Monday, May 11, 2009

Why you should never talk to News Ltd.

'Gold Coast Bulletin' [11/5/09] shows it's colours with "pride":

"A year 12 Elanora High student who is embarrassed to wear her uniform in public has called on her classmates to stop giving their school a bad name.

Bianca Hockey last night told 'The Bulletin' she was 'disgusted' and 'embarrassed' by the behaviour of a small minority of Elanora State High School students.

The senior school leader, who mentors year 8 students, said pupils were sick and tired of their school being portrayed as bad.

She said recent media coverage had distracted students from their learning and was not a true representation of the school."


News Ltd. has a demonstrated record of hating women, public education, independent thought, genuine debate and "grassroots" community.

They don't care about you, and they don't care about your school.


  1. A survey rigged for Murdoch's benefit?Check out this:

    "... Today I decided to have my fortnightly look at the New York Times. And, guess what, Murdoch has a survey on it about whether people would pay for the NYT on-line. So, being a somewhat naive little bunny when it comes to Rupert’s machinations and out of curiosity I decided to do the survey. But there’s a catch! When you get to the section where it asks several questions about how much you’d be prepared to pay for NYT on-line, if you put a nought in all the little boxes, you can’t finish the survey. Which means the survey, published in The Australian today, about which I inadvertently posted a comment on another thread, is just plain junk, because if you won’t pay you can’t complete it. ..."

  2. Hey, daggett, love your blog. I put the links to the stories you asked for on LP. Don't think I can link the actual survey because its a field. Past experience elsewhere has taught me such things are temporary and can't be linked.
    But, if you know how to do it, just go to Google News and click on any NYT. The survey's sure to come up.

  3. Paul,

    Sadly, I can't claim to to be the author of this blog, if that's what you thought. Mine is You'll also find a few articles concerning Uncle Rupert, some from my blog in as well as articles tagged with The Australian, Courier Mail and Herald Sun.

    While I am here, should post those links that you have so helpfully posted to Larvateus Prodeo:

    Readers reluctant to pay for online news by Miriam Steffens in the SMH of 11 May 09.

    Readers not averse to paying for online content by Nick Tabakoff in The Australian of 11 May 09.

  4. Hello. Thanks for the tip. Those contrasting headlines illustrate perfectly the Murdoch view of the place of reality in journalism.

  5. I don't know if my latest post on Larvatus Prodeo will be approved. I managed to slip in a mention of a topic that I have been told was taboo on LP. If the owner of this blog will permit me, here it is:

    Adrien wrote,

    "It already happens. No government funding necessary."


    If it is working, then why are so many truly independent websites -, - constantly crying out for money, whilst those ostensibly alternative independent websites, who accept corporate funding, have become obviously compromised (for example, by refusing to discuss the 9/11 controversy)?

    It is well established that one reason (but not the only) why our media fails us so badly is that so few proper investigative journalists are employed these days.

    If things worked as well as you claimed, then all those journalists who previously worked for the large media organisations would all have found ways to be properly remunerated through the Internet and they would all now be holding our governments, bureaucrats, NGOs and corporations to account just as well as they did before, but they're clearly not.

    How else could you explain Howard holding onto power until 2007 or Bush holding onto power until 2008?

    The reality is that very few, who are not either propagandists for the status quo, or else, badly compromised, make a decent living by writing for the Internet these days.

    Nearly all of those who tell things like they really are make no money or a pittance at most.

    Adrien, when you cite the example of the treatment of the arts in the former Communist bloc, you are attacking a straw man. You are arguing that if Government funding served the public so poorly at that time in those countries that it must always be thus.

    There is no reason why a Government in a democratic society should not be able to provide the necessary funds without attaching strings.

    If open transparent mechanisms were put in place, then why need we fear that funds would only be provided to those who are are not critical of the govenment of the day?

    If the public in a democratic society want people who provide useful helpful information to them through the Internet to be paid properly for their work, then it should be their right to be able to fund them through the taxation system in a way that would be far more equitable, efficient and effective than could be possible through any for-profit system.

    Of course, I am not arguing that it will happen, but I certainly think we should not be shy about saying that it can happen and should happen.

  6. Sure James, no problem here with free speech or dissenting views!
    Of course that is rather the whole point, isn't it?

    It is interesting how so many people/websites are shitscared of any discussion whatsoever on the "taboo" topics. It is unhealthy and leads to suffocating conformity.

    I've seen some 9/11 stuff which I consider to be completely wacko (secret power beams coming out of a low pressure system hovering off New York and holograms was the most recent) but why can't people discuss what is possible and/or probable and where it may all fit in with certain facts which are a matter of public record (e.g. saw Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 again the other day and it just keeps getting better and scarier as the years pass!)

  7. The post referred to above was approved, in spite of it's mention, in passing, of a taboo topic. Once before a post which had explicitly discussed that taboo topic was deleted from LP. I have been meaning to take the issue up publicly with them for some time, but there are way too many other things in my 'to do' list.

    I have also challenged John Quiggin's disapproval of any discussion of 9/11, even though he has stopped short of outright censorship. In case anyone is interested, a small disucssion which has spun off that has begun here.

    Another site which absolutely forbids discussion on 9/11 last time I looked is Murdoch,

    Glad that you didn't mind me taking this discussion slightly off topic for a while.

    There are definitely people within the 9/11 Truth Movement who push theories which are not supported by the evidence. These include, as well as what you mentioned, a theory that the devices which brought down the two towers were miniature thermo-nuclear bombs. Almost certainly, many who are pushing the more whacko theories are agents being paid to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement.

    Very succinct and compelling arguments for the 9/11 Truth movement are to be found on the YouTube broadcast in two parts, each under 10 minutes in length. It is "9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories" part 1 and part 2.

    At the end of the second video, the viewer is encouraged to go out and do more of his/her own research, which is a message found rarely on denialist videos.

    Nevertheless there is enough evidence even in the first video to show any objective viewer that the official explanation of the collapses of the Twin Towers cannot be right.

    Fahrenheit 9/11 was very good, but it was badly flawed because of its acceptance of the official fiction of the 9/11 attacks.

    Part of its case against the Iraq War was that the US should have, instead, devoted more of its resources towards pursuing Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

    For many years I, myself, accepted that argument.

    In fact that is what is now happening and the war is now being expanded into Pakistan as well. A very good article about this can be found on the Winter Patriot web site.

    I have to say it doesn't answer all my questions and I doubt very much if things would turn out well in Afghanistan should the US withdraw tomorrow (as some reluctant supporters of the US/NATO/Australian war put to me), but the evidence that the US intervention has made the situation in Afghanistan considerably worse than it already was in 2001, even under Taliban rule, seems compelling.