Support NeoGAF

[lexi]

http://thehoopla.com.au/im-strayan-love-stayin-dumb/

Possibly the most depressing thing I've ever read.

 

[Dryk]

I'd read it before. It's very good. Never expect Corrine Grant to write something like that.

 

[shanshan310]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-...switzerland-embarrassing-shorten-says/5216962

Labor hits out at Tony Abbott over his swipe at World Economic Forum

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says Tony Abbott's swipe at Labor in Switzerland last night was "embarrassing" and proves the Prime Minister is stuck in opposition mode.

Mr Abbott used a keynote speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos to criticise Labor's response to the global financial crisis, saying the party had decided to "spend our way to prosperity".

"The reason for spending soon passed but the spending didn't stop, because when it comes to spending governments can be like addicts in search of a fix," Mr Abbott said.

Mr Shorten says Mr Abbott's speech demonstrated "in front of the whole world" that the Government is still "thinking like an opposition".

Australia is prominent at this year's talks because it currently has the chair of the G20 group.
"Overnight in Switzerland our PM has made his first foray onto the international stage and what an embarrassing performance it was," Mr Shorten told reporters in Melbourne.

"Overnight Tony Abbott had a chance to showcase Australia and instead he chose to take the low road of playing domestic politics on the international stage.

"[There was] little discussion about jobs, a lot of discussion about domestic politics, and no vision for Australia's future."

Mr Shorten said Mr Abbott discredited "a lot of the remarkable efforts of the Australian economy and Australian business who did so well with the support of the government to get through the global financial crisis".

Bowen says Abbott's speech was 'tired' and 'glib'

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen says Mr Abbott's jibe shows he is incapable of acting like a prime minister.

"What we saw from the PM in his speech was a pretty tired old recitation of glib slogans and frankly, continuing attacks on the Labor Party for domestic political purposes while overseas, which is not traditionally the way a PM would conduct himself while overseas," he said.

"It appears Tony Abbott is pretty well addicted to being leader of the opposition and hasn't adjusted to being prime minister.

"In a speech like this you expect a bit of vision, a bit of detail.

"You expect selling Australia and selling the Australian story and success under governments of all persuasions.

"Tony Abbott appears incapable of doing that."

Meanwhile, HSBC's chief economist for Australia has backed Labor's stimulus spending after the global financial crisis.

"I think the response to the global financial crisis by the previous government was actually the right response in terms of supporting growth in the short run," Paul Bloxham said.

"I do think they should have more quickly tried to get back to budget surplus earlier on and unwound the spending a bit earlier after the global financial crisis seemed to have passed."

You can't spend what you haven't got: Abbott

Mr Abbott also used his speech to call for freer trade and increased global growth.

He told the audience of business and political leaders that stimulating growth through encouraging business was the single most effective means of promoting continued global progress.

Mr Abbott, who is the chair of the G20 in Brisbane later this year, said the world was 30 million jobs short of where it was ahead of the global financial crisis.

He said, however, that the crisis did not change the laws of economics.

"You can't spend what you haven't got," Mr Abbott said.

"No country has ever taxed or subsidised its way to prosperity.

"You don't address debt and deficit with yet more debt and deficit.

"And profit is not a dirty word, because success in business is something to be proud of."

Mr Abbott said that as a trading nation, Australia would make the most of its G20 presidency to promote free trade.

"People trade with each other because it's in their interests to do so," he said.

"And just as trade within countries increases wealth, trade between countries increases wealth.

"That's why we should all be missionaries for freer trade."

Mr Abbott was to meet with his British and Israeli counterparts before returning to Australia.

Oh dear.

 

[Dryk]

Does he have any idea who he's talking to? If he's trying to advertise Australia as a good place to do business looking this clueless on economic matters is a poor start.

 

[bomma_man]

Oh god that last block of quotes.

Embarrassing.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

When the overwhelming majority of mainstream economists supported the stimulus, even those who believe in the necessity of a budget surplus for no real reason, you'd think that they'd get the message.

Mr Abbott used a keynote speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos to criticise Labor's response to the global financial crisis, saying the party had decided to "spend our way to prosperity".
...
He said, however, that the crisis did not change the laws of economics.

"You can't spend what you haven't got," Mr Abbott said.

"No country has ever taxed or subsidised its way to prosperity.

"You don't address debt and deficit with yet more debt and deficit.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[markot]

Dont worry. Facts dont matter to conservatives. ITS DA GUTT FEEEEEEELING!

 

[Myansie]

"No country has ever taxed or subsidised its way to prosperity."

He's directly quoting Rush Limbaugh here.

 

[Jintor]

so how exactly do countries get to prosperity then without earning money for the government to use

i guess they're entirely reliant on the private sector

that's always worked out grand, because the private sector, as we all know, have the public's best interests at heart

 

[A More Normal Bird]

If Tony wants to talk about the "laws" of economics, how about we start with the sectoral balances, taught in high school macro:

(G – T) = (S – I) – (X – M)

Since in Australia's case X - M is negative and since Mr. Abbott is so concerned with debt and people spending what they haven't got, his primary concern will undoubtedly be increasing the federal deficit so that the private sector will be able to save on aggregate. I imagine since the very idea of increased government debt appals him so much he'll also be drafting up the legislation to cease the mandatory issuance of government securities matched to deficit spending and will instead create alternate arrangements for the RBA's open market operations. No doubt the markets will kick up a stink like they did when they convinced Howard/Costello to issue bonds even when there was a surplus, but I have faith that Tony will be able to stand up to them and tell them they've been suckling off the government teat for too long.

 

[bobnowhere]

This is the the modern Liberal party, they say one thing overseas then come back here and do the exact opposite. No action on middle-class welfare from the master of Hockeynomics, just screwing the poor and disabled. No subsidies overseas, massive primary industry subsidies for mining, forrestry ( a dead industry used to buy votes in Tassie, cadbury lols) and farming, but nothing for anything that adds value to our resources.

I wonder if anyone in the current government has any vision for the future but obsessive worship of the free market. Who am I kidding, the IPA is charge.

 

[Arksy]

FUCK YEAH FREE MARKET WOOOHOOO!!!!!!!!

I liked the speech (edit: in content, attacking labor was a bit ridiculous, no one on the world stage cares), but I'm too jaded and realise that this government will never actually implement any free market reforms.

Which sucks, but oh well.

 

[Mondy]

If Tony wants to talk about the "laws" of economics, how about we start with the sectoral balances, taught in high school macro:

(G – T) = (S – I) – (X – M)

Since in Australia's case X - M is negative and since Mr. Abbott is so concerned with debt and people spending what they haven't got, his primary concern will undoubtedly be increasing the federal deficit so that the private sector will be able to save on aggregate. I imagine since the very idea of increased government debt appals him so much he'll also be drafting up the legislation to cease the mandatory issuance of government securities matched to deficit spending and will instead create alternate arrangements for the RBA's open market operations. No doubt the markets will kick up a stink like they did when they convinced Howard/Costello to issue bonds even when there was a surplus, but I have faith that Tony will be able to stand up to them and tell them they've been suckling off the government teat for too long.

Send this to Abbott and it would probably make him dizzy.

 

[bomma_man]

FUCK YEAH FREE MARKET WOOOHOOO!!!!!!!!

I liked the speech (edit: in content, attacking labor was a bit ridiculous, no one on the world stage cares), but I'm too jaded and realise that this government will never actually implement any free market reforms.

Which sucks, but oh well.

Dunno man, his analysis seems to be up to the standard of a 15 year old Reddit libertarian, as AMNB has demonstrated. About as nuanced as his laughable "baddies" comment. He's either genuinely thick, or really doesn't think much of the Australian public (which is probably fair, sadly).

 

[Arksy]

Dunno man, his analysis seems to be up to the standard of a 15 year old Reddit libertarian, as AMNB has demonstrated. About as nuanced as his laughable "baddies" comment. He's either genuinely thick, or really doesn't think much of the Australian public (which is probably fair, sadly).

Don’t forget that I’m coming from the perspective that democracy in Australia is almost irrevocably broken and that the standard of public discourse is incredibly poor compared to similar Anglosphere nations. I’ve talked about this at length in this tread; the disconnect between elector and elected, our laughable system of federalism and many other issues, but alas that’s not the point here.

It seems to me that every policy proposed over the last decade and a half in Australia has been advocated on the grounds of either economic efficiency or public health and safety. I don’t have an intrinsic opposition to either of those things but they often come at a cost.

If someone were to give me a choice between efficiency and utility I would always prefer utility. I don’t think one is necessarily better than the other, it just depends on your priorities. It doesn’t at all upset me that people are talking about efficiency or safety but that’s all anyone talks about. For example, the lockouts being proposed in NSW are being attacked because they won’t work (won’t be efficient) or they’ll force a flood of drunks on to the street (decreasing safety). No one has said that lockouts are immoral in principle.

So when an Australian Prime Minister gets up in front of the world and espouses limited taxation in a rather clumsy way (let’s face it, we haven’t had a great orator in office since Keating), and when the Treasurer rejects the idea of a sin tax on soft drinks in lieu of personal responsibility, I find it incredibly refreshing.

Of course that doesn’t mean anything will change, at least in the short term. These ideas have been missing for the greater part of two decades and it’s going to take a hell of a lot more than a clumsy speech to bring them back. I’m just glad that we’re starting to talk about the virtues we traditionally cherished such as social mobility, free enterprise and self-government.

 

[Dead Man]

So you think things are good because they agree with your personal philosophy regardless of whether they will actually work or work well, and regardless of the actual aims?

 

[Arksy]

So you think things are good because they agree with your personal philosophy regardless of whether they will actually work or work well, and regardless of the actual aims?

I don't follow.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Arksy, if you're concerned about the standard of public discourse in our country then I don't see how you could have anything but disdain for that speech. I don't have a problem with Abbott, Hockey etc... advocating policies they align with ideologically, but they, and Howard/Costello before them, have consistently shown themselves to be incapable of advocating those policies without engaging in gross dishonesty, misinformation and manipulation. Take the example in my above post; it was a deliberately extreme contrast to make a point but the basis of it still stands. We all know that comparing a federal budget to a household budget is ludicrous for many reasons, but telling ordinary voters that the Government must be like them and "live within their means", without mentioning that the reality of the national accounts means that a federal surplus will force households and businesses to go into debt to continue to grow? To me, that's disingenuousness of the lowest kind.

"If debt and deficit is the problem more debt and deficit isn't the answer." Not only is this a statement of such shocking emptiness that it makes the English cricket team's trophy cabinet look positively overflowing by comparison, it also has no relevance. Even if Australia's government debt was denominated in a foreign currency instead of one the government has a monopoly on (like that of the Eurozone nations, for all intents and purposes), debt and deficit wouldn't be "the problem" with our economy. Let's not get into "shades of Cyprus".

These are just a few examples, as I'm sure you're aware there are countless more (refer to the transcript of Glenn Stevens and the Standing Committee on Economics I posted a month or so back if you want another). The Liberals have done a bang up job of framing and wedging the economic debate in the country; Labor and the Greens do nothing but cling to its margins. Obviously the onus falls on them as political parties to develop and present clear and workable platforms, but if you, as a politically active citizen honestly want an elevation of the debate, don't just cheer a speech when you hear a line or two that excites you, call out when those lines are wrapped in deceit and claptrap and demand that they're presented on their own merits and in an honest context. Hell, if the Liberals convince the public that a smaller government is actually what they want, instead of lying and saying it's what they need, they might be able to kick this addiction to spending on middle class welfare.

 

[Mondy]

Anyone see Abbott came out today and blasted the ABC for that old chestnut of being "Un-Australian" for reporting on Snowden and the Navy's indiscretions?

Fucking idiot. The ABC isn't Fox News. It isn't the press's job to take anybody's side.

 

[JesseEwiak]

There's also the small matter, that speaking as somebody from across the pond, what Austraila did worked. I mean, I realize that to a segment of people, anytime you can cut taxes and privatize things that belong to the common good, it's a positive because the government is inherently evil and bad.

 

[Shaneus]

Anyone see Abbott came out today and blasted the ABC for that old chestnut of being "Un-Australian" for reporting on Snowden and the Navy's indiscretions?

Fucking idiot. The ABC isn't Fox News. It isn't the press's job to take anybody's side.

Except for when they should show "a bit of affection" towards the country. Such bullshit.

 

[Arksy]

I love when he called Snowden a traitor. I forgot that he owed allegiance to Australia.

He's right on ACMA. It's a tool of persecution for anyone who has unorthodox views. It should be abolished, not broadened to apply to the ABC though.

 

[bomma_man]

I love when he called Snowden a traitor. I forgot that he owed allegiance to Australia.

The military-industrial dick sucking continues unabated.

 

[Dead Man]

When the guy saying the ABC is properly accountable to it's board rather than the public is the good guy, you know the bad guy has fucked up.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...otts-attack-20140129-31n5z.html#ixzz2rpDcHu4z

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has strongly defended the ABC's editorial independence in the face of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's attack on the national broadcaster, which he says ''instinctively takes everyone's side but Australia's''.

Mr Turnbull defended the Prime Minister's right to critique the ABC but, in comments that could be interpreted as resistance to Mr Abbott, he said the ABC was rightly accountable to its board of directors, not politicians.

''What's the alternative … the editor-in-chief [of the ABC] becomes the prime minister?'' he said. ''Politicians, whether prime ministers or communications ministers, will often be unhappy with the ABC … but you can't tell them what to write.''
Advertisement

The furore was sparked by the emergence of a note on Wednesday from an ABC reporter who said of the broadcaster's allegations asylum seekers were burnt by navy staff: ''My boss believes the allegations are likely to be untrue …''

Mr Abbott told radio 2GB that Australians wanted ''some basic affection for the home team'', but Mr Turnbull said the broadcaster was more constrained by rules around editorial fairness than its competitors in commercial media.

Lots more at the link.

I disagree with him about a lot, but at least he is intellectually honest, and understands the role of an impartial media.

 

[Arksy]

It's just a sign of the times, politicians on both sides attacking the messenger instead of the message.

Abbott might be able to browbeat on the ABC but he knows the moment he tries to change anything he's going to have fucking hell on his hands, so anyone who is pro-ABC shouldn't be worried.

I'm myself in two minds, as you all know I think the idea of a state run broadcaster is fundamentally immoral, but....it's the only broadcaster RIGHT NOW willing to be critical of the government.....

 

[Dead Man]

It's just a sign of the times, politicians on both sides attacking the messenger instead of the message.

Abbott might be able to browbeat on the ABC but he knows the moment he tries to change anything he's going to have fucking hell on his hands, so anyone who is pro-ABC shouldn't be worried.

I'm myself in two minds, as you all know I think the idea of a state run broadcaster is fundamentally immoral, but....it's the only broadcaster RIGHT NOW willing to be critical of the government.....

I don't get you sometimes mate. Abbott is bad, but don't worry he can't do anything, and publicly owned broadcasters are morally wrong, but they are the only major Australia media organisations holding the govt to account which you seem to say is a good thing.

Sometimes I think you worry too much about principle and ideology instead of looking at what works.

 

[bobnowhere]

First they went for the intelligence bureau, only concerned with protecting us. Then they went after the well known unimpeachable armed forces of our glorious country. Now they are going after the triumphant Australian Cricket Team!

Fawad Ahmed Shenanigans

The ABC has finally crossed a line, time to burn it down in tribute to Uncle Rupert.

 

[Fredescu]

Sometimes I think you worry too much about principle and ideology instead of looking at what works.

Principles allow you to say things like "the ABC's existence prevents private competitors emerging." Handy things those principles, they allow you to escape the real world.

 

[Arksy]

I don't get you sometimes mate. Abbott is bad, but don't worry he can't do anything, and publicly owned broadcasters are morally wrong, but they are the only major Australia media organisations holding the govt to account which you seem to say is a good thing.

Sometimes I think you worry too much about principle and ideology instead of looking at what works.

Umm yes. I very much care if a policy is moral or not. Don't you? Or are you just advocating that the ends justify the means?

I absolutely judge policies on their morality.

Principles allow you to say things like "the ABC's existence prevents private competitors emerging." Handy things those principles, they allow you to escape the real world.

So the existence of a publicly funded media empire, which is going to get funding regardless of what they publish, which can provide news for free, makes it easier for private competitors (who have to charge for what is normally the same content) to enter the marketplace?

Sounds like you're the one living in la-la land, not me. :|

 

[Jintor]

If that was totally true the commercial stations would be dust in the wind compared to the abc juggernaut. But Alan Jones is still employed, so I think there may be flaws in your reasoning

 

[Arksy]

If that was totally true the commercial stations would be dust in the wind compared to the abc juggernaut. But Alan Jones is still employed, so I think there may be flaws in your reasoning

Not at all. I didn't say it was impossible, I said it made it more difficult.

Edit: I should at least clarify I was mainly referring to the news website, whereas other news providers are forced to put what is usually the exact same content behind a paywall. As opposed to the multitude of public radio stations which often target a niche such as jazz music or whatever.

 

[Jintor]

I don't think anyone denies that the provision of a public services makes it more difficult for news services to profit off news. But given that the motive imperative to profit off news just results in shit news, one has to ask what result exactly is intended

 

[Arksy]

I don't think anyone denies that the provision of a public services makes it more difficult for news services to profit off news. But given that the motive imperative to profit off news just results in shit news, one has to ask what result exactly is intended

Haha. Don't look at me, I was just trying to address the idea that saying public services makes it difficult for private enterprises to compete means you're living in some fantasy world.

 

[Fredescu]

So the existence of a publicly funded media empire, which is going to get funding regardless of what they publish, which can provide news for free, makes it easier for private competitors (who have to charge for what is normally the same content) to enter the marketplace?

Makes it easier? Of course not, that's not what I said. Also, I thought part of your point was that it definitely is not the same content. Given that private competitors exist, and get better ratings than the ABC, but have the sorts of flaws you point out and more, couldn't this point to a problem with the commodisation of news in general? In theory, private competitors should be more agile and easily make the ABC irrelevant. This doesn't seem to have happened.

Sounds like you're the one living in la-la land, not me. :|

For what it's worth, I wasn't specifically pinning these ideas on you. Just echoing what I expected to be the common objection.

 

[Arksy]

For what it's worth, I wasn't specifically pinning these ideas on you. Just echoing what I expected to be the common objection.

My apologies. I had argued similar things in this thread, especially regarding the ABC's online presence being problematic.

As for content, I guess I was a bit unclear. There are points where the ABC goes for niche content such as radio jazz or whatever, but there are places where they overlap. ABC News on the TV and the website.

They overlap when people go 'holy shit the sky's falling down?!' and go to find an outlet to fill them in. To me it makes sense they'll go for the one that they can access which is free.

If it's been unclear, my biggest problem with the ABC is its news website.

 

[Jintor]

You kind of run into just general internet expectations there, where in most users consideration internet news should be free.

 

[Fredescu]

it's the only broadcaster RIGHT NOW willing to be critical of the government.....

If it's been unclear, my biggest problem with the ABC is its news website.

Yeah, the broadcaster part threw me. I dropped out of the loop for a while, but website wise Guardian AU seemed like it had potential. Crikey is great if you want somewhere that is critical of everything, but, paywalls. I think I'm on my fourth trial by now, it might be time to give in and pay.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

So I just heard more of what Abbott said about the ABC, beyond the "on everyone's side but Australia's" bit.

They're up to something. There's no way they go to that extent to lie about and denigrate an institution unless they're softening it up. The whole charade with Hadley was disgustingly obsequious, on both sides.
EDIT: Apparently so.

It's just a sign of the times, politicians on both sides attacking the messenger instead of the message.

See, if the ALP were out there attacking the ABC and Fairfax for reporting on corruption in the building industry, I might agree with you. They're not. Instead, they're targeting Abbott's response. If the ALP had launched a co-ordinated campaign to label Murdoch journalists as traitors when they were in government I might agree with you. They didn't. Instead, they proposed some fairly low-key media ownership laws which were met with Cold-War hysteria.

I know that Conservatives love to claim that the ABC is just as biased as any other media organisation and that lefties just can't see it, but it's really just not true. On many major issues they sing from the same neoliberal song-sheet as >90% of our public institutions, even if they do it with a little less fervour or transcribe it to a different key. LNP politicians claiming it lacks balance when reporting on climate change for example, don't actually want balance. To them, the 1% of scientists they agree with deserve as much time on the airwaves as the 99% they don't. Unfortunately for them, there really are topics where you don't get to have an opinion treated as sacrosanct just because it's how you feel. Totally un-PC, I know, but that's how it goes.

Umm yes. I very much care if a policy is moral or not. Don't you? Or are you just advocating that the ends justify the means?

I absolutely judge policies on their morality.

I think Dead Man's point (apologies if I'm wrong here) is that you consider the existence of the ABC to be immoral at all, ignoring that although it is publicly funded it is not run by the government and that all the evidence shows that the way it is structured as an institution makes it highly resistant to political influence. Remember when Howard stacked it with culture warriors?

My apologies. I had argued similar things in this thread, especially regarding the ABC's online presence being problematic.

As for content, I guess I was a bit unclear. There are points where the ABC goes for niche content such as radio jazz or whatever, but there are places where they overlap. ABC News on the TV and the website.

They overlap when people go 'holy shit the sky's falling down?!' and go to find an outlet to fill them in. To me it makes sense they'll go for the one that they can access which is free.

If it's been unclear, my biggest problem with the ABC is its news website.

You don't consider it absolutely vital that citizens have access to free news on whichever platform is available to them, especially in emergency situations?

Spoiler

Ok I'll stop.

 

[Omikron]

and here we go I guess.
http://m.theage.com.au/federal-poli...ciency-study-into-abc-sbs-20140130-31pb3.html

 

[lexi]

and here we go I guess.
http://m.theage.com.au/federal-poli...ciency-study-into-abc-sbs-20140130-31pb3.html

So much for Arksy's predictions.

 

[Gazunta]

Guys, c'mon, it's just an efficiency report. Y'know, they're just gonna see how quickly the girls can type and stuff.

Give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Dead Man]

Umm yes. I very much care if a policy is moral or not. Don't you? Or are you just advocating that the ends justify the means?

I absolutely judge policies on their morality.

I didn't say you were or were not interested in the morality of the position, just the ideology and principles. I said nothing about morality. I think giving ideology and political principles the power of calling it morality goes way too far. The morality of the actual outcomes of the process is massively important, yes. Blocking something that makes things better because it violates a political principle is not sensible. I mean you look at the the idealogical stance, and go from there, regardless of whether it is actually a good thing or not.

Your position that a public broadcaster is bad because it harms competition by private businesses assumes that is an inherently immoral position. Ridiculous. It is much more important that people have access to information, untainted by commercial demands.

If there was no framework in which to deliver an impartial news and information service and it resulted in nothing but government propaganda, it would be bad. There is, and it doesn't, so it is good. If it killed of all other sources of news information it would be bad. It doesn't, so it's not.

Your objections tend to be idealogical in nature, not practical objection that something will not work, or is not equitable to individuals.

and here we go I guess.
http://m.theage.com.au/federal-poli...ciency-study-into-abc-sbs-20140130-31pb3.html

Fuck this shit. I think I am going to go throw things at LNP politicians houses.

 

[Box of Bunnies]

So much for Arksy's predictions.

Almost as good as Ventron's gay marriage one.

 

[Dead Man]

Almost as good as Ventron's gay marriage one.

Maybe that is the difference between left and right in Australia. People on the right think everything will work out fine, people on the left think it will go to shit.

 

[Arksy]

I only made that prediction on the basis that I thought trying to change the ABC would create so much of a shitstorm you'd end up with something bordering on a civil war.

Given that this thread has exploded over the last 10 minutes as opposed to the complete lull it's had over the last month.....

I'm sticking to my guns, nothing will be changed. (Aside from maybe that contract they say they're going to cut that Gillard gave to the ABC to release Australian propaganda in Asia)

Edit: Feel free to pelt water balloons with "I told you so" at me once the budget comes around.

 

[lexi]

Almost as good as Ventron's gay marriage one.

I loved that one! Definitely my favourite.

 

[Arksy]

See, if the ALP were out there attacking the ABC and Fairfax for reporting on corruption in the building industry, I might agree with you. They're not. Instead, they're targeting Abbott's response. If the ALP had launched a co-ordinated campaign to label Murdoch journalists as traitors when they were in government I might agree with you. They didn't. Instead, they proposed some fairly low-key media ownership laws which were met with Cold-War hysteria.

It wasn't just ownership laws. It was a raft of proposals including trying to legislating standards. For what it's worth, for what little of the campaign I saw, all I saw was Rudd blasting the Murdoch press. The ALP was attacking the media throughout their entire term.

It wasn't met with hysteria at all, a proportionate response to a dangerous proposal to bully the press. ANY ATTEMPT to regulate the content of the press and their methodologies must be rejected outright. (Yes, including this one).

I know that Conservatives love to claim that the ABC is just as biased as any other media organisation and that lefties just can't see it, but it's really just not true. On many major issues they sing from the same neoliberal song-sheet as >90% of our public institutions, even if they do it with a little less fervour or transcribe it to a different key. LNP politicians claiming it lacks balance when reporting on climate change for example, don't actually want balance. To them, the 1% of scientists they agree with deserve as much time on the airwaves as the 99% they don't. Unfortunately for them, there really are topics where you don't get to have an opinion treated as sacrosanct just because it's how you feel. Totally un-PC, I know, but that's how it goes.

I completely and utterly disagree here but you know that. All news reporting is biased. I don't really give a shit in which direction it's biased, whether it's neoliberal, anti-australia or whatever else you want to call it.

You don't consider it absolutely vital that citizens have access to free news on whichever platform is available to them, especially in emergency situations?

Spoiler

Ok I'll stop.

Maybe only in emergency situations, but there's no reason why the government can't require private broadcasters to divert their broadcasting in the case of an emergency.

 

[Dead Man]

ANY ATTEMPT to regulate the content of the press and their methodologies must be rejected outright. (Yes, including this one).

Nope.

 

[Jintor]

I can't tell if you overestimate the power of the press or underestimate it

 

[roosters93]

I think they must be pretty powerful to convince Arksy to never question their power.

Maybe only in emergency situations, but there's no reason why the government can't require private broadcasters to divert their broadcasting in the case of an emergency.

So public broadcasters nay
Government control of private broadcasters yay?