Comments on: Journalism and political bias in Australia: Melbourne and ANU study

By: Adrien

Adrien — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:04:23 +0000

Indeed… the demands for progressive taxation appear in the Principles of Communism of June in 1847 before reappearing in The Communist Manifesto
.
Yet another one of Karl’s stupid ideas.

By: Fran Barlow

Fran Barlow — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:23:12 +0000

Ginja@103

Indeed… the demands for progressive taxation appear in the Principles of Communism of June in 1847 before reappearing in The Communist Manifesto

By: Lady Gaga

Lady Gaga — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:37:00 +0000

could somebody tell me if it has any obvious bias.
.
Yes. The Australian is Murdoch’s paper for the Australian intelligentsia. He does this wherever he goes. Most of his newspapers go downmarket. He keeps one ‘posh’. The discourse is catered directly for the ’smart set’ and advocates an orthodoxy that includes free markets, the Anglo-Saxon world’s interests militarily etc.
.
All papers have a bias.

By: 16 year Old

16 year Old — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:26:08 +0000

I haven’t really noticed a bias from the ABC but you would suspect that it would be more slanted towards the government in power as thats were they get their funding. Not being a reader of the The Australian, could somebody tell me if it has any obvious bias.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:10:08 +0000

I thnk the differene is that those who mostly espouse a socialist vision tend to think of society as a collective and care mostly about issues to do with equality. Liberals think mostly abut individuals. The political parties tend to share these roles. Socially the Libs are more colletivist than the ALP.
.
Conservatives tend to siply be conservative. Therefore conservative people rejected WorkChoices. A regulated labour market has been a traditional part of the culture. But that’s economics. There are other issues.
.
And the voting patterns of different socio-economic slices have to do with class interests. I think ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ tend to be categopries that don’t always travel in perfect symmetry with class interests.

By: Ginja

Ginja — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:02:14 +0000

P.S. From memory Marx listed progressive taxation as one of his minimum demands – I don’t think it featured part of his utopian vision which would have done away with private property altogether.

…but I’m no Marxist, so I couldn’t say for sure.

By: Ginja

Ginja — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:53:08 +0000

I wouldn’t disagree with too much of that, Adrien.

I’m a social democrat (a more accurate description than socialist) but if someone wanted to call me a socialist I would lose much sleep over it.

The point is, you don’t have to be a socialist to embrace progressive taxation. Thoughtful conservatives have embraced progressive taxation.

I’ve had this argument too many times with friends, but I think – know – that the differences between Left and Right are real, profound and will continue to be important. Until someone explains to me why people in Mt Druitt vote overwhelmingly Labor while people on the North Shore vote overwhelmingly Liberal, I won’t be convinced that politics has changed all that much at all.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:31:36 +0000

Ginja – although real left-wingers would know the difference between a Trot and a Social Democrat.
.
I would say that anyone who isn’t politically ignorant should know that. The Left and Right are aliances of viewpoints and associations. Neither are homogenous. Nor is the arrangement stable. Altho’ certain dichotmies persit in reappearing.
.
And if you’re going have fruits from the far-right on Insiders, why doesn’t my side get a go?
.
Hear hear.
.
And even though progressive taxation was one of demands in Marx’s Communist Manifesto, none of the things I mentioned are specifically socialist.
.
I’d say prgressive taxation is a socialist idea. In the sense that socialism advocates certain policy instruments and considers things from a certain view. I’m not a socialist but I think it’s a valid viewpoint and contributes. Those who are socialists really should stop apologizing.
.
What’s going on here, Ginja, is surfeit of the Left ascending for the first time in a long while. The media tends to reflect the audience more than anything else. If you don’t believe me have a look at the marketing dictates of Hollywood in the early 70s sometime. And they lag behind. They’re not going to sack Bolt and replace his column with Waleed Ali’s. But if, say, Rudd and Obama’s agenda’s work and they’re re-elected the media’s tune will change.
.
It will for reasons of class interest never go too far to the left however.

By: adrian

adrian — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:53:55 +0000

Speaking of climate change, be afraid, be very afraid. At least this report my force some to appreciate the magnitude of the problem.

By: Ginja

Ginja — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:19:11 +0000

Thanks Helen, too.

The interesting thing is that the anti-Left bias in media commentary doesn’t have that much of an effect on the broader electorate.

Look at the media commentary about unions and Work Choices at the last election. Most of it concerned how Rudd needed to pull those scary union officials into line. Yet, out there in real Voterland, people weren’t worried about scary union officials, but they were deeply concerned about Work Choices.

I think the same goes for global warming. It’s my guess that most workers even in industries directly affected by the CPRS think that something needs to be done.

However, I think The Australian, for instance, does have an effect on the political agenda – for politicans timid and silly enough to take The Oz seriously.

But I pose this challenge for anyone out there: name any commentator who is firmly on the Left who has appeared on ABC TV lately.

By: adrian

adrian — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 03:31:08 +0000

Thanks Helen! That’s almost exactly what I was clumsily trying to put into words.

News Ltd and the ABC are trying to push that window as far to the right as possible. In the ABC’s case The Insiders is just the most obvious and extreme example, but it happens in most of their news and current affairs shows where progressive views are generally marginalised.

By: Helen

Helen — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:02:42 +0000

Phil @2, Ginja @69 and 72, and Adrian @76, This here thing called the Overton window looks interesting in relation to the point you are making, although I don't pretend to be properly up to speed on it.

By: Ginja

Ginja — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:02:00 +0000

…I should have said above half the workforce – not electorate – would like to represented by a union.

By: Ginja

Ginja — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:58:39 +0000

Adrien, that was just a turn of phrase – although real left-wingers would know the difference between a Trot and a Social Democrat. I was just trying to make the point, as someone wrote on another website, that just because you work for Fairfax or the ABC doesn’t make you left-wing – or even the centre-left (properly defined). And if you’re going have fruits from the far-right on Insiders, why doesn’t my side get a go?

And branlea: I’d suggest you widen your circle of friends a little. Medicare has, from memory, above 80% support in polling. Work choices did in the Howard Government and above half of the electorate would like to be represented by a union. Public education has massive support. The idea that the rich should pay a higher rate of tax than the poor would also have a great deal of support. None of these things died years ago – despite the best efforts of the Coalition. In fact, I think you’ll find they’re all government policy.

And even though progressive taxation was one of demands in Marx’s Communist Manifesto, none of the things I mentioned are specifically socialist.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:11:12 +0000

Ginja – My problem is that people seem to be selected on these shows to represent the Left even though most of them wouldn’t know the difference between the Fourth International and the Socialist International.
.
I’m not sure that knowing that distinction is of more than historical interest. Altho’ the Second International as the avatar of a democratic socialist tradition is often over-looked in favour of Karl’s Leninist offspring. What constitutes the Left and the Right changes. Libertarians were once the Left, before that it was Protestants. Before that Franciscans.
.
After the Reform Act, class interests re-aligned and Labour increasingly asserted itself. Classic liberals split into the Libertarian and Social Liberal camps that define the ideology today. Tomorrow perhaps the Green movement will split into a conservative and progressive faction.
.
I’m kind of disinclined to say we need representatives of each perceived ideology represented in panels like ABC’s Sunday morning bitchfest. We need to return to certain ideas of journalistic quality. John Pilger, for example, is a Trotskyite but he’s also an excellent journalist. The reason he’s marginalized is because he goes outside the circle of acceptable discourse. He talks about Empire. And he asks important people (those who’ll talk to him) hard questions.
.
That all said he does skew his reportage with his own perceptions a might too much. But one could hardly say that that was why he isn’t on Outsiders. Andrew Bolt is.
.
A lot of it has to do with this country’s culture. Christopher Hitchens was a Trot who talked about Empire a lot. He lives in Georgetown, DC. Pilger has won accolades in the UK. Yet the best we can do is Philip Adams who, as an affiliate of the NSW Right is hardly a radical voice. We do have Antony Lowenstein who provides excellent material for anyone who wants to portray radical journalists as sloppy, self-indulgent, unethical dolts.
.
I would suggest a quality radical publication. However in order to be a quality publication certain habits and ingrained notions would have to be dislodged. I’d wager for example that anyone purporting to launch such would probably automatically put Lowenstein on the list. Whereas I’d automatically strike him.
.
Perhaps the selection requirement should be merely quality work sans any requirements viz ideology save that of a true radical; as in: someone willing to look at and write about society from the ground up. Those people are rare and can exist all over the spectrum altho’ you’ll get more left-wing and libertarian radicals than conservative ones. Acknowledging that and trying to put it to practise is much easier said than done because, um, it’s a bit too radical.

By: adrian

adrian — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:20:08 +0000

Didn’t think so.

By: branlea

branlea — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:18:06 +0000

adrian, you are dribbling left-wing straw.

joe2. My posts were directed explicitly to Ginja’s claims, which by the way have been echoed by many here, includng adrian.

By: adrian

adrian — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:12:56 +0000

Done a study on that have you branlea? Have any evidence to back up your theory that Australia is the land of the far-right climate denying ‘lunatics’ that the ABC trots out on a regular basis, and inhabit News Ltd publications like the plague?

And how about we forget left v right for a moment, Since when was it in the ABC’s charter that they represent the interets of the coalition at every available opportunity?

By: joe2

joe2 — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:09:03 +0000

You have just inferred a definition of ‘left wing’ from a few general comments that Ginja made earlier. A bit tedious branlea.

By: branlea

branlea — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:58:36 +0000

joe2

No. As I said, the reason is that there are so very few left-wing people in general, not just journalists, full stop. Socialist ideology died yers ago.