Wednesday 24th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

fringe dwellers...

monthly

So the Palmer United Party (PUP) has exploded into its constituent fragments, leaving its founder and one apparently reluctant acolyte in the Senate to act as leader, whip, bottle washer – whatever.

The fact of its demise has been long expected; after all, PUP had already lost whatever popular support it once had, even in the founder’s eccentric state of Queensland. Even so, the tattered remnants were expected to hang on for a few more months.

Clive Palmer’s sacking and “bullying” of Tess Lazarus, the wife of Glenn, however, marked the end. It showed just how ephemeral quasi-political movements based purely on their leader, regardless of how rich and egocentric, can become.

The abiding minority party in Australian has been the Nationals, formerly the Country Party. It has had strong and popular leaders – Earle Page, Artie Fadden, Black Jack McEwen – but it has also sustained a constant economic base. Its predominantly rural constituency has long defied predictions of demographic demise, and now that it has established a firm hold on the regions as well, it seems here to stay indefinitely. But the rest – they have waxed and waned as the tides of fashion have followed them.

The Democratic Labor Party was probably the most resilient; it hung on for two decades on the coat-tails of the Liberals, who relied on its preferences (and, it should be added, its covert financial resources). It claimed an ideology of anti-communism and Catholic support, especially state aid for church schools, but what it was really about was keeping the ALP out of office. The arrival of Gough Whitlam in 1972 effectively spelt the end; after a brief flurry of activity in which it attempted to merge with the then Country Party, the DLP was wiped out in the next election.

Another brief star was the Liberal Reform Group, a group of Liberals disaffected by the Vietnam War. Enlarging into first the Australian Reform Movement and then the Australia Party, it was funded by Gordon Barton, the quixotic millionaire who also founded and funded the maverick Nation Review. But the party never held a real socioeconomic base. When this was pointed out to Barton, he replied, “I’ll be its socioeconomic base” – a forerunner to Clive Palmer, perhaps. When the charismatic Liberal defector Don Chipp took it over as the Australian Democrats, it flourished for a time. But in the end it too ran out of puff.

Which leaves the Greens. They are, to some extent at least, an international movement, and they have sought to expand from being a one-issue party to an organisation that represents the broad left. As such, they seem likely to have established a niche market, but unless Labor self-immolates – a highly unlikely scenario – they can never be more than that.

Still, unless the entire political structure changes, to involve genuine proportional representation to provide diversity – or, as the major parties would call it, eying the current Senate, dysfunctional chaos – that is the best hope of the fringe-dwellers. 

read more at the monthly... http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/mungo-maccallum/2015/16/2015/1426465520/fleeting-parties

The Monthly is currently the only PUBLISHED (printed) media forum that has teeth against the gummy silly antics of a Tony Abbott... There are of course many "media" on the net that also do the same caper and more... But the power in the media still resides in the "published" or "visionised on TV". For example, I know many TV programmes that may attract about one million viewers, but only a few thousands on the net... Most of the people who view their news on the internet say via the Guardian and Independent Australia would be "converted" geezers... Media barons, like Uncle Rupe, would not careless. Really. That is why despite their rumblings about the internet killing the "business", they go Payway for their own Internet output... Why? Because they know they can rely on the support of their CONservative "subscribers" who can pay a few hundred dollars without qualms and be part of an exclusive bunch... On the other hand, poorest cannot afford to sustain themselves properly, the least they can afford to sustain a fair and truthful media. 

 

 

one of the last articles by Malcolm Fraser...

blame game

Over the last week, two issues have dominated public debate. One concerns Gillian Triggs and the Australian Human Rights Commission, the other concerns the government’s efforts to tighten security and diminish human rights in the interests of security.

The attacks on Gillian Triggs have been worse than disgraceful. The Commission provided an objective report on the consequences of children in detention. We seem to have forgotten the older debates, led by Petro Georgiou as the Member for Kooyong, when the Howard government in 2005 was forced by some brave actions from its own backbench to remove children from detention.

While the number of children in detention has fallen over the last 18 months, the period in which children have been in detention has grown substantively from around three months to very often well over a year, which, consequentially, has much more severe consequences on the children affected.

In my view, the Commission’s report was bipartisan. It was highly critical of both major political parties, which have continued to enact an inhumane policy in relation to asylum seekers, but particularly in relation to children. The government could have responded by thanking the Commission for the report, saying, yes, they agree that children should not be in detention, and emphasising that since they have been in government the numbers of children in detention have fallen from around 2000 to 200 to 300. The government could have reaffirmed its commitment to getting them out of detention as soon as possible and giving a timeline for so doing.

Instead, the government did not address the issue in any sense, shape or form. It went straight for Gillian Triggs and the Human Rights Commission.

Read more and BUY the newspaper: http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/malcolm-fraser/2015/27/2015/1424997628/playing-blame-game

 

Note: this is a free advertising provided by Gus who buys The Saturday Paper (as well as one of the Murdoch-crapsheets) on weekends in order to stay on top of who says what. The battle of the political minds in news in mostly for that 15 per cent of swinging voters who for whatever reason butter their toasts on both sides...

Despite controlling 70 per cent of the printed news and being the inspiration for most (90 per cent) of the MMMM (INCLUDING the ABC and rabid shock jocks), the Murdoch media is presently struggling to get voters to swing "his" way (Tony Turdy's way). Polls though going up and down for Abbott are an indication of Murdoch's failure in controlling the "political news"...

The Fairfax media is a beast that always butter its toasts on both sides, often at the same time... so, the spread is often thinned out... My view.

if I were a rich dude...

batting for the rich...

read more at the Monthly and The Saturday Paper

In fact a lot of the rich, including miners, get concessions, discounts, amenities such as railroads and ports — all amounting to corporate welfare... Meanwhile, the poor welfare recipients contribute to the economy by buying stuff (to survive and entertain themselves — otherwise they'd go nuts and rob someone, since the reality is that there AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS — should there be enough jobs, then the government would complain that "inflation" would be going through the roof)... Should no-one be buying stuff, there would not be "an economy"...

a new broader platform for spruiking the revolution...

 

The technological disruption that is resulting in media sites like The Hoopla closing is part of a wider change in the way we consume news. So where will this end? Tim Dunlop writes.

Like a lot of people, I was sorry to see that independent media site The Hoopla was closing down, but its departure gives us an opportunity to take stock of major changes in the media industry and in our society more generally.

The promise of "new media" was that it would democratise news and opinion. That is, by creating online spaces where ordinary people could share news and views, these digitised spaces would break down the control held by a few news organisations and allow the audience itself more say in the news process.

This has largely happened. Beginning with blogs and comments threads, with comments boxes attached to news stories, and then sites like Facebook and Twitter (and Snapchat and Instagram and Tumblr and WhatsApp and plenty of others), social media became the audience's "new front page".

But this is far from the end of the story.

As news moved from print to digital something called disaggregation happened. That is, the online environment allowed people to create sites that catered to niche rather than mass audiences, and organisations - like The Hoopla - began catering to particular subsections of the total news market.

For a while it seemed like this was going to be the future of news, that if you could just find the right niche and dominate it, then there was money to be made. That is, if you could coax a large percentage of a niche audience to your site, then you could generate the revenue needed to succeed.

There is some life left in this model and some have succeeded, but it turns out it is much harder to do than it first appeared. And in a small media market like Australia, generating enough income to support even a niche site is incredibly difficult, as The Hoopla (amongst others) has discovered.

read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-26/dunlop-the-technological-disruption-wont-end-with-media/6350048

Gus: As I mention at the top of this line of "blogs" (I hate the word, I prefer "news and social commentary"), the published (printed and TV) media, mostly the MMMM (mediocre mass media de mierda), is still king, despite the online media. The MMMM is Heavily leaning to the right. But it is my belief that due to publishing costs (printing and running a TV station — including cable) the online media will slowly gnaw at the MMMM. Content is not the issue. The main issue is the style in which the content can be delivered. Style over substance rules. Style is the munching of substance into opinions. For example, on radio, the "unwashed" will be comfortable listening to a Ray Hadley because he is "one of them" and "he tells them what to think and do"... It's low end philosophy where the spruikers is basically a plant. The spruiker himself may be genuine in his or her beliefs, on social and political issues, but the spruiker has been carefully chosen to spruik in favour of the greater neo-fascist masters. 

Spruiking is not a comfortable on the "online media" yet. Because online involves a different set of senses and of patterns of thinking. Though reading a newspaper is done less and less, the headlines on woodchip pulp is still more powerful than an electronic chip implant. It may not be for much longer, but it seems we will have to wait another ten years before the switch is made and our "favourite" online media is fully integrated on our TV screens and radio networks. This is why Uncle Rupe wants to delay the implementation of the NBN as much as possible. This is why the Turdy government is delaying the implementation of the NBN. On radio, the airwaves are still under the control of the neo-fascist government regulations...

When you will be able to hear this article, for example, read by a smooth electronic voice, much improved on that of your GPS, on a radio channel, will the switch have been made. Because let's face it, someone like Gus leonisky is a spruiker (with a rotten voice and a mumble)... But a spruiker telling you what the political and social engineering masters do not want you to hear... There is not much they can do about pushing me shit uphill online... But they sure do not want a Gus Leonisky opinion reaching you via traditional media.

The broader platform would become an organ for a massive social revolution, which cannot happen by online media alone... Imagine your news commentary, by Gus and John, on the YourDemocracy Channel on TV (online content automatically cabled by the NBN), or transmitted on radio/TV Community  — giving the guff necessary to dismantle the governmental Big Brother... It could happen but it's a hard slog. And we could be drowned by the reactionary MMMM spruikers to which more facilities would be thrown at by their publishing barons who are in bed with "the Business"... Meanwhile, until a greater reaching platform is reached, little sites like this one (YD) with a high Q rating needs to stay online as much as possible  — until its voice can be heard or pictures seen with animation on the box and heard on the newwave radios... The traditional MMMM that sells advertising and promote right wing boots and all will try to stop that ...