What is the black out period referenced as the reason for the locking of election related threads on the forum?
This is the black out period Choice was referring toâŠ
While possibly not compelled to enforce the black out in the community, Choice has made a decision to have a similar black out in the community. It is understandable as parties/pollies often resort to other means outside the formal media advertising black out to push their agendas or views. Choiceâs decision removes this opportunity for this to be done for the current election.
7 Likes
I am puzzled about this too.
The material here is not advertising and heavily moderated to prevent advertising. Also it is online (not a broadcaster). There are two reasons there is no requirement to have a blackout.
I respect the right of Choice to decide what is, or is not, acceptable no matter what reason may be given, or not given.
If they had said that they did not want to risk some partisan material suddenly appearing I would have said that reason was quite sensible. The reason given in this case is quite spurious and I see no need for that.
2 Likes
Posts on this site are visible in Internet searches.
It is not unknown for posts to appear that clearly breach site rules, and can stay for many hours, before our trusty crew of moderators can clobber them. Usually pop up in the middle of the night.
And why should Choice allow themselves to be associated with some nefarious poster who tries a last minute disinformation post?
Good decision Choice. 
6 Likes
Of course the blackout period does not stop other means of communication. More junk mail today from the local member and a personally addressed envelope with enclosed signed plea from a well known ex PM to act appropriately. Mail merge performs wonders. Hopefully paid for from party funds. For all the stones thrown at AP during the year, it seems some of their most powerful critics really love the service. 
Iâve pre-polled. Hope it goes well for those whose local booths cannot be opened due to staff issues or will be phone voting due to Covid.
3 Likes
Another aspect to âblackoutsâ are that media donât seem obliged to worry. On voting day the ABC (and others?) were regurgitating political point scoring interviews on newscasts from one or another pollie almost on schedules. Since the point scoring interviews were not commented on or challenged in any depth I could imagine their broadcast might have swayed a vote or two, rather than being ânewsworthyâ items of the day.
A proper blackout should ban 100% of political reporting and media commentary from its inception to after all the polls close. As a practical matter there is no way to shut down social media, but the press, MSM websites, and broadcasting services could easily be included as with the parties/candidates themselves.
5 Likes
I made a formal complaint to the AEC and the ABC on the matter. I doubt it will be rectified in the future, the laws move too slowly to capture this type of behaviour.
6 Likes
This to me makes an argument for not having a restriction on reporting through the media. There was one event on polling day that was quickly turned into mass communication. Now likely after the event to be further investigated. If there was any impact it is too late to correct, short of cancelling the election results in potentially influenced electorates to follow a fresh election. Hardly a thought that would find favour with most voters.
If media organisations are blocked from reporting or comment, where do we go if the alternatives which are not subject to direct control are used with mischievous intent, or to communicate false content over the closing days? Does the AEC need to have the resources to monitor and call out in real time with overwhelming weight doubtful content. That might not find favour with very vocal minorities intent on communicating their debated beliefs. The AEC could not in every instance be a reliable arbiter of absolute truth?
Something needs to change, but it should not be at risk of unfettered voices having a final say free of challenge?
1 Like
Therein lies a difference. Social media is a multi-way communication that is often a dialogue and sometimes incites mob behaviour yet is still open to real-time rebuttal, whereas broadcasting (in all its forms) is lecturing one way.
2 Likes
Pop up Ads through Social Media are not able to be thwarted through rebuttal. They appear and the obvious ones for me were the UAP ones that continued argumentum ad infinitum
2 Likes
There will always be an exception, but doing nothing wonât improve any debate, or any electioneering lies.
Perhaps the best improvement would be legislating truth in advertising for pollies. But wait, not possible for more reasons than are possible.
2 Likes
I agree the system needs to be improved. I think any political party that places ads after the blackout regardless of the medium used, should be fined so hard that they feel immense financial pain.
I am just pointing out that some political campaigning has not been adequately covered by existing rules about blackouts. When a political person can continue to spout their âadvertisingâ unabated and often encouraged by media, then blackouts are meaningless. Pain needs to be on those who pay for it after the blackout period, those who sell the space after blackout, and those who encourage the spiels after blackouts.
2 Likes
Yes. Why target just radio and TV? There are two assumptions. One, that we need a period of quiet to reflect and make sound decisions, otherwise we are likely to vote according to the last message shouted at us. Two, that radio and TV have extraordinary power that other media do not. I donât see either being true. Another anomaly is that the rule does not apply to local government elections.
None of this makes any sense to me. Strangely some form of blackout exists in quite a few other countries. I havenât looked how it operates in detail.
It is similar to closing of bars on election day that has been the rule at various places and times. It reflects a paternalistic view that the common man (women would not get pissed before voting) cannot be trusted to remain sober and vote with sound judgement. As if sobriety would guarantee that.
A much more relevant and effective idea to improve the quality of decision making would be real-time reporting and limiting of political donations. An idea that hasnât got much attention from the major parties this time around - or ever.
1 Like
Advertising is advertising, I get that argument. At least with what I deem inappropriate commercial advertising I can complain about falsehoods, content and time slots. Political advertising during campaigning is allowed to continue with falsehoods, content, and time slots with reckless abandon and almost no possible censure as it is seen as a form of protected speech.
Limiting the donations, limiting the spend, are great ideas but those who make the rules are likely not willing to change the rules that they favour.
Reporting also needs decent and unbiased reporting. That type of reporting is lacking here (not absent but certainly limited) and in other places, sometimes because of laws eg China and Russia. Sometimes itâs because of particular media ownership concentration and sometimes because the reporters do not probe as they should. All these things require a great deal of effort to bring about change. Some of that effort does require those in power to be unbiased themselvesâŠwell, thatâs a very hard thing for many of them to be and do.
1 Like
In whose eyes?
Elon Musk has suggested one way forward while others have suggested not all social media are created equal.
Iâve an open mind, even if some of the thoughts seem pointing in other directions. Itâs to wonder as to whether there could ever be common ground?
How would one respond to social media sharing details of a referral of a key candidate to a CMC on the eve of polling? Is it rumour, fact or part fact? How would one know for sure? A simple notice to appear may be sufficient to raise doubts, and yet such calls may not be as it first appears. We seem to rely on conventions that each year are becoming more challenged, whether by the parties/candidates, the media or other interests. Hopefully any vision of a race to the bottom has been dented by the recent results. Time will tell.
Whoever is in government leading into an election the incumbent always appears to use itâs position to maximise advantage on the day (and in prior voting weeks). That includes deferring release of reports that may reflect poor outcomes over prior quarters or years!
1 Like
Maybe at least 1personâs
2 Likes
So many interesting observations based on some of the referenced article.
Firstly that the âblackout periodâ does not apply to advertising through online and social media. As not everyone uses social media or the same options is this transparent and fair? Especially if what is said is not reported elsewhere, unreliable or false.
Secondly the relative amounts spent on advertising overall suggest politics and influence is now also connected to financial capacity. Although one can as Palmer has demonstrated appear to spend unwisely.
A third observation is despite what Google and Facebook assert about not being in the media business or being publishers, they accepted substantial payments for advertising. This included adds during the âblackout periodâ. Paid advertising is very different to posts (no payment required) provided by their users. Arguably advertising is controllable content that can be restricted. Itâs unfortunate Google and Facebook have so little respect for what should have been an advertising free period the more established Australian media businesses have been excluded from.
3 Likes
Or is it?
Not done until it is done, as well as the drafted legislation.
1 Like
Spending caps.
Reportedly it can cost up to $100M to get a place in the Senate. Something else possibly delivered for that $100M?
1 Like
I am positively squirming with anticipation. But not holding my breath.
1 Like
