Sunday 22nd June 1997
Search entire news archive by day | Search entire news archive by text |
Definitive Lifestyle Guide to over 5000 Australian webs | Global Web Builders Gold |
The Kid's Locker Room | World Wide Websters |
Queen Elizabeth invited him to a day at the races but he declined as he had a prior appointment with senior British Government bureaucrats to discuss how unemployment could be reduced in Australia.
While Howard was in that meeting the elite rich in Britain met at Ascot to enjoy the races.
While talking about the super rich have a look at this on-line book. It's worth reading. Seems like we are not the only ones with problems with the rich and powerful in our country.
Here is an extract from one of the chapters: "Consolidating Ownership of the Media
"The important thing to realize is not just that the elite own virtually all the Western media, but that it is now owned by a very
small handful of media moguls. The shocking truth is that the ownership of newspapers and TV stations has already been
consolidated to such a staggering degree that unmanipulated news coverage has practically ceased to exist.
"Only one man and his media holdings need be mentioned to provide some tip of the iceberg proof to substantiate that
perspective. His name is Rupert Murdoch, and he is an American billionaire. His media holdings are registered as The News
Corporation Ltd. in Australia "for accounting advantages", but his holdings span four continents.
"It would perhaps be worth pointing out that for all intents and purposes, media ownership within each of Western society's
Feudal empires, Britain, Australia, Canada, America, Germany, etc., has already been consolidated into the control of a small
handful of media moguls. Will it be necessary to have these moguls unite under one corporation name before the term "Big
Brother" gets seriously discussed? Media owners can, and do, install TV network directors and newspaper and magazine
editors whom they are assured will broadcast and print exactly what the elite want the American public to see, hear, and read.
Whether they are openly united under one corporate "Big Brother" logo or not, is irrelevant. Covertly they are part of the elite
team. Their coordination and control is best exemplified by considering how well they all work together to elect the team's
political functionaries into public office.
"The media's role in undermining the function of true democracy, and especially at election time, cannot be overstated. The elite
are not satisfied with infiltrating the nation's highest political offices, nor are they satisfied with negating the effects of democracy
with special interest lobbying. No, that's not quite enough.
"Before the bottom 90% of society are even allowed to approach the polling booth, the elite take the opportunity to subject the
entire population to no less than six full months of intense political conditioning in which individuals and policies that pose a
threat to their wealth and power, are systematically discredited. By praising their sympathizers and discrediting and
smearing their opponents, the elite have consistently and successfully used the media, to elect enough political
candidates to the White House and Congress to ensure success with their future lobbying.
"Needless to say, most of the politicians running for election or reelection are doing so with funds contributed by the elite in one
way or another, and of course election support translates into either payoffs for past favors, or for favors due and as yet
unpaid.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Official home page.
The Editor
Dear Sir,
The public must find the lengths that the Australian mainstream media and politicians will go to discredit our federal member for Oxley, Pauline Hanson, quite extraordinary. I know that those I come in contact with day-to-day do.
For example, The Courier Mail recently carried a cartoon on the editorial page featuring a woman dressed in a Ku Klux Klan outfit at a fashion parade with a voice saying, "And now to evening wear... and this stunning little number designed by David Duke specially for Pauline..."
I have taken a few extracts out of a recent article entitled 'Hanson Makes an Ideal Target' by internationally respected Adelaide academic, Associate Prof. Paul Corcoran. The article appeared in the Fairfax paper The Sydney Morning Herald on the 16 June 1997: The full transcript is available on the Internet
The first lie: Most mainstream politicians have credibility.
Paul Corcoran: 'For months commentators have indulged in amateur psychology to "analyse" Pauline Hanson and her supporters. Journalists, academics and ABC intellectuals have, as you know, achieved a diagnosis: No one in their right mind could support the views endorsed by That Woman.'
Anybody who pays even the slightest attention to the mainstream Australian media could be forgiven for thinking that Pauline Hanson is the cause of all Australia's ills. According to the media she cannot put a foot right, she has been demonised for her views on Asian immigration and multiculturalism yet we have Bill Hayden in Saturday's QT calling her political career so far 'a dream run'....
This at a time when the Prime Minister compares her rise to fame to that of one-time grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. Had you ever heard of him before? I know I hadn't but now the mainstream media ring the alarm bells saying that Duke endorses Hanson. What does Duke know about Hanson, we know that Hanson knows nothing about Duke.
In fact it was Howard in 1988 who foreshadowed Hanson's recent sentiments about multiculturalism in a press release headed 'Immigration and Diversity' when he said , "My argument with multiculturalism is not that it respects and tolerates diversity, but rather in many ways it emphasises division and above all, we'll (the Liberal Party) get Australia working again."
It was Howard who echoed Hanson's viewpoint last month at Longreach. Comments in a letter to the QT that resulted in the Liberal party disendorsing her.
Second lie: the duopoly in the mainstream media is not effecting our democracy.
Somehow Howard has been let off the hook by the mainstream media - while Hanson is continually vilified day after day.
So why do mainstream Australians still flock to her meetings and still support her despite the hammering that she gets in the press? Quite simply because they are scared. They know that the major parties neither address their needs nor do they tell the truth. They know that the ALP and the Liberal Party are out of touch BUT MANY DON'T KNOW WHY.
There is a very simple answer to the fears that the man in the street has. They are best summed up by Margo Kingston of The Sydney Morning Herald who recently said on ABC television:
"Now when you have a man so powerful (Packer) that he can buy Graeme Richardson to talk the Labor party around and Michael Kroger to talk the Liberal party around, and Howard and Costello and Alston jump to his every need no matter how irrational, no matter how transparently incoherent their arguments, we have a huge problem. And yes, personally I am very scared, personally, of Mr Packer taking over Fairfax."
Quite simply the interests of the man in the street are only given passing attention when it comes to voting time with a grab-bag full of promises. The cosy relationship between the major parties and the powerful media moguls ensure that, despite the rhetoric, it is the well placed and well paid lobbyists who determine much of Australia's agenda through their contacts in Canberra - despite the promises at voting time.
In the words of Paul Corcoran: 'The multitude are to be pitied, but the audacious ones - the famous "juggernaut" (Hanson) - are dangerous and disgusting or, at the very least, embarrassing. They have forgotten their place. They've questioned authority.'
When the status quo is rocked the knives are drawn against the Pauline Hanson's of our world not by the politicians but by the mainstream media. The disception, lies and distortions that the Murdoch/Packer media perpetrate at the highest levels makes a mockery of ethics in journalism in Australia today. The media moguls with the aid of their political partners fuel credibility to the stories we read in the press and the establishment start feeding off each other - while our democracy is damaged.
Paul Corcoran continues, 'Pundits no longer even veil their class derision for "that fish & chip woman", with salt and vinegar applied to her poor grammar and lack of education. Casual racism about "rednecks" is all right, because you are slamming the right race and only singling out stupid , narrow-minded, ill-educated, culturally backward farmers, or indeed, the Prime Minister.'
Have you ever wondered why it is OK in Australia to call Pauline Hanson or her supporters whatever you like but if you so much as couch a word that might offend an ethnic or indigenous group you are immediately labelled a racist?
Well wonder no more. Pauline Hanson has not, as you imply, Bill Hayden, had a 'dream run'. As she said recently on ABC's Four Corners she felt that 'people were taking pieces of her'. People admire her guts and I truly hope that she can help the average Australian regain people power - because the mainstream parties won't.
It is in the interests of Australia that she succeeds because the multinational companies of Packer and Murdoch with the major political parties in tow have little interest in the lot of the man in the street in Australia. Profit is their motive and at the moment we are little more than pawns.
Scott Balson
Why is the media continuing to "blame" the Prime Minister for the rise
of Pauline Hanson? Who is responsible for enabling her to achieve such a high profile and
widespread popularity?
A survey of Federal MPs shows that at least two others have political views that are very
similar to Pauline Hanson's: Paul Filing & Graeme Campbell. These men are also independant
MPs, who have often supported Pauline Hanson since her election to Parliament. Graeme
Campbell in particular was known to hold nationalistic views well before anybody had ever
heard of Pauline Hanson.
Up until the last couple of months, Prime Minister Howard treated Pauline Hanson in the same
way that he treated Filing & Campbell ie He ignored all of them. Recently he has given in to
the demands of an increasingly hysterical media and nervous Liberal Party backbenchers, and
he has become increasingly critical of Miss Hanson. He tried to justify his change in strategy
by saying that she now deserves more attention because she heads a political party, but this
is transparent nonsense - Graeme Campbell heads the Australia First Party, and he hasn't been
paid any attention.
The media, on the other hand, has treated the independant MPs in vastly different manners.
Campbell & Filing have been virtually ignored, while Hanson has been sensationalised. It is
obvious to anybody with more than one brain cell that the overwhelming majority of journalists
and newspaper editors despise Hanson and her policies, so why would they contribute to raising
her profile? Answer: they misjudged the mood of the public, and they never expected them to
think for themselves.
No doubt the media targeted Hanson because of her lack of political experience; she was an easy
target, especially compared to Campbell. The plan was to exploit her inexperience, and thereby
discredit her policies. Go in fast and hard, while she was still politically naive and before
she had a chance to find her feet.
They ridiculed her working class background - she was only an uneducated 'fish and chip shop lady'.
When she said that all Australians should have equal rights and responsibilities, they called
her a racist. They accused her of using immigrants as scapegoats for all of Australia's problems,
then proceeded to blame her for every schoolyard taunt, for a drop in the rate of increase of
Asian tourism (although Asian tourism numbers inconveniently still increased), and they blamed
her for causing community division (even though she promoted integration). In her recent visit
to Adelaide, they even blamed her for increased vehicle registration costs on page one of the
Adelaide Advertiser.
And the more the media vilified her, the more public support she received. The media let the
genie out of the bottle and now they can't put a lid on it. Journalists unintentionally helped
create the Hanson phenomenon, they know it, and now they are having sleepless nights due to the
guilt that they feel. The irony is that they have always supported the guilt industry.
So what do they do to alleviate their guilt? They blame Howard.
Whatever you think of Howard, you can't deny his political savvy. He knows that the public
despise politicians just as much as journalists; the both make their living by distorting
the truth. He knows if he criticises Hanson he will just increase her popularity. But he
is in a no win situation, and he has to get the media off his back. So he sinks the boot in.
As the government criticises Hanson, the more ALP supporters turn to One Nation. The opposition
has a similar effect on coalition supporters. Such is the respect that Australians have for
their "conventional" politicians.
So what does the media say when Howard's criticism only increases Hanson's support? They blame
him for not criticising her earlier!
Hanson's other opponents are in hysterical disarray. From professional ethnics, left wing academics,
to the aboriginal and guilt industry lobby groups. They are accusing everyone, "friendly fire"
targeting their own allies in the media and government. Even if their mates are criticising
Hanson, they cannot be criticising hard enough!
There is a chance that the Australian electorate will have a real choice at the next federal
election, and isn't that a terrifying thought!
Linda Gale
Queensland Times
Karana Downs
You say:
Subject: The Rise of Hanson
Rain stopped play with Australia on 70 for 1 wicket.
Return to Australian National News of the Day