Media Bias

Post Reply
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73103
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: Media Bias

Post by JimC » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:59 am

Hermit wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:19 am
JimC wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:37 am
pErvinalia wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:04 pm
Unless he's advocating for no private ownership of production, and no profit motive, he's still a capitalist. Nationalising critical infrastructure and advocating UHC and free education isn't socialist.
Nationalising critical infrastructure is pretty much socialism to me. I really see the terrain between being a social democrat and a socialist as a continuous spectrum. Nationalising large chunks of an economy is moving towards socialism, surely. Health care and education, not so directly.
Nobody accused Australia's governments of being socialist in the 23 years they were led by the conservative coalition's Prime Ministers Menzies, Holt, McEwen, Gorton and McMahon, even though there were government owned and managed banks, airlines, telcos, electricity generators and so forth on both federal and state levels. Ironically, it was Labor's Paul Keating who started the fire sales of government assets "for the good of the people". The promise was cheaper prices through the superior efficiencies of private enterprise. I hope it's not necessary to remind you how that panned out.
Certainly some of the privatisation measures by both federal and state governments in recent years have been fire sales to rescue flagging budgets, and the resulting private ownership is not always been good for the people at large.

Having said that, it is still reasonable to ask the question as to which sections of an economy are best under government control, and which are best left to free enterprise.
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: Media Bias

Post by Scot Dutchy » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:09 am

rainbow wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:49 am

Who owns the roads in the US?
You name it. Federal, state, city highways. Private turnpikes. All badly maintained.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

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

Re: Media Bias

Post by Hermit » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:21 am

JimC wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:59 am
Certainly some of the privatisation measures by both federal and state governments in recent years have been fire sales to rescue flagging budgets, and the resulting private ownership is not always been good for the people at large.

Having said that, it is still reasonable to ask the question as to which sections of an economy are best under government control, and which are best left to free enterprise.
While fire sales were welcome topups for budgets, most of them, including Keating's sales initiatives were ideologically motivated. Keating's electoral campaigns were actually based on his claim that he could run capitalism better than the conservatives. Hence his bargain basement sale of the Commonwealth Bank (which has now become one of the four chief culprits fleecing hundreds of millions of dollars off its customers, including dead ones, for services that were not provided) and Qantas (which used to win the safest global airline award year after year, but since maintenance contacts have been outsourced to foreign businesses keep having bits of its airliners falling off or exploding). Power plants were supposed to reduce electricity bills after privatisation. What happened instead was that prices increased faster than before the selloffs.

None of that is particularly surprising for two reasons. Firstly, the superior efficiency of privately run enterprises turned out to be fictitious. Secondly, privately run enterprises had to add a profit margin to the already existing overheads.

I have personal experience of this when the St George Building Society was sold, becoming the St George Bank. Having had a savings and a mortgage account with that institution at the time, I received a letter promising that the new outfit will, unlike all the other privately (that is shareholder) owned banks, it will never introduce account keeping fees, and I will always be greeted by a friendly face from the other side of the counter.

A year or 18 months later account keeping fees were introduced and the smiles of the bank's staff had disappeared. They were replaced by stressful looks because staffing levels had been drastically cut across the board, leaving the remainder struggling to cope with their workload. I mentioned those broken promises to the bank manager of the Oatley branch one day while negotiating a mortgage on another property. Her reply? "Well, yes." she sighed, then continued. "We had not reckoned on the pressure by the shareholders to increase the profit margin."

Businesswise, the St George Bank was quite successful. It swallowed some smaller banks, eventually becoming one of "the big six" in Australia. Then Westpac swallowed it. Westpac turned out to be the worst offender of today's "big four", all of which were involved in the shearing of the flock scandal the Banking Royal Commission reported on in gory detail last week.

I need to mention that St George was never a government-owned institution. It was a community, not-for-profit one, growing quite nicely for decades until the board of directors somehow became stacked with personnel which decided that making it a private enterprise owned by profit-seeking shareholders was "a good thing". Account holders were offered a carrot in the shape of small parcels of shares, the size of which was determined by the number of accounts they ran with the building society, and the number of years they held them. The bulk of the shares were sold via IPO. Of course those small parcels finished up on the open market before long, to be snapped up by the bigger fish, and they were the rapacious profit seekers. St George is not the only community owned service provider that died in that manner. Would you like to me to tell you about NatMut? The NRMA? I had personal experience with them too, and the result was the same. My bet is that the Bendigo bank will fall victim of the greedy fuckers before long too. We never seem to learn from the past. Big business keeps winning at the expense of ordinary folk. Stupid us.
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
rainbow
Posts: 13534
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Media Bias

Post by rainbow » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:00 am

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:09 am
rainbow wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:49 am

Who owns the roads in the US?
You name it. Federal, state, city highways. Private turnpikes. All badly maintained.
Majority government owned in its various devolutions.

This is Communism!!
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

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

Re: Media Bias

Post by Scot Dutchy » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:01 am

You can sponsor a highway if you want.
"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: Media Bias

Post by Forty Two » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:28 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:09 am
rainbow wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:49 am

Who owns the roads in the US?
You name it. Federal, state, city highways. Private turnpikes. All badly maintained.
That's nonsense. Coming from someone who speaks without any experience or knowledge.

Naturally, some roads have issues. However, I've driven most of the lengths of I-80, I-95 and I-75, and there is nothing badly maintained about them. In Florida, the roads are very nice, for example, I-75, I-275, The Florida Turnpike, I-4, Route 10 over to Jacksonville, route 301, route 1 all the way down to Key West. The roads are in rather well-maintained condition.

The worst roads I encountered were in the Detroit metro area, however, still most of them were well-maintained. They have severe weather and temperature swings, and a lot of truck traffic, so they have some pothole issues. But, they do repair and maintain them regularly.

What are you on about?
“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: Media Bias

Post by Forty Two » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:36 pm

rainbow wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:00 am
Scot Dutchy wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:09 am
rainbow wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:49 am

Who owns the roads in the US?
You name it. Federal, state, city highways. Private turnpikes. All badly maintained.
Majority government owned in its various devolutions.

This is Communism!!
Almost all roads are owned by states.

Private roads are on private property, and the owner maintains the roads. Others would have to have permission to use a private road. The federal government owns roads serving
national forests, parks and dams. State governments own most of the highways between cities and towns and the Interstate highways. Cities and counties own the local roads.

This has nothing to do with communism. Since when does "communism = government?"
“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: Media Bias

Post by Forty Two » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:36 pm

dooplickit.
“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
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 18529
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Media Bias

Post by Cunt » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:47 pm

Since this is about media bias, how about government owned media channels?

In Canada, we have CBC, and they aren't biased, because the government media company (CBC) makes it clear they aren't.

In the US, there are no overtly government-owned media companies, but curiously, after the government shut down for long enough, a bunch of left-leaning media companies had to hold massive lay-offs.

Probably just a coincidence, though. Nothing to it, really.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Joe wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:22 pm
he doesn't communicate

The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.

Update: I've been offered one!
rainbow wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2023 9:23 pm
It is actually quite easy. A woman has at least one X chromosome.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Media Bias

Post by Rum » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:59 pm

Cunt wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:47 pm
Since this is about media bias, how about government owned media channels?

In Canada, we have CBC, and they aren't biased, because the government media company (CBC) makes it clear they aren't.

In the US, there are no overtly government-owned media companies, but curiously, after the government shut down for long enough, a bunch of left-leaning media companies had to hold massive lay-offs.

Probably just a coincidence, though. Nothing to it, really.
As every, innuendo and sly sideways accusations. Are you suggesting that these ‘left leaning’ media companies are in fact funded secretly by the US Government?

The BBC Incidentally is funded by taxes here and is considered left leaning by the right and right leaning by the left and as impartial as practically possible by most of the rest of us.

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 18529
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Media Bias

Post by Cunt » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:27 pm

I am told CBC also doesn't lean one way or the other.

Supposed to believe it, too.

Maybe you should check out Tim Pools upcoming interview on Joe Rogan, or his reporting on media bias from the last few years.

It isn't possible to be free of bias for individuals, nor for organizations. We both know it is tough to talk about certain issues in Britain right now (such as the negative influence of sharia law on women) so how is it presented? If the UK is one of the signatories on the UN Compact on Migration, then they will have no choice but to stop funding the BBC if they report in a negative way on the matter. Is that kind of bias going to show up?

Anyway, I don't expect you to give the other side any time in this, but if you do, I think Tim Pool is relatively objective, in that he seems to have no 'side' except to oppose media bias. (which is, of course, a side...just not the usual one)
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Joe wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:22 pm
he doesn't communicate

The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.

Update: I've been offered one!
rainbow wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2023 9:23 pm
It is actually quite easy. A woman has at least one X chromosome.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73103
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: Media Bias

Post by JimC » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:48 pm

JimC wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:59 am

Having said that, it is still reasonable to ask the question as to which sections of an economy are best under government control, and which are best left to free enterprise.
I'm going to attempt to answer my own question:

Best run by free enterprise (subject to government environmental and safety regulation, off course...)

* manufacturing in general
* building (but what gets built where subject to more stringent planning laws than current - death-trap apartment buildings with flammable cladding is right now a major issue in Oz and other places)
* farming
* hospitality (hotels, restaurants etc.)
* service industries
* airlines

Best in government hands (with hopefully some mechanisms in place to ensure efficiency, which can be an issue)

* all transport infrastructure, all rail services, ports etc.
* electricity and gas providers, with all the infrastructure involved
* education and health (with the possibility of private alternatives)
* defence and law enforcement (obvious, except to libertarian weirdos...)
* banks and financial institutions such as insurance (except a stock exchange, of course). This one is controversial. Perhaps a large, government owned major bank, whose emphasis (unlike current Oz banks) is ethical behaviour and optimising customer service; maybe you could allow private banks or insurance firms as competitors (if the state bank got it right, most would choose to go with it...)

This, of course, is in an ideal world - getting from here to there would be a minefield...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Media Bias

Post by Rum » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:16 pm

Cunt wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:27 pm
I am told CBC also doesn't lean one way or the other.

Supposed to believe it, too.

Maybe you should check out Tim Pools upcoming interview on Joe Rogan, or his reporting on media bias from the last few years.

It isn't possible to be free of bias for individuals, nor for organizations. We both know it is tough to talk about certain issues in Britain right now (such as the negative influence of sharia law on women) so how is it presented? If the UK is one of the signatories on the UN Compact on Migration, then they will have no choice but to stop funding the BBC if they report in a negative way on the matter. Is that kind of bias going to show up?

Anyway, I don't expect you to give the other side any time in this, but if you do, I think Tim Pool is relatively objective, in that he seems to have no 'side' except to oppose media bias. (which is, of course, a side...just not the usual one)
Dear me you post some awful misinformed driven sometimes.

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 18529
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Media Bias

Post by Cunt » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:38 pm

Rum wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:16 pm
Cunt wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:27 pm
I am told CBC also doesn't lean one way or the other.

Supposed to believe it, too.

Maybe you should check out Tim Pools upcoming interview on Joe Rogan, or his reporting on media bias from the last few years.

It isn't possible to be free of bias for individuals, nor for organizations. We both know it is tough to talk about certain issues in Britain right now (such as the negative influence of sharia law on women) so how is it presented? If the UK is one of the signatories on the UN Compact on Migration, then they will have no choice but to stop funding the BBC if they report in a negative way on the matter. Is that kind of bias going to show up?

Anyway, I don't expect you to give the other side any time in this, but if you do, I think Tim Pool is relatively objective, in that he seems to have no 'side' except to oppose media bias. (which is, of course, a side...just not the usual one)
Dear me you post some awful misinformed driven sometimes.
You are excellent at whining non-specifically.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Joe wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:22 pm
he doesn't communicate

The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.

Update: I've been offered one!
rainbow wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2023 9:23 pm
It is actually quite easy. A woman has at least one X chromosome.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Media Bias

Post by Rum » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:10 pm

Cunt wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:38 pm
Rum wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:16 pm
Cunt wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:27 pm
I am told CBC also doesn't lean one way or the other.

Supposed to believe it, too.

Maybe you should check out Tim Pools upcoming interview on Joe Rogan, or his reporting on media bias from the last few years.

It isn't possible to be free of bias for individuals, nor for organizations. We both know it is tough to talk about certain issues in Britain right now (such as the negative influence of sharia law on women) so how is it presented? If the UK is one of the signatories on the UN Compact on Migration, then they will have no choice but to stop funding the BBC if they report in a negative way on the matter. Is that kind of bias going to show up?

Anyway, I don't expect you to give the other side any time in this, but if you do, I think Tim Pool is relatively objective, in that he seems to have no 'side' except to oppose media bias. (which is, of course, a side...just not the usual one)
Dear me you post some awful misinformed driven sometimes.
You are excellent at whining non-specifically.
Specially it isn’t tough to talk about anything you wish in the UK. Specifically the BBC is at no risk of losing funding. Specially you user name is wholly appropriate.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests