- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 6,013
- Reactions
- 1,652
I'm glad your not in charge of government.
And why does Gina Rinehart deserve to go to jail?
If I was in charge of government, then people like Rina Fatso would be in jail for the rest of their life with all their money stripped away from them and all resource rights with all royalties squarely in the hands of Australians. This government is not powerful, it is pathetically weak.
I'm glad your not in charge of government.
And why does Gina Rinehart deserve to go to jail?
Really? What would be the charge against her?Powerful government? Please. If I was in charge of government, then people like Rina Fatso would be in jail for the rest of their life with all their money stripped away from them and all resource rights with all royalties squarely in the hands of Australians.
Well, it would appear that you actually don't watch SBS because they have had commercials for years.ABC and SBS have some of the best programming and news because they are non-commercial channels so they don't have to present sensationalist bull**** for ratings. If I ever watch anything on TV, it is those two channels exclusively. Any commercial channel is an absolute abomination.
Consumers who have had need to complain to both the ACCC and ASIC, would not agree with you that they are even remotely effective or worthwhile.This clearly must be stopped. We have many regulatory bodies already which are recognised by everyone as being extremely important. APRA, ACCC, ASIC - the TIO do absolute wonders.
Oh god!There is nothing but the absolute best that will come from better regulation of the media.
And, you silly child, the government would stack those who would then appoint the people overseeing the regulations with their own deliciously hand picked people, all from the Left. Or perhaps there might be a token liberal, who wouldn't have a chance of having his/her voice heard.Well actually she would not appoint them. Nor would the government. The government (as opposed to Ms. Gillard) would appoint several people who would then appoint the people who oversee the regulations.
Your usual juvenile garbage. Grow up.
And why does Gina Rinehart deserve to go to jail?
Really? What would be the charge against her?
Well, it would appear that you actually don't watch SBS because they have had commercials for years.
And, for that matter, ABC TV spends many minutes per hour spruiking their own products, including selling stuff from their shops, so they are also in effect commercial.
Consumers who have had need to complain to both the ACCC and ASIC, would not agree with you that they are even remotely effective or worthwhile.
And, you silly child, the government would stack those who would then appoint the people overseeing the regulations with their own deliciously hand picked people, all from the Left. Or perhaps there might be a token liberal, who wouldn't have a chance of having his/her voice heard.
It's both funny and pathetic how you respond with personal attacks when you are proven incorrect.
The Finkelstein report is equally deluded. Once again, a seemingly clever chap has recommended a new government-funded body comprised of "independent" people appointed by government to regulate print, radio, television and online media. Only an "expert" who understands little about the media could dream up this chimera of independence.
How does this serve the people given that a truly independent and genuinely curious media is so critical to the functioning of that democracy? And what precisely was the problem within the Australian media to warrant such wide-ranging new regulation?
Some people here seem to be confused as to what freedom of speech means and how it relates to the media.
No, the media should not have the freedom to publish whatever crap they want - they should be held accountable to publish only truthful facts and objectively neutral articles without bias.
Yeah, right. I'm sure all those would stick, no trouble at all. Not.Well let's see here.
1. Stealing national resources from Australians
2. Perverting democracy in Australia
3. Sabotaging free media and the neutrality of the press
This is what you said:I actually almost never watch TV, yes. I know they have commercials, but there is still a very significant difference between SBS and commercial channels. If you watch SBS World News, it is a world different to commercial news.
ABC and SBS have some of the best programming and news because they are non-commercial channels
In addition ABC in particular broadcast various programs that have a clear bias.Any commercial channel is an absolute abomination.
Accepted. That's a fair and reasonable point.And again with ratings, ABC does not generate direct advertiser revenue from ratings, thereby they are less likely to compromise their integrity for ratings.
Could I point out (in the most polite way, of course) that the above is a perfect example of your disingenuous way of avoiding genuine discussion.I have no personal experience with ASIC, however given a choice I am sure most investors would choose it over completely unregulated markets.
You cannot seriously be suggesting the government are going to all this trouble just 'to get the media to make corrections to what they get wrong'!Given all the government wants to do is get media to make corrections about things they get wrong - what difference does it even make whether the regulators are right or left wing?
I will let the hated Australian, as usual, give you the facts on this one.
You are suggesting that the only valid alternative to a timid and toothless ASIC is a completely unregulated market. Obviously this is nonsense. The valid alternative is for ASIC to grow some muscle and be decidedly more diligent in carrying out its brief.
You cannot seriously be suggesting the government are going to all this trouble just 'to get the media to make corrections to what they get wrong'!
I can't be bothered offering you a more appropriate explanation but it sure as hell is more sinister and complex than ensuring they print a few corrections.
I don't pay attention to News Ltd trash.
Either way, what you quote contains no facts - only vile sensationalist insults of an independent report and a surprise that people are getting sick of their tripe.
Well let's see here.
1. Stealing national resources from Australians
2. Perverting democracy in Australia
3. Sabotaging free media and the neutrality of the press
I'M not surprised . I think you could have attention deficit. Since when were you interested in facts.The government is not censoring the print media because they print "trash" or "tripe". It's the truth they are scared of.
Should BHP/RIO/FMG also be banned from mining in Australia and go to jail for 'selling iron ore/copper/gold/uranium in a open market' to China/India?
Opinion of major shareholders passed off as news is not any "truth" - it is social engineering.
WikiThe Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda
Before getting access to our national resources, everyone should have to pay a special tax - let's say 50% of the value of the natural resource. After that, they can do as they wish with it operating as a company (and paying company tax).
But even that is pretty generous. If it were up to me, I would nationalise all resource companies. I just cannot get my head around some company digging up what belongs to us, selling it to another country and then paying the proceeds to private shareholders - the majority of which are not even Australian.
I agree with these remarks.
We would not need a mining super profits tax if mining companies paid a decent royalty rate on their lottery gains.
Currently, iron ore fines (which accounts for the majority of WA's iron ore exports) incurs a pathetic royalty of 5.625% of sales revenue.
Imaging digging $100 notes out of someones backyard and giving them $5.63 compensation. Only a sucker would fall for such a deal.
But that is 5.625% of sales revenue, not profit. To get the true picture we need to know, in addition to the royalties, the cost of producing $100 in sales and the company tax paid on the profit.
You are implying that they only incur a cost of $5.63 per $100 in sales revenue. I don't know the figures, but you have to also account for the cost of producing $100 in sales, which could well be $60 or $70 dollars. They then pay company tax on the remaining profit to the ATO and $5.63 in royalties to the state government. Without all the information, you are not giving a proper picture of the situation.
But that is 5.625% of sales revenue, not profit. To get the true picture we need to know, in addition to the royalties, the cost of producing $100 in sales and the company tax paid on the profit.
You are implying that they only incur a cost of $5.63 per $100 in sales revenue. I don't know the figures, but you have to also account for the cost of producing $100 in sales, which could well be $60 or $70 dollars. They then pay company tax on the remaining profit to the ATO and $5.63 in royalties to the state government. Without all the information, you are not giving a proper picture of the situation.
Agree Bellenuit. I often think lefties must only see the total amount and be unaware of the costs that go with producing sales of that value.
"And what precisely was the problem within the Australian media to warrant such wide-ranging new regulation?"
Control of a large section of it by a single organisation controlled by one man who can limit what appears in his media to ideas that benefit himself or his organisation.
I agree. It would be much more equitable to have Stephen Conroy (Ministry of Truth) dictating policy to News Ltd.
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?