Fake News.

acotrel

acotrel

Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
13,193
Country flag
Currently in Australia, there is an information war between News Corporation and Facebook and Google. Murdoch's Sky News TV channel has been conducting a political campaign against Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, which is based on deceit and innuendo. . Our government has progressively defunded the Australian Broadcasting Corpration.. - Whom should we trust to give us unbiased news reporting ? - https://www.aap.com.au/news-corp-and-pm-defrauding-the-taxpayer-claim-is-fake-news/
 
Trust no one. I haven't decided who is more wrong in this fight. At this point I hope both sides lose. And if there is one news source I would never trust it's a government funded one.
 
swooshdave said:
Trust no one. I haven't decided who is more wrong in this fight. At this point I hope both sides lose. And if there is one news source I would never trust it's a government funded one.
Click to expand...
Facebook provides a discussion forum,- links to news services get pasted. It provides an opportunity for critical thinking and exchange of ideas. media ownership laws are sometimes an issue.
 
I trust Canada’s CBC news more than any other , they are a Crown Corp. ......
 
acotrel said:
Facebook provides a discussion forum,- links to news services get pasted. It provides an opportunity for critical thinking and exchange of ideas. media ownership laws are sometimes an issue.
Click to expand...
On this side, Facebook, Google, and UTube, are censoring political think contrary to their own. They are definitely NOT a discussion forum; they remove posts they don't like.

I have been financially supporting WND, and Judicial Watch. The latter is not a news service, but I do get a newsletter each month that tells me what's going on, if not a little belatedly.
 
Facebook isn't a discussion forum. They decide what you get to see.

Finding unbiased news is getting more and more difficult. In the UK we still have the BBC which is pretty unbiased but is burdoned by political correctness. Channel 4 is fairly good too. As for the rest, particularly the newspapers, well good luck finding lack of bias.
 
acotrel said:
Currently in Australia, there is an information war between News Corporation and Facebook and Google. Murdoch's Sky News TV channel has been conducting a political campaign against Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, which is based on deceit and innuendo. . Our government has progressively defunded the Australian Broadcasting Corpration.. - Whom should we trust to give us unbiased news reporting ? - https://www.aap.com.au/news-corp-and-pm-defrauding-the-taxpayer-claim-is-fake-news/
Click to expand...
accotrel, you allways seem to be on your soap box re the "evil" mr Murdoch. How about asking the question why Dan Andrews" imcompetence led to the deaths of more than 800 Victorians, how about tellin the truth re the ABC; they have not been defunded, in fact they receive more than $1 billion each & every year; in fact you should be asking why we as Aust taxpayers aren't getting value for our $. An example is , of course, to compare commercial live to air or even Sky News who consistently outrate the ABC for news, weather and every other topic bar preschool programmes. You really need to grow up a bit.
 
alans, have you actually watched Sky News ? The current debate about Facebook is about the power to manipulate voting patterns in elections with biased information. The antagonists are not the Australian government and Facebook. They are Rupert Murdoch, the ABC and Facebook. The ABC and Facebook are not overtly politically biased, however the clams by Conservatives that those two alternatives are biased, are used to give Murdoch an excuse. With Murdoch, the bias is blatant and unashamed. That Murdoch is a danger to democracy has been proved by the Trump debacle in America.. We should not look at events in isolation. In many western democracies, Rupert Murdoch has the power of veto during elections. In Australia, no politician gets elected if Murdoch is against them. In 1974, he conspired to, and successfully deposed the democratically elected Whitlam Government.
 
I will say one thing about the Conservatives. When Maggie Thatcher was elected, she did have to not go to see Murdoch - he went to visit her. Conservatives might think it is OK for one unelected man to have so much political influence - I do not.
 
Most news sources are biased, no great revelation in that. If you are inclined to the left, you will likely read The Guardian or the Daily Mirror. If you are inclined to the right you will likely read the Daily Telegraph or the Daily Mail. If you think the paper you are reading / telly news you are watching is unbiased, then it is likely it is merely matching your own bias.

I dont understand the obsession with Murdoch. If you dont like his publications - dont buy / read them, and dont subscribe to his TV channels. If millions of people are doing either / both, then he understands the market he is selling to, and that is why he is a successful business man.

I dont know if the BBC is biased, I presume it isnt on the basis that both sides whinge about it..... but there have been instances of 'interviewing' pundits who are later shown to be 'activists', so I suspect a bit more research on who they are going to allow to be broadcast might be in order before they let them on air.
 
Facebook just announced they will be henceforth "arbiters of truth" with respect to climate change. In cooperation with experts from several prestigious universities, they will remove any content deemed inaccurate by the experts.

I am sure the experts on their review board will all be cut from the same cloth.

Slick
 
With every so-called 'fact' there is a probability which can be used to determine 'likelihood' and thus risk. There are two parts to probability - the likely and the unlikrely. Basing debate on the unlikely is dangerous nonsense. When you consider a fact you still need to observe the unlikely. However what we get from the media is often outright deceit. I would not like to see history repeat itself because of media promotion of communist or fascist authoritarianism.. Most of us know what you cannot post on Facebook. In Australia, our media ownership laws have been an issue for a very long time. However many things happen by stealth.

en.wikipedia.org

Joseph Goebbels - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
I really enjoy watching Murdoch's Sky News TV channel. When I was in high school we had a subject called 'English expression - clear thinking' which was one of mt favorites. If you watch Sky News, it is amazing the way they can spin things. 'Some things are so bad that they are good' ? But some of it is pretty dumb. You would have to be stupid to believe it. However some people have a need to believe.

'Drawing a general conclusion from insufficient evidence'.
'Begging the question' ? ?
-standard practice on Sky News.
 
Last edited:
texasSlick said:
Facebook just announced they will be henceforth "arbiters of truth" with respect to climate change. In cooperation with experts from several prestigious universities, they will remove any content deemed inaccurate by the experts.

I am sure the experts on their review board will all be cut from the same cloth.

Slick
Click to expand...

Don't like facebook? Don't use it, I don't like facebook, I don't use it. Feels good.
 
acotrel said:
alans, have you actually watched Sky News ? The current debate about Facebook is about the power to manipulate voting patterns in elections with biased information. The antagonists are not the Australian government and Facebook. They are Rupert Murdoch, the ABC and Facebook. The ABC and Facebook are not overtly politically biased, however the clams by Conservatives that those two alternatives are biased, are used to give Murdoch an excuse. With Murdoch, the bias is blatant and unashamed. That Murdoch is a danger to democracy has been proved by the Trump debacle in America.. We should not look at events in isolation. In many western democracies, Rupert Murdoch has the power of veto during elections. In Australia, no politician gets elected if Murdoch is against them. In 1974, he conspired to, and successfully deposed the democratically elected Whitlam Government.
Click to expand...
obviously you do have a very short memory, or you weren't even in Aust at the the time. Actually, if you chose to do your research, you would discover that The Australian editorially promoted Gough Whitlam and the Labor party in the 1972 election. The same anti democratic paper also supported Bob Hawke's and Kevin Rudd's elections. Iam somewhat surprised that you didn't close your last sentence with that other old hoary chestnut the the Queen and / or CIA actually deposed Gough. Ha Ha.
 
If the ABC ever put a spin on their news, they would be held to account for doing it. The Conservatives cannot even handle the truth.
 
If the concept behind Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook is not covered by intellectual property rights, or becomes illegal in some way, an Australian media company could set up a similar web facility and charge fee for service.
'Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac' ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top