Opinion Adam Goodes

[ydraw]

Thanks for posting this, it is a really interesting study and report.
The distribution of journo voting intentions did surprise me, but I am not sure it supports your arguments all that well: the senior editors (ie the ones that write the opinion pieces and set the editorial direction) are coalition-leaning in the majority.

You only need to look at who the respective papers have writing their opinion columns to discern which way they lean. This seems rather relevant:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...s/fairfax_columnists_celebrate_australia_day/

 

[ydraw]

I have been following your posts on here, and am utterly dismayed by them. Most of your posts are misinformed or false and to prove them you always seem to refer the person to a google search, and pass that off as "research".

What a load of horsehit. I challenged people to link to an article describing genocide in Australia. They couldn't because there wasn't any. Hard to write an article about something that never happened.

I am dismayed that these forums have so many uneducated reflexive left-wing bullies who do nothing but try to shout down opposing views all day long.

 

[pavsbootlace]

Yeah, nah.

http://theconversation.com/whose-vi...ote-out-labor-while-reporters-lean-left-13995

Seems odd that you would use that article to support your argument. It suggests that Fairfax papers sit slightly to the right of centre. Do you really think a lefty is someone who mostly votes Liberal but occasionally votes Labor?

 

[not_working]

You only need to look at who the respective papers have writing their opinion columns to discern which way they lean. This seems rather relevant:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...s/fairfax_columnists_celebrate_australia_day/

OK, I would suggest proving the radicalism of the media by quoting Andrew Bolt is a bit lazy. A bit like quoting Marx to condemn capitalism ...

Overall, I think the debate here is missing the point, the fault-lines do not run between right and left, or Coalition vs Labour. It is more about mainstream (which is more centrist) vs more radical ideas on right and left. It is between the conservative part of the Coalition (think Abbott, think Pyne, think Barnaby) vs the liberal part of the coalition (think Turnbull, think Morrison minus the boats). It is between the right of Labour vs the more radical unions and more radical lefties.
It just so happens that the coalition at the moment is more dominated by the radical parts of the party, while Labour (just) is more dominated by the centrists parts at the moment. But swap Abbott for Turnbull, and Shorten for Plibersek and it moves the other way around ...

 

[ydraw]

Seems odd that you would use that article to support your argument. It suggests that Fairfax papers sit slightly to the right of centre. Do you really think a lefty is someone who mostly votes Liberal but occasionally votes Labor?

Fairfax journos were 54% Labor, 20% Greens, 20% Liberal.

Even among senior editors the split was 44 to libs 45 to labor/greens.

So it's odd that you didn't read the article at all.

 

[ydraw]

OK, I would suggest proving the radicalism of the media by quoting Andrew Bolt is a bit lazy. A bit like quoting Marx to condemn capitalism ...

I quoted Andrew Bolt quoting fairfax opinion columnists bagging out Australia day. Which would be quite relevant to the topic of this thread.

 

[ydraw]

It just so happens that the coalition at the moment is more dominated by the radical parts of the party, while Labour (just) is more dominated by the centrists parts at the moment. But swap Abbott for Turnbull, and Shorten for Plibersek and it moves the other way around ...

Completely not true at all. Abbott is the least radical Liberal leader for 30 years. His own voters cant stand him because he's kept literally none of his promises to turn around the damage of the Rudd/Gillard era. He's Kevin Rudd with bigger ears. That's why will be rolled by Turnbull, who at least appeals to the economic dries in the Liberal Party.

The most radical Liberal leader was John Hewson. He was the only one who wanted to challenge the status quo and make the Liberal party actually liberal again.

 

[gungho]

What a load of horsehit. I challenged people to link to an article describing genocide in Australia. They couldn't be there wasn't any.

I am dismayed that these forums have so many uneducated reflexive left-wing bullies who do nothing but try to shout down opposing views all day long.

Again, you want people to link articles online, instead of reading books from authors who have spent years (one person in particular has spent his entire lifetime) researching these subjects. If you start by reading the ones I have suggested then a few of the subjects (including the genocide of Aboriginal people) will be clearer for you.

 

[ydraw]

Again, you want people to link articles online, instead of reading books from authors who have spent years (one person in particular has spent his entire lifetime) researching these subjects. If you start by reading the ones I have suggested then a few of the subjects (including the genocide of Aboriginal people) will be clearer for you.

I don't read a lot of fiction.

 

[Kram]

Thread has jumped the shark going all srp!

 

[Frank J Moose]

Completely not true at all. Abbott is the least radical Liberal leader for 30 years. His own voters cant stand him because he's kept literally none of his promises to turn around the damage of the Rudd/Gillard era. He's Kevin Rudd with bigger ears. That's why will be rolled by Turnbull, who at least appeals to the economic dries in the Liberal Party.

The most radical Liberal leader was John Hewson. He was the only one who wanted to challenge the status quo and make the Liberal party actually liberal again.

*shakes head forlornly and rolls eyes*

There is just no point having a discussion.

 

[Nothing]

Thread has jumped the shark going all srp!

At least he's given up defending Sylvia.

 

[clogged]

You should get working on your court case against Malifice, ydraw.

 

[silverscope]

So if I boo Adam Goodes because he's a Sydney player and I don't like Sydney that makes me a racist?

 

[gungho]

I don't read a lot of fiction.

if you don't read fiction, then please don't type it.

 

[ydraw]

Again, you want people to link articles online, instead of reading books from authors who have spent years (one person in particular has spent his entire lifetime) researching these subjects. .

One thing that all actual historical events have in common is plenty of information on the internet about them. There is zero information about the "Australian Genocide" on the internet because there was never any Australian genocide. If you cant understand that then I don't know what to tell you.

For example, here is a list of people who have walked across Australia. Here's an article about the Big Fibreglass Merino in Goulburn. Interesting to be sure, but hardly the news of the century. You'd think something as important as a genocide in recent living history would rate its own page on Wikipedia too. It doesn't. Because it never happened.

 

[ydraw]

*shakes head forlornly and rolls eyes*

There is just no point having a discussion.

What you mean is you aren't capable of having a discussion because you don't have a clue what youre talking about. So like all the other faux intellectuals in this thread you resort to pretend exasperation in lieu of an argument. You haven't got a clue so you just insult me and hope others pile on. Weak as piss.

It's about the 4th time you've done the same thing fishing for likes and you still haven't got one yet. Must be annoying.

 

[pavsbootlace]

Fairfax journos were 54% Labor, 20% Greens, 20% Liberal.

Even among senior editors the split was 44 to libs 45 to labor/greens.

So it's odd that you didn't read the article at all.

Sorry, I was reading the other article you posted which showed the vast majority of editorial support for the Coalition. Including the fairfax papers supporting the Coalition more often than Labor.




As for the other article, when 42.8% of respondents don't want to tell you who they vote for, it's not a particularly strong study.

 

[ydraw]

Overall, I think the debate here is missing the point, the fault-lines do not run between right and left, or Coalition vs Labour. It is more about mainstream (which is more centrist) vs more radical ideas on right and left. It is between the conservative part of the Coalition (think Abbott, think Pyne, think Barnaby)

None of those guys are even very conservative (maybe Pyne). The most radical true conservative in the Liberal party is Cory Bernadi. Abbott is a wet who wants a national paid parental leave scheme and renewable energy subsidies. Barnaby is an old school agrarian socialist and protectionist. Christopher Pyne mostly only cares about the Cultural wars. Joe Hockey is just comic relief.

Turnbull and Bernardi are the true radicals. Probably the only 2 Liberals who really want to reduce to total size of government spending. The rest of them want the same things the Labor right does, except with them getting the cabinet seats.

 

[ydraw]

Sorry, I was reading the other article you posted which showed the vast majority of editorial support for the Coalition. Including the fairfax papers supporting the Coalition more often than Labor.

View attachment 157868


As for the other article, when 42.8% of respondents don't want to tell you who they vote for, it's not a particularly strong study.

The graph basically reflects public support at the time. The Howard government was very popular until 2007 and the endorsements reflect that. I posted that graph to rebut someone's suggestion that fairfax was a right wing paper because they endorsed abbott in 1 election. Everyone endorsed Abbott in the last election because the Gillard government was the worst in living memory.

They probably won't do so again given how s**t Abbott has been and the fact that Gillard is no longer Labor leader.

 

[gungho]

One thing that all actual historical events have in common is plenty of information on the internet about them. There is zero information about the "Australian Genocide" on the internet because there was never any Australian genocide. If you cant understand that then I don't know what to tell you.

For example, here is a list of people who have walked across Australia. Here's an article about the Big Fibreglass Merino in Goulburn. Interesting to be sure, but hardly the news of the century. You'd think something as important as a genocide in recent living history would rate its own page on Wikipedia too. It doesn't. Because it never happened.

If you are looking at percentages of the aboriginal population that were wiped out, then it was complete genocide in Tasmania, and something close to that in Queensland.
Many of your posts on this forum (not just your ones on Aboriginal genocide) are wrong and misinformed. Online articles are very limited, and are nothing in comparison to reading books from people that have spent years correlating data, scanning historical documents, and methodically researching this history. Like I have said (although I get the feeling this is advice will not be heeded) try reading the books first.

 

[Kram]

Silly question but how bad was the actual booing? I missed the game and haven't seen a replay.

 

[clogged]

Silly question but how bad was the actual booing? I missed the game and haven't seen a replay.

It was pretty bad. Probably the worst he'd experienced. Well out of proportion to anything Goodes had done recently or since the last time he played against the Eagles at Subi.

 

[FreoGirl]

Silly question but how bad was the actual booing? I missed the game and haven't seen a replay.

you can find examples if you google - nothing like I've ever heard, hence why it's become such an issue

 

[Borderline]

The mainstream media is horrendously left wing, when the only people who have come out and not defended Goodes are Rita Panahi, Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones that tells you all you need to know really.

I mean the chief football writer in the Herald Sun (part of News Ltd, perceived by lefties to have a massive right wing bias) is pumping out articles daily and campaigning nightly on TV in support of Goodes you know that it leans to the left.