• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

The Bloody Papers

Status
Not open for further replies.

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
TBH it varies week to week. Some weeks it will be hack politicians (Think Emerson, Bowen, Coonan, Arbib, Shorten, Dutton, Bishop) and boring panellists (like head of young libs/labor, some ethnic advocate, head of xyz institute). Other weeks there will be interesting politicians (such as Downer, Costello and Tanner in their day, now its Turnbull, Hockey, Joyce, Burke and Evans) and a few journos/others who are unafraid to speak their minds (eg David Marr, John Elliot, Julian Morrow) and the occasional wildcard who comes good (eg Magda Szubanski).

You don't have to agree with what they are saying, often it is better when you don't, but the good panellists are confident and don't run away from a fight and resort to cliches/party slogans. I look at the panel before deciding whether to watch now.

Yep, that's fair. I have seen good panel discussions on there in the past and they have often involved Turnbull and of all people Graham Richardson. The majority of it, like politics in general, leaves me cold though.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
The Dude from Q & A was on the radio this morning. He said they spend just as much time picking the audience as the panel. All audience members have to answer questions by email and maybe by phone. and they look for trends in answers to try to see if they have been coached. The idea is to try to get a balanced audience. I rarely watch the show so I have no idea if they achieve a balance or not.

Really? I have had mates who just booked tickets on the net and rocked up. That was a while ago though, so it may have changed as it has become more popular and influential. I take back my previous comments then, and apologise to everyone. I have let down myself, my family, and the forum.
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
TBH it varies week to week. Some weeks it will be hack politicians (Think Emerson, Bowen, Coonan, Arbib, Shorten, Dutton, Bishop) and boring panellists (like head of young libs/labor, some ethnic advocate, head of xyz institute). Other weeks there will be interesting politicians (such as Downer, Costello and Tanner in their day, now its Turnbull, Hockey, Joyce, Burke and Evans) and a few journos/others who are unafraid to speak their minds (eg David Marr, John Elliot, Julian Morrow) and the occasional wildcard who comes good (eg Magda Szubanski).

You don't have to agree with what they are saying, often it is better when you don't, but the good panellists are confident and don't run away from a fight and resort to cliches/party slogans. I look at the panel before deciding whether to watch now.

I like that it puts the panellists on the spot and the viewer can gauge their abilities in a more genuine sense, especially the politicians. Far too often we are only left to hear from our politicians in a staged environment that is full of spin and insincerity. We read the bias tripe fed to us in the paper each day. Having the elected official having to answer a question put to them by ordinary every day people has to be a good thing. Would be great to see a show like Stateline run the same format once a month to ask questions on individual state issues.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Really? I have had mates who just booked tickets on the net and rocked up. That was a while ago though, so it may have changed as it has become more popular and influential. I take back my previous comments then, and apologise to everyone. I have let down myself, my family, and the forum.

Your punishment is to be tackled by Phil Waugh. Repeatedly.
 

Jnor

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Really? I have had mates who just booked tickets on the net and rocked up. That was a while ago though, so it may have changed as it has become more popular and influential. I take back my previous comments then, and apologise to everyone. I have let down myself, my family, and the forum.

Don't beat yourself up too much (or let Phil Waugh do it), I booked tickets withj friends and we all just turned ap a few months ago. I would say what they actually do is make sure the questions they have lined up do not all follow one theme/ideological bent. That and checking 80% of the guests aren't party hacks.
 

Aussie D

Dick Tooth (41)
Did anyone notice the front page of the papers yesterday? Newcastle Herald - London Riots, Australian - London Riots / Stockmarket, Fin Review - London Riots / Stockmarket, Telegraph - London Riots. What did the SMH have? London Riots - No. Stock Market - a small article. The main article on the front page was about Penny Wong's partner being pregnant. Is this newsworthy IMHO not at all, stick it in the Woman's Day / New Idea / NW / etc. unless of course Penny Wong somehow managed to knock her partner up - that would be front page news material. I stopped buying the SMH a long time ago but am getting to the page where I won't read it altogether (I can read it for free at Tafe). Pathetic effort SMH start giving Australians viable media competition.
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
I would be annoyed at the other papers also for reporting something on the other side of the world when surely there are far more significant issues close by. The only thing newspaper is good for is cleaning a BBQ plate.
 
C

chief

Guest
Did anyone notice the front page of the papers yesterday? Newcastle Herald - London Riots, Australian - London Riots / Stockmarket, Fin Review - London Riots / Stockmarket, Telegraph - London Riots. What did the SMH have? London Riots - No. Stock Market - a small article. The main article on the front page was about Penny Wong's partner being pregnant. Is this newsworthy IMHO not at all, stick it in the Woman's Day / New Idea / NW / etc. unless of course Penny Wong somehow managed to knock her partner up - that would be front page news material. I stopped buying the SMH a long time ago but am getting to the page where I won't read it altogether (I can read it for free at Tafe). Pathetic effort SMH start giving Australians viable media competition.

SMH is usually the best Sydney Newspaper, as the Daily Telegraph is without doubt Australia's worst newspaper. However the SMH have an agenda of gay rights and climate change. I get the SMH a bit in Brisbane and its clear that's what their agenda is. Daily Telegraph's agenda is to destroy the Gillard government. While the SMH is promoting these things. Hardly surprising to see Penny Wong and her partner having a child is on the front page. Lovely to hear though.
 

bryce

Darby Loudon (17)
I live abroad so I can only read the SMH online. Obviously I think it is much better than the Telegraph but it is getting worse - a few days back the headline picture and story on the home page was.....'Masterchef- Live Blog. The oven gloves are off in a final challenge between wannabe chefs. We follow the great cook off'. Terrible.
 

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Although GetUp and Avaaz have their knockers, it is for reasons like this that I support them.

http://www.newsstand.org.au/campaigns/free-and-fair/demand-an-inquiry/demand-an-inquiry

http://www.smh.com.au/business/medi...-media-regulation-inquiry-20110811-1iox0.html

Poll shows support for media regulation inquiry Lenore Taylor
August 12, 2011

THE Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, and the Greens leader, Bob Brown, have discussed possible terms of reference for a parliamentary inquiry into media regulation, as a new poll shows 60 per cent of voters support the idea.

The negotiation will continue when Parliament resumes next week, when the government is likely to make a final decision about whether to proceed.

An Essential Research poll commissioned by a GetUp!-linked activist group, Newsstand, suggests majority voter support for another media inquiry.

Sixty-one per cent of those surveyed ''agreed'' or ''strongly agreed'' with the proposition that ''a public inquiry into the Australian media is necessary so the public can better understand the relationship between politicians, corporations and media outlets.''

Sixty per cent agreed when the idea of an inquiry when read the proposition ''following recent revelations in Britain about phone hacking conducted by newspapers, there should be a public inquiry into the performance and regulation of the Australian media.''

On each question 69 per cent of Labor voters supported an inquiry, but a majority of Coalition voters also backed the idea.

The Greens and crossbench independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have backed an investigation. Andrew Wilkie has said he is ''open-minded'' but the Coalition has argued another inquiry is not necessary.

Newstand, which launched an online petition yesterday calling for an inquiry, says it is funded by ''GetUp! and some generous individuals'' and operates with ''a few staff and lots of volunteers''.

It consulted the Centre for Policy Development, the Australia Institute, Media Matters for America, the Centre for Independent Journalism, GetUp! and the international activist organisation Avaaz before starting its campaign.

The petition calls for a full parliamentary inquiry to examine ''how to promote higher standards, protect people's privacy while guaranteeing the freedom of the press, stimulate a more diverse media marketplace, and ensure that problems and complaints can be handled simply, fairly and effectively''.

The poll found 86 per cent of the 1200 people surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the proposition that ''it should be easier to make complaints against the media when there is a concern about biased and inaccurate reporting'', including 89 per cent of Labor voters and 84 per cent of Coalition voters, and 70 per cent agreed with the statement that ''too few people control the media in Australia.''

Any parliamentary inquiry would run alongside an existing review into media regulation in the digital age - the so-called ''convergence'' review. Senators Brown and Conroy met last week.

News Ltd has announced a review of editorial expenditure to ensure payments had been made for ''legitimate purposes''. There have been no allegations of wrongdoing in Australia.

Avaaz said it had 25,000 signatures on an online petition calling for a comprehensive review of media laws and practices.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I'd support it, but prefer if they ran an enquiry into the standard and ethics of politicians first.

Trusting a result of an enquiry started by Conroy and Brown is a just a little bit beyond me.
 

Bruwheresmycar

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Not sure where to post this. Thought it was interesting 5 minute read. Warren Buffett on the US tax system, and the 17% tax he pays :D

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
 

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
He makes a good point, but a lot of that inequity could be reduced by some proper tax reform, like flattening the tax brackets and getting rid of a lot of tax deductions. It would broaden the tax base and lessen the need to have special tax structures like family trusts to keep the money away from the authorities. Also, Warren can donate any amount of money he likes to the US treasury as a donation. Nothing stopping him from paying more if he wants. Stated and revealed preferences are often not the same thing.

He also forgets that your effective tax rate is not the same as your absolute amount. I doubt whether many of the people working in Berkshire Hathaway head office in Omaha paid nearly USD7M in tax last year. It's a good problem to have Mr Buffet.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I would make the change to have couples taxed as one, which would remove the need for family trusts, and might help our family units and thus community a bit as well.
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
He makes a good point, but a lot of that inequity could be reduced by some proper tax reform, like flattening the tax brackets and getting rid of a lot of tax deductions. It would broaden the tax base and lessen the need to have special tax structures like family trusts to keep the money away from the authorities. Also, Warren can donate any amount of money he likes to the US treasury as a donation. Nothing stopping him from paying more if he wants. Stated and revealed preferences are often not the same thing.

He also forgets that your effective tax rate is not the same as your absolute amount. I doubt whether many of the people working in Berkshire Hathaway head office in Omaha paid nearly USD7M in tax last year. It's a good problem to have Mr Buffet.


Trying to not go ad hominen here BH, but to go from what Buffet says to what you conclude is an act of defiant ideological stubborness.

You reveal youself to be completely closed to reason. Forget it!
 

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I'd support it, but prefer if they ran an enquiry into the standard and ethics of politicians first.

Trusting a result of an enquiry started by Conroy and Brown is a just a little bit beyond me.

Yes, wouldn't it be great if we had a decent media to hold them to account. Oh well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top