The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > All-time low for Australia’s press > Comments

All-time low for Australia’s press : Comments

By Alan Austin, published 7/3/2012

Julia Gillard was 100 per cent right and the media 100 per cent wrong about the Carr appointment.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Why aren't members of the government (and opposition) more accountable for what they say?

The press often have to work with hidden sources or by putting together pieces of bits of information and trying to get the picture from it. Sometimes they will get it wrong, at other times just lack the evidence or have parts wrong.

The real issue is that we have become so used to pollies lying, spinning and distorting their responses and claims that few except the most partisan supporters have reason to believe much that they say at all. That applies to both sides of the house.

Few of Julia's supporters seem to have had much trouble with the assertion that Kev07 has been running a campaign of harm to Julia's tenure yet I've not yet seen any definative proof of the claim. Kev07 denied doing so. Who should we believe? (in this case I do believe Julia's backers)

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 1:43:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author engages in yet more spin in his response: "@Raycom, “why was Gillard not prepared to answer along the same lines in Parliamentary question time?” Pretty sure she did, Raycom. She said the story was wrong both times. It was wrong. In all seven ‘revelations’. All of them completely wrong."

On the front page of The Australian of 1 March, Dennis Shanahan reports:

"The story that's on the front page of The Australian newspaper today is completely untrue", the Prime Minister said at a hurried four-question press conference.

No ifs, no buts, "completely untrue" in its entirety.

Two hours later in parliament, Gillard played the lawyer, parried questions and fudged.

The reason was simple: the story was substantially true, couldn't be denied and anyone who did so would be guilty of misleading the parliament. Deliberately misleading parliament for political gain is a resignation offence. ...

These are the agreed facts from the "completely untrue" story that not even Gillard disputes. Carr was offered the Senate vacancy and the position of foreign minister; Gillard spoke personally to him at least twice on Monday night; after the conversation Carr believed he was going to be foreign minister; Carr was prepared to come to Canberra on Tuesday for an announcement; Stephen Smith and Simon Crean objected; and finally the offer of foreign minister was withdrawn on Tuesday morning ; and finally the offer of foreign minister was withdrawn on Tuesday morning and the alternative of defence (Smith's portfolio) or trade (Crean's portfolio) was offered. "
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 1:44:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no basis, Alan, for acceptance of your version.

Gillard denies, and then evades any questions.

Based on her clumsy and unconvincing denial, you make the rest up.

From the comments, you have fooled some people, or they pretend to be fooled, so as to support your spin.

Generally your synthesisation is receiving the contempt it deserves.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 2:24:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi again Raycom and Leo,

Thanks again for your responses.

Perhaps it might be helpful to read the transcript of question time on Wednesday of last week, instead of relying on snippets on the news. You will find it here, starting at page 53:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard

It is not all that long. But it definitely seems that the questions were a bit problematic. For example, Julie Bishop asked the PM, “Doesn't the veto of her choice of Bob Carr as foreign minister by the faceless men of the caucus simply prove that the resources minister is right?”

What veto of her choice of Bob Carr?

Mr Abbott then spoke about “the offer of the foreign ministership to Bob Carr and its subsequent withdrawal at the insistence of the faceless men”.

Both these contributions contain an embedded falsehood - one of the seven in The Australian front page story of that morning.

In contrast, it seems from Hansard that the PM’s replies were measured and appropriate: “Let me say, as I said to the earlier questions, 'Don't believe everything you read.'”

So I am not sure who you think was guilty of misleading the Parliament, Raycom. Might be good for you to read the Hansard carefully.

Regarding the veracity of the news stories, it depends which ones we are talking about. Phillip Coorey’s report in the SMH on Tuesday of last week that Bob Carr had been approached was true.

But the story on Wednesday by Shanahan and Franklin in The Australian was false. That story contained seven revelations, itemised above. All seven were completely false, weren’t they?

And it was this Shanahan and Franklin fabrication that the PM was referring to specifically: ‘The story that's on the front page of The Australian newspaper today is completely untrue.’

Happy to be corrected on any of this, as always, if there is information I may have overlooked.
Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 6:52:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Alan,

'Completely' is a pretty totalising word, it does not allow for the slightest sliver of doubt. It's a sort of 100 % word. 'Completely untrue' does not admit a sliver of truth, you'd agree ?

So is 'not'. As in ' ..... did not make an offer'.

Or to put the two closer together, 'The report is completely untrue - I did not make an offer to Bob Carr.'

No, I agree, she did not say that, in those words. What she said was that it was 'Completely untrue' that she had made an offer to Bob Carr.

And then she did.

It seems that, as you point out, there were peripheral issues which the press got wrong.

So ......... what the press published was not absolutely, 'completely' and unequivocally accurate or indeed true in every respect: there were elements of untruth, or at least inaccuracies, in what was reported ? In amongst the accurate truth, i.e. that Carr had, in fact, been offered the position of FM, there were discrepancies and/or inaccuracies ?

And this is the same as 'completely untrue' ?

"Possibly containing inaccuracies" = "Completely untrue" ?

So numerically speaking:

* a little less than 100 % true = 0 % true ?

Have I got that right ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 8:52:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan,

don't you see that the only beneficiary of all this crap is Tony Abbott.

All the punters see that You trying to spin a different 'truth', which is what Abbott knows labor always does, is exactly how you and Labor always over-indulge yourselves. We the punters have seen it over and over until we just develop or re-inforce the perception that Gillard and labor are liars.

Mate you should start analysig how Smith's refusal to apologise to Kafer today is affecting the punters perception of him.

Did you notice today that while you lot are still justifying events of last week, Abbott is hitting the buttons of labor envy today with his highlighting of the deficiencies in the government's response to the Gonsky report.

Mark my words it's an issue that re-inforces the perception of Wayne's war on middle Australia and Smith's dodging just re-inforces labor's leadership deficiencies.

Abbott's running those two issues and the boats keep arriving while you and labor are indulging in navel gazing over on labor's labor of ... last week.

And you think you blokes aren't being out-though, manipulated and done like dinners, by a superior intellect.

Cheers
Watch mate and try to keep up with Abbott's game.
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 9:01:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy