News Folau case may send Rugby Australia broke.

[Hacky McAxe]

lol

I'm probably not far behind you in the hair stakes. I'm mid 30's and lucky to still have a full head of hair (my Dad lost his in his mid 20's).

My dad lost his in his early 20s. I lasted until my early 30s.

 

[CaptainJackson]

There's been studies done around the world that has demonstrated on average (and by a significant majority), journalists and media employees lean left.

That's irrelevant to the topic at hand. We're speaking about Australian media not world media. Your logic here is akin to saying because world studies have found a significant majority of journalists leaning to the left that an organisation like fox news, therefore, leans to the left.

The ABC is the extreme version of this. They border on political activism rather than journalism. I would be ok with this if they were funded by private money, but they are using our tax dollars to essentially support a particular ideology.

And yet 3 inquiries initiated by the coalition, setup by the coalition have failed to find a bias. But it's ok I'll take your word for it instead of the actual inquiries conducted into the ABC. It's much more relevant to take cognitive bias as fact rather than actual inquiries conducted.

A study published in 2013 surveyed 605 journalists from a variety of organisations on their voting intentions.

Fifty-nine of these journalists were from the ABC, and 34 of them answered the question on voting intention, with 25 either undecided or electing not to answer.

Of the 34 who did answer, 41.2 per cent, or 14, said they would vote for the Greens.

-----------------------------------------------

Considering the greens attract less than 10% of the vote, it's a huge anomaly that 41% of ABC journalists who answered this question just 'happened' to declare themselves as green voters.

And again this means shit fark all. Why?

1. Content of their articles is not discussed and whether there is bias in their articles
2. You're assuming because they have a voting preference, that their work would therefore contain a bias to their political leanings, thereby questioning their integrity and professionalism. Questioning their professionalism based on nothing but your personal assumptions
3. Continuing on from point 2, this would lead to the current government coming down hard on that journalist, as exemplified by Malcolm Turnbull and Mitch Fiefield coming down on Emma Alberici for her "trickle down economics" article which actually had no errors on it, the only problem was, for the coalition government, was that it called bullshit on trickle down economics with examples from around the world

So to cut it short for you, the main aspect you should be looking at is content, content, content! But you're completely ignoring content.

This is akin to people saying Rupert Murdoch owns 70% of media in this country. Quite simply he does NOT own 70% of media in this country, he has 70% of the market share of print readership, i.e. of the print media bought by consumers, 70% choose to buy his publications.

As I said. When you lean one way then everyone else leans the other way. I've heard many Lefties say that SMH is right wing. SMH state that they are central but they're left wing.

Channel 7 flips between the two. Lately they have been more right wing but they are still reporting some central and left wing stuff.

Today Tonight also isn't 7 news. It's a tabloid show separate from the news.

You'll find that major news events are reported by every station with very little variance in the presentation of these stories. Hence I wouldn't really classify presentation of news as a litmus test into bias of a media organisation.

What determines a media organisations bias are the opinions they allow to be hosted on their platforms and whether or not those opinions are given free reign or questioned and also if those opinions are found to be gross negligence are they reigned in or punished in some form.

To put it quite simply, Channel 7, as stated before, has in the past:-

1. Hosted a known neo-nazi and presented him as a "concerned citizen", with a free platform to give his opinions
2. Brought back Pauline Hanson from political oblivion, by not only airing her opinions (WITHOUT ANY KIND OF QUESTIONING), but also paying her to appear on their Today show. The first moment that David Koch actually questioned Pauline Hanson was after the Christchurch attacks and she threw her toys out of the pram and had a dummy spit
3. Mark Latham given free reign as well
4. Prue Macsween the old hag cow, who has no credentials to speak about the topics she does speak about, and quiet often her views are gross bigotry and racism. Again she goes on unchallenged and is REPEATEDLY invited back to appear
5. Or how about the recent case of an indigenous family suing channel 7 for false representation of their children as those being affected by drugs, domestic abuse.
6. And then going back to a program like "Today Tonight" which regularly attacked minorities (all types of minorities, including people on the dole from different backgrounds, including white people) and stereotyped them to be nothing but a drain on society and not trustworthy. For a media organisation to have this kind of garbage as a REGULAR show would strongly suggest that a certain view is being pushed.
7. I think it was in the past year, but journalists working for channel 7 actually started to complain about what they were being forced to dish out regularly. They were complaining that their media organisation were pushing out an excessive amount of far right shit.

But of course no, channel 7 swings between left and right political leanings, hahaha yeh right!


As far as SMH/fairfax is concerned, their political leaning has COMPLETELY changed since the 9 group took over them. Leading up to the federal election their puff pieces were blatant propaganda for the coaltion.

Hell there was an opinion piece in the SMH saying that Tony Abbott has done an absolute shit job but people in that electorate should still vote for him. Look I get writing an opinion piece in support of certain political members/parties, but this particular piece was such utter shit, it couldn't be classified as anything but propaganda and for a media organisation to actually accept this and display it on their platform, well no that stinks of political leaning.

Mind you it wasnt just the abbott piece leading up to the election. There were plenty of articles that were towing the coalitions line and surprise surprise all this came about after fairfax was bought out. And guess who sits on the board of the organisation who bought fairfax out? Well none other than Peter Costello. Yes this does question my point above, where I'm questioning professionalism/integrity but given the garbage fairfax came out with leading up to the election, the CONTENT has given me justification to make that accusation.

Even before fairfax was bought out, they've had opinion writers like Amanda Vanstone, to try and present a central leaning to their readership. Personally I have no objections with Vanstone, yes her and my political leanings/ideals are very different but she presented her opinions in a justifiable way, they were NOT complete puff pieces.

But we could also touch on Fairax's ex opinion writer Paul Sheehan, who was unceremoniously sacked after one of his many hundreds of anti-islam opinion pieces was found to be so far fetched, so lacking in fact, so completely utterly wrong and complete hate material that fairfax had no choice but to get rid of him. And this is after COUNTLESS anti-islam articles.


To give an example of a journalist doing his/her job regardless of their political leanings, I'm going to use a conservative journalist as an example. BBC's Andrew Neill when he actually PERFORMED his journalistic duty and questioned Ben Shapiro. After this interview, he was lambasted as being a "lefty" when he is no such thing. He's a traditional conservative, but he displayed his professionalism and his integrity with hos position by actually doing his job. No matter who he's interviewing he has to challenge those beliefs and ask questions.

In our media, what Andrew Neill did, it doesn't exist for Channels 7, 9, 10 and sky news. Those organisation let right leaning interviewees get away with shit, and what's even more concerning is that those particular interviewees are regulars on their platforms, to spew their garbage completely unchallenged.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

That's irrelevant to the topic at hand. We're speaking about Australian media not world media. Your logic here is akin to saying because world studies have found a significant majority of journalists leaning to the left that an organisation like fox news, therefore, leans to the left.




And yet 3 inquiries initiated by the coalition, setup by the coalition have failed to find a bias. But it's ok I'll take your word for it instead of the actual inquiries conducted into the ABC. It's much more relevant to take cognitive bias as fact rather than actual inquiries conducted.



And again this means shit fark all. Why?

1. Content of their articles is not discussed and whether there is bias in their articles
2. You're assuming because they have a voting preference, that their work would therefore contain a bias to their political leanings, thereby questioning their integrity and professionalism. Questioning their professionalism based on nothing but your personal assumptions
3. Continuing on from point 2, this would lead to the current government coming down hard on that journalist, as exemplified by Malcolm Turnbull and Mitch Fiefield coming down on Emma Alberici for her "trickle down economics" article which actually had no errors on it, the only problem was, for the coalition government, was that it called bullshit on trickle down economics with examples from around the world

So to cut it short for you, the main aspect you should be looking at is content, content, content! But you're completely ignoring content.

This is akin to people saying Rupert Murdoch owns 70% of media in this country. Quite simply he does NOT own 70% of media in this country, he has 70% of the market share of print readership, i.e. of the print media bought by consumers, 70% choose to buy his publications.



You'll find that major news events are reported by every station with very little variance in the presentation of these stories. Hence I wouldn't really classify presentation of news as a litmus test into bias of a media organisation.

What determines a media organisations bias are the opinions they allow to be hosted on their platforms and whether or not those opinions are given free reign or questioned and also if those opinions are found to be gross negligence are they reigned in or punished in some form.

To put it quite simply, Channel 7, as stated before, has in the past:-

1. Hosted a known neo-nazi and presented him as a "concerned citizen", with a free platform to give his opinions
2. Brought back Pauline Hanson from political oblivion, by not only airing her opinions (WITHOUT ANY KIND OF QUESTIONING), but also paying her to appear on their Today show. The first moment that David Koch actually questioned Pauline Hanson was after the Christchurch attacks and she threw her toys out of the pram and had a dummy spit
3. Mark Latham given free reign as well
4. Prue Macsween the old hag cow, who has no credentials to speak about the topics she does speak about, and quiet often her views are gross bigotry and racism. Again she goes on unchallenged and is REPEATEDLY invited back to appear
5. Or how about the recent case of an indigenous family suing channel 7 for false representation of their children as those being affected by drugs, domestic abuse.
6. And then going back to a program like "Today Tonight" which regularly attacked minorities (all types of minorities, including people on the dole from different backgrounds, including white people) and stereotyped them to be nothing but a drain on society and not trustworthy. For a media organisation to have this kind of garbage as a REGULAR show would strongly suggest that a certain view is being pushed.
7. I think it was in the past year, but journalists working for channel 7 actually started to complain about what they were being forced to dish out regularly. They were complaining that their media organisation were pushing out an excessive amount of far right shit.

But of course no, channel 7 swings between left and right political leanings, hahaha yeh right!


As far as SMH/fairfax is concerned, their political leaning has COMPLETELY changed since the 9 group took over them. Leading up to the federal election their puff pieces were blatant propaganda for the coaltion.

Hell there was an opinion piece in the SMH saying that Tony Abbott has done an absolute shit job but people in that electorate should still vote for him. Look I get writing an opinion piece in support of certain political members/parties, but this particular piece was such utter shit, it couldn't be classified as anything but propaganda and for a media organisation to actually accept this and display it on their platform, well no that stinks of political leaning.

Mind you it wasnt just the abbott piece leading up to the election. There were plenty of articles that were towing the coalitions line and surprise surprise all this came about after fairfax was bought out. And guess who sits on the board of the organisation who bought fairfax out? Well none other than Peter Costello. Yes this does question my point above, where I'm questioning professionalism/integrity but given the garbage fairfax came out with leading up to the election, the CONTENT has given me justification to make that accusation.

Even before fairfax was bought out, they've had opinion writers like Amanda Vanstone, to try and present a central leaning to their readership. Personally I have no objections with Vanstone, yes her and my political leanings/ideals are very different but she presented her opinions in a justifiable way, they were NOT complete puff pieces.

But we could also touch on Fairax's ex opinion writer Paul Sheehan, who was unceremoniously sacked after one of his many hundreds of anti-islam opinion pieces was found to be so far fetched, so lacking in fact, so completely utterly wrong and complete hate material that fairfax had no choice but to get rid of him. And this is after COUNTLESS anti-islam articles.


To give an example of a journalist doing his/her job regardless of their political leanings, I'm going to use a conservative journalist as an example. BBC's Andrew Neill when he actually PERFORMED his journalistic duty and questioned Ben Shapiro. After this interview, he was lambasted as being a "lefty" when he is no such thing. He's a traditional conservative, but he displayed his professionalism and his integrity with hos position by actually doing his job. No matter who he's interviewing he has to challenge those beliefs and ask questions.

In our media, what Andrew Neill did, it doesn't exist for Channels 7, 9, 10 and sky news. Those organisation let right leaning interviewees get away with shit, and what's even more concerning is that those particular interviewees are regulars on their platforms, to spew their garbage completely unchallenged.

This discussion is so last week

 

[Dawgfather]

That's irrelevant to the topic at hand. We're speaking about Australian media not world media. Your logic here is akin to saying because world studies have found a significant majority of journalists leaning to the left that an organisation like fox news, therefore, leans to the left.




And yet 3 inquiries initiated by the coalition, setup by the coalition have failed to find a bias. But it's ok I'll take your word for it instead of the actual inquiries conducted into the ABC. It's much more relevant to take cognitive bias as fact rather than actual inquiries conducted.



And again this means shit fark all. Why?

1. Content of their articles is not discussed and whether there is bias in their articles
2. You're assuming because they have a voting preference, that their work would therefore contain a bias to their political leanings, thereby questioning their integrity and professionalism. Questioning their professionalism based on nothing but your personal assumptions
3. Continuing on from point 2, this would lead to the current government coming down hard on that journalist, as exemplified by Malcolm Turnbull and Mitch Fiefield coming down on Emma Alberici for her "trickle down economics" article which actually had no errors on it, the only problem was, for the coalition government, was that it called bullshit on trickle down economics with examples from around the world

So to cut it short for you, the main aspect you should be looking at is content, content, content! But you're completely ignoring content.

This is akin to people saying Rupert Murdoch owns 70% of media in this country. Quite simply he does NOT own 70% of media in this country, he has 70% of the market share of print readership, i.e. of the print media bought by consumers, 70% choose to buy his publications.



You'll find that major news events are reported by every station with very little variance in the presentation of these stories. Hence I wouldn't really classify presentation of news as a litmus test into bias of a media organisation.

What determines a media organisations bias are the opinions they allow to be hosted on their platforms and whether or not those opinions are given free reign or questioned and also if those opinions are found to be gross negligence are they reigned in or punished in some form.

To put it quite simply, Channel 7, as stated before, has in the past:-

1. Hosted a known neo-nazi and presented him as a "concerned citizen", with a free platform to give his opinions
2. Brought back Pauline Hanson from political oblivion, by not only airing her opinions (WITHOUT ANY KIND OF QUESTIONING), but also paying her to appear on their Today show. The first moment that David Koch actually questioned Pauline Hanson was after the Christchurch attacks and she threw her toys out of the pram and had a dummy spit
3. Mark Latham given free reign as well
4. Prue Macsween the old hag cow, who has no credentials to speak about the topics she does speak about, and quiet often her views are gross bigotry and racism. Again she goes on unchallenged and is REPEATEDLY invited back to appear
5. Or how about the recent case of an indigenous family suing channel 7 for false representation of their children as those being affected by drugs, domestic abuse.
6. And then going back to a program like "Today Tonight" which regularly attacked minorities (all types of minorities, including people on the dole from different backgrounds, including white people) and stereotyped them to be nothing but a drain on society and not trustworthy. For a media organisation to have this kind of garbage as a REGULAR show would strongly suggest that a certain view is being pushed.
7. I think it was in the past year, but journalists working for channel 7 actually started to complain about what they were being forced to dish out regularly. They were complaining that their media organisation were pushing out an excessive amount of far right shit.

But of course no, channel 7 swings between left and right political leanings, hahaha yeh right!


As far as SMH/fairfax is concerned, their political leaning has COMPLETELY changed since the 9 group took over them. Leading up to the federal election their puff pieces were blatant propaganda for the coaltion.

Hell there was an opinion piece in the SMH saying that Tony Abbott has done an absolute shit job but people in that electorate should still vote for him. Look I get writing an opinion piece in support of certain political members/parties, but this particular piece was such utter shit, it couldn't be classified as anything but propaganda and for a media organisation to actually accept this and display it on their platform, well no that stinks of political leaning.

Mind you it wasnt just the abbott piece leading up to the election. There were plenty of articles that were towing the coalitions line and surprise surprise all this came about after fairfax was bought out. And guess who sits on the board of the organisation who bought fairfax out? Well none other than Peter Costello. Yes this does question my point above, where I'm questioning professionalism/integrity but given the garbage fairfax came out with leading up to the election, the CONTENT has given me justification to make that accusation.

Even before fairfax was bought out, they've had opinion writers like Amanda Vanstone, to try and present a central leaning to their readership. Personally I have no objections with Vanstone, yes her and my political leanings/ideals are very different but she presented her opinions in a justifiable way, they were NOT complete puff pieces.

But we could also touch on Fairax's ex opinion writer Paul Sheehan, who was unceremoniously sacked after one of his many hundreds of anti-islam opinion pieces was found to be so far fetched, so lacking in fact, so completely utterly wrong and complete hate material that fairfax had no choice but to get rid of him. And this is after COUNTLESS anti-islam articles.


To give an example of a journalist doing his/her job regardless of their political leanings, I'm going to use a conservative journalist as an example. BBC's Andrew Neill when he actually PERFORMED his journalistic duty and questioned Ben Shapiro. After this interview, he was lambasted as being a "lefty" when he is no such thing. He's a traditional conservative, but he displayed his professionalism and his integrity with hos position by actually doing his job. No matter who he's interviewing he has to challenge those beliefs and ask questions.

In our media, what Andrew Neill did, it doesn't exist for Channels 7, 9, 10 and sky news. Those organisation let right leaning interviewees get away with shit, and what's even more concerning is that those particular interviewees are regulars on their platforms, to spew their garbage completely unchallenged.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a dick or have a go at you, but reading your posts, and in particular reading this post, it comes across like you're just defending our ideology.

If I can offer any advice it's to free yourself of an ideology (regardless of whether it's left or right leaning) and just treat people as individuals and approach issues with common sense, rather than with a fixed view of the world.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a dick or have a go at you, but reading your posts, and in particular reading this post, it comes across like you're just defending our ideology.

If I can offer any advice it's to free yourself of an ideology (regardless of whether it's left or right leaning) and just treat people as individuals and approach issues with common sense, rather than with a fixed view of the world.

I'm amazed you read it. I got 2 paragraphs in and thought, "Nah, too much effort"

 

[CaptainJackson]

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a dick or have a go at you, but reading your posts, and in particular reading this post, it comes across like you're just defending our ideology.

If I can offer any advice it's to free yourself of an ideology (regardless of whether it's left or right leaning) and just treat people as individuals and approach issues with common sense, rather than with a fixed view of the world.

Of course I defend my ideology. It's my beliefs, my convictions. Freedom of speech remember?

If you are alluding that my ideology is represented by a political party, then my answer is no. Do I choose a political party which more aligns with my views? Yes. Do I still criticize that particular political party? Yes.

If you are alluding that my ideology is represented by left wing ideology, then my answer is no. This is partially true as some of my societal beliefs lean with left wing ideology, however I'd say my economic beliefs are more in line with centrist ideology.

As far as treating individuals as individuals, well basically I have done that, in numerous posts. I've pointed to relevant examples of each organisation (an individual basis) to display their tendencies on an individual basis. With all due respect you're the one that came up with cognitive bias, as an example, the ABC are far left because a global survey conducted deduced that most journalists are left wing and that a local poll found 41.2 per cent of 34 respondents, from the ABC, claimed they would vote for the greens, thereby moulding together an individuals personal political preference with their professionalism/journalistic standards.

 

[Wahesh]

I'm amazed you read it. I got 2 paragraphs in and thought, "Nah, too much effort"

Didn't you read all of Jason's story? https://www.thekennel.net.au/forum/index.php?threads/jasons-story.108451/

 

[Dawgfather]

Of course I defend my ideology. It's my beliefs, my convictions. Freedom of speech remember?

If you are alluding that my ideology is represented by a political party, then my answer is no. Do I choose a political party which more aligns with my views? Yes. Do I still criticize that particular political party? Yes.

If you are alluding that my ideology is represented by left wing ideology, then my answer is no. This is partially true as some of my societal beliefs lean with left wing ideology, however I'd say my economic beliefs are more in line with centrist ideology.

As far as treating individuals as individuals, well basically I have done that, in numerous posts. I've pointed to relevant examples of each organisation (an individual basis) to display their tendencies on an individual basis. With all due respect you're the one that came up with cognitive bias, as an example, the ABC are far left because a global survey conducted deduced that most journalists are left wing and that a local poll found 41.2 per cent of 34 respondents, from the ABC, claimed they would vote for the greens, thereby moulding together an individuals personal political preference with their professionalism/journalistic standards.

Of course everyone votes a particular way. I'm just saying, my impression is that a lot of your views just seem really ideological, instead of human.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Of course everyone votes a particular way. I'm just saying, my impression is that a lot of your views just seem really ideological, instead of human.

Really? I mean fucking really?

Go read my first post in this thread and which part of your post I quoted. And then think if it's actually me who doesnt view people as individuals. Or maybe I'm just "grandstanding"

 

[CaptainJackson]

I seriously laugh at some of views on the kennel and how oblivious people are to their hypocrisies eg

Introducing same sex marriage is lefties trying to pervert kids
Adam elliot getting his gear off is because lefties are snowflakes and were offended about perversion

The media doesnt target minorities, they're just stating facts
The media purposefully target the Bulldogs mad Monday and any other negative story about the bulldogs, the media doesnt deal in facts when it comes to the bulldogs they just make up shit to make the Bulldogs look bad

Israel folaus freedom of speech was restricted
Fuck cody walker, he should know his place

Israel folaus freedom of speech was restricted
Fuck $BW and klemmer for not adhering to their contracts

They're just some of many examples.

 

[Mr Invisible]

Wonder when the court case is.

 

[Wahesh]

Wonder when the court case is.

Can't come soon enough.

 

[The DoggFather]

Wonder when the court case is.

Why you mentioning Folau in a left nut v right nut thread?

Both nuts are in the same sack.

 

[Mr Invisible]

Why you mentioning Folau in a left nut v right nut thread?

Both nuts are in the same sack.

LOL because I can't wait for Rugby AU to go under so we can sign Rona back again.

 

[The DoggFather]

LOL because I can't wait for Rugby AU to go under so we can sign Rona back again.

You think we have a chance? Would love to have 2 great wingers in Rona and Smith.

 

[Mr Invisible]

You think we have a chance? Would love to have 2 great wingers in Rona and Smith.

Well if it goes under he'll prefer to stay in Aus.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Didn't you read all of Jason's story? https://www.thekennel.net.au/forum/index.php?threads/jasons-story.108451/

I did but that story had intrigue, love, heartbreak, re-birth, other buzz words, all wrapped up in a lovely package.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I seriously laugh at some of views on the kennel and how oblivious people are to their hypocrisies eg

Introducing same sex marriage is lefties trying to pervert kids
Adam elliot getting his gear off is because lefties are snowflakes and were offended about perversion

The media doesnt target minorities, they're just stating facts
The media purposefully target the Bulldogs mad Monday and any other negative story about the bulldogs, the media doesnt deal in facts when it comes to the bulldogs they just make up shit to make the Bulldogs look bad

Israel folaus freedom of speech was restricted
Fuck cody walker, he should know his place

Israel folaus freedom of speech was restricted
Fuck $BW and klemmer for not adhering to their contracts

They're just some of many examples.

That pretty much sums up 99% of the people in the world.

Everyone takes the logical balanced approach until something happens that doesn't support their bias.

And the people who say they're not biased, they're the ones that are the worst. 'cause they don't realise they are being biased.

 

[Wahesh]

LOL because I can't wait for Rugby AU to go under so we can sign Rona back again.

I actually reckon a lot of the Rugby players here will sign with either NZ, European or Japanese sides.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I actually reckon a lot of the Rugby players here will sign with either NZ, European or Japanese sides.

Tonga have said that they'll take Folau and the other Christians 'cause being gay is illegal in Tonga.