Category: Murdoch Press

Intervene: How the Government can secure media diversity

View image on Twitter

IN RECENT MONTHS, many questions have been raised over the degree of influence Australia’s media corporations are having on the day-to-day lives of Australians.

The latest Federal Election makes it clear that Rupert Murdoch remains powerful.

He and his News Corp entities have had an enormous grip on much of the news media, particularly in print and online formats, which we consume daily.

When joined by Australia’s television juggernauts Seven, Ten, Nine and Win, and radio broadcasting giant Macquarie group, it becomes increasingly alarming as to the lack of diversity displayed across Australia’s media landscape.

Intervene: How the Government can secure media diversity

 

Victorian election 2018, Victoria votes, Matthew Guy, Daniel Andrews, Labor Party, Liberal Party

Image result for Cartoons missing the target

When all the LNP does is listen to the IPA and Murdoch Media the poll then is really about the IPA & Murdoch Media and the likes of Fantasy their narrators like Andrew Bolt. How often has this right-wing pundit missed the barn wall firing his shotgun while locked inside? (ODT)

The downward trend is as neat and clear as you like.

In July, the Liberals were behind 49-51 and well in the race. By October they were out to 48-52. Now it’s 46-54.

But all the while, media were being briefed that everything was going great, things were “cutting through” that it “feels closer”, “Andrews is on the nose out there”.

via Victorian election 2018, Victoria votes, Matthew Guy, Daniel Andrews, Labor Party, Liberal Party

US Editorials called the Polish immigrant Grandparents of Laura Ingraham ‘Undesirables’

The Global Goose step of Murdoch Media. Is Laura Ingraham really Andrew Bolt? One hand aren’t all the fingers different? Not at Murdoch Media it’s a closed fist (ODT)

Professional bigot Laura Ingraham, ensconced in the primo 10 pm slot at Fox Cable News, has delivered herself of one of her typical Know-Nothing pronouncements on immigration to the US.

US Editorials called the Polish immigrant Grandparents of Laura Ingraham ‘Undesirables’

“Oh, Boy”: Media Matters Bill O’Reilly Ad In The Hollywood Reporter

One week after Fox News was forced to fire Bill O’Reilly after advertisers boycotted his show because of reports of serial sexual harassment, Media Matters for America released its first ad emphasizing that companies must be mindful about where they spend their advertising dollars. This ad is running on page 67 of issue 13 of The Hollywood Report

Source: “Oh, Boy”: Media Matters Bill O’Reilly Ad In The Hollywood Reporter

Andrew Bolt | Opinions and Articles Paper Boy for the Herald Sun| or| The Big Issue Genuine Balanced not Just Corporate Opinion | No Offense to The Issue Just a Reality Check You are the Better Paper Men not just a Paywall.

Image result for Images of the Big Issue

Read the latest Andrew Bolt Opinion Commentary and Discussions including Andrew Bolt Articles and Opinion News and Comments. More Andrew Bolt Opinions online at Herald Sun

Source: Andrew Bolt | Andrew Bolt Opinions and Articles | Herald Sun

Day to Day Politics: Where did Murdoch’s readers go and what about the election? – » The Australian Independent Media Network

Saturday 13 February. Author’s Note. This week’s announcement that News Corp’s revenue has declined for the fourth successive quarter has sent a shiver down the spine of the newspaper industry. It is now in its inevitable death throes. Further cuts will now have to be made in his Australian publications and when the traditional hard…

Source: Day to Day Politics: Where did Murdoch’s readers go and what about the election? – » The Australian Independent Media Network

Murdoch is turning the screws again, this time he has Abbott in his sights. When, Andrew Bolt, Nicky Savva, and Team Murdoch turns on him. you just know he is in trouble, and Team Australia is abandoning him in their droves. Must be driving Brian Loughnane quite mad, having his wife being asked to step down, I wonder who and how many phone calls he is taking these days?

Illustration: Eric Lobbecke

NORMALLY, opposition parties are forced to cope with life in the wilderness. Not now. Today, and for almost 18 months, we have endured, enjoyed or been bewildered by government in the wilderness.

More disturbingly, the man in charge, so brilliant as opposition leader, so flawed as Prime Minister, shows few signs he is capable of leading his government out of it, and every sign the job is beyond him: that he is not up to it and might never be up to it.

The situation is that dire. Not because of a hostile media, a restless backbench or an effective opposition leader brimming with conviction or ideas, but because of the Prime Minister’s own actions.

Frontbenchers as well as backbenchers are realising it’s time to stop criticising staff and start directing the blame for the government’s predicament where it really belongs. With him. They now accept they have to convince him to change and if they can’t they will be forced to consider changing him. If their survival depends on his elimination, eliminate him they will. Count on it.

That is because ultimately Tony Abbott is responsible for all of it. He decides what is done, as well as who does it, he signs off on it or cedes the authority which ­allows it to happen, or simply turns a blind eye to it.

There is no guarantee the Prime Minister will perform better if he is forced to sack his chief of staff, Peta Credlin. Government insiders fear he has become psychologically dependent on her, a view supported by the private comments of friends who worry he would feel bereft without her.

Publicly his colleagues grappled with formulations to distance themselves from him after his decision to award a knighthood to Prince Philip without stabbing him in the front. Privately there was sorrow, anger, humiliation and as one said “utter utter disbelief” that he could do this to himself and to them. It will never be forgotten nor readily forgiven. Some were already doing ­numbers, apparently intending to impress upon him how much trouble he was in. After Monday, it acquired a deeper, more urgent focus.

According to one Liberal MP, the most obscure backbencher game enough or riled enough to put their hand up today would get 15 to 20 votes. Imagine what Julie Bishop could do if she wanted to.

Despite Kevin Andrews saying it has cost nothing, it could ultimately be the costliest decision Abbott has ever made because it encapsulated for sensible Liberals, including the monarchists, everything which is wrong with Abbott’s conduct as Prime Minister: his failure to consult; his failure to gauge the mood of the electorate; his failure to concentrate on issues mainstream Australians deem paramount; his failure to live up to repeated promises to do better.

Yesterday, his preparedness to accept responsibility, cop it on the chin and again undertake to consult more fell on increasingly deaf and hostile ears. They have heard it all before. Often.

If it was an isolated incident, he might have got away with it. If everything else was going swimmingly he might have got away with it. But it is not. Far from it. Unfortunately it is only the most recent of a very, very long line of blunders and miscalculations which have undermined his authority and diminished his capacity to prosecute the government’s case for tax reform, workplace changes or budget repair.

Take the Medicare rebate debacle. Abbott announced it after parliament rose, without backbench consultation, against the advice of Treasurer Joe Hockey and then health minister Peter Dutton. Days later as Christmas approached, he unveiled a ministerial reshuffle, including a new Health Minister, Sussan Ley.

Everyone went on holidays ­assuming it would automatically proceed as they had announced just because they had announced it.

Not bloody likely. Complicated, contentious policies have to be properly sold and explained ­before, during and after announcement.

Back in their electorates, MPs were confronted by irate GPs.

Queensland backbencher Mal Brough, flexing his muscles, was unhappy with the policy, as well as its plopping into the middle of the state election campaign, and orchestrated the campaign against it. Finally Ms Ley was called off the Titanic (or whatever cruise ship she was on), to declare the government would not proceed with the changes.

Unfortunately her cabinet colleague Bruce Billson was still strapped into his deck chair declaring, despite the icebergs, that it was full steam ahead. Another triumph for the internal communications of the government.

Abbott won the leadership five years ago as a result of a policy contest. If he falls as prime minister, policies will be a contributory factor, but it will be mainly because of the now fully exposed personality or character flaws.

The question is what next. The gloom will deepen and the resolve to act intensify if Queensland goes worse than expected, especially if Campbell Newman loses his seat. Abbott’s warnings to remember the consequences of the Rudd- Gillard battles and to consider that Ted Baillieu’s removal did not help in Victoria hold little sway. His faults are more pronounced and better known to voters than were Rudd’s, while the problem with Baillieu was not that he was removed, but that he was left there too long.

Liberals are evaluating the qualities of potential replacements, mainly Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull, with Scott Morrison on the periphery.

As Foreign Minister Bishop has performed very well, however, while she remains quarantined from them, she is also untested on domestic issues.

Turnbull is hated inside the party as much as he is admired outside it. His prospects would ­improve if he undertook not to push for an Emissions Trading Scheme until the rest of the world moved.

As one senior member of the government put it, choosing a leader is not so much about deciding who is the best candidate, but who is the least worst.

That is how Abbott got there and if he doesn’t improve, he will go out the same way.

The Failure of Mainstream Media.

failure

The way in which the mainstream media (MSM) chooses to report and discuss the economy, i.e. in conventional neo-liberal terms, reinforces the notion that the economy is some sort of God who must be served and obeyed by the people in one particular way to the exclusion of any other. This is a false concept wrapped in metaphorical jargon that has not only poisoned our minds but, in the process, allowed us to become enslaved to its will.

The way the media frames its articles and the language it uses to present them, crowds out any alternative discussion and prevents alternative concepts being presented. As a result, the present government’s ideological agenda of austerity and surplus driven macroeconomics becomes something akin to the Ten Commandments, which we must obey and accept. This too, is a false concept.

It is time for a more progressive view to be aired, discussed and debated.

The progressive vision of an economy is the reverse of the existing one, where it serves the people, advancing public purpose, whatever that might be. It is a vision where, within the constraints of a healthy environment, we live in harmony with the planet, where equality is the principle commandment, where we control everything about it and we use it to advance our quality of life, without destroying the planet and without leaving anybody behind.

languageThe barrier that is preventing this progressive view from being debated is in the language used to explain it. We are trained in our early language to think of the word ‘deficit’ as bad. It equates with concepts of debt, of owing, of a burden, of having to restore a shortfall, etc. It isn’t helped at all by comparing a nation’s economy to household budgeting.

We haven’t been able to link the word, ‘deficit’ with something good, with employment, with growth, because the mainstream media won’t indulge it. They are seduced by convention, afraid to think outside the square.

To this end, the MSM have allowed the present government’s failed ideology to prevail. Where it fails is in thinking that a surplus is a goal rather than a tool. Surpluses and deficits should be determined by what we, as a nation, want and should be used to suit the circumstances at the time. Surpluses and deficits are not an end in themselves, they are tools used to achieve an outcome.

What we want right now is full employment or as close to full employment as we can come. In our present circumstances, that will not be achieved by trying to bring the budget into surplus. The media’s so-called economic experts should be framing their articles to reflect this. At the moment they are seduced by the metaphorical language that undermines any hope of full employment.

Using the current issue of welfare, the one the media love to milk, where they grasp at any suggestion of waste and abuse, of lazy people not trying to find work, of the sick bludging on the system, we can demonstrate an economic imperative they never highlight.

welfareWhat they never explain and what the present government doesn’t realise is that when tax revenues fall, welfare payments increase. One works inversely with the other. These are the automatic stabilisers where the common denominator is the workforce participation rate and by association, the GDP growth rate.

These stabilisers restrict the range of the business cycle by expanding and contracting depending on the level of fiscal policy. When unemployment rises so do welfare payments. If, for example, Scott Morrison thinks he can reduce welfare payments while tax revenues are in decline he is effectively trying to reverse a natural outcome. It is a bit like trying to go forward when the car is in reverse gear.

So, if his approach to welfare payments is similar to his approach to stopping the boats, i.e. having no time for the personal impact on his decisions, just the outcome relative to the government’s policy position, he will discover that just like stopping the boats, reigning in welfare spending is a dirty science. Outcomes will vary in ways he and the government cannot foresee.

Thinking that having a business friendly conservative government will automatically generate business confidence is foolhardy at best, also lazy and already proving to be a false expectation. Only full or near full employment will generate demand of the kind that will lift us out of stagflation. The unemployed cannot find jobs if the jobs are not there. At the last count, there were approximately 770,000 unemployed and less than 150,000 jobs advertised.

As long as governments, like our present one, push supply side economics (if you make it, buyers will come), instead of demand side economics (making what buyers need and want), unemployment will continue to rise. The private sector will not manufacture or produce goods without a known ready market.

printThe media has failed dismally in explaining this to its readers. It has failed the people it is there to serve. It peddles a false and misleading language that serves an exclusive minority, the super-rich. Little wonder circulation has plummeted.

The task of explaining alternative, progressive economics has fallen to the blogosphere and social media sites where much of the lost readership of the MSM has found a new home, found what it wants to read and the language it prefers.

Is it a forlorn hope that 2015 will see a breakthrough in progressive economic theory? We will certainly try.

Filed under: