Is the Internet really killing print media?

The old truism that the press can never underestimate the intelligence of the public does not seem to be true. We have reached a stage where as the quality of MSM descends ever more into the gutter readership also drops. This drop in readership is not as a result competition from the Internet but from the increasing lowering of the ‘reporting’ and the lack of integrity of MSM to a stage where there is virtually nothing in MSM that can be classified as news.

Descending to the bottom of the gene pool for readership inevitably alienates those with an education level past year nine (and dropping). Whilst simple slogans and words of no more than two syllables are all the targeted readers can manage it is hardly likely that this format will appeal to a wide audience. If Mr Murdoch wishes treat readers as imbeciles why is he surprised his readership base is decreasing?

Print media is not under attack from the Internet because if there is quality in both the two mediums are complementary. The attack on print media comes from the policies of the people running it. If the quality returns to print media so will the readership.

Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. Joseph Goebbels

This is a comment I received from zwetschgen after my blog on Murdoch and the Fourth Reich. It is an excellent addition to the conversation so I have included it in my blog with permission from zwetschgen.

“On his Australian social experiment/political manipulation, Rupert Murdoch has already tweeted, “other nations to follow in time” – perhaps he’s has been reading Joseph Goebbels.

“To attract people, to win over people to that which I have realized as being true, that is called propaganda. In the beginning there is the understanding, this understanding uses propaganda as a tool to find those men, that shall turn understanding into politics. Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin (Canberra?), and when I speak in Bayreuth (Western Sydney?), I say different things than I say in the Pharus Hall (the Party Room). That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths. Those are found in other circumstances, I find them when thinking at my desk, but not in the meeting hall.”

***Speech by Joseph Goebbels 9 January 1928 to an audience of party members at the “Hochschule für Politik”, a series of training talks for Nazi party members in Berlin.
(bracketed suggestions are mine)
original quote taken from,”


More information about zwetschgen


Do we have the media we deserve?

Watching ‘insiders’ Sunday demonstrate how low even the ABC has sunk in its reporting of politics.I did not hear any discussion at all about polices. There was no discussion of any depth of any of the issues facing Australia. All there was commentary on who won which round by how many points.

All that was needed was to speed it up a little and it would have been ringside commentary of a boxing match. Abbott landed a low punch but the referee ignored it. Rudd landed a right to the face and Abbott countered with a knee to the testicles.

Is this the media we deserve? Has the Australia public sunk so low that policy means no more than three word slogans and who beat up whom? Are we all really that stupid? When the section came to the headlines in the Sunday papers the headlines where massive instructions to the readers to vote for Abbott. What was that about? Is this Journalism?

The only thing that I have learnt for the mainstream media in the last three years is not to trust it. There has been the complaint from the print media moving on line that if we want quality journalism we will have to pay for it. Show me quality journalism and I will pay for it, but not the rubbish that passes for journalism in Australia.

Then on Monday evening I saw Q and A with Kevin Rudd. The audience were asking questions that indicated that they have real questions to ask that could have been answered years ago if the Main Stream Media had been doing its job.

The audience was lively and inquisitive about basic policy and this gave me hope that not all Australians have descended into the hell of ignorance and stupidity.

Australians are not all Bogans who can only think only in terms of three word slogans and insults.

Does the Australian public deserve the media they have inherited from the dominance of foreign ownership? No, they do not.

It is no good complaining that the media should be fair and unbiased. It is never going to happen. But we can have a balance of bias by having a multitude of bias that collectively gives a balance view.

It is not the totally biased view of the Murdoch press that is the problem. It is that there is no diversity of biased opinion. That is the problem with dictatorships. Sooner or later the Murdoch Empire will fall, as all dictatorships must when the need for diversity will not go away.

I did not agree with all the questions asked on Q and A on Monday but it was exciting to see that, contrary to what seem to be the case that in the poll driven Mainstream Media free will, independent thought and diversity still exists in Australian. That is the stuff democracy thrives on.

Propaganda and Murdoch

Whilst researching for a new book I came across the following quote. I thought immediately of the Murdoch press. Some things never change.


During the War, propaganda was a means to an end. And this end was the struggle for existence of the German nation. Propaganda, therefore, should have been regarded from the standpoint of its utility for that purpose. The most cruel weapons were then the most humane, provided they helped towards a speedier decision; and only those methods were good and beautiful which helped towards securing the dignity and freedom of the nation. Such was the only possible attitude to adopt towards war propaganda in the life-or-death struggle.  If those in what are called positions of authority had realized this there would have been no uncertainty about the form and employment of war propaganda as a weapon; for it is nothing but a weapon, and indeed a most terrifying weapon in the hands of those who know how to use it.  The second question of decisive importance is this: To whom should propaganda be made to appeal? To the educated intellectual classes? Or to the less intellectual?  Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. For the intellectual classes, or what are called the intellectual classes to-day, propaganda is not suited, but only scientific exposition. Propaganda has as little to do with science as an advertisement poster has to do with art, as far as concerns the form in which it presents its message.


Hitler ,Adolf. Mein Kampf . Translated by James Murphy.

Murdoch cancels global warming.

President Obama gave a speech a few days ago about global warming. In this speech he promised to make the issue of global warming a priority in his platform. The way Obama spoke of the problem left no doubt that he thought global warming to be the greatest challenge facing the human race.

When discussing the speech the PBS noted that it was unlikely to cause much interest in the USA because CNN and the media interests such as Fox News, owned by Rupert Murdoch, had ignored it.

At least Murdoch is democratic in that he applies his non-reporting in a fair and even way across all nations. Australia might even be in privileged position. In America any news Murdoch does not like didn’t happen. At least here it is at the bottom of page 17.

Truth in politics

Thinking of democracy as voting for our representatives is only part of the process. For democracy to work our representatives have to tell us the truth. As ex senator Richardson once said it politicians told the truth the would never get elected. If they don’t tell us the truth we do not know what we are voting for.

Abbot continually uses the ‘Prove you are not a witch’ method of telling lies.

Imagine this is the Spanish Inquisition. You are accused of being a witch. Prove you are not. You cannot even though it is probable that you are not a witch.

What Abbott says does not have to be true for voters to believe him. It only has to be impossible to prove it is not.

When the truth does arrive, such as in the carbon pricing scheme destroying the economy and wiping whole towns off the map the lie is so ingrained that cammot accept the truth. Under these circumstances Democracy is dead.

Democracy can only exist were there is an informed public. Murdoch has taken Joseph Goebbels’ crude Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda and turned it into an art form. At least with Goebbels if you looked you could see the crude control. Murdoch is so much more sophisticated.

Now that the ‘Public’ has been suitably ‘Enlightened’ it is almost time to establish the Murdoch State.

Sometimes it looks inevitable and all I can say is ‘No Surrender.’

Henry Jenkins reminds us of the words on Scullin’s Headstone

In his last speech to parliament Harry Jenkins reminded us of the words on the headstone of James Scullin.

Justice and humanity demand interference whenever the weak are being crushed by the strong.

This has been forgotten, not only by Australian Politicians but also by the Australian people. Democracy has become to mean mob rule. It used to mean, using the American definition ‘for the people by the people.’

To interferer to protect the weak is not antidemocratic, it is part of democracy.

But now we have the strong crushing Australian democracy in an insane lust for power.

This seems to be a worldwide trend lend by a media that is becoming increasingly international. The network of ownership of the international is deliberately complicated so that who controls what is not always readily visible but in Australia and America Murdoch has a high profile.

Politics is supposed to be about policy and debate, not the strong crushing the weak by any means. Media is supposed to report the debate accurately so the people make their decisions form an informed position. Never before has there been such a concerted effort to keep the Australian public uniformed and filled with lies as to the true nature of the debate.

Murdoch has shown how shonky reporting can buy a political party and how the strong can crush the weak.

How low can Murdoch go?

How low can Murdoch (and Australian Politics) go. Front page of Sunday Times today ‘The Night Julia Knifed My Dad.’ The ‘Story’ was that Rudd’s daughter Jessica was in her fathers office the night before he resigned and she left when Julia Gillard arrived.

That story took almost a full page on page nine of bleeding hart emotive words including ‘Knifed’ several times but no ‘news’ other than how shocked she was. Is that it Murdoch? Is that what passes as political reporting.

Murdoch, have you ever heard of policy? Is your news empire capable of reporting anything other than non-news opinion setups that displays nothing more than your total disregard for truth in reporting? I don’t think it is possible to stretch the imagination far enough to consider anything you report as news. Bias, prejudice and lies yes, but not news.

Lets look at today’s Sunday times.

Page one.

Advert for Murdoch’s Perth Now.

The Night Julia Knifed My Dad.

Killer TXT.

Page two


Page three

Red-hot Pink back in balck.

Jako palms of Clive.

Compulsory blood test for biting cop.

And so on till page nine when we have ‘The Night Julia Knifed My Dad,’ ‘Combet double-dealing claims,’ ‘Rudd wins hearts but no coup.’

Murdoch, is this what you call quality journalism?

Murdoch has torn up his Australian Passport.

The question of acceptable foreign ownership of Australia media outlets has long been an issue of debate. My question is why a foreign national has so much influence in the Australian Media that he can control the debate leading up to an Australian election. I speak of Rupert Murdoch.

This is the beginning of the oath Murdoch swore when he became an American Citizen in 1985.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

When he swore this oath of allegiance Murdoch tore up his Australian passport. He may have been born in Australia but he has chosen that not to be an Australian.

Murdoch has shown over and over that he has no loyalty to anyone or anything except power and money.

When he ran into a problem expanding his American media interests he tore up his Australian passport and became an American.

On the Religious level he is the copyright holder of the New English Version of the Bible, a Catholic ‘Knight’ bought by building a church and the publisher of the Satanic Bible. No recognisable loyalty there.

Instead of accepting responsibility for the policies behind the UK phone tapping scandal he pleaded he didn’t know and left those further down the pecking order to carry the legal consequences. I have no sympathy for anyone involved but it does seem to me they were stiffed by the man ultimately responsible.

He tried to buy the Whitlam Government and failed so instead he shafted them. Now he has found a man as unprincipled as himself in the form of Tony Abbott and it looks like he might succeed in buying a government this time.

How did Murdoch get this much power?

Is $9B enough to buy Australia?

$9B dollars seems to be enough. $9B is enough to buy the Australian Tea Party and its leaders. $9B is enough to buy public ignorance through a corrupt media organisation. $9B is enough to buy the Australian Internet. At the next election $9B may be enough to buy a puppet government. It may be enough money to create the Fourth Reich

When I saw ‘corrupt’ I am not making allegations of bribery or unlawful acts. Anything is lawful if there is enough money to use the law to support the unsupportable.

I am talking about the corruption of the most basic principles of journalism. It is impossible to be totally impartial in journalism. The journalist is part of the story and can never be totally removed from it.. It is however possible to separate news from comment and to do enough basic research on the background to the story to give accurate .

If a news provider has opinions then it should be made clear it is an opinion piece and not present it as news item complete with false background items. That is corruption of the media in the worst possible format.

It is the corruption of a nation. It is a corruption of democracy. A news media willing and able to report accurately and with some degree of impartiality is essential to democracy. People can only vote in a democratic way if they are being told the truth, and the Murdoch press does not tell the truth.

The Murdoch press does not tell the truth and has become a force for corruption  of our society. It seems that with $9B it is possible to currupt a whole nation.