The Greens blocked Labors attempts to tackle climate change, they fucked around and blocked affordable housing, and they're surprised when voters walk away.

For example, using data from the Scanlon Foundation Research Institute, he pointed to a correlation between voters under financial stress and anti-political feelings.

With geniuses like these in the Greens who wouldn't trust them with running the country. Its almost like the people they've been pandering too aren't the ones struggling financially, and the people who are hurting the most see the Greens as likely to hurt them more with bullshit plans that only help inner city yuppies.

[–] auzy1@lemmy.world 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Because you have Murdoch controlling most of the media and other people like Gina buying a lot of it too

That being said, I suspect a huge amount of the people on Facebook look like bots, and I think most Australians won't be voting onp.

The only thing that has changed in the past year is that they've said they'll win. But, don't forget they've been losing 3 decades of elections

[–] eureka@aussie.zone -2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Have you read the article you're commenting on?

[–] auzy1@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

A lot of it yes. But, I tuned out by the end, the moment I realised they didn't even identify media bias.

It comes down to ONP doing what MAGA did in US. Flooding the zone. Like, news stations are giving people like Pauline an unreasonable amount of airtime. And Facebook is designed to promote ragebait which ONP uses.

It really is just THAT simple. Nobody can hear them, because Pauline is shouting over everyone. Even stupid bullshit like the poster thing, she was given plenty of airtime to blame police, and pretend like she was in danger, without the other side of the story (that it was a poster). They give more attention to the shooters parties than Greens (despite Greens having more seats)

You tell me if this shit is journalism, or an advert: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/pauline-hanson-reveals-new-plane/video/eaee05b10463865e0cd49f2e0b0427e8

https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/pauline-hanson-shows-off-new-plane-gifted-by-gina-rinehart/video/f031e3da44abddec185fdcefb0a41f06 . Oh look.. He reckons "this is great!"

That's an example of the problem. If Greens got a new plane, I guarantee Sky news and all the murdoch media would attack them instead. In fact, any time people like Albo get on a plane, they start attacking "greenies"

Murdoch media is doing things like presenting interfering with war criminal cases as a good thing, and will NEVER give airtime to people like the greens. And, unless the greens compromise their values, they won't get that airtime.

Ask yourself, when has the Australian or Sky News even mentioned the policies of the greens? They sure have every shitty right wing party

The only thing that has changed is that Murdoch recently started pushing ONP more, instead of Libs/Nats.

[–] eureka@aussie.zone 1 points 15 hours ago

Thanks for explaining, sorry that I was rude, I just assumed it was a comment replying to a headline.

And you're absolutely right that most of the news stations are promoting ONP. They also manufacture outrage events like "Pauline talks to [controversial person] in a podcast". There is institutional media bias and the article barely even mentioned it: "The review pointed to “minimal media oxygen” and a fragmented audience as barriers to getting their message across.", that's the only time they even glanced at the mass media situation.

What can people do to counter this? It seems to me like the most effective approach is to bring people away from Murdoch/Silicon Valley/etc. mass media, or at least to inoculate them against the ads and bleaching that ultraweathy-owned media will push. It might be easier for centrists with progressive interests (e.g. queer folk might be interested in queer publications, environmentalists might be interested in pro-environmental media outlets) but for the bulk of people, it seems ABC and The Guardian might be the most acceptable mainstream publications.

Perhaps it could be useful to have some infographic resources to illustrate just how biased each of the right-leaning resources are. Not just some 'biaschecker.com' thing, but specific examples and statistics showing those advertisments. I wonder if the ABC Media Watch has done something like that...

[–] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Thorpe said exactly what I've thought and heard:

The outspoken Victorian said while she was grateful for time with the party, she sometimes found the experience alienating, as she felt the messaging targeted educated, privileged voters.

“They’re preaching to the converted, and they’ll always stay at that 10% because they just talk to themselves,” Thorpe said.

I've seen barely any Greens interaction beyond flyers so I might be wrong on this, but the Greens seem to be mobilising people who are already aligned, like doorknocking in progressive areas, more than any kind of deep organising of communities. I think that's something Chandler-Mather may have the intention and drive to change, but I don't know if the Greens rank-and-file, at large, will be capable of it. Quite frankly, I think a couple of socialist groups near me have fallen into the same trap of primarily appealing to the stereotypical young tertiary-educated urban progressivist crowd who already agrees with 90% of their policies, rather than actually listening to the rest of their greater city, engaging with them and working to build a broader movement alongside them.

[–] Wataba@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago

Thorpe is a pathetic womanchild who throws tantrums at every turn. I immediately disparage those who take her seriously.

When elders of the Aboriginal community are fed up with her antics, its telling.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Reactionaries don't want the hard long road they want the fast one that means they get to hurt someone

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think you're half right with that answer, but I'd say it's not about long/short at all (tax the rich is often framed as a quick and easy solution too).

The second bit is what I think it's almost entirely about. The Greens propose hurting people we don't see or interact with at all, nor do their proposals even hurt these people because they're so wealthy. One Nation propose hurting people like us, the people we interact with on a daily basis who sometimes get under our skin. The people whose lives would actually be impacted negatively if One Nation got their way. Its a message that just plays way better in our current social media environment where everyone is obsessed with conflict and schadenfreude.

EDIT: I guess another way to think about it is that voters don't trust any political party or individual to meaningfully improve their lives, but at least One Nation will fuck some people they don't like up in the process.