Daily Telegraph Today

[SeaEagleRock8]

Interestingly I note he apparently didn't report that David Perry, Scott Penn, Arko, Football Club directors and the number 1 season ticket holders all sat on the same table in a lounge at Brookie for the Bulldogs game a few weeks ago.....?

Well that is very heartening. (Any problems getting people to pass the salt? and I dare say no-one was ordering humble pie!!)

 

[manlyfan76]

Tele sales down by 11% I think i read last week, Courier mail down by 17%. maybe the people are waking up to their crap.
I don't read it or view it online.

 

[MissKate]

Tele sales down by 11% I think i read last week, Courier mail down by 17%. maybe the people are waking up to their crap.
I don't read it or view it online.

so if the tele reacted to that the way the nrl react to the smaller crowds, we can expect them to double the price of their newspaper very shortly

 

[Hamster Huey]

The Telegraph would rather run the country into the ground for their own benefit and to kill Labour than actually report the facts.

Yet people will believe their reporting in relation to the economy as gospel but when it comes to Manly they get it all wrong.

Have not purchased the Tele in any form or Fox in almost 20yrs.

The DT ran hard for Rudd to win 2007 and kick the Libs out of office.

How does that match your definitive statement on them?

I agree it's a rubbish paper, but the hyperbole is misleading.

---

Tele sales down by 11% I think i read last week, Courier mail down by 17%. maybe the people are waking up to their crap.
I don't read it or view it online.

All papers are taking a hit, with people drifting online, thus the push for paying to read their sites.

But despite the decreases, the News stable percentage losses are less than the Fairfax titles.

 

[Technical Coach]

The Telegraph would rather run the country into the ground for their own benefit and to kill Labour than actually report the facts.

Yet people will believe their reporting in relation to the economy as gospel but when it comes to Manly they get it all wrong.

Have not purchased the Tele in any form or Fox in almost 20yrs.

The DT ran hard for Rudd to win 2007 and kick the Libs out of office.

How does that match your definitive statement on them?

I agree it's a rubbish paper, but the hyperbole is misleading.

---

Tele sales down by 11% I think i read last week, Courier mail down by 17%. maybe the people are waking up to their crap.
I don't read it or view it online.

All papers are taking a hit, with people drifting online, thus the push for paying to read their sites.

But despite the decreases, the News stable percentage losses are less than the Fairfax titles.

---

There are always exceptions to the rule but it is obvious more often than not(well beyond more often than not) they are right wing and not balanced.

Off the back of high interest rates relative to large house loans and public sentiment they went with labour as it was going to sell papers in that period. Once in power straight off the mark back into normal cruise control as that sells papers also.

You never hear about the high interest rates of the Fraser years beyond what Keating had to deal with(people were lucky it was capped at I think 13.5% and not paying real rates), they could not control the Unions, had double digit inflation and unemployment and running deficits.

You don't hear the surpluses we finally achieved just before the recession(we had to have and I agree), it all gets swept aside.

Oh and the Govt Dept that also included Fraser debt but promoted as "Labours Debt"

My Political views are both sides of politics are crap just the right are better at twisting the truth than the left.

 

[Hamster Huey]

The Telegraph would rather run the country into the ground for their own benefit and to kill Labour than actually report the facts.

Yet people will believe their reporting in relation to the economy as gospel but when it comes to Manly they get it all wrong.

Have not purchased the Tele in any form or Fox in almost 20yrs.

The DT ran hard for Rudd to win 2007 and kick the Libs out of office.

How does that match your definitive statement on them?

I agree it's a rubbish paper, but the hyperbole is misleading.

---

Tele sales down by 11% I think i read last week, Courier mail down by 17%. maybe the people are waking up to their crap.
I don't read it or view it online.

All papers are taking a hit, with people drifting online, thus the push for paying to read their sites.

But despite the decreases, the News stable percentage losses are less than the Fairfax titles.

---

There are always exceptions to the rule but it is obvious more often than not(well beyond more often than not) they are right wing and not balanced.

Off the back of high interest rates relative to large house loans and public sentiment they went with labour as it was going to sell papers in that period. Once in power straight off the mark back into normal cruise control as that sells papers also.

You never hear about the high interest rates of the Fraser years beyond what Keating had to deal with(people were lucky it was capped at I think 13.5% and not paying real rates), they could not control the Unions, had double digit inflation and unemployment and running deficits.

You don't hear the surpluses we finally achieved just before the recession(we had to have and I agree), it all gets swept aside.

Oh and the Govt Dept that also included Fraser debt but promoted as "Labours Debt"

My Political views are both sides of politics are crap just the right are better at twisting the truth than the left.

---

You weren't as flexible as to suggest exemptions from 'the rule'. All outlets have a bias and it's ridiculous for people to cry over one they don't like, while remaining quiet on the ones they do.

Not sure where you got your high interest rates idea from, and I'm not sure what you mean by 'surpluses' when Hawke/Keating only produced one.

You sound like a lapsed ALP supporter that is frustrated by the lack of quality from that side in recent years. Fair enough, but don't try and assess degrees of 'twisting the truth' as some positive that allows you to bag the other side. A lie, is a lie, is a lie.

 

[The Indian]

The fact that you now have to pay to read the Telegraphs trash online is mind boggling. I predict they will soon realise the demographic they aim with their crass sensationalism is not going to do that in large volume.

Long may the slide continue.

 

[Rex]

The Telegraph long ago gave up on reporting actual facts.

They now tell you what to think and what to emote. Overtly biased.

It is the paper for easily-led simpletons who need to be told what to think and what to emote.

 

[Technical Coach]

The Telegraph would rather run the country into the ground for their own benefit and to kill Labour than actually report the facts.

Yet people will believe their reporting in relation to the economy as gospel but when it comes to Manly they get it all wrong.

Have not purchased the Tele in any form or Fox in almost 20yrs.

The DT ran hard for Rudd to win 2007 and kick the Libs out of office.

How does that match your definitive statement on them?

I agree it's a rubbish paper, but the hyperbole is misleading.

---

Tele sales down by 11% I think i read last week, Courier mail down by 17%. maybe the people are waking up to their crap.
I don't read it or view it online.

All papers are taking a hit, with people drifting online, thus the push for paying to read their sites.

But despite the decreases, the News stable percentage losses are less than the Fairfax titles.

---

There are always exceptions to the rule but it is obvious more often than not(well beyond more often than not) they are right wing and not balanced.

Off the back of high interest rates relative to large house loans and public sentiment they went with labour as it was going to sell papers in that period. Once in power straight off the mark back into normal cruise control as that sells papers also.

You never hear about the high interest rates of the Fraser years beyond what Keating had to deal with(people were lucky it was capped at I think 13.5% and not paying real rates), they could not control the Unions, had double digit inflation and unemployment and running deficits.

You don't hear the surpluses we finally achieved just before the recession(we had to have and I agree), it all gets swept aside.

Oh and the Govt Dept that also included Fraser debt but promoted as "Labours Debt"

My Political views are both sides of politics are crap just the right are better at twisting the truth than the left.

---

You weren't as flexible as to suggest exemptions from 'the rule'. All outlets have a bias and it's ridiculous for people to cry over one they don't like, while remaining quiet on the ones they do.

Not sure where you got your high interest rates idea from, and I'm not sure what you mean by 'surpluses' when Hawke/Keating only produced one.

You sound like a lapsed ALP supporter that is frustrated by the lack of quality from that side in recent years. Fair enough, but don't try and assess degrees of 'twisting the truth' as some positive that allows you to bag the other side. A lie, is a lie, is a lie.

---

First of all I lean left but have voted right, I am a huge fan of Keating and admired Hawke for his ability to control the Unions and finally get wage growth under control.

From my studies years ago there was 3 surplus budgets prior to the recession 87-88, 88-89 ,89-90. (Correct me if I am wrong been so long ago)

Supported the GST even though it is a regressive tax,(no other fairer methods available that have stood the test of time so I support it)--- Keating had his version in the 80's but could not get it through within his own party and is the one negative that I have against him.

Interest rates peaked around 2007/2008 and people were struggling, Govt ran surpluses and just kept returning the money fuelling more interest rate rises. While total tax receipts as a percentage of GDP remained high it was easy to hand out money and still expect a surplus the following year during the boom periods.

Have no problem that a paper or media outlet "leans" one way or the other---but you can still remain balanced without distorting the truth.

If you want links I will give you links "genuine links" not media outlets and opinion pieces. Govt and RBA statistic sites cut through the political B/S.

Read the historical data on pages 6 and 7.
http://www.budget.gov.au/2011-12/content/bp1/download/bp1_bst10.pdf

 

[Rex]

Murdoch does not hide from the fact that he demands that a consistent spin must be put on "facts" to favour the Murdoch party of choice.

That is, Murdoch does not trust Australians to think for themselves, to judge for themselves.

That is, an American, living in America, decides what we should think and what we should emote. Then though his 70% control of Australian urban newspapers, and other media interests, he ensures that political stories are twisted to ensure we vote according to his preferences.

In effect an American - Murdoch - pretty much decides who gets in and who gets out in Australian politics.

How did a single company get to have effective monopoly control over what we read? How can a single company effectively take over our collective minds? That single company would need politicians to support them to have this power.

Ask yourself: How would Murdoch be able to force politicians to support his monopolistic practices?

TC - don't waste your breath trying to convince HH. The concepts are beyond him.

 

[silvertail]

Murdoch does not hide from the fact that he demands that a consistent spin must be put on "facts" to favour the Murdoch party of choice.

That is, Murdoch does not trust Australians to think for themselves, to judge for themselves.

That is, an American, living in America, decides what we should think and what we should emote. Then though his 70% control of Australian urban newspapers, and other media interests, he ensures that political stories are twisted to ensure we vote according to his preferences.

In effect an American - Murdoch - pretty much decides who gets in and who gets out in Australian politics.

How did a single company get to have effective monopoly control over what we read? How can a single company effectively take over our collective minds? That single company would need politicians to support them to have this power.

Ask yourself: How would Murdoch be able to force politicians to support his monopolistic practices?

TC - don't waste your breath trying to convince HH. The concepts are beyond him.

Agree. Has anyone won an election in the last 30 years without Murdoch's support?

 

[Hamster Huey]

Murdoch does not hide from the fact that he demands that a consistent spin must be put on "facts" to favour the Murdoch party of choice.

That is, Murdoch does not trust Australians to think for themselves, to judge for themselves.

That is, an American, living in America, decides what we should think and what we should emote. Then though his 70% control of Australian urban newspapers, and other media interests, he ensures that political stories are twisted to ensure we vote according to his preferences.

In effect an American - Murdoch - pretty much decides who gets in and who gets out in Australian politics.

How did a single company get to have effective monopoly control over what we read? How can a single company effectively take over our collective minds? That single company would need politicians to support them to have this power.

Ask yourself: How would Murdoch be able to force politicians to support his monopolistic practices?

TC - don't waste your breath trying to convince HH. The concepts are beyond him.

Agree. Has anyone won an election in the last 30 years without Murdoch's support?

ALP in 2010. That wasn't so hard.

 

[voicefromthehill]

Murdoch does not hide from the fact that he demands that a consistent spin must be put on "facts" to favour the Murdoch party of choice.

That is, Murdoch does not trust Australians to think for themselves, to judge for themselves.

That is, an American, living in America, decides what we should think and what we should emote. Then though his 70% control of Australian urban newspapers, and other media interests, he ensures that political stories are twisted to ensure we vote according to his preferences.

In effect an American - Murdoch - pretty much decides who gets in and who gets out in Australian politics.

How did a single company get to have effective monopoly control over what we read? How can a single company effectively take over our collective minds? That single company would need politicians to support them to have this power.

Ask yourself: How would Murdoch be able to force politicians to support his monopolistic practices?

TC - don't waste your breath trying to convince HH. The concepts are beyond him.

Agree. Has anyone won an election in the last 30 years without Murdoch's support?

ALP in 2010. That wasn't so hard.

Not quite - they did not win in their own right, rather formed a loose coalition of self aggrandising independents.

 

[Hamster Huey]

Murdoch does not hide from the fact that he demands that a consistent spin must be put on "facts" to favour the Murdoch party of choice.

That is, Murdoch does not trust Australians to think for themselves, to judge for themselves.

That is, an American, living in America, decides what we should think and what we should emote. Then though his 70% control of Australian urban newspapers, and other media interests, he ensures that political stories are twisted to ensure we vote according to his preferences.

In effect an American - Murdoch - pretty much decides who gets in and who gets out in Australian politics.

How did a single company get to have effective monopoly control over what we read? How can a single company effectively take over our collective minds? That single company would need politicians to support them to have this power.

Ask yourself: How would Murdoch be able to force politicians to support his monopolistic practices?

TC - don't waste your breath trying to convince HH. The concepts are beyond him.

How anybody can question my own abilities to engage and assess what's going on, while spending nearly an entire post engaged in hyperbole, is ironic.

That's the problem with the rusted on from both sides; they think they alone know it all and hold the best case in support of that stance, in the process unable to accept alternative opinions, and instead dismissing them with a lazy, personal slur.

Go have a play in Bob Elllis' blog where I'm sure you'll fit right in with him and his followers.

---

Murdoch does not hide from the fact that he demands that a consistent spin must be put on "facts" to favour the Murdoch party of choice.

That is, Murdoch does not trust Australians to think for themselves, to judge for themselves.

That is, an American, living in America, decides what we should think and what we should emote. Then though his 70% control of Australian urban newspapers, and other media interests, he ensures that political stories are twisted to ensure we vote according to his preferences.

In effect an American - Murdoch - pretty much decides who gets in and who gets out in Australian politics.

How did a single company get to have effective monopoly control over what we read? How can a single company effectively take over our collective minds? That single company would need politicians to support them to have this power.

Ask yourself: How would Murdoch be able to force politicians to support his monopolistic practices?

TC - don't waste your breath trying to convince HH. The concepts are beyond him.

Agree. Has anyone won an election in the last 30 years without Murdoch's support?

ALP in 2010. That wasn't so hard.

Not quite - they did not win in their own right, rather formed a loose coalition of self aggrandising independents.

They got the majority vote (which Abbott rashly claimed early in the result as the best basis to form governement) and run the country for three years. It's splitting hairs to suggest it was anything but winning power for a term, despite Murdoch's opinion.

 

[bones]

What is the world coming to? There is a great article in today's Telegraph by Paul Kent of all people. The article finishes with:

Rabbitohs coach Michael Maguire copped the tip when he defended Inglis's lie down, saying Inglis was not fishing for a penalty but was legitimately hit, and had the fat lip to prove it.
Come on Michael.
That might work in there at the NRL, where they can't find the pointy end of the football, but it won't work among real NRL fans.
Not those who know the game.
Not those like Toovey, who bled for his fame.

 

[voicefromthehill]

They got the majority vote (which Abbott rashly claimed early in the result as the best basis to form governement) and run the country for three years. It's splitting hairs to suggest it was anything but winning power for a term, despite Murdoch's opinion.

Cheers to you for dismissing my opinion as some product of another persons ideology - it is based on my own observation, research and fact. There was no attack on you.

Seats won is the way majority government is determined (and therefore right to term in office) my statement remains correct. Total votes does not determine power (agree or disagree) total seats won does, hence the requirement to form the government we saw in the last few years.

Now I have seen this show before so let's change the channel people

 

[Hamster Huey]

They got the majority vote (which Abbott rashly claimed early in the result as the best basis to form governement) and run the country for three years. It's splitting hairs to suggest it was anything but winning power for a term, despite Murdoch's opinion.

Cheers to you for dismissing my opinion as some product of another persons ideology - it is based on my own observation, research and fact. There was no attack on you.

Seats won is the way majority government is determined (and therefore right to term in office) my statement remains correct. Total votes does not determine power (agree or disagree) total seats won does, hence the requirement to form the government we saw in the last few years.

Now I have seen this show before so let's change the channel people

Don't run.

So the ALP didn't win? I guess then that the LNP didn't lose? That is the point of my splitting hairs comment.

We know who won the right to govern after the 2010 election, and it wasn't the side Rupert was barracking for.

 

[MissKate]

sorry to butt into the politics here (not sure how that fit into the rugby league section of the forum)

did anyone else notice that laura ingles has a fat lip anyway, isn't that half the reason no one can understand a word that comes out of his mouth

 

[lsz]

What is the world coming to? There is a great article in today's Telegraph by Paul Kent of all people. The article finishes with:

Rabbitohs coach Michael Maguire copped the tip when he defended Inglis's lie down, saying Inglis was not fishing for a penalty but was legitimately hit, and had the fat lip to prove it.
Come on Michael.
That might work in there at the NRL, where they can't find the pointy end of the football, but it won't work among real NRL fans.
Not those who know the game.
Not those like Toovey, who bled for his fame.

And did he win the vote after?

 

[HappilyManly]

sorry to butt into the politics here (not sure how that fit into the rugby league section of the forum)

did anyone else notice that laura ingles has a fat lip

Any trauma to the head area immediately engorges as there are so many lymph and blood vessels.

All I noticed on the TV replay, was my baby Matai chatting with alleged victim after the game - happy and without said fat lip