The Politics/Religion/Conspiracies Deathmatch Thread

Short memories.
News Ltd heavily backed Rudd in 07.
Heres a summary from some media watcher type website. (soz don't have front page photos but maybe someone can find)

Quote:

---

The biggest surprise is the strong support for Labor in the Murdoch press — a marked difference from 2004. The Australian, Daily Telegraph, Courier-Mail and The Mercury are all throwing their support behind Kevin Rudd. For the Tele and the Courier-Mail, it’s their proud boast that this is only the second time in their respective histories they have endorsed Labor at a Federal level.

---

Heres a front page that just cost Fairfax $200 large in a defamation case
http://www.politicalowl.com/home/wp-...-2014-smh1.jpg


and heres an ABC panel discussing gay marriage with 5 people who were pro gay marriage and one (noted old fart Fred Nile) who was agains tit.
is 5 v 1 fair and balanced? does it show any bias? i dunno. you tell me.
http://cdn.mamamia.com.au/wp/wp-cont...el-720x382.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parksey

not confident enough to enter into an argument about politics/the media with an old guy tbh

---

nah, you just don't seem to be able to back up your position.



as for 'old'.
jeez mate you don't know me at all do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

Short memories.
News Ltd heavily backed Rudd in 07.

---

:rofl: guess you neglected to post this picture ay

http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-conten...ng-450x271.gif

further - “Occasionally the Murdoch press gives qualified and tepid support to Labor, but only when it’s likely that Labor are going to win,”....“When they give support to the conservative side of politics it’s all out and wholehearted — that’s what we’ve got with The Daily Telegraph this year.” - so sez rod tiffen emeritus professor at usyd (probs noted pinko)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by q-money

:rofl: guess you neglected to post this picture ay

http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-conten...ng-450x271.gif

---

was there a similar table for Fairfax and ABC?
please post if so.

also, from memory Daily Tele were no fans of Bazza O Fazza either.
to be fair there wasn't much anyone in NSW politics who got a good word back in those days.


yanno, cause they were all crooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

was there a similar table for Fairfax and ABC?
please post if so.

---

nah haven't seen one.

from what i recall baird got a pretty easy ride though from fairfax this time around, even with westconnex being the big issue in sydney - could be wrong - but shit, i can't complain about him too much really - have you used services NSW recently? it's bloody amazing.

also: headline from 1972. (Lib PM)
https://media.crikey.com.au/wp-conte.../smhsalter.png


and no Parksey, I wasn't alive in 1972.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by q-money

nah haven't seen one.

from what i recall baird got a pretty easy ride though from fairfax this time around, even with westconnex being the big issue in sydney - could be wrong - but shit, i can't complain about him too much really - have you used services NSW recently? it's bloody amazing.

---

Baird got a free run from everyone i reckon. they even went easy digging shit up on his old man.


plus, no one was silly enough to back Robbo/Foley, those blokes are legit shady.

dont fret though, theres def a file somewhere ready to go on the golden boy

Quote:

---

For the Tele and the Courier-Mail, it’s their proud boast that this is only the second time in their respective histories they have endorsed Labor at a Federal level.

---

I love that you used this quote to argue that news ltd's clear liberal bias is somehow less or equal to abc or fairfax's respective agendas.

Credit to you on the fairfax stories on Hockey. It would be interesting to see how the tele covered that particular story.

As for the ABC stacking the Q and A panel, that probably occurred because most sane individuals in the country don't have a problem with the whole bumming/scissoring thing.

Yep, also had a chuckle at that parksey.

More to the point, what I find most messed up is that there is such a thing as endorsing a certain party. Why did that become a thing?

Also agree with you plague that the Fairfax thing with Hockey was dumb, and unnecessarily sensationalised the story . I do note though that it had nothing to do with the ABC i.e the subject of all this outrage lately ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parksey

As for the ABC stacking the Q and A panel, that probably occurred because most sane individuals in the country don't have a problem with the whole bumming/scissoring thing.

---

See, and this is where I have an issue with your argument.

You say the ABC is fine to show bias for a cause because it's the majority opinion. Yet when News jumps on a similar popular opinion* (that the Rudd govt being bad, and that Abbott was going to win) you claim it's wrong.

They are both showing bias, they are both pushing their agendas, they are both the same.

You can't argue there's a difference just because you agree with one and not the other.

*based on polling numbers and the election result itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by militiamon

Yep, also had a chuckle at that parksey.

More to the point, what I find most messed up is that there is such a thing as endorsing a certain party. Why did that become a thing?

---

I put that quote in, and Q's graphic showed as well, that the argument can be made that News Ltd was actually following the herd in choosing which side to take.

Were they trying to tell people who to vote for or were they pandering to the people that were going to vote that way anyway?

Hence why it would be interesting to see how News Ltd covered the Campbell Newman Govt and the switch back to Qld labor in the last election.

Without knowing what they did I'd be shocked if they weren't on the eventual winners side there either.

Bias? Yes.
Trying to sell the most papers possible? You betcha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parksey

Credit to you on the fairfax stories on Hockey. It would be interesting to see how the tele covered that particular story.

---

Yeah from memory I don't recall it being a big deal. Everyone kind of just said that's how all pollies raise their money.

News def went in hard on the state Libs through all the shady donations and parliament rorts.

No one did a better job that Kate McClymont though (Fairfax) She's a beast. She goes after everyone, she gives zero ****s what side you're on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parksey

As for the ABC stacking the Q and A panel, that probably occurred because most sane individuals in the country don't have a problem with the whole bumming/scissoring thing.

---

See, and this is where I have an issue with your argument.

You say the ABC is fine to show bias for a cause because it's the majority opinion.

---

IMO I reckon the ratio of Australians for:against marriage equality was pretty accurate in that ABC panel. I don't see it as bias, as much as an accurate depiction of the general Australian populations view on the subject (ie everyone is for it except people in deNile).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pv4

IMO I reckon the ratio of Australians for:against marriage equality was pretty accurate in that ABC panel. I don't see it as bias, as much as an accurate depiction of the general Australian populations view on the subject (ie everyone is for it except people in deNile).

---

So the populist view over championing Rudd over Howard, then Abbott over Rudd?

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

So the populist view over championing Rudd over Howard, then Abbott over Rudd?

Thoughts?

---

Personally, I don't care :rof:

I pick and choose which battles I want to fight, and ignore the rest.

I an unfazed by who is prime minister solely because I can't get my freaking head around why this guy or that guy is being peddled to me, when really I have never once seen any of them on my voting slip. Plus the whole "vote for what's best in your electorate" rather than vote for this party to do this nation-wide etc, I just can't even pretend to deal with it. And the whole thing about basically every woman I know voting against liberal because "Tony Abbott looks creepy, and like Gollum in that picture" but they too have never seen Abbott's name on their voting slip.

tl;dr - I don't care about that part of politics, because I genuinely get confused by where the power comes from, how it is driven, and how the Australian voting public perceive it.

balance shouldn't be on either side of an arguement, it should be weighted by fact and/or consensus

we shouldn't give equal air time to flat earthers or conspiracy nutjobs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

I put that quote in, and Q's graphic showed as well, that the argument can be made that News Ltd was actually following the herd in choosing which side to take.

Were they trying to tell people who to vote for or were they pandering to the people that were going to vote that way anyway?

Hence why it would be interesting to see how News Ltd covered the Campbell Newman Govt and the switch back to Qld labor in the last election.

Without knowing what they did I'd be shocked if they weren't on the eventual winners side there either.

Bias? Yes.
Trying to sell the most papers possible? You betcha.

---

You are gravely mistaken if you think the goal is to sell as many papers as possible. The goal is about passing off the dogma of the ruling ideology as being the facts to as many people as possible. If that means more newspaper sales then great but it's not as important as getting the general public conditioned to think a certain way.

Politicians only need to side with the top 1/2% of the population and that cohorts wealth, and influence via the media outlets they own or control will do the rest.

Wrt Rudd he's a hardcore conservative in much the same way as Howard or Abbott. Rudds wife for example made a crap load of money exploiting workers via deals and arrangements with the Howard governments industrial relations policies.

The reason why News Limited backed Rudd is because he was the key to getting traditional labour voters across the line and into the conservative way of thinking.

Once they had been brought accross so to speak Rudd was no longer needed by them and they killed him off.

I think comparing "bias" regarding same sex marriage with actively championing one political party as evidence for across the board impartiality is a bit of a long bow to draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boz-monaut

balance shouldn't be on either side of an arguement, it should be weighted by fact and/or consensus

we shouldn't give equal air time to flat earthers or conspiracy nutjobs

---

Agree. That's why I'm saying that bias exists everywhere and some genuinely believe it's the right way to achieve the right outcome.

I'm cool with all that.