The Publics Right to know

News and events in the media and political arena relating to firearms.

The Publics Right to know

Post by Madang185 » 26 Oct 2019, 10:07 am

The current campaign by the collective media within Australia is in need of comment. It is suggested that the public's right to know is really the public's right to know what the media want us to know, nothing more and nothing less.

A couple of example will suffice.

A boiler on an Australian Navy ship exploded at sea, there were two deaths. Following there were two Courts of Enquiry and two separate Inquests.Thirty five citizens are slain by a crazed gun man at Port Arthur in Tasmania and not a single inquest. Did the media complain, no they did not. The question I suggest has to be asked, why did they not even comment that an Inquest was lacking? Or for that matter where was the legal profession?

During the "Pilots Dispute" of 1989 is was alleged by the CEO of Ansett, Sir Peter Abeles, that the Pilots were guilty of malpractice in relation to their Superannuation Funds. Interesting since the funds were totally uider the control, of Ansett management. Did the media question this statement-no they did not.
I am sure there are plently of other examples.
Madang185
Private
Private
 
Posts: 72
Victoria

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by Stix » 26 Oct 2019, 10:42 am

I think the publics right to know is governed by a few different factors...the most influential obviously being law makers & law upholders...( i mean law enforcers...)

But we are also our own worst enemy here...

The fact we thrive on & have an insatiable appetite for sensationist bullsh1t, along with the fact we forfeit the right to see beyond the all too often obvious, one-eyed bias of the given story, has a great influence over what we get...think along the lines of "supply & demand"...
Meaning there are plenty of media outlets & reporters happy to be rewarded for feeding us more stupid rubbish if thats what we want to pay for...
Last edited by Stix on 26 Oct 2019, 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...
Stix
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3675
South Australia

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by Sergeant Hartman » 26 Oct 2019, 1:15 pm

I think it's a good idea... yes the media will choose the items they think interest most people. But i dino if you have noticed but inner the guise of terrorism a lot of invasive laws have been passed... including no protection in the law of whistleblowers... so the chances are that many things we should know... will not be reported anymore.

Most of what you complaining was 20+ years ago mate... probably be different now
Sergeant Hartman
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1722
Victoria

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by Oldbloke » 26 Oct 2019, 8:53 pm

The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by bigrich » 27 Oct 2019, 5:35 am

i think it's hipocritic of the media , when the media picks and chooses the peices of info it publishes . they often don't tell the WHOLE unbiased story. they often tell their version of it . the gaurdian newspaper , clemintine ford , "the project" are all examples of biased media , who don't seem to respect our "right to know" the WHOLE STORY ! but on the other hand , we don't want the type of information control that the government is advorcating either .we're edging closer to a big brother society every year one point the add campaign makes is foreign ownership and sales of land/businesses (china ) , which is worrying .
User avatar
bigrich
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 4483
Queensland

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by Member-Deleted » 27 Oct 2019, 8:57 am

Years ago the media were in bed with governments helping win elections and such but now they can be a thorn in the governments side at times as time and ideas change
the only thing I worry about the government giving the media a touch up is what will the people loose in the process other than that the media made its bed now they have to sleep in it just remember all the stories with no true endings and the false stories against gun users then the media reports after Port Arthur sided with government
Last edited by Member-Deleted on 27 Oct 2019, 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Member-Deleted
 

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by Madang185 » 27 Oct 2019, 8:58 am

Bigrich has got it right we have the right to know the whole story. The writer is well aware of the situation having lived for 6 years in a country with a controlled media.The word missing from the journalists is RESPONSIBILITY.

As another example do you know just how many firearm license holders there are within Australia? Have you ever seen such a figure mentioned in the media?
If the media knows I suggest they will not publish the figures because it proves that we, the licensed firearm owners are not the problem.
Madang185
Private
Private
 
Posts: 72
Victoria

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by bigrich » 27 Oct 2019, 9:34 am

Madang185 wrote:Bigrich has got it right we have the right to know the whole story. The writer is well aware of the situation having lived for 6 years in a country with a controlled media.The word missing from the journalists is RESPONSIBILITY.

As another example do you know just how many firearm license holders there are within Australia? Have you ever seen such a figure mentioned in the media?
If the media knows I suggest they will not publish the figures because it proves that we, the licensed firearm owners are not the problem.


Yes, accountability and responsibility are missing from the media. A post on this forum mentions a speech waleed ally from the project made at a university or something, about how there was no such accountability for the media. If the OP of that reads this can you refresh our memories please :thumbsup:
User avatar
bigrich
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 4483
Queensland

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by TassieTiger » 27 Oct 2019, 12:28 pm

Anyone would think we live in a free and democratic country...no, we live in a regulated country where govt’s requirements will trump any perception of “rights” if deemed necessary...make no mistake, this extends to govt employees and their “opinions”...

A few years ago, I had a classical case where child support “stole” my tax refund with zero notice / advice to myself - to place the my child support situation into credit. I was not behind on Csa and never had been. I obviously raised several complaints with appropriate departments - ironically, the tax refund was earmarked for a kids holiday - they cared not and the holiday was cancelled.
The money was refunded NINE MONTHS later...with a letter stating system errors had caused the issue. This was bulls**t...their new policy states in fine print, they are allowed to do this at the discretion of the commissioner....
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by Harrynsw » 27 Oct 2019, 1:10 pm

Madang185 wrote:The current campaign by the collective media within Australia is in need of comment. It is suggested that the public's right to know is really the public's right to know what the media want us to know, nothing more and nothing less.

A couple of example will suffice.

A boiler on an Australian Navy ship exploded at sea, there were two deaths. Following there were two Courts of Enquiry and two separate Inquests.Thirty five citizens are slain by a crazed gun man at Port Arthur in Tasmania and not a single inquest. Did the media complain, no they did not. The question I suggest has to be asked, why did they not even comment that an Inquest was lacking? Or for that matter where was the legal profession?

During the "Pilots Dispute" of 1989 is was alleged by the CEO of Ansett, Sir Peter Abeles, that the Pilots were guilty of malpractice in relation to their Superannuation Funds. Interesting since the funds were totally uider the control, of Ansett management. Did the media question this statement-no they did not.
I am sure there are plently of other examples.
Attachments
Screenshot_20191027-140903_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20191027-140903_Chrome.jpg (58.31 KiB) Viewed 3432 times
Harrynsw
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 440
New South Wales

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by Clem » 27 Oct 2019, 3:53 pm

It's ironic then that the for years the media have remained eerily quiet on the whole Julian Assange issue....

Image

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:
User avatar
Clem
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 35
New South Wales

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by mikejay » 27 Oct 2019, 4:21 pm

Ziad wrote:I think it's a good idea... yes the media will choose the items they think interest most people. But i dino if you have noticed but inner the guise of terrorism a lot of invasive laws have been passed... including no protection in the law of whistleblowers... so the chances are that many things we should know... will not be reported anymore.

Most of what you complaining was 20+ years ago mate... probably be different now


Protecting whistlebowers from what though? Protection from being prosecuted if they've broken criminal law? No, no one should get that. If they've broken civil law... I guess it would depend and be treated on a case by case basis, but again no, no blanket protection is warranted or justifiable.
mikejay
Private
Private
 
Posts: 79
New South Wales

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by flutch » 27 Oct 2019, 5:25 pm

well as far as port arthur goes the bulls**t excuse that its all locked up tight for the sake of the grieving families is utter bulls**t, not detracting from the loss anyone may have experienced there but something not long after in 1999 was far more sinister and far worse in regards to casualties and there was no such lockdown on the information at hand. the police in tasmania and the federal police did their utmost after port arthur to secure and hide under "confidentiality" many interviews, manuscripts, recordings, and witness testimonies all of which never saw a court room or an inquest. no matter how you stretch it that just absolutely throws up red flags and screams of corruption. the excuse that its too painful or shocking is bs, we have had plenty more heinous events before and after it that received none of the shrouding and collusion as the events immediately after port arthur.
Guns:
Rossi S/S 410
Lanber U/O 12 gauge
Adler B220PG 12 gauge
Ruger 22lr
Remington 270 win
Howa 223
Weatherby 300 Winmag

Bows:
G5 Quest Drive
G5 Prime Defy
flutch
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 447
Western Australia

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by TassieTiger » 27 Oct 2019, 8:07 pm

mikejay wrote:
Ziad wrote:I think it's a good idea... yes the media will choose the items they think interest most people. But i dino if you have noticed but inner the guise of terrorism a lot of invasive laws have been passed... including no protection in the law of whistleblowers... so the chances are that many things we should know... will not be reported anymore.

Most of what you complaining was 20+ years ago mate... probably be different now


Protecting whistlebowers from what though? Protection from being prosecuted if they've broken criminal law? No, no one should get that. If they've broken civil law... I guess it would depend and be treated on a case by case basis, but again no, no blanket protection is warranted or justifiable.


Example? Ed Snowden was a whistleblower but had to break the law to let everyone know wtf was going on - when you work for the govt you legally cannot speak out about the govt - it’s generally in your NDA or PD or internal policy.
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by trekin » 28 Oct 2019, 3:17 am

bigrich wrote:
Madang185 wrote:Bigrich has got it right we have the right to know the whole story. The writer is well aware of the situation having lived for 6 years in a country with a controlled media.The word missing from the journalists is RESPONSIBILITY.

As another example do you know just how many firearm license holders there are within Australia? Have you ever seen such a figure mentioned in the media?
If the media knows I suggest they will not publish the figures because it proves that we, the licensed firearm owners are not the problem.


Yes, accountability and responsibility are missing from the media. A post on this forum mentions a speech waleed ally from the project made at a university or something, about how there was no such accountability for the media. If the OP of that reads this can you refresh our memories please :thumbsup:

" “Although we think of ourselves as professionals, journalism isn’t really a profession in the traditional sense. It’s not like medicine or the law. We have an ethical code of sorts, but we’re not bound to it by some solemn oath. There are no induction ceremonies in which people wear ridiculous gowns or hats. There’s no official body that can strike us off the roll for malpractice. And no one is suggesting there should be.

“The truth is that in traditional terms, we’re a trade. We’re pretty much self-regulated. If we stuff up, we publish a notice or an apology, maybe pay a fine if it’s serious, and we move on. We lose our jobs not because we lose our licence to practice but because our jobs either disappear or our reputations are damaged enough to mean our market value has crashed. If we’re unethical but valuable, there’s nothing to stop us, really.” "
Waleed Aly, the Andrew Olle Media Lecture, October 14, 2016 .
https://mumbrella.com.au/waleed-alys-an ... ure-402201
Image Rifle stock and pistol grip reproduction.
"legally obligated to be a victim in this country"
I earned every grey hair I have.
User avatar
trekin
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 803
Queensland

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by bigrich » 28 Oct 2019, 8:26 am

Thanks for posting that trekin, that’s the statement from waleed I was thinking of . It’s probably the most truthful, genuine thing I’ve heard him ever say
User avatar
bigrich
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 4483
Queensland

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by Bill » 28 Oct 2019, 8:40 am

If you think the current Debt binging Govt should continue spending like a crack whore and covering up shady deals for mates then yes let's stay silent....

Of course we have right to know, transparency is the foundation of democracy, this isn't Russia
When a guy is digging his own grave, you don’t fight him for the shovel.

Success leaves clues, Fools follow failure !

20 Hornet, 218 Bee, 222 Rem, 256 WM, 6mm ARC, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5x55 Scan, 270 Win, 357 Mag, 358 Win, 9.3x62, 500 A Square
User avatar
Bill
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1253
New South Wales

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by mikejay » 28 Oct 2019, 10:01 am

TassieTiger wrote:
mikejay wrote:
Ziad wrote:I think it's a good idea... yes the media will choose the items they think interest most people. But i dino if you have noticed but inner the guise of terrorism a lot of invasive laws have been passed... including no protection in the law of whistleblowers... so the chances are that many things we should know... will not be reported anymore.

Most of what you complaining was 20+ years ago mate... probably be different now


Protecting whistlebowers from what though? Protection from being prosecuted if they've broken criminal law? No, no one should get that. If they've broken civil law... I guess it would depend and be treated on a case by case basis, but again no, no blanket protection is warranted or justifiable.


Example? Ed Snowden was a whistleblower but had to break the law to let everyone know wtf was going on - when you work for the govt you legally cannot speak out about the govt - it’s generally in your NDA or PD or internal policy.


As a government employee you are not banned from from speaking out about the government in the slightest, what you can't do it steal and then distribute government documents, you can't discuss specific topics covered by your employment contract using details and or names, you can however talk about and criticize your work and or the government in general as much as you like.

If what you're saying is even partially true, pollies would all be locked up come election time as they bitch about each other and the opposing parties.

Snowden isn't on the run because he spoke out, he's on the run for, receiving stolen property, redistributing/publishing the proceeds of theft, publishing details and names of event covered by national security.
mikejay
Private
Private
 
Posts: 79
New South Wales

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by TassieTiger » 28 Oct 2019, 5:01 pm

mikejay wrote:
TassieTiger wrote:
mikejay wrote:
Ziad wrote:I think it's a good idea... yes the media will choose the items they think interest most people. But i dino if you have noticed but inner the guise of terrorism a lot of invasive laws have been passed... including no protection in the law of whistleblowers... so the chances are that many things we should know... will not be reported anymore.

Most of what you complaining was 20+ years ago mate... probably be different now


Protecting whistlebowers from what though? Protection from being prosecuted if they've broken criminal law? No, no one should get that. If they've broken civil law... I guess it would depend and be treated on a case by case basis, but again no, no blanket protection is warranted or justifiable.


Example? Ed Snowden was a whistleblower but had to break the law to let everyone know wtf was going on - when you work for the govt you legally cannot speak out about the govt - it’s generally in your NDA or PD or internal policy.


As a government employee you are not banned from from speaking out about the government in the slightest, what you can't do it steal and then distribute government documents, you can't discuss specific topics covered by your employment contract using details and or names, you can however talk about and criticize your work and or the government in general as much as you like.

If what you're saying is even partially true, pollies would all be locked up come election time as they bitch about each other and the opposing parties.

Snowden isn't on the run because he spoke out, he's on the run for, receiving stolen property, redistributing/publishing the proceeds of theft, publishing details and names of event covered by national security.


Ed Snowden will be tried as a traitor not a thief - his latest podcast confirmed this.

Put a couple of negative blurbs up on Facebook about your govt department, where you work and see how you go....

I work in govt and am across numerous govt contracts, HR, EBA’s, comms, etc - if you talk down to your position, then you can be removed - for a number of reasons.
Eg In my PD - it says that I must uphold the business name st all times and every contractor inauguration / appointment/ nominate similar wordings across a vast no of departments.

And Since when did any rules / laws / other apply to pollies.
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by Member-Deleted » 28 Oct 2019, 6:12 pm

+1 Bill
Member-Deleted
 

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by Sergeant Hartman » 28 Oct 2019, 9:42 pm

Mike i don't agree with your last paragraph.

Showdown is on the run because he stole the info from the computer systems of dod/etc. Info that he had clearance for.

The tricky part is, it was a decision made by him as the content of what he copied (in a usb disc) he thought was something his government was going wrong..... aka spying on the government's of allied countries. And releasing this info he thought was the greater good of America and it's allies.

So the question is while illegal was the decision morally right... and if not then are all whistleblowers wrong.... what about Watergate, what about human atrocities. Or if you apply your logic...eg a person X working in north Korean government who tells us that they killed 10,000 people is wrong as he did an illegal thing.
Sergeant Hartman
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1722
Victoria

Re: The Publics Right to know

Post by TassieTiger » 28 Oct 2019, 9:54 pm

I listened to Snowden on Rogans podcast and it’s a bloody interesting conundrum.
As I understood his position - working for the govt at that level, he was advised : told, the govt doesn’t break the law because, the courts could never fully understand the requirements of national security...by the fact of secrecy.
So, when Snowden saw that nsa etc were spying on the public, clearly breaking the law and constitution (at least in his eyes) - he was in a huge conundrum because - as it had been explained to him time and time again , the govt doesn’t break the (the govt is the law - at least in this case), so what was he to do?...in his own words he waited years for someone else to come forward because he didn’t know how/what/where to do...
Thing is - Snowden might have opened this information thing up to the masses, but you can bet your bottom $ - things have gotten much much tighter in those “higher levels” to the point that we’re never likely to know what really goes on...
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania


Back to top
 
Return to Firearms related media and politics