[HDMC]

icey, on 21 July 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

Master Scotto, I can wait till you complete year 8.

Start freely admitting then, they don't come much cheaper than that.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

icey, on 21 July 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

Master Scotto, I can wait till you complete year 8.

Sure.... on what planet?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Bam]

icey, on 21 July 2011 - 03:56 PM, said:

And to HDMC, Scotto, and even the mostly level headed Bam, with their apparitions of "commies under the bed", I say that talk is cheap. Lefties chucking stuff and gnashing their teeth are a dime a dozen.

It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum one happens to be. There is no possible way of justifying this criminal behaviour by these British newspapers. The media may apply scrutiny, but they are not themselves immune to scrutiny.

This is degenerating into a scandal to rival Watergate. Soon, we will be asking the question (of one or more Murdochs): "What did he know, and when did he know it?" Already it seems that James Murdoch is having to answer questions like these.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Julian Taylor]

It really is inexcusable what occurred in the British presses. A number of papers (and police) thought they were beyond the law, and are now paying the price.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

Quote

icey, on 21 July 2011, said: And to HDMC, Scotto, and even the mostly level headed Bam, with their apparitions of "commies under the bed", I say that talk is cheap. Lefties chucking stuff and gnashing their teeth are a dime a dozen.

Bam, on 23 July 2011 - 10:34 PM, said:

It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum one happens to be. There is no possible way of justifying this criminal behaviour by these British newspapers. The media may apply scrutiny, but they are not themselves immune to scrutiny.

Do not be concerned Bam.

I am not attempting to justify criminal behaviour by newspapers, be they Murdoch or Fairfax alligned.

Scrutiny is always fine. Nevertheless, Australian governmental witch hunts are but a ploy to deflect proper scrutiny of matters some would prefer swept under the carpet.

Let the media apply scrutiny as it sees fit. And to the public, the same advice.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

icey, on 24 July 2011 - 11:04 PM, said:

Let the media apply scrutiny as it sees fit. And to the public, the same advice.

The media should be subject to the same scrutiny. I don't think there's currently any question about Australian media employing the tactics that have come to light in Britain, however it's distinctly odd that an Australian paper could declare that they are going to 'destroy' one political party, and its journalists appear on the media using the same words as the leader of the opposition. Get real, guys.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

scotto, on 25 July 2011 - 10:11 AM, said:

The media should be subject to the same scrutiny. I don't think there's currently any question about Australian media employing the tactics that have come to light in Britain, however it's distinctly odd that an Australian paper could declare that they are going to 'destroy' one political party, and its journalists appear on the media using the same words as the leader of the opposition. Get real, guys.

I'm guessing you refer to the Australian editorial which said of Bob Brown that "we believe he and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box"

Sounds like remarkably lucid thinking to me. And way more reasonable than when they endorsed Gillard for the last election. But either way, it is quite proper for a newspaper (other than the earlier form of Pravda) to criticise a political party.

And you don't seem to think that Australian journalists have parroted the words of the government on plenty of occasions? Get real indeed!

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

icey, on 25 July 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

I'm guessing you refer to the Australian editorial which said of Bob Brown that "we believe he and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box"

Sounds like remarkably lucid thinking to me. And way more reasonable than when they endorsed Gillard for the last election. But either way, it is quite proper for a newspaper (other than the earlier form of Pravda) to criticise a political party.

And you don't seem to think that Australian journalists have parroted the words of the government on plenty of occasions? Get real indeed!

It's not about whether you agree with them, it's a news outlet declaring sides in that way - not that it's the first time it's ever happened, I know. Criticism, I think, is slightly different to this.

And no doubt more than a few journos have parroted more than a few slogans... but it seems like some from The Aus are doing it more than others at the moment. Really!

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[GeorgeParsons]

Murdoch doesn't produce newspapers; he produces propaganda designed to support his business ambitions. Jefferson would not have been amused.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

scotto, on 25 July 2011 - 11:36 AM, said:

It's not about whether you agree with them, it's a news outlet declaring sides in that way - not that it's the first time it's ever happened, I know. Criticism, I think, is slightly different to this.

And no doubt more than a few journos have parroted more than a few slogans... but it seems like some from The Aus are doing it more than others at the moment. Really!

Well it might be just a little about whether I agrree with them or not. After all, it's one of the factors to motivate a person to buy a newspaper or watch a particular political show. Each to their own of course (I watch Bolt, watch the ABC and read the SMH no less).

But assuming a newspaper is allowed to have an opinion, and a strong one at that (in the Green editorial I quoted), far better to be up front and open rather than have the mock pretence of independence a la our ABC.

As for who's "doing it more", there have been some analyses done, but I doubt you'd find any to support your apparent position.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

icey, on 25 July 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

As for who's "doing it more", there have been some analyses done, but I doubt you'd find any to support your apparent position.

I think you'd be very wrong about that regarding The Aus. Just listening to or reading the commentary of other journos on that paper, some directly criticise it, others defend its right to publish what it wants, lots criticize pollies who speak out against it, but very few - aside from Aus journos and columnists - actually defend the content of what it says.

The ABC also is regularly accused in comments on the same article of being 'left wing' and 'right wing,' so I think that would be evidence that it's not consistently biased in either direction. A great example of this was the online chat session hosted by Annabel Crabb yesterday. I think myself it has some better and weaker writers, but a good variety nontheless.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Bam]

icey, on 25 July 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

I'm guessing you refer to the Australian editorial which said of Bob Brown that "we believe he and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box"

Funny, one could say the same thing about Abbott and his Liberal party colleagues - they are hypocrites (Abbott especially so), they are bad for the nation (Workchoices being one example of bad policy, along with Abbott's wreck-the-place mentality and relentless negativity) and they should be destroyed at the ballot box.

icey, on 25 July 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

Sounds like remarkably lucid thinking to me. And way more reasonable than when they endorsed Gillard for the last election. But either way, it is quite proper for a newspaper (other than the earlier form of Pravda) to criticise a political party.

Newspapers and other media outlets should report the news. They should not manufacture news. Nor should they be dishonest; making up fictitious statistics and citing them as if they are true for use in news articles that are blatant propaganda for their masters is not the way a reputable media organisation should conduct itself. Save the opinion for the editorial pages. There is no real difference between Pravda during the Soviet communist era and News Corporation. Neither were free to report in a manner that went against the wishes of their masters. The only real difference is the masters that are served.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Bam]

icey, on 24 July 2011 - 11:04 PM, said:

Do not be concerned Bam.

I am not attempting to justify criminal behaviour by newspapers, be they Murdoch or Fairfax alligned.

I hope I did not give that impression.

icey, on 24 July 2011 - 11:04 PM, said:

Scrutiny is always fine. Nevertheless, Australian governmental witch hunts are but a ploy to deflect proper scrutiny of matters some would prefer swept under the carpet.

Ah. I see what you did there. If you agree with it, it is "proper scrutiny". If you do not agree with it, it is a "witch hunt". Nice try with the emotive language.

Governments are free to engage in scrutiny if they wish to do so. Let's hope that News Corporation's operations in Australia are untainted, otherwise we might end up with a Royal Commission. I hope that level of scrutiny will not be needed, but you never know if all the apples that sprout from the News Corporation tree turn out to be rotten.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

Bam, on 26 July 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

Funny, one could say the same thing about Abbott and his Liberal party colleagues

Yes, and the Fairfax press bend over backwards to say so and I've no complaint whilst disagreeing with the general leaning. Same goes for the ABC except they are supposed to be independent and fair (I once actually thought they were many years ago).

Bam, on 26 July 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

Newspapers and other media outlets should report the news. They should not manufacture news. Nor should they be dishonest; making up fictitious statistics and citing them as if they are true for use in news articles that are blatant propaganda for their masters is not the way a reputable media organisation should conduct itself. Save the opinion for the editorial pages.

I generally agree with you here, but I think you have your blinkers on if you cannot find such fault on both sides.

Bam, on 26 July 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

There is no real difference between Pravda during the Soviet communist era and News Corporation.

Now this one's rich. I doubt you really believe your own emotive spin.

Quote

Ah. I see what you did there. If you agree with it, it is "proper scrutiny". If you do not agree with it, it is a "witch hunt". Nice try with the emotive language.

My idea of a witch hunt is looking for an evil not in evidence and in the current case, we have radical deputy PM Milne threatening regulation of the those who would argue against the beloved carbon dioxide tax. Affectionately known as the "hate press".Shame on them!

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Bam]

icey, on 26 July 2011 - 05:45 PM, said:

Bam, on 26 July 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

There is no real difference between Pravda during the Soviet communist era and News Corporation.

Now this one's rich. I doubt you really believe your own emotive spin.

Icey, what is it with your editing? You are not comfortable with the explanation, so you deleted it and then attempted to ridicule what is left. Why?

In full, the point I made had three sentences, not the one that you selectively quoted. Missing text bolded:

Bam, on 26 July 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

There is no real difference between Pravda during the Soviet communist era and News Corporation. Neither were free to report in a manner that went against the wishes of their masters. The only real difference is the masters that are served.

Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the comparison, icey, because it is too close to the truth.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Bam]

icey, on 26 July 2011 - 05:45 PM, said:

Quote

Newspapers and other media outlets should report the news. They should not manufacture news. Nor should they be dishonest; making up fictitious statistics and citing them as if they are true for use in news articles that are blatant propaganda for their masters is not the way a reputable media organisation should conduct itself. Save the opinion for the editorial pages.

I generally agree with you here, but I think you have your blinkers on if you cannot find such fault on both sides.

This thread is devoted to discussing the News of the World hacking scandal, so it was not really necessary for me to find relevant examples for other organisations. In any case, it is News Corporation that has a reputation for having a strong bias that is known to be influenced from the top. Funny then how Mordoch Sr and Mordoch Jr suddenly have no idea what is going on in their newsrooms. If you believe that testimony, I have a bridge in Sydney that I would like to sell to you.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

Bam, on 26 July 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:

Icey, what is it with your editing? You are not comfortable with the explanation, so you deleted it and then attempted to ridicule what is left. Why?

In full, the point I made had three sentences, not the one that you selectively quoted. Missing text bolded:

Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the comparison, icey, because it is too close to the truth.

When I forward an email and include the original "post", I tend to delete the irrelevant stuff, to reduce printing or the transfer of data unnecessarily. Save the planet and all that you know.

Which is indeed what I did, and did deliberately with your prior post.

Quote

Neither were free to report in a manner that went against the wishes of their masters. The only real difference is the masters that are served.

You would have us believe that those in the Murdoch press (who wrote that Gillard should be PM, or should not be PM, as the local editor saw fit), had as little licence as the Soviet Union printed media?


ROFL in spades.

Bam, on 26 July 2011 - 06:23 PM, said:

This thread is devoted to discussing the News of the World hacking scandal, so it was not really necessary for me to find relevant examples for other organisations.

You mentioned WorkChoices for some reason or another as I recall.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

Bam, on 26 July 2011 - 06:23 PM, said:

Funny then how Mordoch Sr and Mordoch Jr suddenly have no idea what is going on in their newsrooms. If you believe that testimony, I have a bridge in Sydney that I would like to sell to you.

Yes, weird and.... unfortunate....

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Bam]

icey, on 26 July 2011 - 11:07 PM, said:

You would have us believe that those in the Murdoch press (who wrote that Gillard should be PM, or should not be PM, as the local editor saw fit), had as little licence as the Soviet Union printed media?

ROFL in spades.

More than one News Corporation editor has been sacked for refusing to toe the Murdoch line. I also remember hearing of one editor who resigned and on his last day he ran a few stories that did not conform to the editorial policy.

It does not matter if the outcome is being shipped off to a gulag in Siberia, being disappeared or a simple loss of employment - in each case, the outcome is the same: a loss of freedom of expression due to fear of retribution. While it is true that the consequences for a News Corporation editor are not as severe as the consequences for a Pravda editor in Soviet times, the consequences nevertheless do exist.

Where the two are different - and why no doubt you resent the comparison - is that, so far as we know, Murdoch does not employ censors to stop the release of undesirable information at any cost.

Freedom of the press does not really exist. Instead, freedom of press reporting is constrained by the need to conform to the law (especially libel laws), the interests of the public, the interests of the advertisers and the desires of the owners. For example, if any deleterious newsworthy event involving the political Right were to arise, the Murdoch press is not free to report it in detail. Instead, it is likely to get buried. Another example would be a scandal involving a major advertiser. In this case, the news is downplayed lest the advertiser withdraw its support.

Murdoch hates the so-called new media (blogs, forums and other Internet-based reporting) because it provides alternative news channels that he cannot control and therefore cannot suppress.

Fortunately, there are other news channels that Murdock does not control. Without these, we would never have found out about the phone hacking scandal in the first place.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

Bam, on 27 July 2011 - 10:16 AM, said:

Fortunately, there are other news channels that Murdock does not control. Without these, we would never have found out about the phone hacking scandal in the first place.

True that.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.