.
Buns just scroll through the crud on the Drum, or listen to any episode of LNL, or listen to the Science show regularly for any reasonable presentation of a non-AGW view. I listen to a lot of the ABC and on that basis I have formed the view that there is a relentless leftist bias. You can get all manner of dick-headed lefty academics to do studies, but that won’t overcome the evidence of my own ears.
“Anyway, your answer to my question is “yes” – the government should dictate content on the ABC. Which kind of makes a mockery of your earlier claim to opposition to government interference in the media. You are happy to don the jackboots when it suits you, clearly. Well, you can’t have it both ways, old man.”
I didn’t say that the government should dictate the content of the ABC, did I? That is a different thing to defining its remit, which should be either to stay out of the opinion business, or to allow expression of a broad range of opinions. If it can’t be neutral it should be closed down. A simple test of the ABC’s bias is to look at who would be doing all the shrieking if it was put out of the opinion business altogether. The howling chorus would be entirely composed of leftist voices.
I don’t why I bother to keep feeding the troll, but anyway …
“or listen to the Science show regularly for any reasonable presentation of a non-AGW view.”
That’s because the non-AGW view is not supported by evidence, barring a few studies that cherry-pick statistical outliers. Which is not valid science. Of course you are not going to see non-science discussed on a science show. There is no “reasonable presentation” for non-AGW views, because the non-AGW views are those of insane morons who reject the scientific method.
Should the ABC also bring on a creationist every time evolution is discussed in a science show? An astrologer every time an astronomer is being interviewed? A homoeopath peddling sugar water every time a major drug breakthrough is made? For balance?
Put down the idealogical blinkers and back away!
uniquerhys,
Those unreasonable bastards won’t give any reaonable presentation of the non round-earth view either.
This is the sad state that the conservative position has been reduced to – a parody of post-modernism. Everything is just an oipinion, even science.
I didn’t say that the government should dictate the content of the ABC, did I?
You were careful to avoid using those words, yes. But that is the effect of your statement that its funding should be withdrawn by the government if it was not “neutral”, as determined by the government of the day. I find it hard to believe you are not able to see how (a) open to abuse that would be, particularly given a government like, say, Howard’s – so intolerant of criticism and willing to actively manipulate the ABC to provide more favourable coverage, and (b) that destroys your claim to supporting an independent media. Clearly, you are advocating that the government should have control over ABC content; that’s the effect of tying ongoing funding to meeting criteria for “neutrality” set by the government of the day. You’re just too chicken to openly admit it. The government of the day can shut down the ABC if it doesn’t like the coverage it’s getting. This is what you are advocating for.
There’s no reason why the ABC should care what whinging conservatives think of it. None. Conservatives will always whinge about the ABC. Nothing the ABC could do would change that.
That is a different thing to defining its remit, which should be either to stay out of the opinion business, or to allow expression of a broad range of opinions. If it can’t be neutral it should be closed down.
It does allow a broad range of opinions. I say it is neutral. Your anecdotal experience to the contrary proves absolutely nothing. You must know this. You seem to be suffering from a delusion that because you and a few other conservatives have been whinging about ABC bias for long enough, that it has become fact.
A simple test of the ABC’s bias is to look at who would be doing all the shrieking if it was put out of the opinion business altogether. The howling chorus would be entirely composed of leftist voices.
Doesn’t sound too scientific, SB. In fact, that’s really lame and desperate.
Unique you really don’t have a clue about this, do you? There are many scientists who aren’t compromised by the AGW scam. And there is the fact that core facets of the AGW hypothesis that are not science in any normal meaning of the word.
The key driver in me once buying into this BS was the hockey stick – turns out that was based on statistical stupidity. But the “scientists” had to be subpoenaed in to giving up the data for checking. You see, normal science is involved in the testing of theories, but in climate science you hide the data so that critics can’t test your models and assumptions.
But if you live in the hermetically sealed world of the Science Show you don’t get to know anything of this. You don’t get to understand the shortcomings of the IPCC or hear any critical commentary on that corrupt institution at all. D’ya think they ran a special episode exposing the very unscientific ‘trick’ of hiding the decline?
The smug attitude of “My views are correct, so no other views have a right to be heard” is exactly what is wrong with much the left. It is why they are fast becoming fascists who just want to shut their critics up. It is not just the arrogance, or even the pig-ignorance so much as their grotesque sense of entitlement that is sickening – they think it is reasonable to colonise the public broadcaster for the dissemination of their propaganda.
Buns: “Doesn’t sound too scientific, SB. In fact, that’s really lame and desperate.”
It is the stone cold truth, and you know it. Close down the opinion bits of the ABC and the left would scream its tits off. No one else would miss it. Just scroll through the contents of the Drum site, it’s a leftist wanktopia. One day an adult will be put in charge of the ABC to hose the socialist scum into the sewer. Then the gaggle of gauche leftists will know their goose is cooked.
“There are many scientists who aren’t compromised by the AGW scam” – SB
Anyone who uses the phrase “AGW scam” immediately puts themselves out of the bounds of rational discourse. This is isn’t scepticism, but irrational conspiracy mongering of the type that the right has increasingly found themsleves mired in, with the events in Norway the explosive embodiment of this detachment from reality.
Nothing is as comforting as a scientiftic illiterate such as SB, droning on about “statistical stupidity” in climate science.
It’s virtually a confirmation, all on it’s own, of the correctness of the science.
“Nothing is as comforting as a scientific illiterate such as SB, droning on about “statistical stupidity” in climate science.”
Debating SB about G.W. is like trying to argue with a drunk, a waste of time.
I mean, after all SB believes the world is only 6000 yrs old, and that Moses parted the Red Sea. Unlike a certain other right wing Nemesis of Jeremy’s, I really think S.B. is taking the piss.Either that or he hears the rustle of white coats.
SB, the full “ClimateGate” data is in the process of being released – permission was needed from weather stations around the world (it wasn’t the scientists holding the data back, but legal agreements with the weather stations):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14315747
Now, if the raw data shows absolutely nothing out of the ordinary, will the non-AGW movement shut up and accept the scientific consensus? Of course not. No amount of evidence will ever satisfy people who deny the scientific method.
‘Gadj: “Anyone who uses the phrase “AGW scam” immediately puts themselves out of the bounds of rational discourse. This is isn’t scepticism, but irrational conspiracy mongering of the type that the right has increasingly found themsleves mired in, with the events in Norway the explosive embodiment of this detachment from reality.”
If you comment represents ‘rational discourse’ I am more than happy to be outside its bounds. I’ll stick with reason and logic thanks.
Unique, UEA is still holding on to data for dear life. If they had behaved more like scientists in the first place this would be a complete non-issue.
I would have thought that if you want the world to spend trillions on your theories the very least you could do is be transparent. Rather than be like Phil Jones who said he would rather destroy data than hand it over under FOI. You call that science?
Again, your profound misunderstanding of everything is testament to the contemporary conservative confusion between science and politics.
Your dearly held wish for AGW to be a “scam” has no effect on atmospheric physics.
uniquerhys,
It won’t make any difference of course.
Having squeked and squealed and whined about this, when it shows that their whinng was over nothing, they will just move onto the next thing to squek, squeal and whine about, never admitting their previous error.
Same morons. Same idiocy.
‘Gadj it may turn out that even the worst excesses of the AGW theorists are demonstrated to be true. But at the moment there is nothing like the degree of certainty required for action to be taken. The scam really kicks in when Australia implements a tax that will have no climate effect whatsoever, except to the extent it closes down Australian industry.
The fact is most people think this is a bullshit tax. We do indeed live in interesting times. It will be very interesting indeed to see if this PM, who lied her way into government, can get away with ramming her ridiculous policy down the throats of the Australian people against their will. A government can’t govern for very long without the consent of the governed.
This is the other area of confusion, feigned or otherwise.
There is a high level of scientific agreement that the certainity is high that action is required. And this is what is meant by concensus. Concensus doesn’t mean that 100% agree – and as anyone who is familair with science knows, this is never the case. There are always a small number of contraians who will disgree, pretty much in any scientific feild.
And this is where the ‘kceptics’ display their internal contradictions. They rail against concensus, and then point to a very much minority view point to say that there is uncertainty and we shouldn’t act – but this only makes sense if you view concensus as 100% agreement, the very thing they say they disagree with.
‘Gadj consensus, especially the manufactured consensus we see in the climate ‘science’ community, is not a sound basis for deciding these things. Especially if the behaviour of leading figures in this movement doesn’t even pass the giggle test.
More nonsense.
The agreement of experts is exactly what constitutues a sound basis for making a decision about science.
It’s amusing to see conservatives argue against meritocracy.
Idiocracy? Thanks, but no thanks.
It is the stone cold truth, and you know it. Close down the opinion bits of the ABC and the left would scream its tits off. No one else would miss it. Just scroll through the contents of the Drum site, it’s a leftist wanktopia. One day an adult will be put in charge of the ABC to hose the socialist scum into the sewer. Then the gaggle of gauche leftists will know their goose is cooked.
Don’t tell me what I know. As I said earlier, repeating your claims about left-wing bias at the ABC over and over won’t make them fact. Anytime you’d like to set about proving the bias you complain of, please be my guest. In the meantime, by all means give it a rest because your endless crapping on about this is really boring.
I’m finding your comments in this thread quite informative. For someone who complains about leftist jackboots, you are coming across as quite the authoritarian (and not for the first time either). The government should have control over content at the ABC (by tying it to funding). The government of the day is obviously better placed than the ABC board to determine whether the ABC is sufficiently “neutral” or not, and it should have the power to shut the ABC down by executive decree if it decides it’s not “neutral”. Sounds more like Russia than Australia, doesn’t it?
And I’m not sure why only leftists would be complaining if the government shut down political comment it didn’t agree with. I would’ve thought we’d all have a problem with that.
‘Gadj, meritocracy is the opposite of an intellectually bankrupt manufactured consensus. As far as the IPCC goes it seems that Greenpeace provides the intellectual leadership. That is the same mob that so loves science it destroys CSIRO experiments.
Buns: “And I’m not sure why only leftists would be complaining if the government shut down political comment it didn’t agree with. I would’ve thought we’d all have a problem with that.”
I don’t hear many leftists complaining about the the Gillard/Greens government’s attempts to shut down unfavourable media comment and to let the press know they are not really free under a government Gillard leads. I do hear them squeal like stuck pigs when someone points out that taxpayers should not be funding leftist political propaganda.
The government has an obligation to see that public funds are not appropriated by one part of the ideological spectrum to pursue its own agenda. At the moment the ABC is a fraud perpetrated on the Australian people. It is emblematic of the way the left operates – making taxpayers pay for their pet projects. If the ABC can’t deliver unbiased news and balanced commentary its news function should be abolished entirely.
What are you babbling about SB?
Can you provide us with some kind of rational and factual distinction between your asserted “intellectually bankrupt manufactured consensus” and scientific conensus?
To date your discussions of anything to do with climate science are fact free zones.
‘Gadj, Judy Curry discusses it here. Wegman in his report on the flawed hockey stick graph looked at why the scientists got it wrong in the context of the lack of independence of a small but influential group of scientists who called themselves the ‘Hockey Team’.
Thanks SB, the ‘money quote’ from that article,
“Advocates for special interests have been able to delay, or
even derail, much-needed policies by creating an appearance of scientific doubts where there are in fact none.”
“I don’t hear many leftists complaining about the the Gillard/Greens government’s attempts to shut down unfavourable media comment”
Yes you are absolutely correct – we generally don’t complain about things that are not happening.
I disagree that there is not a need for a general inquiry into the media. They are not playing their role as the 4th estate; not only are they negligant in informing th public accurately to enable citizens to make informed decisions, but they do not hold government to account appropriately. Fear-mongering is not criticsm. Sensationalism is not constructive. While News Corp are more guilty of this than other news sources, it is not isolated with them.
The issue the right seem to have with ABC is its use of facts and research to back up what it says – the right dislike this because it isn’t based on blind faith or irrational hate. If research agrees with the left, that does not make it partisan. Nevertheless, there is always another side to the debate and it is important that the ABC shows this. Yes, some issues are not up for debate ie you can’t just say things are theory because you disagree – hell, gravity is only a theory but an easily demonstratable one (as is, say, Adelaide). But the ABC’s recent attempts at being ‘more balanced’ by simply parroting extremist right views as if they are truth is just as damaging as an unbalanced media outlet. There are right wing views that are quite reasonable and sensible; the other side of any debate.
Oh, and Wegman SB? Really??
Expect more retractions from the Dept of Copy and Paste. Some PhDs might be shredded too.
Why are the ‘skeptics’ so gullible?
Unique the recent campaign of intimidation by the Greens and Gillard is a serious threat to democracy. Peter Beattie has it right:
Gillard, Swan, Brown, Milne and co need their arses kicked from here to kingdom come. Putin would be proud of them. They are a bigger threat to democracy than anything they are complaining about. A free press is far more important than the fragile egos of a few vain sniveling politicians.
“a free media is absolutely essential for a strong democracy and keeping politicians honest.”
Exactly. The media we have is not “free”, as it is in the employ of big business money interests. That is no less a threat to democracy and honesty in politics than a state-run media. Please go get your psychological projection fixed – stat!
No one is arguing that Murdoch should be shut down (except where he is engaging in already-criminal activity). The argument is to widen the conversation to include voices that have been excluded from public discourse because it isn’t profitable to big business. It is pretty obvious that your idea of a “free press” is one where left-wing voices are stamped out entirely. That isn’t “free”.
We are quite lucky in Melbourne/Sydeny to have the private media having two voices (news and fairfax) that to some extent balance each other out. Most other jurisdictions in Australia (including within Vic and NSW) do not have such luxury. It is completely News corp tabloid drviel. Except the NT-news, which is just a comedy parady of a newspaper.
narco,
How dare you attack my local paper like that.
It’s carries only the highest quality croc stories.
It’s wall to wall Murdoch up here in Brisbane. I gave up on the Sunday Mail several months ago soon after they gave Bolt a regular column. Other parts of the paper used to be OK, but over time more and more of it has become infested with shallow and one-sided reporting. Not even worth buying it for the TV paper any more.
SB you’re truly deluded, Putin gets his FSB to stag false flag attacks on his own people to justify wars, has people poisoned with polonium, possibly cos they wrote this article:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=18244
accusing him of being a pedophile. And has probably had the best of Russia’s free press murdered.
The people you quoted whinge about the Murdoch media cos it prints a load of old bollocks, and the sort of stuff you spew. They don’t poison people and they don’t stage false flag terror attacks (and get busted) and they don’t murder members of the press. You obviously need a lobotomy or a brain transplant or something comparing Putin to the people you compared them to.
Unique the Australian media provides for a diversity of views. Most people choose not to buy Green Left Weekly for obvious reasons – it is full of shit. Nonetheless there is plenty of other ratbaggery to choose from with Fairfax and ABC. The problem seems to be with what the princess left calls ‘bias’ i.e. the expression of opinions with which they disagree. These precious little fools want to drag publishers before some star-chamber inquisition to answer for the crime of dissent form the core values of the intellectual elite.
A generation or two ago the left were big fans of free speech. Now that they control the arts, the schools and universities and much of the media they are becoming intolerant of dissenting voices. This is tragedy for Australia.
Taken with the recent violent riots outside Jewish-owned businesses (which the Greens also support), we can all see where this is leading. This very serious threat to our democracy should come as no surprise for anyone with even passing familiarity with the history of the left. It is always lurking in the background and many ways a necessary incident of what is basically a coercive ideology when it comes to economic matters.
It’s only a matter of time, Jules.
Seriously though I was adding in Putin because of his attitude to the press, not the other nasty stuff. The difference is only the means. The outcome sought is the same.
Gadj – it’s my favourite newspaper next to the Onion…
SB – suggesting that the Greens support anti-jewish riots is as spurious as saying Palin was responsible for that shooting.
Narcotic, senior Greens are supporting the BDS movement which is organising the riots.
And Howard supported right wing extreme policies that were cited with approval by the Oslo shooter, doesn’t make Howard a supporter of the Oslo shootings
Narcotic the difference is that Howard didn’t support the Oslo shooter. Senior Greens continue to support the BDS movement which organises the riots.
More delusion from SB.
Shining a light on the corrupt practices that appear to be rampant at News Ltd (and possible elsewhere) is “intimidation by the Greens”.
Poor petals.
‘Gadj, the only suggestions of such practices in Australia concern Fairfax, but I don’t hear Bob and his flunky Julia whining about that. They seem to be more focused on the media with enough spine to subject their policies to critical analysis.
Well SB, perhaps that’s just you confusing what you heard, with what was actually said.
Brown suggested an inquiry into the “media industry” in total.
Obviously that would include Fairfax.
Keep it up, you’re a great advertisement for all that ails the hard right – blinkered, prejudiced, and significantly divorced from objective reality.
The problem seems to be with what the princess left calls ‘bias’ i.e. the expression of opinions with which they disagree.
Pot, meet kettle.