Julia's Reign

[Cutter]

It is legitimate to voice views from both sides of politics - you do know that don't you?

The Sydney Institute? Hardly obective is it? Henderson is openly conservative and he's sometimes on Insiders. The question is whether the counterpoint to a leftist view is ignored or downplayed.

There was someone who posted on here for a while who had done some study on exactly this point. Anyone remember who it was?

 

[Cutter]

It was sevenpointdropgoal on pages 11 and 12 of this thread:

Incidentally. I've assisted with two independent studies of ABC language in reporting, and read most of the literature produced in the last decade and a half, and there is simply no evidence to support the accusation of bias in the ABC. One of the statistics gurus I briefly worked with at USyd used to describe ABC bias as Gerard Henderson's personal Tasmanian Tiger.

Certainly. I assisted with setting up two studies into various aspects of ABC communication. In the interest of internet prudence I'll be a bit institutionally vague, but suffice to say I am not from an arts background, and I was not involved in designing the study; I merely assisted with the statistical analysis - (I was, at the time, studying in the field). I did quite a bit of background reading at the time, and spent a bit of time on the results - but you certainly shouldn't consider me an expert in any respect.

I'm not intending to single out any political persuasion, but I do believe the accusations of bias under the Liberals during the Howard era weren't supported by the evidence. I feel that, particularly after the Tampa affair, the threat of interference on the grounds of bias was used in a largely unsuccessful attempt to gain greater control over what was deemed an ideologically unpalatable organization. It has be suggested that it was a nefarious attempt by the Howard government to stifle dissent (and indeed there are several whole books on the subject), but I don't really think it had much to do with silencing the ABC, so much as limiting the influence of an organization that was closely associated with a "socialist" past. In a way I think it was probably a miscalculation by Howard's political advisers, as the ABC has never had a particularly strong impact on our political landscape, and certainly didn't have any measurable effect on the success of the Howard government, and the damage done by the imposition of Jonathon Shear (in particular) had a negative impact on the quality of Australian artistic programing, whilst having little effect on the ideologically problematic structure of the organisation. This is unfortunate, as it targeted one of the great forces behind interesting and creative Australian programing with no improvements in efficiency. I am prepared to accept a good argument regarding reform of the ABC, but I think most of the discussion today is political, and most proposals would have little effect on the quality of ABC's output.

Edit; And no, I have never worked at the ABC, or indeed for any government agency (though I did, at one stage, draw a little indirect income from the Department of Defense).

There is more there if you're interested.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It is legitimate to voice views from both sides of politics - you do know that don't you?

The Sydney Institute? Hardly obective is it? Henderson is openly conservative and he's sometimes on Insiders. The question is whether the counterpoint to a leftist view is ignored or downplayed.

There was someone who posted on here for a while who had done some study on exactly this point. Anyone remember who it was?

And when he is he's outnumbered 3:1 as is whichever alternative conservative commentator sits in - or didn't I make that point clear? - that's what made it such an excellent example of the abc predilection.
It's not a question of language, by the way, it's a question of criticising both labor and liberal from the left: who ever is in government. It's not about Howard's complaints about bias against his government its about bias against anything to the right of the greens.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Scarfman]

The art of being PM in this country is being able to sell policies to stupid people. Hawke and Howard had it, and no-one else in my lifetime.

 

[Cutter]

I don't disagree Scarfy. Notably though, Howard's effectiveness waned in his later years and Krudd and Gillard have been ineffective. Has the rise of the internet, and the transformation of the media which has followed, led to increased difficulty in selling these policies? News comes and goes so quickly that no one has the time or inclination to seek to verify what they're told meaning that, for example, News Ltd can exercise, perhaps, even greater influence than in the past.

I hold the view that, although giving us access to more and better information, the internet is having a "dumbing" effect.

 

[Moses]

I reckon Hockey could sell to dumb people, he's a kindred spirit

 

[barbarian]

And when he is he's outnumbered 3:1 as is whichever alternative conservative commentator sits in - or didn't I make that point clear? - that's what made it such an excellent example of the abc predilection.
It's not a question of language, by the way, it's a question of criticising both labor and liberal from the left: who ever is in government. It's not about Howard's complaints about bias against his government its about bias against anything to the right of the greens.

Is there any less interesting topic than the so-called bias of the ABC?

Talk about a completely meaningless issue, not to mention one based on very little fact.

Please can we not become like America where everyone is coloured either 'blue' or 'red' and every issue is looked at through partisan glasses?

The panel on 'Insiders' is not made up of 3 'lefties' and 1 'rightie'. It's 4 journalists. Most journos on the show are professional enough to keep their analysis largely impartial- guys like Phil Coorey, Dennis Shanahan etc. Some have elements of their opinion that veer to the left- eg Lenore Taylor on Climate Change, and some have opinions that are hard on the right or left (eg David Marr, Gerard Henderson).

In the end it's one of the best political talk shows in Australia.

And yet you are stressing about how Gerard only gets to sit in the chair on the far right, as if he is being somehow ostracised. Who the fuck cares?
.

 

[mark_s]

Labour have been doomed to failure since the last election result. Gillard would have been better off having a close election loss and would have been able to (quite successfully IMO) snipe away at Abbot and probably would have won the next election comfortably. I actually think she is a good leader but suspect we will never see the best of her. Instead, she has been forced to do deals with the devils (which have pretty much all blown up on her) and tried to honour conflicting promises (which meant she hasn’t really pleased anyone).

One thing they do need to do is to dump KRudd, he is going to be a permanent source of destabilisation given he still wants to be leader, for some reason has public support but labour will never elect him again. This will probably require some sort of cushy posting for him to buy his graceful exit from parliament. Also, if I were them I would be courting Turnbull as I reckon he has more in common with Gillard/Swan than Abbot and is not dependent on his politicial career for hi slong term financial security.

The worst thing is that the labour party are doing such a good job at self imploding that the opposition don’t really need to do anything to win the next election. It’s hardly a situation that leads to our best and brightest rising to the top.

It’s very hard to understand how the media are at fault for labours problems. I actually think some of the reporting of the Thomson affair has been too tame, that guy is lucky to not be facing criminal charges and the delays in the investigations have been curious.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't disagree Scarfy. Notably though, Howard's effectiveness waned in his later years and Krudd and Gillard have been ineffective. Has the rise of the internet, and the transformation of the media which has followed, led to increased difficulty in selling these policies? News comes and goes so quickly that no one has the time or inclination to seek to verify what they're told meaning that, for example, News Ltd can exercise, perhaps, even greater influence than in the past.

I hold the view that, although giving us access to more and better information, the internet is having a "dumbing" effect.

You can see this effect on the SMH website - they sometimes have headlines in different parts of the page that completely contradict one another as they breathlessly report an inter-day decline in the share market, for instance, or a fall in home prices. As much as I hate to sound like a politician (i.e. Lindsay Tanner) the news cycle is corrupting all decision making processes by making trivial things seem more important than they really.
A good illustration is the point made earlier in this thread that the government's economic credentials are pretty good: viewed from 30,000 feet thats right but when you get in a chopper and skim over the burbs you can find people hurting and that's news - so it gets a run and we all think we're going backwards.....the response is to chuck $800 at families with kids in high schools: if they don't do it the noise will get louder.

 

[cyclopath]

The art of being PM in this country is being able to sell policies to stupid people. Hawke and Howard had it, and no-one else in my lifetime.

A somewhat condescending statement. I think "less educated" might be more accurate. Howard sold a lot to "middle Australia" who are not stupid, but they may be less well informed and read than others.
I say this based on my patient demographic - I see up to 80 patients in a week some weeks, mostly in lower socio- economic areas of Sydney and elsewhere. They generally do not strike me as stupid, but neither do most of them, I would suspect, spend time reading broadsheets and watching the ABC. So they may be less well read than most on this thread. Not the same as being stupid.

 

[Scarfman]

Hmmm, a few different taxonomies in play there, cyclo. My "stupid" and your "low socio-economic" and "less educated."

I genuinely prefer the term "stupid" as getting at what I mean. For example, I know some low-education, low-SES people of whom I could say "he's not stupid." And plenty of high-education, high-SES people I think of as completely hairbrained.

But I do define intelligence according to criteria that suit me: the ability to think clearly, weigh up facts and opinion, crunch some data, work through the logic, and above all else, the ability to see the world from broader and plural perspectives. I also put too high a value on written expression. When someone's rant is grammatically correct, I automatically give it a lot more credibility.

With all due respect, the problem with your approach is that the answer is the perennial "education." This is what Marx reckoned: the proletariat needs consciousness raising, and I've never agreed with it. For me, that is condescending. If people were more educated, they wouldn't make short-term, selfish, contradictory decisions? I dunno, they might. I'd prefer to give credit to people for their narrow-minded viewpoints and play them with the full face of the bat.

Howard and Hawwke both appealed to values such as mateship, Australian-ness, the family, and so on to win over lower-middle Australia's trust. Howard, much less admirably, also used fear, resentment and xenophobia to wedge himself into the low-SES demographic. How would you describe those Western Sydney people who were won over by Howard's culture wars? Less educated? Low-SES? I think they would be much better defined by lack of wisdom, sensitivity and empathy.

 

[Scarfman]

I don't disagree Scarfy. Notably though, Howard's effectiveness waned in his later years and Krudd and Gillard have been ineffective. Has the rise of the internet, and the transformation of the media which has followed, led to increased difficulty in selling these policies? News comes and goes so quickly that no one has the time or inclination to seek to verify what they're told meaning that, for example, News Ltd can exercise, perhaps, even greater influence than in the past.

I hold the view that, although giving us access to more and better information, the internet is having a "dumbing" effect.

For me, the decline of journalism is an easy one. Media went from a profession, a calling, one of the pillars (or estates) of our society, in providing information and accountability to our democracy ... to being ordinary money-making corporations, like everything else. When newspapers got into the business of making money, they lost their essential independence. They were forced to give people what they wanted. And people, it turns out, want tits and easy answers in that order. All you can say about the Fairfax audience is that people want tits, easy answers, and elegant designer homewares.

 

[Rob42]

For me, the decline of journalism is an easy one. Media went from a profession, a calling, one of the pillars (or estates) of our society, in providing information and accountability to our democracy ... to being ordinary money-making corporations, like everything else. When newspapers got into the business of making money, they lost their essential independence. They were forced to give people what they wanted. And people, it turns out, want tits and easy answers in that order. All you can say about the Fairfax audience is that people want tits, easy answers, and elegant designer homewares.

It's the source of money in the print media, especially, that's changed. For all the highbrow analysis one could glean from the pages of the SMH or Age, the fuel driving the Fairfax engine used to be the classifieds, the "rivers of gold". Good quality journalism was a useful way to get people to pay a higher cover price to read those classifieds, but it has always been the advertisers that really paid the bills. Fairfax was always a money-making company. Nowadays, who puts any sort of classified ad in the paper? It's all on eBay or Facebook, and the job websites don't pull the same money.

So the papers now just want the maximum number of eyeballs on a webpage, and hell yes, tits outrank Ross Gittins. Just spend a few minutes looking at stories on the SMH website, which tell you how many people are viewing at a time.

 

[cyclopath]

Scarfy, whatever woos them is not the issue about which I am speaking, all I am saying is I see a lot of "middle Australia" and my abiding feeling is that they are not stupid by any definition I use. By less educated I mean less likely to be tertiary educated, and my point on less well read was explained. Whether they have narrow viewpoints was not my point, of course they may, as do many in the broadly read and "highly educated" parts of society. We disagree on what qualifies as stupid.
I feel there has been a spiral of materialism through our prolonged period of affluence (as a society) which is relentlessly played upon by politicians, journalists and I think what drives self-interest with respect to politics, climate-change and so on. I think it has moved from "stupid" to selfish.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Spot on:
"I feel there has been a spiral of materialism through our prolonged period of affluence (as a society) which is relentlessly played upon by politicians, journalists and I think what drives self-interest with respect to politics, climate-change and so on. I think it has moved from "stupid" to selfish."

 

[Scarfman]

But cyclo, could you not add "short-term thinking" to "selfish"? And might you consider "lack of empathy for other lives" in there? Gather a few of those together and whatever we call it, it is a personal characteristic, not a demogrphic group. Which was my point, broadly speaking.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The insidious nature of materialism is that it obscures what one has and highlights what others have thereby promoting a selfish or more selfish or less altruistic mind set.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[cyclopath]

But cyclo, could you not add "short-term thinking" to "selfish"? And might you consider "lack of empathy for other lives" in there? Gather a few of those together and whatever we call it, it is a personal characteristic, not a demogrphic group. Which was my point, broadly speaking.

I think we're at cross purposes here - I thought the pejorative term "stupid" was an inaccurate way of describing the target group to which politicians pitch all this stuff, rather they target the middle Australian aspirational population, whom I was, perhaps somewhat clumsily, labelling as maybe less educated and less broadly read in day to day news etc... My contact (frequent) with this group is that they are mostly far from stupid. I agree they may have a lot of self-interest and some narrow points of view. You feel that is stupid. Fair enough, it's a debate on etymology!
Anyway, I will agree to partly disagree with you, mate.

 

[Scarfman]

No worries mate, we'll sort out the terminology over a beer.

Now - to the budget. My first reaction is WOW! Brave, visionary, Keating-era budget. I'll listen to the sensible analysis but at first glance it looks like Swanny's got vision even if Julia doesn't.

 

[Moses]

RT @latikambourke SCRAPPED: Indigenous Literacy and Numeracy Program worth $56.3m. #budget