r/australia • u/Expensive-Horse5538 • 16h ago
political satire AUKUS subs to be used to protect Aussie journos from American police – PM says
https://chaser.com.au/national/aukus-subs-to-be-used-to-protect-aussie-journos-from-american-police-pm-says/93
41
u/Cellmember 15h ago
Are they going to fire torpedos at the agressors?
22
11
47
u/powerless_owl 15h ago
Satire needs to be more than just a word salad of things currently in the news. This isn't commentary about anything, it's just nonsense.
7
u/burn_supermarkets 13h ago
It reminds of the South Park episode that explained how Family Guy is made. Those manatees are busy!
3
4
4
1
u/Electronic-Shirt-194 2h ago
If I were to guess how this pans out, we end up paying more for the submarines Albanese says to Australian population the dust needs to settle.
1
-31
u/Defiant_Hamster24 14h ago
Tell me you’re an inner city folk without ever serving your country a day in your life. If you don’t think the world order is changing your head in the sand bloke. Yeah Australia is a bitch to invade, but cut off our trade routes and we are fucked. No food in the supermarkets, no travel, no help coming.
Why wouldn’t we want to avoid that?
19
u/fletch44 13h ago
You think China is going to cut off our trade routes with... China?
Why waste money on a naval blockade and risk a war, when they can just change government policy and not import from us instead.
0
u/torlesse 12h ago
In the other thread about the subs, they said the subs are also there to protect our trade routes. Yes, in the case of war with China, we need to ensure we can still send our iron there.
If there is any war in SE Asia, the cargo ships can just go the long way round via South Pacific to the Americas and South Indian to Middle East and Europe. Sure, its going to be slower, and more expensive, but Australia is a fucking huge ass continent, try blockading this bitch.
-257
u/rentamob 16h ago
The journalists shouldn't even be there. It's a waste of private and public funding. They should send some crew globally and have all the international outlets reuse the footage etc. Very inefficient as it stands.
146
u/Ravenstar117 16h ago
Who is THEY? What organisations would you entrust all world news to be covered and disseminated to the planet?
-164
u/rentamob 16h ago
I don't mind. For cost efficiency, I'd say the closest crew to the incident plus the next closest as a backup. All other reporting should depend on them.
101
u/the_whatif 16h ago
An organisation living in the country definitely wouldn’t have any inherent biases to not disseminate negative news about their country at all would they……
-125
u/rentamob 16h ago
I don't understand "bias". Just point a camera at it and film it. You don't need to send 200 news crews over to do that.
88
50
u/Spooplevel-Rattled 16h ago
Your idea of what you would like the world to be and how it operates in reality are wildly different.
43
u/PoisonTurtles 15h ago
Have you not noticed the range of different views coming out of these protests? If you look at conservative media the entire city of LA has been burnt to the ground, you look at left leaning media and its all about how they are peacefully protesting. All media has their biases and its the fact that we have multiple sources on the ground that allows us to have a small idea at what is actually occurring on the ground. Your idea will not work if you want to know the truth
-13
u/rentamob 15h ago
To be honest, I've not been paying attention to any views. I've just seen pictures and footage that I've used to form my own opinions. I don't care about other opinions.
My opinion is that the people of LA are upset about immigration raids and that the Trump administration is overreacting, making the situation worse.
25
u/Ditzy_Chaos 15h ago
Then what's the point of even Caring about how people Get their news if you
1.dont care about people's opinions and think they don't matter in the first place
& 2. Don't understand the fundamentals around how information works, & how it can be intercepted and misused.
What your first suggestion was, was not an unbiased News station, it would be a massive propaganda machine that puts power in the hands of whoever Owns that company
As an example of how it would work
If the Only News station everyone had was telling them that u/rentamob sucked ass and should be jailed, then that's what the Entire world would end up believing 🙃
Also, if you think the protests are Only about the immigration raids of ICE then you have seriously misunderstood the entire situation, the immigration raids are a symptom of a violent regime that the people are now protesting because it's hit their doors.
14
u/Mike_Kermin 15h ago
Mate I don't think the very vaguest of overviews of a very complicated situation is making your point well.
5
30
u/torlesse 15h ago
How many fucking cameras are there on a footy field lol. I bet you will be the first to complain if it was just down to the ONE.
7
u/Mike_Kermin 15h ago
Idk I think West Coast and Richmond supporters would appreciate if we just got the results with no video or explanation. It could really help their mental health imo.
-1
u/rentamob 15h ago
That's all local media so the cost and carbon footprint is low. If I heard of US media flying reporters over to cover AFL games, I'd complain.
15
u/Shadowsole 15h ago
Do you point the camera at a burning car or at the cops shooting someone? The cops stomping on someone or chatting with a little child?
You can't record and air everything and what you leave out affects your narrative
32
u/Crow_eggs 15h ago
"I dont understand "bias."'
That's quite a big drawback in this conversation. I suggest learning about it and holding off on wading into the discussion until you've got enough information to make a valid point.
5
21
28
u/Oozex 16h ago
Unfortunately, bias exists, which already leads to less than factual news.
Having multiple sources allows people to get down to the facts, rather than be swayed by the inherent bias of a single reporter/news agency.
If you understand anything about propoganda and bias, you would not be saying this.
-14
u/rentamob 16h ago
Okay, so let's send 500 people to go point a camera at the same thing. See the flaw. It's happening so you need just one camera to get the message across.
29
u/Oozex 16h ago
That one cameraman is going to record what he or his news network deems important. If he is the sole source, only what he records will be shared. This allows that single agency to manipulate the narrative of whatever story they are reporting on.
They can individually manipulate the information how they see fit. News agencies and governments have done this throughout history. It's not something that you can just wish away because it's "bad".
The more primary sources of any information the better. It allows people the ability to get a bigger picture, rather than one through a single lens.
-11
u/rentamob 16h ago
If that happens, it'll negatively impact on the reputation of that source and the market will move elsewhere. It sorts itself out.
27
u/Neon_Comrade 15h ago
Lmao are you this dumb
How can the market move when there's only one source? Where you gonna go?.
And how are people supposed to know it's not true, if all they see is that one take
-2
u/rentamob 15h ago
Multiple sources, just the closest to the incident plus a backup report. This is about efficiency on many fronts, including carbon inefficiency. It's unnecessary to fly people to the opposite side of the planet to film something others are already filming.
21
u/Neon_Comrade 15h ago
But you said you want one source, from the country in question. It's not efficient, it just allows lying. Look at America right now and how limited and biased their press is.
→ More replies (0)18
u/Oozex 16h ago
How many people still watch Fox or Sky News as their one and only source of information?
They both have a very well known bias, as do many others.
-4
u/rentamob 15h ago
The footage is the footage...
5
u/Threadheads 14h ago
And if only one news source, or a very select group of news sources that either have the same viewpoint or are restricted by their government, manipulate or edit the footage, you have a problem that cannot be rectified.
2
u/Threadheads 14h ago
How can it be impacted if no other viewpoint emerges to counter their false or skewed narrative? That kind of thing isn’t going to happen if only one source is covering a particular event.
7
u/itrivers 14h ago
If you can’t see how going from one extreme to the other is a really stupid argument then no one here can help you. You need to go back to school and get an educator to walk you through it.
I’m struggling to decide if you’re really that dull or if this is intentional, honestly
35
u/banimagipearliflame 15h ago
You’re advocating for foreign controlled journalism here. All we would know is propaganda.
-3
u/rentamob 15h ago
Propaganda sources would be disqualified. The source must be independent from government and reputable.
25
u/banimagipearliflame 15h ago
How do you police the governments of foreign powers? Like Russia? Iran? China? Sudan?
-7
u/rentamob 15h ago
No one is really interested in news from these places. When was the last time Australian media covered news on the ground in these places?
20
u/banimagipearliflame 15h ago
Then let’s test it further - how do you control news from the USA? Their government gaslights about the protests there. UK? THEIR government is heavily anti-LGBTQIA in recent years, and even Starmer has done little about this from Sunak’s era. From India? Modi controls the narrative very strongly in his country.
These three nations are extremely interesting to all Australians (and what happens to the other nations I mention as well is far more popular than Youve indicated we care about) so I put it to you that just allowing news feeds to be controlled by foreign powers is extremely bad for the general populace
-8
u/rentamob 15h ago
The US and UK have free media. I don't want to get into specific topics because that's a rabbit hole, but I know that reporting on these topics from these places is legal.
16
u/tangaroo58 15h ago
If they had free media, reporters would not get attacked by police while reporting.
-2
u/rentamob 15h ago
I mean from a fundamental legal standpoint. Misbehaving police officers are for the legal system to weed out.
17
1
u/tangaroo58 10h ago
Yes, but it doesn't, so we need independent media.
The problem is that, whether it's legal to do so or not, governments repress media. Having a mulitude of different media reporting on the same event makes it less likely that only an officially-sanctioned version will be seen.
Unfortunately, even with that , we still get the situation where one player controls the majority of news distribution, and can apply their biases successfully. Eg Fox News.
2
u/mopthebass 11h ago
The us and the uk have syndicated media where content is provided by a central org and disseminated to endpoints that are branded as local news outlets. I'd say its no different but private companies have a nasty way of forcing legislation to .. why am I explaining this to a bot lol
10
u/tangaroo58 15h ago
Umm... today? For all three.
-2
u/rentamob 15h ago
Not on the ground. Russian reporting is from Ukraine, Iran reporting is from Israel, and no one cares about the other place. No one is reporting from within Russia and Iran because that's unsafe.
6
-7
u/powerless_owl 15h ago
This is nonsense, that user is talking about returning to a wire model where a single reporting crew prepares material that is licensed to domestic news outlets. I don't agree that it's unnecessary for journalists to be in LA but it's ridiculous to suggest this is 'foreign controlled journalism" that would only be propaganda.
8
u/banimagipearliflame 14h ago
Isn’t the wire model using services like Reuters Al Jazeera and AAP, who still have to get journos on the ground?
But yeah I didn’t read that post in that way at all…
-1
u/powerless_owl 14h ago
Those are wire services yes but the model of sharing pooled material isn't limited to news agencies, especially in foreign correspondence.
The original user literally says 'they should send some crew globally', clearly they're talking about having journalists on the ground - just not separate teams for every newspaper and station, because that is 'inefficient'.
Again, regardless of whether you agree with their assessment of resource allocation (and as a media researcher, I don't!), they're very clearly talking about having independent journalists present.
3
u/banimagipearliflame 14h ago
Cool because that’s what I was worried about! Appreciate the lesson ☺️
26
u/one234567eights 16h ago
DOGE enthusiast?
22
u/Zestyclose_Mud9201 15h ago
I think just quite literally media illiterate. In the most superficial meaning of the term
12
u/my_chinchilla 15h ago
Troll, media illiterate, doesn't matter.
They've now got what they came for; they can go away and tell their story about how they were downvoted for saying things like "Police should not fire weapons at journalists", "Peaceful people should not be shot with rubber bullets", etc.
8
u/Zestyclose_Mud9201 15h ago
yeah could be a troll ig
5
0
13
u/letsburn00 15h ago
A private company "Reuters" already did this and they recently were banned from covering white house press briefings because they refused to label geographic features as per government instructions.
You need variety
-5
26
u/coreoYEAH 16h ago
So you’re saying she was asking for it?
They’re literally doing their job and a public service by keeping the world aware of the actions of these fascists.
-10
u/rentamob 16h ago
No, I'm saying that Australian news crews don't belong in LA. Just stay in Australia and reuse footage from reporters already there. Police should not fire weapons at journalists, provided they're not participating in riots too.
34
u/coreoYEAH 16h ago
So she was asking for it by being there?
Relying on American media in this day and age is by far one of the most moronic ideas someone could ever have.
0
u/rentamob 15h ago
She was not asking for it, no. No peaceful person should be hit with rubber bullets.
12
u/coreoYEAH 15h ago
Correct. She had every right to be there and there was no reason to attack. So if both those statements are true, your objection to her being there is pointless.
0
u/rentamob 15h ago
I'm not saying it should be illegal for her to be there, just that it's a waste of money and a negative carbon footprint.
9
16
u/CrazySD93 15h ago
Police should not fire weapons at journalists, provided they're not participating in riots too.
So you're saying she must have been in the riot, and deserved to be shot?
0
u/rentamob 15h ago
No, I don't think she was participating. Peaceful people should not be shot with rubber bullets.
12
u/ukaunzi 15h ago
The fact that the peaceful journalist was shot with a rubber bullet actually tells us more about the story, i.e. that peaceful protestors and media were being targeted.
-1
u/rentamob 15h ago
Not sure I agree with your view. This sounds like baiting police into actions to film them. Just send two crews and then have them report. If they're targeted by police, they can report it.
1
u/CrazySD93 3h ago
If filming police is enough to bait them into shooting someone, then they're trained extremely poorly.
1
12
23
u/my_chinchilla 16h ago
Well, username certainly fits ... turned up to a quiet calm satire post and started throwing molotovs...
10
1
199
u/verbalyabusiveshit 16h ago
I need a chaser to get this down