Pages

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Andrew Bolt and appalling barbarity

Andrew Bolt and appalling barbarity





Andrew Bolt and appalling barbarity

Nour Dados 27 March 2014, 5:30pm  




The beating heart of barbarity is the indiscriminate and
inhumane treatment of the vulnerable by those in positions of power,
writes
Nour Dados.




LAST WEEK, Andrew Bolt – touted on his own page as 'Australia's most read columnist' – took aim at the large March in March demonstrations, in a column titled Barbarity should appal us, or we’re in trouble.



Bolt's claims against the March in March protesters are twofold.



On the one hand, they are hypocrites because, according to Bolt, the 'vicious hatred'
promoted by some of the banners and statements at the rallies would
have been denounced by the protesters had they been used by 'the right'. It goes without saying that against extensive contradictory advice voiced in the Comments section of his blog, Bolt assumes everyone at the marches belongs to a coherent social group called 'the left'.




On the other hand, the protesters are also barbarians who have fallen down a slippery slope of savage brutality.



The evidence for this claim is found in a handful of banners with slogans like 'Kill Abbott' and 'Kill the Politicians'.



Rather selectively, Bolt omits numerous other banners calling for
compassion and justice, like one from March in March on the Gold Coast
that read




'When did compassion go out of fashion. RIP Reza Berati'. 






To claim that an individual is a hypocrite and a barbarian is surely
not something one undertakes lightly and without substantial evidence.
Bolt's “proof” extends no further than sighting photographs of banners
and t-shirts at a protest. Worse, he goes far beyond unsubstantiated
accusations levelled at an individual and spares no-one among the
100,000 plus Australians who marched across the country the charge of
hypocrisy and barbarity.




Many will respond to this with the shrug of a shoulder and the roll
of an eye. After all, Bolt's bloodsport is cold hard generalisation.
From a few banners and t-shirts, he can deduce the 'nature' of the
protesters, and reduce a multitudinous group of politically diverse
people to a hoard of hypocrites and barbarians.




The charge of "barbarity" is worth examining.



Surely, if barbarity doesn't appal us, we are in trouble. But
whatever we may think of the slogans and banners that Bolt found
offensive, we can be certain that no-one at the protests was wielding
weapons or inciting violence against anyone else.




The banners and opinions expressed a frustration with a political
process that has locked people out of decision making beyond a symbolic
vote at the ballot box every three years.




The barbarity that concerns Bolt may be among us, but it is not upon
protesters demanding social justice and accountability from government
that we should be looking for it.




Barbarity has to be present in the way that state power is exercised
in order to circulate in society at large. It has to be present in the
activities, actions and statements of governments before it can be
reproduced – if indeed it is – by those opposing state action.




More often, the case, however, is that opposition to state power is
marginalised to the extent that all forms of dissent face increasing
retribution.




Take, for example, last Friday’s arrest of a group of protesters
belonging to a number of Christian churches – including Catholic,
Uniting, Churches of Christ and Hillsong – at Immigration Minister Scott
Morrison's Cronulla office after they observed a prayer vigil for the victims of Australia's asylum policies.






Even a familiar cultural form like Christian prayer is not exempt
from prosecution when it exposes the workings of the political power
that maintains the boundaries of our social world.




Amid the objects the group had brought with them to the prayer vigil were candles and a picture of Reza Berati,
the 23 year old Iranian man who was killed during an attack on refugees
held at the Manus Island Detention Centre on 17 February.




The prayer vigil was another tragic reminder that it has been 37 days
since Reza Berati was killed and no-one has been charged with his
murder. 




There has been a lot of speculation in the media about how Mr Berati died.



Last week, a group of journalists who had been granted access to visit the Manus centre heard from asylum seekers that Mr Berati had been hit and had fallen down a stairwell.



Then they were told:



"... they hit him in the head until he died."




At the same time, statements from the Ministry of Immigration and Border Protection have been few and far between.





After initially claiming that Mr Berati had been killed outside the
centre, it took almost a week before Immigration Minister Scott Morrison
corrected the earlier statement:




'As advised on the afternoon of Tuesday February 18, I indicated
that I had received further information which meant that I could no
longer confirm that the deceased man sustained his injuries outside the
centre.'





Mr Berati was simply referred to as the 'deceased' and no public statement of sympathy was made to his family.



Instead, Morrison concluded that:



'In a situation where transferees engage in riotous and
aggressive behaviour within the centre, this will escalate the risk to
those who engage in such behaviour.'





But who exactly does Mr Morrison believe is engaging 'in riotous and aggressive behaviour' within Australia's asylum processing system? While claims of 'rioting'
among asylum seekers in detention prior to the attacks on 17 February
have been circulating, there is no evidence that links Reza Berati to
those incidents.




More importantly, however, what exactly are we to make of government reports of 'rioting'
when refugees are facing the aggression of a system that keeps them
indefinitely incarcerated for no crime other than seeking asylum, and
when that system exposes them to extreme violence and even death?




In his analysis of what happened at Manus, Waleed Aly stated that it was not the 'defective personalities of individuals'
that lead to riotous protest, but an inevitable human reaction to
inhumane treatment. Indeed, why should those who have been persecuted,
humiliated, tortured and denied, quietly acquiesce to their fate just so
their captors can maintain a veneer of peaceful civility, and the shred
of legitimacy, for a deeply brutal and inhumane system?






Mr Bolt would like us to believe the opposite.



The picture he wants us to see is one of culprits who bring the violence upon themselves.



Responding to Aly on 21 February, he wrote:



'I suspect such violence is also a product of the culture of the
asylum seekers, and many Australians would doubt the wisdom of importing
it.'





On March 18, in commenting on a video aired by the ABC that showed a
group of asylum seekers who had been put in one of the government's
infamous orange lifeboats and sent back to Indonesia expressing their
anger against Australia, Bolt went further:




'I understand the extreme disappointment at being turned back,
but why the threats of another September 11? If Sedigh and his fellow
passengers were allowed here, would they make such threats again if
denied anything else, such as a job or welfare or loan?'





But our daily statements and activities do not simply 'express an opinion', they also reproduce our social world and the forms of social life that shape us.



Statements of anger by refugees who have been denied asylum, and held
indefinitely in captivity after fleeing persecution, humiliation and
torture are a response to the material conditions of their imprisonment
and suffering. To deny their response is a product of a world that acts
with harshness and cruelty against them is to deny that they are the
victims of a barbarism that risks catching us all in its grip.






It is easy for Bolt to put on trial and prosecute on his blog those
who cannot speak back to his accusations. What they had been through
before they were sent back in the orange lifeboat, a history that would
count in any court of law if they were actually on trial, does not count
in Bolt's courtroom where they are handed sentences without a right of
reply.




They are Andrew Bolt's 'barbarians'.



Treating them as such justifies their indefinite imprisonment and
absolves the government of responsibility for their fate. By this logic,
if refugees are killed in detention, it is their fault.




It should come as no surprise that leading government figures have begun defending the 'right to bigotry' as they prepare the ground for the repeal of important sections of the Racial Discrimination Act.
In order to operate effectively, Australia’s asylum system needs
powerful accomplices and voices in the community like those of 'Australia's most read columnist'.




It is surely this indiscriminate and inhumane treatment of the
vulnerable that is the beating heart of the barbarity that walks among
us.




You can follow Nour Dados on Twitter @novidados







(Image by David Donovan)

Friday, March 28, 2014

Faces in the crowd: Melbourne #MarchinMarch

Faces in the crowd: Melbourne #MarchinMarch



Faces in the crowd: Melbourne #MarchinMarch

Careful Now!The Marches in March
continue to glow with controversy. Never did so few gather so many,
without engaging the usual suspects of the old media, the political
parties, NGOs, the unions and the activist groups. There had to be a
dark side to these events. The people can’t have minds of their own! Or
if they do they must be warped!



Tim Dunlop has joined the fray with a post at The Drum: Rage against the mainstream



The fact is, the media’s lame response to an estimated 100,000 citizens
showing up on the streets around the country is indicative of a deeper
malaise: the rules of news have changed, and increasingly legacy media
companies have neither the capacity nor the wit to operate in the new
environment.

His target was the Sydney Morning Herald’s Jacqueline Maley.


Tim’s piece follows Lyndon Morley spirited offence at Independent Australia in support of his sign RESIGN DICKHEAD!
He was replying to Andrew Bolt’s slanted reporting at the Herald Sun.
Bolt was comparing the remarks about Abbott with those of Alan Jones
about Julia Gillard. As usual he saw red: “But who will apologise for
the parade of hatred in today’s March in March?” He found what he was
looking for, of course.



I’ll leave jousting with the black knight of bigotry to Lyndon.


Matthew Donovan tackled The Daily Telegraph’s Tim Blair over what he
called “delusions and blind or wilful ignorance” on AIMN on Wednesday.
His message: “I will not let you smear the good people who marched”.



I’ll just stick to what I saw and heard in my hometown. To flip the record, I’ve compiled some offcuts that didn’t make my original video piece on the Melbourne #MarchinMarch, not for the signs of the times but for the faces of the people:






One of the more appealing aspects of the Melbourne march was the
signs. By and large, they were not offensive. Some seemed to have gone
to extremes to be polite:



Kindness matters!


Not Happy Tony.


We Can Do Better!


Cowdy Songs Not Cowboy Govt.


Careful Now!


Wake Up Australia!


In fact most were homemade and some appeared to be the handy work of
people more accustomed to writing letters-to-the-editor, pamphleteers
rather than sloganeers:



Human Dignity Is Independent of National Borders. We must Always Defend the Interests of the Poor and the Persecuted.


Arbitrary Governments Use Arbitrary Detention.


The longest read:


MR ABBOTT AHD HIS GOVERNMENT HAVE SAID
NO TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND SCIENCE
NO TO MORE WOMEN IN CABINET
NO TO THEIR OWN EDUCATION PROMISES
NO TO THEIR OWN NBN PROMISES
NO TO THEIR OWN HEALTHCARE PROMISES
NO TO REFUGEES
NOW WE SAY NO TO YOU MR. ABBOTT!!!


Many were decidedly to the point:


Tony Abbott Worst PM in Australia’s History.


Wanted for Crimes Against Humanity and Our Planet.


No More Racism, No More Bull, Australia’s Nowhere Near Full!b>Welcome Asylum Seekers and Refugees.


No Justice, No Peace.


Some were a tad obscure:


Viva la Evolucion!


This one had two sides:


Dirty Coal. Clean Wind


Very few signs that I saw were truly offensive or in bad taste. This
exception was timeless and certainly open to the charge of not being
focussed:



Fuck the Police


It probably wouldn’t resonate with Bolt quite like ‘Fuck Tony Abbott’ T-shirts did.


Monday’s Media Watch
looked at a coverage paradox, namely how the old media both ignored and
condemned the marches. Paul Barry picked up the threads:



A
bevy of right-wing columnists have accused the ABC and Fairfax of
failing to condemn some vicious anti-Abbott placards, carried by a
handful of marchers.



But it was not just the Right that was unhappy with the way the March in March was covered.


Many protesters felt that 31 marches and tens of thousands of people deserved far more attention.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

"I will not let you smear the good people who marched"

"I will not let you smear the good people who marched"



“I will not let you smear the good people who marched”

Image courtesy of leesalittle.com
Image courtesy of leesalittle.com
The Daily Telegraph’s Tim Blair has a bee in his bonnet about
March in March. Brisbane Lead Organiser for March in March Matthew N.
Donovan responds.



Tim Blair is at it again it seems?


Out of all the issues he could have chosen to cover he once again
chose March in March as the topic for his highly read blog. Why it’s
highly read is anyone’s guess.



I thank him for the spotlight he continues to shine on what was one of the highest turnouts for a protest in many years.


Tim, I take issue with your pathetic childish attempt at an opinion
piece. Allow me to relieve you of your delusions and blind or wilful
ignorance.



A big task. There’s quite a bit to wade through, but I’m a glutton for punishment.


I’m fully aware you only have one mode. That’s progressive attack
mode. That’s how you got your job with Rupert and why you keep it.



You serve at Murdoch’s pleasure.


A condemnation of the standard he has for his publications.


Spotting a progressive opinion writer who works for News Corp Australia proves a challenge to even the most news aware among us.


I personally don’t agree with conservatism. You don’t agree with progressivism. That’s fine. We’re all adults.


However, having read some of your writing and hearing you on 2GB with Ben Fordham recently I’m not too sure my last point applies entirely. Something to work on perhaps?


My issue is not with you and your politics. It’s with your
condescending, chest beating, arrogant language and the simplistic
stereotypes you cynically use in your writing.



I’m not sure if you have a restricted vocabulary, a lack of debating
skills or are just plain lazy but you really need to give your writing
more thought.



It’s weak, it lacks depth and it’s tacky. I know you work for Murdoch, but seriously?


March in March was a major success. Not because you acknowledge this fact, but because you don’t.


You have gone after the movement and it’s participants like a pitbull.


I will however not let the likes of you trot out such disgraceful
statements against its participants without asserting my right of reply,
on their behalf.



This movement is grassroots.


Opponents think it is too large, too organised and too vocal to not have some kind of high profile backer or organiser.


I’ll tell you who the sole backer is: the Australian people.


That’s what makes it so powerful and that’s what annoys you about its prominence on social media and online news.


We have major issues with how Tony Abbott is carrying out his job,
his words, his priorities and the sections of society he has chosen to
attack.



You see no issue with his agenda.


That’s because you’re a cheer-leading acolyte.


We have a right to tell our government we don’t approve of the job they are doing as did those against previous governments.


Many thinking Australians are embarrassed to have him as our leader
and resent the direction he seems to be pointing our country.



He has no great vision of Australia. Just delusional ideas about some
imaginary hey day of yesteryear. Menzies? Howard? Ahhhh yes! The
“Golden Age”.



Let’s be frank. The Abbott Government is there to hold back the
inevitable march of progress, if only for a short while. All in aid of
helping big business, the well off and vested interests.



He leads an Australia where big business is at the head of the table
and the rest of us are supposed to sit in the corner until the next
election. You seem to abide by that too Tim but we don’t and won’t.



March in March has no agenda to overturn the government. That is
hysteria and further discredits what we’re led to believe is the expert
analysis and opinion in your column.



Were you outraged when conservative supporters said the Gillard
Government wasn’t legitimate? Were you outraged when a few hundred
people rallied in Canberra egged on by Tony’s good mates Gina Rinehart
and Alan Jones? Were you outraged that Tony Abbott, Bronwyn Bishop and
Sophie Mirrabella chose to stand in front of those infamous signs, and
by doing so endorsed them?



Nothing. Silence.


How telling.


I made it clear that participants of March in March Brisbane should
keep signs and chants respectful and civil. All other organisers around
the country did the same as well as our central campaign team.



I agree. Some signs and chants were in bad taste and only served to dumb down the debate in this country.


I’m proud to see I saw none of this in Brisbane.


It is unfortunate that some people become so angry they use confrontational means.


I continue to advocate for a more civil debate based on ideas and what we want for our nation.


I asked many times that attendees respect these wishes but given it
is a grassroots movement some chose to ignore me or were unaware of
them.



Short of physically removing them we can’t avoid this occasionally
happening. It’s annoying and it distracts from the cause but it comes
with the territory.



The main reason I am writing this response is because I will not let
you smear the good people who attended because there are a few attendees
who serve your political agenda to diminish March in March and hope it
goes away.



100,000+ people marched that day. Some were seasoned marchers, some
had never attended a march until now. People from across the spectrum
from the very young to the very elderly. These people aren’t “radicals”.
These people aren’t “Greenies”. These people aren’t what people like
you term “dole bludgers”.



They are caring and concerned thinking Australians.


How dare you shove them into your black and white, “goodies” vs “baddies” worldview!


You did not attend an event. You are in no position to lecture or
demean those who participated and you should be repudiated every time
you attempt to smear these 100,000+ people for the actions of the few.



I also point out how well peaceful our protests were. Not one arrest.
Not one! Not the anarchy and extremism you and your mates at News Corp
Australia like to go on about apoplectically.



We understand why you do it but don’t assume we are blind to what you
are up to and won’t return fire back every time you enter attack mode
with your cheap personal attacks on our movement and its participants.



The chorus of those who are concerned about the Abbott agenda and his way of governing is growing every day.


March in March is growing. Our concerns are genuine. Our passion sincere.


We’re not going anywhere.


Tell Tim you work, contribute to society, care about Australia and
marched peacefully in March. Take a photo holding your message and
email to blairt@dailytelegraph.com.au or tweet to @TimBlairBlog.



 



Matthew Donovan (pictured) is a former Labor
candidate for the seat of Surfers Paradise in Queensland as well as a
political commentator and freelance journalist. He’s an active Labor
campaigner from Burleigh Branch on the Gold Coast. His interests are
progressive politics, policy development and media/social media
strategy. Matthew’s studied Journalism, International Relations and
History at the University of Southern Queensland. He plans to study
Political Science in the near future.


Friday, March 21, 2014

The Missing Ingredients

The Missing Ingredients



The Missing Ingredients

Bolt March in MarchThere
have been some great contributions covering the March in March on the
AIMN and other independent news and blog sites during the week. And not
surprisingly, many of them are critical of the lack of coverage this
national grass roots protest movement received in the mainstream media.
Before I am accused of being a ‘MSM hater’, which is apparently what I
must be since I don’t read most mainstream newspapers, which is of
course my choice as a consumer, I do note that some outlets have
covered the march. And unsurprisingly some have been better than others.
However, overall, the coverage has been small in proportion to how big
this news story is and much of it has been misrepresentative of the
marches even when they were mentioned. So why do I care about the
coverage of the March in March you may ask? I have a few reasons:



  • Because the people who marched had a message for the rest of our
    community, and we deserved to have this seen by those who would never be
    engaged enough in politics to march.
  • Because the opinion of 100,000+ marchers should, in a free and
    democratic society, have their message reported in a factual and
    balanced way, not dismissed and censored because people in positions of
    power don’t wants us speaking out.  (BO and Bongs? Charming stuff from the Murdoch press).
  • Because the way the mainstream media reported the March in March is
    indicative of a larger ‘insider versus outsider’ attitude in the media.
    Journalists aren’t representing the interests of their community,
    they’re representing the vested interest of a small number of powerful
    people who are part of the problem and part of the reason we marched in
    the first place.

So I’ve been having a think about what key ingredients March in March
was missing that made it so irrelevant and non-newsworthy to the media.
I was also thinking about how irrelevant most of the other news that
journalists write about is to our community interests. And so I decided
to come up with a list of things the March in May organisers might want
to consider including in the next march, to see if we can garner the
attention of a press that has so badly let us down:



1)      Craig Thomson


There definitely wasn’t enough ‘scandal’, ‘chaos’, ‘credit cards’ and
‘prostitutes’ involved in the March and March. So it’s no wonder the
mainstream media weren’t interested. If we could get Craig along to the
next march, and ask him to cry, the media pack that sits on his tail all
day might happen across the march too and might get some footage
inadvertently over Craig’s shoulder.



2)      Politicians


Jacqueline Maley in the Sydney Morning Herald, to her credit, contributed this piece
during the week to explain why the SMH chose not to report the march.
But not to her credit, the reasoning was very weak. Apparently her
newspaper would have been more interested in the march, like they had
been more interested in the Convoy of No Confidence, she said, if
politicians had attended. Except, umm, that was the whole point of this
being a grassroots movement. That was what made it newsworthy.
The fact that there was no Greens versus Labor story, and there was no
politician spin on the event, and there was no ‘the Oppositions says’
catch-all line to report on afterwards, made this event all the more
interesting.



But doesn’t this reveal a deeper problem with the way that politics
is reported in our media? Doesn’t this highlight exactly why there is
such a huge misalignment with the political news that we are served up,
and the political news we want to read? Journalists like Maley, and like
all the other people who ignored the significance of events like March
in March, and – to give just one other example – ignored the
significance of Julia Gillard’s misogyny speech, can’t see the wood for
the trees. They can only see ‘politician versus politician’ – who spoke
better, who gaffed, who tripped on the grass, who had a ‘better day’ in
front of the cameras, who is backgrounding and leaking about whom. But
we, in the community, don’t care about this sideshow, because in the
most part, it’s irrelevant to us. We don’t see politics as a ‘two horse
race’, with political actors not just part of the story, but the story
themselves. We care about the impact that political policies have on our
community. This is why we marched. Because we’re worried about the
Abbott government’s impact on our community. The fact that the media
doesn’t get this is the most telling thing about this whole situation.
If the mainstream media are wondering why they don’t connect with their
audience anymore, this is where they could begin with their process of
self-reflection.



3)      A three word slogan


Most of the criticism I’ve seen about the March in March centred on
the fact that there weren’t clear aims for the march, that there were
too many different agendas and that there wasn’t one ‘cause’ that
brought it all together. So what the media is basically admitting with
this criticism, is that they can’t comprehend a complex and diverse
event, which brings together a wide range of community concerns. They
can only comprehend politics in sound bites and three word slogans. Axe
the tax. Yeah, they all got that loud and clear. And this ‘short
messages’ obsession explains their fascination with ‘rude’ placards. As
if these defined the march and were the most newsworthy element (even
though few placards contained swear words). But the line ‘we’re here for
our community’ – apparently doesn’t cut through in quite the same way.



Again, the very point of the March in March was that there wasn’t a
single point to it. This is why so many thousands of people marched in
major cities and regional areas throughout the country. As I said in my
speech to the gathering on the steps of Parliament House in Adelaide – We
might all have our individual outrages about the Abbott government. But
what binds this passion together, what binds our values together is the
understanding that Abbott is not just bad for all of us, as
individuals, though he certainly is that. No, why we’re really here is
because we know he’s bad for our community. And our community is us. We
know we’re in this life together.



The concerns of a large cross section of our community, who are
willing to get out of our houses, off the internet, and march together,
is obviously far too complicated a concept for political journalists in
this country to understand. And again, isn’t this telling. Isn’t this
the problem with how they report politics to us on a daily basis? A
three-word-slogan doesn’t adequately explain all the complexity in an
environmental policy like the Carbon Price. The problem of asylum
seekers coming to Australia by boat is, as we’ve seen, far too complex a
situation for the media to even bother to investigate. So all we hear
them say is ‘boats have been coming’ and ‘it’s all Labor’s fault’.
Sorry, life isn’t as simple as that. And if the political journalists
don’t understand that, they’re in the wrong job.



We will march again, and we will continue to criticise the mainstream
media who, for a long time, have been representing their own interests,
and not the interests of their community. This will of course, if it
hasn’t already, lead to their ultimate downfall. Because when they
ignore us, we ignore them. And when they’re ignored, they disappear. But
ignoring us won’t make us disappear.


Thursday, March 13, 2014

Rupert’s reporting instructions on Abbott's disastrous first six months

Rupert’s reporting instructions on Abbott's disastrous first six months

Rupert’s reporting instructions on Abbott's disastrous first six months

Alan Austin 5 March 2014, 5:00pm 
0
Delicious Add



(Image via blogs.villagevoice.com)


Alan Austin
is endeavouring to verify the authenticity of a leaked internal News
Corp's memo, believed to have been sent from Rupert Murdoch’s chief of
news operations to editors of his Australian publications
.





ATTENTION!



Rupert has issued directions for this week’s six-month review of the Abbott administration. They are quite simple, so those at The Telegraph and The Herald Sun should be able to keep up.



No point beating about the bush — it’s been a debacle. But, as you
know, we must conceal that and depict a confident, strong, united, adult
government.




It’s clear that half the areas of responsibility have been handled poorly. The other half? Absolute disasters.



But after so much energy and money spent misreporting Labor’s
achievements, talking up Abbott’s prospects and denying the obvious
dangers, we cannot admit we were wrong.




Not yet, anyway. Not until Rupert has received the pay-offs he’s expecting.



So, we must redouble the efforts which have served well so far. But with some tweaking.



Continue blaming the disunited, dysfunctional Rudd and Gillard
regimes for the dreadful debt, the asylum seeker policy unravelling and
the loss of viable industries. It's worked brilliantly so far, so keep
it up.








Well done this week, by the way, to Nick Cater calling Labor’s Senator Conroy




'... completely barking mad.'




It was vital you didn’t reveal the truth of the shadow defence
minister’s statements, Nick. You didn’t even say what they were. Nice
work.




From now on, however, some matters must be ignored completely.



Never refer to the travel rorts scandals, the education funding triple backflip,
the closed businesses, the mounting job losses, Holden, SPC Ardmona,
CO2 emissions, electricity prices, women’s issues, the excessive
secrecy, all the jobs for cronies, the increased debt, or the deficits projected now for more than ten years.




It’s instant dismissal for anyone who breathes a word about the internal brawls within the Coalition over Qantas ownership, industry assistance, asset sales, same sex marriage, threats to the ABC, the renewable energy target, paid maternity leave, Peta Credlin and the general policy vacuum.



Needless to say, all Abbott’s lies and broken promises are strictly off limits.



Full credit to Patricia Kavelas for telling the ABC’s News Radio listeners last week that Abbott:




"... doesn’t want to break any election promises. He’s made that extremely clear."




Hilarious!



Stay
silent on the poor performances by the ministers for Indigenous
affairs, for industry, for health, for trade and investment, for defence
and for justice.Get on the ABC as much as possible to spread our
stories. Tell our tame producers and presenters they will definitely
have jobs when Rupert and Gina get hold of the parts of the ABC they
want. If they believe it, that’s their problem.




Thanks to your sterling efforts most readers don’t even know who they are.



Keep it that way.



Repeat endlessly that the boats have stopped. Make sure you downplay or ignore:




  1. the multiple lies by Scott Morrison and Angus Campbell;
  2. February and March are the monsoon months;
  3. the dreadful relations with Indonesia and PNG and the dismay of the watching world;
  4. the deaths from suicide and homicide, the injuries and the mental illnesses in detention; and
  5. the catastrophic cost blow-out on security at Manus and Nauru and on the orange lifeboats.
And one more strategy change....



Time to start claiming credit for the remarkable achievements of the last few years.



Our people in London and New York still can’t believe one small
nation could have achieved so much in foreign affairs between 2008 and
2013.




Restored diplomatic relations with Malaysia and Indonesia, vastly
improved connections with Solomon islands and Fiji and excellent rapport
with Papua New Guinea. No longer deputy sheriff to Uncle Sam. Got the
seat on the United Nations Security Council. Plus chair of the Pacific
Island Forum, and chair of the G20 group of the world’s major economies.
And that standing ovation for Julia’s speech to the US Congress. Four
minutes!




Our men at the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal were so astounded, they even almost reported it.



Then there’s the actual economy, with clearly the world’s best set of
books from 2010 onwards. Plus finance minister of the year 2011 and
international infrastructure minister of the year 2012. And, of course,
triple A credit ratings with all three agencies, the Western world’s top
ranking on the Heritage freedom index and so many other accolades.




Just extraordinary! You all did incredibly well keeping readers
ignorant of these facts. Now, however, we must try to show how these are
all great achievements — of Prime Minister Tony Abbott.




We realise this will take some barefaced lying along with the routine
distortions, omissions and exaggerations – like Shanahan’s reports from Davos in The Australian making the stumblebum look like a statesman – but, hey, that’s why we pay you.






Now, the opinion polls. Yes, most embarrassing when Clive Palmer revealed that they show what they are paid to show. Awkward. Can’t be helped.



And I know some of you are puzzled as to why we aren't rigging them in the Coalition’s favour at the moment.



Don’t worry. Pressure on Tony’s troops won’t hurt. Just until Rupert
and Gina get what they want. There’s time enough to falsify the numbers
again before the next campaign.  




Finally, never refer to any news or analysis in Independent Australia, Guardian Australia, Crikey, New Matilda, Hoopla or any of the other reliable outlets.



Don’t attack them. Don’t even acknowledge they exist. They are doing
our cause great harm by reporting fairly and accurately. So the less
publicity the better.




Remember, the government which serves our interests relies on a populace kept fearful, prejudiced and ignorant.



Go to it!

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

MURDOCH THE DARK LORD on Pinterest

MURDOCH THE DARK LORD on Pinterest



A NARRATIVE OF THE INSIDIOUS POWER OF THE MURDOCH MEDIA CORRUPTING NATIONS , GOVERNMENTS AND INDIVIDUALS 



(photo from the Real News Channel) We must give the Dark Lord the flick.



The Murdoch payback

The Murdoch payback

 click on the above link to read the full article

The Murdoch payback

Rodney E. Lever 11 March 2014, 7:30am  
0
Delicious Add





Rupert Murdoch has many plans in place around the world
to cement his grip on power. Here in Australia, writes former News Corp
executive Rodney E. Lever, one of them is about to recoup its reward.


 THE RUPERT MURDOCH SAGA is far from over.

Some of us who grew up with Rupert in Australia believed that the
hacking scandal in England would bring him down to earth. But his
obsession with power and political influence have been too strong. 

Shaking off the embarrassment of the savage physical
and emotional beating he endured from his third wife, Murdoch has
turned his attention now primarily to the United States, carried away
with the success of his ridiculous Fox News network, which has captured a
huge audience of moronic neo-fascist Americans with dangerous political
views that could destroy America one day.

He has an urge to create a new ultra-conservative Republican president, who will accept his wise advice as Margaret Thatcher in England once did. 
He rid himself of Wendi Deng
and the two daughters he had by her and gave them his multi-million
Park Avenue residence ― one of the most expensive homes in New York
City. 

Rupert has now bought himself
a vastly over-large bachelor pad — four storeys of transparent glass
walls sitting at the top of an ugly and ostentatious brand new 60-storey
tower in midtown Manhattan. The price: $US57,250,000, which is
substantially cheaper than the skyscraper-top home he gave to Wendi and
the girls as his parting gift.                               

This new chapter in the life of Murdoch started in May-June last year when he engaged a woman named Antoinette Cook Bush, usually known as “Toni”. She joined the inner circle of Murdoch’s team in the United States. Toni is direct from 'Inside the Beltway
― an American idiom used to describe someone who is deeply influential
inside the circle of governance of the world’s most powerful economic
and military nation. 

Toni has a twenty-year background in communications and media and
represented clients in legislative, regulatory and business
transactions. She was senior counsel in the Communications Subcommittee
of the US Senate, which has oversight of the Federal Communications
Commission and had a role in preparing legislation. She will be a
powerful background figure in 21st Century Fox’s and Fox News dealings
with the government. 

Between Toni and Roger Ailes, and the addition of two senior executives from a mysterious organisation called The Livingstone Group, who have joined the board of 21st Century Fox,
Rupert has the weapons and some fresh and highly skilled brains to
carry out the latest venture, leaving the London hacking case disaster
behind as a minor glitch in his extraordinary career.   

Or so he intends.
While New Corporation is being effectively reconstructed as subservient to 21st Century Fox, Rupert’s favourite English editor, Rebekah Brooks, former head of his British operations, is undergoing a painful cross-examination
in a courtroom in London’s Old Bailey. She has, on demand, resigned
from the company and received an extraordinarily generous payout of £20
million.

After hours of intense questioning, the world’s currently most fascinating redhead has protested that she had no knowledge
of what went on in Murdoch British newspapers: no knowledge of secret
payments, no knowledge of what certain private detectives were employed
for, no knowledge of what they did, no knowledge of phone hacking.

Yet, over 20 years, she had risen through the company from office
secretary, to reporter, to editor, to editor-in-chief and finally to
chief executive of all British operations. She had Rupert’s total
support right up to being told to go. And Rupert knew nothing either,
except for one rogue reporter.

If she knew nothing, she could never have told Rupert Murdoch anything ― could she?
The truth, or otherwise, can only emerge when the jurors and the judge complete their deliberations.
Meanwhile, a decision made in New York means that News Corp spin-off shares from 21st Century Fox are about to be removed
from the Australian Stock Exchange after less than a year on the ASX,
possibly leaving Australian investors who have supported the company for
sixty years with no compensation.

The news has justifiably caused an angry ripple among tens of
thousands Australian non-voting shareholders (a figure estimated by the
Australian Shareholders Association). Only Murdoch family members have
voting rights.

Shareholder and frequent critic of News Corp, Stephen Mayne,
is leading a push through the Australian Shareholders Association to
persuade the Murdoch-owned 21st Century Fox company to protect the
interests of Australia shareholders. Stephen Mayne wants Fox to buy back
the shares, since otherwise many Australian investors will be forced to
sell at a loss — if they can sell them at all. Australian citizens are
not allowed to buy or invest in the US Stock Exchange.

The Murdoch family hold most of the restricted voting shares which control the entire company. The non-voting shares mean that investors have no say in the decisions of the board. 
The latest move by the Murdochs may be the result of a review by the
U.S. State of Delaware, which up to now has allowed an arrangement that
gives voting power to some shareholders not to others. This unfair
practice is under review after protests by large groups of investors, including union and worker’s retirement shareholders.

Murdoch has, with the advice of Toni, brought on board The Livingstone Group to 21st Century Fox to lobby on behalf of 21st Century Fox.
The firm will, according to reports, lobby in the areas of:

… tax reform; sustainable growth rate transparency; data
protection; student data accessibility, transparency and accountability;
and Federal government acquisition databases.’


he Livingstone Group is one of the most prominent organisations in
the U.S. in the field of lobbying the government — an art form that
involves influential propriety among the members of the United States
Congress and Senate. Any form of impropriety is strictly forbidden. 

Lobbying politicians is an American tradition that grew from the
early the 20th century into an immensely effective way of obtaining
benefits from government. Basically, it operates legally, but has
sometimes been the source of some highly suspicious activities. 

If anything emerged in the current London trials, such as bribery of
policemen or government officials by an American citizen ‒ which Rupert
Murdoch is ‒ the United States Department of Justice would normally
begin an investigation, whether inside or outside America and the legal
consequences would be severe. Any adverse finding would almost certainly
require him to divest himself of his holdings in Fox News.

For Murdoch, the loss of much of his newspaper-inspired influence has
been taken up by Fox News — using every trick in its deeply cynical
folio to bring about a favourable result for the Republicans. Who will
be their next candidate for President of the United States? Whoever he
or she is, the next Republican president will be totally beholden to
Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News puppet master, Roger Ailes. 

Meanwhile, the future of Murdoch’s Australian newspapers is in the
balance. Many are losing money. There is chaos in the management of many
of the papers.

Murdoch’s flagship Sydney tabloid, the Daily Telegraph, justifiably came under fire last week. Paul Barry used the entire fifteen minutes of his weekly Media Watch programme on the ABC to castigate the Telegraph for its incompetence, errors of fact, personal attacks, misleading stories and its outright ignorance of important current issues of concern to all Australians.
Fresh on the heels of this comes Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott's barely concealed plans to pay back Murdoch for his unqualified support in the lead up to the last election by relaxing media ownership laws.
Turnbull says the growth of the internet means:

… we should have less regulation and more freedom.”

Given Australia already has the most highly concentrated media
ownership in the western world and most people still get their news
from TV or newspapers, this statement is an insulting furphy.

The only thing that is absolutely certain is that it will be
carefully designed to give Murdoch more power, more control and more
wealth to stash in his tax-free island banks.

When Murdoch used his imported ace headline writer to help the LNP
steal last year’s election victory, the old octogenarian wasn’t
whistling Dixie — he was out to claim his reward.

He has obviously made it clear to the Abbott Government it is now time to pay the piper.