Newspoll’s out early today. Obviously the journos couldn’t wait to see how Malcolm Turnbull’s gambit of rejecting the stimulus package went. It may well be, as I suggested last night, that he had some similar private polling or a tip on the public poll, and that’s why he’s softening his line, because it doesn’t look good. Labor is up 5 on the primaries to 48 (LNP down 3) and up 4 on the 2PP.
Possum on Turnbull’s dissatisfaction ratings:
Turnbull has lost 25% of his uncommitted voters in a single polling cycle and, on net, they have all moved against him.
So much for all those online “polls” on News Ltd sites, and the wisdom of Messrs Andrew Bolt and Dennis Shanahan.
Incidentally, that viral Facebook group we discussed the other day now has 60,270 members.
Elsewhere: The Poll Bludger.
Tory cheerleaders, Shanahan and Bolt, are looking more forlorn with each passing year!
Malcolm, we told you so.
Look, this is just a temporary hurdle. Malcolm the brave knew that he’d take a hit in the polls in the short term, but when the electorate wake up to the fact that he’s been right all along, they’ll return to him in droves. The electorate will wake up to itself eventually.
I’ve really got to stop listening to Michael Brissenden every morning.
Why wasn’t he with the fire victims, btw? Beaseley always managed it. Or didn’t Rudd invite him?
Hopefully it’ll give Nick Xenophon some pause for thought re bringing forward the tax cuts ala Malvolio.
“I’ve really got to stop listening to Michael Brissenden every morning.”
Brisso, ol’ blue eyes, the man separated at birth from Julie Bishop.
OK, margin of error approx 3%.
So it might be ALP 55%, LN coalition 45%. That’d be a lead of only 10%. Easy-peasey.
Then again, if the error was the other way, it’d be 61:39, which would be quite a big lead to Labor. Never mind, Malcolm. The banking industry’ll have you back, it’s certain. Not so sure about the Republican Movement (I said “movement”, not Party).
‘So much for all those online “polls” on News Ltd sites, and the wisdom of Messrs Andrew Bolt and Dennis Shanahan.’
Which gives me the opportunity to repeat that if we don’t read that crap we miss
out on nothing.
I’ll get my info from here and Possum and other places that I can trust to some extent at least to try to give accurate honest analysis..
Go back down and read what Shamaham write, its wrong wrong wrong.
And we knew that before newspoll confirmed it.
hannah’s dad – yes, but you’re in a minority. You seem to forget two things:
(a) A lot of people will only find this or other blogs when looking for information on a particular issue or story and aren’t regular readers;
(b) If you ingnore the commentariat, they don’t go away. An important democratic purpose is served by holding them to account for the rubbish they write. Call it a fifth estate role, if you like
I’ve been on a relaxing holiday in WA, the only drawback of which was having to read the Australian every day for news. It’s like the twilight zone (or the upside down world from You Can’t Do That On Television). However, there was one delightful cartoon the other day which had Rudd lighting a giant ‘handouts’ cannon, with Turnbull standing in the line of fire looking closely at the pointy end as Rudd says “I really wouldn’t stand there if I were you, Malcolm”.
Spot on.
“but you’re in a minority”
I’m used to that Kim.
Doesn’t make me necessarily wrong, which sounds a bit more combative than I mean to.
So lets call it a points decision one way or the other on whether too much attention is given to the propagandists OK?
Truce?
[Yeah I know I restarted it above.]
Fair enough, hannah’s dad. I think we can agree to differ!
You’re in a good minority btw if you don’t get your info from the commentariat!
‘If you ingnore the commentariat, they don’t go away.’
If enough people do, I think they do. Witness the fate of quite a few pundits over the years.
They thrive on being talked about, which of course induces people to go and read their tripe. If nobody talked about them, their paymasters would soon decide they had better uses for the money.
“Why wasn’t he with the fire victims, btw?”
He was, actually.
The polls now don’t matter. In a couple of years time when he’ll argue that the ALP landed Australia in great debt, he’ll look better. Many people won’t remember why we went into debt. And some of those who do, won’t be able to feel the benefit of it.
“If nobody talked about them, their paymasters would soon decide they had better uses for the money.”
Well why dont the paymasters in Australia support columnists with a strident leftish bent? There has to be money in it, as books of this style sell like hotcakes.
The sad truth is, of course, the demand is unlikely to be met here as it partly is in the U.S. Our media is pretty much in the hands of a mega rich, right wing propagandist who is unlikely to turn his megaphones off, regardless of the cost.
‘There has to be money in it, as books of this style sell like hotcakes.’
I’m not necessarily disagreeing joe2 but can you be more explicit? What kinds of books do you mean?
Ken I thought political books by those dangerous radicals Mombiot, Fisk and Pilger sold very well in Australia, for instance. Obviously you will correct me if I am wrong about that- I do not know anybody in the publishing industry – but I believe the appetite for that kind of material far outstrips the other.
Even if the very mention of those names seems to cause high blood pressure, amongst some, on a site such as this.
Pilger’s latest tome ranks ‘#231,790 in Books’ at Amazon.com so it’s not exactly walking out the door. Still he’s miles ahead of Monbiot, whose collected works are ‘#1,229,005 in Books’. Fisk’s ‘Great War for Civilisation’ is much more popular: ‘#35,627 in Books’. Admittedly these are global statistics, not Australian, but they don’t support any suggestion that they sell ‘like hotcakes’. I suspect the main paying readership consists of a small band of hard core true believers.
Add Dawkins, Chomsky, Margaret Simons book, Spinifex publications [despite getting the tail end of the horse treatment by booksellers and media] and others to that list.
In my hobby area, biblical exegisis, ‘non-orthodox’ scholars, Finkelstein, Doherty [has to be purchased from overseas but still sells strongly here], Mack, Ehrman, Fox, just to name a few that offer alternatives to the mantra, all sell well.
The market is there its just not getting catered to.
“The market is there its just not getting catered to.”
Read The Age hannah’s dad – equal time for leftist commentary there.
Not on my side of the political spectrum.
Who would you like to see get space in the papers, hannah’s dad?
I’ll elaborate on that.
I’ve read the Age and the SMH a few times each in the last year or so.
Neither are available within 75 kms of where I live and when I visit Adelaide and want to read a paper I’ll ask for those 2, Age first cos its got real footy in it, but they are usually not available.
When I have read them I am amazed and disappointed at how close they are to the Murdoch mafia.
And I understand from comments around the place and from observing what passes for newspapers in rural areas that both these papers are regressing rapidly since the ownership and editorial changes that followed the ‘merger’ with Rural Press.
I had access to articles, columns from both during the Federal election, the contrast to Murdoch was minimal.
I think you and I have different ideas of what constitutes ‘left’ or even just plain alternatives to the dominant paradigms
Don’t know about the dominant paradigms, but do I agree strongly with your initial point that we should ignore columnists we don’t like rather than give them the attention for which they are so richly rewarded by their employers.
Bolt is a case in point. He may be Australia’s highest paid writer, and the more controversy and polarised reaction he can ignite the better off he is. He should almost always be ignored. He is a public opinion arsonist.
“He is a public opinion arsonist”
Arson? Arson? Who exactly is arsein’ around??
Or did youse mean “arsolist”?
wbb
We crossed.
“Who would you like to see get space in the papers, hannah’s dad?”
I can’t answer that question.
I don’t think its a matter of who, names are largely irrelevant, I think its a systemic matter, a matter of process, that creates acceptable clones.
Thats why I refer to ‘the paradigms’.
The MSM operates within a certain framework, it exists to sell niche readers to the advertising companies so all, media companies, advertising companies, can maximise profit.
The famous NYT’s motto “All the news that is fit to print’ exemplifies that with [unconscious] emphasis falling on the word ‘fit’.
What criteria is used by whom for what motivations to define fitness is the key.
The MSM sets agendas and permissible parameters within those agendas [as in the NYT's motto], the individual journos concerned learn to operate within that ‘paradigm/framework’ without question, or if they do question it’s a personal dilemma.
And a professional dilemma in a 2 horse town like Australia.
The owners don’t have to blatantly enforce their viewpoint, although Murdoch just for one is known to do so, the power and control permeates downwards and outwards through the ‘culture’.
When I was involved in the federal election in a rural electorate it became blatantly obvious that one large print company [[guess who] was actively directing the political debate to the point where they were telling candidates what to write and not to write.
I would think that all this is pretty much standard analysis although, again as part of the paradigm and culture, its not usually referred to.
I will continue to give the MSM a big miss until that system changes.
I won’t hold my breath.
PS
“Point Last Seen”, the movie, just concluded on 7.
Its a true [?] story about domestic violence based on the book by Hannah Nyala after whom my dog is named.
The film looked pretty schmaltzy judging only by the last minute, but the reality behind it is a terror that an enormous number of women and children in the US, and Australia, face daily [and you can guess the current news topic that may be, details aren't available, yet another example of the extreme form] yet the treatment of that topic and related issues in Oz MSM, including ABC, is generally abyssmal.
Not always so, there have been some notable exceptions. But generally abyssmal.
To the point where most professionals in the field are frustrated and depressed.
An example of a paradigm to the point of myth in action.
“the treatment of that topic and related issues in Oz MSM, including ABC, is generally abyssmal.”
This would be true from the perspective of professionals in almost any field that isn’t of universal interest and widespread study, like say, football.
Inexpert and shallow discussion is not only the fault of the media practitioners but also of the readership. You get the media you deserve which is the media you actually choose to read. People have the choice of reading a decent newspaper like The Age or a low-grade product like MX. They choose MX in large numbers.
There is plenty of serious discussion in small journals. They are small precisely because their content is in depth and complex. A specialist readership is specialist.
Nope, thats not the problems.
Take the issues of DV and CSA for example.
The problems are that generally the view of domestic violence, CSA and allied issues are presented unrealistically and without regard to information that is readily available from credible authoritive sources and in the place of that we get a right wing patriarchal religious dominated point of view which severely distorts policy and perception.
Many times, I repeat many, authorities in the field, academics, professionals of long standing, noted heads of NGOs including the churches, even the ex-Chief Justice of Family Court, have tried to correct myths and fallacies promulgated by the media and have frequently been simply ignored, quoted out of context, relegated to back pages days after the initial issue, or ‘balanced’ by crackpots who are regularly trotted out to espouse their crackpottery.
Most of what the general public know from the media about these topics is myth or fallacy despite journalists being given authoritive reports etc.
Give you an example, a typical one.
A major event was held in a capital city with thousand or more people attending from many community groups, churches, govt dept, academics, poets and published authors, politicians state and federal the whole range. Widespread publicity, media events, all media invited.
None came.
Zero publicity.
But certain, unfortunately well known, ‘activists’, one of whom Nicola Roxon had to release from a board she was advised to appoint them to, are regularly andconsistently invited to pass comments by all sectors of the media despite their lack of credentials.
Paradigm building.
Sure there are plenty of specialised magazines and journals where these matters are explored and journos are pointed and referred to them constantly.
But they don’t fit their paradigm.
I think that the problem is also that we get a limited range of views that generally fit into a bland and restrictive template. That the template tends to favour conservative opinion is part of the problem, but it’s also the media’s inability to give voice to anything even remotely radical or non mainstream that renders it so predictable, bland and boring.
Thanks adrian that what I was trying to say.
I really don’t understand why you would expect that a mainstream newspaper would publish radical or paradigm bending material. But maybe you don’t.
Who is the audience is for these newspapers?
The only paradigm these newspapers operate by is to publish material that will pique the interest of the widest number of their readership.
Each section caters for different broad categories of interest. But within each section they have to hit the most readers they possibly can.
How is anybody to make money publishing the views of Foucault on sex for example?
That said, radical writers who write very well for the audience or have public profiles do in fact get their paradigm challenging views published. eg Pilger, Greer, Monbiot, Flannery, Dodson etc etc.
According to Pilger, he’s been blacklisted by the Australian print media for being too outspoken. The others to whom you refer are marginal presences at best.
The ‘quality’ newspaper that I have access to, the SMH, finds weekly space for the likes of Henderson, Devine, Sheehan, and Duffy with their predictable and partisan blatherings, but has no space for those with differing, controversial or unusual views. Surely the boredom inherent in the writing of the mob above is hardly conducive to booming circulation, so your argument regarding commercial impreretives doesn’t make much sense.
Combine the state of the print media, with the neutering of the ABC and to a lesser extent SBS, and you have a pedestrian media landscape, with apparently no room for thought provoking or controversial content.
wbb
You would be wrong to presume that the material that is effectively silenced by the media is necessarily radical.
In the reporting of DV/CSA in the media that which is usually, not always but mostly, presented is far from the accepted theory and practice of leaders in the field: academics, practioners, government depts, even parliamentary reports [well sort of, there will be a change for the better there soon], NGOs, major churches [how less 'radical' can you get?].
In short that which is neglected is a long way from radical, much closer to orthodoxy, both nationally and internationally.
Let me give you another example.
For at least 15 years to my knowledge the causes of the demise of the Murray Darling Basin have been well known and exhaustively documented and fully available to journos and pollies and the like.
A pile of reports, often commissioned by the government that rejected them, THIS high.
Yet reporting of such has been almost entirely deficient.
People still believe, including this current lot of pollies, that urban use and ‘the drought’ [imagine photo of poor irrigator knee deep in dust] are to blame at least significantly.
Not so.
Its over use of our water by irrigators that is near totally the cause.
Overwhelmingly so.
Just before his death peter Cullen made a gentle but direct statement to that effect on ABC TV and I hoped that a breakthrough was imminent.
Again not so unfortunately. We still get the line that we need good rains.
Because this line is pursued we get public and political perception that is ill informed and poor policy resulting.
The cause of the demise of the river that is being silenced is not radical. It is solid science and heavily documented.
Despite what the IPA says.
But the lack of policy resulting from silencing that is radical.
And its not unrelated to the political agenda of two of our parties.
You are right, I don’t expect real reporting from the MSM.
I just hope.
Articles such as Water dreaming, inspired by the work of Peter Cullen, are not exceptional.
Its a good article, tends to knock the drought myth a bit, but has some serious deficiences precisely in those areas I mentioned above.
There is one , maybe two, brief references to over irrigating and more space is taken by infintessimally minor causes such as urban [mis] use.
Several lines about urban consumption, an overestimate of Adelaide’s use of Murray water, even in drought years when Adelaide increases its reliance on the Murray, less than one third of the water used from the Murray in SA is for urban purposes [and that is for a population of over 1 million counting some regional urban use], the vast majority goes to irrigation [drought years '04 and '05 IIRC Adelaide 440 gl per year]
The simple answer, reducing irrigation, is barely hinted at.
Thats the situation scientists faced for years, they could only hint
The political consequences are too ‘radical’.
And its a feature article, not the front page or a news item.
Its not ‘news’.
Its the drip drip drip [sorry about that] of poor irrigators and their lack of water on the front page, the centre spread etc that creates the general impression.
Most people don’t know that water costs irrigators nothing [essentially[, and have no idea of the volumes used.
This article wouldn't impact on that [one brief references to % usage].
Nevertheless its far better than the usual stuff but I question your statement that it is not exceptional.
Buggered up the water usage rates for drought years ’04 & ’05 .
Adelaide 440 GL