Australian Current Affairs Thread (not a Politics Thread) lol

[wendybr]

I am constantly struck by how, if we were we dependent only on the commercial media, we would virtually never hear a non - white Australian voice or perspective.

Actually...Channel 10 has Walid and does a better job of presenting other perspectives...but 9 and 7??

[Davo]

18 minutes ago, wendybr said:

I am constantly struck by how, if we were we dependent only on the commercial media, we would virtually never hear a non - white Australian voice or perspective.

Actually...Channel 10 has Walid and does a better job of presenting other perspectives...but 9 and 7??

The Today show has Brooke Boney who's an indigenous reporter. She got her say, although after they'd got all the clickbait headlines from Hanson.

[wendybr]

Thanks Davo.

I wouldn't really know, never actually watching anything on commercial TV except their crappy 6 oclock News sometimes, and seeing ads for  their crappy current affairs shows.

But my strong impression is that, compared to the ABC and SBS, where you hear a wide variety of voices and perspectives, on 9 and 7 non-Anglo Australia almost doesn't exist. 

[Davo]

Yeah I don't watch it either. I'd seen an article with her response and I remember her from when she was on Triple J.

[LeeMarvin]

6 minutes ago, wendybr said:

But my strong impression is that, compared to the ABC and SBS, where you hear a wide variety of voices and perspectives, on 9 and 7 non-Anglo Australia almost doesn't exist. 

I have been interested for a number of decades in media depiction of people outside the anglo mainstream.  One area I have noticed a lot of improvement is advertising.  As recently as the naughties you would only see 'ethnics' portrayed in stereotypes, whereas now people from diverse backgrounds can be seen playing 'normal people'.  I know there is economic self interest at play there, but nonetheless.

[wendybr]

You're right. I notice that also. You don't very often see Muslim women though, or indigenous people.

But yes, it is more noticeable that a variety of people of different backgrounds is depicted.

[wendybr]

@LeeMarvin how is the Uluru issue being accepted in the NT?

[LeeMarvin]

4 hours ago, wendybr said:

@LeeMarvin how is the Uluru issue being accepted in the NT?

Not ignoring you Wendy.  Still debating whether I am brave enough to get drawn in to this line of conversation.

[wendybr]

Ahhh...OK.

We have had ranging debates here in the past.

Ferocious, but enlightening,  in lots of ways.

I don't think there's anyone left here who would not give someone with different opinions a fair and respectful hearing.

There should be more debate in society rather than less, as people hang out in their respective echo chambers imo.

But obviously if you are reluctant, that's  fair enough.

Your perspctive would be based on very different experiences to most of ours, I suspect, so would be of interest.

Anyway...

[Zelinsky]

Sam Newman apparently did not appreciate the way he was portrayed in the adam goodes docu. Or rather: how he portrayed or conducted himself. Also, he didn't appreciate that he wasn't invited to the panel discussion after the docu was aired. 

Newman was taken off the air about a century too late. He exercised his freedom of speech privilege in abundance, and exceeded his use by date. As of last late at the latest, he can clearly be seen as the insensitive man he is. Newman is welcome to open or join a forum where white, protestant, heterosexual men like him spread their bile. I for my part have heard and seen quite enough.

Enjoy your retirement, Sam, and good riddance to you. 

 

[Legionista]

The greatness of free speech FCB. 

Odious individuals such as Newman can be seen for who they are. 

[Zelinsky]

3 hours ago, Legionista said:

The greatness of free speech FCB. 

Odious individuals such as Newman can be seen for who they are. 

Well, he is entitled to an opinion. But this white supremacist was part of a witch hunt. I guess that's a form of free speech. Or was it hate speech? Or just being ignorant and uneducated? Either way, he killed himself off in the process. Prost!

Edited July 19, 2019 by FCB

[Cynth]

Now with all this freedom of speech Folau has claimed....why hasn’t he mentioned this...?

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/why-the-pm-and-most-christians-are-going-to-hell-20190719-p528xx.html

[wendybr]

29 minutes ago, Cynth said:

Now with all this freedom of speech Folau has claimed....why hasn’t he mentioned this...?

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/why-the-pm-and-most-christians-are-going-to-hell-20190719-p528xx.html

Probably my reaction of   is a bit inappropriate?

But that's  what the whole thing deserves in my opinion. 

And this idiotic  mob have had a couple of million bucks deposited in their bank account?

Unbelievable.

[wendybr]

PS I can't wait to see what the satirists do with this! 

[Edinburgh]

1 hour ago, Cynth said:

Now with all this freedom of speech Folau has claimed....why hasn’t he mentioned this...?

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/why-the-pm-and-most-christians-are-going-to-hell-20190719-p528xx.html

He could probably use that to justify his case that his tweet was not selective.

[wendybr]

And he'd be right about that!

His tweet included 99% of the humans who ever lived, when he cast the net to include all liars (% of people who have told even a little white lie  unknown, but close to 100% I'd think)...as well as the atheists (50% of people in most Western Democratic countries) the fornicators (% ??throughout history) the adulterers (% unknown) etc etc etc.

It was a nutcase religious cult member's general nutcase rant.

It should have been laughed off and ignored.

Well done to the proponents of the outrage culture.

2.2 million bucks...sigh.

Rant over...but it's gone too far....

 

Oh...and I hope Jonathan Pie gets to hear about it! 

[wendybr]

^^^ My rant left out all the drunks...proportion of the population????

Not sure if being drunk once would count towards eternal damnation or not??

But there's another weighty demographic who were caught in the ridiculous Folau net...

[Cynth]

35 minutes ago, Edinburgh said:

He could probably use that to justify his case that his tweet was not selective.

The tweet was totally selective. He forgot to mention that he believes Pentecostal christians and Catholics are going to hell too!!  (even if they are not homosexuals, fornicators, liars etc)

[wendybr]

^^ 

[Edinburgh]

23 minutes ago, Cynth said:

The tweet was totally selective. He forgot to mention that he believes Pentecostal christians and Catholics are going to hell too!!  (even if they are not homosexuals, fornicators, liars etc)

I'm not familiar with Twitter,  isn't there a character limit?

[btron3000]

I don't get the angle that his tweet wasn't selective.

Sorry, I'm not in this thread much and so I'm sure this has been discussed, but this is not about freedom of speech. It is about contract law. An employer is entitled to put a clause in a contract regarding "the best interests of the business" or not doing anything publicly that negatively affects the running of the business etc. And the implementation of that clause will depend on the person's role and standing in the organisation and in public (and therefore the impact of their comments), and what they said. If the receptionist at ARU headquarters tweeted that, no-one would care. (Well, her workmates might think she was an idiot). But Folau is high profile enough that he has to align to what the ARU values and public image is. Such is the life of a modern day sportsperson. You can't take the positives of public life like big contracts and endorsements if you don't also accept the restrictions put on you.

And so it should come down to what the ARU said to him the first time he did it. I assume they have well documented records of the meeting(s) and so they can say "we warned him not to post about this" etc.

I guess the "non selective" argument could be "they warned me not to post specifically about x" and I didn't, I posted about "y". But that is going to be a long bow to draw given that he had already copped backlash about religious tweets and he is defending himself on freedom of religion grounds.

And the other thing is that he wasn't sacked because of his religion, which would definitely be grounds for unfair dismissal. He was sacked because he denigrated others that don't believe the same as him. He is the one discriminating here, he's not being discriminated against. What an arse-clown.

[Cynth]

Yep btron, totally agree. Yes we have had that convo, totally a contractual issue. I was being sarcastic when I mentioned free speech just before. 

Great post. 

[wendybr]

I agree it's a totally a contract issue...it's  all it is.

But I still see it as a religious nutter who happens to be a footballer, going on a non specific rant about 90% of the world's population.

Outrage on behalf of one small subset of the target of the rant has blown it out it out of all proportion...and an imbecilic cult has benefitted to the tune on over 2 million dollars. Out of the pockets of people who may either be outraged by this new revelation about the beliefs of this cult...or who will laugh it off as their mistake.

I KNOW the targeted subset has been historically persecuted, and now is deservedly protected by anti-discrimination legislation etc.

I just don't see that outrage over everything is leading us in a positive direction.

 

[btron3000]

3 minutes ago, wendybr said:

I agree it's a totally a contract issue...it's  all it is.

But I still see it as a religious nutter who happens to be a footballer, going on a non specific rant about 90% of the world's population.

Outrage on behalf of one small subset of the target of the rant has blown it out it out of all proportion...and an imbecilic cult has benefitted to the tune on over 2 million dollars. Out of the pockets of people who may either be outraged by this new revelation about the beliefs of this cult...or who will laugh it off as their mistake.

I KNOW the targeted subset has been historically persecuted, and now is deservedly protected by anti-discrimination legislation etc.

I just don't see that outrage over everything is leading us in a positive direction.

 

I agree, and I am not a fan of punishments being based off the public outrage, because then we are essentially punishing the reaction instead of the crime.

I think people should have just written it off as the ranting of an idiot. But once the company pulls you up and says "shutup champ, you're affecting the popularity of the sport" you have two choices - stay and toe the line, or leave. They have every right to tell Folau that he can go and rant on his own time. Or playing NRL, or AFL or whatever.

[Cynth]

Fair enough Wendy. 

The question remains however, do we speak out or do we shut up. Sometimes speaking out illuminates an issue more than it should be but sometimes it creates awareness and even change. It opens up a debate that sometimes we need to have. 

It shouldn’t be outrage as much as it should be a dissenting voice.

[wendybr]

I do agree with that Cynth, and would cite the instance of Adam Goodes calling out the racist name calling incident.... pand all the others who preceded him in doing that.

But somehow making such points is now done more in a hysterical, accusatory (name calling) and over the top manner.

Then the knee-jerk and unbalanced reactions happen in response, which sparks a reverse  cycle of hysterical outrage.

IDK...

In my lifetime, society slowly moved forward in what, to me, were positive directions. Not in all areas, sadly (e.g. the envionment, mental health and the strength of family life) but in others.

But now things seem to be unravelling.

Maybe it's just that things are in transition...but there seems to be a kind of madness in the air these days...

Sigh..

[Cynth]

1 hour ago, wendybr said:

I do agree with that Cynth, and would cite the instance of Adam Goodes calling out the racist name calling incident.... pand all the others who preceded him in doing that.

But somehow making such points is now done more in a hysterical, accusatory (name calling) and over the top manner.

Then the knee-jerk and unbalanced reactions happen in response, which sparks a reverse  cycle of hysterical outrage.

IDK...

In my lifetime, society slowly moved forward in what, to me, were positive directions. Not in all areas, sadly (e.g. the envionment, mental health and the strength of family life) but in others.

But now things seem to be unravelling.

Maybe it's just that things are in transition...but there seems to be a kind of madness in the air these days...

Sigh..

Divisive politics around the world. Things are getting more and more ugly at the moment. 

[Edinburgh]

I don't remember who, but someone posted an item months ago by a journalist about just that and how she and former close friends on different sides of the political debate in her country couldn't even talk to each other anymore.

[sonar]

1 hour ago, Cynth said:

Divisive politics around the world. Things are getting more and more ugly at the moment. 

It's getting to the stage of ......you don't agree with me then you're my enemy.....a la Trump who is an expert at it. He's not the only one mind you....all sides play this game. One of the reasons I don't or rarely watch TV or consume too much media anymore......most of it is designed to encourage conflict between people......reality tv especially. 

Edited July 20, 2019 by sonar