Terrific Alan. The Press Gallery has a lot to answer for on this one and especially the Murdoch press. I remember sadly how excited we were back in the 1970s when this new paper, The Australian, was first published. A national unbiassed terrific paper. Now it is simply gutter press. I have some policy differences with Julia Gillard but her decision to get Bob Carr on board was brilliant. The poor woman has been subject to the most irrational, intemperate, unprofessional, misogynist treatment by the media and others. Good on her for not cracking under the pressure.

What gratuitous and grovelling article. Gillard, again, was devious and duplicitous through the whole thing. I have no trust in her in fact I trust her to stand back and see what she thinks will put her in the best light.
The author has a hide complaining as Gillard and Co always criticise "Abbott" rather than addressing any critiscism and Tony Abbott certainly gets his share from the Canberra "Pack"!

Now I don't know what to think! The writer is extremely sure of his facts, but how am I to tell who is right and who is wrong? Did Steven Smith object to being pushed aside once again? Did Bob Carr buy a plane ticket and was told that the deal was off? Was there a fuss within the party which the PM finally dealt with?

The writer is very confident, but doesn't tell us why his account of it all is the right one. It might well be, but how are we to know?

Don't expect any retractions by the Australian. It's now busily throwing dust into the air to obfuscate its misrepresentations saying that it was all just a shambolic confusion caused by Labor (no no, not the Australian) and typical of all its decision-making.

Sorry JBowyer, the Australian has become a political trash-rag. Only when the country is rewound to the Howard years will it calm down to doing its proper job again.

Thanks Alan for this exposure of yet another slanderous and misleading propaganda article by The Australian. What you outline amounts to 'telling supposition as fact'. It is also common knowledge that it censors out articles that differs from its own world view.
Something must be done about the media if we are to maintain a robust democracy. Most dosmaying is the pack behaviour; failure of journalists, even in the ABC to properly analyse and take an independent view.

Should not be difficult to legislate for proper press accountablity and no corporate domination of the press. I think it will take some street demonstrations to remind the government that now is the time.

Oh, really?

"Gillard had not been untruthful at any stage."

When asked about this...

"Ms Gillard offered the job to Mr Carr, Labor's longest-serving NSW premier and respected national Labor figure, last week when Mr Rudd resigned to contest the leadership ballot, and before Senator Arbib announced his resignation from the ministry and Senate to create a NSW
vacancy" The Australian, 29th February, 2012

...Ms Gillard said this:

"The story that's on the front page of The Australian newspaper today is completely untrue."

[Reporter: Were you over-ruled though?]

"I've just said completely untrue. I've just said completely untrue." ABC1, Lateline, 29th February, 2012

"Completely untrue", Prime Minister?

Rather than nit-pic, perhaps all the dissenters, howlers and stuck-in-the-muds should read this article again - with a more open mind?

Alan Austin

No matter how you spin the recent events in labor, I think you are simply missing the obvious.

The Labor Party, the Parliament and the media in this country are being manipulated by a massive intellect.

That intellect is merely tapping all the right buttons at the right times. It has participated in jerking all the labor levers that resulted in disasterous decisions and then manipulates the parliament and the press into highlighting the dysfunction and chaos that's been created.

Let's see could that intellect be the intellect of a person with:

i. an arts degree in Asian studies whose major was Chinese language and Chinese history?

ii. a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws degrees?

iii. bachelors degrees in arts and law and a masters degree in law?

iv. a graduate who studied Public Administration?

v. an Honours graduate in economics?

vi. a graduate in arts and law?

Or

a graduate with a degree in law and a degree in economics who is also a Rhodes Scholar with a Masters of Arts in Politics and Philosophy from Oxford?

I guess you understand my point.

This bloke has disposed of Rudd, is well on the way to disposing of Gillard and will make mincemeat of a pseudo intellectual with an Arts degree in History.

He's united the Liberal Party and mended the bridges, damaged by Turnbull, with the Nationals, and was cheated out of an election by a devious paranoid schizo and a couple of fake conservatives.

Julia and labor are right when they blame Tony for all their problems ... but not because he's negative ... but because he's completely outthought them, then manipulated circumstances to cause them, the ultimate dummies, the severest discomfort.

You labor people all the time supply him his greatest asset, you underestimate him. You also contribute to his greatest deception, you play up his opposition and believe that is a negative.

We punters out here are loving it.

Oh dear ...

When asked about this...

"Ms Gillard offered the job to Mr Carr, Labor's longest-serving NSW premier and respected national Labor figure, last week when Mr Rudd resigned to contest the leadership ballot, and before Senator Arbib announced his resignation from the ministry and Senate to create a NSW
vacancy" The Australian, 29th February, 2012

...Ms Gillard said this:

"The story that's on the front page of The Australian newspaper today is completely untrue."

[Reporter: Were you over-ruled though?]

"I've just said completely untrue. I've just said completely untrue." ABC1, Lateline, 29th February, 2012

If Alan Austin is across all the facts as he implies, would he be so kind as to explain why Julia Gillard was not prepared to answer along the same lines in Parliamentary question time? Also, could he throw light on whether Mark Arbib resigned of his own accord or whether he was "pushed"

Alan, what people like you do not seem to realise, is that however clever you think you are in concocting a piece like this, it still comes through as what it is: dishonest spin.

Of course there is no other type of spin.

The idea of producing this type of material is to have people contest what you say, which only gives it strength.

The other approach is to point out the basis of your piece, to demonstrate how ridiculous it is.

You want us to believe that on this occasion Julia is not a liar, that she has somehow, in this instance, changed her spots.

However you spin it, Alan, she is a proven liar, and this is just another instance of it.

Understanding the basis of your writing will assist me if I encounter any of it in the future. I will clearly understand that it is not based upon fact, but upon deception, aimed at concealing fact.

Thank you for the feedback. Interesting observations and questions.

@Don Aitkin, “Did Steven Smith object to being pushed aside again?” Well, he seems from his press conference to have accepted the reasons for staying put: (a) Defence has already had three ministers in three years and now needs continuity, and (b) Bob Carr was available for Foreign Affairs.
“Did Bob Carr buy a plane ticket and was told that the deal was off?” No evidence for this yet. If there was, it probably would have appeared by now.
“Was there a fuss within the party which the PM finally dealt with?” Certainly. Senators have always jockeyed for position ever since the first Roman republic in 508BC. It is always the Emperor’s task to appoint.
“The writer is very confident, but doesn't tell us why his account of it all is the right one. It might well be, but how are we to know?” Good question, Don. But I am not absolutely confident. Hence the genuine question at the start: Can anyone recall when the Canberra media pack has been more comprehensively wrong? So far, no suggestions.

@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.
“Also, could he throw light on whether Mark Arbib resigned of his own accord or whether he was pushed". No, I have no idea. But it is not really relevant to this topic, is it?

@Leo Lane, yes, I agree completely that having people contest what we say gives it strength. So contest away. Please indicate why you think anything written here may not be right. And ask any questions you wish. Thanks.

Mr Austin,

Is it true that Prime Minister Gillard has offered the position of Foreign Minister to Bob Carr ?

"Completely untrue."

"Completely untrue."

"Completely untrue."

Prime Minister Gillard appoints Bob Carr to the position of Foreign Minister.

Hi Loudmouth,

Yes, that was old news from a day and half before. That story was broken by Phillip Coorey in the SMH. That was true.

There were seven fresh elements in the 'scoop' by Shanahan and his sidekick Franklin. They were all false:

These were:
1. The Prime Minister had withdrawn her offer to Bob Carr. (headline and paragraphs 1, 14)
2. A mutiny had occurred: the PM had been defeated by her colleagues. (headline and paragraphs 1, 2, 4)
3. Senior ministers had forced the PM to accept either Smith or Crean as Foreign Minister. (paragraphs 1, 5)
4. Internal Labor Party stability had broken down. (paragraph 2)
5. The PM’s authority had also broken down. (paragraphs 2, 12)
6. The PM had first offered a ministry to Bob Carr in the previous week, before Senator Arbib announced his resignation from the Senate. (paragraph 3)
7. Carr said publicly he was no longer interested in a position in the Senate. (paragraph 15)

No evidence for these was presented in the article. They have now been disproven. (Regarding point 7, Carr said he “was not pursuing” the Senate seat. Big difference.)

Most of the background information was accurate. Including:
a) Kevin Rudd had gone to the back bench.
b) Arbib had resigned creating a Senate vacancy.
c) Bob Carr had been approached by ALP figures to assess his availability.
d) Some ministers preferred cabinet posts to go to current federal MPs.

But all elements of the fresh news in The Australian on Wednesday were indeed completely false.

Cheers. AA

Alan, nice try - but, it's obvious people will only see and hear what they want to see and hear.

By all means, keep plugging though.

oh dear

Hi Alan,

How's this for a hypothetical:

"GUTTER PRESS: 'Is there any truth in the completely unsubstantiated rumour that the NSW Labour Right establishment put any pressure whatsoever on your government to appoint Bob Carr to the position of Foreign Minister ?'

"PRIME MINISTER GILLARD: 'Completely untrue.' "

I guess all we have to do is wait for the leaks :)

Cheers,

Joe

Why aren't members of the press more accountable for what they write.
The govt should sue the press for writing unchecked falsehoods.
One paper in particular are constantly getting away with unchecked literature. This is misleading to the public, and should be held to account. The same should apply to shock jock's.

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

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. "

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.

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.

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

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.

Joe ... if it makes you feel comfortable :)

'imajulianutter's "superior intellect" (game)? Ok, roger that :)

imajulianutter:

Don't be overimpressed by Tony Abbott's Oxford credentials. An Oxford MA requires no examination or study beyond a BA. Any BA can become an MA on application seven years after joining the university as an undergraduate. Most do not bother, but the degree is popular among the clergy. It looks impressive on the parish sign—or the political biography.

Hi Bonmot,

Comfortable ? Not really.

I want to believe her, or at least be able to rest in the knowledge that there is a reliable pair of hands on the tiller. With such hair-splitting, who knows ? My confidence is shaken that our captain will not run us onto the rocks sooner or later.

I just wish it wasn't so, that just for once, she could get a clear victory over some issue or other without buggering it up.

Cheers,

Joe

No-one was hurt but the press gallery looked like morons.

I wish they would vote some time to remembering that illegal war based on non-existent WMD that has killed hundreds of thousands.

Hi Joe,

No, not quite right. But don’t feel too bad. It was misunderstood by most of the media and by Mr Abbott and Ms Bishop.

Joe, it would be good for you to read the front page of The Australian on Wednesday last week (linked in the article). Then the OLO article again. It should make sense then.

In a nutshell again: The background facts to the Wednesday story in The Australia are not in dispute. These include:

a) Julia Gillard is Prime Minister
b) Bob Carr is an ex-Premier of NSW
c) Kevin Rudd resigned as Foreign Minister
d) Gillard defeated Rudd in a leadership ballot
e) Mark Arbib resigned from the Senate creating a vacancy
f) It is the decision of the ALP in NSW to nominate a new Senator
g) The PM appoints the new Foreign Minister.
h) The NSW ALP sounded out Carr about becoming a Senator and Foreign Minister
i) Julia Gillard then spoke with Carr about the job.

Those are the background facts. None has been contested. They were all accepted by Tuesday of last week.

Now, move forward to Wednesday morning of last week and The Australian’s lead: ‘Mutiny kills PM's Bob Carr plan.’

This story acknowledged the truth of the above nine realities. But it then broke a fresh new story containing seven elements. These are itemised above (Alan Austin, Wednesday, 7 March, 12:43:54)

In response to this, the PM said: ‘The story that's on the front page of The Australian newspaper today is completely untrue.’

And she was perfectly correct. The seven essential new developments – the fresh information warranting a big front page – or news, as we used to understand the concept – were all false.

Seven out of seven erroneous. One hundred percent incorrect. Or, in the PM’s words, completely untrue.

But it is important to note that the nine or more background facts were not wrong. Gillard is the PM - they got that right. Gillard had spoken to Carr about the vacant post - correct again.

But all seven fresh revelations were false.

Cheers, AA

Does the word "dissembling" mean anything to you, Alan Austin?

>>And she was perfectly correct. The seven essential new developments – the fresh information warranting a big front page – or news, as we used to understand the concept – were all false.<<

Dissembling, in the sense of the "presentation of facts in a way that is literally true, but intentionally misleading".

That definition, by the way, appears in Wikipedia under the main heading "lie"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

I'm sure that you are aware of this usage. As is the Prime Minister.

It would appear to be a fair statement that you both consider dissembling to be a perfectly acceptable mode of communication in a political setting. Which explains much of the public's shrinking respect for politicians and political commentators alike.

News paper writers are not bad at printing anything that goes, even untruths or assumed truths, which take up the majority of parliamentary question time.
The amount of reliance put on what is written in newspapers, and without accountability. This should be rearranged by legislation, so as a disclaimer at least can be attached.
Some say Abbott has moved on, no doubt he would, but this will be first on the agenda when parliament resumes. Followed by Abbotts bed mate Mr Palmer.

Alan Austin: "So I am not sure who you think was guilty of misleading the Parliament, Raycom."

It is a figment of your imagination that you think that I implied that Julia Gillard or someone else was guilty of misleading parliament. I simply pointed out that the PM would have mislead parliament had she repeated her claim that " the story that's on the front page of The Australian newspaper today is completely untrue" in Questions Without Notice.

You demonstrate a talent for twisting what you read into what you want to see.

Mr Abbott is a gem for just that, he believes with a passion what he reads in the paper. Should not there be accountability from question askers, other than i read it in the paper. It's not knew that papers will print bias as well as lies to get interest in the story, consequences are not theirs.
How much of this was assumed, as Abbott assumed it to be true. News papers have got questions to answer. Freedom of the press, should not mean print what you like, legislated guide-lines are in order.
Susceptible people who believe for their own purpose, proper printing rules are a necessity.

For those of you who are still fooled by this article, it is by choice, and not because you have not been warned.

To make it crystal clear, let us take AA’s assertion: “But all seven fresh revelations were false.”.

By what unsustainable process does he arrive at this false conclusion?

Easy, he pretends that , instead of reading a newspaper article, he is conducting a Court case, where he is the Judge, and he requires evidence. If there is what he deems to be unsatisfactory evidence for a statement, he rejects it as untrue. If there is unsatisfactory evidence against it, he still rejects it as untrue.

These are the seven elements, taken from AA’s post above:

1. The Prime Minister had withdrawn her offer to Bob Carr. (headline and paragraphs 1, 14)
2. A mutiny had occurred: the PM had been defeated by her colleagues. (headline and paragraphs 1, 2, 4)
3. Senior ministers had forced the PM to accept either Smith or Crean as Foreign Minister. (paragraphs 1, 5)
4. Internal Labor Party stability had broken down. (paragraph 2)
5. The PM’s authority had also broken down. (paragraphs 2, 12)
6. The PM had first offered a ministry to Bob Carr in the previous week, before Senator Arbib announced his resignation from the Senate. (paragraph 3)
7. Carr said publicly he was no longer interested in a position in the Senate. (paragraph 15)

These are said to be untrue because of a statement by the PM labelling the story as “completely untrue.”.

Where is the evidence of that? Even AA has to concede the truth of the background to the story, and there is nothing to contradict it other than the short statement of a proven liar.

You are not living in the fantasy world which makes you the judge, Alan.

If the story makes sense, it is probably true. If it is untrue, there is no acceptable evidence of this.

AA: I have to say that I agree with the central point in Leo Lane's post immediately above. You have said, flatly, that everyone else is wrong. But I can't see how you are in a position to know, and you haven't shown us any evidence to suggest that you are in possession of the whole truth. Even in the distant days when I was a political columnist, people would ring me from within both major parties to tell me what was going on, presumably in the hope that I would run with it. I learned very quickly to suspend judgment.

Now it is widely believed (I cannot be an authority here) that the current ALP leaks like the proverbial, so it would be reasonable to suggest that someone, or more than one, rang various of the reporters in the press gallery with what they said was inside dope on the appointments. From your account, either that didn't happen at all, or all those who spoke to reporters got it wrong.

You may be right about all this, but it is pretty hard to accept.

Where did one paper get all of this juicy information from.
I would suspect they were being informed by someone who thought they knew what the procedure was.
Do you think the coalition would have preferred it better if Mr Carr did not get the job.
For the coalition to so heavily believe in the written word, did they instigate it.
Wherever it came from they should be held accountable for what they print.

Criticaster,

And anybody can apply for and gain admittance as a Rhodes Scholar?

But you miss the point. Abbot has three degrees in four areas of study ... and that counts for nothing?

Mate his ridding the Government of it's senior office holders isn't at all impressive to you is it?

And mate what's all this crap about an education revolution if you try to cheapen the efforts of those, like Abbott, who excel?

Is this a case of Wayne's war on middle Australia ... you know become educated ... but don't get too educated ... like the efforts of successful miners ... get rich ... but not too rich?

You labor blokes really do tie yourselves up in stupid little unthinking knots.

579,

Or 5 for short ? More friendly :)

The rumour, as I understand it, was - along with a host of peripheral issues - that PM Gillard offered the position of FM to Bob Carr, then under pressure, withdrew the offer.

Then she denied that she had offered him the position - 'completely untrue', as she put it.

Then she offered the position to him and he took it up.

Yes, it's true, Tony Abbott was somewhere on the planet, so he must have been up to no good somehow. The Murdoch press pursued the story, yes, which thereby makes it 'completely untrue' in the eyes of some.

But she did precisely what she denied doing. 100 %. What 'The Australian' reported was - substantially and fundamentally - true, wasn't it ? Yes, they seemed to find out a great deal of 'juicy' information, as one would expect from the competent staff of a reputable newspaper. Did this make it somehow less legitimate ? Is getting "all of this juicy information" somehow less legitimate if it accrues to The Australian and not, say, The Age, or my beloved SMH ?

I don't think Tony Abbott had anything to do with this one, 5. But throw him into the mix, something might stick.

She did, she said she didn't, then she did again. Yes ?

Cheers,

Joe

Rumors are sometimes believable, if you want them to be.
You must admit there is a lot of information that obviously came from someone. Mr abbott was very close at hand, not somewhere on the planet.
Why was this particular media so interested in the procedure of obtaining a suitable person for the role of FM.
Front page story, who was to benefit from running it as a front page story.
I say there are people that have not yet come forward.

Good morning all,

Thanks for the further feedback.

@Imajulianutter, not sure how last week will impact Tony Abbott.

It will probably depend on just how seriously his inept performance in Parliament on Wednesday 29th plays out with his supporters and those of Mr Turnbull. I just don’t know.

@Raycom, have you read the Hansard yet?

Pretty sure you will find that both Ms Bishop and Mr Abbott did indeed mislead the Parliament with their assertions that the PM’s choice of Bob Carr as foreign minister had been overruled.

@579, agree entirely with all your points.

@Don Aitkin, may I please ponder your observations on backgrounding further before responding? They are critical.

@Leo, why are you so dismissive of conclusions based on evidence? Yes, this is how courts of law work. Is this unsatisfactory?

It is also the basis of reaching conclusions in all the sciences, the humanities and most other areas of formal inquiry. It is also how we all make assessments in our daily lives, including indeed reading newspapers.

Quite patently, if the seven fresh elements in the story in The Australian on Wednesday of last week were true, Gillard’s authority would be diminished, at least one of her colleagues would have criticised her publicly again, her polling numbers would have declined, Bob Carr would not be a Senator and either Crean or Smith would be Foreign Minister.

None of this has eventuated. Patently, those seven claims were false. 100%. Completely untrue.

Why does this surprise us? The Murdoch media routinely fabricates news. See here:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12286

Look, I understand it is frustrating when assertions which suit our political preferences are shown to be fabrications. But in the end we are all better served by truth than by falsehood, however embarrassing in the short term.

Cheers, AA

AA: ponder away. My observations have no particular political colour. I'm just interested in how you can be so certain about things that most of us, anyway, can't really know anything much about. And I used to be part of the media game.

"@Leo, why are you so dismissive of conclusions based on evidence? Yes, this is how courts of law work. Is this unsatisfactory?"

What evidence is that, AA, you have none.

"Look, I understand it is frustrating when assertions which suit our political preferences are shown to be fabrications."

Of course you do, AA. Yours are obviously based on your political preferences, and have just been demonstrated to be fabrications.

You might have the decency to withdraw your baseless slur on the Press.

Hi again Joe,

You seem still to misunderstand what it was that the PM said was 'completely untrue'.

It is fairly important that we know precisely what was 'revealed' in the Wednesday 29th news story, and what had been reported and confirmed earlier.
So, Joe, please read the article carefully.

You say "The rumour, as I understand it, was - along with a host of peripheral issues - that PM Gillard offered the position of FM to Bob Carr, then under pressure, withdrew the offer."

No, Joe, this is not at all accurate. The PM offered the position to Bob Carr on Monday. That is true. That is not a rumour. That was first reported on Monday evening. The Sydney Morning Herald reported it on Tuesday morning in an accurate article by Phillip Coorey. No-one disputed it, because it was well-researched. It was confirmed by Bob Carr. So that part of the development of the saga is quite true. No-one bothered to ask the PM if it was true, because there was no need to. It had already been verified by Carr. It was definitely not just a rumour.

Then we proceed to Wednesday when The Australian fabricated the 'news' that there had been a mutiny in Gillard's ranks and that Gillard had been forced to withdraw that confirmed offer to Mr Carr.

That story was entirely false. There was no mutiny. The offer to Mr Carr had not been withdrawn. The PM had not been forced to do anything at all.

If you listen to what the PM actually said, she was quite specific. ‘The story that's on the front page of The Australian newspaper today is completely untrue.’

See? She was NOT denying Coorey's report in the SMH on Tuesday that she had offered the job to Mr Carr. She was specifically refuting the claims in The Australian that she had been forced to withdraw the offer.

And the fact that Bob Carr is now Foreign Minister is pretty powerful prima facie evidence that she was correct.

Hi again Don,

No, not claiming inside knowledge. Not claiming ‘certainty’ about anything either.

Regarding anonymous tips, yes, Don, I received these too as a reporter. Sometimes true, sometimes false, sometimes malicious, sometimes altruistic, sometimes a mix.

Back then, the tip provoked further research until evidence for the claim emerged. Only then would the story run. Sometimes this took a while.

This is still the case here in Europe, and in most Western countries where standards haven't shifted.

Unattributed allegations obviously allow distortions, blatant lies and sheer malice to flourish, as evident in all Murdoch publications worldwide. eg. last Wednesday in The Australian.

That piece would not have run in Australia until recently. Four serious problems:

1. The sheer number of unattributed quotes: “Senior government sources said … It is understood that … Another senior government figure told … The source said … One angry minister lashed out, saying … there were suggestions she should … it is understood she is considering … Labor MPs told The Australian yesterday that … Labor MPs wondered whether …”

One or two unattributed quotes are okay for colour, as long as they are consistent with the attributed quotes. But they weren’t.

2. Attributed quotes actually contradict the main thrust. "Earlier yesterday, Mr Crean said it was his preference to continue as Regional Australia Minister but made clear he would take his lead from Ms Gillard. 'The Prime Minister is showing a new assertiveness - that will be demonstrated in the way in which she constructs the cabinet,' he said. 'The healing process has begun ...'"

3. Reporters never use Opposition bagging of Government or Government self-praise. Except in Australia and North Korea. "Tony Abbott added to the speculation, telling reporters that …"

4. Insertion of opinion in what purported to be hard news. "Another senior government figure told The Australian last night he doubted whether drafting Mr Carr would help Ms Gillard with her self-proclaimed aim of healing wounds ..."

Good grief! That is an attributed expression of a personal opinion. That has to be embarrassing even for a Murdoch reporter.

Cheers, AA

AA: OK. I can't add any more,and I'm not close enough any more. But I'll keep my ears open. It may be as you say. Certainly the Press gallery tends to hunt as a pack, but that's been true since the 1960s, in my knowledge. I'd be pretty certain that if there is more to it than you say, we'll know some of it before long, certainly before the election. If nothing turns up, then you will have been proved almost certainly right.

AA: "@Raycom, have you read the Hansard yet?

Pretty sure you will find that both Ms Bishop and Mr Abbott did indeed mislead the Parliament with their assertions that the PM’s choice of Bob Carr as foreign minister had been overruled."

I have re-read Hansard, and I totally disagree with your interpretation. Neither Ms Bishop nor Mr Abbott mislead the Parliament by asking their respective questions.

Alans twisted bias perception of the press ignores the pathetic attempts by the Fairfax media to deny that Rudd was even going to challenge Gillard (a fact conveniently ignored by Alan). It was all just Murdoch press talk as far as they were concerned. That certainly was very low press from the ABC/SBS/Age/SMH and the usual arms of the Labour party. Then again selective truth rests very well with this Government.

Abbott is desperately trying to take the limelight away from the goings on of last week, all of a sudden some policy ideas have come forward.
Abbott and Bishop were all for the suspension of standing orders, over something that did not eventuate.
If it is seen that Abbott misinformed parliament, he will be in very hot water.

ha ha ha. If Abbott has misled parliament ... what? he'll have to resign as opposition leader and the Opposition will fall? Belly laugh...hahaha.

You lot really have lost your grip haven't you. Panic really has set in hasn't it?

Alan,

last weeks events can only impact positively on Abbott and the coalition. How can division in the labor rabble impact negatively on the coalition? Any suggestion it will is laughable and defies all political convention ...what we'll re-write the rules ... starting with 'Disunity in government means death ... to the opposition'.

Turnbull is no threat to anyone ... he should have resigned after he lost direction and the leadership. Abboitt was and still is the Liberals unamious choice as leader. Remember at the last vote he was elected ... unopposed. Turnbull had his opportunity then and squibbed because he knew the realities.

Yesterday I did my usual stint at the pre-polling for the state election. I was astonished at the response.
We reckoned approx 14 to 1 judging by the enquiry for 'How to Vote' requests. LNP . The booth was at Morningside. That's in the heart of Griffith. I've been doing pre-polling booths for over 15 years.

There were two prevelant comments. The nonstop muck-raking by labor is sickening and the tax on sale of the family home isn't fair or reasonable and Bligh and Fraser think it hasn't been noticed.

They've lost Labor voters because this tax hurts them as they start to 'downsize' from the family home. They'll still vote LNP even if the LNP doesn't repeal that tax.

At this stage I reckon we are seeing the end of the ALP. All ... all... the Labor campaign Literature in Brisbane contains no reference to this great tradition. It mentions neither Bligh nor ALP. It referes only to Queensland Labor.

Jeez what are they going to do at the Federal election?

Greetings all,

@Raycom and Imajulianutter, from Hansard, 29 February, Tony Abbott:

“In trying and failing to have Bob Carr made the next foreign minister of Australia, the Prime Minister has been bullied ... by the faceless men ....”

“Then ... they successfully intimidated the Prime Minister into withdrawing the offer.”

“The final act in this sorry story: Sam Dastyari called Bob Carr to say that the Senate spot would go to someone else after all.”

“What we had at the end was a distinguished former Premier of New South Wales left humiliated and desolate.”

“The Prime Minister was rolled by the would-be foreign minister, currently the defence minister."

Now, I’m not a scholar in Aristotelian logic. But it seems pretty obvious even with basic high school clear thinking that if Bob Carr did in fact become foreign minister then all five statements must be false.

Or lies, if you wish. Or misleading the Parliament.

No?

The fortunes of the parties in Australia is not my primary concern, Imajulianutter. I don’t even vote in Australia. But regarding “the end of the ALP”, well, popularity bounces around, especially mid-term, doesn’t it?

You may recall John Howard was often in a far more parlous state mid-term than Ms Gillard is now. His dissatisfaction level reached an all-time high of 64% in March 2001 (Newspoll) but he went on to win the next election.

Keating was pretty whiffy in 1992 with disapproval in the high 60s, peaking at 68%, but also won the next election.

So Julia, at 57% and falling, is probably not badly placed. The next poll – the first one after getting Bob Carr aboard and humiliating the media and the Opposition in the process – will be interesting.

It will also be intriguing to see what the fallout is eventually from Mr Abbott clearly lying in Parliament. Not a good look – to anyone, including the backers of Mr Turnbull.

@Runner, the point of the article is that ALL the media got it disastrously wrong together. Fairfax’s Michelle Grattan was specifically pilloried. Did you read the article?

Cheers, AA

Parliament will resume on tuesday, No mention from abbott about the deceiving, and misinformation given to parliament, an extensive speech to parliament about the suspension of standing orders, all on false allegations from both abbott and bishop.
Abbott has been desperately trying to put out some policy ideas, will probably end up with foot in mouth disease.
The next installment should be interesting.

Alan,

if Abbott resigns ...? Does the Westminister convention of Ministerial Responsibility and Misleading the Parliament extend to backbenchers or opposition members?

Laughable isn't it?

I'm not currently watching federally, where Gillard can only go south, I'm looking at the State election in Queensland and I've never seen a major party with a mere 24% in the polls 2 weeks before an election. Don't apply preferences ... in Qld that's optional.

You don't live here, nor vote here ... well why the hell are you trying to tell us how good and righteous are the Labor rabble? Why the hell do you think we need lecturing about how we should be assessing them?

Are you nuts?

Hi Alan,

Welcome to Australia !

Ho hum.

I thought this issue had been buried, but you raise an intriguing new line of inquiry: why was Bob Carr knocked back, and then offered the job ?

I guess it depends on which questions you ask, and how you ask them: put this another way, what forces were initially marshalled to deny Carr the job (and presumably open it up for Stephen Smith), and a few days later, what forces had rallied behind Bob Carr sufficient to get him the job ?

Is it a jailable offence, Alan, to mention Sussex Street and the power of the Labour Right in NSW ?

Another question: what sort of plum job is Arbib in line for, as a reward for getting out of the way ? And, perhaps, as a reward for getting behind Carr ?

Just asking: I hope that does not breach any of Finkelstein's Iron Laws of Acceptable Speech-in-Print.

Cheers,

Joe

It's about time the opposition seen the light of day and installed Turnbull. Then we may have an opposition that can be believed.
The amount of filthy muckraking, that takes up parliamentary time has got to stop.
Disruptive heckling, members being discharged from parliament, and untrue sinuations are nothing short of total disruption. Not a good look from a would be political party.

Good morning all,

@Joe. You are doing it again. Are you just messin’ wit me? You write again: “why was Bob Carr knocked back, and then offered the job?”

Joe, it is not true that Bob Car was knocked back by the PM after her initial offer to him. This is the central lie in the front page of The Australian Wednesday of last week. That is what Ms Gillard said was "completely untrue". That is the assertion Mr Abbott made when he lied to the Parliament.

Why do you still believe it? Any evidence – apart from claims in The Australian?

Yes, the NSW right wanted Carr, as did Gillard. Other ALP people wanted other candidates. Something like 20 names were considered. Most certainly, the forces at work would have been energetic.

Regarding Arbib's next plum job, as a reward for getting out of the way: good question, Joe. Have pondered this myself. Had he served longer, then an ambassadorship maybe. But at his age, perhaps not.

Will be intriguing to see what eventuates here. Excellent question.

@579, agree with your observations entirely once again. Let’s see what happens in Parliament Tuesday.

@Imajulianutter, misleading Parliament seems only to apply if it’s done knowingly – which means it will be difficult to prove in Mr Abbott’s case. He can always say, “Hey, I thought it was true! I read it in The Australian.”

It’s also an offence mostly confined to government rather than opposition members. So the threat to Mr Abbott arising from this is probably greater within his caucus. His several past admissions of lying, being believable only when reading from a prepared script, his many changes of policy position and so forth have not gone down well. So last Wednesday certainly won’t help him.

No, Keith, I have said nothing about “how good and righteous are the Labor rabble”. My focus is on misrepresentation in the media and how this impacts political discourse. If I’m lecturing at all, it is simply to urge that we value and defend truth over falsehood. Everyone gains from that. No?

Cheers, AA

Hmmmmm Alan

'If I’m lecturing at all, it is simply to urge that we value and defend truth over falsehood. Everyone gains from that. No'

Of course we do ... but it can't be onesided, non?

So can you direct mr Imajulianutter to the many papers, or even one, you've writteen condemning a lying 'No carbon tax under the government I lead.' Gillard?

Nutter it's an offense to lie in parliament, not on the street. Besides that Julia said when it became clear when we had a hung parliament, all promises are off. And that was on TV news. But the noalition followers disregard that statement as usual.
Julia had to negotiate with the independents, and of-course they wanted concessions, Just the same as Toni negotiated with the same people, but the independents wanted to join the labor camp.
What annoys me the most is, Abbott put the Australian paper ahead of the PM. He knew what happened, right or wrong the PM's answer did not count.
Then the extended speech condemning the PM over something that was lies.
It remains to be seen where the paper got these accusations from, they certainly had external help.

Hi Keith,
Still working on a stand-alone article on politicians' falsehhods. So nothing published yet - apart from in the thread here:
http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13249

Latest refinement of categories is as follows:

Straightforward, direct, looking-down-the-camera barefaced lies- like Mr Abbott's "not that I can recall" to Tony Jones - are Class A.

Blatantly false statements made by parrotting other fabricated sources, like Mr Abbott and Ms Bishop last week quoting The Australian: Class B.

Promises broken for political expediency with no external factors forcing their abandonment: Class C. Examples are Ms Gillard dudding Mr Wilkie recently. And Mr Howard’s no-GST-never-ever which he abandoned before the 1998 election.

A class C broken promise may, of course, be ratified by an election. If this succeeds, as indeed happened with Mr Howard and the GST, then it becomes less offensive. Say class D.

Commitments made in good faith but prevented from being implemented despite the government’s genuine best efforts – by a hostile Senate or the High Court or a hung Parliament – could be class E. These include all promises made before the 2010 election which had to be abandonned when the electorate gave neither side a majority.

Promises prevented from being implemented by changed economic conditions – such as Paul Keating’s L-A-W-law tax cuts – could be class F.

Promises deferred by changed economic or political conditions – such as Labor’s no carbon tax – could be class G. (Keating’s L-A-W tax cuts also turned out to be G.) Ms Gillard still wants a cap and trade scheme eventually. So that may be Class G eventually.

Assurances of loyalty to the leader by putative challengers deserve a special category. Say class I. (I for inevitable? Inavoidable?)

Refinements and other comments most welcome.

Alan,

The answers to both questions was a simple no. There was no need to compound and highlight the nature of your stances.

Hypocrisy.

That sums up your contribution.

'Spin' is something all you labor blokes seem to want to wear as a badge of credit ... and of which we the punters are heartily sick and tired.

You don't seem to have got that yet Alan. Which is great because it is what will keep all you labor blokes in opposition, State and Federally, for a very long time to come.