.. left, right - to be or not to be?
-=*=-
I challenged a certain contributor to back this assertion «... the compromise and corruption associated with their systematic, left-leaning agenda and bias»(!?) - which was made in reference to 'our' taxpayer-funded national broadcaster, the AusBC.
In a response titled "Don't be silly" (note boundary-pushing language) we see this: «I am not so silly, ..., as to commence providing substantiation for my view on ABC bias. The view is commonly held.[1] ... Joke City. I will substantiate nothing.»
Readers can make up their own minds vis-à-vis any and all such unsubstantiated claims. But it does raise the issue of who might come to WD and what for, i.e. just to vent or natter, say, or for something a little more constructive?
-=*=-
An associated term introduced by the same poster is 'agenda monkey.' The introduction of that term could be considered slightly perilous, as it may have been interpreted reflexively (in other words, it's a possible framing error. I can help, see?) In that spirit, please consider a paraphrasing of something that I previously had published about AusBC bias:
Subtitle: The 'pushed paradigm' propaganda of asserting left-wing bias in 'our' AusBC.
One can give a much easier (i.e. even more brainless) way of rating the AusBC as being biased, a way I consider to be absolutely par for the right-whinger course! (It's just sooo simple, that even a [redacted derogatory descriptor] can do it! And lots do.)
First, assert an indelible, ineradicably left-wing-biased AusBC, then:
a) If the AusBC says something 'nice' about the ALP, shriek "See! Tol'ja! Left-wing bias!"
b) If the AusBC says something 'nasty' about the ALP, shriek "Probably only the half! Less, even! Left-wing bias, see?"
c) If the AusBC says something 'nasty' about the Libs, shriek "Oooh! Can't be true! Not! Nasty left-wing bias!"
d) If the AusBC says something 'nice' about the Libs, shriek "Must be doubly true! In spite of their left-wing bias!"
Comment: Funny, but I thought that propaganda had a bad name, at least from those darkest of days courtesy of Goebbels&Co. Propaganda is usually partly lies, and is pushed to manufacture consent for something otherwise undesirable. Also, in a properly functioning democracy, aren't the sheople® supposed to be sovereign? That would require that we the sheople should be completely and accurately informed, as opposed to propagandised? Sadly of course, not so. Boo! Hiss! (What ever happened to those high ideals, eh? aka the Enlightenment[2] ideas, say?)
Well, the right-whingers only smirk. After all, it's the pro-capitalists themselves that say a) "Greed is G*d!" and b) nobody (they mean no capitalist) works for nothing. Quite obviously then, they must be getting something (just that little bit extra, eh?) out'a the current system (and yes of course that's possibly corrupt, also par for the course) - so it actually pays [someone] to propagandise us. Just another way of cheating, another way of ripping-off; in one word: [reader-supplied derogatory term]!
-=*=-
Apart from the principle involved, there is a good reason why this post, this day, and that is an item this morning on the program one just loves to hate, namely RN/Breakfast. The item was about privatising suburban water. The intro said "Xxx has a solution(!?)" The interviewer was quiet and respectful, as she 'fed' questions to the proponent. The basic idea discussed was the flogging-off of another public utility, this time our drinking wardah® supply, with the bright(?) idea of increasing the price, presumably to such a painfully high level (up to three times was mentioned), so as to discourage use in times of scarcity. Not too much wrong with the idea (as with most propaganda; believable elements), referred to in the program as 'unleashing the power of the market,' except that our water supplies everywhere are already in a monopoly situation, the prices already readily controllable, and with the sources of water (i.e. dams, after clouds/rain) and the associated infrastructure being hardly amenable to being split-up to provide any sort'a competition. (Incidentally, the same argument applied to electricity supplies; we know how that privatisation's turning out.) The word 'competition' was repeatedly used, even once (in a fit of uncontrolled honesty?) prefaced by something like 'quasi' (actually, 'notional') in relation to the reticulation system (i.e. the indivisible existing system of wardah pipes.)
I've also said it before, it's not just what one says, but how one says it; in this case the AusBC person prompted the proponent in a cushy interview about privatising our wardah - the result of which, if it were to happen, would quite probably be yet another disaster for us, we the sheople. To the point, where the fat-cats would be allowed to water their lawns, fill their swimming pools, while the poor would be 'allowed' only a miserable dribble to drink; to use any more could send them in the direction of going broke. And the 'big end of town' would make another killing on executive salaries, while the network would be allowed to rot. Just as the electricity system is rotting while jobs have 'gone West;' the maintenance, say, having been turned from preventative to repair, thus guaranteeing more outages. Is this really in our, i.e. we the sheople's best interests?
Comment: the appeal of privatisation is quite clear - it would further advantage 'the big end of town.' People irked by restrictions (and with lots'a dough) could then buy their way past, and the poor be damned. Nowhere did I hear of this non-egalitarian nature, nor any disadvantages discussed, except to say that any disadvantaging of the poor would be handled politically, i.e. with some sort'a subsidy possible.
So. Big question: what sort'a bias (if any) has been demonstrated?
Get the 6:35 Water pricing broadcast here; no transcript; segment runs from about 19:15 to 24:55.
-=*end*=-
PS Moral outrage section: One does not need to be religious to be moral, see my attempted formalisation, the chezPhil morality. The 'basic crimes' are lying, cheating, theft and murder. I claim nothing more than self-interest need be involved; if I do not wish to be murdered (I don't), then I agree not to murder in return. Many of the undefined 'they,' including our very own PM, claim some sort'a Judaic/Christian heritage, when not actual belief. AFAIK, we all 'agree' on some sort'a analogue to my chezPhil morality. All the more galling, then, when this morality is flouted, as in B, B & H's lying us off to an illegal, murdering war predicated on eventual oil-theft.
'Our' AusBC's job is to report all 'truths of the matters,' and not soft-pedal on any of the pushed paradigm propaganda, as they so clearly do. Time to call the spade a bloody (lying, thieving, murdering) shovel, mateys.
Ref(s):
[1] This construction, "Everybody knows," is a fallacious form of argument, being a special case of the more general fallacy of false advertisement. As hinted at above, unsubstantiated assertions are effectively worthless, and are about as useful as a chocolate tea-pot - IMHO & haw!
As another example of unsubstantiated assertions, the following has come to my notice:
«..., with sectarian killings and suicide bombings the primary cause. There would be no deaths at the hands of the COW or the Iraqi army and police if they were not having to try and prevent this.
I think everyone has lost sight of that fact. Iraq had the best chance of peace and a better future after Saddam was toppled, and the people blew it.»
[source not cited]
Note the "no deaths" statement, effectively attributing all deaths ultimately to sectarian/suicide actions (Wha'da 'bout "Dying to Win?" Or CIA-style psyops, like the preparations for one actually documented and the (SAS?) operators gaoled, the subsequent 'rescue action' shown on our TVs all of which occurred in the UK's Basra area?)
Note the deployment of the 'everyone' gambit, see [1].
Note at the end, the blaming: "the [Iraqi] people blew it."
This last, the 'blame game,' cannot go unremarked. I doubt very strongly, that the Iraqi people - having been 'liberated,' by whatever (illegal?) "Shock'n whore" means, would have freely chosen to then be brutally occupied, as is Oh, so demonstrably the case. The Iraqi people were not asked (by Bremer, say) nor could they have answered when they democratically(?) voted - the US hand-picked the candidates, the US forced them to swear not to dismantle Bremer, the paucity of info sometimes bordering on none, now the attempted forcing of the puppet government to swallow the oil-law, etc. I recall a relatively quiet interval while the Iraqis evaluated the post-Saddam period, after which the violence began to escalate.
Exactly how, then, did the [Iraqi] people blow it?
As an aside, we cannot know how much strife in Iraq was pre-programmed, or how much has been instigated by US operations. What we do know is at least two: 1) the invader/occupiers are responsible for the resulting chaos (AFAIK by international law) and 2) the country belongs to the Iraqis. If (haw!) the US intends to steal Iraq's oil then the US has to stay. It's a circular argument: they have to stay to control the chaos but they cause the chaos just by being there. All 'perfectly' under US control; and if the chaos were to subside the US would just instigate more, to keep the circle going. Basta!
Excuse me if I try a projection: are we to assume then, that if the Iraqis were to accept the occupation, if they didn't try to eject the occupiers, if they simply accepted the coming theft of their birthright - all the while not competing amongst themselves (sectarian/suicide), aka giving up any and all claims, thus advantaging the current US selected sycophantic, snivelling power-elite - then everything in the Iraqi garden would be lovely? Is that it?
Just as in: "If rape is inevitable lie back and enjoy it?"
[2] The Enlightenment:
«Within the period of the Enlightenment, the question of what was the proper relationship of the citizen to the state continued to be explored. The idea that society is a contract between individual and some larger entity, whether society or state, was developed philosophically by a series of thinkers, including Rousseau, Montesquieu and Jefferson.»
[wiki/Age of Enlightenment]
No comments:
Post a Comment