Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 6
Send Topic Print
Dog Whistle Journalism (Read 3091 times)
Peter Freedman
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5275
Wellington
Gender: male
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #15 - 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.

Back to top
 

God grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and, above all, the wisdom to tell the difference.
 
IP Logged
 
Culture Warrior
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5855
Gender: male
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #16 - 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.
Back to top
 

Today's Anglo Aussies seem to be happy being the servants to other more motivated and intelligent races - Adelcrow.
 
IP Logged
 
darkhall67
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1926
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #17 - May 16th, 2012 at 12:36pm
 
Culture Warrior 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.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Honky
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Arbiter of crazy

Posts: 17176
WA
Gender: female
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #18 - May 16th, 2012 at 12:40pm
 
darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:36pm:
Culture Warrior 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 19446
Brisbane
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #19 - May 16th, 2012 at 12:51pm
 
Culture Warrior 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.... Sad








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
Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a 
nice person!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
Baronvonrort
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3567
Gender: male
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #20 - 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?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Peter Freedman
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5275
Wellington
Gender: male
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #21 - 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.
Back to top
 

God grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and, above all, the wisdom to tell the difference.
 
IP Logged
 
Baronvonrort
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3567
Gender: male
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #22 - May 16th, 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
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Peter Freedman
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5275
Wellington
Gender: male
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #23 - May 16th, 2012 at 3:09pm
 
Baronvonrort wrote on May 16th, 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.   Wink
Back to top
 

God grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and, above all, the wisdom to tell the difference.
 
IP Logged
 
Peter Freedman
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5275
Wellington
Gender: male
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #24 - 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.

Back to top
 

God grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and, above all, the wisdom to tell the difference.
 
IP Logged
 
Honky
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Arbiter of crazy

Posts: 17176
WA
Gender: female
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #25 - 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".
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 19446
Brisbane
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #26 - May 16th, 2012 at 3:41pm
 
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.



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

SOB
Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a 
nice person!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
darkhall67
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1926
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #27 - May 16th, 2012 at 3:51pm
 
Honky wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:40pm:
darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:36pm:
Culture Warrior 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".
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Honky
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Arbiter of crazy

Posts: 17176
WA
Gender: female
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #28 - May 16th, 2012 at 3:56pm
 
darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:51pm:
Honky wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:40pm:
darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:36pm:
Culture Warrior 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
darkhall67
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1926
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #29 - May 16th, 2012 at 3:58pm
 
Honky wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:56pm:
darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:51pm:
Honky wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:40pm:
darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:36pm:
Culture Warrior 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.




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 6
Send Topic Print