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


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:


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:


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:


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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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:



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:


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.

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.

Quote:


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:


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.