What I love about the change of leadership in the Greens party is that they have gone from the leadership of a man who had a pretty thick veneer of reasonableness coupled with some pretty good political instincts to the leadership of a woman who actaully believes every loopy conspiracy theory that lays at the heart of every policy and position of the party. There is nothing at all subtle about Milne. What you get is pure unadulterated zealotry for the faith. As if that were not enough now in the lead up to the budget we find that the new Milne controlled Greens tail is desperately trying to wag the Labor dog:
click for source
Isn’t this just the most perfect example of the hubris of the Greens?
They are truly so certain of their manifest destiny that they think having just one seat in the house and nine in the senate gives them control of taxation and the treasury!
Makes me think that maybe the RSPCA are just plain wrong in the opposition to the docking of dogs tails. Clearly there are instances when the damage done by a wayward tail make shortening that appendage nothing short of imperative.
Cheers Comrades
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
Milne’s ascendancy to the Greens leadership is actually a Godsend to Gillard, in that it makes her look more economically responsible and conservative. I can see a few clashes ahead as Milne sticks to her ‘I’m always right’ platform. Every time she appears on the news, Gillard’s popularity rises.
It is interesting to note that the Greens vote has been steady since the election according to the unfavourable Newspoll.
http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl?url_caller=latest&state=Any&mode=file&page=Search
When I looked, this link didn’t have the latest poll but according to this mornings Hun it shows a jump back to 12%.
Of course this was before Bob’s dignified exit, so the next poll will be interesting. I guess then we will find out then if the smear campaign is working or Greens support is as rock solid as I expect.
It seems also that Abbott is 2 points ahead of the ‘worst prime minister ever’, not a ringing endorsement and surprising given the shrill commentary coming from News limited for so long now.
Still it was good to see the Hun point out the failures of the new Liberal Government in Victoria….Even if it was on page 17.
One more thing (off topic if I may) the Hun ran a story on the rightwing nutter who shot 77 to save the world from Marxists (something that some of Iain’s old friends like KG would be proud of) without any criticism of him, just facts from the start of his trial. A bit odd, considering that if he had been Taliban or from the left, the article would have no doubt contained a huge attack on his religion or politics…..Hmmmm…. Not a good look, is News limited a supporter of this mans views? We don’t know.
Craigy,
To suggest that News Ltd supports Anders Behring Breivik’s views is not only completely and patently untrue, but also deeply offensive.
For you to say this again demonstrates your utter failure to understand the views of those you disagree with.
Nobody except perhaps a few neo-Nazi extremists support this atrocity. You shouldn’t be using this tragedy as an opportunity for slurring those who disagree with you.
I didn’t say News Ltd supports Breivik’s views Leon, I just used the same approach that wingnuts have been using to smear the Greens and people like me for years. If we don’t condemn Islam and its teaching or we don’t regularly say we think Stalin was a murderous bastard, then we somehow support their violence. I just asked if this might be true of News limited as Breivik comes from your side of politics. (Like Hitler is a leftist don’t you know).
Seems you are demonstrating your utter failure to read my post or comprehend another view.
Ever heard of quitting while you are behind, Craigy? Now you claim you’re the victim of smears? You’ve gone full circle here. I thought you didn’t care about smear campaigns.
And BTW, Iain had friend he used to link to at ‘A Western Heart’, KG, MK and doctor ting tong, who would definitely support Breiviks. So these kinds of people are around on the right, even in this country. The mans anti-leftist anti Islam paranoia can be seen at wingnut blogs across the globe, and many of them are violent in their language.
Isn’t it time that News Limited condemned this mans religion and politics, which he claims inspired him? They do it every other time.
I’m sorry if you find my views on this offensive Leon, who am I offending, can you explain please?
You’re right Ray, I don’t care much about smears against me, I can answer for myself, but the relentless attempts to ‘destroy’ a political party by one dominant newspaper group is a worry for democracy and good government and is irresponsible while they have such market dominance, in my book anyway.
We are being told that best practice comes from the un-restrained freedom of markets and freedom of speech and I don’t wish to change that, but I don’t think large, politically partisan media companies should hold such power if they can’t at least report with an attempt at decent Journalism.
A good example is how ‘Bolt’ writes in the H/Sun. He tells un-truths at will to try and make points against those he dislikes and in doing so breaks the law. Others, working for the same company are able to make the same points without un-truths and without breaking the law. Why doesn’t this newspaper group get rid of those writers with such poor skills like Bolt? I guess he makes them money and that’s all that matters.
Anyway, it isn’t a freedom of speech issue at all, it comes down to having a sense of responsibility for what you publish and how you go about your business. Something that News has shown it doesn’t have in the way it behaves around the world and with its support for hacks like Bolt and McCrann over other more talented writers.
Sorry to run so off topic, what do you think about the way the Greens vote is holding up?
We have had this argument before, Craigy, and as much as I agree that bias can and does exist in media reporting of politics and political issues, you overestimate its impact while underestimating the public’s ability to decipher the shit from the clay. My view is that people like Andrew Bolt are mere cheerleaders and that attacking them is like attacking the cheer squad at a footy game instead of focusing on the main game that’s going on in the arena. Some people even waste their lives – and bore us shitless – writing whole blogs about it on a daily basis, but that’s like criticising Joffa for ‘influencing’ people to follow Collingwood. He has the opposite effect and is merely preaching to the converted, just like Bolt is.
Ray,
I can only talk about those people I know who read Bolt each day and love what he writes. Not one of them is ever critical of what he has to say, and as the very fine blog ‘Pure Poison’ at ‘Crikey’ has demonstrated many times, his readers never show any evidence that they follow his links when he bothers to provide them. I have actually had a few students tell me they think Bolt is the only truthful newspaper journalist writing today. When questioned, they barely had any idea about his views, so they must only have read him once or twice. I believe they get their opinion of Bolt from their family or peers.
My view is that right-wing-gutter-journalism and tabloid newspapers appeal in the main to people with little understanding of politics and a leaning towards racism and xenophobia. That’s why it’s dangerous to have such a large chunk of our press in the hands of such an irresponsible and out of control empire like News. They distort the truth in order to push their agenda and you need to be switched on to see it. If you have a leaning to support conservative views then you will suck it up without question it seems, so many unaware readers fall for their shtick.
Pure Poison does the great service of short cutting the need to check the kind of things stated as fact by Bolt and others at News. That’s why I am finding myself reading them more often, not because I agree with everything that Jeremy and Dave post, but there is no mainstream counter available when News controls 70% of all mainstream newspapers and a large chunk of on-line traffic. I would not wish to shut down the trash press but it would be good to see something like ‘Crikey’ grow to the size of a MSM organisation and gain their kind of reach, to give us the balance we so need.
We have many TV channels now, but the main 4 channels still dominate and draw the biggest audiences. We may have voices out there giving balance to the distortions coming from News, but the vast majority of readers still buy the News ltd papers and read what’s in them uncritically. Our democracy would be better if people had easy access to honest, quality media in the same way they can easily access the shock jocks and tabloid hacks.
You may find PP ‘boring’ but I you don’t have to read them and those of us that do find them doing a great job and very entertaining. They have some very smart regulars in the comments as well, it can be very informative.
I know you will disagree with my views on Crikey, you seem to have a pathological hatred for Jeremy and would never admit that one of his posts has hit the mark. Still, I keep an open mind, one reason I read Iain’s blog and other right wing views, some of which I can agree with.
Oh and your view on the Greens polling?
You just shot your whole argument to bits right there. That’s exactly my point.
And WTF are you talking about by “pathological hatred of Jeremy”? That’s ridiculous. Offensive, Insulting. I have merely disagreed with his style and with some of his opinions at times. Hardly ever though. And he may well have views I do agree with but, as you are so fond of pointing out, just because I don’t comment on those does not mean I am against him.
You need to stop personalising your responses in my opinion, Craigy. Then you won’t get under people’s skin so much.
Happy PP reading – you and everyone of a like mind. Bolt has his followers and so does PP. Neither changes a thing.
It fluctuates between 10 and 12%. I think next year at the Fed election it will dip below 10.
Craigy,
Your suggestion that News Ltd shares Breivik’s views offends me because that is a vile suggestion that is plainly untrue.
I’m pretty sure the surviviors and the families of the victims would be appalled that you have used this tragedy to land such a cheap shot on an Australian media company you don’t like.
Your silly claim that conservatives regularly argue that leftists share the views of terrorists is also untrue, and beside the point.
Craigy
He can be quite witty and clever in the way he writes and I am more than happy to admit that but when it comes to political debates he is often far too keen to vilify and dismiss his interlocutors when he is losing the argument. I find him funny and amusing in those habits and I certainly don’t hate him, not even a little bit, let alone pathologically.
In the two largest cities it’s very easy to buy The Age or the SMH, but people choose not to. Then again I suppose you can’t call Fairfax papers ‘honest, quality media’ either. Leftist, but not ‘honest, quality’.
How’s the Green Left Weekly going?
hmmm….
GD
I think that the problem with many of the politically interested like Craigy is that they still think that most people buy the paper to be informed about politics. In my experience they don’t. People buy the paper for something to read on the train, or over breakfast/lunch, to keep up with the footy or to do the crossword/sodku the number of people who buy papers for news and politics is actually only a small part of the demographic who actaully buy a paper at all these days.So of course Craigy is concerned about the quality of political reporting but most readers would be more upset if that puzzle was missing or wrong than if the likes of Milne is given a hard or soft run in the media. Its all just grist for the entertainment mill rather than being anything important at all.
Okay Ray, I didn’t mean to offend with my bit of hyperbole, but reading this blog you do get the impression that you dont think very highly of the man and many insults get thrown his way regularly. I am insulted and offended at being called a looney and a communist and being told I follow a green religion. I await my apology.
Thanks for your comments Iain, I disagree with your benign view of the News influence on people. My observation is that many people have been heavily influenced by Murdoch’s campaign of smears and lies against his ideological enemies.
Leon, again you have failed to read or comprehend. Can someone explain it to him?
Maybe if you just focused on the issues in future, Craigy, you wouldn’t get yourself so far down a rabbit’s hole.
Thanks Ray…. You would have mad a good primary school principle….you love telling people how to behave. And you reckon I personalise things….sheesh.
made not mad….double sheeesh!
Okay back to one of the issues Ray.
Murdoch gets to have lunch with the PM, why? Because his political influence is huge. Do you really think Howard and he talked about the cricket?
You (and Iain) try and run a line that people can’t be or are not influenced by, for example, the ‘Destroy the Greens’ program undertaken at the Australian. Why did they do it then, if it wouldn’t change a vote?
Why do politicians both current and former, write articles for the papers, give photo ops and interviews if they don’t think it can influence voters?
Why are mining billionaires buying up media assets and trying to get on the board? It can’t be for the profits…..any clue yet?
Well if they behave like children, Craigy ….
1. Murdoch would be looking for favours. Business & politics is like that and it’s not exclusive to the media. Whaddya gunnado, ban all people from becoming rich and influential?
2. They did it because they can. And because it helps sell papers.
3. What pollies say definitely influences voters. What papers & their journos say not so greatly, if at all.
4. To buy influence over the pollies. Haven’t we gone back to #1 here?
So Allan Jones and Andrew Bolt don’t influence voters and Gina is buying into Ten because she likes the Simpsons……Yep, spot on Ray…..(what the?)
Yes Craigy, Jones & Bolt don’t hold much sway with how we mark our ballot papers. You keep saying they do so isn’t it about time you proved it? Go on, back it up with some facts. Which election result in living memory do you say was influenced by the opinions of the likes of Jones & Bolt, or by whatever slant the newspapers put on issues? I await ……
And can’t you read? I said Gina is expanding her interests because she wants more clout with politicians, not with voters. Maybe she thinks she can influence voters but she won’t. She ain’t well regarded. Which world do you live in, Craigy?
I live and work in the media world Ray……..I’m sorry mate but you have gone down the rabbit hole on this one….I don’t have to prove anything, it’s self evident to those who know what they are talking about.
You are suggesting that Gina wants to host a TV show, as I said… What the…?
Gina is keeping Bolt on air because he supports her and her battle against paying more tax. His program would have been cancelled long ago if normal commercial TV viability was not overridden by her influence. She is directly trying to get people to vote against the ALP and Greens by supporting the funding of a show with an audience that isn’t economic. Who, on the other side of politics has that power in this country? Murdoch set up Fox News specifically to push his political agenda and yes to influence politicians, by influencing voters.
That’s how you get politicians to move to the right like the ALP has done Ray, you influence those that vote for them…… I guess you understand that politicians are sensitive about how many people will vote for them come an election?
Every party including the Greens want Alan Jones on side, what more proof do you need that these people influence people with no time to look into politics and a bent for redneck views?
Newspapers, TV, Radio and the Internet, provide the information that people use to decide who they will vote for. As we have seen, when a media outlet starts a campaign against a Polly or a party, votes move, especially conservative rednecks that are in the main reactionary. Give them something to be angry about, coming from a source they trust and they will vote accordingly. Why else do blue collar workers vote for the Liberal party, a party that actually works against their interests? Because they are angry about a small tax and boat people. They have been suckered by the party of big business and their supporters in the media. Distracted from what the real issues are, Jobs, economic security, looking after those in need and the environment.
I do believe the News ltd campaign against the Greens and the ALP will have an impact come the next election, it won’t reduce the current support, which is strong amongst those who voted for them last time, but it has encouraged those disaffected voters from the main parties from taking a closer look, with an open mind.
That’s weak, Craigy. You made the claim – that Bolt & Jones influence the way we vote – so you don’t get a free kick by simply saying “I work in the media and therefore I know and you don’t”. It’s your rabbit hole, not mine. If you have any evidence cough it up. Otherwise it didn’t happen.
Still having comprehension problems? I didn’t suggest anything of the kind. As I said, Gina might be trying to influence voters (and so might Bolt) but do you seriously believe anyone is influenced by her and him to vote contrary to their better judgement? Oh that’s right, you “work in the media world” so you’d know.
Pollies might think that helps them too but they (like you) also underestimate voter intelligence.
Um, “conservative rednecks” would move where exactly?
Look Craigy, until you can nominate one election result that was unduly influenced by the media (and state exactly how) you are pissing in the wind. You are talking opinion not fact. I don’t like the slant the media can put on issues either but I am not so blinded and big-headed as to think I’m one of a select bunch that sees through it. You on the other hand, seem to think you’re so much smarter than the average voter that you have to bellyache about it and demand ‘media controls’. A sort-of truth police. Great. Maybe your problem is you don’t talk to enough ‘average Joes’. I do – I see them all the time up here on holidays and, believe me, the vast majority always say the same thing about the media, “it blows issues up”. People are not as dumb as you seem to think they are, Craigy.
So, how many people are in your select bunch of geniuses, Craigy? 5%, 10% or just those who vote Greens? Give me a break, mate, you are screaming blue murder and conspiracy without any proof.
Craigy,
I must say you sound like a terrified Fairfax employee who thinks of Gina as some sort of ogre with sinsiter inentions.
I suspect there are a number of reasons why she has acquired a small fraction of Fairfax, but it seems no-one has bothered to ask her.
Yes, I think that having some influence over government is one of her motivations. The way the RSPT has handled politicised a whole generation of miners and has made the industry keen to ensure that governments do not behave in such a high-handed manner towards them again.
I don’t think the small shareholding she has acquired means that she can control Fairfax however.
Or voters intentions, Leon. Gina Rinehart is one of the world’s wealthiest women, thanks to the inheritance from Daddy, but I think the average voter does not take their lead from her. Craigy seems to think voters are so beneath his level of intellect and perception that they need him and the Greens to protect them. You know, to shelter and guide them into … voting Green!
Craigy seems to think voters are so beneath his level of intellect and perception that they need him and the Greens to protect them. You know, to shelter and guide them into … voting Green!
I never said any such thing Ray, stop personalizing your comments and putting words in my mouth. Stick to defending your claim that the media doesn’t influence how people vote…….It’s a laugh watching you try and explain what you have little knowledge of.
Leon, Fairfax is a long term strategy clearly, what’s your excuse for ‘The Bolt Report’?
Craigy, you’re using strawman now, I see. That was a tongue-in-cheek remark of mine and you know it. Please reply to my main comment, the one before that. And it’s you who needs to prove YOUR CLAIM that the media influences election results. Don’t expect me to disprove it (although I could by simply pointing to the results). I’m still waiting, Craigy ………….
Come on Craigy, which election was ‘the wrong result’ because ‘the media done it’? Was it 2010, 2007, 2004, 2001, 1998, 1996 ….. ?
How far back do you want me to go? Which election did the media determine?
This is really head-shaking stuff. Craigy is complaining about a half hour of conservative commentary on TV. Forget that it is followed by an hour of Meet The Press, a left-leaning political forum.
Forget about the taxpayer funded ABC, with it’s plethora of leftist programs.including 7:30 Report, Lateline, The Insiders and the hopelessly biased Q&A, where each week one lone conservative is thrown to a panel of lefties and a stacked audience. The taxpayer pays for these shows regardless of ratings or lack of balance.
And Craigy is screaming because one privately owned network has half an hour of conservative opinion on Sunday morning.
Truly bizarre.
Craigy’s whimped it. Fair dinkum, it is people like Craigy who actually give ‘the left’ a bad name. Thankfully we’re not all like that, going around screaming ‘media bias’ & ‘close the papers down’. Some of us realise that the people vote on what they see and hear directly from the politicians, not from what some journo says.
As usual Ray you resort to just making up what you claim I said and pretending you didn’t say what you did. I’ll leave it at that.
Huh? Let’s summarise, Craigy: You claimed media journos like Bolt and Jones influence the way people vote. I said they don’t. You said they did. I said, okay prove it. You said, I don’t have to because, well, because I just know and you don’t know anything. I said which elections were influenced by the media. You said, you just make things up Ray and I’ll leave it at that.
Piss weak, Craigy. Year 7 stuff mate.
“Craigy who actually give ‘the left’ a bad name. Thankfully we’re not all like that, going around screaming ‘media bias’ & ‘close the papers down’.”
This is where you lost my Ray, insults followed by bullsh*t. You know I’m not screaming media bias, just pointing out that it exists. And I have clearly said I don’t want censorship or anything to be closed down at all. You’re being a tool.
Ray, this is my last comment on this thread as you are not making an argument, you just want to be personal and insult me with your non-argument and strawmen. You are better than that, and if you think you can get me angry by not engaging in reasonable debate, you won’t, so don’t bother.
I have given you many paragraphs of explanation to try and help you understand your confusion on these issues. I won’t go over it again, you have your view of this and no amount of explanation will change it.
Come and have a chat to any of the people who actually work in the media and you would find they think your view, that the media has no impact on the way people vote and no impact on peoples political leanings, hysterically funny.
You do realise there is a whole industry, called advertising, that is entirely dedicated to using the media to influence behaviour, including voting behaviour. What do I need to do to prove to you that media exposure actually works that way?
Year 7 stuff indeed…..
So, It seems nothing I say will convince you that you are just being silly……Still maybe that’s your intention….Anyway enough, have the last word if you wish. I will leave this topic alone in future.
Craigy, you are sounding very thin-skinned lately. Can’t you take a joke?
Anyway, please answer: Which election result was determined by the ‘big bad media’? Was it:
a) 2010
b) 2007
c) 2004
d) 2001
e) 1998
f) 1996
g) 1993
h) 1990
i) 1987
j) 1984
k) 1983
l) 1980
m) 1977
n) 1975 *
o) 1974
p) 1972
q) none of the above
(* I reckon 75 is as close as it gets, but even without the anti-ALP campaign, Whitlam would have lost)
Come on, stop sooking and play ball.
News Ltd owns 30% of newspapers in Australia, not 70%. It’s readership is around 70% because people choose to read those papers. As for on-line influence: News now charges for the pleasure, so if it has a large share it is because people are choosing to pay. Fairfax with its almost complete leftist coverage is languishing. The ‘evil’ Murdoch empire isn’t forcing people to read its papers, people are choosing to.