Woah. The Fairfax owned 'The Age' backs Labor.
- Thread starter DavidMc
- Start date
It's an interesting opinion which takes a look at the good and bad from both sides. Also from the same article
Sales in Fairfax newspapers have been slowly but surely falling, unlike Murdoch press which has enjoyed a rise AND has seen readers willing to pay to read their papers online.
My guess is SMH has changed to meet with the sentiment of the people hence increase sales, whereas The Age probably has continued to enjoy a reasonably large left wing audience.
At the end of the day it's about selling papers that people want to read.
My guess is SMH has changed to meet with the sentiment of the people hence increase sales, whereas The Age probably has continued to enjoy a reasonably large left wing audience.
At the end of the day it's about selling papers that people want to read.
"As our readers know, we support Labor's national broadband network strategy"
bully for them - they are probably located on one of the 3 streets designated to get it by 2016. my premises has no anticipated connection date so whether it goes ahead or not is of no consequence - other than I have paid a whack for other people to download porn at high speed
bully for them - they are probably located on one of the 3 streets designated to get it by 2016. my premises has no anticipated connection date so whether it goes ahead or not is of no consequence - other than I have paid a whack for other people to download porn at high speed
The alliance to political parties by most journos is rarely hidden (many have been political advisors, married to politicians, socialize with politicians, have established political roots from uni days, etc). Most tend to congregate with 'friends' within media that they most allign with.
This applies to BOTH Fairfax and Murdoch.
A paper also establishes a certain audience and if it works and sells papers they stick to the formula.
I just think that while the political tide has changed papers have to change too if they want to remain viable.
In most peoples eyes Labor has performed terribly in the last 6 years and they have turned off them, resulting in people turning away from left leaning papers.
Last edited:
Reading both articles from The Age and SMH, they both appear to be saying the same thing (almost verbatim) but essentially coming to different conclusions. An interesting way of sitting on the fence.
I think it's been yet another disappointing campaign. I don't want to see middle class welfare of any description. Paid maternity leave is bad planning.
The broadband network is unnecessary. We do need to continually upgrade to remain competitive in a digital world, but this is not something that needs to be rolled out so urgently at such great cost. Instead concentrate on delivering better service to areas that are lacking, and faster services to businesses. The average household does not need ultra high speed. At home I can already download a movie faster than it takes to watch it, I don't need to be able to download 6 at a time. Let home networks be an issue for local councils and suppliers to work out.
Neither party has handled the boat people issues very well. Australia has a right to protect her boarders but we're also a country of immigrants. In many of our military roles overseas we have proven to be a beacon of humanitarianism yet at home we're starting to behave like the US with Guantanamo Bay. I don't know what the right answer is, but we can definitely do better.
The push for surplus is simply stupid. It can be done but I don't see that we need to eliminate the deficit in the short term. Certainly cuts can and should be made, but this should be cutting the fat, not the meat. This has become more of a political point scoring race, rather than good economic management. In tough economic times the way out has been for the government to encourage projects which improve services and infrastructure, thereby increasing employment and tax revenue. Whilst the Rudd government of 2007 claim to have done this, it was so poorly managed and implemented, that much of the money was waisted on short term cash sinks which had little short or long term benefit.
What has really disappointed me (and it's been almost a decade of disappointment) is that we don't see road maps to the future. The Keating and Howard government set this country up to become an economic powerhouse with a lot of cash in the bank and healthy budget surpluses, but they failed to deliver a road map in 2007 and didn't deserve to win. Since then the opportunity has been lost popular political pandering with the objective of staying in government rather than delivering governance.
At this point I don't think the Rudd team has the track record to take this country to the future it's capable of. I think the Abbot team has become side tracked in the election campaign which has started to mirror that of Rudds 2007 campaign. The have stated a plan for the future but it's been drowned in political manoeuvring and electioneering. It's disappointing they've missed the detail.
What I'd like to see is a road map for the country. I don't care if it means sacrifices need to be made, if some services need to be cut. It doesn't bother me if it needs to be amended or delayed as things change in the future; I just want to see a path.
Tomorrow the Liberal party will likely win the election. I can't vote for Labor as in the 2007 term they screwed it up completely. Gillard did a commendable job under tough circumstances and whilst I didn't like her governments path, she was trying to walk one even if her party wasn't. The biggest disappointment was coming from the people behind her and I don't want to see them in power again.
My hope is that the next government will be able to get on the job of good governance. It'll have the courage to make the hard choices to deliver the right results rather than the popular ones. Perhaps it'll even have the courtesy and articulation to be able to inform the electorate. It's on this that I'll be voting in 2016.
I think it's been yet another disappointing campaign. I don't want to see middle class welfare of any description. Paid maternity leave is bad planning.
The broadband network is unnecessary. We do need to continually upgrade to remain competitive in a digital world, but this is not something that needs to be rolled out so urgently at such great cost. Instead concentrate on delivering better service to areas that are lacking, and faster services to businesses. The average household does not need ultra high speed. At home I can already download a movie faster than it takes to watch it, I don't need to be able to download 6 at a time. Let home networks be an issue for local councils and suppliers to work out.
Neither party has handled the boat people issues very well. Australia has a right to protect her boarders but we're also a country of immigrants. In many of our military roles overseas we have proven to be a beacon of humanitarianism yet at home we're starting to behave like the US with Guantanamo Bay. I don't know what the right answer is, but we can definitely do better.
The push for surplus is simply stupid. It can be done but I don't see that we need to eliminate the deficit in the short term. Certainly cuts can and should be made, but this should be cutting the fat, not the meat. This has become more of a political point scoring race, rather than good economic management. In tough economic times the way out has been for the government to encourage projects which improve services and infrastructure, thereby increasing employment and tax revenue. Whilst the Rudd government of 2007 claim to have done this, it was so poorly managed and implemented, that much of the money was waisted on short term cash sinks which had little short or long term benefit.
What has really disappointed me (and it's been almost a decade of disappointment) is that we don't see road maps to the future. The Keating and Howard government set this country up to become an economic powerhouse with a lot of cash in the bank and healthy budget surpluses, but they failed to deliver a road map in 2007 and didn't deserve to win. Since then the opportunity has been lost popular political pandering with the objective of staying in government rather than delivering governance.
At this point I don't think the Rudd team has the track record to take this country to the future it's capable of. I think the Abbot team has become side tracked in the election campaign which has started to mirror that of Rudds 2007 campaign. The have stated a plan for the future but it's been drowned in political manoeuvring and electioneering. It's disappointing they've missed the detail.
What I'd like to see is a road map for the country. I don't care if it means sacrifices need to be made, if some services need to be cut. It doesn't bother me if it needs to be amended or delayed as things change in the future; I just want to see a path.
Tomorrow the Liberal party will likely win the election. I can't vote for Labor as in the 2007 term they screwed it up completely. Gillard did a commendable job under tough circumstances and whilst I didn't like her governments path, she was trying to walk one even if her party wasn't. The biggest disappointment was coming from the people behind her and I don't want to see them in power again.
My hope is that the next government will be able to get on the job of good governance. It'll have the courage to make the hard choices to deliver the right results rather than the popular ones. Perhaps it'll even have the courtesy and articulation to be able to inform the electorate. It's on this that I'll be voting in 2016.
Last edited:
And makes a refreshing change.
I like having a diverse media. I don't want to watch/read someone who just trumpets back my own per-conceived notions. I want to be challenged and I want my own opinions challenged.
Not by the shouty Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Mike Carlton etc types. But by intellectuals on both the left and the right.
EDIT. PT Bear. That was an absolutely brilliant post. Kudos. I don't agree with all of it, but I can sure as hell respect all of it.
And ultimately there is something out there for you.
Non mainstream media is huge, not in just what's available but in terms of people tapping into it too.
No one MAKES you read and believe anything.
Thanks Ideo. I look at past governments and in most cases I can see good and bad from both parties even though I've voted one way all of my life. I'm happy to give credit where I believe it's due regardless of which party they're from.
I actually believe that a healthy country needs governments to change from one party to the other from time to time. Frazer, Hawk, Keating and Howard all did a lot of good during their terms, but in different ways (I have no memory before Frazer).
It's disappointing that politics is a game of, "Our side must win at all costs, the other side is wrong and will do no good." Both parties play it. It's also sad to see so many (forum members included as Geoff has indicated) go along with it.
Gillard Labor was left and very much influenced by the Greens and by her strong socialist leanings/connections.
Rudd is just rudderless and for himself - goes from left, right and back to center left all within 24/7 (sometimes with the same issue so he captures all audiences
) before doing it all over again.I'm curious at to why you say this? I think maternity leave at full pay is a good policy and is certainly better than other alternatives such as the baby bonus (and other similar payments) because of the requirement that the recipient needs to be in the workforce to be eligible to get it and also because it allows women to continue to get their existing salary. It provides less of an incentive for it to be used as an income stream by people who are not in the best position financially. Obviously, it needs to complemented by affordable and accessible childcare but as a pretty well off nation, things like this shouldn't be that challenging to establish.
You can see the list of countries that have maternity leave at 100% pay here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave
If countries like Congo and Togo can manage, I think it's a bit rich to say that we can't. Internationally, it certainly seems more like the rule than the exception.
Gillard Labor was left and very much influenced by the Greens and by her strong socialist leanings/connections.
Rudd is just rudderless and for himself - goes from left, right and back to center left all within 24/7 (sometimes with the same issue so he captures all audiences
Socialist? Are you joking?
