Category Archives: Media

Media principles

Posted on by
Reply

The great danger for Western civilisation is that the media have with honourable exceptions been captured by the left. The result is that:

1. The media never criticise parties of the left under any circumstances

2. The media find every possible fault they can with actions taken by or statements made by representatives of the parties of the right – or even by people who can be made to appear as representatives of the parties of the right

3. The media, as with the left in general, are beyond hypocrisy. There are no principles, only tactical advantage. The media, like the left, are totally consistent, bearing in mind they have no fixed values themselves but seek only power and wealth.

4. Deterioration in every aspect of life is allowed to take place without comment if someone on the left can be held responsible for the damage.

5. No one on the conservative side of politics is permitted to repair any damage caused by the left without intensive criticisms over the harm such repair is doing to particular individuals. Fairness is not based on any standard but only on who is making the change. If the change is made by a party of the right, it is be definition unfair and will be opposed to the fullest extent.

This one’s easy – was she right or was Cormann right?

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t watch TV so I don’t have to put up with any of it. Helps me keep a perfect calm in the midst of life. But there’s the interview above, and here is her comment below:

Alberici said she doesn’t “understand the hoo-ha” about her post-budget interview with Finance Minister Mathias Cormann in which she accused the government of making up “nonsense” figures that “you continue to trot out”.

“I was just trying to bring facts to the table – that’s what we are supposed to do. I don’t think doing a challenging interview is biased. I think the opposite: we should be challenging everyone who is in front of us.”

The moment that matters is around 3:30. If she was right, then she has a point. If she was wrong, then she should apologise. In any case, she should be civil to a Minister of the Crown. Watching it for the first time, I have to say it was a perfectly normal interview and I thought Cormann answered everything as well as one could hope. But arguing about budget facts is unfair, since no one watching will know one way or the other.

But the question remains: who was right about the figures?

THE ANSWER: The answer that has most satisfied my curiosity was provided by Ray. A fine piece of investigative journalism, unlike the sort of common garden invective dished up by the ABC.

Cormann quoted a figure of $667 billion. Alberici said that was made up and the correct figure was $370 billion. However, the only reference to $370 billion I can find in PEFO is the projected face value of Commonwealth securities as at 2016-17. The $667 billion reference from Cormann relates to the projected face value of Commonwealth securities in 2023-24. Since PEFO contained no estimate for this out to 2023-24, Alberici has no basis to her claim that Cormann was wrong.

By the way if we really want to compare apples with apples, MYEFOs projection for the face value of Commonwealth securities in 2016-17 was $440 billion.

The budget – even better one day later

Posted on by
Reply

As I was picking up the paper this morning, my wife said to me, it’s just like reading The Age. You may be sure she did not intend that as an encouraging sign of the times. I fear I have to agree, at least to some extent. But there were areas of redemption. The truest words on the budget commentary were by Mark Latham:

It’s all about dickheads talking about stuff they know nothing about — that’s what it’s about.

Certainly when I read (well, glanced through) the diatribe from Niki Sava, it was discouraging. Seriously, she is moving into the spot vacated by Michelle Grattan. It did take the government, and not just Joe Hockey, a year to work out that the only way to get the deficit down is to grow the private sector around it. And they finally removed the Keynesian head of Treasury and brought in John Fraser which probably has made a world of difference. I don’t know why she focuses on personalities, but with her Malcolm Turnbull fandom, nothing will satisfy her blood lusts, it seems, not even a really together budget that works economically and politically.

More to my taste was the article by the CEO of the Council of Small Business of Australia, Hockey’s ‘small-business budget’ perfect for the sector. Here is someone who know that perfection nowadays almost entirely consists of “didn’t make things worse, and perhaps made them a bit better”. I’ll give you his last two paras and you can read the rest for yourself:

The depth of announcements in the budget shows the government understands it is the little changes that make a difference. The small-business person’s capacity to start up, operate and, if desired, expand their business has been enhanced. The whole business life cycle seems to have been covered.

Overall this has been a great budget for small business and for the economy.

This is not some side-line observer but a representative of the people who are going to make the difference in how the economy goes. There is a terms-of-trade shift putting money into the hands of business. Keynesian theory also pretends that it is doing the same, except that to get the money, businesses must hand over the things they produced to people who are busy digging holes so they can be refilled. The net is not all that large for any firm nor is there any net addition to the economy. What the government has done is inject after-tax cash flow straight into the hands of producers. If you go to my second edition, right there on page 359-361 is the list of what a government should do to revive and economy. Number one reads: “priority should be to lower taxes, especially on business.”

As for the coverage by the ABC, I have only Andrew Bolt’s word for it since I never watch myself, but if his observations are anything like the reality, and I have no reason to doubt it, there are huge savings to be made on the budget bottom line that are begging to be made. If there is anyone at Cabinet level still protecting this hopeless bunch of leftists from a day of reckoning, they should be taken out, have their epaulettes removed, and sent off to be ambassador somewhere properly remote.

The obliteration of inconvenient fact by the media-academic complex

Posted on by
Reply

This shouldn’t be one of those facts that only a handful of people know but there you are. Today is “Jackie Robinson Day”, the anniversary of the day that Jackie Robinson, the first black athlete to play major league baseball in modern times, played his first major league game. There is therefore this story mentioned naturally in only one place that has been put out today: On Jackie Robinson Day, Let’s Remember When He Was Fired From the New York Post for Being Too Republican. Well yes, let us. I encourage you to read the whole article since it takes you back to a world that has gone down the memory hole. Telling you how it ends gives away nothing but sums things up quite well:

Jackie’s retort [on being fired], published at his new home in the New York Amsterdam News in January 1962, is filled with some classic Robinsonian acid:

No one will ever convince me that the Post acted in an honest manner. I believe the simple truth is that they became somewhat alarmed when they realized that I really meant to write what I believed. There is a peculiar parallel between some of our great Northern “liberals” and some of our outstanding Southern liberals.

Some of the people in both classes share the deep-seated convictions that only their convictions can possibly be the right ones. They both inevitably say the same thing: “We know the Negro and what is best for him.”

I care less about the hypocrisy of the left in this instance than I do about how we are now so used to the obliteration of the truth by the media-academic complex that we merely look at such things as just how it is without a sense of real outrage.

I might also mention that I am amazed at how little coverage there is of Lincoln’s assassination on the 150th anniversary of his tragic death.

Making the media the story

Posted on by
Reply

Early stages but Rand Paul being the only candidate I have ever met and spoken with, and who I liked on the spot, there is a certain partiality I must confess to. He, like Marine LaPen, has a family past he must overcome but still embrace. I am nevertheless encouraged by his foray yesterday having put himself forward for the nomination. And what really appealed to me was that he has decided to take on the media, who are enemies not only of every Republican, but enemies of good governance and common sense.

Tuesday night, Paul came out swinging. “The media tells you and I that we should choose a GOP nominee with a track record full of sellouts, compromises and betrayals,” he tweeted. “So even though I’m at or near the top of every state poll for the nomination, they continue to try and dismiss my message of liberty!

“Thankfully, our national media doesn’t get to pick and choose our Republican Party’s presidential nominees. Patriots like YOU do!”

But by the end of the day Wednesday, the candidate seemed to recognize that perhaps that approach was bringing the wrong kind of attention to his nascent campaign, conceding that he often didn’t handle tough questions particularly well. “I’ve been universally testy and short-tempered with both male and female interviewers,” he admitted explained to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Gage echoed Paul’s description, saying that in the interview with Guthrie, the senator had seemed to “come across as a bit of a bully. I don’t know if that’s specific to her being a woman, or in­cred­ibly bad manners.”

It’s an approach that usually fails to deliver in the long run, she added. “I think particularly when you’re trying to appeal to women voters, they’re a little turned off by that level of aggressiveness when it comes across as cranky and mean,” she said.

Whether he wins or not, this seems to necessary from the Republican side that I can only hope it is blessed with great success. The media has ruined the US by its lickspittle backing of parties to the left. Someone has finally tried fighting back. Even if it doesn’t work for Rand, it will help clear a path for others.

This was especially good: Rand Challenges Press: Ask DNC Head ‘If It’s Okay To Kill A 7-Pound Baby In The Uterus’. Only one journalist has to ask her to have her either reply or walk away from the question. No one has, of course, but it is the kind of pushback that should have been done years ago.

And having written the above, I now come across this: Cruz blasts ‘yellow journalism,’ mocks fact-checkers, accuses media of anti-conservative bias. First below is the journalist who is merely an agent for the Democrats, then Cruz’s reply. It’s not at the same level or temperature as Rand’s, but he’s getting the idea.

“You’ve said a few things that don’t necessarily comport with the facts, like, ‘125,000 IRS agents, send them to the border,'” Harwood said. “They’ve only got 25,000 agents or something like. You’ve talked about the job-killing nature of Obamacare. We’re adding jobs at a very healthy clip right now. Why shouldn’t somebody listen to you and say, ‘The guy’ll just say anything — doesn’t have to be true?'”

Cruz responded by accusing fact-checker groups of not making a good-faith effort to hold all politicians accountable, adding that such groups often subject conservatives to extra scrutiny.

“There is a game that is played by left-wing editorial writers. It’s this new species of yellow journalism called PolitiFact,” Cruz said. “Colloquially I was referring to all the employees as agents. That particular stat is in a joke I used. So, they’re literally fact-checking a joke. I say that explicitly tongue in cheek.”

Make the media defend itself. Here no one is in any doubt that the ABC tells the truth only when it suits Labor. This needs to become recognised as an established fact across the divide. If you hear it on the ABC, everyone should immediately recognise that they might as well have heard it from the ALP.

UPDATE: Rand Paul’s interview with Megyn Kelly on these issues, with Megyn’s interesting and to-the-point comment at the end.

The media and Senator Paul

Posted on by
Reply

Early stages but Rand Paul being the only candidate I have ever met and spoken with, and who I liked on the spot, there is a certain partiality I must confess to. He, like Marine LaPen, has a family past he must overcome but still embrace. I am nevertheless encouraged by his foray this morning having put himself forward for the nomination. But what really appeals to me is that he has decided to take on the media, who are enemies not only of every Republican, but enemies of good governance and common sense.

Tuesday night, Paul came out swinging. “The media tells you and I that we should choose a GOP nominee with a track record full of sellouts, compromises and betrayals,” he tweeted. “So even though I’m at or near the top of every state poll for the nomination, they continue to try and dismiss my message of liberty!

“Thankfully, our national media doesn’t get to pick and choose our Republican Party’s presidential nominees. Patriots like YOU do!”

But by the end of the day Wednesday, the candidate seemed to recognize that perhaps that approach was bringing the wrong kind of attention to his nascent campaign, conceding that he often didn’t handle tough questions particularly well. “I’ve been universally testy and short-tempered with both male and female interviewers,” he admitted explained to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Gage echoed Paul’s description, saying that in the interview with Guthrie, the senator had seemed to “come across as a bit of a bully. I don’t know if that’s specific to her being a woman, or in­cred­ibly bad manners.”

It’s an approach that usually fails to deliver in the long run, she added. “I think particularly when you’re trying to appeal to women voters, they’re a little turned off by that level of aggressiveness when it comes across as cranky and mean,” she said.

Whether he wins or not, this seems to necessary from the Republican side that I can only hope it is blessed with great success. The media has ruined the US by its lickspittle backing of parties to the left. Someone has finally tried fighting back. Even if it doesn’t work for Rand, it will help clear a path for others.

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT: More media baiting: Rand Challenges Press: Ask DNC Head ‘If It’s Okay To Kill A 7-Pound Baby In The Uterus’. Only one has to for her to have to either reply or walk away from the question. But it is the kind of push back that should have been done years ago.

“There’s no reason for anyone to believe a word he says about anything ever again”

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Steyn:

Last June I said of Bowe Bergdahl that he was “a deserter at best and at worst enemy collaborator”. It took officialdom another ten months to conclude he was a deserter; now they’re figuring it’s time to reveal that he was an enemy collaborator:

A 2009 NCIS investigation into Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s activities while in Afghanistan reveal that there is clear evidence Bergdahl was “going over to the other side with a deliberate plan,” Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” Monday night.

So the Government of the United States had reason to believe six years ago that Bergdahl was a traitor. As I asked last year and again only two weeks ago, why, knowing what he knew, did Obama stage that Rose Garden ceremony? Why did Susan Rice tell the American people that Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction”? Why did Obama put his hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness?

Setting aside the propriety of trading five Taliban A-listers for a traitor, it’s impossible to look at that Rose Garden theatre as anything other than a conscious deception of the American people by the President. Why would he do that?

Launching his presidential campaign by channeling Ronald Reagan, Senator Rand Paul called for “strong verification measures” with the Government of Iran. Yeah, that’s a great idea. And if the “strong verification measures” work with the Government of Iran, maybe we could try putting them into place with the Government of the United States. Until President Obama explains the fraudulent ceremony he staged for Bergdahl, there’s no reason for anyone to believe a word he says about anything ever again.

Reading Mark Steyn Online should be compulsory although what you get for it, other than being sick to death of the dishonesty and corruption, I cannot honestly say.

Iran calls Obama a liar on nuclear agreement

Posted on by
Reply

No sooner do I hear Obama lying about the deal he has struck with Iran then I read on Drudge that even the Iranians are accusing him of lying. It is unanimous, except for the media. You can never believe a word Obama says. This is what the Iranians have to say: Iran Accuses U.S. of Lying About New Nuke Agreement: Says White House misleading Congress, American people with fact sheet. Love that bit about the “fact sheet”. Here’s how the story starts:

LAUSANNE, Switzerland — Just hours after the announcement of what the United States characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the country’s leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration for lying about the details of a tentative framework.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.

Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations.

And what do the Americans, or any one else who isn’t Iran, get from the deal? You know the answer already. Now read the whole thing, and be sure you get to the very end where you can see this last bit of detail:

Zarif also revealed that Iran will be allowed to sell “enriched uranium” in the international market place and will be “hopefully making some money” from it.

Are you wondering who the buyers of this enriched uranium will be? Undoubtedly insane to the very core, but who was expecting anything else? And no matter what John Kerry and his boss might think, if this is the Iranian interpretation, how is the US going to get Iran to follow what they think the Iranians agreed to unless they leave the sanctions exactly where they are?

But the more interesting question may be whether any of this will be reported in the American media. Not much of a question really, but thought I would mention it just for the record.

Who can explain the anti-American American media

Posted on by
Reply

obama iran negotiations cartoon

There was a time I could understand what is going on in politics. I wouldn’t necessarily agree, but I could follow it. But what has me utterly mystified is the negotiations between the Americans and Iran. And it’s not Obama. He’s a known quantity. It’s everyone else, and the absence of any serious reaction.

Let me begin with this. Here’s a story from yesterday: Poll: Clear majority supports nuclear deal with Iran. Here’s what the survey showed, according to the opening para:

By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

If it comes to that, I support a deal that restricts Iran’s nuclear program. But it is the second para of the story that brings clarity to what American really believe:

But the survey — released hours before Tuesday’s negotiating deadline — also finds few Americans are hopeful that such an agreement will be effective. Nearly six in 10 say they are not confident that a deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, unchanged from 15 months ago, when the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia reached an interim agreement with Iran aimed at sealing a long-term deal.

So try a question like this instead: Are you in favour of striking a deal that leaves Iran with nuclear weapons while their leaders continue to repeat, “Death to America”, and who threaten to use a nuclear weapon to obliterate Israel?

It is media who have asked their own poorly framed but obviously biased question, who have left out the necessary qualification in how they have reported the story, and who have done so to help ease the way towards an outcome that achieves what absolutely no American could possibly want. We know whose side the media are on, but does anyone know why that is? We also know which side the American administration is on, which leads to exactly the same question again.

Then from Drudge, these were yesterday’s sub-heads at the top of the page:

Iran talks lead to more talks…
Tehran refuses to give up enriched nuclear material…
Iran militia chief: Destroying Israel ‘nonnegotiable’…
Hackers threaten ‘electronic holocaust’…
Drone Spat in Iraq…
Saudis Make Own Moves…
Rabbi compares Obama to Haman, archenemy of Jewish people…
French Fear Plans To Make Iran Key Middle East Ally…
Venue for talks is ‘gilded cage’ under constant surveillance…
ABCWASHPOST POLL: Clear majority of Americans support deal…

About that “nonnegotiable” destruction of Israel. This is the opening of the story linked above:

The commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable,” according to an Israel Radio report Tuesday.

Militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi also threatened Saudi Arabia, saying that the offensive it is leading in Yemen “will have a fate like the fate of Saddam Hussein.”

So far as negotiations go, the Iranians are a certainly more hard-edged than the Americans. These are the sub-heads from today:

HOW ABOUT JUNE?
Talks extended past deadline…
Tehran refuses to give up enriched material…
Netanyahu: Deal will allow nuclear breakout in less than year…
Militia chief: Destroying Israel ‘nonnegotiable’…
Hackers threaten ‘electronic holocaust’…
Iranian plane buzzes Navy copter…
PAPER: Even Chamberlain would not make deal Obama eager to conclude…
Saudis Make Own Moves…
Yemen nears ‘total collapse’ as Mideast powers trade blame…

So why are the Americans so intent on reaching a deal? Anyone’s guess, but protecting American interests does not appear to be amongst them.

UPDATE: I find myself both depressed and very angry, and think of none of the past six years of the Obama Administration as anything other than tragic. But the cartoon added above is not there because it makes you laugh, but because it so perfectly captures our present reality.