- Joined
- 12 December 2005
- Posts
- 544
- Reactions
- 0
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?
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?
Carbon tax was the thing that was legislated.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I will repost this poll showing there is very much bias in the ABC as it got lost in the nonsense:
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.
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.
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.
I will repost this poll showing there is very much bias in the ABC as it got lost in the nonsense:
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
And this is different from any other government how? All governments trick voters or pay them off.
Again you assume I am a Labour voter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
It has been a rapid fire night.
Indeed. Did we break the server because the flak has suddenly stopped? lol.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?