http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/964

Australia's commercial TV networks have banned an advertisement that criticises the anti-Labor coverage of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers.Channels Seven and Ten refused to air the ad commissioned by GetUp, while Nine screened it over four days in Brisbane – then cancelled it after blaming a "coding error".

It was great when you could pick up a paper and get, well, news. 

THE FINAL DAYS of the Federal election campaign have seen more allegations of dirty tricks, with the chair of the Fairfax newspaper company, Roger Corbett, entering the fray to attack the Government without disclosing his Liberal Party membership.

Corbett’s attack on Kevin Rudd on ABC’s Lateline program on Tuesday, while brushed aside by Kevin Rudd, is nevertheless an unexpected intrusion by someone who seems willing to lose some of the respect with which he has been previously accorded.

Although the Fairfax papers maintained a less absurd coverage of the election campaign than the riotous and ridiculous Murdoch gutter press through most of the campaign, the Corbett attack came out of the blue and was clearly designed to do as much political damage as possible to Kevin Rudd and Labor.

Also coming into question has been the role of the ABC, which replayed the most damaging parts of the interview on a loop the following morning on ABC NewsRadio, ABC News 24, as well as featuring it on other news and current affairs programs. However, not until the following afternoon did they disclose that Corbett was a long-term financial member of the Liberal Party.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/roger-corbett-the-abc-and-commercial-tv-fail-australian-democracy/

I’VE GOT THIS MATE I talk with. His initials are RM but I can’t tell you his real name because he doesn’t want this to get around, however, I can tell you that; he’s right into politics, he’s keen on current events and he’s as cunning as a shithouse rat. Anyway, we were chatting the other day and he was telling me how easy it would be to assassinate someone in politics. “ASSASSINATE?” I repeated, in capital letters with a question mark while making little quotation marks in the air. “Yeah,” he replied with a hint of glint in his eye, “It’s easy. All you have to do is know some basic principles.”

He began to explain. “The first thing you need to realize is that, in a democracy, political assassination simply means losing an election. You don’t actually have to kill anyone ‒ not like in the good old days ‒ you only have to make sure that your target doesn’t get re-elected. You can’t be a little bit pregnant and you can’t be a ‘little bit’ thrown out of office,” he said, “it’s all or nothing.”

I nodded in agreement. “So, whether you lose by 1% or a landslide, you’ve still been assassinated right?”

“You’re pretty smart,” he said.

Read more: http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/the-art-of-political-assassination/

-------------------------------------

All this is "how to manipulate people to believe in something that is either wrong or right regardless". Usually the tricks are used to make people believe in something that is wrong, stupid or dangerous. It's psychology 101 applied to mass media and assassination by mass media. 

For example, the relative truth is that Rudd was erratic, uncooperative, unfocused, rude and, as we have seen by his defeat speech, all over the place like a pup pissing everywhere and unworthy of being top dog... When he was tapped on the shoulder back in 2009, he cried instead of fighting fair and square in a leadership ballot... (he knew he would loose 100 per cent and did not want this on his record sheet) The media deviously portrayed him as a "martyr" and made sure this would hang over Julia forever...

Julia steadied the ship but the media reinforced the idea that "we", the public choose our Prime Ministers, when it's actually not the case: the Parties choose their top dogs and when their top dog does not perform as well as it should, there are mechanisms to challenge.

But the media was also cultivating the supposed biffo between Rudd and Gillard, (which came all from Rudd) to the point it "seems to" destabilised the government, when her government was working well anyhow, even with compromises to suit the Greens and the independents. Meanwhile Rudd wanted his revenge, which in politics is the pits of behaviour in regard to the sanity of a fair country. 

Old men, especially in the right side of politics are like that. And Rudd is on the right side of politics.

Julia is on the left, with a much better social conscience that either Tony or Kevin... Business is not about social conscience but about making money. Business hated Gillard, though some people  in business thought she actually was doing better than okay... and business made money, even in tough GFC times.

But business wanted more... The deceptive media scheme had to make "people" believe that Rudd was a saviour and far better than Gillard... All one need is some specialised ego-management journalists like Laurie Oakes to collect leaks and do the damage at specific times... And whether the leaked information is true or not is irrelevant. The imprimatur of ego is strong enough to give them relevancy.

As time goes by, the duel goes on, thoug to some extend Julia is more adept at swashbuckling this shit into the dirt. But the media still stirs our beliefs she betrayed us by "knifing a mate in the back"... SHE DID NOT but that is the perception reinforced by the media.  Further more, EVEN BEFORE HER ELECTION IN 2010, she mentioned her wish to introduce a carbon pricing to fight global warming. She also categorically said she would not introduce a "carbon tax"... The opposition and the media of course have been very adept at mixing the identities of "carbon pricing" and a "carbon tax". A carbon tax is across all carbon energy fields, including petrol for cars and gas for houses. The carbon pricing is specifically designed to make big CO2 emitters pay an extra charge to help pay for the implementation of CLEAN ENERGY, which we desperately need.

But of course Joe Hockey the pits of accountancy, was telling us, the libs (CONservatives) would abolish the $10 billion CLEAN ENERGY department as if it was costing $10 billion, while this department is more or less self-funding by loans to the clean energy industry... THE LIBS (CONSERVATIVES) don't like clean energy... "it's bad for their mates" in the coal industry.

Once Rudd was "back in", all the media (Murdoch) had to do is bring back the perceptions and the dynamics of why he had been booted out in the first place... Actually the media did not have to do much, except show how Rudd was all over the shots, destroying himself by himself...

All this is part of deception and manipulation... Rudd should NEVER have been a ratbag to Julia, Crean is a complete idiot and Shorten should have seen this stirring for what it was, but the man is still green behind the ears as far as these "manipulations" are concerned. Abbott is the king of saying one thing to mean another and stir. But one has to know that without the media working for him, even with the Rudd-Gillard feud, Abbott would have had no chance...

Meanwhile some kind souls are saying that Rudd behaves like a rude erratic bastard because of the pills he supposedly takes for his heart... Too bad I say...