Standards are dropping.

Standards are dropping.

And here's a good example:-

Apology for incorrect photograph

thanks for the link to jlo/iggy video jack.......i think

And here's a good example:-

Apology for incorrect photograph

They are no longer sorry...

TERROR

BEHEADING

The new words spewing from our Murdoch dirge..

They are no longer sorry...

Pathetic - took it off within a day or two.

Here's the Hun's story about the gaffe ~ Family outrage over incorrect teenage terrorist photo on front page of Fairfax papers The Age and Sydney Morning Herald

Standards are dropping.

Didn't know they had any?

Mystery solved -

Here’s A Quick Recap Of All The Times Australia Treated Muslims Like Complete Garbage

It was a cockup on a cockup.

Didn't know they had any?

Beat me to it Biff.

biffo's mate obviously

The Daily Telegraph did not lift the quality of journalism with its IS attack on Sydney headline yesterday. Applauded via twitter by Sir Rupert of course. This was the work of a deranged individual looking for publicity using his religious links to gain some legitimacy.

I enjoyed ch 7 on the snippets I watched. The media gets all up in arms when a leader or some minion of another large country labels Aus some small backwater yet the Ch 7 reporting of how the story was being played out was just that. How is the US reacting to our little backwater of Martin place in our little backwater town of Sydney in our tin pot country was amusing.

The other one was good old girly Mel Doyle describing the office building, the tenants of the building and then going into say, well just like another city centre in the country.

The Daily Telegraph did not lift the quality of journalism with its IS attack on Sydney headline yesterday. Applauded via twitter by Sir Rupert of course. This was the work of a deranged individual looking for publicity using his religious links to gain some legitimacy.

And 9 News took things to a new low with there little piece comparing this to the 9-11 attack, Bali bombing and London Tube bombing. I despise the mainstream news media.

Bernard Keene in Crikey has a great piece on the media's bumbling efforts on this affair. The Iranian madman is Shia yet is an agent of ISIS which is Sunni predominantly. He is working on his own yet is compared to 9/11 etc. and Keene points out the media's glee that we were now being watched by the big boys in The US and Europe and could potentially suffer like they have with organised terrorist attacks on their people. Why has it taken so long? You could almost read between the lines that they were writing.

The Daily Telegraph did not lift the quality of journalism with its IS attack on Sydney headline yesterday. Applauded via twitter by Sir Rupert of course. This was the work of a deranged individual looking for publicity using his religious links to gain some legitimacy.

It was a bit of a confusing day for Newscorp.

On the news.com.au website they carried a huge picture of Sydney harbour with the words: "Terrorists - You will never change us, from Australia."

The special edition of the Tele had the headline: "The moment we changed forever."

What terrorists? The only person I saw was a nut job who happened to be Iranian and Islamic... it was hardly an organised terror attack. And as for the media, where are they when there is a genuine terrorist related attrocity going on... that is, 132 children murdered in Pakistan by Taliban gunmen... barely rated three lines on the front of any national paper. It's a [censored] sad sad world we live in!!

What terrorists? The only person I saw was a nut job who happened to be Iranian and Islamic... it was hardly an organised terror attack.

I'm a bit ambivalent about this whole debate over whether it was "terrorism".

Isn't a suicide bomber who blows himself up in a Jerusalem street or an Iraqi bus also a "nut job"?

And is there really any difference between someone who does this with the knowledge of others (organised) and a lone wolf, if they are both doing it in the name of the same cause?

Would your perspective be different if he had an accomplice? Or if there had been five gunmen?

I'm a bit ambivalent about this whole debate over whether it was "terrorism".

Isn't a suicide bomber who blows himself up in a Jerusalem street or an Iraqi bus also a "nut job"?

And is there really any difference between someone who does this with the knowledge of others (organised) and a lone wolf, if they are both doing it in the name of the same cause?

Would your perspective be different if he had an accomplice? Or if there had been five gunmen?

Well, lets put it this way... if a fundamentalist Christian kills a doctor/doctors at an abortion clinic in the US (which has happened on more than one occasion), iis it called an act of terrorism? No it is not. So, why is it that terrorism seems to be related solely to the actions of adherents of the Islamic faith?

Yes, I would agree that in all cases of an individual taking such action with no affiliation to an organised militant group is a nut job first and foremost. And yes, my perspective would be different if this was a well organised attack involving numbers of gunmen, because it would be reasonable to assume that they would be just a few of a much larger organisation and would more than likely have affiliations with other larger militant groups.

The other half of my post that you didn't seem to consider worthy of discussion, highlights the greater threat of organised militant Islamist groups such as the Taliban... lone wolves tend to be fringe dwellers who probably would have committed heinous acts regardless of whether they were driven by religion or not.... as was apparent from his apparent involvement in the murder of his former wife.

The fact that he used an Islamic flag to push his own agenda, does not make it an act of terrorism.

The fact that he was Islamic does not make it an act of terrorism.

However, the fact that he had a history of mental instability and had apparently been getting worse, would indicate that he was more likely a ticking time bomb that had reached the end of its fuse.

Anyway, that's just my take on it... and I still find it abhorrent that the press seemed to focus solely on this and did all but ignore the events in Pakistan. A sad reflection on what they perceive to be the relative value of human life and its relationship to the selling of news.

This is a bit off topic (Medja) but the Aus Gov does have a definition of a terrorist act (and I would assume that act has to perpetrated by a terrorist or terrorists).

Good old Section 100.1 of the Criminal Code Act (1995). http://www.comlaw.go...1#_Toc405451758

Personally I reckon most of the relevant boxes have been ticked. My main question would be about whether he was really trying to advance a cause or just being a nutbag. Certainly doesn't need to be part of an organisation though.

In this case it's probably irrelevant and semantics and media carry-on. In other cases it may be a very big decision as the Govt reinsures for declared terrorist incidents.

terrorist act means an action or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (3); and

( b ) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and

(c ) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:

(i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or

(ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or

(b) causes serious damage to property; or

(c ) causes a person’s death; or

(d) endangers a person’s life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or

(e) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or

(f) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to:

(i) an information system; or

(ii) a telecommunications system; or

(iii) a financial system; or

(iv) a system used for the delivery of essential government services; or

(v) a system used for, or by, an essential public utility; or

(vi) a system used for, or by, a transport system.

(3) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) is advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action; and

(b) is not intended:

(i) to cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or

(ii) to cause a person’s death; or

(iii) to endanger the life of a person, other than the person taking the action; or

(iv) to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.

Thanks for the response HT

Well, lets put it this way... if a fundamentalist Christian kills a doctor/doctors at an abortion clinic in the US (which has happened on more than one occasion), iis it called an act of terrorism? No it is not. So, why is it that terrorism seems to be related solely to the actions of adherents of the Islamic faith?

I agree with the inherent hypocrisy here. America could never in a million years admit crimes being committed in the name of Christianity, and Australia's probably not much different.

If there were a spate of killings or crimes in the name of Buddhism, would we call it Buddhist terrorism?

I doubt it.

Yes, I would agree that in all cases of an individual taking such action with no affiliation to an organised militant group is a nut job first and foremost. And yes, my perspective would be different if this was a well organised attack involving numbers of gunmen, because it would be reasonable to assume that they would be just a few of a much larger organisation and would more than likely have affiliations with other larger militant groups.

The other half of my post that you didn't seem to consider worthy of discussion, highlights the greater threat of organised militant Islamist groups such as the Taliban... lone wolves tend to be fringe dwellers who probably would have committed heinous acts regardless of whether they were driven by religion or not.... as was apparent from his apparent involvement in the murder of his former wife.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. For mine, it's irrelevant whether he (or a they) are formally affiliated with a larger militant group or not. What's the difference between going to weekly meetings with a group or watching some imam on the internet on your own if the actions you take are the same?

I doubt very much whether Israelis, for example, would think that Palestinian suicide bombers are not driven by religion or politics.

The whole thing about affiliation is sketchy at best - it's not like these groups have AGMs or membership. Anyone can affiliate with al-qaeda, or ISIL, that doesn't mean central command is involved or has any knowledge whatsoever of acts committed in their name.

The fact that he used an Islamic flag to push his own agenda, does not make it an act of terrorism.

The fact that he was Islamic does not make it an act of terrorism.

However, the fact that he had a history of mental instability and had apparently been getting worse, would indicate that he was more likely a ticking time bomb that had reached the end of its fuse.

Agree with all the above, but the fact that he used an Islamic flag (and sought an ISIL/ISIS) flag does mean that the crime cannot be divorced from religion, as many are trying to do, no matter how much responsibility should be sheeted home to his mental instability.

Anyway, that's just my take on it... and I still find it abhorrent that the press seemed to focus solely on this and did all but ignore the events in Pakistan. A sad reflection on what they perceive to be the relative value of human life and its relationship to the selling of news.

There's a well-worn news adage that one dead Australian equals two dead Americans / British equals 10 dead from xx equals 50 dead from Pakistan and so on and on.

The formula differs depending on where you are but the sentiment is the same, putting a relative value on human life as you say.

To be fair, The Age did run it pretty big that morning - they had a wrap-around special on the siege but the big main story on the inside front page was the schoolchildren.

Given the events of today in Cairns, it's been a terrible week.

Well, lets put it this way... if a fundamentalist Christian kills a doctor/doctors at an abortion clinic in the US (which has happened on more than one occasion), iis it called an act of terrorism? No it is not. So, why is it that terrorism seems to be related solely to the actions of adherents of the Islamic faith?

Yes, I would agree that in all cases of an individual taking such action with no affiliation to an organised militant group is a nut job first and foremost. And yes, my perspective would be different if this was a well organised attack involving numbers of gunmen, because it would be reasonable to assume that they would be just a few of a much larger organisation and would more than likely have affiliations with other larger militant groups.

The other half of my post that you didn't seem to consider worthy of discussion, highlights the greater threat of organised militant Islamist groups such as the Taliban... lone wolves tend to be fringe dwellers who probably would have committed heinous acts regardless of whether they were driven by religion or not.... as was apparent from his apparent involvement in the murder of his former wife.

The fact that he used an Islamic flag to push his own agenda, does not make it an act of terrorism.

The fact that he was Islamic does not make it an act of terrorism.

However, the fact that he had a history of mental instability and had apparently been getting worse, would indicate that he was more likely a ticking time bomb that had reached the end of its fuse.

Anyway, that's just my take on it... and I still find it abhorrent that the press seemed to focus solely on this and did all but ignore the events in Pakistan. A sad reflection on what they perceive to be the relative value of human life and its relationship to the selling of news.

ticking time-bomb sounds like a person stressed way out, with a lot of unhappiness & resentment, which in-turn can then cause much mental instability... if this person then happens to be one who would rather take their own pain out on others rather than themselves, would then do such heinous acts.

mental instability on its own has nothing to do with heinous acts, but the persons nature/character will choose the direction things go.

This is a bit off topic (Medja) but the Aus Gov does have a definition of a terrorist act (and I would assume that act has to perpetrated by a terrorist or terrorists).

Good old Section 100.1 of the Criminal Code Act (1995). http://www.comlaw.go...1#_Toc405451758

Personally I reckon most of the relevant boxes have been ticked. My main question would be about whether he was really trying to advance a cause or just being a nutbag. Certainly doesn't need to be part of an organisation though.

In this case it's probably irrelevant and semantics and media carry-on. In other cases it may be a very big decision as the Govt reinsures for declared terrorist incidents.

terrorist act means an action or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (3); and

( b ) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and

(c ) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:

(i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or

(ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or

(b) causes serious damage to property; or

(c ) causes a person’s death; or

(d) endangers a person’s life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or

(e) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or

(f) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to:

(i) an information system; or

(ii) a telecommunications system; or

(iii) a financial system; or

(iv) a system used for the delivery of essential government services; or

(v) a system used for, or by, an essential public utility; or

(vi) a system used for, or by, a transport system.

(3) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) is advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action; and

(b) is not intended:

(i) to cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or

(ii) to cause a person’s death; or

(iii) to endanger the life of a person, other than the person taking the action; or

(iv) to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.

I reckon he was a misplaced soul, one who wanted to aspire but found no one to play his games with. a control freak & had no-one to lead, but could not follow either. a true black sheep as it were. out O' place & outa time.

a coward who couldn't inspire because he didn't have true courage of conviction for anything meaningful. so he went with a bang, rather than pay for his deeds.

Edited December 19, 201410 yr by dee-luded

Not a word from Rihannas lips this month.

Press standards are slipping

It was a bit of a confusing day for Newscorp.

On the news.com.au website they carried a huge picture of Sydney harbour with the words: "Terrorists - You will never change us, from Australia."

The special edition of the Tele had the headline: "The moment we changed forever."

The moment we changed forever.great headline thats been used afew times by the 1st in best dressed media.

Cyclone Tracy=the moment we changed forever.

Granville=tmwcf

The lanslide in skifields=tmwcf

Bali=tmwcf

Martin Place=the real actual moment we changed forever.

The backpacker murders.=tmwcf

Martin Bryants shoot em up in tassie.=tmwcf

Readers should note,the moment we changed forever is measured by the amount of international press we recieve for the story.

Well, lets put it this way... if a fundamentalist Christian kills a doctor/doctors at an abortion clinic in the US (which has happened on more than one occasion), iis it called an act of terrorism? No it is not. So, why is it that terrorism seems to be related solely to the actions of adherents of the Islamic faith?

Thought some more about this issue and the better comparison is with the IRA, whose actions were very much called terrorism.

No, it wasn't "Christian Terrorism" but no-one tried to pretend it wasn't religious or political violence.

Mind you, the problems in northern Ireland were more akin to the Sunni v Shi'ite inter-religion struggle than the Islam vs the world equation of modern jihadis.