Nathan (gemsling) wrote,

Herald Sun Voteline Watch

A while back, I was thinking how nice it would be to have a blog that calmly and carefully debates Andrew Bolt's columns. No fighting fire with fire - nothing but a point-by-point breakdown of his claims, with minimal opinion. A response that not only debunks false claims based on evidence, but which gives him credit every time he's right about something, plus highlights which points are purely opinion and outlines the range of alternative viewpoints.

In other words, a thankless task, but one with the potential to be a credible source of reason, pitted against Bolt's divisive opinion and cherry-picked facts.

But then I realised that it's a silly idea. It would help people refute Bolt's columns in conversation, but it wouldn't reach his readers and fans. The day the Herald Sun publishes a right of reply alongside a Bolt column is the day that some disgruntled editor is fired.

Furthermore, I've since found a blog that almost fits the bill. And what it loses in neutrality (it has a bit of opinion), it makes up for by airing a wide range of points in the comments.

So, here's an idea for an easier blog: Voteline Watch.

A blog that articulates what's wrong with each day's Voteline question in the Herald Sun. You know the ones. They're usually tied to a biased article in the news section, saying "Have Your Say". How much say can you have with Yes or No?

Furthermore, there's no link back to the article from the Voteline box on the letters page. So, some voters might not actually read the background to the question.

Almost every Voteline question I read is inflammatory and deliberately worded to encourage more votes. That alone reminds me of the quote about Murdoch prefering Obama over Clinton on the basis that he'd sell more newspapers.

As practice, let's start with yesterday's example of journalistic integrity.

"Should two-year-olds be taught about lesbian mums and sperm donors?"

Oh. My. God. Let's exercise our moral outrage, shall we? And yet, the question has little to do with the story. The publishers of "Where Did I Really Come From?" did not advocate that 2 year-olds be taught about sex. They merely explained that the book is suitable for 2-12 year olds, making it appropriate for use when kids have questions and are ready to learn. And the book's not specifically about lesbian mums and sperm donors - it's simply a book about conception that aims to be inclusive, rather than make IVF kids feel bad.

So, naturally, 90% of voters have answered No, making Herald Sun readers sound like homophobic puritans. But that's not the case; even the percentage of Voteline voters who are homophobic or against sex education would not reach 90%.

Have Your Say

Now it's your turn to pit your skills against those of the Herald Sun editors. What yes/no question can you come up with for this non-story about an existing book being re-released?
Tags: politics, rant

  • Working on my ballot paper

    So, the time has come to get over my disinterest in state politics and figure out how to vote. It was easy enough to decide who to vote for and who…

  • "Indecision 2010"

    Poor policies leads to a hung parliament. Who would have thought? Is anyone polling voters to find out how many people voted for a major party and…

  • If only it were satirical

    No wonder some people can't recognise satire, when you get something like this insane "survey" that looks like satire, but isn't. If you ask…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded