This weeks Quantum has some great clips…and some good news amidst the chaos…
<iframe title=”Quantum 118 – Sudan; Nigeria; Trump in Church; Maureen; Hillsong; Transgender; Abortion; The Progressive Gang; Guns; and the Beautiful Name” height=”122″ width=”100%” style=”border: none;” scrolling=”no” data-name=”pb-iframe-player” src=”https://www.podbean.com/media/player/5p9ui-f0d0e6?from=pb6admin&download=1&version=1&auto=0&share=1&download=1&rtl=0&fonts=Helvetica&skin=1&pfauth=&btn-skin=107″></iframe>
1) Sudan
2) Nigeria –
3) Trump in Church –
4) Covid –
C S Lewis, Maureen from Barnsley and the dangers of the Covid 19 Response
5) Covid and Worship – Brian Houston – https://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-brian-houston-urges-churches-to-unite-against-covid-orders.html?uid=38b40306c7
Jenny Lindsay – https://spectator.us/hounding-scottish-poet-jenny-lindsay-trans-activists/
Abortion –
8) The Progressive Gang –
9) Guns – Should a Christian hunt?
Catch up on Quantum here – Quantum 117 – Babylon Bee; Covid; the Boss; Transhomomisogny; Pope and Chalke; China; Dreams; Euthanasia; Decapitation; Pam Ayers; Mary Whitehouse; California; Life; Eric Bibb
Support here – https://patron.podbean.com/theweeflea
There are no living NT prophets so we should not listen to predictive suggestions from such people. Read the Word of God and follow it.
Churchgoing in Wales :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqPF4sgBEk
Jonathan Sumption – Old Etonian dissident : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0
The introduction , excellent as it is , is wrong in one fact. The Scottish Law Lord , James Reid , was raised to Sumption’s level without any intervening judicial experience . Reid also wrote Malaysia’s Independence Constitution.
With regard to the pathetic Transgender group , a better understanding of Homosexuality may enlighten .
http://hercolano2.blogspot.com/2017/05/revilo-p-oliver-on-homosexuality.html
In a famous Faulty Towers episode , Basil , shouted re homosexuality , ” Greeks , well they invented it”.
However the Greeks never actually legalised Homosexuality.
I am apalled that you would post a video of Gary Glitter.
And if you don’t know why you should be ashamed of yourself.
YOu clearly did not listen to the podcast….its the same as posting a video of Hitler – it does not mean I am a Nazi…or a video of Auschwitz – or Epstein – or any others. Maybe you should listen to things before you comment on them?
Yeah, quite an interesting listen.
I found it quite interesting towards the end though that you brought up how the youth are being indoctrinated into ‘woke, middle-class progressivism’ via social pressures in university and how they are not being taught ‘how to think’ but rather ‘what to think’ and how these people become or go on to become the representatives and leaders of the corporations and authorities, particularly in the case of media journalists – the people we trust to inform us.
Whilst I can’t deny that there is some truth to this statement in that the ability for individual, free thought and expression are being suppressed by ‘woke culture’ and people will inexplicably be drawn to these ideological gangs or thinktanks, I think perhaps the irony is that (as I see it) more youth are (forcibly) being drawn into ‘right-wing/alt-right/conservatism’ rather than the ‘woke brigade’ in Western educational institutions.
For example, when talking to media/journalism students or just taking a deeper look at the university curriculums for these courses, the students are being primed for jobs at Murdoch’s Newscorp (a distinguishably right-wing conservative and corporately biased media platform – highly pro-Liberal/anti-Labor & independent political party or ideology, pro-mining and big business bordering onto climate denialism, pro-Republican, etc.), which owns about 70% of the Australian media landscape.
It also doesn’t help that it’s ‘rival’ Nine/Fairfax also shares a similar, pro-Liberal Party and corporate bias, as well as the accused left-leaning and/or ‘fair + balanced’ ABC being a government-funded channel – would it not be preposterous if ABC News were to damningly incriminate and expose the Liberal Party, their primary source of income?
We are seeing students essentially conform to a conservative/right-leaning morality or (political) perspective (a critique you have also applied to ‘woke culture’ as well) in pursuit of a secure job – students are sacrificing their right to discourse and free thought in order to become cogs (consciously or unconsciously) in the western propaganda model (see Chomsky’s ‘Manufacturing Consent’) by acquiring jobs at Newscorp and other mainstream, non-independent media outlets which guarantee comfy salaries + perks + networking as well as nurturing ‘fame’ and reputation within the media landscape. Such news outlets push forward the same narrative (pro-corporate and business interests) but with everso slight and arbitrary, ‘culture-wars’-based differences that make us, the audience, perceive that the news landscape is important, relevant and open to discuss or align with anything and everything, yet this is rather troublingly not the case.
James Murdoch has recently resigned from NewsCorp and stated that his father’s media empire spanning across the US, UK and Australia has willingly disguised facts and endorsed misinformation/smear campaigns for malicious, counter-democratic and/or ideological reasons, as well as exploiting their large amounts of money to essentially ‘game’ the system and donate to/front for political parties and thinktanks.
I guess really this whole ‘ranting’ if you like is particularly relevant due to Kevin Rudd’s record-breaking petition, which seeks a Royal Commission into the Australian media landscape, which obviously has a particular sway on people’s views towards various social, moral, cultural and political issues.
I would find it to be anti-democracy and freedom if we have a media landscape that isn’t politically neutral/centred and fails to give the right for all viewpoints or articles to be disseminated and discussed/critiqued, irrespective of how ideologically ‘left’ or ‘right’ they may be. I mean think about it, we hear about figures such as Pauline Hanson or Young Liberal members say that they ‘speak against the mainstream media/grain/establishment’ yet with the Australian media landscape and Overton window being perceivably skewed to the right, the irony is that they very much speak in sympathy with the establishment they claim to go against.
Just my three cents,
God bless you David for your service and for Quantum,
Brock Holliman
Brock – The media studies departments at mainstream Western Universities are the woke of the woke. You seem to have bought into Kevin Rudd’s agenda to ban Newscorp and any media organisation which does not follow his agenda. Freedom of the press is vital. Woke journalists predominate in the BBC, ABC and others – and there are plenty ‘progressive’ newspapers. When did the ABC or the SMH actually allow alternative viewpoints on issues such as transgender. I was told by a journalist at ABC that if I ever went into media there was no chance of me ever getting a job with them because I did not share their social progressive views!
Ok, thank you for your response.
So this is quite a direct response and is the case there is quite a bit to unpack here but here I go:
‘The media studies departments at mainstream Western Universities are the woke of the woke.’
Ok, we’ll have to agree to disagree here. Obviously, our subjective experiences of this topic contradict and we probably could not agreeably place one as more valid than the other. I see you’re asserting that all universities are woke whereas I was asserting that a large quantity of them possess ‘right-leaning’ media departments. I guess the common ground here would be that virtually all media departments within educational institutions are instructing students to perceive and construct ‘news’ or ‘propaganda’ (in it’s most basic, non-politicized form) that propagates a left or right-leaning narrative.
‘You seem to have bought into Kevin Rudd’s agenda to ban Newscorp and any media organisation which does not follow his agenda.’
I guess if I were to retort, I could say that you’ve bought into Newscorp’s agenda that Rudd has ulterior motives and that his pursuit of a Royal Commission equates to the outright banning of Sky News and any other right-leaning media platform. If you read the conditions and briefing of the petition at face value (i.e. innocent until proven guilty), it doesn’t advocate for any form of radical criminalization or banning of NewsCorp and it’s influence on the media sphere – the petition wants to regulate and ensure balance within the media landscape, where people have equal access to a broad array of media to consume and that there is no unfairly dominant news source (eg. media that is dominant not in terms of viewership but in terms of monopolism, access to press releases/ exclusive scoops and sweeping outreach)
Yes, I would acknowledge that given Rudd’s context and relationship with the Murdoch press, the petition obviously addresses regulative action against the Murdoch empire but a Royal Commission (if it were to happen) would not have any degree of vendetta or dream to eliminate it (unless of course, there was something so universally incriminating about NewsCorp that would make it deserving of deplatforming).
‘Woke journalists predominate in the BBC, ABC and others – and there are plenty ‘progressive’ newspapers.’
I can’t really comment on BBC media bias having consumed very little of the platform as an Aussie, but publicly/govt funded outlets such as the ABC and SBS wouldn’t exist in the current climate if they had truly ‘woke’ journalists predominating – yes the ABC and SBS/SBS VICELAND (fun fact: Murdoch has got stakes in Vice Media) give airtime to ‘progressive’ journalists, commenters and guest-writers, but it’s an important distinction to note that because an outlet has progressive journalists or distributes progressive ideologies or articles every so often (generally in the form of opinion pieces by guest-writers or public figures off ABC payroll), that does not mean that the entire outlet will have a progressive agenda (more on this later…)
Call it whataboutism if you wish, but there are more options than just these three or so deemed ‘woke’ media platforms that you have the right to consume if they don’t embolden or corroborate your own Christian viewpoint or just aren’t your cup of tea – as part of the vital freedom of press, us as consumers have the right to consume whatever media narrative(s), ideologies, outlets, articles or commentators we want (irrespective of whether or not they are good or bad in terms of multiple self-created criteria).
‘When did the ABC or the SMH actually allow alternative viewpoints on issues such as transgender’
Short answer; media platforms such as SMH and ABC don’t generally allow alternative/left-rebutting perspectives – and there is a reason why other than the emboldening and development of woke culture (usually for the worse by intention)
This may sound like some nutty, conspiracy-theory laden talk, but these progressive takes and opinions as part of the ‘culture-wars’ you witness are made to discredit any form of leftism and embolden/grow the establishment right.
Let me explain:
The government funded ABC knowingly publish articles giving light to claims or opinions created by the far left (and in some cases, the far right) that they know the majority/everyman will find outrageous. These articles are intentional blowback, where the content of the article is so preposterous that most who read it will inevitably shift towards a different, more right-leaning ideology – and due to it, may find themselves consuming more of or only right-leaning NewsCorp media narrative(s) as an alternative to the ‘pushy left’ ABC and SBS. Yet those who accept these left wing articles (ie. the ‘woke brigade’) will be inclined to share it by word of mouth, which further increases the potential outreach of people who choose to ridicule or deny such articles or claims and hence lean more into right-wing ideas and media. It also works to further instigate confusion and division within the political/ideological landscape.
To expand on a prior point, outlets such as ABC, SMH and SBS, despite producing articles that appeal or draw from ‘extreme’ viewpoints are at the end of the day enslaved to the political parties and/or associates that enable their existence – and of course the security and reputation of such outlets is dependent on their appeasing of power’s demands (remember: absolute power corrupts absolutely). We often talk about these outlets as being ‘fair and balanced’ – they’re not, but they sure as heck aren’t supporting the left in general as many want to criticise them for. They give off a guise of being ‘left’ only because when it comes to ‘culture-wars’ topics such as sexuality, abortion, representation, COVID, -isms, religion, film and TV among other topics only because they discuss these topics in an *air quotes* ‘somewhat’ more open and less authoritative manner than their contemporaries. Yet when was the last time you saw a journalist actually give a dedicated breakdown of what policies or amendments were passed during the day, let alone week? What are our politicians are doing with our taxpayer dollars? What points and arguments occurred in Parliament during Question Time?
You see, here’s the thing – in my eyes, the media willingly avoids keeping the government accountable for the benefit of both themselves as news outlets and the governing forces in power – and they’ve done this through exploiting the ‘culture-wars’ to distract us from what goes on in Parliament. They’ve capitalised upon culture wars to conceal their inability to report on governmental actions and policy because:
a) it generates revenue and outrage – which again, more often than not produces blowback as well as revenue that further emboldens the outlet and right-leaning individuals and groups
b) it never fails to get an audience/be relevant – it can be brought in and out of the press in a diversity of ways whenever relevant as a ‘smoke-screen’ for other governmental action, or just to give the audience a ‘quick fix of outrage’.
We often talk about the crackdown upon or persecution of Christianity and religion by various media sources, whether it be due to cancel culture, authoritative leftist narratives or the misrepresentation and/or smearing of Christian teachings, individuals and groups. But perhaps the most exploitative yet unspoken persecution of Christians that manifests in almost all mainstream media is the weaponisation of ‘culture wars’ issues. The media will at whim go into discussing topics such as abortion, LGBT, law and human freedoms, yet as Christians not only are our opinions diminished and underrepresented (which I hope a Royal Commission into media bias could take steps towards addressing), but of course these issues matter so much to us and are obviously extremely relevant and ‘hot-topic’ to us – and to see them being discussed flippantly from secular, dismissive viewpoints ad nauseum rather than from the Holy Spirit or Gospel is often so, so infuriating.
‘I was told by a journalist at ABC that if I ever went into media there was no chance of me ever getting a job with them because I did not share their social progressive views!’
Okay, well the ABC has utilised the contradicting illusions (at least in the last 5 years) of being progressive yet also fair and balanced when they are knowingly shilling and endorsing for a pro-Liberal (moderate right wing party) government. Let me ask this: if ABC was neutral and fair and balanced in its reporting, why wouldn’t every ‘left’ article have a companion ‘right’ rebuttal or vice versa – why doesn’t every ‘atheist’ article have a companion ‘Christian/person of faith’ article?
If ABC was ‘blatantly’ progressive, why is that their 2016 Election coverage was distinguishably less scrutinizing of the Liberal Party compared to the Labor Party, as well as saw its journalists regurgitating NewsCorp talking points and outrage regarding the Labor Party?
As for your own personal experience with the ABC, they didn’t deny your presence in the ABC media due to:
a) your ideas or expression not conforming to ‘socially progressive’ ideology
b) your views being deemed of no value to the media landscape
c) the potential that your ideas would see you, Christianity or the ABC be subject to controversy uproar or backlash
The reason why you couldn’t work for the ABC in my mind is a bit more malicious and authoritative than that.
It’s because whatever you may say is a threat to the aims and continued authority of the government (Liberal Party) and the IPA thinktank who fund (and seek to privatise) the ABC.
If you wrote or made a rebuttal or opinion piece critiquing culture-wars issues like transgenderism from a Christian perspective on the ABC, it wouldn’t be beneficial to the Liberal Party as it would work as a safety net or counter/diminish the aforementioned ‘blowback’ or criticisable ‘pro-leftist bias’ that far-left oriented articles and pieces from the ABC intentionally seek to nurture. In a similar vein, these offensively left-oriented articles ultimately work to degrade and harm political parties that occupy (or moreso, we are told by the media narrative to occupy) more left-leaning policies or spaces such as the Greens, KAP or Labor, often by prescribing hot topic buzzwords such as ‘socialism’, ‘tree-hugging’ and ‘anti-capitalism’ to these parties.
In the same way, parties that occupy closer to the far right such as One Nation and Palmer’s UAP are also intentionally given unfavourable coverage or associations (namely regarding topics such as corruption and racism/discrimination).
So all things considered, the ABC does portray all political parties or viewpoints in some capacity – but which party of the political spectrum is left relatively underscrutinized and undercritiqued, thus conditioning the audience and voting citizens to view them in the most favourable manner?
I’ll leave you on that note, I hope my comments don’t come off as condescending or offensive, I just find it quite upsetting that people, Christian or non-Christian, are being unconsciously divided and set against each other at the whim of morally and legally corrupt, earthly forces that seek to weaponise and eliminate any ideologies they deem unfit for their own aims.
Your comments don’t come off as condescending or offensive – just helpful and lengthy! In a brief reply .
1) I’m not talking about ‘subjective’ experience but objective reality. The last survey I saw suggested that 90% of teaching staff in media studies are ‘progressive’…Would you like to name the Universities with right leaning media departments?
2) I have read Kevin Rudd’s tweets and his purpose is clear – to nobble the Murdoch press.
3) “publicly/govt funded outlets such as the ABC and SBS wouldn’t exist in the current climate if they had truly ‘woke’ journalists predominating” Why do you think that is the case? Its not a logical point. Nor is it an evidenced one. THe last ABC journalist I spoke to said that they could not think of one of their colleagues who was not liberal progressive. You also contradict your own point when you say that the ABC do not allow alternative left-rebutting perspectives!
4) You confuse publicly funded groups like the ABC and private media (like Newscorp – which Rudd wants banned). Balance is or should be required in public funded bodies.
5) Your notion that the ABC is pro-Liberal party is one that I find somewhat puzzling. Not least because I watch it every day and have yet to find any Liberal bias or anti-Labor agenda….
Finally, you state:
“As for your own personal experience with the ABC, they didn’t deny your presence in the ABC media due to:
a) your ideas or expression not conforming to ‘socially progressive’ ideology
b) your views being deemed of no value to the media landscape
c) the potential that your ideas would see you, Christianity or the ABC be subject to controversy uproar or backlash”
Rather you say that it is because I would be questioning of the Liberal party. That is precisely the opposite of what I was told. Which was that, whilst my left leaning politics would be fine, my social conservatism would exclude me from the ABC for the reasons you mention!
To further challenge your astounding view that the ABC and SMH ‘portray all viewpoints’…Today I have been listening to ABC all day and have not heard one pro Trump commentator or perspective. It is taken as a given that he is evil and lying. As for the SMH – they make Pravda look like the height of balance! Extraordinary bias.
Since I can’t seem to reply within the thread, I’ll have to start a new thread to respond.
Upon re-reading my comments and your pointers regarding them, I most definitely have made some confusing or misdirecting statements and minced some words despite how they verbose they are.
1) Wouldn’t mind a source for that ‘90% of universities are woke’ survey if you could – I am somewhat reserved about the methodology used to obtain those statistics, as well as how biases surrounding moral relativism as well as sample size and selection were controlled. It’s an extreme example but if I asked a white supremacist or segragationist (not insinuating that people within the media studies departments are necessarily extremists of either the left or right of course) if they found x place (whether it be a university or a coffee shop) ‘woke’ or undesirably left for them, their own personal moral convictions and dispositions would imaginably see them say yes for various reasons.
2) In regards to your inquiry about right-leaning media departments, I can sort of supply an answer to that based off the experiences of a colleague’s son. He did an arts/media + communications double degree at a Sydney university (leaving it semi-anonymous), graduating in 2017 (I concede, perhaps prior to the ‘awakening’ of the educational institutions). From what I’ve gathered from him and his old man, the first three years would pretty much tell you about the various forms of media (print, internet, podcast, TV etc.) and how to produce them as well as the processes regarding journalistic principles and the collection of data. Sure, the course did involve cultural issues/taboos such as the ‘culture-war’ topics I mentioned earlier (as well as issues within the media) and how they can manifest or ‘go viral’ in all kinds of media. Generally the presentation of this data was painted as impartial (or so I’ve heard) – of course, class discussions on these topics would reveal ideological ‘gangs’ and individuals of left, right, and centre, and presumably there would’ve been heated debate between students at times. It was indicated to me that during the networking/internship/job experience processes done within the fourth, final year (presumably done to confirm and set-up employment opportunities), there were significantly more openings for NewsCorp-based jobs or work experience compared to other outlets. Now sure, this is to be reasonably expected given the size and outreach of NewsCorp, but the jobs were impliedly exaggerated by the staff relative to the other opportunities – lecturers seemed to gush about the convenience, security, and networking opportunities of many NewsCorp owned outlets. Overall, a striking exception of sorts to the narrative of universities as the ‘woke of the woke’.
3) I don’t really know slang that well, but if by ‘nobble’ you mean shock or contain, then yes, Rudd does want to see the Murdoch Press affected – I won’t deny or discredit this view. My objection was to you asserting that the petition was to see the Murdoch press be banned. It is worth noting that he was calling for a Royal Commission, not the outright banning of the Murdoch press. A Royal Commission will investigate and assess the Murdoch monopoly independently, devoid of government interference or ambition, Rudd and/or his ‘vendetta’ against the press (if you wanted to assert that extreme). I also feel like you may be insinuating that by taking the Murdoch Media to account and positioning them to a more equal foot with other media (again, competitors Nine/Fairfax share a similar, conservative leaning viewpoint albeit less overtly), this action will equate to the censorship and ‘demise’ or obscuring of rght-wing news in the mainstream, which I find a very disagreeable notion.
If you still wanted to investigate where I am sort of coming from, I would yet again recommend reading (or watching an audiovisual portrayal whether it be a 10 minute animation or the 3 hour documentary on) Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent – it deconstructs and analyses the Western media/propaganda model and how it draws in and can indoctrinate audiences whilst also electing the powers that be.
4) “‘publicly/govt funded outlets such as the ABC and SBS wouldn’t exist in the current climate if they had truly ‘woke’ journalists predominating’. Why do you think that is the case? Its not a logical point.” Perhaps I should clarify on that statement in a bid to make it logical. If the news reporters on public broadcasters were TRULY woke, why don’t they abrasively criticize (because there are certain things they can be criticized for, I hope you and I can agree on that) the Liberal Party (or whatever party that is in government unless it was further left than the Greens) that doesn’t represent or act upon their ‘agenda’? Why haven’t articles or investigations such as this: (https://www.michaelwest.com.au/elite-private-schools-join-charities-for-children-and-the-disabled-in-donating-to-gladys-berejiklian/) been reported on the public broadcasters, even if it was to repudiate them?
It’s about money and power, as bitter yet logical as that is. The government (at this time, the Liberal Party) funds the ABC. We also heard the song and dance about ABC funding cuts and how the ABC is very much at the whim and control of the government behind it. If ABC journalists and head-honchos alike were scathing of the Liberal party, let alone accurately reporting rather then covering-up or failing to report upon some of their shadier, more despicable actions (budget cuts and policy changes), is it not fair to say that you’ll be defunded and ‘cancelled’, causing a massive loss of jobs as well as harming the media landscape?
5) ‘You confuse publicly funded groups like the ABC and private media (like Newscorp – which Rudd wants banned).’
Not sure quite how I did so but if it came off confusing then I’ll claim that as an error. I guess to clarify this point, I understand the differences between a public and private media form, I was stating that they (at least in the past 5 years) share the same root bias; that is, to embolden Australia’s right establishment (Liberal Party, IPA, Minerals and Fossil Fuels Councils/Lobby Groups as well as us, the readers and viewers) by expressing these viewpoints or by formulating absurd, questionably satirical (see Poe’s Law) ‘faux-left’ articles that generate a disdain for the ‘left-wing enemy’.
6) ‘Balance is or should be required in public funded bodies.’
100% agreeable, unfortunately not the case however. To quote:
‘Political biases are fine, provided they are balanced by other political biases.’ – this is not happening, where genuine right-wing biases manifest disproportionately in the media and where they are not being balanced by genuine left-wing biases.
7) ‘your notion that the ABC is pro-Liberal party is one that I find somewhat puzzling. Not least because I watch it every day and have yet to find any Liberal bias or anti-Labor agenda….’
Ok, media bias is much more subtle than the example you give above. To explain the intracacies of it would take hours and way too many words, and I don’t back myself to clearly explain it all in a succinct, non-contradicting manner.
Two things really:
i) ABC journalists are (or should be) free to carry out journalism on any topic, however ABC editorial gets the final say on whether or not someones work gets published to the masses – editorial filters what or what cannot be disseminated to strengthen and/or maintain the (image of the) establishment (again, see above)
ii) Political ‘scoops’ or articles are for the most part obtained by press releases sent directly from the governmental parties rather than independent enquiry – you think any truth or clause that reflects badly on them would be left in?
8) “To further challenge your astounding view that the ABC and SMH ‘portray all viewpoints’…”
Yes, perhaps not the best choice of words on my part, and yes this challenge is partially justified. Of course the ABC and SMH (or any media source) cannot portray the infinitum of perspectives, viewpoints and different nuances. What I mean by this is that they mention, assess and scrutinize all ‘political’ parties and most of their key MPs (ie. leaders, premiers, treasurers, department ministers etc.), especially during federal election periods. Now, here is the kicker. They can do this with all parties but there are parties that get more and/or positive or negative coverage so as to serve corporate agenda. I can be a journalist and interview all the federal leaders for each of the political parties, but what if I interview Pauline Hanson fifteen times whereas I only interviewed all the others once or twice? Yes, I’ve covered all the grounds technically but I’ve obviously represented one leader/party/perspective disproportionately more than the others – to answer your question, ABC doesn’t represent all viewpoints EQUALLY.
9) Regarding my speculation (not an assertion, I admit it reads like that) about your ‘rejection’ by the ABC, I most certainly did not say that your own politics would be questioning of the Liberal Party or its voter-base – I would imagine they would be rather in line and affirming of the ideologues/people within most of the Liberal Party as well as those in more right-leaning Labor factions.
I stated that your views would likely nullify the ‘blowback’ and the sought after criticism/evaluation of the ABC as a left-leaning media outlet that bolsters Murdoch media and the establishment. This criticism has manifested in the campaign to defund or privatise the ABC (which obviously the Murdoch journalists and narrative has sought after), which if defunded could enable NewsCorp television media to ‘fill’ that hole with another faux-left media channel.
10) ‘Today I have been listening to ABC all day and have not heard one pro Trump commentator or perspective. It is taken as a given that he is evil and lying. As for the SMH – they make Pravda look like the height of balance! Extraordinary bias.’
The perception of the US Election (especially in the US itself) has been manipulated by the media to be a event deciding whether or not America will ‘choose the left or the right’ (of course, with the media making the rightful or wrongful assertion that Biden represents the left-wing whereas Trump represents the right-wing) – a ‘culture-wars’ narrative is very much intertwined into the coverage. As I mentioned earlier, ‘culture-wars’ issues are these clever distractions to defuse from domestic issues that actually affect our day-to-day livelihoods whilst also retaining the guise that there is diversity of opinion within the mainstream media; we really have no direct effect on the result of the US election (sure, we can tell and pray for friends and strangers within the US to vote for a certain candidate or to reflect Christ or any other sort of idea/philosophy/person etc if we want, but of course it is still recommendation rather than an actual, physical vote).
Another thing I noted in your reply was that you seemed quite frustrated about Trump’s portrayal on the ABC. Three things:
i) There is more than one news channel or bias being represented in Australia (we’re not in CCP China, but then again there are people who would say we are pretty close to it) – you could switch to and from Sky News and you would expect to see Trump being praised and Biden being lambasted if that helps provide a sort of representational balance for you.
ii) Your statement implies that you are frustrated & critical of the ABC and it’s ‘left’ bias – that sort of proves my point that the media wants you to be averse to left-leaning viewpoints. By associating ABC (and by extension, the mentioned SMH) with a ‘left’ coverage that is hypocritical, unfair, possessing ‘extraordinary bias’, anti-Biblical or society etc., does that not inherently reinforce your ‘social conservatism’ and skepticism or potential contempt of the ‘left’ as portrayed on the ABC and SMH – a standpoint that very much overlaps with the aims and ideology of the Liberal Party, IPA, mineral/mining, agriculture and fossil fuel industries etc who represent the establishment?
iii) Culture-wars is ‘flavour of the month’ so to speak – they can change from left to centre to right dominant representation whenever they want if it suits their agenda to stay afloat and not upset their ‘overlords’. The ABC can select whoever they want to be on the panel or board in order to retain the guise of media equality by drawing the viewer(s) with a ‘gimmick’ or ‘subversion’ that differs from other news sources. In the case of the US election, of course they’re going to pick people who come from a left-leaning background who insinuate or explicity state contempt for Trump – because it produces a gimmick that distinguishes it from what you would likely see on a NewsCorp or Nine/Fairfax outlet. This point about one-sided discussion or panels on the ABC also reminded me of this article which you might find interesting:
https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/whats-happening-with-insiders,13837
Really, to conclude I should reiterate and flesh out the point I envisioned to make:
The youth today are (for the most part) unfortunately lacking in critical thinking and independent thought, often making them more vulnerable to indoctrination and ideological blackmail so to speak. HOWEVER, it is not just the left that are carrying out these activities and forming their own ideological gangs and brigades within generations past, present and future, but the right are/have been as well at perhaps a more rapid, intensified rate than their ‘rival’ counterparts in a situation where both sides are unfairly represented (for different reasons) – and perhaps it is worth considering that maybe this is much more alarming (the issue of ‘rabid’, unchecked leftism taking over you complain about is likely a form of retaliation to the right-leaning and semi-dictated situation of Australia)
Brock
P.S. Just a general question, what day in the week do you record Quantum relative to the Friday when it is published? (I’m listening through Spotify)
Record on Thursday
Dear David, just listened to quantum 118 and your article “Wana be in my gang” chimes well with a book I’m reading “weapons of mass instruction” by John Taylor Gatto, you may have read it. He says we are not taught to think for ourselves but trained to be mass consumers to feed and fuel the industrial capitalist machine for the benefit of a tiny minority. We are all inadvertently perpetuating and contributing to this diception. Desperately sad. What should be our response as Christians? Focus on the Gospel, be salt and light wherever we are etc. “Adding value to others is the only way to add value to yourself” as John T Gatto says.
Thank God nothing escapes His gaze and nothing will derail His plan to make all things new in His time.
Gill