-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
The Murdoch Media
- Thread starter Ian4
- Start date
Yes I agree that civilisation requires the free flow of information between individuals. The word progressive doesn’t really have meaning to me, but by forward looking I assume you mean that long term interests are held to be superior to short term interests, at least overall. Yes I agree that people need to be informed in order to understand their political system, and how their interests are being advanced. I disagree that this means state media is required to achieve this, or that it justifies violating private property to achieve it.Carter said:
I’ve demonstrated the misnomer that we currently have comprehensiveness of information supply, what say you about the complete lack of major media content that provides for individualism?
So the ABC doesn’t attract top shelf columnists? The people at the ABC are very well paid, and the ABC would definitely provide a very attractive place of work for journalists (well left wingers anyway, being right wing is very career limiting at the ABC, and Libertarians need not even bother).Carter said:
All types of goods and services (including media production) provide alternatives for consumers. If someone chooses to consume ABC content, this likely means that they have eschewed other sources, including commercial networks. Hence they have taken market share, even if they don’t intend to.
However the evidence actually suggests the ABC does target market share: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/abc-spends-up-to-hurt-online-media-rivals/story-e6frg996-1227100430680
Yes, but what would the situation be like now without the ABC? Without the ABC there, it would definitely provide for better economic conditions for a leftist newspaper to develop. In any case, Brisbane people still have access to the SHM, Financial Review, the Age, etc.Carter said:
It is not a failure of commercial media, it is the reality of demand, people in Brisbane obviously don’t care for leftist publications as much as Melbourne or Sydney people. Having the ABC there to provide them with a different slant of collectivism is not providing for diverse information.
It is certainly not in one’s best interests to have your money confiscated to pay for anything, let alone something that certainly does nothing to provide diverse information.
Looks like we’ll agree to disagree. Important to note you effectively justify stealing other people’s money to fund things you like. Unless you feel this can be funded without taxation?Carter said:
How do you justify the rejection of the economic argument? Economically it is very much true.Carter said:
No you are not effectively coerced at all; you are free to choose not to consume it, as I largely choose not to consume major media. You might have a smaller pool of choices of major networks, but this is not coercion.Carter said:
I’d argue that even with the ABC, the citizenry are ill-informed and ill-equipped to effectively articulate dissent / support on all the matters that affect their lives directly and indirectly. We are all surrounded by collectivism, I’m afraid you have also fallen into the illusion that the ABC provides a counter point to commercial interests. Left wing, Right wing? They are two sides of the same ugly bird!
You made an observation of income disparity in the US, then asked why is this the case. You then answered the question by identifying the most significant factor as a lack of state media. I’m afraid that you did in fact argue that point. Otherwise, what is your understanding of the root cause of income disparity?Carter said:
Please provide an example of how I shifted the goal posts.tigersnake said:
Do you have any evidence to support your second point, or is it something you are assuming? If what you are saying is true, thenI find it strange that the ABC doesn't have much to say about scepticism of global warming for example. Seems that a fair proportion of the general public are sceptical, yet this is deemed irrelevant to the ABC.
YinnarTiger said:
No, it's actually quite different. Libertarianism is a strong ideological current in American political thought and genuine libertarians would have as many concerns about American political institutions and systems as they would about Australia's. There are also "left-libertarians" so it's not as simple as left/right.
I think it's the "Austrian School" of economics that best represents libertarianism from an economic point of view but Giardiasis can correct me.
Giardiasis said:
Is this not the same problem that any journalist or collective of journalists (Fairfax/Murdoch) have though?
That's the fundamental contradiction for me - which is also the major critique of utilitarianism. Libertarians say "we as individuals alone can determine what we as individuals want/need so let us choose for ourselves". Utilitarians say "do the greatest good for the many" but how can an individual know what the greatest good for the many is? And particularly this conflicts with a libertarian view which says to focus on your own needs but do no harm to the needs of others.
Giardiasis said:
The examples are in your posts, I've explained clearly. An example of a subjective value is justice, I gave an account of how that works, ie, subjective values fly, they are not irrelevant, actually very imprtant. You said it was an irrelevant argument, ie shifted the goal posts. Either you're taking the p!ss, or don't understand how to have a reasonable debate.
I could find evidence, but can't be bothered. Its media management 101, common knowledge to anyone with anyone familiar with the workings of media.
doesn't have much to say about CC scepticism because it *smile*. A conspiratorial distraction. As it is they devote far too much energy to it (anything more than none is too much), due to the political effectivness of the denyer campaign and their powerful allies (eg Rupey).
They always address CC skepticism whenever the CC issue is discussed, its a good example of how the ABC present and prosecute all views, because this one is particularly marginal if you're a scientist, not so if you're rich off the fat of the hydrocarbon economy. And whenevr they bring it up, its demolished, again and again by logical evidence.
Giardiasis said:
"Bob Stewart has lived in Bermuda all of his adult life, and was chief executive of the Royal/Dutch Shell Group of Companies in Bermuda until his retirement in 1998. Subsequently, he was President of Old Mutual Asset Managers, Bermuda, and retired from there at the end of 2002. He is a director of several Bermuda companies and investment funds, and the author of A Guide to the Economy of Bermuda."
So Bob who lives in Bermuda (presumably to avoid tax, but that is a value judgement and I am happy to be proved wrong).
Now i may be a just a dumb bloke from the suburbs, but from what I can tell good ole Bob here basically spells out the problem. It's not that our friends on Wall Street packaged loans that had no chance of ever being paid back with with loans that had a good chance of being paid back and when the people that had no chance of paying back their loans defaulted the value of these mortgage backed securities became toxic.
That goodness Bob explained that it was by the poor people who took out the loans and could not pay them back and the US government for not deregulating enough. Not the good men of Wall Street who were just helping out....
Of course the far left is going to blame the free market and the far right is going to blame government interference..
We are of subject.. but bugger it I will go out on a tangent....
Lets just imagine for a moment that Ron Paul become President with the current Republican control of the two houses and he was able to implement a Libertarian model that began with getting rid of the the Fed reserve and completely dismantling all government agencies leaving a minimal tax that pays for security of private assets only. In 8 years this may be possible although he may lose control of the houses at some stage.
At sometime between 2025 and 2035 we will reach a level of technology that allows artificial intelligence. Most jobs in IT and manufacturing will be gone or go by 2035. In fact mining, food production, transport, finance, certain health areas, defense and telecommunications will change dramatically.
The message is clear whatever we are doing now, the likelihood is that work will not exist in 20 years. Possibly the service industry will grow. The question is how will anyone apart from some cleaners, nurses and the owners of capital make money?
Who will be able to purchase what the owners of capital make?
Rupert will be dead, but how will his kids make money if no one is working and cannot afford foxtel. (love the way I brought this back on topic)
Good ole Bob will be dead but at least he will have been able to leave Bermuda and get back to the USA because of the great changes Ron Paul had made.
Ian4 said:
c'mon guys, keep it to the politics thread and talk about the topic at hand. over this verbal diarrhea.
Breathtaking hypocrisy? yes
Packer, Murdoch back whoever promises to protect or promote their interests the most. Has always been the way. Anything else?
Commercial networks have price signals to estimate future demands, the ABC lacks this mechanism.antman said:
Individuals don't need to worry about purposeful action to service the needs of the many besides looking after their own interest. The market process provides entrepreneurs the opportunity to estimate future demand based upon price signals and experience to allocate capital to productive uses. Individuals have the power to choose what they wish to consume, hence entrepreneurs that fail to meet demand fail, and those that do best at satisfying demand prosper. Economics demonstrates that this process is the only mechanism currently known that successfully allows the division of labour and for productive allocation of capital to greatly increase the material well being of all. Any intervention by government into this process will result is misallocation of capital due to the distortion of price signals, and removal of capital for productive purposes.antman said:
Giardiasis said:
Ratings. And as we go more and more online, even better metrics about who watched what when, how often, on what system.
So you need to remove your affection for utilitarianism - which says that the individual should absolutely do what is better for the majority than themselves.
Giardiasis said:
We are coming to the end of our debate.
We agree that an informed citizenry is desirable.
I believe that the provision of non-commercial media via state-owned channels is imperfect but the best available solution.
You believe that the natural gravity of commercial media, unfettered by state interference, can provide the diversity of information needed. That and the deeper realms of the internet (which presupposes you know what you're looking for).
You see market nirvana and the comprehensive commercial provision of everything from emergency broadcasts to risque comedy.
I see ... The Price is Right repeats and a dull, uninformed citizenry who cannot articulate their views on on the social and political issues of the day.
Carter said:
Do you have any idea who consumes the abc? I'm tipping not many of them debate between watching the price is right and four corners.
Giardiasis said:
so people with the resources, namely property, would voluntarily fund the government to make laws/regulations about property?
Ratings are skewed by the fact that the ABC is free (ignoring tax costs). If the government came out and offered free financial advice, the demand for financial advice would skyrocket. This doesn't tell you anything meaningful about the demand for financial advice.antman said:
The notion that the individual ought to do what is better for the majority than themselves assumes that value is objective and is measurable. So I agree that this version of utilitarianism should be rejected (John Stuart Mill's version). Ludwig von Mises' version of utilitarianism recognises this point, and does not attempt to determine the value of ends, only the means of achieving ends, "All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at."
Now of course you might argue that certain individuals will benefit from state intervention that benefits them but hurts the majority (e.g. tariffs). But if you consider the policy as a single instance in a general pro-tariff state of affairs, economics would show that the whole system is to the individual's detriment. In the short run, individuals might also profit from violating others. But in the long run, in indulging in such actions, they damage their own selfish interests no less than those of the people they have injured.
Utilitarian liberalism does not say, "You want B, but you should really want A." Rather, it says, "You think B will result in Y, which you want. But it will not. Instead it will result in X, which you do not want. However, if you adopt A, you will get Z, which you would like best, but did not even know was possible."
The ABC has proven to be very much inadequate at providing an informed citizenry that can articulate their views of the social and political issues of the day. People have a poor understanding of how central banking works, and how inflation is lowering the standard of living for all. They don't understand why we get the business cycle, what money actually is or how their freedom is being thrown away every day.Carter said:
I would like an informed citizenry, but I don't consider violating the rights of others as an acceptable means for achieving this goal.
What I said was that you said nothing to invalidate the concept of subjective value. That isn't shifting goal posts.tigersnake said:
Ok, well if you don't want to find evidence, then forgive me for rejecting it.
And there you have it, on the one hand the ABC analyses public opinion and provides balanced media reporting based upon it, and then on the other hand it makes a judgement of the worth of public opinion, and rejects a large chunk of it. If the ABC is true to providing balanced reporting, it would present both sides of the argument freely, and offer equal content to both. As you agree, it does not do this. Clear cut evidence that the ABC reports purely on the subjective value of the people that work there.
