CU you remain terminally delusional.”

“Catching up

MAY 23, 2012 @ 4:51 PM

CU you remain terminally delusional.”

Tweed and your entire alias.

Tweed I have given great thought to your comment.  It is not the first time that you have alleged this bit after much thought, I am afraid I have to disagree with you.

I am well aware of how the world and politics works in this country.

I have been on this earth for seventy years.  I have enjoyed life at its best and I am sad to say, at its worse.

I began privilege, but life choices and uncontrollable reverses have made it an extremely rocky road.

I have learnt that we do not always have control over our life.

That is a proposition, that I amuser you will not agree with.  You are still under the illusion that you are in full control of your life, your future, and your finances.  I sincerely hope that you never learn that you are incorrect.

Tweed, we all need to respect the views and aspirations of others.

There are not right or wrong, when it comes to how we live our lives, or how we want the country to run.

The same applies to politics.

It is about our personal values, beliefs, aspirations, and priories.

I do not want to make value judgments, but I get the impression that you see the role of government is to be as small as possible.  You see it as being every man for them.  If they do not make it, so be it, as it is their fault.  You do not believe you are responsible for others.

I respect your right to have these views.  That being the case, your priories are much different to mine.  Your aspirations seem to be a society, where it is dog eat dog, for the country scare the daylights out of me.

Our government is working as the Founding fathers envisaged.

We have a minority government made up of representatives, that 58% of the voted for.

This is a duly elected legitimate government, according to the Constitution.

This government still holds the confidence of the house.

Since day one, Mr, Abbott has refused to recognise the legitimacy of the government has used intimidation and bullying tactics to bring it down.

If one believes this is acceptable, then I have to be in disagreement.

It surprises me that this government is working so well.  Yes, it appears to be hated, if one follows the polls.  That is not a reason for a new election.  All governments go through periods where they are not popular.  If people are still unhappy at the next schedule election, they will make their wishes known.

There is no need for Thomson to be hounded and bullies as he has been.  That should not be the Australian way.  We have a system of justice that will deal with the man it he is guilty.  Many investigations in this land take years, especially in the commercial world.

It is very dangerous to allow trial by media and kangaroo courts to become the order of the day.  They have a history of getting it wrong, and are cruel to the people accused.

I want to see oppositions that spend their time scrutinising all that the government does.  I want to see them put up strong opposition to what they believe to be wrong.  I want to see them try to get support of others to get their point across.  I want to see then proposed alternative, and convince us they have the better answer.

What I do not want to seem is an opposition that believes it should be in power.  I do not want an opposition that does not accept the voice of the people.  An opposition that believe the people got it wrong.

What do I see as the role of good governance?  That easy, one governs for the good of all.

I see the role of government to support those who cannot look after themselves.  I want the government that gives the weak and vulnerable the means to lift them up the ladder.

Government should take responsibility for proving the basic needs of a society.  It should ensure access to health, education and the judiciary systems.

Good governance provides the infrastructure that allows industry to thrive.

In this age, we expect our roads and transport to be adequate and safe.

We expect that defence forces are adequate to keep the country safe.

The economic system is not handed down by some god.  It is structures that are create by man, and should serve man.  Man should not serve the system.

It is the role of the government to ensure a strong economy, with work and opportunities for all.  There should be support for industry.

The taxation system should be fair.  It should not rely on regressive taxes.

I believe it is the voter wishes that count.  I believe that no party has the right to rule.  I believe that no government should rule forever.  Change is good.

I do not believe that a party should be able to gain power by bullying and intimidation.  It is a hollow victory if one has to destroy your opponent to win.

I believe that a party should be able to win by showing us; they have the better credentials to win.  Victory should come from being better.  Having better promises and dreams for the future.

This government meets my priorities.  It has provided a strong economy.  It is respected on the world stage.  It is putting in place the infrastructures, which ensure a strong future.

It is not perfect.  Nothing in this world is.  It cannot please all.  That is why we have regular elections.

What I do not want is the hatred and division that exists in our society.

What I realise is that the country and vision I want will never come to fruition.  That would be delusional.

It is not delusional or unreasonable to aim for a better society.

Winning might be important for some.  In fact winning is what life is about.

What is more important, is how one wins.  Winning at all cost, is not acceptable.  If one has to destroy all in their path to win, they do not have much to offer.

What is going on in politics, especially from the Mr. Abbott is wrong and dangerous.

We do not have the right to abuse others, because they do not agree or hold our views or because they have different priorities and values.  That is not acceptable and reflects badly on those who behave in this manner.

I acknowledge that others do not share my dreams.  That is OK and I respect the views they hold.

We all have the right to our own beliefs and aspirations.  None should are better than others.  They are just different.

I say let the best team win.

Tweed and those who come here to abuse.  What pleasure do you get out of it?

What type of society do you want to see.  I notice that you  spend much time telling us where we are wrong.  We hear little of your ideas and priorities.

John Howard and Family Values

John Howard and Family Values is a probing article to be found over at Ærchies Archive.  I’m sure Ærchie won’t mind if I quote some of his fine work:

Much has been made of the fact that our current Leader of the Opposition has John Winston Howard, lately Prime Minister of this Parish, as his hero, mentor and inspiration.

We all know John Howard. Little bloke with glasses who wore a daggy track suit at every opportunity.  Spoke a lot about family values and yet seemed unaware that the policies his Government implemented forced fathers to spend more time at work and less time with their families.  Appeared to want a return to the White Australia Policy with his extreme actions against “Boat People”.  Demanded but failed to get adherence to a Ministerial Code of Conduct so he had to drop some 7 ministers from his Front Bench.  Before the end of his second term as PM! The attrition rate was so high he had to drop the Code of Conduct! Supported Patrick’s on the waterfront to destroy the Unions. Appointed a founder of the HR Nicholl’s Society to be Treasurer of Australia. Took Australia into an illegal war.

Yeah. That guy.

To read the rest of the article click on the link above.  It’s recommended reading and I’d implore you all to visit the site.  Well done, Ærchie.

In the meantime, why not make this an open thread on John Howard?  Let’s face it, we just love to talk about the guy.

For all you fans out there here’s a photo of Howard demonstrating to Putin how cricket umpires signal 4 runs.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

PRODUCTIVITY, WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

We hear so much about productivity, mainly from the bosses.

We hear about how we need to raise our productivity for the future wellbeing of the Nation from our PM.

One wonders if they are talking about the same thing.

I suspect not.

With the bosses, the answer is simple, the worker just has to do as ordered and work harder.

For the country to reach the productivity needed to make bosses wealthier, the boss has to have full control.  The right to treat workers as they do all their other inputs to the company is the first requirement.

The right to hire and fire, at will is the first on the list.  Without this, they say, they will go offshore and we will all be sorry.

One wonders who is correct.  I will push for the PM and the union movement.

Our greatest increases occurred during the Hawke/Keating years.  What stood out was the cooperation between government and the union movement.  This along with opening up the economy to completion was very productive.

The unions acting with the Rudd government also played a part in getting the Nation through the GFC relatively unscathed.

In my opinion, the workers are just not there to serve industry.  They are a vital clog in the wheel that ensures industry survives.  Workers are just not another tool in industry and can be disposed of at the will of the employer.  They are an important cog in the wheel of industry.

Education is the key, but not education for education sake.  It has to meet the needs of our future economy.  I also believe it has to be lifelong endeavour.

Gone are the days that one leaves school at fifteen or eighteen years, completing the education they leave for life.  It does not even end at the completion of a degree or apprenticeship.  That is only the beginning.

School and later university is not where we learn the skills for industry.  School is   where we obtain the skills to be able to learn.  We will be gaining new skills throughout our working life.

Education means a better life for our children.  Is that all productivity is about.  I suspect not.  I think the industry needs the skills to rake advantage of an educated workforce, they have to learn to treat the workers as humans and in the scheme of things, equals.  Is that a step too far?

Do you know who our PM is?

I believe most do not.

Many do not know her, but they all know she is bad, sly and a liar.

If that is not enough, she is a bitch and cares for none.

She also rigid and unfeeling.

I forgot to add, treacherous.

To add insult to injury, she does not know how to dress or talk.

No one wants her.

The hate seems stronger among the young and Labor voters.

The hate from the young amuses me, as when you see her around young people, the PM appears to interact well.

Prime Minister, Interrupted: Why One Year After the Election Voters Still Don’t Know Who Gillard
The mud maps of our most recent prime ministers might go as follows: John Howard – solid, middle-class type. Bit awkward. Social conservative, sticks to his guns. Strong. Kevin Rudd – hardworking. A bit nerdy. Modern family. Knows about foreign stuff. Labor, but not much into unions. Keen to do something about climate change.

But what does Julia Gillard’s story tell us? It’s an interrupted affair, and this is at the heart of her continued struggles as prime minister. Her life story, as it appears broadly to voters, looks a bit like this: Redhead. Political lifer. Pretty feisty. Likes football. Seems a capable deputy. Whoops! Is suddenly the prime minister.

And the period encapsulated by the “Whoops!” element of the above synopsis is precisely the period about which the prime minister can give us no further information. In June last year, the deputy prime minister became the prime minister, for reasons that were not immediately clear to most outside the Canberra area. Stories are important in politics. And the gap in this story is grievous.
and
It’s nearly a year since Julia Gillard decided that a good government had lost its way, and issued the request for Australia to “move forward”.

But not everyone is moving forward.

“I don’t trust her, after what she did to Rudd.”

“She’s a puppet.”

“Shafting Rudd the way she did was appalling.”

“There is no direction”.

“She lied to us on the carbon tax.”

“People have to a large extent tuned out to Gillard, and they find her to a certain extent embarrassing,” is Scales’s assessment of the public mood. “There’s not much in the way of positives about her at all.”

One of the exercises Scales does with these groups is to ask them to divide a sheet of paper into two columns, and list down the left side all the things the government has done well. On the right side, they list the not-so-good things. “For some people, the left-hand column is just a blank,” Scales says. “Or, you find they’re reaching back to Rudd government stuff – the cash handouts or the pension increase. This is one of her major problems: People can’t find anything to argue for her. There’s not much people can point to that they [the government] have actually done.”

and

“The only people I see who have any idea who Gillard is are people in the western suburbs of Melbourne,” says Scales. “But no one else can ever give me a description of what they think about Julia Gillard as a person. And that applies as much in the other suburban areas of Melbourne as it does in Perth, or anywhere else.”

and

Prime ministers never like being asked about why they’re having trouble getting through to people but Gillard isn’t especially prickly on the topic, fortunately. “I think that that’s true,” she responds, equably, to my ventured suggestion that her silence on the manner of her assumption of the prime ministership is hampering her ability to communicate. “And I’m conscious of that. But it’s hard to explain all of that without being … you know … without being disrespectful to the efforts of the former government, which did achieve, even with all these fetters and constraints, did achieve all these remarkable things. And, more particularly, the efforts of the former prime minister. And even though it leaves a gap, I think it’s the better and more respectful course to create that gap than to do the alternative.”

http://www.themonthly.com.au/why-one-year-after-election-voters-still-don-t-know-who-gillard-prime-minister-interrupted-annabel-c

What we do know: Those who know her personally and are close, have nothing but praise for her guts, ability and loyalty.

WHAT DO WE HEAR

We hear every day how bad this PM is.  We hear that the PM is not fit for the role.

We hear that the PM knifed the previous PM.

We hear that because of what was happening at the time.  An acceptance speech was written.  The PM must have known this was happening.

We hear that there was polling at the time, which the PM must have seen.  It was unreasonable of the PM to say that polling goes on all the time and she cannot recall any in detail.

We hear that there was a move made a week or so before the event.  Therefore, it must have been the PM organising it.

We hear that the PM must be lying when said that she was approached but did not make her mind up until the night she challenged Mr. Rudd.

We hear that faceless men got rid of Mr. Rudd, not the members of caucus.

We hear that the PM got rid of an elected PM.

We hear that this is not a legitimate government.

We hear that the PM is paralysed and is not able to carry out her role.

We hear that the parliament is dysfunctional.

We hear the PM is a habitual liar.

We hear the PM breaks promises.

We hear that this government is not legitimate.

We hear that the PM colludes to incite riots that endanger the Opposition leader.

We hear that this PM claims credit for a flourishing economy that is the result of the hard work of Mr. Howard.

We hear that this PM refuses to acknowledge that firms are acting in a pre-emptive way, putting workers off to cope with the carbon tax, which is due in the next financial year.

We hear that the PM insists that it the high dollar and the highly profitable mining industry is leading to a multi-tier economy, not her carbon tax.

We hear that the PM cannot control her office.  The PM is covering up for an officer she dismissed for acting out of place.  The PM is guilty of not answering the Opposition questions about this worker.  The PM should answer, regardless of the fact that there is a police investigation under way, and if the PM did give information, it could discriminate the officer.

The PM cannot change her office because the PM changed the seating arrangements at cabinet meetings.  The PM has asked her ministers not to take notes during cabinet meetings.  The PM does not talk to her FM.

The PM does an hour-long interview in which she described what her govern is doing and has done.  Because only a few seconds that made her look bad gets to air, the PM showed bad political judgement by agreeing to be interview, by what many would hope could be the trusted Four Corners.

The PM is guilty of not interfering in an independent FWA concerning another MP on her side of the house.  This is in spite of two police investigations, instigated by the Opposition.

The PM is guilty of breaking her word to Mr. Wilkie.  It seems does not matter that similar legislation that begins the process is being introduced.

The PM lied when she introduced the Green Energy Future Bill, which has been passed.  This was a lie, even when the PM promises a price on carbon emission before the election.

The latest lie the PM is accused of is the rebate for private health insurance.  It appears that in 2007 she would not support it.  After that, there were two attempts to get it passed.  It was mention before the 2010 election.

What we do not hear is that there have been over 268 pieces of legalisation passed.

What we do not hear is all the promises that have been kept.

What we do not hear is the positive messages about the achievements of the Government and her ministers are espousing each day.

What we do not hear is anything positive about the PM.

What we do hear, is many positives being turned into negatives.

What we hear all the time is, “Mr. Abbott says . . .”

Who are the whingers? Is this country as badly done by, as the whingers and whiners assert?

We have a country that is travelling well and most are doing better than most elsewhere in the world.

What I have notice, most of the nominations come from the right or media.

“….Surely there should have been a category for Media Whinger of the year, perhaps Newspaper commentariat whinger of the Year, certainly Newspaper Whinger of the Year and Shock Jock whinger of the year, and a sub-category Political whinger of the year for politicians other than Tony Abbott …

Isn’t that the whole point of handicapping favourites?  Wouldn’t Abbott be content with Attack Dog of the Year?  Foxes and day-old chickens a speciality…

http://www.blogotariat.com/node/197379

“……….And so it’s time again for our gala ceremony to announce the Australian Whinger of the Year. I got more than 400 emails from readers last week, most agreeing with my short list of Tony Abbott, the retailer Gerry Harvey, those meddlesome priests George Pell and Fred Nile, and the moaning, mining magnates Twiggy Forrest and Gina Rinehart…………..

……………Tony Abbott does not. Like his mentor John Howard, he plays to our base instincts of greed, selfishness and fear. He wallows in the politics of NO, apeing the hysteria of the shock jocks: we are on the brink of economic disaster; climate change is ”crap”; we are ”threatened” by gays and left-wing social engineering; a flood of ”illegals” is swamping our borders.

We have the ”worst government in our history”, he howls, blithely ignoring Billy McMahon’s Coalition shambles of the 1970s and Arthur Fadden’s wartime conservatives of 1941, who collapsed in a heap after just 40 days in office………………..”

Read more here.

“…THE self-acclaimed left-wing media have not had a good week.

In the UK, the self-righteous Guardian, which Private Eye used to sneer at as “the Grauniad”, has been dragged to confess it was wrong to claim reporters from the now-extinct News Of The World had deleted messages from a missing girl’s mobile phone, leading her parents to believe that she might still have been alive.

The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald reprinted The Guardian’s fabrications. The ABC’s Media Watch jumped onto the bandwagon………..”

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/self-righteous-sneerers-caught-in-the-guardians-twisted-web/story-e6frezz0-1226223332923

Yes, according to Ackermann, wrong, wrong.  Nevertheless, is it?

http://www.blogotariat.com/node/197379

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/16/uk-newscorp-hacking-murdoch-idUKTRE7BF17420111216

“………….Is James Murdoch Running Out of Denials?…………..”

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/is-james-murdoch-running-out-of-denials/

“…….Yet the public love Akker Dakker. Why at the time of writing, Akker Dakker’s piece had a single, solitary note from a fan, one Peter of Adelaide, who can see the truth as Akker Dakker sees it:

The Left has certainly done very serious damage to Australia. This includes the Age, smh, the ABC and the Guardian. Thanks for exposing more of these disasters.

Indeed it’s simply impossible to calculate the infinite damage The Guardian has done to Australia, but somehow a certified master black belt of whinging like Akker Dakker will find a way …”

http://www.blogotariat.com/node/197379

“…………..JULIA Gillard’s cabinet reshuffle was provoked by her need to look competent, tough and decisive.

Piers’ blog

Instead it has made her look incompetent, weak and indecisive.

She is ending her year looking like a comic book character pulling the rug from under her own feet. Her hold on the party is less than tenuous and disunity is death. Martin Ferguson ducked attempts to have him commit to Gillard’s leadership, saying only that he was loyal to the ALP.

But the real foment is taking place in the senate. While most Australians have little understanding of the upper house, its members do matter, particularly in party politics. Do not forget that the putsches that removed both her predecessor Kevin Rudd and the former opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull had their genesis in the senate – and Labor senators are grumbling…..”

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/new-labor-cabinet-but-the-cupboard-still-bare/story-e6frezz0-1226223336500

Is this true; is our PM so weak and incompetent?  Could many of our so-called journalists have imagination that would make four year olds proud.

I get the feeling that the last twelve months have been one of whining and complaining by many.  Whinges that have little connection to reality or what has occurred.

One has to ignore and deny much of what the Gillard government to conclude the media and the Opposition have arrived at.  It is more than being one eyed; one has to be deaf and blind.

Has it been the year of the whingers?  Who are the biggest whingers?

School Chaplaincy

 

Hello,

As I await a decision in my High Court challenge—many, many thanks for being one of the wonderful people responsible for helping me meet over one-third of my legal expenses to date.

Following are some developments subsequent to my August hearing in Canberra with accompanying links.

Everything in the public domain relating to my case (including the unpredicted, extensive, expensive post-case submission volleys) can be found here:

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-s307/2010

You may be aware that on September 7, 2011, Peter Garrett announced a ‘born-again’ National School Chaplaincy Program—the NSCSWP—to include what he termed at the time, ‘secular student welfare workers’, as well as chaplains. Although the wily use of the word ‘secular’ had a soothing effect upon a naïve media at the time, the eventual release of the NSCSWP guidelines revealed a program allowing far more blatant ‘religiosity’ than John Howard’s NSCP model of 2006.

The NSCSWP moved from high farce to even higher tragedy in early November 2011 when Peter Garrett’s department, DEEWR, began releasing the first national lists of ‘potential’ suppliers of student welfare workers (‘secular’ having now disappeared from use) which included ACCESS Ministries, Christians Helping in Schools (CHIPS) and Youth for Christ. ‘Expressions of interest’ to supply chaplains and student welfare workers closed at 5pm on Friday December 16, 2011.

Appalled, I produced a fifteen-minute exposé, ‘Why Julia Gillard’s Born-Again NSCP is a Shameful Sham’, with a view to attracting some media attention to what can only be described as a con job:

http://vimeo.com/32709171

An update to Sham was released on December 1 via SPEL (Secular Public Education Lobby) News:

http://vimeo.com/32901272

Sham is a sequel to ‘Mr 97% Porkie Goes to Parliament’ which I produced in January 2010 prior to the establishment of my High Court proceedings:

http://youtu.be/JzoW_aTO0nk

So far, these disgraceful circumstances have only received coverage in the SMH on December 6:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/christian-group-ready-for-bigger-chaplaincy-role-20111205-1ofji.html

It’s interesting—although predictable if not encouraging—that the parachurch suppliers of chaplains and student welfare workers are seeking a contingency arrangement from DEEWR should my challenge be successful:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/funding-fears-for-school-chaplains-20111201-1o95x.html

I recently attended an address by Mungo MacCallum. While reflecting upon his long career in journalism, Mungo said that he couldn’t remember Australian political circumstances stranger than those of today. I’m certain that Mungo is correct.

Meanwhile, I wait for ‘that’ phone call from my solicitor—while maintaining the calm optimism present across the late afternoon of August 11, 2011.

Thanks Again,

Ron

---

Facebook highcourtchallenge.com Twitter

 

This is an update on the challenge to the High Court challenge on School Chaplains.  I thought some might be interested.  The author has given me permission to put the email on site.

Waste, all we hear from the Opposition. What is waste? Is it like beauty, in the eye of the beholder?

Mr. Robb has once again said it is possible to cut government waste.  Mr. Robb said this while defending his bogus pre 2010 election audit.

I would be surprised if any government did not attempt to keep waste to a minimum.

What is much harder to decide, what waste is and what is prudent spending.

Not spending can lead to greater waste.  Health and Education over the last few years is a good example of this.  The Labor Government has increased spending in these two areas many hardly made a dent in the backlog of maintenance and upgrading that is necessary.

Spending the money over the preceding couple of decades would have been cheaper and wiser.  The adage is still true, a stitch in time save nine.

When parties like the Liberals talk about waste, they are really talking about their priorities and ideology.

Mr. Rudd showed how spending in the GFC can work.  Other countries went down this track with less success.  Most were too late and relied on such measures as tax cuts.

The amount of stimulus money is not an important component.  What is important is how quickly the money begins circulating.

The Coalition problem was not the amount of money.  They said they would spend nearly as much.  They did not agree with who got the money and how it was distributed.

They wanted to rely on precedence by doing this by tax cuts.  This has always failed, and led to costing more in the end.

You have to keep people in work.  It is too late once the unemployment rate is climbing.  The figures so, that after every economic downturn since the middle of the last century, it has taken longer to get unemployment down.  It costs much more to get people back to work.

Mr. Rudd, firstly by the $900 hand out and pension rises to low and middle-income earners ensured the money was spent immediately.  This kept the economy moving until the second phrase was begun.  This included spending money on schools, roads and other government activities.  All spheres of government were involved in this spending.  Further money was put into circulation through the Insulation Scheme and the many investigations have shown it to be money well spent.  I know my home is warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer.

Money was given for emergency housing and many other worthwhile activities.

The Labor government did not make the mistake of withdrawing the assistance too early.

Yes, when money is spent quickly, it can cost a little more to build the infrastructure.  This needs to be balance against the money that the stimulus saved.

Mr. Rudd and Mr. Swan have proved stimulus can work, if put in place early and giving money to those who spend it immediately.

Now, Mr, Robb, and those in his party claim this is money wasted.  I do not agree with them.  If they had their way, more would have been spent in the end with much more damage caused to society.

We did not have massive unemployment and bankruptcies.  We have schools, parks, roads, and new ports among other things that we can be proud.

Our economy is strong.  We have little debt.  Our pensioners are receiving pensions much higher than they have in the past.  People have reduced their debt and are saving more than they have for decades.

There are extensive opportunities for our young to be trained to meet the workforce of today and tomorrow.

Now, this could be the most wasteful government ever, but I ask one to nominate what money should not have been spent.  Nominate what you believe the next government can cut.  I would like to know why you consider it waste.

What I am asking, what is government waste?

Maybe some might see much of what this government has done, as being worthwhile.  If so, what is their most worthwhile endeavour?

ARE WE AT LAST SEEING THE NEW WORLD ORDER?

What has gone on for the last couple of weeks?  Have we been observing a PM following a President around, like an adolescent?

Have we been witnessing a President of the USA, and our PM addressing very serious issues that are emerging in the world?

Is it just about a couple of thousand troops playing was games for six months of the year, as occurs now, or is it about much more?

Maybe it is more than that.  Maybe it is about positioning ourselves to be a part of the rising trade and economies of Asia.

It has been said, our PM has always been pro American.

Are we now witnessing the new world order that has been evolving since the fall of the USSR in the 1980’s?

At the same time, there have been declines in the economies of Europe and America.

Have we a USA President and PM with the guts and foresight to grab the opportunities available with both hands?

I do not believe we have seen the new world order that many predicted back in 1980′s.  Some seen the future as America being the winner and would rule supreme.   I have never believed this would happen.  I believed at that time, a there would be a decline in the USA, as in the USSR.

I believed at that time, the USA would go the way of the USSR.  I did not see America remaining the supreme ruling power.  I saw power becoming more dispersed, among many countries.

I have not seen much evidence to say I was wrong since then.

Are we on the edge of a sea change?

Where are the media analyses and stories that attempt to tell us what is going on?

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Bali talks this weekend.

Maybe I am just a dreamer.

What do others think?  Is the world in flux of change?  If it is, is that a bad thing, especially for Australia?

24-hour news cycle or 24-hour opinion cycle?

This morning on Local Radio, ABC 702, I listened to an interesting interview of Mr. Lachlan Harris by Ms. Deborah Cameron.

Mr. Lachlan Harris was formally a Press Officer to Mr. Rudd.

Mr Harris is promoting the idea the 24-hour news cycle not problematic.  His proposition is that we no longer have a 24-hours news cycle but a 24-hour opinion cycle.

During the interview, it was raised that that blogs sites are to blame for this transformation but was denied by Mr. Harris. 

Maybe this is true, but I believe there are also blogs emerging that are seeking truth and facts. 

People are visiting blog sites, because they cannot find what they want in the media.  They cannot find truth, and facts.

The reason according to Mr. Harris is that the media is giving the people what they want.  Mr. Harris pointed out that opinion and comment is much cheaper than news and facts.

Mr. Harris made the point that in this media climate, genuine political reform cannot exist.  This was true for all political parties.

Mr. Harris also said that the opinion cycle is a nasty place to be.  It caters to the lowest denominator in society.

As the result of this new phenomenon, how are we going to see the emergence of journalist such as Mr. Laurie Oakes? 

We have seen channel Ten abandon the George Negus show at six thirty to be replaced by the 7 pm Report.  A show that dealt in fact to one that relies on opinion.

It was also said that Drum, ABC24 was little more than opinions.

We have Mr. Lachlan’s proposition following Mr. Lindsey Tanner’s book, The Sideshow that said very much the same thing.

Mr. Oakes at the Olle Media Lecture said many similar things.

“……..Harris’s presentation – When your communication gets into a spin – the battle of policy vs populism – focused on “the rise and rise and rise of the opinion cycle” and why it has become more important than the news cycle.

Harris has examined the changes in the media over the past five years. His conclusion?

“Opinion happened”

He says: “Opinion has always been a big part of the media but never like it is now.”

Harris contends the media industry, which has until recent years been driven by the traditional news cycle, has given way to the cycle of opinion (which includes tweets, blogs, talkback radio etc).

As far as the Australian media industry is concerned, “the apprentice has become the master – opinion reigns supreme”.

This in turn has resulted in “massive fundamental change” to the political landscape.

The rise of opinion is new and it’s fundamentally changing the way politics runs, he says.

News and opinion are intertwined but opinion cycle is “slowly smothering the news cycle”.

Tweets, comments, blogs, email, talkback – collectively – are now more important and influential than the news story.

According to Harris, the difference between news and opinion is simple:

News is a flow of information that depends on facts, opinion is a flow of information that depends on argument.

“Opinion is a fundamentally different proposition to news”

 So much of the information we’re exposed to in politics has little to do with facts.

Facts don’t matter, arguments do, he says.

According to Harris, five years ago Kerry O’Brien was the most influential media figure in Australia; today it’s Andrew Bolt (because he has a talent for provoking debate).

WHY IS THE MEDIA OBSESSED WITH OPINION?..

http://prwarrior.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/10/the-rise-rise-and-rise-of-the-opinion-cycle.html

“…Many of the young journalists entering the industry still want to achieve the same things as their predecessors. But our will to fight to keep alive traditional media is continuing to drain…”

http://prwarrior.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/10/pr-needs-to-support-journalists-in-their-role-as-the-fourth-estate.html.

To me, what is more worrying to me, that those giving the opinion do not have the experience or knowledge to form opinions that are above those of the public.

There is very little forensic journalist to be found anywhere.  Four Corners appears to be the only outlet left.  In the past, shows such as Sixty Minutes and those following the news each day fulfilled this need.

“……..G’day PR Warrior, I believe there is a lot in what Lachlan and you say, and I’m not sure there’s an easy fix.

Traditional media organisations have been cutting expenses in traditional management style and have failed to maintain their values and standards.

As a result, they have spent the last couple of decades throwing away their Unique Selling Proposition.

They have also spent that time diversifying their business interests into entertainment and gaming, which now provides the lifeblood for many of these organisations.

It is no coincidence that traditional media sales have fallen in real terms, almost in inverse proportion to the rise and rise (and rise) of opinion. We can get opinions at the local pub.

What we want from traditional media organisations are the credible facts we can use to back-up our views and fuel our debates.

As an industry, PR has been extremely remiss in not strongly supporting journalists in their role as the fourth estate. Opinions have nothing to do with the role of the fourth estate. We are partially responsible for allowing this problem to occur.

We need to challenge traditional media to return to values-based journalism that meets standards, but we won’t take on that challenge because it is not seen as being good to challenge media proprietors and some see it as against the interests of clients.

People like traditional media. Despite predictions for the last 40 years or so that it was dying, we continue to keep it alive. We still like reading papers in the mornings, however they are delivered…”

http://prwarrior.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/10/pr-needs-to-support-journalists-in-their-role-as-the-fourth-estate.html.

The questions I asked, is this good enough? 

Is it up to the media supply only what they say we want? 

Should the fourth estate be fulfilling its role by ensuring news and facts, are publish above opinion? 

Do the media have any responsibilities in relation to society? 

Is the only responsibility the media has is to the shareholders?

If the media has no responsibilities, where do we find truth and facts?

DOES IT MATTER ?