The Forum > Article Comments > Enhancing ministerial accountability: the role of the print media > Comments
Enhancing ministerial accountability: the role of the print media : Comments
By Chris Lewis and Keith Dowding, published 4/7/2012Conflict of interest is hardly new, but interest in conflicts of interest in the public sphere has increased recently.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 4 July 2012 9:26:34 AM
| |
Alan,
unfortunately for you, the article focuses on SMH articles, so perhaps you would want to think a bit harder before you make such a ridiculous comment. In any case, I do not agree with your sentiment: i think the Murdoch journalists do a good enough job in reporting the news. With our article, it is the news info we rely on rather than opinion pieces. Posted by Chris Lewis, Wednesday, 4 July 2012 9:51:37 AM
| |
Chris,
Yes, you state that you have looked at the SMH, and clearly you have. But then you conclude with this: "And was the demotion of Garrett under Rudd sufficient reparation for the home insulation debacle?" What home insulation debacle, Chris? Is there any evidence for anything amiss apart from in the rabid Murdoch media? Economists around the world still marvel at this aspect of the stimulus package, including Nobel Prize winner Prof Joseph Stiglitz from the USA: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz128/English Another researcher impressed with the economic impact, the environmental effects and the remarkable occupational health and safety record of the scheme is Prof Rodney Tiffin: http://inside.org.au/a-mess-a-shambles-a-disaster/ He also reflects on the way the Australian media misrepresented the scheme from the outset. A detailed study of the safety and the house fire outcomes was done by the CSIRO. Easily googled. Further analysis of the whole sorry media saga, including revelations on the house fires, is here: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2011/04/24/the-csiro-gets-hip-to-debunking-media-hysteria/ “The CSIRO last week released what was effectively a statistical analysis of the reality surrounding large parts of the infamous Home Insulation Program – or for those of you not familiar with this particular policy, you may have heard about it via it’s common alternative name in the mainstream media, the “OMG, PETER GARRETT IS BURNING DOWN OUR F#%KING HOUSES!” policy. “As we here have long known and talked about, the reality of the Home Insulation Program was always vastly different to its hysterical media portrayal – driven as it was by naive and innumerate journalists looking for easy sensational headlines, and partisan hacks prostituting their cheap wares before a gullible public.” (end of quote) So what evidence do you have of the "home insulation debacle", Chris. That will clarify whether my comment was ridiculous or not. The article linked made careful explicit distinction between opinion and reportage. Refer para 3. So please don't imagine I'm confusing the two. And a question, finally, Chris: Who was the second Rudd minister forced to resign? Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 4 July 2012 10:53:52 AM
| |
Well Alan, you can appreciate we live in a democracy. We are all free to form our own opinion.
As for the HIP, I also produced an academic article on it (Public Policy). i also note a recent HIP article in the Aust journal of Public adminsistration also backed my findings. I argue that the HIP was a poor policy, an opinion that I think most Aust's agree with. I know even Labor ministers also came to that conclusion. As for Rod and others, they are entitled to their opinion; I do not agree with them. Posted by Chris Lewis, Wednesday, 4 July 2012 11:08:16 AM
| |
Hi again Chris,
Agree entirely we are free to form opinions. Fortunately this is not at issue in Australia. Australia’s problem is that analysts purporting to present objective reality routinely falsify the data. Or make assertions not supported by the facts. Much of Australia's media is hard at work urging people continually to believe things that are not true, and then have them pass those false beliefs along to others. Your piece, above, appears superficially objective. You claim to have “explored this question through a focus on Australian government ministers”. But you also make assertions which the data disproves. Including parroting the Murdoch media’s mantra of “the home insulation debacle”. What debacle, Chris? Environmentalists hailed this as an extraordinary effort which will generate savings – to building owners and the planet – for up to 150 years. Economists lauded it as the centrepiece of the world’s most effective Keynesian intervention. OH&S professionals marvelled at the way a vast scheme belted out so rapidly resulted in such a dramatic drop in the number of deaths and injuries. The formal audits were positive overall. Australia now clearly has the best economic performance in the Western world. Governments here in Europe and around the world dearly wish they had implemented the exact same insulation program. Most critiques of the HIP - including the AJPA one - simply assume as proven the falsehoods concocted and repeated endlessly by Australia's media of "deleterious safety consequences" and "fiscally wasteful management". If there is any actual evidence to validate these mendacious assumptions, it is yet to appear. Happy to pursue any links on this, Chris. You also assert, “We do not argue that ministers are any more or less corrupt …” Why not? Your own data shows that during the Howard years 10 ministers were forced to resign for breaches of responsibility and another four clearly should have. Since then, the number is one. (Unless there is another, besides Joel Fitzgibbon.) Can you see how those who look at this objectively conclude there actually has been a dramatic lessening since 2007? Thanks, Chris. Cheers, AA Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 4 July 2012 6:41:42 PM
| |
Alan, we consider Rudd to be a forced resignation.
As for HIP, I think the press did a pretty good job. Put it this way, the Rudd govt felt compelled to address the concerns raised by the press. As for my opinion of the HIP, I formed a view that any policy that wastes a third of its resources (many hundreds of millions), ingores key advice from key players in terms of consultation towards safety, destroys long established Home insulations businesses, allows some criminals to benefit from the scheme, pays out entire rebate with consumers hvaing little need or desire to check or question quality, is indeed a policy disgrace. Maybe i am a poor scholar, but i will let others judge that. i merely do my best in accordance to my ability. In the meantime, I will try and call a spade a spade, and i dont really care what supposed big names or insitutions say, although i will take their analysis on board. As for the Howard govt, sure there may have been some dodgy ministerial performances, but just wait till I publish a summary of NSW Labor which will make the Howard govt look like angels in relative terms. Posted by Chris Lewis, Wednesday, 4 July 2012 7:07:35 PM
|
The evidence is now overwhelming that the Murdoch corporation is run by liars who employ lying executives to manage teams of liars to distort events significantly and even fabricate 'news' when it suits them.
Why no acknowledgment of this reality?
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12286