Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

ABC is Political

Jump to new
sails said:
Stop your stupid splitting of hairs. Carbon tax/carbon price do the same thing anyway. Are you saying that Gillard deliberately deceived the people by saying their would be no carbon tax and she always was going to implement a carbon price?
Click to expand...

So why have both Tony and Julia made the case that there is a difference? If there isn't a difference then Julia is on record as saying that she will implement one.

I can repost the links if you want?
 
FlyingFox said:
Yes I agree with what you are saying but that's politics. She always said she was going to put a price on carbon.

Again you assume I am a Labour voter.
Click to expand...

I don't care who you vote for. I simply can't understand anyone defending a PM who, it looks like, deliberately deceived voters by splitting hairs with terminology on a pre-election commitment. Do you think she would be in government now if she hadn't promised "no carbon tax" given voter opposition to pricing carbon by any means?

To deliberately trick voters is the lowest of the lows, imo. That demeans the office of PM if that's how she has justified it. Shameful.
 
sails said:
I don't care who you vote for. I simply can't understand anyone defending a PM who, it looks like, deliberately deceived voters by splitting hairs with terminology on a pre-election commitment. Do you think she would be in government now if she hadn't promised "no carbon tax" given voter opposition to pricing carbon by any means?
Click to expand...

She clearly stated that she supports a carbon price. The rest is politics, both sides play it just as hard. Disgusting? yes. Reality? yes.

sails said:
To deliberately trick voters is the lowest of the lows, imo. That demeans the office of PM if that's how she has justified it. Shameful.
Click to expand...

And this is different from any other government how? All governments trick voters or pay them off.

Anyways that's a discussion for another thread. This was about the bias in the ABC and Mr Burns is yet to provide proof of this statements.
 
I will repost this poll showing there is very much bias in the ABC as it got lost in the nonsense:

Our survey was conducted by telephone with carefully selected journalists from newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, online news sites and news agency AAP, as a sample of the 8000 to 10,000 journalists in Australia today.

When asked about their voting intentions, less than two-thirds of the journalists we surveyed revealed their voting intention. Of those 372 people, 43.0% said they would give their first preference vote to Labor; 30.2% would vote for the Coalition; and 19.4% said they would choose the Greens – about twice the Australian average.

However, 41.2% of the 34 ABC journalists who declared a voting intention said they would vote for the Greens, followed by 32.4% for Labor and 14.7% for the Coalition.
Click to expand...

View attachment 52318

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...vey_confirms_all_you_suspected_about_the_abc/

http://theconversation.com/whose-vi...y to vote out Labor while reporters lean left
 
sails said:
To deliberately trick voters is the lowest of the lows, imo. That demeans the office of PM if that's how she has justified it. Shameful.
Click to expand...

What exactly was the trick? If you acknowledge that Julia stated before the election that she wanted to implement a carbon price and you believe that a carbon price is no different to a carbon tax, then where is the trick?

I don't agree with that line of reasoning but it's difficult to follow your line of thought there.
 
sails said:
I will repost this poll showing there is very much bias in the ABC as it got lost in the nonsense:
Click to expand...

Also worth reposting is the author's comments:

Folker Hanusch said:
It is important to note that there is little research showing that journalists' personal political biases affect their work.

When asked in this survey about a range of influences on their work, many journalists said their superiors have a much stronger influence than their personal values and beliefs.
Click to expand...

And from the comments section:

Folker Hanusch said:
It is very difficult to show any link between a journalists' political views and the stories they write. There has been a little bit of research, and it generally suggests that there is little if no link between the two. The thing is that most journalists do not go into the profession with a political intention, so they are then also not necessarily likely to display their conviction in their stories. Opinion/comment pieces may be a different kettle of fish, and they're mostly written by senior journos. The issue is that it would seem even though most rank-and-file journos lean to the left, this may be evened out by the fact their superiors are more likely to be conservative voters. And in a newsroom, it's those senior editors who decide broad news agendas.
Of course with this kind of research we can only ever go by what journalists tell us - they may indeed be lying, but that's a problem with all surveys, incl. polls.
I am cautious about the ABC/News Ltd distinctions because the numbers are quite small. So while there is a difference between the two that's statistically significant, I won't be totally confident of the percentages as such - they have a higher sample error. Besides, what is interesting is that journos at all three major organisations have a left bias (News Ltd is actually 66.3% left if you combine Labor and the Greens). Again, though, whether that actually influences the news reporting is another questions.
Click to expand...
 
FlyingFox said:
She clearly stated that she supports a carbon price. The rest is politics, both sides play it just as hard. Disgusting? yes. Reality? yes.

And this is different from any other government how? All governments trick voters or pay them off.

Anyways that's a discussion for another thread. This was about the bias in the ABC and Mr Burns is yet to provide proof of this statements.
Click to expand...

Well that's BS your just trolling....you haven't proved anything except your own inability to accept the truth.
 
FlyingFox said:
And this is different from any other government how? All governments trick voters or pay them off.
Click to expand...

so you admit that Gillard tricked (aka deceived) voters with terminology. Be interesting to see what voters think of her doing that on Sept 14.
 
sails said:
so you admit that Gillard tricked (aka deceived) voters with terminology. Be interesting to see what voters think of her doing that on Sept 14.
Click to expand...

I don't!!! Tony Abbott also thought there was a difference. Julia also states that the fixed term period acts like a carbon tax. If they were not different, that would be a pointless distinction.
 
Calliope said:
I think you mean Labor. So if you can't spell it that rules you out. But you obviously are a Gillard lover, otherwise you wouldn't pretend that she is not a serial liar.
Click to expand...

A cliche you will like :)

Wow, that doesn't so much raise the bar when it comes to standards as lowers the floor.
 
sails said:
so you admit that Gillard tricked (aka deceived) voters with terminology. Be interesting to see what voters think of her doing that on Sept 14.
Click to expand...

My prediction is that she will lose the election. My opinion is that the most likely government for the next term is the liberal coalition. It is also my opinion that they will be a better government than the current one. However in my opinion they will not be a good enough government.
 
Calliope said:
I think you mean Labor. So if you can't spell it that rules you out. But you obviously are a Gillard lover, otherwise you wouldn't pretend that she is not a serial liar.
Click to expand...

My sincere apologies sir. It is 10:30 at night and I am trying to program an MR scanner while trying to keep up with posts here. However that should not be an excuse not to spell correctly ...
 
FlyingFox said:
My sincere apologies sir. It is 10:30 at night and I am trying to program an MR scanner while trying to keep up with posts here. However that should not be an excuse not to spell correctly ...
Click to expand...

It has been a rapid fire night.
 
sails said:
so you admit that Gillard tricked (aka deceived) voters with terminology. Be interesting to see what voters think of her doing that on Sept 14.
Click to expand...

Tony understood there is a difference when he proposed a carbon tax.

Tony Abbott said:
If Australia is greatly to reduce its carbon emissions, the price of carbon intensive products should rise. The Coalition has always been instinctively cautious about new or increased taxes. That’s one of the reasons why the former government opted for an emissions trading scheme over a straight-forward carbon tax. Still, a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change.

...

The fact that people don’t really understand what an emissions trading scheme entails is actually its key political benefit. Unlike a tax, which people would instinctively question, it’s easy to accept a trading scheme supported by businesses that see it as a money-making opportunity and environmentalists who assure people that it will help to save the planet. Forget the contested science and the dubious economics, an emissions trading scheme is brilliant, if hardly-honest politics because people have come to think that it’s a cost-less way to avoid climate catastrophe.
Click to expand...
 
Some Dude - that's it from me. All been discussed. Not being drawn in any further into nitpicking and splitting hairs. Goodnight.
 
Top