Advertisement

The Canberra Times again betrays democracy

By 11 February 2013 15

cover

There are two problems with the Canberra Times’ ongoing efforts to pre-empt democractic processes in their attempts to get around the moribund business of printing news on dead trees:

    1) They get it wrong, all the time.

    2) Their narrative robs the participants of democratic franchise

They should be judged very harshly for this.

But they’ll keep getting the Government advertising contracts, don’t you worry about that.

Please login to post your comments
15 Responses to The Canberra Times again betrays democracy
#1
deepsouf8:53 pm, 11 Feb 13

I might not go as far as saying it necessarily robs people of democratic franchise, but certainly there is an impact and on occasion that characterisation would be right. CT has never been particularly reliable on such issues. The possible link between what it reports and where it sources revenue is worrying. I don’t know enough to comment but I’d be interested to hear from other rioters.

#2
gungsuperstar9:35 pm, 11 Feb 13

I don’t know what “Government contracts” are being referred to – the latest round of “efficiencies” in late 2011 removed newspaper advertising for jobs. This says nothing about recruitment agencies advertising on their behalf, but it’s a long bow to draw to say that this influences editorial content in any way.

#3
johnboy9:44 pm, 11 Feb 13

gungsuperstar said :

I don’t know what “Government contracts” are being referred to – the latest round of “efficiencies” in late 2011 removed newspaper advertising for jobs. This says nothing about recruitment agencies advertising on their behalf, but it’s a long bow to draw to say that this influences editorial content in any way.

Talking about ACT Government, not federal, and not about job ads.

#4
poetix10:03 pm, 11 Feb 13

I do like the inadvertent link of ‘WELCOME THE SNAKE’ with ‘Coe set to lead the ACT Liberals’. Top work. Wrong snake chaps, but still funny.

#5
Thumper10:18 pm, 11 Feb 13

No. 1.

Quite unbelieavable that they can be so wrong so often.

Seriously, they are not even close, ever….

#6
c_c™10:20 pm, 11 Feb 13

On the plus side, this does demonstrate the importance of the old paper media. They were quick to remove all trace of the headline and story online, but ink and paper lives on to reveal the folly of their efforts.

#7
HiddenDragon10:33 pm, 11 Feb 13

Conspiracy theories aside, I assume someone pressed the wrong button – this is the headline they meant to run in about three years time, when the Liberals prepare themselves to throw another election.

#8
trevar10:48 pm, 11 Feb 13

To say that newspapers’ narratives can rob ‘participants’ of their democratic franchise is a bit rich.

I’m not entirely sure who you mean by ‘participants’, but I’m guessing you mean the electorate. In the case of this prediction, the electorate has no say. It is up to the Liberal Party and the Liberal Party alone who they wish to follow, so a leadership change, speculative or not, is no one’s business but members of the Liberal Party until after the fact. This is a democratic process in which most of us were never enfranchised in the first place, so we’ve hardly been robbed of an enfranchisement.

And if by ‘participants’ you mean members of the Liberal Party, who are indeed enfranchised, even they are not robbed of their enfranchisement. They will still, just as the other half of their insipid little duopoly did at the federal level in 2010, vote on whichever dim-witted freak of nature they would like to follow, regardless of how many black marks on bleached dead trees tell them how they will vote.

#9
WillowJim11:22 pm, 11 Feb 13

Does, or would, the RiotACT refuse to accept government advertising if it was offered? I assume it would have to, given the many times that JB has suggested (without evidence) that government advertising buys editorial intervention.

#10
Gungahlin Al11:24 pm, 11 Feb 13

c_c™ said :

On the plus side, this does demonstrate the importance of the old paper media. They were quick to remove all trace of the headline and story online, but ink and paper lives on to reveal the folly of their efforts.

Well I found the article within seconds:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/coe-set-to-lead-the-act-liberals-20130210-2e6v8.html
How is that “remove all trace”?

Not defending their article, but this assertion is a lot like the “cattle guard” hoax doing the rounds on Facebook…

#11
johnboy11:33 pm, 11 Feb 13

Oh we’ve had the odd dribble of government advertising.

But it’s a very tiny proportion of our income, and we don’t go making bold assertions at the expense of other democratic mandates while getting it wrong at anything like the same rate.

#12
grass5:55 am, 12 Feb 13

I think a conspiracy is a bit over the top for pathetically poor journalism. The journalist has tried to hit back identifying sources within the Liberal party that gave her the information. She took their word as gospel instead of treating it as one source of information that warranted checking. The fact that democracy on this occasion and at the election ignored the CT says it all.

#13
Billy_Shears10:04 am, 12 Feb 13

grass said :

I think a conspiracy is a bit over the top for pathetically poor journalism. The journalist has tried to hit back identifying sources within the Liberal party that gave her the information. She took their word as gospel instead of treating it as one source of information that warranted checking. The fact that democracy on this occasion and at the election ignored the CT says it all.

Lisa Lisa Lisa…admit that you got it wrong and move on! Blaming someone else is obviously what you’re trying to do here, but you’re the reporter. It’s your responsibility to, in the Prime Minister’s words, not write crap!

#14
MTK10:16 am, 12 Feb 13

It is the size of the market and size of the subject that are the problems. When there are so few sources and so few votes counting toward the internal leadership election outcome, it is very easy (or necessary) to inflate the importance and reliability of any one source.

In Federal Parliament, you could literally contact hundreds of pollies and gain an idea of what has been said in Caucus. When you are dealing with so few, any info will be skewed.

#15
Mysteryman11:17 am, 12 Feb 13

MTK said :

It is the size of the market and size of the subject that are the problems. When there are so few sources and so few votes counting toward the internal leadership election outcome, it is very easy (or necessary) to inflate the importance and reliability of any one source.

In Federal Parliament, you could literally contact hundreds of pollies and gain an idea of what has been said in Caucus. When you are dealing with so few, any info will be skewed.

Don’t make excuses for them. The size of the market and the size of the subject are not the problems. The problem is that the “journalists” working at the CT are not good at their jobs, plain and simple.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.