Fact checking is a good start and it should apply to businesses and media outlets as well as politicians.

However it is only a start.

Yes politicians, corporations and media outlets do tell outright lies; but by far the greater problems are:

--Selective truth telling. Telling the truth but leaving out pertinent context. A prime example is the way Andrew Bolt covers climate issues

--Refraining from covering stories at all – eg the ABC's relative silence on the latest revelations about Gillard's past.

--The use of emotive language and graphics – eg the focus on Palestinian child casualties while downplaying the context of Hamas' rocket attacks. It's a bit like covering Sherman's advance through the South without mentioning the context of the American Civil War.

--The way issues are framed - returning again to current news from the Middle-East does the relative paucity of Israeli casualties really indicate that Israel is the aggressor? I, for example, would say that it shows how successful the Israelis have been in protecting their citizens from aggression.

I have deliberately mentioned cases with a high emotive content for many posters here to illustrate that this truly is a many sided question.

Outright porkies are an important but relatively minor issue.

Stevenlmeyer

Sure, fact checking is many sided.

Your example of the report of Palestinian child casualties in Gaza reminds me of a recent expose of an Aboriginal youth behaving badly in public and getting tasered repeatedly and battered by police. The police as often is the case got away with it.

Sure, fact checking is not full proof. Many sided, if you will. But it is a start, for our debased political culture. Even after 40 years and millions of dollars spent in trying to revitalise the once proud and free-spirited peoples the consequences of the unfettered dispersal of the Aboriginal peoples and the institutionalised oppression over a century or more are still often swept under the carpet: The blacks have no right to behave badly in our civilised society; The police are right to "protect" themselves with the best of what they have at hand. Good on them! Echoes of the Palestine/Israeli "debates" in the Murdoch press and the selected letters the Australian publishes.

As for the ABC and the continuing Gillard stories. Context? For a start, why don't you go back to the first day of this government when Abbott and the Murdoch press started to promote the illegitimacy of her government. Together they managed to paint Gillard as a liar to a populace well groomed to find someone to kick in the head, when in fact Abbott was the liar when he accused Gillard of lying on the carbon tax. Abbott would know that in his heart, and Pell probably would be able to soothe his conscience at a confessional, if he is at all troubled by it.

Perhaps the ABC is waiting for the smoking gun, and not just more mud-racking. After all, two solid years of that have not produced any.

Fact checking will help. But it will not stop the Abbott and Murdoch cavalry spearheading our cultural debasement. When winning is everything, everything else falls by the wayside. The winners, like the Wall Street manipulators, so just fine.

Look at the big picture. The situation is deplorable, let's take the first step.

Chek

As stated in the opening statement of my previous post:

>>Fact checking is a good start and it should apply to businesses and media outlets as well as politicians.>>

So I agree, we should do more fact checking.

So far as the ABC's silence on the Gillard issue goes, let's not be naive here. New information has come to light, it is newsworthy, and it should be reported.

BTW I think the media have a duty to engage in "mud-raking." It's other name is "investigative reporting."

But I return to the issue of "selective truth telling" as practised by eg Andrew Bolt and other so-called climate sceptics. Not that they're the only selective truth tellers.

In many ways selective truth telling is a more insidious - because harder to expose - problem than outright lies.

Stevenlmeyer

I agree with you entirely on "In many ways selective truth telling is a more insidious - because harder to expose - problem than outright lies."

That said, it is a tragic mark of our culture that Abbott, Jones and the Murdoch press have got away with telling outright lies, re Juliar etc, and "succeeded" in grooming the populace for further cultural debasement, perhaps until recently.

Something "new" in the AWU saga? Sure, but will that call in question the prime minister's capacity or fitness in her current role? Or is it just more mud racking in the hope of uncovering something that would legitimise the failed strategy to incite and foment the populace into clamouring for an early election?

To be frivolous, should we embark on a new piece of "investigative journalism" to look into whether Julie Bishop's death stare had bullied any of her more vulnerable fellow students into unconscionable submission, with lifelong consequences?

Alan most of us have had changes of mind on issues which we may have previously expressed strong views on at some point in our lives. As a former thiest I've certaunly got very different views to those I formerly held and expressed on that issue. Whilst we may have personal regrets about things we've stated in the past the real area where ethics comes into it is how we deal with that change of mind.

Do we seek to ensure that we don't gain an unfair advantage over others as a result of the change or do we seize the advantage the former stance gave us and run with it.

Howard took his change of opinion as a clearly announced policy to an election. A policy that was politically risky at the time. Whilst there was some variation in the to and fro following the election to get it through parliment those changes were minor and moved the tax closer to what the Labor opposition were advocating, not further from it.

Gillard went to the electiin claiming that there would be no carbon tax in a government lead by her. When it became a choice between honoring that committment and grabbing power the committment was brushed aside.

We could have gone back to the polls with or without the carbon tax on the table, on a technicality someone else could have lead the ALP and kept the literal sense of the commitment but there is no way that Gillard could do what she did and retain any trust other from the most determined supporters. I suspect a refusal to break her commitment would have given her a massive electoral advantage in the subsequent election.

If you want to attack Howards handling of truth far better targets are his dealing with the children overboard issue and questions about what and when he knew of US fabrication regarding WMD in Iraq and how that was dealt with.

R0bert

Hi R0bert,

Thanks for that. Pretty sure I understand your position. But can you see the inconsistencies?

Julia Gillard is castigated for ‘lying’ to the nation. Yet John Howard’s broken promise was a far more problematic failure of honesty and trust.

Here are just four differences:

Firstly, Howard’s promise was categorical. “No GST. Never, ever.” No wiggle room whatsoever.

Gillard’s promise was more nuanced when the full sentence is read (which her critics seldom do. Wonder why?):

"There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but let’s be absolutely clear. I am determined to price carbon."

ALP policy was for a cap-and-trade scheme, I understand. The promise broken was about the mechanism – not an abandonment of the intention to price carbon.

Howard’s abandonment was a complete about-face.

Secondly, what forced the promise to be broken?

For Gillard, a hung Parliament, the threat of an Abbott Government, several weeks of frenetic negotiation with those ornery Greens and independents. Or another costly election.

Remember the extraordinary horse-trading, R0bert? Remember Abbott telling Tony Windsor, "the only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse, but I'd give serious thought to it"?

In contrast, Howard’s commitment was abandoned with no pressure whatsoever.

Thirdly, Gillard’s original cap-and-trade scheme promise remains in place. It is still Labor policy which they will implement when Labor gets a majority. The carbon tax is a temporary measure forced by the outcome of the last election – by Democracy.

Howard broke his promise with no intention of honouring it. Never ever.

Fourthly, what was the outcome?

The carbon tax did not result in a dramatically different outcome from the original trading scheme promised. Carbon is now priced, energy consumption is declining and emissions are reducing.

Howard’s abandoned promise, in contrast, resulted in a radically changed taxation system forever.

Yes, they are both broken commitments. And deserve critical scrutiny. But can you see, R0bert, they are just not in the same moral category?

Can you see that anyone who supported Howard after 1998 who now criticises the current PM is being pretty base and hypocritical?

Cheers, AA