It just don’t add up

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 3rd, 2017 at 10:26 am

Front page headlines in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age:

Voters disagree with Howard over racism

Howard got it wrong on racism, poll finds

Both stories refer to the same poll, which found that:

Voters have delivered a rebuff to John Howard over his response to the Sydney riots, with three-quarters of people disagreeing with his claim that there is no underlying racism in Australia.

So you’d expect three-quarters of those polled to themselves exhibit “underlying racism”, yes? Instead we find, in the same article:

Despite the majority of voters agreeing there was underlying racism, the poll also found that 81 per cent of voters supported the policy of multiculturalism.

Looks like Howard was right—the majority of Australians aren’t racist. But they are suspicious of other Australians (in fact, the majority of Australians) who for some reason are dramatically underrepresented in the Age/SMH’s polling. More poll news here; and do read Mark Steyn:

These days, whenever something goofy turns up on the news, chances are it involves a fellow called Mohammed. A plane flies into the World Trade Centre? Mohammed Atta. A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet. A sniper starts killing petrol station customers around Washington, DC? John Allen Muhammed. A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri. A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed. A gang-rapist in Sydney? Mohammed Skaf.

Maybe all these Mohammeds are victims of Australian white racists and American white racists and Dutch white racists and Balinese white racists and Beslan schoolgirl white racists.

But the eagerness of the Aussie and British and Canadian and European media, week in, week out, to attribute each outbreak of an apparently universal phenomenon to strictly local factors is starting to look pathological.

Posted by Tim B. on 12/19/2005 at 11:17 PM
    1. Yes, the reporting of the survey struck me the same way.

      The follow up question which would never asked was ‘do you consider yourself racist?’ to which the answer would have been an overwhelming ‘no’.

      Naturally, racism is someone else’s character flaw.


      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 12 20 at 12:33 AM • permalink


    1. Can anybody cut to the meat of an issue as deftly as Steyn? The man’s a treasure.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2005 12 20 at 12:39 AM • permalink


    1. So you’d expect three-quarters of those polled to themselves exhibit “underlying racism”, yes?

      No? That’s like saying that if people agree there’s violent crime going on in Australia, you’d expect them to be violent criminals themselves.

      Looks like Howard was right—the majority of Australians aren’t racist.

      That’s not really what he said. I guess it depends on what you think “underlying racism” means.

      Posted by ChrisV on 2005 12 20 at 12:49 AM • permalink


    1. The leftists at the Age had a hard job to do. They had Howard’s personal approval on the increase and Labour’s lead on the decrease. What else could they do but selectively spin the result and build that up to a headline?

      Posted by lingus4 on 2005 12 20 at 12:50 AM • permalink


    1. Like Mark Steyn, I’m very happy to cut Cate Blanchett an awful lot of slack but I must confess that she’s now half way to the point where she becomes included on my “will not watch” list.

      In the immortal words of Jacques Chirac, she missed an awfully good opportunity to shut the fuck up.

      Posted by Mick Gill on 2005 12 20 at 12:56 AM • permalink


    1. I agree Mick – the last thing the world needs is more actor-vists.

      Most celebs can’t even keep a personal relationship together, so they are the last group I’m going to go to for advice on how to build a peaceful and happy world.


      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 12 20 at 01:14 AM • permalink


    1. The poll question asked is like one of questions like

      When did you stop beating your husband/dog/children?

      The answer is either meaningless or impossible. Either we all belive that we personally are not racist but that fabric of the nation is underlying racist  or this is actually evidence that 75% of Australian’s are racist and admitting it.

      Who was the genius who designed this poll?

      John Howard made a measured and responsible response to the riots by refusing to make it a racial issue after 5 minutes of information.

      Who is playing the race card now?

      Posted by drbob on 2005 12 20 at 01:23 AM • permalink


    1. #3.  It is not at all the same thing.

      Racism is an attitude or point of view, not, except in exceptional circumstances, an action that is quantifiable.  Statistics on violent crime are objectively obtainable.  In this survey, people are being asked to guess other people’s attitudes.

      So, the observation stands.  If 3/4 of people think others have a racist attitude then 3/4 of those poled must (assuming an unbiased sample) be themselves racist.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2005 12 20 at 01:26 AM • permalink


    1. hey guys why are we talking about this when we could be doing some major french bashing?….

      this is from my co blogger “Despot Dom” at The Attention Brick

      Posted by Mospact on 2005 12 20 at 01:27 AM • permalink


    1. #7. You are right.  The only meaningful survey would have been to ask people “Are you racist?”.  This pole itself would have other problems of course – getting honest answers.

      The “undesirable neighbour” survey Tim discussed earlier was quite well designed, especially if the answers could be done anonymously.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2005 12 20 at 01:32 AM • permalink


    1. …That’s like saying that if people agree there’s violent crime going on in Australia, you’d expect them to be violent criminals themselves…


      According to the lastest census:
      92% of Australians are Caucasian, 7% are Asian and 1% defined as ‘Other’.
      More than 40% of current citizens are foreign derived, i.e; 23% of were born overseas and 19% have a least one parent born overseas.

      It stands to reason then ChrisV that some of the people who responded to the survey are in fact themselves contributors to this current of ‘underlying racism’.

      Otherwise, the numbers don’t add up.

      As for the ‘poll’ – I would hardly call a national survey of 1423 voters a representative sample of the other 20,089,005 of us.

      Typical Fairfax.

      I bet the first question was:

      “Thinking about how much you hate John Howard, do you think Australia; by not saying sorry to the indigenous people, refusing docking of the Tampa, sinking the SIEV-X, illegally invading Iraq and violent Far-Right-Wing Neo-Nazi thugs bashing innocent Lebonese at Cronulla is indicative of an ‘underlying racism’?

      Your possible response choices are:
      1. YES
      2. YES, Definitely
      3. YES, Absolutely

      Posted by Jay Santos on 2005 12 20 at 01:36 AM • permalink


    1. #8 … or else the answers are a crock of sh*t. (finishing the thought in my own post)

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2005 12 20 at 01:37 AM • permalink


    1. Did they specify that the “underlying racism” is white racism?

      I’d certainly agree that the Lebanese thugs seem to show racism…

      Posted by Quentin George on 2005 12 20 at 01:43 AM • permalink


    1. What nonsense.

      John Howard did not just say that the majority of Australians were not racist, he went further, stating – “I do not accept there is underlying racism in this country.”

      If we make the assumption (as you obviously did, Tim) that supporting multiculturalism means you don’t have a racist bone in your body, then surely the opposite applies.

      Which means that 81% in favour of multiculturalism = up to 19% of Australians are racist.

      I hope you have enjoyed today’s mathematics lesson. Class dismissed.

      Posted by gwar on 2005 12 20 at 02:21 AM • permalink


    1. #3 I guess it depends on what you think “underlying racism” means.

      I don’t think it means anything. Either people are racist or they are not. I challenge you to give a workable definition of the term

      Posted by larrikin on 2005 12 20 at 02:26 AM • permalink


    1. OT.

      You have to try this. Go to google and type “french military victories”
      then hit the “I’m feeling lucky button”. The result is hillarious.

      (via Silent Running commentor llew).

      Posted by Jonny on 2005 12 20 at 02:29 AM • permalink


    1. The left is actually fomenting racism and violence:

      Mr Osmanagic and Mr Esmailpour appeared separately before Sydney’s Waverley Local Court yesterday on charges of affray and possessing an offensive implement with intent to commit a serious offence.

      The court was told that officers who boarded the bus found Mr Osmanagic in possession of two bottles of petrol, a rail ticket from Liverpool, a bus ticket to north Bondi and a pamphlet that read: “Howard’s riots—how racist policies breed racist violence”.

      Posted by ilibcc on 2005 12 20 at 02:29 AM • permalink


    1. the poll would make more sense if underlying racism meant that 5% of the population held racist views. but then I guess it wouldn’t be such a big story.

      Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2005 12 20 at 02:33 AM • permalink


    1. You can certainly come up with some bending of the numbers so that they aren’t contradictory (as gwar did in 14). Still on the face of it it looks slightly strange to have such a large majority of Australians believe there is underlying racism while with an even larger number support multiculturalism. Not forgeting also that you can disagree with multiculturalism as a policy and not be racist.

      But when all is said and done the poll is just meaningless. What does “underlying racism” mean? Unless the poll included some tight definition then it is useless as a measure of attitude. Does it mean most people in Australia are at least a little racist? Does it mean a significant percentage is racist? If so what percentage?

      And if it doesn mean some minority percentage of the population is racist then show me a country where you could put your hand on your heart and say there isn’t underlying racism.

      A poorly-constructed, meaningless poll fit only for journalists’ consumption.

      Posted by Francis H on 2005 12 20 at 02:55 AM • permalink


    1. Howard’s response was an intelligent one.  If you look at all the international media’s coverage of the Sydney riots they include his comment that “there is no underlying racism in Australia”.

      Most rational people reading this would correctly attribute the violence to fringe elements.

      There’s no point hailing Australia as a racist country unless it appears that the overwhelming majority are xenophobic.

      Posted by tdw77 on 2005 12 20 at 02:57 AM • permalink


    1. #17 yes, just as they tried to whip up violent opposition to Pauline Hanson, Geoffrey Blainey and anyone else who dares question multi-culti dogma. The leftists start chanting the ‘racist’ whenever frightened or threatened in the hope the noise will scare away the sceptics and the inquisitive.  Of course, as with any incantation, its potency and effectiveness is lost with constant repetition.

      #14 elementary logic is obviously not your long suit

      Posted by larrikin on 2005 12 20 at 02:58 AM • permalink


    1. Nice comeback, #21.

      Posted by gwar on 2005 12 20 at 03:01 AM • permalink


    1. Quentin George,

      Only whites can be racist. The brown people of the world are too stupid to be racists, or at least that’s what the non-racist liberals tell us.

      Posted by zefal on 2005 12 20 at 03:09 AM • permalink


    1. 2GB Radio, Sydney, Australia, report Tuesday, 20 December 2005: NSW Police are seeking assistance from two good Samaritans who helped a young lady who was being attended to by three mid eastern men, one had just started to get to know her, and the other had a knife to her throat. Police say the intervention prevented any further action by the trio. White racists interfere with Mid East customs?

      Posted by stackja1945 on 2005 12 20 at 03:49 AM • permalink


    1. #22, #14. The numbers you derived are at most an upper bound.

      Not supporting multi-culturalism does not mean “racist”.  Tim, in essence, made the point that even if it did the numbers would be only as low as you described.  (That is, racists are a small minority).  However, since anti-multi-culturalism actually does not equate to racist, the numbers of racists must therefore be even less.

      Of course it is a bullshit survey anyway, but there is no need to add to the confusion.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2005 12 20 at 03:50 AM • permalink


    1. “Underlying” racism is a human (and primate… and animal, and…) trait. Howard says there is none in Australia and it’s true when you subtract the base human/animal tribal instinct. In fact Australia does multi-culti better than most, as do Anglo cultures in general (NZ, USA, Britain, some of Canada).

      Note to webmaster: Can’t this “Mospact” be banned? Apart from providing proof of the “Infantile” description of commenters on this forum, this character is now spamming the comment section (see comment #9).

      #17: “The Left is… “. Sorry, this is not a footy game. Kind of pissweak to boil it all down to left/right dichotomy. No?

      Posted by Henry boy on 2005 12 20 at 04:35 AM • permalink


    1. “R-racism is baad, m’kay?”

      Posted by Brian Tiemann on 2005 12 20 at 04:53 AM • permalink


    1. I honestly can’t bring myself to blame these poor dupes who voted for “racist” Australia.

      From cradle to grave, they’re programmed by a very, very, very leftist-biased media to loathe themselves (provided they are white) or to loathe whites (if they aren’t).

      One day, someone’s going to hold the media to account.

      Posted by Mike Jericho on 2005 12 20 at 05:05 AM • permalink


    1. #26: You forgot ‘oafish’ poopyhead!

      Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 12 20 at 05:06 AM • permalink


    1. From cradle to grave, they’re programmed by a very, very, very leftist-biased media to loathe themselves (provided they are white) or to loathe whites (if they aren’t).

      One day, someone’s going to hold the media to account.

      Yeah…bad madia. Bad. You’re right – whatever they say we do.  Just like the republic referendum.

      Posted by champy on 2005 12 20 at 05:16 AM • permalink


    1. #28: The link Mike was after is here (I think).

      Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 12 20 at 05:18 AM • permalink


    1. I wonder if there really is quite a lot of “underlying racism” in Australia after all?

      As per #23, “anti-racists” in effect assume that “little brown people” can’t be held to the same high standard as white anglos.  So could it be said that the typical “anti-racist” actually suffers from “underlying racism”?

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2005 12 20 at 05:47 AM • permalink


    1. All The Age’s AC Neilsen poll proved was that approx 75% of the population believe there are racists in Australia, “but I’m not one of them”.

      My best mate, god bless him, is one of these guys, so I asked him if he’d be happy if his daughter started dating a muslim.

      Change topic.

      Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2005 12 20 at 06:10 AM • permalink


    1. David Marr had the annual SMH review of the year, titled ominously ‘the Year of Living Dangerously’.


      In a longish article, covering what he considers a dangerous year (“In 2005, we lived dangerously, we lived in fear”), he only mentioned the word ‘Muslim’ once in the context of “the year talkback turned on Muslims” – as if their only involvement in a so-called dangerous year was as victims.

      And the word ‘Islamic” also was used once – in the expression “Islamic fundamentalism”, in inverted commas. Presumably the inverted commas were used to demonstrate that the existence of the concept is somehow controversial.

      Do you think he would make a good ref on TV wrestling – the kind that always seems to be looking the other way when the real mayham is going on?

      Dave is a gay man. Does he really think that when the Caliphate finally happens he will be rewarded for his appeasement by an honoured and reserved seat to the right hand of Ayatollah Osama?

      Posted by Flying Giraffe on 2005 12 20 at 06:18 AM • permalink


    1. #25 – The flipside is that supporting multiculturalism doesn’t automatically make you a non-racist (thank God, my tongue was starting to cramp up from being in my cheek for that long). I’m determined not to be the 20-millionth person this month to point out the difference between racism and culturism.

      Agreed, it’s a bullshit survey, and some bullshit Smage logic to boot. But claiming that racial tolerance is the same as
      cultural tolerance – and then going on to poke fun at the polling method this argument is based around – is fighting bullshit with bullshit.

      If there’s a real flaw here, it’s that just because X percentage of Australians think this, don’t make it so.

      Posted by gwar on 2005 12 20 at 06:18 AM • permalink


    1. Racist! Don’t ya just love it?
      After the 375 million bucks Australians coughed up out of there own pockets to help the mostly Moslem victims of the Boxing Day tsunami and the outpouring of support for convicted heroin smuggler Van Nguyen, does this BULLSHIT fly anymore???
      My family are immigrants to this country, dare I say, of Middle Eastern appearance (gasp!) and yet I’ve only experienced racism once, and it was by ASIANS!

      Posted by Brian on 2005 12 20 at 06:37 AM • permalink


    1. #33 It would be rather severe to call someone who has a preference for his own race (or prefers that his daughter marry within his own race) a racist.  We all have preferences on most things.

      The key to whether or not a person is a racist is if, say, his daughter does marry into another race, does he then learn to relate to his new son-in-law as a person, or does he never get past the colour of the skin?

      #35.  Agreed.  I noticed just after I posted (don’t you hate that?) that I had mis-represented your post somewhat.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2005 12 20 at 06:52 AM • permalink


    1. SMH. Age.

      Sydney, Melbourne, respectively.

      Point and giggle at the inner city luvvies, and their corporate media circle jerk they use to convince each other they are the intelligentsia and the rest of us are moronic racists with no appreciation of the finer things in life.

      Even the Margoyle abandoned the ship.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2005 12 20 at 07:13 AM • permalink


    1. #30- yeh Champy, that evil lefty Rupert Murdoch, along with his commie mate Kerry Packer, dominate the meeja in this country, so what do you expect but damn left-wing bias?

      Posted by slammer on 2005 12 20 at 07:18 AM • permalink


    1. Mark Steyn appears to be linking Sydney’s Lebanese gangstas to fundamental Islamist terrorism.  This sort of foolishness is an occupational hazard when you’re trying to comment on events half a world away.

      Posted by slammer on 2005 12 20 at 07:51 AM • permalink


    1. Pedro said,

      “Point and giggle at the inner city luvvies, and their corporate media circle jerk they use to convince each other they are the intelligentsia and the rest of us are moronic racists with no appreciation of the finer things in life”.

      Michael Duffy had a good piece in the SMH a few days ago.

      Posted by JoeJr on 2005 12 20 at 07:58 AM • permalink


    1. To Slammer @ 40:

      Mark Steyn appears to be linking Sydney’s Lebanese gangstas to fundamental Islamist terrorism.  This sort of foolishness is an occupational hazard when you’re trying to comment on events half a world away.

      I think they ARE linked, at some distance to be sure, but linked nevertheless, for reasons Mark Steyn has set out in his numerous articles in recent years.  While I disagree with certain things Steyn says, he is clearly not a fool.

      Posted by IanMc on 2005 12 20 at 08:08 AM • permalink


    1. #40 Hey Slammer, perhaps if you read Rohan Gunaratna’s book ‘Inside Al Qaeda’ you would know that there is a very close link between organised Islamic criminal activity and terrorism.  It is the principal source of finance.  The Victorian Police will alledge that those arrested for terrorism in Melbourne formed a car rebirthing operation to finance their terrorist plans.  The Sydney guy sitting in a Lebanese jail for terror offences started off as a Sydney heroin dealer before graduating to the Lakemba police station shooter to international terrorist.  So there is a link, a very strong link. I guess ignorant comments are an occupational hazard when you don’t know what you are talking about homes.

      Posted by platey mates on 2005 12 20 at 08:31 AM • permalink


    1. I think what Steyn says is a little unfair. It’s not always a guy called Mohammed. As he himself points out, sometimes it’s a guy called Mohamed, or a guy called Muhammed, or a guy called Mehmet. Then again, it’s often a guy called Ali. In any case, instead of moving Mohammed to the target, we should be moving the target to Mohammed.

      Posted by Jim Geones on 2005 12 20 at 08:47 AM • permalink


    1. #43- I said gangstas, not gangsters.

      Posted by slammer on 2005 12 20 at 08:48 AM • permalink


    1. Ah, thankyou Tim for enlightening me. Before I thought the Fairfax and (taxpayer funded) media was fair, but now I realise that there is an almighty communist conspiracy that dictates only pro-left stories be pursued. Because there is so much money in these stories.

      All of the media CEO’s are lefties. Rupert is a lefty, Kerry is practically a Trotskyite. Just goes to show how far gone the Left really is…

      Posted by fatnigger on 2005 12 20 at 08:51 AM • permalink


    1. Also, by the way, America is a terrorist state. Please consult the International Court’s finding’s re: USA vs Nicaragua. I guess the International court was just controlled by Tony Jones and Kerry O’Brien. Bloody commies.

      Posted by fatnigger on 2005 12 20 at 08:56 AM • permalink


    1. Mark Steyn really needs to stop picking on those Mohammeds.

      Posted by kae on 2005 12 20 at 09:02 AM • permalink


    1. Also, as I know you are all a fact-loving bunch, why don’t you consult a book called ‘Our sexuality’ by Crooks & Baur (1999) for definitive proof that Lefties get more action than the conservatives and Tories. It doesn’t refute any of your major points, though, Tim, so long as you have your free-labour kleenex handy…

      Posted by fatnigger on 2005 12 20 at 09:02 AM • permalink


    1. Of course, ‘Inside Al Qaeda’  demonstrates clearly the links between those dirty towel-heads and their ill-willed extremism. My only question is how does it explain the same shitty criminal behaviour in Anglos who reside in the same neighbourhood? Such as Broadmeadows, for instance? Also, I believe that most of the bikie gangs are rather anglo. The organised crime underworld scene has many non-Anglo people in it… But unfortunately for you all, they all come from Mediterreanean coutnries, such as Italy.

      And we all know, Italy has a civilisation that would absolutely, unquestionably, shit on anything England has produced. Just look up your history books. Google ‘Rome’ or ‘The Renaissance’. If not for dirty immigrants, you would still be a laughable overgrown cow-town…

      So you readers should perhaps give your kleenex a break, eh, and enlighten yourselves with some facts. The media is not actually controlled by lefties, and the government is not acutally pursuing an agenda whereby Sharia law becomes Australian law. Fact, you sausage-tossing closet-faggots…

      Posted by fatnigger on 2005 12 20 at 09:17 AM • permalink


    1. @35 gwar

      The flipside is that supporting multiculturalism doesn’t automatically make you a non-racist

      I was going to say exactly that in response to your previous post when I read that.
      The other day I posted a comment at an online Canadian paper. It was in response to an article about racism in Australia.  I said in my comment that it wasn’t about race but culture and that Canada had a similar problem.  Anyway, my response was up for a short while and then deleted.  All following comments addressed the race issue.  First time I ever had a comment deleted and for something I thought was so not ofensive.
      At a Christmas lunch at work the other day, everyone was going on for ages about the racists in Cronulla.  After a while I said..what happened wasn’t good but it came after years of police inaction to Muslim-Lebanese intimidation and it is more about cultural differences than race.  Someone said straight away ‘Let’s change the topic’ and that was that.  So calling us racists is fine but it is taboo to mention underlying causes and culture?.

      Posted by Melanie on 2005 12 20 at 09:22 AM • permalink


    1. So what’s with the charming nom-de-comment “Fatnigger”?

      Posted by IanMc on 2005 12 20 at 09:24 AM • permalink


    1. I don’t know, and I don’t care, because I’ve just banned him.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 12 20 at 09:32 AM • permalink


    1. This is justa hypothesis, but perhaps it’s less about race and culture, than it is about the parts of the brain responsible for feelings of humiliation, self-pity & fanaticism becoming overgrown at the expense of the cerebral cortex?

      Posted by Jim Geones on 2005 12 20 at 09:40 AM • permalink


    1. Do you think ‘fatnigger’ was part of the 81% mulitculti’s in the survey?

      Posted by Melanie on 2005 12 20 at 09:46 AM • permalink


    1. Great analogies – James Morrow in today’s Australian: Self-loathing is the newest hate crime.

      TO say that the Australian Left has a conflicted relationship with Australia is like saying that a heartburn sufferer has a conflicted relationship with spicy Thai curry: they may claim to love it, but put the two together and all you’ll get is a lot of whingeing and hot air.

      This tense relationship—which is akin to teenagers who enjoy all the comforts of living at home while complaining that mum and dad are so tragically unhip—is always simmering in the background of Australia’s cultural life. But it boiled over in the wake of the Cronulla beach riot.

      Because just as sullen teenagers try to prove how sophisticated they are by vilifying their parents at every turn, the Australian Left is doing its best to maintain its own social standing by rubbishing the country in that international high school known as “the court of world opinion”—where the arbiters of cool are a handful of elite editorialists and academics and others who accumulate frequent flier points with taxpayer money.

      Posted by Humblogger (the Younger) on 2005 12 20 at 09:58 AM • permalink


    1. Racially-insulting “pen” name:  Check.
      Homophobia:  Check.
      “America is a terrorist state.”:  Check.
      Sneering pseudoinellectual feelings of superiority:  Check.

      Why, it’s a tolerant liberal multiculturist!

      Posted by ushie on 2005 12 20 at 10:03 AM • permalink


    1. BTW – Given commentators and journalists seem to be in broad agreement that racism is at the heart of the human race, and the only members of the human race who are not in thrall to racism are journalists and commentators. 25% of the population must be Journalists and Commentators. (Although most journalists and commentators seem to be thrilled at the outbreak of racist attacks by the human race on the human race, their apparent excitement and joy is tempered by sanctimonious expressions of concern about the reprehensible nature of such racist attacks.)

      Posted by Humblogger (the Younger) on 2005 12 20 at 10:04 AM • permalink


    1. Psuedoin-T-ellectuall.  Ahem.  I blame the kitten on my lap.

      Posted by ushie on 2005 12 20 at 10:07 AM • permalink


    1. Slightly OT but since a number of commenters have tried to argue that the media is unbiased, here’s a timely study (in the Quarterly Journal of Economics no less):

      Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
      “I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican,” said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study’s lead author. “But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are.”

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 12 20 at 10:18 AM • permalink


    1. And we all know, Italy has a civilisation that would absolutely, unquestionably, shit on anything England has produced. Just look up your history books. Google ‘Rome’ or ‘The Renaissance’.

      ‘Fatn*gger’ must be an anglo-supremacist pretending to be an anglophobe. I googled ‘The Renaissance’ and, to my dismay, found a whole heap of stuff about English literature, Tudor England etc. Cronulla rioters/supremacists/rednecks/cow-pasturites have clearly infiltrated

      Posted by boerskip_hybrid_ultradevil on 2005 12 20 at 10:26 AM • permalink


    1. I looked for the nuts and bolts of this poll at the AC Nielsen site. No sign of it. Do they only release results in full to their clients?

      Posted by boerskip_hybrid_ultradevil on 2005 12 20 at 10:30 AM • permalink


    1. @57 ushie – good checklist.  One thing you missed though, is – ‘despises Anglos’ – hard to find a tolerant liberal multiculti that doesn’t.

      Posted by Melanie on 2005 12 20 at 10:32 AM • permalink


    1. ABC has found another excuse to re run the “Shining type, lunatic racist surfers” pic on their site..Open letter urges us to combat racism..Sigs-Julian Burnside,Ninny Stephens,a multicultie council rep and other assorted fruitloops..

      Posted by crash on 2005 12 20 at 10:40 AM • permalink


    1. Melanie, as is Champy, I thought pointing out F—N—anglo-ness was just too obvious…

      Posted by ushie on 2005 12 20 at 10:53 AM • permalink


    1. All of the media CEO’s are lefties. Rupert is a lefty, Kerry is practically a Trotskyite. Just goes to show how far gone the Left really is…

      One isn’t required to be a ‘lefty’ to be pro-multiculturalism. Some people have financial interests in it, others are motivated by anti-westernism or their own ethnic interests and others still just actually like cultural diversity. Those opposed also come from the left and right.

      I personally think some people are genetically prone to ethnic tribalism. Your willingness to show it openly is dependent on whether you’re a minority/majority,what society currently says is taboo and your location. Eg-A Muslim may argue for multiculturalism in Australia, but it would be unlikely for the same person to fight for it in a majority Muslim country. A white person in Australia today may feel edgy about being too ethnically tribalistic, but 70 years ago it was the epitome of patriotism-as it still is in most majority non-western nation states. Perhaps the day will come when a hyphenated-Australian lobbies for diversity in their ‘hyphenated’ as much as they do for Australia, but it’s not yet.

      Posted by boerskip_hybrid_ultradevil on 2005 12 20 at 11:13 AM • permalink


    1. Regarding Mark Steyn’s piece, one could also reference the road rage incident where a Mohammed was killed by a Sydney taxi driver. (Note : never ever put your head in a cabbie’s window, as many cabbies carry screwdrivers for replacing roof globes). A classic case of passion meeting passion.

      Posted by JAFA on 2005 12 20 at 12:34 PM • permalink


    1. You’ve all been sold another leftie talking point by constant MSM repetition.

      Not supporting the failed Multi-CULTURism is now RACEist?

      Some cultures like “Anglo-Saxon” are much better than others (Islamic).  You can change the culture, you are born with

      It is not racist to oppose being forced to subsidise immigration from lower quality cultures (multi-culti).

      Posted by Rob Read on 2005 12 20 at 01:21 PM • permalink


    1. It seems to me that the only racism (or culturism, if you prefer) that counts is the kind where the government herds minority populations into controlled ghettos and forbids them to engage in any kind of meaningful economic activity or mainstream education.  When governments do not do this, and in fact, pass laws to extend equal opportunity to all its citizens (and even some non-citizens), racism or culturism is merely a matter of personal attitude that eventually will fade when new generations mingle begin to actually connect with one another.  And I say “fade”, not “disappear”, human nature being what it is.  But at least it ceases to be of much importance to a civil society.

      So, to make my point, underlying racism in Australia, or any Anglosphere country, or anywhere at all, may exist but so what?  Hurt feelings won’t kill you when you’re free otherwise to pursue your own life as you choose.

      To make it even simpler for lefties:  sticks and stones, etc.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2005 12 20 at 02:41 PM • permalink


    1. #36 – I’d forgotten about the tsunami donations.

      The media prides itself on questioning authority, but it rarely questions the ideas it puts forth.  Instead of attempting to examine the “racisim” issue objectively by considering the Van Nguyen hsyteria, tsunami donations; the media pushes forth with whatever rhetoric is espoused by the usual leftist commentators.

      If Prof Moonbat from the Sociology faculty of some university declares that racism is deeply rooted in Australia’s cultural consciousness, then the media push this barrow forward without questioning it!?!?!

      Posted by tdw77 on 2005 12 20 at 04:00 PM • permalink


    1. Anyone know the name of the “business leader” who signed the letter-condemning-racism” and the company he represents?  That company will go straight on to my black-list!

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2005 12 20 at 04:34 PM • permalink


    1. Ohh, is “black-list” racist?  Sorry!  Please forgive an old coot.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2005 12 20 at 04:35 PM • permalink


    1. funny how iraq is the root cause at the same time as local factors are…

      Posted by KK on 2005 12 20 at 07:34 PM • permalink


    1. Self-loathing the newest hate crime.

      Now THAT says it all! Brilliantly too!

      Posted by Brian on 2005 12 20 at 08:11 PM • permalink


    1. I actually work with polls and there are several observed phenomenon that are relevant here:

      1. People will tend to make a judgement as to what they think you want them to reply.  This came out as a phenomenon when the polls from newspapers got it so badly wrong over Bush/Howard. The reality is that most pollsters are or are perceived to be young/left wing.

      2. If a subject is all over the papers opinions will be tainted for a time.  Eg jurors in trials are not supposed to see pictures of the faces of defendants in handcuffs.  The Cronulla scenes on tv looked pretty ugly and would certainly have invalidated totally any opinion poll related to them.

      3.  People who get their news from tv are less likely to be optimistic than people who either don’t watch it or at least don’t watch the news (Pinkleton & Austin 2002). Background as to media use is required to make sense out of opinions on an inflammatory topic like this.

      What I am trying to say is that the polls technically are garbage in garbage out.  Whatever they say or do not say tells us only about the organisation that commissioned them, not the people polled or even less about racism.

      Posted by allan on 2005 12 20 at 09:18 PM • permalink


    1. All those europeans must be shocked; those dreadful riots in Cronulla, so bad for Australia’s reputation.
      It shows we are just as bad as France, for example, where “after three weeks of violence across the country, some 10,000 vehicles were burned, 255 schools, 233 public buildings and 51 post offices were attacked, 140 public-transport vehicles were stoned, and 4,770 people were arrested, according to figures obtained by Le Monde.” (the economist)

      Posted by arnienelly on 2005 12 21 at 12:15 AM • permalink


    1. #60, ArtVanDeLay, anyone wanting an alternative view on media bias should slip on over to John Quiggan’s, where in “Monday Message Board” there is a circle jerk going on about how it is the “duty” of the media to be biased to the left, & that any journalist who is not lefty biased is abrogating their responsibility to report accurately”

      Posted by Steve at the pub on 2005 12 21 at 03:15 AM • permalink


    1. … it is the “duty” of the media to be biased to the left, & that any journalist who is not lefty biased is abrogating their responsibility to report accurately” 
      Didn’t David Marr use that one a while back?
      What does accuracy have to do with that position? They may be abrogating their responsibility to fellow journos to be reporting in a lefty, biased fashion; but accuracy? They’re kidding, right?
      And, since we are into recycled memes, who said:
      if you are not left inclined when young you have no heart. But if you are still left when you grow up you have no brains?

      Posted by blogstrop on 2005 12 21 at 07:32 AM • permalink


  1. A man who is not a Liberal at sixteen has no heart; a man who is not a Conservative at sixty has no head.  ~Benjamin Disraeli

    Posted by slammer on 2005 12 21 at 07:59 AM • permalink