No, but its like giving a urologist and a 'faith healer' equal time and billing on a show about cancer treatment, then letting people make up their own minds. Would you, I mean, SERIOUSLY, you wouldnt, would you.
Insight SBS Tues 7.30 Sep 9 - Bursting the Bubble
- Thread starter Alex P Keaton
- Start date
No, but its like giving a urologist and a 'faith healer' equal time and billing on a show about cancer treatment, then letting people make up their own minds. Would you, I mean, SERIOUSLY, you wouldnt, would you.
Once again. I didn't say that...you have. Please don't put words in my mouth.
How are your faith healer visits going anyway? Are the magnets helping?
Cheers
Shane
Sadly presenting only one viewpoint is like riding a see-saw on your own. My point is balance is only acheived with educated discussion of various viewpoints of a topic........not just a singular viewpoint regardless of how conventional or extreme that may be.
Cheers
Shane
Hi Murtagh
Surely it is better to have all sides presented and then the viewer can decide for themselves than have the current pop sensationalist crap that is presented on TT, ACA and others as fact.
Sadly thinking for oneself seems less common than it used to be. Perhaps the analysis and dissection of different streams of conflicting information has gone the way of the times tables at school.
Cheers
Shane
I agree that what used to be called "critical thinking" has gone the way of the dodo - but that might just be me getting older and grumpier.
TT/ACA are really the bottom of the barrel, they are just the "two minute hate" recycled from 1984. No-one with any interest in extending themselves should watch those shows, they will just distract you from the main event. That they get a mention on here so frequently really does surprise me.
Insight likes to parade itself around as the thinking man's current affairs and so it should be judged on the merits to which it aspires. And this tripe of "present the view of anyone who turns up" is simply not good enough.
This was not a healthy debate among relevant, informed participants on one topic (which is where presenting multiple valid viewpoints has value). It was a simply a venting session for people with divergent viewpoints on multiple topics - there was no attempt to create a common debate among participants, it was "tell us about your situation" over and over.
Without someone pulling the threads together (this is a good journalist's job!) to make sense of the diverging viewpoints, and to remove the clutter from the arguments, all you'll be doing is chasing apparitions.
Cheers.
What is everyones thoughts on the guy (can't remember his name) who thinks property prices will drop by 40% over the next 15yrs. He said it's happened in Japan and Tokyo itself fell by 75%
I think he's dead on the money. My properties dropped 4.5% last Tuesday night, 6% on Thursday and a whopping 26% last night after the show. That means I've only got another 3.5% in further drops to make his prediction.
*****, I'd hate to see what's going to happen to my portfolio next week...
Not if those viewpoints are weak, and are being given un-due attention and credibility. Yes it makes interesting television, but it makes for a poor education.
Its this kind of argument that is used to get Intelligent Design taught in science classes.
You two are saying the same thing --
plusnq's point is that valid, educated but conflicting viewpoints should be aired.
and tub's is the same, but with the observation that the episode of Insight was not an example of this.
I think?
Sorry, but what a load of doodoo. Where is it stated that it "should be a a healthy debate among relevant, informed participants on one topic"? Its only television.
I think divergent view points makes for interesting viewing. Or, reading, as is the case with this forum. No one has to pull the threads together. Why do you want that?
You can try to get out it whatever you want. Good Luck.
I think divergent view points makes for interesting viewing. Or, reading, as is the case with this forum. No one has to pull the threads together. Why do you want that?
You can try to get out it whatever you want. Good Luck.
(I'll add an upfront disclaimer that I didn't watch this show)
That's sort of a key thing though don't you think? If you're going to have a round table/debate on the property market, I for one am not interested in hearing about how Mary lost her shop because the sheep market fell over, or how because Humpty bought the wrong wall he's going to have to sell to survive. Heck, I might even want to listen to someone who has a little more experience with property than just buying 1 house that they live in.
If all you're presented with is some stories like this - apart from how individual people can suffer in a market (and that's any market - good or bad), what are you actually learning about the broader subject? Would I have been any wiser about the property market if I had watched that program? Doubt it.
The point is there are a million and one sob stories (and I don't necessarily mean to say they're not valid), but is that what passes for a discussion about the broader property market?
insight website; said:
Seems to me like the plan was to debate one topic?
If someone comes to me and says "let's have a chat about topic X!" and we wind up in the wilderness after five minutes, talking about topic M instead .. that's fine.
If someone says "We have created a television program in which we have gathered some relevant people to look at the issues surrounding topic X" and then they wind up discussing topics M, N, O, and P .. I'm going to feel like I've had my time wasted.
The difference is expectation, you are correct.
If you guys want property education or an educated rational debate i might suggest television is not the best place to get it. It is what it is, no more. And it usually is entertainment and makes no pretense otherwise.
Just because i agree with the sentiments of the show (i'm talking about Ross Gittens, Eslake et al) doesn't mean i look for something that isnt there to match up with my own world view or beliefs. And talking of whingers, i certainly dont whinge and need to resort to putting down ordinary Australians when a TV show doesn't provide that match up.
Just because i agree with the sentiments of the show (i'm talking about Ross Gittens, Eslake et al) doesn't mean i look for something that isnt there to match up with my own world view or beliefs. And talking of whingers, i certainly dont whinge and need to resort to putting down ordinary Australians when a TV show doesn't provide that match up.
I think they fulfilled the brief pyou supplied pretty well. If they did diverge, it was pretty minor. Certainly not topics M, N, O, & P.
Really, is television anything but a waste of time?
Really, is television anything but a waste of time?
For me one of the most distressing things about the show was the Dad who sold his performing business because his gut told him that economic confidence was going to take a dive and he might be effected. I thought he looks late 50's potentially seeing retirement income diminish, so I put him in a low risk box. I thought the sky was going to fall so I am going to start running mentality may have been explained away.
I was encouraged to hear that he encouraged his son to buy property at the age of 20 I thought your a good Dad setting your kids up with some good foundations for their future. BUT then to hear Dad had told son to sell house cause the sky was falling was just too much - the guy is 22 - ok so he lost his job and is now working again in his Dads old business - but the house has been on the market for 2 mths.
It is one thing for those being close to retirement to be a little conservative but another to apply the same thought to a 22 yr old. The poor guy CG will increased the value of his place maybe next week, next yr, or in 5 years, it will be a nest egg for him, depending on whose crystal ball was right last night. What happens to him now - he sells and cannot afford to get back into the market. I think Dad is doing son a diservice by selling him his own fears.
Jane
I was encouraged to hear that he encouraged his son to buy property at the age of 20 I thought your a good Dad setting your kids up with some good foundations for their future. BUT then to hear Dad had told son to sell house cause the sky was falling was just too much - the guy is 22 - ok so he lost his job and is now working again in his Dads old business - but the house has been on the market for 2 mths.
It is one thing for those being close to retirement to be a little conservative but another to apply the same thought to a 22 yr old. The poor guy CG will increased the value of his place maybe next week, next yr, or in 5 years, it will be a nest egg for him, depending on whose crystal ball was right last night. What happens to him now - he sells and cannot afford to get back into the market. I think Dad is doing son a diservice by selling him his own fears.
Jane
geez how stupid are they then, instead of whinging and struggling the wife should get a job. I mean, its not as though she has littlies at home shes looking after. She has two school age kids. Hmmm unless she didnt bring the baby along to the show. I dunno.
I think he's an absolute Joker, Joker!What is everyones thoughts on the guy (can't remember his name) who thinks property prices will drop by 40% over the next 15yrs. He said it's happened in Japan and Tokyo itself fell by 75%
Two words for you demand and supply. No, make that three, plus affordability. If prices come off even 20% then the affordability equation changes markedly and the demand / supply imbalance would result in a lot of buyers entering the market. But don't take my word for it, Gittins et al basically made the same argument. Even the bearish Alan Kohler is now arguing he might have got it wrong and prices could boom from here due to demand/supply imbalances.
Cheers,
Michael
mate i agree with you, i was responding in the context of this thread i.e. housing bubble/insight that is listening to a 20 something year old who lost his job or whatever other dribble is tantamount to listening to a hobo for advice on astro physics.
I am all for listening to 10 economists battle it out and then "I" make a decision but the problem is media considers all sides to mean "random people". This is an incorrect way going forward and i feel has more to do with gutter journalism than a genuine attempt for balanced reporting.
I am all for listening to 10 economists battle it out and then "I" make a decision but the problem is media considers all sides to mean "random people". This is an incorrect way going forward and i feel has more to do with gutter journalism than a genuine attempt for balanced reporting.
Similar threads
