People are creatures of habit and it is only that so many people are habituated to buying the news papers that any are still being sold at all. Just take any kind of commute on public transport and consider how many people are reading a paper and how many are staring at a screen instead. Some certainly may be playing games or even watching video but I expect that they will be out numbering those who are still reading dead tree editions of the MSM.
Then there is the things in the paper that people buy them for, most papers are not exclusively about politics and current affairs anyway, so some readers will be buying the paper for its coverage of sport, lifestyle or even just for the crossword puzzles. My point is that the political classes (in particular those from the left ) just look at the raw sales figured and they think that every reader of the Herald Sun is in the thrall of Rupert Murdoch and that the owners dictate to their readers directing their opinions. The reality is that all media entities write to their audience. If they don’t their audience wither away quite quickly. With the coming of the internet this is even more how things work Online entities are even more in an endless quest for readers so you have to play to what your readers want rather than thinking that you can manipulate their thinking. I have been writing a blog for nearly a decade now and I have noticed just how quickly particular readers flit in and out its the same now with the way that people read things online from the likes of Murdoch, Fairfax or even the Guardian People don’t just get their news from one source any more no matter what the subject is they will read what several sources say about it and then make up their mind. This behaviour is the same when it comes to broadcast TV people flit form one channel to another seeking different perspectives. My argument is simple, if the media consumers have changed their habits then perhaps there is something in the notion that media diversity laws from the last century should perhaps reflect those changes as well.
(by Ray Dixon – an equal opprortunity holiday accommodation provider)
“We don’t want sodomy in our home. That’s not the same thing as saying we are anti-gay,”
On the surface this sounds like straight-out discrimination against same-sex couples (being lesbians, in this case).
But I smell a bit of a set-up:
Karen and Michael Ruskin, of Pilgrim Planet Lodge, in central Whangarei, say they have received death threats and verbal abuse over their stance on homosexuality.
… Lesbian couple Jane Collison, 30, and Paula Knight, 45, decided not to stay at the lodge on May 7 after being told they could only have a room with single beds.
They had booked online a room with a king-sized bed but Mrs Ruskin said that when the couple arrived they were told the lodge’s policy was for same-sex couples to be put into a room with two king-single beds.
The engaged couple decided not to stay but could not find other accommodation until they got to Waipu.
Mrs Ruskin said she was sorry for the couple’s inconvenience but was standing firm on her morals and the sanctity of her home.
The Ruskins live in the bed and breakfast-style lodge, where guests share lounge, kitchen and living areas.
“It’s our home – it’s not a motel.”
The lesbians have since filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission claiming discrimination due to their sexual orientation but the owners claim they have a legal right (and indeed a precedent) to say who will share their residential accommodation:
She said that in 2010 a gay couple also complained to the commission after being asked to sleep apart, but that complaint was withdrawn when the exception for shared accommodation came to light.
Hmm, I’m starting to wonder if this incident was a case of gay activists deliberately targeting the Pilgrim Planet in a sort-of payback or even a re-test of the exemption, now that gay marriage has been legalised in New Zealand.
I wonder why they chose this place, which already has ‘form’ for rejecting gay couples, and which also states right upfront on its website’s home page that they, err, cater to only certain people:
Pilgrim Planet: B&B guesthouse in central Whangarei, modern accommodation with old fashioned values*
*Our nation’s moral code has been based on generally accepted values which have guided legislation. Essentially parliament’s concern is matters legal and the peoples’ concern is matters moral. When these line up we have peace and harmony but when politicians legislate against morality, a disconnect occurs. Unjust laws need to be questioned for if we fail to do this we will become corrupted by the law instead of edified and protected by it. You are welcome to stay in our home, whatever your beliefs, so long as you respect and understand ours.
And just in case the lesbian couple missed that bit when they booked online, they surely must have seen this on the bookings page:
Pilgrim Planet – modern accommodation with old fashioned values! …….. We reserve the right to change any rooms that have been booked on-line at our discretion.
I’m in the accommodation business too, but I wouldn’t go imposing any ‘moral values’ on our guests. We’ve had gays & lesbians stay here at GG and it doesn’t bother us in the slightest. All we ask is that guests don’t disturb others and don’t leave the place in a mess. Quite frankly (and I don’t mean to stereotype here), our homosexual guests are generally much tidier than most others, especially those guests with little kids. As for what they do in the beds, well our linen is hired in for each stay so we don’t have to wash it anyway!
Then again, our units are completely separate and fully self-contained, whereas the Pilgrim Planet is actually an oversized house that merely lets out bedrooms and allows its guests to share most of the house, it seems. It’s not the sort of accommodation I’d choose to supply – to anyone – because the only people I like sleeping in my house are my own direct family. Yeah, we even put our relatives in the units when they visit (at no charge of course!)
I sort of think the Ruskins, if homosexuality offends them so much, are simply in the wrong business. But I also think the lesbian couple would (or should) have known in advance that they would be discriminated against – I mean, just the name Pilgrim Planet should have been a dead giveaway that mein host was a little bit on the churchie side, don’t you think?
Anyway … they’re just bloody Kiwis, who cares?
I think I might ban all New Zealanders from GG full stop – I wonder if that’s discrimination?
I have been saying for years that if the proponents of Gay marriage are so sure of the community’s support then they should be advocating for a plebiscite to truly measure the real amount of public support for the the concept of same sex “marriage”. Well it seems that it might even happen if the report in today’s Fairfax press is to be believed:
Personally I doubt that the plebiscite will get up or even be debated in the parliament because neither Labor nor the Coalition are that keen on the “gay marriage” , then again Labor might go for it on the basis that they may get some small amount of positive PR from suggesting that they are putting the question to the people. Its no surprise to me that the Gay marriage advocates like Rodney Croome are less than enthusiastic about the idea because the experience of votes like the one held in California on proposition 8 showed a substantially lower level of public support for Gay marriage than the often claimed 80+% that he and his fellow travellers are so often citing on the issue.
It could be bit more spice into the pot for September 14 but I suspect that when it comes down to it that we won’t be having a plebiscite and that the only reason that this idea is being floated now is that the bit players want an issue to campaign on that will differentiate them from both Labor and the Coalition, the former because Australia’s oldest party has such a stench of death all around them and the later because they have so much momentum that independents will otherwise be consigned to the dustbin of history…
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Air travel, the blessing of modernity if you ask the general population who dream of exotic places to spend their holidays, tools for terror to those who take the Islamists at their word but this morning I am trying to be an optimist about air safety because I have to for the sake of my children.
Apparently, over there in the country the world forgot – aka The Shaky Isles – the Australian Rugby Union team lost 20 – 6 to the New Zealand All Blacks in the semi final of the World Cup.
Now, this might be a big deal to the Kiwis.
And it might even be a big deal to Aussies living in NSW & Queensland (although, as I understand it, Rugby Union is only the minor code of the game and they’re more into something called Rugby League up there).
But, to those of us in the rest of the country and particularly in Victoria, it’s like this:
TELL. SOMEONE. WHO. CARES.
This just sent a shiver down my spine, such a horrible way top go.