Tuesday, 24 February 2015

The Daily Examiner makes unforgivable factual error

The myriad of typos over the years one can laugh at – after all who doesn’t suffer from fat thumb from time to time.

However, errors of fact are a different matter.

In both its print and online version of the newspaper The Daily Examiner asserted this on 24 February 2015:
[my bolding]

This is sloppy reporting at best and at worst a deliberate distortion of fact. Quite frankly I’m hoping is was some off-site subbing which caused this blunder.

It was only two days before that The Daily Telegraph, not known to favour Labor, reported:

The indexation change was announced in the May budget. Welfare groups and Labor argue it will cut pensions by $80 a week within 10 years. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, this amounts to a $23 billion cut to the cost of the age pension by 2023. [my red bolding]

A leading seniors advocate COTA Australia issued a media release on 21 August 2014 which stated:

“If only the CPI had been used since 2009 the Pension would already be $30 per week or $1,560 per year less, and that gap grows to over $80 per week / $4,160 per year in 10 years, and keeps growing. That’s a huge amount for Pensioners who already often have to make choices between heating, decent food, medications and a basic gift for their grandchild’s birthday. “This measure is extremely harsh and goes beyond even that which was recommended by the Commission of Audit….” [my red bolding]

On 22 May 2014 The Guardian reported:

The report, A Budget that Divides a Nation, says pensioners on aged and disability support payments would lose about $80 a week by 2024 after having their payments indexed to CPI. [my red bolding]

The Daily Examiner is telling its readers that pensioners will only lose $8 dollars a year when in fact the change in indexation reduces the value of the aged pension by an est. $416 in 2017 when the change come into effect and, this increases to an est. $4,160 per year by 2025.


Anonymous said...

Sadly the pension is a blessing, not an entitlement - the bottom line is our working children, who can't afford it, have to pay it to us through their taxes!

So save me the bleeding whinge, if you can't afford to feed yourself in your old age you should just think why that is so, were you totally irresponsible when you were younger or what?

Ursula Tunks said...

No they may not be totally irresponsible at all! What a ridiculous generalisation!!!!

How many Superannuation Funds went belly up leaving people who had worked all their lives with nothing?

How many people worked in low paying jobs their whole lives to only have a small super fund available to them?

How many people suffered illness and injury through no fault of their own.

I don't know who you are anonymous ... I only hope you never run for government ... what a heartless coward you are ... you can't even put your name to your vile comments.