Quote:

GP Super Clinics: ludicrous “$450 per visit” claim left uncountered May 24, 2011 – 2:37 pm, by Jeremy Sear   If you relied on the News Ltd coverage of the Super Health Clinics data tabled in parliament last week, you might well have come out of it with the distinct (but dodgy) impression that the government was paying absolutely insane amounts of money for every visit: [indent] JULIA Gillard’s GP super clinics are under fire for bloating the standard cost of a visit to the doctor. The standard cost has blown out by an estimated $450 a consultation.[/indent] Really? Well, that’s what the Opposition claims: Liberal MP Andrew Southcott, a former doctor, said a visit to a GP Super Clinic would always cost taxpayers more. [indent]“After more than three years, the taxpayer contribution to a visit to a GP Super Clinic is more than $450 per visit on top of Medicare,” Mr Southcott said. “The cost to the taxpayer of a visit to a GP Super Clinic will always be higher than the cost of a visit to a local medical centre or family practice. They have the same Medicare cost structures except that with the GP Super Clinics the buildings have been taxpayer funded.”[/indent] So how’d they come up with that figure? [indent]But the Gillard Government has announced plans to build more, confirming they have already spent $127 million on capital works. According to data tabled in Parliament in response to MPs’ questions, the GP Super Clinics provided 280,000 services as at the end of January, costing taxpayers an estimated $450 for each visit, on top of the standard Medicare fee.[/indent] Oh, I see. In the same way as a month after you move into your new $400k house, it’s already cost you MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A DAY. Except of course it hasn’t, because the $400k cost is spread over the thirty or more years you live in it, minus the value when you sell it, and you’re not $10k a day worse off at all. Likewise the cost “per visit” to these clinics now is not the total cost of the asset divided by the number of visits so far, given that those assets still exist and still have most of their value. The number of visits continues to increase whilst the $127 million was of course a one-off expense. And yet I don’t expect these papers are going to publish a story next year, after another 280,000 visits, saying how well the Government has done, miraculously HALVING the cost per visit, with the cost per visit continuing to fall, the geniuses. Basically, the figure is misleading and, while I expect little more from the Opposition, which thinks its job is to throw misleading muck around and hope some of it sticks, I do expect the newspaper to treat its readers with a little respect and explain what’s wrong with that calculation – rather than trumpeting it in the headline and the lead-in text, with no qualification. After 12 paragraphs bashing it without a sentence pointing out the counterargument to the Opposition’s claim, this is the only quote from the Government that got published: [indent]A spokeswoman for Health Minister Nicola Roxon said: “The GP Super Clinics program is an investment in providing quality health services into the future.”[/indent] Well, that in no way addresses the point. Is that really all they said? Samantha Maiden tells Crikey that there was in fact a response from Ms Roxon’s office that did more specifically address the $450 figure, but it was cut, presumably for length. We’re not alleging any kind of conspiracy here, but we’d suggest that the absence of that critical response seriously undermines the entire story, and leaves readers with a very inaccurate impression of the program and its costs. (That the inaccurate impression is a negative for the Government is, we’re sure, a coincidence.) Which part of the system broke down here, we have no idea – but we’d suggest there’s definitely a problem, and it deserves consideration by those at each step of the process, from the journalist, to the subeditor, to the editor. Someone decided that the other side’s response to the figure was not critical to the story: we think they were clearly wrong, and should be careful to make a different, a fairer, decision next time. And it’s one further reason – in addition to the importance of not leaving a contentious statement hanging without response – for journalists to avoid leaving the counter-argument to the very end of their reports, where it’s liable to be the first thing cut. Because the upshot of this uncorrected, unbalanced piece as published, is that readers of the News Ltd papers that ran it are left with a highly distorted view of reality on this subject. And that can’t be good for our national debate.

.

Something screwy with your message. Try to fix it up so we can see what sought of a rant you are having.

THERE MUST BE A HELLUVA LOT OF DISTORTED VIEWS THEN!

Rudd and the Murdoch Press
Sept. 2009

When News Limited threw its considerable resources behind what became known as the ‘Utegate affair’, Rudd cracked.

The accusation that he had given special favours to the car-dealer John Grant in return for – of all things – a beaten-up truck, was simply unacceptable and, when the email on which the charge was based was proved to be a forgery, he hit back.

Asked during a press conference for his reaction by Matthew Franklin, who had helped to drive the story in the Australian, Rudd responded in terms rather more measured than he had been using in private:



Quote:

I think, what a number of people have said to me, Matthew, around the place is where have we kind of got to, when you have major papers like the Daily Telegraph, the Courier-Mail and the Adelaide Advertiser running on their front page that the prime minister of the country is corrupt, and then secondly the editors it seems not having sighted any original document in terms of this email, and thirdly, it turns out that that email is a forgery, I would have thought a few people would want to know how all that happened, what sort of journalistic checks were put in place for that to be the case, or is it simply being sort of airbrushed from history? I think the other thing which sort of comes up is, I mean, the usual accusations when political leaders respond to factually inaccurate reporting in the media, in this case in those papers that I referred to, is to accuse the political leaders in question of having some sort of glass jaw. It may simply be that what people want is just some basic answers as to how that might have happened, that’s a pretty basic thing. The other thing I saw the chief executive of your own news organisation do yesterday was, in responding to this, indicate that somehow the deputy prime minister was raising these matters because she’d felt set upon by your newspaper over the coverage of the Building the Education Revolution stuff. Well, all’s fair in love and war, I mean, you guys will take whatever editorial position you want on the Building the Education Revolution and that’s been the case

Rudd described this treatment of Gillard as “journalistic retaliation”. In other words, it had gone beyond Utegate: Rudd now saw it as a concerted campaign.

Much more ...

http://www.themonthly.com.au/nation-reviewed-mungo-maccallum-comment-rudd-and-murdoch-press-1945

"CRIKEY'!

Who reads newspapers anymore?
We only use newspaper to wrap cat sh!t in before putting it in the bin  :D
Oh before anyone asks..we use the free local paper  :P

adelcrow wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 5:48pm:

Who reads newspapers anymore? We only use newspaper to wrap cat sh!t in before putting it in the bin  :D Oh before anyone asks..we use the free local paper  :P

ahhh so THAT'S why do you don't know your ass from your elbow.

I should say..the missus or the housekeeper wraps the cat sh!t in newspaper..you wont catch me doing it  :P

adelcrow wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 5:57pm:

I should say..the missus or the housekeeper wraps the cat sh!t in newspaper..you wont catch me doing it  :P

in between flying backwards and forwards to Singapore..such a tough life.

i read the paper but usually if im interested in something or want to know further i will look it up from other sources to verify it

i also read blogs (good blogs not the loony ones) like steve sailer he is so good

cods wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 6:05pm:

adelcrow wrote on May 25th, 2011 at 5:57pm: I should say..the missus or the housekeeper wraps the cat sh!t in newspaper..you wont catch me doing it  :P in between flying backwards and forwards to Singapore..such a tough life.

Do those fantasy flights hit imaginary air pockets, just when you are freshening up your fictional lipstick?

Misleadenfreude
May 26, 2011 – 3:56 pm, by Jeremy Sear
 
I think the Herald Sun is proud of these results of online polling of its readers:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/files/2011/05/readers.jpg

Anyone want to coin a word for the bittersweet sentiment of cheerful satisfaction in your ability to manipulate your customers into embarrassing ignorance and shortsightedness? There’s probably a clunky compound German word like schadenfreude, but it’d be handy to have a more elegant construction.

THE RIGHT represent overseas investors!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 7:09pm:

THE RIGHT represent overseas investors!

As long as they're not green tech investors!

astro_surf wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 7:00pm:

Misleadenfreude May 26, 2011 – 3:56 pm, by Jeremy Sear   I think the Herald Sun is proud of these results of online polling of its readers: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/files/2011/05/readers.jpg Anyone want to coin a word for the bittersweet sentiment of cheerful satisfaction in your ability to manipulate your customers into embarrassing ignorance and shortsightedness? There’s probably a clunky compound German word like schadenfreude, but it’d be handy to have a more elegant construction.

whilst online polls have close to zero credibility, professional polls find similar results.

longweekend58 wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 7:47pm:

whilst online polls have close to zero credibility, professional polls find similar results.

Source?

Quote:

Australians' views on climate change Download commissioned work (PDF 395 KB) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CSIRO was contracted by the Garnaut Climate Change Review team to review recent studies examining Australians' views of climate change, their beliefs about the role of human activities in producing climate change, and their support for various policy responses to climate change. The review also considered whether, and to what extent, public views had changed since the previous Garnaut review in 2008. A total of 22 studies were identified and analysed. Working to the priorities outlined by the Garnaut review team, relevant information from each study was extracted, reviewed, and considered in relation to information from other studies. From the existing research, we conclude that: Most Australians believe the climate is changing, but fewer believe that the change is attributable to human activity. Belief in climate change and its anthropogenic drivers has waned in recent years, reflecting trends in other Western countries. Responses to questions about climate change vary systematically with question wording and response formatting, but these differences do not negate the overall conclusions above. Beliefs about climate change are strongly related to political preferences, voting behaviours and gender, but no clear relationships between these beliefs and location, age or income have emerged. Most Australians believe that Australia should take action on climate change without waiting for global consensus. There is no clear consensus on what policy actions Australians prefer, such as setting a carbon price or establishing an emissions trading scheme. There is a clear need for further directed research into Australians' understanding of climate change policy options, their support for those options, and their willingness to pay within each policy option. The best ways to communicate information about climate change, its anthropogenic drivers, and potential policy responses to climate change all require close consideration and further inquiry

astro_surf wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 7:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 7:09pm: THE RIGHT represent overseas investors! As long as they're not green tech investors!

So when are you going to tell us what your other username is considering you accuse others of being mellie yet you joined a month after Mellies last post?

How would you even know?

Verge wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 7:18pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 7:09pm: THE RIGHT represent overseas investors! As long as they're not green tech investors! So when are you going to tell us what your other username is considering you accuse others of being mellie yet you joined a month after Mellies last post? How would you even know?

Because everyone was saying their mellie and I'm going along with it because it's probably true and I think it's funny to make fun of someone so obviously insane!

The only other username I have used is bit_pattern, google it if you're that obsessed with me!

astro_surf wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 8:18pm:

Verge wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 8:13pm: astro_surf wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 7:18pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 7:09pm: THE RIGHT represent overseas investors! As long as they're not green tech investors! So when are you going to tell us what your other username is considering you accuse others of being mellie yet you joined a month after Mellies last post? How would you even know? [size=30]Because everyone was saying their mellie and I'm going along with it because it's probably true and I think it's funny to make fun of someone so obviously insane! The only other username I have used is bit_pattern, google it if you're that obsessed with me![ze]

So you have no credibility, and in order to try and strip others of theirs you accuse them of something you know nothing about.

Yeah, real good work mate.  You try to discredit people for the sake of being a dick.

Verge wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 8:23pm:

Yeah, real good work mate.  You try to discredit people for the sake of being a dick.

Yup. Suck it up, princess! ;D

astro_surf wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

Verge wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 8:23pm: Yeah, real good work mate.  You try to discredit people for the sake of being a dick. Yup. Suck it up, princess! ;D

Just remember, what goes around comes around

This is the kind of behaviour I would expect to see from someone like Greens_wins, aka woody.

Funny how your posts have gone through the roof since the woodsnake left.

Yes, I am 'woodsnake', for fifty bucks I'm whoever you want me to be, honey!  :-*

astro_surf wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

Yes, I am 'woodsnake', for fifty bucks I'm whoever you want me to be, honey!  :-*

So you are as easy as your wife?

I don't have a wife. Happily single here. An eligible bachelor, so to speak.

astro_surf wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 8:37pm:

I don't have a wife.

Explains the countless hours you spend here.

You should hook up with lastnail, you are both lonely bitter men with little social skills and try to discredit people by underminding them as opposed to challanging them on issues

You both also come across as closet homosexuals.  Its just an observation.

Verge wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 8:39pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 8:37pm: I don't have a wife. Explains the countless hours you spend here.

Pretty much.


Quote:

You should hook up with lastnail, you are both lonely bitter men with little social skills and try to discredit people by underminding them as opposed to challanging them on issues You both also come across as closet homosexuals.  Its just an observation.

Sure. Whatever floats your boat!  ;D There is this little issue about News Ltd readers having distorted views on reality, do you wanna talk about that or do wanna keep fantasising about my private life? I mean, like I said, whatever floats your but but it's just a tad hypocritical to accuse me of not addressing the issues when you're having homoerotic fantasies about my sex life.

astro_surf wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 7:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 7:09pm: THE RIGHT represent overseas investors! As long as they're not green tech investors!

You need signals before that's going to start happening but the Swiss have signalled they are shutting down Nuclear Power too so I s'pose the nature of investment will change eventually!

Crickey readers are bitching about bias??  What next?  Bob Brown complaining about not being loved? Where does it end?

Quote:

Why News Ltd readers have distorted view

Can you believe this garbage ???

Never mind the stupidity of the decisions and lies made by JuLIAR Gilliard and Labor party itself, these laborites and leftards NOW WANNA SOOK UP AGAINST THE THOSE IN THE MEDIA THAT ARE DOING THERE JOB,

You silly laborites and leftard HAVE A BACKBONE WILL YA.,

DONT YOU KNOW THAT THE CANBERRA PRESS GALLERY HAVE ALWAYS MOSTLY BEEN PRO LABOR ????

NONE OF YOU LEFTARDS NEVER ATTACK THAT BIAS, AND YOU WANNA WHINGE AND CRY ABOUT NEWS LIMMITED, GIMME A BREAK.  ;D ;D

dunno about you stryder but I also get my information from every news outlet out there... mainly free to air news programs....I particularly like SBS news for the world events..however I dont just read or watch.. one side do you???.

how would it be if we only had one side..... almost like China I would think...but I can only guess the amount of complaining this lot do about Murdoch......thats how they would like it...only Charlton..and Adams...

stryder wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 10:39pm:

Quote: Why News Ltd readers have distorted view Can you believe this garbage ??? Never mind the stupidity of the decisions and lies made by JuLIAR Gilliard and Labor party itself, these laborites and leftards NOW WANNA SOOK UP AGAINST THE THOSE IN THE MEDIA THAT ARE DOING THERE JOB, You silly laborites and leftard HAVE A BACKBONE WILL YA., DONT YOU KNOW THAT THE CANBERRA PRESS GALLERY HAVE ALWAYS MOSTLY BEEN PRO LABOR ???? NONE OF YOU LEFTARDS NEVER ATTACK THAT BIAS, AND YOU WANNA WHINGE AND CRY ABOUT NEWS LIMMITED, GIMME A BREAK.  ;D ;D

The sad little creatures don`t mind their PM lying to them, but they sook it up big time, when anyone disagrees with their mindless propaganda, and tries to deal with facts.  Funny cattle!

Thank goodness for swing voters. The laborites and leftards will vote labor or give their preference to labor even though labor has been the worst thing for Australia in these times. The lies, waste and incompetence is immense.

How are the leftards going to hold the government to account, when they stick with labor no matter what.

cods wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 7:07am:

dunno about you stryder but I also get my information from every news outlet out there... mainly free to air news programs....I particularly like SBS news for the world events..however I dont just read or watch.. one side do you???. how would it be if we only had one side..... almost like China I would think...but I can only guess the amount of complaining this lot do about Murdoch......thats how they would like it...only Charlton..and Adams...

I find it near impossible to believe what you have said. The views you put forward do not reflect someone that personally researches and reflects on issues.

The point is clear, news media particularly Murdoch media drive an agenda in the way they represent political reporting. Very big mistakes have been made in this country allowing the relaxation of media ownership laws. It was done for reasons of economics and greed but is an attack on truth and democracy. We now live in a world of people that have degrees in everything but live in a bubble of misinformation leaving us probably as poorly educated as we have ever been.

nairbe wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 8:20am:

cods wrote on May 27th, 2011 at 7:07am: dunno about you stryder but I also get my information from every news outlet out there... mainly free to air news programs....I particularly like SBS news for the world events..however I dont just read or watch.. one side do you???. how would it be if we only had one side..... almost like China I would think...but I can only guess the amount of complaining this lot do about Murdoch......thats how they would like it...only Charlton..and Adams... I find it near impossible to believe what you have said. The views you put forward do not reflect someone that personally researches and reflects on issues. The point is clear, news media particularly Murdoch media drive an agenda in the way they represent political reporting. Very big mistakes have been made in this country allowing the relaxation of media ownership laws. It was done for reasons of economics and greed but is an attack on truth and democracy. We now live in a world of people that have degrees in everything but live in a bubble of misinformation leaving us probably as poorly educated as we have ever been.

Your first part is just baseless.

As for your second.
You cannot be objective in this matter. The reason being is that your parties of choice are either extreme or incompetent.

The media you dislike calls your parties out for what they have done. Incompetence, wasteful, spiteful, less than truthful, outright dishonest, partisan, you name it.

The media you like should ask them a question once, not too hard, never to be too revealing and to skate on the edge of truth so as to be seen as thruthful to the gullible, unless of course it is the party you dislike, then thats another story.

Murdoch, eh? Aintcha sick of 'im? Gives oxigen to all sorts, even extremists:

Bob Brown: We must kick the coal habit
We can't address climate change by protecting the industry at the heart of the problem

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/bob-brown-we-must-kick-the-coal-habit/story-e6frg6zo-1111112977099


That Murdoch fellow will publish even the likes of Brown if there's a buck in it, eh? No scruples, mouthpiece and defender of the ruling class and the big foreign corporations. Typical.