OZ Politics

124

Comments

  • MiliMili Shipmate
    Athrawes wrote: »
    My question would be does he or his family consume Murdoch media? Especially Sky News? If so, I can see how he would come to admire Trump.

    That was my suspicion. Unless he has just connected to friends who like Trump on the internet, maybe through gaming or other online hobbies.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Apparently New Zealand is the only major Anglophone country with no significant presence of the Murdoch news empire. They have Ardern.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Apparently New Zealand is the only major Anglophone country with no significant presence of the Murdoch news empire. They have Ardern.

    Does Canada have much of a News Corp presence?
  • Mili wrote: »
    Athrawes wrote: »
    My question would be does he or his family consume Murdoch media? Especially Sky News? If so, I can see how he would come to admire Trump.

    That was my suspicion. Unless he has just connected to friends who like Trump on the internet, maybe through gaming or other online hobbies.

    They always seem to have the TV on at their house, but when it's the news, it's any number of stations, and I don't know which ones are conservative or not (it isn't always Sky News).
  • Yeah, I dunno whether Murdoch can be blamed. Australia has a long history of far-right activism.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Yeah, I dunno whether Murdoch can be blamed. Australia has a long history of far-right activism.

    Perhaps starting with John Macarthur????
  • MiliMili Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Yeah, I dunno whether Murdoch can be blamed. Australia has a long history of far-right activism.

    It's not so much Murdoch, but some of the people who work for the Murdoch media and who are interviewed on shows such as Australia's Sky News channel 'Sky News After Dark'. But yeah he could have just liked up with local Far Right Groups or International Far Right groups online or a mixture of all three. He could have just watched a lot of Youtube that supports Trump as well - perhaps a Youtuber or Influencer he likes has influenced his views. Stonespring, or someone close to him would need to ask him why he likes Trump to find out who or what influenced his views.
  • Mili wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Yeah, I dunno whether Murdoch can be blamed. Australia has a long history of far-right activism.

    It's not so much Murdoch, but some of the people who work for the Murdoch media and who are interviewed on shows such as Australia's Sky News channel 'Sky News After Dark'. But yeah he could have just liked up with local Far Right Groups or International Far Right groups online or a mixture of all three. He could have just watched a lot of Youtube that supports Trump as well - perhaps a Youtuber or Influencer he likes has influenced his views. Stonespring, or someone close to him would need to ask him why he likes Trump to find out who or what influenced his views.

    My husband is his blood relative and he looks up to my husband so he should be the one that talks to him, after taking to his parents maybe since they were the ones who already told other relatives about their son. I might know more after they have spoken.
  • lol. For a second I thought you meant your husband was a Murdoch!!!
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Tasmania is beautiful. The population is low, and much of the island remains in its wild state. Better not to repeat any of the usual jokes about the inhabitants.

    We Tasmanians are very sensitive to the ignorant attacks from other Australians. Economically we have been better managed in the last few years than the other states. Our climate is comfortable and we do not freeze to death during the colder months. Where I live in Launceston our weather is generally the same as Melbourne. I believe that I live in the best place in the world, but don't tell too many people as I don't want to share my paradise.
  • rhubarb wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Tasmania is beautiful. The population is low, and much of the island remains in its wild state. Better not to repeat any of the usual jokes about the inhabitants.

    We Tasmanians are very sensitive to the ignorant attacks from other Australians. Economically we have been better managed in the last few years than the other states. Our climate is comfortable and we do not freeze to death during the colder months. Where I live in Launceston our weather is generally the same as Melbourne. I believe that I live in the best place in the world, but don't tell too many people as I don't want to share my paradise.

    Why do other Australians look down on Tasmanians? Is it just because Tasmania is isolated? Does Tasmania have a culture that is different from the rest of Australia?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    We don't look down on them. We tease them, like we tease everyone. Tasmanians are inbred, Sydney people are up themselves and religious zealots, Queenslanders are slow and backwards, South Australians are all pommie bastards, Territorians are drunken yobs and Western Australians are all White South Africans on the run from majority Black rule.

    People up north play this weird foreign game where meathead thicknecks chew each other's ears off. But at least they don't have to wear armor to play, or have to wear a giant glove to catch a ball in case it hurts their hands. Bloody Septics. They're worse than Queenslanders.

    See? Its just a bit of fun. Gentle ribbing. The correct response is to laugh and say something insulting about Victorians. It's kind of the inverse of a boast battle.

    If you really want to piss off a Northern Tasmanian, you don't go with inbreeding. That's roll your eyes stuff. You mispronounce the name of their big city: Lawnceston. Then, when they correct you, you say: But that's not how they say it in Cornwall. Surely the way they say it in the town you are named after is the way it should be said. Then you flash them a sit-eating grin. My wife is from Lonnie. She went to the same school as Ricky Ponting (blessed be his name).

    BTW, all that Tassie people have to do back to us is tell us how much their four bedroom house on a hill with views over the city is worth.

  • Until very very recently, the new name for Victorians was "the infected".
  • MiliMili Shipmate
    Tasmanians are also said to have two heads, which I always thought related to the inbreeding jibe, but this article theorises it was due to low iodine in the soil causing lots of Tasmanians to develop goitres, before iodine was added to table salt. Some also had them surgically removed leaving a scar where it looked like a second head had been removed. As the article concludes though, it is all lighthearted. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-13/curious-hobart-origin-of-two-headed-tasmanian-myth/11197982
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Until very very recently, the new name for Victorians was "the infected".

    And if you lived on the New South Wales side of the Murray River it was “Mexicans”
  • @Sojourner it still is!
  • Yes, just as the rest of us are “mainlanders” to those who dwell in Van Diemen’s Land...
  • 39 (likely) murders by 19 ADF personnel in Afghanistan who are being referred for investigation with a view to laying criminal prosecution. There is credible evidence of 23 incidents where prisoners were summarily executed by Australian troops.

    I had a long drive today, and listened to the press conference by Angus Taylor. Among other things, he said that the conduct set out in the Brereton Report released today was shameful. He said that it damaged the reputation and effectiveness of the Australian Military. He almost said that it was the most shocking series of war crimes in Australian military history. He indicated that there will be root and branch reform of the Military.

    One factor among many that allowed these crimes to be carried out was the development in some parts of the SAS and 2nd Commando of a competitive culture celebrating the idea of the elite soldier who acted as an individual hero/warrior. Stressing both competition instead of co-operation and elite individuals over the service element of the Military was antithetical to the way that the Military should operate.

    Taylor said that he was shocked and deeply disturbed by the accounts of individual incidents, and that he personally thought that no serving soldier in the ADF was capable of doing what was alleged. He acknowledges that he was wrong, and that his mistake was a factor in the distress he felt.

    He expressed genuine sympathy for the families and friends of the victims, detailing the reasons why he felt that sorrow and sympathy was appropriate. He indicated that Australia will look at ways to appropriately make recompense to the Afghanis who have suffered as a result of these heinous crimes.

    This is my memory of the press conference. I'm trying to catch the spirit of Taylor's remarks.

    I feel some anger but more a sense of sadness and disappointment. I am a person who supports the military in general terms, and I try to respect people who serve. I support Australian military engagement overseas once a decision to send troops has been made, and I specifically supported Australia's engagement in attacking Afghanistan. But this is absolutely unacceptable. The deliberate execution of prisoners and non-combatants is a foul and disgusting act that can never be justified. That is what is alleged. This is what was covered up.

    It is a shameful day for all Australians.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Major-General Brereton, who prepared the report, is a judge of the NSW Court of Appeal. He went to the same school as I did, although rather later, and retained a close connection for many years with the school's cadet unit. I do not know how many times I appeared before him, either as a Judge in Equity, or after his appointment to the Court of Appeal. I'd have no hesitation in accepting his integrity and his ability to have produced a very thorough and well-based report.
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    I certainly have no doubt that such "war crimes" did taken place, but I'm not surprised.

    As in Vietnam, Iraq and elsewhere, No clear or realistic
    strategic objective set by the politicians, except to butter up the American war machine. So the generals make one up, which keeps shifting withe political wind. So without much guidance from above, the grunts on the front line set their own tactical objective, of which the easiest to measure is “body count”.

    And of course, Afghanistan has a very long history of successfully resisting foreign invaders, which is how many of them see the Americans and thus the Australians.

    BTW, I think @Simon Toad meant to refer to General Angus Campbell rather than "Angus Taylor", who is Australia's minister for promoting coal and increasing emissions.
  • well spotted Tukai :)
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Noted the comments about Sky News Australia and Australian Trump supporters. I’ve been sent unsolicited YouTube links and couldn’t believe my eyes!

    Sky News UK isn’t anything like that.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Apparently New Zealand is the only major Anglophone country with no significant presence of the Murdoch news empire. They have Ardern.

    Does Canada have much of a News Corp presence?

    Close to zero, if not outright zero.

    Our major right-wing papers are owned by a company called Postmedia, which has a rather byzantine history: it grew out of a paper called the National Post, which was founded in the 1990s by a guy named Conrad Black(*). Long story short, Postmedia eventually came to include the older Sun chain(patterned it's British namesake), and another more centrist chain of dailies.

    I believe the majority of Postmedia is now owned by Trump's buddy Pecker, who also owned the National Enquirer at one point.

    The main paper of record in Canada, the Globe And Mail, is owned by the company founded by Lord Thomson of Fleet. And the Toronto Star, a famously liberal daily, owns a few properties as well.

    I don't think Murdoch owns anything in Canadian radio or TV either.

    (*) Black's own story is pretty hilarious. After founding the Post, he renounced his Canadian citizenship to get a peerage in the UK( where he had at one time owned The Spectator, which I believe would have made him Boris' boss), only to then get arrested and jailed in the USA for embezzlement. He was released after a few years, and then begged the Canadian government to be allowed to return. A full American pardon eluded him, however, until he began penning columns in the Post about how Donald Trump Is Just What The World Needs Right Now. That eventually got him his pardon(with Elton John as a character reference!), and he continues to scribble away in a sort of honorary-publisher position at the paper he founded.

    The funniest thing about Black's pardon was that it refered to him by his full British title, a privilege denied to him by law in Canada.
  • The White House's statement on Lord Black's pardon.

    Elton John also gets the full title treatment as well. And this is probably one of the few times when Sir Elton and Rush Limbaugh have both been cited in support of the same argument,
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Noted the comments about Sky News Australia and Australian Trump supporters. I’ve been sent unsolicited YouTube links and couldn’t believe my eyes!

    Sky News UK isn’t anything like that.

    Not sure how many viewers Sky News has, or how seriously its political comments are taken. Quite possibly, many will watch it for any sports news it's carrying. Very few Trump supporters around here - most think he's a bad joke and don't understand how he received sufficient votes 4 years ago - let alone so many this time after 4 years' experience of him.
  • What do people think of the situation concerning the conflict with China and how the Govt is handling it. I heard an interview with Rudd on 7:30 where he made some criticisms of Morrison, indicating that he was a little too quick and a little too public in his response to the mocked-up picture concerning our war crimes in Afghanistan. Rudd seemed less pro-China than usual, but was still making the point that Australian conservatives have trouble with China, given the underlying racism in much of their rhetoric aimed at a domestic audience. Abetz' disgusting questioning of Chinese Australians at Senate Estimates springs to mind.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    What do people think of the situation concerning the conflict with China and how the Govt is handling it. I heard an interview with Rudd on 7:30 where he made some criticisms of Morrison, indicating that he was a little too quick and a little too public in his response to the mocked-up picture concerning our war crimes in Afghanistan. Rudd seemed less pro-China than usual, but was still making the point that Australian conservatives have trouble with China, given the underlying racism in much of their rhetoric aimed at a domestic audience. Abetz' disgusting questioning of Chinese Australians at Senate Estimates springs to mind.


    Just for clarification, as far as is known, the photoshopped soldier was not in real life involved with atrocities?

    If so, I would say that the photoshop was a nasty thing to do to that soldier personally, and the Chinese official was pretty irresponsible in publicizing it. But the government should be wary of thinking this might be a game-changer in improving their position or that of the military, in regards to the larger war-crimed affair.

    (Caveat that I haven't followed this story all that closely, and almost all my sources are non-Australian. But I do know that in these sorts of situations, there is invariably a tendency among apologists to divert attention to thealleged unfairness of the backlash.)
  • MiliMili Shipmate
    I don't care about the image that much - some soldiers did commit atrocities and like it or not that reflects on the armed forces and Australia as a whole. Those soldiers were sadistic enough to get pleasure from what they did and I doubt they care how their behaviour affected anyone else. On the positive side they are being investigated and hopefully justice will be served. I'm glad to live in a country where we can criticise the government and the armed forces openly without repercussions. In China that is not possible and to be successful or even free, artists can only make art that is approved by the CCP and become famous and successful by spreading propaganda. Artists are the first to go (to their deaths, jails, asylums or 'reeducation camps') in non-democratic, authoritarian countries if the actually want to express their own views or anything original through art.
  • MiliMili Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Not sure how many viewers Sky News has, or how seriously its political comments are taken. Quite possibly, many will watch it for any sports news it's carrying. Very few Trump supporters around here - most think he's a bad joke and don't understand how he received sufficient votes 4 years ago - let alone so many this time after 4 years' experience of him.

    I just met another Trump supporter here in Melbourne. He said he was a Bernie Sanders supporter and never has voted 'conservative' (some Australians do have strong support for various US politicians even though they obviously can't vote for them). He tried to convince Sanders supporting friends in the US not to vote for Trump. But over time - probably due to his Sanders supporting friends flipping to Trump and mixing with other Trump supporters online - he came to like and respect trump and now believes all the crazy election conspiracy theories. He compares it to the episode with the two aliens on a Simpsons Halloween special, where the aliens run for president. He sees all the others as the same and Trump as different and therefore better. I mentioned that even if politicians seem the same, they do have very different policies based on their ideologies, but I don't think he 'got' that. He also didn't reply when I asked where online he got his information from. I suggested he read sources from both sides and he took that on board, I think.

    Some people don't seem to understand the politicians act a certain way because there are long standing norms of how people behave in middle class professions, including politics. Nothing wrong with voting for someone who is a bit of a maverick, but I wish they would base their vote on policies not personalities. Also I can't really see what people see in Trump's personality, but I have to accept some people are attracted to him.

    Fixed quoting code. BroJames Purgatory Host
  • stetson wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    What do people think of the situation concerning the conflict with China and how the Govt is handling it. I heard an interview with Rudd on 7:30 where he made some criticisms of Morrison, indicating that he was a little too quick and a little too public in his response to the mocked-up picture concerning our war crimes in Afghanistan. Rudd seemed less pro-China than usual, but was still making the point that Australian conservatives have trouble with China, given the underlying racism in much of their rhetoric aimed at a domestic audience. Abetz' disgusting questioning of Chinese Australians at Senate Estimates springs to mind.


    Just for clarification, as far as is known, the photoshopped soldier was not in real life involved with atrocities?

    If so, I would say that the photoshop was a nasty thing to do to that soldier personally, and the Chinese official was pretty irresponsible in publicizing it. But the government should be wary of thinking this might be a game-changer in improving their position or that of the military, in regards to the larger war-crimed affair.

    (Caveat that I haven't followed this story all that closely, and almost all my sources are non-Australian. But I do know that in these sorts of situations, there is invariably a tendency among apologists to divert attention to thealleged unfairness of the backlash.)

    I really don't know, but I'm not sure the identity of those soldiers is known publicly, so doubtful. But China attacking us is fine. I'm OK with that. The matter that I'm interested in is the Australian Govt's management of China. Is Morrison's approach right? Is Rudd's criticism of Morrison valid?

    My view is that China is demonstrating that it does not want to do business with us unless we behave in a certain manner. So what do we do from here?
  • @Mili For me, Trump's policies are problematic, very problematic. But I would not vote for him because he is such a flawed person with a terrible record in business. He is not trustworthy, and his judgement is terrible. I would be happier with any other Republican, as long as they were not an isolationist or a unilateralist.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    What do people think of the situation concerning the conflict with China and how the Govt is handling it. I heard an interview with Rudd on 7:30 where he made some criticisms of Morrison, indicating that he was a little too quick and a little too public in his response to the mocked-up picture concerning our war crimes in Afghanistan. Rudd seemed less pro-China than usual, but was still making the point that Australian conservatives have trouble with China, given the underlying racism in much of their rhetoric aimed at a domestic audience. Abetz' disgusting questioning of Chinese Australians at Senate Estimates springs to mind.


    Just for clarification, as far as is known, the photoshopped soldier was not in real life involved with atrocities?

    If so, I would say that the photoshop was a nasty thing to do to that soldier personally, and the Chinese official was pretty irresponsible in publicizing it. But the government should be wary of thinking this might be a game-changer in improving their position or that of the military, in regards to the larger war-crimed affair.

    (Caveat that I haven't followed this story all that closely, and almost all my sources are non-Australian. But I do know that in these sorts of situations, there is invariably a tendency among apologists to divert attention to thealleged unfairness of the backlash.)

    I really don't know, but I'm not sure the identity of those soldiers is known publicly, so doubtful. But China attacking us is fine. I'm OK with that. The matter that I'm interested in is the Australian Govt's management of China. Is Morrison's approach right? Is Rudd's criticism of Morrison valid?

    My view is that China is demonstrating that it does not want to do business with us unless we behave in a certain manner. So what do we do from here?

    When it comes to the photoshop I can't see any problem with Morrison's approach (and indeed I think the Opposition has pretty much backed him).

    The mistakes, such as they were, arguably came earlier. I think the whole business with wanting an inquiry into the origins of Covid-19 was a real flashpoint. It's never been clear to me why the exact origins matter, unless you buy into the conspiracy theories about it being engineered or deliberate (and there's solid scientific evidence that no, the virus is a perfectly natural phenomenon), or want to suggest that it escaped from a lab.

    So yeah, to me Australia being at the forefront of calling for an inquiry was a big problem. Because having it suggested that somehow China is to blame for the pandemic, rather than the pandemic being something that happened to China first because stuff always has to happen somewhere first... I can certainly see how that could have been taken extremely badly.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    orfeo wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    What do people think of the situation concerning the conflict with China and how the Govt is handling it. I heard an interview with Rudd on 7:30 where he made some criticisms of Morrison, indicating that he was a little too quick and a little too public in his response to the mocked-up picture concerning our war crimes in Afghanistan. Rudd seemed less pro-China than usual, but was still making the point that Australian conservatives have trouble with China, given the underlying racism in much of their rhetoric aimed at a domestic audience. Abetz' disgusting questioning of Chinese Australians at Senate Estimates springs to mind.


    Just for clarification, as far as is known, the photoshopped soldier was not in real life involved with atrocities?

    If so, I would say that the photoshop was a nasty thing to do to that soldier personally, and the Chinese official was pretty irresponsible in publicizing it. But the government should be wary of thinking this might be a game-changer in improving their position or that of the military, in regards to the larger war-crimed affair.

    (Caveat that I haven't followed this story all that closely, and almost all my sources are non-Australian. But I do know that in these sorts of situations, there is invariably a tendency among apologists to divert attention to thealleged unfairness of the backlash.)

    I really don't know, but I'm not sure the identity of those soldiers is known publicly, so doubtful. But China attacking us is fine. I'm OK with that. The matter that I'm interested in is the Australian Govt's management of China. Is Morrison's approach right? Is Rudd's criticism of Morrison valid?

    My view is that China is demonstrating that it does not want to do business with us unless we behave in a certain manner. So what do we do from here?

    When it comes to the photoshop I can't see any problem with Morrison's approach (and indeed I think the Opposition has pretty much backed him).

    The mistakes, such as they were, arguably came earlier. I think the whole business with wanting an inquiry into the origins of Covid-19 was a real flashpoint. It's never been clear to me why the exact origins matter, unless you buy into the conspiracy theories about it being engineered or deliberate (and there's solid scientific evidence that no, the virus is a perfectly natural phenomenon), or want to suggest that it escaped from a lab.

    So yeah, to me Australia being at the forefront of calling for an inquiry was a big problem. Because having it suggested that somehow China is to blame for the pandemic, rather than the pandemic being something that happened to China first because stuff always has to happen somewhere first... I can certainly see how that could have been taken extremely badly.

    I don't really know that much about Morrison, beyond that he's a right-winger. But on that score, it seems to me that usually when people of his ideological ilk call for an inquiry into the origins of the pandemic, it's basically just an excuse to remind everyone of China's alleged culpability.

    I saw a news report a few days back that the CDC in Atlanta now has possible evidence that there might have been coronavirus cases in the US before the virus showed up in Wuhan. Don't think Morrison wants his proposed inquiry to explore THAT possibility.
  • MiliMili Shipmate
    Can you provide a link to that article?
  • Mili wrote: »
    Can you provide a link to that article?

    I don't do links on digital, and anyway I think I might have misunderstood the article.

    USA Today had a piece(probably not the same one I saw before) a few days ago called Covid-19 May Have Been Spreading In The US At Least A Month Before First Case Was Reported, CDC Says. However, reading the article, it doesn't clarify whether they mean "...reported anywhere in the world", or "...reported in the US". Assuming they mean the latter, that wouldn't mean that it predated the Wuhan cases.

    That said, I do kinda remember that the article I saw a few days ago reported the CDC as placing the first US diagnoses as pre-Wuhan. However, I can't seem to find it again, so I'm not gonna hold fast to that claim.

    Point remains that I don't think most right-wingers have a disinterested, non-partisan curiousity about how tge virus developed.
  • MiliMili Shipmate
    I agree with your last point. Though Morrison is no Trump. Some of the other right wing politicians here such as Abetz are definitely more anti-China to the point of insisting second generation Chinese Australians to denounce the CCP.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Yes I doubt the whole denunciation thing went down well either. And China, being a one-party state, is certainly not going to believe a notion of “oh he’s in our party but he’s not government”.
  • I just found a fuller image of the offending meme, and have been reading a bit about it. Apparently, it's not even a photoshop, as it does not portray an actual soldier, but was rather created from scratch by a political satirist(it does seem to use a real photo to represent the soldier, though). Still probably not the most diplomatic thing for the Chinese to have posted, but at the end of the day, it doesn't amount to much more than saying "Australian soldiers commited war crimes."
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Yes I doubt the whole denunciation thing went down well either. And China, being a one-party state, is certainly not going to believe a notion of “oh he’s in our party but he’s not government”.

    orfeo:

    Does "the whole denunciation thing" refer to the Australian government criticizing China? And does "he" in your second sentence refer to Abetz?
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    stetson wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Yes I doubt the whole denunciation thing went down well either. And China, being a one-party state, is certainly not going to believe a notion of “oh he’s in our party but he’s not government”.

    orfeo:

    Does "the whole denunciation thing" refer to the Australian government criticizing China? And does "he" in your second sentence refer to Abetz?

    It referred to Abetz. I think there might have been some other backbencher or two that made comments with a similar flavour, but Abetz was doing this in Senate hearings. Asking Australian citizens to pledge allegiance to Australia and renounce China.

    Which was understandably considered quite offensive by some people, not least because he’s never shown any inclination to ask Australians of other ethnic backgrounds to renounce something from their ancestral country.

    Abetz was born in Germany. And at least one of the people he made demands on was born in Australia.
  • Thanks.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    Abetz was born in Germany. And at least one of the people he made demands on was born in Australia.

    I think it's even more offensive to ask someone who has taken the deliberate action of becoming a citizen to again declare their allegiance and renounce another country than to ask those who are default citizens, as it were.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    I think you have a point Orfeo concerning Australia spearheading the call for an inquiry into the origin of Coronavirus. I thought at the time that we were currying favor with the Trump Administration, and I didn't at all set it in the context of our relationship with China.

    This article, again from The Age, lists matters which China considered wrong. I think us being the ones to be calling for a coronavirus inquiry is the issue that stands out as being a little off. The other issues are: our diplomacy over the South China Sea; the Foreign Interference legislation; and banning Huawei's involvement in 5G.

    In the matter of the photoshopped image, a point made in this article is that the official is not very senior. It might have been better for a different Australian official to have made the statement, or for Morrison to have been a little less bullish.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Good article. I think it's also not that surprising that the legislation on foreign interference was seen in practice as legislation on Chinese interference - the article itself draws the line as to the context in which that legislation came about.
  • I like this Peter Hartcher Opinion piece too. I particularly like his suggestion that international co-operation on trade with China be utilised to combat its use of market power for political ends, or at least political ends not in the interests of the nations who decide to act in concert. My one hesitation is that I am in agreement with Peter Dutton on this, according to the article.
  • Here is a Guardian opinion piece about matters Australians should think about arising out of the report of the NZ Royal Commission into the Christchurch massacre. There is nothing too surprising in the article. It details the penetration of far right politics into the mainstream of big business politics in this county. I assume that the author is reporting in part the content of the findings of the Royal Commission.

    I use the term "big business politics" to mean the Liberal and National parties, as I was fishing around for a term to describe them like "conservative". Conservative just doesn't seem appropriate, because I take the term to mean those who find the idea of "life unchanging" attractive. I don't think big business politicians want that, as evidenced by the Government's IR reform package, introduced as a bill and now downgraded to a negotiation position in their usual bumbling style.

    IMHO what needs to be addressed is the horror-show of Sky News After Dark, or at least the publicising of their shows on mainstream news. I feel like they are a gateway drug that eventually gets you hooked on fascism. I really would like to know why Uncle Rupert allows this stuff to air on his station. Does it really make him money? I suspect its a vanity project, which horrifies me. It makes me long for the days of Kerry "the goanna" Packer, calling up channel nine and telling them to "get this shit off my television station". I mean the guy was a hard-arse, but at least he had values. This, in turn, makes me long for Max Gillies portraying Kerry Packer. Those were the days. I think I'll look him up on You Tube.

    Sorry for the rambling post. I just meant to introduce the Guardian article and things got away from me.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »

    IMHO what needs to be addressed is the horror-show of Sky News After Dark, or at least the publicising of their shows on mainstream news. I feel like they are a gateway drug that eventually gets you hooked on fascism. I really would like to know why Uncle Rupert allows this stuff to air on his station. Does it really make him money? I suspect its a vanity project, which horrifies me..

    I am not directly familiar with Sky News After Dark. However, given what I've seen of other Murdoch properties, I can't say I have much bewilderment as to why he would allow borderline fascism to appear on the network. It is his stock-in-trade the world over.

  • I agree. But until the, I don't know, the late 1990's he didn't show particular right wing tendencies. He showed naked greed for wealth and power and the desire to wield political influence, but he supported Tony Blair for God's sake. He supported Labor Governments here. He was always an establishment guy, not a radical.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I think that's right. He supported Gough and the Labor Party leading up to the 1972 federal election. The editor of The Australian in much of that period was Adrian Deamer, and under him the paper was very high quality and left-leaning. Despite the lean to the left, it was closely followed by the Liberal/Country Party government and the paper's editorial on the independence movement in Bangladesh was so well argued that it changed government policy. Murdoch also allowed Petty pretty free rein in the editorial cartoon and again they were mostly left.
  • Thanks for filling in the details on Murdoch.

    Yeah, I think I might've had the vague idea that some of his properties had been more left-leaning in the past. Though for the most part, besides hearing about his buying up American papers in the mid-80s, he mostly stayed off my radar until Fox News started up a decade later, and as far as I can tell, he hasn't deviated much from that formula ever since.

Sign In or Register to comment.