http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-09/green-journalism-tainted-by-conviction-isnt-journalism/4677612
" The other 'journalism' that 'works' in this uncertain environment is
the sort of polemic that may have limited commercial worth but enormous
political purpose ... and this might be the most unfortunate mutation of
the craft in our times, turning journalism to cynically political
purpose while claiming all the protections, rights and respectability of
the fourth estate.
Fox News - that's the best example of how this
works: an entirely parallel universe that determines its own agenda,
facts and logic according to an often bellicose political mission. This
is not journalism created with intellectual curiosity to inform; this is
journalism dedicated to the insistent prosecution of a series of
political propositions.
We see its muted fellow travellers in our
own TV and press, most notably in our national broadsheet The
Australian, a paper whose political purpose and occasional flights of
"truthiness" can routinely obscure its better journalistic angels.
And
then we have the opinion formers of the tabloid blogosphere. Little
s-bends of ill-humour like the Daily Telegraph's Tim Blair, or great
vaulted Taj Mahals of polished ego like the Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt.
They are not for profit. They are for politics and influence, pivots of
opinion, so loud, so insistent, so ubiquitous that they are capable of
turning the national mind."
To answer the question posed in my previous post.
Thursday, 9 May 2013
Run for the Hills
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-09/green-journalism-tainted-by-conviction-isnt-journalism/4677612
"journalism has historically built trust among its consumers"
"this edifice, a cornerstone of smart democratic practice, is crumbling. The happy commercial accidents that funded journalism businesses for a century and a half and led to a political culture of well-scrutinised accountability are going, going, almost gone. We are yet to stumble upon new ones."
"Two kinds of journalism look certain to endure. The subspecies that has perhaps the best chance of commercial survival is the debased populism of the tabloids, the papers that drip faux familiarity - they're "For Your City" - then feed their readers on a patronising diet of calculated political fabrication, fear mongering and pap."
My previous post noted the behaviour of the Australian newspaper, the only remaining national flagship carrier. Here we have Jonathon Green, a very astute journalist saying similar stuff. He identifies two types of newspaper which may retain commercial viability in the digital age. One is described above and the other is base biased political propaganda, where the newspaper is simply and only a mouthpiece for its supporting political party. To which category does the Australian belong?
"journalism has historically built trust among its consumers"
"this edifice, a cornerstone of smart democratic practice, is crumbling. The happy commercial accidents that funded journalism businesses for a century and a half and led to a political culture of well-scrutinised accountability are going, going, almost gone. We are yet to stumble upon new ones."
"Two kinds of journalism look certain to endure. The subspecies that has perhaps the best chance of commercial survival is the debased populism of the tabloids, the papers that drip faux familiarity - they're "For Your City" - then feed their readers on a patronising diet of calculated political fabrication, fear mongering and pap."
My previous post noted the behaviour of the Australian newspaper, the only remaining national flagship carrier. Here we have Jonathon Green, a very astute journalist saying similar stuff. He identifies two types of newspaper which may retain commercial viability in the digital age. One is described above and the other is base biased political propaganda, where the newspaper is simply and only a mouthpiece for its supporting political party. To which category does the Australian belong?
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Where the Power Lies
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4674208.html
"The Australian put Abbott on notice "
"The Australian also served notice that it did not like Abbott's paid parental leave scheme"
"The Australian won"
We live in this pseudo-democracy where vested interests and power clubs rob society of the common good. No clearer example can be found than the influence described here, exerted by a monopoly controlled by a multibillionaire, octogenarian, citizen of a foreign country.
Beware of your verbiage Mr. Grasshopper. Your meaning is becoming opaque.
The flagship, one and only, national printed news carrier (ie a monopoly in this category), wholly owned by Rupert Murdoch, an octogenarian plutocrat who cynically shafted this country by adopting US citizenship solely to legally remain in control of his US assets, essentially forces the leader of one of the two major political parties to change one of its key policies to its own, or perhaps we may assume, its owner's whimsical liking.
In an enlightened democracy the only principle that should ever guide policy-making is the common good. Policies which increase the common good should always be developed and adopted. Strong leaders pursue such policies in the face of pressures such as those described above and cop all the flack and negativity, and don't forget the scare-mongering, but in the end implement the policy, and either are rewarded for it with electoral longevity, or are not.
So who is the strong leader here, who imposes good policy that increases the common good in the face of curtailed electoral longevity. Abbott is being tested on this issue, without even being in power (watch out for the expected back-flip). Gillard, on the other hand, has consistently implemented such policy, and faces electoral Armageddon in reply.
"The Australian put Abbott on notice "
"The Australian also served notice that it did not like Abbott's paid parental leave scheme"
"The Australian won"
We live in this pseudo-democracy where vested interests and power clubs rob society of the common good. No clearer example can be found than the influence described here, exerted by a monopoly controlled by a multibillionaire, octogenarian, citizen of a foreign country.
Beware of your verbiage Mr. Grasshopper. Your meaning is becoming opaque.
The flagship, one and only, national printed news carrier (ie a monopoly in this category), wholly owned by Rupert Murdoch, an octogenarian plutocrat who cynically shafted this country by adopting US citizenship solely to legally remain in control of his US assets, essentially forces the leader of one of the two major political parties to change one of its key policies to its own, or perhaps we may assume, its owner's whimsical liking.
In an enlightened democracy the only principle that should ever guide policy-making is the common good. Policies which increase the common good should always be developed and adopted. Strong leaders pursue such policies in the face of pressures such as those described above and cop all the flack and negativity, and don't forget the scare-mongering, but in the end implement the policy, and either are rewarded for it with electoral longevity, or are not.
So who is the strong leader here, who imposes good policy that increases the common good in the face of curtailed electoral longevity. Abbott is being tested on this issue, without even being in power (watch out for the expected back-flip). Gillard, on the other hand, has consistently implemented such policy, and faces electoral Armageddon in reply.
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
What??????
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4671752.html
"a Liberal Party strategist named Toby Ralph had published a piece in which he averred that the real cure for the economy could be found not, as Craig Emerson had suggested, by a slight increase on the superannuation of the fabulously rich, but by a judicious cull of the enormously poor.
"In contrast to the fabulously rich, the enormously poor make little useful contribution to society," Mr Ralph wrote. "They consume more than they contribute, putting tremendous strain on the national budget. A modest cull would strike at the root of our fiscal dilemma. This bold initiative would rid us of indolent students, hapless single mums, lower-order drug dealers, social workers, performance artists, Greenpeace supporters and the remaining processing personnel in our collapsing yet heavily subsidised manufacturing industries.""
I had to read and re-read this. Someone actually publicly came out and said this. These are the people expected to win government. If they do win government, after this has been publicised, one would be justified in saying "well, you knew the nature of these people you elected. You've made your bed, now lay in it. All the harm this government-you-elected causes is self-inflicted. Don't come here for any sympathy. You won't get any." The problem with this is that I have to accept the consequences of an LNP win in September along with the morons who elected them in the face of all this. I object to this and so hope for a miracle.
"a Liberal Party strategist named Toby Ralph had published a piece in which he averred that the real cure for the economy could be found not, as Craig Emerson had suggested, by a slight increase on the superannuation of the fabulously rich, but by a judicious cull of the enormously poor.
"In contrast to the fabulously rich, the enormously poor make little useful contribution to society," Mr Ralph wrote. "They consume more than they contribute, putting tremendous strain on the national budget. A modest cull would strike at the root of our fiscal dilemma. This bold initiative would rid us of indolent students, hapless single mums, lower-order drug dealers, social workers, performance artists, Greenpeace supporters and the remaining processing personnel in our collapsing yet heavily subsidised manufacturing industries.""
I had to read and re-read this. Someone actually publicly came out and said this. These are the people expected to win government. If they do win government, after this has been publicised, one would be justified in saying "well, you knew the nature of these people you elected. You've made your bed, now lay in it. All the harm this government-you-elected causes is self-inflicted. Don't come here for any sympathy. You won't get any." The problem with this is that I have to accept the consequences of an LNP win in September along with the morons who elected them in the face of all this. I object to this and so hope for a miracle.
Monday, 6 May 2013
Stupidity or Targeted Policy???
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4667484.html
"One possible justification of the two diametrically opposed policy settings in Europe and in Japan might be that these two advanced economies are facing different challenges. Europe's leaders like to imagine that, unlike Japan, Europe is not facing a long-lasting recession, let alone deflation. For them, there is no need for eurozone governments to loosen up the purse strings, or for the ECB to flood the financial markets with digital euros. What matters to them is that the crisis is utilised to force upon the eurozone's laggards (the Club Med nations in particular) the reforms that will help them regain their 'competitiveness'."
Is there method to this madness?
"One possible justification of the two diametrically opposed policy settings in Europe and in Japan might be that these two advanced economies are facing different challenges. Europe's leaders like to imagine that, unlike Japan, Europe is not facing a long-lasting recession, let alone deflation. For them, there is no need for eurozone governments to loosen up the purse strings, or for the ECB to flood the financial markets with digital euros. What matters to them is that the crisis is utilised to force upon the eurozone's laggards (the Club Med nations in particular) the reforms that will help them regain their 'competitiveness'."
Is there method to this madness?
Mental Black Hole
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4667484.html
"Japan's national debt is by far the highest in the civilised world, making the decision to allow the budget deficit to rise to more than 11 per cent in 2013 the boldest Keynesian move since Ronald Reagan's expansionary fiscal policies in the early 1980s."
Reading the word Keynsian and Reagan in the same sentence dropped my mind into a mental black hole. Assuming we are comparing apples to apples, if it worked for Reagan why would it not work for Abe, in which case there is nothing experimental about it.The Keynsian strategy is a proven remedy for these macroeconomic circumstances, begging the question how the idiots at the IMF and EU can rationalise their austerity policies which are proven not to work.
"Japan's national debt is by far the highest in the civilised world, making the decision to allow the budget deficit to rise to more than 11 per cent in 2013 the boldest Keynesian move since Ronald Reagan's expansionary fiscal policies in the early 1980s."
Reading the word Keynsian and Reagan in the same sentence dropped my mind into a mental black hole. Assuming we are comparing apples to apples, if it worked for Reagan why would it not work for Abe, in which case there is nothing experimental about it.The Keynsian strategy is a proven remedy for these macroeconomic circumstances, begging the question how the idiots at the IMF and EU can rationalise their austerity policies which are proven not to work.
Sunday, 5 May 2013
No need to
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4667484.html
"Economic experiments: Abenomics versus Euro-austerity"
Why is there a need to experiment? Evidence, in your face, true on the basis of evidence, data which proves the absolute falsity of the neoclassical paradigm of macroeconomic, is everywhere. What is wrong with these so-called leaders? Why do they continually go down the wrong road, causing disruption and heart-ache to large sections of their people?
This is all too disturbing to bother with.
"Economic experiments: Abenomics versus Euro-austerity"
Why is there a need to experiment? Evidence, in your face, true on the basis of evidence, data which proves the absolute falsity of the neoclassical paradigm of macroeconomic, is everywhere. What is wrong with these so-called leaders? Why do they continually go down the wrong road, causing disruption and heart-ache to large sections of their people?
This is all too disturbing to bother with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)