• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Arksy

Member
roosters93 said:
I think they must be pretty powerful to convince Arksy to never question their power.



So public broadcasters nay
Government control of private broadcasters yay?
Click to expand...

Good point.

Ok, a public broadcaster which only broadcasts during emergencies, I'm ok with that.
 
B

Box of Bunnies

Banned
Arksy said:
It wasn't met with hysteria at all.
Click to expand...

Wj8uMIJ.jpg
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Arksy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fair enough on the contents of the legislation. However it was still limited in comparison to the recommendations. If we were talking about the usual accusations of ABC bias here I'd say it goes both ways (only with one side's complaints having a little more validity ;) ). We're not though. Have you actually listened to Abbott's interview? I gave those specific hypothetical examples for a reason. There's a difference between calling out biased reporting (perceived or otherwise) and attacking a media organisation for reporting something at all, much like there's a difference between saying a media organisation may have vested interests and implying that it's traitorous.

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).
Click to expand...
Once again, I said Cold-War hysteria for a reason. Stalin and Mao photoshops were rife. It was a very emotional reaction and certain media companies were more aggressive about it than others.

Some of your objection to the ABC's online presence is that it makes it difficult for competitors to exist. What do you think about monopolised and subsidised private media like the Murdoch press? Or do you disagree with the concept of a market failure entirely?

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.
Click to expand...
Of course, no human or group of humans is going to be perfectly objective. I'm not sure what your point is though. Are you claiming that all bias is equal in proportion? For example, I think the ABC is biased in some areas, but I don't think they intentionally misrepresent things or mislead their audience (on the whole) nor do I think they're lax with fact-checking in order to better support a chosen narrative. If they were to do as some conservative politicians and commentators ask though, and deny the existence of an overwhelming majority consensus about climate change (to repeat the example) they would be.

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.
Click to expand...
Well we were talking about online news here. I'm not sure your idea is technically feasible. If we're talking about broadcast news (radio/TV), then I've mentioned some of the things that make a public broadcaster almost essential in these cases in a previous post. Applying your idea to the radio would result in the loss of life, I have no doubts about that, unless you also want to mandate that private media companies match the ABC in broadcast coverage and editorial standards.
 
W

wonzo

Banned
Box of Bunnies said:
Almost as good as Ventron's gay marriage one.
Click to expand...
bu bu but the betting markets

lexi said:
The Murdoch rags are fucking out for blood.

ABC's 'Triple J killed my band'
AUSSIE rocker claims Triple J killed his band as musicians begin questioning the taxpayer-funded station's might and power

THIS is Hysteria.
Click to expand...
Yep, it's those fucking overpaid NON-WHITE hipster LEFTIES at Triple J killing off such fine talent.

… fuck murdoch with a spikiest steel club ever made
 
R

roosters93

Member
lexi said:
The Murdoch rags are fucking out for blood.

ABC's 'Triple J killed my band'
AUSSIE rocker claims Triple J killed his band as musicians begin questioning the taxpayer-funded station's might and power

THIS is Hysteria.
Click to expand...

This sense of entitlement to Triple J airplay is bizarre.
Also having listened to Fussy and the song at the bottom of the article, I'm siding with Richard Kingsmill (this is a first) and Linda Marigliano .

"Commercial stations aren't funded by the tax payer," Burford wrote. "That's why they're commercial. And commercial listeners aren't synonymous with music consumption.

Basing an article around the complaints of a man who talks in nonsense like this. For shame.
 
A

Arksy

Member
A More Normal Bird said:
Fair enough on the contents of the legislation. However it was still limited in comparison to the recommendations. If we were talking about the usual accusations of ABC bias here I'd say it goes both ways (only with one side's complaints having a little more validity ;) ). We're not though. Have you actually listened to Abbott's interview? I gave those specific hypothetical examples for a reason. There's a difference between calling out biased reporting (perceived or otherwise) and attacking a media organisation for reporting something at all, much like there's a difference between saying a media organisation may have vested interests and implying that it's traitorous.
Click to expand...

I don't think they're logically distinct at all. In fact I equate them. Labor wasn't using the same language but the meat of the message was the same "This is a group that's out to bring us the fuck down and we need to control it!"

A More Normal Bird said:
Once again, I said Cold-War hysteria for a reason. Stalin and Mao photoshops were rife. It was a very emotional reaction and certain media companies were more aggressive about it than others.
Click to expand...

Good! There is nothing to apply reason to. Any attempt at defining what the media can and can not say is bad. I hope for a similar reaction depending on where this goes. If it's simply trimming the ABC at the sides then I'm all for it. If it's an attempt to interfere with the editorial process or methodologies I'll happily get a can of Graffiti and write "Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propoganda." on Turnbull's constituency office.

A More Normal Bird said:
Some of your objection to the ABC's online presence is that it makes it difficult for competitors to exist. What do you think about monopolised and subsidised private media like the Murdoch press? Or do you disagree with the concept of a market failure entirely?
Click to expand...

No I don't reject the idea of market failure and think this is a pretty fucking good example of it, and if you check my previous posts here you'll see that I've said that a media monopoly is equally ridiculous. Where we do disagree on (I think) is our response to it. I would prefer to abolish the ABC and to break up News Ltd into a few dozen separate constituent newspapers.

A More Normal Bird said:
Of course, no human or group of humans is going to be perfectly objective. I'm not sure what your point is though. Are you claiming that all bias is equal in proportion? For example, I think the ABC is biased in some areas, but I don't think they intentionally misrepresent things or mislead their audience (on the whole) nor do I think they're lax with fact-checking in order to better support a chosen narrative. If they were to do as some conservative politicians and commentators ask though, and deny the existence of an overwhelming majority consensus about climate change (to repeat the example) they would be.
Click to expand...

The same as my point earlier (in the thread), the idea of a body forcing people to pay for a political campaign they might not agree with is (to me) an attempt at hijacking the proper democratic process in order to achieve illegitimate ends. You can't have a proper contest of ideas if the government is forcing people to pay up tax money in order to fund a campaign to tell everyone about how bad miners are and why they should be taxed. If a group of individuals wish to do the same, that's ok because it is voluntary.
 
J

Jintor

Member
What of positions on facts that are misinterpreted as political opinions, such as the place of the church in the state, or scientific fact being challenged by a bunch of idiots who think that fair and balanced means their hack science deserves equal coverage and response
 
J

Jintor

Member
Wait a second - if one opinion is grossly overfunded and espoused by every blaring corner of a completely yellow media engine, then merely because private citizenry or corporations are finding the message, that's a-ok?
 
A

Arksy

Member
Jintor said:
Wait a second - if one opinion is grossly overfunded and espoused by every blaring corner of a completely yellow media engine, then merely because private citizenry or corporations are finding the message, that's a-ok?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. From what you've said, you're the one that wants to restrict the right of people to fund campaigns that they believe in. Restrict the right of people to donate for causes they want to see put into effect. The right of people to protest and make their voice heard. YOU give ME a good justification for it and tell me why it's not a-ok. :p
 
J

Jintor

Member
The ideological justification is sound, but the end result is that immense amounts of wealth will win out over anything else.

You make it sound like 'people funding what they like' is what lobbying is all about, when in reality all that occurs is the disproportionately wealthy control the message, can afford the lawyers, and all that jazz. It's exactly what officially funded public institutions are a counter for.
 
R

Rlan

Member
hqdefault.jpg


Considering the current political climate in Australia, I'm kind of amazed that Rubbery Figures hasn't made a comeback. I can just picture the puppets for Abbott, Albo, Rudd, Hockey, Shorten, Gillard, Turnbull, Pyne, Barnaby, Katter and Palmer so easily. The thing would write itself.
 
S

shanshan310

Member
Arksy said:
Good! There is nothing to apply reason to. Any attempt at defining what the media can and can not say is bad. I hope for a similar reaction depending on where this goes. If it's simply trimming the ABC at the sides then I'm all for it. If it's an attempt to interfere with the editorial process or methodologies I'll happily get a can of Graffiti and write "Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propoganda." on Turnbull's constituency office.
Click to expand...

What? Without regulation it can become propaganda. I object to the public being fed slander, opinion and outright bullshit as fact in the name of "it's a free country". These news outlets are influencing not only policy but what people perceive as the truth, and all the while trying to discredit other news sources. You say a range of privately owned newspapers and no publicly funded would work better, but given the likelihood of that happening we would basically end up with the Murdoch empire and... nothing.
 
D

Dryk

Member
Dead Man said:
I don't get you sometimes mate.
Click to expand...
I understand him. I just don't understand him. We fundamentally disagree on two things:

a) How not shit people are
b) Whether there's a line beyond which you take away the matches they're trying to set themselves on fire with
 
T

Tommy DJ

Member
Yes breaking up News Ltd this solves everything because one of the core problems associated with private media, the ethics of our journalists, will be solved by creating some so-called competition between newspapers.

Oh wait, literally all journalists working for News Ltd are lying scumbags and will do anything to make money. It isn't a "matter of differing opinion": they're either making things up, intentionally coming to the wrong conclusion, or intentionally misleading the public to push their benefactors' motives. That won't change even if you break them up.

If you read most newspapers and read how they order content, you quickly realise that the core motive of private media companies is to tell people what they want to hear, rather than inform or anything like that. People dying in another country and Australia could be involved in a military operation in said country? Who cares about that, its more important to slap James Hird's ugly mug on the front cover of every single newspaper and news website because sports are the lifeblood of Australia. In the case of tabloidy newspapers, I remember that they didn't even mention brown people dying in another country on the first page because James Hird was that important.
 
D

Danoss

Member
Lafiel said:
Can they be deported for just one f-bomb or is for swearing in a degrading way? argh.
Click to expand...

Probably doesn't matter. If it can be classified as "actions that other people might find offensive", that'll do it. Essentially, that would categorise every single action they could take. The best thing for them to do is not to say anything at all beyond just 'yes sir' and 'no ma'am'. Even then, that could be deemed as 'irritating' and they're gone.

What'd be the likely response if an Australian citizen took any of these actions? Nothing, it seems in a number of cases the retaliation from the victim of such actions is what is deemed unacceptable. If these things are indeed "standards of behaviour and expectations relating to values that are important to Australian society", they should be applied to everyone, not just the people you don't want here.

Tony Abbott irritates me, disturbs me, and appears to be bullying asylum seekers. When is he getting locked up/deported?
 
D

Dead Man

Member
Good piece over on New Matilda
Good God. I’ve been writing about Australian politics for close to 20 years now, and US politics for close to a decade, and I have to say, I’ve seen some crap culture wars in my time, but this one is really a new low.

Since taking power, the Abbott government has shown an unprecedented lack of focus. All new governments wobble a bit, but this one has wobbles in its wobbles. As Abbott arsed around in the first weeks, his loyal retainers in the Murdoch press kept repeating, with diminishing degrees of conviction, "government by adults, government by adults" — even as most of the trouble seemed to come from Christopher Pyne, the one member of parliament who appears to be forever nine years old. His hamfisted dealing with the Gonski question ensured that for a while, the official opposition was the NSW Government.

As our relationship with Indonesia collapsed to its lowest point since the nation’s founding, and we prated on about sovereignty while crossing back and forth on their territorial waters, to the point where they have now dispatched ships to actively enforce it, the yet more feeble cry was heard, "government by adults". George Brandis attempted to get something going in free speech and the repeal of the "insult" provisions. The Liberal state governments introduced a range of legislation so draconian in so many different ways, that it made a mockery of the Right’s commitment to "freedomwatch" — so much so that incoming rights bureaucrat, former classical liberal, Tim Wilson, was moved to make a few plaintive croaks.
Click to expand...

Come on, this isn’t a culture war! It’s not a culture war when most of the damage is inflicted on your own side by friendly fire. But the only people trying to take it more seriously than the ragged right, are elements of the left, who jump at each chaotic announcement as if it were a 3am knock at the door. Can we stipulate for the record that the Abbott government is doing a terrible job, governmentally and politically, that their immediate post-election drop in the polls reflect this, and then start to strategise from there?

Two obvious points come out of the recent months. The first is that the Abbott government has no real game plan, apart from killing the carbon tax, and stopping the boats, and then a footling series of culture war maneouvres. The real stuff — going up against the union movement, etc is going to be hard, and they’re not in shape for that yet. Truth is, they can’t even manage a culture war, tripping over themselves as different and contradictory initiatives fly every which way.
Click to expand...

What is required is to respond to these various haphazard attacks on public institutions, voluntary groupings (ie unions etc), with a reunification of them, and go on the attack. This would usually be the provenance of the ALP, but since they have abandoned any notion of defending even the most minimal social democratic idea of state and society, and relapsed to some free-market footnote to the government, whining about jobs, it has to be done elsewhere. The Greens don’t have the speaking position yet.

My suggestion is, that with people already starting spontaneous protests about the ABC, the Victorian government’s assembly laws, the Queensland bikie laws, with a renewed focus on refugees and unions, a simple overarching campaign called ‘Public Good’ might be the go. Public Good — emphasising both the idea that distanced public institutions such as the ABC are A Good Thing, but also that, with refugees, there is a strong public desire to do good, to be simply decent, rather than the current metered out sadism.

Public Good — I don’t propose it as any sort of group, meeting in church halls blah blah. I suggest it’s a logo, a symbol, a meme, an evolving set of simple principles which people campaigning on one or other of these issues would attach to what they’re doing. Eventually, if it has some sort of life, it may in turn draw some physical manifestations in its own name. The important thing seems to be to unify these separate issues, set chaotically by the Coalition, and give them a single form, that then starts to set the agenda.
Click to expand...

More at the link, it's worth a read I reckon.
 
R

r1chard

Member
Omi said:
I just don't know what is going on any more.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...atens-to-deport-asylum-seekers-who-swear.html
Click to expand...
WAT. Out of control.

The office of the immigration minister, Scott Morrison, referred to the minister’s comments in December. At the time, he said the code “sets out clear standards of behaviour and expectations relating to values that are important to Australian society”.
Click to expand...
Tell the cunt to get his fucking hand off it.
 
D

Dryk

Member
His hamfisted dealing with the Gonski question ensured that for a while, the official opposition was the NSW Government.
Click to expand...
I laughed out loud until I realised that for that week the NSW Liberal Government were a far more capable Opposition than this current opposition is looking like it will ever be.
 
H

hidys

Member
Was anyone else amazed at the Premier of South Australia threatening to resign if Don Farrell got preselection?
 
A

Arksy

Member
These are basically two of my favourite books so it was an interesting strip for me.

Orwell.jpg


I personally feel that they were both right in their own ways.
 
L

Lafiel

と呼ぶがよい
I totally need to read Brave New World it seems.. as I'm more fearful about rampart consumerism than a fascist state.;p
 
D

Dead Man

Member
hidys said:
Was anyone else amazed at the Premier of South Australia threatening to resign if Don Farrell got preselection?
Click to expand...

I was quietly impressed. Not had a lot of time for Jay, but that was a solid statement.

Edit: That strip is fantastic. The American dominated world is definitely more Huxley, other parts are more Orwell, the whole of it is fucked.
 
D

Dryk

Member
The 'tiser are spinning it as "Disunity = lost election/Labor's done" and saying that you're an idiot if you think otherwise. I think that the existence of rogue elements shouldn't be a death sentence as long as they're dealt with swiftly so I disagree with them.
 
H

hidys

Member
Someones experience with Work for the Dole via a comment on The Guardian
BfGPSyWCUAAK7FC.png:large
Click to expand...

The sad thing about the policy is that it sounds somewhat reasonable until you actually look at the evidence.
 
R

reptilescorpio

Member
Is this a joke?

Is this a fucking joke?

Hey people smugglers! Take a few refugees out on a piece of shit tinny, scuttle it near Australian waters and we will give you a brand spanking new, top of the line unsinkable, air conditioned 90 seat fully enclosed boat! That way you can use it for ferrying people around some fucking islands and make some great money! Or you can just sell the fucking thing and retire!!!

What the fuck! This shit is stupid. Really fucking stupid.

I also hope it's a joke that 3 people died.
 
D

Dead Man

Member
But they told the husband and wife what had happened. They said they had made it close to Christmas Island in a wooden vessel when they sighted an Australian Border protection Command vessel.

At that point, they began scuttling the boat.

They told the husband and wife the Australian navy tried to pump the boat but it was too damaged. They were then taken aboard the vessel where they spent 10 days cruising within sight of Christmas Island.

They said there were adults, children and teenagers aboard.

They were fed and photographed. On the tenth day, they were ordered into the lifeboat. Some, according to the husband and wife, refused to enter the capsule and were physically shoved inside. They were given documents stating their vessel was not to enter Australian waters.

The Indonesian crew who had captained the scuttled boat was ordered to pilot the lifeboat back to Indonesia. They travelled through international waters under escort by Border Protection Command until they arrived close to Indonesian territory.
Click to expand...

What in the fuck? You don't dump people in a life boat, even if the crew had scuttled their own boat. Fucking disgraceful.
 
R

reptilescorpio

Member
Dead Man said:
What in the fuck? You don't dump people in a life boat, even if the crew had scuttled their own boat. Fucking disgraceful.
Click to expand...

I mean this is just insane, we've essentially just gifted a super expensive boat to Indonesia.

WHEN naval officer Edi Sukendi saw the weird orange capsule jammed on a coral reef close to shore, his first instinct was to check it for explosives.

Sukendi, a naval operational commander who has no boat of his own, was taken aback that Australia would give away such a boat to asylum-seekers.

The lifeboat is consistent with the Vanguard brand, which sells safety vessels in Singapore.

The boat - believed to be the second sent so far back to Indonesia - was towed into Pelabuhan Ratu and secured in a navy dock, where its future is unknown.
Edi Sukendi says he'd gladly take the boat and use it to conduct patrols on his coast.
Click to expand...

And this sounds like the equivalent of marooning people

They then waded ashore wearing life jackets and spent two days wandering terrified in the jungle before a sheepherder directed them towards a road, where they grabbed minibuses and motorbikes to take them back to Cisarua.

Three died while crossing a river in the jungle.
Click to expand...
 
D

Dryk

Member
It was not possible to speak to any of the people who were on the boat because their phones are switched off - they're in the hands of smugglers, attempting to make it to Australia once again.
Click to expand...

Net result: We gifted Indonesia a nice boat and three people died. STRAYA
 
L

lexi

Banned
In the Herald Sun:

ZM922Na.jpg


They're really beating this propaganda, I wonder how long will everybody suddenly starts to believe it.
 
J

Jintor

Member
Can't tell if propaganda or mocking the propaganda, but considering the source, I will err on the side of a complete lack of self awareness
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Graven |OT| A heretic priest killing hexed creatures
4
840
mansoor1980 replied
NEOGAF - A Data-Driven View Pt. 3: Communities Section
Social Community
10
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
21K
Elysium44 replied
Forza Horizon 5 |OT| Are you a Mexican, or a Mexican't?
|OT| 42 43 44 45 46
2K
206K
MagnetoWasRight replied
Battlefield 2042 Briefing – What We Learned From The Open Beta
Opinion Game Dev
35
4K
REDRZA MWS replied
Top Bottom