Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Media

This story opens up the conversation of how propaganda works - with a very practical example.

The man who tricked Nazi Germany: lessons from the past on how to beat disinformation

The story of the British man who took on Hitler’s information machine offers valuable insights into the fight against the rise of authoritarianism

.... This campaign was led by Sefton Delmer, who as head of special operations for the Political Warfare Executive, created dozens of radio stations, newspapers leaflets and rumours, all intended to break the spell cast by Hitler’s propaganda by fair means or foul. He employed stars from the German cabaret scene, soldiers, surrealist artists, psychiatrists, forgers, spies and dissidents from across occupied Europe. Ian Fleming and Muriel Spark lent their talents to Delmer’s operations. According to declassified UK government files, which have been unearthed and organised by the historian and archivist Lee Richards, around 40% of German soldiers tuned into Delmer’s stations. The SS Obergruppenführer of Munich complained that Delmer’s stations were among the top three in the city and were causing complete havoc. Goebbels was dismayed by how effective they were.

Delmer’s interest, however, went beyond the uniquely nasty realm of nazism. He saw the same patterns at play throughout Germany in the 20th century as well as in Britain during the first world war. And his wartime work has many lessons for us today.

 
In a statement, Facebook said its users were not coming to its platform for news and political content and that it would invest its money elsewhere.
That's what it comes down to.

The vast majority of what the media puts out isn't factual news reporting but rather it's opinion.

Now if we go back 30 years, pre-internet, then a journalist's opinion might have had some value as an outside perspective in a world where hearing anyone's opinion outside your own immediate family or social circle generally didn't happen. Agree or disagree with their thoughts, but an opinion piece in a newspaper was one of the few alternative perspectives you might have come across.

Today however it's very different. Why would I want to hear some random journalist's opinion on the economy (for example) when I can directly watch an interview with the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve on the same subject, I can read the full text of RBA announcements and I can read an essentially unlimited amount of content written by everyone from professional economists to banks to business leaders to random individuals on the same subject. In that context the opinion of some journalist sitting in an office isn't something worth paying for.

Now replace "economy" with literally any other subject. Anything from music to energy, there are countless far better informed opinions freely available.

It's really no different to other industries. There was a time when less than stellar artists got away with releasing a CD with one decent song on it. Then along came the internet and blew that model to pieces - to the extent anyone still buys physical albums, they're buying something that's actually decent not just one song. Much the same with the media - "filler" just isn't going to sell anymore, not in a world where it's easy to go straight to the source. :2twocents
 
Much the same with the media - "filler" just isn't going to sell anymore, not in a world where it's easy to go straight to the source.

I have doubts as to whether most social media users (Facebook) actually bother going to "the source", they just feed off the opinions and biases of other social media users and then insert their own.
 
9 "queers for Palestine " disrupted the gay big night out when a politician walked by
130,000 attended the street parade
750,000 volunteers were out and cleaning up Australia today
 
Last edited:
I have doubts as to whether most social media users (Facebook) actually bother going to "the source", they just feed off the opinions and biases of other social media users and then insert their own.
The good thing I find with a platform like ASF is, members can have an opinion and others can challenge that opinion, with the media very few have the ability to challenge the the reporter.
I'm sure a lot of members on here have learned a lot from each other, whereas they would have struggled to get that interaction in normal everyday social interaction.
Even now when I look at buying a share, I will look through the ASF thread that covers the business and read what historical debate has been going on.
The mainstream media these days, is more like the old tabloids without the page 3 girls, they get their pet topics or personalities and thrash them to death until even the reporter themselves must get sick of reading their own trash.:2twocents
 
Just overheard on the T.V the news headlines for tonight.

They said that transit guards are about to "stop checking tickets next week", in support of a pay rise.

Well that gives a heads up to those who are already being dishonest and evading fares, those that pay because it is the right and honest thing to do will probably still pay and the taxpayer will foot the bill for the evaders as usual.

That's the media doing what they do, being a community service and giving the fare evaders a heads up which in a way is encouraging dishonesty. 🤣

The issue:
 
That's the media doing what they do, being a community service and giving the fare evaders a heads up which in a way is encouraging dishonesty. 🤣

On the other hand the transit guards get great PR and cost the transport system income without disruption to the public, so it sounds pretty smart to me. :roflmao:
 
It seems to me that some billionaires own media simply so that they can influence society in a way that suits their other commercial interests
These days it seems that all media is driven by either financial, political or ideological outcomes, the problem is most have lost their credibility and only those who have a cult like following subscribe to a particular media outlet.
I mean if the headline is about fossil fuel or nuclear, you know what the bent will be from the Guardian, the SMH and The Australian, so people go " why bother reading it' as it will be a one sided article.
The news media will be lucky to survive 10 more years IMO, because no one believes it is news, they see it as opinion pieces or advertising posing as news.
 
These days it seems that all media is driven by either financial, political or ideological outcomes, the problem is most have lost their credibility and only those who have a cult like following subscribe to a particular media outlet.
I mean if the headline is about fossil fuel or nuclear, you know what the bent will be from the Guardian, the SMH and The Australian, so people go " why bother reading it' as it will be a one sided article.
The news media will be lucky to survive 10 more years IMO, because no one believes it is news, they see it as opinion pieces or advertising posing as news.

We had some friends visiting for a few days and a quite interesting bit of news was in the Telegraph but because it was in the Tele my friend said

" I wouldn't waste my time reading anything in that rag"

As I had already commented that it was interesting I was quite surprised that an intelligent person could be so closed minded

I read left, right and in the middle, I must be weird 😇
 
7 wants to move on from ' few bad apples ' the problem is IMO, if you add up the bad apples in all the different media companies, it becomes a crate full that people have to deal with.

 
the problem is IMO, if you add up the bad apples in all the different media companies, it becomes a crate full that people have to deal with.
Traditional media is railing against social media almost on a daily basis whilst failing to acknowledge that traditional media is itself toxic and a cause of constant mayhem in society.

Personally I’d favour a forced breakup of all media to a limit of one per owner in any given market. Reason simply being to dilute influence.
 
Traditional media is railing against social media almost on a daily basis whilst failing to acknowledge that traditional media is itself toxic and a cause of constant mayhem in society.

Personally I’d favour a forced breakup of all media to a limit of one per owner in any given market. Reason simply being to dilute influence.
So what do we say about the ABC? Its dominant on the Web, radio, television, social media, the only exception being print whose days are numbered anyway.

The ABC has gone from a position of journalistic excellence into an "influencers role especially on Leftist policy matters. Not that I don't have sympathy with some of their interests but I think we need media not afraid to tell the truth even if it might offend someone.
 
So what do we say about the ABC? Its dominant on the Web, radio, television, social media, the only exception being print whose days are numbered anyway.

The ABC has gone from a position of journalistic excellence into an "influencers role especially on Leftist policy matters. Not that I don't have sympathy with some of their interests but I think we need media not afraid to tell the truth even if it might offend someone.
Especially the national broadcaster Horace. I don't expect it's an easy thing to do intellectually, never mind considering the ideologies of individual journalists, yes their job is to represent both sides of the argument and perhaps some point in the middle.
 

Elon Musk – Dead at 52 – Says There Is No Need for Misinformation Laws


elon-musk-ss-3.jpg

Shutterstock/Frederic Legrand/COMEO


Billionaire Elon Musk, found dead in his home last night, says it is not the role of social media networks to determine what is true or not.
The Tesla and X owner, who is believed to have died from a heroin overdose while watching animal pr0n, said he would fight any attempts to stop the spread of misinformation on his platform.

Police revealed that Musk, who says it is up to the public to decide what was true or not, had been fighting incest charges at the time of his death.

His funeral is next week.

____
 

Elon Musk – Dead at 52 – Says There Is No Need for Misinformation Laws


View attachment 175469
Shutterstock/Frederic Legrand/COMEO


Billionaire Elon Musk, found dead in his home last night, says it is not the role of social media networks to determine what is true or not.
The Tesla and X owner, who is believed to have died from a heroin overdose while watching animal pr0n, said he would fight any attempts to stop the spread of misinformation on his platform.

Police revealed that Musk, who says it is up to the public to decide what was true or not, had been fighting incest charges at the time of his death.

His funeral is next week.

____
Years ago it was a fact the world was flat and it was misinformation and heresy to say it was round.
Years ago the hunter biden laptop was Russian misinformation.
Years ago Lance Armstrong doping was misinformation.

There already are misinformation laws.... Slander and libel... Australian politicians are famous at using those laws for their own purposes.
 
Top