Never read this guys work before - he speaks of reason and logic, how rare for an SMH journalist. It's not like them to balanced, strange - espionage alert!
Never read this guys work before - he speaks of reason and logic, how rare for an SMH journalist. It's not like them to balanced, strange - espionage alert!
Look everyone is welcome to hold their own views but please tell me, it'll help me sleep at night, you do realise how spectacularly one eyed you are right?Never read this guys work before - he speaks of reason and logic, how rare for an SMH journalist. It's not like them to balanced, strange - espionage alert!
For the emotional illiterate amongst us, that was a tongue in cheek post, although there was, as is the case with most of my posts, a grain of truth in it. I'm not really that right wing, more I just can't stand the left wing side of the political spectrum, so nonsensical (imo) >_<Look everyone is welcome to hold their own views but please tell me, it'll help me sleep at night, you do realise how spectacularly one eyed you are right?
Um, but the SMH isn't left-wing. If anything it's marginally right-wing. Can't you stand centrists either?For the emotional illiterate amongst us, that was a tongue in cheek post, although there was, as is the case with most of my posts, a grain of truth in it. I'm not really that right wing, more I just can't stand the left wing side of the political spectrum, so nonsensical (imo) >_<
I would definitely disagree with that statement.Um, but the SMH isn't left-wing. If anything it's marginally right-wing. Can't you stand centrists either?
Do you read the same paper?Um, but the SMH isn't left-wing. If anything it's marginally right-wing. Can't you stand centrists either?
Um, no it's not you silly social conservative.Do you read the same paper?
It might appear right wing when compared to 'Green Left, however it is still a strong mouthpiece for the ALP.
Don't joke about the DT.Um, no it's not you silly social conservative.
Something like The Age is left-wing.
The Green Left is a load of socialist tosh and is extreme left.
If you can't tell the fucking difference then I wouldn't be surprised to find out your favourite paper is the Daily Telegraph.
News flash to both of you: just because something isn't conspicuously and consistently right-wing doesn't make it left-wing.
I'd say whilst the journalism itself is relatively balanced. Marr, Switzer, Sheehan, Henderson-they all get their chance to have a say. But in Sydney it would attract an overwhelmingly progressive audience.Um, but the SMH isn't left-wing. If anything it's marginally right-wing. Can't you stand centrists either?
I don't agree with this. I think that what the 'left' write is now considered as more socially acceptable than what the 'right' write. There is such a huge amount of political intimidation going on in this country, it's not funny and the worst part is - most Australians aren't even aware of it.I'd say whilst the journalism itself is relatively balanced. Marr, Switzer, Sheehan, Henderson-they all get their chance to have a say. But in Sydney it would attract an overwhelmingly progressive audience.
I'll add that these days members of the right will be convinced that all but the most conservative media outlets are sociallists and most lefties will be convinced that any inclination to the conservative side of politics means the media outlet is fascist.
The way you (and Gerrard, Bolt, Switzer) respond to liberal rule is exactly my point. It strayed to the left granted but its scepticism of Howard is greatly overshadowed by the "conviction politician, takes the tough decisions, would give his life for his country, did enormous wonders for our economy etc etc" narrative told in the Howard years which aside from one disgruntled ANU researcher attracted very little criticism as well.I don't agree with this. I think that what the 'left' write is now considered as more socially acceptable than what the 'right' write. There is such a huge amount of political intimidation going on in this country, it's not funny and the worst part is - most Australians aren't even aware of it.
There's an easy way for you to test it though. Go wear a Labor or Greens Party sticker in public and see if you're confronted at all. Then go and wear a Liberal or Nationals sticker and I promise you, for me at least, every single time I do this, and I have for the lulz, I am confronted and intimidated by people. Last election a friend of my mother was running for the Liberal party in the local government elections and asked her to hand out flyers at the voting place - she came back saying she'd "never do it again" after the looks she'd gotten from so many people.
Want more evidence? The fact that a series like 'Liberal Rule' is allowed to go to air under the guise of being a 'balanced documentary,' and yet it is let off relatively unscathed by the Australian media (can anyone find any other criticism of it apart from that SMH article?).
It didn't just stray to the left, it took a long jump in the left direction, stamped around a bit and then took a nice phlegmy spit onto the right side.The way you (and Gerrard, Bolt, Switzer) respond to liberal rule is exactly my point. It strayed to the left granted but its scepticism of Howard is greatly overshadowed by the "conviction politician, takes the tough decisions, would give his life for his country, did enormous wonders for our economy etc etc" narrative told in the Howard years which aside from one disgruntled ANU researcher attracted very little criticism as well.
I said ALP mouthpiece, not necessarily left wing. I certainly wouldn't consider it right wing though; centre, maybe centre left.Um, no it's not you silly social conservative.
Something like The Age is left-wing.
The Green Left is a load of socialist tosh and is extreme left.
If you can't tell the fucking difference then I wouldn't be surprised to find out your favourite paper is the Daily Telegraph.
News flash to both of you: just because something isn't conspicuously and consistently right-wing doesn't make it left-wing.
Actually, no, disregard my last post, I'll take that description: the left (Liberal Rule) are nonsensical, unfounded and unfairly biased whilst the 'right' (Howard Years) are fair, relatively impartial and accepting of criticismThe way you (and Gerrard, Bolt, Switzer) respond to liberal rule is exactly my point. It strayed to the left granted but its scepticism of Howard is greatly overshadowed by the "conviction politician, takes the tough decisions, would give his life for his country, did enormous wonders for our economy etc etc" narrative told in the Howard years which aside from one disgruntled ANU researcher attracted very little criticism as well.
Impartial? You're going bonkers. Who was the other side in the Howard years, from memory the strongest critic of Howard in the whole series was a liberal backbencher. Most of the air time went to messers Howard, Costello, Downer and Reith just rambling on about how wonderful they were.I recall no left wing voice whatsoever unless you count Kelly herself.Actually, no, disregard my last post, I'll take that description: the left (Liberal Rule) are nonsensical, unfounded and unfairly biased whilst the 'right' (Howard Years) are fair, relatively impartial and accepting of criticism
The Howard Years featured numerous interviews with those from the opposition and others who disagreed with his policies. It also featured those from the 'right' bluntly admitting their mistakes in some cases. I'm sorry, but you just compare the two at all in terms of being equal. I watched Liberal Rule again last night and the amount of air time they give to that nobody Abjorensen to spout his at times completely ridiculous Howard hatred was just ridiculous. The two cannot be compared at all. One was a documentary, one was as good or as bad as a piece of leftist propaganda.In Liberal rule we see an imbalance, more left wing voices than not. The right is still represented: Liberal mp's, Conservative journalists, government staffers etc. In the Howard years there was no such voice from the left. Nearly an entire episode focussed on immigration laws, whatever his politics I can tell you David Marr knows more about what happened with the MV Tampa than any member of parliament does but his views were never going to be welcome on the Howard years, the ABC would have been accused of bias.
Name one left wing voice in the Howard years? Just one, I remember the prime minister, several cabinet ministers, some back bench mp's-all liberal, some members of the public service, some advisors of Howard, Costello, Downer etc, some members of the armed forces, a Howard government pollster, A few foreign leaders, some state members of the liberal party, a couple of nats, some of the folk Reith had employed to settle the waterfront dispute, where were these left voices you spoke of?The Howard Years featured numerous interviews with those from the opposition and others who disagreed with his policies. It also featured those from the 'right' bluntly admitting their mistakes in some cases. I'm sorry, but you just compare the two at all in terms of being equal. I watched Liberal Rule again last night and the amount of air time they give to that nobody Abjorensen to spout his at times completely ridiculous Howard hatred was just ridiculous. The two cannot be compared at all. One was a documentary, one was as good or as bad as a piece of leftist propaganda.
eg. the Australian Labor Party.News flash to both of you: just because something isn't conspicuously and consistently right-wing doesn't make it left-wing.
Oh come on. I've campaigned for Labor at many elections, and can not even count the amount of abuse I've copped. I've been called a communist more times than I can count, unAustralian, scum, a liar, told I'd not been pissed on if I was on fire and so on and so forth.Last election a friend of my mother was running for the Liberal party in the local government elections and asked her to hand out flyers at the voting place - she came back saying she'd "never do it again" after the looks she'd gotten from so many people.
From memory, The Howard Years featured no commentary at all. It was simply a look at his government from those involved. What was so good about it was the way the interviews were edited to look like they were all in conversation with eachother - contradicting some things, agreeing with others. I suppose editing is a kind of commentary, but you still draw your own conclusions without significant pressureName one left wing voice in the Howard years? .
From memory, The Howard Years featured no commentary at all. It was simply a look at his government from those involved. What was so good about it was the way the interviews were edited to look like they were all in conversation with eachother - contradicting some things, agreeing with others. I suppose editing is a kind of commentary, but you still draw your own conclusions without significant pressure
Liberal rule is just sloppy so far