Media Circus: Don’t Look At The Policies Behind The Knighthoods edition

So our drearly beloathed Prime Minister wants to get a gong when he retires from politics.

What else is he doing this week that he doesn’t want the media to report on?

What news story/commentary/analysis has grabbed your attention lately?

As usual for media circus threads, please share your bouquets and brickbats for particular items in the mass media, or highlight cogent analysis or pointed twitterstorms etc in new media. Discuss any current sociopolitical issue (the theme of each edition is merely for discussion-starter purposes – all current news items are on topic!).

Categories: ethics & philosophy, media, parties and factions

Tags: ,

10 replies

  1. Here’s one thing he might be hoping we don’t pay attention to – Bill Shorten’s speech today to the Press Club.
    SMH | Bill Shorten claims budget deception after analysis reveals fears inflated

    The speech comes less than two months before the budget and coincides with an analysis of official figures from the independent Parliamentary Budget Office showing Labor left the budget in better shape than the government admits.
    Commissioned by Labor, the analysis says the budget was on track for gradually climbing surpluses instead of the 10 years of deficits forecast in the December mid-year budget update.
    That runs counter to the government strategy of citing worst-case figures, including $123 billion in combined deficits over the next four years and projected Commonwealth debt of $667 billion for the decade.

  2. Reading the article about the reintroduction of knighthoods is making me do that thing where you’re not sure if you’re laughing or crying. Seriously? And the comments about John Howard having no honour ranked highly enough for him? Bahahaha.
    It’s nice to know where our government’s priorities lie.

  3. I thought the knighthood thing was an early April Fool’s joke. It seems to have caused some distraction away from the changes to the the racial discrimination act.

  4. I would give the Mad Monk a ‘gong’ — one that would make his ears ring.

  5. I’ve got a policy idea for Bill: how about Australia stop locking up children in detention camps?
    Then, we can move on to “stop locking up people in detention camps at all” and after that, “stop locking up children at all.”
    Here’s hoping somebody in the Labour Party has figured out they really should move away from continuing to endorse all of John Howard’s worst ideas.
    I hope they bring in a range of stylish brooches and hats for the dames and knights to wear. Also garters. Maybe some wigs, too. If we are going to do this, let’s do it properly.

  6. Maybe they should bring back the part of the knighthood ceremony where the King gets to give you a big thump…

  7. The tricky bit in the RDA changes isn’t actually section 18C, although that’s dodgy on its own. The really dodgy bit, though, is the bit where they’re rewriting section 18D to say:
    ”This section (18C) does not apply to words, sounds, images or writing spoken, broadcast, published or otherwise communicated in the course of participating in the public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter.”
    Or in other words, if you have a sufficiently wily lawyer, you can be as racially abusive as you like to anyone you like and you can pass it off as part of the “public discussion” of whatever the heck you choose. As I’ve said elsewhere, this basically means a spectator (or even a mass-media commentator) can scream racist abuse at an Indigenous football player for fumbling a pass and be exempt from charges under the Racial Discrimination Act because this can be reasonably described as participating in the public discussion of a social and cultural matter (namely Football; actually, with football you could probably also sneak it under the gate for “religious” as well).
    If this particular legislation passes the House and the Senate unchallenged, look to see the other anti-discrimination acts similarly altered. After all, it isn’t fair that only racist bigots get to exercise their freedom of speech wholly unchecked. What about the freedom of speech of misogynist bigots, homophobic bigots, transphobic bigots, ableist bigots and fundamentalist Christian bigots? Surely they deserve to have their freedom of speech protected as well…

  8. What about the freedom of speech of misogynist bigots, homophobic bigots, transphobic bigots, ableist bigots and fundamentalist Christian bigots?

    With the exception of Victoria which has religious villification legisilation are there any currently specific laws (eg not defamation or inciting violence etc) around any of your examples above? I think in most states you’re reasonably free to villify, offend or humiliate someone or a group of people based on their religious beliefs.

  9. Waleed Aly’s SMH op-ed from yesterday has stirred up the usual suspects who can’t stand seeing “white” culture being analysed from the stance of it being at least as problematic as “other” cultures.
    George Brandis’ Racial Discrimination Act changes create the whitest piece of proposed legislation I’ve encountered

%d bloggers like this: