News Corp’s blurring of news and views damaging society
You must log in or register to comment.
Old NBN-ruiner Turnbull still out there pretending to be a Good Guy despite being categorically a Bad Guy when he actually had the power to do anything about… anything. Just sit down m8, you had your 5 minutes in the PM’s chair you so desperately wanted. You want to make a difference, go donate your millions to environmental charities.
Yep, I’ll always remember him for fucking up the NBN
Pretty sure Turnbull got put in charge of a known bad policy entirely to discredit him and stop his future (now past) run for PM.
Yeah I don’t buy in to that “omg their hands were tied! They LITERALLY couldn’t do ANYTHING about it!” when it comes to people in positions of power. When there’s people out there with no power still willing to risk everything to stand up for what’s right it’s pretty lightweight to forgive people backing down on major issues when they’re risking nothing more than the potential for a few extra dollars in their pocket.
But if they stand up for what’s right then they won’t get reelected so they can actually make things better Our they could maybe actually do the right thing regardless, is not like Mal needed the pension to pay his mortgage.
But if they stand up for what’s right then they won’t get reelected so they can actually make things better
The dudes was literally the PM. If you’re still making excuses from the top position in the country, you clearly weren’t ever actually going to do anything.
And he stopped being the PM the second he took a microstep on climate change. So that’s really proof that he didn’t have any real power.
And it was the second time it’s happened to him because he lost the shadow leadership on similar grounds.
A lot of people shit on Turnbull because they think you can just do whatever you want with no repercussions when you’re PM. But that is such a narrow minded way of thinking.
We’ve got one of the most left leaning PMs in recent history right now who still needs to appease both sides of politics. You don’t just get a blank cheque in a democracy.
A similar thing is happening with the stage 3 tax cuts and people thinking Albo can be an authoritarian dictator and just delete that policy since he’s the PM, ignoring that it’s a piece of policy that won the Coalition the unwinnable election of 2019.
I’m no fan of the tax cuts myself, but he also can’t just do what he likes as PM without consulting his colleagues and convincing the electorate. PMs are not dictators here and nor would we want them to be.
To show you an extreme example, even literal dictators can’t do whatever they please. Those in positions of power must either appease those who put them in that position, or be ousted for someone who will. They are bound by the system as much as anyone else. That’s not to say that they can’t have any influence of course, but the point is it’s not that easy.
Watch season 3 and 4 of The Wire if you’re interested in watching an idealistic, “I’m gonna not be as bad as my predecessors” man become the mayor and then become a complete slave to the system. It’s inevitable.
You can also read this, it might help you realise that things are the way they are for reasons beyond malice sometimes, and we need to understand that if we want to have a chance at reforming anything: https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/Meditations-On-Moloch
Maybe he should run for parliament, and if he becomes PM he could do something about it.
Oh, wait…
He did do something about it. But it’s very easy to paper over that argument in an echo chamber.
Whats more is that he continues to do something about it in the private sector. This is after losing his prime ministership for trying to do something about it at the political level.
What have you done?
What have you done?
I’ll ignore that whataboutism. We’re talking about Turnbull aren’t we, not me?
He did do something about it. But it’s very easy to paper over that argument in an echo chamber.
Well, let’s not ‘paper it over’. What did he do?
Whats more is that he continues to do something about it in the private sector. This is after losing his prime ministership for trying to do something about it at the political level.
What has he done? What has he actually achieved from an environment perspective? Because as far as I can tell, he talks. Talks and talks. But achieves nothing. At least with the NBN he can claim to have successfully given millions of dollars to Telstra and Foxtel and created a mixed-technology NBN that cost more and took longer lol.
- Is new Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull already a climate change turncoat?
- Turnbull wants to change Australia’s environment act - here’s what we stand to lose
So, I’d be happy if you could point out what he achieved as PM for the environment or has achieved since. Besides talking.
Snowy Hydro 2.0 was something he backed heavily whilst in power. He has also invested and advocate considerably in renewables since leaving politics. Compare that to your regular run of the mill politician like Gladys or Baird swanning into telcos and banking, or the others jumping into gambling industries.
Also, why are you downplaying him talking about climate change? It’s one of his best assets, he holds huge influence. Would you prefer he install solar panels? Get real. You just want someone to hate but are completely misguided.
Snowy Hydro 2.0 was something he backed heavily whilst in power. He has also invested and advocate considerably in renewables since leaving politics.
Oops. It would be criminal if that Snowy 2.0 turns out to be worse than what happened with the NBN
- Five years on, Snowy 2.0 emerges as a $10 billion white elephant
- Snowy Hydro 2.0 pumped-hydro battery project faces a further two years of delays
Compare that to your regular run of the mill politician like Gladys or Baird swanning into telcos and banking, or the others jumping into gambling industries.
I’ll ignore that whataboutism. Again, let’s get back to what Turnbull has or has not achieved.
Also, why are you downplaying him talking about climate change? It’s one of his best assets, he holds huge influence. Would you prefer he install solar panels? Get real.
To quote the lyrical poet DMX from the seminal Ruff Ryders Anthem; Talk is cheap, motherfucker.
And when what you talk about goes as well as NBN and now Snowy Hydro 2.0 is going, well, we should wonder if he maybe, err, should talk less?
What influence does he have? He certainly didn’t influence anyone in office. In fact he so ‘influenced’ them that they got rid of him.
You just want someone to hate but are completely misguided.
And that, my friend, is an ad hominem, which I shall also ignore.
So you’ve quoted an article that complains about the cost of SH 2.0 and another that complains that it’s delayed (name an infrastructure project that isn’t delayed or over budget). But neither of those refute the projects long term benefit as a renewable energy source. Moving on, you’ve made moot points, congrats.
At least you admit he was working on a positive climate policy and lost his job because of it. Both sides of the debate now agree he was doing what he could.
You’ve obviously come from /r/Australia because they certainly had a penchant for slinging the word “whataboutism” around as if it was a good argument. It’s more of a trumpism where you just say a slogan so you don’t have to address the point. Well done.
So you’ve quoted an article that complains about the cost of SH 2.0 and another that complains that it’s delayed (name an infrastructure project that isn’t delayed or over budget {No1 says: Yo, that’s an ad hominem}). But neither of those refute the projects long term benefit as a renewable energy source. Moving on, you’ve made moot points, congrats.
Umm, you’ve quoted nothing. Does that make your ‘points’ less than nothing? Nobody is stopping you from providing evidence, articles or scientific studies.
Also, does just saying something make it your own? Or does talking about something make it a great idea and a fabulous achievement, but if it’s rubbish idea and goes tits up, it’s somebody else’s fault?
At least you admit he was working on a positive climate policy and lost his job because of it.
Wait, what? Where did I say that?
Both sides of the debate now agree he was doing what he could.
Evidence?
You’ve obviously come from /r/Australia because they certainly had a penchant
Yep, that is an ad hominem. You attribute my motives/actions for something without entirely any evidence.
for slinging the word “whataboutism” around as if it was a good argument. It’s more of a trumpism where you just say a slogan so you don’t have to address the point. Well done.
Whoa! And you just ad hominem’d your ad hominem. And throwing the ‘trumpism’ in is arguably a whataboutism.
C’mon bro, you can address the point:
TURNBULL + ENVIRONMENT + EVIDENCE = POSITIVE RESULTS
Show me the way!
You said he “influenced” them so much that they got rid of him. You’re implying that his stance wasn’t conducive to their ideology so they removed him as their leader. He lost the party room because he tried to introduce the NEG, he refused to butcher the policy by funding coal fired plants. He didn’t succeed, but he did the best any liberal leader could amongst one of the most aggressively right wing eras in Australian politics.
What are you expecting me to quote on SH 2.0, you’ve claimed it was worse than the NBN but haven’t backed up legitimate reasons why? Because it’s expensive and went over budget? The original NBN quote was expensive, and you’d be to be highly optimistic if it stayed on budget and was delivered in time, it’s a government project afterall.
Do you need links?
Most centrist poli in years, got booted for not being extreme enough. Now we get what we wanted!
I do find it a bit rich for a journalist to complain about blurring the line between news and commentary while referring to herself as Dr.
It’s technically correct as she has a PhD, but it’s in media and communications, so it does make her an expert in the area she’s commenting on, however representing herself that way without clarity in the short bio or article is misleading nonetheless.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
I’m saying that when someone refers to themselves as a doctor, we expect medical knowledge. Referring to oneself as a doctor with a PhD in communications is technically correct but misleading. The exact thing she’s accusing.
Here it is in joke form, topically from a current shitpost
You know Drs as PhDs (starting in the 14th century) predates it’s usage as a medical practitioner (19th century). Every PhD still calls themselves Drs.
It’s not manipulation if it’s your own ignorance that causes the misunderstanding.
Yes, I’m aware of the history. It goes back further than that. It means teacher, really, not doctor as we use it, as it’s an obligation to pass on knowledge learned, which is a nice concept.
I do find it odd that you are questioning my ignorance while not understanding simple concepts. Or maybe you’re feigning ignorance. Well, when you feign ignorance and then show you do, in fact, understand, it shows your ethics more than your knowledge.
As it happens, it’s enough of a problem that AHPRA have specific recommendations on it’s use in advertising and other media. As they only regulate healthcare, I wouldn’t expect them to have journalism guidelines, but if one is writing about ethics in journalism, shouldn’t they follow best practice?
You’ll note the journalists bio blurb does not mention her titles origin, but her author page which requires a click through does. She could simply have Dr. X (comms) and there is no ambiguity.
It is not a protected term, like other terms, due to the valid, but less common usage with a PhD. However, there have been moved to make it so, including removing it from healthcare practitioners that are not medical doctors, like dentists, for instance.
I’m sorry i just don’t agree with the view that PhDs should always have to add a disclaimer of “oh but not that kind of Dr” every time they use that title.
I’m not sure why you referred to the APHRA guidelines on protected titles. Is your point that medical practitioners should have the term doctor protected for them? They already have protected titles under the law and it explicitly does not include the term doctor.
Or is your point that PhD doctors should have to spell out their area of expertise because that’s a dumb argument too. What decides the area of expertise you annotate? The department you obtained the title from? What if your area of research, while sponsored by that department, is actually in an entirely different field? What if the topic of research doesn’t have a clearly defined field? So in the end it’s completely meaningless, which is why people don’t append a Dr title with a field. In this instance either the author or her editor through writing her bio, or you through reading her bio, has judged that her speciality is “comm”. But someone else could claim that’s wrong and misleading as you have done.
