Oh Dear

[Bob38S]

Oh Dear, is this really our future :o :doh: :~.

It's not April 01, but its got to be a joke, surely......

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/university-of-tennessee-adopts-new-words-to-replace-gender-specific-pronouns/story-fnet0gt3-1227506726101

[snowyskiesau]

Sadly, they seem to be serious. (can I still say 'they'?)

[Moti]

You did notice which august journal of record that article was in didn't you? Have a think about why that article was published. How many extra visitors to the site did it generate? (Hint - that's how Mr Murdoch make his money) Which buttons does it push for the reader? Here's a few - 'political correctness gone mad', 'gay rights', 'same sex marriage will be the ruin of the language' etc etc

[Big Shed]

I think you are guilty of shooting the messenger here.

You obviously don't like News Corp (who does?) but at the end of the day they reported this, they didn't create it, the University of Tennessee did.

Now if you could provide some evidence that the University of Tennessee didn't create this then your response would have a bit more credibility.

As for News Corp making money out of reporting stories like this, isn't that what they, and every other media outlet, are in business for?

[Moti]

I didn't claim that the story is not true - what you need to ask is why News Corp (or any other organisation) chose to publish that particular story. You give the answer yourself "News Corp make money out of reporting stories like this"

They do it get people worked up, waving their arms about and then sharing the link and get more visits to the site. Seems to have worked here.

The messenger here is not a neutral party just reporting facts - the bigger question is which facts they choose to report.

[Big Shed]

I didn't claim that the story is not true - what you need to ask is why News Corp (or any other organisation) chose to publish that particular story. You give the answer yourself "News Corp mak[e] money out of reporting stories like this"

They do it get people worked up, waving their arms about and then sharing the link and get more visits to the site. Seems to have worked here.

The messenger here is not a neutral party just reporting facts - the bigger question is which facts they choose to report.

Show me a media organisation that is what you call "neutral", they all have an agenda and report only what they want and even then put their own spin on it.

This applies to every media outlet in this country, and I'm sure also overseas. Doesn't matter whether it is print, TV, radio or online.

Even the so-called non-commercial outlets, such as the ABC, push their own agenda and only report what suits that agenda.

A classic example of this was the recent court case of Hockey vs Fairfax, it got lots of coverage in almost every media outlet, Fairfax had only a few lines and even then they worded it almost as if they won the case.

It is human nature to be biased and make money.

But at the end of the day we still have the power to select what we read, view or listen to, and then it goes through our own bias filter.:;

[Big Shed]

Another example of (very) selective reporting

This was published on the ABC website this morning

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-01/eric-roozendaal-reaches-out-of-court-settlement-with-fairfax/6739624

What did Fairfax report?

Nothing that I can find.:no:

[nrb]

Why do you dislike Murdoch? he's rich and your not? He tries to tell you what to think? He changed his country?
I know this is bit away from the post but it would be interesting to hear some comments.

[Christos]

Getting back on track I do not know why these terms need to be adopted.

I am yet to be convinced that it is necessary to be non gender specific.

[elanjacobs]

Political correctness gone mad again. It reminds me of the gender neutral preschool in Sweden: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14038419 (which brings up a whole world of potential problems for the kids)
Gender is binary. End of story. If you want to identify as the other one for whatever reason, that's fine (personally, I don't really get it, but live and let live) but there are only 2 options. Maybe 3 if you identify as neither (again, don't understand it but that's my take on it)
We're slowly destroying our language by trying so hard not to offend anyone and it's becoming a real joke. Go watch George Carlin's bit on "Soft Language" (WARNING: bit of bad language), I think it demonstrates it quite nicely.
By all means, discourage the use of genuinely offensive words/titles, but if you can't call a man a man and a woman a woman we might as well pack up and go home.

[/RANT]

[Chris Parks]

Fairfax had a fair bit on it earlier today and two are still up

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/peter-dutton-claims-fairfax-media-is-trying-to-bring-down-the-abbott-government-20150831-gjc4j1.html

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ministers-distance-themselves-from-peter-duttons-claim-fairfax-media-launching-a-jihad-on-abbott-government-20150901-gjcdgp.html

and there was at least one video. Fairfax have been running an intensive campaign against the Libs since the last election and it does not appear that they are going to give up. I suppose if News backs the Liberal Government then Fairfax trying to shoot the Libs is some sort of balance. Maybe the Huffington Post is the answer....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/introducing-huffpost-australia_b_8000452.html?utm_hp_ref=australia&ir=Australia

[Big Shed]

The ABC ran an interesting comparison between the Gillard govt comments on News Corp and the Abbott govt on Fairfax last night on the news.

Very striking, some of the comments were almost word for word the same.

History repeating itself?

Here is an interesting opinion piece on the ABC website, it makes some valid points

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-02/barnes-does-dutton-have-a-point-about-media-bias/6742332

[Chris Parks]

I think it is more interesting that Fairfax did exactly the same thing.

[Big Shed]

I think it is more interesting that Fairfax did exactly the same thing.

Fairfax is in a race to the bottom with News Corp, used to love reading The Age but it is now an almost carbon copy of some of the News Corp papers all fluff and no substance.
The attack on an ex-SAS soldier standing for election in WA would surely rate as gutter journalism.
Having now lost 2 court cases for defamation in quick succession also speaks volumes about the "quality" of reporting in their papers.
They have obviously learned from News that scandal and mud throwing sells papers, hence makes money.
The tie up between Fairfax and ABC also speaks volumes for both.