The state of Victoria, Australia has banned broadcasting of Sky News from the underground loop stations in Melbourne's train network.
The ban comes after Sky (owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp) broadcast an interview with far-right activist Blair Cottrell. Cottrell, the leader of the United Patriots Front, has convictions for arson, burglary and racial vilification, has advocated violence against women and has called for portraits of Adolf Hitler to be hung in school classrooms.
Victoria's transport minister, Jacinta Allen, has defended the decision against claims of censorship, stating that "Hatred and racism have no place on our screens or in our community." ... "If people want to watch Sky News in their own homes, they can do that to their heart's content," she said. "Any material that uses our public transport assets to promote itself needs to be appropriate."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday August 16 2018, @01:25PM (20 children)
Please don't paint me as one extreme enough to read TFA, but I would point out:
I am not familiar with Sky. If Sky does not embrace Cottrell's views, then it can actually be useful to interview him and put that interview on social media. When a media organization puts interviews with such extremists onto social media, they will probably stay there. Cottrell could not spin them, edit them, nor remove them. Having a reliable link to such extremist interviews, is useful for people who wish to use it as a citation of such extremist POV. This is useful because we live in a world which has gone so insane that sometimes it is difficult to believe even the truth because the truth has become almost outlandish as to be unbelievable. But believe it because there are citations to show that such views are indeed real, have a following, and support politicians who share their views.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:10PM (6 children)
I mean, it's nice to consider that and all, but if it's free speech in Australia the concerns you, the government already banned reporting on their offshore indefinite detention facilities because it was making them look real bad(think of Australia being about 5 years ahead of the US on the immigrant detention facility horror stories).
As for familiarity with Sky, it's another Rupert Murdoch enterprise that fills a sorta similar role to Fox News does, which is news purposefully arranged to stir up anger in Australia's right wingers, at least enough to keep them watching, but only through the news stories they choose to emphasize and the editorial programs they run.
Only in Australia, News Corp is a bit of a panopoly, controlling a very broad swath of most kinds of media. Which makes me kinda surprised that their government, especially their current right-wing government, would go to bat against Sky.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:21PM (5 children)
It's the govt of the Victoria State - currently Labor - that banned it, not the federal govt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:38PM (4 children)
Ah, now there's some clarity.
That does mean that the entire Murdoch media apparatus is never going to shut up about this forever. 3/4ths of all newspapers screaming about this every day from now until the end time.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:33PM (3 children)
I would have expected it too.
However, I was to be somehow pleasantly surprised - see that 2nd link in TFS? SMH is owned by Murdoch.
Yeah, naah, mate. Only until the people start to get bored about - spring is coming, won't be long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:45PM
Your right is better behaved than our right, then. Here they still publish multiple articles almost every month about Chappaquiddick(a democratic senator killed a woman drunk driving, covered it up, and kept his seat, but it happened over 40 years ago he's been dead for 8 years now).
Seriously, go to google news and type that word in. Look at the endless streams of never forgetting anything.
(Score: 2, Informative) by petecox on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:04PM (1 child)
Wrong.
Sydney Morning Herald's parent company Fairfax was bought by Nine, a TV network.
Not Rulpert!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:59PM
I stand corrected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:39PM (12 children)
it also falsely legitimizes him in the eyes of his followers.
See: Trump, Alex Jones, O'Reilly
Sunlight does *NOT* disinfect, as is proven by the entirety of human history
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:52PM (11 children)
Sunlight does disinfect.
Suppose I were to make a difficult to believe claim that a certain person "has convictions for arson, burglary and racial vilification, has advocated violence against women and has called for portraits of Adolf Hitler to be hung in school classrooms".
Then some idiot says [Citation needed].
It would be nice if I had a handy citation that shows that person saying those things in their own words. (or tweets)
But then, on the other hand . . . it is so unfair(!) that the evil media has used Trump's own words against him! (OMG!!!)
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:06PM (9 children)
Here's the thing. I understand your point, and in many cases, I think it's a good policy. It would be a good point here if this guy (Cottrell) had expressed anything particularly new in this interview that he hasn't said many times before.
He apparently did NOT. His rhetoric here was the standard crap he spews all the time and has in multiple prior interviews that are widely available. Instead, what made this interview controversial is that the interviewer didn't challenge him at all. He just called Cottrell "mate" and had a nice chat for ten minutes while Cottrell spewed his nastiness with no pushback.
There's no new information here. The only purpose in continuing to disseminate this interview would be to show someone listening to this idiot with an apparently sympathetic ear for 10 minutes. That's much more likely to be used by propaganda with Cottrell supporters (trying to claim he's mainstream) than as a sunlight "disinfectant."
Just to realize who we're dealing with here -- after this blew up and even a number of Sky anchors came out against the interview, Cottrell responded by tweeting that he should have raped one of the female anchors on the air, which caused Twitter to ban him for a week [dailymail.co.uk].
I don't think anyone is at all confused about what kind of person this guy is or what sort of crap he spewed. Keeping up an interview that makes him look like a reasonable person having a friendly interview serves no public purpose.
(Score: 4, Informative) by schad on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:24PM (7 children)
Actually, he responded by saying that he may as well have raped one of the female anchors. To paraphrase his tweet, he claimed the outcome would have been the same, and the female anchor would have enjoyed it more than the interview.
The guy is unquestionably a dirtbag who doesn't deserve any kind of spotlight, but it pretty clearly was not a genuine threat. You don't need to try to make him seem worse than he really is; the truth is bad enough on its own. I mean, just look at what he did to earn his numerous convictions. The guy is a monster.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:12PM (6 children)
Yes, I didn't mean to mischaracterize the tweet, and I don't think I made him "sound worse" -- sure, he said he "might as well have" raped her rather than he "should have" raped her... But then he followed up (as you noted) by saying she would have enjoyed him raping her. Either way, it's pretty bad.
I'm all for accuracy, but I don't think that detail makes mucj difference here. My point simply was that everyone who is rational already knows who this guy is and what he stands for, so continuing to have an interview posted online that shows him as more sympathetic is likely counterproductive in terms of informing the public of his views.
Note that this thread (about whether Sky News should take down their interview rather than archive it for public interest) is separate from the question of whether Sky News should be removed from train stations completely for this. (As I noted in a post below, there are some very odd aspects to the government decision.)
(Score: 2) by schad on Friday August 17 2018, @12:22AM (1 child)
The problem is that any inaccuracy will be seized on by his sympathizers and used to paint his opponents as unfair, biased, liars, etc. And you can't ever protest as strongly as they can, because you actually want to tell the truth. So when you get caught in a "lie" you'll admit it. They, however, will never admit to a lie, no matter how blatant. To people who aren't actively following the issue, it will look like you are the liar.
We have plenty of experience with this exact phenomenon in the US with President Trump.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 17 2018, @06:34PM
And I don't care. I wasn't trying to have some sort of debate with "his sympathizers." I don't assume there are a huge amount of sympathizers for this guy even here on this site, so I doubted I was going to get into any sort of nuanced debate with any of them.
I was trying to make a separate point, which basically most people here seem to agree with.
So that leads to the question -- why the hell are so many people worried about the details of meaning in his tweet about rape??
He's a troll. I don't believe he literally meant that he might as well have raped her or whatever. I don't think he was being serious. He was trying to be offensive.
And you've fallen into the trap of debating with a troll -- except you're not even debating a troll. You're debating someone who is annoyed by the troll and bizarrely you are worrying about representing the troll accurately.
This is PR 101. And he won with you. Because here we are, instead of having a discussion on his actual bad political ideological ideas, he has us talking about raping a journalist. That's what trolls want you to do.
It's because people are feeding the troll. They have from the beginning with Trump. He's not always a troll -- by the strict definition -- but a lot of times he either is one (deliberately being hyperbolic to get attention) or something akin to one (maybe it's just his demeanor... there's nothing false about his hyperbole -- he literally doesn't understand the difference between accuracy and hyperbole).
Anyhow, debating the nuances is a losing battle, as you point out. And even if you quote him exactly accurately, it DOES NOT MATTER. Supporters of a troll will defend him regardless. Your error is thinking that accuracy is going to matter at all here, when you're fighting people who don't believe truth exists. Logically, that's never going to work. You can take one of two strategies: (1) try to avoid debating the trollish elements and try to get supporters to engage in a meaningful discussion, avoiding the hyperbolic nonsense talking points that often don't even make sense -- in other words, just ignore the troll, or (2) try to "out-troll" the troll by being hyperbolic in return. Either way, it's a hard battle to win.
But hanging out and having a detailed debate about whether exactly a particular statement was about actual rape or really wanting to rape or maybe just a metaphor or deliberate hyperbole -- the problem is now you're spending time talking about RAPE rather than substantive discussion. Again, it's brilliant PR, and if you're actually serious about what you say, realize that by trying to be nuanced about this, you're actually feeding the trolls.
Trump did the EXACT same thing from day 1, announcing his campaign and calling immigrants rapists. Instead of having a substantive discussion about immigration, it immediately turned into parsing precisely what he meant by "rapists" -- who were they, what was he referring to, what we the real stats, etc., etc. THAT's the problem. You fall into the trap of debating something stupid and ridiculous because you've accepted the terms of the troll for discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @10:07AM
> I'm all for accuracy, but I don't think that detail makes mucj difference here.
Of course it doesn't, because you misrepresented (in a negative way, naturally) someone you don't like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @10:19AM (2 children)
> But then he followed up (as you noted) by saying she would have enjoyed him raping her
And again, you are saying he said something he didn't. He said (according to an news article reporting on it):
> I might as well have raped Laura Jayes on the air, not only would she have been happier with that, but the reaction would've been the same.
He didn't say she would have enjoyed it. He may be saying she'd have been happier with it. Perhaps because she could then have him jailed for it?
I get it. You don't like him. If what I've read in this story are indicative of his views (I don't know anything about him outside of this story yet), I don't either.. but you don't have to make him look worse than he is, if he is actually that bad.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 17 2018, @06:04PM
Jesus Christ. Are you kidding??
Yes, if you want to play semantic games and try to force the MOST sympathetic reading of an incredibly vile tweet, I'm sure one can admit it's logically possible that he meant "she might like it better because she could put me in jail after I raped her on air."
However, most reasonable people who understand the normal uses of the English language will read a quote like his tweet and assume he meant what he most likely meant (given his tendency toward being offensive in most of his dealings), i.e., if I had raped her on air, she'd have liked it. In case you're unaware, that's a common expression among tough guy "rapist" types: i.e., "I raped her, but she wanted it/liked it."
Now, whether he was actually saying that seriously or not is a separate issue. I don't think he actually believes a statement like that -- I think it's more likely he was just trying to be offensive and provocative. But nevertheless, what I stated is what most readers would understand if they read his tweet -- not some bizarre edge-case like you postulate.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 17 2018, @06:11PM
And by the way, the tenor of my posts has nothing to with whether I "like" the guy or not. I don't know him. I don't really care to know him.
What I do know is that in public he's an ass and a jerk and says offensive things. When someone doesn't respect others and deliberately acts uncivil, they lose their right to be treated with decorum and respect.
Bottom line: he may believe vile things and may also be a bad person, but he's also a troll, as exemplified in this tweet.
When you're a troll and deliberately say offensive things to get a rise out of others, you lose the right to complain if others don't parse your words with care.. because by trolling you have indicated you also don't use your words with care.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:32PM
Very FoxNews like. Thanks for clarifying that.
That can actually reinforce my point. Sometimes being able to cite multiple instances is useful. For example, some people criticize Comcast for its customer service. But I might counter by pointing out that Comcast has award winning [billfixers.com] customer service [pcmag.com] winning [cnet.com] numerous [consumerist.com] awards [theverge.com].
You make that very clear. I agree there is a point where there is more than enough media attention.
I think this was one of Trump's tactics, whether intentional or not. For more than a year leading up to the 2016 election, Trump was headline news every day because he somehow managed to say things more outrageous than the previous day. As we should know by now, there is no bottom. People who support him, like Cottrell, will continue to support him. Especially if led there by inches instead of miles. The vast majority might not want Nazi pictures in classrooms, but they are willing to go there little by little, bit by bit, without even realizing it.
So yeah, there is a point where enough media and linkable sources are enough.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:24PM
> Sunlight does disinfect.
True, but a more efficient and less offensive technique would be bathing those people in massive amounts of UV light. Disinfect in darkness while mostly showing off the stains.
As a bonus, they would be more readily identifiable by the public, owing to the reddish shade of their skin.
The survivors would develop a nice dark tan, and therefore be in a good position to benefit from the attention of their former supporters.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Subsentient on Thursday August 16 2018, @01:39PM (2 children)
Hahaha! Well that's a lot funnier than it should be. I'm going to hell.
It's hilarious to me that Sky would want to interview a guy like that to begin with.
How did they think it was going to go?
As far as people saying this is violating free speech by the aussies pulling it from their trains, I don't think so. They have the right to choose not to parrot this guy's spiel or associate with a network that gives him a platform, though personally I'm on the fence as to whether that's a good thing or not. Time will tell I suppose.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday August 16 2018, @01:53PM
Not so dissimilar from a certain Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Friday August 17 2018, @04:11AM
Not "racial vilification"! Oh the horrors!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @01:48PM
Guess that's no more muslims on TV in Australia? [sky.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by sigterm on Thursday August 16 2018, @01:55PM (3 children)
>Victoria's transport minister, Jacinta Allen, has defended the
>decision against claims of censorship, stating that "Hatred
>and racism have no place on our screens or in our community."
>... "If people want to watch Sky News in their own homes,
>they can do that to their heart's content," she said. "Any
>material that uses our public transport assets to promote
>itself needs to be appropriate."
It's perhaps worth mentioning that the interview in question was never shown on the screens in the train stations, as that is a separate service from the general Sky broadcast service.
On YouTube there's a Sky interview with Ms. Allen where she goes into great detail about the "multiple complaints" she received from the general public after the Blair Cottrell interview was shown on the train station screens. The Sky interviewer then points out the fact that the Cottrell fottage was never actually broadcast on this service, and hilarity ensues.
In short: A politician bans a company from taking part in a bidding process to provide a public service on the grounds that their news channel aired an interview with a person who's views she finds deeply offensive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:25PM
without standing, why even care how other people run their business?
https://jordanbpeterson.com/podcasts/podcast-episode/40-message-to-the-school-shooters-past-present-and-future/ [jordanbpeterson.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:52PM
Interesting. I haven't found anything about a "bidding process," but based on what you said, I did some searches -- and indeed many sources (including some mainstream news summaries [abc.net.au]) confirm that the interview with Cottrell was never broadcast in train stations, despite the fact that the minister (Allen) claimed in an interview that she had received complaints that it had aired in train stations.
This fact (assuming it's accurate, but it seems like it should be easy enough to verify) is oddly missing from TFA and even from a BBC article I found about this whole fiasco.
I suppose the argument is that Sky News is irresponsible for doing the interview AT ALL and therefore shouldn't deliver news at train stations because they might make other poor editorial decisions.
But it's very odd that many mainstream news sources aren't emphasizing the fact that this choice is apparently based on an interview that didn't even air in the public locations where Sky is now banned.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Mykl on Thursday August 16 2018, @11:54PM
For those who are lazy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LXFHqWe_Ow [youtube.com]. 1:55 in.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:10PM (8 children)
On the topic of 'that other public TV'
I've noticed in the civilized parts of the USA (away from coasts, "low crime") that desire for TV screens everywhere is VERY boomer. Although nobody, including the boomers themselves, actually watches the TVs. The boomers merely get heart palpitations if they're out of sight of a TV screen, so they're installed everywhere and never shut off. My MiL is also like that.
The gym, waiting rooms, locker rooms at the gym (no kidding), high rise elevators, gas pumps, sports bars (which is at least sorta tolerable), normal bars, fast food restaurants. If you were alive when JFK was shot you gotta serious addiction to NEEDING TV screens everywhere, even if you're not watching them.
Yesterday alone I experienced the gym (Faux News corporate anti-trump blather, at least I didn't have to listen, they broadcast like 10 TV audio channels on various short range FM freqs that apparently no one uses), gym locker room (ESPN 'sports center' or some damn thing), dentist waiting room (HGTV, wtf?), gas pump (presumably it wasn't just video ads, although thats all I saw)
I would suspect as the boomer generation dies out, the disease of the "telescreen" will go away. As will the propaganda channels.
The younger point of view is a mix of "F this I'm not elderly shut off this boomer shit" with a side dish of "TVs are like assholes, I'm sure its fun in the privacy of your own home, necessary even, but I'd rather not see it everywhere in public, with the rarest of exceptions"
At least thats how it is here. Mildly curious how it is in Australia or elsewhere. I would imagine there are some cultural similarities yet probably some differences in attitude, see "tea time" and stuff like that.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:25PM
-tacked.
Can I find the [needed citation]? Sort of: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304422X11000131 [sciencedirect.com]
The article I originally read said that TV watchers were 40% more likely to fear attack, but I don't recall where they got that figure from.
My mother watches Fox continuously from sunrise until late into the night.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:58PM (4 children)
If by civilized places, you mean the places that are living 50 years in the past, then maybe. The reality is that those "civilized places" are where all the uncivilized people live. The people who are proudly ignorant and OK with welfare as long as it doesn't go to people of color.
And more generally fight tooth and nail to fuck over the urban areas that are supporting their lazy asses via taxes.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by VLM on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:20PM
Old fashioned stuff like the sidewalks not being covered in human shit, or women can go out at night without being raped.
Basically a proxy for right wing local government vs left wing local government. If Democrats have been running the place for fifty years the sidewalks will be covered in human shit and you'll get shot walking down the street. If Republicans have been running the place for 50 years you'll get screaming cat ladies complaining about the nazis ruining everything, but aside from that it's a much better place to live.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by VLM on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:24PM
with a side dish of I was merely hedging my observation with "I don't live in a shitty area". I have noticed tons of vandalism and low level street crime in left wing areas, which might limit the ability to "have TVs everywhere to make the Boomers happy" if in a left wing run area that means they'd get stolen, smashed, spray painted, etc. So I'd theorize like Coastal California Urban Blue Hellholes have few TVs for Boomers but I bet the Boomers really want TVs everywhere anyway. Or maybe not.
Or in summary, naturally, in Democrat controlled areas you can't have TVs everywhere; the people are too poor and the crime rate is too high; BUT correcting for that I bet the boomers still want their TV screen soma dosage.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Thursday August 16 2018, @08:10PM (1 child)
Who is dependant on who? Stop the continuous movement of goods into urban areas from outside and a week later they'll look like the zombie apocalypse.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday August 17 2018, @12:42PM
you mean, two days later.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @10:29PM
As someone who uses these stations daily, I can't say how nice it will be to finally have some relief from the blathering idiots they normally show.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @09:50AM
boomer: please provide me a tv screen kthxbye
millennial: omg where i put my smartphone? omgomg hnnnnnnnngggggggggggg