Media asleep at the wheel on stolen senate seats

http://www.ozpolitic.com/index.html

There are thieves in the Senate. Scott Ryan, Liberal Senator for Victoria and Deborah O'Neill, Labor Senator for NSW will continue to hold their Senate seats after June 2019, while roughly half of their colleagues will face re-election. They will continue to serve from 2019 until 2022, at the expense of Derryn Hinch and Lee Rhiannon. Their seats were stolen on their behalf by the Labor Party and the Coalition. The two major parties have broken promises they made twice to the Australian public in order to secure these seats. These promises took the form of Senate resolutions on 22 June 2010 and 29 June 1998. Both resolutions passed with bipartisan support and stated that the Senate will use the new, fairer method to determine which senators get full (6 year) terms in the event of a double dissolution election. Had they kept this promise, senate thieves Scott Ryan and Deborah O'Neill would be facing re-election in 2019 and Hinch and Rhiannon would have the six year terms that the Australian public voted for. Unfortunately these resolutions are not binding and the Australian constitution permits the Senate to allocate the seats as it pleases, meaning Labor and the Coalition are not bound to keep their promise and can literally get away with anything.

In addition to these two promises, the Labor party passed the relevant legislation (again, non-binding) in 1984. After the 1987 double dissolution election, Coalition Senators voted in favour of using the new method to allocate senate seats, while the Labor party chose to keep the old method - again, because it gave them a bigger share of the seats. It was this 1987 disagreement that prompted the two major parties to pass the 1998 and 2010 resolutions to use the fairer method in the future. They no doubt had every intention of holding each other to this promise, up until the current situation arose in which both stood to benefit from sticking with the unfair method.

This coup has been permitted by a mainstream media that is asleep at the wheel. No major outlet reported on the Senate decision of August 31. They did report on Labor and the Coalition reaching an agreement to do this several weeks earlier. However, the reporting on this agreement simply quoted the insipid justifications given by the major parties and lacked any critical analysis or hard questions. Neither Labor nor the Coalition have been forced by the media to comment on the fact that they both broke promises that they made clearly and repeatedly to the Australian public. They have not been forced to even acknowledge that they made these promises. Neither party has been forced to acknowledge the transparent self-interest behind the decision. Instead, The ABC, The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald etc all let the major parties get away with simply pointing out that their agreement was "in keeping with the constitution and precedent", as if the new legislation and the repeated promises to use it never happened. The media has been publishing these insipid justifications and excuses on behalf of the major parties, while leaving out relevant facts and failing in their duty to ask the important questions.

Please contact your federal MP and senators using the links below (scroll down to "please support democracy in the senate") and let them know that you intend to punish them at the next election if they do not give back the stolen senate seats. Please also write to your newspaper and let them know of your disapproval at their failure to report on this coup and your scepticism at their ability to do their job. Please also write to Senators Ryan and O'Neill and let them know that you consider them to be thieves in the Senate and that their ongoing presence after 2019 undermines the legitimacy of the Senate.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/index.html

Freediver has discovered that politicians tell lies.

And that the media turns a blind eye to them - no matter how big they are.

Freediver discovers that the media doesn't always publish the facts.

Can you cite an example of a bigger failure in reporting?

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 11:53am:

Can you cite an example of a bigger failure in reporting?

9/11, Gulf of Tonkin incident, USS Liberty incident, plight of Palestinians. Is that enough?

I believe the media did in fact report on 9/11.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

I believe the media did in fact report on 9/11.

Propaganda?

Less and less people every year believe the media reported 9/11 rather than just repeating Bush propaganda.

I see. So that video of planes flying into the WTC was Bush propaganda?

It's quite simple Unforgiven. Labor and the Coalition passed bipartisan resolutions in 1998 and 2010 promising not to do what they have just done. Breaking these promises has given each party an extra senate seat after 2019. These resolutions are on the public record, but were left out of media reports on the senate outcome. The media did not even report on the August 31 vote in the senate.

Whatever vague criticisms you have of reporting on 9/11 is not in the same ballpark as leaving these clear and transparent facts out of reporting on the outcome of the senate election.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 12:34pm:

I see. So that video of planes flying into the WTC was Bush propaganda? It's quite simple Unforgiven. Labor and the Coalition passed bipartisan resolutions in 1998 and 2010 promising not to do what they have just done. Breaking these promises has given each party an extra senate seat after 2019. These resolutions are on the public record, but were left out of media reports on the senate outcome. The media did not even report on the August 31 vote in the senate. Whatever vague criticisms you have of reporting on 9/11 is not in the same ballpark as leaving these clear and transparent facts out of reporting on the outcome of the senate election.

Did it cause any deaths?

MSM's failures in regard to reporting on 9/11 and Iraq was the cause of 200,000+ deaths in Iraq and people are still dying due to the perfidy of the MSM.

MSM are also promoting the government line on Syria whereas the truth appears to be otherwise.

This is an era when the MSM are merely a tool of governments.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 12:34pm:

I see. So that video of planes flying into the WTC was Bush propaganda? It's quite simple Unforgiven. Labor and the Coalition passed bipartisan resolutions in 1998 and 2010 promising not to do what they have just done. Breaking these promises has given each party an extra senate seat after 2019. These resolutions are on the public record, but were left out of media reports on the senate outcome. The media did not even report on the August 31 vote in the senate. Whatever vague criticisms you have of reporting on 9/11 is not in the same ballpark as leaving these clear and transparent facts out of reporting on the outcome of the senate election.

Come on.  Have you not read the seemingly endless list of promises made by politicians, brazenly broken.

Okay, so the schmedia did not do the song and dance routine you wanted over this.   No-one here a flying ferk seems to give either.  This is the second Thread you have started on the same issue, and this will die on the vine, as did the first.

Aussie wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 12:41pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2016 at 12:34pm: I see. So that video of planes flying into the WTC was Bush propaganda? It's quite simple Unforgiven. Labor and the Coalition passed bipartisan resolutions in 1998 and 2010 promising not to do what they have just done. Breaking these promises has given each party an extra senate seat after 2019. These resolutions are on the public record, but were left out of media reports on the senate outcome. The media did not even report on the August 31 vote in the senate. Whatever vague criticisms you have of reporting on 9/11 is not in the same ballpark as leaving these clear and transparent facts out of reporting on the outcome of the senate election. Come on.  Have you not read the seemingly endless list of promises made by politicians, brazenly broken. Okay, so the schmedia did not do the song and dance routine you wanted over this.   No-one here a flying ferk seems to give either.  This is the second Thread you have started on the same issue, and this will die on the vine, as did the first.

Freediver is a paid shill.

The UK Daily Mail publishes what the others fear to publish.

The media in Australia have been dumb lazy and compliant for decades and getting worse.

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 12:47pm:

The UK Daily Mail publishes what the others fear to publish.

How ignorant would the British public be without the quality of British news media? UK newspapers are a source of inspiration to dedicated journalists:

http://img.rlsbb.com/images/0HQko6fx.jpg

http://images.twoddl.eu/images/28123546555082952088.jpg

https://suchandrika.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/freddie-starr.jpg

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/80/590x/secondary/Sport-1-300676.jpg

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/80/590x/secondary/Sport2-300678.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/57/99/78/57997823f2f9a461de0a95288a015b10.jpg

Quote:

MSM's failures in regard to reporting on 9/11 and Iraq was the cause of 200,000+ deaths in Iraq and people are still dying due to the perfidy of the MSM.

So why can you not say what the failure was?


Quote:

MSM are also promoting the government line on Syria whereas the truth appears to be otherwise.

I cannot fault the media for failing to report what appears to you, particularly when you cannot even report it yourself.


Quote:

Come on.  Have you not read the seemingly endless list of promises made by politicians, brazenly broken.

Yes Aussie. I saw them on the front page of the newspaper - lies much smaller than this one. Do you still hold that the theft of two senate seats is "insignificant"?


Quote:

Okay, so the schmedia did not do the song and dance routine you wanted over this.   No-one here a flying ferk seems to give either.

Thanks Yoda. The thread seems to have generated plenty of interest already.

Quote:

Yes Aussie. I saw them on the front page of the newspaper - lies much smaller than this one. Do you still hold that the theft of two senate seats is "insignificant"?

Theft, eh? 

(Ima gonna leave all the other crapola alone.)

How would you describe it Aussie? Do you think Labor and the Coalition own the seats they took?

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 3:41pm:

How would you describe it Aussie? Do you think Labor and the Coalition own the seats they took?

I would not seek to describe it.  You did. 

Theft, ey?

They took something that was not rightfully theirs. You may not want to own a description of it yourself. Do you disagree with mine?

Or are you just here to shout your lack of interest in the topic?

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 3:47pm:

They took something that was not rightfully theirs. You may not want to own a description of it yourself. Do you disagree with mine? Or are you just here to shout your lack of interest in the topic?

I'm here to reflect quite accurately why the schmedia did not give the matter the attention you thought it merited.  No-one cares, other than you.  You are on your Pat Malone.

I can immediately think of at least two other people who care Aussie. Take a guess who they are.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 4:01pm:

I can immediately think of at least two other people who care Aussie. Take a guess who they are.

And no-one cares about them and neither, it seems do they care about their own position.  If they did, or if even those those two did, they'd be holding their breath and going blue in the face just like you are.

Theft, ey?

Do you think their respective parties care what they think Aussie? Do they care about the outcome? Do you even know who I am talking about? How about instead of me leading you by the nose and building an ever lengthening list of the "no-one who cares", you figure it out for yourself?

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 5:05pm:

Do you think their respective parties* care what they think Aussie? Do they care about the outcome? Do you even know who I am talking about? How about instead of me leading you by the nose and building an ever lengthening list of the "no-one who cares", you figure it out for yourself?

I have, and I've told you that I have.  (Where is the public clamour from these alleged *parties?)

Theft, ey?

I do not think you have listed a single person, other than myself, who would care about this Aussie. I concede that you have reassured us that you know what you are talking about, but that is about the extent of it.

fd who wrote to OP....??...

I CARE btw... as I am over a lot of what I see going on in this country...there is now more wrong than there is right.. and that bothers the hell out of me..

WHATS FAIR  about anything to do with politics..

as foir the senate   get rid of it altogether...its long past its use by date..

once upon a time it was there to protect US the people of OZ now its there to protect certain parties and certain individuals who got in via an exorbitant system of MEANINGLESS preferences....

for all those who believe the preference system protects us.. tell me one name you voted for after your first pick..??... so dont tell me about your 5th pick...

we never meet nor know anything about a senator unless they be a "celebrity" or make an enormous MISTAKE..... or try to cheat what ever few rules they have for being a decent human being when they become a senator....its a joke of a place...

so I wont say whether this is lousy and wrong and the media needs to wake up to itself..

if I had media power I would do my best to get them all paid off and stop wasting our time and money.

they passed the CARBON TAX the final nail in our export coffin...the balloon [mining boom] was going down slowly.. but that brought it to its knees in one fowl blow.. ::) ::)... and what good it did for GW .. no one will ever know.. >:(

Freediver will just not let this dead horse fail to achieve its destiny:

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/541/000/6ed.gif

Off we go. Destiny awaits.

http://rathergoodguides.com/images/pasted%20image%20492x450.jpg

Quote:

fd who wrote to OP....??...

He, FD, wrote it.  Can't you tell?

Aussie wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 6:34pm:

Quote: fd who wrote to OP....??... He, FD, wrote it.  Can't you tell?

no actually I cant but I have seen another thread so fd can make 3 threads if you call his"FORUM" account as a thread its an exact copy   didnt you have a massive hissy when someone else kept popping up with the same story all over the forum... ::) ::)

I will go and read the other thread if I can be bothered not sure if this is beat up the sen ate or the media in any case..

we have no control over the media but we  are responsible for the senate..

Do you care Aussie?

Freediver is still urging the horse forward:

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/i-admire-your-commitment-to-beating-a-dead-horse-d8ccf.png

So why are you so keen to dismiss this? Do you support what they did in the Senate? Or are you like Aussie and feel compelled to announce your disinterest in certain topics?

Have you managed to come up with what you see as an equivalent failure by the media on an issue you don't consider to be a dead horse?

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 12:40pm:

So why are you so keen to dismiss this? Do you support what they did in the Senate? Or are you like Aussie and feel compelled to announce your disinterest in certain topics? Have you managed to come up with what you see as an equivalent failure by the media on an issue you don't consider to be a dead horse?

I believe you are paid for your campaigns.

As a person of undue influence in this forum Freediver should expose all his personal issues and those he is paid for.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

This coup has been permitted by a mainstream media that is asleep at the wheel. No major outlet reported on the Senate decision of August 31. They did report on Labor and the Coalition reaching an agreement to do this several weeks earlier. However, the reporting on this agreement simply quoted the insipid justifications given by the major parties and lacked any critical analysis or hard questions.

What exactly were you expecting FD? The actual facts of the case have been widely reported - that the 1998 and 2010 legislation was passed, but in this election the major parties agreed to use the old method. I think the Australian public are grown up enough to put two and two together. Your beef seems to be that there is not much rabid frothing at the mouth about it by the media. And yet, all the relevant facts have been reported. Exactly what sort of "critical analysis" or "hard questions" did you have in mind? "boo hoo - why are you being so unfair?"?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 2:50pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2016 at 11:15am: This coup has been permitted by a mainstream media that is asleep at the wheel. No major outlet reported on the Senate decision of August 31. They did report on Labor and the Coalition reaching an agreement to do this several weeks earlier. However, the reporting on this agreement simply quoted the insipid justifications given by the major parties and lacked any critical analysis or hard questions. What exactly were you expecting FD? The actual facts of the case have been widely reported - that the 1998 and 2010 legislation was passed, but in this election the major parties agreed to use the old method. I think the Australian public are grown up enough to put two and two together. Your beef seems to be that there is not much rabid frothing at the mouth about it by the media. And yet, all the relevant facts have been reported. Exactly what sort of "critical analysis" or "hard questions" did you have in mind? "boo hoo - why are you being so unfair?"?

"Don't you care" Gandalf?

Aussie wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 13th, 2016 at 2:50pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2016 at 11:15am: This coup has been permitted by a mainstream media that is asleep at the wheel. No major outlet reported on the Senate decision of August 31. They did report on Labor and the Coalition reaching an agreement to do this several weeks earlier. However, the reporting on this agreement simply quoted the insipid justifications given by the major parties and lacked any critical analysis or hard questions. What exactly were you expecting FD? The actual facts of the case have been widely reported - that the 1998 and 2010 legislation was passed, but in this election the major parties agreed to use the old method. I think the Australian public are grown up enough to put two and two together. Your beef seems to be that there is not much rabid frothing at the mouth about it by the media. And yet, all the relevant facts have been reported. Exactly what sort of "critical analysis" or "hard questions" did you have in mind? "boo hoo - why are you being so unfair?"? "Don't you care" Gandalf?

I care about the monopoly of the major parties - which is the root cause of these sorts of shenanigans. Unfortunately the people ultimately responsible for this is the Australian public, and there's only so many excuses you can make for them. And I don't think demanding that the media spoon feed some confected outrage is the solution here.

I agree entirely.  FD is pissed off that the schmedia did not champion his particular beef, is all.  It is very easy to gauge the level of general interest in the substantive issue and FD's whinge about lack of what he reckons ought to have been a schmedia outrage.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 12:40pm:

So why are you so keen to dismiss this? Do you support what they did in the Senate? Or are you like Aussie and feel compelled to announce your disinterest in certain topics? Have you managed to come up with what you see as an equivalent failure by the media on an issue you don't consider to be a dead horse?

can anyone explain why this isnt in relationships.. where it belongs..it after all about people liking other people.. isnt it??.

cods wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 4:01pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2016 at 12:40pm: So why are you so keen to dismiss this? Do you support what they did in the Senate? Or are you like Aussie and feel compelled to announce your disinterest in certain topics? Have you managed to come up with what you see as an equivalent failure by the media on an issue you don't consider to be a dead horse? can anyone explain why this isnt in relationships.. where it belongs..it after all about people liking other people.. isnt it??.

Patience, Cods, patience.  ;)

Quote:

I believe you are paid for your campaigns. As a person of undue influence in this forum Freediver should expose all his personal issues and those he is paid for.

The only money I get from this is the advertising and occasional donations, which barely cover the running costs. As for my personal issues, I have dediocated the entire site to exposing them. What exactly is it you think I left out? Is it inconceivable to you that a person would genuinely hold the opinions I do?


Quote:

What exactly were you expecting FD? The actual facts of the case have been widely reported -

Obviously not


Quote:

- that the 1998 and 2010 legislation was passed

No relevant legislation was passed in these years. This is as good a demonstration as any of the failure of the media to report on this, and you are one of the more informed people.


Quote:

And I don't think demanding that the media spoon feed some confected outrage is the solution here.

I expect the media to report the facts. The articles on this consistently left out very important facts.

The August 31 vote in the senate was not reported at all by most outlets. The only article I could find was on AustralianPolitics.com, which did not actually report the date of the vote.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 6:53pm:

As for my personal issues, I have dediocated the entire site to exposing them.

No you haven't. You hide behind the grassy knoll until posts that personally affect you appear. The you snipe.

As the professed BBS owner you should lay your cards on the table.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 6:53pm:

No relevant legislation was passed in these years. This is as good a demonstration as any of the failure of the media to report on this, and you are one of the more informed people.

No its not, its only a good demonstration of me comprehending poorly. The facts non-the-less were reported. 


freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 6:53pm:

The August 31 vote in the senate was not reported at all by most outlets.

Probably because the decision was made on August 12 and the August 31 vote was a mere rubber stamp.

But if you actually looked at the reporting on the August 12 decision, it was widely reported and widely analysed - including much criticism.

eg...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/12/senate-terms-derryn-hinch-and-greens-lee-rhiannon-given-three-year-terms?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-and-labor-team-up-to-clear-out-crossbench-senators-in-2019-20160812-gqr29k.html

http://theconversation.com/major-parties-to-allocate-long-and-short-senate-terms-using-order-of-election-method-63890

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 6:25pm:

Freediver will just not let this dead horse fail to achieve its destiny: http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/541/000/6ed.gif Off we go. Destiny awaits. http://rathergoodguides.com/images/pasted%20image%20492x450.jpg

To funny  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

No its not, its only a good demonstration of me comprehending poorly.

This has been happening for a month now. As Aussie likes to point out, it is already over. And you are still trying to understand what happened? What does that tell you about the media coverage of this? You have not been living under a rock Gandalf. The media has failed, miserably.


Quote:

The facts non-the-less were reported.

Can you show me some articles on the August 31 senate vote? How about some articles highlighting the difference between what the major parties promised in 1998 and 2010 and what they delivered in 2016? How about some quotes from politicians responding to questions from journalists about the discrepancy?


Quote:

Probably because the decision was made on August 12 and the August 31 vote was a mere rubber stamp.

In other words, a fact that was not reported.


Quote:

But if you actually looked at the reporting on the August 12 decision, it was widely reported and widely analysed - including much criticism.

I read the first article you gave. It completely failed to mention the resolutions of 1998 and 2010. Do you think they are not relevant Gandalf? Why are you so keen to defend shoddy journalism?

Quote:

Why are you so keen to defend shoddy journalism?

Really?  Where were you on that same topic on matters Uber?  Yeas, I know, you could not have cared less.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 10:39pm:

This has been happening for a month now. As Aussie likes to point out, it is already over. And you are still trying to understand what happened? What does that tell you about the media coverage of this? You have not been living under a rock Gandalf. The media has failed, miserably.

I now have a pretty good understanding of what happened - but no thanks to you and your demands for us to be outraged without giving us a proper explanation why. As it turns out the media did cover the decision, just not on the date you mistakenly thought it was made. Yes you could argue there was not much confected outrage being spoon fed to us over it, but all the relevant facts were reported.

Where did you find out about it by the way? The media perhaps?

Quote:

Really?  Where were you on that same topic on matters Uber?  Yeas, I know, you could not have cared less.

As I recall, the media did report on Uber, and is still doing so.


Quote:

I now have a pretty good understanding of what happened - but no thanks to you and your demands for us to be outraged

Can you quote me demanding this? Where did you get your understanding from?


Quote:

As it turns out the media did cover the decision, just not on the date you mistakenly thought it was made.

Can you elaborate?


Quote:

Yes you could argue there was not much confected outrage being spoon fed to us over it, but all the relevant facts were reported.

So you keep saying, but your examples keep showing failure to report basic facts, as I explained in my previous post.


Quote:

Where did you find out about it by the way? The media perhaps?

Antony Green referred briefly to the 1998 and 2010 resolutions in his explanation of how 6 year year terms are allocated. He did this prior to the agreement between Labor and the Coalition to steal senate seats. Since then, I don't think the media has mentioned it at all. If it was not for my interest in this prior to the seat stealing agreement, I would be completely unaware of key facts.

I have seen no reports in the media about the vote being passed in the senate. I found one article on AustralianPolitics.com, but it did not state the date of the vote, so I am not entirely sure on that.

Unforgiven beating his dead horse:


Unforgiven wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 12:07pm:

The story below is from Canada, but the incidence of government control of the main stream media is happening world wide. Media owners profit handsomely from government payments for 'specials' and favorable publicity. The principles of pay to play are being used to control the media worldwide. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/12/press-on-the-dole-how-canada-pays-to-shape-the-news/ Quote: Press on the Dole: How Canada Pays to Shape the News by YVES ENGLER Last Saturday the Ottawa Citizen published a feature titled “The story of ‘the Canadian vaccine’ that beat back Ebola”. According to the article, staff reporter Elizabeth Payne’s “research was supported by a travel grant from the International Development Research Centre.” The laudatory story concludes with Guinea’s former health minister thanking Canada “for the great service you have rendered to Guinea” and a man who received the Ebola vaccine showing “reporters a map of Canada that he had carved out of wood and displayed in his living room. ‘Because Canada saved my life.’” A Crown Corporation that reports to Parliament through the foreign minister, the International Development Research Centre’s board is mostly appointed by the federal government. Unsurprisingly, the government-funded institution broadly aligns its positions with Canada’s international objectives. IDRC funds various journalism initiatives and development journalism prizes. Canada’s aid agency has also doled out tens of millions of dollars on media initiatives over the years. The now defunct Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has funded a slew of journalism fellowships that generate aid-related stories, including a Canadian Newspaper Association fellowship to send journalists to Ecuador, Aga Khan Foundation Canada/Canadian Association of Journalists Fellowships for International Development Reporting, Canadian Association of Journalists/Jack Webster Foundation Fellowship. It also offered eight $6,000 fellowships annually for members of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, noted CIDA, “to report to the Canadian public on the realities lived in developing countries benefiting from Canadian public aid.” Between 2005 and 2008 CIDA spent at least $47.5 million on the “promotion of development awareness.” According to a 2013 J–Source investigation titled “Some journalists and news organizations took government funding to produce work: is that a problem?”, more than $3.5 million went to articles, photos, film and radio reports about CIDA projects. Much of the government-funded reporting appeared in major media outlets. But, a CIDA spokesperson told J-Source, the aid agency “didn’t pay directly for journalists’ salaries” and only “supported media activities that had as goal the promotion of development awareness with the Canadian public.” One journalist, Kim Brunhuber, received $13, 000 to produce “six television news pieces that highlight the contribution of Canadians to several unique development projects” to be shown on CTV outlets. While failing to say whether Brunhuber’s work appeared on the station, CTV spokesperson Rene Dupuis said another documentary it aired “clearly credited that the program had been produced with the support of the Government of Canada through CIDA.” During the 2001–14 war in Afghanistan CIDA operated a number of media projects. A number of CIDA-backed NGOs sent journalists to Afghanistan and the aid agency had a contract with Montréal’s Le Devoir to “[remind] readers of the central role that Afghanistan plays in CIDA’s international assistance program.” The military also paid for journalists to visit Afghanistan. Canadian Press envoy Jonathan Montpetit explained, “my understanding of these junkets is that Ottawa picked up the tab for the flight over as well as costs in-theatre, then basically gave the journos a highlight tour of what Canada was doing in Afghanistan.” A number of commentators have highlighted the political impact of military sponsored trips, which date back decades. In Turning Around a Supertanker: media-military relations in Canada in the CNN age, Daniel Hurley writes, “correspondents were not likely to ask hard questions of people who were offering them free flights to Germany” to visit Canadian bases there. In his diary of the mid-1990s Somalia Commission of Inquiry, Peter Desbarats made a similar observation. “Some journalists, truly ignorant of military affairs, were happy to trade junkets overseas for glowing reports about Canada’s gallant peacekeepers.” The various arms of Canadian foreign policy fund media initiatives they expect will portray their operations sympathetically. It’s one reason why Canadians overwhelmingly believe this country is a benevolent international actor even though Ottawa long advanced corporate interests and sided with the British and US empires.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

Media asleep at the wheel on stolen senate seats http://www.ozpolitic.com/index.html There are thieves in the Senate. Scott Ryan, Liberal Senator for Victoria and Deborah O'Neill, Labor Senator for NSW will continue to hold their Senate seats after June 2019, while roughly half of their colleagues will face re-election. They will continue to serve from 2019 until 2022, at the expense of Derryn Hinch and Lee Rhiannon. Their seats were stolen on their behalf by the Labor Party and the Coalition. The two major parties have broken promises they made twice to the Australian public in order to secure these seats. These promises took the form of Senate resolutions on 22 June 2010 and 29 June 1998. Both resolutions passed with bipartisan support and stated that the Senate will use the new, fairer method to determine which senators get full (6 year) terms in the event of a double dissolution election. Had they kept this promise, senate thieves Scott Ryan and Deborah O'Neill would be facing re-election in 2019 and Hinch and Rhiannon would have the six year terms that the Australian public voted for. Unfortunately these resolutions are not binding and the Australian constitution permits the Senate to allocate the seats as it pleases, meaning Labor and the Coalition are not bound to keep their promise and can literally get away with anything. In addition to these two promises, the Labor party passed the relevant legislation (again, non-binding) in 1984. After the 1987 double dissolution election, Coalition Senators voted in favour of using the new method to allocate senate seats, while the Labor party chose to keep the old method - again, because it gave them a bigger share of the seats. It was this 1987 disagreement that prompted the two major parties to pass the 1998 and 2010 resolutions to use the fairer method in the future. They no doubt had every intention of holding each other to this promise, up until the current situation arose in which both stood to benefit from sticking with the unfair method. This coup has been permitted by a mainstream media that is asleep at the wheel. No major outlet reported on the Senate decision of August 31. They did report on Labor and the Coalition reaching an agreement to do this several weeks earlier. However, the reporting on this agreement simply quoted the insipid justifications given by the major parties and lacked any critical analysis or hard questions. Neither Labor nor the Coalition have been forced by the media to comment on the fact that they both broke promises that they made clearly and repeatedly to the Australian public. They have not been forced to even acknowledge that they made these promises. Neither party has been forced to acknowledge the transparent self-interest behind the decision. Instead, The ABC, The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald etc all let the major parties get away with simply pointing out that their agreement was "in keeping with the constitution and precedent", as if the new legislation and the repeated promises to use it never happened. The media has been publishing these insipid justifications and excuses on behalf of the major parties, while leaving out relevant facts and failing in their duty to ask the important questions. Please contact your federal MP and senators using the links below (scroll down to "please support democracy in the senate") and let them know that you intend to punish them at the next election if they do not give back the stolen senate seats. Please also write to your newspaper and let them know of your disapproval at their failure to report on this coup and your scepticism at their ability to do their job. Please also write to Senators Ryan and O'Neill and let them know that you consider them to be thieves in the Senate and that their ongoing presence after 2019 undermines the legitimacy of the Senate. http://www.ozpolitic.com/index.html

Denying Hinch and Rhiannon longer terms has been the bst thing the parties have done since the election. Both are disgraces and both need to be out of parliament.

Longweekend58 has caused the unemployment of a dead horse by displacing it.

Here is Longweekend58's interview for the job:

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/541/000/6ed.gif

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yFQqDsk_LM

This will make you question EVERYTHING you see on TV

it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 1:52pm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yFQqDsk_LM This will make you question EVERYTHING you see on TV

Is this Bobby's plea for help to escape from his propaganda masters?

freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 12:26pm:

Can you elaborate?

Sure, you made the claim that "no major outlet reported on the Senate decision" - because you thought it was made on August 31, when in fact it was made on August 12. Thats when the liberal-labor deal was made, and it was widely reported. The August 31 vote was a fait accompli as soon as the August 12 agreement was made, so of course it makes more sense for reporting to focus on the August 12 agreement.


freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 12:26pm:

Antony Green referred briefly to the 1998 and 2010 resolutions in his explanation of how 6 year year terms are allocated. He did this prior to the agreement between Labor and the Coalition to steal senate seats. Since then, I don't think the media has mentioned it at all.

Yesterday I read 3 separate ABC articles written in the wake of the election mentioning the resolutions as well as Antony Green's blog article that argued the recount method was fairer - along with links to both. Clearly you weren't looking very hard.

Worth noting too is that the ABC provided the relevant facts to let us make up our own minds which method is fairer - as opposed to you just telling us which one is fairer without giving us any information about why its fairer. And here you are lecturing about how terrible the media is for leaving out "basic facts"  ;D

Quote:

As I recall, the media did report on Uber, and is still doing so.

Indeed, with shoddy journalism which is what you referred to and which is what I was referring to.

Quote:

Denying Hinch and Rhiannon longer terms has been the bst thing the parties have done since the election. Both are disgraces and both need to be out of parliament.

Longy do you think there might be more important issues at play here than which candidates you prefer?


Quote:

Sure, you made the claim that "no major outlet reported on the Senate decision" - because you thought it was made on August 31, when in fact it was made on August 12.

The senate vote happened on the 31st Gandalf. I have explained this already.


Quote:

Yesterday I read 3 separate ABC articles written in the wake of the election mentioning the resolutions

So why did you cite an article that failed to mention the resolution? Can you link to one that does?


Quote:

Worth noting too is that the ABC provided the relevant facts to let us make up our own minds which method is fairer - as opposed to you just telling us which one is fairer without giving us any information about why its fairer.

I provided links to the relevant information. The explanation itself is rather lengthy, as I am sure you will agree, and I doubt I could do better than Antony Green's.


Quote:

Indeed, with shoddy journalism which is what you referred to and which is what I was referring to.

Can you give an example of the media consistently failing to report key facts the way they have done here?

freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 6:21pm:

The senate vote happened on the 31st Gandalf. I have explained this already.

The deal was made on August 12, and was widely reported. I have explained this already. Since the August 12 deal made the August 31 vote a mere rubber stamp formality, reporting again on what we've already been told is redundant.


freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 6:21pm:

I provided links to the relevant information.

Where? There's nothing on the home page article except links to two threads that rehash the same article. I don't see any external links to Green's blog or anything else. All you say is 'the deal is unfair - you can trust me on that - so please be outraged like me and contact your local MP.'


freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 6:21pm:

So why did you cite an article that failed to mention the resolution? Can you link to one that does?

I can't really be bothered. Suffice to say it was easy to find, and included: explanation that the two resolutions were made along with an APH link giving further explanation about them, as well as a link to Antony Green's article arguing that the recount method is fairer. Funnily enough thats far more than you have done - no links, no explanation about why you are so hysterical about the order elected method, just a "trust me its bad - so go and hound your MPs"

meh, what the hell, here you go...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-05/election-2016-new-senate-terms-explained/7571406

Quote:

Can you give an example of the media consistently failing to report key facts the way they have done here?

Yeas.

Link.

Shoddy journalism to be found there.

Other than you not liking it Aussie, can you say what is shoddy about it? Or is this like Unforgiven's complaint that the media did not put whatever spin he was after on 9/11 and the aftermath? Is there anything akin to the failure of the media to bring up the 1998 and 2010 resolutions when reporting on the August 12 agreement, or their failure to put questions to the relevant senators about those resolutions, or their failure to report on the August 31 vote?


Quote:

The deal was made on August 12, and was widely reported. I have explained this already. Since the August 12 deal made the August 31 vote a mere rubber stamp formality, reporting again on what we've already been told is redundant.

You had to phrase that very carefully didn't you Gandalf? What's already "been told"?


Quote:

Where?

You should start with the home page of this website. There is a link in the OP.


Quote:

There's nothing on the home page article except links to two threads that rehash the same article.

And some of the information you claimed I did not provide.


Quote:

no links, no explanation about why you are so hysterical about the order elected method, just a "trust me its bad - so go and hound your MPs"

I provided a brief explanation with links to more detailed explanations. Do Muslims always carry on like this? Or is it just every single Muslim we get here?


Quote:

I don't see any external links to Green's blog or anything else.

It's in there somewhere. I have linked to it several times. I assume you have found it now?


Quote:

I can't really be bothered.

You post an aweful lot for someone who cannot be bothered Gandalf. Do Muslims lie out of habit? I have now read all three of the articles you posted to "prove" that the media reported adequately on this. Not a single one of them mentioned the 1998 and 2010 resolutions. In fact, even you are reluctant to talk about them. Why is that? Do you think they are relevant Gandalf? Do you still think the media has adequately reported the facts?


Quote:

meh, what the hell, here you go...

Interesting choice Gandalf. Did you notice the date in the URL? Do you think it is a little odd that only articles from before the August 12 agreement mention the two bipartisan resolutions?

Freediver continues onward and forward to his destiny:

http://rathergoodguides.com/images/pasted%20image%20492x450.jpg

freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

You should start with the home page of this website. There is a link in the OP.

Nope. The only two links in the OP are to two threads that copy the exact same article.


freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

I provided a brief explanation with links to more detailed explanations.

Not only did you not provide any links to "more detailed explanations", you didn't even provide anything resembling a "brief explanation" of your own. And that would have been very simple to do and wouldn't have taken much more space. Something like "The order-elected method: The six longer-term seats are given to the first six to make it past the 7.69 per cent quota." and "The recount method: To divvy up the short and long-term positions, the votes have to be recounted as if a normal election had been held. Every senator who manages to achieve 14.29 per cent of their state's vote gets a six-year term (the quota needed for a regular election)." Note these quotes are from an ABC article, which is ironic since you are accusing them of not providing "basic facts" - yet they were the ones providing these most fundamental "basic facts" whereas you left them out. Your appeal consists of basically saying "the senate decided on an unfair method - I'm not going to give you even the most basic facts as to why I consider it unfair - you'll just have to trust me, and get angry like me".


freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

You had to phrase that very carefully didn't you Gandalf? What's already "been told"?

Is it really that difficult to understand this simple point? The deal was made on August 12. Thats worth reporting on, and it was (granted, they don't seem to have reported this together with the fact that it went against previous resolutions). It meant that the vote to make this formal on August 31 became a fait accompli. Reporting on the August 31 vote would be reporting on what we've already "been told" - ie that the senate had decided to use the order elect method. Or to put it another way, we already knew in advance what the result of the August 31 vote would be - it therefore makes more sense to report on the decision to make the August 31 vote a fait accompli, rather than the vote itself.


freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

Do you think it is a little odd that only articles from before the August 12 agreement mention the two bipartisan resolutions?

You previously thought that there were no mentions of them anywhere since the Antony Green blog - which was written in April.

The point is, as I keep saying, all the relevant facts were mentioned at some point by the media: the two resolutions, the August 12 agreement (along with critical analysis) - as well as, most critically, actual explanations about what the two methods for senate-term determination are. These are the only relevant facts - the August 31 vote was not relevant as I have already explained. The Australian public had all the information they needed to understand that a) the senate went against their own resolutions and b) that the method chosen was a cynical piece of collusion by the major parties to (in the words of one article) 'feather their own senate nests". You can no longer pretend that these relevant facts were not reported, the best you can do now is whinge about the media not spoonfeeding us confected outrage (and treat us all like mugs in the process by telling us to be outraged without giving us even the most basic information), as opposed to treating us like adults who can make our own minds up with all the relevant facts as reported.

freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

Do Muslims lie out of habit?

freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

Do Muslims always carry on like this?

Real classy FD. Congratulations, you are entering the debating sophistication level of sprint and issuevoter.
How about we stick to the topic and leave out petty personal attacks eh?

Oh look, another lengthy post from Gandalf in which he completely dodged the main issue.

Be honest Gandalf, if it is not too much to ask. Do you think the media reported appropriately on the bipartisan resolutions of 1998 and 2010 in the wake of both parties deciding to break those promises in order to steal a senate seat each?

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2016 at 6:20pm:

Oh look, another lengthy post from Gandalf in which he completely dodged the main issue. Be honest Gandalf, if it is not too much to ask. Do you think the media reported appropriately on the bipartisan resolutions of 1998 and 2010 in the wake of both parties deciding to break those promises in order to steal a senate seat each?

Ah.

I still do not think they have reported on it at all, but I wanted Gandalf to focus on the issue rather than trying desperately to find one exception. The first three articles Gandalf presented as evidence that they reported on it did not mention it at all. In his next attempt he presented an article from before the August 12 announcement.

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2016 at 6:30pm:

I still do not think they have reported on it at all, but I wanted Gandalf to focus on the issue rather than trying desperately to find one exception. The first three articles Gandalf presented as evidence that they reported on it did not mention it at all. In his next attempt he presented an article from before the August 12 announcement.

Why is this worthy of an on-going debate which is now reduced to the usual 'he said,' 'I said,' whinge?  'No-one' is even remotely interested in the substantive issue.  That's why it is not a raging front page story and never was or will be.

Good point Aussie. Why do people keep responding to this thread when they have nothing to say? It seems a bit silly don't you think?

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2016 at 6:42pm:

Good point Aussie. Why do people keep responding to this thread when they have nothing to say? It seems a bit silly don't you think?

Indeed.  I'll leave you and Gandalf to have at your usual merry go round stuff.

Before you go Aussie, do you have an opinion on the topic, or did you just pop back in to remind people that you are absent of thoughts on the issue?

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2016 at 6:53pm:

Before you go Aussie, do you have an opinion on the topic, or did you just pop back in to remind people that you are absent of thoughts on the issue?

Why doesn't Freediver open its baggage and expose his motives to the light?

Ah FD appeals to honesty.

In this spirit of honesty FD, would you care to acknowledge that in your little spiel on the home page you provided no information whatsoever on the two methods for deciding the senate terms - despite claiming otherwise?


freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2016 at 6:20pm:

Oh look, another lengthy post from Gandalf in which he completely dodged the main issue.

A big part of this issue FD is the way you yourself are trying to report (spin?) this story. And the further we delve into it, the more it unravels. First we have the outrage over the non-reporting of the August 31 vote - misleadingly inferring that the actual decision itself went by with no scrutiny. Then we find out that in fact the decision itself was made on August 12 - which was widely reported. You didn't bother to point out that the August 31 vote was a rubber stamp on a deal that was already made - which would have shown that particular non-reporting in a completely different light. Second we have your assumption that no media outlet mentioned the two resolutions since Antony Green's blog article about them in April - while it took me about 5 seconds to find 3 separate ABC articles not just mentioning them, but providing an APH link giving more details on them. And finally there's your arrogant dismissal of the public's intelligence by spoonfeeding us confected outrage about the allegedly "unfair" method of senate term allocation, without giving us any idea about why it was unfair - other than your say-so. As if that wasn't bad enough - you then assure us that you provided information as well as links explaining the two methods - when you didn't.


freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2016 at 6:20pm:

Be honest Gandalf, if it is not too much to ask. Do you think the media reported appropriately on the bipartisan resolutions of 1998 and 2010 in the wake of both parties deciding to break those promises in order to steal a senate seat each?

FD the rationale you attempted to use to justify this episode as "inappropriate" reporting has been so thoroughly dismantled that we really have to revisit what we mean by appropriate. Your central thesis that the media was negligent in reporting "basic facts" has been proven to be patently false: all the relevant facts were reported at some point or other, and the only argument you have left is that they weren't reported at the right time. You think they should have contextualised the relevant facts and wrapped them all up in one neat little package that could be spoonfed to us. Lets call it an 'outrage package'. And yes, there's something to be said of that - it was a little surprising that the resolutions weren't mentioned in the same reports as the labor-liberal deal. But that is nowhere near all the crap you were crying about - the alleged lack of criticism (there was criticism), the non-reporting of the cynical labor-liberal deal (it was covered) or the claim that the resolutions hadn't been reported on since April (it was).

The long and the short of it is, the Australian public had all the information they needed to understand that this was a cynical deal by the majors to consolidate their hold on the senate, and that it went against two resolutions that the senate made. Thats really whats important here, and so in answer to your question - essentially yes it was "appropriately" reported on.

Quote:

Your central thesis that the media was negligent in reporting "basic facts" has been proven to be patently false: all the relevant facts were reported at some point or other, and the only argument you have left is that they weren't reported at the right time. You think they should have contextualised the relevant facts and wrapped them all up in one neat little package that could be spoonfed to us.

Yes Gandalf, that is what journalism is. If politicians or political parties break promises, you present what they promised previously and what they are doing now. You do not report on what they promised before they make up their mind, then go silent on it once they announce to do the opposite of what they promised.

Even this they barely managed to do - the only examples I have seen from prior to the announcement are the Antony Green article and the example you produced earlier in the thread.

It is lazy, incompetent journalism at best. Repeated promises to do the opposite of what they are now doing is not, as you suggest, some kind of marginally relevant contextualisation, particularly on an issue as important as an election outcome and where the promise was delivered in the form of two bipartisan senate resolutions. There is a very good chance that this will affect legislative outcomes post 2019.

Whatever your motives for defending the media, you are being disingenuous, and you have resorted to blatant lies in order to defend your position.

The deal removes Hinch and others that are a disgrace. Not that I find the method used to be in any way unfair. Last-in, first-out. Hard to disagree with that.

FD what "blatant lies" have I resorted to?

Would you call insisting you provided information, including links, about the two resolutions on your home page article a lie? Or would you like to go on the record that it was an honest mistake on your part? Either way the information you insisted was there is not.

I just thought its prudent to mention this while you are throwing the accusation of lying at me.

Quote:

The deal removes Hinch and others that are a disgrace. Not that I find the method used to be in any way unfair. Last-in, first-out. Hard to disagree with that.

Both Labor and the coalition disagree, if you take their word for it (when they have no vested interest, that is).

Again I ask Longy, do you think there are bigger principles at stake here than who you want to win?


Quote:

Would you call insisting you provided information, including links, about the two resolutions on your home page article a lie?

The information and links are still there Gandalf, along with plenty mroe that you insist is not.

---

This is the only direct report I have found on the date of the senate vote:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2016/September/Rotation_of_senators

The Senate resolved this issue on its second sitting day. On 31 August 2016 Senator Fifield moved:

That, pursuant to section 13 of the Constitution, the senators chosen for each state be divided into two classes, as follows:

Senators listed at positions 7 to 12 on the certificate of election of senators for each state shall be allocated to the first class and receive 3 year terms.

Senators listed at positions 1 to 6 on the certificate of election of senators for each state shall be allocated to the second class and receive 6 year terms.

The motion was passed 50 to 15. The Ayes included the Coalition and ALP senators, and the Noes included Senators Day, Hinch, Leyonhjelm and the Nick Xenophon Team and Australian Greens senators.

---

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2016/January/Doubledissolution

On 29 June 1998, the Senate agreed to a motion by the then Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator John Faulkner, indicating support for the use of section 282 in a future division of the Senate. Senator Faulkner expressed the Opposition’s view that a decision to adopt the section 282 recount method should be made prior to any double dissolution election, and that the section 282 method was the fairest mechanism for dividing senators into the two classes. However, it was pointed out by Senator Bob Brown that the Senate could change the mechanism in the future. On 22 June 2010 the Senate agreed to an identical motion by the then Shadow Special Minister of State, Senator Michael Ronaldson, without debate.

Gandalf how far would you take this strange theory of yours that it is "adequate" for the media to report the relevant facts "at some point or other"?

If the media catches politicians breaking important promises (such as one that affects the outcome of elections when the promises took the form of repeated bipartisan senate resolutions), is it adequate for them to not ask the politicians any questions at all about these broken promises? Is it adequate for them to merely publish the justifications offered by the politicians concerned? Is it adequate for them to not include in their articles any information at all about the existence of those promises? Is it adequate for them to leave the reporting of such "contextualisations" to other journalists, to other media outlets, and to other times?

Why do you describe the reporting of relevant facts in the article in which they are relevant "spoonfeeding" and "confected outrage"? Is this not the job of journalists (leaving out for the moment the "hard questions" they ought to ask)?

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 10:59am:

The information and links are still there Gandalf, along with plenty mroe that you insist is not.

No FD. If it helps, here's the article located on the home page:


Quote:

Media asleep at the wheel on stolen senate seats September 11 2016 There are thieves in the Senate. Scott Ryan, Liberal Senator for Victoria and Deborah O'Neill, Labor Senator for NSW will continue to hold their Senate seats after June 2019, while roughly half of their colleagues will face re-election. They will continue to serve from 2019 until 2022, at the expense of Derryn Hinch and Lee Rhiannon. Their seats were stolen on their behalf by the Labor Party and the Coalition. The two major parties have broken promises they made twice to the Australian public in order to secure these seats. These promises took the form of Senate resolutions on 22 June 2010 and 29 June 1998. Both resolutions passed with bipartisan support and stated that the Senate will use the new, fairer method to determine which senators get full (6 year) terms in the event of a double dissolution election. Had they kept this promise, senate thieves Scott Ryan and Deborah O'Neill would be facing re-election in 2019 and Hinch and Rhiannon would have the six year terms that the Australian public voted for. Unfortunately these resolutions are not binding and the Australian constitution permits the Senate to allocate the seats as it pleases, meaning Labor and the Coalition are not bound to keep their promise and can literally get away with anything. In addition to these two promises, the Labor party passed the relevant legislation (again, non-binding) in 1984. After the 1987 double dissolution election, Coalition Senators voted in favour of using the new method to allocate senate seats, while the Labor party chose to keep the old method - again, because it gave them a bigger share of the seats. It was this 1987 disagreement that prompted the two major parties to pass the 1998 and 2010 resolutions to use the fairer method in the future. They no doubt had every intention of holding each other to this promise, up until the current situation arose in which both stood to benefit from sticking with the unfair method. This coup has been permitted by a mainstream media that is asleep at the wheel. No major outlet reported on the Senate decision of August 31. They did report on Labor and the Coalition reaching an agreement to do this several weeks earlier. However, the reporting on this agreement simply quoted the insipid justifications given by the major parties and lacked any critical analysis or hard questions. Neither Labor nor the Coalition have been forced by the media to comment on the fact that they both broke promises that they made clearly and repeatedly to the Australian public. They have not been forced to even acknowledge that they made these promises. Neither party has been forced to acknowledge the transparent self-interest behind the decision. Instead, The ABC, The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald etc all let the major parties get away with simply pointing out that their agreement was "in keeping with the constitution and precedent", as if the new legislation and the repeated promises to use it never happened. The media has been publishing these insipid justifications and excuses on behalf of the major parties, while leaving out relevant facts and failing in their duty to ask the important questions. Please contact your federal MP and senators using the links below (scroll down to "please support democracy in the senate") and let them know that you intend to punish them at the next election if they do not give back the stolen senate seats. Please also write to your newspaper and let them know of your disapproval at their failure to report on this coup and your scepticism at their ability to do their job. Please also write to Senators Ryan and O'Neill and let them know that you consider them to be thieves in the Senate and that their ongoing presence after 2019 undermines the legitimacy of the Senate. Discussion: Media asleep at the wheel on stolen senate seats Ryan and O'Neill - senate thieves Senators Ryan and O'Neill have been invited to respond to this article.

Point 1: as anyone can see who wants to read this, there is no explanation whatsoever of what the two senate term allocation methods are - brief or otherwise. You don't even name them.

Point 2: there are precisely two links in this article (under "Discussion"). As I said before they are simply a rehash of the same article. No further information is provided.

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 12:48pm:

Gandalf how far would you take this strange theory of yours that it is "adequate" for the media to report the relevant facts "at some point or other"? If the media catches politicians breaking important promises (such as one that affects the outcome of elections when the promises took the form of repeated bipartisan senate resolutions), is it adequate for them to not ask the politicians any questions at all about these broken promises?

I think calling it a 'broken promise' is a stretch. The last resolution was made in 2010 and since then the senate has changed twice. How beholden is the current, new senate to this resolution? Its debatable in my book. And your histrionics like calling it "thieving" and such doesn't exactly bring much balance back to the story - especially when you don't even provide the most basic facts, and instead condescendingly expect everyone to join in on your outrage purely on your say-so.


Quote:

Is it adequate for them to merely publish the justifications offered by the politicians concerned? Is it adequate for them to not include in their articles any information at all about the existence of those promises? Is it adequate for them to leave the reporting of such "contextualisations" to other journalists, to other media outlets, and to other times? Why do you describe the reporting of relevant facts in the article in which they are relevant "spoonfeeding" and "confected outrage"? Is this not the job of journalists (leaving out for the moment the "hard questions" they ought to ask)?

The most relevant point from the story is that they two major parties colluded in a grubby deal to "feather their own senate nests". That was widely reported, and the message came across loud and clear. The information you are demanding won't make this deal seem any more grubbier, and is essentially superfluous.

Quote:

I think calling it a 'broken promise' is a stretch. The last resolution was made in 2010 and since then the senate has changed twice. How beholden is the current, new senate to this resolution?

The same two parties are in power Gandalf. The same two parties that passed both bipartisan resolutions came to a bipartisan agreement to break those promises. It is not "the senate" that is lying. It is the parties, whose purpose is to maintain some consistency of policies.

This is however a very good question. Would you say that the media failed spectacularly to do their job when they did not ask this question, or anything like it, of the parties involved, or even of the senators who were around in 2010? Do you think the fundamental processes of our democracy should be changed according to the whims of the day? Do we need a different democracy with different rules 6 years after we last agreed on a set of rules? Do you think it is fair to change the vote counting rules after the people have cast their votes? Just how eager are you to defend broken promises and shoddy journalism?


Quote:

The most relevant point from the story is that they two major parties colluded in a grubby deal to "feather their own senate nests". That was widely reported, and the message came across loud and clear.

That's odd. Every article I read described it as being consistent with convention and left out the bit where they repeatedly promised to use the fairer method. They even used the word 'fair' many times. Do you think that is a fair assessment? Not one described the deal as grubby or feathery - how could it be grubby or feathery if they were simply following convention, being fair and there was no reason to expect them to act differently?

freediver wrote on Sep 18^th, 2016 at 9:16pm:

Not one described the deal as grubby or feathery

Yes they did. One article even used the word "feathered" in the title!

Every article I read on the deal quoted Derryn Hunch and/or a Green complaining how unfair it was - and yes, there was even mention of the fact that the "fairer" method had been agreed to before. Again, you seem to have missed this, along with just about everything else that was relevant to this story.

By the way, are you going to update the home page article to include the information you insisted was there but is not?

Quote:

Every article I read on the deal quoted Derryn Hunch and/or a Green complaining how unfair it was

So the losers thought it was unfair... Did the article give a good justification for why they might think it was unfair, such pointing out the Senate resolutions of 1998 and 2010? Every article I read quoted Labor and the Coalition saying it was fair and consistent with convention. Without reference to the resolutions, this makes Hinch and Rhiannon look like they are having a whinge.


Quote:

- and yes, there was even mention of the fact that the "fairer" method had been agreed to before.

Not in any of the articles I read that were written after the announcement.


Quote:

Again, you seem to have missed this, along with just about everything else that was relevant to this story.

I have asked you several times to post examples. Every example you have posted has contradicted the point you were trying to make. The first three links you gave were to articles that, like every other I have read, completely failed to mention the resolutions, and the next example you gave was written before the August 12 announcement. You are the only one missing something Gandalf.

It is lazy, incompetent journalism at best.


Quote:

By the way, are you going to update the home page article to include the information you insisted was there but is not?

You are confused Gandalf.

Gandalf isnt confused. YOU are. This 'rage' you feel is supported by pretty much no one other than a couple of senators who missed out on 6 year terms because of an alternative arrangement that is arguably no fairer.  Are you seriously arguing that Hinch the pedo and Rhiannon the commo deserve any support? Even if this were a matter of principle - and it isnt - that would be a hard sell.

Last elected, first out. Sounds simple and pretty fair to me - and most other people too.

Are you suggesting that democracy is not a matter of principle?

What about keeping promises?


Quote:

This 'rage' you feel is supported by pretty much no one other than a couple of senators who missed out on 6 year terms because of an alternative arrangement that is arguably no fairer.

They did not miss out "because of an alternative arrangement". That does not even make sense. They missed out because Labor and the Coalition broke their promises.

If the alternative arrangement is "arguably no fairer", why did Labor and the Coalition support it on two separate occasions? Why did they go to the trouble of having Senate resolutions to declare their support for it?

A slightly disjointed nose over being exposed for misleading and misrepresentation, has become a full blown hysterical fit:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1474078271

Note the classy personal attacks about my completely irrelevant religious beliefs.

freediver wrote on Sep 19^th, 2016 at 6:28pm:

You are confused Gandalf.

Indeed I am. Confused as to why you would so stubbornly persist with the lie that you provided any links or information about the two resolutions in the OP article on the home page:


freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

You should start with the home page of this website. There is a link in the OP.

Try to comprehend this FD: there is *NO* link in the OP except to two threads rehashing the exact same article.

Confused also as to why someone would expect people to heed your calls to lobby MPs purely on your baseless advise that they chose the "unfair" method.

Confused also by the irony - the irony of railing against the media not being informative enough, and then attempting to "inform" the public by not even providing the most basic information yourself.

Quote:

- and yes, there was even mention of the fact that the "fairer" method had been agreed to before.

So you accidentally provided the wrong links eh Gandalf? And you can't be bothered providing the right ones? Should we just take your word for it?

freediver wrote on Sep 20^th, 2016 at 12:41pm:

Quote: - and yes, there was even mention of the fact that the "fairer" method had been agreed to before. So you accidentally provided the wrong links eh Gandalf? And you can't be bothered providing the right ones? Should we just take your word for it?

I thought you said you read the articles FD.



Quote:

“The Greens’ [Lee] Rhiannon is in the same boat in NSW,” he said. Rhiannon called on Labor last week to abide by the “fairer” allocation method because it would prevent the Coalition boosting their Senate numbers at the next election. “The main reason is that under a recount method [Justice party’s] Derryn Hinch wins a long-term Senate seat at the expense of a Liberal senator,” Rhiannon said. “Section 282 is more democratic and the Senate has acknowledged that on previous occasions,” she said. “If the crossbenchers are interested in reducing the power of the major party duopoly then they would support the fairer recount method.”

Can you spot Rhiannon "mention[ing] the fact that the "fairer" method had been agreed to before."

I'll happily accept your apology for that, as well as your false claim that I linked the 3 articles to "prove" that the two senate resolutions had been reported on.

no hurry, do take your time...

Quote:

Section 282 is more democratic and the Senate has acknowledged that on previous occasions,” she said.

Is that the only mention you have found in articles written after the August 12 announcement? It says nothing of agreement or of senate resolutions. It could equally be interpreted as a reference to the 1984 legislation.

Gandalf do you agree that reporting someone saying it is "unfair" falls far short of reporting on two bipartisan Senate resolutions that the major parties then proceeded to backflip on, undermining the constitution and the role of the Senate in the process?

Why are you so eager to defend this?

Oh look, a Muslim cheerleader for the undermining of our democracy.

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 6:44pm:

Oh look, a Muslim cheerleader for the undermining of our democracy.

that's the way FD. Turn it into an attack on muslims. You're bound to get  notice that way.

:D :D

Don't worry FreeDiver.
Even I noticed it before I ever discovered this Topic of yours (currently). I think I even posted a Topic about it a few weeks back.

Maybe I was subconsciously trying to 'steal your Topic'?
:D

Seriously though - this is Media manipulation of Australian Politics.
>:(

Jasin I'd be interested to check out the other thread if you can post a link.


John Smith wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 6:46pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2019 at 6:44pm: Oh look, a Muslim cheerleader for the undermining of our democracy. that's the way FD. Turn it into an attack on muslims. You're bound to get  notice that way. :D :D

Gandalf claims to speak on behalf of the vast majority of the worlds Muslims (rather than, say, a survey of what they actually think).

Ok, I've looked back 15 pages in both General and Fed Politics and couldn't spot it, for it would be in either of these two, if I posted it as a Topic. So maybe it was just a post in another Topic. My bad, sorry.

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 7:10pm:

Jasin I'd be interested to check out the other thread if you can post a link. John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2019 at 6:46pm: freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2019 at 6:44pm: Oh look, a Muslim cheerleader for the undermining of our democracy. that's the way FD. Turn it into an attack on muslims. You're bound to get  notice that way. :D :D Gandalf claims to speak on behalf of the vast majority of the worlds Muslims (rather than, say, a survey of what they actually think).

relevance to senate seats? .... not that I believe what you said by the way.

John Smith wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 8:20pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2019 at 7:10pm: Jasin I'd be interested to check out the other thread if you can post a link. John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2019 at 6:46pm: freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2019 at 6:44pm: Oh look, a Muslim cheerleader for the undermining of our democracy. that's the way FD. Turn it into an attack on muslims. You're bound to get  notice that way. :D :D Gandalf claims to speak on behalf of the vast majority of the worlds Muslims (rather than, say, a survey of what they actually think). relevance to senate seats? .... not that I believe what you said by the way.

The Jawa of Monkey Mania PA Forum has much relevance to this Forum like a garbage collector - always talkin trash.  ::)

---

Aussie wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 3:45pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2016 at 3:41pm: How would you describe it Aussie? Do you think Labor and the Coalition own the seats they took? I would not seek to describe it.  You did.  Theft, ey?

I would say that theft is accurate.