65
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by citsuah@lemmygrad.ml to c/worldnews@lemmygrad.ml

In the wake of the delivery of a resounding no to this proposed constitutional change, this article offers a very measured analysis of the problems with the Voice proposal and rejects the simplistic idea that a "no" is simply due to Australians being racist. This article is from before the referendum.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Australian_Indigenous_Voice_referendum#Advertising_and_media :
Mass media in Australia are highly concentrated, with Rupert Murdoch's News Corp Australia dominating the landscape, owning over two-thirds of leading newspapers along with most online news websites ; three News Corp outlets occupy the top three positions in the nation, based on popularity and viewership.
The majority of News Corp's content was commentary, not reporting, so when the various articles and videos were examined together, around 70% of the coverage favoured "No" arguments.

[-] Munrock@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 year ago
[-] soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And weird.

People are saying that referendums represent the will of the people, as if it was unmoving. How many people would have changed their minds after the u.s.s.r. dissolution of 1991 for example ?

Also, i've looked at the opinion surveys for presidential elections of the last decades and it always moved a lot in the last weeks, a proof that they're consciously manipulative/lying i.m.h.o.

this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
65 points (100.0% liked)

World News

2289 readers
165 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS