I am doing some research on the impact of biased media attacks throughout Victorian second wave on the emotional state of locked down Victorians. If Victorians could respond to this tweet with short summary of their experiences of how bias impacts them, I would appreciate it 🙏🏻
If you don’t want to share publicly, DMs are open and you will remain anonymous.
The responses to this tweet are making me want to cry. I am so angry that the Victorian community has had the trauma of the covid crisis worsened by a biased media who follow the lead of the PM who threw Victorians under a bus. Journos treat it like a game. It hurts people.
Thank you to everyone who has responded here and in my DMs. I am reading all your messages and will respond. The overwhelming message is that media attacks on Andrews have been experienced as attacks on all Victorians. People are hurting. Journalists needs a massive wake up call.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The title of the report gives quite the insight:
👉🏻Under the Facade of Journalism: How News Corp used fear, manipulation and division to campaign against the Indigenous Voice to Parliament👈🏻
Key findings: 1) News Corp’s coverage of the Voice constituted an overt political campaign in favour of a ‘No’ vote.
2) The most frequently used ‘No’ arguments from News Corp were consistent with those of the official ‘No’ campaign.
I’ve been monitoring News Corp’s Voice coverage so I am sadly well versed in the ‘No’ camp’s contradictions, misrepresentations and scaremongering - by both ‘No’ voices and News Corp voices. I’ll try to summarise it into one thread to give you a sense of how bad faith they are👇🏻
First is the idea that the Voice, an advisory body, can override decisions made by parliament. Bolt regularly refers to the Voice as an Aboriginal only parliament. They constantly imply the Voice has more power and can do more than give advice which is a total bald faced lie.
They also say constitutionally enshrined Voice is more powerful than legislated one. ‘No’ campaigners like Dutton and Price say they support legislated regional Voice and call constitutional Voice risky. Constitutional experts constantly say this is false but they keep saying it.
I’m surprised at how few people who are watching Harry and Meghan on Netflix, or reading Spare, are discussing the big picture. Royal gossip and relationships don’t matter. What’s important is their story is about British/Commonwealth establishment fighting progress. A thread👇🏻
When Harry happened to fall in love with Meghan Markle, the royals were given an opportunity to modernise, to be progressive, to reflect a new-British culture. Meghan is self-made, successful, articulate, describes herself as an activist, is an outspoken feminist, and is biracial
Rather than see Meghan as an opportunity for the British establishment to represent a new Britain, in the midst of a country embroiled in Brexit debates, racism versus diversity, British power, particularly media power, decided Meghan was not what Britain represents.
Since we can now talk about the Bruce Lehrmann trial, can I just check if anyone in their entire lives have ever heard of someone having a big night out, and then pissed, deciding to go back to the office to do some work his boss said wasn’t needed? Impossible.
Also, if he was such a gentlemen offering Brittany to share an Uber home to make sure he got her home safely, why didn’t he do that? If he seriously wants us to believe he decided to go back to work, why did he take Brittany there and not drop her home first? Beggars belief.
Furthermore, if Bruce said he was taking Brittany home, why didn’t he do that? Why did he leave her at Parliament House and was seen on security cameras jogging from the scene? Why not go back and make sure she was ok, take her home safely? Doesn’t make sense.
I need to share a story about a really worrying thing I heard a journalist say, and will explain the issue. I'm going to leave names and some details out, as it's not about the specific journalists involved, it's about a wider problem in political journalism. A thread👇🏻
So in this forum, two journalists were discussing representation of women in politics. They got onto the subject of widespread public misogyny about Julia Gillard when she was PM. They discussed the fact the media didn't call it out at the time it was happening.
One of the journalists said that the press pack recognised that Gillard was experiencing this horrible thing where she was a victim of misogyny and just couldn't get any clear air as PM. They talked about how it was so obvious to journalists at the time, they discussed it openly.
This piece ignores fact that if Greens forced Labor to adopt policies Labor did not take to election, Labor would be wiped out next election. Is that what Greens want? I don't recall Greens selling their massive super-profits tax during election either! themonthly.com.au/the-politics/r…
Labor does not have a mandate to introduce the Greens’ policy platform. If you would like to argue otherwise fine, but please stick to this topic. The electorate would crucify Labor if they sprung Greens’ policies on them - how is that good for long term reform?
The Greens won three additional seats VERY NARROWLY to bring their total to 4. Labor won 77. Let’s use that as a frame for who has a mandate and who doesn’t please.