tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889196717481814789.post7990555670442913061..comments2010-12-23T14:54:39.100+11:00Comments on Truth competently told: Consumers aren't stupidCleaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09655051337382008408noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889196717481814789.post-37758221936767595302007-05-09T10:23:00.000+10:002007-05-09T10:23:00.000+10:00You're over-analysing, Cleaver. The meaning of PM ...You're over-analysing, Cleaver. The meaning of PM BLINKS is patently, obviously, plainly, ridiculously understandable, irrespective of some arcane usage of the phrase in the past.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889196717481814789.post-38180728652809328402007-05-08T18:19:00.000+10:002007-05-08T18:19:00.000+10:00It's not evidence of right-wing bias. I'm not cont...It's not evidence of right-wing bias. <BR/><BR/>I'm not contending it is.<BR/><BR/>What I'm saying is that the Herald Sun, which is a paper renowned for treating its readers like fools, in this instance credited them with fairly sophisticated interpretive skills, certainly more sophisticated than advertisers ever do.<BR/><BR/>I think my point is something along the lines of: "if The Scum is pitching stuff higher than we are, maybe we're pitching stuff unnecessarily low."Cleaverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09655051337382008408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889196717481814789.post-1862368247579285882007-05-08T17:59:00.000+10:002007-05-08T17:59:00.000+10:00I take it you don't read the Herald Sun!Anyway, ho...I take it you don't read the Herald Sun!<BR/><BR/>Anyway, how is PM BLINKS evidence of right-wing bias? To me it just reads like the PM has relented under pressure; a sign of weakness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889196717481814789.post-21956253802700751302007-05-08T16:54:00.000+10:002007-05-08T16:54:00.000+10:00To be fair, people will read a newspaper article t...To be fair, people will read a newspaper article to make sense of a headline they don't get; they're unlikely to extend the same level of trust to an ad, so ad headlines increasingly have to explain themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889196717481814789.post-46423128306773495902007-05-07T14:27:00.000+10:002007-05-07T14:27:00.000+10:00yes, we are condescending twats.yes, we are condescending twats.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889196717481814789.post-10492941278664819882007-05-06T18:19:00.000+10:002007-05-06T18:19:00.000+10:00A good post. Although it's worthwhile commenting t...A good post. Although it's worthwhile commenting that while in the main News International have a right wing bias bordering on pathological hate mongering. Rupert Murdoch has no problem siding with the left when his agenda is being fulfilled. The problem with most media watchers is that they define the media between the right and the left, when really slap bang in the middle is MONEY. Money has no ideology and it's important to recognise who owns and controls messages when money and power is present.<BR/><BR/>The Sun newspaper gave a full backing for Blair in 1997 against the right wing Tory government of the day and it's fair to say that even the Guardian is self censoring over many issues. Much as I love their work.<BR/><BR/>Here's a link to a New Yorker article of Murdoch cutting media deals with both the right and the left to keep News International growing as a media force.<BR/><BR/>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/16/061016fa_fact1<BR/><BR/>Dividing and rule is often why those on the right and left don't understand much of how this world ticks.<BR/><BR/>This is why the internet is such a good leveler of opinion. Nobody owns it, well not yet anyway. A good media post otherwise :)Charles Edward Frithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09231685619963486690noreply@blogger.com