Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National A tale of two (city papers)

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by NiteKreeper, Sep 3, 2012.

  1. Posted in Politics on purpose...

    I've just read about the same story on both the NEWS.COM.AU and SMH.COM.AU sites, and almost spat my coffee at the second one.
    I won't post the text because there's a bit of it, and I won't colour the discussion with my opinion yet, but what do you all think of this?



  2. read both articles, thought about it for a while and ..... Who gives a flying fvck
  3. "So what stories have you got for me today guys"
    "Well ive got some football news here"
    "I have a story about an enquiry into TACs la..."
    Door of editors office flies open
    "I think we have our headline for today."
  4. I like the quote from Caeser Campbell, ''You didn't have the blokes with gold chains and gold rings and the fancy cars. Everyone spent their money on their bikes and 90 per cent of blokes worked.''
  5. agreed
  6. Interesting, that the tonal difference doesn't interest you...

    Who owns SMH?
    What other papers do they own?
    Is the anti-motorcycling (general) rhetoric a common feature?
    What does the government like to use, to convince the sheep they're being looked after?
  7. You say that, yet it is the SMH article that points out

  8. Yes I saw that too Mick, but I wonder how many people clean skipped the numbers so that could get back to the story about the nasty bikies? Or, thought to themselves "Yeah right - so why is the government trying to outlaw them? They MUST be bad...".

    I dunno, maybe I tried to think before I'd woken up properly this morning, but I reckon this is a great example of emotive journalism that can be (and is) used against us...
  9. I think given the recent beat ups in the media both these articles were rather tame and relatively short on government rhetoric.
  10. I felt the smh article was actually quite balanced. Didn't think it was really negative at all... except maybe the choice of tone at the very end.
  11. My point is really this:

    Two papers sent reporters to cover the same event: the memorial run...

    One wrote a story about how the Comancheros apparently continue to look out for the daughter of one of their lost brothers, and how they still apparently feel deeply for their lost; it was almost "feel-good".

    The other apparently decided to go anti-bikie early, trying to beat up the "You gonna write a good story about us?" comments. I'm not surprised he was told to fuck off, and I'll bet it was relatively early too.
    And I'll bet his socks were full of urine when he did...
  12. I can see that, but compared to other articles I've read (and seen on TV) about Bikie Clubs (I really hate it when the media refer to them as gangs, because it's an untruth) they were both relatively positive.
  13. Fair enough then, apparently it was just me.
    That's not uncommon...
  14. Possibly because the NewsLtd reporter said "whatever you want, sir"?
    And the other one didn't?

    I'm less clear about this, possibly because I don't feel as included in the media generalisations than you. Yet. (Doesn't mean your wrong though).

    I'm more interested in the way the club has gone the media spin route themselves. A touch heavy-handed perhaps but no different to what their opponents have been up to. I'm not bothered by the SMH report either - too much sugar coating makes it hard to swallow.
  15. To be clear, I've never been involved with the OMCs and don't see myself as fitting in to their lifestyle...
    So I won't guess as to their motives for use of the media either.

    My concern is with the use of media to influence the way the population thinks - I saw a definite contrast in the tone of the two articles covering the same event, so it was interesting to me to compare them.

    I don't think the concepts of '1984' are too far off, to be honest...
  16. You've made that clear before, I wasn't implying that.

    NewsLtd goes soft and cuddly on OMCs? Really? Their story is truthful enough, but why did they decide to run it? I'd be very surprised if it's because they value freedom of association (might be wrong).

    Already here, just been conditioned not to notice.
  17. I agree with what you say with regard to the use of media to sway the public's opinion. But lets face it (I can see I'm going to get hung for this) Hitler and the Nazi's were doing this to great effect in the late '30's and early '40's. So it's nothing new to demonise a section of community for your own political and power gain.
  18. I'm not clever enough to understand the actual politics behind it all, so I was hoping someone here might be interested...
  19. to be clear I don't give a about bike clubs/gangs what ever they call themselves, so the reporting of them has no interest for me no matter how it is packaged. The media is not that popular with me either. When I travel and don't see a newspaper or tv news for 6 weeks I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.
  20. Fair enough, but why even comment then?