"Dog Whistle Politics" is the term used to describe the tactics of politicians who make seemingly innocuous remarks designed to raise anger certain sections of the voting community. The references pass most of us by, but for the voters the politician is aiming at the message is "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?" Sound familiar?

In their coverage of the recent budget, the Murdoch Media indulged itself in some dog whistle journalism.

Examples:

1. Constant use of the term "handout" when describing measures to help low and middle income families. The Courier Mail was a prime offender, using this emotive term over and over again, but only to describe support for low and middle income families. Other recipients of Government support received "payments" or "grants". "Handouts" apparently only go to the undeserving poor.

2. Use of the term "entitlement" as being negative, evoking the image of poor people demanding money from more well to do taxpayers. Idiot Paul Murray on Sky claimed Australia's main problem is that we have become "the entitlement society".

3. The term "class warfare", apparently based purely on a couple of silly throwaway lines by the PM about North Sydney.

The "class war" line seems to have been started by The Australian (who else?) and was quickly picked up by Sky News, which is just The Australian with moving pictures. It seems if you write for the Oz you have a special spot reserved for you on Sky.

Now it has become a mantra for the Liberal Party leaders, a move which is far more likely to divide Australians than anything Gillard could have said.

Flat earther
Denier
Bogan
Nazi

The left whistles pretty well.

Or are you just whistling?

You're confusing dog whistling with name calling. DW is much more subtle than that.

illegal boatpeople

SOB

My favourites are reserved for things like;
- Anti gay marriage - Instant homophobic, or religious nutjob
- Pro carbon tax - Extreme leftist
- Anti carbon tax - Extreme right

Nothing is just an opinion anymore, Ive been called extreme left, extreme right, a religious nut and a social apoligist on this site more times than I care to remember.  Being anti pre-committment on poker machines made me a man of the corporate machine and a rapist of the social fabic of community, even though I was for $1 max bets.

Its easier for those in debate to just throw a label.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/images/uploads/warren-brown-rudd-boat.gif

...let's kill foreigners, yeh: go hate propaganda!!!!

Peter Freedman wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 4:38pm:

"Dog Whistle Politics" is the term used to describe the tactics of politicians who make seemingly innocuous remarks designed to raise anger certain sections of the voting community. The references pass most of us by, but for the voters the politician is aiming at the message is "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?" Sound familiar? In their coverage of the recent budget, the Murdoch Media indulged itself in some dog whistle journalism. Examples: 1. Constant use of the term "handout" when describing measures to help low and middle income families. The Courier Mail was a prime offender, using this emotive term over and over again, but only to describe support for low and middle income families. Other recipients of Government support received "payments" or "grants". "Handouts" apparently only go to the undeserving poor. 2. Use of the term "entitlement" as being negative, evoking the image of poor people demanding money from more well to do taxpayers. Idiot Paul Murray on Sky claimed Australia's main problem is that we have become "the entitlement society". 3. The term "class warfare", apparently based purely on a couple of silly throwaway lines by the PM about North Sydney. The "class war" line seems to have been started by The Australian (who else?) and was quickly picked up by Sky News, which is just The Australian with moving pictures. It seems if you write for the Oz you have a special spot reserved for you on Sky. Now it has become a mantra for the Liberal Party leaders, a move which is far more likely to divide Australians than anything Gillard could have said.

Do you honestly believe that this is only applicable to the Liberals?

I have even been called Nazi for defending my country.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 8:35pm:

I have even been called Nazi for defending my country.

Hitler was a patriot, what is your point?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 4:38pm: "Dog Whistle Politics" is the term used to describe the tactics of politicians who make seemingly innocuous remarks designed to raise anger certain sections of the voting community. The references pass most of us by, but for the voters the politician is aiming at the message is "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?" Sound familiar? In their coverage of the recent budget, the Murdoch Media indulged itself in some dog whistle journalism. Examples: 1. Constant use of the term "handout" when describing measures to help low and middle income families. The Courier Mail was a prime offender, using this emotive term over and over again, but only to describe support for low and middle income families. Other recipients of Government support received "payments" or "grants". "Handouts" apparently only go to the undeserving poor. 2. Use of the term "entitlement" as being negative, evoking the image of poor people demanding money from more well to do taxpayers. Idiot Paul Murray on Sky claimed Australia's main problem is that we have become "the entitlement society". 3. The term "class warfare", apparently based purely on a couple of silly throwaway lines by the PM about North Sydney. The "class war" line seems to have been started by The Australian (who else?) and was quickly picked up by Sky News, which is just The Australian with moving pictures. It seems if you write for the Oz you have a special spot reserved for you on Sky. Now it has become a mantra for the Liberal Party leaders, a move which is far more likely to divide Australians than anything Gillard could have said. Do you honestly believe that this is only applicable to the Liberals?

Possibly not. But this is not just about the Liberals but also their media friends. Can you give me an example of where any other party has used this technique?

Peter Freedman wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:34pm:

Can you give me an example of where any other party has used this technique?

"Greedy, rich, xenophobic, racist, dog whistle, deniers, sceptics, uncompassionate",.......etc etc....all inflammatory political dialogue used by leftist journo wankers and politicians for the same schitt.... :(

Looks like some people dont understand the concept of "dog whistle".

Swagman wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 10:10pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:34pm: Can you give me an example of where any other party has used this technique? "Greedy, rich, xenophobic, racist, dog whistle, deniers, sceptics, uncompassionate",.......etc etc....all inflammatory political dialogue used by leftist journo wankers and politicians for the same schitt.... :(

Thanks for doing me the honours. I'd also add to that list progressive, tolerance, equality, diversity, and multiculturalism.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 8:35pm:

I have even been called Nazi for defending my country.

I have been called "antisemite" for asking questions about israel.

SOB

Peter Freedman wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 5:04pm:

You're confusing dog whistling with name calling. DW is much more subtle than that.

you mean because the right is so much cleverer than your beloved lefties?

darkhall67 wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 10:19pm:

Looks like some people dont understand the concept of "dog whistle".

Quite clearly they don't understand it. Dog whistle is NOT name calling. It is a subtle technique for sending messages to certain elements of the electorate using phrases which seem innocent enough but press the anger buttons of some people.

Like the use of the term "hand outs" for example. This sets off those who believe the poor are lazy, idle bludgers who always have their hands out for support from hardworking, industrious taxpayers. It is a subliminal message which is heard only by some voters, just as dogs hear a dog whistle that other animals cannot discern.

Peter Freedman wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:31am:

darkhall67 wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 10:19pm: Looks like some people dont understand the concept of "dog whistle". Quite clearly they don't understand it. Dog whistle is NOT name calling. It is a subtle technique for sending messages to certain elements of the electorate using phrases which seem innocent enough but press the anger buttons of some people. Like the use of the term "hand outs" for example. This sets off those who believe the poor are lazy, idle bludgers who always have their hands out for support from hardworking, industrious taxpayers. It is a subliminal message which is heard only by some voters, just as dogs hear a dog whistle that other animals cannot discern.

I understand it perfectly thank you very much.
The terms used by non-Liberals works in the exact same manner.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:49am:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:31am: darkhall67 wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 10:19pm: Looks like some people dont understand the concept of "dog whistle". Quite clearly they don't understand it. Dog whistle is NOT name calling. It is a subtle technique for sending messages to certain elements of the electorate using phrases which seem innocent enough but press the anger buttons of some people. Like the use of the term "hand outs" for example. This sets off those who believe the poor are lazy, idle bludgers who always have their hands out for support from hardworking, industrious taxpayers. It is a subliminal message which is heard only by some voters, just as dogs hear a dog whistle that other animals cannot discern. I understand it perfectly thank you very much. The terms used by non-Liberals works in the exact same manner.

And yet you are unable to provide examples.

darkhall67 wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 12:36pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:49am: Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:31am: darkhall67 wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 10:19pm: Looks like some people dont understand the concept of "dog whistle". Quite clearly they don't understand it. Dog whistle is NOT name calling. It is a subtle technique for sending messages to certain elements of the electorate using phrases which seem innocent enough but press the anger buttons of some people. Like the use of the term "hand outs" for example. This sets off those who believe the poor are lazy, idle bludgers who always have their hands out for support from hardworking, industrious taxpayers. It is a subliminal message which is heard only by some voters, just as dogs hear a dog whistle that other animals cannot discern. I understand it perfectly thank you very much. The terms used by non-Liberals works in the exact same manner. And yet you are unable to provide examples.

And yet, there are a dozen or so examples contained within post 12.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

Swagman wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 10:10pm: Peter Freedman wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:34pm: Can you give me an example of where any other party has used this technique? "Greedy, rich, xenophobic, racist, dog whistle, deniers, sceptics, uncompassionate",.......etc etc....all inflammatory political dialogue used by leftist journo wankers and politicians for the same schitt.... :( Thanks for doing me the honours. I'd also add to that list progressive, tolerance, equality, diversity, and multiculturalism.

Really? They look like normal words. What words would you use instead then? And who are the "leftist" journos I wouldl like to read some of them.

SOB

Peter Freedman wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:31am:

Dog whistle is NOT name calling. It is a subtle technique for sending messages to certain elements of the electorate using phrases which seem innocent enough but press the anger buttons of some people. Like the use of the term "hand outs" for example. This sets off those who believe the poor are lazy, idle bludgers who always have their hands out for support from hardworking, industrious taxpayers. It is a subliminal message which is heard only by some voters, just as dogs hear a dog whistle that other animals cannot discern.

Did you get a job or are you still unemployed?

The dole was never meant to be a lifestyle choice

Is that dog whistling or stating a fact?

Baronvonrort wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 2:01pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:31am: Dog whistle is NOT name calling. It is a subtle technique for sending messages to certain elements of the electorate using phrases which seem innocent enough but press the anger buttons of some people. Like the use of the term "hand outs" for example. This sets off those who believe the poor are lazy, idle bludgers who always have their hands out for support from hardworking, industrious taxpayers. It is a subliminal message which is heard only by some voters, just as dogs hear a dog whistle that other animals cannot discern. Did you get a job or are you still unemployed? The dole was never meant to be a lifestyle choice Is that dog whistling or stating a fact?

It is neither. Instead of attempting to construct an argument you resort, as usual, to personal abuse. Some things, and people, never change.

Peter Freedman wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 2:19pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 2:01pm: Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:31am: Dog whistle is NOT name calling. It is a subtle technique for sending messages to certain elements of the electorate using phrases which seem innocent enough but press the anger buttons of some people. Like the use of the term "hand outs" for example. This sets off those who believe the poor are lazy, idle bludgers who always have their hands out for support from hardworking, industrious taxpayers. It is a subliminal message which is heard only by some voters, just as dogs hear a dog whistle that other animals cannot discern. Did you get a job or are you still unemployed? The dole was never meant to be a lifestyle choice Is that dog whistling or stating a fact? It is neither. Instead of attempting to construct an argument you resort, as usual, to personal abuse. Some things, and people, never change.

you are a hypocrite

Baronvonrort wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 2:36pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 2:19pm: Baronvonrort wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 2:01pm: Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:31am: Dog whistle is NOT name calling. It is a subtle technique for sending messages to certain elements of the electorate using phrases which seem innocent enough but press the anger buttons of some people. Like the use of the term "hand outs" for example. This sets off those who believe the poor are lazy, idle bludgers who always have their hands out for support from hardworking, industrious taxpayers. It is a subliminal message which is heard only by some voters, just as dogs hear a dog whistle that other animals cannot discern. Did you get a job or are you still unemployed? The dole was never meant to be a lifestyle choice Is that dog whistling or stating a fact? It is neither. Instead of attempting to construct an argument you resort, as usual, to personal abuse. Some things, and people, never change. you are a hypocrite

Why thank you. You have proved my point.   ;)

Paul Murray's blatherings about the "entitlement society" are bizarre.

The welfare system is enshrined in law, if you meet the criteria then you have a legal entitlement, because the law says so.

What would Murray prefer?

In the Depression of the 1930s, any worker in NZ could apply for a niggardly dole payment, but only if he was considered to be "of good character". This decision was made by some worthy establishment figure such as a magistrate or JP and there was no right of appeal.

So socialists, unionists and political agitators need not apply. And if you were known to have a drink occasionally you had no show.

Peter Freedman wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 3:28pm:

Paul Murray's blatherings about the "entitlement society" are bizarre. The welfare system is enshrined in law, if you meet the criteria then you have a legal entitlement, because the law says so. What would Murray prefer? In the Depression of the 1930s, any worker in NZ could apply for a niggardly dole payment, but only if he was considered to be "of good character". This decision was made by some worthy establishment figure such as a magistrate or JP and there was no right of appeal. So socialists, unionists and political agitators need not apply. And if you were known to have a drink occasionally you had no show.

He was quite clear in his meaning - money for doing nothing is stupid.  It breeds a blase attitude towards self-reliance, in favour of a hapless dependency on the government.  I'd rather people be responsible for their own lives, rather than throw up their hands and cry "oh why won't the government bail me out of the mess I've made of my life".

Peter Freedman wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:31am:

darkhall67 wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 10:19pm: Looks like some people dont understand the concept of "dog whistle". Quite clearly they don't understand it. Dog whistle is NOT name calling. It is a subtle technique for sending messages to certain elements of the electorate using phrases which seem innocent enough but press the anger buttons of some people. Like the use of the term "hand outs" for example. This sets off those who believe the poor are lazy, idle bludgers who always have their hands out for support from hardworking, industrious taxpayers. It is a subliminal message which is heard only by some voters, just as dogs hear a dog whistle that other animals cannot discern.

Yeah pretty obvious they dont get it. Good thing they arent in charge of anything important.

SOB

... wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 12:40pm:

darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:36pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:49am: Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:31am: darkhall67 wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 10:19pm: Looks like some people dont understand the concept of "dog whistle". Quite clearly they don't understand it. Dog whistle is NOT name calling. It is a subtle technique for sending messages to certain elements of the electorate using phrases which seem innocent enough but press the anger buttons of some people. Like the use of the term "hand outs" for example. This sets off those who believe the poor are lazy, idle bludgers who always have their hands out for support from hardworking, industrious taxpayers. It is a subliminal message which is heard only by some voters, just as dogs hear a dog whistle that other animals cannot discern. I understand it perfectly thank you very much. The terms used by non-Liberals works in the exact same manner. And yet you are unable to provide examples. And yet, there are a dozen or so examples contained within post 12.

None of which are examples of "dog whistling".

darkhall67 wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 3:51pm:

... wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:40pm: darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:36pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:49am: Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:31am: darkhall67 wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 10:19pm: Looks like some people dont understand the concept of "dog whistle". Quite clearly they don't understand it. Dog whistle is NOT name calling. It is a subtle technique for sending messages to certain elements of the electorate using phrases which seem innocent enough but press the anger buttons of some people. Like the use of the term "hand outs" for example. This sets off those who believe the poor are lazy, idle bludgers who always have their hands out for support from hardworking, industrious taxpayers. It is a subliminal message which is heard only by some voters, just as dogs hear a dog whistle that other animals cannot discern. I understand it perfectly thank you very much. The terms used by non-Liberals works in the exact same manner. And yet you are unable to provide examples. And yet, there are a dozen or so examples contained within post 12. None of which are examples of "dog whistling".

Some are, but no, not all.

How often do you see a headline or artciel "such and such in racist outrage" The comment that leads to this "racist outrage" is usually something completely innocuous, but as soon as that racist "dog whistle" has been seen/heard, it turns the lachrimists sensitivity meter up to 11. 

left-leaners also invariably frame their story in terms of "equality, progress" and by extension anyone deviating even slightly from the script is immediately associated with the opposite - inequality and regression.  Any article on homosexual unions is a prime example of this.

... wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 3:56pm:

darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:51pm: ... wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:40pm: darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:36pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:49am: Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:31am: darkhall67 wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 10:19pm: Looks like some people dont understand the concept of "dog whistle". Quite clearly they don't understand it. Dog whistle is NOT name calling. It is a subtle technique for sending messages to certain elements of the electorate using phrases which seem innocent enough but press the anger buttons of some people. Like the use of the term "hand outs" for example. This sets off those who believe the poor are lazy, idle bludgers who always have their hands out for support from hardworking, industrious taxpayers. It is a subliminal message which is heard only by some voters, just as dogs hear a dog whistle that other animals cannot discern. I understand it perfectly thank you very much. The terms used by non-Liberals works in the exact same manner. And yet you are unable to provide examples. And yet, there are a dozen or so examples contained within post 12. None of which are examples of "dog whistling". Some are, but no, not all. How often do you see a headline or artciel "such and such in racist outrage" The comment that leads to this "racist outrage" is usually something completely innocuous, but as soon as that racist "dog whistle" has been seen/heard, it turns the lachrimists sensitivity meter up to 11.  left-leaners also invariably frame their story in terms of "equality, progress" and by extension anyone deviating even slightly from the script is immediately associated with the opposite - inequality and regression.  Any article on homosexual unions is a prime example of this.

Come on

The right are the champions of framing debates.

The left doesnt even come close to their skills in that area.

Unfortunately.

"come on"

That's your argument????

c'mon.

... wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 3:56pm:

darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:51pm: ... wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:40pm: darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:36pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:49am: Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:31am: darkhall67 wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 10:19pm: Looks like some people dont understand the concept of "dog whistle". Quite clearly they don't understand it. Dog whistle is NOT name calling. It is a subtle technique for sending messages to certain elements of the electorate using phrases which seem innocent enough but press the anger buttons of some people. Like the use of the term "hand outs" for example. This sets off those who believe the poor are lazy, idle bludgers who always have their hands out for support from hardworking, industrious taxpayers. It is a subliminal message which is heard only by some voters, just as dogs hear a dog whistle that other animals cannot discern. I understand it perfectly thank you very much. The terms used by non-Liberals works in the exact same manner. And yet you are unable to provide examples. And yet, there are a dozen or so examples contained within post 12. None of which are examples of "dog whistling". Some are, but no, not all. How often do you see a headline or artciel "such and such in racist outrage" The comment that leads to this "racist outrage" is usually something completely innocuous, but as soon as that racist "dog whistle" has been seen/heard, it turns the lachrimists sensitivity meter up to 11.  left-leaners also invariably frame their story in terms of "equality, progress" and by extension anyone deviating even slightly from the script is immediately associated with the opposite - inequality and regression.  Any article on homosexual unions is a prime example of this.

How is that dog whistling? How would you prefer it was said?

SOB

... wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

"come on" That's your argument???? c'mon.

"Come on" wasnt the argument.

It was an exclamation of frustration.

darkhall67 wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 4:45pm:

... wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 4:10pm: "come on" That's your argument???? c'mon. "Come on" wasnt the argument. It was an exclamation of frustration.

Hmm. so much the same feeling of exasperation I had at your claim that 'the right are champions of framing issues" then.

Like, what year are you living in?  What planet are you on?

... wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 3:38pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:28pm: Paul Murray's blatherings about the "entitlement society" are bizarre. The welfare system is enshrined in law, if you meet the criteria then you have a legal entitlement, because the law says so. What would Murray prefer? In the Depression of the 1930s, any worker in NZ could apply for a niggardly dole payment, but only if he was considered to be "of good character". This decision was made by some worthy establishment figure such as a magistrate or JP and there was no right of appeal. So socialists, unionists and political agitators need not apply. And if you were known to have a drink occasionally you had no show. He was quite clear in his meaning - money for doing nothing is stupid.  It breeds a blase attitude towards self-reliance, in favour of a hapless dependency on the government.  I'd rather people be responsible for their own lives, rather than throw up their hands and cry "oh why won't the government bail me out of the mess I've made of my life".

Your reaction is exactly what Murray was seeking. You've heard the whistle loud and clear.

At no stage did he speak about people doing nothing. But that is your inference and demonstrates your attitude towards those who need state support.

The rest is just a sweeping generalisation and an assumption that the poor are to blame for their poverty.

Murray would love you, you are his target audience.

Peter Freedman wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 5:33pm:

... wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:38pm: Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:28pm: Paul Murray's blatherings about the "entitlement society" are bizarre. The welfare system is enshrined in law, if you meet the criteria then you have a legal entitlement, because the law says so. What would Murray prefer? In the Depression of the 1930s, any worker in NZ could apply for a niggardly dole payment, but only if he was considered to be "of good character". This decision was made by some worthy establishment figure such as a magistrate or JP and there was no right of appeal. So socialists, unionists and political agitators need not apply. And if you were known to have a drink occasionally you had no show. He was quite clear in his meaning - money for doing nothing is stupid.  It breeds a blase attitude towards self-reliance, in favour of a hapless dependency on the government.  I'd rather people be responsible for their own lives, rather than throw up their hands and cry "oh why won't the government bail me out of the mess I've made of my life". Your reaction is exactly what Murray was seeking. You've heard the whistle loud and clear. At no stage did he speak about people doing nothing. But that is your inference and demonstrates your attitude towards those who need state support. The rest is just a sweeping generalisation and an assumption that the poor are to blame for their poverty. Murray would love you, you are his target audience.

Hmm. Funny.  The title of the piece was:

Money for doing nothing simply wrong.

Or did you stop reading at the word "money"?

... wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 4:53pm:

darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 4:45pm: ... wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 4:10pm: "come on" That's your argument???? c'mon. "Come on" wasnt the argument. It was an exclamation of frustration. Hmm. so much the same feeling of exasperation I had at your claim that 'the right are champions of framing issues" then. Like, what year are you living in?  What planet are you on?

Seriously?



"Because framing has the ability to alter the public’s perception, politicians engage in battles to determine how issues are framed. Hence, the way the issues are framed in the media reflects who is winning the battle. For instance, according to Robert Entman, professor of Communication at George Washington University, in the build-up to the Gulf War the conservatives were successful in making the debate whether to attack sooner or later, with no mention of the possibility of not attacking. Since the media picked up on this and also framed the debate in this fashion, the conservatives won.[5]
George Lakoff, a Berkeley professor of cognitive linguistics, has been a prominent[citation needed] voice in discussing the effects of framing on politics.
One particular example of Lakoff's work that attained some degree of fame was his advice to rename [42] trial lawyers (unpopular in the United States) as "public protection attorneys". Though Americans have not generally adopted this suggestion, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America did rename themselves the "American Association of Justice", in what the Chamber of Commerce called an effort to hide their identity.[43]
The New York Times depicted similar intensity among Republicans:
In one recent memo, titled 'The 14 Words Never to Use,' [Frank] Luntz urged conservatives to restrict themselves to phrases from what he calls ... the 'New American Lexicon.' Thus, a smart Republican, in Luntz's view, never advocates 'drilling for oil'; he prefers 'exploring for energy.' He should never criticize the 'government,' which cleans our streets and pays our firemen; he should attack 'Washington,' with its ceaseless thirst for taxes and regulations. 'We should never use the word outsourcing,' Luntz wrote, 'because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas.'
—[41™
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

Why do conservatives appear to be so much better at framing?

Because they've put billions of dollars into it. Over the last 30 years their think tanks have made a heavy investment in ideas and in language. In 1970, [Supreme Court Justice] Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that. [There are many others, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institute at Stanford, which date from the 1940s.]

And now, as the New York Times Magazine quoted Paul Weyrich, who started the Heritage Foundation, they have 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts. They have a huge, very good operation, and they understand their own moral system. They understand what unites conservatives, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.



Why haven't progressives done the same thing?

There's a systematic reason for that. You can see it in the way that conservative foundations and progressive foundations work. Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, 'Here's several million dollars, do what you need to do.' And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV. They do all of that. Why? Because the conservative moral system, which I analyzed in "Moral Politics," has as its highest value preserving and defending the "strict father" system itself. And that means building infrastructure. As businessmen, they know how to do this very well.

Meanwhile, liberals' conceptual system of the "nurturant parent" has as its highest value helping individuals who need help. The progressive foundations and donors give their money to a variety of grassroots organizations. They say, 'We're giving you $25,000, but don't waste a penny of it. Make sure it all goes to the cause, don't use it for administration, communication, infrastructure, or career development.' So there's actually a structural reason built into the worldviews that explains why conservatives have done better.

I'm amazed that you think progressives (used to be called "liberals" until conservatives in the US made it a dirty word) are better at framing than conservatives.


I WISH we were as good as the right in framing the debate.

But we are learning;

"Don't Think of an Elephant! is the antidote to the last forty years of conservative strategizing and the right wing's stranglehold on political dialogue in the United States.
Author George Lakoff explains how conservatives think, and how to counter their arguments. He outlines in detail the traditional American values that progressives hold, but are often unable to articulate. Lakoff also breaks down the ways conservatives have framed the issues, and provides examples of how progressives can reframe the debate.
Lakoff's years of research and work with environmental and political leaders have been distilled into this essential guide, which shows progressives how to think in terms of values instead of programs, and why people vote their values and identities, often against their best interests."



Great book.
A real eye opener.

The reason they are better @ it is because they dont have a real argument and so have to throw off and manipulate. Just look @ tolerator and that other one - they dont have an argument so they try to insult you. Politicians do that too but in different words. Their policies are unpalatable (if they have policies @ all) and they know it. They have to manipulate ppl to get them to accept them.

Also it helps to have all the advertising resources of the media @ your disposal.

Ever watch QT when gillard pulls out some papers and reads out some facts then abbott spends 20 mins insulting her and everyone in her party and everything else he can think of instead of countering it? then the media picks up abbotts tirade instead of gillards calm proposal.

SOB

Every political party tries to "frame the debate." Every party uses catch-phrases, attempts to influence thinking, demonizes opponents, in fact, they will try and use every trick in the book to gain followers.

It's the same process as marketing.

It's intellectually dishonest to think one political group exists outside this paradigm.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 7:33pm:

Every political party tries to "frame the debate." Every party uses catch-phrases, attempts to influence thinking, demonizes opponents, in fact, they will try and use every trick in the book to gain followers. It's the same process as marketing. It's intellectually dishonest to think one political group exists outside this paradigm.

While that is true - one political group does have the resources of the media behind them. The media are very good @ advertising (duh). The marketing is done for them (the libs in this country) by the media and the advertising is easy with those dog whistle words. Its all set up.

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:30am:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 5:04pm: You're confusing dog whistling with name calling. DW is much more subtle than that. you mean because the right is so much cleverer than your beloved lefties?

The right suck Daddie for more crack: if you want to call that clever then go ahead!  :D :D :D  ;)

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 7:37pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:33pm: Every political party tries to "frame the debate." Every party uses catch-phrases, attempts to influence thinking, demonizes opponents, in fact, they will try and use every trick in the book to gain followers. It's the same process as marketing. It's intellectually dishonest to think one political group exists outside this paradigm. While that is true - one political group does have the resources of the media behind them. The media are very good @ advertising (duh). The marketing is done for them (the libs in this country) by the media and the advertising is easy with those dog whistle words. Its all set up. SOB

It isn't true that it's completely bias toward the Liberals. I remember back in the 1990s when the Liberals were in opposition and the media gave them a hell of a time. Also, who can forget Phillip Adams in The Australian launching tirade after tirade on Howard. Don't get me started on the ABC.

Regardless of all that. People choose to buy newspapers, choose to watch tv, and choose to surf the internet. There's no gun to their heads.

People currently dislike Labor because they've stuffed up too many times. Personally, I will never vote Labor because my views are at complete odds with the left-wing of that party. I don't need some journalist to tell me about that.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 7:33pm:

Every political party tries to "frame the debate." Every party uses catch-phrases, attempts to influence thinking, demonizes opponents, in fact, they will try and use every trick in the book to gain followers. It's the same process as marketing. It's intellectually dishonest to think one political group exists outside this paradigm.

Never said it was exclusive to one side.

What I am saying is that one side is expert, the other side pathetic at it.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 7:46pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:33pm: Every political party tries to "frame the debate." Every party uses catch-phrases, attempts to influence thinking, demonizes opponents, in fact, they will try and use every trick in the book to gain followers. It's the same process as marketing. It's intellectually dishonest to think one political group exists outside this paradigm. While that is true - one political group does have the resources of the media behind them. The media are very good @ advertising (duh). The marketing is done for them (the libs in this country) by the media and the advertising is easy with those dog whistle words. Its all set up. SOB It isn't true that it's completely bias toward the Liberals. I remember back in the 1990s when the Liberals were in opposition and the media gave them a hell of a time. Also, who can forget Phillip Adams in The Australian launching tirade after tirade on Howard. Don't get me started on the ABC. Regardless of all that. People choose to buy newspapers, choose to watch tv, and choose to surf the internet. There's no gun to their heads. People currently dislike Labor because they've stuffed up too many times. Personally, I will never vote Labor because my views are at complete odds with the left-wing of that party. I don't need some journalist to tell me about that.

That's NOT dog whistling.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:06am: Swagman wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 10:10pm: Peter Freedman wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:34pm: Can you give me an example of where any other party has used this technique? "Greedy, rich, xenophobic, racist, dog whistle, deniers, sceptics, uncompassionate",.......etc etc....all inflammatory political dialogue used by leftist journo wankers and politicians for the same schitt.... :( Thanks for doing me the honours. I'd also add to that list progressive, tolerance, equality, diversity, and multiculturalism. Really? They look like normal words. What words would you use instead then? And who are the "leftist" journos I wouldl like to read some of them. SOB

http://www.abc.net.au/news/?WT.svl=news

:D

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 8:35pm: I have even been called Nazi for defending my country. I have been called "antisemite" for asking questions about israel. SOB

Your questions that I have seen are criticism and not questions.
Critical to Israel but not to the terrorists. This is because Israel is a Jewish states and yes it is anti Semitic to do this.

You were called correct.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 7:46pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:33pm: Every political party tries to "frame the debate." Every party uses catch-phrases, attempts to influence thinking, demonizes opponents, in fact, they will try and use every trick in the book to gain followers. It's the same process as marketing. It's intellectually dishonest to think one political group exists outside this paradigm. While that is true - one political group does have the resources of the media behind them. The media are very good @ advertising (duh). The marketing is done for them (the libs in this country) by the media and the advertising is easy with those dog whistle words. Its all set up. SOB It isn't true that it's completely bias toward the Liberals. I remember back in the 1990s when the Liberals were in opposition and the media gave them a hell of a time. Also, who can forget Phillip Adams in The Australian launching tirade after tirade on Howard. Don't get me started on the ABC. Regardless of all that. People choose to buy newspapers, choose to watch tv, and choose to surf the internet. There's no gun to their heads. People currently dislike Labor because they've stuffed up too many times. Personally, I will never vote Labor because my views are at complete odds with the left-wing of that party. I don't need some journalist to tell me about that.

Yes. It is biased towards the liberals. For some reason the media needs to pick a side. Silly I know but they do. Rebekkah Brooks said that in the uk they were backing labour until they did something they disagreed with and the switched to liberal. Its same here they switched to liberal long ago during howard era.

Hahahaha @ "choose to buy newspapers". Yes they do. Is that something to do with it?

SOB

Swagman wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:00pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:51pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:06am: Swagman wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 10:10pm: Peter Freedman wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:34pm: Can you give me an example of where any other party has used this technique? "Greedy, rich, xenophobic, racist, dog whistle, deniers, sceptics, uncompassionate",.......etc etc....all inflammatory political dialogue used by leftist journo wankers and politicians for the same schitt.... :( Thanks for doing me the honours. I'd also add to that list progressive, tolerance, equality, diversity, and multiculturalism. Really? They look like normal words. What words would you use instead then? And who are the "leftist" journos I wouldl like to read some of them. SOB http://www.abc.net.au/news/?WT.svl=news :D

I dont see them using dog whistles? Well not the non-existant ones in the example anyway. They use the right wing ones sometimes.

SOB

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:29pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:13am: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 8:35pm: I have even been called Nazi for defending my country. I have been called "antisemite" for asking questions about israel. SOB Your questions that I have seen are criticism and not questions. Critical to Israel but not to the terrorists. This is because Israel is a Jewish states and yes it is anti Semitic to do this. You were called correct.

Hahahahahahhahaha

SOB

"the left" is not an interchangeable term for labor
"the right" is not an inetrchangeable term for liberal

All are held to the narrative set by the cultural elite who are unreservedly and unashamedly leftwing.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 8:43am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:46pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:33pm: Every political party tries to "frame the debate." Every party uses catch-phrases, attempts to influence thinking, demonizes opponents, in fact, they will try and use every trick in the book to gain followers. It's the same process as marketing. It's intellectually dishonest to think one political group exists outside this paradigm. While that is true - one political group does have the resources of the media behind them. The media are very good @ advertising (duh). The marketing is done for them (the libs in this country) by the media and the advertising is easy with those dog whistle words. Its all set up. SOB It isn't true that it's completely bias toward the Liberals. I remember back in the 1990s when the Liberals were in opposition and the media gave them a hell of a time. Also, who can forget Phillip Adams in The Australian launching tirade after tirade on Howard. Don't get me started on the ABC. Regardless of all that. People choose to buy newspapers, choose to watch tv, and choose to surf the internet. There's no gun to their heads. People currently dislike Labor because they've stuffed up too many times. Personally, I will never vote Labor because my views are at complete odds with the left-wing of that party. I don't need some journalist to tell me about that. Yes. It is biased towards the liberals. For some reason the media needs to pick a side. Silly I know but they do. Rebekkah Brooks said that in the uk they were backing labour until they did something they disagreed with and the switched to liberal. Its same here they switched to liberal long ago during howard era. SOB

If you want trendy lefty stuff then read Fairfax, ABC, and Crikey.


Quote:

Hahahaha @ "choose to buy newspapers". Yes they do. Is that something to do with it?

Concentrate.
People buy newspaper of their own volition. There's no grand conspiracy forcing people to buy them and absorb the information therein. The Murdoch press is a private industry and survives because people are willing to buy its products. It's telling that the ABC needs millions of taxpayers dollars to sprout its lefty views; because there's no market for them. It needs to be artificially propped up because it can't survive in the marketplace.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 10:10am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 8:43am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:46pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:33pm: Every political party tries to "frame the debate." Every party uses catch-phrases, attempts to influence thinking, demonizes opponents, in fact, they will try and use every trick in the book to gain followers. It's the same process as marketing. It's intellectually dishonest to think one political group exists outside this paradigm. While that is true - one political group does have the resources of the media behind them. The media are very good @ advertising (duh). The marketing is done for them (the libs in this country) by the media and the advertising is easy with those dog whistle words. Its all set up. SOB It isn't true that it's completely bias toward the Liberals. I remember back in the 1990s when the Liberals were in opposition and the media gave them a hell of a time. Also, who can forget Phillip Adams in The Australian launching tirade after tirade on Howard. Don't get me started on the ABC. Regardless of all that. People choose to buy newspapers, choose to watch tv, and choose to surf the internet. There's no gun to their heads. People currently dislike Labor because they've stuffed up too many times. Personally, I will never vote Labor because my views are at complete odds with the left-wing of that party. I don't need some journalist to tell me about that. Yes. It is biased towards the liberals. For some reason the media needs to pick a side. Silly I know but they do. Rebekkah Brooks said that in the uk they were backing labour until they did something they disagreed with and the switched to liberal. Its same here they switched to liberal long ago during howard era. SOB If you want trendy lefty stuff then read Fairfax, ABC, and Crikey. Quote: Hahahaha @ "choose to buy newspapers". Yes they do. Is that something to do with it? Concentrate. People buy newspaper of their own volition. There's no grand conspiracy forcing people to buy them and absorb the information therein. The Murdoch press is a private industry and survives because people are willing to buy its products. It's telling that the ABC needs millions of taxpayers dollars to sprout its lefty views; because there's no market for them. It needs to be artificially propped up because it can't survive in the marketplace.

So thats your excuse for them using dog whistles?

SOB

Most times the dogs arent aware of what has set them off.

... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 9:51am:

"the left" is not an interchangeable term for labor "the right" is not an inetrchangeable term for liberal All are held to the narrative set by the cultural elite who are unreservedly and unashamedly leftwing.

Who said it was? They are both the same. However the liberals have the media on thier "side".

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 10:10am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 8:43am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:46pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:33pm: Every political party tries to "frame the debate." Every party uses catch-phrases, attempts to influence thinking, demonizes opponents, in fact, they will try and use every trick in the book to gain followers. It's the same process as marketing. It's intellectually dishonest to think one political group exists outside this paradigm. While that is true - one political group does have the resources of the media behind them. The media are very good @ advertising (duh). The marketing is done for them (the libs in this country) by the media and the advertising is easy with those dog whistle words. Its all set up. SOB It isn't true that it's completely bias toward the Liberals. I remember back in the 1990s when the Liberals were in opposition and the media gave them a hell of a time. Also, who can forget Phillip Adams in The Australian launching tirade after tirade on Howard. Don't get me started on the ABC. Regardless of all that. People choose to buy newspapers, choose to watch tv, and choose to surf the internet. There's no gun to their heads. People currently dislike Labor because they've stuffed up too many times. Personally, I will never vote Labor because my views are at complete odds with the left-wing of that party. I don't need some journalist to tell me about that. Yes. It is biased towards the liberals. For some reason the media needs to pick a side. Silly I know but they do. Rebekkah Brooks said that in the uk they were backing labour until they did something they disagreed with and the switched to liberal. Its same here they switched to liberal long ago during howard era. SOB If you want trendy lefty stuff then read Fairfax, ABC, and Crikey. Quote: Hahahaha @ "choose to buy newspapers". Yes they do. Is that something to do with it? Concentrate. People buy newspaper of their own volition. There's no grand conspiracy forcing people to buy them and absorb the information therein. The Murdoch press is a private industry and survives because people are willing to buy its products. It's telling that the ABC needs millions of taxpayers dollars to sprout its lefty views; because there's no market for them. It needs to be artificially propped up because it can't survive in the marketplace. So thats your excuse for them using dog whistles? SOB

It's already been explained that 'dog whistles' are part of politics regardless of the affiliation.

Like most people who debate on raw emotion, you seem to think that your party affiliation stands outside this paradigm. 

darkhall67 wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 10:18am:

Most times the dogs arent aware of what has set them off.

Don't be a hypocrite. Whenever someone has a genuine concern over a racial or gender issue you clowns are there to scream "racist" and "sexist."

darkhall67 wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 10:18am:

Most times the dogs arent aware of what has set them off.

Exactly

SOB

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 10:17am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 10:10am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 8:43am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:46pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:33pm: Every political party tries to "frame the debate." Every party uses catch-phrases, attempts to influence thinking, demonizes opponents, in fact, they will try and use every trick in the book to gain followers. It's the same process as marketing. It's intellectually dishonest to think one political group exists outside this paradigm. While that is true - one political group does have the resources of the media behind them. The media are very good @ advertising (duh). The marketing is done for them (the libs in this country) by the media and the advertising is easy with those dog whistle words. Its all set up. SOB It isn't true that it's completely bias toward the Liberals. I remember back in the 1990s when the Liberals were in opposition and the media gave them a hell of a time. Also, who can forget Phillip Adams in The Australian launching tirade after tirade on Howard. Don't get me started on the ABC. Regardless of all that. People choose to buy newspapers, choose to watch tv, and choose to surf the internet. There's no gun to their heads. People currently dislike Labor because they've stuffed up too many times. Personally, I will never vote Labor because my views are at complete odds with the left-wing of that party. I don't need some journalist to tell me about that. Yes. It is biased towards the liberals. For some reason the media needs to pick a side. Silly I know but they do. Rebekkah Brooks said that in the uk they were backing labour until they did something they disagreed with and the switched to liberal. Its same here they switched to liberal long ago during howard era. SOB If you want trendy lefty stuff then read Fairfax, ABC, and Crikey. Quote: Hahahaha @ "choose to buy newspapers". Yes they do. Is that something to do with it? Concentrate. People buy newspaper of their own volition. There's no grand conspiracy forcing people to buy them and absorb the information therein. The Murdoch press is a private industry and survives because people are willing to buy its products. It's telling that the ABC needs millions of taxpayers dollars to sprout its lefty views; because there's no market for them. It needs to be artificially propped up because it can't survive in the marketplace. So thats your excuse for them using dog whistles? SOB It's already been explained that 'dog whistles' are part of politics regardless of the affiliation. Like most people who debate on raw emotion, you seem to think that your party affiliation stands outside this paradigm.

No. I am "debating" on the OP post. He gave the definition of dog whistling and what you are saying is the "left" doing it doesnt fit the description. I have no party affiliation. What party are you accusing me of affiliating with?

It may have been "explained" but it wasnt right. The media is doing it on behalf of the liberal party.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 10:18am:

... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 9:51am: "the left" is not an interchangeable term for labor "the right" is not an inetrchangeable term for liberal All are held to the narrative set by the cultural elite who are unreservedly and unashamedly leftwing. Who said it was? They are both the same. However the liberals have the media on thier "side". SOB

You. 


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 10:54am:

No. I am "debating" on the OP post. He gave the definition of dog whistling and what you are saying is the "left" doing it doesnt fit the description. I have no party affiliation. What party are you accusing me of affiliating with? It may have been "explained" but it wasnt right. The media is doing it on behalf of the liberal party. SOB

I thought we had it all wrapped up in a neat little package when you agreed that the subject might not even notice the "whistle".  Surely that was an acceptance that your "team" does it but you just don't recognise it?

... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 10:18am: ... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 9:51am: "the left" is not an interchangeable term for labor "the right" is not an inetrchangeable term for liberal All are held to the narrative set by the cultural elite who are unreservedly and unashamedly leftwing. Who said it was? They are both the same. However the liberals have the media on thier "side". SOB You.  Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 10:54am: No. I am "debating" on the OP post. He gave the definition of dog whistling and what you are saying is the "left" doing it doesnt fit the description. I have no party affiliation. What party are you accusing me of affiliating with? It may have been "explained" but it wasnt right. The media is doing it on behalf of the liberal party. SOB I thought we had it all wrapped up in a neat little package when you agreed that the subject might not even notice the "whistle".  Surely that was an acceptance that your "team" does it but you just don't recognise it?

No i didnt. I didnt say they were interchangeable. I said that murdoch backs the liberal party. I didnt say whether that was left or right. Apparently its right but both parties are the same so that would mean labour is also right.

My "team"? I dont have a "team". I asked you earlier and you didnt reply. How are those so-called "leftist" dog whistles dog whistles? If you understand what a dog whistle is then you should be able to give me the alternate words that they should use.

SOB

Corrct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can see,your argument is that other people don't recognise the "dog whistle" that sets them off, but whoever represents your point of view doesn't even use the tactic? 

... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

Corrct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can see,your argument is that other people don't recognise the "dog whistle" that sets them off, but whoever represents your point of view doesn't even use the tactic?

Hahahahha. Thats completely silly. What is my point of view? Im saying that the media uses dog whistles in support of the liberal party.

You can completely debunk this by providing me with the alternate words the supposed other media should use in place of those words that are supposed to be dog whistles.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 11:39am:

... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:29am: Corrct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can see,your argument is that other people don't recognise the "dog whistle" that sets them off, but whoever represents your point of view doesn't even use the tactic?  Hahahahha. Thats completely silly. What is my point of view? Im saying that the media uses dog whistles in support of the liberal party. You can completely debunk this by providing me with the alternate words the supposed other media should use in place of those words that are supposed to be dog whistles. SOB

yes, we've established that.  And do you also accept other media outlets use dog whistles in support of labor and other parties?

... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 11:42am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:39am: ... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:29am: Corrct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can see,your argument is that other people don't recognise the "dog whistle" that sets them off, but whoever represents your point of view doesn't even use the tactic?  Hahahahha. Thats completely silly. What is my point of view? Im saying that the media uses dog whistles in support of the liberal party. You can completely debunk this by providing me with the alternate words the supposed other media should use in place of those words that are supposed to be dog whistles. SOB yes, we've established that.  And do you also accept other media outlets use dog whistles in support of labor and other parties?

No. I do not. I havent seen any evidence of that. In fact I have seen them use the same ones as murdoch media. If I am wrong provide the alternate words they should have used for those supposed ones in post 12.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:42am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:39am: ... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:29am: Corrct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can see,your argument is that other people don't recognise the "dog whistle" that sets them off, but whoever represents your point of view doesn't even use the tactic?  Hahahahha. Thats completely silly. What is my point of view? Im saying that the media uses dog whistles in support of the liberal party. You can completely debunk this by providing me with the alternate words the supposed other media should use in place of those words that are supposed to be dog whistles. SOB yes, we've established that.  And do you also accept other media outlets use dog whistles in support of labor and other parties? No. I do not. I havent seen any evidence of that. In fact I have seen them use the same ones as murdoch media. If I am wrong provide the alternate words they should have used for those supposed ones in post 12. SOB

What is more likely - that 1 segment of the media exists outside all known laws of journalism and literature, or that your own statement:


Quote:

darkhall67 wrote Today at 10:18am: Most times the dogs arent aware of what has set them off. Exactly SOB

Includes you?  Think carefully about this.

... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 12:00pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:56am: ... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:42am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:39am: ... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:29am: Corrct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can see,your argument is that other people don't recognise the "dog whistle" that sets them off, but whoever represents your point of view doesn't even use the tactic?  Hahahahha. Thats completely silly. What is my point of view? Im saying that the media uses dog whistles in support of the liberal party. You can completely debunk this by providing me with the alternate words the supposed other media should use in place of those words that are supposed to be dog whistles. SOB yes, we've established that.  And do you also accept other media outlets use dog whistles in support of labor and other parties? No. I do not. I havent seen any evidence of that. In fact I have seen them use the same ones as murdoch media. If I am wrong provide the alternate words they should have used for those supposed ones in post 12. SOB What is more likely - that 1 segment of the media exists outside all known laws of journalism and literature, or that your own statement: Quote: darkhall67 wrote Today at 10:18am: Most times the dogs arent aware of what has set them off. Exactly SOB Includes you?  Think carefully about this.

You refuse to answer my question. Because you cant. Because its crap. It doesnt include me because I do not have a "party" or a preference except that i like abbott slightly less than gillard. Stop trying to push this off onto me. You are wrong unless you provide the words. Or do you still not understand the concept of dog whistles?

You may not know you are being whistled when it happens but if you understand the concept then you should realise after the fact.

SOB

I see.  So the rules that bind every other human being on this earth don't apply to you.

Good O.  Glad we cleared that up then.  ::)

... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 12:13pm:

I see.  So the rules that bind every other human being on this earth don't apply to you. Good O.  Glad we cleared that up then.  ::)

What rules? Hahahhaha why cant you answer the question?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 12:15pm:

... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 12:13pm: I see.  So the rules that bind every other human being on this earth don't apply to you. Good O.  Glad we cleared that up then.  ::) What rules? Hahahhaha why cant you answer the question? SOB

Do you think your opinions were just formed without any outside influence?  Just claiming that you're immune because you claim not to support any party doesn't change the fact that you have opinions on issues, which are then linked in various ways to these parties, thus influencing your opinion of them.   Rule number 1 - there is NO such thing as a neutral text.  EVERYTHING you see/hear/read has been imparted with some sort of bias by the author. 

... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 12:20pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 12:15pm: ... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 12:13pm: I see.  So the rules that bind every other human being on this earth don't apply to you. Good O.  Glad we cleared that up then.  ::) What rules? Hahahhaha why cant you answer the question? SOB Do you think your opinions were just formed without any outside influence?  Just claiming that you're immune because you claim not to support any party doesn't change the fact that you have opinions on issues, which are then linked in various ways to these parties, thus influencing your opinion of them.   Rule number 1 - there is NO such thing as a neutral text.  EVERYTHING you see/hear/read has been imparted with some sort of bias by the author.

Of course we are but that's not the point (in my opinion).

We are talking about dog whistle journalsim.


dog whistles by their very nature are MOSTLY designed to appeal to the baser instincts, (yes that means racism , sexism, etc ) because those concepts are frowned upon in our society (rightly or wrongly - I think rightly) so the whistlers have to come up with tactics that arent as blatant as using sexist or racist language.

... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 12:20pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 12:15pm: ... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 12:13pm: I see.  So the rules that bind every other human being on this earth don't apply to you. Good O.  Glad we cleared that up then.  ::) What rules? Hahahhaha why cant you answer the question? SOB Do you think your opinions were just formed without any outside influence?  Just claiming that you're immune because you claim not to support any party doesn't change the fact that you have opinions on issues, which are then linked in various ways to these parties, thus influencing your opinion of them.   Rule number 1 - there is NO such thing as a neutral text.  EVERYTHING you see/hear/read has been imparted with some sort of bias by the author.

Hahaha. I didnt claim to be neutral. I said that i dont support either party.

When will you answer my question?

SOB

FFS what is your question you keep raving about?

... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 12:00pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:56am: ... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:42am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:39am: ... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:29am: Corrct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can see,your argument is that other people don't recognise the "dog whistle" that sets them off, but whoever represents your point of view doesn't even use the tactic?  Hahahahha. Thats completely silly. What is my point of view? Im saying that the media uses dog whistles in support of the liberal party. You can completely debunk this by providing me with the alternate words the supposed other media should use in place of those words that are supposed to be dog whistles. SOB yes, we've established that.  And do you also accept other media outlets use dog whistles in support of labor and other parties? No. I do not. I havent seen any evidence of that. In fact I have seen them use the same ones as murdoch media. If I am wrong provide the alternate words they should have used for those supposed ones in post 12. SOB What is more likely - that 1 segment of the media exists outside all known laws of journalism and literature, or that your own statement: Quote: darkhall67 wrote Today at 10:18am: Most times the dogs arent aware of what has set them off. Exactly SOB Includes you?  Think carefully about this.

Question is there


Quote:

If I am wrong provide the alternate words they should have used for those supposed ones in post 12

.

SOB

Do you notice a pattern emerging on this forum spot?

Perhaps that people call you names, and don't answer your "questions"? 

It's becasue you are an idiot, and your "questions" reflect that.  How do you expect anyone to provide "words they should have used instead" when there is no context? 

... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 12:40pm:

Do you notice a pattern emerging on this forum spot? Perhaps that people call you names, and don't answer your "questions"?  It's becasue you are an idiot, and your "questions" reflect that.  How do you expect anyone to provide "words they should have used instead" when there is no context?

Its only you. And you dont answer because either you are wrong or you dont understand what dog whistling is or both.

Provide a context. You claim its dog whistling. If its dog whistling then there are alternate words that should be used that would not be dog whistling. Have a good read of the op and see if you can understand the concept.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 12:58pm:

... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 12:40pm: Do you notice a pattern emerging on this forum spot? Perhaps that people call you names, and don't answer your "questions"?  It's becasue you are an idiot, and your "questions" reflect that.  How do you expect anyone to provide "words they should have used instead" when there is no context?  Its only you. And you dont answer because either you are wrong or you dont understand what dog whistling is or both. Provide a context. You claim its dog whistling. If its dog whistling then there are alternate words that should be used that would not be dog whistling. Have a good read of the op and see if you can understand the concept. SOB

Lets get 1 thing straight borg.  There is nothing - NOTHING - that you understand but I don't. 

I'm not the first to comment on your complete lack of comprehension, and I won't be the last. 

... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 1:02pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 12:58pm: ... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 12:40pm: Do you notice a pattern emerging on this forum spot? Perhaps that people call you names, and don't answer your "questions"?  It's becasue you are an idiot, and your "questions" reflect that.  How do you expect anyone to provide "words they should have used instead" when there is no context?  Its only you. And you dont answer because either you are wrong or you dont understand what dog whistling is or both. Provide a context. You claim its dog whistling. If its dog whistling then there are alternate words that should be used that would not be dog whistling. Have a good read of the op and see if you can understand the concept. SOB Lets get 1 thing straight borg.  There is nothing - NOTHING - that you understand but I don't.  I'm not the first to comment on your complete lack of comprehension, and I won't be the last.

Then why cant you answer the question?

You dont even understand th4e concept of dog whistling.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 1:05pm:

... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 1:02pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 12:58pm: ... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 12:40pm: Do you notice a pattern emerging on this forum spot? Perhaps that people call you names, and don't answer your "questions"?  It's becasue you are an idiot, and your "questions" reflect that.  How do you expect anyone to provide "words they should have used instead" when there is no context?  Its only you. And you dont answer because either you are wrong or you dont understand what dog whistling is or both. Provide a context. You claim its dog whistling. If its dog whistling then there are alternate words that should be used that would not be dog whistling. Have a good read of the op and see if you can understand the concept. SOB Lets get 1 thing straight borg.  There is nothing - NOTHING - that you understand but I don't.  I'm not the first to comment on your complete lack of comprehension, and I won't be the last.  Then why cant you answer the question? SOB

You do realise by the way, that your signature in itself is anti-semitic in nature.

Peter Freedman wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 5:33pm:

The rest is just a sweeping generalisation and an assumption that the poor are to blame for their poverty.

So whose fault is it when poor people live in poverty, who are you going to blame?

You are on the dole and you bet on horse racing so whose fault is that for your poverty?

... wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 12:20pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 12:15pm: ... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 12:13pm: I see.  So the rules that bind every other human being on this earth don't apply to you. Good O.  Glad we cleared that up then.  ::) What rules? Hahahhaha why cant you answer the question? SOB Do you think your opinions were just formed without any outside influence?  Just claiming that you're immune because you claim not to support any party doesn't change the fact that you have opinions on issues, which are then linked in various ways to these parties, thus influencing your opinion of them.   Rule number 1 - there is NO such thing as a neutral text.  EVERYTHING you see/hear/read has been imparted with some sort of bias by the author.

Which is why you should get your info from as many and varied sources as possible.

You can then formulate what's known as an 'informed opinion'.

Something that, sadly, is often lacking here.

And, strangely, much more-so from the right.

To some of them, the whole concept is foreign.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 4:11pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 5:33pm: The rest is just a sweeping generalisation and an assumption that the poor are to blame for their poverty. So whose fault is it when poor people live in poverty, who are you going to blame? You are on the dole and you bet on horse racing so whose fault is that for your poverty?

Like most reactionaries you can't resist sticking your nose into other people's business. And getting it wrong.

You win the prize for being the most objectionable character on this forum, It was a tight finish but you made it by a nose. Well done!

Peter Freedman wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 9:57am:

Baronvonrort wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 4:11pm: Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 5:33pm: The rest is just a sweeping generalisation and an assumption that the poor are to blame for their poverty. So whose fault is it when poor people live in poverty, who are you going to blame? You are on the dole and you bet on horse racing so whose fault is that for your poverty? Like most reactionaries you can't resist sticking your nose into other people's business. And getting it wrong. You win the prize for being the most objectionable character on this forum, It was a tight finish but you made it by a nose. Well done!

Are you going to answer the questions or resort to dog whistling?

I don't answer stupid questions. Mind your own business.

Why do reactionaries constantly think they have the right to pry into other people's lives?