|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Have you run this past Andrew Bolt? _________________ “I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
watt price tully wrote: | stui magpie wrote: | watt price tully wrote: | The optional plebiscite is a joke and a waste of money and represents the last gasps of air from the lunatic right wing of the Lib/Nats holding Turnbull to ransom. Same sex marriage is going to occur. It's just the timing. |
It's a large opinion poll that has seen young people enrol in record numbers.
if you want to shove one up the lunatic right, just vote yes and let the rest happen.
Let's not forget a conscience vote was put forward in the lower house in 2012 and defeated 98 to 42.
Yes, the Libs nats voted on Party lines with No, but there was obviously plenty of Labor no voters too, including the then PM.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/same-sex-marriage-bill-voted-down/4270016#votestable |
Coupla things:
Almost all of the pollsters say this is not an accurate way to guage public opinion.
They all agree it is far too expensive and too inaccurate.
So the vote is expensive and inaccurate.
This includes the Lib supporter Gary Morgan
John Howard changed the marriage act independently
The times they are a changing |
So people who make a living conducting Polls suggest that the ABS giving every registered voter in the country the opportunity to submit their opinion is inaccurate. no vested interest there.
As far as Howard goes, the Marriage Act amendment bill was introduced to the house of reps and passed with the support of Labor, or so it seems from this.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0405/05bd005
hardly Howard acting alone. Keep in mind this was introduced prior to the 2004 election where Howard won a majority in the senate.
yes it's expensive and yes maybe a simple conscience vote would work this time, but Turnbull is trapped by the far right in the party and this is the only way it's going to happen under a Lib/Nat government.
So stop sooking about the process and just vote.
As far as Bolt's article on the Fags poster, his comments are pretty easy to refute if they're wrong, let's see if anyone does. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ it's interesting that no one has refuted it. Compare the deafening silence on the likelihood it was a false flag operation, with the deafening clamour when it was first reported.
While I have no great interest in this topic, and will probably abstain from voting either way (because I want legal equality but not this particular way), I am shocked at the clear partisanship shown by the ABC on the subject. Night after night the 730 Report and the ABC news have been giving coverage and reports slanted heavily toward "marriage equality" (a term they use wholly uncritically). This would never happen on the BBC, which diligently tries to project impartiality even though it too has a clear preponderance of leftists on its staff. Such routine slippages of independence will probably ultimately bring down public broadcasting, and that would be a real shame. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Location: The 18
|
Post subject: | |
|
Given that plenty of society have left wing views why shouldn't the ABC slant that way?
Not many socialists can afford there own right wing television stations like Murdoch with Fox news. _________________ He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
Even Bolt admits that the first questions were raised by the "far-left publication" (lol) Crikey. Indeed, that's where I first heard questions about the mainstream media reportage on the poster, followed by a discussion on Radio National the other night when, again, one of the hosts was questioning whether it had ever even existed (in Melbourne, at any rate). And, unsurprisingly, Media Watch ran with the story tonight. Deafening silence, eh.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4725257.htm
Of course, the point that Bolt and fellow conservatives are ignoring here is that, regardless of whether this poster was a one-off, such material is appearing in letterboxes and elsewhere, and can reasonably be expected to intensify once the plebiscite kicks off.
To the question of ABC coverage, this is a difficult one that is made more difficult by the fundamental lack of serious argument on the other side and it of course raises old questions of how to handle the issue of 'balance' in, say, climate change or vaccination debates. If the government, in some increasingly plausible moment of insanity, decided to hold a plebiscite on teaching creationism in schools, would we expect to have 50% of the public broadcaster's time on the subject to be allotted to the Answers in Genesis brigade?
These are difficult questions, and not ones that I'm fully sure of the answer on. All I am sure about is that news should be neutral, opinion should be free and alternative views should be sought, standards that the ABC have generally upheld but I hope they can find stronger opposing arguments than this risible piece I read the other day:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-15/same-sex-marriage-is-more-complex-than-yes-campaign-admits/8804466 _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
Asking for neutral news is as farcical as asking for neutral umpiring. Everyone has bias, it's unavoidable. Not in every subject, but every person has it. Only in something you don't care about can you maybe be neutral. In anything that means something to you, you have bias. _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
swoop42 wrote: | Given that plenty of society have left wing views why shouldn't the ABC slant that way?
Not many socialists can afford there own right wing television stations like Murdoch with Fox news. |
Because the (at least) half of society who do not have left-wing views are literally forced to pay for it. That is so patently unjust that it should not require explanation. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
Do people who pay for government-funded media have a right to have their views represented?
Is it, for instance, an injustice that the 21% of Australians who either don't believe in evolution or are not convinced by the science do not have their views represented on taxpayer-funded science programs? (Keep in mind that the percentage who oppose same-sex marriage is not much higher than that.)
https://ncse.com/news/2013/07/polling-evolution-down-under-again-0014909 _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
Last edited by David on Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:45 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
Not that I know of. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | Do people who pay for government-funded media have a right to have their views represented? |
When they represent a very substantial proportion of the population and their views are not patently scientifically wrong or unlawful they do, yes. The fact that Leftists do not even pretend that public broadcasters have a responsibility to avoid propaganda is really rather chilling.
Climate change and vaccination and evolution are scientific questions where there is already a very large respectable consensus, not questions of values or society. Where the science clearly points one way, then the rules of balance are at least to let those with contrary views have a say, but it need not be 50/50. In a debate/vote about a social issue where at least 35% of the population are polling as voting "no", there is a responsibility on the national broadcaster not to slant its coverage. If they can do it for this issue, can they do it in an election ?
You also seem to suggest that the "risible" arguments of the other side do not warrant coverage by the national state-funded broadcaster. That is, of course, the road to Pravda and the Chinese Communist party dailies. No doubt they find arguments they do not agree with "risible".
The article you linked to by the Anglican cleric was not argumentatively risible at all, of course. You just do not like it. Thus are totalitarian mindsets forged and polished. _________________ Two more flags before I die!
Last edited by Mugwump on Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:56 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
See my edit above. What qualifies as 'substantial'?
I don't think anyone's arguing that the ABC's journalism should be politically biased, by the way. The question is more what views should be given equal time. _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ I edited to respond to yours. Swoop was surely arguing exactly that.
I think you were also defining views you do not agree with as "risible" so that they public broadcaster can dispense with its obligation to be impartial. That sounds like political bias to me.
What qualifies as "substantial" is of course a matter of reasonable judgement, but the existing law (as in this case) certainly passes it. For the national broadcaster, underpinned by the state's forcible extraction of taxes, to campaign flagrantly for a change in the law is astonishing. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
think positive wrote: | Asking for neutral news is as farcical as asking for neutral umpiring. Everyone has bias, it's unavoidable. Not in every subject, but every person has it. Only in something you don't care about can you maybe be neutral. In anything that means something to you, you have bias. |
I think it's more complicated than this, TP. Firstly, everyone has some bias, but some people have way more than others, and some are better at trying to moderate their biases. Also, organisations are not people - they contain a multitude of voices, so the biases of individuals can be counterweighted and cancelled out to some extent by different voices.
Like life, the news contains two types of information : (i) facts in the world ; and (ii) selection/interpretation. The facts can be relatively neutrally presented, and they should be. Selection and interpretation should be either explicitly acknowledged, or explicitly balanced with opposing points of view. All of this requires mature people of good faith who are not completely convinced of their righteousness. Sadly, these people are rare in the public media, nowadays, because they are very rare (esp with regard to the "righteousness bit) on the Left. _________________ Two more flags before I die!
Last edited by Mugwump on Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:31 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
Where then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|