|
Post by geopol on Mar 14, 2013 17:08:18 GMT 10
I don't think Stella woulf be a good lie down, more like a bed of nails....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2013 17:09:02 GMT 10
If anything is to be argued it would be why did Conroy deliver the bill with the hoopla of a deadline..??... Labor doesn't need to drive more nails into its coffin. Perhaps knowing the conservatives would not support any bill as their reason is not on its value of a good thing, just reject everything is the ideology, dumb I know but hey that's just the way they are, playing fair doesn't matter, win at all cost even public good to be sacrificed, --cannot get it passed so shoot it down before it has a chance, who knows what lurks in the minds of Labor politicians these days....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 8:28:50 GMT 10
Ha ha ... Oakeshott is not prepared to vote with Labor on this issue and it's his vote that's crucial to its success. Conjob's demand to "take it or leave it" has resulted in his decision to "leave it." This one week ultimatum has seriously undermined Conjob's ability to get his media legislation through. Conjob's ultimatums have already left him looking like an idiot. This arrogant buffoon who claims he's so powerful he could force telco bosses to wear red underpants on their heads will be looking like this ... again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 8:49:54 GMT 10
It is not in the public interest to have media ownership in the hands of two or one people, and Conroy's bill has been built on years of research, public discussion and papers made on this issue of media ownership, and the need for a public monitor to be made....given that light it is fair to understand Conroy's fisstration to just get it done.....there has been enough fucking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 9:01:56 GMT 10
Oh ffs!! Did you read #7?? Obviously not!
Anyway, I'm out of here.
|
|
|
Post by geopol on Mar 15, 2013 15:53:56 GMT 10
The press in Ausraralia is an abomination...I looked at the Tele this morning and it simply bre-affirmed my belief....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 16:16:29 GMT 10
7# article Stellar is merely hysteria,---- for starters Conroy’s proposals go nowhere near the recommendations of the Finkelstein Inquiry to introduce an independent News Media Standards Council; and nowhere near the more sweeping changes recommended by the Convergence Review to take Australian media law into a converged, forward-thinking era.
The complaint is Conroy has watered down the inquiry and review recommendations, purely on the basis the bill could be passed more easily in that format by the senate, plus also it is caving into the media owners, conservative commentators and CEO's critcisms of effecting commercial sales,-- and even Conroy is recognising this in a necessary defense of some of the reforms that there are no new rules, and that the proposed Public Interest Media Advocate (PIMA) will have no power to act against the press or journalists.
Interesting is the hysteria and propaganda created by media, such as portraying Conroy to Soviet rulers as with the Telegraph is for you and Garfie real stuff......the question is with that hysteria that you believe to be real is it in public interest when the gullible minded lap it up and go into a frothing frenzy thinking it's real...I think not...serves no purpose at all other than creating idiocy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 17:55:59 GMT 10
The MSM have been gamed by the Government over this, people like Stellar are just too Dopey to realise it, however.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 5:50:55 GMT 10
If Stellar is a cross section of the RW demographic where for these people the hype is more believable than the actual facts of the matter, is indeed showing a fair degree of gullibilty.....does make you wonder where the countries free speech will end when media is controlled by one or two people who dictate to the government what policies to run with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 5:58:36 GMT 10
Oh dear! Worried that some nasty newspaper is going to say some nasty (but factually correct) things about your beloved Labor party??
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 16, 2013 6:16:09 GMT 10
As if you ever say anything factual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 6:22:42 GMT 10
Pragmatic, realistic ... the truth hurts, hey!
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 16, 2013 6:27:10 GMT 10
And the funny thing is that actually believe it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 6:43:14 GMT 10
Well of course if you want to look at it from a loony lefty's point of view, carry on. But I am off to the Mountains for the weekend. Far away from the lawlessness of my hometown. Ciao.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 16, 2013 6:52:47 GMT 10
Keep listening to your shock jocks to get your dailly dose of phobia.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 7:10:02 GMT 10
I dunno what to make of RW people ...The purpose of the exercise is for papers to state factual information that is in the publics interest, yet the RW think it is better to have disinfornation served that goes against public interest...dumb dumb very dumb.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 16, 2013 7:13:51 GMT 10
Exactly. They like to be misinformed. Then numbnuts like Stellar, Garfield and Floggg get fed their daily doses of whatever phobia excites them and they post it here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 7:17:31 GMT 10
Genetic defect or a environmental defect ...who knows...definetly something wrong.
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Mar 16, 2013 8:32:37 GMT 10
The idea is for the reader to decide whats crap and whats not, not the government, thats the bedrock of democracy.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 16, 2013 8:50:12 GMT 10
No, Garfield. There is this thing called defamation. You can't just write ANYTHING (like you do).
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Mar 16, 2013 8:53:35 GMT 10
But I am off to the Mountains for the weekend. Far away from the lawlessness of my hometown. Ciao. Have a good weekend stellar, I reckon you've earnt it
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Mar 16, 2013 8:54:37 GMT 10
Re #1 above.
"The Tele just shows the need for the likes of Conroy....Stuipidity needs to be assaulted at every chance and we must al applaud the new move to entrench standards... "
Well not according to some.
"When Bob Carr challenged Julia Gillard's authority to decide how Australia would cast its vote in the United Nations last November, it was a moment of potential crisis for her prime ministership. She took advice from her inner circle. Some saw the danger and advised her to accept a compromise. But Stephen Conroy urged her to fight on. It would have been a big mistake. Ultimately, the Prime Minister rejected Conroy's advice, compromised on her support for Israel in the UN, and lived to fight another day. If she had accepted his advice, she would have had her policy overturned in the Labor caucus, been humiliated, and quite likely lost her leadership as a result. This week, Gillard accepted Conroy's advice on another matter - media regulation. It was a big mistake. Advertisement
In the case of the UN vote, the question was whether to give Palestinians observer status in the UN. Gillard wanted Australia to stand with Israel, the US and a handful of others in voting ''no.'' Most countries were ready to vote ''yes''. Carr wanted Australia to abstain. As he told Gillard in her office at the time, ''I would find it very hard to vote against the Palestinians.'' Carr had already talked to backbenchers and ministers. He knew he had the support of the majority of the caucus and the majority of the cabinet. Gillard was able to assert her authority to overrule her cabinet, and she did. Cabinet ministers are prime ministerial appointees; they serve at the PM's pleasure. All prime ministers overrule their cabinets occasionally. But the caucus, comprising all Labor's federal MPs and senators totalling 102 members, is big, unwieldy and a different matter entirely. It's not bound to obey the leader. In fact, theoretically, the caucus decides policy and the executive is supposed to obey it. Many in the caucus were passionate on this matter. The majority was ready to overturn her decision. On Conroy's advice, Gillard made a short-lived effort to force her will on the caucus - by privately asking the Right faction to ''bind'' its members in a bloc vote in support of her position. The Right has a small majority in caucus. ''Prime Minister,'' replied the Right's convenor and chief government whip, Joel Fitzgibbon, ''I've been here 17 years and I've never seen that happen, and it won't happen this time.'' Conroy wanted Gillard to test her authority in the caucus room and fight on. But Gillard decided a quixotic tilt at the Palestinians was not worth her prime ministership. There was an awkward moment as she accepted defeat. Australia abstained in the UN and the political caravan moved on. But on Tuesday this week, Gillard backed the combative Conroy to the hilt on the vexed question of media regulation. Conroy, the Minister for Broadband and Communications, is one of the ministers considered most loyal to Gillard. Or as another cabinet minister put it: ''There are three of them in the bunker - the PM, Swan and Conroy.'' She did her best to cut everyone else out of the decision to ensure Conroy got exactly what he wanted. First, she and Conroy privately struck agreement on a policy decision. Second, she made a pre-emptive strike on her cabinet. Without listing the matter on the cabinet agenda, and without circulating the cabinet submission in advance, Gillard presented the decision as her position and told the meeting that it would be announced in two hours. It was a fait accompli. ''We asked ourselves, 'why are we here?''' one minister later remarked. ''It was obviously pointless to debate it.'' When the caucus met later in the day to consider parliamentary business, the briefing papers on the media policy arrived late, halfway through the meeting, allowing scant reading time. It appeared to be an attempt to railroad the caucus. The caucus secretary, Victoria's Gavin Marshall, suggested it was so late the minister, Conroy, might not be allowed to present the proposal to the meeting. But when it was pointed out the matter was listed on the caucus agenda, Marshall relented. There was a brief debate. Conroy announced to the world he wanted the Parliament to accept the package as it was, without compromise or barter. And he wanted it passed into law by the end of next week's parliamentary session, extraordinary urgency. Conroy was spoiling for a fight. He got one. His proposals have drawn near-universal criticism from the media sector as an unwarranted interference with media freedom. He has won near-zero support from any of the parties or independents he will need to get them into law. As his legislation stands, he has little chance of getting it through the house. His plan doesn't even have the support of the former Labor MP Craig Thomson, who sits as a crossbencher but generally votes with Labor. ''This is horrendous mismanagement,'' fumed one MP after watching Thomson go on TV to denounce the proposals. ''How can she take the show into another fight without having the numbers lined up? We can't even line up our own people to vote for our legislation.'' By Friday, the government had antagonised the media, yet faced likely failure in the parliament. It was a major loss for no gain, just as the government prepares for an election. By the end of the week the government was considering amending the proposals in order to get them through the house. Conroy has left his colleagues astounded. More importantly, Gillard's judgment to back him so forcefully has left her colleagues in despair. The Labor members who want the media changes to succeed, and those who oppose them, are united in their incredulity at the sheer incompetence on the matter. The question hanging over the entire enterprise - why? And, more specifically, why now? Senior members of the government say privately that Gillard and Conroy wanted to punish their enemy, and that means Rupert Murdoch's News group. Murdoch's titles - notably its broadsheet The Australian and its tabloid The Daily Telegraph - have been unrelenting and often rabid in attack on Labor from the moment it took power in 2007. Illustrating the point, The Telegraph festooned its front page on Wednesday with a juxtaposition of Conroy with six dictators, including the rulers responsible for the two bloodiest regimes of the 20th century, Mao and Stalin. The proposed changes would affect newspapers in two ways. First is the so-called public interest test. A government-appointed but statutorily independent person - the public interest media advocate - would have the power to interfere in any industry merger or acquisition that might lessen diversity of media voices. Conroy says that this power is purely to ensure that as many titles, viewpoints or ''voices'' are kept in the market as possible. His critics say it's really designed to stop News Ltd from buying any other media assets. The entire newspaper industry says it's an unjustified restraint at a time when there has never been so much diversity in the number of media voices. Second, if the newspaper self-regulation by the Press Council were held to be inadequate, a government-appointed but statutorily-independent person could impose sterner measures. Conroy calls it ''strong self-regulation''. The newspaper companies consider it government interference. Malcolm Turnbull calls both measures an attack on liberty and democracy. Accepting they are likely to lose the election, Labor's leaders wanted to punish enemies - the Murdoch empire - and reward friends - the trade unions - as they head for the exit, runs the theory held by some senior ministers. But there is another explanation, too. ''Conroy's view has been that the media stuff isn't the worst thing in the world, and it'll distract from leadership speculation and get us through to the end of next week,'' says a senior Labor figure. ''Gillard's entire world is an inside game,'' of how to hold the leadership against any Kevin Rudd recrudescence. The end of next week? That's the last time Parliament sits before the budget, the last time the caucus will be together in one place, the last time there will be a venue and opportunity for any leadership challenge before the budget. But Rudd is resolutely sticking to his pledge that he will not challenge again. This is frustrating some of his more determined supporters, but he is proving immovable. Without any challenge, the onus for change rests with the senior Labor members who, until now, have been Gillard supporters. A delegation to tell her to resign, like the one that gave the same message to Bob Hawke in 1991, is widely mooted. Messy, unpleasant, and, so far, no volunteers. ''I think there's a clear majority of people who want it to happen but want someone else to do it,'' says a member of the Gillard cabinet who is not counted among her detractors. This syndrome has a name. It's a called the ''bystander effect.'' Psychologists came up with the idea to explain a 1964 murder in New York. A 28-year-old woman, Kitty Genovese, was raped and murdered outside her apartment building in an attack that went on for half an hour and was witnessed by dozens of passers-by. No one acted to help, no one called the police. Why would no one act? The incident inspired psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latane to conduct experiments that led to two explanations. As psychologist Dr Melissa Burkley explained in a 2009 article, one is ''pluralistic ignorance … the bystander must realise that they are witnessing an emergency situation'', not just a domestic dispute or lesser contingency. The other is ''diffusion of responsibility,'' where the more bystanders there are, the less responsible each individual feels. ''People may assume that someone else will help or that someone else is better qualified to provide assistance,'' Burkley says. ''But if everyone assumes this, then no one will intervene.'' The bystander effect is Gillard's best chance of making it to the budget.. Peter Hartcher is the political editor.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Mar 16, 2013 9:04:09 GMT 10
or maybe
'The coal miners' union is bracing itself for a damaging series of revelations from an anti-corruption inquiry involving a well-respected former leader.
The Independent Commission Against Corruption's (ICAC) probe into the granting of mining licences to entities connected to the family of New South Wales Labor Party powerbroker Eddie Obeid has already damaged the ALP.
Now the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) is bracing itself for a reputational hit in the next part of the inquiry, which is due to begin on Monday.
The CFMEU's former national secretary, John Maitland, is staying out of the public eye at the moment and has cancelled today's public auction of a $1.6 million farm near Kempsey on the NSW north coast.
However the former union veteran still has $5-million-worth of property on the market, including a $3 million property in Victoria owned through his family company, Jonca.
Mr Maitland bought the farms after he became a multi-millionaire just four years after retiring as CFMEU head.
That wealth came on the back of an investment of less than $200,000 and a mining licence issued by his friend, the then state mining minister, Ian Macdonald.
It was the same year Mr Maitland became a Member of the Order of Australia, in recognition of his services to international and Australian industrial relations.
Now, the unravelling of the story of the rise from union man to rich mining investor threatens to drag in his former union colleagues. "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 9:26:46 GMT 10
Remember, the organisation that's squealing loudest about "Press Freedom" is the same organisation that hacked the phone of a murdered School Girl.
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Mar 16, 2013 9:31:46 GMT 10
Remember that the government squealing the loudest about silencing the press is the same one that killed 1000 boat people.
|
|