OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Chipmunk]

Media ownership is up to 85% in some sectors with Murdoch, Nine and Stokes. The previous gov diluted media ownership rules significantly. No surprise really.

Media concentration by Murdoch, Nine and Stokes, and ABC cuts, a danger to democracy - report - Michael West

Australia's media monopoly corrodes democracy. The antidote is a thriving public broadcaster, but Coalition is cutting $1bn from the ABC.

michaelwest.com.au

On June 18, the Australian Instagram page posted the meme. It reads: “In Germany, if a newspaper cannot GUARANTEE 75% of its articles are factual then it is not allowed to call itself a newspaper,It is, officially, a magazine and HAS to refer to itself as such.Oh just imagine that rule in Australia.”

Alas, that’s an urban myth. Shame though.

Claim German papers must be 75 per cent factual is 100 per cent wrong

Media bosses must prove the majority of their content is accurate or face being classed as a magazine, according to a meme.

www.aap.com.au

There is a very fine line these days between what is sold as factual news and what is sold as opinion, and this is primarily due to the 24 hour news cycle. You even just have to look at the very small industry of NRL journalism, these days they're all on shows providing an opinion rather than reporting factual news.

 

[Gronk]

92% of fact checkers are lefties.

100% of people who say that are merkins.

 

[Gronk]

 

[Twizzle]

No wonder I voted for him, liked him as a politician.

Shame about all the back stabbers

 

[the phantom menace]

He’s obviously not as much of a lefty as his mother.

Yes, which would imply that he could even be a righty - albeit to the left of you?

 

[Bandwagon]

Agreed. Fox bashing is bullshit.

They were the first to treat it as entertainment and in the process stumbled on a winning formula. The rest are reluctantly catching up but still suffer from an identity crisis and pretend at times to be 'partial'.

Commercial news media has always been about entertainment, public news media has become all about entertainment as governments have increasingly insisted they justify their existence on commercial grounds.

Fox weren't the first to treat it as entertainment by a long way, their "innovation" was peddling outrage and anger and directing it at a more clearly defined demographic. So instead of trying to be all things to everybody, they sought to become everything for that demographic.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Commercial news media has always been about entertainment, public news media has become all about entertainment as governments have increasingly insisted they justify their existence on commercial grounds.

Fox weren't the first to treat it as entertainment by a long way, their "innovation" was peddling outrage and anger and directing it at a more clearly defined demographic. So instead of trying to be all things to everybody, they sought to become everything for that demographic.

Yeah. Thats fair.

It was a highly effective strategy. Well played Rupert.

 

[Gary Gutful]

No wonder I voted for him, liked him as a politician.

Shame about all the back stabbers

He might have been smart and a sensible moderate but my sense is that he wasn't great with his colleagues either and likely f**ked a lot of people over to get to the top.

He also seemed a little glass jawed compared to other recent PMs.

 

[the phantom menace]

The only decent leader the Liberal Party have had - or likely ever will have.

 

[Bandwagon]

He might have been smart and a sensible moderate but my sense is that he wasn't great with his colleagues either and likely f**ked a lot of people over to get to the top.

He also seemed a little glass jawed compared to other recent PMs.

The Liberals shift to the right , and the happy clapper infiltration into their membership, meant he was f**ked as soon as they could find a way to f**k him.

And he didn't have the political nous to know that energy policy was gonna be the battlefield, he lost the leadership over the same thing to Abbott whilst in opposition, and then went and put his leadership on the line over the same thing as PM.

 

[Gary Gutful]

The Liberals shift to the right , and the happy clapper infiltration into their membership, meant he was f**ked as soon as they could find a way to f**k him.

And he didn't have the political nous to know that energy policy was gonna be the battlefield, he lost the leadership over the same thing to Abbott whilst in opposition, and then went and put his leadership on the line over the same thing as PM.

Yep. Politically stupid.

 

[Gronk]

The Voice campaign is going the way of the SSM , with the NO side peddling lies and fear. Remember all the gloom and doom slippery slope arguments predicting how bad it would be for society to allow freedom of choice between adults to get married ? And what happened? Nothing.

Guess what, it’s the same faces for the Voice.

Tony Abbott and Ben Fordham in this instance.

 

[Gary Gutful]

The constitutional reality of a voice isn't remotely close to what the doomsaying NO campaigners have led people to believe.

 

[Bandwagon]

This was always going to be the case, the argument for change is that it is going to improve something, the argument for the status quo is that change will be negative, or best of little to no benefit.

Hence arguments against change will emphasise the potential negatives, and given much is crystal ball gazing simply make up negatives that may happen due to some confected or tenuous link.

On the question of a referendum all that is required to defeat it is to create enough doubt in people's minds that the change won't be particularly beneficial, and whilst the downside risk maybe whatever, it exists, and therefore it is not worth the risk.

Again it doesn't matter if people look at some of the claims and see them as overblown, what matters is the creation of doubt, and the argument of permanency, That whatever the downside, however small, you are stuck with it.

 

[Bandwagon]

The constitutional reality of a voice isn't remotely close to what the doomsaying NO campaigners have led people to believe.

Mmm. Indeed.

The reality is that all the constitutional change will be, is that the body to known as "the voice" will only be able to be removed by referendum

Everything else as to their function and powers will be decided by legislation, which can be changed at any time provided those in parliament who want to change it have the numbers to do so.

For mine the only power the Voice will actually have, will be the power invested in it by the political goodwill it creates by it's actions, the support of the people will be essential in its ability to affect change. Without that the government can simply ignore it's submissions with little to no consequence, and it will not gain or retain that goodwill by delving into areas outside of its intended remit, indeed to so would only serve to make it impotent and ineffectual.

It may be a permanent body, but any overreach will for the most part be kept in check by democracy, because the government of the day will still require the support of the electorate in implementing any of their advice. Just as ir does with any other area of policy.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Mmm. Indeed.

The reality is that all the constitutional change will be, is that the body to known as "the voice" will only be able to be removed by referendum

Everything else as to their function and powers will be decided by legislation, which can be changed at any time provided those in parliament who want to change it have the numbers to do so.

For mine the only power the Voice will actually have, will be the power invested in it by the political goodwill it creates by it's actions, the support of the people will be essential in its ability to affect change. Without that the government can simply ignore it's submissions with little to no consequence, and it will not gain or retain that goodwill by delving into areas outside of its intended remit, indeed to so would only serve to make it impotent and ineffectual.

It may be a permanent body, but any overreach will for the most part be kept in check by democracy, because the government of the day will still require the support of the electorate in implementing any of their advice. Just as ir does with any other area of policy.

Yeah. Including indigenous people.

The idea of the voice diminishes the fact that there are multiple indigenous voices and not all of them are the same (and nor should they be).

For the voice to be of value it needs to focus strongly on connecting locally and representing all indigenous interests throughout the country. Challenging task, but essential otherwise it will be largely ignored in the decision making process.

Thats assuming it gets up, which I doubt it will.

 

[the phantom menace]

I don't think Queensland or Western Australia are going to go for a concept like the voice. It's a hard sell given the history of their states' typical voting patterns and stances on related issues.

 

[Gronk]

Love to know what scares people about the Statement from the Heart. The Voice Referendum a) creates constitutional recognition and b) gives them direct consultation with matters that impact them. It does not gives them veto powers and the

We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:

Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.

This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to
be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.

How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years? With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood. Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.

These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.

We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their
country.

We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.

Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-
determination.

We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country.

We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

The no pamphlet: campaign’s voice to parliament referendum essay – annotated and factchecked

Pamphlets written by politicians and published by the AEC have put the official case for a yes and no vote. They were not independently factchecked before publication, so Guardian Australia has added notes to the full essays to help you make better sense of them

www.theguardian.com

 

[Twizzle]

Surprising polls show the Voice has a chance​

Phillip CooreyPolitical editor
Jul 27, 2023 – 5.00am

Supporters of an Indigenous Voice to parliament say the cause is far from lost as internal polling shows the No vote is softer than the Yes vote, and about a quarter of voters are undecided and could be wooed by a short, sharp campaign.
Third-party polling seen by The Australian Financial Review, as well as research conducted separately by federal Labor and the Yes23 Campaign, all come to the same conclusion that the outcome of the referendum was, a source said, “still very much up for grabs”.

ANU chancellor and former foreign minister Julie Bishop has come out in support of the Voice. AAP
The pushback came as former foreign minster and moderate Liberal Julie Bishop backed the Voice, saying “we’ve got to give it a chance”.
Expectations that the referendum to enshrine a Voice and recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution will fail have been heightened by a spate of public polls in recent weeks that show the Yes vote has fallen below 50 per cent and, in some cases, is outweighed by the No vote.
But detailed internal research shows that at this stage, there is a greater level of certainty among those indicating they will vote Yes.

A nationwide Roy Morgan poll of more than 2700 people, and commissioned by a third party, found 48.2 per cent of yes voters had definitely made up their mind in that they were very certain or certain that was how they would vote.
Just 27.9 per cent of No voters were as sure of their intention, while 23.9 per cent were considered “up for grabs”.
Respondents were asked whether they intended to vote Yes or No at the referendum and quizzed on their level of certainty.
The poll is a month old, but the Financial Review understands more recent research conducted by Yes23, as well as what is believed to be an extensive nationwide survey by federal Labor, involving about 15,000 thousand voters, have delivered the same findings.
“It’s not a closed door,” said a source, who added the Yes campaign was still the underdog.
It also explains why Prime Minister Anthony Albanese junked plans 10 days ago to announce a referendum date when he attends the Garma Festival in Arnhem Land in a fortnight. It was felt that locking in a date so far out would alienate undecided voters by making them feel pressured.

Instead, Mr Albanese promised to run an election campaign-style blitz to win over undecided voters in the final five to six weeks before ballots are cast.
“I don’t plan to announce the date at Garma because that’s just in a couple of weeks,” Mr Albanese said.
“There needs to be at least 33 days notice of the referendum campaign, but there certainly doesn’t need to be that very long a campaign. And once the date’s announced, then the campaign will be on in earnest.
“I don’t think Australians appreciate very long campaigns. That’s been the case in the past, so I don’t envisage it this time.”

Surprising polls show the Voice has a chance

Supporters of an Indigenous Voice to parliament say the cause is far from lost as internal polling shows the No vote is softer than the Yes vote.

www.afr.com

 

[Gary Gutful]

I don't think Queensland or Western Australia are going to go for a concept like the voice. It's a hard sell given the history of their states' typical voting patterns and stances on related issues.

Arguably have a better understanding of indigenous issues, particularly in the north where there is a larger proportion of indigenous people.