From the Facebook Page :

STOP Rupert Murdoch Australia

Rupert Murdoch's unfair & biased media influence must be stopped. Click the 'About' tab below for more info & a list of products you can BOYCOTT.

Description

During the Australian 2013 Federal Election, Murdoch demonstrated his overwhelming power to manipulate the general public to vote for HIS preferred political party to benefit himself. We believe this puts our democratic society at risk. Unfortunately, Rupert Murdoch uses his power to manipulate the system to try and brainwash and influence the general public to conform to his ways/beliefs. It is not right nor fair that Murdoch uses his power to manipulate people into believing what he wants you to believe for his own personal gain.

BELOW IS A LIST OF A FEW OF MURDOCH'S COMPANIES & PRODUCTS YOU CAN BOYCOTT TO HELP END HIS DICTATORSHIP:

- Foxtel (& Sky News)
- Herald Sun (VIC)
- The Daily Telegraph (NSW)
- The Courier Mail (QLD)
- The Advertiser (SA)
- The Sunday Times (WA)
- The Mercury (TAS)
- The Northern Territory News (NT)
- The Australian
- News.com.au
- My Space
- GetPrice.com.au
- Carsguide.com.au
- Realestate.com.au
- 21st Century Fox
- Meet The Press (Channel Ten)

MAGAZINES & INSERTS

• Australian Golf Digest
• Australian Good Taste (with Woolworths)
• Australian Parents (with Woolworths)
• Best of the Gold Coast Magazine
• Big League
• Country Style
• Delicious. (with the ABC)
• Donna Hay
• Gardening Australia (with the ABC)
• GQ Australia
• Inside Out
• Lifestyle Pools + outdoor design
• Master Chef Magazine
• Smart Source Magazine
• Super Food Ideas
• Vogue Australia

NATIONAL
• The Australian
• The Weekend Australian including insert magazine
• Australian Associated Press (45%)
• www.news.com.au National online news website

NSW
• The Daily Telegraph
• The Sunday Telegraph
• mX (Sydney)

VIC
• Herald Sun
• Sunday Herald Sun including insert magazine Sunday magazine
• mX (Melbourne)

QLD
• The Courier-Mail including weekly insert magazine Q Weekend
• The Sunday Mail
• Brisbane News

SA
• The Advertiser
• Sunday Mail

WA
• The Sunday Times

TAS
• The Mercury
• The Sunday Tasmanian

NT
• Northern Territory News
• Sunday Territorian

COMMUNITY SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS

- Sydney
Cumberland/Courier (NSW) newspapers
• Blacktown Advocate
• Canterbury-Bankstown Express
• Central
• Central Coast Express Advocate
• Fairfield Advance
• Hills Shire Times
• Hornsby and Upper North Shore Advocate
• Inner West Courier
• Liverpool Leader
• Macarthur Chronicle
• Mt Druitt-St Marys Standard
• NINETOFIVE
• North Shore Times
• Northern District Times
• NORTHSIDE
• Parramatta Advertiser
• Penrith Press
• Rouse Hill Times
• Southern Courier
• The Manly Daily
• The Mosman Daily
• Village Voice Balmain
• Wentworth Courier

- Melbourne
Leader (Vic) newspapers
• Bayside Leader
• Berwick/Pakenham Cardinia Leader
• Brimbank Leader
• Caulfield Glen Eira/Port Philip Leader
• Cranbourne Leader
• Dandenong/Springvale Dandenong Leader
• Diamond Valley Leader
• Frankston Standard/Hastings Leader
• Free Press Leader
• Heidelberg Leader
• Hobsons Bay Leader
• Hume Leader
• Knox Leader
• Lilydale & Yarra Valley Leader
• Manningham Leader
• Maribyrnong Leader www.maribyrnongleader.com.au
• Maroondah Leader
• Melbourne Leader
• Melton/Moorabool Leader
• Moonee Valley Leader
• Moorabbin Kingston/Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
• Mordialloc Chelsea Leader
• Moreland Leader
• Mornington Peninsula Leader
• Northcote Leader
• Preston Leader
• Progress Leader
• Stonnington Leader
• Sunbury/Macedon Ranges Leader
• Waverley/Oakleigh Monash Leader
• Whitehorse Leader
• Whittlesea Leader
• Wyndham Leader

- Brisbane
Quest (QLD) newspapers
• Albert & Logan News (Fri)
• Albert & Logan News (Wed)
• Caboolture Shire Herald
• Caloundra Journal
• City News
• City North News
• City South News
• Ipswich News
• Logan West Leader
• Maroochy Journal
• North-West News
• Northern Times
• Northside Chronicle
• Pine Rivers Press/North Lakes Times
• Redcliffe and Bayside Herald
• South-East Advertiser
• South-West News/Springfield News
• Southern Star
• The Noosa Journal
• Weekender
• Westside News
• Wynnum Herald
• Weekender Essential Sunshine Coast

- Adelaide
Messenger (SA) newspapers
• Adelaide Matters
• City Messenger
• City North Messenger
• East Torrens Messenger
• Eastern Courier Messenger
• Guardian Messenger
• Hills & Valley Messenger
• Leader Messenger
• News Review Messenger
• Portside Messenger
• Southern Times Messenger
• Weekly Times Messenger

- Perth
Community (WA) newspapers (50.1%)
• Advocate
• Canning Times
• Comment News
• Eastern Reporter
• Fremantle-Cockburn Gazette
• Guardian Express
• Hills-Avon Valley Gazette
• Joondalup-Wanneroo Times
• Mandurah Coastal / Pinjarra Murray Times
• Melville Times
• Midland-Kalamunda Reporter
• North Coast Times
• Southern Gazette
• Stirling Times
• Weekend-Kwinana Courier
• Weekender
• Western Suburbs Weekly

- Darwin
Sun (NT) newspapers
• Darwin Sun
• Litchfield Sun
• Palmerston Sun

REGIONAL & RURAL NEWSPAPERS

NSW
• Tweed Sun

VIC
• Echo
• Geelong Advertiser
• GeelongNEWS
• The Weekly Times

QLD
• Ayr Advocate
• Bowen Independent
• Cairns Sun
• Gold Coast Bulletin
• Gold Coast Sun
• Herbert River Express
• Home Hill Observer
• Innisfail Advocate
• Northern Miner
• Port Douglas & Mossman Gazette
• Tablelander - Atherton
• Tablelands Advertiser
• The Cairns Post
• The Noosa Journal
• Townsville Bulletin
• Townsville Sun
• Weekender

TAS
• Derwent Valley Gazette
• Tasmanian Country

NT
• Centralian Advocate

The Mongrel that is Murdoch

The Mongrel that is Murdoch

By johnlord2013 on April 25, 2014 • 

Breaking News: Sex, Lies and the Murdoch Succession. Paul Barry

Book review.


Depressingly readable is the best way to describe Paul Barry’s
revealing biography of Rupert Murdoch. I placed the word mongrel in the
title of this piece but it could just as easily used scumbag which means
a contemptible or objectionable person.

It is a story about one man. A man with a love for money, power,
influence, acquisitions, wives, children and even scandal. Scandal makes
money.


Covering much of the 20th century and the early years of the 21st, it
is fluent yet comprehensive, with a not-too-much-not-too-little
approach to Murdoch’s life.

It is brilliantly written. Barry has a rare talent for the exposure of
things complex and how to unravel them. What was depressing for me was
the uncouthness of the man in question. He has obtained a vast fortune
by printing smut and conditioning people to reading it and in doing so
has displayed a complete disregard for the lives of others. His
obsession with profit over anything else, even people’s privacy, is
staggering. His business and personal moral corruption stands out larger
than the worst of his tabloid headlines.


Having the power to elect governments is the ultimate power that carries with it the highest rewards that corruption can bring.


On three occasions I had to put the book down, so affronted was I by
this vile nefarious excuse for humanity. One time was when one of his
tabloid editors described the reason for his papers existence by saying.



‘‘The reason we exist is to destroy peoples lives”


I imagine writing a book about Murdoch would be challenging. One
would be tempted to be caught between his remarkable business success
and the corrupt means by which he has made his fortune. Page after page
is filled with carefully worded analysis of Murdoch’s business
methodology. How he courted favor with the highest echelons of business
and government. How he implies his instructions to his editors with a
nod and a wink.


In the main Barry confines himself largely to the family
machinations, succession, his longevity and the British hacking
scandals.


As Barry points out, while Murdoch is alive he could definitively
resolve which of his children succeed him. But to do that he would have
to step down and he almost certainly won’t, which gives the process the
appearance of a slow-motion traffic accident. So much so that if he
retains his health he could be running his split empires, News
Corporation and 21st Century Fox, in 2033.By then he will be 102, a year
younger than his mother, Dame Elisabeth, at her death last year.


The Murdoch succession represents one of the great transfers of
wealth and power of our times. And it is of course, by virtue of a
rigged shareholding. Set up to his family’s advantage.


There are some telling revelations detailing his relationship with
his children that give insight into the indifference he shows to
outsiders. The discarding of loyal business associates of many years
standing if it suited his purpose. His disregard for the feelings of
others bleeds its way from one chapter to another and one is left with
an impression of a man without an altruistic bone in his body. Nowhere
is this better illustrated than in his capacity to end relationships on a
whim. He discards marriages as if by decree leaving emotional wreckage
scattered around him.


But the main thrust of this book is in Barry’s reading of the
testimony before the Leveson inquiry. It well may be that the
revelations that emerge from the inquiry and the ensuing trials might to
some degree change or rewrite some of Barry’s assertions. But it won’t
change public perception.


Barry begins with Murdoch telling the British culture committee at the height of the hacking inquiry: “This is the humblest day of my life.”



“Is it rehearsed? Probably not.” My view is Murdoch was on message: the
line appears in his prepared statement, which he tried to table and,
when this was refused, he blurted it out twice.


Thereafter Barry takes the reader on a journey that gives telling
glimpses into the psychopathology that infested Rupert Murdoch’s power
house tabloid News of the World.


Murdoch was, and is, so unbelievably powerful that all he had to do
was crook his finger and Tony Blair instantly jumped on a jet and flew
halfway across the world to attend on him and to beg assurances of his
support at the height of the 1995 U.K. General Election campaign.


Barry forensically dissects the evidence with page turning urgency
and tells the whole story, or stories of people whose lives have been
wrecked by the tabloid malevolence of Murdoch’s slime infested world.

He alludes to many of the individual hacking instances but none are more compelling than when he asks

Counsel to the Inquiry, Robert jay QC, ‘could I test that?’ and
proceeds to skilfully and deftly draw (News of the World editor
)McMullan out. The gist of the questions that follow is ‘What about
Jennifer Elliott?”

In the mid-1990s, Jennifer Elliott, daughter of famous
actor Denholm Elliott, was homeless and occasionally used sex work to
finance her heroin addiction. McMullan bribed a police officer for
information about her whereabouts. He tracked her down, and over the
following months, befriended her. He then betrayed their friendship by
using it as the basis is for a series of articles in NoTW about her
situation, ‘golden girl on the red carpet as her dad goes to pick up a
Golden Globe…and here she is with dreadlocks covered in dirt….offering
passers-by sex in return for money’.


Think of it. A vulnerable young woman in the thrall of addiction is
living on the streets. A corrupt copper tips an opportunistic reporter
off as to her whereabouts. She becomes a headline. A few years later,
the cumulative effect of everything shitful in her life, including, in
McMullan’s words, the fact that his media exposure had ‘absolutely
humiliated’ her, takes its toll and she hangs herself.

Of all the stories of the hacking scandal victims, that of Jennifer Elliott haunts me the most.


The phrase ‘destroyed lives’ has been repeatedly used in reference to
the News Corporation hacking scandal. But it did exactly that. The
hacking scandal was lethal. Alexander Mosley, son of Max Mosley (who
testified at the Leveson Inquiry on 24 November), escalated his drug
abuse and eventually died of an overdose, unable to bear the shame of
having his father reported by NoTW as having Nazi-themed sex with
prostitutes (heavily emphasising the fact that Mosley’s father was
British fascist leader Oswald Mosley).

British High Court Judge Eady found the Nazi theme of the reports had
’no genuine basis at all’, when Mosley sued NoTW for breach of privacy
and said ‘no amount of damage can fully compensate the claimant for the
damage done. He is hardly exaggerating when he says his life is ruined’.


Then there was Charlotte Church, who after years of NoTW reports
about her, including her family and her mother’s mental health issues,
settled her legal action against News Group newspapers in February 2012,
out of concern for what a protracted court battle was going to do to
everyone’s health and well-being.

Mosley and Church’s stories get the space they deserve in Paul Barry’s book.

Authors note. The a fore mentioned is quoted from another review and I have not been able to trace its originality.


Primarily though, this book is about a man at the zenith of his
power. A man with money but no character, no decency, no morality, no
ethics and one who will die with

‘’The king smut’’ as his legacy. A despicable man who traded in human vulnerability for profit.

But he is good at it if nothing else.


Paul Barry has done the world a favor by writing this book but I was left at the end with the puzzling question.


How is this man fit to manage any business?


About the Author


Paul Barry has won numerous awards for his work as a journalist,
including a Walkley in 2001 for an expose on tax-dodging barristers. He
is a former host of The Times and Witness on Channel Seven and is
currently the host of the ABC’s Media Watch. He has also been a regular
contributor to the Sydney Morning Herald and the Sunday Telegraph. Barry
studied Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Oxford University. A
journalist with BBC TV for ten years, he came to Australia in 1987 to
work for the ABC’s Four Corners, where one of his hardest-hitting
reports was on multi-millionaire Alan Bond. This led to his first
bestseller, The Rise and Fall of Alan Bond.

Since then his books have dominated the bestseller lists, The Rise and
Rise of Kerry Packer, Going for Broke: How Bond got away with it, Rich
Kids: How the Murdoch’s and Packers lost $950 million in One Tel and for
Allen & Unwin Who Wants to be a Billionaire? The James Packer
story.

Rupert Murdoch's attack on 'our ABC' like a mediaeval siege | theage.com.au

Rupert Murdoch's attack on 'our ABC' like a mediaeval siege | theage.com.au

Rupert Murdoch's attack on 'our ABC' like a mediaeval siege

Martin Flanagan

February 08, 2014

'Rupert Murdoch is the most successful right-wing radical of his era.'

So there I was about to have a colonoscopy. In front of me was the Herald Sun. I read it - a bit of crime on the front, a bit of footy on the back and Andrew Bolt in between.



Waiting to have a colonoscopy is bad enough. Waiting to have a
colonoscopy and reading Andrew Bolt approaches a definition of
existential horror. His subject? The ABC, or the tyranny thereof.



A few pages on was a column by Rita Panahi. Most articles
take off from somewhere. Hers started in midair and, given its speed and
trajectory, I have no doubt she will go a long way. Her subject? The
ABC and SBS.




People may think the present furore about the ABC is just a
passing issue. It's part of a screaming crescendo that's been emanating
from News Corp for months now. It's been like watching a mediaeval siege
and, right now, the castle wall looks to be on the verge of cracking.



For the past month, The Australian has had article after article attacking the ABC. An Australian
editorial claimed the ABC pushes a left/green agenda. And that's the
politics at play here as News Corp would have us see them: the ABC, the
greens and the left on one side - the mass of ordinary decent
Australians on the other.



That argument is fake. Phoney. Bullshit. Polls show that the
mass of ordinary decent Australians have consistently shown regard for
the ABC. Without ever bothering to say it, many Australians have
believed that it was indeed ''our ABC''.




Well, it may not be for much longer. I fully expect the ABC
to be destroyed in all but name within a few years. Who's going to stand
up for it? Malcolm Turnbull, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you.



Rupert Murdoch is the most successful right-wing radical of
his era. He has two fundamental beliefs. One is in free speech, which
most people share; the other is in the ideology of free markets, which
most people don't share, particularly since the global financial crisis.
His media outlets - and that means most newspapers in Australia - give
direct expression to his will.



On October 6 last year, Murdoch tweeted: ''BBC massive taxpayer funded mouthpiece for tiny circulation leftist Guardian.'' As with the BBC, Murdoch is ideologically opposed to the very existence of the ABC.



The ABC and the BBC also occupy areas in the media market
that Murdoch feels they have no right to and into which he wants to
expand.



What you have to give Rupert Murdoch - as he displays on
Twitter - is that he is outrageously himself. At Oxford University in
the 1950s, he was treated as a colonial and resented it; besides which
he knew something about the British they didn't care to admit about
themselves. He knew what a bloody disaster the Gallipoli campaign was,
his journalist father having helped expose it.



Like some other left-wing radicals who mutate into right-wing
radicals, Murdoch has become Catholic and was miffed to find the Pope
does not share his faith in the free market. But Murdoch's a man who
believes his own mythology (he still thinks he's fighting ''the
toffs''). One question history is sure to ask is whether he knew how far
some of his employees were prepared to go to please him.



The current basis for the attack on the ABC is its coverage
of the asylum-seeker issue. That matter was well dealt with by Paul
Barry on Media Watch this week.



Media Watch is an example of something the ABC does
well. What is News Corp's equivalent in terms of public scrutiny of its
organisation? The Leveson inquiry?



Martin Flanagan is a senior writer at The Age

Rupert 11th November 1975. Rupert again 7th September 2013.

RUPERT MURDOCH THE EVIL DOER

Guardian and Washington Post win Pulitzer prize for NSA revelations

Congratulations Guardian and Washington Post.

An example to show MURDOCH WHAT REAL JOURNALISM IS

----------------------------------------------------

Guardian and Washington Post win Pulitzer prize for NSA revelations

Pair awarded highest accolade in US journalism, winning Pulitzer prize for public service for stories on NSA surveillance

• 
  inShare47
  

• 
  
• 
  theguardian.com,
  Tuesday 15 April 2014 05.01 AEST
  
• 
  Jump to comments (268)
  

The Guardian revealed the NSA's bulk
collection of phone records 10 months ago based on Edward Snowden's
leaks. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

The Guardian and the Washington Post have been awarded the highest
accolade in US journalism, winning the Pulitzer prize for public service
for their groundbreaking articles on the National Security Agency’s surveillance activities based on the leaks of Edward Snowden.

The award, announced in New York on Monday, comes 10 months after the Guardian published the first report based on the leaks from Snowden, revealing the agency’s bulk collection of US citizens’ phone records.

In
the series of articles that ensued, teams of journalists at the
Guardian and the Washington Post published the most substantial
disclosures of US government secrets since the Pentagon Papers on the
Vietnam war in 1971.

The Pulitzer committee praised the Guardian
for its "revelation of widespread secret surveillance by the National
Security Agency, helping through aggressive reporting to spark a debate
about the relationship between the government and the public over issues
of security and privacy".

Snowden, in a statement, said:
"Today's decision is a vindication for everyone who believes that the
public has a role in government. We owe it to the efforts of the brave
reporters and their colleagues who kept working in the face of
extraordinary intimidation, including the forced destruction of
journalistic materials, the inappropriate use of terrorism laws, and so
many other means of pressure to get them to stop what the world now
recognises was work of vital public importance."

He said that his
actions in leaking the documents that formed the basis of the reporting
"would have been meaningless without the dedication, passion, and skill
of these newspapers".

At the Guardian, the reporting was led by
Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and film-maker Laura Poitras, and at the
Washington Post by Barton Gellman, who also co-operated with Poitras.
All four journalists were honoured with a George Polk journalism award last week for their work on the NSA story.

Investigative reporter Laura Poitras accepts
the George Polk Award alongside Barton Gellman, far left, and Ewen
MacAskill. Photograph: Andrew Burton/Getty Images

The NSA revelations have reverberated around the world and sparked a
debate in the US over the balance between national security and
personal privacy. On the back of the disclosures, President Obama ordered a White House review into data surveillance,
a number of congressional reform bills have been introduced, and
protections have begun to be put in place to safeguard privacy for
foreign leaders and to increase scrutiny over the NSA’s mass data
collection.

"We are truly honoured that our journalism has been
recognised with the Pulitzer prize," said Alan Rusbridger, the
editor-in-chief of the Guardian. "This was a complex story, written,
edited and produced by a team of wonderful journalists. We are
particularly grateful for our colleagues across the world who supported
the Guardian in circumstances which threatened to stifle our reporting.
And we share this honour, not only with our colleagues at the Washington
Post, but also with Edward Snowden, who risked so much in the cause of
the public service which has today been acknowledged by the award of
this prestigious prize."

Janine Gibson, the editor-in-chief of
Guardian US, said: "We're extremely proud and gratified to have been
honoured by the Pulitzer board. It's been an intense, exhaustive and
sometimes chilling year working on this story, and we're grateful for
the acknowledgement by our peers that the revelations made by Edward
Snowden and the work by the journalists involved represent a high
achievement in public service."

Among the disclosures were:

• the NSA’s mass dragnet of phone records of millions of Americans.

• the program codenamed Prism used
by the NSA and its UK counterpart GCHQ to gain back-door entry into the
data of nine giant internet companies including Google and Facebook.

• the cracking of internet encryption by the NSA and GCHQ that undermined personal security for web users.

• NSA surveillance of phone calls made by 35 world leaders.

The
coverage of the Snowden leaks presented a particularly thorny issue for
the 19-strong panel of journalists, academics and writers who recommend
the winners. The stream of disclosures invoked strong and polarised
reactions in the US and around the world.

In January, Obama said
that the debate on the acceptable limits of government surveillance
prompted by the articles “will make us stronger”. But other prominent US
politicians such as Mike Rogers, Republican chairman of the House
intelligence committee, have suggested journalism based on Snowden’s
leaks was tantamount to dealing in stolen property.

Snowden has
been charged with three offences in the US. He is the eighth person to
be charged with breaking the 1917 Espionage Act by the Obama
administration – more than all the prosecutions brought under previous
presidents combined.

The Guardian's US operation, headquartered in
New York, was incorporated as an American company in 2011 and
recognised last year by the Pulitzer board as a US news outlet eligible
to be considered for its prizes.

Last month Rusbridger was given a special award at the
European press awards; earlier this month the Guardian was named
newspaper of the year in the UK; and there it has been awarded other
prizes for online and investigative journalism in Germany, Spain and the
US.

The Snowden stories were edited from New York by Gibson, and
Guardian US deputy editor Stuart Millar. The UK end of the reporting
was led by deputy editor Paul Johnson and investigations editor Nick
Hopkins.

Others on the team of journalists included Spencer
Ackerman, James Ball, David Blishen, Gabriel Dance, Julian Borger, Nick
Davies, David Leigh and Dominic Rushe. In Australia the editor was
Katharine Viner and the reporter Lenore Taylor.

The Pulitzers have
been bestowed since 1917, at the bequest of the legendary newspaper
publisher Joseph Pulitzer who established the honour in his will as a
means of encouraging publicly-spirited journalism. The awards have
shifted and grown over the years to reflect the modern publishing
landscape and today stands at 22 categories, including 14 journalism
awards and seven gongs for books, drama and music. All the awards are
administered by Columbia University.

In the Clash of Ideologies, Language Wins the War

In the Clash of Ideologies, Language Wins the War

n the Clash of Ideologies, Language Wins the War

By The AIMN Network on April 12, 2014 • ( 2 )

Image courtesy of the australian.com.au

Jim Morrison famously and prophetically said, “Whoever controls the media, controls the minds”. 


This is certainly the case in Australia.


In this guest post Loz Lawrey looks at how the media – the Murdoch media in particular – shape out attitudes and opinions.


In 1988, Professor Noam Chomsky reminded us that the media “serve,
and propagandise on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that
control and finance them” (1). Never has this fact been more blatantly
obvious than it is today.


The glaring anti-Labor/Greens bias on display by the Murdoch-owned
news media during the term of the Gillard Government exaggerated Labor’s
dysfunction and gave credibility to a Liberal/National opposition
devoid of policies or ideas, other than a plan to hand decision-making
over to commercial vested interests.


Today much of the mainstream media’s energy is spent fulfilling the
roles of apologist and spin doctor for a right-wing conservative
government which serves the wishes of a global oligarchy.


Selective coverage of current affairs events, skewed “opinion” pieces
disguised as news reportage, simplified “black or white” presentation
which avoids all nuance – the mainstream media has an endless supply of
tools for the manipulation of public perception.


There is, however, more to the message than what is essentially the
delivery system, or the means of presentation. The TV or radio program,
the article in the print media or even the political billboard are
simply what the megaphone is to the voice – the means of imparting the
message. It’s in the language that real power and control resides.


Political forces use language as the weapon of choice on the field of
public debate – what some refer to as the battlefield of ideas. In this
arena, the army with the sharpest, most evocative language will
prevail. There is little need for true logic or reason to underpin one’s
arguments, only that a perception of reasoned lucidity is created by
the language used.


While all sides of politics strive for control of any public debate
through their use of language, conservative forces in our society have
become masters of what is known as weasel language, or weasel words. The
terms come from the reputation of weasels for sucking eggs and leaving
an empty shell – at first glance weasel words create an impression of
real meaning supported by research-based evidence or expert advice,
which upon closer inspection is found to be hollow and devoid of
substance.


This mastery of language, together with the recent structural
disarray in evidence on the left of the political spectrum, goes a long
way to explain the survival of conservatism around the globe, despite
its continuing assault on the public interest, both nationally and
globally.


The work of bodies such as the right wing Institute of Public Affairs
is as much about formulating the language used to justify its
ideologically-based policies as it is in formulating the policies
themselves.


Words such as “free” and “freedom” are tacked onto the labelling
language used to define and create a perception of a proposal or idea.
Hence we get “free market”, “free speech” and “freedom of choice”. Once
you insert a word such as “free”, a benign impression is created of
harmless intent.


So it is that when a spokesperson for the IPA argues that people
should be “given the right” to work for less that $16 per hour, they are
claiming that working for less than the established and agreed minimum
is a freedom. In this way, shifting employment conditions closer to the
slavery end of the spectrum is made to sound like a positive, liberating
move. It will hardly be a liberating experience for those workers who
endure it, however, when they find themselves working longer and harder
for less or very little, unable to meet their own living needs.


The term “free market” creates an image of happy global business,
unfettered by tariffs and protectionist regulations, with goods moving
freely about, resulting in best outcomes for both business, workers and
consumers. The fact that tariffs were developed as a means to counteract
trade imbalance and injustice is swept aside, because who wouldn’t want
“freedom” in the marketplace?


Now business regulation designed to level the playing field and
increase real fairness in trade is labelled by conservative governments
as “red tape”, an evil to be done away with. Environmental regulation
intended to protect our natural heritage landscapes and control resource
extraction is now dismissed as “green tape”.


These terms belie the fact that such regulation has been developed
over many years in response to the perceived need to maintain balance
and sustainability in all things into the future.


Even the term “sustainability” itself has been highjacked by the
weasel-worders. When the term is used in the context of economic debate,
any cuts to spending or public funding are easily justified. Old-age
pensions? Unsustainable. A living-wage pay rise for child-care workers?
Again, unsustainable.


The rhetoric of conservative ideology is cleverly employed over time
to erode the positive public perception of ideas and institutions which
are seen as contrary to the the right-wing world-view.


A gradual sanding-down of the public’s acknowledgment and
appreciation of the workplace rights and entitlements won over years of
union organising and picketing has been achieved by the repeated
portrayal of unions as hotbeds of thuggery and corruption.


Dismissive rhetoric about “the left” ignores the fact that leftist
political values are based upon social justice, inclusion and concepts
of decency and fairness. The ongoing message is that an empathetic
worldview is “loony” and that to embrace a cynical philosophy of
“winners and losers” is to dwell in the “real world”.


In this way a political message has been delivered into the public
sub-consciousness: that leftist views are “crazy” and “loony” in their
consideration of the public good, and that right-wing extremist views
which can only benefit a minority elite are “sensible”, “rational” and
“economically sound”.


Somewhere, somehow, logic and reason lie bleeding and forgotten by
the masses, while weasel words and tabloid headlines are regurgitated as
valid arguments in the arena of public discussion.

(1)  Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988) 
     by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman