[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by russellw

A free democracy. Freedom of speech. Novel concepts.

The reality is that we are actually a society where public opinion (and thus votes) are driven in whatever direction the relatively narrow media ownership chooses to drive it.

It's been getting progressively worse these last two decades and I'm not all that sure that we are that far removed from the 'only tell what we want you to know' mantra of State owned media organisations with the only obvious differences being that (1) we don't actually always know who is pulling the strings and what their agenda is; and (2) the fringe elements are still allowed their say even if it to a tiny percentage of the population who are possibly certifiable anyway.

Watch the 5 main news channels in Victoria tonight (7,9,10, ABC, SBS) and see what their slant will be on the Andrews postponement decision. In most cases their bias will be in the wording or the screen caption supporting the story. It's easy to do like this:

Supportive (of which I don't reckon you'll hear much): "Andrew's puts health concerns above politics to defer announcement"

Mildly supportive or uncertain: "Andrew's bold move to defer announcement" (replace bold with surprising etc.) - you could easily make it negative by changing bold to something less flattering.

Mildly against: "No relief for Victorians as Andrew's defers announcement"

Strongly against:"Victorians remain in lockdown as Andrew's defers announcement"

Watched it and thought it amusing the journo's going on about Andrew's not announcing easing of restrictions in Victoria. He did right at the start with more regional restrictions lifted regarding gyms, weddings, churches and a couple smaller points.

I think he is handling these journo's rather well and answered the same stupid question several times over particularly from the idiot Rachel Baxeldale (from The Australian) who keeps banging on about the 25km travel limit that she is forced to endure.