Pixelated Semantics

The freedom to be informed we don't want freedom

News Ltd is using the outcome of a survey ('completed by 3890 people and compiled by research agency CoreData'), to report that 'a majority of respondents trusted the Government's plans (for draconian 'anti-terror' laws) and only 39 per cent believed the Government was going too far.' However, the item then admits in the next paragraph that '...the sample was not reflective of the total Australian population - a majority of respondents were male and 67 per cent earned more than $50,000 a year'. They are using admitedly biased 'research' to claim 'free speech restrictions have received overwhelming support' and that 'a majority agreed that average people would have to surrender rights and freedoms to prevent terror attacks' - blatantly misrepresenting popular opinion while at the same time running a campaign that features strong editorial argument for the need for free speech and protection of journalists.

There's a similar regard for ethics in the column by Louise Evans in the print edition of The Australian on 29 November, page 11 titled 'There are times we're forced to do whatever it takes' - which argues in favour of accepting corruption in business and politics, that 'doing whatever it takes' to achieve a result is 'understandable'. Like using poll results exclusively drawn from high-income males to represent a majority opinion, perhaps?

Item posted by AutoEditor at 11:22 am ::