Journalism Hoax Exposed in Australia

[danee]

Yes people...
this thread is directly stabbing at the Australian Media, and its
creation of stories... to manipulate public emotion on topics.
This therefore, indirectly is associated with the thread...
"useless CNN reporting".

Firstly,.. unemployment benefits in Australia, is commonly known as 'the dole'... hence the dole army.
Any media reporting of youth on unemployment benefits, ALWAYS takes an angle of: the kids are to lazy to work... and presents this to the general public as 'the truth'... But is it ?

On the 5th of Feb this year, 2 out of the 3 major television stations, each ran a competing story on their 6.00pm documentry, about "the dole army" - "gangs of jobless militants inhabiting Melbourne's drains, surfacing only to scavenge food from bins and organising through the internet."

Previous to these 2 shows screening, television screens across the nation were flooded with adverts previewing these ground breaking stories.
Also a small note... apparently both shows recorded their highest ever viewer tune-in.

Anyway to the point...
the entire story was a hoax.
The media companies both knew - and were more than happy to pay the kids for their time... in helping to manipulate public opinion.

Read up on it all for yourself...
7 AOL (TV Station): Underground resistance (http://i7limited.adbureau.net/hserver/site=news/area=tt.stories.article/aamsz=300x250/pos=mb/pageid=97422)
Dole Army: Gutter Journalism Hoax Exposed (http://www.dolearmy.org/Media/index.htm)
International Media Report about the hoax:Australia: Tabloid TV Tricked (http://www.insnews.org/world/focus/0202/oz.media.hoax.htm)

An ex federal member for Parliment best described the whole thing...“There are bludgers who are in work and there are bludgers who make millions of dollars. There are people who don't want to work. The reality is we can't put everyone in work. There wouldn't be a percentage point difference in the unemployment figures if every person desperately wanted to work, unless you're going to get down to sub-third-world wages. Why do journalists dish out this ****? It's pathetic." (Former MP Phil Cleary, in reference to the ACA/Paxton saga).

And the truth will set you free...

[Giblet Plus!]

And this is important why?

[danee]

Originally posted by Giblet Plus!
And this is important why?

1)Because im trying to make people aware of the LIES which get told to us, everyday of our lives.
2)Raising the whole issue for discussion on a public forum.
3) Need i go on ??...

I think more to the point Giblet, do you see threads about topics such as 'Avatars', being important to yourself ?

[Giblet Plus!]

Danee - read this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/755278/posts

The media "lies" mainly go the other direction

[wallie_x]

Yes, we all like the media to tickle our ears with those things that support our beliefs. If a contradiction arises however, and they say something that refutes our faith in one of our sacred cows, most close their ears. They have a large percentage of the populace rather well trained, don't they? They believe the media's filtered, altered and quoted out of context sound bites as if they were scripture.
They need to change two hypocrisies in America. On our currency they need to replace the word 'God' with 'Money':
"In Money We trust."
And in the world or journalism, the courts should force them to show a disclaimer before broadcasting the news:
"We are not responsible for the accuracy of the content reported in our newscast."

[herosrest]

The media industries should be forced out of the Market place
and required to run as ethical non-profiteering organs legally
accountable for every word and line of print......
They do a good job generally but politics is a meesy business.

Is fiction fact. :eek:

[tking]

Originally posted by herosrest
The media industries should be forced out of the Market place
and required to run as ethical non-profiteering organs legally
accountable for every word and line of print......

Great idea, but wouldn't that mean no more advertising? Modern media *is* advertising, it's the whole point of their exercise. As in that Australian debacle, media does what it does purely to generate audience. It then charges business money to sell to that audience.

What you're suggesting would change the entire meaning of modern media (for the better I think), but it wouldn't fly... there's no money in it:rolleyes:

[Strawbs]

it's like the story of Princess Di's butler here in England. he was offered millions by different newspapers for his story, when he accepted 300,000 from a paper he trusted; the same papers that had offered him the millions, turned on him, calling him a sell-out, gay (:eek: ), traitor and such.

very questionable values IMO.

[wallie_x]

Here in the US, the government is beginning to enforce the, "truth in advertising" laws. Any company must be able to substantiate its advertising claims with empirical proof. If any political entity were able to show that the media grossly distorted the facts, then there should be some sort of sanction.
Free airtime for the one(s) they black balled sounds good to me, but the choice of who decides what is biased and what is not, is the question. Who picks the jury?
As for me?
Is fiction fact?
I don't know anymore? :x
Debating in this forum has made me somewhat neurotic about what the 'truth' really is. :x :eek: :confused:
Well, maybe just a little. :D

[Strawbs]

The "truth" is usually what we know within ourselves to be true, but can rarely express accurately to others ...It almost always comes out wrong! ;)

[danee]

Originally posted by wallie_x
"We are not responsible for the accuracy of the content reported in our newscast."

Yes, Yes, Yes !!!
I like the idea of this...
legal disclaimers at the start of the nightly news,
and disclaimers for over hyped beauty products.
Pity a government would never support an idea like this.

On the positive side... apparently compaies are getting into trouble
in Australia for delibretly false or misleading advertising.
Example - a change i noticed in a TV commercial for Shampoo...
Originally advertised with the slogan "Up to 5 times stronger"
on their product.
Now if you think... how can 1 shampoo be quantitaively measured and compared to all other shampoo's to be "5 times stronger".
Well the truth is, it cant. Its just the slogan they used... extremly misleading.
Anyway, now the TV commerical has had a text box insrted in the bottom corner of the screen displaying the following text:
"Based on a comparism with non-shampooing conditoners".

So.. to summarise, they placed a legal disclaimer saying that the SHAMPOO is "five times stronger" is actually based on a comparism with CONDITIONER. Ahh... so all the slogans are built around comparing completely different products to each other.
Imgaine buying a TV, which advertised "99% clearer images" - and this was actually based on comparing the TV with a Car CD player display face.
Does the TV have 99% clearer images ?

[Giblet Plus!]

I say people should be responsible enough to see past that stuff. Saying that commercials like that are believable is like people who smoke saying they didn't know it was harmful. (and suing the tobacco companies for uber millions)

[wallie_x]

However, we should also not be naive enough to think that their means of manipulation are simplistic. These companies study and devise means to attract us to their products by using, psychology, light, color, sexual attraction, cognitive association and many other things. As an example, lawyers study psychology so they can manipulate a jury based on the cultural and ethnic cohort that is the majority within that jury. Advertising companies do the same. They study means to manipulate people to buy their products. Their tactics can be subtle yet powerful.
I hate to admit it, but before I studied to build my first computer, I wanted nothing less than an Intel processor. :eek:
I think we're all effected to a greater or lesser degree. However the media has now abrogated any responsibility toward morality and objective veracity, opting instead toward spin and tabloid sensationalism. Personally, I find that appalling.

[danee]

Originally posted by Giblet Plus!
I say people should be responsible enough to see past that stuff. Saying that commercials like that are believable is like people who smoke saying they didn't know it was harmful. (and suing the tobacco companies for uber millions)

I agree with most of this thought...
Can you believe im agreeing with Giblet :eek:

The only thing is, we hope that most people are educated enough to see past all the misleading advertising - but we arent.
A good example is the tobacoo industry - for years before health warnings were required to be printed on packets, the tobacoo industry continued to loby consumers saying that there was no ill effects from smoking, even though they knew the complete opposite was true.
And on this example, of the tobocca industry - this is why i support sueing the companies for millions of dollars. Though it should be noted, while Phillip Morris has been sued for hundreds of millions of dollars world wide, the company is actually yet to pay a single cent, and they are refuseing to... if anyone wants evidence on this, i'll find a link for them.

As to the shampoo.. without meaning to be sexist, females i would be betting are the target audience of this particular ad.
The reason here should be self evident, with females spending loads more at the beauty store, hairdresser, skin care store etc.
So, was the company even possibly using the fact that the ad is misleading, to its advantage with capturing the target audience.
We're always being told as consumers, that there is a difference between branded products and "no-name brand" products... 'you get what you pay for'. So we have a branded product, advertising that its "5 times stronger"... thus couldnt an uneducated person, come to the assumption that this product
is better - in part going from the pretence that "you get what you pay for".
So my point - shouldnt delibrate false & misleading advertising be illegal ? Or is generating a profit for a Corporation, more important than a human life - in the case of Phillip Morris ?

[danee]

Originally posted by wallie_x
However, we should also not be naive enough to think that their means of manipulation are simplistic. These companies study and devise means to attract us to their products by using, psychology, light, color, sexual attraction, cognitive association and many other things. As an example, lawyers study psychology so they can manipulate a jury based on the cultural and ethnic cohort that is the majority within that jury. Advertising companies do the same. They study means to manipulate people to buy their products. Their tactics can be subtle yet powerful.
I hate to admit it, but before I studied to build my first computer, I wanted nothing less than an Intel processor. :eek:
I think we're all effected to a greater or lesser degree. However the media has now abrogated any responsibility toward morality and objective veracity, opting instead toward spin and tabloid sensationalism. Personally, I find that appalling.

Something strange is going on here...
Wallie has ultimately said EVERYTHING i was trying to say in my post.... and better.

Is it possible that some people, are actually on the same 'wave-length' as me... and i'm not just full of Conspiracy theories ?

Originally posted by wallie_x
I don't know anymore? Debating in this forum has made me somewhat neurotic about what the 'truth' really is.

And the 'truth' shall set you free.
If it dosent kill you first.

[richard_cocks]

A lie can run around the world before the truth has even got it's socks on.


Anyway, I diffrentiate truth, belief and stuff people say. What is true is what I know is true, not even relying on senses, but simply the knowledge you are born with, which is pretty much "I think therefore I am". Beliefs are everythign else, that can be proven, but still everything is via our senses, we don't know it's true. (Although it doesn't matter, something that has 0 effect in the world does not exist in my opinion). I believe the sky is blue etc.

Everything else is what I trust to be right.

[Giblet Plus!]

Originally posted by danee

Something strange is going on here...
Wallie has ultimately said EVERYTHING i was trying to say in my post.... and better.



I think nobody here really trusts advertisers (and with good reason)

Danee's right when he says most people aren't educated enough to see past advertising hype and lies. That's why it works.

[tking]

Originally posted by wallie_x
...the government is beginning to enforce the, "truth in advertising" laws.

I know just how they'll prove the validity of their claims too. The truth is a tricky thing, that's why people invented statistics, to give the appearance of truth...

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.
Mark Twain

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Mark Twain

[wallie_x]

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I had to take 'stats' as part of my major. I will subjectively state that what our friend Mark had to say is the veritable truth. The biggest thing that stood out to me about statistics is how easily one could manipulate them. If you want a certain verbal
response (especially political) just 'load' the question. e.g.
What do you think about the absolutely horrible job the mayor has gone about the homeless problem?
Have we already verified that the mayor has done a horrible job?
This sample statement presupposes much, and is hopelessly flawed, thus will also be its skewed answer. To state the responses to this survey question are 'facts' borders on an out and out lie. Just as the answer lies in questioning the question, we need to question by whom, and by how were these 'facts' obtained.
However, I do think that the goverment asking companies to submit (so called) empirical validation for their advertising claims is better than none.