ARCHIVES 1997-2007  --- ARCHIVES 2007 +



It might appear that Kevin has not chosen his enemies wisely.

For a while there I thought he was cuddling up to Rupert by keeping the book subsidy going, which I thought might have benefited Bay Books.
Or maybe the book subsidy was not enough.  However the tone of the Murdoch press has been quite anti-Rudd in the last few weeks.   Just to make a list:
  1. Refugees.
  2. The quarter billion dollars to the free to air TV stations for nothing
  3. The global warming subsidies fiasco, ($2b for Batts, $1b for solar cells, $?b for solar hot water)
  4. Massive failure of Copenhagen
  5. The Whaling promise broken.
  6. The Hospital promise broken.
  7. The simmering cauldron about education in maths and science.
  8. And of course, the beatification of Tony Abbott.
Rupert is a very shrewd boy.  It is my observation that he usually throws his weight onto the balance after the election is announced (i.e. the last couple of months before we vote).  The next federal election could be a year away.  Following that train of thought, this threat is just a warning.  If Kevinator makes peace offers (Rupert gets a big bribe) it could be that the Murdoch press would not find quite so much to complain about over the next few months.  And Tony might not be such a poster boy.

I have said elsewhere that Rupert has printers ink instead of blood.  But to keep those presses rolling, he needs gold.  And times are hard!


Decades ago Marshal Macluhan identified "hot" and "cool" media. (In a book called "The media is the massage")   "Hot" media was communication via a single sense, "cool" media passed the message via two or more senses.  So disembodied speech or print was "hot" while TV or movies were "cool".

With "hot" media, he speculated, the intellect was more intensely involved.  The reader or listener had to maintain a strand of logic.  The individual had to think in a linear fashion.  Cool media on the other hand, was "holistic".  The individual would garner a non-linear impression of the communication.

Macluhan observed that the majority of people pre the TV era were most influenced by "hot" media, and came to conclusions by a chain of logic..  People who were exposed as children to TV were influenced by that "cool" media to think in a "holistic" fashion.  I confess to a possible bias, since TV was not available to me until I was in my twenties.  I would therefore likely be a "hot" thinker.  I would like to make the further observation that the Internet, being mostly print, is a "hot" medium, so perhaps the populace is again moving back to the historical balance between "hot" and "cool" thinkers.

Which leads to a further observation.  Why is it that hot media such as newspapers and radio seems to predominantly support the conservative side of the political spectrum, while TV and movies seem to most heavily promote the "liberal" side of politics?  Both hot and cool
media address the same ambition, which is how to solve the major problems of the world*.  They differ widely in the methods that they suggest.

Of course, I being a "hot" thinker, suspect that only "hot" thinkers have the patience to follow the rational policy determinations disbursed by hot media.  Allan Jones, Rush Limbough or Bill O'Reilly.  The spectacles shown on TV and films such as those by Al Gore and Michael Moore leave me uninspired.

My "cool" friends also choose the same ambition, but accept uncritically the emotive images provided by their own favored media.  It's not that they are dumb.  It's just that "cool" thinkers are affected more by images than by rationality.

* The major problems of the world like world peace, global warming, famine, disease, poverty etc.

MAIL comments