Zombies in a phone box

If you can be bothered, check out this video today from The Australian. It’s a real battle of the slow coaches between the ponderous thinking, oozing cliches and dial-up download speed. I don’t want to be too hard on these fellas, but seriously, how is a couple of boozers having a yack in a phone booth supposed to enlighten anyone of anything? Mainstream media, at least in business and economics is so sad, so tired, and above all, so dead.

And remember, you’ll shortly be required to pay for this gem!

(I was at least going to praise the presence of a embed option, an Australian first, but now I’m not so sure).

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)


  1. They’ve got a right cheek asking to pay to see the “Australian” on-line. It has to be the most opinionated biased rubbish there is… I gave up caring about what was in it when they were running that ‘get rid of Julia’ campaign earlier this year. Regardless of what you think of the current government they have no right to tell me what to think or how to vote (not so blatently anyway!).

    I honestly don’t know what News Ltd papers are coming to – if you want to know what’s going on you shouldn’t pick one up. The only other one available here in Melbourne is the Herald-Sun and that’s evolved from a newspaper into a sort of a news-ish magazine of with bibs and bobs of information intermingled with celebrities, gossip, vox pops opinion surveys.

    • The Australian (in hard copy form) remains the best paper we have!

      SMH – patchy
      Age – lefty lost cause
      The rest – budgie dropping catchers

      I am confident the Australian will lift its online content. I can tell you two journos that we may see a little less of.

      • The Australian (in hard copy form) remains the best paper we have!

        Note to self: The Australian (in hard copy form) is the worst paper we have.

        I suppose if you live in a state where the West Australian qualifies as anything but toilet paper, The Australian would look good!

      • Interesting that you call the Age a “lefty lost cause” but totally ignore the obvious leaning of the Australian.

      • The Australian (in hard copy form) remains the best paper we have!

        +1. I can understand why you said “hard copy”.. There is not a lot you can do with a soft copy when you run out of toilet paper.

    • Had dinner with a ‘news ltd’ senior honcho a few nights ago. I was amazed that they thought ‘the bundesbank’ was the biggest German trading bank.

      Like confusing CBA for RBA. With respect to RE and employment they believe their own propaganda, dangerous case of anti-knowledge

    • Can’t explain that one. Appalling, career stalling stuff. Editor in Chief might kick a bit more than a can down the road on the basis of that presentation…

  2. Diogenes the CynicMEMBER

    Come on The Australian…your two “battlers” are struggling to make headway…

    Calling Macrobusiness…your window of opportunity has arrived….

  3. Agree. For me I don’t read the Oz now they charge. If you want a Lib view read it, or watch the ABC for Labour/Greens. Either way I find them all very biased to one view or the other … mostly. I get my information from blogs like MB, FT Alpha, and loads of others. I feel I’m much more informed on economics and other issues that interest me. Most punters struggling to pay the mortgage don’t usually have time to research so MSM is what they get. Go MB…

  4. They should do like Bloomberg : have pretty Asian chicks, they always look smarter (and are, at bloomberg).

  5. Mainstream media sucks fullstop. How can anyone take anything that Newscorp produces seriously?

    The Australian…pfffff. Climate denialists..

    and Janet Albrechtsen lol…lol…

    • Your watermelon slip is showing …

      More seriously, even if you disagree with many of the opinion writers for the Oz and other News publications, it is still sensible to take the papers seriously. They may not be your views, but they are still influential and also shared by many. There is still quite a long way to go before the non-newspaper generations are in power.

      • Oh yeah, like Foxnews and the Herald Sun. No thanks.

        What does reading newspapers have to do with thinking?

        • Absolutely nothing. But exposing yourself to the views of people you disagree with is one way of avoiding closed mindedness. Of course, if you prefer the latter, feel free.

          • Are you joking? So not taking mainstream media seriously makes me closed minded? That is an interesting concept.

          • No, I said no such thing. There may be other avenues for you to explore views different from your own, some of them no doubt much better than MSM. I thought I made it clear that I thought reading media opinion you disagreed with was ONE way of doing this, not the only way.

      • You’re so far off the mark about the OO, in several of your comments, that at first I thought you might be ironic. But here you are calling science ‘faith’, the stuff of ‘believers’ – just the type of message the OO keeps drumming out. The bland page of news reports you’ve linked to gives no indication of the real state of the OO’s continuing anti-climate-change diatribe. For a much better indication of their tactics, see Deltoid at http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

        Start on the first page with ‘The Australian’s War on Science 74’ and work backwards.

        The only area in which the OO qualifies as a ‘newspaper’ – rather than an opposition organ – is in its foreign/world news coverage, which in The Age/SMH is relatively scanty and shallow. Even there, one finds hopelessly compromised ‘experts’ like Greg Sheridan opining from his private pentagon.

      • No, it agrees with the notion climate change but says that the degree to which humans influence it could be negligible. I think they’ve abandoned the Steve Fielding Earth-cooling camp, for now.

        It lies about the qualifications of the sceptical scientists it publishes, and grossly misinterprets the data of credible ones. The problem being that 97% of publishing climate scientists think that humans are responsible for the observable change.


        • Read it. I’m still not very clear what there ongoing position is. As a reader of the Oz maybe you can clarify.

          Is it:

          1. There is a problem which is created by humans and how we deal with it is the issue.

          2. There is a problem but humans might not cause it (say a 50% chance). So risk calculations and cost to the economy should be adjusted accordingly.


          3. There is no problem ie. the Earth isn’t warming.

          I’m sorry, but if you’re in camp 2 or 3 you don’t get to argue on 1. The Oz flip-flops regularly on this, saying solar variation causes warming and then endorses nuclear power (which is pretty radical position for Australia if we’re only a speck of global emissions!).

          This is the real clanger though:
          ‘The Weekend Australian believes that the task group, by holding firm to core principles of a market-based solution driven by price signals, has made a compelling case for a post-Kyoto model that deserves serious consideration.’

          Answer now: Does the Oz want a price on CO2 or not?

          • Yes they do, and they believe this should be achieved through a market based mechanism. A couple of quotes from the linked article:

            March 12, 2011 editorial: “For the record, The Australian has long accepted the probability of anthropogenic climate change and favoured the introduction of an emissions trading scheme.”

            Weekend Australian, November 27: “If greenhouse cuts are to be made, which The Weekend Australian believes is necessary insurance against climate change, the challenge is to achieve the biggest cuts for the least cost, a process that needs an efficient market mechanism.”

          • There’s no such thing as an “efficient market mechanism”, especially when it comes to pricing carbon.

          • Well, yes. But I take it you don’t object to a market mechanism per se, just that you contend it can’t be efficient.

  6. I have not read a newspaper for years. I don’t miss them at all and I find that I can now just flick through the headlines on a google news feed to geta gist of what the sheeple are thinking. Sheeple are slow and it takes many months of retarded lumbering for them to get up to speed.
    Pays not to get caught too much in worrying about what they think as it slows you down and makes your judgement worse.

  7. actually i think they look just fine – one looks like an overdressed version of my brother and one looks like an overdressed version of me

    as for what they were talking about i’m really sorry i fell asleep shortly after they started

    be careful about doing audiovisuals – you might completely ruin the great image (sic) you have


  8. These guys are a joke. If the Australian think this is a saleable product they have a very low opinion of their readers. What a lot of tosh.

  9. Reply to Alex Heyworth above:

    OK, that seems pretty clear. They are concerned and want a price and have so for while. That’s a fairly profound viewpoint with enormous consequences and risk. Viewpoint no. 1 (from above) it is.

    Why the hell then would they even bother to publish Ian Plimer and other debunked scientists then?

    • Commitment to freedom of speech? I’m guessing, but this is probably part of the answer. The other part is probably that everybody likes to have something in the newspaper that they disagree with. Gives them something to write letters to the editor about. A few controversial opinions never hurt a newspaper, as far as I can tell.

  10. Well then it’s a disingenuous sideshow.

    Unfortunately there are plenty of middle-brow people who aren’t in on the po-mo joke.

  11. Move right along, nothing to see here. The above is all dissappointing stuff. MB is better than this. No-one reading the above tosh would have learnt anything. Nothing wrong with different views, that is good, but most of the expressed views were pointless & pre conceived positions.