Australian Politics Forum - Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self.

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self.
Reply #270 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:36am

Grendel wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:27am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 10:55am:

Cover all legal demographics.

Right, well admittedly when going between polls and your anecdote, I'll go the polls.

Hold a Pleb... you'll lose. Roll Eyes

With majority support in the public ? Highly doubtful.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self. Reply #271 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:41am Oh god.... why do I have to keep repeating myself for you... read some bloody posts will you!!!!! The gay marriage lobby do not want a plebiscite or as they call it a referendum of the issue. I've already stated this and explained why... go fetch for the rest.
Back to top	IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self.
Reply #272 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:45am

Grendel wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:41am:

Oh god.... why do I have to keep repeating myself for you... read some bloody posts will you!!!!!

The gay marriage lobby do not want a plebiscite or as they call it a referendum of the issue.

I've already stated this and explained why... go fetch for the rest. Roll Eyes

But why should we have one? Is this not a decision that can be made by our representatives?

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self.
Reply #273 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:49am

Grendel wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:27am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 10:55am:

Cover all legal demographics.

Right, well admittedly when going between polls and your anecdote, I'll go the polls.

Hold a Pleb... you'll lose. Roll Eyes

If the pleb is written in the correct manner by agovernment not looking to poison the well. I think it'll get up

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 139247 Gender:	Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self. Reply #274 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:57am Grendel wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:30am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:00am: Based on Based on nothing? Thanks for the correction.
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96460

Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self.
Reply #275 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 12:22pm

matty wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 9:36am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 9:17am:

[quote author=Time link=1391510268/178#178 date=1391640034][quote author=alevine link=1391510268/174#174 date=1391639495][quote author=Time link=1391510268/173#173 date=1391638813]

Gillard was shocking at communicating with the public. She was extremely patronising (whether intention or not is unclear, I would say probably not, which makes it even worse), and had a very grating and irritating voice. Not to mention that the public just stopped listening after she broke her no carbon tax promise.

Tony Jones and Tony abbott cannot stand each other, and this I would say is a very large pary of why Abbott won't go on the show. Their interview on Late line in late 2011 was extremely awkward. There is of course also the factor of a biased audience.

Good communication skills have nothing to do with political views or ideology - they have much more to do with the medium chosen to communicate.

I'm saying Gillard was objectively a good communicator at public forums. Whether you liked her or not (or were listening or not) is not the issue - she was a very effective communicator in this context. She most certainly did not patronize her audience, as seen on her last Q&A. She gave extremely detailed responses to audience questions (for a politician) and described some of her experience with power. This worked well with the balancing act of Q&A - a public forum with the intimacy of the camera. "The talent" therefore has to address the studio audience and the audience at home. It's a skill, and one Gillard learned to excell at.

Abbott is good on talkback radio because it's short-answer style and audience feedback is heavily mediated. Abbott's media plan is essentially risk-adverse. Its aim is to manage the perception of Abbott as a hothead, a bungler, and an ideologue. Its aim is to stop Abbott shooting himself in the foot.

Abbott's media plan, up until now, has been to hide as much as possible. This can't work in the modern media/information age. Modern demokracies DO have a cult of personality, and there's no getting around this. I'll be surprised if Abbott gets through his first term without appearing on Q&A, but if he does, it says a lot about his media evasiveness.

Abbott has what it takes to appear open and intimate with an audience. The question for his minders is whether they want to risk him shooting off his views - which Abbott is very capable of doing, given the opportunity. He likes a chat, he loves a debate, and he simply adores being heard. He is much more of an ideas-man than the pragmatic action hero his minders are trying to portray.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96460

Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self.
Reply #276 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 12:37pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 8:49am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 8:48am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 8:43am:

Perhaps they can talk about other things about gays rather than just their wanted rights. Perhaps the show can talk about faeces and arseholes. But that's not so trendy or sexy is it.

Well are faeces and arseholes political topics?

Misty has just showed why extremist rants against gay marriage are booed and not supported by centrists.

You'll have to excuse Misty's ignorance.

He lives in a very strange world.

Yes, but Mistie works at the uni, we all know that.

It's not only "centrists" booing and hissing against the anti-gay marriage crowd. Most questions on gay marriage I've seen on Q&A have been asked by middle-aged dads sitting next to their rather embarrassed gay sons.

Gay marriage is an issue firmly at the centre of groups like the Young Liberals now. It's increasingly a conservative campaign, and not just a libertarian one. Put simply, this comes down to the fact that many in the Liberal Party are gay or have friends who are.

Gay marriage has extended beyond party politics. Conservatives like David Cameron support it - based largely on their constituencies. It's becoming increasingly hard to hold a belief against gay marriage and campaign on this view. Many conservatives just keep quiet on it, but this is becoming increasingly hard to do.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self.
Reply #277 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 1:24pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:45am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:41am:

Oh god.... why do I have to keep repeating myself for you... read some bloody posts will you!!!!!

The gay marriage lobby do not want a plebiscite or as they call it a referendum of the issue.

I've already stated this and explained why... go fetch for the rest. Roll Eyes

But why should we have one? Is this not a decision that can be made by our representatives?

NO!!!!!
No no no no no.....
This is a big social change, if ya didn't realise.
This IMO requires the vote of the Australian people, not a handful of wannabies and career politicians, that don't represent me but their own vested interests.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self.
Reply #278 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 1:29pm

Grendel wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 1:24pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:45am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:41am:

Oh god.... why do I have to keep repeating myself for you... read some bloody posts will you!!!!!

The gay marriage lobby do not want a plebiscite or as they call it a referendum of the issue.

I've already stated this and explained why... go fetch for the rest. Roll Eyes

But why should we have one? Is this not a decision that can be made by our representatives?

NO!!!!!
No no no no no.....
This is a big social change, if ya didn't realise.
This IMO requires the vote of the Australian people, not a handful of wannabies and career politicians, that don't represent me but their own vested interests.

Why is it a big social change?

Howard changed it in 2004 without a plebiscite...was it a huge social change then? Grin

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

matty

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11055
East Sydney
Gender: male

Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self.
Reply #279 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 2:11pm

Karnal wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 12:22pm:

matty wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 9:36am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 9:17am:

[quote author=Time link=1391510268/178#178 date=1391640034][quote author=alevine link=1391510268/174#174 date=1391639495][quote author=Time link=1391510268/173#173 date=1391638813]

Gillard was shocking at communicating with the public. She was extremely patronising (whether intention or not is unclear, I would say probably not, which makes it even worse), and had a very grating and irritating voice. Not to mention that the public just stopped listening after she broke her no carbon tax promise.

Tony Jones and Tony abbott cannot stand each other, and this I would say is a very large pary of why Abbott won't go on the show. Their interview on Late line in late 2011 was extremely awkward. There is of course also the factor of a biased audience.

Good communication skills have nothing to do with political views or ideology - they have much more to do with the medium chosen to communicate.

I'm saying Gillard was objectively a good communicator at public forums. Whether you liked her or not (or were listening or not) is not the issue - she was a very effective communicator in this context. She most certainly did not patronize her audience, as seen on her last Q&A. She gave extremely detailed responses to audience questions (for a politician) and described some of her experience with power. This worked well with the balancing act of Q&A - a public forum with the intimacy of the camera. "The talent" therefore has to address the studio audience and the audience at home. It's a skill, and one Gillard learned to excell at.

Abbott is good on talkback radio because it's short-answer style and audience feedback is heavily mediated. Abbott's media plan is essentially risk-adverse. Its aim is to manage the perception of Abbott as a hothead, a bungler, and an ideologue. Its aim is to stop Abbott shooting himself in the foot.

Abbott's media plan, up until now, has been to hide as much as possible. This can't work in the modern media/information age. Modern demokracies DO have a cult of personality, and there's no getting around this. I'll be surprised if Abbott gets through his first term without appearing on Q&A, but if he does, it says a lot about his media evasiveness.

Abbott has what it takes to appear open and intimate with an audience. The question for his minders is whether they want to risk him shooting off his views - which Abbott is very capable of doing, given the opportunity. He likes a chat, he loves a debate, and he simply adores being heard. He is much more of an ideas-man than the pragmatic action hero his minders are trying to portray.

Look, Karnal, some of what you say is valid, but you seriously never thought that Gillard was patronising, and spoke like a primary school teacher at times? Many people think this, not just me. Both critics and supporters of hers thought this.

Back to top

BILL SHORTEN WILL NEVER BE PM!!!!

IP Logged

matty

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11055
East Sydney
Gender: male

Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self.
Reply #280 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 2:13pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 9:39am:

matty wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 9:36am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 9:17am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 8:40am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 8:31am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 8:20am:

The audience in QandA veers toward the "progressives". The audience's reaction to the panellists and the topics involved reflect that. It's odd that 40% supposed Liberal supports would boo their own or remain entirely silent throughout the show. Quantum is right that the topics the Greens are obsessed with get the most cheers, yet are only ever about 10% of the audience. Something doesn't add up.

Once again, your assumption is that a typical liberal supporter will:
1. Not agree with environmental policy, gay rights,assisting asylum seeker etc.

That is not a left ideal. It's a centrist ideal. And the majority of Austrlaia, the vast majority, is centrist.

So your assumption is wrong, as typically the issues discussed on the show have majority support of the public, and it's a shame that we have an extremist PM with an extremist ideology, that simply get supported by the extremists of the liberal party, who happen to make up the majority of liberal party posters on this forum.

Anyone who doesn't believe in open borders for asylum seekers and supports gay marriage is heckled on the show. That's not centrist. Gay marriage concerns hardly anyone; for most people it just doesn't register as an important issue, yet it gets talked about time and time again.

You're right there, but that's not Q&A, that's the population in general. Many Liberal candidates at the last election changed their stance overnight. For some surreal reason, gay marriage has become a huge issue in the community.

Borders are different. I've heard Turnbull, Gillard, Shorten and even (ex-immigration minister)Amanda Vanstone give compelling reasons for offshore processing and deterrance.

The whole point of Q&A is for politicians to convince the general public of their views. It's a TV show - the audience has some input, but politicians are reaching out to people in their homes.

This requires some skill. Some politicians have it, some don't. The medium is the message - the audience are in their lounge rooms. To be successful in getting your message accross on Q&A, you need to appear relaxed, confident and intimate.

This last point is crucial. Politians who speak of their own experiences succeed. Turnbull is the master at this. Rudd, I always thought, was useless. Gillard was okay, but she got better as she got used to it. The test for Gillard was always letting "the real Julia" out. I think she became very succesful at this as she got used to the top job.

Abbott, mind you, won't even give it a go. I don't think this is all his idea - his media minders would talk him out of going on Q&A. Abbott's largely intellectual. He's not going to warm anyone to him through his communication skills, which are awkward on TV. He makes some good arguments for some things, and this is a strength, but I doubt he can achieve much by going on Q&A. His weaknesses in communication would most likely outweigh his strengths in persuasion, but we'll see.

As PM, I don't think he can avoid Q&A forever.

Their interview on Late line in late 2011 was extremely awkward. There is of course also the factor of a biased audience.

So if a biased audience is an issue, why does he go on 2GB constantly

They're not there in the studio with him, are they?

Back to top

BILL SHORTEN WILL NEVER BE PM!!!!

IP Logged

matty

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11055
East Sydney
Gender: male

Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self.
Reply #281 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 2:18pm

There have been a lot of replies since I last logged off, so if I have missed anyone's reply to me, I apologise.

But in address to a few comments made about my own personal leanings, let me say that extremist-right and religious-right are not necessarily synonymous. I identify as the latter, but not the former.

Back to top

BILL SHORTEN WILL NEVER BE PM!!!!

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self.
Reply #282 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 2:32pm

matty wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 2:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 12:22pm:

matty wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 9:36am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 9:17am:

[quote author=Time link=1391510268/178#178 date=1391640034][quote author=alevine link=1391510268/174#174 date=1391639495][quote author=Time link=1391510268/173#173 date=1391638813]

Gillard was shocking at communicating with the public. She was extremely patronising (whether intention or not is unclear, I would say probably not, which makes it even worse), and had a very grating and irritating voice. Not to mention that the public just stopped listening after she broke her no carbon tax promise.

Tony Jones and Tony abbott cannot stand each other, and this I would say is a very large pary of why Abbott won't go on the show. Their interview on Late line in late 2011 was extremely awkward. There is of course also the factor of a biased audience.

Good communication skills have nothing to do with political views or ideology - they have much more to do with the medium chosen to communicate.

I'm saying Gillard was objectively a good communicator at public forums. Whether you liked her or not (or were listening or not) is not the issue - she was a very effective communicator in this context. She most certainly did not patronize her audience, as seen on her last Q&A. She gave extremely detailed responses to audience questions (for a politician) and described some of her experience with power. This worked well with the balancing act of Q&A - a public forum with the intimacy of the camera. "The talent" therefore has to address the studio audience and the audience at home. It's a skill, and one Gillard learned to excell at.

Abbott is good on talkback radio because it's short-answer style and audience feedback is heavily mediated. Abbott's media plan is essentially risk-adverse. Its aim is to manage the perception of Abbott as a hothead, a bungler, and an ideologue. Its aim is to stop Abbott shooting himself in the foot.

Abbott's media plan, up until now, has been to hide as much as possible. This can't work in the modern media/information age. Modern demokracies DO have a cult of personality, and there's no getting around this. I'll be surprised if Abbott gets through his first term without appearing on Q&A, but if he does, it says a lot about his media evasiveness.

Abbott has what it takes to appear open and intimate with an audience. The question for his minders is whether they want to risk him shooting off his views - which Abbott is very capable of doing, given the opportunity. He likes a chat, he loves a debate, and he simply adores being heard. He is much more of an ideas-man than the pragmatic action hero his minders are trying to portray.

Look, Karnal, some of what you say is valid, but you seriously never thought that Gillard was patronising, and spoke like a primary school teacher at times? Many people think this, not just me. Both critics and supporters of hers thought this.

Better than Tony talking to us like we are mentally deranged.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

matty

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11055
East Sydney
Gender: male

Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self.
Reply #283 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 2:34pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 2:32pm:

matty wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 2:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 12:22pm:

matty wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 9:36am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 9:17am:

[quote author=Time link=1391510268/178#178 date=1391640034][quote author=alevine link=1391510268/174#174 date=1391639495][quote author=Time link=1391510268/173#173 date=1391638813]

Gillard was shocking at communicating with the public. She was extremely patronising (whether intention or not is unclear, I would say probably not, which makes it even worse), and had a very grating and irritating voice. Not to mention that the public just stopped listening after she broke her no carbon tax promise.

Tony Jones and Tony abbott cannot stand each other, and this I would say is a very large pary of why Abbott won't go on the show. Their interview on Late line in late 2011 was extremely awkward. There is of course also the factor of a biased audience.

Good communication skills have nothing to do with political views or ideology - they have much more to do with the medium chosen to communicate.

I'm saying Gillard was objectively a good communicator at public forums. Whether you liked her or not (or were listening or not) is not the issue - she was a very effective communicator in this context. She most certainly did not patronize her audience, as seen on her last Q&A. She gave extremely detailed responses to audience questions (for a politician) and described some of her experience with power. This worked well with the balancing act of Q&A - a public forum with the intimacy of the camera. "The talent" therefore has to address the studio audience and the audience at home. It's a skill, and one Gillard learned to excell at.

Abbott is good on talkback radio because it's short-answer style and audience feedback is heavily mediated. Abbott's media plan is essentially risk-adverse. Its aim is to manage the perception of Abbott as a hothead, a bungler, and an ideologue. Its aim is to stop Abbott shooting himself in the foot.

Abbott's media plan, up until now, has been to hide as much as possible. This can't work in the modern media/information age. Modern demokracies DO have a cult of personality, and there's no getting around this. I'll be surprised if Abbott gets through his first term without appearing on Q&A, but if he does, it says a lot about his media evasiveness.

Abbott has what it takes to appear open and intimate with an audience. The question for his minders is whether they want to risk him shooting off his views - which Abbott is very capable of doing, given the opportunity. He likes a chat, he loves a debate, and he simply adores being heard. He is much more of an ideas-man than the pragmatic action hero his minders are trying to portray.

Look, Karnal, some of what you say is valid, but you seriously never thought that Gillard was patronising, and spoke like a primary school teacher at times? Many people think this, not just me. Both critics and supporters of hers thought this.

Better than Tony talking to us like we are mentally deranged.

To be honest, I don't think that either of them speak directly to the public that well.

Back to top

BILL SHORTEN WILL NEVER BE PM!!!!

IP Logged

Quantum

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3373

Re: Q & A/ABC back to its usual biased self.
Reply #284 - Feb 6^th, 2014 at 2:36pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:45am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 11:41am:

Oh god.... why do I have to keep repeating myself for you... read some bloody posts will you!!!!!

The gay marriage lobby do not want a plebiscite or as they call it a referendum of the issue.

I've already stated this and explained why... go fetch for the rest. Roll Eyes

But why should we have one?

Because people for it keep claiming that most people want it. What better way to find out for sure then to actually ask the people.

Quote:

Is this not a decision that can be made by our representatives?

They have. They have decided not to change it.

This is the problem with the whole sorry affair. Those who want it;

A) Claim most people want it, but refuse to test how much support there really is for it.
B) Want the government to make a decision, but only if it is a yes.

Back to top

IP Logged