Europe submits voluntarily

[bilby]

Of course not. But no-one with a brain considers those papers credible.

Of course left leaning papers are paragons of virtue!

What difference would it make whether they are or not?

The Daily Mail would remain a stinking pile of shit that is unfit to line the bottom of a budgie's cage regardless of what other newspapers are out there.

This whole 'logic' thing is quite good fun; you should really try using it sometime.

A left wing rag like the (oxymoronicaly named) Socialist Worker is full uf bullshit. The Daily Mail is likewise full of bullshit. Read both, and you get to read lies and distortions from both ends of the political spectrum. The two sets of lies do not 'balance' out to the truth; they are just two conflicting sets of lies.

If one newspaper reports the lie that the Prime Minister gets paid a million dollars an hour; and the other incorrectly claims that he selflessly toils for no pay at all, then having read both claims, how much better informed are you about the PM's actual income?

Reading lies is not a way to become informed, EVEN IF they are contradicting other lies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If one newspaper reports the lie that the Prime Minister gets paid a million dollars an hour; and the other incorrectly claims that he selflessly toils for no pay at all, then having read both claims, how much better informed are you about the PM's actual income?

Reading lies is not a way to become informed, EVEN IF they are contradicting other lies.

Actually, you are slightly better informed: You can be pretty certain it's somewhere between $1M and $0.

 

[bigfield]

If one newspaper reports the lie that the Prime Minister gets paid a million dollars an hour; and the other incorrectly claims that he selflessly toils for no pay at all, then having read both claims, how much better informed are you about the PM's actual income?

Reading lies is not a way to become informed, EVEN IF they are contradicting other lies.

Actually, you are slightly better informed: You can be pretty certain it's somewhere between $1M and $0.

No, you're exactly as well informed as a person who didn't read those sources.

If you were dumb enough to believe either of the lies, you are now misinformed. Happens quite often, as this thread demonstrates.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What ideology a reporter may follow may differ from editorial staff and vice versa.

The editor(s) will make sure that it's the ideology of the paper that shines through in all articles. That is among other things his/their job. It's also the job of a journalist to produce text that his boss wants to pay for. A journalist has no problems writing texts with an ideological slant that differs from their own. I have a close friend of mine who is very far out on the lefty spectra. He used to be the chief editor of our most extreme socialist/communist paper. He's many times written right wing/libertarian texts that completely go against his own values. Why does he do it? Because it's his job and he's a professional. I think they're all like that.

Being a journalist isn't like spouting opinions on a forum.

Since the ABC is taxpayer funded, it should show no bias at all. Programs like Q & A have shown anything but neutrality in the past.

It's impossible to write without showing any bias. It's even harder for television. "An objective stance" just means that "both sides" are given a chance to comment. Which is the laziest type of journalism and I hate it. It isn't really objectivity. It just feels like it.

The prime ideology of our society (in the entire western world) is liberalism. Both social and economical. It's so dominant we don't even notice it's there. Because we're so used to it we don't even register that "objective" media in reality has a liberal bias. I'm personally a liberal. So I'm of course happy about that. But I have no illusions as to the bias of the media.

 

[angelo]

The editor(s) will make sure that it's the ideology of the paper that shines through in all articles. That is among other things his/their job. It's also the job of a journalist to produce text that his boss wants to pay for. A journalist has no problems writing texts with an ideological slant that differs from their own. I have a close friend of mine who is very far out on the lefty spectra. He used to be the chief editor of our most extreme socialist/communist paper. He's many times written right wing/libertarian texts that completely go against his own values. Why does he do it? Because it's his job and he's a professional. I think they're all like that.

Being a journalist isn't like spouting opinions on a forum.

Since the ABC is taxpayer funded, it should show no bias at all. Programs like Q & A have shown anything but neutrality in the past.

It's impossible to write without showing any bias. It's even harder for television. "An objective stance" just means that "both sides" are given a chance to comment. Which is the laziest type of journalism and I hate it. It isn't really objectivity. It just feels like it.

The prime ideology of our society (in the entire western world) is liberalism. Both social and economical. It's so dominant we don't even notice it's there. Because we're so used to it we don't even register that "objective" media in reality has a liberal bias. I'm personally a liberal. So I'm of course happy about that. But I have no illusions as to the bias of the media.

Being Liberal in Australia is somewhere between a Republican and a Democrat, perhaps with a slight leaning to the right. As it stands today, the Labor party is headed by unions with a leader who takes his orders from them, even though only around 15-18% of employees are members of unions.

 

[bilby]

The editor(s) will make sure that it's the ideology of the paper that shines through in all articles. That is among other things his/their job. It's also the job of a journalist to produce text that his boss wants to pay for. A journalist has no problems writing texts with an ideological slant that differs from their own. I have a close friend of mine who is very far out on the lefty spectra. He used to be the chief editor of our most extreme socialist/communist paper. He's many times written right wing/libertarian texts that completely go against his own values. Why does he do it? Because it's his job and he's a professional. I think they're all like that.

Being a journalist isn't like spouting opinions on a forum.



It's impossible to write without showing any bias. It's even harder for television. "An objective stance" just means that "both sides" are given a chance to comment. Which is the laziest type of journalism and I hate it. It isn't really objectivity. It just feels like it.

The prime ideology of our society (in the entire western world) is liberalism. Both social and economical. It's so dominant we don't even notice it's there. Because we're so used to it we don't even register that "objective" media in reality has a liberal bias. I'm personally a liberal. So I'm of course happy about that. But I have no illusions as to the bias of the media.

Being Liberal in Australia is somewhere between a Republican and a Democrat, perhaps with a slight leaning to the right. As it stands today, the Labor party is headed by unions with a leader who takes his orders from them, even though only around 15-18% of employees are members of unions.

He said liberal, not Liberal.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The editor(s) will make sure that it's the ideology of the paper that shines through in all articles. That is among other things his/their job. It's also the job of a journalist to produce text that his boss wants to pay for. A journalist has no problems writing texts with an ideological slant that differs from their own. I have a close friend of mine who is very far out on the lefty spectra. He used to be the chief editor of our most extreme socialist/communist paper. He's many times written right wing/libertarian texts that completely go against his own values. Why does he do it? Because it's his job and he's a professional. I think they're all like that.

Being a journalist isn't like spouting opinions on a forum.



It's impossible to write without showing any bias. It's even harder for television. "An objective stance" just means that "both sides" are given a chance to comment. Which is the laziest type of journalism and I hate it. It isn't really objectivity. It just feels like it.

The prime ideology of our society (in the entire western world) is liberalism. Both social and economical. It's so dominant we don't even notice it's there. Because we're so used to it we don't even register that "objective" media in reality has a liberal bias. I'm personally a liberal. So I'm of course happy about that. But I have no illusions as to the bias of the media.

Being Liberal in Australia is somewhere between a Republican and a Democrat, perhaps with a slight leaning to the right. As it stands today, the Labor party is headed by unions with a leader who takes his orders from them, even though only around 15-18% of employees are members of unions.

All political parties are liberal today. They're just slightly more or less liberal in various aspects. But they're all liberal. We're using political terminology that was mostly invented between 1750 and 1850. None of the words today really mean what it says on the tin any longer.

In political debate we're so focused on what sets us apart that we tend to forget all the things we have in common. Today, almost everybody has the same opinion on everything. That's why the news is considered "objective" even though it most definitely isn't. It's just the details that vary. And this isn't historically uncommon. Humans are very social. We tend to mindlessly adopt whatever opinion those around us have. And if we differ slightly from those around us we like to call ourselves "free thinkers" even though it's laughable, considering how similar "free thinkers" are to everybody else.

/Proud Sheeple

 

[bigfield]

Being Liberal in Australia is somewhere between a Republican and a Democrat, perhaps with a slight leaning to the right. As it stands today, the Labor party is headed by unions with a leader who takes his orders from them, even though only around 15-18% of employees are members of unions.

He was obviously referring so small-L liberalism, not the politics of the Liberal Party of Australia, which is not liberalism as the rest of the world knows it. A small-L liberal would never vote for the LPA.

The Liberal Party in Australia is socially conservative and economically neoliberal, which puts them clearly on the right wing of politics.

The Labor Party, irrespective of its union background, is closer to small-L liberalism than the Liberal Party.


A perfect example of this difference is Medicare, Australia single-payer UHC program. Originally a Labor initiative, the Liberal Party has been trying to dismantle it for decades under the misguided belief that a private system would be more effective. No small-L liberal would support such an regressive policy; you have to look to conservatives and libertarians to find that kind of insanity.

 

[angelo]

Any party today that would attempt to dismantle Medicare would be committing suicide. The Liberal Party found that out at the end of the Fraser years. Nowadays, both parties try to out bid each other on the health budget. Actually, look at the similarities between them, they're more alike than one realises, except for the few hard left kooks that inhabit Labor ranks. Having said that, there are also some hard right kooks in the LPA that balances them out.

 

[bigfield]

Any party today that would attempt to dismantle Medicare would be committing suicide. The Liberal Party found that out at the end of the Fraser years.

The obviously forgot that lesson.

Nowadays, both parties try to out bid each other on the health budget.

The Coalition has a funny way of outbidding, considering that they have been cutting funding and even tried to introduce that fucktardery known as the 'GP co-payment'.

Actually, look at the similarities between them, they're more alike than one realises, except for the few hard left kooks that inhabit Labor ranks. Having said that, there are also some hard right kooks in the LPA that balances them out.

They are close together on the political spectrum, but ALP is still farther left and closer to small-L liberalism than the LPA is.

If you hadn't confused the Liberal Party with liberalism, we wouldn't be having this pointless derail. So if you are willing to stand corrected on that inane statement, you can get back to citing 'right wing kooks' like Jihadwatch and generally writing like a right wing kook, yourself.

 

[angelo]

Liberalism has different meanings in different countries. No one is arguing it ain't so!! Liberal in America generally means the Democratic Party. I was trying to point out the differences. I'm far from being right wing kook. I'm a realist, and a swinging voter. I have voted more Labor during my life than Liberal. But even the the most die-hard apologetic of Labor supporters must admit their party has lost the plot since the great Hawke-Keating years.

 

[bigfield]

I'm far from being right wing kook.

The views that you have expressed on this board put you squarely in the 'right wing kook' pigeonhole.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Liberalism has different meanings in different countries. No one is arguing it ain't so!! Liberal in America generally means the Democratic Party. I was trying to point out the differences. I'm far from being right wing kook. I'm a realist, and a swinging voter. I have voted more Labor during my life than Liberal. But even the the most die-hard apologetic of Labor supporters must admit their party has lost the plot since the great Hawke-Keating years.

Depepends. Liberalism colloquialy means different things. But liberalism has a definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

It is remarkable how little variation still exists between people when it comes to politics. This is truly the most politically boring age since forever.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, you are slightly better informed: You can be pretty certain it's somewhere between $1M and $0.

No, you're exactly as well informed as a person who didn't read those sources.

If you were dumb enough to believe either of the lies, you are now misinformed. Happens quite often, as this thread demonstrates.

The point is the lies are normally directional--thus you can tell the true value is almost certainly between the specified values.

 

[fromderinside]

The point is the lies are normally directional--thus you can tell the true value is almost certainly between the specified values.

So we have two lies, irrelevant, directional. Which word would you focus on in my last sentence? bzzzzt!

 

[repoman]

Europe in a nutshell:

 

[Speakpigeon]

Its a matter of Maths.
Take a European population with 15% Muslims . Then compare a 1.6 to an 8.1 birth rate. Islam is also fast growing amongst Europeans. I prefer Halal beef by the way. If however islam in Europe adopts and retains the culture of its host countries I think many of our civil rights will remain intact. So pretty soon the host citizens will be a minority.

Within 150 years there won't be a single current European citizen left anywhere in the EU.

It's a disaster!!

I'm on my way to prove you wrong.
EB

 

[angelo]

Quickly, I'm holding my breath!!

 

[whichphilosophy]

Quickly, I'm holding my breath!!

Within 150 years, all current citizens will be deceased of course.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Quickly, I'm holding my breath!!

Within 150 years, all current citizens will be deceased of course.

Shh... never explain a joke!