Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

It would seem Andrew Leigh thinks we’re the problem

By johnboy - 1 August 2012 28

Andrew Leigh has published his speech to the University of Canberra on the media, which he saw fit to give to the Canberra Times last night.

In it he announces the problems of journalism in the new era to be “To Much Opinion”, “Nastiness”, and “Shallowness”.

As a solution he proposes State funding of “quality” journalism which presumably will not write opinionated, nasty, shallow things about the State.

Which would be almost funny if the vast majority of Government advertising spend didn’t already go to the dying “quality” media which exists largely to serve needs of MPs like Andrew Leigh already.

At least if the advertising dollars got shifted to subsidy they wouldn’t have to justify the evaporating audiences.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
28 Responses to
It would seem Andrew Leigh thinks we’re the problem
SnapperJack 11:49 am 05 Aug 12

nobody said :

SnapperJack said :

Ah yes, the Labor/Greens way. Funnel taxpayers money into friendly media to keep them writing things you like. It worked a treat with research grants paid to climate “scientists”.

Here is an example of funding supplied by a coal magnate and climate skeptic, to a professor at Berkeley who was also a climate skeptic, and the research found climate change is real and caused by humans. A leader of the climate change skeptics stood up and said he was previously mistaken, and his fresh look at the data made him accept the facts as they fell, climate change is real.

So, if your mind is not completely closed, have a quick read of this story in the SMH.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-results-convert-sceptic-let-the-evidence-change-our-minds-20120730-23769.html#ixzz223BNFZG7

Isn’t it remarkable how Fairfax, the ABC and the other media jumped up and down and gave this story such prominence about how ONE supposed “climate change sceptic” did a backflip and has now converted to the climate change cult, whereas the many climate change scientists and other believers who got sick of taking dirty money and selling out their principles and morals, calmly looked at the statistics and concluded that the theory of anthropomorphic global warming is a hoax were all completely ignored by the media.

It only reinforces the view that this whole climate change thing is an elaborate conspiracy funded by governments in concert with extreme left and green groups.

dungfungus 9:16 pm 01 Aug 12

nobody said :

SnapperJack said :

Ah yes, the Labor/Greens way. Funnel taxpayers money into friendly media to keep them writing things you like. It worked a treat with research grants paid to climate “scientists”.

Here is an example of funding supplied by a coal magnate and climate skeptic, to a professor at Berkeley who was also a climate skeptic, and the research found climate change is real and caused by humans. A leader of the climate change skeptics stood up and said he was previously mistaken, and his fresh look at the data made him accept the facts as they fell, climate change is real.

So, if your mind is not completely closed, have a quick read of this story in the SMH.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-results-convert-sceptic-let-the-evidence-change-our-minds-20120730-23769.html#ixzz223BNFZG7

Fairfax Media (SMH and Canberra Times) have a habit of getting all their climate change stories from The Guardian. This one is no exception as this link will prove.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0730/1224321093821.html
I can’t open the links you provided so I couldn’t see if the SMH gave any acknowledgement to The Guardian.
I didn’t follow all of the Twittering Twerp’s lecture either so, by any chance, did he comment on how rife plagiarism is in modern journalism these days?

dungfungus 8:23 pm 01 Aug 12

Every time this twerp opens his mouth, I instictively reach for the fly swatter.
How would Freud explain my unconcious feelings when this happens?

nobody 8:03 pm 01 Aug 12

SnapperJack said :

Ah yes, the Labor/Greens way. Funnel taxpayers money into friendly media to keep them writing things you like. It worked a treat with research grants paid to climate “scientists”.

Here is an example of funding supplied by a coal magnate and climate skeptic, to a professor at Berkeley who was also a climate skeptic, and the research found climate change is real and caused by humans. A leader of the climate change skeptics stood up and said he was previously mistaken, and his fresh look at the data made him accept the facts as they fell, climate change is real.

So, if your mind is not completely closed, have a quick read of this story in the SMH.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-results-convert-sceptic-let-the-evidence-change-our-minds-20120730-23769.html#ixzz223BNFZG7

milkman 7:43 pm 01 Aug 12

DrKoresh said :

SnapperJack said :

Ah yes, the Labor/Greens way. Funnel taxpayers money into friendly media to keep them writing things you like. It worked a treat with research grants paid to climate “scientists”.

Nobody likes the idea of climate change, you contemptuous fool, the suggestion that it is a lie being propagated by people of a certain political ideology is ridiculous. Climate change doesn’t benefit anyone, which is why so much has been done of late to mitigate it’s effects and reduce our contribution to the problem.

Just because it’s unpleasant doesn’t make it a lefty conspiracy, and the denial demonstrated by you and people like you in the face of all the data is childish and shameful. Grow up, please.

This is fair enough, but it would be unreasonable to suggest that there aren’t public and private sector groups who trade off fear, uncertainty and doubt and use this to whip up emotional responses regarding climate change.

I agree that climate change is occurring, and humans are having some impact on this, but I strongly disagree with the tone and approach of some groups.

Martlark 7:28 pm 01 Aug 12

Quality? Ha ha ha ha ha. Just like state funding has produced quality art? Was Andrew being serious? Or was this some sort of extended and extremely clever joke. Like those spoof papers sent to Post Modern social studies journals?

DrKoresh 7:06 pm 01 Aug 12

SnapperJack said :

Ah yes, the Labor/Greens way. Funnel taxpayers money into friendly media to keep them writing things you like. It worked a treat with research grants paid to climate “scientists”.

Nobody likes the idea of climate change, you contemptuous fool, the suggestion that it is a lie being propagated by people of a certain political ideology is ridiculous. Climate change doesn’t benefit anyone, which is why so much has been done of late to mitigate it’s effects and reduce our contribution to the problem.

Just because it’s unpleasant doesn’t make it a lefty conspiracy, and the denial demonstrated by you and people like you in the face of all the data is childish and shameful. Grow up, please.

c_c 6:14 pm 01 Aug 12

At the end of the day, it’s up to the public to distill information from a number of sources. It can’t all be served up in one form, everything has an inherent bias and only with diversity can it be overcome.

Unfortunately, there’s enough evidence out there to show that people don’t do this very well. People respond more to negativity, they respond more to fear and they respond more to jingles and slogans than reasoned information and opinion.

What’s funny is Andrew is being very ignorant if he thinks what the media writes alone is what shapes opinion – and more to the point that it’s behind Labor’s shocking electoral position. The idea that setting up some information tsar will solve this is foolhardy. People tend to mash up information from sources in a way that favours their preexisting prejudices, desires and ideas anyway, and as I said, will favour negativity and fear.

Chop71 6:02 pm 01 Aug 12

Nothing like state run media..

China or North Korea type media …. oh my, I can’t wait.

caf 5:43 pm 01 Aug 12

I always suspected I was part of the problem.

snarek 5:40 pm 01 Aug 12

Yes but ……

Allan Jones on Climate Change.

Kyle Sandilands on anything.

Even the previously ‘household approved’ Sunrise on 7 has started seeking opinions from shock jocks on stuff way beyond their intellectual capacity.

Perhaps if ‘journalism’ cleaned up its own act the State wouldn’t have to.

c_c 5:36 pm 01 Aug 12

At the end of the day, it’s up to the public to distill information from a number of sources. It can’t all be served up, everything has an inherent bias and only with diversity can it be overcome. Funding some media overlord is silly.

Unfortunately, there’s enough evidence out there to show that people don’t do this very well. People respond more to negativity, the respond more to fear and they respond more to jingles and slogans that reasoned debate.

What’s funny is Andrew is being very ignorant if he thinks what the media writes alone is what shapes opinion – and more to the point that it’s behind Labor’s shocking electoral position. People tend to mash up information from sources in a way that favours their preexisting prejudices, desires and ideas.

SnapperJack 5:02 pm 01 Aug 12

Ah yes, the Labor/Greens way. Funnel taxpayers money into friendly media to keep them writing things you like. It worked a treat with research grants paid to climate “scientists”.

poetix 4:59 pm 01 Aug 12

Too much opinion (double ‘o’). Too few subeditors.

neanderthalsis 4:40 pm 01 Aug 12

Is it just me or is a politician lecturing the media on being opinionated, nasty and shallow a bit rich?

And isn’t state funded journalism the remit of the ABC, or is Andrew unhappy that Piers Ackerman gets to voice his right wing opinions alongside the likes of Labor friendly David Marr on Insiders?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site