Quote:

FREE SPEECH Generally Tony Abbott's words have shed little light on how he would govern in practical terms (by design, no doubt) but in today's speech at the Institute of Public Affairs, Abbott's view is clear: he stands with Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Gina Rinehart and the big media proprietors against any form of media regulation. The speech is a stale collection of bogey-words and phrases ("thought police", "political correctness enforcement agency"); false equivalences ("If it's all right for David Marr to upset conservative Christians, why is it not all right for Bolt to upset activist Aborigines?"); and straw-man arguments against media regulations which haven't even been proposed. Abbott uses 'free speech' as his banner to march under. In Australia, strictly speaking, there is no such thing. The right to free speech is limited by laws against religious, sexual and racial vilification, for instance. And relevant to the Bolt case, which seems to animate Abbott in particular, free speech does not include publishing lies that racially offend, as was found to be the case by the court. But this is mere detail, right? http://www.themonthly.com.au/politicoz

And of course we will attack the reporting rather than the substance.
Oh the "Monthly" leftie propaghanda rag
I'm casting pearls at swine.



Quote:

The job of government is to foster free speech, not to suppress it     by: Tony Abbott     From: The Australian     August 06, 2012 12:00AM     Increase Text Size     Decrease Text Size     Print THIS is not a government that argues its case. Mostly, it howls down its critics using the megaphone of incumbency. There's the jihad against mining magnates for daring to question the government's investment-sapping mining tax. There's the claim that Gina Rinehart is a "danger to democracy" because she dared to buy an interest in a newspaper group and refused to endorse the Fairfax group's existing editorial culture. Late last year, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy accused the Sydney Daily Telegraph of a deliberate campaign to "bring the government down". Julia Gillard had a screaming match with former News Limited boss John Hartigan over an article about her dealings prior to entering parliament with a union official. The Greens have been consistently critical of those former senator Bob Brown tagged the "hate media". The Prime Minister personally insisted that News Limited in Australia had "questions to answer" in the wake of the British phone hacking scandal. It seems obvious that her real concern was not Fleet Street-style illegality but News Limited's coverage of her government. The most influential people in Sport To Ray Finkelstein's credit, there's no specific "get News Limited" vendetta evident in the report of his Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation. Still, his recommendation that a powerful News Media Council should "set journalistic standards", "enforce news standards" and "have power to require a news media outlet to publish an apology, correction, or retraction" looks like an attempt to warn off News Limited from pursuing anti-government stories. Are you serious?? Bagging standards & their enforcement?? Why stop with Journalists, I want to be a surgeon The AMA standards & enforcement of those are stopping my right to operate Isn't that right Tony. Don't even get me started on the conspiracy projection What a loon The "community, industry and professional representatives" that Finkelstein wants appointed to the new regulator are unlikely to be truly independent of the government that will fund it. We know the present government's attitude to fearless reporting because it is constantly complaining about it. Perhaps the most shameless example was Doug Cameron accusing the "Murdoch press" of actually "fabricating stories" about the prospect of a Rudd challenge for which he was one of the numbers men! Any new watchdog could become a political correctness enforcement agency. It's easy to imagine the fate of Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones at the hands of such thought police. Their demise, you understand, wouldn't be because the government didn't like them but because they'd persistently breached "standards". Or perhaps they continually lied & mislead, incited violence and hatred in the community? In response to a strongly worded critique of the Finkelstein recommendations, the government has replied to seven media chief executives saying it might not proceed with a new regulator if the media were to establish more effective forms of self-regulation. In other words, "censor yourselves or we will do it for you". Any government that demands changed behaviour from the media under circumstances like these is not trying to raise journalistic standards but to lower them. Yet self regulation in just about every other area is supported/nay championed by you & your party Tony. You "Small Government", "Cutting Red Tape" Yet how often do we self regulation fail, your missing the point Tony, she's giving them an out. The Coalition rejects the Finkelstein proposals, it rejects any additional regulation for the print media and it rejects calls for the introduction of a public interest test or any test to determine who might be suitable to have a stake in Australia's media. It calls on the government to do likewise. Until the media turns on you Tony It will then you'll be recommending the report if not harsher measures due to the lying/misrepresenting press Or is it you think you will be immune because your mates will owe you for quashing these recommendations? Australia does not need more regulation of the media, it needs a debate about freedom of speech. A hung parliament has brought out the government's authoritarian streak. It is not the role of government to manage the day-to-day practices of journalism; to "mark" commentary and media against unavoidably subjective standards of fairness. The job of government is to foster free speech, not stifle it. It's to increase the number and the range of people who can participate in public debate, not to reduce it. Another threat to freedom of speech in Australia is the operation of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which prohibits statements that "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" another person or a group of people on grounds of race or ethnicity. At the time of its introduction, oblivious to its Orwellian overtones, the then minister, Nick Bolkus, said that it was designed to prohibit "speechcrime" over and above the traditional tort of defamation. Making the likelihood of causing offence to a group the test of acceptable behaviour is a much more onerous restriction than bringing a particular victim into hatred, ridicule or contempt. Let's be clear: insulting, humiliating or intimidating others on any grounds, racial or otherwise, is deplorable but a "hurt feelings" test is impossible to comply with while maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth which should be the hallmark of a society such as ours. As Robert Menzies declared: "The whole essence of freedom (of speech) is that it is freedom for others as well as (for) ourselves. (It is) a conception which is not born with us, but which we must painfully acquire. Most of us have no instinct at all to preserve the right of the other fellow to think what he likes about our beliefs and to say what he likes about our opinions. (But) if truth is to emerge, and in the long run be triumphant, the process of free debate - the untrammelled clash of opinion - must go on." The article for which Bolt was prosecuted under this legislation was almost certainly not his finest. Still, if free speech is to mean anything, it's the freedom to write badly and rudely. Speech that has to be inoffensive is not free, just unerringly politically correct. If it's all right for David Marr to upset conservative Christians, why is it not all right for Bolt to upset activist Aborigines? The Coalition will repeal section 18C in its present form. We would be prepared to maintain a prohibition on inciting hatred against or intimidation of particular racial groups, akin to the ancient common law offences of incitement and causing fear. Expression or advocacy should never be unlawful merely because it is offensive. It ought to be inconceivable that a commentator offering an opinion should fall foul of the law just because offence was taken or might be expected to be taken. This is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with Bolt. It's a matter of an expansive or a repressive view of the right to free speech. It's not just the present government which will be put to the test in the debate over new restrictions on free speech, although its authoritarian tendencies are likely to be on display. It will be all the commentators and organisations that have ever thundered in defence of free speech but find their indignation highly selective when it's News Limited or Bolt that are in the dock. The Australian Left has long cited the Menzies government's attempt to ban the Communist Party as an egregious assault on freedom. What will they make of any Gillard government legislation to restrict freedom of speech? Menzies sought to restrict freedom in order to defend the country. The Gillard government, by contrast, seeks to restrict freedom in order to defend itself. Tony Abbott is Leader of the Opposition. This is an edited extract of a speech to be given today at the Institute of Public Affairs.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/the-job-of-government-is-to-foster-free-speech-not-to-suppress-it/story-e6frgd0x-1226443377179

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/04a8a28afded33a63164e316f/images/August_6.jpg

Lame. double lame and triple lame. The governments media enquiry and repeated whingy complaints are because the media hates them. Perhaps it has yet to filter thru their unionised minds thatthe voters hate them too. They dont seem able to accept that the media is reflecting the opinion of the voters.

But in the ultimate hypocritical stand, they are okay with the media being overtly pro-rudd in 2007 despite Howards record being vastly superior to Gillards byany measure.

ALP - whiny little children not able to lose with grace and dignity. And all it will give them is more tears on election night and the well-deserved mocking of the media.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:16pm:

Lame. double lame and triple lame. The governments media enquiry and repeated whingy complaints are because the media hates them. Perhaps it has yet to filter thru their unionised minds thatthe voters hate them too. They dont seem able to accept that the media is reflecting the opinion of the voters. But in the ultimate hypocritical stand, they are okay with the media being overtly pro-rudd in 2007 despite Howards record being vastly superior to Gillards byany measure. ALP - whiny little children not able to lose with grace and dignity. And all it will give them is more tears on election night and the well-deserved mocking of the media.

That maybe so, but do you support Finklesteins recommendations or not.
Do you want our newspapers & other professional media outlets to be just that "Professional"
or are you happy to see Prevailings rantings past off as news & fact?

As for your pro Rudd crap, it's this very sort of thing the report wishes to curtail.
They may have been pro Rudd but for 2 elections before that they were Pro Howard, they are now Pro Tony & eventually they will be Pro Labor again.
They should be Pro Relevant/Factual Information, nothing else UNLESS clearly marked OPINION & in the OPINION SECTION, not front page.

Yes Tnoy it is an insult to the core of our beliefs if people Like Bolt do not have a free reign to their dishonest racial abuse and the freedom to abuse vilify and lible who ever they like.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:16pm:

Lame. double lame and triple lame. The governments media enquiry and repeated whingy complaints are because the media hates them. Perhaps it has yet to filter thru their unionised minds thatthe voters hate them too. They dont seem able to accept that the media is reflecting the opinion of the voters. But in the ultimate hypocritical stand, they are okay with the media being overtly pro-rudd in 2007 despite Howards record being vastly superior to Gillards byany measure. ALP - whiny little children not able to lose with grace and dignity. And all it will give them is more tears on election night and the well-deserved mocking of the media.

They dont seem able to accept that the media is reflecting the opinion of the voters

The problem is that the media started reflecting this opinion way before the public held a view.

Fact is that the media have been a driver for this result and not a reflection of it.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:16pm:

They dont seem able to accept that the media is reflecting the opinion of the voters.

Since when is it the job of the media to tell the people what they want to hear? I always thought the job of the media was to report the facts, free of bias and regardless of whether the people liked them or not.

Comparing an absence of stamdsrds for journalists with surgeons is just silly. When did words become so hurtful?

There is no need for any regulation of the media.

If you don't like what the media write don't buy their papers.
If you don't like what they say on the radio don't listen.
If you don't like what you see on the TV then watch something else, or turn it off and do something else.
If you have to worry about what everyone else reading, listening and watching then you have a problem.
It must be frustrating.  :)

gold_medal wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:16pm:

Lame. double lame and triple lame. The governments media enquiry and repeated whingy complaints are because the media hates them. Perhaps it has yet to filter thru their unionised minds thatthe voters hate them too. They dont seem able to accept that the media is reflecting the opinion of the voters. But in the ultimate hypocritical stand, they are okay with the media being overtly pro-rudd in 2007 despite Howards record being vastly superior to Gillards byany measure. ALP - whiny little children not able to lose with grace and dignity. And all it will give them is more tears on election night and the well-deserved mocking of the media.

Maybe labor can get the gestapo out and investigate the people. Investigate and manipulate why the people hate them. Maybe create some gas chambers for possible future use.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:16pm:

Lame. double lame and triple lame. The governments media enquiry and repeated whingy complaints are because the media hates them. Perhaps it has yet to filter thru their unionised minds thatthe voters hate them too. They dont seem able to accept that the media is reflecting the opinion of the voters. It's not the media's job to reflect the opinion of others, their job is to report the news as truthfully as they can and without bias But in the ultimate hypocritical stand, they are okay with the media being overtly pro-rudd in 2007 despite Howards record being vastly superior to Gillards byany measure. ALP - whiny little children not able to lose with grace and dignity. And all it will give them is more tears on election night and the well-deserved mocking of the media.

Opinion pieces used to be relegated to small articles in the back of the paper, these days with a lot of the media outlets, they are front page stories and printed as if they were the story ... often misleading the reader from the truth of the story .

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 2:16pm: Lame. double lame and triple lame. The governments media enquiry and repeated whingy complaints are because the media hates them. Perhaps it has yet to filter thru their unionised minds thatthe voters hate them too. They dont seem able to accept that the media is reflecting the opinion of the voters. But in the ultimate hypocritical stand, they are okay with the media being overtly pro-rudd in 2007 despite Howards record being vastly superior to Gillards byany measure. ALP - whiny little children not able to lose with grace and dignity. And all it will give them is more tears on election night and the well-deserved mocking of the media. Maybe labor can get the gestapo out and investigate the people. Investigate and manipulate why the people hate them. Maybe create some gas chambers for possible future use.

What like Howard & the 2 year AFP investigation into who leaked the proposal to cut TPI pensions.
Funny how the media needed scrutiny & regulations then but not now.
2 Reporters brought to court to reveal sources, apparently OK back then , but now you can write what you want & Tony will back you, hell he even wants you to be able to publish in a daily paper.

Lets have a go shall we:

ABBOTT RAPES DOG

The Coalition today is trying to downplay reports from un-named senior liberal figures about an incident at a Liberal fundraising event on the Gold coast.
As the story has been told, after a few hours of your normal pressing of the flesh and drinks , it would seem the heady intoxication of mutual love in the room became to much for the Opposition Leader.
After meeting with a Mr Newman on table 10 who is blind with an assistance dog Mr Abbott took  the animals apparent delight at being rubbed behind the ears as a sign of something more.

Reports on what followed are hazy but what is in no doubt is that Mr Newmans assistance dog is now in the GC Vet clinic with a ruptured anus, and Mr Abbott has gone to ground refusing all applications to clear his name on this matter.

Gold Coast police are continuing to investigate & are interviewing all present.
Those in attendance are reminded that destruction of photographic evidence is a felony.

To quote the man himself

Quote:

but a "hurt feelings" test is impossible to comply with while maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth which should be the hallmark of a society such as ours.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:22pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 4:04pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 2:16pm: Lame. double lame and triple lame. The governments media enquiry and repeated whingy complaints are because the media hates them. Perhaps it has yet to filter thru their unionised minds thatthe voters hate them too. They dont seem able to accept that the media is reflecting the opinion of the voters. But in the ultimate hypocritical stand, they are okay with the media being overtly pro-rudd in 2007 despite Howards record being vastly superior to Gillards byany measure. ALP - whiny little children not able to lose with grace and dignity. And all it will give them is more tears on election night and the well-deserved mocking of the media. Maybe labor can get the gestapo out and investigate the people. Investigate and manipulate why the people hate them. Maybe create some gas chambers for possible future use. What like Howard & the 2 year AFP investigation into who leaked the proposal to cut TPI pensions. Funny how the media needed scrutiny & regulations then but not now. 2 Reporters brought to court to reveal sources, apparently OK back then , but now you can write what you want & Tony will back you, hell he even wants you to be able to publish in a daily paper. Lets have a go shall we: ABBOTT RAPES DOG The Coalition today is trying to downplay reports from un-named senior liberal figures about an incident at a Liberal fundraising event on the Gold coast. As the story has been told, after a few hours of your normal pressing of the flesh and drinks , it would seem the heady intoxication of mutual love in the room became to much for the Opposition Leader. After meeting with a Mr Newman on table 10 who is blind with an assistance dog Mr Abbott took  the animals apparent delight at being rubbed behind the ears as a sign of something more. Reports on what followed are hazy but what is in no doubt is that Mr Newmans assistance dog is now in the GC Vet clinic with a ruptured anus, and Mr Abbott has gone to ground refusing all applications to clear his name on this matter. Gold Coast police are continuing to investigate & are interviewing all present. Those in attendance are reminded that destruction of photographic evidence is a felony. To quote the man himself Quote: but a "hurt feelings" test is impossible to comply with while maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth which should be the hallmark of a society such as ours.

lol and it went nowhere as the dog is closed lipped about it.

A leak of a document is not the same as 'why the voting public hate labor/gillard'

namnugenot wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:33pm:

If you don't like what the media write don't buy their papers. If you don't like what they say on the radio don't listen. If you don't like what you see on the TV then watch something else, or turn it off and do something else. If you have to worry about what everyone else reading, listening and watching then you have a problem. It must be frustrating.  :)

yep, good advice.  well said

Abbott should be charged for this, I hope the dog is ok, though I've heard from a slapper that knows phony Tony that he wouldn't have touched the sides of the K9 .

where will we turn for information


without the MEDIA??

just answer me that smithy?


not so very long ago the left were aghast at the thought of internet censorship in fact some of you declared you would never vote for Conroys  censorship...


can you tell me exactly what the difference is..

we already know the govt of the day can listen to anyone or everything ???? lets not pretend otherwise..

if you dont believe that then thats your prerogative.

but believe me if we all had microchips it could not be worse..

they tell us all the cameras around the country are to protect us from ourselves...... ok believe that if you will..


at least lets have a freedom of the media...if I thought for one moment all media was in the control of some bloody faceless bureaucrat.

then goodbye the Australia I know hello Nth Korea.


I agree, dont like the news as it is printed in our papers find one that appeals to you.. but dont confuse reading with what you like to read with being the truth thats all.

I think I get  pretty rounded picture of whats going on I watch SBS ABC and usually 10 news.. I read newspapers as well..

I do not want to read one persons opinion like Crikey or Getup.. owned by one person with one agenda...I do not begrudge you lefties reading them though..thats the difference.

skippy. wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

Abbott should be charged for this, I hope the dog is ok, though I've heard from a slapper that knows phony Tony that he wouldn't have touched the sides of the K9 .

probably shouldnt say this skip.. but you just aint funny

these one liners of yours are crook mate maybe you should try a different forum where your sense of humor will be appreciated..

skippy. wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

Abbott should be charged for this, I hope the dog is ok, though I've heard from a slapper that knows phony Tony that he wouldn't have touched the sides of the K9 .

Looks like you have picked up a Canberra flea Skip.  Time for the Advantage dose.    Only $5.50 if you have a pension card.     A lot more for those of us not on the public teat

cods wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 5:41pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 5:32pm: Abbott should be charged for this, I hope the dog is ok, though I've heard from a slapper that knows phony Tony that he wouldn't have touched the sides of the K9 . probably shouldnt say this skip.. but you just aint funny these one liners of yours are crook mate maybe you should try a different forum where your sense of humor will be appreciated..

Typical righty, my thoughts are with the dog at this time yet all you can do is make light of the situation. >:(

The Gillard Government trying to silence free speech and dissent again - any Australian citizen has the right to defend themselves against Gillards political thuggery by initiating legal action against her personally as they would anyone harassing or bullying them and overriding their legal rights. :) :)

skippy. wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 5:46pm:

cods wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 5:41pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 5:32pm: Abbott should be charged for this, I hope the dog is ok, though I've heard from a slapper that knows phony Tony that he wouldn't have touched the sides of the K9 . probably shouldnt say this skip.. but you just aint funny these one liners of yours are crook mate maybe you should try a different forum where your sense of humor will be appreciated.. Typical righty, my thoughts are with the dog at this time yet all you can do is make light of the situation. >:(

your thought are getting your own back.. what a hissy.light of what situation...

one of your own making... hilarious..


were you not one of those against internet censorship??? I remember a lot of wailing from the left when conroy told you to suck it up

LEFT-leading activist group GetUp! has condemned proposed Labor curbs on the media as an assault on freedom of speech.

Incoming GetUp! director Sam Mclean said the group could not support a new super media regulator or a public interest test for media proprietors, currently under consideration by the Gillard government…

“We believe in freedom of the press, and the model of regulation that has been put forward seems to us to cut across that important freedom.”

Agree.

How does allowing people like Andrew Bolt the right to racially vilify and degrade Aboriginal people by removing protection from the racial discrimination act count as free speech.....Australia has laws against inciting hatred against minorities.....Why does Abbott want to allow racism to be protected by free speech???

>:( >:( >:(

cods wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 5:38pm:

not so very long ago the left were aghast at the thought of internet censorship in fact some of you declared you would never vote for Conroys  censorship...

If you don't know the difference between censorship and regulations requiring truth in reporting then there's no point.

Just watch just about any episode of media watch (again filthy left leaning ABC program) to understand what is being proposed.

They take everyone to task including the ABC.

The media is more fearful of appearing on that show than ACMA, which is like saying your more worried about the local fat mall security than the riot squad.

here's some reading for you if you care.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4022628.html

some salient points


Quote:

On the very first day of public hearings, in Melbourne on November 8, Mr Finkelstein categorically ruled out any return to a licensing regime for the print media when the idea was floated by Stephen Mayne, the journalist and shareholder activist. He said that licensing meant the government decreeing who is able to publish news, which, he said, "is as close as going back to the Dark Ages as you could find" as it represents "probably as extreme an encroachment on news dissemination as you could get" (Transcript, 8 November, p 99-100). This is relevant in the light of the dire extrapolations made about the inquiry report's recommendations.

Quote:

Dennis Pearce was chair of the Press Council between 1998 and 2000 and apart from being an emeritus professor of law at ANU he has also been Commonwealth ombudsman. In his presentation he described as "disgraceful" a decision by The Australian to refuse to publish an adjudication by the council about a complaint and in fact to withdraw from the council for several months (Transcript, 9 November, p 191).

Quote:

Mr Greg Hywood, the chief executive of Fairfax Media, was unable to explain why news media companies could satisfactorily put in place Chinese walls between their editorial and their advertising departments to ensure that governments, which are major advertisers with newspapers, could not influence editorial policy, but that a regulatory body with even partial government funding would be inevitably and irretrievably compromised.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3478634.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3446228.htm

Dnarever wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

Yes Tnoy it is an insult to the core of our beliefs if people Like Bolt do not have a free reign to their dishonest racial abuse and the freedom to abuse vilify and lible who ever they like.

Well, it is a FREE press you know??? Or would you rather live in North Korea, where televisions and radios come pre-programmed to show state-run channels only - if you can afford one.

Sections of the main stream media have become propaganda outlets with no relationship to any legitimate reporting and holding no journalistic standards.

i think the australian media is quite good for news.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

i think the australian media is quite good for news.

You have nothing to make a comparison on.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 7:01pm: i think the australian media is quite good for news. You have nothing to make a comparison on.

My history and experience

Avram Horowitz wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 7:52pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 7:01pm: i think the australian media is quite good for news. You have nothing to make a comparison on. My history and experience

like he said, you have nothing ....

namnugenot wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:33pm:

If you don't like what the media write don't buy their papers. If you don't like what they say on the radio don't listen. If you don't like what you see on the TV then watch something else, or turn it off and do something else. If you have to worry about what everyone else reading, listening and watching then you have a problem. It must be frustrating.  :)

So where do I go for my news? I should be able to watch any news or a current affairs programme and know that what they are telling me is in fact the truth, and not an opinion .......

John Smith wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 8:53pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm: If you don't like what the media write don't buy their papers. If you don't like what they say on the radio don't listen. If you don't like what you see on the TV then watch something else, or turn it off and do something else. If you have to worry about what everyone else reading, listening and watching then you have a problem. It must be frustrating.  :) So where do I go for my news? I should be able to watch any news or a current affairs programme and know that what they are telling me is in fact the truth, and not an opinion .......

That's the problem, a lot of people that are not that bright about  where they gain their information from and take the word of shock jocks and tabloid toads, like  Piers Akerman as gospel.

skippy. wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:53pm: namnugenot wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm: If you don't like what the media write don't buy their papers. If you don't like what they say on the radio don't listen. If you don't like what you see on the TV then watch something else, or turn it off and do something else. If you have to worry about what everyone else reading, listening and watching then you have a problem. It must be frustrating.  :) So where do I go for my news? I should be able to watch any news or a current affairs programme and know that what they are telling me is in fact the truth, and not an opinion ....... That's the problem, a lot of people that are not that bright about  where they gain their information from and take the word of shock jocks and tabloid toads, like  Piers Akerman as gospel.

So what? That's their personal choice.

You are a totalitarian if you think the Government should be making those decisions for people.

Scary.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 6:33pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:07pm: Yes Tnoy it is an insult to the core of our beliefs if people Like Bolt do not have a free reign to their dishonest racial abuse and the freedom to abuse vilify and lible who ever they like. Well, it is a FREE press you know??? Or would you rather live in North Korea, where televisions and radios come pre-programmed to show state-run channels only - if you can afford one.

You just don't get it do you? Let's see.

For example, would you be happy if I were to get a job as a journalist for News Corp and start writing opinion pieces? Yes me, your beloved Gist. I have some small experience (believe it or not) and I can give Rupert assurances that his circulation will increase on the back of my pieces.

Mind you my stories could make smithy's example look like Sunday at a parish picnic but what they heck. It's a free press! I should be able to say what I like... and I will... I can guarantee you I will...

Of course you righties may not be impressed with what I may say. But I'm sure you would stand up for News' right to freedom from censorship. Wouldn't you??

Please let me know ASAP! I've got an application form right here all ready to send off...

Shane B wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:08pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:05pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:53pm: namnugenot wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm: If you don't like what the media write don't buy their papers. If you don't like what they say on the radio don't listen. If you don't like what you see on the TV then watch something else, or turn it off and do something else. If you have to worry about what everyone else reading, listening and watching then you have a problem. It must be frustrating.  :) So where do I go for my news? I should be able to watch any news or a current affairs programme and know that what they are telling me is in fact the truth, and not an opinion ....... That's the problem, a lot of people that are not that bright about  where they gain their information from and take the word of shock jocks and tabloid toads, like  Piers Akerman as gospel. So what? That's their personal choice. You are a totalitarian if you think the Government should be making those decisions for people. Scary.

What choice? If they don't tell you it's an opinion, how do you know to turn the channel (or buy another paper etc) ? I shouldn't have to know the political persuasion of every single reporter to be able to get the news .. i just want news .. I'm happy for them to have their opinions, but keep it in the opinion coloumns and not on the front page presenting it as factual .

Shane B wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:08pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:05pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:53pm: namnugenot wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm: If you don't like what the media write don't buy their papers. If you don't like what they say on the radio don't listen. If you don't like what you see on the TV then watch something else, or turn it off and do something else. If you have to worry about what everyone else reading, listening and watching then you have a problem. It must be frustrating.  :) So where do I go for my news? I should be able to watch any news or a current affairs programme and know that what they are telling me is in fact the truth, and not an opinion ....... That's the problem, a lot of people that are not that bright about  where they gain their information from and take the word of shock jocks and tabloid toads, like  Piers Akerman as gospel. So what? That's their personal choice. You are a totalitarian if you think the Government should be making those decisions for people. Scary.

And it's not about the government making decisions ... it's about truth in what they claim to represent , you write what you bloody well want to write, just don't pretend its a story, when all it's an honest representation of a story when all it is is an opinion ...... if you were a investment broker who treated his clients the way the media treats the viewing public the investment broker would be in jail .

Shane B wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:08pm:

So what? That's their personal choice. You are a totalitarian if you think the Government should be making those decisions for people. Scary.

That's not the problem!

God! Why do I have to explain every little thing to you people?

The problem is that there is little to nothing to differentiate what is fact and what is fiction in the news media. So your average Joe on the street who doesn't sit on ozpol half of every day of his wasted life like you and I do and who doesn't know what is going on will absorb the fiction as though it is fact.

Nobody has any problem with news media publishing opinion pieces by front bottoms like Bolt if that's what they choose to do. But it needs to be obvious that the contents of that article are twatspeak. That they are the completely biased opinions of a bigot.

The articles should not be published as though it is in any way FACT.

Gist wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:13pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 6:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:07pm: Yes Tnoy it is an insult to the core of our beliefs if people Like Bolt do not have a free reign to their dishonest racial abuse and the freedom to abuse vilify and lible who ever they like. Well, it is a FREE press you know??? Or would you rather live in North Korea, where televisions and radios come pre-programmed to show state-run channels only - if you can afford one. You just don't get it do you? Let's see. For example, would you be happy if I were to get a job as a journalist for News Corp and start writing opinion pieces? Yes me, your beloved Gist. I have some small experience (believe it or not) and I can give Rupert assurances that his circulation will increase on the back of my pieces. Mind you my stories could make smithy's example look like Sunday at a parish picnic but what they heck. It's a free press! I should be able to say what I like... and I will... I can guarantee you I will... Of course you righties may not be impressed with what I may say. But I'm sure you would stand up for News' right to freedom from censorship. Wouldn't you?? Please let me know ASAP! I've got an application form right here all ready to send off...

No-one would read more than 2 of your articles, just to give you a go. You would be fired within the month.

Lefties dont get ratings, they get governments to force people to read your crap.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:20pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:13pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 6:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:07pm: Yes Tnoy it is an insult to the core of our beliefs if people Like Bolt do not have a free reign to their dishonest racial abuse and the freedom to abuse vilify and lible who ever they like. Well, it is a FREE press you know??? Or would you rather live in North Korea, where televisions and radios come pre-programmed to show state-run channels only - if you can afford one. You just don't get it do you? Let's see. For example, would you be happy if I were to get a job as a journalist for News Corp and start writing opinion pieces? Yes me, your beloved Gist. I have some small experience (believe it or not) and I can give Rupert assurances that his circulation will increase on the back of my pieces. Mind you my stories could make smithy's example look like Sunday at a parish picnic but what they heck. It's a free press! I should be able to say what I like... and I will... I can guarantee you I will... Of course you righties may not be impressed with what I may say. But I'm sure you would stand up for News' right to freedom from censorship. Wouldn't you?? Please let me know ASAP! I've got an application form right here all ready to send off... No-one would read more than 2 of your articles, just to give you a go. You would be fired within the month. Lefties dont get ratings, they get governments to force people to read your crap.

so you respond to that, but refuse to respond to anything that resembles logical discussion ... why don't you stick to the issue? (by the way, thats my opinion)

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:20pm:

No-one would read more than 2 of your articles, just to give you a go. You would be fired within the month. Lefties dont get ratings, they get governments to force people to read your crap.

And yet all we heard during Howards rein(and we still do when one of the few negative stories on libs appear) was how baised the ABC is, how it's funding should be stripped.
You are all for government intervention when the stories aren't going your way but scream blue bloody murder when your hacks in the press are called to account.

I'm not crying because of the negative press Labors got, they deserve quite a bit of it, and thats just it you don't need to omit or make sh!t up the truth and the whole story would, although admittedly it wouldn't be as juicy or as bad, do a satisfactory job.

Remember the worm does turn and Tony if he gets the gig has alot to live up to, heaven help him if he fails.

The media is so tough on Abbott but always give Gillard a free ride. Bias at its worst.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:20pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:13pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 6:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:07pm: Yes Tnoy it is an insult to the core of our beliefs if people Like Bolt do not have a free reign to their dishonest racial abuse and the freedom to abuse vilify and lible who ever they like. Well, it is a FREE press you know??? Or would you rather live in North Korea, where televisions and radios come pre-programmed to show state-run channels only - if you can afford one. You just don't get it do you? Let's see. For example, would you be happy if I were to get a job as a journalist for News Corp and start writing opinion pieces? Yes me, your beloved Gist. I have some small experience (believe it or not) and I can give Rupert assurances that his circulation will increase on the back of my pieces. Mind you my stories could make smithy's example look like Sunday at a parish picnic but what they heck. It's a free press! I should be able to say what I like... and I will... I can guarantee you I will... Of course you righties may not be impressed with what I may say. But I'm sure you would stand up for News' right to freedom from censorship. Wouldn't you?? Please let me know ASAP! I've got an application form right here all ready to send off... No-one would read more than 2 of your articles, just to give you a go. You would be fired within the month. Lefties dont get ratings, they get governments to force people to read your crap.

So you have no problem eh lolly? Cool! I've got a beauty linking Abbott to a known paedophile ring. Do you really think nobody will read it???

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:20pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:13pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 6:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:07pm: Yes Tnoy it is an insult to the core of our beliefs if people Like Bolt do not have a free reign to their dishonest racial abuse and the freedom to abuse vilify and lible who ever they like. Well, it is a FREE press you know??? Or would you rather live in North Korea, where televisions and radios come pre-programmed to show state-run channels only - if you can afford one. You just don't get it do you? Let's see. For example, would you be happy if I were to get a job as a journalist for News Corp and start writing opinion pieces? Yes me, your beloved Gist. I have some small experience (believe it or not) and I can give Rupert assurances that his circulation will increase on the back of my pieces. Mind you my stories could make smithy's example look like Sunday at a parish picnic but what they heck. It's a free press! I should be able to say what I like... and I will... I can guarantee you I will... Of course you righties may not be impressed with what I may say. But I'm sure you would stand up for News' right to freedom from censorship. Wouldn't you?? Please let me know ASAP! I've got an application form right here all ready to send off... No-one would read more than 2 of your articles, just to give you a go. You would be fired within the month. Lefties dont get ratings, they get governments to force people to read your crap.

I think the fact that you yourself continually read and respond to his posts proves that people will read it .. after all, most of them are smarter than you and you read it ....

Shane B wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:08pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:05pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:53pm: namnugenot wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm: If you don't like what the media write don't buy their papers. If you don't like what they say on the radio don't listen. If you don't like what you see on the TV then watch something else, or turn it off and do something else. If you have to worry about what everyone else reading, listening and watching then you have a problem. It must be frustrating.  :) So where do I go for my news? I should be able to watch any news or a current affairs programme and know that what they are telling me is in fact the truth, and not an opinion ....... That's the problem, a lot of people that are not that bright about  where they gain their information from and take the word of shock jocks and tabloid toads, like  Piers Akerman as gospel. So what? That's their personal choice. You are a totalitarian if you think the Government should be making those decisions for people. Scary.

No telling people how to think is the media's function, and if they do not believe tell them again and again till they do.

But that is OK when it is only the media using known and very effective brain washing techniques to put public opinion in line with their vested interests.

John Smith wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:14pm:

Shane B wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:08pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:05pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:53pm: namnugenot wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm: If you don't like what the media write don't buy their papers. If you don't like what they say on the radio don't listen. If you don't like what you see on the TV then watch something else, or turn it off and do something else. If you have to worry about what everyone else reading, listening and watching then you have a problem. It must be frustrating.  :) So where do I go for my news? I should be able to watch any news or a current affairs programme and know that what they are telling me is in fact the truth, and not an opinion ....... That's the problem, a lot of people that are not that bright about  where they gain their information from and take the word of shock jocks and tabloid toads, like  Piers Akerman as gospel. So what? That's their personal choice. You are a totalitarian if you think the Government should be making those decisions for people. Scary. What choice? If they don't tell you it's an opinion, how do you know to turn the channel (or buy another paper etc) ? I shouldn't have to know the political persuasion of every single reporter to be able to get the news .. i just want news .. I'm happy for them to have their opinions, but keep it in the opinion coloumns and not on the front page presenting it as factual .

I see that apart from your usual anti labor rhetoric such as 'govt trying to stop free speach 'and all the other crap you go on about, you've got nothing...

I'd still like an answer on how can I watch or read the news knowing that what i am reading or watching is in actual fact the news, and not just some over paid reporters attempt at pushing his own or his bosses agenda or an opinion piece?

John Smith wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:33pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:20pm: Gist wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:13pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 6:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:07pm: Yes Tnoy it is an insult to the core of our beliefs if people Like Bolt do not have a free reign to their dishonest racial abuse and the freedom to abuse vilify and lible who ever they like. Well, it is a FREE press you know??? Or would you rather live in North Korea, where televisions and radios come pre-programmed to show state-run channels only - if you can afford one. You just don't get it do you? Let's see. For example, would you be happy if I were to get a job as a journalist for News Corp and start writing opinion pieces? Yes me, your beloved Gist. I have some small experience (believe it or not) and I can give Rupert assurances that his circulation will increase on the back of my pieces. Mind you my stories could make smithy's example look like Sunday at a parish picnic but what they heck. It's a free press! I should be able to say what I like... and I will... I can guarantee you I will... Of course you righties may not be impressed with what I may say. But I'm sure you would stand up for News' right to freedom from censorship. Wouldn't you?? Please let me know ASAP! I've got an application form right here all ready to send off... No-one would read more than 2 of your articles, just to give you a go. You would be fired within the month. Lefties dont get ratings, they get governments to force people to read your crap. I think the fact that you yourself continually read and respond to his posts proves that people will read it .. after all, most of them are smarter than you and you read it ....

I am talking about ratings. ABC is not rated in comparison to other networks, news ect, so they are out. Any left leaning media tend to fall to the side against a centre - right media. That is because Australians dont want to listen to your crap and you want government to force people to listen to your crap.

When it comes to the ABC is wanting them to be as neutral as possible, that is because they are a media on my dime.

Just because you cant compete, does not give you the right to become all totalitarian. We in Australia like the idea of majority rules. you keep getting under our feet and we will end up crushing you. Oh wait, that will not be too long in the future. Come on next election.

John Smith wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 10:59pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:14pm: Shane B wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:08pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:05pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:53pm: namnugenot wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm: If you don't like what the media write don't buy their papers. If you don't like what they say on the radio don't listen. If you don't like what you see on the TV then watch something else, or turn it off and do something else. If you have to worry about what everyone else reading, listening and watching then you have a problem. It must be frustrating.  :) So where do I go for my news? I should be able to watch any news or a current affairs programme and know that what they are telling me is in fact the truth, and not an opinion ....... That's the problem, a lot of people that are not that bright about  where they gain their information from and take the word of shock jocks and tabloid toads, like  Piers Akerman as gospel. So what? That's their personal choice. You are a totalitarian if you think the Government should be making those decisions for people. Scary. What choice? If they don't tell you it's an opinion, how do you know to turn the channel (or buy another paper etc) ? I shouldn't have to know the political persuasion of every single reporter to be able to get the news .. i just want news .. I'm happy for them to have their opinions, but keep it in the opinion coloumns and not on the front page presenting it as factual . I see that apart from your usual anti labor rhetoric such as 'govt trying to stop free speach 'and all the other crap you go on about, you've got nothing... I'd still like an answer on how can I watch or read the news knowing that what i am reading or watching is in actual fact the news, and not just some over paid reporters attempt at pushing his own or his bosses agenda or an opinion piece?

All this yammering and mouth breathing regarding facts versus opinion is just obfuscation.

Opinion pieces are usually filed under the opinion sections. Most people can discern the difference between the two. We don't need the nanny state to do that.

Shane B wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 11:36pm:

All this yammering and mouth breathing regarding facts versus opinion is just obfuscation. Opinion pieces are usually filed under the opinion sections. Most people can discern the difference between the two. We don't need the nanny state to do that.

Are they? Gawd, I must be going blind... here's the SMH f'rinstance:

http://www.smh.com.au/

I can see National, Business, World, Sports, Property sections. Even a car section and a executive lifestyle section. Can't see the Opinion section.

Daily Smellograph (I feel unclean just visiting it) http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ and same story - I can't see any Opinion section.

Can you help me out and point me to it please?

The media has an obligation to report the news but accurately criticize the leaders and parties.

The problem today in Australia is that you have two leaders who are complete and utter clowns.

Gillard has been an outright disaster and cannot connect with the people at all.

Abbott is a good opposition attack dog but completely bereft of any idea of how to take the country forward.

What a terrific choice.

It needs Richard Pryor to come and run his "none of the above" campaign.

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 6:29pm:

How does allowing people like Andrew Bolt the right to racially vilify and degrade Aboriginal people by removing protection from the racial discrimination act count as free speech.....Australia has laws against inciting hatred against minorities.....Why does Abbott want to allow racism to be protected by free speech??? >:( >:( >:(

The so called Abo’s were only upset that their money ticket was being questioned. ::)

FriYAY wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 12:42pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 6:29pm: How does allowing people like Andrew Bolt the right to racially vilify and degrade Aboriginal people by removing protection from the racial discrimination act count as free speech.....Australia has laws against inciting hatred against minorities.....Why does Abbott want to allow racism to be protected by free speech??? >:( >:( >:( The so called Abo’s were only upset that their money ticket was being questioned. DS

Rubbish - Bolt clearly named people making obviously untrue derogitory claims about them.

He was very lucky that they didn't go after him for defamation and compensation as well.

Why do you think his own media outlet shut him down in the end -

Dnarever wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 2:15pm:

FriYAY wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 12:42pm: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 6:29pm: How does allowing people like Andrew Bolt the right to racially vilify and degrade Aboriginal people by removing protection from the racial discrimination act count as free speech.....Australia has laws against inciting hatred against minorities.....Why does Abbott want to allow racism to be protected by free speech??? >:( >:( >:( The so called Abo’s were only upset that their money ticket was being questioned. DS Rubbish - Bolt clearly named people making obviously untrue derogitory claims about them. He was very lucky that they didn't go after him for defamation and compensation as well. Why do you think his own media outlet shut him down in the end -

Oh boohoo. I say he was right. Most of these people are parasites that do nothing for indigenous people. They are in it for what they can get for themselves and they’ll claim black/white when it suits.

Bolt no longer writes for the Herald Sun! Or are you deliberately being misleading to make a point? – calm down, you are hysterical (both meanings)

;D :o ;D :o ;D :o ;D :o ;D :o

::)

Shane B wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 11:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 10:59pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:14pm: Shane B wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:08pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:05pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:53pm: namnugenot wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm: If you don't like what the media write don't buy their papers. If you don't like what they say on the radio don't listen. If you don't like what you see on the TV then watch something else, or turn it off and do something else. If you have to worry about what everyone else reading, listening and watching then you have a problem. It must be frustrating.  :) So where do I go for my news? I should be able to watch any news or a current affairs programme and know that what they are telling me is in fact the truth, and not an opinion ....... That's the problem, a lot of people that are not that bright about  where they gain their information from and take the word of shock jocks and tabloid toads, like  Piers Akerman as gospel. So what? That's their personal choice. You are a totalitarian if you think the Government should be making those decisions for people. Scary. What choice? If they don't tell you it's an opinion, how do you know to turn the channel (or buy another paper etc) ? I shouldn't have to know the political persuasion of every single reporter to be able to get the news .. i just want news .. I'm happy for them to have their opinions, but keep it in the opinion coloumns and not on the front page presenting it as factual . I see that apart from your usual anti labor rhetoric such as 'govt trying to stop free speach 'and all the other crap you go on about, you've got nothing... I'd still like an answer on how can I watch or read the news knowing that what i am reading or watching is in actual fact the news, and not just some over paid reporters attempt at pushing his own or his bosses agenda or an opinion piece? All this yammering and mouth breathing regarding facts versus opinion is just obfuscation. Opinion pieces are usually filed under the opinion sections. Most people can discern the difference between the two. We don't need the nanny state to do that.

what an absolute load of codswallop ...do you really believe that or are you just trying to provoke a reaction? ... a lot of journalist deliberately try to make more hazy the distinction between opinion and fact in an attempt to convince the reader / viewer that what they are saying is fact rather than opinion ... if they left the opinions in the opinions section, we wouldn't be having this discussion

Gist wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

Shane B wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 11:36pm: All this yammering and mouth breathing regarding facts versus opinion is just obfuscation. Opinion pieces are usually filed under the opinion sections. Most people can discern the difference between the two. We don't need the nanny state to do that. Are they? Gawd, I must be going blind... here's the SMH f'rinstance: http://www.smh.com.au/ I can see National, Business, World, Sports, Property sections. Even a car section and a executive lifestyle section. Can't see the Opinion section. Daily Smellograph (I feel unclean just visiting it) http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ and same story - I can't see any Opinion section. Can you help me out and point me to it please?

You mean you actually have to be TOLD the difference between an opinion peice and factual reporting? Are you seriously suggesting that you ability to comprehend the meaning of words and paragraphs is so limited that you are unsure which is which?

Dnarever wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 2:15pm:

FriYAY wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 12:42pm: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 6:29pm: How does allowing people like Andrew Bolt the right to racially vilify and degrade Aboriginal people by removing protection from the racial discrimination act count as free speech.....Australia has laws against inciting hatred against minorities.....Why does Abbott want to allow racism to be protected by free speech??? >:( >:( >:( The so called Abo’s were only upset that their money ticket was being questioned. DS Rubbish - Bolt clearly named people making obviously untrue derogitory claims about them. He was very lucky that they didn't go after him for defamation and compensation as well. Why do you think his own media outlet shut him down in the end -

He made a number of factual errors in his article but the thrust of what he was saying remains true. Are aborigines lazy and driven by entitlement? A good question but apparently it is not permissible to answer in the affirmative.

John Smith wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 9:57pm:

Shane B wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 11:36pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 10:59pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:14pm: Shane B wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:08pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:05pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:53pm: namnugenot wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm: If you don't like what the media write don't buy their papers. If you don't like what they say on the radio don't listen. If you don't like what you see on the TV then watch something else, or turn it off and do something else. If you have to worry about what everyone else reading, listening and watching then you have a problem. It must be frustrating.  :) So where do I go for my news? I should be able to watch any news or a current affairs programme and know that what they are telling me is in fact the truth, and not an opinion ....... That's the problem, a lot of people that are not that bright about  where they gain their information from and take the word of shock jocks and tabloid toads, like  Piers Akerman as gospel. So what? That's their personal choice. You are a totalitarian if you think the Government should be making those decisions for people. Scary. What choice? If they don't tell you it's an opinion, how do you know to turn the channel (or buy another paper etc) ? I shouldn't have to know the political persuasion of every single reporter to be able to get the news .. i just want news .. I'm happy for them to have their opinions, but keep it in the opinion coloumns and not on the front page presenting it as factual . I see that apart from your usual anti labor rhetoric such as 'govt trying to stop free speach 'and all the other crap you go on about, you've got nothing... I'd still like an answer on how can I watch or read the news knowing that what i am reading or watching is in actual fact the news, and not just some over paid reporters attempt at pushing his own or his bosses agenda or an opinion piece? All this yammering and mouth breathing regarding facts versus opinion is just obfuscation. Opinion pieces are usually filed under the opinion sections. Most people can discern the difference between the two. We don't need the nanny state to do that. what an absolute load of codswallop ...do you really believe that or are you just trying to provoke a reaction? ... a lot of journalist deliberately try to make more hazy the distinction between opinion and fact in an attempt to convince the reader / viewer that what they are saying is fact rather than opinion ... if they left the opinions in the opinions section, we wouldn't be having this discussion

The media obviously believes that people have the capacity to tell the difference between a Bolt article and a factual reporting of events. If that is not in fact true then the people who cannot tell the difference should be denied the vote on the basis of diminished capacity.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 9:22am:

Gist wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:13am: Shane B wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 11:36pm: All this yammering and mouth breathing regarding facts versus opinion is just obfuscation. Opinion pieces are usually filed under the opinion sections. Most people can discern the difference between the two. We don't need the nanny state to do that. Are they? Gawd, I must be going blind... here's the SMH f'rinstance: http://www.smh.com.au/ I can see National, Business, World, Sports, Property sections. Even a car section and a executive lifestyle section. Can't see the Opinion section. Daily Smellograph (I feel unclean just visiting it) http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ and same story - I can't see any Opinion section. Can you help me out and point me to it please? You mean you actually have to be TOLD the difference between an opinion peice and factual reporting? Are you seriously suggesting that you ability to comprehend the meaning of words and paragraphs is so limited that you are unsure which is which?

Coming from somebody who continually tries to pass of his opinion as fact on a daily basis,now that's hilarious.

scope wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 9:41am:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 9:22am: Gist wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:13am: Shane B wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 11:36pm: All this yammering and mouth breathing regarding facts versus opinion is just obfuscation. Opinion pieces are usually filed under the opinion sections. Most people can discern the difference between the two. We don't need the nanny state to do that. Are they? Gawd, I must be going blind... here's the SMH f'rinstance: http://www.smh.com.au/ I can see National, Business, World, Sports, Property sections. Even a car section and a executive lifestyle section. Can't see the Opinion section. Daily Smellograph (I feel unclean just visiting it) http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ and same story - I can't see any Opinion section. Can you help me out and point me to it please? You mean you actually have to be TOLD the difference between an opinion peice and factual reporting? Are you seriously suggesting that you ability to comprehend the meaning of words and paragraphs is so limited that you are unsure which is which? Coming from somebody who continually tries to pass of his opinion as fact on a daily basis,now that's hilarious.

Did your mother write that for you or did you come up with it all by yourself? Feel free to combat my facts with your own, but in the absence of that, your complaint is pathetic. Lets face it, your labor supporters dont like facts because they all reveal the depth of your incompetence.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 10:05am:

Did your mother write that for you or did you come up with it all by yourself? Feel free to combat my facts with your own, but in the absence of that, your complaint is pathetic. Lets face it, your labor supporters dont like facts because they all reveal the depth of your incompetence.

And so we will. IF you should ever come up with any facts. Not the hint of any from you so far though longliar.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 9:22am:

Gist wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:13am: Shane B wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 11:36pm: All this yammering and mouth breathing regarding facts versus opinion is just obfuscation. Opinion pieces are usually filed under the opinion sections. Most people can discern the difference between the two. We don't need the nanny state to do that. Are they? Gawd, I must be going blind... here's the SMH f'rinstance: http://www.smh.com.au/ I can see National, Business, World, Sports, Property sections. Even a car section and a executive lifestyle section. Can't see the Opinion section. Daily Smellograph (I feel unclean just visiting it) http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ and same story - I can't see any Opinion section. Can you help me out and point me to it please? You mean you actually have to be TOLD the difference between an opinion peice and factual reporting? Are you seriously suggesting that you ability to comprehend the meaning of words and paragraphs is so limited that you are unsure which is which?

Not when it comes from you because then I know it's completely horse manure. But when a supposedly reliable journalist writes an article in a supposedly respectable paper informing me about events that I have absolutely no knowledge of then YES, I expect to be told if he's just making crap up. Otherwise how would I know?

I cant emphasize enough that Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard, Greg Combet, Sarah Hanson-Young, Milne, Adam Bandt and Tasmanian Premier Lara Gidding are just citizens like you, so if they are abusing their power in the parliament, imposing their personal ethics and ideological beliefs and violating your constitutional rights with massive reforms by by passing the appropriate constitutional mechanisms like referendums then sue their feaking 'rses off!!!! :) :)

FriYAY wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 2:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 2:15pm: FriYAY wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 12:42pm: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 6:29pm: How does allowing people like Andrew Bolt the right to racially vilify and degrade Aboriginal people by removing protection from the racial discrimination act count as free speech.....Australia has laws against inciting hatred against minorities.....Why does Abbott want to allow racism to be protected by free speech??? 3DS The so called Abo’s were only upset that their money ticket was being questioned. DS Rubbish - Bolt clearly named people making obviously untrue derogitory claims about them. He was very lucky that they didn't go after him for defamation and compensation as well. Why do you think his own media outlet shut him down in the end - Oh boohoo. I say he was right. Most of these people are parasites that do nothing for indigenous people. They are in it for what they can get for themselves and they’ll claim black/white when it suits. Bolt no longer writes for the Herald Sun! Or are you deliberately being misleading to make a point? – calm down, you are hysterical (both meanings) 11DS

I say he was right

Too bad that the Judge said he was wrong and it very obviously the case.

So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty?

Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party?

Gist wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 10:15am:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 9:22am: Gist wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:13am: Shane B wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 11:36pm: All this yammering and mouth breathing regarding facts versus opinion is just obfuscation. Opinion pieces are usually filed under the opinion sections. Most people can discern the difference between the two. We don't need the nanny state to do that. Are they? Gawd, I must be going blind... here's the SMH f'rinstance: http://www.smh.com.au/ I can see National, Business, World, Sports, Property sections. Even a car section and a executive lifestyle section. Can't see the Opinion section. Daily Smellograph (I feel unclean just visiting it) http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ and same story - I can't see any Opinion section. Can you help me out and point me to it please? You mean you actually have to be TOLD the difference between an opinion peice and factual reporting? Are you seriously suggesting that you ability to comprehend the meaning of words and paragraphs is so limited that you are unsure which is which? Not when it comes from you because then I know it's completely horse manure. But when a supposedly reliable journalist writes an article in a supposedly respectable paper informing me about events that I have absolutely no knowledge of then YES, I expect to be told if he's just making crap up. Otherwise how would I know?

Im serious. You are actually admitting that unless there is a disclaimer 'this is an opinion peice' you cant tell the difference between factual reporting and opinion? I must admit to being astonished. I know that you display some truly apalling comprehension difficulties on here, but I thought it was an act. I didnt think anyone could be so uneducated and so obtuse to comprehend so poorly. Cleary I was wrong. You really DONT get what most people are saying. Hmmm... I wonder if that's skippy's problem as well?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 12:39pm:

So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty? Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party?

There are a hundred different examples of laws being changed on the basis of one event. Whether Bolts case is justifiable or not, there is massive precedence for legislation based on a single outcome or application of existing law.

Remember that Bolt was found guilty of some factual errors - not the thrust of his article. Thats not the same as wholesale repudiation of his message.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:39pm: So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty? Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party? There are a hundred different examples of laws being changed on the basis of one event. Whether Bolts case is justifiable or not, there is massive precedence for legislation based on a single outcome or application of existing law. Remember that Bolt was found guilty of some factual errors - not the thrust of his article. Thats not the same as wholesale repudiation of his message.

Why does Abbott continue to use him as the example then??
"Hurt Feelings" is the wording he sprouts, is the issue he talks about with Bolt.

Quote:

Let's be clear: insulting, humiliating or intimidating others on any grounds, racial or otherwise, is deplorable but a "hurt feelings" test is impossible to comply with while maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth which should be the hallmark of a society such as ours. The article for which Bolt was prosecuted under this legislation was almost certainly not his finest. Still, if free speech is to mean anything, it's the freedom to write badly and rudely. Speech that has to be inoffensive is not free, just unerringly politically correct. If it's all right for David Marr to upset conservative Christians, why is it not all right for Bolt to upset activist Aborigines?

The numpty can't even get his arguments straight.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 12:42pm:

Im serious. You are actually admitting that unless there is a disclaimer 'this is an opinion peice' you cant tell the difference between factual reporting and opinion? I must admit to being astonished. I know that you display some truly apalling comprehension difficulties on here, but I thought it was an act. I didnt think anyone could be so uneducated and so obtuse to comprehend so poorly. Cleary I was wrong. You really DONT get what most people are saying. Hmmm... I wonder if that's skippy's problem as well?

Well longdope, I can tell you that I have two university degrees in two very different areas. At least one of those degrees assures me that there is no problem with my comprehension but yours is in considerable doubt, particularly given your complete inability to frame a sentence.

Now... is that fact or opinion? Surely you can tell the difference.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:39pm: So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty? Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party? There are a hundred different examples of laws being changed on the basis of one event. Whether Bolts case is justifiable or not, there is massive precedence for legislation based on a single outcome or application of existing law. Remember that Bolt was found guilty of some factual errors - not the thrust of his article. Thats not the same as wholesale repudiation of his message.

He was found guilty of making derogitary statments about people which were untrue.

I would think that the thrust of his story was very much diminished when we found that he needed to tell lies about people in order to support his opinion.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:44pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:39pm: So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty? Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party? There are a hundred different examples of laws being changed on the basis of one event. Whether Bolts case is justifiable or not, there is massive precedence for legislation based on a single outcome or application of existing law. Remember that Bolt was found guilty of some factual errors - not the thrust of his article. Thats not the same as wholesale repudiation of his message. Why does Abbott continue to use him as the example then?? "Hurt Feelings" is the wording he sprouts, is the issue he talks about with Bolt. Quote: Let's be clear: insulting, humiliating or intimidating others on any grounds, racial or otherwise, is deplorable but a "hurt feelings" test is impossible to comply with while maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth which should be the hallmark of a society such as ours. The article for which Bolt was prosecuted under this legislation was almost certainly not his finest. Still, if free speech is to mean anything, it's the freedom to write badly and rudely. Speech that has to be inoffensive is not free, just unerringly politically correct. If it's all right for David Marr to upset conservative Christians, why is it not all right for Bolt to upset activist Aborigines? The numpty can't even get his arguments straight.

Im not sure why you are getting your panties in a twist over Abbott supporting Bolt. Is he not permitted to agree with a media person? Is not one of the most fundamental rights we have the right to express an opinion?  Sometimes Bolt is wrong, most times right. Alan Jones is only ever right by accident.

Would you be having the same angst if Gillard was supporting an opinion writer who liked her? The problem is that even the labor-leaning Laurie Oakes cant find anything credibly positive to say about her. well thats not Bolts fault and it certainly isnt Abbott's.

Gist wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:42pm: Im serious. You are actually admitting that unless there is a disclaimer 'this is an opinion peice' you cant tell the difference between factual reporting and opinion? I must admit to being astonished. I know that you display some truly apalling comprehension difficulties on here, but I thought it was an act. I didnt think anyone could be so uneducated and so obtuse to comprehend so poorly. Cleary I was wrong. You really DONT get what most people are saying. Hmmm... I wonder if that's skippy's problem as well? Well longdope, I can tell you that I have two university degrees in two very different areas. At least one of those degrees assures me that there is no problem with my comprehension but yours is in considerable doubt, particularly given your complete inability to frame a sentence. Now... is that fact or opinion? Surely you can tell the difference.

Claims of education in a forum like this are utterly worthless as you can be like lastnail and bobby forever claiming this or that. The real validation of such claims is the content and conduct of your posting. That is what reveals your charcter as well as your education.

You have demonstrated truly lamentable standards of comprehension, often completely misunderstanding the posters message and failing to get the thrust of the message. Also, your mathematical ability is at times truly primitive.

If you have a degree it could only be a BA in art history or something equally worthless like Gender Studies.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:07pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:50pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:44pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:39pm: So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty? Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party? There are a hundred different examples of laws being changed on the basis of one event. Whether Bolts case is justifiable or not, there is massive precedence for legislation based on a single outcome or application of existing law. Remember that Bolt was found guilty of some factual errors - not the thrust of his article. Thats not the same as wholesale repudiation of his message. Why does Abbott continue to use him as the example then?? "Hurt Feelings" is the wording he sprouts, is the issue he talks about with Bolt. Quote: Let's be clear: insulting, humiliating or intimidating others on any grounds, racial or otherwise, is deplorable but a "hurt feelings" test is impossible to comply with while maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth which should be the hallmark of a society such as ours. The article for which Bolt was prosecuted under this legislation was almost certainly not his finest. Still, if free speech is to mean anything, it's the freedom to write badly and rudely. Speech that has to be inoffensive is not free, just unerringly politically correct. If it's all right for David Marr to upset conservative Christians, why is it not all right for Bolt to upset activist Aborigines? The numpty can't even get his arguments straight. Im not sure why you are getting your panties in a twist over Abbott supporting Bolt. Is he not permitted to agree with a media person? Is not one of the most fundamental rights we have the right to express an opinion?  Sometimes Bolt is wrong, most times right. Alan Jones is only ever right by accident. Would you be having the same angst if Gillard was supporting an opinion writer who liked her? The problem is that even the labor-leaning Laurie Oakes cant find anything credibly positive to say about her. well thats not Bolts fault and it certainly isnt Abbott's.

I'm not, but his case is being put forward as an example as why we should change our racial vilification laws, by Abbott not me.
I support the main thrust of Flinklesteins report & it's recommendations.
You & Abbott don't, not on any intellectual grounds just that the media at this current time is pasting Gillard, pity you don't think beyond next week.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:12pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:51pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:42pm: Im serious. You are actually admitting that unless there is a disclaimer 'this is an opinion peice' you cant tell the difference between factual reporting and opinion? I must admit to being astonished. I know that you display some truly apalling comprehension difficulties on here, but I thought it was an act. I didnt think anyone could be so uneducated and so obtuse to comprehend so poorly. Cleary I was wrong. You really DONT get what most people are saying. Hmmm... I wonder if that's skippy's problem as well? Well longdope, I can tell you that I have two university degrees in two very different areas. At least one of those degrees assures me that there is no problem with my comprehension but yours is in considerable doubt, particularly given your complete inability to frame a sentence. Now... is that fact or opinion? Surely you can tell the difference. Claims of education in a forum like this are utterly worthless as you can be like lastnail and bobby forever claiming this or that. The real validation of such claims is the content and conduct of your posting. That is what reveals your charcter as well as your education. You have demonstrated truly lamentable standards of comprehension, often completely misunderstanding the posters message and failing to get the thrust of the message. Also, your mathematical ability is at times truly primitive. If you have a degree it could only be a BA in art history or something equally worthless like Gender Studies.

In other words, you don't have a feckin' clue. I could be telling the truth ... or completely making it up. How would you know? And of course you have absolutely every reason to doubt me so you are looking for the flaws.

Your Joe Blow reading the SMH or the Smellograph also wouldn't know what happened at a political rally in another city or on an asylum seeker boat out in the middle of the ocean. How would they know? They take the word of the journalist. And they are NOT on any guard. So if the journo tells them complete bullcrap how would they know?

Oh of course! The "context".  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:19pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:07pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:50pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:44pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:39pm: So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty? Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party? There are a hundred different examples of laws being changed on the basis of one event. Whether Bolts case is justifiable or not, there is massive precedence for legislation based on a single outcome or application of existing law. Remember that Bolt was found guilty of some factual errors - not the thrust of his article. Thats not the same as wholesale repudiation of his message. Why does Abbott continue to use him as the example then?? "Hurt Feelings" is the wording he sprouts, is the issue he talks about with Bolt. Quote: Let's be clear: insulting, humiliating or intimidating others on any grounds, racial or otherwise, is deplorable but a "hurt feelings" test is impossible to comply with while maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth which should be the hallmark of a society such as ours. The article for which Bolt was prosecuted under this legislation was almost certainly not his finest. Still, if free speech is to mean anything, it's the freedom to write badly and rudely. Speech that has to be inoffensive is not free, just unerringly politically correct. If it's all right for David Marr to upset conservative Christians, why is it not all right for Bolt to upset activist Aborigines? The numpty can't even get his arguments straight. Im not sure why you are getting your panties in a twist over Abbott supporting Bolt. Is he not permitted to agree with a media person? Is not one of the most fundamental rights we have the right to express an opinion?  Sometimes Bolt is wrong, most times right. Alan Jones is only ever right by accident. Would you be having the same angst if Gillard was supporting an opinion writer who liked her? The problem is that even the labor-leaning Laurie Oakes cant find anything credibly positive to say about her. well thats not Bolts fault and it certainly isnt Abbott's. I'm not, but his case is being put forward as an example as why we should change our racial vilification laws, by Abbott not me. I support the main thrust of Flinklesteins report & it's recommendations. You & Abbott don't, not on any intellectual grounds just that the media at this current time is pasting Gillard, pity you don't think beyond next week.

The time to do media regulation changes is not when youare a govt being hammered by all and sundry. You look petulant, sound mean-spirited and act like you are bad-losers. And that would be pretty hard to deny.

Australian media has its problems but by world standards we are pretty good. The enquiry sounds like an attempt by a woefully unpopular govt to minimise the exposure of its failings. The time to do things like that propose was under Rudd when he was mega popular, but funny enough... there were no problems with the media then.

Gillard sounds like a petulant child complaining about 'people talking about her'. WEll perhaps she could try doing something right, something popular or something competent. Then the media might actually have something nice to say about her. laurie Oakes is deserate for a good new story about her. As usual, Labor is shooting the messenger rather than improving the message.

Gist wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:22pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:12pm: Gist wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:51pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:42pm: Im serious. You are actually admitting that unless there is a disclaimer 'this is an opinion peice' you cant tell the difference between factual reporting and opinion? I must admit to being astonished. I know that you display some truly apalling comprehension difficulties on here, but I thought it was an act. I didnt think anyone could be so uneducated and so obtuse to comprehend so poorly. Cleary I was wrong. You really DONT get what most people are saying. Hmmm... I wonder if that's skippy's problem as well? Well longdope, I can tell you that I have two university degrees in two very different areas. At least one of those degrees assures me that there is no problem with my comprehension but yours is in considerable doubt, particularly given your complete inability to frame a sentence. Now... is that fact or opinion? Surely you can tell the difference. Claims of education in a forum like this are utterly worthless as you can be like lastnail and bobby forever claiming this or that. The real validation of such claims is the content and conduct of your posting. That is what reveals your charcter as well as your education. You have demonstrated truly lamentable standards of comprehension, often completely misunderstanding the posters message and failing to get the thrust of the message. Also, your mathematical ability is at times truly primitive. If you have a degree it could only be a BA in art history or something equally worthless like Gender Studies. In other words, you don't have a feckin' clue. I could be telling the truth ... or completely making it up. How would you know? And of course you have absolutely every reason to doubt me so you are looking for the flaws. Your Joe Blow reading the SMH or the Smellograph also wouldn't know what happened at a political rally in another city or on an asylum seeker boat out in the middle of the ocean. How would they know? They take the word of the journalist. And they are NOT on any guard. So if the journo tells them complete bullcrap how would they know? Oh of course! The "context".  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So was this your attempt to show the online world that you are a dual degreed educated intelligent person? If it was, it was an EPIC FAIL.

And surprise, surprise, I dont read the SMH or telegraph. That would require that I live in Sydney - which I dont.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:27pm:

So was this your attempt to show the online world that you are a dual degreed educated intelligent person? If it was, it was an EPIC FAIL. And surprise, surprise, I dont read the SMH or telegraph. That would require that I live in Sydney - which I dont.

Ah.. a complete lack of comprehension from you. No surprises there. Read it through slowly, sound out the words. It'll come to you sometime in the next decade I'm sure.

How are you going with your high school problem? Do you need to find a primary school kid to act as translator?

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:25pm:

The time to do media regulation changes is not when youare a govt being hammered by all and sundry. You look petulant, sound mean-spirited and act like you are bad-losers. And that would be pretty hard to deny. Australian media has its problems but by world standards we are pretty good. The enquiry sounds like an attempt by a woefully unpopular govt to minimise the exposure of its failings. The time to do things like that propose was under Rudd when he was mega popular, but funny enough... there were no problems with the media then. Gillard sounds like a petulant child complaining about 'people talking about her'. WEll perhaps she could try doing something right, something popular or something competent. Then the media might actually have something nice to say about her. laurie Oakes is deserate for a good new story about her. As usual, Labor is shooting the messenger rather than improving the message.

As will Abbott when & if he becomes PM & they turn on him.
You of course will support the Ministry of Truth that Abbott proposes because untruths,misleading articles & headlines are not in Australia's interest.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:47pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:25pm: The time to do media regulation changes is not when youare a govt being hammered by all and sundry. You look petulant, sound mean-spirited and act like you are bad-losers. And that would be pretty hard to deny. Australian media has its problems but by world standards we are pretty good. The enquiry sounds like an attempt by a woefully unpopular govt to minimise the exposure of its failings. The time to do things like that propose was under Rudd when he was mega popular, but funny enough... there were no problems with the media then. Gillard sounds like a petulant child complaining about 'people talking about her'. WEll perhaps she could try doing something right, something popular or something competent. Then the media might actually have something nice to say about her. laurie Oakes is deserate for a good new story about her. As usual, Labor is shooting the messenger rather than improving the message. As will Abbott when & if he becomes PM & they turn on him. You of course will support the Ministry of Truth that Abbott proposes because untruths,misleading articles & headlines are not in Australia's interest.

"if"?

Have you seen how far in front the lead is??

This is like Australia limbering up to take on the Jamaica 4x100m team....

They'll have a go, but everyone knows the result.

http://moroniclodge.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/andrew-bolt.jpg

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:49pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:47pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:25pm: The time to do media regulation changes is not when youare a govt being hammered by all and sundry. You look petulant, sound mean-spirited and act like you are bad-losers. And that would be pretty hard to deny. Australian media has its problems but by world standards we are pretty good. The enquiry sounds like an attempt by a woefully unpopular govt to minimise the exposure of its failings. The time to do things like that propose was under Rudd when he was mega popular, but funny enough... there were no problems with the media then. Gillard sounds like a petulant child complaining about 'people talking about her'. WEll perhaps she could try doing something right, something popular or something competent. Then the media might actually have something nice to say about her. laurie Oakes is deserate for a good new story about her. As usual, Labor is shooting the messenger rather than improving the message. As will Abbott when & if he becomes PM & they turn on him. You of course will support the Ministry of Truth that Abbott proposes because untruths,misleading articles & headlines are not in Australia's interest. "if"? Have you seen how far in front the lead is?? This is like Australia limbering up to take on the Jamaica 4x100m team.... They'll have a go, but everyone knows the result.

Its *if* alright. Aussies are stupid enough to vote for abbott. There is a year until another election - plenty of time. Polls are just of ppl that do polls. Prolly 500 ppl in his electorate or something.

SOB

Gotta love Bess Price...SBS Tuesday....

"Why don't you acknowledge the other heritage that you have and be proud of it and just not go one way?" asked Price.

"I can stand up and say I'm a blackfella and I've got one blood and that's it.

"But my daughter, whose (white) father is sitting next to me, she acknowledges the father and the other heritage that she has and she doesn't just say she's just a blackfella.

"And that has to happen in Australia so that we can all be honest and equal with each other and understanding because it creates that division ...

"Look, I didn't know you were a blackfella as well because I'm sitting here and you look totally like a whitefella to me."

;)