2010 Federal Election

[Calliope]

That the ABC put him up yet again, and very specifically asked him this question yet again, is strong verification of their own political bias, (if we needed any.)

Kerry O'Brien's second Freudian slip on election night leaves little doubt, that in his mind the ABC and the ALP are the same thing, viz, "the ABC are leading in..."

 

[basilio]

Tony Abbott has refused to allow the Federal treasury to cost his election proposals for the independents.

Makes really good sense if

1) You already feel the independents are not going to come on board OR you can't stomach what they want.

2) You're pretty sure your election promises may have some dodgy figures in them. In that context there is no way you want to lose that much credibility over an issue you already think is dead.

I'm trying to see how Labour is trashing the Westminster system by providing the independents with treasury costings of their election promises and inviting the Libs to do the same. Hard to see isn't it ?

 

[wayneL]

Just to set the cat amongst the pigeons



(pdf only - people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/MediaSlant_media.pdf)

That's a pretty subjective cat however.

 

[Calliope]

Which group is more dangerous to "stable government"?

 

[Mofra]

That's a pretty subjective cat however.

Anything evidence-based to counter it?

 

[wayneL]

Anything evidence-based to counter it?

1/ I have not made claims about media bias.

2/ You seem to be under the misapprehension that the document is "evidential". It's not, it's subjective.

3/ Ergo, there is nothing substantive to counter.

 

[Mofra]

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the document is "evidential". It's not, it's subjective.

It's far less subjective than the post I was referring to, although that in itself is subjective :

This will derail the thread if continued so lets leave it be.

 

[Julia]

Just to set the cat amongst the pigeons



(pdf only - people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/MediaSlant_media.pdf)

It's far less subjective than the post I was referring to, although that in itself is subjective :

Of course my post was subjective, Mofra. But it doesn't purport to be anything else, unlike the quoted 'study' which is apparently presented as a scientifically valid and methodologically sound piece of research.

Reading further through your link shows criticism from Chris Berg, a research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, who says "the study's findings are ridiculous". "e.g. it classifies individuals like Phillip Adams and Germaine Greer as right-wing intellectuals and people like Keith Windschuttle as left-wing intellectuals"

Further he says "when you've got results like that you have to wonder whether the study has found anything at all of relevance or of interest."

And let's remember that during most of the period of the study the Coalition was in power, so fairly obviously as the government it's going to draw more mentions/comments than the Opposition.

Further, just counting mentions of one side or the other as proof of bias hardly seems valid, does it? Wouldn't these mentions have to be further categorised into positive and negative to be statistically significant? And how would you classify a purely factual piece of reporting, e.g. "the government welcomes the appointment of the new American Ambassador" etc?

 

[gordon2007]

Of course my post was subjective, Mofra. But it doesn't purport to be anything else, unlike the quoted 'study' which is apparently presented as a scientifically valid and methodologically sound piece of research.

Reading further through your link shows criticism from Chris Berg, a research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, who says "the study's findings are ridiculous". "e.g. it classifies individuals like Phillip Adams and Germaine Greer as right-wing intellectuals and people like Keith Windschuttle as left-wing intellectuals"

Further he says "when you've got results like that you have to wonder whether the study has found anything at all of relevance or of interest."

And let's remember that during most of the period of the study the Coalition was in power, so fairly obviously as the government it's going to draw more mentions/comments than the Opposition.

Further, just counting mentions of one side or the other as proof of bias hardly seems valid, does it? Wouldn't these mentions have to be further categorised into positive and negative to be statistically significant? And how would you classify a purely factual piece of reporting, e.g. "the government welcomes the appointment of the new American Ambassador" etc?

Can I just say Julia, your grammar is exquiste :bier:

 

[ghotib]

Of course my post was subjective, Mofra. But it doesn't purport to be anything else, unlike the quoted 'study' which is apparently presented as a scientifically valid and methodologically sound piece of research.

Reading further through your link shows criticism from Chris Berg, a research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, who says "the study's findings are ridiculous". "e.g. it classifies individuals like Phillip Adams and Germaine Greer as right-wing intellectuals and people like Keith Windschuttle as left-wing intellectuals"

Further he says "when you've got results like that you have to wonder whether the study has found anything at all of relevance or of interest."

And let's remember that during most of the period of the study the Coalition was in power, so fairly obviously as the government it's going to draw more mentions/comments than the Opposition.

Further, just counting mentions of one side or the other as proof of bias hardly seems valid, does it? Wouldn't these mentions have to be further categorised into positive and negative to be statistically significant? And how would you classify a purely factual piece of reporting, e.g. "the government welcomes the appointment of the new American Ambassador" etc?

Chris Berg must have been responding to questions rather than to the paper itself - always risky. Mofra's link includes a magazine article by the authors of the actual paper (which is also online if anyone really wants to get obsessive), where they explain the methods they used, including how Adams and Germs came out as right wing (that's a distortion of the paper BTW), and how they analysed media coverage.

I don't have an opinion about this particular study, partly because I think the right-left distinction is about 40 years past its use-by date (the authors comment on that too). But I do wish we could all get over the habit of dismissing surprising or counter-intuitive findings on the basis of a quick reading of short summaries and an assumption that professionals can't apply common sense to their own fields.

Ghoti (Not as cranky as this sounds)

 

[Julia]

Chris Berg must have been responding to questions rather than to the paper itself - always risky.

Was he? Evidence for this? And what difference does that make anyway?
How would that alter his quoted opinion about the study?

Mofra's link includes a magazine article by the authors of the actual paper (which is also online if anyone really wants to get obsessive), where they explain the methods they used, including how Adams and Germs came out as right wing (that's a distortion of the paper BTW), and how they analysed media coverage.

Absolutely not interested in being as obsessive as you suggest, but by any measure it's pretty difficult to see either Adams or Germain Greer being classified as right wing.

I don't have an opinion about this particular study, partly because I think the right-left distinction is about 40 years past its use-by date (the authors comment on that too). But I do wish we could all get over the habit of dismissing surprising or counter-intuitive findings on the basis of a quick reading of short summaries and an assumption that professionals can't apply common sense to their own fields.

Ghoti (Not as cranky as this sounds)

Well, ghoti, I'll continue to be dismissive of what seems simply a bit silly until you can provide clear evidence to the contrary. The right/left distinction may well be outdated, but it's nonetheless still meaningful to a large chunk of the population. How would you suggest it be replaced?

 

[Calliope]

Ghoti, is you name really Fish?

Ghoti is a constructed example word used to illustrate irregularities in English spelling. It is pronounced /fɪʃ/, just like fish:

* gh, /f/ as in laugh, /l?f, l?ːf, laːf/;
* o, /ɪ/ as in women, /ˈwɪmɪn, ˈwɪmən/; and
* ti, /ʃ/ as in nation, /ˈneɪʃən/.
Looks really weird, but here's the link for further enlightenment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti

 

[ghotib]

Ghoti, is you name really Fish?

Yep! Well spotted

Ghoti (it's shorter than Galaxias truttaceus http://www.nativefish.asn.au/galtrutt.html

 

[trainspotter]

Yep! Well spotted

Ghoti (it's shorter than Galaxias truttaceus http://www.nativefish.asn.au/galtrutt.html

WOW .... that is frikkin' SUBLIMINAL !

<((>< equals flathead

<*((((>< equals Ghoti ?? f_i_s_h ...... rather?

 

[drsmith]

Some heat on the independents re ALP support.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2994739.htm

 

[ghotib]

Hi Julia,

If Chris Berg had read the paper he would know why it classifies the "public intellectuals" as it does and he would know that dismissing the whole paper as ridiculous because of that classification is unreasonable. If he did read the paper before making the comments that Mofra quoted then either his comprehension is poor or he's deliberately distorting the paper. The authors don't claim that Germaine Greer is right wing. I don't think I can or need provide any more evidence of that - I've only read what was available to any of us.

FWIW, I agree with Berg that the paper isn't very exciting and that shows such as 7.30 Report tend to be more anti-government than anything.

The right - left thing just strikes me as hopelessly inadequate to cover the range of issues and groupings that we have to deal with. It made a sort of sense when the world could be divided more or less meaningfully into Soviet or US led and the dominant problems of governments seemed to be economic and political, but it's no help to understanding, for example, independent members of parliament elected from rural Australia in 2010. Right or left, Coles or Woolworths, Red or Blue... none of them are prepared to accept a binary view of the parliament, let alone their electorates. Australian politics clearly needs at least three poles because we've nearly always had at least 3 blocs in the Senate and sometimes more.

Sorry to rave on. I'm really enjoying the nitty-gritty of this election, and I'm really delighted that the electors have given the backrooms of the major parties such a clobbering. The nation is much more complicated and interesting than they've allowed us to be, and it will be a very good thing if the Parliament reflects that.

Cheers,

Ghoti

 

[ghotib]

<*((((>< equals Ghoti

Beautiful!!! May I steal it? Do you want a royalty payment... in mosquito larvae perhaps.

Ghoti (Do you really expect a fish to stay on topic?)

 

[wayneL]

....and an assumption that professionals can't apply common sense to their own fields.

I think there's a fair amount of evidence to substantiate that assumption. ::

 

[Mofra]

FWIW, I agree with Berg that the paper isn't very exciting and that shows such as 7.30 Report tend to be more anti-government than anything.

The right - left thing just strikes me as hopelessly inadequate to cover the range of issues and groupings that we have to deal with.

Agree with your post ghotib, but specifrically the two points raised here. For all the claims of bias, Kerry O'Brien tends to give both sides of politics a grilling when they appear on the 7:30 report which is absolutely the way it should be - someone needs to scrutinise the substance of government or opposition policy, and the mainstream media tend to focus their scrutiny on soundbites or the spin, not the substance.

Right-left is an interesting case in point - Katter is socially right wing, but his economic leanings are protectionist and I'd argue very left (FWIW I identify more to the opposite in both cases).

 

[Calliope]

Abbott must be realising now that the three independents are in fact closet Labor/Green stooges.

If he is smart he will walk away from the table now. Any chance of reaching the magic number of 76 lies only with Gillard.