Punch deputy editor Tory Maguire – who we saw recently pushing the insurance company line on personal injury – now comes charging in to defend Telstra from criticism for imposing an “administration fee” on people who pay its bills with ordinary currency via a non-preferred method:
If it encourages them to sign up for electronic banking it might even free them up for more exercise and socialising with their family and friends. You never know, Telstra might have started something.
Now that is some pro-Telstra spin. They’re national benefactors! Any extra profit they squeeze out of contract-locked customers with this ripoff charge is for their own good!
57 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
there is no rebuttal to the assertion that corpoarations to this day attempt to manipulate public opinion, often in very underhanded ways.
Suddenly morphs into:
Is it just me or can everyone, apart from one person on this thread (who appears to be better at name calling than formulating coherent arguments), see the distinction between advertising and PR campaigns, and spruiking disguised as independent 3rd party opinion with no disclosure of affiliation?
What a dipshit copout.
Shaun:
Corporations try to manipulate opinion. Get used it and stop pretending that is somehow different from what political parties do or … what humans do. If you don’t understand that, you should own a keyboard.
I love getting into arguments with trolls. It’s like bouncing a rubber ball against a wall. No matter what you say, it always is bounced back at you. A bit more vitriol and incoherence.
So once more for the benefit of the totally bereft of sense, as one on here (just one, I wonder if you can spot him) appears to be. There is a world of difference between legitimate attempts by corporations or politicians to sway public opinion and a pretence that a third party has no affiliation with a corporation but is totally in favour of their stance.
On the one hand, if Tony Abbott writes an opinion piece, it’s easy to dismiss it as the ranting of the mad monk; you know who he.
On the other hand, as an example, if you seek online product reviews when you are researching a product you are intending to buy and find favourable reviews, you make an assumption they are from satisfied customers. It is quite obviously deceptive if instead of being independent consumer opinion, it is in fact paid for by the company manufacturing the product.
Interesting how you’ve now shifted the posts to suggest internet reviews are your concern rather than your catch all, 60’s retread, that big bad corporations try to manipulate the stupid populace. You tried to pull away with that in your earlier comment thinking you could get away with it.
(Of course you can see manipulation by all these evil corporations but everyone else can’t). Lol.
You know, when you think about about it, this sort of thing isn’t really too far away from “troofer” stuff like the White House ordered 911. It’s actually not that far removed.
You’re embarrassing yourself, Shaun.
john surname on the Piers segue thread linked to deltoid (but for something else), but where nevertheless I noticed tim lambert had put up a specific post for one of his trolls to post at to avoid his/her fuckwittery derailing the thread, misrepresenting other commenters, and arguing in a merry-go-round fashion as a way to avoid being accountable for their viewpoints. Given what we’ve seen from tee on this thread, the Piers thread, and others (not to mention the name-calling, abuse and generall trolling that has to be deleted but somehow never results in behaviour change from tee), isn’t it about time this blog had a tee-specific thread? that way people who want to engage tee can, and threads don’t get derailed with irelevent nonsense arguments? And this blog unlike deltoid is moderated, so it would be easy to just dump tee’s unrelated comments on particular threads in his own post.
Bounce, bounce, bounce. And the ball rebounds again. stupider and stupider every time.
Hands up who can’t see that paid favourable reviews are what is know as an EXAMPLE of deceptive corporate manipulation of public opinion? No shifting of goalposts required.
We can do this all day. The ball will bounce back, looking more ridiculous every time. Watch this space folks.
Interesting MO by the way. Insist that corporations do not covertly attempt to manipulate public opinion and then claim that by giving examples of said behaviourthat you are shifting the goalposts. Must be a Bolt disciple.
One thing though Confessions @54, it has been instructive to see the mo of such a dedicated troller as things don’t go to plan – i.e. the position he supports is progessively demolished.
and now, having seen it play out, let us summarise.
takes a position that covert manipulation of public opinion does not occur.
Is given evidence that it does.
Claims that the evidence is isolated, so is irrelevant. Also attempts to confuse the issue by including legitimate public relations and covert manipuliation as one and the same.
Is given further evidence.
Claims that evidence shifts the goalpost, by claiming we were talking about one example of corporate malfeasance, now we are talking about another.
And all throughout the debate, using a general tone of abuse, because it is quite clear that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot.
The important thing for the troll though is never to conced a point and this is done by the MO has just been summarised.
And of course quite easy now to just not post further, and restart the abuse on another thread.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All