Anthony Albanese - How long? -3-

Remove this Banner Ad

It's clearly the cops working with the government against the transport workers which isn't surprising, that's their job after all
On a tangent the government arguing with the unions isn't going to end well for Labor.

Members of said unions are starting to get sick of Labor working against them.
I've seen suggestions that the unions involved to cut donations to Labor.
 
Mods - Aren't news quotes meant to be referenced in the post?

I'm attacking the media reporting it because they are only presenting part of the story (no doubt in order to try and sensationalise something unnecessarily). That's the sort of understanding of the media that you seem to think many on this board don't seem to have.
I can put the link in but as its a Daily Telegraph paywall I didn't see the point - as you lot never read it and certainly would not pay for it.

Anyway, here's the link. Please do not whinge if you can't open it.

 
Mods - Aren't news quotes meant to be referenced in the post?

I'm attacking the media reporting it because they are only presenting part of the story (no doubt in order to try and sensationalise something unnecessarily). That's the sort of understanding of the media that you seem to think many on this board don't seem to have.
As a matter of interest, did the ABC report on what the Police Commissioner said in their interview with the union?
In the interests of balance of course.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

On a tangent the government arguing with the unions isn't going to end well for Labor.

Members of said unions are starting to get sick of Labor working against them.
I've seen suggestions that the unions involved to cut donations to Labor.
they've been very anti union both at state and federal levels over the last couple of years

union leadership has been part of the machine for a long time generally but after what they did with the CFMEU and how they've acted in general around strike action and calls for pay rises has made it pretty clear that they want the money and the votes but don't want to reciprocate for workers

union leaders might get nice deals but the workers don't get shit despite what the media and RBA say

be interesting to see if there is much more than rumbling about it at the next election
 
I can put the link in but as its a Daily Telegraph paywall I didn't see the point - as you lot never read it and certainly would not pay for it.

Anyway, here's the link. Please do not whinge if you can't open it.

its bigfooty rules that if you are going to quote from an article you link the article in the post for copyright purposes

please go update your original post
 
If Labor runs an effective Morrison-style scare campaign against Dutton, Albanese will remain PM and they may even squeak into majority. Albo might then anoint a successor to save the internal fight and present a fresh face for 2028. If said scare campaign is poor, Dutton might get close, but he will still be too far away from a majority to cobble together enough teals to work with him.

Some might side with the Coalition, but his whole persona and policy platform is the complete opposite of what the teals represent. The teals represent educated, climate-conscious people, many economically conservative and socially progressive. They would be hesitant to side with someone who stirs up dumb arse culture wars and wants to spend taxpayers' money on nuclear power that will do jack shit to address emissions in time.
 
Two things can be right at the same time. The coalition spent too much during Covid and Labor is spending too much now.
If they don’t spend we will enter a recession.

Do you remember the recession we had to have? Liberals beat labor over the head with that for 20+ years. The thing is it restructured and modernised our economy so the gains of the next 30 years rode on the back of it.

So no one - lib or lab want to go into a recession as the other will beat them over the head with it for the next 20 years again.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Everyone has biases. That includes media outlets
As has pointed out before to you, the media CAN report without being biased, but they don't because it doesn't create narrative that is further exacerbated by fringe minded morons on social media. Like BF srp.

The media should not have a right to opine / 'take sides' on certain issues. Coz it make the public believe the narrative portrayed by the media is the mind set of Jan and Joe public.

I don't need to tell you that if you were to walk down the street and ask opinion of Jan and Joe it would likely be very different to how the media reports it.
The Murdoch media leans right and/or whatever is popular at the time - which makes perfect sense given their primary role is to make money.
No, the murdoch media just leans right, not whatever is 'popular', it seems 'popular' because that's how murdoch media presents it.
The state owned media - BBC, ABC tend to lean left given they are inhabited generally by the inner city, university educated class. Their voting patterns generally go left so their reporting reflects the same.
Same as murdoch media, they 'lean' left because it creates narrative that the 'left' is popular to Jan and Joe, it isn't, much like the 'right' isn't either.

But it creates news, and that's all that matters to media. Social media, like here or more to the point the naive gullibles only exacerbate the issues with hyperbole.

For example, if you take the climate wars, the abc and media in general paint the picture that all and sundry are barrackers for renewables, and spud head, and his 'few' followers, is an eco terrorist (well he is, not because he doesn't believe in climate change, it's because of party donations from fossil fuel lobby's), gullibles on social media run with it and believe it.

What really is popular for Jan and Joe is the centre, ok there'll be variations and 'leaning' but by and large they're moderate and centred. < But that doesn't sell.

To suggest that the media are, to paraphrase 'doing their job in good faith' is a hard sell, I know I'm not buying it.
 
As has pointed out before to you, the media CAN report without being biased, but they don't because it doesn't create narrative that is further exacerbated by fringe minded morons on social media. Like BF srp.

The media should not have a right to opine / 'take sides' on certain issues. Coz it make the public believe the narrative portrayed by the media is the mind set of Jan and Joe public.

I don't need to tell you that if you were to walk down the street and ask opinion of Jan and Joe it would likely be very different to how the media reports it.

No, the murdoch media just leans right, not whatever is 'popular', it seems 'popular' because that's how murdoch media presents it.

Same as murdoch media, they 'lean' left because it creates narrative that the 'left' is popular to Jan and Joe, it isn't, much like the 'right' isn't either.

But it creates news, and that's all that matters to media. Social media, like here or more to the point the naive gullibles only exacerbate the issues with hyperbole.

For example, if you take the climate wars, the abc and media in general paint the picture that all and sundry are barrackers for renewables, and spud head, and his 'few' followers, is an eco terrorist (well he is, not because he doesn't believe in climate change, it's because of party donations from fossil fuel lobby's), gullibles on social media run with it and believe it.

What really is popular for Jan and Joe is the centre, ok there'll be variations and 'leaning' but by and large they're moderate and centred. < But that doesn't sell.

To suggest that the media are, to paraphrase 'doing their job in good faith' is a hard sell, I know I'm not buying it.
Fair points most of them.
The argument regarding popularity and content is a bit like the chicken and the egg argument. Is it popular because of the content or does the content reflect an issues popularity?

Whilst I admire your idealism that media can be presented without bias, the reality is it can't. Everything is biased because all people have biases.
Hell, even wikipedia and google are accused of being biased.

Numbers can be unbiased however they are driven by data which is driven by sources so again they are also open to biases.
 
Whilst I admire your idealism that media can be presented without bias, the reality is it can't. Everything is biased because all people have biases.
Well this is odd, because in the 70s and 80s and even the 90s, media reporting was actually dull, boring and purely factual. If people wanted biases they'd watch soap operas.

It could work now, but greed for revenue gets in the way of that.
 
What would the cops know about what the transport union is going to do?

Big surprise that they are coming out putting pressure on them to forgo a payrise though, after all the cops just got theirs why would they care about anyone else?

Sure, its obvious the people most able to blackmail the general public should get more money.
Its fare more important than actual skills or ability. :rolleyes:
 
I look at Milei, Bukele, Trump and other world leaders and think how lucky we would be in Australia to have them running our country. Strong men with courage to lead and make effective changes to benefit the people.

Unfortunately we have Albo. Pathetic and downright useless. You think his a leader. He couldn’t lead a hotdog stand. When you have Beta cucks leading a country with no spine and balls the size of a mothball, the people suffer - as we have under Albo.

Scomo was no better, he did his best Coata Concordia captain impression and was probably worse. Sums up this country.

Oh and the alternate choice Dutton. The egotist who wants to control how you parent your child with regards to social media who also wants to control what you read by banning your own social media too.

Good country Australia farken. Never thought I’d say it but give me Clive or Pauline at the helm over this lot of cucks
Parody thread that way>
 
Sure, its obvious the people most able to blackmail the general public should get more money.
Its fare more important than actual skills or ability. :rolleyes:
it takes a lot more training to become a train driver than it does to become a cop

if you're "pay rise" is less than inflation then its not a pay rise

people shouldn't have to go on strike to not have their standard of living go backwards but history shows they do
 
Well this is odd, because in the 70s and 80s and even the 90s, media reporting was actually dull, boring and purely factual. If people wanted biases they'd watch soap operas.

It could work now, but greed for revenue gets in the way of that.
Hmmm - I thought Whitlam complained long and loud about how the media played a big role in his downfall.
 
it takes a lot more training to become a train driver than it does to become a cop

if you're "pay rise" is less than inflation then its not a pay rise

people shouldn't have to go on strike to not have their standard of living go backwards but history shows they do

Everyone's standard of living is going backwards. Obvious effect of free trade agreements with third world countries.

Is that first line an opinion or a fact, some cops are highly specialised.
Is it "harder" to drive a train than a bus? Why?

There are other "hard" jobs, why should the ones who can blackmail the public get paid more.
What happened to Pilots who striked in the late 1980s?
A: They hired equally qualified Pilots on existing pay rates, and those Pilots did not affect the safety records of any of the airlines.

But of course ....trains are harder.
 
Everyone's standard of living is going backwards. Obvious effect of free trade agreements with third world countries.
I agree the US is largely to blame for this but I'm not sure what free trade agreements have with paying public transport workers a fair wage

Is that first line an opinion or a fact, some cops are highly specialised.

based on people I know who became cops and other people I know who became train drivers

oh and I said become a train driver or become a cop so your some roles are highly specialised isn't relevant


Is it "harder" to drive a train than a bus? Why?
you'd have to ask someone who drove a train and bus which was harder and why

There are other "hard" jobs, why should the ones who can blackmail the public get paid more.
What happened to Pilots who striked in the late 1980s?
A: They hired equally qualified Pilots on existing pay rates, and those Pilots did not affect the safety records of any of the airlines.

But of course ....trains are harder.
see you call it blackmailing the public so we're already at odds given its not the public the have issue with it's their employer and employment conditions

do you think strike action is where it starts?

it starts with negotiations stalling or going nowhere because the employer doesn't want to pay a fair wage

of course I think everyone who has a job should be paid fairly for that job and that means they should be able to afford food and housing and medical bills etc so we're probably coming at this from different positions seeing as you seem to start from who you think deserves to be paid
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Anthony Albanese - How long? -3-

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top