OUT: Abbott IN: Turnbull

[baysidedave 246]

Now the imbecile Abbott is gone and he's taken imbecile number 2 with him in Hockey, we just have to prove Turnbull is just another right wing nut job but in an articulate package. Abbott is a twit and easy to be rid of because of his IQ being in single digits, it was to be his downfall in the end. Abbott only knew one way and that was to bully and stand over people, and Hockey was a dumb fat idiot!

Turnbull different kettle of fish but he will be brought down soon because he's in a party that is full of right wing extremists, people are realising the conservatives are delusional and dangerous!

[Guest]

Like the turd nugget that clings to the side of the toilet bowl, the stupidity that was the Abbott government has yet to fully leave us:
#freekaren

Seriously wrecker45. Do you really want to defend stuff like this? No matter how often you repeat Tony's three word slogans, it doesn't change that this was the most ridiculous government we have had since I was born. It would be different if this was one off but sadly it wasn't.
I opposed Howard for 80% of his term in office. I supported him on intervention in Timor and gun control. That's about it. I thought he was divisive and played on people's worst instincts. However, I don't think I ever looked at any of the things coming out of Canberra during Howard's reign and thought, 'Have you guys been huffing paint thinner?' like I did on so many different occasions when Abbott was around. I might have thought 'That's grossly unfair', 'That's fear mongering' or 'That's racist dog whistling' but never 'That would possibly be the stupidest thing I have heard today'.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Colin B. Flaubert

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Like the turd nugget that clings to the side of the toilet bowl, the stupidity that was the Abbott government has yet to fully leave us:#freekaren

Seriously wrecker45. Do you really want to defend stuff like this? No matter how often you repeat Tony's three word slogans, it doesn't change that this was the most ridiculous government we have had since I was born. It would be different if this was one off but sadly it wasn't.

I opposed Howard for 80% of his term in office. I supported him on intervention in Timor and gun control. That's about it. I thought he was divisive and played on people's worst instincts. However, I don't think I ever looked at any of the things coming out of Canberra during Howard's reign and thought, 'Have you guys been huffing paint thinner?' like I did on so many different occasions when Abbott was around. I might have thought 'That's grossly unfair', 'That's fear mongering' or 'That's racist dog whistling' but never 'That would possibly be the stupidest thing I have heard today'.

CBF - have you seen the anti-radicalisation kit or are you just relying on an article by the abc that says there is a twitter hashtag poking fun at it?

The day the abc and Twitter start hating Turnbull is the day I will consider voting for him.

[Guest]

CBF - have you seen the anti-radicalisation kit or are you just relying on an article by the abc that says there is a twitter hashtag poking fun at it?

The day the abc and Twitter start hating Turnbull is the day I will consider voting for him.

I have read the entire entry on Karen and it is the most ferocious load of horse s*** to come from a government department that I have ever read in my entire life. If you like, I can write the full entry down for you.

The very fact that apparently environmental activism and listening to alternative music are the opening signs of 'violent extremism' to some shows the ridiculous culture wars that the Abbott government had us engage in. Even if there was stuff on legitimate radicalization (i.e. Islamic extremism), this kind of stuff devalues and cheapens the discourse on what SHOULD be a very serious issue.

As for your ABC comment, I don't just pick and choose what media sources I pay attention to based on what 'team' they are on. There are, every now and again, some very intelligent and measured conservative voices out there (William F. Buckley comes to mind). The reason why I groan at most of their output is that blokes like Andrew Bolt are the best propagandists this side of Tokyo Rose and their track record leads me to believe that 80% of what they say is full of crap.

[dee-luded 2,958]

I have read the entire entry on Karen and it is the most ferocious load of horse s*** to come from a government department that I have ever read in my entire life. If you like, I can write the full entry down for you.

The very fact that apparently environmental activism and listening to alternative music are the opening signs of 'violent extremism' to some shows the ridiculous culture wars that the Abbott government had us engage in. Even if there was stuff on legitimate radicalization (i.e. Islamic extremism), this kind of stuff devalues and cheapens the discourse on what SHOULD be a very serious issue.

As for your ABC comment, I don't just pick and choose what media sources I pay attention to based on what 'team' they are on. There are, every now and again, some very intelligent and measured conservative voices out there (William F. Buckley comes to mind). The reason why I groan at most of their output is that blokes like Andrew Bolt are the best propagandists this side of Tokyo Rose and their track record leads me to believe that 80% of what they say is full of crap.

haven't read the Radical Kit, please could you copy it, & post it here? I would like to see it & read. cheers.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

I have read the entire entry on Karen and it is the most ferocious load of horse s*** to come from a government department that I have ever read in my entire life. If you like, I can write the full entry down for you.

The very fact that apparently environmental activism and listening to alternative music are the opening signs of 'violent extremism' to some shows the ridiculous culture wars that the Abbott government had us engage in. Even if there was stuff on legitimate radicalization (i.e. Islamic extremism), this kind of stuff devalues and cheapens the discourse on what SHOULD be a very serious issue.

As for your ABC comment, I don't just pick and choose what media sources I pay attention to based on what 'team' they are on. There are, every now and again, some very intelligent and measured conservative voices out there (William F. Buckley comes to mind). The reason why I groan at most of their output is that blokes like Andrew Bolt are the best propagandists this side of Tokyo Rose and their track record leads me to believe that 80% of what they say is full of crap.

Can you take a pic of it and post it? Sounds like a agree with you on the brochure.

I care "what side" the abc is on because it is publicly funded and is legally on lodge to be impartial. I have no problem with fairfax, the guardian, new Matilda, crickey or Andrew bolt's bias because they are not.

[Guest]

Living Safely
Go to page 11. The facts are that some of the 'case studies' refer to legitimate concerns in Australian society but you could just see the thought process of some Liberal Party hack when the bit on 'Karen' was included: 'We have included stuff on Islamic terrorism and extreme right wing hate groups but how do we manage to get our ten cents in against our real enemies, those gosh darn lefties? I know! Let's talk about those ferals who chain themselves to trees!' To even put them on a par with those zealots who have advocated the murder of innocent civilians is beyond the pale.

When I saw a lot of these student protesters marching down Swanston Street in their V masks, calling for national revolution all I could think of is: 'I wouldn't want to be stuck in a foxhole with you blokes.' A lot of them are similar to Rick from the Young Ones and to compare them with legitimate radical organizations is moronic.

This kind of stuff was a pattern unfortunately in the Abbott government. Inquiries into wind farms, halal food, extolling the virtues of coal and now intimating that student politics and alternative music leads to violence. Groan.

I have two comments I would like to make about the ABC.

The problem with this stuff about the 'ABC is tax payer funded' and therefore needs to be neutral is built on the demand for neutrality for neutrality's sake. The truth is that two opposing sides do not necessarily have two equal and compelling arguments. If evidence shows that something is shown to be true then it must be reported thusly. It should not be buried because it makes conservatives sad. A lot of the complaints about the ABC is that it doesn't act as a stenographer for those in power.

Last time I checked, the ABC has a board and a charter of independence which states what it can and cannot do. I would like to see something similar at Channel Ten where Gina Rinehart has pizzed shareholders money away on the Bolt Report which she has insisted is 'popular in rural areas' (read: no one watches it). I wonder if all those Mum and Dad investors were all down with that decision?

The second point I would make is that a free press is essential to a free democracy. We need civil powers outside the government sphere to avoid government abuse. However, like a lot of other companies, newspapers and radio are putting out a product. When say Kraft produces Vegemite, they are required to label what they put in their product. Sadly, the same test is not often applied to a product which, in truth, has a much bigger effect on our political discourse: mass media.

We have 'Media Watch' but sadly when Labor did try to put a regulatory scheme to bring some quality control into journalism, they were spooked and backed off. I believe that something like this should come about as the journalistic discourse that surrounds Australian life has hamstrung us to a large extent.

[dee-luded 2,958]

Living Safely

Go to page 11. The facts are that some of the 'case studies' refer to legitimate concerns in Australian society but you could just see the thought process of some Liberal Party hack when the bit on 'Karen' was included: 'We have included stuff on Islamic terrorism and extreme right wing hate groups but how do we manage to get our ten cents in against our real enemies, those gosh darn lefties? I know! Let's talk about those ferals who chain themselves to trees!' To even put them on a par with those zealots who have advocated the murder of innocent civilians is beyond the pale.

When I saw a lot of these student protesters marching down Swanston Street in their V masks, calling for national revolution all I could think of is: 'I wouldn't want to be stuck in a foxhole with you blokes.' A lot of them are similar to Rick from the Young Ones and to compare them with legitimate radical organizations is moronic.

This kind of stuff was a pattern unfortunately in the Abbott government. Inquiries into wind farms, halal food, extolling the virtues of coal and now intimating that student politics and alternative music leads to violence. Groan.

I have two comments I would like to make about the ABC.

The problem with this stuff about the 'ABC is tax payer funded' and therefore needs to be neutral is built on the demand for neutrality for neutrality's sake. The truth is that two opposing sides do not necessarily have two equal and compelling arguments. If evidence shows that something is shown to be true then it must be reported thusly. It should not be buried because it makes conservatives sad. A lot of the complaints about the ABC is that it doesn't act as a stenographer for those in power.

Last time I checked, the ABC has a board and a charter of independence which states what it can and cannot do. I would like to see something similar at Channel Ten where Gina Rinehart has pizzed shareholders money away on the Bolt Report which she has insisted is 'popular in rural areas' (read: no one watches it). I wonder if all those Mum and Dad investors were all down with that decision?

The second point I would make is that a free press is essential to a free democracy. We need civil powers outside the government sphere to avoid government abuse. However, like a lot of other companies, newspapers and radio are putting out a product. When say Kraft produces Vegemite, they are required to label what they put in their product. Sadly, the same test is not often applied to a product which, in truth, has a much bigger effect on our political discourse: mass media.

We have 'Media Watch' but sadly when Labor did try to put a regulatory scheme to bring some quality control into journalism, they were spooked and backed off. I believe that something like this should come about as the journalistic discourse that surrounds Australian life has hamstrung us to a large extent.

Just an aside CBF

I've never understood the { beyond the pale } quotes, so went to Wiki to learn its origins.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/beyond_the_pale

It seems it was something used to suggest that anything outside the authority's jurisdiction, was uncivilized. The phrase was in use by the mid-17th century, and may be a reference to the general sense of boundary,

.......................

surely if we want to remove things of restriction to improvement, then we should stop using things that have helped cause its restrictions in the first place.

This phrase sounds to me like a massive "phrase of restriction", in a world where leaders are often corrupt, & want to keep things as they like them, like they have been in the past....

surely things referring to the past restrictions, as if they have God on they're side, by Law & by royalty & the church, are corrupt in themselves, by that suggestion of righteousness.

..... lets ditch that rotten phrase from our vocabulary.

Going 'beyond the pale', is a good thing, because it allows for learning, improvement, & change for the better, & allows others like the downtrodden to get a fairer deal in life, such as our indigenous peoples...

downer with the "beyond the pale" campaign

thanks, dl.

Edited September 27, 2015 by dee-luded

[P-man 13,309]

It's amazing how the complaints of left wing bias temporarily dried up when the ABC aired "The Killing Season". For a moment it became Abbott's favourite channel.

These repeated claims from the far right of ABC's bias are so tresome, especially when they come from people who don't even watch it. There is zero evidence to support such claims, and in fact studies into media slant and bias have shown a strong balance in terms of coverage of the parties, input from public intellectuals etc. Even that favoured whipping boy Q&A stands up to such scrutiny in terms of audience and panel member representation.

What it boils down to is two things: 1) resistance to criticism - the ABC has always provided intense examination of the government of the day. It didn't go easy on Labor and it hasn't gone easy on the Coalition. The difference is Abbott had a clear objective to silence critical voices in the public realm hence his attempts to discredit the ABC as "not being on our team"; and 2) perspective - when you are that extreme in your conservative views, even those in the centre can appear like lefty latte sippers. The ABC is not there to pander to bigots, nor should it be.

If you think the ABC is biased, the problem is not with the ABC. The problem is more likely your intolerance for dissenting opinion.

Edited September 27, 2015 by P-man

[Grapeviney 9,048]

The second point I would make is that a free press is essential to a free democracy. We need civil powers outside the government sphere to avoid government abuse. However, like a lot of other companies, newspapers and radio are putting out a product. When say Kraft produces Vegemite, they are required to label what they put in their product. Sadly, the same test is not often applied to a product which, in truth, has a much bigger effect on our political discourse: mass media.

We have 'Media Watch' but sadly when Labor did try to put a regulatory scheme to bring some quality control into journalism, they were spooked and backed off. I believe that something like this should come about as the journalistic discourse that surrounds Australian life has hamstrung us to a large extent.

So you want a free press, outside the government sphere and immune from government abuse, but operating under a regulatory scheme put in place by the government?

How does that work?

Let's be honest. The only reason Gillard threatened regulatory intervention was to hit News Corp with a stick because she didn't like their coverage of her Government.

Abbott and Dutton whinging about the ABC and Fairfax was the just the other side of the same coin.

[P-man 13,309]

So you want a free press, outside the government sphere and immune from government abuse, but operating under a regulatory scheme put in place by the government?

How does that work?

Let's be honest. The only reason Gillard threatened regulatory intervention was to hit News Corp with a stick because she didn't like their coverage of her Government.

Abbott and Dutton whinging about the ABC and Fairfax was the just the other side of the same coin.

Are the two really on the same level?

A front page headline of "KICK THIS MOB OUT". Not a lot of grey area. One of many examples where the line between journalism and propaganda was more than blurred.

I'm not defending Fairfax, but if there is a similar example from one of their publications I'd like to see it.

[Grapeviney 9,048]

Are the two really on the same level?

A front page headline of "KICK THIS MOB OUT". Not a lot of grey area. One of many examples where the line between journalism and propaganda was more than blurred.

I'm not defending Fairfax, but if there is a similar example from one of their publications I'd like to see it.

How about the SMH's Treasurer for Sale headline, coupled with its editor's emails revealing his desire to nail Hockey?

In any case, there are plenty of examples (everywhere) of the blurring of the line between opinion and news, but "Kick This Mob Out" is not one of them.

That was an editorial - albeit a vehement one - and editorials, like opinion pieces, are by definition exactly that: an opinion.

Every newspaper editorialises on election day, or in the lead-up to it. "Kick This Mob Out" is exactly what the electorate did, and were always going to do, regardless of what the Daily Tele said.

[P-man 13,309]

How about the SMH's Treasurer for Sale headline, coupled with its editor's emails revealing his desire to nail Hockey?

In any case, there are plenty of examples (everywhere) of the blurring of the line between opinion and news, but "Kick This Mob Out" is not one of them.

That was an editorial - albeit a vehement one - and editorials, like opinion pieces, are by definition exactly that: an opinion.

Every newspaper editorialises on election day, or in the lead-up to it. "Kick This Mob Out" is exactly what the electorate did, and were always going to do, regardless of what the Daily Tele said.

Granted a sensationalist headline, but the content of that article was about the implications of senior government ministers using the authority of their position to assist in fund raising activities for their party, with information obtained directly from the NS Forum and its chairpersons. I would think there was genuine public interest in the subject matter.

Hockey's defamation case only succeeded with respect to a poster and some tweets. It failed on the three articles in question.

I take your point on opinion pieces, but a more blatant attempt to use a front page to depose a government I can't ever recall. And it was one of many. All of a similar nature: inflammatory.

You can't turn around and say they would've been removed anyway. Put simply, you don't know the degree to which Newscorp's campaign ultimately influenced the electorate's decision. There is however little doubting that it was a factor.

[Grapeviney 9,048]

You can't turn around and say they would've been removed anyway. Put simply, you don't know the degree to which Newscorp's campaign ultimately influenced the electorate's decision. There is however little doubting that it was a factor.

What makes you think that you have an appreciation for media bias or propaganda but others in the electorate are too stupid to see the same?

More often than not, tabloid newspapers try to reflect their readers' attitudes as much as influence them, and the Tele's front page was a perfect example of that.

The full headline actually said: "Finally, you now have the chance to kick this mob out." ie We know you're going to kick them to curb, we're all in this together.

When people go to the ballot box, they're not thinking about what they read in the paper that morning. Self-interest reigns supreme. They're thinking about their hip pocket, or their child's class sizes, whether they waited for 24 hours in emergency, interest rates and so on. Do you give a rat's toss-bag what the paper says when you vote?

Edit: If you want proof of how impotent the media is in influencing the outcome of elections, look at the Herald Sun's spectacularly unsuccessful attempt to keep Daniel Andrews out of office.

[P-man 13,309]

What makes you think that you have an appreciation for media bias or propaganda but others in the electorate are too stupid to see the same?

More often than not, tabloid newspapers try to reflect their readers' attitudes as much as influence them, and the Tele's front page was a perfect example of that.

The full headline actually said: "Finally, you now have the chance to kick this mob out." ie We know you're going to kick them to curb, we're all in this together.

When people go to the ballot box, they're not thinking about what they read in the paper that morning. Self-interest reigns supreme. They're thinking about their hip pocket, or their child's class sizes, whether they waited for 24 hours in emergency, interest rates and so on. Do you give a rat's toss-bag what the paper says when you vote?

So essentially, do I think the media substantially influences public opinion? Absolutely I do. And honestly, my faith in the intellect of the readership of the The Daily Tele isn't sky high. You only have to read their comments section to see how easily they can be led by the nose. But I take your point.

I still think when you restrict your source of news and information to the one publisher, with a sprinkle of Jones or Hadley on top, it's little wonder how some opinions can be shaped as a result. I accept it is a conscious decision to only refer yourself to those sources and that in alot of cases, they will base their vote on personal impacts of government decisions irrespective of how they are framed in the media. But one thing I never underestimate is the power of the media. Especially when it comes to politics.

[Grapeviney 9,048]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one P-man, but see my edit above, which I probably posted as you were responding.

Not only did the 'Hun fail to stop Daniel becoming Premier, but NewsCorp more broadly wasn't able to save Abbott from being dumped, in spite of the efforts of Bolt et al.

[dee-luded 2,958]

So you want a free press, outside the government sphere and immune from government abuse, but operating under a regulatory scheme put in place by the government?

How does that work?

Let's be honest. The only reason Gillard threatened regulatory intervention was to hit News Corp with a stick because she didn't like their coverage of her Government.

Abbott and Dutton whinging about the ABC and Fairfax was the just the other side of the same coin.

I think News Corp interferes with publicly elected governments, & with democracy around the world....

they IMO are a very unhealthy interference; of the worlds democracies.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

It's amazing how the complaints of left wing bias temporarily dried up when the ABC aired "The Killing Season". For a moment it became Abbott's favourite channel.

These repeated claims from the far right of ABC's bias are so tresome, especially when they come from people who don't even watch it. There is zero evidence to support such claims, and in fact studies into media slant and bias have shown a strong balance in terms of coverage of the parties, input from public intellectuals etc. Even that favoured whipping boy Q&A stands up to such scrutiny in terms of audience and panel member representation.

What it boils down to is two things: 1) resistance to criticism - the ABC has always provided intense examination of the government of the day. It didn't go easy on Labor and it hasn't gone easy on the Coalition. The difference is Abbott had a clear objective to silence critical voices in the public realm hence his attempts to discredit the ABC as "not being on our team"; and 2) perspective - when you are that extreme in your conservative views, even those in the centre can appear like lefty latte sippers. The ABC is not there to pander to bigots, nor should it be.

If you think the ABC is biased, the problem is not with the ABC. The problem is more likely your intolerance for dissenting opinion.

P-man I religiously watch the 7pm news, 7:30, media watch and Q&A. I also often watch the beginning of Insiders until I can't bare it anymore and switch it off so you're barking up the wrong tree if you were implying I just complain about bias without watching.

As for zero evidence of bias you obviously haven't seen the ABC commissioned Editorial Review where its hand picked reviewer found anti-liberal bias. But don't let facts get in the way of your far left ideology. If you think the ABC is non-partisan it is more likely you are blinded by your own bias.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Wrecker45

[P-man 13,309]

P-man I religiously watch the 7pm news, 7:30, media watch and Q&A. I also often watch the beginning of Insiders until I can't bare it anymore and switch it off so you're barking up the wrong tree if you were implying I just complain about bias without watching.

As for zero evidence of bias you obviously haven't seen the ABC commissioned Editorial Review where its hand picked reviewer found anti-liberal bias. But don't let facts get in the way of your far left ideology. If you think the ABC is non-partisan it is more likely you are blinded by your own bias.

ONE solitary interview? Great evidence.

Even looking at the findings, the audit found that Sales' interview of Hockey meant "perceptions of bias could be inflamed unnecessarily". Look at the language used.

I believe one quarter of the complaints received that year were over that interview. Sales obviously was too aggressive in the eyes of some viewers and she copped a whack for it. It's still one interview.

Thanks for proving my point in accusing me of being "far left". Because of course, anyone who defends the ABC has to be a lefty tree hugger.

Good that you actually watch it though. Many others who make accusations of bias can't make that claim. Your predecessor, RobbieF, was one of those.

[nutbean 8,837]

I understand where there can be a perception of bias on any news program where there is "reporting" on an issue - any news service, lateline, 7:30 report and a host of others.

I have never understood the claims of bias on Q&A - it pulls panelists from across the spectrum and the audience asks questions. You may wish to point a finger at Tony Jones' moderating or even the questions it allows but can it honestly be said that both sides of the equation don't get a say ?

[P-man 13,309]

I understand where there can be a perception of bias on any news program where there is "reporting" on an issue - any news service, lateline, 7:30 report and a host of others.

I have never understood the claims of bias on Q&A - it pulls panelists from across the spectrum and the audience asks questions. You may wish to point a finger at Tony Jones' moderating or even the questions it allows but can it honestly be said that both sides of the equation don't get a say ?

Conservatives don't like the program because those who represent them are often made to look stupid with their "opinion first, facts second" approach. Think Ron Boswell who criticised the Pope's statement on climate change, which he hadn't read, while claiming that Australia takes more refugees than any other country. When corrected on this by the other panelists he responded with, “we certainly take more refugees than maybe Canada…”

When someone expresses their ill-informed opinion and it is mocked or laughed at, the first impulse is to scream "BIAS!".

A bias against ignorance, perhaps.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

ONE solitary interview? Great evidence.

Even looking at the findings, the audit found that Sales' interview of Hockey meant "perceptions of bias could be inflamed unnecessarily". Look at the language used.

I believe one quarter of the complaints received that year were over that interview. Sales obviously was too aggressive in the eyes of some viewers and she copped a whack for it. It's still one interview.

Thanks for proving my point in accusing me of being "far left". Because of course, anyone who defends the ABC has to be a lefty tree hugger.

Good that you actually watch it though. Many others who make accusations of bias can't make that claim. Your predecessor, RobbieF, was one of those.

I honestly don't know where to start.

You said there was zero evidence of bias and then when presented with evidence by the ABC's own handpicked reviewer you don't even bother to read it. If you had you would realise it wasn't one solitary interview as you claimed. The following findings of bias were also mentioned:

• An Emma Albercici Lateline interview was deemed to have given the impression of bias
• A 7.30 Tasmania story on welfare cuts was also singled out for being "overwhelmingly negative" to the government.
• ABC panel program The Drum also erred in an episode by giving two spots to two "obviously proLabor panellists" – former Labor speechwriter Michael Cooney and Saturday Paper columnist Mike Seccombe

Why is the bias always against the liberals?

Secondly I didn't call you far left because you are a tree hugging, abc defender but rather in retaliation for implying I am from the far right because I dare to point out the bias in the national broadcaster.

Lastly please don't ever associate me with RobbieF.

[P-man 13,309]

I honestly don't know where to start.

You said there was zero evidence of bias and then when presented with evidence by the ABC's own handpicked reviewer you don't even bother to read it. If you had you would realise it wasn't one solitary interview as you claimed. The following findings of bias were also mentioned:

• An Emma Albercici Lateline interview was deemed to have given the impression of bias
• A 7.30 Tasmania story on welfare cuts was also singled out for being "overwhelmingly negative" to the government.
• ABC panel program The Drum also erred in an episode by giving two spots to two "obviously proLabor panellists" former Labor speechwriter Michael Cooney and Saturday Paper columnist Mike Seccombe

Why is the bias always against the liberals?

Secondly I didn't call you far left because you are a tree hugging, abc defender but rather in retaliation for implying I am from the far right because I dare to point out the bias in the national broadcaster.

Lastly please don't ever associate me with RobbieF.

My apologies. Was in between doing other things this morning so didn't give it a proper read which I should have done before responding.

3 out of 76 items identified for criticism isn't a bad result, and those instances identified are pretty lukewarm, in my opinion. But I'll retract the "zero evidence" and change it to very little substantial evidence. Conversely the studies that I have seen reported have shown the opposite, but you clearly have your strong view on this and nothing I say is going to change it.

Bias in itself is something that can be very difficult to determine or prove, I think.

I won't connect you with Robbie in future. I tend to lump together anyone who this far down the track still thinks climate change is all a bunch of lies.

Edited September 28, 2015 by P-man

[Wrecker45 3,378]

I won't connect you with Robbie in future. I tend to lump together anyone who this far down the track still thinks climate change is all a bunch of lies.

I've written extensively about global warming on Demonland. Feel free to point out anything that I have said that is factually incorrect.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Living Safely

Go to page 11. The facts are that some of the 'case studies' refer to legitimate concerns in Australian society but you could just see the thought process of some Liberal Party hack when the bit on 'Karen' was included: 'We have included stuff on Islamic terrorism and extreme right wing hate groups but how do we manage to get our ten cents in against our real enemies, those gosh darn lefties? I know! Let's talk about those ferals who chain themselves to trees!' To even put them on a par with those zealots who have advocated the murder of innocent civilians is beyond the pale.

CBF - I went to page 11 as well as reading the rest of the brochure. Karen's interest in alternative music and student activism as a from of teenage rebellion was given as background not a reason for her becoming a destructive eco-terrrorist.

In the other case studeies background was given as well. Erin felt she didn't belong and maybe had self esteem issues. Jay didn't have a father and had an impressionable nature. Karen was rebellious. I think background was included so people could relate to the people and see how quickly and easily they can be lead down the wrong path.

I think anyone far left or right who believes what they're doing is righteous and therefore the right thing to do without question is dangerous.