Problematic Stuff

Locked
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by JimC » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:09 pm

pErvinalia wrote:

The point is that you implied that fully state funded media could be like Pravda.
In fact, originally his claim was even more definite, that they would be like Pravda ("could be" is a reasonable generalisation, there are certainly cases like that...). The qualifications only came when challenged...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:04 pm

JimC wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:09 pm
pErvinalia wrote:

The point is that you implied that fully state funded media could be like Pravda.
In fact, originally his claim was even more definite, that they would be like Pravda ("could be" is a reasonable generalisation, there are certainly cases like that...). The qualifications only came when challenged...
No, the original claim was that "state media" (which is not only state funded, but also involving editorial control) "risked becoming" -- not would be -- NOT "would be" -- "risks becoming," - that is the same thing as "could become" -- the qualification did NOT "only come when challenged" - I re-quoted the entire post, JimC -- I did not say "would become" and the "qualification" you say only came later was in the original post.

And, then pErvin just said "nobody's talking about Australia?" In Hermit's post ripping into me, right after my innocuous post in (mostly agreement) reply to your post about independent and government funded media - he fucking did talk about Australia - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773836 He wrote - "Government funding of the ABC and SBS no more makes them play their tune than government funding of polling booths brings the voters to heel. " And, I never fucking said they did. Never - not in the original post - not anywhere.

"Our governments have no say in who runs either, nor how they run it. They are not blackmailed when funds are cut, nor are they bribed when the funds are restored. Conservative and liberal governments alike regularly complain that some ABC or SBS (TV as well as radio and web presence) reportage is being unfair or biased against them." And, I never said they did or were.

Then he wrote - "As far as I am concerned that means our government funded media are doing it right. You can stick the attempted association of them with Pravda up your arse. Sideways. Then rotate. Vigorously." I never associated anything in Australia to Pravda.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:08 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:00 pm

You are the only one who has said anything specifically about Australia.
So, was Hermit's post responding to mine not referring to Australia?
pErvinalia wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:00 pm
Jim's post you are referring to doesn't mention Australia at all. No one cares if you are specifically attacking Australia or not.
Didn't Hermit?
pErvinalia wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:00 pm
The point is that you implied that fully state funded media could be like Pravda.
"State media" refers to not only government funding, but also editorial control, and I said "risks becoming." And, it does "risk becoming" like Pravda. And, I also stated, flat out, that goverment funding of public broadcasting doesn't mean that it's Pravda. I said it in the original post when I specifically referred to government funding of Public Broadcasting.
pErvinalia wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:00 pm
Australia's ABC is an example of a fully state funded media organisation, so your claim was addressed from that angle.
I was accused of likening the ABC to Pravda, and because I supposedly did that, I was told to sit and "rotate" -- read Hermit's post, pervin.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:11 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:04 pm
JimC wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:09 pm
pErvinalia wrote:

The point is that you implied that fully state funded media could be like Pravda.
In fact, originally his claim was even more definite, that they would be like Pravda ("could be" is a reasonable generalisation, there are certainly cases like that...). The qualifications only came when challenged...
No, the original claim was that "state media" (which is not only state funded, but also involving editorial control) "risked becoming" -- not would be -- NOT "would be" -- "risks becoming," - that is the same thing as "could become" -- the qualification did NOT "only come when challenged" - I re-quoted the entire post, JimC -- I did not say "would become" and the "qualification" you say only came later was in the original post.

And, then pErvin just said "nobody's talking about Australia?" In Hermit's post ripping into me, right after my innocuous post in (mostly agreement) reply to your post about independent and government funded media - he fucking did talk about Australia - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773836 He wrote - "Government funding of the ABC and SBS no more makes them play their tune than government funding of polling booths brings the voters to heel. " And, I never fucking said they did. Never - not in the original post - not anywhere.

"Our governments have no say in who runs either, nor how they run it. They are not blackmailed when funds are cut, nor are they bribed when the funds are restored. Conservative and liberal governments alike regularly complain that some ABC or SBS (TV as well as radio and web presence) reportage is being unfair or biased against them." And, I never said they did or were.

Then he wrote - "As far as I am concerned that means our government funded media are doing it right. You can stick the attempted association of them with Pravda up your arse. Sideways. Then rotate. Vigorously." I never associated anything in Australia to Pravda.
What I said was:
No one cares if you are specifically attacking Australia or not. The point is that you implied that fully state funded media could be like Pravda. Australia's ABC is an example of a fully state funded media organisation, so your claim was addressed from that angle.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:17 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:08 pm
pErvinalia wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:00 pm

You are the only one who has said anything specifically about Australia.
So, was Hermit's post responding to mine not referring to Australia?
pErvinalia wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:00 pm
Jim's post you are referring to doesn't mention Australia at all. No one cares if you are specifically attacking Australia or not.
Didn't Hermit?
pErvinalia wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:00 pm
The point is that you implied that fully state funded media could be like Pravda.
"State media" refers to not only government funding, but also editorial control, and I said "risks becoming." And, it does "risk becoming" like Pravda. And, I also stated, flat out, that goverment funding of public broadcasting doesn't mean that it's Pravda. I said it in the original post when I specifically referred to government funding of Public Broadcasting.
Man, you associated the two. Otherwise, what was the point? You were responding to me where I said "assured government funding and strong/independent media organization.".
pErvinalia wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:00 pm
Australia's ABC is an example of a fully state funded media organisation, so your claim was addressed from that angle.
I was accused of likening the ABC to Pravda, and because I supposedly did that, I was told to sit and "rotate" -- read Hermit's post, pervin.
You just don't get it, do you? Hermit doesn't give a shit if you are attacking Australia. He does care that you are tarring the ABC by association. Just because you get triggered every time someone attacks the US, doesn't mean the rest of us care one bit if you attack Australia.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by JimC » Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:30 am

seabass, this post: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 8#p1771718
contains a personal attack on a fellow member. This is a reminder to desist from such posts in future.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:53 am

Look, Pervin, I already addressed this - I responded to your post, yes - and I was mostly in agreement with it. Hermit thought I was comparing Australia's ABC to Pravda by implication or association. I wasn't. I did not. At most, I compared that kind of system to public broadcasting in the United States, which is government funded and nothing like Pravda. The line that keeps getting misconstrued is the "State media risks becoming Pravda..."

What has you, Seabass and Hermit so amped up about these minor discussion points? Are you really this incapable of having a fucking conversation. I mean, this was a case where I nearly agreed with everything you said. Jesus fucking Christ, grow the fuck up.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:09 am

It's because you rhetorically associated public broadcasting with the spectre of possible state media like Pravda. There was simply no reason to bring up Pravda unless you wanted to rhetorically associate the two. You prosecute heavily rhetorical arguments all the time. This is just another one. Own your fucking words.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Hermit » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:26 am

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:53 am
Hermit thought I was comparing Australia's ABC to Pravda by implication or association. I wasn't. I did not.
You wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:21 pm
I don't know what you mean by assured government funding and strong/independent media organization. If the government pays for the news, then it's not "independent" of the government. However, a public broadcasting channel that receives some government funding, in the nature of funding of the arts and sciences, is certainly not an issue.

A State news agency, though, risks becoming Pravda. That doesn't help anyone.
You did not except the ABC or SBS, all of which is ultimately funded by the Australian government, from that categorical assertion until after I objected to it.

Is it really so difficult to admit you were wrong?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:56 am

In the end it probably doesn't matter, as he's clarified that he doesn't think public broadcasting like the ABC/SBS/etc are state propaganda. It would be easier, though, if he just didn't say stuff and then spend ages trying to get out of saying it.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by JimC » Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:48 am

Yes, I accept that he, in the end, showed a reasonable perspective on government funding for public broadcasters (which Seth, for example, would never countenance), and I also take his point that in some situations it can be Pravda-like. Personally, I think we should all move on, and start considering why US conservatives are so fucking religious. Which at least 42 is not...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Scot Dutchy » Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:50 am

Control Jim. Social control.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:46 am

Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:26 am
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:53 am
Hermit thought I was comparing Australia's ABC to Pravda by implication or association. I wasn't. I did not.
You wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:21 pm
I don't know what you mean by assured government funding and strong/independent media organization. If the government pays for the news, then it's not "independent" of the government. However, a public broadcasting channel that receives some government funding, in the nature of funding of the arts and sciences, is certainly not an issue.

A State news agency, though, risks becoming Pravda. That doesn't help anyone.
You did not except the ABC or SBS, all of which is ultimately funded by the Australian government, from that categorical assertion until after I objected to it.

Is it really so difficult to admit you were wrong?
For you, it is. I did not except ANY country's news services, nor did I say that ABC or SBS were "state news agencies."

Look at what I, actually did say. I responded to him to say "I don't know what you mean by assured government funding and strong/independent...." That's a request for more clarification as to what he means. Not what YOU mean, Hermit, what he means. I added "if the government pays...then it's not independent..." And, it's not. Obviously, it's at least financially dependent. That isn't to say that it's a mouthpiece for the State, of course. This is not an either/or proposition.

The next bit is very important - I noted that "However, a public broadcasting channel that receives some government funding.....is not an issue." That's what ABC is - public sector media, which is funded directly or indirectly by the state, but over which the state does not have tight editorial control.

I then go on to say that "a state news agency, risks becoming pravda." ABC is not a "state news agency," is it? It's public sector media - like PBS or NPR in the United States. It gets government funding but does not have tight editorial control from the state. It is not "independent" of the state, of course, but it's not Pravda.

You have to look at the entirety of the conversation up to that point, too - look: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773761

Brian Peacock wrote "When a media outlet is obliged to reflect the views of it's owners what more can we expect from the journalists it employs?"

Pervin wrote: "Yeah, the neoliberal capitalist ethic is sort of self-reinforcing. Media companies make cuts in the aim of "efficiency" and profits, and you end up with a shit organisation that doesn't adequately challenge neoliberalism and "trickle-down" etc, which in turn leads to more cuts... rinse repeat." - You'll note that Australia does have a capitalist system for the bulk of its media.

I wrote: "Assuming that's true, what alternative do you suggest?"

Pervin wrote: "Well, assured government funding for a strong and independent (as much as possible) media organisation, and then not allowing the private media scape to concentrate enough such that diversity of opinion is stifled."

To which I then responded: "I agree with the media concentration. A good utilization of anti-trust laws to prevent excessive mergers would be helpful. I find an informal "too big to fail" test to be helpful here. If a business enterprise is too big to fail, then it should be broken up, or if it will become too big to fail after a merger, then it should not be allowed to merge. No enterprise should be able to say to the government "bail me out, or I'm taking the economy/industry with me..." that includes media outlets." So, I start out by agreeing with him on a problem with the current system - excessive concentration.

I also wrote "I don't know what you mean by assured government funding and strong/independent media organization. If the government pays for the news, then it's not "independent" of the government. However, a public broadcasting channel that receives some government funding, in the nature of funding of the arts and sciences, is certainly not an issue.

A State news agency, though, risks becoming Pravda. That doesn't help anyone."

So, there I simply say that I don't know what he meant there - his was a one-line, very general statement. I pointed out that if "independence" is one of the things involved, then if the government pays for it, it's not in "independent." That seems quite self-evident, to me. I mean, there can be a separation of editorial control, but financial dependence, and you still don't have an "independent" media outlet. And, then I said "however" (on the other hand_, a public broadcasting channel that receives some government funding is not an issue. That's identifying two points on the issue of "independence" --- funding on the one hand means you can't have complete "independence" but you can have government funding and still not be "an issue" (a problem - i.e. government funding is not always a problem). I would think you'd see there an invitation for pervin to expand on his meaning of it (which he later did), with some explanation of by me of what I was indicating I did not understand from his statement.

The last line apparently set you off that "A state news agency risks becoming Pravda" -- that's separated, and at the end -- "state news agency" "risks becoming" (not is -- risks) Pravda.

Nowhere in any of that exchange (until you responded) was anyone talking about Australia or the ABC or the SBC. Nowhere. People can talk about concepts of media (public, private, and/or state media) without always including exceptions where Australia's systems don't fall into one or the other category - why would I include Australia's ABC but not Canada's CBC? I didn't provide an exception explicitly for CBC. Or, the UK's BBC. I didn't mention Dutch Public Broadcasting, either.

Pervin then said "Well Australia's ABC and SBS, and the BBC's in the UK aren't Pravdas. That's why I said "assured". Meaning, it can't be cut just because it's publishing news the government doesn't like." That's the first mention of Oz. Pervin was using Oz and UK as examples of government funded media that aren't Pravdas. He explained his meaning - funding can't be cut just because they're publishing news the government doesn't like. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773816

JimC then chimed in with "Which is exactly what the coalition government is doing to the ABC right now... Quite the opposite to a Pravda-like media outlet..." That's interesting, because he seems to be suggesting that the Coalition gov't in Oz is doing what pErvin said they can't do, cutting funding because they're publishing news the government doesn't like -- JimC posted "Which is exactly that the coalition government is doing to the ABC right now...." http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773822 Are they doing what Jim C says they're doing? Is that a problem? What could too much monkeying around with funding like that mean in the extreme?

Pervin then responds to JimC - "Yep. They continually try and decimate it, because it's too left wing for them. The reality is, it's only really centre-left at most. And that's only because the centre has marched to the right so much in the last 40 years. And as they say, reality has a left wing bias." So, they (the coalition government) "continually try and decimate it, because it's not reporting the news the way the coalition government would like. So, there you have pervin agreeing that the State is mucking about with funding to try to influence the news because the right wing folks don't like the apparent (in the coalition government's view) "too left wing" stance.

JimC and pervin both are saying there that the government is cutting funding - trying to decimate the public media -- because the government doesn't like what the government thinks is a left wing slant. Right?

Hermit - that's not me saying that - that's Pervin and JimC. I have, to that point, said less than "fuck all" about Australia, the ABC or the SBC. Pervin and JimC did. And they accused the Australian government of cutting their funding because they don't like it. Are they wrong? If so, why don't you respond to them? If not, if they are right, then my statement that public broadcasting that receives some government funding is "not an issue" is actually partially incorrect -- Pervin and JimC have, actually, identified "an" issue with public broadcasting. The government can, when controlled by a party/coalition that does not like what they see as a slant in the public news, try to cut the funding to keep that alleged slant from being published..... right?

Then your post here comes next -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773836 "Government funding of the ABC and SBS no more makes them play their tune than government funding of polling booths brings the voters to heel. Our governments have no say in who runs either, nor how they run it. They are not blackmailed when funds are cut, nor are they bribed when the funds are restored. Conservative and liberal governments alike regularly complain that some ABC or SBS (TV as well as radio and web presence) reportage is being unfair or biased against them. As far as I am concerned that means our government funded media are doing it right. You can stick the attempted association of them with Pravda up your arse. Sideways. Then rotate. Vigorously."

You took the opposite view from Pervin and JimC -- they said government funding in Oz is being cut because the Coalition government doesn't like what they see as left wing bias. You say, however, that government funding "no more makes them play their tune than government funding of polling booths brings voters to heel." You say the Coalition Government has "no say in who runs either, nor how they run it." I never said they did. JimC and Pervin said, however, the coalition government tries to cut funding because they don't like the alleged left wing leaning. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773836

Now for me, I had already said that "public broadcasting that receives some government funding is.... not an issue." My identification of a risk applied to "state news agency" -- which ABC is not. Am I not right about that? Or, is ABC a "state news agency?" Do you, or do you not, think ABC is a "state news agency?" Please answer that question.

I never did what you accused me of, which is to "associate ABC with Pravda." Never. Not once. I never even said that the government mucks with funding when they don't like it.

Pervin replied to you here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773837 He wrote "Yep. Although, I think the government decides the chairman (who then picks the board?)." So, even though he said the government tries to defund and "decimate" the ABC, because the government thinks it's too liberal, he does agree with you that government funding doesn't make them play by government rules and that it's like the government paying for voting booths, etc. But, he does inquire as to whether the the government decides who the chairman is, who then picks the board.

I still haven't posted anything at all about Oz at that point.

Then, Hermit, you come back with this: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773847 -- You explain, quite nicely, how the board picks a chairman, and how there is a short list drawn by an independent panel, etc. You explain it's rather more complicated than the short summary you provided, but the upshot was "the ABC is extremely unlikely to turn into a mouthpiece of the government or any one particular interest group." And, I never said it was likely to do so. I never said it wasn't extremely unlikely to become a mouthpiece.

You then say - "So, it gives me great pleasure to once again present 0.42 with a heartfelt :obc: for attempting to associate the one with the other. Fucking yanks..." Only, I never tried to associate the ABC with Pravda. ABC is not a state news agency. The only thing I said "risks becoming Pravda" is a "state news agency" (which, I think you will likely agree, the ABC is not - don't you agree with that? ABC is not a "state news agency" right?). And, I have, to that point, not mentioned Oz or ABC or SBS.

L'Emmerdeur then chimed in with this: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773917 showing the US public broadcasting chief complaining about proposed Trump budget cuts. Again, the only thing that I said about public broadcasting to that point was that some government funding of public broadcasting was "not an issue." I fail to see what I've said that's so bad there. I don't think funding to public broadcasting needs to be cut - I never said it did.

Pervin then wrote "Hang on, but I thought government funded media was pro government. Like Pravda was." http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773923 I had, however, said the exact opposite - that some government funding of public broadcasting was "not an issue." What I said "risked becoming" Pravda was a "state news agency." So, if Pervin really did think that I had said that "government funded media was pro government like Pravda was" then I clearly never said that. Pervin himself, however, had said the government tries to "decimate" the media when the government perceives it to be too left wing.

I then responded here - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773924 "I said nothing about Australia's broadcasting companies. I was discussing the general concepts. Do you consider ABC to be "a State news agency?" If not, then the Pravda comment doesn't enter into it. That was one end of the spectrum, not an accusation against Australia." -- I still have not gotten an answer to that question. Is ABC "a state news agency?" I pointed out, accurately, that I was talking about general concepts.

Pervin then said - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773927 "You said " If the government pays for the news, then it's not "independent" of the government.", and then went on to talk about Pravda." I did say that if the government pays for the news then it's not independent of the government. And it isn't. Obviously, it's financially dependent, and Pervin even said earlier that the government tries to decimate -- interesting word choice - decimate the ABC because the government doesn't like what the government thinks is a left wing bias. And, then I "...went on to talk about Pravda..." but he leaves out that I said it was a "state news agency risks becoming pravda," and I had explicitly pointed out that some government funding of public broadcasting (which is EXACTLY what they have in Oz) is not an issue."

Brian Peacock then mentioned that it's a matter of legislation to protect the public media from government interference -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1773957 And, I responded by agreeing with him, but suggesting that it's not simple or easy, and there are issues where the government will squawk if they don't like what's published or think it's too biased to the other political viewpoints. That's not much different than Pervin and JimC talking about the government trying to defund or decimate the ABC becasue they don't like the political slant they say they see.

I ended with: "Public sector media is state funded media, where the State does not exercise editorial control. There is a place for that, IMO. But I think the place for it is in addition to a vigorous free market of ideas, and not instead of a free market.

As usual, the British commonwealth (and former british colony) part of the world is way better on press freedom than the rest of the world, Asia, most of Africa, and South America. Countries like Oz, NZ, UK, US, most of western Europe, are solidly good when it comes to press freedom. Much of eastern Europe and the Balkans have press freedom problems. The BRIC countries and Muslim countries are not particularly good on press freedom."

Inexplicably, you responded with this: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1773999 Accusing me of issuing a summary condemnation of government funded media. However, you snipped out one line from my post. The next sentence in that very same post where you declare that I have summarily condemned government funded media I literally wrote that "government funding of public broadasting is not an issue." Not an issue. Government funding of public broadcasting is not an issue.

So, it was, plainly, not a "summary condemnation" of government funded media, but a nuanced discussion of the concepts from wholly private on the one end, to "state news agencies" on the other.

From then on, it's just dogs with bones, trying to accuse me of saying something I never said.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:55 am

Jesus Christ...
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:56 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:56 am
In the end it probably doesn't matter, as he's clarified that he doesn't think public broadcasting like the ABC/SBS/etc are state propaganda. It would be easier, though, if he just didn't say stuff and then spend ages trying to get out of saying it.
In my original post on the topic I flat out literally said that government funding of public broadcasting was not an issue. What I said "risked becoming" Pravda was a "state news agency."

Is the ABC a "state news agency?" Yes or no?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests