zoomster

An interesting case -

A Victorian electricity retailer and the marketing company enlisted to sell its services have been fined $1 million for illegal door-to-door selling practices.

The Federal Court yesterday ordered Neighbourhood Energy and Australian Green Credits to pay the hefty penalties for ignoring "do not knock" stickers, failing to leave the premises at the request of home occupiers and engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct

"The effect of the Court's order is that every time a salesperson ignores a visible "do not knock" sign on a consumer's door, the company they represent is exposed to a maximum penalty of $50,000," ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/companies-fined-for-do-not-knock-breach-20120928-26q8m.html#ixzz27njsweBc

zoomster

Gee, just as well this isn’t happening in Australia, hey?

Talking about the media in the US:

Each side has its own set of facts, and each side is becoming increasingly baffled and frustrated that its opponent will not accept it.

....after World War II, the US media market settled into a detente, where two or three newspapers and the three networks led national coverage. All strove to divorce opinion from news.

I wonder whose fault is could possibly be that that’s no longer the case?

The detente collapsed with the rise of talk radio, then cable and internet news. The three networks have lost 50 per cent of their audience since 1980.

Right. So competition meant that the ‘mainstream media’ lost its ability to report the news factually?

You’d think the article would explore why this was so. But, alas, no.

America's media has become so polarised it is possible for followers of both camps to live entirely inside their own news echo chambers

Now, the article begins by demonstrating this with examples of different coverage by TV news of the Presidential campaign. So you’d think it would be looking at why the nature of TV news (and mainstream reporting in general) has changed..but, no..

He says reporters striving for objectivity are becoming so hectored by partisan media accusing them of bias that many news outlets have created ''fact-checking'' teams to insulate them.

OK – but surely that would lead to less partisanship, not more? I mean, if reporters are being urged to check their facts, then we’d be getting more objective reporting?

This year, Twitter has allowed people to create their own news feeds by choosing to follow reporters and commentators whose views reflect their own, increasing the volume in their personalised echo chamber.

Meanwhile, stories, true and false, are being fed into the machine by an endless loop of wild claims spread via email chains.

Aha! Now we get to the source of the problem!

It has nothing to do with the mainstream media, folks.

The increasingly partisan reporting of politics by the mainstream media is due to people’s ability to create their own little worlds via twitter and emails.

(Somehow that doesn’t look like a logical conclusion to draw. But what would I know? I’m a user of social media, not a journalist).

And – just to prove that it’s all the fault of social media – the writer immediately quotes a blog to support his hypothesis. (Seems like a logical disconnect to me, but see disclaimer in previous brackets).

Fox's coverage of the news cannot be properly understood in isolation, but only in conjunction with the rest of that system - and especially the chain emails that do so much to shape the worldview of Fox viewers.''

Right. The plot thickens.

Mainstream media is increasingly partisan because its readers use social media to force it to be.

I’m still waiting for an explanation of why this is so – surely a free and fearless press wouldn’t change the facts simply to avoid a barrage of snarky emails?

The impact can also be witnessed in the broader polarisation of American society. It turns out Romney was right - both candidates have achieved their expected 46 per cent or 47 per cent support, but neither has so far been able to convince enough independent voters to join their camp, and neither side has made any real effort to attract voters to swap camps.

Well, firstly, this is twee ly ignoring what the author has already used as an example of misreporting earlier in his article (Obama’s lead in the polls). It’s also failing to point out that the candidates being neck and neck coming up to an election isn’t at all a modern phenomena, and thus cannot be blamed on the media.

Nor can it be a coincidence that a survey last week found mistrust of the media at the highest in history, at 60 per cent.

That’s so unfair! I mean, it’s not their fault! It’s the fault of all those emails and tweets they’re getting, which are forcing them to check their facts and then ignore them so that they can write partisan rubbish! (I hope I’ve followed the writer’s logic correctly there).

It is affecting even the most basic social building blocks. One recent study found 30 per cent of Democrats wouldn't want their child marrying a Republican, compared with 50 per cent of Republicans who don't want their child to marry a Democrat. Overall, 40 per cent of Americans objected to mixed political marriages, up from 5 per cent in 1960.

Forget gays; this is the real threat to the sanctity of marriage. Would you want your child to marry a Democrat? No, sirree.

...research by Diane Muntz that shows that, though people tend to be more tolerant when they mix with people with whom they disagree, few people actually encounter opposing positions and those who do become less likely to act politically

So, faced with this kind of evidence, a responsible media would make sure they presented information objectively and covered a wide range of viewpoints, surely?

But that would ignore the real villain –

This is a quandary that could be exacerbated by the influence of Twitter during this campaign.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/polarised-america-choose-your-own-truth-20120928-26qqr.html#ixzz27ns7CrNc

So, folks, once again we have an article from the msm, bravely looking at the objective facts about modern mainstream reporting, and concluding that it’s all the fault of social media.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/polarised-america-choose-your-own-truth-20120928-26qqr.html#ixzz27nrn6fQX

On a related note, I’m mildly amused by how much coverage Tom Meagher’s comments on social media are getting in the newspapers – who then go on to indulge in exactly the kind of behaviour he’s talking about.

Missing the point, guys.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/polarised-america-choose-your-own-truth-20120928-26qqr.html#ixzz27nnwjaV8

zoomster

Sorry for the three links to the same article – I did think I’d eliminated all but one.

zoomster

BW

Ah – theories like that were being trotted out to show that Howard couldn’t possibly lose the 2007 election.

(Which he didn’t, of course).