catsidhe: (Gilgamesh)
What the politician said:
"Fines such as these for publishing blatant untruths or misleading news reports, or temporary suspensions of the right to publish or broadcast, would lead to a major improvement in the accuracy and fairness of our media."
(My emphasis.)

Which seems clear enough: if you lie, if you say something blatantly untrue, if you make shit up or don't bother checking, then you should be punished for it. That's not "Oops, we spelled this witness' name wrong", or "we were honestly misinformed," that's talking about Andrew Bolt-ian levels of disingenuity and agitprop.

How was this reported?

MP wants journalists fined for mistakes.


But thank you, nameless ABC journo, for proving his point. I have no doubt all the other sources will be similarly misquoting and mischaracterising Steve Gibbons MP from now on in, and squealing that they're the aggrieved parties the whole time they're shamelessly pretending he said something he didn't.
catsidhe: (Default)
For the love of Rational Thought, can't you even pretend like you give a fuck?

(The second link was unavailable as I wrote this post, because the was down, but it is nothing more or less than a collection of people's tweets and facebook posts about what Christopher Pyne said in his appearance on the ABC last night. Roughly grouped into Pro and Con. It's back now.)


Editors of every news portal on Earth, please memorise this before I have to come round there.

(Note: productions are exempt from this requirement, because reporting that people talk about articles about opinions about stuff is still an improvement on all the other crap they print.)
catsidhe: (unhappy)
Boltwatch informs me of Andrew Bolt's addition to the discussion about the tragic killings in Finland yesterday.
We don’t know what is behind the killing. I’m interested in Auvinen’s contempt for humanity, which is not just a feature of the neo-Nazism he spouts, but of the more extreme global warming advocates who demand we reduce the number of dirty, earth-raping humans.


I’d better be clear for the jumpers-to-conclusions. No, I’m not accusing Auvinen of being a green, and greens of being murderers - or Nazis.

Pay no attention to what he says, instead listen to what he tells you he said.

Because he is NOT saying that Greens are Nazis. He is just saying that they are like Nazis. And murderers. No, wait, ‘like murderers’.

And that makes it alright.

And the comments, just the first few, proceed to blame the murders (and presumably the Nazis and Greens) on Avant-guarde artists and Scandinavian Socialism. Dog whistle, much? Actually, I take that back. It's not a dog whistle if everyone can hear it.
catsidhe: (Default)
Money not motivating factor behind lease signing: Brough

Mal “They're like children, honestly!” Brough has signed a 99-year lease deal with Galarrwuy Yunupingu over his people's traditional land. Money was not a part of the negotiations, says Brough, only the opportunities available to his people.

Well, yes. But don't make the mistake of thinking that Yunupingu went into this bright-eyed and optimistic. As is usual with Propaganda, the kick in the tail is not omitted, but is buried in the penultimate sentence, where it is hoped no-one will get around to reading it. Quote:
He is being given the option of compulsory acquisition under the Northern Territory intervention or signing over to a 99-year lease.

That's a hell of a ‘choice’, isn't it? Yunupingu signed that lease under extreme coercion: sign, or lose your lands altogether. Sell your birthright to the government in return for the right to continue living there, or else we'll take it anyway, and you, and your people, are fucked.

Yes, I can imagine the discussion about the opportunities available to Yunupingu's people: be a shame if we were forced to turf them off our land once we are forced to evict you. 'Course, if you signed this little piece of paper, none of that need happen, does it?

And, of course, the ABC displays its Stalinist left-wing bias again, sucking up to the left-wing bleeding hearts like it always does, making things so unnecessarily difficult for the Government.

Wait, what?

That dull drumming sound you hear is me beating my head on the desk. Again.


Aug. 2nd, 2007 08:28 pm
catsidhe: (Default)
OK, so it's been sex-obsessed. It's been patchy. The acting has tended towards the hysterical.

It still doesn't deserve having had Channel Goddessdamned Ten happening to it.

First this week's abomination where Big Brother went overtime for almost an hour (an hour, dammit!), showing quite clearly the complete and total contempt they have for anything where 13-year old girls don't get to spend fortunes on SMS voting (expect voting on the news any day now).

But after Mim looked at today's green guide, Channel Ten's abhorrance of the audience they have found themselves with is made painfully plain: as of next week, Torchwood is to be moved to midnight.



The only way they could have made their contempt more plain is if the Channel executives had gone around to every household in the country personally and left a paper bag filled with dog-shit on the front step.

If they hate sci-fi and fantasy shows so much, as evidenced by this, and by how they killed Battlestar Galactica, et al., then why, by the Goddess' Left Nipple Ring, did they buy them in first place? Except to deliberately bury them? In which case, why do the producers continue selling to them?

Unless it is a sneaky plot to force people to buy the DVDs of the series, by making it impossible to watch them any other way.

Maybe that's it. Channel Ten has a deal with Amazon and broadband providers. It certainly would explain a lot.
catsidhe: (Default)
Andrew Bolt quotes all the usual suspects in his latest froth about how The Great Global Warming Swindle is Right And True And Good, All Other (Mis)information Is Alarmist Propaganda Spread By The Biased Leftist Stalinist Stronghold the ABC.

Ooh, ooh, let's have a look at his examples, eh?

> Prof John Christy, IPCC lead author and head of Alabama’s Earth System Science Centre
Well, actually he has also said that there is definitely Global Warming — as he should know, as he is one of the people who measured it — and has also said that there cannot but be an anthropogenic cause, but his theory is that it is not through Greenhouse Effect.

So he has said that Global Warming is real, but isn't why most people think it is.

Oh, and he's a Southern Baptist with a degree in Divinity. That means nothing in itself, but kep reading.

> Prof Charles Wax, Mississippi state climatologist
Hrm. That almost seems like a legitimate example. A professional Climatologist who doesn't belong to a paid-up Denier Association, saying “There isn’t a consensus among scientists.” Seems straightforward enough. Only... ‘consensus’ about what? What were the circumstances? Well, the quote was to a Rotary Meeting, those noted left-wing provocateurs. And his message was, again, the Climate is changing, we just don't know why.

Apropos of nothing, “He serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Starkville First United Methodist Church”. Means nothing, of course. That is, of itself, completely irrelevent.

> Dr Roy Spencer, formerly NASA’s senior climate scientist
Well, he also believes in Intelligent Design... No, no, he is a Reputable Scientist, and that other stuff is irrelevent. He was, after all, awarded a prize for measuring that very warming. He, again, says that the current effect is real, but counters that it is less relevent over an extended period, ie., that the measurements cannot be relied on more than 400 years ago.

He also “is listed as a member of the Heartland Institute and a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute.” Those are only two right-wing Climate-Change-Denying organisations, one funded by car companies, the other by ExxonMobil [pdf]. But don't let that get in the way of the Science! And even then, the second isn't denying Climate Change, they're just saying that it isn't oil's humanity's fault.

> Prof emeritus Joel Kauffman, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
Well, apart from his being a organic chemist, and a noted contrarian (he has a bee in his bonnet about pretty all of accepted medical practice, which is what he is really known for), why should having no background whatsoever in a field necessarily disqualify you from being an expert in it?

> Prof Yuri Izrael, IPCC vice-chairman
Finally, a credible counter-argument. Which is to say, ‘Climate Change is real, but the effects won't be as bad as is being claimed.’ We'll put this one on the unquestionably credible pile. For a total of... well, one, so far.

> Dr Vincent Gray, IPCC reviewer
One of the designated experts at the Heartland Institute of Climate Change Denial. But don't put that against him, look at the science!

> Dr Christopher Landsea, former IPCC author and hurricane expert
Who resigned from the IPCC, citing concerns over politicisation. He also says that there is an anthropocentric Global Warming effect, but questions the effects on hurricane formation (which is, after all, his speciality).

That makes two credibles. Out of seven so far. Still looking.

... you know what? Fuck it. Unlike Bolt, I have a real job.

Of all the arguments from all of the people Bolt has trotted out &mdash many of them straight from the Heartland Institute — the only common argument is that “Everyone else is wrong”. If only, if only any of them agreed with any of the others.

As far as his beloved Fair and Balanced documentary goes, I'll just point you at a couple of counter-counter arguments. Namely, that The Documentary is simply wrong, and the documentary maker is full of shit.
catsidhe: (Default)
What do we know about our beloved government?

Well, we know that they don't like people who disagree with them. A lot. It's almost like they think that such people should either not exist, or never say anything, because the government is always right, and no-one who disagrees with them can ever, therefore, have anything useful to say. Of course, the ABC is by definition a hotbed of Stalinists and Anarcho-Syndicalists, each and every one frothing for the chance to campaign for the Labor Party. You know, people like Pru Goward and Gary Hardgrave. We know, of course, a priori that Senator Fierravanti-Wells is a balanced, rational human being, free of barrows to push.

We know that they think that money is more than sufficient compensation in return for total abnegation of sovereignty. In fact, they react with shock and dismay when people say that the government can keep its money, they would rather die poor and thirsty than hand over, hastily, all power and ownership, now and forever. It should be noted that in each case the ungrateful bastards have actually said that they're not rejecting the idea per se, but that they have, despite the urgings of the Feds, actually considered the terms of the deal, and have found them laughable. If only they had just done what the Federal Government had told them, NOW, NOW, NOW DON'T THINK, JUST SIGN! SIGH HERE! SIGN NOW! WOLVES! WOLVES ARE ATTACKING!! SIGN!!!1!.

We know that if you're not talking about exactly the same solution as we are, then you are exacerbating the problem. Only the government has the solution. Any deviation will make things worse, so much worse. Why, advocating ‘Harm Minimisation’ is tantamount to personally injecting babies with dirty heroin! Moreover, allowing two people with similar genitals to call themselves ‘married’ is one short step from fucking cattle in the streets and raping small children.

We know that, as the government is by definition right, that whatever is spent on advertising is only ever important information. Anything, everything, put out by the ACTU or Labor party, on the other hand, are either in agreement with Liberal party diktat, in which case they are superfluous, or they disagree, in which case they are blasphemous blatant lying propaganda.

We know that thanks to eleven years of being the Avatars of 51%, that Howard and the Liberal party have long since identified themselves with everything Good and Proper and Right — they must be, because 51% of Australians after preferences think so. If it turns out that the magical number is now below 50% — well below — then there is a problem. The problem, however, can't be with them, because they're always right, remember? It must be someone else's fault. Like Labor and the ACTU; their nasty, vicious, slanderous, lying propaganda is twisting the poor innocent minds of the trusting voting public. Or those stupid greenies, scaring people, terrifying them with unfounded paranoid rantings, which must be countered, for fairness, for balance, for human dignity, with demonstrated propaganda considered counterarguments. And the important people, those whose reasoned and articulate opinions actually matter, agree whole-heartedly. So that's alright.

Or else, the problem is the population itself. If the Liberal Party is so obviously right, then not voting for them, not supporting everything they do unreservedly and reflexively, is ipso facto symptoms of unreason, of hysteria, of the public being so STUPID as to turn away from the Light of Truth and Justice. It's everyone else's fault!!1!

It could never be that people are sick of Big Strict Father in Canberra telling everyone that they're wrong ... except for big businesses and millionaires, of course.

It could never be that people are finally realising that their McMansion's mortgage is going up anyway, and while Howard was pretending to be your friend when it was going well, he's fucked if he's going to help you up if when it all goes pear-shaped.

It could never be that people have realised that, holy shit, the climate is changing, and we have to do something (Just because people have been saying that for thirty years or more — there was an entire episode of Carl Sagan's Cosmos dedicated to the concept for Goddess' sake!), but Howard has put a millionaire in charge of the Environment, and his biggest action to date is to claim complete sovereignty over a good third of the nation directly, in return for thirty sheckels of silver, which will have their destination dictated in any case.

It could never be that even the rusted-on Useful Idiots (who over-represent themselves in Andrew Bolt's blog and Talkback Radio everywhere) are wondering when Howard is going to retire, and having a good hard look at the choice of succession. And not liking it.

It could never be that people have finally realised what some have been saying all along, that the Invasion of Iraq was a mind-bogglingly stoopid waste of time and money and lives, while the guy who actually is responsible for 9-11 is still running around out there. That invading a country is a big, horrible, messy, sticky tarbaby, and that while Saddam Hussein was a really, really bad man, and his sons worse, the Invasion and its aftermath has been so, so, so much worse.

No, it must be the population's fault. For believing Labor. For listening to Scientists. For talking to their accountants. For watching the news. For looking around them. For thinking.

For not drinking the Kool-Aid, like they have for the last eleven years.

Now if only the rest of us had a real hope of anything changing as a result.
catsidhe: (Default)
"Spiderman3 is plain silly" ... says George Lucas.

Mim's reaction was to LOL muchly. Pot accuses Kettle of excess carbon coverage.
(via [ profile] araquel)

On other (old) news, Mim found out a while ago that an Australian channel has aquired the rights to the Torchwood series.

Everyone I mentioned this to, everyone, said "yay!", then followed with "... who?"

"Channel 10," I reply, to which everyone, everyone, without exception, replied with an expletive.

Expect Torchwood to go the way of Battlestar Galactica: three-quarters of a series with mind-boggling hype at prime time, then bumped by a Big Brother special event (where one of the in- house-mates finally goes completely postal and starts laying about with a five-iron, and no-one can blame them), then pushed to 11:00pm on a Wednesday. Well, 11:00pm +/- half an hour, until it is pushed to 12:10 at night, on whatever weeknight they can find a slot, where it will randomly occilate until it loses the last person able to actually watch two episodes in sequence, at which point it will be cancelled without warning (because of lack of ratings, for some reason) and replaced by repeats of Joker Poker.

Remember Andromeda? Anyone try to keep track of Farscape? ST:DS9? ST:VOY? ST:ENT? Yes, I know not all of these were perpetrated by 10. But 10 is the worst of them, by far. I mean, they all display nothing but unmitigated contempt for the misguided schmucks who actually try to watch their programming, but Channel 10 actually follows you home and pisses in your shoes while you sleep, such is their evident disgust of their own audience.

So our advice, Mim's and mine, is that if you actually want to watch Torchwood, watch the first episode on 10 (don't worry, there'll be a fanfare to warn you), then get the whole thing on DVD.

Or get the first series on DVD now, while they are showing the, what: 2nd, 3rd? in England now.
catsidhe: (Default)
Further to this, from here we find:
He said the people who made the complaints heard only excerpts aired by an ABC broadcast, which also provided information on how to make a complaint to the authority.

"The people who complained to ACMA had not heard any of my program," Jones said. "If people don't listen to the program all the time, why then are 26 seconds of comment that I might have made chosen to hang me? If that doesn't constitute bias, I don't know what does."

Jones was overwhelmingly supported by listeners, who were given the telephone number of the authority's media spokesman, Donald Robertson, and encouraged to ring him with their views on the report.

Jones demonstrates his hypocrisy, once again. For those who can't immediately see it:
  1. he calls fire down from the heavens for the unfairness of people complaining about his show, who hadn't actually sat down and listened to it all through. (You have to understand his calls for bikie gangs to meet 'Lebs' at the train station in context, you see.)
  2. In retaliation, he gives his useful idiots faithful listeners the contact details of the head of the ACMA, and urge them all to complain about a report which none of them have read.
How dare you react in any way to knee-jerk ignorant complaints about me! I shall now bombard you with knee-jerk ignorant complaints, which shall teach you the Error Of Your Ways! Hah!

The problem is, Mr Jones, that while you may indeed have said "But please don't actually hurt people that would be wrong", the 26 seconds you used to say that may be considered to have been drowned out by the other 2 hours of hatred, vitriol and frenzy.

And his bleating whinge that the complaints were taken out of context, somehow I doubt that the context was missing from the 835 pages of transcripts used to actually determine whether there was a case to answer. As far as it went, all that was needed was one complaint. The rest was more in the line of an affirmation that Jones does not, despite his megalomaniacal frothing, speak for all Australians.
catsidhe: (Default)
John Howard thinks that Alan Jones is a fine broadcaster, representative of most Australians. Which says much more about Ratbastard Johnny than it does about that frothing megalomaniac Jones. Despite Alan having, quite clearly, stated that Muslims and Lebanese are not 'Australians', then exhorting 'Australians' to go and beat up those dirty rapist brown bastards en masse. Howard thinks that Alan "would never make prejudicial comments."
"Anyone who knows me knows I've never encouraged violence or brutality in anything ... and I did the exact opposite, but our defences counted for nothing," Mr Jones told his listeners.

One excerpt Jones read from a listener on December 7, 2005 recommended that bikie gangs confront ``Lebanese thugs'' at the Cronulla railway station.
Because, of course, reading out a message saying "let's all meet at Cronulla and beat the shit out of any brown person we see", and following with "oh, that's a little harsh. I wouldn't go that far. Oh my stars and whiskers, oh dear, no," that's neither vilification nor exhortation to violence.

"I have a message here which reads: "Lets go and bash Lebs coz they deserve it coz theyr all rapist bastards lets take back OUR beaches," and I can really understand where these guys are coming from, they speak to a lot of reasonable people, " but don't actually hit anyone, because it's a little naughty, you know *wink*

And just when my disgust reaches peak, Rudd goes and joins in the praise, fearing -- presumably -- to lose the ignorant redneck fuckwit vote. Every so often I have faint hopes that Rudd will show signs of being an actual human being, and then he goes and proves he can suck up to the lowest common denominator with just as much aplomb.

Actually, I just thought of something which is even worse. This quote from Ratbastard:
"I don't think he's a person who encourages prejudice in the Australian community, not for one moment but he is a person who articulates what a lot of people think."

What that says, when you dissect it is that Alan Jones hasn't encouraged prejudice, but merely reflected the prejudice already there. In other words, Jones cannot possibly have made the situation worse, because real Australians are all prejudicial, racist and violent already.

The really sad thing is that the Cronulla riot showed that the Ratbastard might be right.

I think I'm going to go home and get drunk.


Jan. 3rd, 2006 05:11 pm
catsidhe: (Default)
Belligerent Design. It sounds an excellent theory.

Andrew Bolt was on Speaking in Tongues last night.

Honest to Goddess, he stated that Third-World Sweat Shops are a good thing, and that those who work in them should be thankful that they do (as opposed to being unemployed, or getting a living wage or living conditions fit for a dog, or human rights, or whatever).

His thesis was that Conservative politics are the real way to help the Poor and Underprivileged. Indeed, he implied that the bleeding-heart (lower-case 'l') liberals and Lefties actively harm the poor people they claim to want to help.
Father Bob asked him "So, what do you do?"
"Well," replied Andrew, "I donate to..."
"No, what do you do -- on the coalface, where I am every day."
Andrew didn't answer.

I love Father Bob.

Andrew continued by saying that conditions in Afghanistan (which he had visited recently) prove something or other.

Here's what I think conditions in Afghanistan prove:
When a country is bombed flat by a Superpower, has fanatical thugs (who were sponsored, trained, organised and otherwise encouraged by the other Superpower) rule it by banning anything not found in a paranoid schitzophrenic's interpretation of a 1300-year old (and badly edited) book, then is bombed flat again by that same other superpower, and has more, different thugs handed the country on a platter, who immediately return to the national pastimes of growing heroin and killing each other and everyone else who looks at them sideways, the only thing you can expect is that that country is comprehensively fucked, and unlikely to get better without a lot of effort, and not at all in the short term, like, say, a generation or five.

Christmas/Yule/Hannukah/Gregorian New Year was good. Saw Mum (hi, Mum! Did you have much trouble on the highway getting through Great Western and Stawell?). Saw Dad's mother. Saw other family. Saw (some) friends ([ profile] tooticky, [ profile] usuakari, we should have dinner or something). Mostly kept out of the heat. Weathered Abbi's tantrums. Got some nice presents. People seemed to like the presents I got them.

Generally worked out OK.
catsidhe: (Default)

Pot calls kettle black:
In 1961 radio astronomer Frank Drake devised an equation to express how the hypothetical number of observable civilizations in our galaxy should depend on a wide range of astronomical and biological factors, such as the number of habitable planets per star, and the fraction of inhabited worlds that give rise to intelligent life. The Drake Equation has led to serious studies and encouraged the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). It has also provoked ridicule and hostility. Novelist Michael Crichton recently denounced the equation as "literally meaningless," incapable of being tested, and therefore "not science." The Drake equation, he said, also opened the door to other forms of what he called "pernicious garbage" in the name of science, including the use of mathematical climate models to characterize global warming.

Umm, yeah. Michael Crichton, that noted proponent of Scientific Accuracy, as in Jurassic Park, or Swarm, or Timeline. Yep. I'll believe him over any mere world-recognised expert in the field any day. Right after I discard my knowledge of European History in favour of the deeply plaguiarised well-researched theories of Dan Brown.

Good thing we're not relying on Climate experts to try and figure out what's happening to the environment, too. Why would we pay any attention to highly sophisticated computer models incorporating the current state-of-the-art in our understanding of the Global Climate, when we have a third-rate tinplated potboiler author to show us the error of that path?

The Mainstream Media does what it does excellently:
One thing I repeat is that the mainstream media does a FANTASTIC job. Day in and day out, they turn in an extraordinary performance—at what they exist to do. And that is to make as much money as possible.

Of course, in terms of helping people learn about the world, they are an eternal catastrophe. But why would we ever expect any different? The mainstream media is made up of gigantic corporations. Like all corporations, they manufacture a product, which is their audience. They sell this product to their customers, which are other huge corporations.

Informing people about the world is not just irrelevant to the purpose of making money, but in many ways actually HURTS a corporation's profitability. No business goes out of its way to piss off its owners and customers.

Now, obviously it's true you hear constantly about the media's Unending Fight For Truth. But you also hear constantly that a fat man wearing a red suit breaks into America's homes at the end of each year to distribute new X-boxes. Neither of these things is real.

Anything I could add to this would be superfluous.

Now go read this.
catsidhe: (fire)
Parental Advisory: this post contains strong language and ideas which may offend.

Well, Joe Korp is dead. I hope the media is proud of killing him.

Guilty or innocent are utterly irrelevant concepts here. He was hounded unto death for the sake of a sexier news bulletin.

I can't remember a stretch of three days without recent footage of Korp, or his house, or Korp in his house. This includes the last two days.

Yesterday, the day of Maria Korp's funeral, Joe stayed away, for the professed reason that his presence would denigrate from the solemnity of the event. This was undoubtedly true. Certain court orders preventing him from contact with his son and step-daughter may also have played their parts, but that could have been arranged around if desired. Joe was praised for his consideration and restraint.

Did it do him any good? Well, no. Alongside the footage of the public part of the funeral, on every channel including the ABC, was footage of Joe wandering around his empty house. Of him drawing the curtains on his own small memorial and prayer (with accusing tones from the voice-over: how dare he attempt a private moment?!). Of him wandering the garden, and dissappearing into the shed.

Well, we know now what he went in there for, don't we.

Do you feel any better for having watched the last moments of a suicide?
Does it make it any better that the fact that you did watch was almost certainly one of the reasons why he did it?

And tonight, on every channel, after a clip sequence of Joe around and about, there was Joe's last public appearance: in a body bag, on a trolley.

That strikes me as a little ghoulish. No. Strike that. That is COMPLETELY FUCKING OBSCENE!

This isn't fucking hard, you scum-feeding parasitic vultures who pretend to the status of decent human beings, and have failed dismally. All you needed to say was "out of respect for the family, Joe Korp did not attend Maria's funeral. He held his own memorial service last week."
You did not need to camp on his fucking doorstep for months.
You did not need to follow his every move for months.
You did not need to show him on the news every fucking night whenever anyone says anything. And even if there was some pressing reason why you did, which there wasn't, what is wrong with showing just the one or two stock shots, like everyone has been doing for Steve Vizard? Why do you need new footage of him every fucking day?

You motherfucking vultures killed him.

It might have been interesting to have found out from a court of law whether he was, you know, possibly innocent or anything. But you guys moved some more papers, and got some more eyeballs on the n o'clock news, so what do you care, right?

By the way, what's happening in Gaza right now? How about the foreign minister assassinated by a sniper yesterday? Have any more innocent chemists been falsly accused of being terrorists lately? What about the 2004 US election, have any reports of widespread and systematic fraud been released lately?

Isn't there something you fuckers SHOULD be telling us?

Fuck you. Fuck you all very much.


catsidhe: (Default)
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 05:33 am


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags