Ah yes. As much as I enjoy reading about Howard dumping another large one on Costello, I feel a bit of help for the gutless wonder is in order.

Costello would look pretty good with the python stuffed down his trousers AND doing the lambada with Kerrie (or Kerry, no difference really).

I'm enjoying Melbourne's sunshine, hoping for some decent rain soon, and another thrashing for the Pies.

Meanwhile, the tedious and energetic members of Costello's tribe are running about, all sweaty, sphincters puckered, trying to manage the Nuz cycle for the next few days.

Howard has the ball, kicking out from the goal square, to what? The whole team is lined up down the corridor, all behind Costello, who is standing at 16m with his arms and mouth open, waiting for a little girlie pass. Who is going to break out, and run like the devil for the big 55m torp? Howard won't kick it to someone who is standing still. Costello is just about done for, and if another contender doesn't flag interest soon, the Libs will be in bother.

Costello should have presented the Anzac medal to Andrew Lovett. He missed an opportunity there. Did he have a go, or would it have offended his leader, if he'd shaken the hand of a true Australian?

Sadly, you are so spot on with this one that it's not actually funny.

T.G., you are quite correct about Costello. If he hasn't got the cujones to make a stand against Howard this time he might as well retire gracefully to the private sector. The public will have lost all respect for him as a man.

I hope the pies will get thrashed again too. Fancy those pied twits trying to poach Jonathon Brown from Brisbane...is nothing sacred?

From the ABC

Ads touted to fund ABC drama
A member of the Federal Government's backbench communications committee has called for advertising to be allowed on the ABC to pay for more drama production.
ACT Senator Gary Humphries has described the level of Australian drama on the national broadcaster as appalling.
He says there needs to be a decent injection of money which should come from increased funding and limited advertising.
Senator Humphries says the matter has already been informally raised with ministers.
"I think people will certainly be prepared to talk about these issues and I hope it'll get currency," he said.
"After all, I think everybody values the role played by our national broadcaster.
"We have a fantastic national asset in the ABC.
"We want to see it built up and strengthened, and producing a decent level of Australian drama is an essential part of its mission and it should be doing that better."

Gus asks: Is this the same government that, a couple of month ago, through the voice of a certain MR Abbott — paid as Health Minister and Overfed Kiddies — told a four corner program for people to watch the ABC if they did not want to see ads? Are they all living on the same planet?

No ads for the ABC... Advertising, as it has been mentioned on this site would compromise the integrity of public broadcasting. The government can afford to pay the ABC a bit more if it wants more out of the ABC

ABC director Russell Balding wrote a good article for today's Financial Review ($2.50).

Here's a taste, sorry I can't find it at afr.com, to steal a chunk.

For all those who ask to see their housewives desperate, their brotehrs big and their planes and passengers lost,  Australian commercial television has the answers, and plenty of them.  For commercial television, that's exactly as it should be. But those who want more programs that reflect more about who we  are and where we came from - our "sense of national identity" as the ABC charter describes it - should be able to rely upon the ABC.

It doesn't sound like Russell is about to throw in the towel, even though they are under the pall of an efficiency review.

On stories, we haven't heard anything like enough about the DPs who left the wreckage of post-war Europe, to make good in Oz - for example.

Not relevant here, but this is great writing -
DC Confidential: Face to face with a furious John Major every morning

From the new york Times

The Evil Screen's Plot to Take Over the 2-and-Under World

By VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN
Published: April 14, 2006
SELF-DOUBT stymies the television watcher. Go to the symphony, the opera, the theater or the ballet and you're rewarded with a feeling of cultural accomplishment; if you like the production, you feel improved, and if you dislike it, you feel superior. Either way, you've won.

But television is not for winners. Television is for low, exhausted potato people who slouch, and for their children, who are plopped in front of it. Slouchers and ploppers, that's us — and we tend to incur the wrath of more upright types. But, in spite of that generalized scorn and the self-doubt it induces, the loser in all of us plainly can't stop watching television, partly because it affords an opportunity, in our hard-driving world, to waste time and energy flagrantly, to live profligately, to forgo winning.

read more at The New York Times

____________________

Gus agrees... Yep, most TV, especially commercial TV, is perfect for politicians to "control" our mind... actually to "wipe" our mind if we end up having one, if we care to have one after years of exhaustive flicker viewing... Can we get up?... pass the remote... Go to the cartoon that leads this blog... cry and have another tinnie.

From a reliable third party source:

August one, International Breast-feeding Day.

But in the meantime, there's also celebration of breast-feeding this weekend in some part of Australia...

One of the major Sunday paper is doing a story on the subject...

But media photographer says that the paper cannot show a picture of a woman breast-feeding... but it can show a picture of a baby being bottle fed. Nurse working on the project is puzzled. Photographer: we're a family newspaper... we cannot show a woman breast-feeding... Nurse is flabbergasted. Rings the paper's editors... Same answer. Nurse is appalled: the papers does not hesitate is showing the tits and bums of celebrities, scantily covered and in full bosoming display but can't show a baby being breast-fed, even if the head of the baby covers the breast...

Why bother living...

Gus thinks either the laws are crook or the powdered milk industry "controls" the perception of the most natural act in raising babies... Who knows...There is something not quite right...

COMMERCIAL television has abandoned its commitment to news and current affairs, with The Australian and the ABC among the few media outlets still investing in quality journalism, Ray Martin said last night.

The TV stalwart, in delivering the annual lecture in honour of the late ABC broadcaster Andrew Olle, said Channel 9, where he worked for 30 years, had made a "dopey" decision this year to dump its best news and current affairs programs.

"Business Sunday got the chop first. Given the state of the world right now, how prescient was that?" Martin said.
Related Coverage

"Then Nightline was flicked. Saddest of all, the Sunday program was ingloriously dumped, despite picking up five Walkley Award nominations last year.

----------------

Mind you the stalwarts might not last too long... and study toon at top carefully and note the date...

Mourning Old Media’s Decline

The news that Google settled two longstanding suits with book authors and publishers over its plans to digitize the world’s great libraries suggests that some level of détente could be reached between old media and new.

If true, it can’t come soon enough for the news business.

It’s been an especially rotten few days for people who type on deadline. On Tuesday, The Christian Science Monitor announced that, after a century, it would cease publishing a weekday paper. Time Inc., the Olympian home of Time magazine, Fortune, People and Sports Illustrated, announced that it was cutting 600 jobs and reorganizing its staff. And Gannett, the largest newspaper publisher in the country, compounded the grimness by announcing it was laying off 10 percent of its work force — up to 3,000 people.

Clearly, the sky is falling. The question now is how many people will be left to cover it.

It goes on. The day before, the Tribune Company had declared that it would reduce the newsroom of The Los Angeles Times by 75 more people, leaving it approximately half the size it was just seven years ago.

The Star-Ledger of Newark, the 15th-largest paper in the country, which was threatened with closing, will apparently survive, but only after it was announced that the editorial staff would be reduced by 40 percent.

And two weeks ago, TV Guide, one of the famous brand names in magazines, was sold for one dollar, less than the price of a single copy.

------

see toon at top and other relevant articles on this site...

The BBC Trust, the corporation's governing body, has given a provisional go-ahead for a project which could kick-start demand for internet TV.

Project Canvas is a partnership between the BBC, ITV, BT, Five, Channel 4 and TalkTalk to develop a so-called Internet Protocol Television standard.

It would see a range of set-top boxes available to access on-demand TV services such as iPlayer and ITVplayer.

Set-top boxes, expected to cost around £200, could be available next year.

The Trust reached its provisional conclusions following more than 800 written responses.

---------------------

Meanwhile in Aussie Land, one can go and watch one's favourite ABC show on the existing net by going to ABC iView... from anywhere in the world... Not HD quality though... and a bit rough at time too. Still better than mouldy cheese... See toon at top.

Researchers have found more than half of newspaper stories surveyed over five days were driven by the public relations industry.

More than 2,000 articles from 10 newspapers were analysed by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at the University of Technology in Sydney and online publication Crikey in September last year.

The results showed nearly 55 per cent of all stories were triggered by public relations firms.

The Daily Telegraph came out on top with 70 per cent of its stories sourced from the PR sector, with the Sydney Morning Herald at 42 per cent.

Crikey editor Sophie Black says it is not what most readers would expect.

"It's not to say there isn't a role for public relations," she said.

"But I think most readers would be very surprised to realise that a lot of the news they read has been generated by PR in some way."

Crikey says most journalists and editors refused to respond when asked about the public relations element in their stories, and some later withdrew comments out of fear they would be reprimanded or fired.

--------------------

Definitely not news to us... See 2005 toon at top... But let us say news has been in the throws of propagada and PR since several centuries BC, although the PR of today is corse and the newspapers are lazy easy pushovers...

from Jim Schembri

If things were as they ought to be, Bert's legacy as host should be a fond memory, a reference point of excellence for the new generation of personalities. His annual contribution should be nothing more than a respectful cutaway and an affectionate gag from younger, fresher hosts eager to put their stamp on the event.

------------------

Gus: obviously, Jim is too young now and one day will be too old to understand the gamut of Bert's funny blurts. He can still run rings around the young ones, like you could not and they could not believe — all without smut (er...)... And when Bert saluted Don Lane at Don's tribute, Bert did far more than lift his toupee in honour of the lankee yank... But that was deliberately done for the cameras to pick up the "news" item as well as entertain many loyal folks... if moonface is picked for the logies, then so be it, much better than some pimply motor-mouths.

------------------

Meanwhile at entertainment central:

"In his own time Jim [Jim Schembri] loves to write, read, watch TV, catch mice, sing in the spa, talk on the phone and collect Star Wars toys.

... see toon at top...

By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA

When Alexander Lebedev and his son, Evgeny, took over The Evening Standard of London 14 months ago, the media coverage focused on the father’s status as a former K.G.B. agent and Russian oligarch, and on both men’s taste in beautiful women. Many news reports asked whether they would be an unhealthy influence on one of Britain’s major newspapers.

By last Thursday, when they struck a deal to buy another respected but failing British paper, The Independent, the question had become whether the Lebedevs had improbably emerged as among the best hopes for preserving serious journalism in Britain.

“I think it was too flattering for me,” Alexander Lebedev, 50, said wryly of the recent coverage, in an interview by telephone from Moscow, while on his way to meet a business partner, Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Soviet leader. “I hope I don’t get spoiled.”

Reports in Britain on the Independent deal once again mentioned his K.G.B. past, his vast riches ($2 billion, according to Forbes) and his political aspirations. But this time around, much of it also credited the Lebedevs with keeping alive two money-losing daily papers that probably would have died without the new owners, and not interfering with The Standard’s news coverage.

“There was skepticism, but we have had as yet no evidence that Mr. Lebedev believes in anything other than financing a serious free press,” said Tim Luckhurst, head of the journalism center at the University of Kent. “He talks very passionately about this, and it seems as if he means it.”

Last October, the Lebedevs changed The Evening Standard, which serves the London region, into a free paper without paring back its content — this, in a nation where free papers have tended to be breezy digests. It also nearly tripled its circulation, to more than 600,000. Aided by the deaths of two free London dailies last year, The Standard claims that it has gained far more in advertising revenue than it has lost in reader payments.

----------------------------

The world needs the Independent... but does not need Murdoch's media...

By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON — The top American commander in the Middle East has ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents.

The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.

While the Bush administration had approved some clandestine military activities far from designated war zones, the new order is intended to make such efforts more systematic and long term, officials said. Its goals are to build networks that could “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” Al Qaeda and other militant groups, as well as to “prepare the environment” for future attacks by American or local military forces, the document said. The order, however, does not appear to authorize offensive strikes in any specific countries.

In broadening its secret activities, the United States military has also sought in recent years to break its dependence on the Central Intelligence Agency and other spy agencies for information in countries without a significant American troop presence.

from the NYT

There were many familiar names. Barry Diller of IAC/InterActiveCorp, Rupert Murdoch of the News Corporation and Henry R. Kravis of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts all made it. So did the Google troika of Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Mr. Schmidt, as well as Mr. Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook.

But there were also fresher faces like Mark Pincus of the social game maker Zynga, and Jack Dorsey, the creator of Twitter.

Not everyone was from Hollywood or New York or Silicon Valley. Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister of Singapore, was present this year. Gen. David H. Petraeus is scheduled to appear on a panel on Saturday.

Yet other regular attendees, like Howard Stringer of Sony, Mel Karmazin of Sirius XM Radio and Sumner M. Redstone of Viacom, were no-shows this year. And one of the biggest names on the invitation list, Steven P. Jobs of Apple, had not arrived as of Thursday afternoon.

But many of the high-powered attendees did not come alone. As usual, many bring their spouses and children. The children were chaperoned by an army of local youths. Like their parents, they had plenty to do: rafting, miniature golf and, in light of the World Cup, soccer. As their parents clinked glasses on the lodge’s patio Wednesday night, the children queued up for ice cream, and for skates to use at the adjoining ice rink. After all, moguls can’t have all the fun.

-------------------

see toon at top....

A US appeals court has struck down a government policy that banned the broadcasting of profanity, ruling that the rule is unconstitutional.

The policy was drawn up in 2004 and meant that broadcasters could be fined if indecent words went on air.

The court said the FCC's (Federal Communications Commission) policy had a "chilling effect" on broadcasters.

The many media outlets that challenged the rule said that they were satisfied with the ruling.

The court said banning all "patently offensive" references to sex, sexual organs and excretion without a clear definition of what is considered offensive, effectively chills speech and creates an atmosphere of fear among America's broadcasters.

FCC commissioner Michael Copps called the court's decision "anti-family" and said the commission would "clarify and strengthen its indecency framework".

----------------------------

from wikipedia

On November 14, 2008, Barack Obama appointed Susan P. Crawford and Kevin Werbach to lead the review of the FCC. The review team will review the commission to aid the new administration in its planning decisions.[4] The team "will ensure that senior appointees have the information necessary to complete the confirmation process, lead their departments, and begin implementing signature policy initiatives immediately after they are sworn in."[5]

---------------------

Gus: swearing is a spice of life... too much of it can make annoying media, not enough would be unreal.

From the BBC

As people find new ways to access news in a post-print world, so the demands on those that deliver it is changing, says Andrew Marr, and this new media age could bring with it a better, more rigorous kind of journalism.

The winds of media revolution are gusting fiercely.

In the past few days we have the Guardian's estimate of a near 90% drop in the online readership of its rival, the Times, since the pay wall went up; and Amazon's announcement that sales of digital books for its e-reader Kindle are outstripping hardback books in the US, at the rate of 143 e-books for every 100 hardbacks over the past three months.

I just wanted to follow up my earlier "conversion confession" on this site.

These two whirling straws were given perfect context at a seminar on Tuesday by John Warnock, co-founder of Adobe and a fabled figure in the Silicon Valley story. Speaking at Nottingham University's computer science school, he predicted a cascade of new iPad-like tablets in many sizes arriving by the end of this year, producing turmoil for cinemas (which will mostly go), bookshops (ditto), and broadcasters.

Hollywood now gets just 15% of its revenue from cinema releases, while newspaper publishers find their traditional strengths - expensive printing plants and sophisticated distribution chains - have become merely costs.

Book publishers ask what they bring to the new party. A public has emerged which doesn't watch traditional sequential television, or even understands the notion of "channels".

I've just come back from Washington where I was doing interviews with grandee journalists and historians in the wood-panelled magnificence of the city's National Press Club.

But downstairs, in the coffee bar, everyone seemed to reading on iPads and phones. Getting into the lift and returning to street level felt like time-travelling, from the Age of the Press, to tablet-world.

------------------------

Here, on Your Democracy, we try not some much at bringing the news, which we get from a variety of sources and our own deep throats, as to bring the reality behind the "news". Sure we twist it with a bit of crummy satire, but by and large our interpretation of the news and of events is far more accurate than, say, a Fox network. Yet an organisation like Fox reaches far more people who are bamboozled by the crap that is dished to them because it snuggly fits in their discriminatory, racist, petty and selfish brain — and it appears on the brainwashing box with hype. We cannot compete with this jam for dorks... We do not exist.

We try hard though to remove the gristle from the meat. Fox only serves the greasy bits and add transfat to these. Some people love it, especially when they get greasy fries with that. Huuum... Fox Nuz!... see toon at top...

The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has said he is prepared to consider a review of the ABC's charter if the government is re-elected, amid accusations the broadcaster has drifted beyond its core purpose.

The guiding document for the public broadcaster has not been changed since the ABC became a corporation in 1983. Some commercial rivals have complained that the ABC overstepped the charter by expanding into rolling television news, regional news websites and online opinion.

A review of the charter would renew debate over the broadcaster's role and whether it complies with its current obligations.

The charter requires the ABC to contribute to a sense of national identity, broadcast Australian content abroad and include educational programming.

It must also take account of ''the broadcasting services provided by the commercial and community sectors'', a clause Sky News says is breached by the new 24-hour current affairs channel ABC News 24.

Senator Conroy said a review of the charter was ''a reasonable suggestion … I'm not committing to it but I'm prepared to talk about it with my colleagues.''

----------------------

Meanwhile at media watch on ABC News 24...

I Quote: (Apologies for name spelling mistakes - I am a Jones & Smith person)

"The guiding document for the public broadcaster has not been changed since the ABC became a corporation in 1983. Some commercial rivals have complained that the ABC overstepped the charter by expanding into rolling television news, regional news websites and online opinion.

A review of the charter would renew debate over the broadcaster's role and whether it complies with its current obligations."

There were many years of “crocodile tears” by the Corporations about the supposed bias of the ABC which they called "Auntie" and lampooned its independence continuously. Likewise there have been, since the election of Labor these compulsive critics have been strangely silent.  

IMHO the ABC bias towards the Corporation’s Liberal Party was never more evident than when Murdoch and his ABC “opinionator” journalists including Chris Eurlman; Heather Hewitt; Fran Kelly; Barry Cassidy and some other “guests” like Board member Elbreckson who also writes for the Murdochracy.

“Fair crack of the sauce-bottle” - how can they even be considered as balanced in their “opinions” when they write for the Murdoch Empire? And I assume, are paid for it? If not, it is an act of hatred of the Labor Politicians and their supporters.

I would be very pleased IF these people, in fact every single member of the ABC, irrespective of whatever service they are employed in, were to honor the balanced and truthful news reports for all of the Australian people who, supposedly, are their contracted employers.

It is now well known - not often on the Corporation’s radar - that the Howard “New Order” seriously changed the controlling body and staff of the ABC (as he did with almost all of the Public Service) to the point where Quentin Dempster was the ONLY non-conservative on the Board which was arrogantly noted by Howard.

Another Howard “New Order” legacy of hollow US democracy – but as his history reveals, hiding behind the “bullies” in any society is the escape of a physical coward and sharpens the wish to be superior?

I consider the offer of Steven Conroy should be appreciated by those similar outlets who cannot compete for a slice of the Corporation’s cost-effected private enterprise with a Government funded Corporation that continually pushes the policies of the same side of parliament.

God Bless Australia and bring back the “Auntie” that I personally respected.  NE OUBLIE.

What started as a routine contract dispute between Cablevision Systems and the News Corporation has become one of the longest and most talked about blackouts of television programming in years.

About three million households in the New York metropolitan area were left without Fox programming on Saturday and Sunday, preventing sports fans from watching a Phillies game on Saturday night and a Giants game on Sunday afternoon. After months of negotiations, the two companies cannot agree on a price for retransmission of the Fox network.

Cablevision and the News Corporation talked for only a few hours on Sunday, and Fox said they were still far apart. By Sunday evening, television analysts who had predicted a resolution by the kick-off of the Giants game wondered aloud whether the two media giants could drag out the fight until the start of the World Series, which Fox is to start broadcasting on Oct. 27.

Broadcasters view retransmission as an important new source of revenue and that is one reason the dispute is being closely watched by lawmakers; some have already proposed reforms to the station retransmission process.

The stakes are especially high for Fox because another potential blackout is looming. Some of Fox’s local station contracts with a bigger distributor — Dish Network — expire at the end of the month. The network is already running advertisements warning customers that the World Series could be interrupted.

More than three million of Dish’s 14 million subscribers could be affected, depending on where they live.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/business/media/18cable.html?hpw=&pagewanted=print

see toon at top...

I believe you mean Julia Gillard not Julia Bishop in your excellent post re Good One Gus (keeping up with the joneses)... Julie Bishop is placed on a pedestal by the Murdochracy though she, like her leader (Tony Abbott), does not seem to understand much and say a lot of crap...

OBSCURING THE TRUTH...

Wise, effective climate policy flows from a sound scientific foundation and a clear understanding of what science does and does not tell us about human influence and about courses of action to manage risk. Many of the temperature data and computer models used to predict climate change are themselves uncertain. Reducing these many uncertainties requires a significant shift in the way climate change research is carried out in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Are calls about the uncertainty in the state of scientific knowledge a call for no action? Nothing could be further from the truth. The message to policy makers is not to delay actions until uncertainties are reduced. Rather, actions should flow from the state of knowledge, should be related to a long-term strategy and objectives and should be capable of being adjusted"one way or the other" as the understanding of human influence improves. There is a sufficient basis for action because the climate change risk is real. Yet it is equally true that actions must not be predicated on speculative images of an apocalyptic vision of life in the near future.

http://www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=9

------------------------

Gus: what does this mean?... Well not much. The George C. Marshall Institute was founded by scientists opposed to tobacco regulations and anything else that could also regulate the spread of nuclear weapons. The founders were physicists involved in the invention of H-bombs and such...

Yes, we "all" know there is uncertainty in the knowledge of climate change but one can never prove that a bus has hit you down until a bus has actually hit you down. Before this, it would be a conjecture to say the bus is on a trajectory to hit you but you are not hit until you are. But if you have your back turned away from an incoming bus, you won't see it coming. Your chance to survive is for someone else telling you'd better take evasive action or you're going to be hit by a bus. Either you trust the someone or you don't. In climate change theory, like in smoking cigarette theory, like in the ozone layer depletion theory, there are strong correlations that can never be proven exclusively. Too many factors are at play but there are strong trends in steps that suggest a strong relationship and there are repeatable experiments that "prove" that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It would be stupid to sugest that the extra carbon we have added in the atmosphere and in the sea is not affecting the climate. Say, if we pour some petrol in a creek, it will pollute that creek and possibly kill the fish. But we can say the fish would have died anyway the next day when the creek became dry for example, which it could. 

Climate change is a more accurate science than those monkeys at the George C. Marshall institute are letting us have. They expect us to wait for the bus to be closer, before taking the minimum evasive action. Or that the bus will stop right there before hitting us. It's a gamble that we should not take mostly because there is a strong chance it will be too little, too late.

The ramblings from the institute could not be further than the truth... see toon at top...

---------

The climate change risk is a long-term challenge that will be best addressed by technology--faster deployment of current technology and incentives to speed the development of new technology. Congress should focus on actions that bring about those two objectives cost-effectively in concert with actions to promote strong economic growth.

The best and most honest action that Congress can take is a simple, straightforward carbon tax with the proceeds returned to taxpayers through the reduction in a more distorting tax like the payroll tax.

http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/panelists/william_okeefe/2010/06/energy_policy_is_beyond_epas_mission.html

William O'Keefe is CEO at the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank that promotes better use of science in public policy. He is a former COO at the American Petroleum Institute

---------------------------

Gus: it all sound so simple... But I would suggest that Mr O'Keefe is disingenuous.. He would have to know that no congress would pass a "straightforward" carbon tax... He would have to know too that strong economic growth would work against curbing CO2 emissions... He would have to know too that at present there are very few weapons against our emissions of CO2 and rising energy demand. The more we can produce renewable, the more we're going to increase our consumption, thus doing very little to reduce emissions at large. There is also the spectre of nuclear energy looming on the horizon — the cost of which is always a contentious issue in the operation and disposal of wastes...

From a friend of a friend...

Does Fox News make you dumb? Some would argue Fox News devotees aren’t the sharpest tools in the American news shed -- and now we have the empirical data to prove it. A survey conducted by World Public Opinion, a project initiated by the University of Maryland, has found Fox News viewers are "significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources". So Glenn Beck isn’t a wellspring of informed enlightenment?

Participants were quizzed on several leading US news items, with their responses measured against the facts. Here are just a few choice misnomers, as propagated by the Fox News crew:

60% believe climate change is not occurring
63% believe Obama was not born in the US (or that it is unclear)
72% believe the economy is getting worse
91% believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
72% believe the health reform law will increase the deficit.
Interestingly, the study also found that regular exposure to Fox News doesn’t just erode your intelligence, but also threatens the public’s collective IQ by giving misinformed views greater momentum. So, what are our treatment options? High doses of hummus and Omega-3 fatty acids, as part of a strictly Palin-free diet plan. -- Crikey intern Alexandra Patrikios

The fox and the crow

The title of this piece is related to an ancient fable where the fox is flattering a crow, a crow full of himself — who opens its beak to sing under the flattery of the fox who tells the crow its song is the best the world. The crow of course lets loose of the tasty morsel it held in its beak — tasty morsel the fox was after... Add a d and the crow is a crowd... see toon at top..

In his usual Sunday stupid column, David Penberthy, today excelled himself...:

GUS'S WORDS IN CAPITAL LETTERS...

------------------------

If Julia Gillard is looking for a shoulder to cry on about the torrid media coverage she has been receiving she could always pick up the phone to another recent prime minister in John Howard.

If she were to do so she would find that, far from getting a sympathetic ear, she'd be politely advised to stop whining, harden up and get on with governing.

JULIA IS NOT LOOKING FOR A SHOULDER TO CRY ON BECAUSE THE MEDIA IS DISHING CRAP AT HER... TO MAKE THIS SUGGESTION IS TOTALLY IDIOTIC AND REINFORCES THAT PENBERTHY IS TOTALLY NASTILY BIASED.

-----------------------

Or is Labor getting negative media coverage because it's got a primary vote of 27 per cent and that is because its leadership has been so haphazard and its policies so poorly sold that the media is simply reflecting, not creating, public disquiet at its performance?

CRAP... THE LEADERSHIP OF THE PARTY IS NOT HAPHAZARD. THE POLICIES ARE SOLD WITH AS MUCH EFFICIENCY AS CAN BE DONE FROM A GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE BUT THE MEDIA — ESPECIALLY THE MURDOCH MEDIA, OF WHICH PENBERTHY IS A MEMBER OF — IS DOING EVERYTHING IT CAN TO DENIGRATE THESE POLICIES AND PROMOTE THE STUPID POLICIES OF A LIAR LITTLE SHIT ABBOTT.

-----------------------

A majority of voters - this sounds funny now - were alarmed at the prospect of global warming and wanted the government to act.

THIS DOES NOT SOUND FUNNY TO ME. CLIMATE CHANGE IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE THAT THE MURDOCH PRESS AND THE SHOCKJOCKS WHO CONTROL 80 PER CENT OF THE DEBATE AND THE NEWS HAVE BEEN DERIDING AND CONTESTED WITH STUPID BOMBASTIC OPINIONS EVER SINCE — WITHOUT PAYING AN OUNCE OF ATTENTION TO THE SCIENCE...

---------------------

I was editor of The Daily Telegraph at the time of Howard's demise and the job fell to the paper to record and analyse the strife he was in. It wasn't a case of creating public opinion but chronicling it.

BULLSHIT!!! THIS (AND WHAT PENBERTHY FOLLOWS WITH) IS BY FAR THE MOST DISGUSTING CASE OF MEDIA AMNESIA. BY THAT STAGE THE DAILY MIRROR WAS STILL DISHING OUT A LOT OF CRAP ABOUT LABOR TOO. CHRONICLING PUBLIC OPINION BY THE MEDIA CAN BE DONE — AND IS DONE —  TO MODIFY (AND THUS CREATE) PUBLIC OPINION. IT'S ALL DONE BY THE CHOICE OF WORDS AND THE PROPORTIONS IN REPORTING EVENTS AND OPINIONS... IF PENBERTHY DOES NOT KNOW THIS, THEN HE IS UNFIT TO BE IN THE MEDIA. BUT HE KNOWS, OTHERWISE HE WOULD NOT BE WRITING THIS MUCH CRAP TO JUSTIFY HIS MISERABLE OPINIONS.

-------------------

The amnesia part is the deadliest. It goes not just to the valid news coverage Howard received as he trudged towards his execution, but the chief policy reason he was making that doomed march.

That reason was WorkChoices. Simply, he had no mandate. Gillard has her own WorkChoices and it's the carbon tax.

MORE CRAP. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MANDATE. ANY GOVERNMENT IS ELECTED WITH THE MANDATE TO DO WHAT IT HAS TO DO FOR THE BEST OF THE COUNTRY. THAT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S MANDATE AND APPROVED OR REJECTED BY PARLIAMENT.

WORKCHOICES IS A HORRIBLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION WHICH THE LIBERALS ARE TRYING TO REVIVE. WORKCHOICES WAS APPROVED BY PARLIAMENT (BUT THEN REJECTED BY THE PEOPLE WHO SAW THEIR RIGHTS BEING TAKEN AWAY).

THE CARBON TAX IS A SMALL START TO A NECESSARY STEP TO STEM OUR CARBON EMISSIONS. HUMONGOUS DIFFERENCE. WORKCHOICES WAS DESIGNED TO HAMMER THE WORKERS. THE CARBON TAX IS DESIGNED TO MAKE THOSE RICH ENTERPRISES THAT PROFIT FROM EMISSION OF CO2 PAY A DIVIDENT TOWARDS SECURRING A MORE SUSTAINABLE FUTURE. THE CARBON TAX IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED BY PARLIAMENT DESPITE WHAT THE PRESS IS DISHING OUT. THE REST WILL BE WHAT PEOPLE CHOOSE — BUT THAT CHOICE WILL BE STRONGLY INFLUENCED BY A STUPID MEDIA THAT IS STILL PROMOTING TITS AND BUMS AHEAD OF PROPER SERIOUS SCIENCE — ESPECIALLY THAT WHICH GOES AGAINST THE GRAIN OF THEIR MASTERS — THE ADVERTISERS.

--------------------

LET'S HOPE THE PENBERTHYs OF THIS WORLD WAKE UP FROM THEIR NASTY LITTLE HABITS... AND START TO UNDERSTAND THE REAL PLANET.

see toon at top...

At the beginning of BBC radio, if the time rolled around for a news bulletin, and there was no news, the newsreader would simply say "there is no news". Sooner or later, the idea of a news agenda developed, and if there was no news, they would just find some news. But you can imagine today, just waking up to hear that there was no news: what a comfort that would be.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/25/2011-year-news-overload

I have some news for you, Zoe Williams, there is "more news" on the way... see toon at top...

IN April 1912, the surviving operator of the Titanic’s wireless communications system was paid a handsome sum for his account of narrowly escaping death aboard the sinking ship.   

It will probably surprise some journalistic purists to learn that the news outlet that forked over $1,000 for Harold Bride’s harrowing tale — multiple times his annual salary — was not some sensationalist purveyor of yellow journalism,  but The New York Times.   

Evolving standards or no, checkbook journalism has been a persistent and problematic feature of news coverage at even the most powerful and reputable news organizations, long predating the hyper-competitive 24-hour cable news cycle and the celebrity gossip boom.  

And the issue is not likely to disappear anytime soon, even with ABC News’s contriteacknowledgment last month that to protect its reputation, it would have to cut back on the kinds of payments that have helped the network score a string of major exclusives in recent years. In Britain, public tolerance seems to have reached its limit with revelations that journalists working for Rupert Murdoch’s recently closed News of the World routinely paid the police for information as well as hacked the phones of crime victims.   

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/sunday-review/paying-for-news-its-nothing-new.html

see toon at top...

In an article that appeared in the print edition and online version of the Mail on Sunday on 7 August 2011, it was suggested that according to Mail on Sunday sources Société Générale, one of Europe's largest banks, was in a 'perilous' state and possibly on the 'brink of disaster'.

We now accept that this was not true and we unreservedly apologise to Société Générale for any embarrassment caused.

Fairfax Media breaks ranks with rugby's top body to cover World Cup

Fairfax Media in Australia has announced today that it refuses to sign accreditation for the Rugby World Cup to protect its editorial freedom.

The publisher, whose assets include The Sydney Morning Herald, this website and RugbyHeaven, will send journalists to cover the event but will be denied access to official World Cup venues by tournament organisers..Fairfax Media has been joined in its stance by News Ltd.

Australian media coverage of the 2011 Rugby World Cup is in jeopardy because of an impasse over accreditation terms.

The Newspaper Publishers Association (NPA) says that, after extensive discussions, the two organisations and tournament organiser, the International Rugby Board (IRB), disagree over two issues.

The IRB believes newspaper publishers should be restricted in the quantity of video they may use for reporting news on digital platforms.

The IRB also demands newspaper publishers should not be able to place any video-based advertisements to accompany news coverage with clips of match highlights.

Newspaper publishers believe they will be at a commercial disadvantage to non-accredited media organisations, which would not be bound by the time restrictions on video footage and would be free to place advertising with their journalism.

NPA chief executive Mark Hollands said it was a "regrettable" situation that he hoped would be resolved before the tournament began.

Publishers' rights to use video to report news was permitted under the fair dealing exemption of the Australian Copyright Act and the publishers were not prepared to sign away these rights.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/fairfax-media--breaks-ranks-with-rugbys-top-body-to--cover--world-cup-20110824-1j9sd.html#ixzz1VwbWbTqW

see toon at top....

JAY ROSEN: I think we've reached the point where politics as entertainment, the 24-hour news cycle, the fascination with media manipulation and spin doctors, the cult of the insider in political coverage - have gone on for so long they've all come together to the point where I think they're not only distorting politics, but they're actually beginning to substitute for it.

This is the sense in which I think political coverage is broken.

TONY JONES: Take it back to a golden age of political coverage, if such a thing ever existed. What was it like when it was better? I can't really remember a time when it was much better than this?

JAY ROSEN: Well, I think there was a time when the political system decided what policy was, what their stance was going to be, and then of course consulted their advisers about how to present it.

Today, as I think Lindsay Tanner suggested in his book Sideshow, which I have read, it's almost the reverse of that. It is, what's going to work in the media is presented first and then figuring out policies that you can announce that correspond to that comes after.

It is that sense that this crazy sort of mix of politics and news and manipulation and media and journalism has overtaken the political system that I think we need to register and start dealing with.

TONY JONES: What if I said that political coverage is not broken, not the coverage at least - there's just a hell of a lot more of it than there was before. You have to be very careful what you read, what you watch and what you listen to.

JAY ROSEN: Well, one could certainly make that point, and it is true there's more information than ever. There are more choices than ever. But political actors respond to the intensive systems that are before them. I think what we have now is a situation where journalism isn't just representing what political actors do, it is actually changing what they do. And there isn't really an exit from that system no matter what channel you're watching or what news source you're consulting.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3302557.htm

see toon at top...