EYE-BALL Opinion – EYE-BALL’s MediaZone Growl No: 4 – Australia’s Media Horde
– EYE-BALL’s MediaZone Growl No: 4 –
– Australia’s Media Horde –
| Author: EYE-BALL MediaZone | 30th July 2013 |
|Hello all … frustration more than anything drives this post – frustration at our Media and the complete ineptness demonstrated in the way they report political stories and the News.How many times do you now see a story and immediately recognise the bias involved, the slant, the unasked question we all want asked, the pursuit of a desired answer to a question we all know was prompted, how many times do we see journalists behaving like dogs off their leash?The reality in how politics is being fed to the public via News broadcasters is nothing more than extended personal political battle-lines, all to a cause to serve media barons and their lust for political favours.
All political News these days holds a propaganda message designed to influence rather then inform. A lead story on one broadcast is treated as low profile on a different broadcaster because of how it portrays the story comport.
Who’s interests were best served when the Gillard ‘police investigation’ story was rejected by the media as News, who’s interests are being served when the Abbott travel rorts for his book publishing tour were discovered and treated as a non event?
The Slipper, Thompson, Williamson, Obeid, MacDonald corruption stories – all major fraud stories and stories all given different prominence and focus by different broadcasters.
Over a long time the likes of Rupert Murdoch and his fellow media barons have demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice integrity and moral standards in the pursuit of political favour for withheld news stories. Deals are done and trade off’s made to have stories pulled or ‘toned down’ when the media is looking for favour – be it lobby donations for a more agreeable media ownership spread, more coverage, more influence, and it sickens to imagine where it will all end.
The Media are responsible for the greatest fraud of all time – the media barons alone have destroyed the integrity of News reporting – remember Conrad Black, the Maxwell empire, and the countless other media barons over the years who have come and gone. There is still one that has survived them all – the Murdoch press.
Globally Murdoch is the most influential media empire the world has ever seen – and still he does not have enough.
Who do we have in Australia, Kerry Stokes, Fairfax – ha … small time players and not in the same market as Murdoch. Murdoch plays the ‘kingmaker’ … and the Australian politicians and public listen.
Neutrality of opinion has disappeared in the way journalists write their stories. Editorials express opinions and journalists take their cue from the editors.
To highlight the most recent episodes of some non Murdoch owned or influenced TV shows – the following is presented.
The three high-profile political programs I watch are “Insiders”, “The Bolt Report”, and “Q&A” – in no particular order of preference all have highs and lows in what there serve up to the public.
A common thought about all three is that they do a great disservice to the political debate as media presentations. For example –
The Bolt Report:
Take last Sunday’s program built under promo’s in that the PM will make his first appearance on the program. Bolt invited us to see the PM squirm under his questions and revealed that the PM would answer honestly – look what happened: [Warning – watch for Bolt’s need to pursue the answer he wants – not the answer the interviewed wants to give …]
You see the point – the political Q&A is not important – only the shock value to boost Bolt’s ratings. Bolt could be called a ‘narcosis psychopath’ in the way he believes his opinion is the only one that matters. He stint on “Insiders’ was proof in his believe that his opinion was more relevant and more correct whenever he shared the panel time and question. Now his show is on commercial TV and is struggling for ratings so there is commercial value in trying to play the Bob Dwyer ‘Pick-a-Box’ theme of audience drawn into the suspense and drama of trying to trip up the PM or some other guest on the show.
Bolt’s ‘prima-donna’ performances have earned him a reputation that scares politicians. Albanese is the only other ALP Minister to have appeared on his show. Rudd’s aim was to shorten Bolt’s stature, Bolt’s aim was to get one over the PM on National TV.
How does that advance the political debate? How does that hold the Government accountable – there were so many areas Bolt could have gone to expose Rudd’s weakness – i.e. the AWU scandal and how Gillard became PM in the first place – the Peter Slipper affair as he sat on the backbenches watching it unfold – same with the Craig Thompson affair – surely Rudd’s responses to these questions would have served the Australian people so much more than questions about a new initiative in asylum seeker policy that is currently being tested by the people smugglers.
Rudd has to wear his share of responsibility as well – if he wanted to put Bolt in his place and that has to be the only reason Rudd would appear on the show – his response to Bolt’s ‘goading’ could have been so much more dismissive and to the point … it was pathetic television and a waste of time.
“The Bolt Report” gets a 2/10 rating, and Andrew Bolt gets a 1/10 rating for interview style and how he presents himself as a member of Australia’s media industry.
Monday nights program – linked via “IView” here – was a massive disappointment – normal host Paul Jones was absent and Virginia Trioli stepped in.
The first question asked by a schoolgirl was:
‘… put Australia out of its misery …’ indeed – how does a schoolgirl who is more than likely not old enough to vote get to pass a judgement about ‘political misery’?
How the researches who vet the questions allowed this to pass as in the interests of the viewers watching the program points again to program agenda as opposed to true political interest.
So much of the media today are about when the election will be called – why waste all that page and TV time on a question that will never be honestly answered …
Kate Ellis was allowed to state chapter and verse about the ALP policy successes whilst answering a question about something entirely different – why did the presenter allow this?
The most interesting guest on the program was Peter Shergold, who was Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet from 2003-2008. He was also the nation’s most senior public servant when he resigned four months into Kevin Rudd’s first term as PM.
In two decades he served in the public service he served four Prime Ministers and eight Ministers in both Labor and Coalition governments. During this time he established the Office of Multicultural Affairs, headed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), and was Public Service Commissioner. He was secretary of several government departments, including the Department of Education, Science and Training, and the Department of Employment, Workforce Relations and Small Business.
Surely his contribution to the political debate during this program could have been better used – he hesitated on his first direct question that asked him for an opinion … the question was –
That was about the most exposing question put to Shergold – why not ask about the reason for his resignation i.e. the Rudd work ethic in those first months had the public service up in arms about the demands and hours they had to work – surely Shergold’s take on that would have audience interest in forming opinions as to why Rudd was booted by his ALP MP’s.
The rest of the program descended and Magda Szubanski’s levity was about the only reason one stayed to watch the whole program. This is a program that has the ability to get real answers to people’s concerns – the problem is that it to is in a ratings war and dictated by populists formats.
Liberal MP Josh Frydenberg had his moment of fame when he talked about the Rudd tweet about cutting himself shaving – really … is this what Frydenberg wants to introduce as his contribution to the debate …
This question should have opened many doors – why did the media focus on the ‘shaving cut’ as opposed to the unemployment numbers … whatever Rudd’s purpose to tweet that he cut himself – and I’m sure it was not him that actually typed the tweet but some media staffer – the opposition chose to raise the tweet in context with the unemployment numbers. Does this not demonstrate the shallowness of Frydenberg and the rest of the panel, or the audience for allowing the comments to go unchallenged?
“Q%A” get a 2.5/10 rating, and it’s a rating that has been on the slide for some time.
Cassidy gave Opposition Immigration spokesperson Scott Morrison a good go – unusual for Cassidy. Morrison has grown in his responsibilities and is an impressive communicator. His early days in the job prove he has come far.
The issue here is that the Rudd answer to the ‘asylum seeker’ will not prove to be a failure or success until it has had time to impact. The rush by people smugglers to get the people who have paid for transit rather then refund if people change their mind highlights the desperation these people are subjected to.
This is criminal and negligent homicide by the people smugglers and it all happens far away from our shores. It will only be in 9-12 months as to whether opinion can be gauged whether the policy has worked or not.
Rudd knows that if he finds a perceived solution to the asylum seeker invasion that he has a better chance at the election. Abbott knows also that and success to the Rudd plan means his job becomes tougher in trying to win the election.
It is understandable why the media have this focus – but they also know that short term speculation can only damage the policy as the people smugglers build a case for the Abbott response to hasten the asylum seeker exodus.
“Insiders” Rating – 4/10.
So where does one turn to get informed political opinion?
Is the Murdoch press the only source of real journalism?
None of the above programs has any real interest in exposing the AWU scandal, nor the Craig Thompson, or Peter Slipper corruption charges. I ponder long and hard as to why that is?
The people have a right to know why Tony Abbott’s ‘book-tour’ travel expense claims differ to those of Peter Slipper. Why is Abbott given a free ride and Slipper hung out to dry?
Also – why the Union movement was called upon to help with the payment of Thompson’s legal expenses – all to avoid his bankruptcy and the resultant calling of an election for his seat some two years ago.
These are stories that have public interest yet none of the three above programs go near any depth of question on these matters.
The subject of a post due to be published soon is the expense accounts for Tony Abbott – as a forerunner check out this excel file imaged below to see how Mr Abbott has used his parliamentary expenditure expense account since mid 2009. [Click image to enlarge in a new window.]
Ho hum .. off we go … the $370 million spent as expenses by our 230 MP’s and Senators has an annual spread of $1.6 million per member. That is some 8 times their recent remuneration payment – before the increase it is a factor 13 times.
This $1.6 million does not include parliamentary staff cost – which can be for up to a minimum of 4 additional staff ranging in remunerations from a high of $240k to minimum’s of $65k.
The $1.6 million also does not cover the cost of the non-contributary parliamentary superannuation schemes for pre 2005 members – nor the staff expenses over and above remuneration costs – i.e. redundancy, super, and health schemes.
We are truly living in the age where public servants enjoy a ‘sense of entitlement’ that borders on is decadence …
|Please – if you found this story to your liking and would like to promote it to your social media contacts – i.e. Twitter, Facebook, or other icon linked account below – please use/click on your favoured Icon(s) to promote the story. Thankyou.
Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.
Links to Australian Parliamentary Website – MP’s
The EYE-BALL Opinion’s – MEDIAZONE …
|The views and opinions contained within this web-site are private and made with the intention of creating free debate among anyone who reads or wishes to make comment. All non-spam generated comments will be posted. Comments and opinions are expressed and made without personal PREJUDICE or MALICE. They are not meant to offend but to purely enlighten readers of an opinion that might not be considered MAINSTREAM. Please enjoy the site and feedback is very welcome.|
EYE-BALL Site Tag Search:
EYE-BALL Categories Search
Search Posts Monthly:
EYE-BALL’s Posts Archive …
Most Recent Posts:
- EYE-BALL’s new Blogsite … August 14, 2013
- EYE-BALL Opinion – Goodbye and Farewell … for now – August 11, 2013
- EYE-BALL’s – “On the Hustings” – The Campaign Trail – Day 4 August 8, 2013
- EYE-BALL’s – “On the Hustings” – The Campaign Trail – Day 3 August 7, 2013
- EYE-BALL’s – “On the Hustings” – The Campaign Trail – Day 2 August 6, 2013
- EYE-BALL’s – “On the Hustings” Day 1 – The Campaign Begins – August 5, 2013
- EYE-BALL Opinion’s “None of the Above” campaign – We don’t trust our Leaders – August 5, 2013
- EYE-BALL’s Snoop-Poop – Ricky Stuart – NRL Supercoach!!! Poor, Poor, Parramatta – August 4, 2013
- EYE-BALL’s Herman on – Federal Economic Update – A conjuror’s spin – August 2, 2013
- EYE-BALL Opinion – EYE-BALL’s MediaZone Growl No: 4 – Australia’s Media Horde July 30, 2013
- EYE-BALL Guru
- EYE-BALL’s Guru on – The Wayne Swan 2013-14 Federal Budget – Special EYE-BALL Guru Report – The Economic Triggers Part 2.6 –
- EYE-BALL’s Guru on – The Wayne Swan 2013-14 Federal Budget – Special EYE-BALL Guru Report – The Economic Triggers Part 2.5 –
- EYE-BALL’s Guru on – The Wayne Swan 2013-14 Federal Budget – Special EYE-BALL Guru Report – The Economic Triggers Part 2.4 –
- EYE-BALL’s Guru on – The Wayne Swan 2013-14 Federal Budget – Special EYE-BALL Guru Report – The Economic Triggers Part 2.3 –
- EYE-BALL JokeZone
- EYE-BALL MovieZone
- F.C.A.T.A. Web Master
- TE-BO Harry's Growl
- EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl on – Election 2013 – Growl No: 51 – The US Back Gillard – Poor Call or Poor Form –
- EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl on – Election 2013 – Growl No: 50 – Rudd’s House of Pain, He must learn that ‘less is more’ –
- EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl on – Election 2013 – Growl No: 49 – Shorten has to be made accountable –
- EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl on – Election 2013 – Growl No: 48 – Gillard’s “Mrs Doubtfire” moment –
- TE-BO - [The EYE-BALL Opinion]